RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 51 
6 July 2021 
(21-5348) Page: 1/20 
Dispute Settlement Body  
28 April 2021   
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 28 APRIL 20211 
Chairman : H.E.  Mr Dacio Castillo  (Honduras )  
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating in 
the virtual meeting of the DSB and said that he wished to recall a few technical instructions regarding 
this virtual meeting. If a Member was unable to take the floor during the meeting because of a 
technical issue, the delegation could inform himself 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 Agen da 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 Sec retariat on behalf of that delegation during the meeting so that the statement could 
be reflected in the minutes of the meeting ; (ii) The Chairman  then drew attention to the proposed 
Agenda contained in document WT/DSB/W/6 80. He informed delegations that, with respect to item 
4 of the proposed Agenda, the interested parties ha d agreed with his suggestion that the Chair of 
the DSB w ould engage in consultations with each interested party regarding this Agenda item. 
Accordingly, to allow time for consultations  to take place, the Chair  propose d that item 4 be removed 
from the proposed Agenda ; (iii) Subsequently, the Chair asked if any Member wished to add any 
other items under "Other Business". The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia wished to 
make  a statement under "Other Business " regarding the dispute: "Australia – Anti-Dumping 
Measures on A4 Copy Paper " (DS529) ; and (iv) The Chairman  said that, in accordance with past 
practice , the item concerning  "The Election of Chairperson" would be taken up at  the end of the 
meeting after "Other Business".  
 
The DSB took note  of the statement s and adopted  the Agenda, as amended.   
 
The representative of Venezuela  said that his delegation  wished to take the floor at this point  in 
order to  make the following statement. Venezuela wished to  thank  the Chairman  for his  diligent  
work and his leadership in the search for inclusive  ways to deal with Venezuela's  request  for 
establishment of a panel,  while safeguarding the proper functioning of th e DSB, a fundamental pillar 
of dispute resolution.  Venezuela accepted the Chairman's proposal for consultations  as proof of its 
commitment to international law, multilateralism and diplomacy for peace. Venezuela did so in  good 
faith confident that the system  would be able to guarantee due respect for Venezuela and would be 
able to safeguard the fundamental principles of  international law that govern peaceful relations 
between States . It would be up to the next Chair of th e DSB  to uphold th ose principles. At this point, 
Venezuela wished to take the opportunity to welcome Ambassador  Didier Chambovey  of Switzerland , 
who had already been assured of Venezuela's  full support . Ambassador Chambovey's work leading 
the Group of Friends on Special and Differential Treatment in the complex fisheries negotiations ha d 
been publicly recognized and appreciated by Venezuela . Ambassador Chambovey was also the 
representative of a country that enjoyed significant international prestige for its ability to bring 
positions of countries closer together.   
 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a virtual format only  following the latest amendments to 
the COVID -19 related safety measures circulated by the WTO Health Task Force.  WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 2 - 
  Venezuela regret ted the fact that the United States had object ed to Venezuela's panel  request in the 
dispute: "United States – Measures Relating to Trade in Goods and Services" (WT/DS574/2/Rev.1, 
dated 16 March  2021). However, in the interest of enabling the important work of the DSB  to 
continue , Venezuela  accept ed the Chair's proposal to consult on this matter and to allow the DSB to 
consider  the other items on the Agenda of today's  meeting . Nevertheless, Venezuela strongly 
emphasized that it wished to reserve the right to revert to this matter at future DSB meetings.  
Venezuela  encourage d the United States to allow the se consultations to be conducted in a fair 
manner , consistent with multilateral principles . Venezuel a hoped to be able to sit down around the 
same table under the auspices of the WTO.  As a t echnical and legal  matter , Venezuela claim ed that 
certain US laws and regulations relating to goods of Venezuelan origin, the liquidity of the Venezuelan 
public debt, transactions in Venezuelan digital currencies and the Specially Designated Nationals and 
Blocked Persons List ("SDN List") were inconsistent with the WTO General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade of 1994  (GATT 1994)  and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).  Venezuela 
claim ed that the acts and measures of the United States violate d a number of WTO  obligations, 
including:  the most -favoured -nation (MFN) clause , which obliged the United States to treat 
Venezuela in a manner no less favourable than any other country;  the national treatment obligation , 
which obliged the United States to treat Venezuela's goods and services in a manner no less 
favoura ble than the goods and services of the United States;  the United States' obligation to 
administer its measures in an "impartial and reasonable manner";  and the concessions entered into 
by the United States in its Schedules of concessions on goods and servi ces.  
 
Venezuela said that t he US economic sanctions discriminate d against goods of Venezuelan origin 
and denied fair imports into Venezuela.  In addition, the United States offer ed benefits to other 
countries and domestic producers through economic sanctio ns. Venezuela claim ed that the MFN and 
national treatment principles – two important standards for conducting non -discriminatory trade 
among WTO  Members – had been violated.  In addition, the United States ha d included certain 
persons linked to the Venezuel an Government on the US "SDN List". Persons included on th at list 
were prohibited from entering the United States and c ould not use  foreign  assets. The United States 
was in violation of Article I:1 of the GATT  1994 because the United States did not subject  other WTO 
Member s to similar trade -restrictive measures.  Venezuelan products also face d regulations with 
respect to who was authorized to import goods , and face d unfair market opportunities after 
importation. The United States ha d violated Article III:4 of the GATT  1994 because it accord ed to 
products of Venezuelan origin less -favourable treatment than to those of domestic origin. In 
addition, Venezuelan products face d greater regulatory burdens and unfair market opportunities as 
a result of the coercive trade -restrictive measures . The United States was also violating Article V:2 
of the GATT  1994 because it require d the detention and seizure of certain goods of Venezuelan origin 
transiting through the United States to other WTO  Memb ers. Those sanctions were restrictions other 
than those permitted by Article XI:1 of the GATT  1994 because t he United States imposed 
quantitative restrictions on Venezuelan exports.  Venezuela said that t he US sanctions on debt and 
electronic currency effec tively prohibit ed trade in certain securities and other negotiable instruments 
as well as financial assets ( i.e. Venezuela's Government debt and Venezuelan digital currency) in 
violation of Article II:1 of the GATS. At first glance, the US measures at issu e prohibit ed trade in 
certain Venezuelan financial services, according less -favourable treatment than to financial services 
originating in third countries and, by extension, according less -favourable treatment to Venezuelan 
service suppliers.  The US sancti ons violated Article II:1 of the GATS since the capacity of a US person 
to receive Venezuelan services was limited but was not limited with respect to receiving like services 
from third jurisdictions that were not sanctioned . It was clear that this measure  accord ed 
less-favourable treatment to Venezuelan services and service suppliers.  
 
In Venezuela's view, t he US prohibitions on negotiating with respect to Venezuela n Government debt  
and the PDVSA, as well as the prohibitions on negotiating with respect to Venezuelan digital 
currency, constitute d measures described in Articles XVI:2(a) and XVI:2(b) of the GATS. Th ose 
sanctions impose d a limitation – specifically, a limitation to zero – on the number of financial service 
suppliers that c ould provide th ose ser vices, and a limitation to zero on the total value of service 
transactions with respect to th ose financial services.  As US sovereign debt was not subject to the 
same prohibitions as Venezuelan sovereign debt, and digital currencies of US origin were not subject 
to the same prohibitions as Venezuelan digital currencies, the United States accord ed less-favourable 
treatment to Venezuelan financial services and service suppliers than it accord ed to its own financial 
services and suppliers of like domestic ser vices. As the US sanctions den ied national treatment to 
certain Venezuelan financial services and financial service suppliers, th ose sanctions violate d 
Article  XVII:1 of the GATS.  Venezuela said that t hose measures ha d completely stifled Venezuela's 
econom y and financial system. They ha d exacerbated the economic crisis in Venezuela and made it WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 3 - 
  almost impossible to stabilize its economy. All of those measures  had caused disproportionate harm 
to the poorest and most vulnerable people in Venezuela.  Moreover, t he sanctions ha d prevented the 
Venezuelan Government from obtaining loans in the US financial markets. This had had a series of 
immediate effects. First, it ha d prevented the Government from restructuring its foreign debt, as 
any debt restructuring require d the issuance of new bonds in exchange for the existing debt. 
