RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/348  
 
23 September 2014  
(14-5294)  Page: 1/20  
Dispute Settlement Body 
22 July 2014    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD 
ON 22 JULY 2014 
Chairman: Mr. Fernando De Mateo (Mexico) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda, the representative of China said that in relation to item 7 of 
the proposed Agenda, his country had noted that  a corrigendum to the Appellate Body Report 
(WT/DS449/AB/R/Corr.1) had been circulated in order to rectify a clerical error in the Report. Accordingly, as it was an integral part of the Appellate Body Report, China proposed that the 
corrigendum be considered together under item 7. 
 The representative of the United States said th at his country supported China's request and did 
not object to that action. 
 The Chairman proposed that the DSB agree that  as requested, the corrigendum contained in 
WT/DS449/AB/R/Corr.1 be added to the proposed Agenda in relation to item 7.  
 The DSB took note of the statements and so agreed. 
Table of Contents 
1   SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB ....................................................................................................................... .... 2 
A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States (W T/DS176/11/A dd.139) .......................................................................... 3  
B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.139) ......................................... 7  
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by 
the United States (W T/DS160/24/A dd.114) .......................................................................... 7  
D.  European Communities – Measures affect ing the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the Eu ropean Union (WT/ DS291/37/Add. 77) ................................... 7  
E.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the United Stat es (WT/DS404/11/Add.25) .............................................................. 8  
F.  China – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from 
the United States: Status repo rt by China (W T/DS427/8)  ....................................................... 9  
2   UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 
2000: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB ................ 9  
A.  Statements by the Eu ropean Union and Japan .................................................................. 9  
3   CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECT ING ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SERVICES ........... 11  
A.  Statement by th e United States .................................................................................... 11 
4   CANADA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECTING THE RENEWABLE ENERGY 
GENERATION SECTOR/CANADA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE FEED-IN TARIFF WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 2 - 
 
  PROGRAM: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE 
DSB ........................................................................................................................... ..... 11 
A.  Statements by Japan and the Europe an Union ................................................................. 11 
5   EUROPEAN UNION – COST ADJUSTMENT METHODOLOGIES AND CERTAIN 
ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS FROM RUSSIA ................................................ 13  
A.  Request for the establishment of a pane l by the Russian Fede ration (WT/ DS474/4) .............. 13 
6   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES ON THE IMPORTATION OF LIVE PIGS, 
PORK AND OTHER PIG PRODUCTS  FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION ................................... 14  
A.  Request for the establishment of a pa nel by the European Union (WT/ DS475/2)  .................. 14 
7   UNITED STATES – COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON 
CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA ................................................................................. 15  
A.  Report of the Appellate Body (WT/DS449/AB/R and Corr.1) and Report of the Panel 
(WT/DS449/R an d Add. 1) ................................................................................................. 15 
8   THAILAND – CUSTOMS AND FISCAL MEASURES ON CIGARETTES FROM THE 
PHILIPPI NES ................................................................................................................. 1 9 
A.  Statement by the Philippines ........................................................................................ 19 
9   STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGA RDING THE AB SELECTION PROCESS .............. 20  
 
 1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB 
A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.139) 
 B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.139) 
 C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.114) 
 D.  European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.77) 
 
E.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status report by the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.25) 
 
F.  China – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States: Status report by China (WT/DS427/8) 
 
 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. He recalled that Article 21.6 
of the DSU required 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 reasonab le period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved". The Chairm an invited delegations to provide up-to-date 
information about compliance efforts and to focus on new developments, suggestions and ideas on progress towards the resolution of disputes. In the context of this Agenda item, 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." With these introductory remarks, he 
turned to the first status report under this Agenda item. WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 3 - 
 
