RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/453  
18 August  2021 
(21-6264) Page: 1/15 
Dispute Settlement Body  
28 June 2021   
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 28 JUNE 20211 
Chairman : H.E.  Mr Didier  Chambovey  (Switzerland ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcomed a ll delegations participating in 
the meeting of the D ispute Settlement Body (DSB)  both in -person and remotely. He said that he 
wished to take this opportunity to extend a warm welcome to the new D eputy Director -General 
(DDG), Angela Ellard,  in charge of dis pute settlement who was present at the meeting ; (ii) the 
Chairman  recall ed a few technical instructions regarding the virtual participation of delegations. If a 
Member was unable to take the floor during the meeting because of a technical issue, the delega tion 
could inform himself or the Secretariat and that Agenda item would remain open until the delegation 
could take the floor. Hopefully any technical issue would be quickly resolved. In the alternative, the 
item would remain open temporarily, the meeting would proceed to the next Agenda item, and then 
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 req uest 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 meeting ; and (iii) the Chairman  made 
a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of the  28 April DSB meeting pertaining 
to the DS574 dispute. He said that, a s Members recalled,  that matter had been  removed from the 
proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chair's consultations with each interested party regarding 
that Agenda item. At the presen t meeting, he wished to inform delegations that he continue d to 
consult with each interested party on th is matter and that th ose consultations were ongoing.  
 
The representative of Venezuela  said that his delegation wished to take the floor at this point in 
order to make a statement. First, Venezuela  wished to welcome the new DDG  to the WTO , and to 
thank the  Chairman  of the DSB  for his diligent efforts in the search for a solution regarding 
Venezuela's panel request.  Venezuela  also wished to extend its gratitude to t hose delegations who 
had expressed their solidarity and recognize d the legitimate right of Venezuela to resolv e this dispute 
within the framework of the WTO.  Venezuela regret ted that the United States ha d not offered any 
response to the co ncerns raised by Venezuela, which seem ed to translate into maintaining a veto 
position on Venezuela's  panel request. The United States had not offered any  options to enable  
progress through  cooperati ve mechanisms  necessary to confront differences, in a civilized manner 
and in accordance with the law. The illegal measures that were applied by the United States to 
Venezuela , in addition to being contrary to multilateral trade rules, continue d to have a devastating 
effect on Venezuela's  population . This was exactly what Venezuela wished  to resolve, and even more 
so in th is time of a pandemic.  Venezuela's  intention was, and w ould always be, to find solutions 
through multilateral channels, which would allow Venezuela  to preserve  its rights , but at the same 
time safeguard the proper functioning of th e DSB . Venezuela wished  to reiterate that its channels of 
communication were always open for respectful dialogue, based on tolerance and in search for 
solutions in accordance with international law and peace ful multilateralism, even with its strongest 
detractors, on the understand ing that this was  the only possible constructive  way to settle 
differences.  Finally, Venezuela  wished to reserv e its right to include this matter  on the Agenda of  
future DSB meetings , or to apply reciprocity when deemed appropriate.  
  
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agenda.  
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/453  
- 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 IMPORTATION OF CANOLA SEEDS 
FROM CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  9 
A. Request for the establi shment of a panel by Canada  ................................ ............................  9 
5 PROPOSED NOMINATION FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS ................................ ................................ ..................  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; CHAD; CHILE; CHINA; 
COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC 
OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; EL S ALVADOR; 
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; MA LDIVES; 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; Z AMBIA; AND ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV.19)  ................................ ................................ ............................  11 
 
 
 
 WT/DSB/M/453  
- 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 16) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.191) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.154) 
 
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.38) 
 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China : Status report by th e United States (WT/DS471/17/A dd.30) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.25 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.25) 
 
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 require d that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be p laced 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  wished to invite 
delegation s 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 ful l 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 16) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.21 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 US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that t he Un ited States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 17 June 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 re solve this matter.  
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thank ed the United States for the latest status 
report and the statement at the present meeting . Japan once again call ed on the United States to 
fully implement the DSB recommendations and ruli ngs 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.  WT/DSB/M/453  
- 4 - 
  B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.1 91) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.1 91, 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 Copyright Act . 
