RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 60 
7 March 2022 
(22-2001) Page: 1/20 
Dispute Settlement Body  
25 January 2022  
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 25 JANUARY 20221 
Chairman : H.E.  Mr Didier  Chambovey  (Switzerland ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating in 
the meeting of the DSB  both in -person and remotely  and said that he wished to recall a few technical 
instructions regarding th e virtual participation of delegations. He said that i f a Member was unable 
to take the floor during the meeting because of a technical issue, th e delegation could inform the 
Chair  or the Secretariat and that Agenda item would remain open until the delegation could take the 
floor. In the alternative, the item would remain open temporarily, the meeting would proceed to the 
next Agenda item, and the DSB would revert to the open item after the technical issue had been 
resolved. If a technical issue remained unresolved, the delegation had the option to send the 
statement to the Secretariat with the request that it be read out by the Secretariat on behal f of that 
delegation during the meeting so that the statement could be reflected in the minutes of the 
meeting; (ii) the Chairman  made a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of the 
DSB meeting  of 28 April 2021  pertaining to the DS574 dis pute. He said that, as Members recalled, 
that matter had been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chair 's consultations 
with each interested party regarding that Agenda item. At the present meeting, he wished to inform 
delegations that h e continued to consult with each interested party on this matter and that those 
consultations were ongoing ; and (iii) the representative of Tunisia  said that Tunisia  wished to make 
a statement under "Other Business " on progress in the consultations with Morocco regarding the 
Panel Report in the dispute: "Morocco – Definitive Anti -Dumping Measures on School Exercise Books 
from Tunisia " (DS578).  
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agenda, as amended.  
 
Table of Contents  
1 SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  3 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ..............  3 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  3 
C. Eur opean Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Union ................................ ................................ ....... 4 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 2 - 
  D. Unite d States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ ..........................  5 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ...............  5 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: 
Status  report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 
2 UNITED STATES – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON RIPE 
OLIVES FROM SPAIN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  6 
A. Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB  ................................ ...........................  6 
3 UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ..........................  7 
A. Statement by the European Union  ................................ ................................ .....................  7 
4 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES 
AFFECTING TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ........................  8 
5 AUSTRALIA – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON 
CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA  ................................ ................................ ...................  9 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by the China  ................................ .........................  9 
6 STATEMENTS BY BRAZIL, AUSTRALIA AND GUATEMALA REGARDING THE 
PANEL REPORTS IN THE DISPUTES: "INDIA – MEASURES CONCERNING SUGAR 
AND SUGARCANE" (DS579, DS580 AND DS581)  ................................ ............................  10 
7 APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF 
BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; 
CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CHAD; CHILE;  
CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; EL 
SALVADOR; ESWATINI; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; 
GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUINEA BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG , CHINA; 
ICELAND; INDIA; INDONESIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF 
KOREA; LESOTHO; LIECHTENSTEIN; MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; MALAYSIA; 
MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; 
MOROCCO; MOZAMBIQUE; NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND; NI CARAGUA; 
NIGER; NIGERIA; NORTH MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PANAMA; 
PARAGUAY; PERU; QATAR; RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; SENEGAL; 
SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; SINGAPORE; SOUTH AFRICA; SWITZERLAND; THE 
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MAT SU; 
TANZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO; TUNISIA; TURKEY; UGANDA; UKRAINE; UNITED 
KINGDOM; URUGUAY; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; 
ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.20)  ................................ ....................  16 
8 STATEMENT BY TUNISIA REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT IN THE DISPUTE: 
"MOROCCO  – DEFINITIVE ANTI DUMPING MEASURES ON SCHOOL EXERCISE 
BOOKS FROM TUNISIA" (DS578)  ................................ ................................ ...................  20 
 WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 3 - 
  1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan : Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 23) 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.198) 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the Euro pean Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.161) 
D. United States – Anti-dumpi ng and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/A dd.45) 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/A dd.37) 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.32 – WT/DS478/22 /Add.32) 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU . As Members recalled , 
Article  21.6 requires that : "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB 's 
Agenda until the i ssue is resolved ." Under this Agenda item, the Chairman  invite d delegations to 
provide up -to-date information about their compliance efforts . He also reminded delegations that, 
as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings : "Representatives should 
make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has 
already been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in 
Members ' positions already on record. " 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 23) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 23, which contained the status 
report by the United  State s on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 13 January 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States 
had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of 
anti-dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect 
to the recommendations of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration would 
confer with the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measure s that would resolve 
this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that J apan thank ed the United States for the latest status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting . Japan,  once again , called on the United 
States to fully implement the DSB re commendations and rulings so as to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/D S160/24/Add.1 98) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.19 8, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act . 
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 13 January 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US Administration WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 4 - 
  would continue to confer with the European  Union, and with the US Congress, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter . 
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union  thank ed the United 
States for its status report and its statement made at the prese nt meeting . The European Union 
referred to its previous statements  made on this matter and said that it wished  to resolve this case 
as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 61) 
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/3 7/Add. 161, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.   The representative of the European U nion said that t he European Union and the United States 
had held another biotech dialogue the previous  month. The E uropean Union  consider ed that dialogue 
to be a useful forum to exchange information on biotech -related issues. During th at meeting, the 
European Union had provided detailed updates on several priority application s indicated by the 
United States. The updates show ed that, on average, 85 % of the time from validation of the 
application dossier to adoption of the scientific opinion was used by the applicants. The United States 
frequently refer red to products that ha d successfully passed EFSA 's risk assessment, but not yet 
received final app roval through comitology. The European Union pointed out that there were 
administrative procedures between the publication of EFSA 's favourable opinion and the comitology 
vote that ha d to be respected , includ ing, among others, procedures related to transpa rency, such 
as a one -month public consultation period. The E uropean Union  failed to see how th ose procedures 
could be characterised as "undue delay ". During the recent biotech dialogue, th ose procedures and 
the corresponding timelines had been  explained to  the United States. The European Union act ed in 
line with its WTO obligations. The European Union  recall ed that the EU approval system was not 
covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings.  To update the WTO Membership concerning the 
progress of the app lications throughout the authorisation process, the European Union  noted the 
following . First, the written procedure on the vote on the draft decision authorising two genetically 
modified organisms ( GMOs ) – genetically modified  oilseed rape 73496 and genet ically modified  
cotton GHB811 – which  had been  presented at the online Standing Committee meeting of 
17 December 2021  resulted in "no opinion ". The draft decision w ould be referred to the Appeal 
Committee in February. Second, the Standing Committee meeting had been  held online on 
20 January 2022. The Commission presented a draft decision authorising  genetically modified  
soybean GMB151. The vote on this draft decision was taking place by means of written procedures.  
Third, the Appeal Committee meeting had been  held online on 20 January 2022. The Commission 
had referred a draft decision renewing genetically modified  cotton GHB614.2 The vote on th at draft 
decision was taking  place by means of written procedure.  
1.12.   The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement at the present meeting. The United States continued to engage with the European 
Union in good faith on these is sues, and had provided recommendations on several occasions as to 
how the European Union could address the undue delays in its approval procedures. The United 
States requested that the European Union move to issue final approvals for all products that had 
completed science -based risk assessments at EFSA, including those products that were with the 
Standing Committee and Appeals Committee .  
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
 
2 The draft decision was presented at the Standing Committee on 17 November 2021 and voted on 
afterwards  by written procedure.  WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 5 - 
  D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 45) 
1.14.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/D S464/17/Add. 45, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea . 
1.15.   The representativ e of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 13 January 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 6 May 
2019, the US Department of Commerce had published a notice in the US Federal Register a nnouncing 
the revocation of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large residential 
washers from Korea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 (6 May 2019)). With this action, the United States had 
completed implementation of the DSB recommendations c oncerning those anti -dumping and 
countervailing duty orders. The United States would consult with interested parties on options to 
address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute .  
1.16.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea than ked the United States for its status report. 
Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt and appropriate steps to implement the DSB 
recommendations for the "as such " measures at issue in this dispute.  
1.17.   The representative of Canada  said that more than four years had passed since the expiry of 
the reasonable peri od of time for implementation of the DSB recommendations arising from the 
Appellate Body Report in "US – Washing Machines ", according to which the "differential pricing 
methodology" (DPM) was "as such" inconsistent with the WTO Agreements. Despite this, th e United 
States continued to apply the DPM "as such" in investigations with respect to foreign companies and 
continued to collect cash deposits from foreign exporters on the basis of this non -compliant 
methodology. Canada was deeply concerned about this violation and invited the United States to 
put an end to it as soon as possible.  
1.18.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
E. United States  – Certain methodologies and their application to ant i-dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 37) 
1.19.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add.3 7, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China . 
1.20.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 13 January 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As explained 
in that report, the United States would consult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB .  
1.21.   The representative of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status report. It was disappointing that more than three years after the expiry of the reasonable 
period of time, the United States had still fail ed to implement the adopted rulings and 
recommendations in this dispute.  China  urged the United States to hono ur its obligation by bring ing 
its measures into conformity  with the WTO obligations  without any further delay.  