Although the US sanctions technically affect ed only the financial system in the United States , in 
practice the re had also been effect s outside the U S borders . Venezuela's debt  restructuring was 
negotiated with groups of bondholders, which invariably include d some from the United States. In 
addition, financial institutions outside the US financial system had good reasons to fear that there 
would be more sanctions affecting them.  Financial institu tions, both public and private, use d a 
system of correspondent banks located in other countries to process international transactions. The 
US sanctions  had removed Venezuela's international payment options from the Federal Reserve and 
from all United State s financial institutions. The risk of conflict with the  US sanctions ha d led the 
majority of correspondent banks to stop th ose correspondent banking services. Th at risk was 
concrete because the US Government c ould sanction foreign financial institutions that disobey ed 
their instructions.  All of these measures had  drastically reduced Venezuela's capacity to produce and 
sell oil or to sell any of the Government's foreign assets, the most significant of which were fro zen 
and/or confiscated. In addition, the  sanctions  had reduced the foreign exchange available to 
Venezuela  for purchasing essential imports, with adverse consequences for the population.  It was 
Venezuela's intention  to use all existing legal mechanisms to speak out and make itself heard , in 
accordance with the rules. As Venezuela  had repeatedly denounced to the WTO , the illegal unilateral 
coercive measures imposed by the United States and its allies ha d had  a negative impact in 
Venezuela,  in that they signi ficantly reduce d sources of financing, prevent ed the supply of medicines 
and medical equipment, and affect ed the full enjoyment of human rights and the free determination 
of peoples, in violation of international law, the Charter of the United Nations (UN) , the rules 
contained in the WTO Agreements and the principles governing peaceful relations between States.  
Venezuela  reiterate d that its channels of communication would  always remain open for respectful 
dialogue, based on tolerance and the search for solu tions in line with international law and peaceful 
multilateralism.  Venezuela  remain ed at the Chairman's  disposal and wish ed him every success in 
carrying out his duties as the new Chairman of the General Council.  
 
The DSB took note  of the statement . 
 
Table of Contents  
1 SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  4 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan: 
Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  5 
C. European Communities – Measures a ffecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Union ................................ ................................ ....... 5 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and co untervailing measures on large residential washers 
from Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ..... 6 
E. United States – Certain metho dologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ . 7 
F. Indonesia – Impor tation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status 
report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  7 
2 UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ..........................  8 
A. Statement by the European Union  ................................ ................................ .....................  8 
3 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES 
AFFECTING TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ................................ ................................ .. 10 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ......................  10 WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 4 - 
  4 CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON BARLEY 
FROM AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  11 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Australia  ................................ ........................  11 
5 EUROPEAN  UNION AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – CERTAIN MEASURES 
CONCERNING PALM OIL AND OIL PALM CROP -BASED BIOFUELS  ................................ ... 12 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Malaysia  ................................ ........................  12 
6 APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF 
BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; 
CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CHAD; CHILE; C HINA; 
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; NICA RAGUA; 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 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.19)  ................................ ................................ ............................  13 
7 STATEMENT BY INDONESIA REGARDING  THE DISPUTE ON : "AUSTRALIA – 
ANTI–DUMPING MEASURES ON A4 COPY PAPER": IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DS B ................................ ................................ .. 17 
8 ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ .......................  17 
 
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 14) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.18 9) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status re port by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 52) 
 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea: Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add.3 6) 
 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and the ir application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China: Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add.2 8) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add.2 3 – WT/DS47 8/22/Add.2 3) 
 
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: "[u]nless the DSB decides otherwi se, 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 issue is resolved." Under this Agenda item, the Chairman invited 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: "[r]epresenta tives should WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 5 - 
  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." He then turned to the first status report under this Agenda 
item. 
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 14) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.21 4, which contain ed the status 
report by the United  States 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 State s said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 15 April 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The United States ha d 
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 ha d yet to be addressed, the US Administration w ould confer with 
the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter.  
1.4.  The representative of Japan  thank ed the United States for its latest status report and its 
statement made at the present meeting . Japan , once again , called on the United States to fully 
implement the DSB 's recommend ations and rulings so as to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d 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/DS160/24/Add.18 9) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.18 9, which contain ed 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 Copyrig ht Act .  
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States  had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 15 April 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US Administration 
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  thank ed the United States for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting . The E uropean Union wished to refer to its previous 
statements  and reiterated its wish for this case to be resolved as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d 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 52) 
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/3 7/Add.1 52, which contain ed 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 Standing Committee meeting had 
been held online on 16 December 2020. The Commission had presented two authorizations.2 The 
Standing Committee had not reach ed an opinion. The Commission had presented the two 
authorization decisions at the next online meeting of the Appeal Committee on 26 February 2021. 
The vote of the Appeal Committee had been  taken by written procedure. The Appeal Committee  had 
reached no opinion on 8 March. It was now for the Commission to decide on the adoption of these 
 
2 Meeting of 16 December 2020: Maize MZIR086 and Cotton GHB614 × T304 -40 × GHB119.  WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 6 - 
  Implementing Decisions. In addition, a Standing Committee meeting had been  held online on 
19 April 2021. The Commission had presented one authorization and one renewal authorization. Due 
to the current publi c health situation, the vote w ould take place by written procedure ending ten 
working days after the date of the meeting concerned. The United States frequently refer red to 
member States ' justifications issued during the meetings of the Standing Committee and Appeal 
Committee as being "political " and "not science -based ". The E uropean Union wished  to underline 
that the final decision taken on the authorization was clearly science -based , as GMOs were 
authorized where the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had finalized its scientific opinion and 
concluded that there were no safety concerns. As repeatedly explained by the E uropean Union and 
confirmed by the US delegation during the EU -US consultations held on 22 October 2020, efforts to 
reduce delays in authorization procedures were constantly maintained at a high level at all stages 
of the authorization procedure. It was also important to recognize the increas ed transparency in the 
EFSA's scientific assessment of genetically modified organism s, resulting from the new Transparency 
Regulation , which should help to reinforce trust in the safety of the authorized GMOs. The E uropean 
Union recalled that it  had acted in line with its WTO obligations  and that  the E uropean Union's  
approval system was not covered by the DSB's recommendations and rulings  
1.12.   The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement. The European  Union had suggested that, with respect to ongoing delays, the fault 
was with the applicants. However, the US concerns related to delays at every stage of the approval 
process resulting from the actions or inactions of the European Union and its member Sta tes. Recent 
outcomes of both the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee on Genetically Modified Food and 
Feed and Environmental Risk Assessment demonstrated the political nature of the comitology 
process – which repeatedly delayed safe products from rece iving approval in the European market. 
EU member States continued to cite the so -called " Precautionary Principle " and " scientific reasons " 
as justification for not issuing approvals. However, those claims contradicted the fact that the 
European Food Safety  Authority (EFSA) had successfully completed a science -based risk assessment 
for every product under consideration at those meetings. In addition, European Union member 
States at the Standing Committee continued to cite " no agreed national position ", "negative public 
opinion ", and " political reasons " as justifications for reaching "no opinion" and for not approving 
these products. None of those justifications were science -based. The United States noted that the 
Appeals Committee had held a meeting on 26  February 2021, to address those instances where 
member States reach "no opinion" regarding product approvals, and cited the same reasons as 
justification for not issuing biotech product approvals (e.g. " no agreed national position ", "negative 
public opini on", "political reasons ", "precautionary principle ", and " risk assessment deemed not 
sufficient "). The United States failed to see how the EU's current approval process addressed the 
undue delays contemplated in "EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Prod ucts" (DS291). The 
United States requested that the European Union move to issue final approvals for the remaining 
products that had completed science -based risk assessments at EFSA, including those products that 
were with the Standing Committee and Appeal s Committee .  
