RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/329  
 
6 May 2013  
(13-2387)  Page: 1/16  
Dispute Settlement Body 
27 February 2013    
 
 MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD 
ON 27 FEBRUARY 2013 
Chairman: Mr. Shahid Bashir (Pakistan) 
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 .............................................................................................................. 2  
B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by  the United States ............................................................................ 5  
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. 5  
D.  European Communities – Measures affect ing the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by  the European  Union ..................................................................... 5  
E.  United States – Anti-dumping administra tive reviews and other measures related to 
imports of certain orange juice from Brazil : Status report by th e United States .......................... 6  
F.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status 
report by Thailand ............................................................................................................  7 
G.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the Un ited States ................................................................................................ 7  
H.  United States – Measures affecting the production and sale of clove cigarettes: Status 
report by the Un ited States ................................................................................................ 8  
I.  United States – Anti-dumping measures  on certain shrimp and diamond sawblades 
from China: Status report by the United  States ..................................................................... 8  
2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMEND ATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB .......................... 9  
A.  Statements by the Eu ropean Union and Japan .................................................................. 9  
3  UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER SUPPLY OF 
GAMBLING AND BETTI NG SERVICES .............................................................................. 10  
A.  Statement by Antigua and Barbuda regarding the implementation of the 
recommendations and ruling s adopted by the DSB ............................................................... 10 
4  UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN SHRIMP FROM 
VIET NAM ...................................................................................................................... . 13 
A.  Request for the establishm ent of a panel by Viet Nam ...................................................... 13 
5  STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN RE GARDING SOME MATTERS RELATED TO 
THE APPELLATE BODY .................................................................................................... 14  
6  ELECTION OF  CHAIRMAN ........................................................................................... 14  WT/DSB/M/329 
 
- 2 - 
 
 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.123)  
B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.123)  
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.98)  D.  European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.61) 
 E.  United States – Anti-dumping administrative reviews and other measures related to imports of 
certain orange juice from Brazil: Status report by the United States (WT/DS382/10/Add.14) 
 F.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status report by 
Thailand (WT/DS371/15/Add.10) 
 G.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status report by the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.9) 
 
H.  United States – Measures affecting the production and sale of clove cigarettes: Status report by the United States (WT/DS406/11/Add.2) 
 
I.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp and diamond sawblades from China: 
Status report by the United States (WT/DS422/8) 
 
 1.1.  The Chairman recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that unless the DSB decided 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the re commendations or rulings shall be placed on the 
Agenda of the DSB meeting after six months following the date of establishment of the reasonable 
period of time and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda until the issue was resolved. He proposed 
that the nine sub-items under Agenda item 1 be considered separately.  
A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.123) 
1.2.  The Chairman drew attention to docu ment WT/DS176/11/Add.123, 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 14 February 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. Legislation had been 
introduced in the current Congress to implemen t the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 
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 very soon take steps toward s implementing the DSB's ruling and resolve this 
matter. 
1.5.  The representative of Cuba said that this  dispute had been under the DSB's surveillance for a 
long period of time, which was contrary to the requirement for prompt compliance stipulated in 
Article 21 of the DSU. Cuba regretted that this was one of the longest disputes of non-compliance 
under the WTO. Cuba noted that 2 February 2013  marked 11 years since the WTO had ruled on 
the inconsistency of Section 211 with the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention. However, 
the United States still had not taken any action to implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings. As a result of the lack of progress on the part of the United States and the EU towards 
finding an effective solution, this dispute was going on for as long as the Doha Round negotiations. WT/DSB/M/329 
 
- 3 - 
 
 Cuba considered that the continued situation of non-compliance with the DSB's rulings was not 
acceptable. Every month, a number of Members had expressed concerns about the lack of 
compliance in this dispute, which affected the interests of a developing-country Member. In addition, Members had expressed their concerns  about the systemic implications of non-
compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. However, neither of the parties 
concerned had shown the will to resolve this dispute. As had been found in February 2002, 
Section 211 established provisions that transgre ssed fundamental rules of international law. 
Section 211 reflected the US policy of anti-Cuban  hostility and was one of the many regulations 
underpinning the economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba. The US position affected not only the interests of Cuban companies, but also the interests of other Members, as in the case of the French company Pernod Ricard.  
1.6.  Cuba noted that the unilateral policies app lied by the United States against Cuba had been 
denounced at various international forums. At th e recently concluded Summit of the Community of 
Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), which had been attended by 33 countries from that 
region, and the EU, both regional blocs had adopted the "Santiago Declaration" 
on 28 January 2013. Among its main agreements, the Declaration stated that the US embargo against Cuba "poses a serious threat to multilateralism". The conclusions supported by the 
members of CELAC and the EU bore witness to thei r firm rejection of "all coercive measures of 
unilateral character with extraterritorial effect that are contrary to international law and the commonly accepted rules of free trade". Moreover, the document included a paragraph referring to the resolution: "Necessity of Ending the Economic, Commercial and Financial Embargo Imposed by 
the United States of America Against Cuba" that had been adopted, for the 21
st consecutive year, 
on 13 November 2012 at the UN General Assembly (A/RES/67/4), with 188 votes in favour. It also reaffirmed the positions that had been taken against "the application of the extra-territorial 
provisions of the Helms-Burton Act", a US legal instrument that allowed the embargo against Cuba 
to continue. No country could ignore the demands of the international community and the rules of international law. The US behaviour was a demonstration of blatant disrespect for the 
WTO's rules-based system. Cuba requested that this dispute be resolved without further delay, 
through the repeal of Section 211, as this was the only way to settle this dispute. Cuba thanked those Members who, at every DSB meeting held once a month, spoke in favour of resolving this dispute, as well as those who had voted annually in the UN General Assembly in order to end the 
embargo. Cuba also thanked its Latin American and Caribbean partners who, as CELAC, had 
requested that the final document of the Summit  with the EU should express their position 
regarding the issue of discrimination against Cuba. 
1.7.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the United States for its status 
report on the implementation of the DSB's recomme ndations in this dispute. Brazil noted that, 
once again, the United States reported lack of progress in this dispute. 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. 
1.8.  The representative of Ecuador said that his country supported the statement made by Cuba 
at the present meeting. Ecuador stressed, once again, that Article 21 of the DSU specifically 
referred to prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, 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 promptly comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
by repealing Section 211. In Ecuador's view, the non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in this dispute, which had lasted for a long period of time, demonstrated that the WTO dispute settlement system had a major shortcoming.   
1.9.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that, for the past 11 years, the 
United States had not reported on any progress in this dispute. Bolivia, once again, reiterated its 
systemic concerns about the US non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Bolivia was also concerned about the lack of political will on the part of the United States to 
comply. This situation of non-compliance undermined the credibility of the multilateral trading 
system and caused harm to a developing-country Member. Bolivia called on the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings and to take steps to remove the restrictions 
imposed under Section 211. Bolivia supported th e concerns expressed by Cuba at the present 
meeting. WT/DSB/M/329 
 
