RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/408  
 
27 April 2018 
(18-2641) Page: 1/3 
Dispute Settlement Body  
9 February 2018    
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 9 FEBRUARY  2018 
Chairman: Mr. Junichi I hara (Japan ) 
Table of Contents  
1   INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES REL ATING TO SOLAR CELLS  AND SOLAR 
MODULES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  1 
A.  Recourse to Article  21.5 of the DSU by India: Request for the establishment 
of a panel  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  1 
2   UNITED  STATES – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR 
GOODS FROM KOREA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 3 
A.  Statement by the United  States  ................................ ................................ .......................  3 
 
 
1  INDIA – CERTAIN MEASUR ES RELATING TO SOLAR  CELLS AND SOLAR MODU LES 
A.  Recourse to Article  21.5 of the DSU by India: Request for the establishment of a 
panel (WT/DS456/20)  
1.1.  The Chairman  drew Members' attention to the communication from India contained in 
document WT/DS456/20 and  invited the representative of India to speak.  
1.2.  The representative of India said that her country thanked the Chairman for convening this 
meeting. India had requested the establishment of a panel under Article  21.5 of the DSU to 
determine India's compliance  with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in " India – Solar Cells" 
(DS456). India said that it wished to highlight the key issues of its communication, dated 
23 January  2018, in which it had requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article  21.5 
of the DSU. India said that its request for this special DSB meeting, for the purpose of considering 
India's request for the establishment of a panel under Article  21.5 of the DSU, was necessary 
given the US request (WT/DS456/18) for DSB authorization to suspend concessions or other 
obligations vis-à-vis India pursuant to Article  22.2 of the DSU. The US action clearly demonstrated 
that there was disagreement between India and the United  States regarding India's compliance 
with the DSB's  recommendations and  rulings. Since the matter relating to the US request under 
Article  22.2 of the DSU had been referred to arbitration pursuant to Article  22.6 of the DSU, it was 
in the interests of both parties to have the issue of compliance resolved urgently by a panel u nder 
DSU Article  21.5. India recalled that it had filed a report on compliance, dated 14  December  2017 
(WT/DS456/17). Therein, it had informed the DSB that it had ceased to impose any measures that 
had been found inconsistent with the DSB's recommendations  and rulings. Thereafter, the 
United  States had filed its DSU Article  22.2 request for suspension of concessions.  
1.3.  As India had explained in its communication dated 3  January  2018 (WT/DS456/19), the 
United  States had not engaged with India on its specific c oncerns regarding India's compliance. 
Issues in this regard had been brought before the DSB by India at the 12  January  2018 DSB 
meeting. India was of the view that in the event of any disagreement between the parties with WT/DSB/M/408  
 