1.22.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 32 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 32) 
1.23.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 32 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 32, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and ani mal 
products . WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 6 - 
  1.24.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia submit ted its status  report pursuant to  
Article  21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia reiterate d its commitment to implementing the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB in these disputes. On measure 18, as reported  in previous DSB meetings, 
Indonesia ha d removed all Articles in the relevant Laws that were found to be  inconsistent with the 
WTO rules, through the enactment of Law No.  11/2020 on Job Creation. With respect to 
measure s 1-17, Indonesia reas sured that significant adjustment s in complying with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB ha d been carried out  through amendments of the relevant 
Ministry of Agriculture  and Ministry of Trade  regulations. Those adjustments include d the removal of 
disputed measures  including , inter alia , harvest period restriction, import realization requirements, 
six-months harvest requirement, and reference price. Indonesia commit ted to engaging with New 
Zealand and the United States and reaffirm ed its commitment to implementing the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes.  
1.25.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States was continuing to review 
Indonesia's new laws and regulations in light of Indonesia's recent s tatements and status reports. 
The United States had learned that Indonesia's Constitutional Court had ruled that the Omnibus Law 
on Job Creation (No. 11/2020) was unconstitutional and ordered the government to revise the law. 
The United States questioned h ow that ruling affected Indonesia's implementation of the DSB's 
recommendation concerning measure 18. With respect to measures 1 -17, the United States said 
that it would still appreciate further clarity on which regulations presently comprised Indonesia's 
import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulations that would affect the regimes. The 
United States remained willing to work with Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute . 
1.26.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thank ed Indonesia for its status 
report, and acknowledge d Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the DSB 's recommendations 
and rulings. Both compliance deadlines ha d long since expired, and a number of measures remain ed 
non-compliant. New Zealand continue d to review recent legislative adjustments in order to assess 
what impact this w ould have on Indonesia 's compliance, in particular in respect of Measure 18. 
New Zealand  underst ood that Indonesia was in the process  of implementing new regulations under 
Law No.  11/2020 on Job Creation, which w ould impact th at assessment. This includ ed the 
recently -released Ministry of Trade Regulation 20/2021. New Zealand sought  clarity on how the 
implementation of this regulation w ould amend Indonesia 's import licensing system.  New Zealand  
remain ed interested in what impact, if any, the recent constitutional court ruling declaring the Job 
Creation Law unconstitutional w ould have on the legislation associated with the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings. New Zealand invite d Indones ia to provide further details as soon as 
possible  and looked forward to further bilateral engagement to th at end. 
1.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
2  UNITED STATES – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERV AILING DUTIES ON RIPE OLIVES 
FROM SPAIN  
A. Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB  
2.1.  The Chairman  recalled that, in accordance with the DSU, the DSB  was required to keep under 
surveillance the implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings in order to ensure effective 
resolution of disputes, for the benefit of all Members. In th at respect, Article 21.3 of the DSU 
provide d that the Member concerned shal l inform the DSB within 30 days of the date of adoption of 
the panel report of its intentions with respect to implementation of the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings. He recalled that a t its meeting on 20 December 2021, the DSB had adopted the Panel Report  
in "United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Ripe Olives from Spain" . The 30 -day 
time-period in this dispute had expired on 19 January 2022 and on that date the United States had 
informed the DSB in writing of its intentions with respect to implementation of its recommendations 
and rulings . The relevant communication was contained in document WT/DS577/10. He then  invited 
the representative of the United States to make a statement.  
2.2.  The representative of the United States  said that on 20 De cember 2021, the DSB adopted the 
report of the Panel in the dispute: "United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Ripe 
Olives from Spain" (DS577). As provided in the first sentence of Article 21.3 of the DSU, the United 
States wished to state  that it intended to implement the recommendations of the DSB in this dispute 
in a manner that respected US WTO obligations. On 19 January 2022, the United States informed 
the DSB by letter that it intended to implement the recommendations and rulings of t he DSB and WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 7 - 
  had begun to evaluate its options for doing so. That letter had been circulated to the DSB 
(WT/DS577/10). The United States had notified the DSB of US intentions by letter in light of the fact 
that the 30 -day period of time described in Article 21.3 of the DSU had expired before the next 
regularly scheduled DSB meeting and under circumstances that did not favour calling a special DSB 
meeting for that sole purpose. As the United States had noted in its letter, it would need a reasonable 
period of time in which to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings, and it hoped to reach 
agreement with the European Union in accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU .  
2.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union  welcome d the 
statement made by  the United States  indicating its intention to comply  with its WTO obligations.  The 
European Union was ready to discuss with the United States a reasonable period of time in which to 
implement  the recommendations.  The E uropean Union  recall ed that the Panel Report had 
substantially upheld the E uropean Union's claims and had largely confirmed that in the anti -subsidy 
duties imposed by the U nited States on ripe olives from Spain, the United States had  acted 
inconsistently with the SCM Agreement . The Panel Report  had found that the United States  did not 
comply with its obligation in the determination of de jure  specificity and in the calculation of the 
subsidy benefit for one specific EU company. The Panel Report had also found that Secti on 771B of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, which presume d that the entire benefit of a subsidy provided in respect of a 
raw agricultural product passe d through to the downstream processed agricultural product, was 
"as such" inconsistent with the SCM  Agreement  and that the application of Section 771B in the ripe 
olive investigation was also inconsistent with the SCM  Agreement.  
2.4.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada welcome d the decision of the United States not 
to appeal the Panel Report in "US – Ripe Olives from Spain"  and to implement the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB with respect to this Panel Report. The Panel had made significant findings 
concerning the issue of the "pass-through " of a benefit.  In particular, the Panel had found that 
Section 771B of the Tariff Act was "as such " inconsistent with Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 and 
Article 10 of the SCM  Agreement  because these provisions require d an investigating authority to 
establish the existence and amount of pass -through o f a benefit, taking into account all relevant 
facts. Section 771B required the U S Department of Commerce to presume, where certain conditions 
were met, that the entire benefit of a subsidy provided in respect of a raw agricultural input product 
passed thro ugh to the downstream processed agricultural product. Canada w ould be following the 
implementation of this aspect of the decision attentively.  
2.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
3  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000 : 
IMPLEMENTA TION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the European Union  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union and he invited the representative of the European Union to spea k. 
3.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union wished to refer to all  
its previous statements made under this Agenda item. The European Union  underst ood that the 
United States was prepared to provide a number of clarifications at the present meeting.  
3.3.  The representative of the United States  said that as Members were aware from prior DSB 
meetings, the Deficit Reduction Act – which included a provision repealing the Continued Dumping  
and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 – had been enacted into law in February 2006. The Deficit Reduction 
Act did not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods entered after 1 October 2007. 
Accordingly, the United States had fully implemented the DSB' s recommendations in these disputes. 
Since enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act, the United States had continued to track the 
distribution of those duties on goods that had entered before 1 October 2007. As of October 2008 – 
shortly after repeal – roughl y $1 billion in estimated duties had been collected that could be eligible 
for possible disbursements. By October 2015, that figure had declined to an estimated $40 million 
in estimated duties. As of 2021, the number had further declined to approximately $ 6.5 million 
relating to 176 anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders. This amounted to less than 1% of the 
estimated duties eligible for possible disbursement when the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act of 2000 was repealed. In the case of goods e ntered from the European Union, the remaining 
amount was a small fraction of this. As of October 2021, less than $500,000 in estimated duties 
were eligible for possible disbursement on pre -October 2007 entries of EU goods. These figures WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 8 - 
  reflected the stead y distribution of all funds related to those pre -October 2007 entries under the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. In limited cases, certain issues had arisen that 
at times had resulted in the delay of disbursements. These included instances  in which there was 
some delay in the US Department of Commerce's issuance of the final liquidation instructions for 
certain entries. US Customs and Border Protection awaited final liquidation instructions from the US 
Department of Commerce as a ministeria l matter prior to the distribution of any duties that were 
being held. In other instances, delays may have occurred where the liquidation of entries and 
disbursement of funds had been suspended pending ongoing litigation, or if the US government was 
requir ed to initiate litigation to collect delinquent anti -dumping or countervailing duties. The United 
States continued to work towards finalizing any outstanding liquidation instructions and completing 
the distribution of those duties on goods that had entered  before 1 October 2007. The United States 
had engaged with the European Union on this matter in the spirit of cooperation, and without 
prejudice to their respective positions on the submission of status reports. The United States looked 
forward to continue d bilateral engagement with the European Union on this and other matters . 
3.4.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union wished to thank the 
United States for its statement. He said that a s well as providing the DSB at the present me eting 
with greater transparency, th at statement complement ed useful clarifications that the European 
Union had received from the United States in recent months regarding progress on disbursements. 