- 4 - 
 
 1.10.  The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that her country regretted 
that, for many years, there had been no progress in this dispute. Venezuela regretted that it had 
to make the same statement at each regular DSB meeting to express its concerns about the lack of implementation in this dispute. Venezuela had no choice, given that the most recent US status 
report contained the same information as the previous status reports submitted by the 
United States. Venezuela supported Cuba's statement to the effect that, despite the Appellate Body's ruling more than a decade ago, the United States continued to maintain 
Section 211, the purpose of which was to usurp the well-known Cuban trademark, the Havana 
Club. This was part of the North American embargo to which the Cuban people were being subjected. Therefore, Venezuela reiterated its support for Cuba and urged the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and to put an end to its policy of economic, commercial 
and financial blockade against Cuba, as requested by the international community. In Venezuela's 
view, this situation of non-compliance was unacceptable and Venezuela was disappointed that the United States lacked the political will to resolve this dispute. Venezuela urged the United States to 
immediately comply with and observe the Appellate Body's decision calling for the repeal of 
Section 211, which was inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention. Venezuela was concerned that non-compliance undermined the credibility of the DSB and the 
multilateral trading system, and caused harm to Cuba.   
1.11.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and the statement made at the pres ent meeting. India remained concerned and 
disappointed about the prolonged non-compliance in th is dispute, in particular since the interests 
of a developing-country Member were affected. India urged the United States to report full 
compliance without any further delay. 
1.12.  The representative of Argentina said that his country thanked the United States for its 
status report in this dispute, but regretted that the United States, once again, reported lack of 
progress in this dispute. This situation of non-compliance was inconsistent with the principle of prompt implementation and affected the intere sts of a developing-country Member. Argentina 
supported the statements made by Cuba and othe r delegations at the present meeting and urged 
the United States to take necessary measures so as to remove this item from the DSB's Agenda. 
1.13.  The representative of China said that her country thanked the United States for its status 
report and statement made at the present meeting.  China was disappointed that the United States 
had not reported on any progress made towards the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute. The prolonged situation of non-compliance in this dispute was highly incompatible with the prompt and effective implementation required under the 
DSU provisions, in particular since the interests of a developing-country Member were affected. 
China, once again, urged the United States to reflect further on this issue and to take concrete steps towards implementing the DSB's rulings an d recommendations without any further delay. 
1.14.  The representative of the Dominican Republic said that his country thanked the 
United States for its status report on the im plementation of the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings regarding the inconsistency of Section 211 with Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Dominican Republic, once again, urged the United St ates to step up its internal procedures so as 
to comply with the DSB's recommendations and ruli ngs. The long period of time that had passed 
with no implementation undermined the credibility of the WTO.    
1.15.  The representative of Viet Nam said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report in this dispute. Viet Nam continued to be concerned about the US non-compliance with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute and urged the United States to take the necessary action to comply without any further delay. 
1.16.  The representative of South Africa said that her country thanked the United States for its 
status report which did not report on any progress since the previous DSB meeting. South Africa, 
once again, joined the previous speakers in expressing its concern that no concrete progress had been made in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations with regard to Section 211. 
South Africa was concerned about the systemic effects on the multilateral trading system and the 
negative impact on the economic interests of  a developing-country Member. South Africa, 
therefore, urged the United States to bring its legislation into compliance with the DSB's ruling. WT/DSB/M/329 
 
- 5 - 
 
 1.17.  The representative of Mexico said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report. As Mexico had already expressed in the past, Article 21.1 of the DSU required prompt 
compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in order to ensure the effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members. In that respect, Mexico, once again, urged both parties in 
this dispute to adopt the necessary measures in order to comply with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings to the benefit of all Members. 
1.18.  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.123) 
1.19.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.123, 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. 
1.20.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 14 February 2013, in accordance wi th 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 in this dispute. 
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.  
1.21.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked the United States for, and took 
note of, its statement and its status report. Japan, once again, called on the United States to fully 
implement the DSB's recommendations in this long-standing dispute without further delay. 
1.22.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS160/24/Add.98) 
1.23.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.98, 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. 
1.24.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 14 February 2013, in accordan ce 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.  
1.25.  The representative of the European Union said 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 in which it had indicated its desire to resolve this case as soon as possible. 
1.26.  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.61) 
1.27.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.61, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of 
biotech products. WT/DSB/M/329 
 