1.7.  The representa tive of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 17 June 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  said that 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  and reiterated that it  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 marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 54) 
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.1 54, 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 Union  said that t he Standing Committee meeting had 
been held online on 1 9 April 2021. The Commission presented one authorisation and one renewal 
authorisation .2 The Standing Committee did not reach an opinion . The Commission presented the 
two aut horisation decisions at the online meeting of the Appeal Committee on 9 June, resulting in a 
"no opinion " vote. It was subsequently  for the Commission to decide on these authorisations . A 
Standing Committee meeting was held online on 1 7 May 2021. The Commi ssion presented three 
authorisation s and one renewal authorisation .3 Due to the prese nt public health situation, the vote 
was taken by written procedure and no opinion was reached on 1 June 2021. The four draft decisions 
would be submitted to the Appeal Committee on 6 July where a vote w ould be taken by written 
procedure . In addition, a Standing Committee meeting was held online on 8 June 2021, where the 
Commission presented one authorisation and one renewal authorisation .4 Due to the presen t public 
health situation, the vote was taken by wr itten procedure and no opinion was reached on 2 2 June. 
The two draft decisions w ould be submitted to the Appeal Committee accordingly .  
1.12.   The European Union said that t he United States had frequently refe rred to member States ' 
justifications issued during th e meetings of the Standing Committee and Appeal Committee as being 
"political " and "not science -based ". The European 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 that its application was not 
limited to the authorisation procedure for genetically modified organisms ( GMOs ). In addition, the 
European Union wished  to underline that the final decision ta ken on the authorisation was clearly 
science -based , as GMOs were authorised where the European Food Safety Authority  (EFSA)  had 
finalised its scientific opinion and concluded that there were no safety concerns . As confirmed by the 
US delegation during the EU-US consultations held on 1 8 June 2021, efforts to reduce delays in 
authorisation procedures were constantly maintained at a high level at all stages of the authorisation 
procedure . It was also important to recognise the increased transparency in the EFSA 's scientific 
 
2 Meeting of 19 April 2021: authorisation of oilseed rape Ms8xRf3xGT73 and sub -combinations for food 
and feed (except isolated seed protein for food) and renewal authorisation of GT73 for feed.  
3 Meeting of 17 May 2021: authorisation for food and feed of soybean DAS -81419 -2, soybean 
DAS-81419 -2 × DAS –44406–6, maize 1507 × MIR162 × MO N810 × NK603 and sub -combinations; and 
renewal authorisation of maize Bt 11 for food and feed.  
4 Meeting of 8 June 2021: authorisation for food and feed of maize MON 87427 x MON 87460 x MON 
89304 x 1507 x MON 87411 x 59122 and renewal authorisation of maiz e MON 88017 x MON 810 for food and 
feed. WT/DSB/M/453  
- 5 - 
  assessment of GMOs, resulting from the new Transparency Regulation5, which should help to 
reinforce trust in the safety of the authorised GMOs . The European Union acted in line with its WTO 
obligations . The European U nion recall ed that its approval system was not covered by the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  
1.13.   The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting. The European Union cont inued to impose undue delays 
on the approval of biotech products. The United States had described these problems in detail, at 
nearly every monthly meeting of the DSB since the European Union began submitting status reports 
more than thirteen years ago. Th e United States had also discussed these concerns in the recent 
EU-US Biotechnology Consultation on Friday 18 June 2021, intended to normalize trade in biotech 
products. To recap those discussions, to date there were approximately fifteen (15) products for  
which the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had successfully completed a risk assessment. 
Four (4) of those products had been under evaluation since at least 2008. Despite receiving positive 
opinions in EFSA's risk assessment process, all of those pro ducts remained stalled in the European 
Union's comitology process and had not received final approval. The repeated findings of "no opinion" 
from 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 receiving approval in the European market. For 
example, EU member States at the Standing Committee continued to cite " no agreed national 
position ", "negative public opinion ", and " political reasons " as justifications for delaying product 
approvals. The United States could not see how the European Union's current approval process 
addressed the undue delays contemplated in "EC – Approval and M arketing of Biotech Products " 
(DS291). The United States requested that the European Union move to issue final approvals for all 
products that had completed science -based risk assessments at EFSA, including those products that 
were with the Standing Commit tee and Appeals Committee . 