The European Union remai ned of the view that, as long as distributions continue d in connection with 
the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, full compliance  had not yet been achieved 
and the matter was not yet resolved within the meaning of Article 21.6 of the DSU. However, the 
European Union was  now satisfied that this should eventually be achieved on the basis of the 
measures currently in place. While it m ight still take some time for such distributions to come to an 
end, the total outstanding amount of th ose distributions ha d already fallen significantly and 
continue d to fall. The European Union  underst ood that – barring an unforeseen change in 
circumstance s – it was destined to reduce towards zero. Therefore, in the current circumstances and 
in the light of the clarifications that the United States ha d provided to the DSB  at the present 
meeting , unless there were to be a material change in circumstances, th e European Union did not 
consider it necessary to continue to request that this matter  be placed on the Agenda of DSB regular 
meetings in the future. This was without prejudice to the E U's positions in this dispute , including on 
the issue of submission of status reports , or on WTO dispute settlement more broadly, or to the E U's 
rights in any WTO dispute.  
3.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
4  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING 
TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT : IMPLEMENTATION OF T HE RECOMMENDATIONS 
ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the United States  
4.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda  of the present meeting  at the request of 
the United States, and he invited the representative of the United States to speak . 
4.2.  The representative of the United States  said that as Members were aware, on 15 June 2021, 
the United States and the European Union had reached an "Understanding on a cooperative 
framework for Large Civil Aircraft." That Understanding sought to forge a more  cooperative future 
by suspending the tariffs related to this dispute for five years, agreeing to clear principles that any 
financing for the production or development of large civil aircraft would be on market terms, and 
committing to collaborate on addre ssing the challenge posed by non -market economies in this 
sector. Those efforts would help their companies and workers compete fairly, and the United States 
welcomed the collaboration with its European partners. As Members were aware, the United States 
had placed this item on the agenda of recent DSB meetings in order to highlight an issue regarding 
the submission of status reports. As part of the significant effort to enhance cooperation between 
the United States and the European Union, the United States i ntended to discuss any concerns 
relating to EU support measures with the European Union bilaterally and accordingly did not intend 
to place this item on the Agenda of future DSB meetings. This decision was without prejudice to the 
US position regarding sta tus reports. The US looked forward to continued cooperation with the 
European Union on this and other matters .  
4.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union wished to refer to its 
previous statements made under this Agenda item  and thank ed the United States for its statement WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 9 - 
  at the present meeting . It was a reflection of the positive dynamic established between the two sides 
by the previous  June's "Understanding on a cooperative framework for Large Civil Aircraft ". As well 
as allowi ng each side to suspend the application of its countermeasures for five years, that 
Understanding offer ed, among other things, a useful channel for the discussion and resolution of 
any concern raised by either side relating to the matters covered.  
4.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
5  AUSTRALIA – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON CERTAIN 
PRODUCTS FROM CHINA  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by the China  (WT/DS60 3/2) 
5.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from China  contained in document 
WT/DS60 3/2 and he invited the representative of China  to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of China  said that , at the present meeting,  China was request ing the DSB 
to establish a panel with standard terms of reference to examine the dispute r eferred to in document 
WT/DS603/2. On 24 June 202 1, China had requested consultations with Australia relating to 
anti-dumping measures imposed by Australia on Chinese imports of wind towers, stainless steel 
sinks, and railway wheels , as well as the countervailing measures imposed on stainless steel sinks. 
China had engaged in consultation procedures with Australia on 11 August 2021 in good faith and 
with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. Unfortunately, those  consulta tions had failed 
to resolve the dispute. Therefore, on 13 January 2022  China  had submitted its request for the  
establish ment of  a panel to examine this matter. As indicated in its panel request , China 's claims 
under the Anti -Dumping Agreement highlight ed the obvious inconsistency of Australian measures at 
issue with the well -established rules that require d the use of the cost records of the exporters subject 
to an investigation in the determination of dumping, and that cost of production of products should 
be the cost in their country of origin. However, Australia used, variously, costs or cost indices from 
countries such as Korea and France, and from broad regions such as North America and Europe. 
This practice ha d been ruled to be inconsistent with WTO rul es by previous panels and the Appellate 
Body on numerous occasions. In addition, China's request also highlight ed inconsistencies in the use 
of foreign cost data by the Australian investigating authority, such as the failure to use actual data 
or actual am ounts of profits in the determinations of dumping, and its distinct failures to make due 
allowances so as to ensure a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value. China 's 
claims under the SCM Agreement reflected its strong view that Australia had  failed to make proper 
determinations with respect to several key elements in the determination of a "countervailable 
subsidy ". Practices similar to those of Australia ha d been ruled  to be  inconsistent with the SCM 
Agreement in previous disput es. China also challenge d the decision to initiate the countervailing 
investigation, which was not based on sufficient evidence or a proper review of the evidence provided 
in the domestic industry 's application. China was a staunch supporter of the multila teral trading 
system. It was important to bear in mind that misuse of anti -dumping and countervailing measures 
was a serious problem for the trading system. Such WTO -inconsistent measures not only negatively 
affect ed the rights of other Members but also un dermine d the predictability and certainty that the 
multilateral trading  system s ought  to provide to all Members.  China requested that  the DSB establish 
a panel to examine th e matter , as set out in its panel request.  
5.3.  The representative of Australia  said th at Australia was disappointed that China ha d requested  
that a WTO panel be established to consider this matter at this time. The ability to take remedial 
action against dumped and subsidi zed imports that were causing or threatening material injury to a 
domestic industry form ed part of the critical balance of Members' rights and obligations under WTO 
rules.  Consistent with Australia's WTO obligations, Australia's trade remedies system was 
independent, transparent, non -discriminatory , and evidence -based.  This dispute concern ed 
Australia's anti -dumping measures on railway wheels, deep drawn stainless steel sinks , and wind 
towers imported from China, and Australia's countervailing measures on deep drawn stainless steel 
sinks from China. Those measures were im posed after investigations by Australia's Anti -Dumping 
Commission determined that the products were being dumped and, in the case of sinks, were being 
subsidi zed. As the dumping and subsidi zation caused material injury to Australian industry, Australia 
had imposed duties on the products to remove the injury. In initiating and conducting the 
investigations, and in imposing the duties, Australia had complied with its WTO obligations under 
the Anti -Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement. Australia ha d, in goo d faith, engaged in 
consultations with China to seek to resolve China's concerns.  Australia remain ed ready to resolve WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 10 - 
  this matter through further discussions.  Accordingly, Australia d id not support China's request to 
establish a panel.  
5.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter should a requesting 
Member wish to do so.  
6  STATEMENTS BY BRAZIL, AUSTRALIA AND GUATEMALA REGARDING THE PANEL 
REPORTS IN THE DISPUTES: "INDIA – MEASURES CONCERNING SUGAR AND SUGARCANE " 
(DS579, DS580 AND DS 581)  
6.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda  of the present meeting  at the request of 
Brazil, Australia and Guatemala, and he invited the respective representatives to speak . 
6.2.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil wished  to thank the Panel and the WTO Secretariat 
for their work in these three disputes. The Panel Report had substantially upheld all of Brazil 's claims. 
It had found that India 's domestic support to sugarcane producers was inconsistent with 
Article  7.2(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture, as it exceeded the applicable de minimis  levels. It 
also found that India 's mandatory sugar export requirements under the MIEQ and the MAEQ schemes 
were subsidies contingent on export performance within the meaning of Article 9.1(a) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture and, therefore, were inconsistent with the provisions regarding agricultural 
export subsidies in Article s 3.3 and 8 of that same agreement. Beyond that, India 's measures ha d 
distorted international market prices of su gar, leading to losses to producers worldwide, including in 
Brazil. Brazil was thus disappointed by India 's decision to appeal "into the void" in these disputes, 
as this did not contribute to achieving a timely, fair solution to those distortions and losse s. It also 
reflect ed a practice that was contrary to the purpose and the spirit of the dispute settlement 
mechanism and the WTO as a whole. Brazil recall ed that, according to Article 3.3 of the DSU, the 
prompt settlement of disputes was "essential to the e ffective functioning of the WTO and the 
maintenance of a proper balance between the rights and obligations of Members". As such, Brazil 
could not but express its concern that appeals "into the void" such as this c ould serve as a means 
to evade a panel 's findings and recommendations, in order to perpetuate the harm caused by 
WTO-inconsistent measures, without any prospects of a timely, fair settlement. Brazil ha d always 
been engaged in seeking a negotiated solution with  India that could address the negative economic 
impact of India 's measures. That effort led to several requests, together with Australia and 
Guatemala, to delay the circulation of the Panel Report. However, due to the impossibility of reaching 
a common und erstanding among all parties involved, the report had been  circulated on 
14 December  2021.  Brazil reiterate d that it was  actively committed to achieving a non -litigious 
resolution to this dispute, if possible, and w ould continue to explore, with flexibilit y and earnest 
engagement, viable solutions that address ed the concrete impact on Brazilian sugar producers. 