- 6 - 
 
 1.28.  The representative of the European Union said  that the EU wished to express its hope that it 
would continue on the constructive path of dialogue with the United States. The EU authorization 
system continued to function normally. In 2012, the Commission had authorized five new GMOs1 
and had renewed the authorization of a sixth one.2 Three of those decisions3 had been adopted 
only six months after the relevant EFSA opinions had been published, while the recent decision on 
MIR162 had been adopted less than four months after the EFSA opinion.4 Regarding the concerns 
expressed by the United States on the backlog of approvals, the EU, once again recalled that the 
EU approval system was not covered by th e DSB's recommendations and rulings. The EU 
underlined that the GMO regulatory regime was wo rking normally as evidenced by the approval 
decisions just mentioned. Moreover, EFSA had publ ished opinions on the canola events Gt73 which 
was now under public consultation. On 25 February 2013, EFSA had presented its opinions on the 
Canola GM events5, as well as an application for the placing on the market of genetically modified 
maize MON810 pollen as or in food, to the Stan ding Committee on the Food Chain and Animal 
Health (SCFCAH) which was the relevant committee in that context. 
1.29.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and for the statement made at the presen t meeting. The United States said that it 
continued to have serious concerns regarding EU measures affecting the approval of biotech 
products. For example, at the January 2013 meetin g of the DSB, the United States had noted 
concerns with the progress of applications for a new biotech soy variety and a new biotech corn variety. The EU's scientific authority (EFSA) had published positive opinions for both products in 2012. The next step under the EU's process was the consideration of the applications by an EU 
regulatory committee. The United States understood that the EU regulatory committee had 
recently met for the first time this year. Unfo rtunately, however, the committee had not taken 
decisions on either product. As a result, there would be further delay in the consideration of those 
products. The EU measures affecting the approval of biotech products currently resulted in serious 
restrictions on trade in agricultural commodities. The United States urged the EU to take steps to address those matters.   
1.30.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
E.  United States – Anti-dumping administra tive reviews and other measures related to 
imports of certain orange juice from Braz il: Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS382/10/Add.14) 
1.31.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS382/10/Add.14, 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 an ti-dumping administrative reviews and other 
measures related to imports of certain orange juice from Brazil. 
1.32.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 14 February 2013. The United States  was pleased to report that the United States 
and Brazil had reached a mutually satisfactory solu tion in this dispute. That document had been 
circulated to the DSB as WT/DS382/12. As noted in that document, the solution with Brazil followed upon the action taken by the United St ates in February 2012 to modify the methodology 
used in anti-dumping administrative reviews refe rred to as "zeroing". Members would recall that 
the United States had previously reached similar understandings with other Members to resolve disputes regarding this issue. The United States thanked Brazil for working constructively on this 
matter, and the United States welcomed the resolution of this dispute.  
                                               
1 A5547-127 soybean, 356043 soybean, MON87701 soybean, MON87701 X MON89788 soybean, 
MIR162 maize. 
2 40-3-2 soybean. 
3 Authorization decision for 356043 and MON87701 soybeans, MON87701 X MON89788 soybean. 
4 EFSA opinion: 21 June 2012; decision on authorization: 18 October 2012.  
5 Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3. WT/DSB/M/329 
 
- 7 - 
 
 1.33.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the United States for its status 
report. As it had been mentioned, both countries had, on 14 February 2012, signed a mutually 
satisfactory solution ending the "Orange Juice" dispute (DS382). That decision had been taken 
within the context of the agreement signed betwee n Brazil and the United States on 3 April 2012, 
in which the parties had agreed to consult until the end of 2012 in order to find a mutually agreed 
solution. The mutually satisfactory solution had b een reached without prejudice to the rights of the 
Brazilian exporters to continue protecting their rights before the competent bodies inside the 
United States and had taken into consideration the fact that the United States had modified its 
methodology regarding the calculation of dumping margins and assessment rates in anti-dumping reviews. The new methodology no longer comprised the use of "zeroing" in reviews for which the preliminary results had been issued after 16 April 2012. As Members recalled, this important 
change in the US legislation had occurred in February 2012, after the Panel's ruling in the "Orange 
Juice" dispute determining that the practice of "zeroing" by the United States in administrative reviews was inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
1.34.  The DSB took note of the statements.  
F.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures  on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status 
report by Thailand (WT/DS371/15/Add.10) 
1.35.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS371/15/Add.10, which contained the 
status report by Thailand on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Thailand's customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines. 
1.36.  The representative of Thailand said that her country wished to refer Members to its most 
recent status report in this dispute, which had been circulated on 15 February 2013. Thailand was 
continuing to engage in discussions with the Philippines about its concerns regarding the technical aspects of the implementation measures and othe r matters of concern that had not been subject 
to the DSB's recommendations and rulings, and which the Philippines considered to be relevant to 
the final resolution of this dispute. Thailand was in the process of scheduling further informal bilateral meetings in order to find a mutually satisfactory resolution to this dispute. 
1.37.  The representative of the Philippines said that his country thanked Thailand for its status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting. In its statement made at the previous DSB 
meeting, the Philippines had emphasized that it  sought further progress towards resolving the 
remaining WTO-inconsistencies in this dispute, and, if that was not possible, it would be forced to 
revert to further dispute settlement procedures. In  the intervening month, the Philippines had not 
been informed of any progress towards resolving the remaining WTO inconsistencies. In fact, and despite patient entreaties, Thailand had failed expe ditiously to pursue further informal bilateral 
engagement. The Philippines hoped that Thailand would appreciate that there was only so long 
that a trading partner could and should be left wa iting. In that regard, the Philippines would take 
appropriate steps shortly. 
1.38.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
G.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.9) 
1.39.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS404/11/Add.9, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain 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 14 February 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. In February 2012, 
the US Department of Commerce had published a modification to its procedures in order to 
implement DSB recommendations and rulings regarding the use of "zeroing" in anti-dumping 
reviews. That modification addressed certain findin gs in this dispute. In June 2012, the US Trade 
Representative had requested, pursuant to Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, that the Department of Commerce take action necessary to implement the DSB's WT/DSB/M/329 
 
