RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/45 4 
16 September  2021 
(21-6876) Page: 1/16 
Dispute Settlement Body  
26 July 2021   
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 26 JULY 20211 
Chairman : H.E.  Mr Didier  Chambovey  (Switzerland ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcome d all delegations participating in the 
meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) both in -person and remotely. He first  recall ed a few 
technical instructions regarding the virtual participation of delegations. He said that i f a Member was 
unable to take t he floor during the meeting because of a technical issue, the delegation c ould inform 
himself or the Secretariat and that Agenda item would remain open until the delegation c ould take 
the floor. Hopefully any technical issue would be quickly resolved. In t he alternative, the item would 
remain open temporarily, the meeting would proceed to the next Agenda item, and the DSB would 
revert to the open item after the technical issue ha d been resolved. If a technical issue remain ed 
unresolved, the delegation ha d the option to send the statement to the Secretariat with the request 
that it be read out by the Secretariat on behalf of that delegation during the meeting so that the 
statement could be reflected in the minutes of the meetin g; (ii) the Chairman  made a shor t 
statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of the 28 April DSB meeting pertaining to the 
DS574 dispute. He said that as Members  recall ed, this matter had been  removed from the proposed 
Agenda to allow time for the Chair man's consultations with eac h interested party regarding this 
Agenda item. At the present meeting , the Chairman  inform ed delegations that he continued to 
consult with each interested party on this matter and that th ose consultations were ongoing ; (iii) the 
representative of the United States  noted that item 5 of the proposed Agenda, regarding recourse 
to Article 22.2 of the DSU by the United States, may be removed from the Agenda pursuant to 
China's objection to that request, referring the matter to arbitration. On 15  July 2021, the U nited 
States had requested DSB authorization to take countermeasures in relation to the dispute: 
"China - Tariff Rate Quotas for Certain Agricultural Products"  (DS517). On 23  July, China had 
objected to the level of concessions and related obligations proposed by the United States, 
automatically referring the matter to arbitration under Article 22.6. As the DSB may not take action 
on the US request and the matter had been referred to arbitration, and as previously agreed with 
China, the Unit ed States no longer considered that the item need be considered at the present 
meeting . The representative of China  said that China took note of the request of the United States 
to remove item 5 from the Agenda. China wished to make it clear that it object ed to the level of 
suspension of concessions or other obligations proposed by the United States, and disagree d with 
the US allegation that China ha d failed to bring its measures into compliance with its WTO 
obligations. Details would be provided under item  6 at the present meeting . China maintain ed that 
any disagreement on the consistency of its measures taken to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings had to  be resolved in proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU before 
any level of suspension o f concessions or other obligations c ould be assessed under Article 22 of the 
DSU; and (iv) the Chairman  inform ed Members  that, under "Other Business", in accordance with 
paragraph 5 of the 21  December 2020 Understanding between the Philippines and Thailand on the 
DS371 Facilitator -Assisted discussions contained in document WT/DS371/44, and subsequent report 
of the Facilitat or contained in document WT/DS371/45, dated 31 March 2021, Ambassador George 
Mina of Australia, the Facilitator in the DS371 dispute, w ould make a short report on progress in this 
dispute.  
  
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agenda, as am ended.  
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/45 4 
- 2 - 
  Table of Contents  
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  3 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ .............  3 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  4 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Union ................................ ................................ ....... 4 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ ..........................  5 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ...............  6 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status 
report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  6 
2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ..........................  7 
A. Statement by the European Union  ................................ ................................ .....................  7 
3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES 
AFFECTING TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ........................  8 
4  CHINA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMP ORTATION OF CANOLA SEEDS 
FROM CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  9 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada  ................................ ............................  9 
5  CHINA – TARIFF RATE QUOTAS FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  ................  10 
A. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by China: Request for the establishment of a panel  ........  10 
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; C HAD; 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, KIN MEN 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)  ................................ ................................ ............................  12 
7  REPORT BY THE FACILITATOR ON PROGRESS IN THE FACILITATOR -ASSISTED 
DISCUSSIONS IN THE DS371 DISPUTE  ................................ ................................ ..........  16 
 
 
 WT/DSB/M/45 4 
- 3 - 
  1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan : Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 17) 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.192) 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.155) 
D. United States – Anti-dumpi ng and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/A dd.39) 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their a pplication to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/A dd.31) 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.26 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.26) 
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  recall ed, 
Article  21.6 requires that : "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the i ssue is resolved ." Under this Agenda item, he wished to  invite delegations to 
provide up -to-date information about their compliance efforts . He also wished  to remind delegations 
that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings : "Representatives should 
make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has 
already been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in 
Members' positions already on record. " 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 17) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.21 7, which contained 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 States  said that the United States had provided a  status report 
in this dispute on 15 July 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 d uty 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 U S Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter.  
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thank ed the United States for its latest status 
report and statement at the present meeting . Japan once again call ed on the United States to fully 
implement the DSB recommendations and rulings so as to resolve th is matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/45 4 
- 4 - 
  B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.1 92) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.19 2, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act . 
