RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/375  
 
4 May 2016  
(16-2493)  Page: 1/15  
Dispute Settlement Body 
26 February 2016    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD 
ON 26 FEBRUARY 2016 
Chairman: Mr. Harald Neple (Norway) 
Table of Contents 
1   SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB ....................................................................................................................... .... 2 
A.  United States – Anti–dumping measures  on certain hot–rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by  the United States ............................................................................ 2  
B.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United States ................................................................................................................. .. 3 
C.  European Communities – Measures affect ing the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by  the European  Union ..................................................................... 3  
D.  United States – Anti–dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the Un ited States ................................................................................................ 3  
E.  United States – Countervailing measures on certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat 
products from India: Status report by the United States (W T/DS436/14/Ad d.3) ......................... 4  
2   UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT 
OF 2000: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECO MMENDATIONS ADOPTE D BY THE DSB ........... 5  
A.  Statements by the Eu ropean Union and Japan .................................................................. 5  
3   CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECT ING ELECTRONIC PAYM ENT SERVICES ............. 6  
A.  Statement by th e United States ..................................................................................... 6  
4   THAILAND – CUSTOMS AND FISCAL MEASURES ON CIGARETTES FROM THE 
PHILIPPI NES ...................................................................................................................  6 
A.  Statement by the Philippines ......................................................................................... 6  
5   PROPOSED NOMINATIONS FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL 
AND NON-GOVERNMENTA L PANELISTS ............................................................................ 7  
6   STATEMENT BY CUBA ON THE DISPUTE: "UNITED STATES – SECTION 211 
OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS  ACT OF 1998" ..................................................................... 7  
7   THE DISPUTE SETTL EMENT WORKLOAD .................................................................... 13  
A.  Statement by the Chairman .......................................................................................... 13 
8   ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON ..................................................................................... 14  
 
 WT/DSB/M/375 
 
- 2 - 
 
 
 1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB 
A.  United States – Anti–dumping measures on certain hot–rolled steel products from Japan: 
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.157) 
 B.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.132) 
 C.  European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.95) 
 
D.  United States – Anti–dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status report by the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.43) 
 
E.  United States – Countervailing measures on certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat products from India: Status report by the United States (WT/DS436/14/Add.3) 
 
 1.1.  The Chairman noted that there were five su b-items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Articl e 21.6 of the DSU. He recalled that Article 21.6 
required that: "Unless the DSB decides otherw ise, 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". Under this Agenda item, he 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. He reminded 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 deba te at each meeting on any issue that has already 
been fully debated in the past and on which ther e appears to have been no change in Members' 
positions already on record". 
A.  United States – Anti–dumping measures  on certain hot–rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the Un ited States (WT/DS184/15/Add.157) 
1.2.  The Chairman drew attention to docu ment WT/DS184/15/Add.157, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
1.3.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 15 February 2016, 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. 
1.4.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and status report submitted on 15 February 2016. Japan referred to its previous statements that 
this issue should be resolved as soon as possible. 
1.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. WT/DSB/M/375 
 
- 3 - 
 
B.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS160/24/Add.132) 
1.6.  The Chairman drew attention to docu ment WT/DS160/24/Add.132, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act. 
1.7.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 15 February 2016, 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. 
1.8.  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 made under this Agenda item at previo us DSB meetings. The EU wished to resolve this 
dispute as soon as possible. 
1.9.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. C.  European Communities – Measures affect ing the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the Eu ropean Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.95) 
1.10.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.95, 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. 
1.11.  The representative of the European Union said that, in recent meetings, the EU had already 
reported on authorisation decisions and other actions towards approval decisions taken up to 
November 2015. There were no new developments regarding the authorisations in the EU since 
the previous DSB meeting. More generally, and as  stated many times previously, the EU recalled 
that the EU approval system was not covered by the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
1.12.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting. As the United States had noted at past 
meetings of the DSB, the EU's measures affectin g the approval and marketing of biotech products 
remained of substantial concern to the United States. Delays in the consideration of biotech products, as well as current and impending EU Member state bans on products supposedly 
approved by the EU, represented serious obstacles to trade in agricultural products. Unfortunately, 
the United States was unaware of any recent positive developments in relation to the EU's measures. Indeed, even the EU official responsi ble for reviewing EU administrative actions had 
recently confirmed that the Commission had failed  to take biotech approval decisions within a 
reasonable time. With regard to the problem of EU Member state bans, the situation appeared to 
be growing worse, not better. At least 19 Member States or sub-regions had declared their 
intention to "opt-out" of certain biotech approv als without providing any scientific basis. The 
United States urged the EU to ensure that its biotech approval measures were consistent with its obligations under the SPS Agreement. 
1.13.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. D.  United States – Anti–dumping measures on certain shrimp from  Viet Nam: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.43) 
1.14.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS404/11/Add.43, 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. WT/DSB/M/375 
 