1.13.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/D S464/17/Add.3 6) 
1.14.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add.3 6, which contain ed 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 representative of the United States  said tha t the United States  had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 15 April 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  On 6 May 2019, 
the United States Department of Commerce had published a notice in the US Federal Register 
announcing the revocati on of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large 
residential washers from Korea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 (May 6, 2019)).  With this action, the United 
States ha d completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping 
and countervailing duty orders.  The United States w ould consult with interested  parties on options 
to address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures chall enged in this dispute.  WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 7 - 
  1.16.   The representative of Korea  thank ed the United States for its status report and statement  
made at the present meeting . Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt and appropriate 
steps to implement the DSB recommendations for  the "as such " measure s at issue in  this dispute.  
1.17.   The representative of Canada  said that  the United States continue d to fail to comply with the 
DSB's ruling, arising out of the Appellate Body report in this dispute, that the "differential pricing 
methodology" (DPM) was "as such" WTO -inconsistent. The United States ha d also ignored the DSB's 
recommendation that the Unite d States bring itself into compliance with its obligations. Instead, the 
United States continue d to apply the "as such" inconsistent differential pricing methodology in 
investigations with respect to foreign companies and continue d to collect cash deposits  from foreign 
exporters based on its inconsistent methodology.  The reasonable period of time to implement the 
recommendations relating to the "as such" WTO -inconsistency of the DPM had expired more than 
three years ago. However, in its most recent status r eport, the United States claime d that it 
continued to consult with interested parties. The continued use by the United States of the DPM ha d 
forced Members to resort to several dispute settlement proceedings concerning this measure. This 
was an inefficient  and unnecessary use of WTO dispute settlement resources.  Canada remain ed 
deeply concerned with the continued failure  by the United States  to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute. Th at failure seriously undermine d the predictab ility 
and s ecurity  of the multilateral trading system.  
1.18.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add.2 8) 
1.19.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add.2 8, which contain ed the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommend ations 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 t he United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 15 April 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As explained in 
that report, the United States w ould consult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB.  
1.21.   The represent ative of China  thank ed the Chairman  for his efforts in making th e present  
meeting happen and hoped  that the disputing parties could find a satisfactory solution through good 
faith consultations.  With regard to th e present  agenda item, China thank ed the United States for 
providing its latest status report. However, China  once again register ed its grave concern over the 
standstill of the U S implementation in this dispute.  China noted that, 32 months after the expiry of 
the reasonable period of time, this dispute remain ed unresolved. None of the 29 status reports 
provided  thus far could indicate any substantive implementation action , except consultations with 
interested parties. While the United States ' WTO-inconsistent measures stay ed intact, China 's 
legitimate interests under the covered agreements continue d to be infringed without any remedy.  
As set out  by Article 21.1 of the DSU, implementation was not an option , but a legal obligation that 
needed to be faithfully honored. Without prompt compliance, WTO dispute settlement would lose its 
effectiveness and credibility.  Therefore, China urge d the United States to take concrete steps  and 
come into  full conformity in this dispute without further delay.   
1.22.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d 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. 23 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 23) 
1.23.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 23 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 23, 
which contain ed 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 animal 
products. WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 8 - 
  1.24.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia had 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. Th at commitment ha d been reflected 
through  numerous adjustments in relevant laws and regulations, which were not only substantial 
but also highly political.  As reported in previous DSB meetings, Indonesia ha d enacted Law No.  11 
of 2020 on Job Creation, which include d adjustments to measure 18 by addressing all specific Articles 
in the previous Laws which were found  to be inconsistent with WTO obligations. Th ose Art icles ha d 
been amended and were no longer in place. With regard to measure s 1–17, Indonesia wished  to 
refer to its position made at  previous DSB meetings , that significant adjustments ha d been made 
through the amendments of the relevant MoA and MoT Regulat ions. Those adjustments include d the 
removal of the disputed measures , inter alia : harvest period restriction ; import realization 
requirements ; six-months harvest requirement ; and reference price . Indonesia continue d to note 
concerns raised by New Zealand and the United States and  reaffirm ed its commitment to 
implementing the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes.  Indonesia w ould 
continue to engage with New Zealand and the United States regarding ma tters related to the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  
1.25.   The representative of the United States  thank ed Indonesia for its status report.  The United 
States understood that Indonesia ha d recently amended the relevant laws that would address 
Measure 18.  The United States look ed forward to receiving further detail from Indonesia regarding 
those legislative changes and their implementation by the government.  The United States remain ed 
willing to work with Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute .  
1.26.   The representative of New Zealand  thanked  Indonesia for its status report and acknowledge d 
Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the WTO decision. Both compliance deadlines ha d 
however, long since expired, and a number of measures remain ed non-compliant. New Zealand 
underst ood that Indonesia 's Parliament ha d passed the Job Creation Bill, but New Zealand did  not 
yet have the information necessary to assess what impact this w ould have on In donesia 's compliance 
with the WTO decision, in particular in respect of Measure 18. New Zealand invite d Indonesia to 
provide  further details as soon as possible.  
1.27.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000 : 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the European Union  
2.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the  Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union  and invite d the representative of European Union to speak . 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that, d espite the United States having 
repeatedly indicated that the DSB 's recommendations and rulings were fully implemented by 
adopting the Deficit Reduction Act, disbursements under CDSOA ha d been made every year since 
then. Every disbursement that still t ook place under th at legal basis was clearly an act of 
non-compliance with the DSB recommendations and rulings. For the item to be considered resolved 
and removed from the DSB's surveillance, the United States must fully stop transferring collected 
duties. The E uropean Union would continue to put this point on the agenda as long as the United 
States had not fully implemented the WTO ruling and the disbursements cease d completely. The 
European Union would continue to insist – as a matter of principle – independently of the cost 
resulting from the application of such limited du ties. The E uropean Union renew ed its call on the 
United States to abide by its clear obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU to submit implementation 
reports in this dispute, as the issue remain ed unresolved. If the United States disagree d that  the 
issue remain ed unresolved, nothing prevent ed it from seeking a multilateral  determination through 
a compliance procedure.  
2.3.  The representative of Canada  thank ed the European Union for placing this item on the agenda 
of the D SB. Canada  agree d with the European Union that the Byrd Amendment should remain subject 
to the surveillance of the DSB until the United States cease d to apply it.  WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 9 - 
  2.4.  The representative of the United States  said that, a s the United States had noted at previous 
DSB meetings, the Deficit Reduction Act – which included a provision repealing the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 – was enacted into law more than 15 years ago in 
February  2006. The Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods 
entered after 1 October 2007, more than 13 years ago. Accordingly, the United States had long ago 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disput es. Even aside from this, it was 
evidently not common sense that was driving the EU's approach to this agenda item. The European 
Union currently applied an additional duty of 0.012 % on certain imports of the United States. There 
was no trade rationale for inscribing this item month after month .  
2.5.  As it had done many times before, at the February DSB meeting, the European Union once 
again called on the United States to abide by its "clear obligation" under Article 21.6 for the United 
States to submit a status report in this dispute. Notably, the Eur opean Union did not call on any 
other Member in any other dispute to abide by this so -called "clear obligation", despite the fact that 
several Members were in the same situation as the United States. As the United States had explained 
repeatedly, there was  no obligation under the DSU for a Member to provide further status reports 
once that Member announced that it has implemented  the DSB recommendations. The widespread 
practice of Members – including the European Union as a responding party – confirmed this  
understanding of Article 21.6. Canada, despite the views expressed in its statement in February, 
shared this view as the responding party in Canada  – Measures Relating to the Feed -in Tariff Program  
(DS426). Canada explained to the DSB that, because it had  submitted a notification of compliance, 
"there was no further obligation on Canada to provide status reports to the DSB", which Canada 
cited as "consistent with DSU provisions and the DSB practice."3 Canada maintained this systemic 
position that it was n ot required to submit a status report to the DSB if it had informed the DSB that 
it had taken the necessary steps to comply .  