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States  had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 15 July 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 t o 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 at the present meeting . The European Union  referred to its previous statements. The 
European Union  wished to resolve this case 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 mar keting of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 55) 
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.15 5, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.   The representative of the European Union  said that t he Standing Committee meeting was held 
online on 17 May 2021. The Commission presented three autho risation s and one renewal 
authorisation. The Standing Committee did not reach an opinion. The Commission presented the 
four authorisation decisions at the online meeting of the Appeal Committee on 6 July, resulting in a 
"no opinion " vote. It was subsequent ly for the Commission to decide on th ose authorisations. In 
addition, a Standing Committee meeting was held online on 8 June 2021, where the Commission 
presented one authorisation and one renewal authorisation. The Standing Committee did not reach 
an opini on. The two draft decisions w ould be submitted to the Appeal Committee on 22 July 2021 
where a vote w ould be taken by written procedure. The United States frequently refer red to member 
States ' justifications issued during the meetings of the Standing Commi ttee and Appeal Committee 
as being "political " and "not science -based ". The E uropean Union wished  to stress that the 
comitology procedure (including when measures were referred to the Appeal Committee) was an 
intrinsic and important part of the E uropean Union's decision -making process, and its application 
was not limited to the authorisation procedure of GMOs. In addition, the E uropean Union wished  to 
underline that the final decision taken on the authorisation was clearly science -based as those GMOs 
were authorised where the European Food Safety Authority  (EFSA)  had finalised its scientific opinion 
and concluded that there were no safety concerns. Efforts to reduce delays in authorisation 
procedures were constantly maintained at a high level at all stages of the authorisation procedure. 
It was worth noting , however , that when applicants d id not act expeditiously in certain applications, 
this ha d a knock-on effect on the overall average time needed for risk assessment. It was important 
to recognise the increased transparency in the EFSA 's scientific assessment of GMOs, resulting from 
the new Transparency Regulation2, which should help to reinforce tr ust in the safety of the authorised 
GMOs. The E uropean Union  acted in line with its WTO obligations . The European Union  recall ed that 
the EU approval system was not covered by the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
1.12.   The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement at the present meeting. The European Union continued to impose undue delays on the 
approval of biotech products. The United States had described these problems in detail, at nearly 
every mon thly meeting of the DSB since the European Union began submitting status reports more 
than thirteen years ago. The United States had also discussed these concerns in the recent EU -US 
 
2 Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the 
transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain and amending Regulations (EC) 
No 178/2002, (EC) No 1829/2003, (EC) No 1831/2003, (EC ) No 2065/2003, (EC) No 1935/2004, (EC) 
No 1331/2008, (EC) No 1107/2009, (EU) 2015/2283 and Directive 2001/18/EC (OJ L 231, 6.9.2019, p. 1 -28). WT/DSB/M/45 4 
- 5 - 
  Biotechnology Consultations on Friday 18  June 2021, a venue intended to n ormalize trade in biotech 
products. The United States continued to engage in good faith in those Consultations, and had 
provided recommendations on several occasions as to how the European Union could address the 
undue delays in its approval procedures. While the United States appreciated the European Union's 
comments in the June DSB meeting regarding the intent of its new Transparency Regulation, the 
United States failed to see how raising that initiative addressed the undue delays within the European 
Union's approval process. The United States also believed it was inaccurate to imply that the delays 
in the European Union's approval process were unrelated to the DSB's findings. To date, there were 
still approximately fifteen products for which the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had 
successfully completed a risk assessment. Four of those products had been under evaluation since 
at least 2008. Despite receiving positive opinions in EFSA's risk assessment process, all of those 
products remained stalled i n the European Union's comitology process and had not received final 
approval. Thus, the United States asked the European Union for further information. When would 
the European Union move to issue final approvals for all products that had completed science -based 
risk assessments at EFSA, including those products that were with the Standing Committee and 
Appeals Committee? And on what date could the United States expect the College of Commissioners 
to vote on those products ? 
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  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/DS464/17/Add.3 9) 
1.14.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add.3 9, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea . 
1.15.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 15 July 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  On 6 May 2019, 
the US Department of Commerce  published a notice in the U.S. Federal Register announcing the 
revocation 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 th at 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 challenged in this dispute.  
1.16.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement at the present meeting . Korea wished to  put on record its repeated request for 
the United States to take prompt and appropriate steps to implement  the DSB recommendations for 
the "as such " measures 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  had also ignored  the DSB's  
recommendation  that the United 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 WTO-inconsistent  methodology.  The reasonable  period  of time to implement  
the recommendations  relating  to the "as such"  WTO-inconsistency  of the DPM expired  more than 
three  years  prior.  However,  in its most recent  status  report,  the United  States  stated  that it continued  
to consult  with interested  parties . Moreover,  the continued  use by the United  States  of the DPM had 
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  about  the continued  US failure  to comply  with the DSB's  recommendations  and 
rulings  in this dispute . That failure  seriously  undermine d the security  and stability  of the multilateral  
trading  system . 
1.18.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/45 4 
- 6 - 
  E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 31) 
1.19.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add.3 1, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in th e 
case concerning certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China . 
1.20.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 15 July 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 representa tive of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its latest status 
report. However, China  wished  to register once again its deep disappointment and strong concern 
on the U nited States'  persistent failure to implement the adopted rulings and reco mmendations in 
this dispute, almost 3 years after the expiry of the reasonable period of time. China  urged the United 
States to honor its obligation in line with Article 21.1 of the DSU by coming into  full compliance in 
this dispute without further delay.  
1.22.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 26 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 26) 
1.23.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add.2 6 – WT/DS478/22/Add.2 6, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning the importation of horticultural products, an imals and 
animal products . 
1.24.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia submit ted this report pursuant to 
Article  21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia wished  to reiterate its commitment to implementing the 
recommendations and ruling of the DSB in these disputes. With regard to  measure 18, as reported 
in previous DSB meetings, Indonesia ha d removed the existence of all Articles in the relevant Laws 
that were fo und to be inconsistent with WTO rules through the enactment of Law No.  11/2020 on 
Job Creation. With respect to measure s 1-17, Indonesia wished  to reassure that significant 
adjustment s with the purpose to be consistent with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB 
had been caried out through amendments of the relevant M inistry of Agriculture and M inistry of 
Trade  Regulations . Those adjustments also include d the removal of disputed measures, inter alia ; 
harvest period restriction s; import realization requi rements ; six-months harvest requirement ; and 
reference price. Indonesia was  commit ted to engaging with New Zealand and the United States and 
reaffirm ed its commitment to implementing the  recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these 
disputes.  