  A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.139) 
1.2.  The Chairman drew attention to docu ment WT/DS176/11/Add.139, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
1.3.  The representative of the United States said  that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 10 July 2014, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU. At least six bills had been 
introduced in the current Congress in relation to the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute, some of which would repeal Section 211 while others would modify it. At the previous month's meeting of the DSB, the United States had described the status of each of these bills. The 
US Administration would continue to work on solutions to implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings. 
1.4.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU thanked the United States for its 
most recent status report and the statement made  at the present meeting. The EU hoped that the 
US authorities would resolve this matter very soon.  
1.5.  The representative of Cuba said that her country, once again, noted that the United States 
had referred to five legislative proposals in its 125th status report, issued on 12 April 2013, which 
had been introduced in the 113th session of the US Congress, namely H.R. 214, H.R. 778, 
H.R. 872, H.R. 873 and S. 647. However, since January 2014, the United States had chosen to omit this reference from its status reports, confining itself to noting that certain proposals had been submitted to certain bodies of the US Government. Cuba found it contradictory for the 
United States to submit a brief status report lacking in substance. At the same time, the 
United States had referred orally to alleged actions that had been left out of the report formally submitted to the DSB. Cuba reiterated that Articl e 21.6 of the DSU, which established the basis of 
and the mandate for this item on the DSB's monthly Agenda, specifically required the Member 
concerned to provide a status report "in writing" of its "progress in the implementation of the recommendations or rulings". The most recent US status report (No. 139) circulated to Members 
as an official WTO document, constituted an outright violation of Article 21.6 of the DSU. A 
compilation of the US status reports concerning this dispute submitted over the course of more 
than 12 years of non-compliance showed that, at different stages, the United States had reported a vast number of legislative proposals that had neve r been enacted into law. In all these years of 
continued non-compliance, neither Chamber of the US Congress had been able to adopt any 
legislation that could resolve this dispute. As Cuba had pointed out on previous occasions, it 
seemed that the United States had serious instit utional limitations. However, Members knew that 
this was not the case. In fact, the United States was a country which, because of its economic, 
political and military potential, exercised considerable control world-wide and felt entitled to take action beyond its borders and to decide the fate of many countries. If there was any doubt, it 
sufficed to recall the illegal economic, financial and commercial blockade that the United States 
had maintained against Cuba for more than 50 years. The blockade also affected other countries. Section 211, as unlawful as it may be, was part of  that policy. Nevertheless, Members continued to 
hear about the US lack of capacity to settle this  dispute and the inability of Congress to resolve 
numerous pending issues, including the legislative measures needed to bring Section 211 into 
conformity with WTO rules. The content of the draf t legislation mentioned by the United States and 
the lack of viability of its implementation would result in a situation of permanent non-compliance 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The scenario suggested by some of the legislative 
proposals was disturbing. If these legislative proposals were adopted, Members would be faced with outright legal gimmickry designed to present the appearance of compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. The conditions allowing the Bacardi Company's theft and use of the 
Havana Club trademark to continue would be mainta ined, with the corresponding effect in terms of 
falsification of other renowned Cuban trademarks. Although Cuba had denounced these violations for more than 12 years, the lack of provisions in the DSU to ensure effective compliance with 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings unfortunately provided an incentive for the United States 
to continue to ignore the DSB's decisions. Cuba ur ged the United States to meet its obligations and 
to repeal Section 211, which was the only way to resolve this dispute.  WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.6.  The representative of Nicaragua said that his country supported Cuba's statement made at 
the present meeting and shared the concerns expressed by other countries regarding the US 
status report. The repeated failure to include any new information on the progress made showed 
the lack of political will on the part of the United States to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations in this dispute. Nicaragua reiterated that such non-compliance not only had 
serious systemic consequences for the DSB, but undermined the credibility of the multilateral trading system and had a negative impact on Cuba, a country with a small economy. Nicaragua, 
once again, urged the United States to take the necessary steps to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. 
1.7.  The representative of the Dominican Republic  said that his country thanked the United States 
for its status report on implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations of 
February 2002 regarding the inconsistency of Section 211 with WTO rules, as set out in Article 42 
of the TRIPS Agreement. The Dominican Republic, once again, urged the United States to step up its internal procedures so as to comply with the DSB's rulings. The extended period of time that 
had passed with no implementation undermined the WTO's credibility.  
1.8.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meet ing. India noted with concern that there was no 
substantive change in the situation and that there was a lack of progress in the implementation of 
the DSB's recommendations. The United States had informed the DSB in 2002 of its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in connection with this matter. Non-compliance of DSB recommendations had serious repercussions not only for the credibility of the dispute 
settlement system but also on a predictable and rules-based multilateral system. As stated by 
previous speakers, non-compliance undermined the system and questioned the efficiency of the 
dispute settlement process especially in the co ntext of a developing-country Member seeking 
compliance. In that regard, India urged the United States to report compliance without further 
delay. 
1.9.  The representative of Jamaica said that her country thanked both Cuba and the United States 
for the update and the status report under this Agenda item. Jamaica noted that the circumstances 
of this dispute had not changed and that no pr ogress had been reported since the previous DSB 
meeting. As it had repeatedly done at previous DSB meetings, Jamaica, once again, joined other delegations in voicing its concern about the continued US failure to implement the DSB's 
recommendations adopted on 2 February 2002 with respect to Section 211. The protracted US 
failure to take the steps necessary to comply with its obligations under the DSU was incompatible with its requirement for prompt and effective implem entation of decisions. This was of particular 
concern in cases such as this where the failure to meet an obligation had a negative impact on the 
economic interests of a developing-country Member. Furthermore, Jamaica reiterated its deep concern about the systemic implications of any disregard for DSB decisions. Such disregard could 
serve to undermine the overall integrity of the dispute settlement system, which remained a key 
p i l l a r  o f  t h e  W T O .  J a m a i c a ,  o n c e  a g a i n ,  j o i n e d  o t h e r s  i n  u r g i n g  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  t o  t a k e  t h e  required steps and promptly implement the releva n t  D S B  d e c i s i o n s .  A f t e r  m o r e  t h a n  1 2  y e a r s  
since the adoption of the DSB's recommendations in this case, it was critical that this matter be 
resolved without delay and that the matter be removed from the DSB's Agenda. 
1.10.  The representative of Ecuador said that his country supported the statement made by Cuba. 
Ecuador noted that Article 21 of the DSU referred to the prompt compliance with the DSB's rulings 
and recommendations, in particular since the interests of a developing-country Member were 
affected. Ecuador hoped that the United States would step up its efforts in order to ensure the prompt implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations. Ecuador noted that more than 
12 years had passed since the adoption of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. In Ecuador's 
view, non-compliance undermined the credibility of  the dispute settlement system and the WTO. 
1.11.  The representative of Zimbabwe said that his country took note of the brief statement made 
by the United States which was devoid of any new information with regard to full compliance with 
the DSB obligations. Zimbabwe thanked Cuba for yet another comprehensive briefing regarding 
the US non-compliance with the DSB's rulings. Zimbabwe, once again, was disappointed and 
regretted that the United States had continued to disregard the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations in this dispute. The continued US failure to comply seriously undermined the 
integrity of the DSB. Zimbabwe, therefore, urged the United States to comply with the relevant 
DSB's rulings and recommendations without further delay.  WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.12.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the United States for its status 
report concerning surveillance of implementation in this dispute. Despite the recent intense 
exchange of views between the United States and Cuba on this issue, concrete and new progress towards implementation had not been reported. Brazil remained concerned about this situation of 
non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and urged the United States to bring its 
measures into conformity with WTO rules. 
1.13.  The representative of Antigua and Barbuda, speaking on behalf of the OECS countries, 
which also includes St. Kitts and Nevis, Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines, said that the OECS countries thanked the United States and Cuba for their respective statements on this issue. The OECS countries remained concerned about the lack of progress and continued non-compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations. In particular, non-
compliance in this dispute had a negative economic impact on the economy of a small developing-
country Member. This prolonged non-compliance seriously undermined the dispute settlement system and the WTO's integrity in its capacity as the custodian of the multilateral trading system. 
In that context, the OECS countries urged prompt compliance with the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations so as to resolve this dispute. 
1.14.  The representative of Mexico said that, as it had done in the past, Mexico urged the parties 
to this dispute to adopt the necessary measures  to comply with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings, in accordance with Article 21.1 of the DSU. Mexico noted that prompt compliance would benefit all Members.   
1.15.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that, as his country had stated 
for more than 12 years, the US status report did not contain any new developments that could be 
described as progress towards resolving this disput e. Bolivia, therefore, reiterated its concern 
about the systemic implications of the US failure to comply with the DSB's rulings and the lack of 
political will to take steps towards doing so. Such non-compliance undermined the credibility and 
integrity of the multilateral trading system and affected the interests of a developing-country Member. Bolivia, once again, called on the United  States to comply with the DSB's rulings and to 
remove the restrictions imposed under Section 211. Bolivia supported the concerns expressed by 
Cuba in its statement made at the present meeting. 
1.16.  The representative of China said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting. China noted that the United States 
reported no substantial progress. The prolonged situation of non-compliance in this dispute was 
highly incompatible with the prompt implementation required under the DSU provisions, in particular since the interests of a developing-c ountry Member were a ffected. China urged the 
United States to implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations without any further delay. 
1.17.  The representative of Uruguay said that his country thanked the United States for the 
information and in particular the statement regarding the bills presented to Congress. However, 
Uruguay noted that there had been no progress. Uruguay urged the United States to resolve this 
matter as soon as possible so that the item could be removed from the DSB's Agenda.  
1.18.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that her country supported 
Cuba's statement made at the present meeting. Venezuela noted with concern that the US status 
report was not only monotonous and repetitive  but, once again, did not contain any new 
information on progress towards compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. As stated by previous speakers, Venezuela was concerned about the prolonged non-compliance and 
urged the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. This prolonged 
situation of non-compliance undermined the interests of a developing-country Member. It also undermined the credibility of the multilateral tr ading system, the dispute settlement system, and 
its ability to resolve disputes. Non-compliance in this dispute showed the lack of political will on 
the part of the US Administration to put an end to this flagrant violation and lack of respect of the 
DSB's decisions. Venezuela regretted that the DSB was seriously affected by the repeated action 
or the repeated omission of one Member. Venezuela supported Cuba and condemned the 
behaviour of the US Administration. Venezuela urged the US authorities to repeal Section 211 and 
to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.   WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.19.  The representative of South Africa said th at her country wished to refer to its previous 
statements stressing its systemic concerns that this non-compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings undermined the integrit y of the enforcement pillar of the WTO, as 
well as the credibility and legitimacy of the multilateral trading system as a whole. South Africa 
was also concerned that non-compliance perpetuated significant negative economic consequences 
for a particular developing-country Member's econ omic interests. Furthermore, South Africa was 
concerned that protracted non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings would 
eventually entail significant adverse implicatio ns for access to the dispute settlement mechanism 
as a whole by the lesser-resourced developing countries. South Africa, therefore, urged the United States to bring its legislation into compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
1.20.  The representative of Angola said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report regarding Section 211. Angola noted that this dispute had been discussed for many years 
without any favourable result for Cuba's legitimate rights. As a result, Cuba continued to be adversely affected. This situation of non-complianc e was a cause for concern over recent years and 
there was no sign of a solution being found s oon. Angola believed that the dispute settlement 
system depended on its ability to promptly resolve disputes, while preserving Members' rights. Failure to do so would undermine the system and affect Members, in particular developing-country 
Members. All Members had the same rights and were, as a result, required not only to comply with 
their obligations, but also with decisions taken by  WTO bodies. In Angola's view, it was regrettable 
that the dispute settlement mechanism, which was one of the main achievements of the 
multilateral trading system, continued to be undermined because of the measures taken by one 
Member. In that regard, Angola reiterated its support to Cuba and urged the United States to take 
concrete steps to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
1.21.  The representative of Argentina said that his country thanked the United States for its 
status report and its statement made at the present meeting. However, Argentina noted that, once 
again, no substantive information had been provid ed on this matter. Argentina had no choice but 
to repeat what it had been saying for some time now. This lack of progress was inconsistent with 
the principle of prompt and effective compliance stipulated in the DSU provisions, in particular 
since the interests of a developing-country Memb er were concerned. Argentina joined Cuba and 
the previous speakers and urged both parties to th e dispute, especially the United States, to take 
the necessary steps to finally remove this item from the DSB's Agenda.  
1.22.  The representative of the Russian Federation said that his country shared the opinion 
expressed by certain Members that the dispute settlement system provided stability to the 
multilateral trading system. Russia urged the parties to this dispute to find a solution through the 
instruments available under the WTO Agreement. Russia believed that this situation of non-
compliance raised serious and deep systemic concerns, as it undermined Members' respect and trust in the DSB and the WTO as a whole. 
1.23.  The representative of Viet Nam said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report. Viet Nam, once again, was concerned about the non-compliance in this dispute. Viet Nam 
urged the United States to implement, without any further delay, the DSB's recommendation and 
rulings for the benefit of Cuba, a developing-country Member. 
1.24.  The representative of El Salvador said that her country thanked the United States for its 
status report. El Salvador, once again, was concerned about the lack of compliance in this dispute 
which adversely affected the multilateral trading system. El Salvador urged the parties to this 
dispute to find a way to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this prolonged 
dispute.  
1.25.  The representative of Kenya said that his country thanked the United States for its 
statement. Kenya, like many other Members, attached great value to the WTO as an organization, 
to the decisions of its bodies and to the multilateral trading system that had strongly guided the growth of international trade since 1947. The WT O's contribution under the auspices of the GATT 
in stabilizing and facilitating growth of glob al trade had been documented and served as a 
reminder to all Members of the need to continue protecting the image and the credibility of the 
WTO which all Members valued and cherished. In th at regard, the 12 years of non-compliance with  
 WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 7 - 
 