1.14.   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/DS464/17/Add.3 8) 
1.15.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add.3 8, 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 cou ntervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea . 
1.16.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 17 June 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  On 6 May 2019, 
the US Department of Commerce had published a notice in the US Federal Register announcing the 
revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large residential washers 
from Korea (84 Fed . Reg. 19,763 ( 6 May 2019)) . With that action, the United States ha d completed 
implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those antidumping 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.  
1.17.   The representative of Korea  welcomed the new DDG to the WTO. With regard the present 
Agenda item, Korea thank ed the United States for its status report and statement . Korea again urge d 
the United State s to take prompt and appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for 
the "as such " measures at issue in  this dispute.  
1.18.   The representative of Canada  said that Canada  welcome d the new DDG to the WTO. With 
regard  to the present  Agenda  item, Canada  said that the United  States  had 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  
 
5 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/453  
- 6 - 
  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 had expired  more than three  years  previously . However,  in its most recent status  report,  
the United  States  had 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  with the continued  US failure  
to comply  with the DSB's  recommendations  and rulings  in this dispute . That failure  seriously  
undermine d the security and predictability  of the multilateral  trading  system . 
1.19.   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. 30) 
1.20.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 30, 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 . 
1.21.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 17 June 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.   
1.22.   The representa tive of China  welcomed the new DDG to the WTO  and said that China thank ed 
the United States for its latest status report . However, it was disappointing that 34 months after the 
expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States had still fail ed to implement the adopted 
rulings and recommendations in this dispute . The United States had only indicated that it  would  
contin ue to consult  with interested parties.  Prompt compliance was critical to the effectiveness and 
credibility of the dispute settlement system,  which was in the best interests of the whole 
Membership . China  urged the United States to hono ur its obligation s, in line with Article 21.1 of the 
DSU, by fully complying wit h the recommendations  in this dispute without further delay.  
1.23.   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. 25 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 25) 
1.24.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 25 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 25, 
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 . 
1.25.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia had  submit ted its status  report pursuant 
to Article 21.6 of the DSU.  Indonesia wished to  reiterate its strong commitment to implementing the 
recommendations and ruling s of the DSB in these disputes . As reported in previous DSB meetings, 
on measure 18 Indonesia ha d enacted L aw No. 11/2020 on Job Creation . All articles in the relevant 
laws which were found to be inconsistent with WTO rules ha d been amended and were no longer in 
place. With respect to measures 1  to 17, Indonesia w ished  to highlight that necessary adjustments 
had also been made in the relevant M oA and M oT regulations in order to be consistent with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB . Such adjustments include d the removal of disputed 
measu res such as , inter alia , harvest period restriction, import realization requirements, six –months 
harvest requirement, and reference price . Indonesia would continue to engage with New Zealand 
and th e United States regarding matters related to the implementation of the recommendation s and 
rulings of the DSB.  WT/DSB/M/453  
- 7 - 
  1.26.   The representative of the United States  thanked Indonesia for its status report. The United 
States understood that Indonesia had recently amended the relevant laws that would address 
Measure 18. The United States looked forward to  receiving further detail from Indonesia regarding 
those legislative changes and their implementation by the government. With respect to Measures 1 
to 17, the United States understood that Indonesia had revised certain regulations. In its status 
report sub mitted on 17 June  2021, Indonesia had stated that the revisions "include the removal of 
disputed measures". The United States asked Indonesia to clarify if it considered that the revisions 
to the relevant MoA and MoT regulations have removed all 17 of the measures at issue. If that was 
not the case, the United States asked Indonesia to explain the other aspects of the revisions that 
addressed the DSB's recommendations. The United States remained willing to work with Indonesia 
to fully resolve this dispute . 
1.27.   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 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 Indonesia '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.  
1.28.   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 invited the representative of the European Union to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that d espite the long-standing reassurances of 
the U nited States  that the DSB 's recommendations and rulings had b een fully implemented by 
adopting the Deficit Reduction Act, disbursements under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act (C DSOA ) had been made every year since then . Every disbursement that still took place under 
that legal basis was clearly an act of non -compliance with DSB recommendations and rulings . In the 
EU's view, f or the item to be considered resolved and removed from the DSB's surveillance, the 
United States had to  fully stop transferring collected duties . The European Union maintain ed that 
such full compliance was needed, independently of the cost resulting from the application of such 
limited duties . The European Union renew ed its call on the United States to abide by its obligation 
under Article 21.6 of the DSU to submit implementation rep orts in this dispute, as the issue remain ed 
unresolved . If the U nited States did not agree that the issue remain ed unresolved, nothing prevent ed 
the U nited States from seeking a multilateral determination through a compliance procedure.  