- 8 - 
 
 recommendations and rulings in this dispute. The United States would continue to consult with 
interested parties as it was working 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 most 
recent status report and the statement made at the present meeting. Viet Nam remained 
concerned about the lack of compliance by the United States in this dispute. Viet Nam noted that 
the reasonable period of time for implementati on of the DSB's recommendations and rulings had 
expired seven months ago, but the US authority had not taken any action to revoke the anti-
dumping duty as recommended by the Panel. Viet Nam requested the United States to implement, 
without any further delay, the DSB's recomme ndations and rulings in this dispute.  
1.42.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
H.  United States – Measures affecting th e production and sale of clove cigarettes: 
Status report by the United States (WT/DS406/11/Add.2) 
1.43.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS406/11/Add.2 which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning the US measures affecting the production and sale of clove cigarettes. 
1.44.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 14 February 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As noted in the 
status report, US authorities were conferring with interested parties and working to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a manner  that was appropriate from the perspective of 
the public health.   
1.45.  The representative of Indonesia said that her country thanked the United States for its 
status report. As it had stated at the previous DSB meeting of 28 January 2013, Indonesia highly 
respected the sovereignty of the United States to form and enact its laws and regulations. 
Indonesia strongly believed that the United States would make an effort and take positive actions 
to adopt its laws and regulations in a non-discriminatory manner, as stipulated in the WTO Agreements. Indonesia believed that the United States would conduct a fair and just trade and 
appreciated the US position to uphold its interest to promote the public health, as long as the 
measure was not more trade restrictive than necessary. Therefore, Indonesia urged the United States to also abide by the principles and stipulations regulated in the WTO Agreements, in particular, the TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994. In donesia noted that the reasonable period of 
time for the United States to implement the DS B's recommendations and rulings in this dispute 
would expire in about five months. Therefore, Indonesia urged the United States to report on more concrete progress on implementation in this dispute at the next DSB regular meeting.   
1.46.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
I.  United States – Anti-dumping measures  on certain shrimp and diamond sawblades 
from China: Status report by the United States (WT/DS422/8) 
1.47.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS422/8 which contained the status report 
by the United States on progress in the implemen tation of the DSB's recommendations in the case 
concerning the US anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp and diamond sawblades from China.  
1.48.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 14 February 2013, in accordance  with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The DSB had 
adopted its recommendations and rulings in this dispute in July 2012. At that time, the 
United States had informed the DSB of its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings. The United States and China had agreed  that the reasonable period of time for the 
United States to implement the DSB's recommendations would expire on 23 March 2013, and had 
jointly notified the DSB of this agreement. On  5 September 2012, the US Trade Representative 
had requested, pursuant to Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, that the US Department of Commerce take action necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and WT/DSB/M/329 
 
- 9 - 
 
 rulings in this dispute. The United States ex pected to complete implementation within the 
reasonable period of time, as notified to the DSB. 
1.49.  The representative of China said that her country thanked the United States for its status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting. According to the notification of 
27 July 2012 circulated as document WT/DS422/7, the United States and China had agreed that 
the reasonable period of time for the United States to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute would be eight months and would expire on 23 March 2013. This dispute 
was another "zeroing" case. Consistent with the previous dispute, the Panel had found that the 
"zeroing" methodology used by the US Department  of Commerce (the USDOC) in calculating the 
margins of dumping in the shrimp and diamond sawblades anti-dumping investigations at issue was inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. China believed that the Panel's 
rulings were clear and that the reasonable pe riod of time of eight months provided the 
United States enough time to finalize its domestic procedures so as to fully implement the DSB's recommendations. China took note that the United  States expected to fully implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings within the reasonable period of time, as had just been expressed by 
the US representative at the present meeting. China noted that, on 7 December 2012, the USDOC 
had issued a preliminary determination concerning anti-dumping measures on certain frozen and 
canned warmwater shrimp from China under Section 129 of the Uruguay Agreement Act. In that 
preliminary determination, the USDOC had recalculated, with the "zeroing" effect eliminated, the weighted-average dumping margin with respect to certain exporters and had found 0% dumping 
margin for all mandatory respondents in the original investigation. China urged the United States 
to issue, as soon as possible, the final results under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreement 
Act and to revoke the anti-dumping measures on  certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp 
and on diamond sawblades from the China,  in order to fully implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings by the end of the reasonable period of time.  
1.50.  In addition, China took note that the USDOC had initiated countervailing investigations on 
warmwater shrimps imported from China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and 
Viet Nam on 17 January 2013. On 7 February 2013, the US International Trade Commission 
(USITC) had determined that there was a reason able indication that the US industry was 
materially injured by reason of imports of frozen warmwater shrimp that were allegedly subsidized. This was a new probe after the United States had taken anti-dumping measures on the 
same product for eight years. China had significant concerns about the new countervailing 
investigation by the United States, including its consistency with the WTO rules and its effect on the anti-dumping measures. China would look clos ely at the development of the investigations, 
and would firmly defend the legitimate interests of its domestic producers and exporters in due 
course. 
1.51.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 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 European Union and Japan. He then invited the respective representatives to speak. 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union said that, once again, the EU requested that the 
United States stop transferring anti-dumping an d countervailing duties to the US industry. 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 in this dispute. 
2.3.  The representative of Japan said that the official website
6 of the US Customs and Border 
Protection clearly showed that the CDSOA continue d to be operational. Japan, once again, urged 
the United States to stop the illegal distribution s and repeal the CDSOA, not just in form but in 
                                               