  the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute sent a wrong message to the international 
community. Kenya called for the prompt an d unreserved implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  
1.26.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures  on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the Un ited States (WT/DS184/15/Add.139) 
1.27.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.139, which contained the 
status report by the United States on pr ogress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel 
products from Japan. 
1.28.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 10 July 2014, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States had 
addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti-dumping 
margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration 
would work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would 
resolve this matter. 
1.29.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked the United States for its 
statement and status report submitted on 10 July  2014. Japan referred to its previous statements 
in which it had indicated its wish that this issue should be resolved as soon as possible. 
1.30.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS160/24/Add.114) 
1.31.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.114, which contained the 
status report by the United States on pr ogress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act. 
1.32.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 10 July 2014, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the European Union,  and to work closely with the US Congress, in 
order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. 
1.33.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and its statement made at the pr esent meeting. The EU referred to its previous 
statements on its wish to resolve this case as soon as possible. 
1.34.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. D.  European Communities – Measures affect ing the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the Eu ropean Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.77) 
1.35.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.77, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on pr ogress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products. 
1.36.  The representative of the European Union said that, in recent DSB meetings, the EU had 
already reported on authorization decisions taken up to June 2014. The EU Standing Committee on 
the food chain and animal health of 23 June 2014 ha d voted on a draft decision for authorization of WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 8 - 
 
  a maize1, for food and feed uses. The Committee had rendered no opinion on the draft decision. 
The draft decision had been presented to the A ppeal Committee for voting on 10 July 2014, which 
had rendered no opinion. The European Commission would initiate the last stage of the procedure. As had been stated many times before, the EU recalled that the EU approval system was not 
covered by the DSB's recommendations and ruli ngs. The GMO regulatory regime was working 
normally as evidenced by the approval decisions and other actions towards approval decisions just 
mentioned. The details on the relevant products were set out in the EU's written statement. 
1.37.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meet ing. As it had explained at past DSB meetings, 
the United States had substantial concerns regarding EU measures affecting the approval of biotech products. At the June 2014 DSB meeting, the United States had noted that the EU had not 
approved a single new biotech product in 2014. At the moment, at least nine products were 
awaiting final action by the EU Commission. Each of these products had received a positive safety assessment by the EU's own safety authority. Foll owing the positive safety assessments, each of 
these nine products had been considered by the relevant EU regulatory committee, and then 
subsequently by the EU appeals committee. However, due to opposition from certain EU member States, these EU committees had failed to make decisions. In fact, the United States had heard the 
EU in their statement made at the present me eting describe a couple of instances where its 
committees had failed to make decisions. Under the EU's own legislation, the European Commission was to act without delay to approve biotech products in the event that votes in the regulatory committee and the appeals committee did not result in a decision. But not once in the 
present year had the EU undertaken its responsibility and approved a pending application. These 
failures by the EU regulatory committee, by the EU appeals committee, and by the EU Commission 
resulted in delays for all pending biotech applications. The EU measures, including such delays in 
the processing of specific applications and product bans adopted by EU member States, were 
causing serious disruption in trade in agricultur al products. Indeed, EU feed manufacturers had 
expressed concern about the impact of these dela ys on the availability of protein feeds for 
European livestock industries. The United States  urged the EU to take steps to address these 
matters. 
1.38.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
E.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.25) 
1.39.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS404/11/Add.25, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US an ti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from 
Viet Nam. 
1.40.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 10 July 2014, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As it had noted at past 
DSB meetings, the US Department of Commerce had published a modification to its procedures in February 2012 in order to implement the DSB's re commendations and rulings regarding the use of 
"zeroing" in anti-dumping reviews. That modification addressed certain findings in this dispute. The 
United States would continue to consult with in terested parties as it worked to address the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 
1.41.  The representative of Viet Nam said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and the statement made at the present m eeting. Viet Nam recalled that the reasonable 
period of time mutually agreed by the parties to this dispute had expired 13 months ago. However, 
the US Administration had not taken any action to recalculate and revoke the anti-dumping duty 
for the second and third administrative review that was inconsistent with the DSB's recommendations. Viet Nam, once again, requested the United States to fully comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings without any further delay so as to maintain the multilateral 
trading system disciplines and to the benefit of Viet Nam's exporters. 
                                               
1 NK603 maize. WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.42.  The representative of Cuba said that he r country, once again, wished to reiterate the 
importance of effective compliance, in particular since the vital interests of a developing-country 
Member were involved. Cuba urged the United States to comply with the DSB's rulings and recommendations in an effective manner. As Viet Na m had noted, the reasonable period of time to 
comply in this dispute had expired. The 25
th US status report and Viet Nam's statement showed 
that this was another case of non-compliance by the United States. Cuba urged the United States to take the necessary measures in order to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
1.43.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that her country supported 
the statement made by Viet Nam. Venezuela shar ed the concerns expressed by Cuba regarding 
the importance of complying with the DSB's rulings and recommendations. Venezuela urged the United States to take the necessary measures to finally resolve this dispute. 
1.44.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
F.  China – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from 
the United States: Status report by China (WT/DS427/8) 
1.45.  The Chairman drew attention to document  WT/DS427/8, which contained the status report 
by China on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the case concerning 
China's anti-dumping and countervailing duty  measures on broiler products from the 
United States. 
1.46.  The representative of China said that his country had submitted a status report in this 
dispute on 10 July 2014. On 25 December 2013, th e Ministry of Commerce of China had published 
a notice (Notice (2013) No. 88) and had launched a re-investigation on broiler products from the 
United States. On 8 July 2014, the Ministry of Commerce had published a notice (Notice (2014) No. 44) and had announced the determination of the re-investigation on broiler products from the 
United States. Through that re-investigation, China had fully implemented the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings before the expiration  of the reasonable period of time in this 
dispute. 
1.47.  The representative of the United States said  that his country took note of China's statement 
that it had taken measures to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The 
measures that China had taken were re-determinations that maintained anti-dumping duties (ADs) and countervailing duties (CVDs) on broiler products from the United States. The United States 
was not in a position to accept China's assertion that these measures resulted in compliance with 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Based on its review to date, the United States had serious concerns with China's re-determinations. In particular, the re-determinations appeared to 
have many of the same flaws that the DSB had identified in the original AD and CVD 
determinations. For example, in making the re-det erminations, China had adopted procedures that 
did not appear to have provided the respondents with an opportunity to defend their interests. 
Similarly, the reasoning used in the re-determinations with respect to cost allocations and injury to 
the domestic industry seemed to have many of the same problems as identified by the DSB in the original determinations. The United States would continue to review the re-determinations and consider how to best address its concerns. Finally, the United States noted that the parties had 
reached an understanding regarding procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in order to 
facilitate the resolution of this dispute. The understanding had been circulated in document WT/DS427/9. 
1.48.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTE D BY THE DSB 
A.  Statements by the European Union and Japan 
2.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the EU and Japan. He then invited the respective representatives to speak. WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 10 - 
 