1.25.   The represe ntative of the United States  thanked Indonesia for its overview the previous month 
of the adjustments it had made to the laws and regulations that were the subject of the DSB's 
recommendation. The United States was reviewing Indonesia's new laws and regulations in light of 
Indonesia's statements last month and in its status report of 15  July. It seemed, however, that 
Indonesia was presently in the process of issuing new regulations implementing Law No.  11/2020 
on Job Creation that would affect Indones ia's import licensing regimes. In particular, the United 
States understood that Indonesia was developing a Presidential Regulation on Commodity Balances, 
as well as new Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Trade regulations. He said that the United 
States would appreciate further clarity on which regulations presently comprised Indonesia's import 
licensing regimes and on forthcoming regulations that would affect those regimes. To that end, the 
United States would engage bilaterally with Indonesia with it s questions in order to enable the United 
States to better understand Indonesia's efforts to implement the DSB's recommendations. 
The United States remained willing to work with Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute . WT/DSB/M/45 4 
- 7 - 
  1.26.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thank ed Indonesia for its status 
report, and acknowledge d Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the WTO decision.  Both 
compliance deadlines ha d, however, long since expired  and a number of measures remain ed 
non-compliant.  New Zeala nd underst ood that Indonesia 's Parliament ha d enacted Law No. 11/2020 
on Job Creation, but New Zealand did n ot yet have the information necessary to assess what impact 
this w ould have on Indonesia 's compliance with the WTO decision, in particular in respec t of 
Measure  18. New Zealand invit ed Indonesia to provide further details as soon as possible, and looked 
forward to further bilateral engagement to th at end. 
1.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
2  UNITED STATES – 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 at the request of the European Union and 
he invited the representative of the European Union to speak . 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that d espite long -standing reassurances of the 
United States  that the DSB 's recommendations and rulings were fully implemented by adopting the 
Deficit Reduction Act, disbursements under the 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 -complia nce with 
DSB recommendations and rulings. For the item to be considered resolved and removed from the 
DSB's surveillance, the U nited States had to  fully stop transferring collected duties. The E uropean 
Union  maintain ed that such full compliance is needed, independently of the cost resulting from the 
application of such limited duties. The E uropean Union  renew ed its call on the United States to abide 
by its obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU to submit implementation reports in this dispute, as 
the issu e remain ed unresolved. If the United States dis agree 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 the United States  said that, as 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 prior in 
February  2006. The Deficit Reduction Act did not p ermit the distribution of duties collected on goods 
entered after 1  October  2007, more than 13 years prior. Accordingly, the United States had long 
ago implemented the DSB's recommendations and informed WTO Members of its implementation. 
Even aside from th at, it was evidently not a trade rationale or cooperation that was driving the 
European Union's approach to inscribing this Agenda item month after month. Based on the US 
independent review of the applicable EU regulation, it appeared that the European Uni on currently 
applied a tiny additional duty of 0.1 % on certain imports of the United States. At the previous DSB 
meeting, the European Union had once again called on the United States to abide by its "clear 
obligation" under Article 21.6 to submit a status  report in this dispute. Notably, the European Union 
had not called on any other Member in any other dispute to abide by this so -called "clear obligation," 
despite the fact that several Members – including the European Union – 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 informed the DSB that it 
has implemented  the DSB's recommendations .  
2.4.  The widespread practice of Members – including the European Union as a responding party 
– confirm ed this understanding of Article 21.6. At recent meetings, three Members – China, Brazil, 
and Australia – had acted consistently with this systemic position.  Each Member  had 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 had not accept ed the claims of compliance.  
Those Members ha d not provided a status re port since announcing compliance – just like the United 
States.  The E uropean Union  was the complaining party in one of those disputes (DS472).  If the 
European Union  believe d status reports were "required " under the DSU, it would have insisted that 
the resp onding 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  had 
taken neither action. At the most recent DSB meeting, the E uropean Union  argued once again that WT/DSB/M/45 4 
- 8 - 
  the circumstances between DS472 and the present dispute were "entirely different, " but the United 
States had  heard no articulation based in the DSU text that would j ustify the inconsistent positions. 
Through its actions, the European Union 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 party ha d claimed 
compliance. The Euro pean 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.  Under the next item,  the 
United States would raise another such dispute.  
2.5.  The representative of the Europea n Union  said that t he European Union  recall ed that the CDSOA 
was found to be in breach of WTO rules for transferring anti -dumping and countervailing duties to 
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, as most recently shown by the report of US Customs and Border Protection for the 
financial year 2020. The circumstances of this case wit h regard to relevant DSU provisions and 
procedures were therefore entirely different from those in DS472.  Once the transfers of 
anti-dumping and countervailing duties cease d, so w ould the EU measures.  
2.6.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
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 this item was on the Agenda at the request of the Un ited States, and 
he invited the representative of the United States to speak . 
3.2.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had placed this item on the 
Agenda of the present meeting to highlight that the European Union had once again not provided 
Members with a status report concerning the dispute EC – Large Civil Aircraft (DS316). As Members 
were aware, on 15  June 2021, the United States and the European Union reached an "Understanding 
on a cooperative framework for Large Civil Aircra ft." That agreement sought to forge a more 
cooperative future by suspending the tariffs related to this dispute for five years, agreeing to clear 
principles that any financing for the production or development of large civil aircraft would be on 
market ter ms, and committing to joint collaboration to address non -market practices in this sector. 
Those efforts would help the US and EU companies and workers compete fairly, and the United 
States welcomed the collaboration with its European partners. As part of t hat significant effort to 
enhance cooperation, the United States intended to discuss its concerns relating to outstanding EU 
support measures with the European Union bilaterally. The United States was therefore disappointed 
to again see the European Union inscribe the preceding Agenda item for DS217, and call for a US 
status report, while not submitting an EU status report for DS316 .  