2.3.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada thank ed the European Union for having placed 
this item on the Agenda of this meeting of the DSB . The reasonable period of time for the 
implementation of the recommendations of the DSB in the case of the Byrd Amendment had expired 
on 27 December  2003. The United States ha d nevertheless continued to disperse compensation 
payments to their national produc ers after that date and continue d to do so to date . By doing so, 
the United States was still in contravention of its obligations under  the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures . Canada highlight ed that so long as  
the United States continue d to make such dispersa ls it would  be in breach of the recommendations 
of the DSB . 
2.4.  The representative of the United States  said that, as the United States had noted at previous 
DSB meetings, the Deficit Reduction Act – which incl uded 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 prior. Accordingly, the United States had long 
ago implemented the DSB's recommendations and informed WTO Members of its implementation. 
Even aside from this, it was evidently not common sense or cooperation that was driving the WT/DSB/M/453  
- 8 - 
  European Union's approach to this Agenda item. Based on the United States' independent review of 
the applicable EU regulation, it appeared the European Union presently applied a tiny additional duty 
of 0.1 % on certain imports of the United States. There was evidently no trade rationale for inscribing 
this item month after month. As it had done many times before, at the May DSB meeting, the 
European Union once again called on the United States to abide by its "clear obligation" under 
Article  21.6 to submit a s tatus report in this dispute. Notably, the European 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 – 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 recommendations .  
2.5.  The representative of the United States said that the widespread practice of Members – 
including the European Union as a responding party – confirmed this understanding of Article 21.6. 
At recent meetings, three Members – China, Brazil, and Australia – had acted consistently with this 
systemic position. Each Member informed the DSB that they had 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 had not provided a status report since 
announcing compliance – just like the United States. The European Union was the complaining party 
in one of those disputes (DS472). If the European Union believed status reports were "required" 
under t he DSU, it would have insisted that the responding Member provide a status report in that 
dispute, or the European Union would have inscribed that dispute as an item on the Agenda of the 
present meeting. The European Union had taken neither action. At the May DSB meeting, the 
European Union argued once again that the circumstances between DS472 and the present dispute 
were "entirely different," but the United States had heard no articulation of the supposed difference 
between the two disputes. Through its a ctions, the European Union had once again demonstrated 
that it did not truly believe that there was a "clear obligation" under Article 21.6 to submit a status 
report after a party had claimed compliance. The European Union had simply invented a rule for th is 
dispute, involving the United States, that it did not apply to other disputes involving other Members. 
Under the next Agenda item, the United States would raise another such dispute . 
2.6.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he United States h ad mentioned another 
case involving the European Union, namely DS472, Brazil – Taxes. The United States had s tated 
that it had not heard any reason why the circumstances of the Brazil – Taxes case were different 
from the present case, the Byrd Amendment ca se. The European Union therefore wished to reiterate  
a short statement made at the previous DSB meeting, in the hope that the United States could take 
note of it. The European Union recall ed that the CDSOA had been  found to be in breach of WTO rules 
for transferring anti -dumping and countervailing duties to US industry, and that the DSB had 
authorised sanctions, on the basis of the US failure to comply with the recommendations and rulings . 
This situation persist ed as long as the redistribution of collected duties continue d, as most recently 
shown by the report of the US Customs and Border Protection for the financial year 2020 . The 
circumstances of this case with regard to relevant DSU provisions and procedures were therefore 
entirely different from those in DS472.  The European Union continued to believe that the two cases 
were very different, and the U S assertions on this point were without merit.  
2.7.  The DSB took note of the statements .  
3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAI N 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 at the request of the United States, and 
invite d 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 
may have been aware, on 15 June 2021, the United States and the European Union had reached an 
"Understanding on a cooperative framework for Large Civil Aircraft." Th is agreement sought to forge WT/DSB/M/453  
- 9 - 
  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 will be 
on market terms, and committing to joint collaboration to address non -market practices in this 
sector. These 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 this sign ificant 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 puzzled 
to see the European Union inscribe the preced ing Agenda item for DS217, calling for a US status 
report, while not submitting an EU status report for DS316 .  