- 4 - 
 
1.15.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 15 February 2016, in accordance with  Article 21.6 of the DSU. As the United States 
had noted at past DSB meetings, in February 2012 the US Department of Commerce had modified its procedures in a manner that addressed certain findings in this dispute. The United States would 
continue to consult with interested parties as it worked to address the other recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB. 
1.16.  The representative of Viet Nam said that her country thanked the United States for its 
statement and its status report in this dispute. Viet Nam continued to expect the relevant parts of 
the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute to be implemented by the United States in the context of the implementation of the seco nd shrimp dispute (DS429). Any delay in the 
implementation of the DS429 dispute may also delay the implementation of relevant parts of the 
DS404 dispute. 
1.17.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that his country supported 
the statement made by Viet Nam. Venezuela had taken note of the most recent US status report 
dated 15 February 2016. Venezuela wished to refer to its previous statements on this matter and 
stressed the importance of prompt and full implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Any prolonged failure to comply with the recommendations undermined Members' 
confidence in the system as well as the authority of the DSB. Venezuela urged the United States to 
take the measures necessary to resolve this dispute and to report on the measures undertaken at the next DSB meeting. 
1.18.  The representative of Cuba said that her country supported the statement made by 
Viet Nam. Cuba reiterated the importance of effective compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations, in particular when the interests of a developing-country Member were affected. 
Cuba urged the United States to comply with the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this 
dispute and to finally resolve this dispute. 
1.19.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
E.  United States – Countervailing measures  on certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat 
products from India: Status report by  the United States (WT/DS436/14/Add.3) 
1.20.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS436/14/Add.3, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US countervailing measures on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 
from India. 
1.21.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 15 February 2016, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States 
recalled that the findings in this dispute involved determinations by the US Department of Commerce and the US International Trade Commission (USITC). On 5 October 2015, the US Trade 
Representative had requested the US Department of Commerce to issue a determination in the 
underlying proceeding that was not inconsistent wi th the findings of the Panel and the Appellate 
Body in this dispute. On 6 November 2015, the US Trade Representative requested that the USITC issue a determination in the underlying proceeding that was not inconsistent with the findings of 
the Panel and the Appellate Body in this dispute.  The United States would continue to work to 
address the recommendations and rulings of the DSB and to consult with interested parties. 
1.22.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report in this dispute in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. India noted that, on 
6 November 2015, the USTR had requested that the USITC issue a determination that would render its action in that proceeding not inconsistent with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
India looked forward to the United States fu lly implementing the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute by the expiry of the reasonable period of time on 19 March 2016. 
1.23.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. WT/DSB/M/375 
 
- 5 - 
 
2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPIN G 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, and he invite d the respective representatives to speak. 
2.2.  The representative of the European Unio n said that the EU, once again, requested the 
United States to stop transferring anti-dumping and 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, since the distributions under the CDSOA had been 
continuing, Japan, once again, urged the United Stat es to stop the illegal distributions in order to 
resolve this long-standing dispute. As it had stated at 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 shared thei r position that the Byrd Amendment remained 
subject to the DSB's surveillance until the United States ceased to administer it. 
2.5.  The representative of India said that his country shared the concerns of the EU and Japan. 
The WTO-inconsistent disbursements continued unabate d to the US domestic industry. As stated in 
earlier DSB meetings, the latest data available1 for the fiscal year 2014 indicated that about 
US$70 million were disbursed to the US domestic industry. India was of the view that this item 
should continue to remain on the DSB's Agenda until such time that full compliance was achieved in this dispute. 
2.6.  The representative of Brazil said that he r country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda. Brazil referred to its previous statements made under this Agenda 
item, in particular regarding the continuation of illegal disbursements. Brazil renewed its call on 
the United States to fully comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes. 
2.7.  The representative of China said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for placing this 
item on the Agenda of the present meeting. China urged the United States to fully comply with the 
DSB's rulings in this dispute. 
2.8.  The representative of the United States said that, as the United States had noted at previous 
DSB meetings, the Deficit Reduction Act, which included a provision repealing the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, had been enacted into law in February 2006. 
Accordingly, the United States had taken al l actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes. Th e United States, furthermore, recalled that the 
EU, Japan, and other Members had acknowledged that the Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the 
distribution of duties collected on goods entere d after 1 October 2007, over eight years ago. The 
United States therefore did not understand the pu rpose for which the EU and Japan had inscribed 
this item on the Agenda of the present meetin g. With respect to comments regarding 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 in these disputes. Indeed, as these very WTO Members 
had demonstrated repeatedly when they had been a responding party in a dispute, 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, regardless of whether the complaining 
party disagreed about compliance. 
2.9.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
                                               
1 http://www.cbp.gov/si tes/default/files/do cuments/FY2014%20Annual%20 Report%20wHolds.pdf WT/DSB/M/375 
 
- 6 - 
 
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, and he 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. As 
the United States had noted at past meetings of the DSB, China continued to impose its ban on 
foreign suppliers of electronic payment services ("EPS") by requiring a license, while at the same 
time failing to issue all specific measures or procedures for obtaining that license. The United States previously had taken note of an April 2015 State Council decision, which indicated China's intent to open up its EPS market following issuance of implementing regulations by the 
People's Bank of China and the China Banking Regulatory Commission. To date, however, China 
had not issued these regulations. As required under its WTO obligations, however, China must adopt the implementing regulations necessary for allowing the operation of foreign EPS suppliers 
in China. Furthermore, once adopted, any regulations must be implemented in a consistent and 
fair way. The United States continued to look fo rward to the prompt issuance and implementation 
of all measures necessary to  permit foreign EPS suppliers to do business in China. 
3.3.  The representative of China said that his country regretted that the United States had, once 
again, brought this matter before the DSB. China referred to its statements made at previous DSB 
meetings under this Agenda item. China emphasized that it had taken all necessary actions and had fully implemented 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  THAILAND – CUSTOMS AND FISCAL MEASURES ON CIGARETTES FROM THE 
PHILIPPINES 
A.  Statement by the Philippines 4.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the Philippines and he invited the representative of the Philippines to speak. 
4.2.  The representative of the Philippines said that her country wished to express its deep 
concerns about the most recent action of Thailand prosecuting an importer of Philippine cigarettes 
for the alleged under-declaration of customs value.  The Philippines had reported at the previous 
DSB meeting that the circumstances surrounding the prosecution had demonstrated a very close 
relationship to the circumstances surrounding the measures at issue in the original WTO proceedings. It involved the same exporter, th e same exporting country, the same product, the 
same declared customs values for the same brands, in the same circumstances of sale. Moreover, 
it used the same type of legal determination that Thailand itself had abandoned as grounds for its valuation decisions in the original Panel proceedings. Apart from that, there were a series of 
compliance issues that remained outstanding, near ly four years after Thailand was supposed to 
have fully complied with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The Philippines reiterated that of particular importance was a ruling by the Thai Customs Board of Appeals (or "BoA") rejecting transaction value for 210 entries that were covered by the DSB's rulings and recommendations in 
the original proceedings. As the Philippines ha d previously noted, the ruling was based on the 
application of WTO-inconsistent methodology with respect to the customs valuation of related party transactions. Furthermore, the Philippines was deeply disturbed that Thai Customs had 
explicitly advised the Thai court that they di d not need to follow the WTO ruling because it 
supposedly bound only the Philippines, as the part y that had brought the dispute, and did not bind 
Thailand. In compliance with the DSB's rulings, the Philippines emphasized that all Thai 
Government instruments, whether executive, legisl ative, or judicial, were bound by the findings 
set out in the WTO's rulings, in particular for the issues the Philippines had described at the present meeting. All were bound, to the extent th at they engaged in customs valuation, by the 
disciplines of the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement.  While it continued to express its openness to WT/DSB/M/375 
 