3.3.  The United States  had put this item on the Agenda as an opportunity for the E uropean Union  
to explain its contradictory approach to the application of Article 21.6 of the DSU. In both disputes, 
the responding party ha d claimed that it ha d implemented the DSB recommendation.  In both 
disputes, the complaining party d id not agree with that claim. But the E uropean Union  persist ed in 
calling for a status report and Agenda item for DS217 – where it was the complaining party – while 
not providing such a report to the DSB in DS316 – where it was the responding party. The US 
position on status reports ha d been consistent across disputes:  under Article 21.6 of the DSU, once 
a responding Member announce d to the DSB that it ha d complied, there was no further "progress " 
on which it could  report, and therefore no further obligation to provide a status report. As noted 
under the previous item, the United States  consider ed this understanding to be based on the text of 
the DSU and reflected in every responding Member 's behavior in other WTO disputes – including the 
European Union 's own behavior.  The United States would continue to engage bilaterally with the 
European Union on the tension created by its position under th ose two items.  The United States  
wished to reinforce their more cooperative relationship and focus  their attention on bilateral 
challenges and opportunities.   
3.4.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union welcome d the fact that 
the parties ha d reached an Understanding on a Cooperative Framework for Large Civil Aircraft that WT/DSB/M/45 4 
- 9 - 
  allowed the parties to suspend their respective r etaliation measures for five years. The European 
Union  noted that, in the Airbus case, the European Union had  notified a new set of compliance 
measures to the DSB. That new set of compliance measures was subject to an assessment by a 
compliance panel and t hat panel report had been  issued on 2 December 2019. As noted in its 
statement at the December 2020 meeting of the DSB, the European Union  was of the view that 
significant aspects of the compliance panel report c ould 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. In order to have th ose legal errors corrected, the European 
Union had filed an appeal against the compliance panel re port on 6 December 2019. Whether or not 
the matter was "resolved " in the sense of Article 21.6 was the very subject matter of th at ongoing 
litigation. The defending party was not required to submit "status reports " to the DSB in th ose 
circumstances. The E uropean Union  hoped that the Understanding on a Cooperative Framework for 
Large Civil Aircraft w ould allow the parties to resolve their disagreement also in relation to the 
provision of status  reports to the DSB in the Airbus case.  
3.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
4  CHINA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CANOLA SEEDS FROM 
CANADA  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada  (WT/DS5 89/4) 
4.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 28 June 2021 
and had agreed to revert to it should a requesting Member wish to do so. He then drew attention to 
the communication from Canada  contained in document WT/DS58 9/4 and invited the representative 
of Canada  to speak . 
4.2.  The representative of Canada  said that o n 9 September 2019, Canada had requested WTO 
consultations with China concerning China 's March 2019 suspension of canola seed imports from two 
Canadian companies, Richardson International Limited and Viterra Incorporated, and imposition of 
enhanc ed inspection procedures, including increased testing, on all imports of Canadian canola seed.  
Consultations were held on 28 October 2019, but failed to resolve the matter. At the 28 June 2021 
DSB meeting, Canada had requested that a WTO panel be establish ed to examine the matter. China 
blocked that request.  As Canada had stated  at the June  DSB meeting, it was  disappointed and 
concerned that sufficient scientific evidence to justify China 's canola measures ha d not been 
provided.  China was an important export market for Canadian canola seed, and China 's restrictive 
canola measures continue d to have a serious, ne gative impact on Canadian producers.  As Canada  
had seen no concrete steps from China to address its concerns, Canada again at the present meeting 
request ed the establishment of a WTO panel to examine this matter, with standard terms of 
reference.  Canada  remained open to continuing its dialogue with China in a manner that w ould 
address its concerns and fully restore market access for Canadian canola seed in a timely fashion . 
4.3.  The representative of China  said that China regret ted that Canada had decide d to proceed with  
its panel request with regard to this dispute. As stated in its statement made at the DSB meeting 
on 28 June  2021, China had constructively engaged with Canada on this matter, and had diligently 
responded to Canada's requests for information. China still believe d, at the present  meeting, that 
Canada 's request for a panel was premature. China ha d intercepted diseases, insects, and weeds 
from canola seed from Canada for a long time. To date, China 's concern remain ed with respect to 
the imported canola seeds from Canada. The WTO Agreement provide d that Members were entitle d 
to take measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health. China adop ted and 
implement ed its measures in a transparent and non -discriminatory mann er, which was in full 
compliance with WTO rules. China w ould vigorously defend itself in the following proceedings and 
remain ed open to engage faithfully with Canada on this matter.  
4.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in acc ordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU, with standard terms of reference . 
4.5.  The representatives of Australia , Brazil , the European Union , India, Japan , Norway , the Russian 
Federation , Singapore , Chinese Taipei , and the United States  reserved their third -party rights to 
participate in the Panel's proce edings . WT/DSB/M/45 4 
- 10 - 
  5  CHINA – TARIFF RATE QUOTAS FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  
A. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by China: Request for the establishment of a panel  
5.1.  The Chairman  drew attentio n to the communication from China contained in document 
WT/DS51 7/20 and he invited the representative of China to speak . 
5.2.  The representative of China  said that on 15 July 2021  China  had submitted its request for the 
establishment of a compliance panel in "China – Tariff Rate Quotas for Certain Agricultural Products " 
(DS517), pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. As the original respondent, China had been  reluctant 
to take th at unusual action. China did so in light of the United States' failure to initiate co mpliance 
proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU to review China's implementation of the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB in this dispute. As set out  in its status report to the DSB of 17 February 2020, 
and as detailed in its request for the establ ishment of a compliance panel, China ha d fully 
implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB concerning the administration of its TRQs 
for wheat, corn, and rice. On 29 September 2019, the National Development and Reform 
Commission promulgated the Detailed Rules for Application and Allocation of Import Tariff -Rate 
Quota for Grains in 2020 , and on 30 November 2019, the Ministry of Commerce promulgated the 
MOFCOM Decision to Abolish and Modify Some Rules , which modified the Provisional Measures on 
the Administration of Import Tariff Rate Quotas for Agricultural Products . These measures and 
related modifications ensure d China's full compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB in DS517. China was confident that the compliance panel  would  reach the same conclusion.  