3.3.  The United States had placed this item on the Agenda as an opportunity for the European Union 
to explain its contradictory position. In both dis putes, the responding party had claimed that it had 
implemented the DSB recommendation. In both disputes, the complaining party did not agree with 
that claim. But the European Union persisted 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 had been consistent across 
disputes: under Article 21.6 of the DSU, once a responding Member announ ced 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. As noted under the previous item, the United States considered 
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 seek to engage bilaterally with the European Union on the tension created by its position 
under these two items. The United States wished to reinforce its more cooperative relationship and 
focus its attention on bilateral challenges and opportunities. But if the European Union disagreed 
that once a responding Member claimed compliance it need no t provide further status reports, the 
European Union should for future meetings provide status reports in the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft " 
dispute (DS316) . 
3.4.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union welcome d the fact that 
the parties ha d now reached an Understanding on a Cooperative Framework for Large Civil Aircraft 
that allowed the parties to suspend their respective retaliation measures for five years . Related to 
the legal debate regarding the proper inter pretation of Article 21.6, the European Union's position 
was also consistent. The European Union had repeatedly s tated that whether a party was under an 
obligation to provide a status report depend ed on the stage of the proceedings.  As it had stated  
before , 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 that panel 's report was 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 's report c ould not be regarded as legally correct and were very problematic 
from a systemic perspective when it c ame to a ssessing compliance with the subsidy disciplines of 
the WTO agreements . In order to have th ose legal errors corrected, the E uropean Union had filed 
an appeal against the compliance panel 's report 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 . 
Members had seen other cases where the defending party had stopped submitting status reports to 
the DSB while compliance panel proceedings were ongoing. An example was the case between 
Indonesia and Brazil.  The European 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  drew attention to the communication from Canada contained in document 
WT/DS589/4 and invite d the representative of Canada to speak.   
4.2.  The representative of Canada  said that i n March  2019, the General Administration of Customs 
of the People 's Republic of China (GACC) suspended the importation of canola seed from two 
Canadian companies, Richardson International Limited and Viterra Incorporated.  Letters to the WT/DSB/M/453  
- 10 - 
  Canadian Food Inspection A gency (CFIA) from the General Administration of Customs alleged that 
the repeated detection of quarantine pests in shipments from these two companies were the basis 
for the suspensions.  Also, in March  2019 the General Administration of Customs announced that 
while canola seed from other Canadian companies would be eligible for export to China, all canola 
seed from Canada would be subject to enhanced inspection procedures, including increased testing.  
Canada appear ed to be the only country that h ad seen the imposition of such suspensions and 
enhanced import procedures for canola seed.  Since the implementation of the measures, Canada 
had sought  to work with China to restore full market access for Canadian canola seed, and to 
ascertain the scientifi c basis for China 's measures.  To that end, Canada ha d made all possible efforts 
to solicit information from China regarding the basis for its measures and the pathway to restore full 
market access . Unfortunately, th ose efforts, which were reflected in the many letters sent to the 
General Administration of Customs, and discussions held at various levels with Chinese officials, 
including numerous technical exchanges, ha d failed to produce any meaningful results.   
4.3.  He said that r egarding Canada 's unanswered req uests for scientific information, Canada had 
raised its concerns at the May 2019 meeting of the WTO General Council . Canada had also sent a 
letter to China pursuant to Article 5.8 of the WTO SPS Agreement, requesting that China provide an 
explanation of th e reasons for its measures . China's response to the letter was lacking.  
Subsequently, Canada had requested WTO consultations with China concerning the measures . 
Consultations had been  held on 28 October  2019, but  had failed to resolve the matter.  Canada 
remained disappointed and concerned that sufficient scientific evidence to justify China 's measures 
had not been provided . As China was an important export market for Canadian canola seed, China 's 
restrictive measures continue d to have a serious, negative ef fect on Canadian producers.  Canada 
consider ed that China 's measures were inconsistent with China 's obligations under the SPS 
Agreement, the G ATT 1994, and the Trade Facilitation Agreement.  Consequently, Canada was now 
requesting that a WTO panel be established to examine this matter, with standard terms of 
reference.  Canada  remain ed open to continuing its dialogue with China in a manner that w ould 
address Canada 's concerns and fully restore market access for Canadian c anola seed in a timely 
fashion.  