  2.2.  The representative of the European Union said that, once again, the EU requested that the 
United States stop transferring anti-dumping and countervailing duties. Every disbursement that 
still took place was clearly an act of non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The EU renewed its call on the United States to abide by its clear obligation under Article 21.6 of 
the DSU to submit status reports pertaining to this dispute. 
2.3.  The representative of Japan said that, since the distributions under the CDSOA had 
continued, Japan once again urged the United States to stop the illegal distributions in order to 
resolve this long-standing dispute. As stated in previous meetings, Japan was of the view that the 
United States was under obligation to provide the DSB with a status report in this dispute, in 
accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. 
2.4.  The representative of Canada said that hi s country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda. Canada acknowledged that there was some uncertainty about when a 
dispute should be subject to the surveillance of the DSB. However, in the circumstances of this 
dispute, where the DSB had authorized the suspen sion of concessions and there was a claim of 
compliance, the DSB's surveillance mandate was clear, as was the corresponding obligation to 
provide status reports. The text of Article 22.8 of the DSU was clear on this. In its report in "US -Continued Suspension", the Appellate Body had clar ified that in the event of a disagreement about 
the compliance of measures in the post-retaliation context, the fulfilment of the obligation in 
Article 22.8 of the DSU must be subject to a mult ilateral determination of compliance. Until then, 
the Member concerned had an obligation to provide status reports. Therefore, Canada agreed with 
the EU and Japan that the Byrd Amendment remain ed subject to the surveillance of the DSB until 
the United States ceased to administer it, or until there had been a multilateral determination that 
its administration was consistent with the WTO Agreement. 
2.5.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda. As it had expressed in previous DSB meetings, Brazil was of the view 
that the United States was under obligation to submit status reports in this dispute until such time as no more disbursements were made pursuant to the Byrd Amendment. Only then would the 
issue be resolved within the meaning of the DSU an d would the United States be released from its 
obligation to provide status reports in this dispute. Moreover, disbursements made after the repeal of the Byrd Amendment but related to investigations  that originated before the repeal of the Act 
continued to amount to non-compliance.  
2.6.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda. As India had noted at previous DSB meetings, the United States 
continued WTO-inconsistent disbursements to its domestic industry. India urged the United States 
to fully comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. In India's view, this item should 
remain under the DSB's surveillance until full compliance was achieved. 
2.7.  The representative of the United States said that, as his country had noted at previous DSB 
meetings, the President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 8 February 2006, which 
included a provision repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. Accordingly, the United States had taken al l actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes. Fu rthermore, the United States recalled that 
Members, including the EU and Japan, had acknowledged during previous DSB meetings that the 
2006 Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods that were entered after 1 October 2007, which was nearly seven years ago. The United States therefore did 
not understand the purpose for which the EU and Ja pan had inscribed this item on the Agenda of 
the present meeting. With respect to comments rega rding further status reports in this matter, as 
it had already explained at previous DSB meetings, the United States failed to see what purpose 
would be served by further submission of status reports which would repeat, again, that the 
United States had taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Indeed, as the United States had expressed at past DSB meetings, there was no obligation under the DSU to provide further status reports once a Member announced that it had 
implemented those DSB's recommendations and rulings. The United States had in the past noted 
that Members speaking under this item had followed the same approach in disputes where they had been the responding party and had not continued to provide status reports where the 
complaining party had disagreed over compliance. The United States disagreed with the 
statements made at the present meeting by some of those parties attempting to distinguish the situations under Article 21.6 and 22.8 of the DSU. The United States did not find their logic WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 11 - 
 
  persuasive. Generally speaking, the United States agreed, and that for the same reason the status 
reports were not required in other disputes, the United States was not required to provide status reports in these disputes where the necessary action had been taken many years ago.  
2.8.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
3  CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECTING ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SERVICES A.  Statement by the United States 3.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United States. He then invited the representative of the United States to speak. 
3.2.  The representative of the United States said that his country continued to have serious 
concerns that China had failed to bring its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations. The 
situation had not changed since the previous month or since the United States had first begun 
raising this matter at the DSB. China continued to maintain a ban on foreign suppliers of electronic 
payment services ("EPS") by imposing a licensing requirement on them while providing no procedures for them to obtain that license. As a result, China's own domestic champion, China 
Union Pay, remained the only EPS supplier that could operate in China's domestic market. China's 
measures could not be reconciled with the DSB's findings that China's WTO obligations included both market access and national treatment commitments concerning Mode 3 for EPS.
2 The 
United States took note of China's statements made in prior DSB meetings that it was working on 
the necessary regulations to allow for the licensing of foreign EPS suppliers which would be necessary to provide the market access and national treatment set out in its Schedule. The United States continued to engage with China at many levels to seek the timely issuance of these 
regulations, which had still not been issued near ly one year after the expiry of the reasonable 
period of time in this dispute. As such, the United States urged China to move forward with these regulations and to allow the licensing of foreign EPS suppliers in China, consistent with its WTO 
obligations. 
3.3.  The representative of China said that his co untry regretted that the United States had, once 
again, brought this matter before the DSB. China referred to its statements made under this 
Agenda item at previous DSB meetings. China had taken all necessary actions and had fully 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. China had also further explained that the actions being sought by the United States were beyond the scope of China's compliance obligations. With respect to the regulation that the United States had mentioned, China 
reiterated that this matter was not relevant to the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in this dispute. China hoped that the United States would reconsider the systemic implications of its position. 
3.4.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
4  CANADA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECT ING THE RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION 
SECTOR/CANADA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE FEED-IN TARIFF PROGRAM: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTE D BY THE DSB 
A.  Statements by Japan and the European Union 4.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Japan and the European Union. He then invited the respective representatives to speak. 
4.2.  The representative of Japan said that, as his country had explained under "Other Business" at 
the previous DSB meeting, Japan was deeply disappointed with Canada's notification to fully 
comply on 5 June 2014, since this dispute had not yet been resolved. In fact, Canada had 
committed itself to take further steps to comp ly with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
beyond the measures initially identified in its 13 February 2014 status report. Canada had even indicated that these were "interim" in nature  but did not take any further steps towards 
                                               
2 "China – Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services", WT/DS413/R (adopted on 
31 August 2012), paras. 7.575, 7.678. WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 12 - 
 
  implementation. Japan was of the view that, give n its failure to repeal the domestic content 
requirements in the FIT Program from the law, Cana da was still in breach of its obligations under 
Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement and Article III: 4 of the GATT 1994. Japa n, therefore, believed 
that Canada was under obligation to provide the DSB with a status report in this dispute, in 
accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. Japa n recalled that Canada had requested Japan to 
extend the reasonable period of time to 5 June  2014, and Japan had agreed to that extension. 
However, Canada had notified the DSB, the day on  which the reasonable period of time was to 
expire, that it had fully complied without having taken any of the further actions that it had 
indicated it would take. Japan was thus compelled to express its systemic concern that Canada's decision would significantly undermine the confidence in the dispute settlement system. In order to make sure that Canada fully complied with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, Japan 
reserved its rights to all available steps. 
4.3.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU had asked to raise this item on 
the Agenda of the present meeting, pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU, which stated that "the 
issue of implementation of the recommendations o r  r u l i n g s  m a y  b e  r a i s e d  a t  t h e  D S B  b y  a n y  
Member at any time following their adoption". The EU had already expressed its surprise about Canada's decision not to submit a status report ahead of the DSB meeting of June 2014. Moreover, 
the late submission of Canada's communication had made it difficult for the EU to request an item 
on the Agenda of the June 2014 DSB meeting.  The EU attached great importance to the 
multilateral surveillance of the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. That 
was why, at the present meeting, the EU wanted Canada to inform all Members in a transparent 
way about its position and, importantly, to allow a discussion. By means of a letter dated 
Thursday, 5 June 2014, the day on which the reas onable period of time had expired, Canada 
informed the EU that it "considers that it has complied with the recommendations and rulings of 
the DSB in these disputes". Canada supported this  statement by reference to actions taken by the 
Ontario authorities in June and August 2013, about one year ago. The EU recalled that on 
29 July 2013, Canada and the EU had communicated to the DSB an agreement under 
Article 21.3(b) of the DSU on the reasonable period of time in this dispute, which had originally 
been envisaged to be ten months. Therefore, before the agreement on the reasonable period of time, the Ontario authorities had already taken the first action on the basis of which Canada claimed compliance. The second measure had been adopted on 16 August 2013, barely 18 days 
after the agreed reasonable period of time. As all Members could understand, if the EU had been 
led to negotiate in good faith a ten-month reasonable  period of time, it had definitely not been on 
the assumption that compliance could be achieved by means of Ministerial decisions that could, 
and had been, adopted overnight. On 24 March 2014, seven months after Ontario had adopted the 
Ministerial decisions in question, the EU and Canada  had agreed to modify the reasonable period of 
time to expire on 5 June 2014. That represented an additional two and a half months. The EU had 
a g r e e d  t o  m o d i f y  t h e  r e a s o n a b l e  p e r i o d  o f  t i m e  i n  g o o d  f a i t h .  A g a i n ,  a s  a l l  M e m b e r s  c o u l d  
understand, if Canada and the EU had agreed to modify the reasonable period of time, it must have been because in March 2014 both sides considered that compliance had not yet been achieved and that additional time would be useful to secure a positive solution to the dispute. Yet, 
Canada now claimed that it had complied as of August 2013. The EU was dismayed by the turn of 
events in this dispute. It was extremely worrying not just from the perspective of the specific trade interests of the EU, but more broadly for a disput e settlement system that must be based on the 
commitment of all Members to act in good faith under the DSU provisions. The EU urged Canada 
to re-engage constructively in this dispute and to work towards a positive solution. Therefore, the EU wished to offer Canada an opportunity to explain to all Members what its intentions were with 
regard to this dispute and, in particular, whether Canada intended to conclude the procedure to 
amend the Ontario Electricity Act. The EU wished to announce already at the present meeting that 
it would ask that this item be included again in the Agenda of the DSB regular meeting in August, in order to ensure appropriate follow-up. 
4.4.  The representative of Canada said that, as his country had indicated on previous occasions, 
the actions taken to ensure compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings had been 
outlined in the status reports submitted in these disputes and in Canada's 5 June 2014 notification 
of compliance. On the basis of those actions, Canada considered that it had complied with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this matter. Canada understood that Japan and the EU disagreed with that assessment. The attempt to enact Bill 153 to amend the Electricity Act, 
referred to by both Japan and the EU, had no t been necessary to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings because the Government of Ontario had addressed the issue of domestic content requirements by way of Directions  from the Ontario Minister of Energy. Bill 153 WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 13 - 
 