6 http://www.cbp.gov/li nkhandler/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/  WT/DSB/M/329 
 
- 10 - 
 
 substance, so as to resolve this dispute. Pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU, the United States was 
under obligation to provide the DSB with status reports in this dispute.  
2.4.  The representative of the United States sa id that, as his country had explained at previous 
DSB meetings, the President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 8 February 2006. 
That Act included a provision repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. 
Thus, the United States had taken all actions ne cessary to implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in these disputes. The United States recalled, furthermore, that Members had 
acknowledged during previous DSB meetings that  the 2006 Deficit Reduction Act did not permit 
the distribution of duties collected on goods entered after 1 October 2007. With respect to 
comments regarding further status reports, the United States failed to see what purpose would be served by further submission of status reports repeating the progress the United States had made 
in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
2.5.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for bringing this 
issue before the DSB once again. India agreed with the EU and Japan that the Byrd Amendment 
should continue to remain subject to the surveillance of the DSB until the United States ceased to 
administer it. 
2.6.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda. As had been stated at 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 that 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 the United States would be released from its 
obligation to provide status reports in this dispute. 
2.7.  The representative of Canada said that hi s country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda. Canada agreed with the EU and Japan that the Byrd Amendment 
remained subject to the surveillance of the DSB unt il the United States ceased to administer it. 
2.8.  The representative of Thailand said that her country thanked the EU and Japan for continuing 
to bring this item before the DSB. Thailand ur ged the United States to cease the disbursements 
and fully implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations on this matter. 
2.9.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
3  UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER SUPPLY OF GAMBLING 
AND BETTING SERVICES 
A.  Statement by Antigua and Barbuda regarding the implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings adopted by the DSB 
3.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Antigua and Barbuda. He further stated that it was his understanding that in the absence of 
Antigua and Barbuda in the meeting room, the representative of Dominica would make a statement on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda.  
3.2.  The representative of Dominica, speaking on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda, read out the 
following statement: "The delegation of Antigua an d Barbuda requested that this item be placed on 
the Agenda for today's meeting of the DSB in order to draw attention to the fact that to date, the United States has not complied with the recommendations or rulings of the DSB in dispute 
WT/DS285. Nor have the United States and Antigua and Barbuda negotiated and approved an 
agreed compromise in the matter. Accordingly, pu rsuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU, the issue of 
implementation of the recommendations or rulings in this matter shall remain on DSB's Agenda 
until the issue is resolved. At least ten days prior to each DSB meeting, the United States is 
required to provide the DSB with a status report in writing of its progress in the implementation of the recommendations or rulings as provided in Article 22.8 of the DSU, this obligation continues, 
regardless of whether the suspension of concessions or other obligations has been authorized in 
the matter. It is clear to everyone that the United States has not complied with the recommendations or rulings in this matter and that the issue is most certainly not resolved. We therefore respectfully request the United States delegation to advise the DSB as to why it has WT/DSB/M/329 
 
- 11 - 
 
 failed to comply with its unambiguous obligations under Article 21.6 of the DSU in this particular 
case, and when we might expect it to commence compliance with those obligations. We feel compelled to express our disappointment at the lack  of compliance by the United States, that the 
US delegation cannot point to a single measure designed to implement the decision of the DSB. 
This is particularly troubling because, in general, the record of the United States in implementing 
decisions of the DSB is, in fact, quite good. In addition, we would like to draw the attention of the DSB to certain matters expressed by the United States in its statement at the DSB meeting on 
28 January. These statements, taken in the context of the US continued non-compliance, now 
assume alarming proportions. In its statement, the United States said: 'if Antigua does proceed with a plan for its government to authorize the theft of intellectual property, it would only serve to hurt Antigua's own interests. Government-authorized piracy would undermine chances for a 
settlement that would provide real benefits to Antigua. It also would serve as a major impediment 
to foreign investment in the Antiguan economy, particularly in high-tech industries'. We are left to ask ourselves why the United States delegation would employ terms such as 'theft of intellectual 
property' and 'Government-authorized piracy' relati ng to the lawful and expressly authorized use 
of trade remedies provided for in the WTO Ag reements. We believe that the intemperate and 
dismissive language used in this very forum by  the delegation of the United States, where the 
lawful judgment of the Dispute Settlement Body wa s characterized as theft and its rulings called 
piracy, is a fundamental challenge to the WTO by its most powerful Member. If we were in a different setting, it would be contempt of court. These were not casual impromptu remarks by the US delegation, nor remarks made in the cut and thrust of ongoing debate where one's passions 
may overflow the bounds of propriety, but rather, these remarks were the text of a prepared 
statement now entered into the official record of the DSB meeting. These were carefully chosen words, and they should not be taken lightly. We regard this as a clear reputational assault, both on 
the DSB that gave the approval for IP suspension s, and on Antigua and Barbuda that sought its 
right to exercise it. In addition, senior members of the Office of the United States Trade Representative have, in recent public statements that are on the record, threatened unspecified 
harm to Antigua and Barbuda if the decision of the DSB authorizing cross-retaliation were to be 
implemented. These developments should be troubling to all WTO Member states that value the impartial and rules-based nature of the dispute settlement system of this Organization, and these developments present a profound challenge to the cr edibility of the WTO itself. If the language we 
heard from the United States delegation at th e last meeting of the DSB on 28 January goes 
unchallenged, then we move one step closer to the day when the integrity of the international trading system would have been fatally compromi sed. The WTO cross-retaliation system, so ably 
championed by the United States during the esta blishment of this Organization, was designed in 
part to address the kind of power imbalance that is on display in this case, where the world's largest economy has received an adverse ruling on  a challenge by one of the world's smallest. The 
very nature of such an asymmetrical encounter should cause the DSB to exercise great and special 
care to ensure that its rulings are scrupulously adhered to. We believe that there is room within the DSU for a greater oversight role for the DSB in cases such as this one. We call on Member states to defend the fundamental principles of ou r Organization and to ensure that its rulings are 
applied equally by all states, both great and smal l. For our own part, we will never discard any 
reasonable offer made to us to settle this matter; and we reiterate our commitment to abide scrupulously by the rulings of the DSB; and we gi ve the categorical assurance that whatever our 
actions may be in implementing the authorizations, they will always be lawful and able to 
withstand scrutiny." 
3.3.  The representative of Trinidad and Tobago , speaking on behalf of the countries of the 
Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said that his country wished to reiterate the position of the 
CARICOM Heads of Governments, as set out in their Communiqué issued at the conclusion of the Twenty-Fourth Inter-Sessional Meeting of the Co nference of the Heads of Government of the 
Caribbean Community (CARICOM), which had taken place in Port-au-Prince, Haiti on 
18-19 February 2013. At that meeting, the Heads of Government of CARICOM had affirmed their 
full support for Antigua and Barbuda in its endeavou rs to obtain compliance by the United States 
with respect to the DSB's recommendations and ruli ngs with regard to the cross-border provision 
of gambling and betting services. The countries of CARICOM, like all other small developing states, 
had consistently worked within the context of international cooperation, as engaged members of the international community to defend the impera tive of full compliance with internationally 
accepted norms and rules. In that regard, Trinidad  and Tobago firmly believed that all sovereign 
WTO Members should be regarded as equals and must be respected accordingly. Trinidad and Tobago urged the United States to seek to enga ge Antigua and Barbuda in urgent, meaningful and 
constructive negotiations in order to arrive at a mutually acceptable settlement in this long-WT/DSB/M/329 
 