4.4.  The representative of China  said that China regret ted that Canada had decided to request a 
panel to be established with regard to this dispute . China was  not in a position to support such a 
request at the present meeting . China attache d great importance to , and faithfully hono ured its 
obligations under the WTO Agreements and accession commitments . Specifically, in this dispute, the 
Chinese authority had taken actions to the extent necessary to protect human, animal  or plant life 
or health . The measures were imposed based on scientific principles, and in a transparent and 
non-discriminatory manner, which was fully consistent with the SPS Agreement and other WTO 
instruments . China recall ed that it  had held constructive consultation s with Canada on 
28 October  2019 with a view to achieving a satisfactory settlement of the matter . Furthermore, 
China had  kept clos e contact with relevant Canadian authorities through written communications 
and teleconferences, and provided upon its request information with respect to measures challenged 
during and after the consultation s. Having said that, China believe d that it was  premature to 
establish a panel in this dispute . China was  willing to continue its engagement with Canada on this 
matter.  
4.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter should a requesting 
Member wish to do so.  
5  PROPOSED NOMINATION F OR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS  
5.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/682 which contain ed a new nomination 
proposed by Qatar for inclusion on the Indicative List of Governmental and Non -Governmental 
Panelists, in accordance with Article  8.4 of the DSU . He propose d that the DSB approve the name 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/682.  
5.2.  The DSB so agreed. WT/DSB/M/453  
- 11 - 
  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 . He then 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, dated 7 December  2020 to launch the selection 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 overa ll 
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, w ithout further delay, with the 
launching of the selection processes for the Appellate Body members, as submitted to the DSB at 
the present meeting. The proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection processes (one process to 
replace Mr  Ricardo Ramírez -Herná ndez, whose second term had expired on 30 June 2017; a second 
process to fill the vacancy result ing from the resignation of Mr  Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 
1 August  2017; a third process to replace Mr  Peter Van den 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 expired on 30 September  2018; a fifth proces s to replace Mr  Ujal Singh 
Bhatia, whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; a sixth process to replace Mr  Thomas 
Graham whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; and a seventh selection process to 
replace Ms  Hong Zhao, whose first four -year term of office had expired on 30  November  2020); 
(ii) to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for the submission of 
candidacies; and (iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its recommendation within 
60 days aft er the deadline for nominations of candidates. 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 dispute settlement and multilateral trading systems.  
6.3.  The representative of  the European Union  said that t he European Union refer red to its previous 
statements on this matter. Since 1 1 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 is why the 
most urgent area of WTO reform inv olved 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 
responsibilit y 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 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 la unch the appointment processes  and invited all other Members to support that 
proposal.  WT/DSB/M/453  
- 12 - 
  6.4.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China wished  to welcome the 
new DDG to the WTO. Hong Kong, China also wished  to reiterate its deep concern o ver the Appellate 
Body impasse and urge d for restoration of the two -tier dispute settlement mechanism without any 
further delay.  Hong Kong, China was committed to continuing discussions regarding the restoration 
of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism to its full functioning as a priority , and urge d Members 
to seek a shared understanding of the reforms needed for this purpose.  
6.5.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group , welcome d the new  DDG 
to the WTO. The African G roup refer red to its pr evious statements made under this Agenda item . 
The Group  wished  to join others in supporting the statement made by Mexico and the other 
co-sponsors . The Group continue d to regret that up until now the DSB ha d failed to fill the exist ing 
vacancies in the Appellate Body . Therefore, the Group urge d the DSB to urgently fill th ese vacanc ies 
in fulfilment of its obligation under the DSU, which was to fill vacancies as they arise , as contained 
in this proposal for Appellate Body appointments , so as to maintain the two -tier dispute settlement 
system  and to restore the full functioning of the Appellate Body . This would ensure predictability of 
the multilateral trading system .  