Finally, Brazil emphasize d the essential role played by the dispute settlement mechanism in 
safeguarding the WTO 's credibility and the rules -based t rading system as a whole. The present  
paralysis, especially if not addressed with a sense of urgency, c ould have severe consequences that 
would go  well beyond the specific cases presently  under consideration.  
6.3.  The representative of Australia  said that Australia wished to thank the panelists for their 
rigorous and comprehensive examination of the evidence and arguments submitted by the parties 
in this dispute.  Australia  thank ed the co -complainants, Brazil and Guatemala, for their cooperation 
throughout the proceedings, and the third parties for their engagement.  Australia  also thank ed the 
WTO Secretariat for their hard work and dedication in the matter.  Australia  recogni zed that the 
COVID -19 pandemic imposed additional challenges on the Panel, the Secretariat , and the parties. 
Despite the delay, Australia note d with appreciation the Panel's efforts to advance the proceedings 
efficiently and in a manner consistent with the DSU, while not prejudicing the rights of the parties 
or third parties.  Australia welcome d the Panel Report in DS580.   
6.4.  Australia  noted the Panel 's clear and comprehensive findings that: India's domestic support to 
sugarcane producers, during sugar seasons 2014 -15 to 2018 -19, constituted non -exempt 
product -specific domestic support in excess of India's permitted levels under the Agreement on 
Agriculture ; certain subsidies pertaining to sugar or sugarcane were contingent on export 
performance and therefore inconsiste nt with India's schedule of commitments within the Agreement 
on Agriculture ; and certain subsidies pertaining to sugar or sugarcane were contingent upon export 
performance and inconsistent with India's obligations under the Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures Agreement.  Australia  also note d the Panel 's recommendations that India bring its 
measures into conformity with its WTO obligations.  This dispute considered important issues not 
previously considered within the dispute settlement system. In particular , Australia  observe d the WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 11 - 
  significance of the Panel's findings with respect to  the meaning of  "market price support " in the 
Agreement on Agriculture , and the obligation on Members to notify all domestic support measures 
and export subsidies.   
6.5.  Australia  recogni zed that India was entitled to appeal errors of law in the Panel 's findings and 
recommendations.  However, Australia  disagree d with India's assertion that the Panel ha d made 
errors of law.  Australia would  strongly defend the Panel 's finding s when the Appellate Body was able 
to consider this appeal.  In the meantime, the absence of an appellate function w ould delay the 
binding resolution of this dispute and continue India 's non -compliance with its WTO obligations.  
There were now 24 panel decis ions awaiting final determination.  Without the reforms required for a 
fully functional dispute settlement system, this number w ould only continue to grow.  This ha d a 
tangible cost to the Membership, including to the right of all Members to a final and bind ing resolution 
to a dispute.  Once again, Australia  encourage d Members to move forward with renewed resolve to 
find the solutions required to deliver a fully functioning dispute settlement system.  
6.6.  The representative of Guatemala  said that Guatemala wished to join Australia and Brazil in 
thanking the Panel and the WTO  Secretariat for their assistance in these disputes. Guatemala also 
thank ed the DSB for the opportunity to express and register its views with respect to the dispute 
DS581, and also express ed its appreciation to Australia and Brazil for their cooperation t hroughout 
the proceedings. Guatemala regret ted that India ha d decided to appeal the Panel Report into the 
void, which mean t that the appeal proceedings w ould be suspended for an undetermined period of 
time. At the outset, Guatemala note d the Panel 's rigoro us interpretation of the WTO Agreements 
and the sound legal reasoning included its report. Contrary to what India allege d in its notice of 
appeal, the Panel did not commit any legal error in its decision. India 's appeal was without merit. 
This dispute was a textbook example of violations of domestic support and export subsidies 
commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture and the SCM Agreement. Nothing less, nothing 
more. As a matter of fact, India did not dispute the existence of the measures at issue or  their 
operation. Furthermore, India 's obligations under th ose agreements were clear: India may not 
provide domestic support measures beyond the permitted de minimis level of 10% and India may 
not grant export subsidies because it had not reserve d this right in its Schedule of Concessions. 
Guatemala's legal claims in this dispute concerned these two main aspects: (i) India's domestic 
support for sugarcane producers, which was provided in amounts greatly exceeding India's permitted 
de minimis  level of 10%; and (ii) India's export subsidies for sugar, which India maintain ed even 
though it ha d no export subsidy entitlements inscribed in its Schedule of Concessions. At the heart 
of India's regime was the market price support provided by the  Indian Government to sugarcane 
producers through the federal -level Fair and Remunerative Price ( "FRP") and, in the case of certain 
Indian States, the State Advised Price ( "SAP"). Both the FRP and SAP were government -mandated 
administered prices for sugarc ane purchases. Additionally, India provide d export subsidies by 
subsidizing sugar mills that compl ied with export quotas.   
6.7.  With respect to its domestic support measures, India did not dispute that it legally mandate d 
sugar mills to purchase sugarcane at th e administered prices. Instead, India 's defence focused on 
disputing the legal characterization of the FRP and the SAP as "market price support ". India 's main 
argument was that market price support c ould only exist if the support consist ed of budgetary 
outlays or revenue foregone, but not when the government set an applied administered price to be 
paid by private entities. India 's arguments required reading the clause "shall include " in paragraph  2 
of Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture as "shall includ e only ", thereby incorporating words into 
the treaty text that simply were not there. This approach, needless to say, was not permissible under 
either Article 3.2 of the DSU or Article 31 of the Vienna Convention  on the Law of Treaties.  
Furthermore, India 's interpretation would run contrary to the organic structure of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. For example, Article 6.1 and paragraphs 1 and 8 of Annex 3 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture confirm ed that domestic support measures were not li mited to budgetary outlays and 
revenue foregone. Moreover, nothing in paragraph 1 of Annex 3  – which set out the three different 
types of domestic support  – limited domestic support measures to budgetary outlays and revenue 
foregone.  In Guatemala 's view, I ndia's proposed interpretation of market price support s ought to 
diminish the rights and obligations under the domestic support disciplines of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and, by so doing, make many provisions of th at agreement redundant or inutile. The 
Panel had rejected India 's interpretation. After a rigorous and sound legal interpretation of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, the Panel correctly found that India's domestic support measures to 
sugarcane producers constitute d market price support and were inc onsistent with Article 7.2(b) of 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  On appeal, India fault ed the Panel for not agreeing with its 
interpretation and raise d the same arguments that were rejected by the Panel. Since India 's WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 12 - 
  proposed interpretation require d adding words to the treaty text that simply were not there , ignoring 
the organic structure of the Agreement on Agriculture , and diminishing the rights and obligations 
under the domestic support disciplines , India clearly err ed, and its appeal was thus without mer it. 
6.8.  He said that c oncerning Guatemala 's claims on export subsidies , India had also challenged the 
legal characterization of the measures and proposed legal interpretations of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and the SCM Agreement that were not supported by their plain text. After a careful and 
complete assessment of the parties' arguments, the Panel had rejected all of India 's arguments and 
correctly found that India 's export subsidies pertaining to sugar or sugarcane were inconsistent wi th 
Articles  3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture and with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM 
Agreement. Moreover, pursuant to Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement, the Panel recommended that 
India withdraw its export subsidies within 120 days from the ado ption of the Report. In its notice of 
appeal, India sought  review of two alleged errors in respect of export subsidies. As in its appeal on 
domestic support, India frame d as "legal error " and "lack of objectivity " the Panel 's rejection of 
India's arguments  that were not supported by the plain text of the SCM Agreement.  
6.9.  The first alleged "error" concern ed the Panel 's interpretation of Article 27.3(b) of the SCM 
Agreement that underl ay the Panel 's conclusion that Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement applie d to 
India. Before the Panel, India advanced the argument that the disciplines of Article 3 of the SCM 
Agreement did not apply to India because after its graduation from Annex VII of that Agreement, in 
2017, India started to enjoy an additional transition period of eight years which allegedly would end 
in 2025. India 's argument rest ed on the proposition that, after graduating from Annex VII, India 
was entitled to the eight -year transition p eriod stated in Article 27.2(b) of the SCM Agreement. The 
problem with India 's proposition was that the eight -year period under Article 27.2(b) expired in 2003 
because, according to the plain text of that provision, the eight years started counting as "from the 
date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement " (i.e. 1995 ). Tellingly, India had acknowledged before 
the Panel that its interpretation was not based on the "ordinary meaning " of Article 27.2(b), but 
rather on the context and negotiating history of th is provision. Having found that Article 27.2(b) of 
the SCM Agreement provide d a "clear meaning ", the Panel had found it unnecessary to examine 
India's arguments regarding supplementary means of interpretation, such as the negotiating history 
of Article 27 of the SCM Agreement.  Clearly, the Panel did not err in interpreting the SCM Agreement 
in accordance with the rules of interpretation enshrined in the DSU and the Vienna Convention. 
