RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/368  
 
23 November 2015  
(15-6177)  Page: 1/17  
Dispute Settlement Body 
28 September 2015    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD 
ON 28 SEPTEMBER 2015 
Chairman: Mr. Harald Neple (Norway) 
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 ................................................................................................................. .. 6 
D.  European Communities – Measures affect ing the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by  the European  Union ..................................................................... 6  
E.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the Un ited States ................................................................................................ 7  
F.  European Communities – Measures prohibiting the importation and marketing of seal 
products: Status report by  the European  Union ..................................................................... 7  
2   UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT 
OF 2000: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECO MMENDATIONS ADOPTE D BY THE DSB ........... 8  
A.  Statements by the Eu ropean Union and Japan .................................................................. 8  
3   CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECT ING ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SERVICES ........... 10  
A.  Statement by th e United States .................................................................................... 10 
4   THAILAND – CUSTOMS AND FISCAL MEASURES ON CIGARETTES FROM THE 
PHILIPPI NES ................................................................................................................. 1 1 
A.  Statement by the Philippines ........................................................................................ 11 
5   UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON 
CERTAIN COATED PAPER FROM INDO NESIA .................................................................. 11  
A.  Request for the establishm ent of a panel by Indonesia ..................................................... 11 
6   KOREA – IMPORT BANS, AND TEST ING AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 
FOR RADIONUC LIDES .................................................................................................... 12  
A.  Request for the establis hment of a pane l by Japan ........................................................... 12 
7   INDONESIA – SAFEGUARD ON CERT AIN IRON OR STEE L PRODUCTS ........................ 13  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ................................................................................... 13 WT/DSB/M/368 
 
- 2 - 
 
  8   INDONESIA – SAFEGUARD ON CERT AIN IRON OR STEE L PRODUCTS ........................ 14  
A.  Request for the establishm ent of a panel by Viet Nam ...................................................... 14 
9   BRAZIL – CERTAIN MEASURES CO NCERNING TAXATION AND CHARGES ................... 15  
A.  Request for the establis hment of a pane l by Japan ........................................................... 15 
10   STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGARDING SOME MATTERS RELATED TO 
THE APPELLATE BODY .................................................................................................... 16  
11   STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGARDING THE PRESENTATION BY THE 
DIRECTOR-GENERAL CONCERNING THE CURRENT CHALLENGES FACING THE 
DISPUTE SETTLEMEN T SYSTEM ...................................................................................... 17  
 
 
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.153) 
 
B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on cert ain hot-rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.153) 
 