2.6.  At recent meetings, three other Members – China, Brazil, and Australia – had acted consistently 
with this systemic position.  Each Member informed the DSB that they ha d come into compliance 
with DSB recommendations in four disputes (DS472, DS497, DS517, and DS529), and the 
complaining parties did not accept the claims of compliance.  Those Members ha d not provided a 
status report since  announcing compliance – just like the United States.  The E uropean Union was 
the complaining party in one of those disputes (DS472).  If the E uropean Union  believe d status 
reports were "required " under the DSU, it would have insisted that the responding Member provide 
a status report in that dispute, or the E uropean Union would have inscribed that dispute as an item 
on the agenda  of the present meeting . The E uropean Union took neither action, nor had it explained 
the supposed difference between the two disputes. Through its actions, the European Union  had 
once again demonstrate d that it d id not truly believe that there was a "clear obligation " under 
Article  21.6 to submit a status report after a pa rty has claimed compliance.  The European Union ha d 
simply invented a rule for this dispute, involving the United States, that it d id not apply to other 
disputes involving other Members . 
2.7.  The representative of the European Union  said that, in relation t o the comparison drawn by the 
United States between the present case and DS472 ( Brazil - Taxes ), the European Union recalled 
that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act  had been  found to be in breach of WTO rules 
for transferring anti -dumpi ng and countervailing duties to the US industry and that the DSB 
authori zed sanctions on the basis of the US failure to comply with the recommendations and rulings. 
That situation persist ed as long as the redistribution of collected duties continue d. The c ircumstances 
of this case with regard to  relevant DSU provisions and procedures were therefore entirely different 
from those in DS472.  
2.8.  The DSB took note of the statements . 
 
3 Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of the Meeting Held on July 22, 2014, WT/DSB/M/348, para. 4.4.  WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 10 - 
  3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING 
TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT : IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS 
ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the United States  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that t his item was on the Agenda of the present  meeting at the request of 
the United States, and invite d the representative o f the United States to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of the United States  noted that once again the European Union had not 
provided Members with a status report concerning the dispute EC – Large Civil Aircraft (DS316). As 
the United States had noted at several  recent DSB meetings, the European Union had argued – 
under the previous agenda item – that where the European Union as a complaining party did not 
agree with the responding party Member's " assertion  that it has implemented the DSB ruling", "the 
issue rema ins unresolved for the purposes of Article 21.6 DSU." Under this agenda item, however, 
the European Union argued that, by submitting a compliance communication, the European Union 
as the responding party no longer needed to file a status report, even thoug h the United States as 
the complaining party did not agree with the European Union's assertion that it had complied. The 
European Union's position was erroneous and not based on the text of the DSU  .  
3.3.  The European Union had argued that where "a matter is with the adjudicators, it is temporarily 
taken out of the DSB's surveillance" and the DSB was somehow deprived of its authority to "maintain 
surveillance of implementation of rulings and recommendations ". Yet, there was nothing in the DSU 
text to support that argument, nothing in Article 2 of the DSU or elsewhere that limited the DSB's 
authority in that manner, and the European Union provided no explanation for how it read DSU 
Article 21.6 to contain thi s limitation. The European Union was not providing a status report because 
of its assertion that it had complied, demonstrating that the European Union's principles varied 
depending on its status as complaining or responding party. The United States' posit ion on status 
reports had been consistent: under Article 21.6 of the DSU, once a responding Member announced 
to the DSB that it had complied, there was no further "progress" on which it could report, and 
therefore no further obligation to provide a status report. But as the European Union allegedly 
disagreed with that position, it should for future meetings provide status reports in this EC – Large 
Civil Aircraft  dispute  (DS316).  
3.4.  The representative of the European Union  said that, as in previous DSB meeting s, the U nited 
States had again stated that the European Union was taking inconsistent positions under Article 21.6 
of the DSU, depending on whether the European Union was a complaining party or a defending party 
in a dispute.  The United States' assertions were without merit.  As the European Union had repeatedly 
explained in past meetings of the DSB, the crucial point for the defending party 's obligation to 
provide status reports to the DSB was the stage of the dispute. In the Airbu s case, the dispute was 
at a stage where the defending party d id not have an obligation to submit status reports to the DSB.   
3.5.  The European Union wished  to remind the DSB that in the Airbus case the European Union had 
notified a new set of compliance measur es to the DSB. That new set of compliance measures were 
a clear demonstration that the European Union – contrary to the U nited States  in the parallel 
Boeing -case – was serious about and committed to achieving compliance.  That new set of compliance 
measures  were subject to an assessment by a compliance panel and that panel report was issued 
on 2 December 2019. As noted in the U S statement at the December 2019 DSB meeting, the 
European Union was of the view that significant aspects of the compliance panel rep ort could not be 
regarded as legally correct and were very problematic from a systemic perspective when it c ame to 
assessing compliance with the subsidy disciplines of the WTO agreements. It was in order to have 
those legal errors corrected, and not to con tinue litigation for the sake of litigation, that the European 
Union had filed an appeal against the compliance panel report on 6 December 2019.  
3.6.  The European Union was concerned that with the present  blockage of the two -tier multilateral 
dispute settlement system, it was  losing the possibility of a proper appellate review of the serious 
flaws contained in the panel report. While the blockage continue d, the European Union  stood ready 
to discuss with th e United States alternative ways to deal with this appeal. The European Union was  
also committed to finding a balanced negotiated solution with the U nited States that would allow 
leaving both aircraft disputes behind them. However, th ose considerations d id not alter the fact that 
the compliance proceeding s in this dispute ha d not been concluded.  Whether or not the matter was WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 11 - 
  "resolved " in the sense of Article 21.6 remain ed the very subject matter of th at ongoing litigation. 
The European Union questioned h ow it could be said that the defending party should submit status 
reports to the DSB in th ose circumstances . The E uropean Union would be very concerned with a 
reading of Article 21.6 of the DSU that would require the defending party to notify the purported 
"status of its implementation efforts " through the submission of status reports to the DSB, while 
dispute settlement proceeding s on that precise issue were ongoing. The European Union noted that 
its reading of the provision was supported by other WTO Members.  The view of the European Union 
was further supported by Article 2 of the DSU on the administration of the dispute settlemen t rules 
and procedures: where, further to the disagreement between the parties on compliance, a matter 
was with the adjudicators, it was temporarily taken out of the DSB 's surveillance.   
3.7.  Instead of progressively stepping -up retaliatory measures, they should be s tepped down. With 
that in mind, the European Union reaffirm ed its determination to obtai n a long -term resolution to 
the WTO aircraft disputes. A balanced negotiated settlement was the only way to avoid mutually 
imposed countermeasures.  The European Union's willingness to find a negotiated solution was shown 
by the European Union's notification of 21 August 2020, which was discussed at a previous DSB 
meeting, of additional and extraor dinary compliance measures that withdr ew all remaining subsidies 
and constitute d appropriate steps to remove adverse effects, substantially in excess of what was 
required by Article  7.8 of the SCM Agreement. Th ose additional and extraordinary measures went 
far beyond what was required in order to discharge the E U's compliance obligations required by 
Article 7.8 of the SCM Agreement.  The European Union ha d procured th ose additional, extraordinary 
and costly compliance measures in an effort to persuade rational and reasonable stakeholders in the 
United States, including consumers, employers, workers, government officials and entities, airlines , 
and other economic operators, that now was the time to draw a line under these disputes. It was 
not in  the interests of anyone that the European Union and the United States proceed ed to, or 
continue d, mutually assured retaliation, and certainly not in the present economic climate.  In that 
respect, the European Union welcome d the fact that both parties ha d reached an understanding to 
suspend their respective retaliation for four months in order to permit further discussions to 
continue.  
3.8.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
4  CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON BARLEY FROM 
AUSTRALIA  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Australia (WT/DS59 8/4) 
4.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Australia contained in document 
WT/DS598/4 and invite d the representative of Australia to speak . 
4.2.  The representative of Australia  said that  in anticipation of the appointment of a new Chairman 
of the DSB, Australia wished to thank the outgoing  Chairman for his service over the previous twelve 
months, in that very important role, which he had undertaken  with distinction. Australia was sure 
that the new Chairman would continue to nurse the system back to health . Australia  hoped that all 
Members could nurse the system back to health under the guidance of the outgoing and incoming 
Chairmen.   