Again, India 's appeal was without merit.  
6.10.   He said that t he second alleged e rror with respect to export subsidies concerned the Panel 's 
decision to recommend that India withdraw its export subsidies within 120 days pursuant to 
Article  4.7 of the SCM Agreement. During  the Panel proceedings, India had asked the Panel not to 
apply Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement in this dispute, arguing that there was an alleged conflict 
between Article  21.3 of the DSU  (to which Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture refers ) and 
Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement. India considered that this  alleged conflict needed to be resolved 
"by means of Article  21.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture ". However, India had failed to articulate 
the existence of a conflict between these provisions and the Panel had correctly found that the 
"relationship betwee n Article  19 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article 4.7 of the SCM 
Agreement does not amount to a conflict ". The Panel had further explained that Article 19 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture "does not provide any carve out from the provisions of Article  4.7 of the 
SCM Agreement ". In fact, as the Panel had explained, "by complying with the Panel's 
recommendation under Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement, India w ould simultaneously bring its 
measures into compliance with the Agreement on Agriculture ". On appe al, India fail ed again to 
identify any conflict between these provisions and resubmit ted the same arguments that had been  
rejected by the Panel.  As there was simply no conflict among the provisions of the SCM Agreement, 
the Agreement on Agriculture , and th e DSU, once again, India 's appeal was without merit.  
6.11.   Finally,  Guatemala wished to make  its last comments on the systemic consequences of this 
dispute and the lack of a fully functional dispute settlement mechanism . First, Members  were 
witnessing at the present meeting  yet another example of a dispute that w ould remain unresolved 
for an undetermined period of time, with dire consequences for sugarcane and sugar producers and 
exporters all over the world. This was so, because India 's suga rcane and sugar regimes w ould 
continue to exert pressure on international prices, affecting big and small sugarcane and sugar 
producers alike. Second, by not reaching a solution to these disputes, all Members  lost, including 
India. India's sugarcane and su gar regime function ed as a vicious circle, in which one trade -distorting 
policy engender ed problems that had to  be addressed through additional trade -distorting policies. 
India's regime was financially unsustainable in the long run for the Indian Governmen t, as well as WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 13 - 
  for other sugar producing and exporting countries. The fact that these disputes were brought by 
Australia, Brazil and Guatemala d id not mean that the measures at issue only affect ed the 
complaining parties. On the contrary, they affect ed all sugar producing and exporting countries. 
Third, it was simply not true that Members w ould be more inclined to cooperate towards negotiating 
mutually agreed solutions while the Appellate Body was not operational. With very limited 
exceptions, evidence show ed that cooperation between disputing parties was rather the exception. 
The lack of binding decisions provide d a different kind of incentives, particularly, to the responding 
parties. One only need ed to look at the great majority of disputes that were appea led into the void. 
They appear ed to remain unresolved. And this case was unfortunately not different. For the record, 
the complaining Parties  had made every effort to agree with India on having either an ad hoc  
mechanism to review the alleged legal errors in the panel report or a mutually agreed solution to 
the dispute. Regrettably, India rejected the complainant 's proposal for an ad hoc  mechanism and 
never provided feedback to the complainants ' written proposal for a negotiated solution. Finally, it 
was important to note that Guatemala, as a small developing country, fully depend ed on a 
well-functioning multilateral rules -based system to resolve its disputes with other WTO Members. 
Given its weight in the multilateral trading system, there were no other alternatives for Guatemala. 
Therefore, Guatemala w ould spare no effort in working with WTO Members with a view to find ing a 
solution to the current situation of the dispute settlement mechanism. In the meantime, Guatemala 
remain ed open to have bilateral conversations with India with respect to this dispute, whenever 
India was ready to engage in those conversations in good faith.  
6.12.   The representative of India said that India wished to join Brazil, Australia and Guatemala in 
thanking the Panel and the Secretariat for their efforts with regard to  the joint Panel  Report  in three 
disputes.  India wished  to express its views on the  Panel Report s and also respond to certain issues 
raised by the complainants. At the outset, India reiterate d that it was in full compliance with its 
obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and the SCM Agreement  with respect to the 
issues raised by the complainants in these disputes. India believe d that the Panel ha d not only 
committed serious errors of law , but ha d also failed to discharge its functions , as required under the 
DSU. These disputes were of great importance given that the challenged measures were designed 
to address the livelihood concerns of millions of low -income and resource -poor farmers and India 
did not accept the gross legal errors made by the Panel regarding such measures. Therefore, India, 
on 24  December  2021, well within its rights under the DSU, appealed certain erroneous legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. In its appeal, India clarified that its choice not to appeal 
against any particular conclusion regarding  a question o f law in the Panel Report s could not be 
characterised as India 's agreement on these issues.  
6.13.   India wished to highlight some of its concerns with the Panel Report s and the manner in which 
the Panel ha d approached some of the legal issues that were central t o the dispute. First, India 
fundamentally disagree d with the Panel 's interpretation of what constitute d "market price support " 
under the Agreement on Agriculture . More importantly, India t ook serious issue with the manner in 
which the Panel ha d arrived at its erroneous conclusions. Contrary to its mandate, the Panel ha d 
adopted an evasive approach and ha d failed to address the legal issues raised by India in its 
submissions. For example, the P anel did not consider it appropriate to determine whether market 
price support was a "subsidy ", a question that was central to the dispute. This was because , if market 
price support was indeed a subsidy (which it was), some of the challenged measures  – i.e. the Fair 
and Remunerative Price ( "FRP" ) and State Advised Price ( "SAP" ) – did not qualify as market price 
support measures. This was one of the central questions that the disputes ha d raised , which the 
Panel chose to ignore. Accordingly, the Panel 's find ings that India provided domestic support over 
and above the limit prescribed under the Agreement on Agriculture  was based on an interpretation 
that was grossly erroneous.   
6.14.   Second , the Panel had also erred in its interpretation of Article 27.2(b) of the SCM Agreement 
as its interpretation : (i) render ed express words of Annex VII(b) of the SCM Agreement ineffective 
and ran contrary to the object and purpose of the SCM Agreement ; and (ii) denie d the rights granted 
to developing country members by Annex VII( b) of the SCM Agreement. Similarly, the Panel ha d 
also committed grave errors in its understanding of what constitut ed a prohibited export subsidy. 
Specifically, the Panel 's interpretation of paragraph (i) of Annex I to the SCM Agreement turned the 
concept  of "export subsidies " on its head. Going by the Panel 's reading of the relevant provisions, 
almost every tax remission scheme that was attached to imported inputs on a post -export basis 
would qualify as an export subsidy, regardless of whether or not ther e was an excess remission of 
taxes.  WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 14 - 
  6.15.   Finally, India said that the Panel ha d also acted outside its jurisdiction. For example, the Panel 
had issued findings and recommendations with respect to India 's "Scheme for providing assistance 
to sugar mills for expe nses on marketing costs including handling, upgrading and other processing 
costs and costs of international and internal transport and freight charges on the export of sugar" 
for the 2019 –20 sugar season ( "MAEQ Scheme ") even  though  this measure came into e xistence 
after the establishment of the Panel. The Panel ha d also erred in holding that the MAEQ Scheme ha d 
the same essence as that of some of the other measures identified by the complainants in their 
requests for the establishment of a panel. In additio n to the above, the Panel, in several instances, 
had failed to consider India ' arguments let alone conduct any analysis thereof. In a few other 
instances, the Panel had simply ch osen to announce its conclusions without engaging with the text 
of the agreement or offering any cogent reasons. Therefore, the Panel had failed to fulfil some of its 
key obligations under the DSU.  
6.16.   India said that Brazil and Guatemala  had also raised a few ot her procedural issues. While this 
was not the forum to discuss th ose issues, since the complainants ha d raised these issues, India 
wished  to respond.  Guatemala ha d raised certain procedural issues such as non -filing of paper copies 
of India 's Appellant 's Submission and Notice of Appeal. On the basis of communications received 
from several  panels, India underst ood that the filing of paper/hard copies ha d been suspended in 
view of the health risks posed by the COVID -19 pandemic situation in Geneva. Given the health risks 
posed by the rising cases of the Omicron variant, India ha d clarified that it w ould file paper copies 
of the appeal once it bec ame feasible to do so  (i.e. when  the Appellate Body Registry or any other 
organ or desk within the WTO responsible f or receiving the Notice of Appeal and the Appellant 's 
Submission commence d accepting paper copies ). That said, Guatemala 's grievance with non -filing 
of paper copies was completely at odds with its repeated assertions to hold substantive meetings 
virtually during the Panel process , with no physical copies exchanged between the parties. India d id 
not recall Guatemala raising any objections or articulating any concerns at the Panel stage regarding  
the parties not exchanging physical copies of their submissions.  While India ha d validly filed an 
appeal in accordance with the Working Procedures, India note d that all three complainants ha d failed 
to submit their respective appellees ' submissions in ter ms of Rule 22 read with Rule 31(2) and 
Annex  I of the Working Procedures. To conclude, India c ould not accept the findings in the Panel 
Report for the grave errors committed by the Panel and expect ed that th ose errors w ould be set 
right by the Appellate Bo dy in due course. India ha d always been ready to explore ways to find a 
mutually satisfactory solution to the issues raised by the complainants and again reiterate d that 
should the complainants so wish, India remain ed available to engage meaningfully with the 
complainants and arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution.  