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United States (WT/DS160/24/Add.128)  
D.  European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.91)  
E.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.39)  
F.  European Communities – Measures prohibiting the importation and marketing of seal products: 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS400/16/Add.6 – WT/DS401/17/Add.6)   
1.1.  The Chairman noted that there were six sub- 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 
of the DSU required that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonab le period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved". Under this Agenda item, the Chairman invited delegations to 
provide up-to-date information about compliance efforts and to focus on new developments, 
suggestions and ideas on progress towards the reso lution of disputes. Furthermore, 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 debate at each meeting 
on any issue that has already been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have 
been no change in Members' positions already on record". 
A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.153) 
1.2.  The Chairman drew attention to docu ment WT/DS176/11/Add.153, 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 17 September 2015, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. Several bills 
introduced in the current US Congress would repeal Section 211. Other previously introduced 
legislation would modify Section 211. The US Administration would continue to work on solutions 
to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings and to resolve this matter with the EU. WT/DSB/M/368 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.4.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU thanked the United States for its 
most recent status report and the statement made  at the present meeting. The EU hoped that the 
US authorities would resolve this matter very soon. 
1.5.  The representative of Cuba said that her country noted, once again, that Section 211 had had 
a negative impact on Cuba. Section 211 prevented certain Cuban trademarks and patents from 
being recognized by the US courts, and was a seri ous obstacle to the external sector of Cuba's 
economy. Under the guise of this legislation and pursuant to a number of political decisions, the 
Cuban entity, Cuba Export, was denied a licence that would have enabled it to renew the 
registration of the Havana Club trademark in the United States. The continued US non-compliance in this dispute reflected the US measures and laws in support of the economic, commercial and financial embargo that the United States had ma intained against Cuba for more than 50 years. 
A number of bills had been submitted in the US legislature in an effort to repeal or amend 
Section 211, such as S.757, submitted before the US Senate on 17 March 2015. As in the case of its predecessors, however, it was highly unlikely  that S.757 would become law, and it would have 
no impact on the enforcement of Section 211.  In spite of measures implemented by the 
United States that modified certain aspects of the embargo, and despite appeals to Congress to lift the embargo, the laws and regulations underlying this policy were still in force and were applied 
rigorously by the agencies of the United States. This obsolete policy which, among other serious 
consequences, prevented compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute, had also been expressly rejected by the international community for 23 consecutive years before the UN General Assembly. In 2014, 188 UN member States, almost all of which were also 
WTO Members, voted in favour of the General Asse mbly resolution entitled "Necessity of Ending 
the Economic, Commercial and Financial Embargo Imposed by the United States of America against Cuba". On 27 October 2015, this resolution would be put to the vote for the 24th 
consecutive year in the UN General Assembly. Cuba was confident that it would receive the 
support of the international community in its legitimate demand to put an end to the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States. 
1.6.  The representative of Mexico said that since the circumstances of this dispute had not 
changed, Mexico wished to refer to its statemen ts made under this Agenda item at previous 
DSB meetings. 
1.7.  The representative of the Russian Federation said that his country regretted that it had to, 
once again, express its concern about the lack of progress in this long-standing dispute. The lack 
of compliance in this dispute attracted the a ttention of Members as it was an example of 
non-compliance with, and disregard of, the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Russia believed 
that timely implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings by all Members was 
essential in order to preserve mutual trust and credibility of the WTO system. As it had previously stated, Russia urged the parties to this dispute to address the outstanding issues and to resolve 
this dispute as soon as possible. 
1.8.  The representative of Nicaragua said that her country supported the statement made by 
Cuba. Nicaragua reiterated its concern about the continued lack of compliance by the 
United States with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. In Nicaragua's view, 
and as many delegations had pointed out at previous DSB meetings, the US failure to comply 
affected the economic interests of a developi ng-country Member with a small economy and 
undermined the smooth functioning of the DSB. Nicaragua joined other Members in urging the 
United States to take the necessary measures to promptly implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings. 
1.9.  The representative of the Plurinational St ate of Bolivia said that, for the past 13 years, 
Members had witnessed the United States submit the same status report, which did not contain 
any information on progress in this dispute. Bolivia, once again, expressed its concern about the systemic effects of non-compliance with the DSB' s recommendations and rulings. The failure to 
comply in this dispute undermined the credibility of the multilateral trading system. Bolivia urged 
the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings and to remove the 
restrictions imposed under Section 211. Bolivia supported the concerns raised by Cuba at the present meeting. WT/DSB/M/368 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.10.  The representative of El Salvador said that her country thanked the United States for its 
status report and Cuba for its statement made at the present meeting. El Salvador urged the 
parties to this dispute to find a prompt solution to this long-standing dispute. 
1.11.  The representative of Ecuador said that his country supported the statement made by Cuba. 
Ecuador, once again, recalled that Article 21 of the DSU referred specifically to prompt compliance 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, in particular since the interests of a developing-country Member were concerned. Ecuador urged the United States to step up its efforts 
and promptly comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings and to repeal Section 211. 
1.12.  The representative of India said that, like other delegations, his country noted that there 
was no progress made in this dispute. India, once  again, was compelled to stress that the principle 
of prompt compliance was missing in this dispute. India renewed its systemic concerns about the 
continuation of non-compliance, especially in the context of a developing-country Member seeking 
compliance. Continued non-compliance by Members eroded the confidence and the credibility of the WTO dispute settlement system. India urged the United States to report compliance in this 
dispute without further delay. 
1.13.  The representative of Trinidad and Tobago said that his country thanked the United States 
for its status report and Cuba for its statement. Trinidad and Tobago recalled its statements made 
under this Agenda item at previous DSB meet ings. Trinidad and Tobago regretted that the 
circumstances of this dispute had not changed. In  that regard, Trinidad and Tobago supported the 
call for prompt compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations regarding Section 211, in line with Article 21.1 of the DSU. The prolonged situation of non-compliance with the DSB's rulings 
and recommendations in this dispute negatively affected all Members, in particular small 
developing-country Members such as Cuba. Conseque ntly, the slow rate of progress in this matter 
eroded Members' confidence in the multilateral trading system. Trinidad and Tobago, once again, 
supported the call for prompt compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this 
dispute. 
1.14.  The representative of Brazil said that he r country thanked the United States for its status 
report which confirmed that no concrete progress ha d been made in this dispute. Brazil shared the 
concerns expressed by other Members about the lack of compliance in this dispute and urged the parties to the dispute as well as the United States and Cuba, in light of the recent and positive bilateral developments, to cooperate in finding a solution to this dispute. 
1.15.  The representative of Argentina said that his country thanked the United States for its 
status report and thanked other Members for their statements made at the present meeting. 
Argentina, once again, regretted that no progress had been made in this dispute. Argentina 
reiterated the importance of respecting the principle of prompt compliance, in particular since the 
interests of a developing-country Member, Cuba, were concerned. Argentina urged both parties to the dispute, and in particular the United States, to promptly find a solution that would resolve this 
long-standing dispute. 
1.16.  The representative of China said that her country thanked the United States for its status 
report and the statement made at the present me eting. The prolonged situation of non-compliance 
in this dispute was highly inconsistent with th e principle of prompt compliance under the DSU 
provisions, in particular since the interests of a developing-country Member were affected. China 
urged the United States to implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations without any further delay. 
1.17.  The representative of Peru said that he r country joined with other delegations that had 
expressed their concerns about the continued non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in this dispute, which affected the interests of a developing-country Member. 
1.18.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that her country supported 
the statement made by Cuba. Venezuela wished to express its concerns about the content of the 
US status report, which did not provide any information on progress regarding US compliance in this dispute. Venezuela reiterated that the US status report was not in line with Article 21 of the 
DSU, which required Members to report on progress towards compliance and not just repeat the 
same information. Venezuela wished to reiterat e the concerns expressed by previous speakers WT/DSB/M/368 
 