4.3.  With respect to  the present agenda item, Australia note d that on 16 December 2020, the 
Australian Government requested WTO dispute settlement consultations with China with respect to 
the imposition of a 73.6 % anti-dumping duty and a 6.9 % countervailing duty on Australian barley 
exports to China.  The measures were set forth in Notices No. 14 and 15 of 2020, both issued on 
18 May 2020 by the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (M OFCOM). In Australia's 
view, China's measur es were inconsistent with China's obligations under the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the G ATT 1994.  Prior to the imposition of the anti -dumping 
and countervailing duties, China was Australia 's most valuable barley export market . From 2015 -16 
to 2019 -20 approximately 49 % of Australian feed barley and 86 % of Australian malting barley, by 
value, was exported to China.  However, Australian barley exports to China ha d slowed significantly 
since anti -dumping and countervailing duties were imposed from 19  May 2020, effectively closing 
the market for Australian producers.  WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 12 - 
  4.4.  Australia ha d expressed its concerns to China on numerous occasions bilaterally and at the 
WTO, including on 27 and 28 October 2020 at the WTO Subsidies and Anti -Dumping Committees , 
respectively, and on 25 November 2020 at the WTO Council for Trade in Goods.  The Australian 
barley industry had also applied for domestic administrative reconsideration of the decision under 
Chinese laws and regulations , in July 2020 . Following a review,  MOFCOM  affirmed its original 
decisions.  As no concrete steps ha d been taken to date to respond to its concerns, Australia 
request ed the establishment of a WTO panel to examine this matter with standard terms of 
reference.  Australia  value d China and Austra lia's strong economic and community ties and remain ed 
open to further discussions with China with a view to resolving the issues it had raised.  
4.5.  The representative of China  regretted that Australia had decided to request the establishment 
of a panel with regard to this dispute. China was  not in a position to support such a request  at the 
present meeting . China maintain ed its domestic anti -dumping and countervailing regime in line with 
relevant WTO rules. Specifically , in this dispute, the Chinese Inve stigating Authority , by adhering to 
its legal mandate , had conducted a transparent, thorough , and fair investigation in relation to the 
imports concerned from Australia. It finally determined the existence of dumping and subsidies and 
found th ose trade dis tortions had caused material injury to its domestic industry. As a necessary 
remedial step, certain anti -dumping and countervailing measures ha d been duly imposed by the 
Chinese Investigating Authority. Both during and after the consultation s, China engage d with 
Australia in good faith and provided upon request information with respect to the challenged 
measures. China  recalled that both sides agreed th at consultation s were constructive. Given the 
overall circumstance s, China believe d it was still premature to establish a panel in this dispute.  China 
was willing to continue engagement with Australia.   
4.6.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter, s hould a requesting 
Member wish to do so . 
5  EUROPEAN  UNION  AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING 
PALM OIL AND OIL PALM CROP -BASED BIOFUELS  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Malaysia (WT/DS600/6)  
5.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Malaysia contained in document 
WT/DS600/6 and invite d the representative of Malaysia to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of Malaysia  said that, on 15 January 2021, Malaysia requested consultations 
with the E uropean Union, as we ll as France and Lithuania, pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, 
Article  XXII of the GATT 1994, Article 14.1 of the TBT Agreement and Article 30 of the SCM 
Agreement. This request was circulated on 19 January 2021 as document WT/DS600/1. The 
consultations had been held on 17 March 2021 with a view to reaching a mutually agreed solution. 
Regretfully, the consultations had failed to settle the dispute.  Pursuant to this development, Malaysia 
had sent a request on 15 April to the DSB Chair man, that a panel be esta blished pursuant to 
Articles  4.7 and  6 of the DSU regarding certain measures imposed by the European Union and certain 
European Union member States affecting palm oil and oil palm crop -based biofuel from Malaysia. 
Malaysia respectfully asked that the reque st be considered at the present DSB meeting. The 
representative of Malaysia also expressed his sincere appreciation for the outgoing Chairman's 
outstanding commitment as the DSB Chairman and welcomed the incoming Chairman.  
5.3.  The representative of the Europe an Union  noted  Malaysia's decision to request a WTO panel on 
certain measures  concerning palm oil and oil palm crop -based biofuels imposed by the European 
Union and certain  member States.  The European Union recall ed that it  had held constructive 
consultati ons with Malaysia on 17 March  2021. The European Union  had hope d that the consultations 
provided the necessary information and  clarifications.  Malaysia was of course entitled to bring this 
matter to dispute settlement in the WTO, but the  European Union fir mly believe d that the measures 
at stake were fully justified.  For th ose reasons, the European Union was confident that it w ould 
prevail in this dispute, and that its  actions w ould be declared in line with WTO law.  At the present 
meeting, the European Union was not ready to accept the establishment of a panel.  In parallel, t he 
European Union also st ood ready to discuss with Malaysia reciprocal interim arrangements that would  
preserve the availability of appeal revie w in this and other disputes , on the basis of Article 25 of the  
DSU, for as long as the Appellate Body was not functioning . A good example of such arrangement 
was the M ulti-Party Interim  Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA).  
5.4.  The DSB took note of the state ments and agree d to revert to this matter, should a requesting 
Member wish to do so . WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 13 - 
  6  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; A NGOLA ; 
ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA ; 
BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; CABO VERDE ; 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 ; 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 TERRITORY 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.1 9) 
6.1.  The Chairman  said that t his item  was on the Agenda of the present  meeting at the request of 
Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegations . The Chairman drew  attention to the proposal contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.19 and invite d the representative of Mexico to speak . 
6.2.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors  of the joint proposal  
contained  in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.19 , said that the delegations in question  had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal to launch the selection processes for the vacancies of the Appellate Body 
Members.  On behalf of  121 Members , Mexico wished to  make the following statement.  The extensive 
number of  Members submitting th e joint proposal reflect ed a common concern with the current 
situation in the Appellate Body that was seriously affecting the overall dispute settlement system , 
against the best interest of its Members . WTO Members ha d a responsibilit y 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 s ought  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 resulted from  the resignation of Mr. Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 1 August  2017; a 
third process to replace Mr. Peter Van den Bossche, whose second term 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 G raham 
whose second te rm 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 3 0 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 proponents were flexible with regard to  the deadlines 
for the selection processes, but  Members  should consider the urgency of the situation.  The 
proponents  continue d to urge all Members to support this proposal in the interest of the dispute 
settlement and multilateral trading systems .  
6.3.  The representative of the European Union  referred  to the previous statements  made by the EU  
on this matter . Since 11 December 2019, the WTO no longer guarantee d access to binding, two -tier, 
independent , and impartial resolution of trade disputes.  A fully functioning WTO dispute settlement 
system was critical 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. Addressing t his task was a prio rity. As the 
European Union had  consistently noted, WTO Members ha d a shared responsibility to resolve this 
issue as soon as possible, and to fill the outstanding vacancies as required by Article 17.2 of the 
DSU. The European Union agree d that meaningful reform was needed in order to achieve this 
objective. The European Union had  elaborated on this in the recent Trade Policy Review 
communication by the European Commission.  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 ha d 
co-sponsored the proposal to launch the appointment processes.  WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 14 - 
  6.4.  The representativ e of Mauritius , speaking  on behalf of the African  Group , said that t he African 
Group wished  to refer to its previous statements made on this issue. The African Group wished to  
join others in thanking the delegation of Mexico for their statement on the prop osal for the Appellate 
Body appointments. The African Group continue d to regret that , up until now, the DSB ha d failed to 
fill the vacancies of the Appellate Body. The African Group therefore urge d the DSB to fulfil its 
obligation under the DSU and urgentl y fill the vacancies as contained in th e proposal for 
appointments , so that Members  maintain ed the two -tier dispute settlement system and in so doing 
ensure d predictability and that the WTO remain ed the cornerstone of a rules -based, multilateral 
trading system.  