6.17.   The representative of Canada  said that Canada thanked  Brazil, Australia,  and Guatemala for 
their statements. Canada also thank ed the members of the Panels and the WTO Secretariat for their 
hard work . As a third party, Canada had read with great interest the findings and conclusions of the 
Panel. The preamble to the Agreement on Agriculture provide d that Members ' long-term objective 
was "to establish a fair and market -oriented agricultural trading system ". Members  considered that 
the disciplines related to domestic support and export subsidies in the Agreement were integral to 
achieving th at objective. The Agreement include d methodologies for accounting for non -exempt 
product specific support and require d each Member to ensure that th ose amounts were consistent 
with their annual domestic support commitment.  As noted by the Panel, paragraph 8 of Annex 3 of 
the Agreement provid ed a clear methodology on how a governm ent-mandated minimum price for 
an agricultural product was to be calculated and then counted against the Member 's annual domestic 
support commitment.  Canada also note d that Members had to  account for domestic support provided 
at national and sub -national l evels in favour of agricultural producers.  These amounts were to be 
included in the annual calculation of domestic support to producers of agricultural products, in this 
case sugarcane.  
6.18.   Regarding export subsidies, in 2015, at the Tenth WTO Ministerial Con ference, Ministers 
agreed to the historic elimination of export subsidies.  In this respect, Canada consider ed it important 
that measures that circumvent ed that historic outcome be effectively addressed and curtailed. In 
the review process in the Committee on Agriculture, Members ha d discussed the use of export 
subsidies that ha d been claimed under Article  9.4 of the Agreement.  Canada appreciate d the clarity 
provided by the Panel on the scope of the measures that f ell under Article 9.4.  Canada note d the 
importance of timely and complete notifications to the Committee on Agriculture.  Those notifications 
improve d transparency and were the vehicle through which the Committee on Agriculture monitor ed 
the implementation of Members' commitments under the A greement. In this respect, Canada agree d 
with the Panel's conclusion that the obligation in the Agreement to notify all domestic support in WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 15 - 
  favour of agricultural producers was mandatory. There was room for improvement to transparency, 
and this and other t opics were being actively discussed in the Committee on Agriculture in Special 
Session.   
6.19.   With regard to  systemic considerations pertaining to India 's appeal of these Panel Report s, 
Canada note d that since 11 December 2019, the Appellate Body ha d effectivel y been 
non-functioning.  Article 3.10 of the DSU provide d that, when a dispute ar ose, Members w ould 
engage in dispute settlement procedures in good faith and  in an effort to  resolve the dispute. The 
inability of the Appellate Body to carry out its appellate  review responsibilities undermined the 
established process under the DSU for dispute settlement , but the obligation in Article 3.10 to make 
good faith efforts to resolve the dispute still st ood. No Member should seek to take unfair advantage 
of the presen t impasse.  In the context of specific disputes, options exist ed to break the present  
deadlock at the Appellate Body. In particular, parties to the dispute might  agree to use procedures 
such as those set out in Annex 1 of the MPIA (JOB/DSB/1/Add.12) to supp lement the appeal process.  
Canada believe d that i t was essential that all parties to the dispute fulfilled  their good faith 
commitment under Article 3.10 of the DSU by making every effort to find an acceptable solution. If 
they fail ed to find such a solution, they m ight resort to self -help measures, which in turn would 
erode confidence in the rules -based system for governing international trade. No Member would 
benef it from th at situation in the long run. A Member acting in good faith should find no comfort in 
an unfair – and short -term – advantage that ha d arisen because of the absence of a functioning 
Appellate Body.  In addition, Canada  reiterate d its invitation to India to consider joining the MPIA in 
order to safeguard binding dispute settlement with access to appellate review in disputes with other 
participants.  
6.20.   The representative of the European Union  said that t his was yet another dispute that 
illustrate d the gr ave consequences of the blockage of Appellate Body appointments since 2017. That 
blockage frustrate d the essential rights of Members that had been  agreed multilaterally in the DSU. 
In that regard, the European Union wished to refer to its previous statemen ts on this matter , and in 
particular to its statements made  under item 6 of the Agenda of the 28 September 2020  DSB meeting  
and under item 7 of the 27 September 2021  DSB meeting , where it had  elaborated on th ose 
consequences and on the possibility of appea ls being adjudicated upon an appeal arbitration 
pursuant  to Article  25 of the DSU, consistently with the DSU principles . The European Union  did not 
wish to  repeat th ose points at the present meeting . 
6.21.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation wished to refer 
to its previous statements regarding  the practice of appealing into the "void". The Russian Federation 
reiterate d its disappointment with the fact that WTO Members continue d to file appeals, 
notwithstanding the Appellate Body's critical state, and therefore disputes  remained  unresolved. The 
Russian Federation wishe d to underline  that, unfortunately , such actions threaten ed the continued 
effectiveness of the dispute settlement mechanism and inevitably undermine d confidence in 
the WTO. 
6.22.   The representative  of India said that it was not India's intention to take the floor  for the 
second time , but after listening to the statement s made , India had to  clarify certain issues.  He said 
that w hile India had  thanked the Panel and Secretariat for their work, when India had used the 
phrase "gross legal errors ", it actually r eflect ed on the professional quality of the Panel . Those errors 
were made , in India's view  due to  something that happened before the composition of the Panel. 
The record would  show what India was referring to . One of the  complainant s had promoted a 
candidate for an MPIA arbitrator post, and had ended up getting the same person on this Panel. In 
that context,  never ha d a prior panel in WTO history bypassed the legal issues raised by a Member 
like this Panel had done . This Panel ha d remained silent , and had decided t o pass judgment, without 
giving a speaking order, which was why India had used the phrase "gross legal error".  India wished 
to alert Members that that the  Panel's  interpretation of domestic support had turned upside down 
what one "hears and reads " in the WTO. It might soothe or help them, but very soon it would come 
to hit them. To give one  example, by the Panel's definition of domestic support, or subsidy, the 
entire concept of a statutory minimum wages, which the complainants employ ed in the agri cultural , 
industrial , or services sector s, which was there to protect labourers from forced labour and provide 
social security, would c ome under the definition of domestic support , because minimum wages were 
prescribed  by the government , forced on the priv ate sector  and paid by the private sector . Thus, if 
the Panel Report was not annulled  by an Appellate Body , this would remain in the definition of 
domestic support. Finally , with respect to good faith discussions  and joining the MPIA , this would be 
difficu lt to address  if one worked with a lawyer 's mindset. Unfortunately, it  was in their interest to WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 16 - 
  prolong the process and get more income . Also, if one insisted on a final outcome before starting 
the negotiation process, the negotiation was bound to fail.  When India engaged in good faith 
discussions before 14 December 2021,  India's only request was not to place the final outcome as a 
pre-condition for negotiation s – then there would be no meaningful negotiations.  India's response , 
which had been  given to the complainants,  was still on the table and India was waiting for their 
response  so that the parties were  not bogged down by the lack of an appellate process.  
6.23.   The DSB took note  of the statements . 
7  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; A NGOLA ; 
ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA ; 
BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON ; 
CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; CONGO ; COSTA 
RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICAN 
REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; 
THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; GUATEMALA ; GUINE A; GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, 
CHINA ; ICELAND ; INDIA ; INDONESIA ; ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF 
KOREA ; LESOTHO ; LIECHTENSTEIN ; MADAGASCAR ; MALAWI ; MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; 
MALI; MAURITANIA ; MAURITIUS ; MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; 
MOZAMBIQUE ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW ZEALAND ; NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH 
MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; PANAMA ; PARAGUAY ; PERU; QATAR ; RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION ; RWANDA ; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; SOUTH 
AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS T ERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; TOGO; TUNISIA ; TURKEY ; UGANDA ; 
UKRAINE ; UNITED KINGDOM ; URUGUAY ; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA ; 
VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 20) 
7.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda at the request of Mexico, on behalf of a 
number of delegations. He then drew attention to the proposal contained in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 20 and invited the representative of Mexico to speak . 