6.6.  The re presentative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia wished to refer to its previous statements 
made  at previous DSB meetings under  this Agenda  item. Indonesia continue d to urge all Members 
to accord their serious attention, willingness and commitment towards  the immediate appointment 
of the Appellate Body members.  
6.7.  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 se 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.  
6.8.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea wished to refer to its previous statements on this 
matter. Korea noted that many Members ha d consistently voiced their concerns over the impasse of 
the Appellate Body and the need to revive  urgently  the two -tier dispute settlement system . Korea 
fully support ed the statement made by Mexico based on the joint proposal and urge d all Members 
to engage constructively to draw a clear picture on the way forward to resolve this important matter 
as soon as possible.  
6.9.  The representative of Thailan d said that  Thailand support ed the statement made by Mexico on 
behalf of the co -sponsors . Thailand, like other co -sponsors, had long promoted  a long-lasting 
solution to the Appellate Body impasse . Thailand  had also observed the importance of a two -tier 
dispute settlement system as some Members continue d to file appeal s before the Appellate Body . 
Thailand urge d all Members to constructively engage in finding ways and means to solving this 
impasse . Thailand's  goal was to revive the full y functioning Appellate Body . Thailand st ood ready to 
engage with Members in th at effort.  
6.10.   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 exp lained 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 at the appropriate time.  
6.11.   The representative of the United Kingdom  joined previous  delegations  in welcoming the new 
DDG to th e present  meeting . With respect to this Agenda item, 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 Kingdom 
would continue to engage with all Members to support efforts to find common ground and solutions 
on dispute settlement reform.  WT/DSB/M/453  
- 13 - 
  6.12.   The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland also wished  to send a warm welcome 
to the new DDG. Switzerland referred  to the statement s made on this matter during previous  DSB 
meeting s. A fully functioning Appellate Body was in everybody's interes t. Switzerland  hoped that 
new momentum c ould 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  
encourage d all Members to work in a constructive way to find a solution that would  remove the 
current  blockage .  
6.13.   The representative  of Japan  said that Japan wished to refer to its statements made at previous 
DSB meetings and suppor ted the proposal  on AB appointments.  Japan absolutely share d the sense 
of urgency for reform of the dispute settlement system . As Japan had  consistently stated, 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 problems of the dispute settlement system.  The 
Appellate Body virtually ceased its operation s a long time ago and , meanwhile, a number of cases 
had been appealed into the void . Japan consider ed it essential that every Member, as the owner of 
the system, t ook the current situation seriously and engage d in a constructive discussion toward s 
reform s of the dispute settlement  system.  Japan spare d no efforts to collaborate with all WTO 
Members to that end.  
6.14.   The representative of Norway  welcome d the new DDG  and said that  Norway wished to refer  
to its previous  statements made under this Agenda item . Norway fully associate d itself with the 
statement made by Mexico on behalf of the co -sponsors . The Appellate Body ha d, since 2019 , not 
been able to perform its function s. This situation was deeply regrettable . Norway support ed any 
effort s to restore the full y functioning of the dispute settlement mechanism . Norway was  ready to 
engage constructively in those discussions and explore various options for how to move forward.  
6.15.   The representative of the Russian Federation  welcomed the new DDG to the DSB meeting, 
and said that t he Russia n Federation w ished to thank Mexico for the proposal on behalf of the 
co-sponsors . The Russian Federation  wished to refer to its previous statements made on the urgent 
need to fill the vacancies of the Appellate Body members . The Russian Federation 's top priority was 
to launch the appointment of the Appellate Body members as soon as possible.  At the same time, 
the Russian Federation reiterate d its commitment to engage in constructive dialogue with all WTO 
Members towards resolution of the AB crisis.  
6.16.   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  on AB appointments  to consider joining the 
121 Members calling for the launch of the selection process es. The critical mass of WTO Members 
behind this proposal was a clear testimony to 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 c ould not 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 encourage 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, in cluding the United States.  In the meantime, Canada and 24 other WTO Members ha d 
endorsed the Multi -Party Interim Appeal -Arbitration Arrangement  (MPIA)  as a contingency measure 
to safeguard Members'  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.  