- 7 - 
 
resolving these issues bilaterally, the recent developments compelled the Philippines to reserve its 
right to revert to dispute settlement proceedings. 
4.3.  The representative of Thailand said that his country noted the statement made by the 
Philippines. As stated in its previous status re ports and at the DSB meetings, Thailand had taken 
all actions necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings with regard to this 
dispute. 
4.4.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
5  PROPOSED NOMINATIONS FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS 
5.1.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/562, which contained two additional 
names proposed by Australia for inclusion on the Indicative List of Governmental and 
Non-Governmental Panelists, in accordance with Ar ticle 8.4 of the DSU. He proposed that the DSB 
approve the names contained in document WT/DSB/W/562. 
5.2.  The DSB so agreed. 
6  STATEMENT BY CUBA ON THE DISPUTE: "UNITED STATES – SECTION 211 OMNIBUS 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1998" 
6.1.  The representative of Cuba, speaking under "Other Business" said that her country wished to 
place on record its concern about the procedural error made at the 25 January 2016 DSB meeting 
with respect to the request to withdraw from the DSB's Agenda the matter concerning the Section 211 dispute. At that meeting there was no consensus to do this since many Members had opposed to such a withdrawal. Under Article 21.6 of  the DSU there is an obligation to keep under 
surveillance the implementation of recommendations of unresolved disputes. In accordance with 
that Article, there were only two situations  in which the issue of implementation of 
recommendations may be withdrawn from the Agenda: (i) when the dispute had been resolved; or 
(ii) when the DSB so decided by consensus, as provided for in Article 2.4 of the DSU read in 
conjunction with Article 21.6 of the DSU. Neither of  these two situations had occurred in this case. 
Cuba noted that the EU and the United States had recognized that recent developments, though 
positive, did not constitute a resolution of the dispute, which made it clear that it had not been 
resolved. Cuba also noted that although the DSB may take the decision to withdraw the item from its Agenda (despite the dispute not being resolved ), that decision must be taken by consensus, 
i.e. without any formal opposition by any delegati on present at the meeting. This did not happen 
since Cuba and other Members had opposed the wi thdrawal of the matter. These were the only 
two possibilities permitted under Article 21.6 of the DSU for withdrawing dispute DS176 from item 1 of the DSB's Agenda. Cuba recalled that the Chairman had stated that only "the Members 
affected", understood as the parties to the dispute, could agree to remove the item from the 
Agenda of the monthly DSB meetings and had sugge sted that Cuba could raise this matter as a 
separate item at future DSB meetings. In Cuba's view, this procedure created a negative 
precedent and was contrary to the DSU provisions . Cuba believed that the proposed solution to 
this matter was not consistent with Article 21.6 of  the DSU, which required that this dispute be 
kept under item 1 of the DSB's Agenda at future meetings. 
6.2.  Cuba further stated that Section 211 rema ined in force, and therefore the danger of 
cancellation of the Havana Club trademark regist ration remained latent. Even more important was 
the fact that Section 211 prevented the US courts from recognizing Cuban trademarks and patents. Recently, Bacardi had submitted a request to the US Treasury Department to explain the 
reasons for its decision to grant renewal of the Havana Club trademark registration to the Cuban 
Government and to request the US Patent and Trademark Office to reverse the registration. 
Moreover, on 11 February 2016, a hearing was held in the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of 
the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee to evaluate future actions by that body with 
respect to the Havana Club trademark. From the statements of the Bacardi company and the 
government officials who had attended the meeting, it was clear that this matter was still far from reaching a satisfactory solution and would encounter major and costly legal conflicts in the near 
future. Cuba not only had a systemic interest in this dispute; it was also the Member directly 
affected by this dispute. Therefore, Cuba reserved its right to bring this matter back to the DSB, if WT/DSB/M/375 
 