5.3.  China said that Article 21.5 of the DSU explicitly state d that "where there is disagreement as 
to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings such dispute  shall be decided through recourse to these dispute 
settlement procedures, including wherever possible resort to the original panel". In this dispute, 
China had fully implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSU within the reasonable 
period of ti me originally agreed by the parties, and submitted status reports in accordance with 
Article 21.6 of the DS B. Nevertheless, on 15 July 2021, the United States had proceeded with filing 
a request under Article 22.2 of the DSU requesting authorization to sus pend concessions or other 
obligations with respect to China in an amount to be determined via a formula "that relates to the 
value of the unfilled portion of any tariff -rate quota (TRQ) for wheat, rice, or corn, as set out in 
China's WTO Schedule." The Uni ted States ha d failed to specify on what basis it consider ed China's 
implementation to fall short of full compliance. To the extent that the United States truly disagree d 
with China's implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings, it was required  to resolve 
the matter through Article 21.5 proceedings. Regrettably, the United States ha d instead chosen to 
pursue retaliation directly by filing a request under Article 22.2 of the DSU. The United States ha d 
further refused to engage with China on reach ing a sequencing agreement , as was customary 
practice in dispute settlement, and the "logical way forward" to resolve any disagreement between 
the parties regarding China's compliance measures. China was deeply concerned by the systemic 
implications of the United States' approach, which w ould encourage Members to attempt to sidestep 
their obligations under Article  21.5 of the DSU.  
5.4.  In light of the US refusal to engage with China to resolve any disagreement regarding China's 
implementation  of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the usual manner, China ha d been 
forced to take the unusual step of submitting this request. Article 21.5 proceedings w ould enable a 
proper review of China's compliance measures through a transparent multilatera l dispute settlement 
mechanism, protect China's rights under the covered agreements, and allow the parties to find a 
positive resolution of the dispute. China  emphasize d that the unusual procedural posture of this 
request d id not shift the burden of proof.  It remain ed the US burden to establish the 
WTO-inconsistency of China's compliance measures. China strongly believe d that the compliance 
panel w ould confirm China's full compliance. To harmonize different ongoing proceedings in this 
dispute, the arbitrato r under Article 22.6 should suspend its work pending the conclusion of the 
Article 21.5 proceedings. Prompt findings under Article 21.5 w ould, therefore, assist the parties in 
securing a positive solution to the dispute, and China loo ked forward to doing e verything it c ould to 
facilitate th at outcome.  
5.5.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States was not in a position to 
agree with China that it ha d come into compliance with the DSB recommendations in this dispute. 
To recall, the DSB found that China  had failed to administer its wheat, rice, and corn TRQs on a 
transparent, predictable, and fair basis,  using clearly specified requirements and administ rative WT/DSB/M/45 4 
- 11 - 
  procedures, and in a manner that would not inhibit the filling of each TRQ under China 's Protocol of 
Accession, to the extent that it incorporate d Paragraph 116 of the Report of the Working Party on 
the Accession of China.  The DSB had adopted its re commendation to China to bring its measures 
into conformity with its WTO obligations in May 2019.  Since then, China ha d – among other things 
– continued to administer its wheat, rice, and corn TRQs in a non -transparent and unpredictable 
manner. Not only was the public process by which China administer ed its TRQs non -transparent, but 
China also ha d refused US requests for additional information that would allow the United States to 
better understand how these TRQs ha d been administered in practice. Without s uch transparency, 
which most WTO Members provide d as a matter of good governance and to promote market -oriented 
agricultural trade, the United States and other WTO Members were left without the basic information 
necessary to assess China 's compliance with fundamental WTO obligations.   
5.6.  In its statement, China stated that the United States had failed to specify on what basis China's 
implementation fell short of compliance. The United States was under no obligation to present claims 
and arguments under this Agenda item. The United States h ad engaged bilaterally with China on 
those issues on a regular and ongoing basis, and would continue to do so. For the purpose of the 
present meeting, the United States had referred to the lack of transparency in China's system to 
highlight the underlying challenge to the United States and other WTO Members of understanding 
China's administration of basic import laws and regulations. Beyond that, the United States simply 
noted that, including because of China's lack of transparency, the TRQ measures notifie d by China 
in February  2020 and subsequent TRQ measures published in 2021 did not themselves demonstrate 
that China presently administered its wheat, rice, and corn TRQs on a transparent, predictable, and 
fair basis, using clearly specified requirements an d administrative procedures, and in a manner that 
would not inhibit the filling of each TRQ. Indeed, several of the panel's findings were based on the 
discrepancy between what China's legal instruments stated would  be done, and what China asserted 
– during  the course of the litigation – was in fact  done in practice .  
5.7.  Furthermore, contrary to the position taken by China, nothing in the DSU support ed the view 
that an Article 22.6 arbitration proceeding had to  be suspended while the corresponding Article 21.5 
proceedings were ongoing.  Members ha d at times agreed through voluntary  agreements on the 
sequencing of proceedings  or otherwise to conduct proceedings in such an order, but as Members 
were well aware, thi s was not required under the DSU.  In some disputes, an agreement provide d 
for the completion of a 21.5 compliance proceeding before a Member could  request authorization to 
suspend concessions or other obligations.  In others, the parties agree d that, once a  Member 
request ed authorization pursuant to Article 22.2 and the responding Member object ed, the 
arbitration c ould be suspended to permit Article 21.5 proceedings to occur.  Where no sequencing 
agreement ha d been reached between the parties, as was the case here, a complaining member had 
to request authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations within the time frame specified 
in Article 22.6 of the DSU or risk prejudicing its rights to do so at a later date.  Accordingly, in this 
proceedi ng, the United States ha d done so in a timely manner . Regrettably, the United States c ould 
not at this time  confirm China 's assertion of compliance with the DSB 's recommendations in this 
dispute.  That said, the United States st ood ready to work constructiv ely with China to reach a 
resolution to this dispute, as it had done since adoption of the panel report.  For th ose reasons, the 
United States was not in a position to agree to the establishment of a compliance panel.   