- 12 - 
 
 standing dispute. Trinidad and Tobago, and the re st of CARICOM, looked forward to an amicable 
resolution of this matter in the near future. 
3.4.  The representative of Haiti said that her country supported the statement made by Dominica, 
on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda and the statemen t made by Trinidad and Tobago, on behalf of 
CARICOM. Haiti had been presiding over CARICO M since January 2013 and, at the Conference of 
Heads of State and Government on 18-19 February 2013, the Caribbean community was very clear and had called upon the United States to comply with the rulings and recommendations 
adopted by the DSB with respect to measures affecting the cross-border supply of gambling and 
betting services. 
3.5.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked Antigua and Barbuda for including 
this item on the DSB's Agenda. Brazil was of th e view that, since its creation, the WTO dispute 
settlement system had proved to be a great achievement as a means to resolve trade disputes 
among WTO Members through a rules-based mechanism.  However, Brazil firmly believed that the 
WTO dispute settlement system could only fully accomplish its objectives if it played the role it had 
been designed to play to the benefit of all Members, regardless of their size or level of 
development. Bearing that in mind, Brazil encour aged both parties to the dispute to engage in 
effective negotiations with a view to reaching a satisfactory solution in the long-standing "US-
Gambling" case, in line with the DSB's rulings in this dispute.  
3.6.  The representative of Cuba said that her country supported the statement made by 
Dominica, on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda as well as the statements made by the previous 
speakers who had supported Antigua and Barbuda. Cuba noted that this was another case of 
prolonged non-compliance on the part of the United States which affected a small and vulnerable 
economy with scarce resources. Cuba urged the United States to address its failure to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings with a view to resolving all pending matters, in particular 
since the interests of a developing-country Member were affected.    
3.7.  The representative of China said that, at the DSB meeting of 28 January 2013, pursuant to 
the request by Antigua and Barbuda under Article 22.7 of the DSU, the DSB had agreed to grant 
authorization to suspend the application to the United States of concessions or other obligations 
consistent with the Arbitrator's decision contained in document WT/DS285/ARB. This was another example of the difficulty a developing-country Member may encounter in its attempt to see the 
DSB's rulings and recommendations, which had gone in its favour, to be fully implemented in 
accordance with WTO rules. The DSU provid ed clearly that "prompt compliance with 
recommendations or rulings of the DSB is essential in order to ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members", and that "the suspension of concessions or other 
obligations shall be temporary". Thus, China urged the United States to implement the DSB's 
rulings and recommendations, made by the Panel an d Appellate Body Reports, in an honest and 
timely manner. China also encouraged the parties to find a solution to this dispute through 
cooperation, including by means mentioned in Arti cle 22.8 of the DSU under which suspension of 
concessions shall be terminated if a mutually satisfactory solution was reached.   
3.8.  The representative of Jamaica said that his country supported the statements made by 
Dominica on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda and by Trinidad and Tobago on behalf of the Caribbean 
Community. Jamaica noted that this dispute had remained unresolved for a prolonged period of 
time, despite the clear DSB ruling in favour of Antigua and Barbuda. In that regard, Jamaica reaffirmed the need for all WTO Members to fully comply with their obligations, including those 
arising from the DSB's rulings. Furthermore, Jama ica emphasized that, in particular for small, 
vulnerable economies, it was important that th e integrity of the dispute settlement system was 
preserved as a critical component of a rules-based system governing international trade. Jamaica, 
therefore, called on both parties to the dispute to redouble their efforts to achieve a just and 
equitable solution in the interest of the multilateral trading system as a whole. 
3.9.  The representative of Barbados said that her country supported the statements made by 
Dominica on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda and by Trinidad and Tobago on behalf of CARICOM. It 
was important that Members adhered to the DSB's decisions. At its meeting in Haiti in 
February 2013, Heads of Government of CARICOM had affirmed their full support for Antigua and 
Barbuda in its endeavours to obtain compliance by the United States with respect to the DSB's 
ruling. Barbados was of the view that the DSB decisions must be respected, not only in the 
interest of the WTO but in the interest especially of small, vulnerable economies. Barbados WT/DSB/M/329 
 