6.17.   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 this proposal . China  referred 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 a collective duty to ensure a standing Appellate Body by filling vacancies as they 
arose. It was regrettable that the US persistent blockage continue d to obstruct the whole 
Membership from honouring this important treaty obligation.  The paralysis of the Ap pellate Body 
had posed a serious challenge to the multilateral trading system, and MC12 would provid e Members  
with a valuable opportunity to rebuild people 's confidence in this organization . China  called upon all WT/DSB/M/453  
- 14 - 
  Members to prioritize the restoring of the Appellate Body function, and to engage constructively in 
solution -based consultation s with a view to breaking the selection impasse at the earliest date.  
6.18.   The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore welcome d the new DDG . Singapore 
thank ed Mexico for its statement, which Singapore  strongly support ed. Singapore  reiterate d its 
previous statements made on this matter and urge d all Members, including the United States, to 
embark on the Appellate Body selection process es as a priority and to eng age constructively to find 
a lasting multilateral solution, sooner rather than later.  
6.19.   The representative of Turkey  said that Turkey welcome d the new DDG.  Turkey  thank ed Mexico 
for bringing this item to the Agenda.  As a co -sponsor of t he 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 were 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 th at 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.  
6.20.   The representative of Brazil  welcome d the new DDG  and look ed forward to working togethe r 
on DS matters . Brazil thank ed Mexico for presenting the proposal on behalf of co -sponsors, and 
wished to refer to its previous statements made under this Agenda item . As Brazil ha d stated at the 
General Council  meeting, Members  needed to restore the multilateral integrity of the dispute 
settlemen t system, including by preserving two levels of adjudication with a reformed Appellate 
Body. To that end, a key deliverable in MC12 should be a Ministerial Understanding on the role and 
procedures of the Appellate Body, which could guide Members  toward a l asting solution to this 
impasse . Brazil s tood ready to engage with all Members as soon as possible to secure such an 
outcome.  
6.21.   As the request of the Chairman , the representative of  the Secretariat read out the following 
statement on behalf of the representa tive of India, who was unable to participate in the meeting 
neither remotely nor in -person: India wished to refer to its statements made on this matter  at 
previous DSB meetings.  Since 1 1 December  2019 onwards, the WTO no longer guarantee d access 
to a binding, two -tier, independent and impartial resolution of trade disputes . This ha d resulted in a 
clear breach of the WTO Agreements.  India therefore request ed all WTO Members to resolve this 
matter and work on filling the outstanding vacancie s as set out in Article 17.2 of the DSU.  
6.22.   The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 121 co -sponsors, regret ted that for 
the forty -third occasion, Members had  still not been able to start the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appella te Body and ha d thus continuously failed to fulfil their duty as Members of 
this Organization.  The fact that a Member may have concerns about certain aspects of the 
functioning of the Appellate Body could not serve as a pretext to impair and disrupt the wo rk of this 
body and dispute settlement in general . There was no legal justification for the current blockage  of 
the selection processes, which was causing 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 have prevent ed the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully and Members had to  
comply with their obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies.  Mexico  noted with deep concern 
that by fa iling 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.  
6.23.   The representative of Mexico  said that her country wished to refer  to its previous statements  
made on thi s matter  and wished  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, 
Mexico and 120 Members ha d requested that this  proposal  be adopted  by the DSB.  All current 
disputes were being affected because there was no fully functioning dispute settlement system . This 
undermined the right of all Members to have a two -tier dispute settlement system and put at risk 
prompt compliance with panel repor ts. That was why Mexico  urgently call ed on Members who ha d 
not yet done so to join th e proposal . Mexico remained  ready to work constructively on concrete 
proposals to achieve a real multilateral solution  on this matter.  WT/DSB/M/453  
- 15 - 
  6.24.   The Chairman  thank ed all delegation s for their statements  and said that, as in the past,  the 
DSB w ould take note of the statements expressing  the respective positions , which would be reflected  
in the minutes of the meeting . As Members  were aware , this item require d a political commitment  
on the part of all WTO Members, and the Chairman  hoped that Members w ould be able to find a 
solution to this matter as soon as possible . He recalled that  this matter  had been subject to 
discussions at the June TNC meeting . He said that his  door was open to any delegation who would 
wish to contact him on this matter.  He further stated  that he  would like to have a better 
understanding of the situation  and of different views  on this matter.  
6.25.   The DSB took note of the statements.  
__________