5.8.  The DSB took note  of the statements an d agreed  to revert to this matter, should a requesting 
Member wish to do so . WT/DSB/M/45 4 
- 12 - 
  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 this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegations. He then drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.19 and invited 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, dated 7 December  2020 to launch the select ion processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body members. On behalf of those 121 Members, Mexico wished to state 
the following. The extensive number of Members submitting the joint proposal reflected a common 
concern with the current situation in the Appellate Body that was seriously affecting the overall 
dispute settlement system , against the best interest of its Members. WTO Members had a 
responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system, and the 
multilateral trading system. Thus, it was their duty to proceed, without further delay, with the 
launching of the selection processes for the Appellate Body members, as submitted to the DSB at 
the present meeting. The proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection proce sses (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 had expired 
on 11 December 2017; a fourth process to replace Mr  Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, whose 
four-year term of office had expired on 30 September  2018; a fifth process to replace Mr  Ujal Singh 
Bhatia, whos e second term had expired on 10 December 2019; a sixth process to replace Mr  Thomas 
Graham whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; and a seventh selection process to 
replace Ms  Hong Zhao, whose first four -year term of office had expired on 30  November  2020); 
(ii) to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for the submission of 
candidacies; and (iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its recommendation within 
60 days after the deadline for nominations of cand idates. The proponents were flexible in the 
determination of the deadlines for the selection processes, but Members should consider the urgency 
of the situation. The proponents continued to urge all Members to support this proposal in the 
interest of the d ispute settlement and multilateral trading systems . 
6.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the 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 believe d that 
Members had to  undertake fundamental reform if the system was to remain viable and credible.  The 
dispute settlement system c ould and should better support the WTO 's negotiating and monitoring 
functions.  The United States  looked forward to further discussions with Members on those concerns 
and to constructive engagement with Members a t the appropriate time.  
6.4.  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  invite d 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 
demonstrated  the importance that all Members  accord ed to a fully functio nal Appellate Body as an WT/DSB/M/45 4 
- 13 - 
  integral part of the dis pute settlement system. The fact that the Appellate Body was unable to  hear 
new appeals 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 en courage d the United 
States to constructively engage in those discussions. Canada's  priority remain ed to find a 
long-lasting multilateral resolution to the impasse that cover ed all Members, including the United 
States. In the meantime, Canada and 24 other W TO Members ha d endorsed the Multi -Party Interim 
Appeal -Arbitration Arrangement  (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  invited 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 MP IA 
with any interested Member.  
6.5.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia wishe d to refer to its statements made at  
previous DSB meetings under this Agenda item . Indonesia support ed the AB proposal and the 
statement made  by Mexico. Indonesia was  of the view that Members should maintain the relevance 
of WTO dispute settlement in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system, 
as embodied in Article 3.2 of the DSU, including through restoring a fully functioni ng Appellate Body. 
It should be the utmost priority for all WTO Members. Indonesia also hope d that the discussion s on 
the Appellate Body matters would start  as soon as possible. Indonesia was ready to engage 
constructively with other Members to find  common  ground on this matter.  
6.6.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement  made  by Mexico on behalf 
of 121 co -sponsors and call ed upon other  Members to join th e AB proposal. China  wished to refer to 
its previous statements on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm commitment to an independent 
and impartial two -tier dispute settlement system.  In accordance with Article 17.2 of the DSU, 
Members bore collective duty to ensure a standing Appellate Body b y filling vacancies as they ar ose. 
China had serious concerns that due to the US persistent blockage, Members  could not fulfil the 
above -mentioned obligation. More systemically, the paralysis of the Appellate Body ha d posed  a 
severe challenge to the WTO an d the multilateral trading system as a whole. Therefore, China ca lled 
upon all Members to restore  the Appellate Body function and urge d the United States to 
constructively engage with Members in the solution -based consultation s with a view to breaking the 
selection impasse at the earliest date.  
6.7.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan wished to refer to its statements  made at previous 
DSB meetings and support ed the AB proposal. Japan share d the sense of urgency for reform of the 
dispute settlement system. As it had stated consistently, Japan  consider ed it the utmost priority to 
achieve an expeditious reform that w ould contribute to a long -lasting solution to the structural and 
functional problem s of the dispute settlement system. The Appellate Body virtually ceased its 
operation a long time ago, and meanwhile, a number of cases ha d been appealed into the void. 
Japan consider ed it essential that every WTO Member, as the owner of the system, t ook the situation 
seriously and engage d in a constructive discussion toward s reform of the dispute settlement system.  
Japan spare d no efforts to collaborate with all WTO Members to that end . 
6.8.  The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand support ed the statem ent made by Mexico on 
behalf of the co -sponsors. Thailand, like other co -sponsors, strongly supported a prompt solution to 
the Appellate Body impasse.  The importance of the two -tiered dispute settlement system was 
self-evident as some Members continue d to file appeal s before  the Appellate Body. Thailand urge d 
all Members to find way s and means to solve this impasse and launch the Appellate Body selection  
process . Thailand st ood ready to constructively engage with Members to restore the effectiv e 
functioning of the dispute settlement system in all forms and configurations.  