- 8 - 
 
necessary, to demand the repeal of the measure by the United States. Cuba reiterated that 
Section 211 incorporated the range of laws that constituted the unilateral, unjust and illegal US blockade policy against Cuba, which had been rejected by the international community. Cuba, therefore, would not rest until Section 211 was repealed. 
6.3.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that his country thanked Cuba for 
its statement made at the present meeting, which provided the correct understanding of what had 
happened at the previous DSB meeting. Bolivia continued to be surprised by how things were 
managed in the WTO. Bolivia did not understand the grounds on which this matter was removed 
from the DSB's Agenda, and in particular from Agenda item 1 regarding the surveillance of 
implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB. The text of Article 21.6 of the DSU was clear. Matters could be removed from the Agenda  only in two situations: (i) the dispute was 
resolved; or (ii) the DSB so decided by consensu s. To date, neither of those two conditions had 
been met. Bolivia attached considerable importance to transparency, not only in terms of notifications but in terms of how the business of the WTO was conducted. Bolivia, therefore, found 
it difficult to understand what had happened with respect to this dispute. Bolivia received some 
questions from its capital as to who had decided to remove this item from the DSB's Agenda. In 
Bolivia's view, it was not clear why the item had been removed from the Agenda and who would 
benefit from this action. However, the most important issue was how to rectify this situation. For 
the time being, Bolivia did not have the answer. Such actions undermined the credibility of the WTO and of the multilateral trading system since the interests of small countries were affected. With regard to the substance of this dispute, for the past 14 years, Bolivia sympathized with 
Cuba's situation, which had negative consequences for Cuba's economy, as a result of 
misappropriation of the Havana Club rum trademark by the US Bacardi company, which was in breach of the rights of the Cuba export company.  Bolivia urged the United States to comply with 
the DSB's rulings and recommendations of 2002 and to lift the restrictions imposed by 
Section 211. 
6.4.  The representative of China said that hi s country welcomed the progressive steps in this 
dispute and the recent developments in the bilateral relations between the United States and 
Cuba. However, the prolonged situation of non-compliance was inconsistent with the principle of prompt compliance under the DSU provisions and undermined the credibility of the multilateral trading system. China, therefore, urged the Un ited States to amend the relevant domestic 
regulation and fully comply with the DSB's rulings and recommendations without any further 
delay. 
6.5.  The representative of Jamaica said that he r country thanked Cuba for its statement outlining 
substantive and systemic concerns regarding this item, which was removed from the DSB's 
Agenda. In spite of the positive developments in this dispute, which had been reported at the 25 January 2016 DSB meeting, Jamaica's understanding was that full compliance with the DSB's 
rulings and recommendations in this dispute would require further action by the United States, in 
particular the repeal of Section 211. It was true that the WTO Membership could take some comfort from the cooperative approach exhibited by the parties to the dispute at a time of 
increased engagement and positive developments in diplomatic relations between the 
United States and Cuba. However, the reality was th at the positive steps that had been taken were 
not irreversible and, indeed, lacked the finality that would give Members confidence that the matter could be put firmly behind them. In light of the statements made by Cuba and the parties 
affected by this dispute, Jamaica, therefore, su pported and recognized the right of Cuba or any 
other delegation to raise the issue of implementa tion in this dispute at any future DSB meeting 
under the relevant Agenda item. 
6.6.  The representative of Nicaragua said that his country joined the previous speakers in 
supporting the statement made by Cuba regarding Section 211, which remained in force and 
continued to affect Cuba. At the 25 January 2016 DSB meeting, Nicaragua was one of the countries that had objected to the removal of this item from the DSB's Agenda. Therefore, 
Nicaragua was surprised that this item was not on  the Agenda of the present meeting despite the 
fact that this dispute remained unresolved and that there was no consensus to withdraw the matter from the DSB's Agenda. Nicaragua urged th e United States to comply with the DSB's 
rulings and recommendations and to put in place all relevant measures to resolve this dispute. 
Continued non-compliance in this dispute undermined the multilateral trading system and in particular the DSB. Finally, Nicaragua sought clarification as to why this item was removed from 
the Agenda of the present meeting. WT/DSB/M/375 
 
- 9 - 
 
6.7.  The representative of Ecuador said that his country supported the statement made by Cuba. 
Ecuador did not wish to repeat its position on this matter, which was well known and had been 
expressed on many previous occasions. This proc edural issue affected the substantive issue of 
prompt compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations. Ecuador recalled that, as 
mentioned by Cuba, Article 2.4 of the DSU requir ed the DSB to take decisions by consensus. 
Ecuador noted that, at the previous DSB meeting, there had been no consensus to remove this item from the Agenda because, as stated by Cu ba, a number of delegations, including Ecuador, 
had asked that this item remain on the Agenda. It was therefore a surprise to see that the item 
was not on the Agenda of the present meeting. As  stated by Cuba, Article 21.6 of the DSU had not 
been complied with in this dispute. This item mu st remain on the Agenda because the dispute was 
unresolved. Ecuador called upon the United States to step up its efforts to ensure compliance with 
the DSB's rulings and recommendations and to repeal Section 211. Ecuador reiterated that in 
domestic legislations, Members must take into account international agreements. In Ecuador's view, international agreements should take precedence over domestic legislations, which in turn 
must be brought into line with international commitments. Otherwise, what was the point of being 
a Member of an international organization? What was the point in signing international treaties or agreements? The exercise of sovereignty allowed co untries to transfer authority to international 
organisations and international agreements by which they were bound. If that was not respected 
then conflict between domestic and international legislations would arise. International law took precedence over domestic law and countries must bring their domestic law into line with international agreements. In that regard, Ecuador urged the United States to bring its domestic 
legislation into line with international agreements. 
6.8.  The representative of India said that this long-standing dispute had repeatedly been placed 
on the DSB's Agenda. India noted that the surveill ance of implementation of the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations was a central pillar of the dispute settlement system. It was clear that 
compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations had not been achieved in this dispute. At the previous DSB meeting, positive developments ha d been reported with respect to the resolution 
of this dispute. However, it was clear that compliance had not yet been achieved. Article 21.6 of 
the DSU laid out the DSB's surveillance mandate an d stipulated that "[t]he DSB shall keep under 
surveillance the implementation of adopted recommendations or rulings." It also provided that "[t]he issue of implementation of recommendations or rulings may be raised at the DSB by any 
Member", not only parties to the dispute, "at any time following their adoption". Further, "[u]nless 
the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the agenda of the DSB meeting after si x months following the date of establishment of 
the reasonable period of time pursuant to paragraph 3 and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda until 
the issue is resolved". It was clear that this i ssue had not been resolved. India believed that the 
issue of implementation of the recommendations or  rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the 
DSB until the issue was resolved. India renewed its systemic concerns about the continuation of 
non-compliance in particular in the context of a developing-country Member seeking compliance. In India's view, continued non-compliance by Member s eroded the confidence and credibility of the 
WTO dispute settlement system. India urged the United States to report on compliance in this 
regard without further delay. 
6.9.  The representative of the Russian Federati on said that her country drew attention to the 
explicit wording of the DSU that should guide the Membership on this issue: "Unless the DSB 
decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of  the recommendations or rulings shall remain on 
the DSB's agenda until the issue is resolved". There was no doubt that currently the issue remained unresolved. Russia, therefore, expre ssed its concern about the present situation and 
emphasized the importance of taking all step s necessary to fully comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this matter. 
6.10.  The representative of Angola said that hi s country had hoped to see the resolution of this 
dispute but unfortunately this was not the case. Angola took note of the current status of this 
dispute and understood the logic behind Cuba's concern. In Angola's view, Members had to take 
into account different positions expressed by both sides in order to find a satisfactory solution to this dispute. Thus, Angola requested that the United States fully comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. 
6.11.  The representative of Zimbabwe said that at the DSB meeting on 25 January 2016, his 
country had objected to the removal of this item from the DSB's Agenda because this issue had 
not been resolved. In that regard, there was no consensus, and Zimbabwe was surprised that this WT/DSB/M/375 
 