  had been tabled by the Government of Ontario in December 2013 to amend the governing 
legislation of the FIT Program for domestic legislative housekeeping purposes. Bill 153 had been terminated when the 40th Parliament of Ontario was dissolved on 2 May 2014 for general elections. On 14 July 2014, in the 41st Parliament of Ontario, the Government of Ontario had 
tabled Bill 14 (Building Opportunity and Securing our Future Act (Budget Measures), 2014). Bill 14 
contained a clause – subsection 10(3) of Schedu le 7 – providing for the same amendment to the 
Electricity Act as Bill 153. In including this clause in Bill 14, the Government of Ontario was 
completing what it had set out to do with Bill 153. Bill 14 was a budget bill and central to the 
recently re-elected majority government's legisl ative agenda. However, Canada considered that 
Bill 14, like Bill 153 before it, was not necessary  to comply with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings. Regarding the suggestion that Canada ha d been and was required to continue providing 
status reports to the DSB after notifying its compliance, Canada did not understand why the 
complaining parties insisted on this point. As it had explained at the June 2014 DSB meeting, after Canada had sent its written communication to Japan, the EU and the DSB setting out its 
notification of compliance, there was no further obligation on Canada to provide status reports to 
the DSB. This approach was consistent with the DSU provisions and the DSB practice. Other delegations had agreed with Canada, in words and in deeds, that further status reports were not 
required in these circumstances. As such, Canada disagreed with the points raised by Japan and 
the EU at the present meeting. 
4.5.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU welcomed this development and 
Canada's intention to achieve full compliance in this case. The EU was looking forward to Canada's 
official communication to the DSB of the new legislative amendment, which would then be 
carefully analysed. Until then, the EU would continue to request that this item remain on the DSB's Agenda in order to ensure that it was a ppropriately followed up by the Membership. 
4.6.  The representative of the United States sa id that his country appreciated that Japan and the 
European Union had inscribed this item on the Ag enda of the present meeting to permit Members 
to become aware of their concerns relating to im plementation in this dispute. As it had stated 
previously at past DSB meetings and just a few Agenda items ago, the United States agreed with 
Canada on the systemic issue that it was not required to continue providing status reports to the DSB if it had informed the DSB that it had taken the necessary steps to comply. That systemic position, of course, did not apply just to Canada, but also to other Members making the same 
claim; had it been otherwise, Canada's position could not be described as "systemic". At the same 
time, while the matter was not subject to another WTO proceeding, the complaining parties were of course free to bring the item to the attention of the DSB. Given the concerns that Japan and the 
EU had expressed at the present meeting, the Unit ed States encouraged Canada to engage in a 
dialogue with them to seek ways to address their concerns.  
4.7.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
5  EUROPEAN UNION – COST ADJUSTMENT METHODOLOGIES AND CERTAIN ANTI-
DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS FROM RUSSIA 
A.  Request for the establishment of a pane l by the Russian Federation (WT/DS474/4) 
5.1.  The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
18 June 2014. He drew attention to the communication from the Russian Federation contained in 
document WT/DS474/4, and invited the representative of the Russian Federation to speak. 
5.2.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that his country wished to refer to its 
statement made at the DSB meeting on 18 June 2014. Russia reiterated its request for the 
establishment of a panel, with standard terms of reference, to examine the cost adjustment 
methodologies and certain anti-dumping measures on imports from Russia. The consultations held 
with the EU had not resulted in any acceptable solution. For that reason, recourse to a WTO panel 
was required. 
5.3.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU regretted that a panel would be 
established at the present meeting. The EU was co nvinced that its measures were in conformity 
with the WTO Agreements and it would defend them during the panel proceedings. WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 14 - 
 
  5.4.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference. 
5.5.  The representatives of Argentina, Austra lia, Canada, China, Indonesia, Norway, Turkey, 
Ukraine and the United States reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's 
proceedings. 
6  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES ON THE IMPORTATION OF LIVE PIGS, PORK AND 
OTHER PIG PRODUCTS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union (WT/DS475/2) 
6.1.  The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
10 July 2014. He drew attention to the communication from the European Union contained in 
document WT/DS475/2, and invited the representative of the European Union to speak. 
6.2.  The representative of the European Union said  that, regrettably, the EU found itself left with 
no choice but to make a second request for the establishment of a panel in this dispute, which was 
of serious concern to the EU from both a legal and from an economic perspective. As had been 
previously noted, Russia maintained an EU-wide restriction against imports of live pigs, pork and 
other pig products since January 2014. The restrictions had been applied based on four cases of African swine fever (ASF) detected in January in wild boars in Lithuania and Poland, close to the 
border with Belarus. As had also been noted during the previous DSB meeting, the EU had 
demonstrated to Russia that all necessary measures  to contain a further spread of ASF had been 
put in place immediately and that there was no scientific reason to ban imports from unaffected areas of the EU. However, Russia continuously refused to recognize the EU regionalization 
measures and continued banning imports from th e whole EU territory. Therefore, the EU was 
seeking the establishment of a panel to ensure th at Russia played by the rules and respected its 
WTO obligations. The EU noted that, in document G/SPS/N/RUS/64 dated 16 July 2014, Russia 
had notified to the WTO a measure imposing a temporary restriction on the import of live pigs and 
pork products from Latvia due to the outbreak  of the ASF virus, and introducing a temporary 
restriction on the transit of live pigs through the territory of Latvia to the Russian Federation. The 
EU panel request covered the measures at issue and any amendments, supplements, extensions, 
replacement measures, renewal measures and implementing measures. It also addressed the position with respect to the entire EU territory, other than properly restricted areas, thus already including the relevant parts of Latvia. Consequently, the EU panel request also covered the 
measure notified in document G/SPS/N/RUS/64. The EU respectfully informed Russia, prospective 
third parties and the Membership generally that this was the basis on which the EU would proceed, thus giving all concerned ample opportunity to fully understand the scope of the proceedings and 
prepare their legal positions accordingly. In th e meantime, in the event that Russia wished to 
make any written or oral representations to the EU specific to the measure notified in document G/SPS/N/RUS/64, the EU stood ready, in good fait h, to accord full and sympathetic consideration 
to any such representations. 
6.3.  The representative of the Russian Federati on said that his country regretted that the EU 
requested the establishment of a panel to examin e this matter. As it had already stated, Russia 
had participated in consultations with the EU in April-May 2014 in good faith with the intention of 
finding a mutually satisfactory solution. With recurring ASF outbreaks in the territory of the EU, 
now spread to Latvia, evidence of the ineffectiven ess of European efforts to prevent the spread of 
the disease was quite clear. The exceptional epiz ootic character of the ASF entailed a veterinary 
issue with high health and economic risks that coul d not be resolved by forcing or speeding up the 
legal procedure. Regarding the allegations made in the EU's request for the establishment of a 
panel, Russia wished to re-state that it was confident that the measures at issue did not in any 
way violate Russia's obligations under the WTO Agreements. Russia believed that issues related to 
this animal disease may only be effectively resolved through expert consultations and arrangements. Russia was willing to continue cooperation with the EU. However, Russia was ready to exercise all its rights provided for under the DSU provisions. WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 15 - 
 