6.9.  The representative of  the European Union  said that t he European Union refer red to its previous 
statements on this issue. Since 11 December 2019, the WTO had no longer guarantee d access to a 
binding, two -tier, independent , and impartial resolution of trade disputes. A fully functioning WTO 
dispute settlement system was 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. This task should be addressed 
as a priority. 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 th at objective. The E uropean Union therefore renew ed its call on all WTO WT/DSB/M/45 4 
- 14 - 
  Members to engage in a constructive discussion as soon as possible in order to restore a fully 
functioning WTO dispute settleme nt system. The European Union thank ed all Members that ha d 
co-sponsored the proposal to launch the appointment  processes.  
6.10.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China support ed Mexico's 
statement and wished  to join Mexico and the other  co-sponsors to  reiterate yet again its great 
concern over the Appellate Body impasse . Hong Kong, China  urged for restoration of the  full 
functioning of the WTO's dispute settlement system without  any further delay.  Hong Kong, China  
called on all Members t o seek a shared understanding of the reforms needed for th at purpose.  
6.11.   The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil  thank ed Mexico for  introducing the AB proposal 
on behalf of the co-sponsors . Brazil wished to refer to its previous statements  and st ood ready as it 
had always been to engage with all Members in order to find a lasting solution to this impasse.  
6.12.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand reiterate d its support for the 
co-sponsored proposal and refer red to its previous statements  made on this matter  New Zealand  
continue d to urge all Members to engage, constructively, on the issues with a view to addressing 
the situation as a priority.  The time was ripe to refocus Members' collective effort s on finding a 
solution that wor ked for all Members.  
6.13.   The representative of Korea  said that as the judicial arm of the WTO, the dispute settlement 
system was designed to provide stability and predictability to the multilateral trading system. At the 
same time, the original drafters undoub tedly envisaged that the system would help effectively 
pursue prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes.  Due to the impasse in the appointment of 
members of the Appellate Body, the WTO 's dispute settlement system ha d exposed its vulnerability.  
As far as Korea was aware , a total of 19 disputes appealed into the void remain ed unresolved.  
Consequently, the competence of the system to ensure the smooth and effective implementation of 
WTO agreements ha d been undermined.  Korea wished to echo many Members ' call for full 
restoration of the system before the current paralysis i mposed a permanent damage on the 
system.  To th at end, Korea fully support ed the joint proposal and invite d all Members to engage 
constructively in relevant discussions to find a  permanent solution to restore the binding and two -tier 
adjudication system. Given the paucity of time available until MC12, Members  should at least 
establish a work plan and a specific time -frame leading up to MC12 to draw a clear picture on the 
way forwa rd to resolve this issue.  Korea st ood ready to work together with other Members and would  
continue to play an active and constructive  role with a view to reaching a tangible outcome by MC12  
in this area.  
6.14.   The representative of Nigeria , speaking  on behalf o f the African Group , said that the Group  
wished to refer to its previous  statements made under  this Agenda item. The African Group wished  
to join others in supporting the statement made by Mexico. The African Group continue d to regret 
that until now the DSB ha d failed to fill the vacancies of the Appellate Body. Therefore, the Group 
urged the DSB to urgently fulfil its obligation  under the DSU, which was to fill vacancies as they 
arose so as to maintain the two -tier dispute settlement system and rest ore the full functioning of 
the Appellate Body. Finally, the African Group  called on all other Members who were yet to 
co-sponsor th e proposal to support and co -sponsor the document in order to promote predictability 
within the multilateral trading system.   
6.15.   The representative of Norway  said that Norway refer red to its previous  statements made 
under this Agenda item and to the joint proposal presented by Mexico, which  Norway  fully support ed. 
Norway  continue d to support any efforts to restore the full y functi onal dispute settlement 
mechanism.  The current  impasse was deeply regrettable.  Norway  was ready to engage 
constructively in discussions, and to explore various options for how to move  forward.  
6.16.   The represen tative of the United Kingdom  said that  the United Kingdom continue d to support 
a fully functioning dispute settlement system as the best means of enforcing the rules Members had  
negotiated and ensuring the fair resolution of disagreements . The United Kingd om w ould continue 
to engage with all Members to support efforts to find common ground for dispute settlement reform.  
6.17.   The representative of Singapore  said that  Singapore thank ed Mexico for its statement, which 
Singapore  strongly support ed. Singapore  reiterate d its previous statements on this matter and urge d 
all Members to embark on the Appellate Body selection process as a priority. Singapore  looked WT/DSB/M/45 4 
- 15 - 
  forward to engaging constructively in discussions with all Members, including the United Sta tes, to 
find a lasting multilateral solution . 
6.18.   The representative of Argentina  said that  Argentina wished  to thank Mexico for its statement  
and the previous speakers that had expressed their support for the joint AB proposal . Once again, 
Argentina reiterate d its concern regarding  the undue delay to launch  the selection process for new 
members of the Appellate Bod y, which progressively affect ed the functioning of the WTO . As a 
developing country , where only a rules -based system c ould contribute to its sustainable 
development, Argentina  reiterate d its concern at the structural impasse and invite d all Members to 
explore all possible alternatives to find a satisfactory solution to th is matter.  
6.19.   The representative of Switzerland  said that  Switzerland wished to refer to  its statements made 
on this issue at previous DSB meetings. A fully functioning Appellate Body  was in everybody's 
interest.  Switzerland hoped that new momentum could be provided to solve this situation in which 
Members had found themselves for a very long time. Switzerland was ready to work to achieve  this 
objective, and strongly encouraged all Members to work in a constructiv e way to find a solution that 
would remove the current  blockage.  
6.20.   The representative of India said that India support ed the proposal by Mexico on behalf of 
121 Members. India wished to refer to its  previous  statements made on this matter and call ed on 
all Members to engage constructively to immediately start the AB selection process as a priority.  