- 10 - 
 
issue was not on the Agenda of the present meeting. Zimbabwe supported the statement made by 
Cuba, and while it recognized the positive action and steps taken by the US administration in resolving this matter, the full implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations was yet to be achieved. Therefore, Zimbabwe urged the United States to fully comply with the DSB's 
rulings and recommendations. 
6.12.  The representative of Brazil said that her country was not aware that the issue of 
implementation in the DS176 dispute would be ra ised under "Other Business" at the present 
meeting and, therefore, it was not prepared to di scuss this matter. Nevertheless, Brazil wished to 
make two brief comments. First, it seemed not to  be appropriate to discuss implementation of any 
dispute under "Other Business". Second, Brazil wished to highlight that both the EU and the United States had agreed that there was no full implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in this dispute. If that was the case, Brazil wondered how an unresolved dispute could 
fall off the DSB's surveillance under Article 21.6 of  the DSU. Even if practice had evolved that for 
an item to be put on the Agenda under item 1 the responding party had to make such a request, 
Article 21.6 of the DSU was clear as it required th at the issue of implementation be placed on the 
Agenda and remain therein until it was resolved. 
6.13.  The representative of El Salvador said that her country thanked Cuba for placing this item 
on the DSB's Agenda. El Salvador had listened carefully to Cuba's statement on the application and 
interpretation of Article 21.6 of the DSU. El Sa lvador agreed with the legal arguments put forward 
by Cuba that, at the 25 January 2016 DSB meeting, the conditions set out in Article 21.6 had not been met and, therefore, the DS176 dispute had to be kept on the DSB's Agenda. El Salvador 
wished to place on record its concern regarding the need to preserve the legality of the DSB's 
proceedings and to provide legal certainty to the system. Since the dispute had not been resolved, 
and once again with a view to concluding this long-standing dispute, El Salvador urged the parties 
to this dispute to promptly find a way to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, 
bearing in mind that this dispute was adversely affecting a small developing-country Member. El Salvador took note of the fact that Cuba reserved its right to place this matter on the DSB's 
Agenda in the future. 
6.14.  The representative of Viet Nam said that her country supported the statement made by 
Cuba at the present meeting. Viet Nam noted that the United States and Cuba had important and 
positive restoration of bilateral diplomatic relations. Viet Nam further noted that the United States 
had taken certain measures towards lifting the blockade against Cuba. However, the issue was not 
fully resolved and Viet Nam shared the concerns raised by Cuba, Bolivia, and other Members. Despite positive steps taken by the United States, Viet Nam urged the United States to fully 
comply with the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute. With regard to the concerns 
raised by Members at the present meeting, Viet Nam sought clarification regarding the removal of this matter from the Agenda of the DSB. 
6.15.  The representative of Uruguay said that, at previous DSB meetings, Uruguay had made 
statements regarding this dispute and recognized the steps taken in the right direction by the 
United States. Uruguay had, on previous occasions, also pointed out that this was an issue that affected the interests of a developing-country Memb er. Therefore, Uruguay called on the parties to 
promptly resolve this dispute. With regard to what Cuba had stated at the present meeting, 
Uruguay believed that this issue required a tec hnical and legal analysis. At the present meeting, 
Uruguay was not in a position to take a position on this matter and in that regard, it reserved its 
right to revert to this issue and to express its position at future meetings. 
6.16.  The representative of Canada said that his country thanked Cuba for raising this systemic 
issue at the present meeting. Canada had listened to the points raised by Cuba and other 
delegations. Canada took no position on whether the parties to the dispute in question had acted 
correctly when the dispute had not been put on the Agenda of the present meeting, and Canada 
certainly did not wish to interfere in any way with the efforts of the parties to resolve this dispute. Canada, however, wished to comment on a systemic issue, especially in light of the points raised 
by other delegations about the systemic consequenc es of the developments in this dispute. In 
recent years, questions had been raised, both in the DSB and in the DSB Special Session, about the surveillance practices that had emerged in the DSB. Such questions concerned whether the 
current practices were coherent, whether they were effective, and in particular whether they were, 
in their current form at least, an efficient use of the DSB's time. As others had pointed out, Article 21.6 of the DSU provided that disputes re mained under the DSB's surveillance until they WT/DSB/M/375 
 