6.5.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada support ed the statement made by Mexico and 
share d the concerns expressed by other Members at the present meeting . Canada  invited WTO 
Members that ha d not yet sponsored the proposal to consider joining the 121 Members calling for 
the launch of the selection process.  The critical mass of WTO Members behind th e proposal was a 
clear testimony  of the importance that all Members  accord ed to a fully functioning Appellate Body 
as an integral part of the dispute settlement system.  The fact that the Appellate Body could not hear 
new cases was of great concern. Canada reiterate d that it was fully committed to solution -oriented 
discussions on matters related to the functioning of the Appellate Body and encourage d the United 
States to constructively engage in those discussions. Canada's  priority remain ed finding a 
long-lasting multilateral resolution to the impasse , that cover ed all Members, including the United 
States.  In the meantime, Canada and 24 other WTO Members ha d endorsed the MPIA as a 
contingency measure to safeguard their rights to binding two -stage dispute settlement in disputes 
amongst themselves. The MPIA was open to all WTO Members. Canada  invite d all WTO Members to 
consider joining the MPIA to safeguard their dispute settlement rights to the greatest extent possible , 
until Members  collectively f ound a permanent solution to the Appellate Body impasse. Canada 
remain ed available to discuss the MPIA with any interested Member.  
6.6.  The representative of India referred to India's statements made on this matter  at previous DSB 
meetings . India strongly believe d in access to binding, two -tier, independent , and impartial 
resolution of trade disputes.  India therefore request ed all WTO Members to resolve this matter and 
work on filling the outstanding vacancies as set out in Article 17.2 of the DSU.  
6.7.  The representative of Indonesia  referred to Indonesia's  statements made at previous DSB 
meetings with regard to this Agenda  item. Indonesia was concerned  that Members  remain ed in a 
long-standing discussion on the launch of the Appellate Body members selection  process es, which 
had yet to reach a succ essful outcome. Notwithstanding the fact that the current condition has 
adversely impacted the interests of the majority of WTO Members in bringing predictability to global 
trade,  Members  had yet to agree on  a solution to the  crisis. Given the situation, i t should be an 
utmost priority for Members  to solve this perturbing unsolved crisis.  While offering Indonesia 's 
long-standing commitment to constructively engage and contribute to solv ing this issue, Indonesia  
again urge d all Members to give their serious attention, willingness, and commitment to the 
immediate appointment of the Appellate Body members.  
6.8.  The representative of China  said that China wished to echo the statement made  by Mexico on 
behalf of the 121 co-sponsors  and call ed upon others to join th e proposal. China  referred to its 
previous statements on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm support to preserve a two -tier 
independent and impartial dispute settlement system. In line with  Article s 17.1 and 17.2 of the DSU, 
the DSB , comprised of all Members , "shall" establish and maintain a standing Appellate B ody. 
Nothing could be used as a pretext to negate or ignore th at unconditional legal obligation. As cases 
were still piling up, the continued paralysis was driving the w hole dispute settlement system into 
increasing uncertainty , which was contrary to the interests of the entire  Membership.  Time was of 
the essence . Restoring the functioning of the dispute settlement system with a reformed Appellate 
Body should remain the top priority . China  called on all Members to engage constructively in 
solution -based consultation s with a view to launching  the selection process  at the earliest possible 
date. 
6.9.  The representative of Korea  noted  that many Members ha d consistently voiced their concerns 
over the impasse of the Appellate Body and the urgent need  to revive the two -tier dispute settlement 
system. Korea fully support ed the statement made by Mexico, on behalf of the co -sponsors of the 
proposal  and urge d all Members to engage constructively in discussions to resolve this important  
matter  as soon as possible.  WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 15 - 
  6.10.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that his delegation wished to join other Members 
who had support ed the need to start the Appellate Body  selection  processes  as soon as  possible  in 
order  to restore the Appellate Body.  
6.11.   The representative of New Zealand  reiterate d New Zealand's  support for the co -sponsored 
proposal and refer red to the previous statements  made on this matter.  New Zealand  continue d to 
urge all Members to engage, constructively, on the issues with a view to addressing this situation as 
a priority. The time was ripe to refocus Members'  collective effort s on finding a solution that work ed 
for all Members.  
6.12.   The representative of Thailand  said that  Thailand support ed the statement made by Mexico 
on behalf of the co -sponsors. Thailand, like other co -sponsors, ha d strongly  advocated for a solution 
to the Appellate Body impasse.  Thailand noted that Members  continued to file appeals  before the 
Appellate Body,  which  demonst rated the importance of the two -tiered dispute settlement system. 
Thailand urged Members to double their efforts to find way s and means to solve the Appellate Body 
impasse. The goal was to promptly bring back the full functioning of the Appellate Body. Thailand 
stood ready to engage in constructive dialogue with Members on those efforts.  
6.13.   The representative of Norway  thank ed Mexico for  its leadership in relation to this Agenda 
item. Norway  wished to be fully associate d with the Mexican statement  and refer red to its previous 
statements on this matter . Norway  noted that the United States, had appea led the panel report in 
the DS539  dispute before the 19 March special DSB meeting. Therefore,  Norway  expect ed the United 
States to engage constructively in order to unblock the appointment of Appellate Body members  so 
as to settle this and other disputes, in line with the objectives of the multilateral trading system.   
6.14.   The representative of Switzerland  wished to refer to Switzerland's  statements  made at 
previous DSB meetings.  Switzerland's  determination to resolve the current gridlock remain ed strong 
and it urged all Members to commit to working in a constructive manner to find solutions.  Switzerland  
hoped that renewed collective impetus c ould be provided rapidly to alleviate the present impasse . 
Switzerland's  priority continue d to be to ensure that the Appellate Body  once again b ecame 
functional for the benefit of all. Switzerland was ready to work with all Members to achieve this goal.  
Switzerla nd thank ed the outgoing Chairman  for his leadership and commitment to the DSB.  
6.15.   The representative of Japan  wished to refer to Japan's  statements made at previous DSB 
meetings. Japan support ed the proposal.  Japan completely share d the sense of urgency with other 
WTO Members, towards an expeditious reform of the dispute settlement system of the WTO. Japan's  
top priority was to reform the dispute settlement system in a manner that would serve to achieve a 
long-lasting solution to the Appellate Body matters. To that end, Japan consider ed it essential that 
Members, as the owners of the dispute settlement system, participat e actively in the discussions on 
reform s of the dispute settlement system, and seriously considered the current  situation, in which  
the Appellate Body ha d been virtually non -operational  while more and more cases were being 
appealed into "the void ". Japan spare d no efforts to collaborate with other WTO Members on reform 
of the dispute settlement system.  
6.16.   The representativ e of the United Kingdom  said that the United Kingdom continue d its support 
for the proposal for the launch of the AB selection processes. The United Kingdom support ed a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system as the best means of enforcing the rules Members  had 
negotiated. The WTO dispute settlement system was vital in upholding the rights of Members , 
ensuring the fair resolution of disagreements , and preventing re course to unilateral measures. The 
United Kingdom  welcomed the call of the Director -General, in her remarks made at the General 
Council  meeting  last month  for a road map towards reform and a work programme to achieve this , 
which c ould be endorsed at th e 12th Ministerial Conference. The United Kingdom st ood ready to 
engage with all Members in the important discussions to come, to find common ground and solutions 
on dispute settlement reform.  
6.17.   The representative of Brazil  thank ed Mexico for presenting the prop osal on behalf of the 
co-sponsors. Brazil  referred to its previous statements made under this Agenda item. Brazil st ood 
ready to engage with all Members to discuss a multilateral, long -term solution to the current 
impasse.  WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 16 - 
  6.18.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States was not in a position to 
support the proposed decision.  The United States continue d to have systemic concerns with the 
Appellate Body.  As Members kn ew, the United States ha d raised and explained its systemic concerns 
for more than 16 years and across multiple US Administrations.  The United States  looked forward 
to further discussions wit h Members on those concerns .  
6.19.   The representative of  the Russia n Federation  thanked Mexico for  its statement made on behalf 
of the co -sponsors and refer red to the previous statements made by Russia with respect to the issue 
of appointment of Appellate Body members, its critical state , and the negative consequences for the 
dispute settlement mechanism and the multilateral trading system.  The Russian Federation 
reiterate d its commitment to engage in constructive dialogue with all WTO Members tow ards 
resolution of the crisis and restoration of an effectively functioning Appellate Body. Russia 's top  
priority was to launch the appointment of the Appellate Body members as soon as possible.  