6.21.   The representative of Turkey  said that Turkey thank ed Mexico for bringing this item on the 
Agenda. As a co -sponsor of th e proposal, Turkey  believe d that a functioning Appellate Body was at 
the core of a well-functioning dispute settlement system. Therefore, it was important that the 
two-stage character and binding nature of the dispute settlement system be safeguarded. In this 
respect, Turkey  referred to its previous statements and recall ed the urgent need to start the selection 
processes for the vacancies of the Appellate Body , in accordance with Article 17.2 of the DSU. To 
that end, Turkey was committed to play its part to resolve the issue as soon as possible and was 
ready to engage with the Members to launch the selection process . 
6.22.   The representative of Qatar  said that  Qatar wishe d to refer to its statements made at previous 
DSB meetings on this matter. Qatar suppor ted the statement made by Mexico and  regret ted that 
the DSB to date had failed to initiate the AB selection process es. Qatar  recall ed that Members ha d a 
shared obligation  to promptly fill the vacancies of the Appellate Body , as required by Article  17.2 of 
the DSU. The clear text of that provision indicated that such responsibilities shall be fulfilled 
unconditionally. To avoid uninten ded consequences, Qatar call ed on all M embers to act in a 
cooperative manner in order to break the impasse in the AB selection process es without further 
delay . Qatar  wished to emphasize that a discussion on improving the DSU should not be a reason to 
delay the AB appointment s. Qatar  was ready t o work on a solution with all Members while preserving 
the essential features of the system and the Appellate Body.  
6.23.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation wished  to thank 
Mexico for the proposal submitted on behalf of the co -sponsors and refer red to its previous 
statements made regarding  the urgent need to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body . At the same 
time, the Russian Federation , once again , confirm ed its commitment to engage in constructive 
dialog ue with all WTO Members towards  effective  resolution of the AB crisis .  
6.24.   The representative of Mexico , speaking  on behalf of the 121 co -sponsors, regret ted that for 
the forty -forth occasion, Members had  still not been able to start the selection processes f or the 
vacancies in the Appellate Body , and ha d thus continuously failed to fulfill their duty as Members of 
this Organization.  The fact that a Member may have  had concerns about certain aspects of the 
functioning of the Appellate Body could not serve as  a pretext to impair and disrupt the work of this 
body and dispute settlement in general. There was no legal justification for the current blocking of 
the selection processes, which was causing concrete nullification and impairment for many Members. 
As Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly stat ed, "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 of all Members .  WT/DSB/M/45 4 
- 16 - 
  6.25.   The representative of Mexico  said that Mexico  wished to refer to its previous statements  made 
on this matter and to emphasize its deep concern  at finding itself faced with  an unprecedented 
situation with an Appellate Body that was inoperative . For more than two years, 12 1 Members ha d 
been request ing that this proposal  be adopted so that Members have access to appeal s. All the 
current disputes were being affected because the dispute settlement system  was not fully operational 
and this put at risk prompt compliance with panel/AB  reports . This was why Mexico  urgently call ed 
for Members who ha d not done so to join th e AB proposal . Mexico continue d to be ready to work 
constructively  on concrete proposals to achieve a real multilateral solution .  
6.26.   The Chairman  thank ed Mexico and all delegations for their statements. 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 present meeting. As Members  were all aware, this matter ha d also been raised  
in the consultations held by the Chair of the General Council in p reparation for the next Ministerial 
Conference. He said that , as Members were aware, this matter require d a political engagement on 
the part of all WTO Members . The Chairman hoped that Members w ould be able to find a solution to 
this matter as soon as poss ible, and said that his  door remained  open to any delegation wishing to 
contact him directly on this matter . 
6.27.   The DSB took note of the statements.  
7  REPORT BY THE FACILITATOR ON PROGRESS IN THE FACILITATOR -ASSISTED 
DISCUSSIONS IN THE DS371 DISPUTE  
7.1.  The Chairman  invited the Facilitator , Ambassador Mina of Australia,  to make a report  on 
progress  in the Facilitator -assisted discussions  in the DS371 dispute.  
7.2.   The Facilitator  in the DS371  dispute , Ambassador Mina of Australia,  speaking under 
"Other  Business", said that in a report to the DSB , dated 31 March 2021 , contained in WT/DS371/45, 
he had  provided an update on the DS371 Facilitator -assisted discussions, in accordance with 
paragraph  5 of the 21 December 2020 Understanding between the Philippine s and Thailand on the 
DS371 Facilitator -assisted discussions contained in WT/DS371/44.  As part of that report, he had 
advised the DSB that, after consulting with the parties, it was his intention to recommend 
continuation of the discussions up to 31 July 2 021. He had also proposed to make  a further report 
to the DSB prior to that date. He was , therefore, taking the opportunity at th e present  meeting to 
make a brief statement under "Other Business" to update on the Facilitator -assisted discussions over 
recen t weeks and months. In this regard, he was  pleased to report that the parties ha d continued 
to engage constructively with him in discussions, as well as directly with each other through 
engagement  in Geneva  and between officials in capitals. He remain ed hopeful that th ose mutually 
supportive processes w ould progressively lead to the parties building up elements of agreement, 
although it ha d become clear that, in order to do so, the Facilitator -assisted discussions w ould need 
to be extended beyond 31 July 20 21. He said that, a s envisaged in paragraph 5 of the Understanding, 
based on his recommendation, and following the agreement of the parties, the current  
Facilitator -assisted discussions w ould continue beyond 31 July 2021. It was his intention  to continue 
to inform the DSB o n this matter, as appropriate.  He looked forward to the parties' ongoing co -
operation in progressing their discussions on outstanding issues.  
7.3.  The Chairman  thank ed Ambassador Mina for his statement  and his efforts towards fin ding a 
mutually satisfactory solution to this dispute.  
7.4.  The DSB took note  of the statement s and of the report by the Facilitator on progress in the 
Facilitator -assisted discussions in the DS371 dispute  
__________