7.2.  The representative of  Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 20, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 18 November 2021, to launch the selection processes for the  
vacancies of the Appellate Body members. On behalf of those 12 2 Members, Mexico wished to state 
the following. The extensive number of Members submitting the joint proposal reflected a common 
concern with the current situation in the Appellate Body that w as seriously affecting the overall 
dispute settlement system, against the best interest of its Members. WTO Members had a 
responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system, and the 
multilateral trading system. Thus,  it was their duty to proceed, without further delay, with the 
launching of the selection processes for the Appellate Body members, as submitted to the DSB at 
the present meeting. The proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection processes (one process to 
replace Mr  Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term had expired on 30 June 2017; a second 
process to fill the vacancy result ing from the resignation of Mr  Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 
1 August  2017; a third process to replace Mr  Peter Van den Bossch e, whose second term had expired 
on 11 December 2017; a fourth process to replace Mr  Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, whose 
four-year term of office  had expired on 30 September  2018; a fifth process to replace Mr  Ujal Singh 
Bhatia, whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; a sixth process to replace Mr  Thomas 
Graham whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; and a seventh selection process to 
replace Ms  Hong Zhao, whose first four -year term of office had expired on 30  November  2020; (ii)  to 
establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for the submission of candidacies; 
and (iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its recommendation within 60  days after the 
deadline for nominations of candidates. The proponent s were flexible in the determination of the 
deadlines for the selection processes, but Members should consider the urgency of the situation. The 
proponents continued to urge all Members to support th e AB proposal in the interest of the dispute 
settlement a nd multilateral trading systems . 
7.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union wished to refer to its 
previous statements made on this matter. He said that s ince 11 December 2019, the WTO no longer 
guarantee d access to a binding, two -tier, independent and impartial resolution of trade disputes. A 
fully functioning WTO dispute settlement system was crucial for a rules -based multilateral trading 
system.  This was why the most urgent area of WTO reform involve d finding an agreed basis to 
restore such a system and proceeding to the appointment of the members of the Appellate Body. WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 17 - 
  This task should be addressed as a priority. As the European Union had  consistently noted, WTO 
Members ha d a shared responsibility to res olve this issue as soon as possible, and to fill the 
outstanding vacancies , as required by Article 17.2 of the DSU. The E uropean Union  believed  that a 
meaningful reform was needed in order to achieve th at objective. The European Union,  therefore , 
renew ed its call on all WTO Members to engage in a constructive discussion as soon as possible in 
order to restore a fully functioning WTO dispute settlement system. The European Union thank ed all 
Members that  co-sponsored the proposal to launch the AB appointment processes.  
7.4.  The representative of Canada  said that for more than  two years the Appellate Body had no 
longer had a division  to hear new appeals. Canada supported Mexico's statement and shared the 
concerns expressed by other Members at the present meeting. Canada invited those WTO Members 
who had not yet sponsored the proposal to consider joining the 122  Members requesting the launch 
of the AB selection process es. The critical mass of WTO Members supporting that proposal clearly 
reflected the importance that Members  attached to a fully operational Appellate Body as an integral 
part of the dispute settlement system. The fact that  the Appellate Body could not hear new appeals 
was of great concern. Canada reiterated its interest in contributing to discussions focused on finding 
solutions to the functioning of the Appellate Body. Canada's priority remained to find a multilateral 
and sustainable solution for all Members, including the United States. Meanwhile, Canada and 
24 other WTO Members had approved the Multi -Party Interim Appeal  Arbitration Arrangement, or 
MPIA, as an emergency measure. The purpose of this measure was to safeguar d their rights to 
binding settlement of disputes, including the possibility to appeal in disputes among themselves . 
The MPIA was open to all WTO Members. Canada invited all WTO Members to consider joining the 
MPIA in order to safeguard their dispute settle ment rights to the maximum extent possible until 
Members collectively found a permanent solution to the impasse in the Appellate Body.  Canada st ood 
ready to discuss the MPIA with any interested Member.  
7.5.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States was not in a position to 
support the proposed decision. The United States continued to have systemic concerns with the 
Appellate Body. As Members knew, the United States had raised and explained its systemic concerns 
for more than 16 years an d across multiple US Administrations. The United States believed that 
Members had to undertake fundamental reform if the system was to remain viable and credible. The 
dispute settlement system could and should support rather than undermine the WTO's negoti ating 
and monitoring functions. The United States looked forward to further discussions with Members on 
these important issues . 
7.6.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Mexico for presenting the proposal on 
behalf of  122 co-sponsors  and wished to refer to its previous statement s made under this Agenda 
item. This problem ha d been with Members  for too long. Concrete prejudice to specific interest s of 
Members and to the WTO as a whole was increasing. Towards the end of 2021, Brazil's  percept ion 
was that there was positive momentum on this matter . In Brazil's  view, Members should seize  on 
that momentum and engage in objective, frank discussions with the aim of identifying possible 
concrete solutions to th e current  impasse. On its part, Brazil was ready to engage  with Members on 
this matter.  
7.7.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Mexico on behalf 
of 122 co-sponsors and call ed upon more Members to join th e AB proposal. China  wished to refer to 
its previous statements on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm commitment to an independent 
and impartial two -tier dispute settlement system. China st ood ready to work with all Members in 
that regard.   
7.8.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that  the United Kingdom continue d to support 
the launch of the process for appointments to the Appellate Body, and refer red to its previous 
statements made on this matter.  This DSB meeting again demonstrate d the clear nullification of the 
rights of Members and  their ability to achieve prompt settlement of disputes that result ed from the 
failure to appoint members to the Appellate Body, to the detriment of the multilateral trading system 
as a whole. Members had to  maintain momentum and proceed with discussions t o ensure the full 
functioning of the dispute settlement system. This benefit ed all Members , ensuring that the rules 
Members had negotiated were  enforceable.  It serve d as a backstop against WTO -inconsistent trade 
practices and help ed to create a more predic table and stable trading environment .  
7.9.  The representative of Norway  said that Norway fully support ed the joint proposal presented by 
Mexico, and co -sponsored by 122 Members, to launch the process for appointments to the Appellate 
Body. Norway wished to refer to its previous  statements  made on this matter. Norway st ood ready WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 18 - 
  to engage in urgent ly needed discussions to address the current  impasse. However, no discussion 
should prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully and Members should c omply with 
their obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies and thereby restore a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system. As demonstrated  by the statements made under the previous Agenda item, the 
paralysis of the dispute settlement mechanism should not be allowed to continue.  Norway was  
encouraged by the strong conviction expressed by Ministers participating in the informal Ministerial 
Meeting on 21 January 2022  to address the situation  of the dispute settlement mechanism as a 
priority and without  further delay . 
7.10.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand reiterate d its support for the 
co-sponsored proposal and refer red to its previous statements. New Zealand  continue d to urge all 
Members to constructively engage on the issues with a vi ew to addressing this situation as a priority, 
in order to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system. New Zealand  joined others in 
welcoming the progress made at the end of 2021 towards setting clear parameters and time -frames 
for advancing this important work. New Zealand was ready to continue this momentum and get to 
work.  
7.11.   The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group , said that t he African 
Group wished to refer to its previous statements and co mmend ed Mexico for its  statement on this 
urgent matter.  The fact that the Appellate Body c ould not hear new appeals remain ed a concern. 
Members ha d a shared responsibility to safeguard the multilateral trading system. Therefore, the 
Group urg ed the DSB to urgently fulfil its obligation under the DSU which was to fill vacancies as 
they ar ose, so as to maintain the two -tiered dispute settlement system. This w ould ensure 
predictability within the multilateral trading system. Finally, the African Group  encourag ed all 
Members to engage constructively with each other in addressing the specific concerns raised against 
the functioning of the Appellate Body with a view to finding a solution , and urged all Members who 
were yet to co -sponsor th e proposal to do so as so on as possible.  
7.12.   The representative of the Philippines  said that t he Philippines thank ed Mexico and other 
delegations for pursuing this long -standing proposal  and note d document  WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.20 , 
which had been circulated  on 18 November 2021 . The recent co -sponsorship by Cambodia of the 
proposal had brought  the number to 122 Members who supported the proposal to  reactivat e the 
Appellate Body appointment  process es. The Philippines h ad always been supportive of Members ' 
appeals  relating to the revival of a fully functioning, two -tier dispute settlement system at the WTO 
and note d that a key component of the postponed MC12 Agenda was this very issue of the dispute 
settlement system , as part of the overall WTO reform process which  Ministers, at various meetings, 
had repeatedly urged. The Philippines,  therefore , wishe d to express , at the present meeting , its 
support for the joint proposal  and said that the Philippines would communicat e its support to the 
Mexican delegation on the im portance of recommencing the appointment process es for the Appellate 
Body consistent ly and in line with the proposed WTO reform work programme. The Philippines 
remain ed ready to instructively engage in all fora and discussions that c ould achieve WTO reform s 
and the revival of a well -functioning dispute settlement system.  
7.13.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia wished to refer to its previous statements 
made  at previous DSB meetings with regard to this A genda  item. Indonesia ag ain urged all Members 
to give their serious attention, willingness, and commitment to the immediate appointment of the 
Appellate Body members.  
7.14.   The representative of Australia  said that t he first DSB meeting in 2022 was an opportunity to 
set Members'  shared  direction and commitment for the year ahead. As Members sought  to reconvene 
MC12, they had to  begin discussing the reforms required for the dispute settlement system to meet 
the needs of the Membership as a whole. For Australia, there was no more important reform priority. 