  6.4.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference. 
6.5.  The representatives of Australia, China, Indi a, Japan, Korea, Norway, Chinese Taipei and the 
United States reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
7  UNITED STATES – COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN 
PRODUCTS FROM CHINA 
A.  Report of the Appellate Body (WT/DS449 /AB/R and Corr.1) and Report of the Panel 
(WT/DS449/R and Add.1) 
7.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the comm unication from the Appellate Body contained in 
document WT/DS449/9 transmitting the Appellate Body Report on: "United States – Countervailing 
and Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Products from China", circulated on 7 July 2014 in 
document WT/DS449/AB/R. He reminded delegations that the Appellate Body Report and the Panel 
Report pertaining to this dispute had been circulated as unrestricted documents. As Members were aware, Article 17.14 of the DSU required that, "An Appellate Body report shall be adopted by the 
DSB and unconditionally accepted by the parties to the dispute unless the DSB decides by 
consensus not to adopt the Appellate Body report within 30 days following its circulation to Members. This adoption procedure is without prej udice to the right of Members to express their 
views on an Appellate Body report".  
7.2.  The representative of China said that hi s country thanked the Appellate Body, the Panel and 
the Secretariat for their work in this dispute, as well as the third parties for their participation. 
China welcomed the Report of the Appellate Body in  this dispute. The Appellate Body Report under 
consideration at the present meeting corrected an erroneous Panel Report, which if it had not been 
reversed by the Appellate Body, it would have ca used significant damage to the requirements of 
transparency and due process set forth in Article X of the GATT 1994. China predicted that the 
Appellate Body Report in this dispute would become  an important milestone in the jurisprudence of 
Article X of the GATT 1994. The facts and circumstances which had led China to initiate this dispute represented an outrageous abuse of transparency and due process. In 2006, the 
United States Department of Commerce had abruptly departed from settled US law and had begun 
applying countervailing duties to imports from countries that the United States designated as non-market economies, including imports from China. The Government of China and interested Chinese parties had promptly challenged this action in US courts, fully expecting that the relevant 
countervailing duty orders would be revoked if they  prevailed in their understanding of US law. In 
December 2011, the United States Court of Appeal s for the Federal Circuit had ruled in favour of 
the Chinese parties, holding that the countervailing duty provisions of the US Tariff Act did not 
apply to non-market economy imports. That should  have been the end of the matter. Instead of 
allowing the Federal Circuit's decision to take effect, the US administration had proceeded to Capitol Hill and asked Congress to change the US law retroactively to make lawful what the 
Federal Circuit had held was unlawful. While this retroactive legislation may have been consistent 
with US law, it was not consistent with Article X:2 of the GATT 1994. Article X:2 clearly prohibits the enforcement of measures that increase rate s of duty or impose new or more burdensome 
requirements on imports as a result of events that had occurred prior to the official publication of 
the measure. In this case, the relevant measur e had been published on 13 March 2012, but had 
been enforced in respect of events dating al l the way back to 20 November 2006. Had these 
actions taken place in any other country, the United States would almost certainly have cried foul. 
Instead, the United States came before the Panel in this dispute and advocated an interpretation 
of Article X:2 of the GATT 1994 that, had it been allowed to stand, would have removed any meaningful constraint upon the ability of Members to  increase rates of duty on a retroactive basis. 
This interpretation was preposterous and so inconsistent with principles of transparency and due 
process that the Panel should readily have dismissed it. Unfortunately, two panelists representing the Panel majority had adopted the US interpreta tion. That should never have happened, and it 
had left China with no choice but to seek the reversal of that erroneous interpretation by the 
Appellate Body. 
7.3.  In its Report, the Appellate Body had rejected the majority of Panel's interpretation and 
application of Article X:2 of the GATT 1994. The A ppellate Body had correctly recognized that it 
was the prior municipal law of the importing Member, not a government agency's "practice", that 
established the baseline for determining whether a measure amounted to an increase in a rate of WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 16 - 
 
  duty or imposed a new or more burdensome requirement or restriction on imports. This 
interpretation was fully consistent with the ordinary meaning of Article X:2 and with the broader context provided by Article X, which indicates that governments and traders could ordinarily 
expect the law of the importing Member to be set forth in published measures of general 
application. China welcomed, in particular, the Appellate Body's recognition that the baseline of 
prior municipal law was to be determined in accord ance with the standard that the Appellate Body 
had previously articulated in its Report in the "US - Carbon Steel" dispute. This was unquestionably 
the correct approach to applying Article X:2 to a given measure. Having reversed the Panel 
majority's interpretations and findings, the Appellate Body found that it was unable to complete the legal analysis. This was unfortunate, as it left the dispute between the parties less than fully resolved. In China's view, the Appellate Body's inability to complete the legal analysis in this 
dispute highlighted systemic deficiencies in the DSU, most notably the inability of the Appellate 
Body or party to remand a dispute to a panel for a proper application of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements. The present dispute was a case study on how the lack of remand 
authority prevented the effective resolution of disputes among Members. The Appellate Body's 
inability to complete the analysis was all the more unfortunate in light of the fact that it was now beyond any reasonable doubt that the measure at issue was inconsistent with a proper 
interpretation of Article X:2 of the GATT 1994. In a decision issued on 18 March 2014, subsequent 
to the issuance of the Panel Report to the parties, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had ruled, once again, that US la w did not permit the application of countervailing 
duties to imports from non-market economy countries  prior to the enactment of Section 1 of Public 
Law 112-99. That decision was now final and non-appealable.  
7.4.  The Federal Circuit's decision established beyond doubt that Section 1 had increased rates of 
duty and imposed a new or more burdensome requ irement on imports in relation to prior US 
municipal law. Therefore, it was inconsistent on its face with Article X:2 of the GATT 1994, 
properly interpreted in accordance with the Appellate Body's Report. China called upon the United States to recognize that Section 1 was inconsistent with Article X:2 of the GATT 1994 and 
to take the appropriate steps to bring this measure into compliance with its WTO obligations. Now 
that the proper interpretation of Article X:2 was established, the United States should not prolong 
this dispute by refusing to acknowledge what was now self-evident. The entire case would have been rendered superfluous had the United States enacted and published Section 1 of P.L. 112-99 
back in 2006, and subsequently enforced that new measure on a prospective basis. Instead, the 
US Administration had taken its chances on a novel interpretation of US municipal law, which its own courts had rejected. Rather than accept this outcome, the United States had sought to fix the 
problem by acting in blatant violation of its obligations under Article X:2 of the GATT 1994. It was 
long past due for the United States to rectify this mistake. China would continue to raise this issue with the United States through appropriate channels. In the meantime, China welcomed the 
Report as an important statement of the law concerning the obligations of transparency and due 
process under Article X of the GATT 1994. 
7.5.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked the Panel, the Appellate 
Body, and the Secretariat staff assisting them for th eir work in this proceeding. The United States 
recalled that there were two main issues in this dispute. First, a challenge to Public Law 112-99, 
the so-called "GPX legislation", enacted in 2012; second, a challenge to the alleged failure to 
affirmatively investigate an overlap of remedies with respect to 25 countervailing duty 
proceedings. On the first issue, China had obtained no WTO findings of inconsistency in two WTO 
reports. On the second, the very legislation ch allenged by China had already directed the US 
Department of Commerce to look at the overlapping remedies issue. And, also at the end of what 
had been an intensive litigation process, the United States was left wondering why China had 
considered it fruitful to bring this dispute in th e first place. With regard to the 2012 US Legislation 
and Article X:2 of the GATT 1994, the 2012 legislat ion had been enacted to confirm that the US 
countervailing duty law could be applied to countries considered non-market economies for 
purposes of anti-dumping duty proceedings. Indeed, the US Department of Commerce had been 
applying the US countervailing duty law to China since 2006, consistent with China's Protocol of Accession. China had challenged that democratically and openly enacted US law as contrary to 
GATT obligations on transparency and fair enforc ement. The United States invited Members to 
consider how extraordinary those claims had been. It was uncontested that the US Department of Commerce had applied the US countervailing duty law to Chinese imports following notice and 
comment to all interested parties, including China; that the Department had never been ordered 
by a US court to change its interpretation and a pplication of the countervailing duty law to China; 
that the US Congress and President had enacted the 2012 legislation before any court decision to WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 17 - 
 