- 13 - 
 
 believed that Members should be treated equally and be respected. Barbados urged the 
United States to engage with Antigua and Barbuda in urgent and meaningful negotiations in order 
to arrive at an equitable and mutually acceptable settlement in this long-standing dispute. 
3.10.  The representative of the United States said that his country and Antigua remained in active 
discussions to resolve this matter, and in the interest of maintaining that constructive course, the 
United States would make just a few remarks at the present meeting. First, the United States took note that at the present meeting, as in the past, Antigua had assured the DSB that if it decided to 
take the extraordinary and indeed unprecedented step of suspending TRIPS obligations with 
respect to US intellectual property (IP), it woul d notify the DSB and provide specific details about 
how it would implement that suspension. As the arbitrator had cautioned in its December 2007 
decision, it was critical that Antigua act absolutely transparently if it decided to pursue that course. 
Antigua was authorized in a very limited way to refrain from applying IP obligations with respect to 
the United States. That authorization did not permit rampant IP theft from Antiguan websites nor did it excuse violations of IP rights within the territory of any other Member. Every Member had an 
interest to ensure that, whatever action Antigua might pursue, such action did not undermine the 
efforts that every other Member made to protect and enforce IP rights. The United States took Antiguan representatives at their word that their government would not encourage or allow 
Antigua to become a haven for IP piracy. It was not in Antigua's interest to abandon the IP laws 
and norms respected throughout the world.   
3.11.  Second, the United States said that it would like to respond briefly to how Antigua had been 
characterizing the status of this dispute in re cent months. Antigua repeatedly stated that the 
United States had been unwilling to negotiate in good faith toward a fair settlement. That was not 
the case. As a rule, the United States did not speak publicly about sensitive settlement negotiations and would continue to follow that practice. However, in the interest of responding to 
Antigua's specific characterizations, the United States said that it would make some general 
comments. The United States had been following the established, multilateral WTO process for responding to the DSB's findings that the US se rvices schedule extended to gambling services. In 
2007, the United States had begun the process of modifying the US Schedule of Specific 
Commitments under the GATS in order to bring US services commitments in line with long-standing US policy. As part of that process, the United States had offered substantial compensatory adjustments in other services areas.  Every Member except Antigua had agreed to 
the US compensation package. Unfortunately, the Antiguan government had responded that no 
service, except gambling, was of interest. In other words, Antigua was not working within the 
framework of the GATS to find new services commi tments to counterbalance a modification of the 
US Schedule with respect to gambling. In response, and although not required under WTO 
procedures, the United States had sought to offer Antigua elements other than new services concessions. Those elements included assistance designed to bring benefits to Antigua's broader 
economy. The United States had also offered to work creatively with Antigua to develop 
possibilities that might leverage Antigua's existing capacities to lead to growth in new areas. In 
closing, the United States remained open an d ready to engage with Antigua and remained 
optimistic that the two countries could work cooperatively to find a solution. 
3.12.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
4  UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN SHRIMP FROM VIET NAM 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Viet Nam (WT/DS429/2/Rev.1 
and Corr.2) 
4.1.  The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
28 January 2013 and had agreed to revert to it. He drew attention to the communication from 
Viet Nam contained in document WT/DS429/2/Rev.1 and WT/DS429/2/Rev.1/Corr.2, and invited 
the representative of Viet Nam to speak. 
4.2.  The representative of Viet Nam said that, at the previous DSB meeting on 28 January 2013, 
his country had made the first request for the establishment of a panel with respect to certain 
anti-dumping measures imposed by the United States on imports of certain shrimp from Viet Nam 
(DS429). As a result of the US objection to the establishment of a panel, a panel had not been WT/DSB/M/329 
 