6.20.   The representative of Singapore  thanked  Mexico for its state ment, which Singapore  
support ed. Singapore  referred to its past statements and reiterate d its strong systemic interest in 
maintaining  the two -tier binding WTO dispute settlement mechanism that was underpinned by 
negative consensus. Embarking on the Appellate Body selection process had to remain the 
paramount priority for all Members. Singapore  urged all Members, including the United States, to 
constructively engage in finding a lasting multilatera l solution.  
6.21.   The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 121 co -sponsors, regret ted that for 
the forty -first occasion, Members  had still not been able to start the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body , and ha d thus continu ously failed to fulfill their duty as Members of 
the WTO . The fact that a Member may have had concerns about certain aspects of the functioning 
of the Appellate Body c ould not serve as a pretext to impair and disrupt the work of th e DSB  and 
dispute settlem ent in general. There was no legal justification for the current  blocking  of the selection 
processes, which caused  concrete nullification and impairment for many Members. As Article 17.2 
of the DSU clearly state d, "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 with deep concern that , by failing to act at the present 
meeting , the Appellate Body w ould continue to be unable to perform its functions , against the best 
interest s of all Members.   
6.22.   The representative of Mexico  said that her country wished to refer to its previous statements  
made on this matter for the past  two years. Mexic o express ed its deep concern about th e 
unprecedented situation with a non -existent Appellate Body. All ongoing disputes were affected by 
not having a fully functioning dispute settlement system . This undermine d the right of all Members 
to have a two -tier dispute settlement system and put at risk prompt compliance with panel reports . 
That was why Mexico  urgently encourage d Members who ha d yet to do so to support the proposal . 
Mexico remain ed ready to work constru ctively on concrete proposals to try and find a solution. 
Mexico also took the opportunity to thank the outgoing Chair man for his work steering th e DSB, and 
to welcome the incoming Chair man. 
6.23.   The Chairman  thank ed all delegations for their statements  and sai d that as in the past, the 
DSB w ould take note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which w ould be reflected 
in the minutes of th e meeting. As Members were  all aware, this matter require d a political 
engagement on the part of all WTO Memb ers and the Chairman  hoped that Members w ould be able 
to find a solution to this matter as soon as possible.  
6.24.   The DSB took note  of the statements . WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 17 - 
  7  STATEMENT BY INDONESIA REGARDING  THE DISPUTE ON : "AUSTRALIA – 
ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON A4 COPY PAPER": IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE  DSB 
7.1.  The Chairman  recalled that as stated at the outset of the meeting, before proceeding to the 
item regarding the election of the new Chair man, he would first take up the item under "Other 
Business" . He then invited Indonesia to make a statement.  
7.2.  The representative of Indonesia , speaking under "Other Business",  express ed Indonesia's  
appreciation to Australia for its effort s in implementing the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in 
the DS529  dispute.  Indonesia underst ood that the Minister ha d affirmed the decision to revoke the 
anti-dumping duties for A4 copy paper in this dispute. Indonesia welcome d Australia 's confirmation 
of its understanding.  Indonesia further thank ed Australia for its  effort s and cooperation in resolving 
this dispute.  
7.3.  The Chairman  said that he wished to inform delegations that the delegation of Australia was 
unable to connect virtually to the  present  meeting and requested that its  statement be delivered by 
the Secretariat on behalf of Australia under this Agenda item. He then requested the Secretariat to 
read out the statement on behalf of Australia.  
7.4.  As requested by the Chairman, the representative of the Secretariat read out the following 
statement on behalf of the delegation of Australia: Australia  thank ed Indonesia for its intervention . 
Australia  again confirm ed that the anti -dumping measures at issue in this dispute were revoked on 
11 September 2020, and that this brought Australia into full compliance with the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB.  Australia  also again confirm ed that the Minister had affirmed the revocation 
of those measures on 16 February, following completion of an administrative review process.  
Australia  welcome d Indonesia 's statement made  at the present meeting  and trust ed that this matter 
was now resolved.  
7.5.  The DSB took note of the statements.  
8  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  
8.1.  The outgoing  Chair man said that, b efore proceeding with the election of the new Chair , he 
would like to make a short statement. First, he thank ed all Members for their cooperation and 
support during his term as Chairman of the DSB. He said that this  had been an unprecedented and 
challenging time . All Members had  had to adjust and invent new ways of working , including  meeting 
virtually. In addition,  the DSB  had to face a very difficult situation related to the Appellate Body 
impasse.  He said that w hen he assumed  his Chairmanship in May 2020, he had had to immediately 
deal with several outstanding  issues, including the DS371 dispute , Thailand – Custom s and Fiscal 
Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines , which was now in the hands of Ambassador George 
Mina as  Facilitator. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the 18 December 2020 Understanding 
between the Philippines and Thailand regarding this matter  (WT/DS371/44) , the Facilitator had 
circulated his report on progress made on 31 March 2021 (WT/DS371/45) , and in that report he 
recommended the continuation of the process up to 31 July 2021. The outgoing Chairman  thank ed 
Ambassador Mina for undertaking this important task. The outgoing Chairman also  recall ed that in 
2020 in light of the current impasse of the Appellate Body, a group of delegations had created the 
Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement Pursuant to Article 25 of the DSU ( MPIA) and 
had nominated  10 Arbitrators. This was an alternative arrangement while the issue of the Appellate 
Body remain ed unresolved. He noted that a  proposal to start the Appellate Body processes continue d 
to be brought to the DSB every month by the delegation  of Mexico on behalf of 121 co -sponsors. He 
said that he had  sincerely hope d that Members w ould be able to come to an agreement on this 
matter in the near future. He also thank ed the delegations  who had a greed  prior to the Agenda of 
the present meeting  that the Chair of the DSB consult with each interested party regarding one 
pending issue in relation to the DS574 dispute so that the DSB could move forward  with the rest of 
the Agenda items.  He also wished to thank the Secretariat for their support , in parti cular 
Ms B. Mueller -Holyst , the Secretary of the DSB,  for being ther e constantly and for coming up with 
immediate solutions  to the issues at hand.  He also thanked  Ms G. Marceau  with whom he had had 
the privilege of working  even before he took over the Chairmanship of the DSB. He wished to thank 
her for the support towards  proposals  to resolve Appellate Body crisis and ideas regarding  specific 
cases , which now had brought tangible results to the benefit of the dispute settlement system . He WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 18 - 
  also thanked the interpreters  and Interprefy  colleagues who ha d done everything possible to ensure 
that virtual  DSB meeting s had been conducted  in a smooth  fashion.   
8.2.  Finally, the outgoing Chairman  recalled that, at its meeting on 4 March 2021, the General 
Council had taken note of a consensus on a slate of names for Chairpersons to a number of WTO 
bodies , including the DSB. On the basis of the understanding reached by the General Council, he 
propose d that the DSB elect, by acclamation , Ambassador Didier Chambovey of Switzerland as 
Chairman of th e DSB .  
8.3.  The DSB  took note  of the statement and so agreed .  
8.4.  The incoming Chairman  thank ed Members for the ir trust that they ha d placed in him by 
appointing him as Chair man of the DSB. He was  conscious of the responsibility that now f ell upon 
him and he said that he would do his best to carry out his new mandate to the satisfaction of 
Members. He intend ed to engage with Members  and work in an open and constructiv e spirit to ensure 
the proper functioning of this important WTO body.  He said that h e had  dedicated a large part  of his 
career to international trade cooperation, with a particular focus on the GATT and WTO matters.  
Taking over the Chairmanship  of the DSB was a continuation of his long-standing commi tment to 
the multilateral trading system.  He noted that t he outgoing Chairman had already mentioned that 
there were a number of outstanding  challenges.  He said that he would do his utmost to try to meet 
those challenges.  He had had the opportunity to familiarize himself  with the WTO dispute settlement 
procedu res by serving as a pane list in a complex case covering all stages of proceedings. He hoped 
that this experience w ould serve him well as Chair man of the DSB. He sincerely thank ed the outgoing 
Chair man, Ambassador Dacio Castillo, who ha d skilfully guided the work of the DSB over the p revious  
year. He was sure that Members had all highly appreciated his leadership and his services to the 
Organization. Ambassador Castillo had served until now  as Chair man of both the DSB and the 
General Council. Wearing th ose two hats certainly suited him very well. He would now be able to 
fully devote himself to the highest function of the WTO  and he wished him every success in his new 
role as Chairman of the General Council.  