- 2 - 
 
  respect to the "existence or consi stency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply 
with the recommendations and rulings", the logical course of action would be to first have recourse 
to Article  21.5 of the DSU. While India believed that it had brought the measures at issue into full 
compliance with its WTO obligations, the United States appeared to disagree. Therefore, India's 
compliance had to be evaluated by a panel pursuant to Article  21.5 of the DSU. In its 
communication dated 23  January  2018, in which it had requested the establishment of a panel 
pursuant to Article  21.5 of the DSU, India had explained the actions that it had taken to ensure 
compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. India was confident that compliance 
proceedings pursuant to Article  21.5 of the  DSU would address any doubts regarding India's 
compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, and would thereby nullify the need for 
any DSU Article  22.6 proceedings. India therefore requested the establishment of a panel, 
pursuant to Article  21.5 of the DSU, to resolve the disagreement between India and the 
United  States regarding India's compliance with the DSB's  recommendations and rulings. India 
also requested that, if possible, the DSB refer the matter to the original Panel. India thanked the 
WTO Secretariat for assisting the parties in this dispute and the DSB Members for their attention 
to India's statement.  
1.4.  The representative of the United  States  said that, at a previous DSB meeting, the 
United  States had noted that it had not been aware of any basis for India to assert compliance in 
this dispute. The US view had not changed upon reading India's panel request. In its request, 
India claimed that it had complied with the DSB recommendations in this dispute because it "no 
longer enters into any [Power Purchasing Agreements] involving the DCR measures". India, 
however, had not provided any evidence to substantiate this claim. Moreover, India's panel 
request appeared to indicate that India would continue to apply the WTO -inconsistent DCR 
measures c ontained in Power Purchase Agreements that India had entered into before 
December  2016. The United States did not understand how India could claim compliance while it 
continued applying these WTO -inconsistent DCR measures. The United States had reserved it s 
rights to move forward under DSU Article  22.6 to obtain authorization to take countermeasures in 
relation to India's DCR measures. However, the United States remained willing to work with India 
to find a bilateral resolution to this dispute without furth er proceedings. For these reasons, the 
United  States was not in a position to agree to the establis hment of a panel at the 
present  meeting.  
1.5.  The representative of Canada  said that his country noted that this request for the 
establishment of a panel by India  continued a trend in the WTO's dispute settlement practice. This 
trend had seen the responding party request the establishment of a panel and had occurred in 
DS381, DS430 and DS461. Canada also noted that the Russian Federation had recently initiated 
comp liance consultations with the EU in DS475, where it was the responding party. Each of these 
examples illustrated the utility and appropriateness of the right of a responding party to initiate 
compliance proceedings. They were also consistent with the Appel late Body's observation in 
paragraph  353 in "Canada – Continued Suspension" (DS321) that the "respondent will be able to 
identify in its panel request the measure that it has taken to comply and the specific 
inconsistencies found in the DSB's recommendatio ns and rulings in the original proceedings, and 
claim before the Article  21.5 panel that it has complied with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings by rectifying those inconsistencies".  
1.6.  The representative of the European  Union  said that his delegation refe rred to its statement 
made at the special DSB meeting held on 12  January  2018 with respect to the issue of sequencing. 
The EU recalled that in cases of disagreement about the existence or consistency with WTO rules 
of compliance measures, concessions or ot her obligations could be suspended under the DSU once 
there was a multilateral determination on the alleged compliance action. The EU , therefore , hoped 
that India and the United States would ensure that the procedures of the DSU, regarding 
compliance and s uspension of obligations in this dispute, would be conducted efficiently and in the 
correct sequence.  
1.7.  The representative of Japan  said that his country referred to the statement it had made 
under Agenda item  5 in relation to " India – Agricultural Products"  (DS430) at the 22  May 2017 
DSB meeting. Similarly, in DS430, India, as the original respondent, had requested the 
establishment of a panel under Article  21.5 of the DSU. Japan recalled that it had clearly stated its 
position on this in May  2017, which app lied equally to this case.  
1.8.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter.  WT/DSB/M/408  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2  UNITED  STATES – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS 
FROM KOREA  
A.  Statement by the United  States  
2.1.  The representative of the United  States , speaking under "Other Business", said that, on 
12 January  2018, the DSB had adopted the Report of the Panel in the dispute "US  – OCTG 
(Korea)" (DS488). As provided in the first sentence of Article  21.3 of the DSU, the United  States 
said that it would like to inform the DSB that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in a manner that respected US WTO obligations. The United  States said that it would 
need a reasonable period of time, in which to do so.  
2.2.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea recalled that the DSB had adopted the Panel 
Report in the dispute "US  – OCTG (Korea)" (DS488) on 12  January  2018. Korea further recalled 
that pursuant to Article  21.3 of the DSU, within 30  days from the adoption of the Panel Report, the 
respondi ng Member was required to inform the DSB of its intention to implement the DSB's  
recommendations and rulings. This 30 -day period would expire on 11  February  2018. In light of 
this, Korea found it unusual that the issue of implementation with respect to DS4 88 had not been 
included as a regular Agenda item at the previous or present DSB meeting. Instead, Korea noted 
that the United States had decided to inform the DSB, under "Other Business", of its intention to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings  in this dispute. Korea believed that that, at the 
present meeting, the United  States had confirmed its intention to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings within the meaning of Article  21.3 of the DSU. In this regard, Korea 
welcomed the statement  by the United States that it intended to comply with the DSB 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute. Concerning the reasonable period of time, Korea 
informed the DSB that it had held fruitful consultations with the United States. Korea believed that 
these consultations would result in a mutually agreed reasonable period of time, as stipulated 
under Article  21.3(b) of the DSU. Korea expected that the United States would, promptly, take all 
necessary action to bring its measures into conformity within the agreed reasonable period 
of time. 
2.3.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
__________