  the contrary; and that, in fact, no change in the actual tariff treatment of any Chinese import had 
resulted from the enactment of the 2012 legislation. 
7.6.  Given all of these uncontested facts, it was no surprise that almost all of China's claims in 
relation to the legislation had been rejected by the Panel or abandoned by China during the Panel 
proceeding or on appeal. China had abandoned the claim in its panel request under Article X:3(a) 
of the GATT 1994, which related to uniform, impartial, and reasonable administration; the Panel had rejected, and China had not appealed, a clai m under Article X:1 of the GATT 1994, which 
related to prompt publication; and the Panel ha d rejected, and China had not appealed, its claim 
under Article X:3(b), which related to the establishment of mechanisms to ensure the prompt review and correction of administrative decisions on customs matters. The only claim on the 2012 legislation that had remained on appeal was under Article X:2 of the GATT 1994. While the 
United States recognized both the Panel's and the Appellate Body's efforts to analyse numerous 
legal and factual issues in relation to this claim, respectfully, the Panel appeared to have set out a legal analysis that made better sense of the text of the GATT 1994 and better reflected the 
appropriate task for a WTO adjudicative body. Fundamentally, the Panel had understood 
Article X:2 as being concerned with enforcement of  an unpublished change in a trade regime to 
the detriment of imports. When the Panel compar ed the 2012 legislation at issue with the pre-
existing rates, requirements, or restrictions on Chinese imports, it had found no "advance in a rate 
of duty or other charge on imports under an es tablished and uniform practice" and no "new or 
more burdensome requirement, restriction or prohibition on imports". That was no surprise since the Panel had found that, since 2006, the United States had exercised its WTO right to apply CVDs 
to China and, therefore, had an "established and uniform practice" of applying the countervailing 
duty law to Chinese imports. 
7.7.  On appeal, the Appellate Body had reversed the Panel's legal interpretation of Article X:2 and 
its approach to how a Member's municipal law should be understood for purposes of the 
comparison under Article X:2. A number of aspects of the Appellate Body's interpretation could be 
discussed, and indeed the United States recognized that its examination of some aspects of US law 
was quite detailed. But at the present meeting, th e United States wished to focus on two issues 
that it considered would merit further thought in  future proceedings. First, the Appellate Body 
faulted the Panel for allegedly failing to ascertain "the meaning of the US countervailing duty law prior to Section 1 of PL 112-99 directly through its objective assessment" and as a matter of law.
3 
The Appellate Body asserted that this assessment,  pursuant to its own findings in "US - Carbon 
Steel", entailed examining "the text of the relevant legislation or legal instruments, which may be supported, as appropriate, by evidence of th e consistent application of such laws, the 
pronouncements of domestic courts on the meaning of such laws, the opinions of legal experts and 
the writings of recognized scholars".
4 But as the United States and third participants had noted in 
this appeal, when a WTO adjudicative body ex amined a Member's municipal law, the meaning 
must be that which would be given by the municipa l law system using the interpretive tools of that 
system – not the generalized tools described by the Appellate Body without reference to the US legal system itself. It was striking that in 61 pa ragraphs of analysis of the meaning of the 2012 US 
legislation and the pre-existing countervailing duty  law, the Appellate Body did not once refer to 
US constitutional law principles applicable to statutory interpretation, despite the extensive 
reference to those principles in the Panel Report. This was a critical omission because, as the Panel had found, under principles of US constitutional law, an agency interpretation of legislation was 
lawful and governed unless it was overturned in a binding court decision applying the standard of 
review articulated by the US Supreme Court.
5 Therefore, the Panel had also concluded objectively 
that, under US municipal law, the administering ag ency's interpretation and application of the US 
countervailing duty law was valid US law as "nothing in the record indicates, that in relation to any 
of the court decisions submitted to us by the pa rties, USDOC received an order from a United 
States court to either change or discontinue its practice of applying United States CVD law to 
                                               
3 Appellate Body Report, paras. 4.100-4.101, 4.104-4.108. 
4 Appellate Body Report, para. 4.123. 
5 Panel Report, para. 7.163 (citing to the US Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Eurodif S.A., 
555 US 305 (2009), at 316, and Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), at 843) ("[U]nder United States law, even when a court reviews the interpretation of a law that underlies action taken by an agency administering that la w, the agency's interpretation of the law 'governs in 
the absence of unambiguous statutory language to the cont rary or unreasonable resolution of language that is 
ambiguous'. This means that, within these limits, a revi ewing United States court must defer to the agency's 
interpretation rather than impose its own interpretation."). WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 18 - 
 
  imports from NME countries, or to give a differe nt interpretation to United States CVD law".6 
Regrettably, the Appellate Body's interpretative approach under Article X:2 had ignored a key facet 
of the municipal legal system of the Member whose domestic law was being examined. This could not produce a valid comparison under Article X:2. 
7.8.  A second difficulty with the Appellate Body's approach was that it could lead to the negative 
consequence of allowing and encouraging WTO Members to bring disputed domestic law issues for resolution in the WTO rather than in another Member's domestic courts. In other words, this 
approach would seem to charge the WTO dispute settlement system with determining what was to 
be deemed "lawful" under a Member's domestic legal system using the interpretive tools endorsed by the Appellate Body in "US - Carbon Steel". Such a determination could presumably be made in advance of, and perhaps even contrary to, a municipal court decision on the same issue. If the 
WTO dispute system could be used to resolve contested issues of municipal law contrary to that 
Member's understanding and application of its own law, this could raise unsettling questions on when a Member could be deemed to breach its obligations and would be difficult to reconcile with 
GATT 1994 Article X:3(b), which requires a Member to establish domestic procedures for the 
prompt review and correction of administrative actions. For this reason, previous panels and the Panel in this dispute had found that "it is the role of domestic 'judicial, arbitral or administrative 
tribunals', and not WTO panels, to determine whether agency practices relating to customs 
matters are unlawful under domestic law".
7 The Appellate Body ultimately had not made any 
findings with respect to the 2012 legislation because it could not complete the analysis under its approach. The United States welcomed the lack of findings on the 2012 legislation because, as the 
Panel had correctly found, as a matter US municipa l law, both before and after the 2012 legislation 
US law had always been that the US Department of Commerce was not prohibited from applying the US countervailing duty law to China. 
7.9.  With respect to the so-called "double remedies" issue, which had also been at issue in this 
dispute, the United States was disappointed with the findings in the Panel Report on China's claims relating to the concurrent application of countervailing duties and anti-dumping duties calculated 
using a nonmarket economy methodology. The United States considered that the Panel's findings 
did not reflect a correct legal analysis of Article 19.3 of the SCM Agreement,  and it had previously 
expressed concerns with the interpretation underly ing this issue. Nonetheless, the United States 
had implemented the WTO's recommendations in an earlier dispute relating to this issue. Because 
the United States already looked at this issue and made any necessary adjustments in any 
determination undertaken after 13 March 2012, the United States had chosen not to appeal this i s s u e  i n  t h i s  d i s p u t e ,  i n  p a r t  t o  h e l p  s i m p l i fy the dispute and ease burdens on the dispute 
settlement system. With regard to Article 6.2 of the DSU, while the United States regretted the 
Appellate Body's conclusion that China's panel request complied with Article 6.2 of the DSU, the United States recognized the Appellate Body's  efforts in grappling with China's vague and 
imprecise panel request. The United States appreciated the Appellate Body's rejection of relying on 
an external source beyond the face of the pane l request, in this case another WTO report, to 
determine whether the request provided a sufficien t summary of the legal basis of the complaint. 
In conclusion, the United States, in this statemen t, had highlighted some issues of concern in the 
Reports, particularly in relation to Article X:2, that may have unintended consequences for 
Members and the dispute settlement system and shou ld be considered further. The United States 
also noted that none of the findings in this dispute went to the root issue: the provision of 
subsidies by a WTO Member that were causing material injury to another Member's domestic 
industries. Those were issues that would, indeed, be worth resolving for the benefit of the world trading system. 
7.10.  The representative of Japan said that hi s country thanked the Panel and the Appellate Body 
for their Reports and hard work on this dispute. This dispute had raised several complex issues of 
systemic importance and, as an interested third party and a third participant, Japan had been actively contributing to the discussions in the underlying proceedings. As an exercise of its right 
                                               