- 14 - 
 
 established at that meeting. Therefore, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Viet Nam was making its 
second request for the DSB to establish a panel at the present meeting. 
4.3.  The representative of the United States said that his country had been engaged in an ongoing 
dialogue with Viet Nam over the past months with the aim of reaching a mutually agreed solution 
to this dispute. The United States understood this dialogue to be constructive, and that it appeared 
to be leading towards a practical resolution. Accordingly, the United States was disappointed that Viet Nam had chosen to go forward with this se cond panel request. The United States seriously 
questioned how, under any scenario, Viet Nam expected to achieve the economic results that it 
sought. Nevertheless, the United States underst ood that a panel would be established at the 
present meeting, and the United States would vigorously defend its interests in the panel proceeding. 
4.4.  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. 
4.5.  The representatives of China, the European  Union, Japan, Norway and Thailand reserved 
their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
5  STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGARDING SOME MATTERS RELATED TO 
THE APPELLATE BODY 
5.1.  The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business", said that, as he had announced at the 
outset of the meeting, he wished to make a statement concerning the issue of possible 
reappointment of one Appellate Body member. In that regard, he recalled that at the DSB meeting in December 2012, he had informed delegations that the first four-year term of office of 
Mr. Ricardo Ramírez would expire at the end of June 2013. At that meeting, he had announced 
that Mr. Ramírez, who was eligible for reappointment pursuant to Article 17.2 of the DSU, was interested and willing to be reappointed for a second four-year term. He had also stated that it 
was his intention to consult informally with interested delegations on this matter. To that effect, he 
had invited delegations with views on this matter to contact him directly. At the 28 January 2013 DSB meeting, he had informed delegations that the consultations were ongoing and had, once 
again, invited delegations to contact him directly on  this matter. In light of those consultations, the 
Chairman informed delegations that consensus was likely to emerge on the issue of reappointment 
of the Appellate Body member. As a result, this matter would be placed, for a decision by the DSB, on the Agenda of the next regular meeting to be held on 26 March 2013. 
5.2.  The DSB took note of the statement. 
6  ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN 
6.1.  The outgoing Chairman said that, before considering this Agenda item, he wished to make a 
short statement. He said that, as delegations were aware, he was chairing the DSB meeting for the 
last time. He said that it had been a great honour and pleasure for him to have worked with Members for the past year. During that period, Members had been able to facilitate and 
successfully complete the process of appointment of one Appellate Body member in a transparent 
manner. There had been moments of anxiety about certain complex legal questions, which had been resolved with an open mind. All had worked together on the basis of mutual trust and mutual respect and he was grateful to all Members for that cooperation. He said that he had been 
enriched by the discussions in the DSB and had been  able to understand the intricacies of the WTO 
dispute settlement process better than ever. He recognized the contribution made by the Directors of the LAD, the Rules Division and the Appellate Body Secretariat. He also thanked 
Ms Bozena Mueller-Holyst (CTNC Division) and her colleagues for assisting the Chair in the course 
of the year. Finally, he thanked the interpreters an d other officials of the Secretariat, who were not 
very visible in the room, but who had provided an  excellent service to ensure that all meetings 
were held smoothly.  WT/DSB/M/329 
 
- 15 - 
 
 6.2.  The outgoing Chairman recalled that, at  its meeting on 25 February 2013, the General 
Council had taken note of the consensus on a slate of names for Chairpersons to a number of WTO 
bodies including the DSB. On the basis of the understanding reached by the General Council, he proposed that the DSB elect by acclamation Ambassador Jonathan Fried of Canada as Chairman of 
the DSB. 
6.3.  The DSB so agreed. 
6.4.  The incoming Chairman thanked the outgoing  Chairman for his leadership during the past 
year. He thanked Members for the confidence bestow ed on him and trusted that he would live up 
to that confidence. He looked forward to consulting with Members, not only during the meetings but also in between so as to continue the good work of this important Body. He was certain that he would receive the support of the Secretariat: CTNC Division, the Legal Affairs and Rules Divisions 
and independently that of the Appellate Body. 
6.5.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked Ambassador Bashir for 
chairing the DSB meetings in a smooth and efficient manner. The EU recalled the moment of 
tension in one dispute, which had been resolved in a skilful way. The EU wished 
Ambassador Bashir well in his new function as the Chairman of the General Council. The EU welcomed Ambassador Fried as the new DSB Chairman and looked forward to working with him 
over the next year.  
6.6.  The representative of the United States said that his country congratulated Ambassador Fried 
on his election and welcomed him as the Chairman  of the DSB. The United States looked forward 
to working with him over the coming year. The United States thanked Ambassador Bashir for his 
many contributions to the work of the DSB during the past year and wished him success chairing 
the General Council.  
6.7.  The representative of Saudi Arabia said that his country thanked Ambassador Bashir for his 
wise leadership shown in the past year and congratulated Ambassador Fried on his election as the 
new Chairman of the DSB.    
6.8.  The representative of Morocco, speaking on behalf of the African Group, thanked the 
outgoing Chairman for his efforts in the work of the DSB and congratulated the incoming Chairman 
on his appointment.    
6.9.  The representative of China said that he r country thanked Ambassador Bashir for his able 
leadership towards the smooth operation of the DSB during the past year and congratulated him 
on his appointment as the Chairman of the General Council and wished him success in leading 
Members to a successful conclusion of the Bali Ministerial Conference in December 2013. China welcomed Ambassador Fried as the incoming DSB Chairman and trusted that he would have the 
same spirit as his predecessor to lead Members to a smooth operation of the DSB. 
6.10.  The representative of Canada said that his country joined other delegations in thanking 
Ambassador Bashir for his service as Chairman of the DSB over the past year. 
Ambassador Bashir's term had been marked by the adoption, sometimes under a certain amount 
of procedural controversy, of a significant numbe r of dispute settlement reports and the initiation 
more recently of a stream of new disputes. The steady hand with which he had guided Members had been appreciated by all. Canada wished Ambassador Bashir success in his new role as 
Chairman of the General Council and welcomed Ambassador Fried as the new Chairman of the DSB 
for what was shaping up to be another ev entful year in WTO dispute settlement. 
6.11.  The representative of Brazil said that his country thanked Ambassador Bashir for his smooth 
leadership in the DSB and wished him all the best in chairing the General Council. Brazil also 
welcomed Ambassador Fried as the new Chairman of the DSB and wished him well.    WT/DSB/M/329 
 
- 16 - 
 
 6.12.  The representative of India said that his country thanked Ambassador Bashir who had 
provided leadership, impartiality and transparency to the DSB. India wished him success in his 
new assignment as the Chairman of the General Council and welcomed Ambassador Fried as the new Chairman of the DSB. India was confident that Ambassador Fried's wide experience in law and 
diplomacy would benefit the DSB. India assured him of its full cooperation and wished him 
success. 
6.13.  The representative of Turkey said that his country thanked Ambassador Bashir for his 
excellent leadership as the DSB Chairman and wished him well in his new function as the 
Chairman of the General Council. Turkey also welcomed Ambassador Fried and congratulated him for his election as the ne w Chairman of the DSB. 
6.14.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
 
__________