- 11 - 
 
had been "resolved". Using the ordinary meaning of  the term "resolution", the scope of the DSB's 
surveillance mandate was potentially quite broad. Beyond that term, however, Article 21.6 of the DSU did not specify precisely the circumstances in which that surveillance responsibility was to be discharged. The specifics had instead emerged throug h practice in the DSB. Judging in part by the 
titles used for the items on the DSB's Agendas,  the practice that had emerged over the years 
seemed to be that formal DSB surveillance only occurred for disputes in which the responding party had not claimed compliance. These disputes were put on the Agenda at the request of the 
responding party and were accompanied by a status report. Once compliance was claimed 
however, regardless of whether the other party agreed with that claim such that the dispute could be seen to be "resolved", the dispute was no long er under the formal surveillance of the DSB. The 
second sentence of Article 21.6 of the DSU had given rise to a second category of indirect 
surveillance, which usually took place under items 2 through 5 or 6 of the DSB's Agenda, 
depending on the meeting. In those circumstances,  the item was at the request of the complaining 
party. These additional Agenda items were arguably  still a legitimate part of the DSB's official 
surveillance mandate, albeit they were not formally labelled as such. 
6.17.  There were also other categories of disputes that were arguably still technically under the 
DSB's surveillance in the sense that they were not yet "resolved". These included: (i) disputes in 
which the responding party had claimed compliance, a claim with which the complaining party 
disagreed, but chose not to raise it again in the DSB; (ii) disputes that were subject to compliance review; and (iii) disputes that were subject to an  authorization for retaliation. These disputes were 
not resolved and as such, remained under the DSB's surveillance. Canada did not contest the 
legitimacy of the practice of implementing surveillance in this way, even if it involved an evolution 
from the original language in the DSU. Put simply, the DSB's surveillance regime could be characterized as consisting of disputes in which there was no claim of compliance being subject to 
formal surveillance and once compliance had been cl aimed, disputes that fell into one of the other 
categories of informal surveillance, depending on  the circumstances. Developments in the DSB's 
surveillance of the DS176 dispute seemed, however,  to introduce a new category of surveillance 
that did not fit within the practice that had emerged. In fact, moving the DS176 dispute from the 
first category to the second category, despite the fact that there had been no claim of compliance, and indeed there was explicit agreement that th e dispute had not been resolved, led Canada to 
wonder whether the DSB's surveillance mandate could be fairly described simply as "whatever the 
parties to a dispute agree it to be". 
6.18.  Canada was not in principle opposed to allowing the disputing parties to determine the 
nature of the surveillance that was required. After all, if the parties agreed that formal surveillance 
was not required, why would other Members or the DSB want to interfere with that agreement, 
especially if it helped them resolve their dispute. Canada did, however, consider that it was important that the DSB strike the right balance between its collective responsibility to administer 
the DSU, including the compliance and surveillance provisions, and the right of parties to agree on 
the trajectory that their dispute would follow. For instance, while the DSB should be, and generally was, reluctant to interfere with agreements between parties to existing disputes, it did have a responsibility to provide to other Members a degree  of certainty and predictability about how they 
should expect to conduct themselves in future disputes. As the surveillance practices became more 
ad hoc and variable depending on the dispute, which created uncertainty about how DSB surveillance actually operated, Canada wondered whether it was time for the DSB to consider 
taking stock of its surveillance practices and attempting to clarify the scope and operation of its 
surveillance responsibilities, and provide more certainty to Members about their responsibilities and options in disputes subject to surveillance obli gations. As part of such an exercise, the DSB 
could, for instance, reaffirm that disputes rema ined under surveillance until they were resolved; 
codify the clear preference and practice that the parties to a dispute retained a degree of control 
over whether the DSB would consider an item; an d provide guidance on when and how disputes 
would be put on the Agenda. Members may in the process consider reducing the need and the 
incentive for parties to make repetitive statements at every DSB meeting when there were no new 
developments in a dispute. Canada stood ready to engage formally and informally with other Members to develop such guidance to clarify an d improve the operation of the DSB's surveillance 
mandate. 
6.19.  The representative of Mexico said that his country urged the United States to promptly 
comply with Article 21.1 of the DSU. Mexico reserved its right to revert to the procedural issues 
raised at the present meeting. WT/DSB/M/375 
 