8.5.  The representative of Canada  thank ed Ambassador Castillo for his work chairing this important 
body in tumultuous times over the previous  year. Canada  wished him all the best in his new role as 
Chair of the General Council.  Canada congratulate d Ambassador Chambovey on his new role as Chair 
of the D SB and look ed forward to working with  him and the other Members.  
8.6.  The representative of the European Union  thank ed the outgoing Chair man for his work . He also 
wished him success with the upcoming Ministerial Conference . The European Union  warmly 
welcome d the new Chair  of the DSB.  The European Union  wished him well in this important and 
challenging role. In th ose diffi cult times, it was all the more important that the DSB continue d to 
properly exercise its functions as envisaged by the DSU. The European Union  trusted in the new 
Chair man's  commitment to ensuring that . The new Chair could count on the full support of the 
European Union in that regard.  
8.7.  The representative of  the Russia n Federation  thank ed Ambassador  Dacio Castillo for his hard 
work and his valuable contribution as the DSB Chair man. The Russian Federation  said that u nder 
Ambassador  Castillo 's leadership, the DSB had managed to effectively launch virtual meetings, so 
that the work of the DSB had continued without disruption during the challenging times of the 
pandemic. The Russian Federation congratulate d Ambassador Castillo on his new role as the 
Chair man of the General Council and wishe d him the very best of luck.  The Russian Federation also 
congratulate d Ambassador  Didier Chambovey on his election as the new DSB Chair man and wishe d 
him great success in th at new role. The Russian Federation b elieve d that he would be an excellent 
Chair man and extend ed its commitment to cooperate and fully support him during difficult times for 
the WTO dispute settlement system.  
8.8.  The representative of China  thank ed Ambassador Castillo for his leadership and contributions  
in steering the DSB during the previous  year. China  wished him all the best in his new role as the 
Chair man of the General Council,  which would be particularly challenging considering the upcoming 
MC12, a crucial event for the future  of the multilateral trading system. China said that he could 
continue to count on China's  firm support and active engagement. China  also warmly congratulate d 
Ambassador Chambovey on his appointment  as the new DSB Chair. Like many others, China 
attache d great importance to the well -functioning of the dispute settlement system and the WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 19 - 
  rules-based multilateral trading system . China would work closely with him and make contributions 
to further strengthen the  system  under his able leadership .  
8.9.  The representative of Korea  thank ed Ambassador Castillo for his dedication and contribution to 
the work of the DSB under these very difficult circumstances  imposed by the pandemic. Korea  wished 
him every success in his role as the Chair of the General Council, especially in light of the MC12 to 
be held by the end of 2021.  Korea  also wish ed every success to Ambassador Chambovey in his new 
role as the Chair man of the DSB. Korea st ood ready to full y support him in his new endeavo ur and 
remain ed committed to making contributions to reviving the two -tier dispute settlement system.  
8.10.   The representative of Peru said that, like the previous speakers , Peru wished to congratulate  
Ambassador Chambovey  on becoming the Chairman of the DSB. He could fully count on the support 
of Peru in rising to the important challenges fac ed by  the dispute settlement system . Peru als o join ed 
others in extending thanks to Ambassador Castillo for his work in prot ecting the smooth functioning 
of the DSB and wished  him every success as the Chairman of the General Council.  
8.11.   The representative of Brazil  thank ed Ambassador Castillo for all his work as the DSB 
Chair man, which was crucial to the maintenance of the work o f the DSB  during difficult times. Brazil 
congratulated  Ambassador Chambovey  on his new role as the Chair man of the DSB. Brazil stood  
ready to work with him to help to ensure that the DSB  could function as smoothly as possible.  
8.12.   The representative of India joined other delegations in expressing India's thanks to 
Ambassador Dacio Castillo for skilfully  handling this important responsibility over the p revious  year 
and wish ed him all the best for his future assignment. India congratulate d the incoming Cha irman , 
Ambassador Didier Chambovey and welcome d him  to this new and difficult role.  India had full 
confidence that he would  be able to fulfil  his responsibilities with skill s and flair and look ed forward 
to working with him. 
8.13.   The representative of Singapore  expressed Singapore's  sincere appreciation and thanks to 
Ambassador Castillo for his contributions as the DSB Chair and wish ed him every success as 
Chair man of the General Council. Singapore also warmly welcome d Ambassador Chambovey as the 
current DSB Chair and look ed forward to working with him and supporting him in that role. 
8.14.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States congratulated Ambassador 
Chambovey on his election, and welcomed him as he assumed the Chairmanship of the DSB. The 
United States very much looked forward to working with him over the coming year. The United 
States also thanked Ambassador Castillo for his many contribut ions to the work of the DSB during 
the previous year. The United States wished him well as he embarked on the Chairmanship of the 
General Council . 
8.15.   The representative of the Philippines  said that his country welcome d the new Chair man of the 
DSB and look ed forward to cooperat ing and collaborat ing with him in preserving the two -tier system 
of the dispute settlement system of the WTO. The Philippines also thank ed the outgoing  Chairman 
and the General Council Chairman , Ambassador Dacio Castillo , for his efforts throughout the 
previous  year in helping to move the DSB forward despite the AB crisis. The Philippines was grateful 
for his work on facilitating  consultations in the Philippines -Thailand DS371  dispute  and his guidance 
on moving for a facilitat or-led process regarding  this matter. The Philippines  hoped to be able to 
work with the incoming Chairman  on concluding this matter successfully.  
8.16.   The representative of Japan  extend ed Japan's  deepest thanks to Ambassador Castillo and 
wished him all the best in his new role as the General Council Chair man. Japan welcome d 
Ambassador Chambovey as the new DSB Chair man and  wished to work closely with him.  
8.17.   The representative of the United Kingdom  said that the United Kingdom wished to  thank 
Ambassador Castillo for his work and commitment as the Chair man of the DSB a nd wish ed him every 
success in his ne w role. The United Kingdom also welcome d the new Chair man of the DSB and  looked 
forward to working with him over the  coming year.  WT/DSB/M/4 51 
- 20 - 
  8.18.   The representative of Thailand  express ed Thailand's  appreciation  to the outgoing DSB 
Chairman, Amb assador  Castillo , for his leadership and contribution towards  addressing  
unprecedented challenges. Thailand  welcome d the new DSB Chair man, Amb assador  Chambovey  and 
stood ready to work with him during his tenure.  
8.19.   The representative of New Zealand  expressed  New Zealand's  sincerest thanks to Ambassador 
Castillo for his work and congratulate d and welcome d Ambassador Chambovey as the  incoming 
Chair man of the DSB. New Zealand  wished them both every success for the year ahead.  
8.20.   The representative of Indonesia  express ed Indonesi a's appreciation to Ambassador Dacio 
Castillo for his exceptional leadership, contribution, and tireless work in guiding the DSB over the 
previous  year. Indonesia wished him all the best for his new role as the Chairman of the General 
Council.  Indonesia al so congratulate d and welcome d Ambassador Chambovey in his new role as the 
DSB Chair man. Despite the ongoing challenges surrounding the dispute settlement system, 
Indonesia was  more than ready to support the Chair man's  work. 
8.21.   The incoming Chairman  thanked Members for their words of support . He said that he 
appreciate d Members ' willingness  to work constructively and to address the current challenges  faced 
by the dispute settlement system.  He then invited  the outgoing Chair man to speak.  
8.22.   The outgoing Chairman  thanked delegations for their kind words. He said that he had know n 
Ambassador Chambovey  for many years and had worked with him  for the benefit of the multilateral 
trading system. Everybody kn ew Ambassador Chambovey's  career and how profe ssional he was. He 
was sure that Ambassador Chambovey  would put all his  experience towards finding solutions to the 
problems face d in the WTO. Members  had a difficult year ahead and  must try to find the best 
solutions  to the current problems  in order  to mo ve forwar d. Finally, he  said that it had been a great 
honour to be the  Chairman of the DSB over the past year.   
8.23.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
__________