6 Panel Report, para. 7.172. 
7 Panel Report, para. 7.164. See also "US - Stainless Steel" (Korea), para. 6.50 (stating that "the WTO 
dispute settlement system … was not in our view intended to function as a mechanism to test the consistency of a Member's particular decisions or rulings with th e Member's own domestic la w and practice; that is a 
function reserved for each Member's domestic judicial system, and a function WTO panels would be particularly 
ill-suited to perform. An incautious adoption of the approach advocated by Korea could however effectively 
convert every claim that an action is inconsistent with domestic law or practice into a claim under the WTO Agreement."). WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 19 - 
 
  under Article 17.14 of the DSU, Japan wished to offer preliminary observations on one particular 
issue contained in the Appellate Body Report. Specifically, with respect to the determination of the meaning of municipal law, the Appellate Body had appeared to make a distinction between a legal characterization and an assessment of factual elements when it had stated that "an examination of 
whether the elements cited by the Appellate Body in 'US - Carbon Steel' are legal 
characterizations, or involve also factual elements, depends on the circumstances of each case".
8 
The Appellate Body had further observed that "the examination of the legal interpretation given by 
a domestic court or by a domestic administering agency as to the meaning of municipal law with 
respect to the measure being reviewed for consistency with the covered agreements may be a legal characterization".
9 Japan did not understand the Appellate Body to mean, with this 
statement, that the examination of these elements could be a legal characterization simply 
because it involved the "legal interpretation" of municipal law. In any event, as the Appellate Body 
had explained, "a panel's examination of the m unicipal law of a WTO Member for the purpose of 
determining whether that Member has complied with its obligations under the WTO Agreement is a 
legal characterization by a panel subject to appellate review".10 For example, the review of 
municipal law to determine whether what the municipal law required would constitute an act prescribed by a covered agreement, or whether governmental actions taken under municipal law 
would fall within the scope of the measures as defined in a covered agreement was certainly a 
legal characterization of that municipal law under WTO law. However, the Appellate Body had also warned that a legal characterization of municipal la w "will go beyond the text of an instrument on 
its face, in which case further examination may be required, and may involve factual elements".
11 
Thus, the examination of factual elements may be part of, not separate from, legal 
characterizations of municipal law under the WTO Agreement, and with respect to such factual elements, "the Appellate Body will not lightly interfere a panel's finding on appeal".
12 Japan agreed 
with the Appellate Body's previous findings whic h were also reaffirmed in the present report.13 
7.11.  The representative of the Republic of Korea said that his country supported the point made 
by China concerning the remand authority. In Korea's view, the Appellate Body Report in this 
dispute was a good example of the need for the remand authority.  
7.12.  The DSB took note of the statements and adopted the Appellate Body Report contained in 
WT/DS449/AB/R and Corr.1 and the Panel Report contained in WT/DS449/R and Add.1, as 
modified by the Appellate Body Report. 
8  THAILAND – CUSTOMS AND FISCAL MEASURES ON CIGARETTES FROM THE 
PHILIPPINES 
A.  Statement by the Philippines 
8.1.  The representative of the Philippines, speaking under "Other Business", said that his country 
had requested that this item be placed under "Other Business" to address the most recent 
developments in the dispute: "Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the 
Philippines" (DS371). Members would have noticed that Thailand had decided not to submit a 
status report in July 2014. As a result, the disp ute had not been placed on the Agenda of the 
present meeting under item 1, "Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by 
the DSB". Pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DS U, "… the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall ... remain on th e DSB's Agenda until the issue is resolved". To 
put it plainly, this dispute was not resolved. Th e Philippines had consistently and clearly indicated 
to the DSB that there remained a number of outstanding issues regarding Thailand's 
implementation. In particular, the Philippines had repeatedly raised its concerns about the Thai 
Attorney General's decision to prosecute an import er of Philippine cigarettes for declaring customs 
values that, first, the WTO Panel had ruled Thailand enjoyed no legitimate grounds to reject and, 
second, that the Thai Customs Board of Appeals had explicitly accepted in a separate ruling 
heralded by Thailand itself as a measure taken to comply. The Philippines had also repeatedly 
                                               
8 Appellate Body Report, para. 4.101. 
9 Appellate Body Report, para. 4.101. 
10 Appellate Body Report, para. 4. 99, citing Appellate Body Report , "US - Section 211 Appropriation 
Act", para. 105. 
11 Appellate Body Report, para. 4.99, citing Appell ate Body Report, "China - Auto Parts", para. 225. 
12 Appellate Body Report, "China - Auto Parts", para. 225. 
13 Appellate Body Report, para. 4.99. WT/DSB/M/348 
 
- 20 - 
 
  addressed its concerns about the WTO-consistenc y of another ruling by the Board of Appeals 
regarding entries subject to the DSB's recommendations and rulings. In fact, as had been stated at recent DSB meetings, the Philippines was in the process of assessing information received from Thailand about this ruling. Thus, to revert to the wording of Article 21.6 of the DSU, "the issue is" 
everything but "resolved". In recent DSB meetings, the Philippines had taken care to emphasize 
that, for this reason, Thailand's implementation efforts must remain under the DSB's surveillance. 
The Philippines' statements at recent DSB m eetings left no room for ambiguity about the 
Philippines' ongoing concerns.  
8.2.  The representative of Thailand said th at her country thanked the Philippines for its 
statement. Thailand wished to reiterate that it fully respected its WTO obligations and that it had 
taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's recommendation and rulings in this dispute, as 
previously stated in its recent status reports and at the previous DSB meetings. In March 2014, 
Thailand had provided the last outstanding responses to the Philippines' requests for information with respect to Thailand's implementation. As Members were aware, the DSB had been trying to 
remove unnecessary items from its Agenda. In these circumstances, Thailand did not consider it 
necessary or helpful to submit a status report repeating again that Thailand had no further pending actions to implement the DSB's recommend ations and rulings. This was, of course, 
without prejudice to any other rights of the Philippines under the DSU. As stated in its status 
reports and in the previous DSB meetings, if the Philippines had concerns about Thailand's 
implementation or other matters that had not been addressed in these Panel's proceedings, Thailand remained available to discuss those specific concerns on a bilateral basis, which Thailand 
believed was the best venue for those issues to be addressed. 
9  STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGARDING THE AB SELECTION PROCESS 9.1.  The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business", said that, as he had announced at the 
outset of the meeting, he wished to make a sh ort statement regarding the ongoing Appellate Body 
selection process. He drew Members attention to the fact that, on 18 July 2014, Uganda had informed the Membership of its decision to withdraw one candidate from the process. A 
communication to that effect had been circulated in document JOB/DSB/CV14/5/Rev.1. As a 
result, there were seven candidates. As Members knew, the Selection Committee would interview the candidates that afternoon and the following day. Subsequently, on 9 and 10 September 2014, 
the Selection Committee would meet, upon request, with interested delegations who wished to 
express views on the candidates. As explained in the fax, delegations wishing to meet with the 
Selection Committee were invited to contact the Secretariat, CTNC Division, to make an appointment. Alternatively, delegations may send comments in writing to the Chair of the DSB, in 
care of the CTNC Division, by no later than 10 September 2014. As agreed by the DSB, following 
the interviews and consultations with delegations, the Selection Committee would make a recommendation not later than 15 September 2014, wh ich would be sent by fax to delegations in 
order that it may be considered by the DSB at its meeting on 26 September 2014. 
9.2.  The DSB took note of the statement. 
__________