- 12 - 
 
6.20.  The representative of Argentina said that it was not his country's intention to make a 
statement on this matter under "Other Business". Argentina simply wished to urge the parties to 
t h i s  d i s p u t e  t o  f i n d  a  s o l u t i o n  a s  s o o n  a s  p o s s i b l e .  A r g e n t i n a  t o o k  n o t e  o f  t h e  a r g u m e n t  p u t  forward by Cuba regarding the fact that this matter had not been placed under Agenda item 1 of 
the present meeting. However, Argentina had nothin g further to add on this matter at the present 
meeting. 
6.21.  The representative of Peru said that he r country was not aware that this matter was going 
to be raised under "Other Business". Although some progress had been made in this dispute, Peru 
shared the concerns raised by delegations at the present meeting. In that regard, Peru reiterated 
its position and urged the parties to this and other disputes to take all measures necessary to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Peru would monitor this dispute and hoped 
that necessary steps would be taken to resolve it. Pe ru reserved its right to revert to this matter at 
a later date. 
6.22.  The representative of the United States said that his country queried whether the Members 
speaking under this item had considered the rules they had adopted in the DSB before preparing 
those interventions. Rule 25 of the DSB Rules of Procedure stated that: "[r]epresentatives should avoid unduly long debates under 'Other Business'. Discussions on substantive issues under 'Other 
Business' shall be avoided, and the General Council shall limit itself to taking note of the 
announcement by the sponsoring delegation, as well as any reactions to such an announcement by other delegations directly concerned".
2 The United States referred Members to its statement made 
at the DSB meeting on 25 January 2016, noting significant positive developments in this matter 
and the more cooperative approach agreed by the disputing parties. 
6.23.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU wished to refer to its statement 
made on this matter at the 25 January 2016 DSB meeting. 
6.24.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repu blic of Venezuela said that his country thanked 
Cuba for raising this matter under "Other Busi ness". Venezuela fully supported the statement 
made by Cuba and shared its concerns. In Venezuela's view, there had been a procedural error 
regarding the interpretation of Article 21.6 of the DSU. Venezuela believed that there was a need 
for the DSB to monitor the implementation of th e DSB's rulings and recommendations, which was 
why this particular matter should remain on the DSB's Agenda until the dispute had been resolved. This should not set a precedent for future work of the DSB. With respect to this dispute, the 
circumstances covered by Article 21.6 had not occurred since Section 211 had not been repealed. 
Furthermore, under Article 2.4 of the DSU, decisi ons could only be taken by consensus. In other 
words, no Member should object to the proposed decision. This was not what had happened at the 
previous DSB meeting given that Cuba's request had been supported by other Members, including 
Venezuela. This matter could have systemic implications for the DSB and the credibility of the dispute settlement system. In that regard, Venezuela emphasized the importance of respecting the 
DSU provisions. 
6.25.  The representative of Cuba said that her country wished to comment on the statement 
made by Canada. Cuba would appreciate it if Canada could circulate its statement to all 
delegations. Cuba noted that Canada had provid ed a number of possible interpretations of DSB 
practices. However, Cuba believed that, in international law, practice could never override the law. 
Cuba underlined that Article 21.6 of the DSU was clear, but it had not been properly complied 
with. Furthermore, with respect to this dispute,  a group of Members had objected to this matter 
being removed from Agenda item 1 since this di spute had not been resolved and should remain 
under the DSB's surveillance. Cuba was not aware of  any precedent in this regard. In Cuba's view, 
Article 21.6 of the DSU did not provide for this si tuation. The position taken on this matter had 
significant systemic implications and had to be carefully considered in order to avoid setting a 
negative precedent. Article 21.6 of the DSU was clear that all Members must participate in the decision-making process and not just the parties to the dispute. Cuba did not just have a systemic interest in this matter, but as a developing-country Member, it was directly affected by this 
dispute. Cuba, therefore, reserved its right to revert to this matter at an appropriate time. 
                                               
2 WT/L/161, WT/DSB/9, Rule 25 (emphasis added). WT/DSB/M/375 
 
- 13 - 
 
6.26.  The representative of Ecuador said that his country supported the statement made by Cuba. 
In Ecuador's view, Members must respect the rule  of law in the WTO. Members had to recognize 
that there was such a thing as customary practice  and that trade practice and trade customs were 
generally accepted, in particular in civil law countries. However, there were some requirements to 
be considered including whether there was a legal recognition of that practice or custom, by the 
law. If the text of the law did not recognize customary practice, it could not be invoked. Such customary practice must meet certain requirements and cannot be against the law. The law could 
not be amended through practice. This was often a matter for private law if looking at civil law in 
individual cases, but not with respect to WTO law. 
6.27.  The Chairman said that this matter wa s being discussed under "Other Business" and, 
therefore, the DSB could only take note of the st atements made. It would be up to delegations to 
raise this issue in any manner, including in terms of the systemic implications going forward if they 
so wished. 
6.28.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
7  THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT WORKLOAD A.  Statement by the Chairman 7.1.  The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business", said that he wished to provide information 
about the Appellate Body's workload, the number of  disputes in the panel queue and at the panel 
composition stage and the ability of the Secretar iat to meet expected demand over the coming 
period. With regard to appeals, he said that the Appellate Body was currently dealing with two 
appeals.3 Based on the projected dates for the circulation of the next panel reports, the Appellate 
Body could expect that up to four more appeals may be filed in the first half of 2016.4 Several 
more appeals were likely in the second half of 2016, including the extremely large compliance proceedings in the "EC and Certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft (Airbus)" dispute. Given 
the limited number of staff available in the Appella te Body Secretariat, as of the second half 
of 2016 there was likely to be a waiting period until all these appeals could be staffed and Appellate Body members could turn to dealing wi th them. With regard to panels/arbitrations, 
currently there were 21 composed panels (including two panels under Article 21.5 of the DSU) that 
had not yet issued a final report to the parties. He noted that he was counting multiple disputes that were being considered simultaneously by th e same panel as one. For example, "Australia – 
Tobacco Plain Packaging" panels, which were in fact  four active disputes, were counted as a single 
panel in his report. In addition, he said that he had excluded suspended panels. The Rules Division 
and the Legal Affairs Division continued to work together to reduce the queue of panels awaiting availability of staff to assist the panels that had been composed. Currently, there were five 
composed panels awaiting staff to assist them
5, three of which were composed after 
31 October 2015, when the Director-General had addr essed the DSB. Four of the panels that were 
in the queue as of 31 October 2015 were currently staffed and active.6 As of the present day, 
there were six panels at the composition stage. 
7.2.  The DSB took note of the statement. 
                                               