Australia  welcome d recent signals that this was  the time to translate conve rsations into a concrete 
process for agreeing solutions. The present paralysis c ould not continue. As the number of disputes 
appealed into the void gr ew, so d id the tangible cost to the Membership, including to the fundamental 
right of all Members to a fin al and binding resolution to a dispute. The credibility and effectiveness 
of the multilateral trading system relie d on Members  resolving th at impasse. Australia asked all 
Members to join it in working actively and constructively to achieve th at shared obje ctive.   
7.15.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea  thank ed Mexico for its statement, reiterate d its 
support for the joint AB proposal , and referred to its previous statements made on this matter.  The 
WTO dispute settlement system ha d been a central element in providing security and predictability 
to the multilateral trading system and Korea, as a firm supporter of the system, was ready to engage WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 19 - 
  constructively in relevant discussions to find a sol ution to enhance the functioning of the dispute 
settlement system , with a view to accommodating the needs of WTO Members.  Korea also s tood 
ready to work with other Members building on what they had  achieved in preparation for the outcome 
document for MC12 on this issue.  
7.16.   The representative of Japan  said that Japan wished to refer to its statements made at previous 
DSB meetings and support ed the joint proposal. Japan share d a sense of urgency for reform of the 
dispute settlement system. Achieving an expeditio us reform that w ould contribute to a long -lasting 
solution to the structural and functional problems of the dispute settlement system was the utmost 
priority for Japan . For such a reform, every WTO Member, as the owner of the system, had to take  
seriously the current  situation where the Appellate Body had virtually ceased its operation a long 
time ago, while a number of cases ha d been appealed into the void. Furthermore, Japan consider ed 
it essential that every WTO Member restart ed constructive discussions on reform of the dispute 
settlement system, including on how to address the concerns surrounding the Appellate Body. Japan 
spare d no efforts to collaborate with all WTO Members to that end.  
7.17.   The representative of India said that India wished to refer to its previous statements on this 
matter and reiterate d its serious concerns regarding the DSB's inability to commence the AB 
selection process es. As of 11 December 2019, the Appellate Body was no longer available for review 
of panel reports. The defunct App ellate Body ha d created many problems for Members. The binding 
two-stage, impartial dispute settlement system, which was the central element in providing security 
and predictability to the multilateral trading system, was a core priority for India. India s tood ready 
to engage in constructive dialogue with Members and resolve this matter.   
7.18.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation wished to refer 
to its previous statements made on this matter and thank ed Mexico as well as  the co-sponsors for 
their continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment processes of the Appellate Body 
members. Russia reiterate d its strong support for launching the appointment processes immediately. 
At the same time, the Russian Federation call ed upon all Members to engage in urgent constructive 
discussions towards  a fully functioning dispute settlement system as soon as possible.  
7.19.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China wished to join the 
previous speaker s who had  express ed, yet again , their grave concerns over the Appellate Body 
impasse, as refer to  by some Members under the previous  Agenda  item. Hong Kong, China stress ed 
the importance of having constructive discussion s to resolve th e impasse as soon as possible. 
Hong Kong, China st ood ready to participate in any such constructive discussion s. 
7.20.   The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Mexico for its statement which , 
Singapore  strongly support ed. The mounting number o f appeals into the void highlight ed the urgency 
of this Agenda item. Singapore  reiterate d its previous statements on this matter and urge d all 
Members, including the United States, to commence constructive discussions urgently with a view 
to restor ing a fully functioning dispute settlement system .  
7.21.   The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland wished to refer to its statements  made  
on this matter at previous DSB meetings. A fully functional dispute settlement system was in 
everyone's interest . As this new year beg an, it was essential that constructive discussions c ould take 
place quickly, in order to find concrete solutions to resolve the impasse that Members had  been 
facing for too long. Switzerland remain ed ready to work towards th at objecti ve and call ed on all 
Members to do the same.  
7.22.   The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand wished to join many previous speakers  in 
thanking for and supporting the statement made by Mexico,  on behalf of the co -sponsors . Thailand  
wished to refer to its previous statements  made on this matter.  Once again, the continued filing of 
appeals by Members clearly demonstrate d the importance of a two -tier, binding dispute settlement 
system as an integral part of the core elements of the WTO . Thailand,  therefore , renew ed its call on 
all Members to continue and intensify their efforts in finding ways forward while remaining fully 
committed to solutions -oriented discussions.  
7.23.   The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia thank ed Mexico and reiterate d its support 
for the join t AB proposal. Malaysia  also refer red to its statements made  on this matter  at previous 
DSB meetings . Malaysia  express ed its strong support for restor ing a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system , which was a central element in providing security and p roductivity to the 
multilateral trading system.  WT/DSB/M/4 60 
- 20 - 
  7.24.   The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 122 co -sponsors, regretted that for 
the fiftieth  occasion  Members had still not been able to start the selection processes for the vacancies 
of the Appe llate Body, and had thus continuously failed to fulfil their duty as Members of this 
Organization. The fact that a Member may have concerns about certain aspects of the functioning 
of the Appellate Body could not serve as a pretext to impair and disrupt th e work of this body and 
dispute settlement in general. There was no legal justification for the current blocking of the selection 
processes, which was causing concrete nullification and impairment for many Members. As 
Article  17.2 of the DSU clearly stated, "vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". No discussion should 
prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully and Members shall comply with their 
obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies. Mexico noted wit h deep concern that by failing to act 
at the present meeting, the Appellate Body would continue to be unable to perform its functions 
against the best interest of all Members.  
7.25.   The representative of Mexico  said that, f or more than two years, Members ha d been 
requesting that th e AB proposal be adopted  by the DSB  so as to preserve their right of appeal, as 
set out in the DSU. Mexico wished to refer to its previous statements  made on this matter  and 
continue d to express deep concern and a sense of urgency regar ding the fact that the Appellate 
Body was not operational. As Members had seen at the present meeting and at previous DSB 
meetings, all ongoing disputes were being affected because the dispute settlement system was not 
fully operational . This was  putting a t risk prompt compliance with, and the adoption of, panel  reports. 
This was also affecting Members' right to have a binding mechanism. Currently , more than ever,  
with 24 cases appeal ed into a void, it was important and a priority to work towards a real, multilateral 
solution. Mexico remain ed ready to work constructively  and called  on Members who ha d not done 
so to join th e AB proposal.  
7.26.   The Chairman  said that the matter raised under this Agenda item was very important and 
fundamental to the functioni ng of the multilateral trading system , as demonstrated by  the discussion 
at the present meeting . He recalled  that this matter ha d been considered  in the context of the 
preparation s for MC12 , which  was scheduled for December 2021 and then  postponed due to  the 
pandemic. In particular, this matter had been raised in the  context of the  discussions on the outcome 
document led by the GC Chair. As Members were aware,  the GC Chair would make  a report on the 
way forward on the outcome document at the informal General Council meeting , which would take 
place later in the  afternoon.  
7.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements . 
8  STATEMENT BY TUNISIA REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT IN THE DISPUTE: 
"MOROCCO  – DEFINITIVE ANTI DUMPING MEASURES ON SCHOOL EXERCISE BOOKS FROM 
TUNISIA " (DS578)  
8.1.  The representative of Tunisia , speaking under "Other Business ", said that , for transparency 
purposes,  Tunisia wished  to make a brief statement on the latest developments  regarding  its 
consultations with Morocco with a view to re aching a compromise solution in the dispute 
"Morocco  – Definitive A nti-Dumping  Measures on School Exercise Books " (DS578).  He recalled that 
those consultations had been initiated in September 2021.  He said that at the request of Morocco, 
the second meeting  to be chaired by the DSB Chair , which was initially scheduled to take place  in 
the week of 10  January  2022, had been deferred. At the present meeting, Tunisia was  pleased to 
inform delegations that on 12  January  2022 the Moroccan trade authorities had sent a proposal, 
through diplomatic channels via the Capitals, for revision of the dumping margins and review of the 
assessment of injury and causation, based on  the Panel's recommendations. Th e proposal, which 
include d a recalculation of anti -dumping margins imposed on Tunisian exporters of exercise books, 
had been  received at the end of the previous  week by the Tunisian Ministry of Trade and Export 
Development and was under consideration by its re levant departments. The Tunisian trade 
authorities  wished to thank their Moroccan counterparts  and consider ed this revision to be a 
constructive basis for the continuation of the consultations . He noted that the Moroccan authorities 
were continuing their a nalysis of compliance with the other Panel findings, in particular those relating 
to injury and causation. Therefore, Tunisia  welcome d the intensified level of collaboration with its 
Moroccan  colleagues, and wishe d to thank the Chair of the DSB, whose good  offices and involvement 
continue d to assist  the parties to arrive at a mutually acceptable arrangement as quickly as possible.  
8.2.  The DSB took note  of the statement . 
__________