3 DS453 "Argentina – Financial Services"; DS461 "Colombia – Textiles". 
4 DS456 "India – Solar Cells"; DS464 "US – Washing Machines"; DS473 "EU – Biodiesel"; and DS475 
"Russia – Pigs". 
5 DS486 "EU – PET"; DS488 "US – OCTG" (Korea); DS480 "EU – Biodiesel" (Indonesia); DS490/DS496 
"Indonesia – Iron or Steel Products"; and DS491 "US – Coated Paper" (Indonesia). 
6 DS487 "US – Tax Incentives"; DS479 "Russia – Commercial Vehicles"; DS483 "China – Cellulose 
Pulp"; and DS482 "Canada – Welded Pipe". WT/DSB/M/375 
 
- 14 - 
 
8  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON 
8.1.  The Chairman said that he had enjoyed working with all delegations throughout the past 
year. He had learned to value the DSB system even  more, through his experience of working with 
delegations who were the guarantors of a very important part of the WTO system. As Members 
were aware, at its meeting on 24 February 2016, 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 Xavier Carim of South Africa as Chairman of the DSB. 
8.2.  The DSB so agreed. 
8.3.  The incoming Chairman said that he th anked the outgoing Chairman, Ambassador Harald 
Neple and wished him well in his new responsibilities as Chairman of the General Council. It was 
an honour for him to have been elected as Chai rman of the DSB and he thanked the Membership 
for the confidence that it had shown in him. He also wished to express his deep gratitude to the 
African Group for supporting his nomination. He was certainly looking forward to taking up this 
role as the Chair of the DSB and to working clos ely with all delegations over the course of 2016. 
He would depend on all delegations and the Secretariat to ensure that the DSB work would proceed as smoothly as possible. From time to time, he would depend on Ambassador Neple, who 
had done an excellent job over the course of 2015, to help him navigate any difficult issues that 
may arise. 
8.4.  The representative of the United St ates said that his country congratulated 
Ambassador Carim on his election, and extended its welcome to him as he assumed the 
Chairmanship of the DSB. The United States look ed forward to working with him over the coming 
year. The United States also thanked Ambassador Neple for his many contributions to the work of the DSB during the past year. 
8.5.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU warmly welcomed 
Ambassador Carim to the DSB. The EU was sure th at delegations were in excellent hands, as 
during Ambassador Neple's term. The EU wished Ambassador Neple all the best as the new 
Chairman of the General Council. 
8.6.  The representative of Mexico said that his country welcomed Ambassador Carim and thanked 
Ambassador Neple for his efficient work. Mexico wished him every success in his future 
endeavours. 
8.7.  The representative of Japan said that his country congratulated Ambassador Carim on his 
election as the new Chairman of the DSB. Japan lo oked forward to working with him in the coming 
year. Japan also wished to express its appreciation to Ambassador Neple for his excellent work in 
handling difficult tasks related to the DSB. Japan wished him all the best in his new challenging 
assignment as the next Chairman of the General Council. 
8.8.  The representative of Jamaica, speaking as Chair of the CARICOM Group said that her 
country and the CARICOM Group warmly welcomed Ambassador Carim as the Chairman of the 
DSB and thanked Ambassador Neple for his excellent  stewardship of the DSB over the past year. 
8.9.  The representative of China said that his country joined other delegations in welcoming 
Ambassador Carim as the new Chairman of the DSB and looked forward to his leadership in 
carrying out the work of the DSB this year. China also thanked Ambassador Neple for his excellent 
work during the past year. 
8.10.  The representative of Angola said that his country thanked Ambassador Neple for his work 
and welcomed Ambassador Carim. Angola wished them both success. 8.11.  The representative of the Russian Federation said that her country joined other Members in 
welcoming Ambassador Carim as the Chairman of the DSB and wished him a good and productive 
term of office. Russia was certain that the DSB would benefit in the best way under his 
Chairmanship. Russia also thanked Ambassador Neple for his wise and efficient Chairmanship and wished him all the best in his new assignment. WT/DSB/M/375 
 
- 15 - 
 
8.12.  The representative of Zimbabwe said that his country joined other delegations in welcoming 
Ambassador Carim and wished him the best. Zimbabwe hoped that Ambassador Carim would 
continue to steer the DSB in the manner Zi mbabwe knew he woul d. Zimbabwe wished 
Ambassador Neple all the best in his new role  as the Chairman of the General Council. 
8.13.  The representative of Korea said that his country welcomed Ambassador Carim as the new 
Chairman of the DSB and looked forward to working with him in the coming year. Korea also 
thanked Ambassador Neple for the excellent work that he had done over the past year and for his 
service to the DSB. Korea wished him the best an d congratulated both the outgoing and incoming 
Chairmen. 
8.14.  The representative of Brazil said that her country joined other delegations in welcoming 
Ambassador Carim to the DSB and thanking Ambassador Neple for his work. 
8.15.  The representative of India said that his country joined other Members in congratulating 
Ambassador Carim on his election as the Chairman of the DSB. India looked forward to working 
with him and assured him of its support. India also thanked Ambassador Neple for the excellent 
work during the past year and wished him the best in his future endeavours. 
8.16.  The representative of Ecuador said that his country welcomed Ambassador Carim as the 
new Chairman of the DSB and thanked Ambassador Ne ple for his Chairmanship  over the past year. 
8.17.  The representative of Egypt said that her country warmly welcomed and congratulated 
Ambassador Carim on his appointment. Egypt wished him all the best and was sure that he would 
be successful in his role as the Chairman of the DSB. Egypt thanked Ambassador Neple for his 
work and wished him success in his new appointment. 
8.18.  The outgoing Chairman said that he wished to thank the Secretariat for the invaluable 
assistance and thanked delegations for their kind words. 
8.19.  The incoming Chairman thanked all delega tions for their kind words and warm wishes for 
the year ahead. He said that he would draw on their support in the coming year and that he 
already had a sense of some of the issues that would be discussed over the course of the year. 
8.20.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
__________