- 5 - 
 
  regarding the systemic implications of non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings, which undermined Members' confidence in the DSB and the dispute settlement system as well as the credibility of the multilateral trading system. The ongoing lack of compliance in this dispute demonstrated that the United States wished to maintain the commercial, trade and 
economic embargo against Cuba. This embargo, which was illegal, was rejected by the UN General 
Assembly as a violation of international law. Venezuela urged the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings and to fully repeal Section 211. 
1.19.  The representative of Uruguay said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report in this dispute. Uruguay noted that the US status report did not contain any new 
information on progress. In Uruguay's view, th e continued non-compliance in this dispute 
undermined the credibility of the system and had a negative impact on Members. Uruguay hoped 
that the matter would be resolved as soon as possible. Uruguay hoped that the new bilateral 
relationships between the United States and Cuba would contribute towards resolving this dispute. 
1.20.  The representative of Paraguay said th at his country supported the statement made by 
Cuba and urged the parties to this dispute to find a solution as  soon as possible. 
1.21.  The representative of Viet Nam said that her country thanked the United States for its 
status report. Viet Nam noted that the US status report did not provide information on progress in 
this dispute. Viet Nam noted that this matter had remained unresolved for more than a decade 
and urged the United States to promptly comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
1.22.  The representative of Zimbabwe said that his country supported the statements made by 
previous speakers regarding this dispute. Zimbabwe, once again, noted that there was no change. 
Members were faced with a situation where one Member had delayed the implementation of the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings. This was contra ry to the objective of prompt compliance, in 
particular since the economic interests of a deve loping-country Member were concerned. In that 
regard, Zimbabwe joined other delegations that had supported Cuba and continued to urge the 
United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
1.23.  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.153) 
1.24.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.153, 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. 
1.25.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 17 September 2015, 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. 
1.26.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked the United States for its 
statement and a status report submitted on 17 September 2015. Japan wished to refer to its 
previous statements made under this Agenda item to  the effect that this issue should be resolved 
as soon as possible. 
1.27.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. WT/DSB/M/368 
 
- 6 - 
 
  C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS160/24/Add.128) 
1.28.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.128, 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. 
1.29.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 17 September 2015, 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. 
1.30.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for the 
status report and its statement made at the present meeting. The EU wished to refer to its 
statements made under this Agenda item at previo us DSB meetings. The EU wished to resolve this 
dispute as soon as possible. 
1.31.  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.91) 
1.32.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.91, 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. 
1.33.  The representative of the European Union said that, in recent meetings, the EU had already 
reported on authorization decisions and other actions towards approval decisions taken up to 
May 2015. One further draft decision for the author ization of genetically-modified food and feed 
had been voted in the Standing Committee on 14 September 2015.1 The result was "no opinion" 
and the draft decision would be sent to the Appeal Committee. More generally, and as stated many times before, the EU recalled that the EU approval system was not covered by the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. 
1.34.  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 repeatedly 
since the adoption of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute, the United States 
remained concerned about the EU's measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products. Dozens of biotech applications remain ed pending in the EU approval system. One of 
these applications had been pending for well over a decade. The ongoing backlog and delays 
remained a serious impediment to trade in biotech products. Further, even when the EU did 
approve a biotech product, the approval may not apply within one or more EU member states. Instead, EU member States had banned such products, and had done so without any apparent 
scientific basis. 
1.35.  Instead of taking steps to address this  problem, the EU Commission had proposed an 
amendment to EU biotech approval regulations that would facilitate the adoption of additional EU 
member-State bans on biotech products approved at the EU-level. The United States was 
concerned about the relationship of such a proposal to the EU's obligations under the SPS 
Agreement, and on the negative impacts of this proposal with respect to the movement and use of biotech products throughout the entirety of the EU . The United States urged the EU to ensure that 
its biotech approval measures were consistent with its obligations under the SPS Agreement. To 
the extent that the EU considered revisions to its biotech approval regulations, the EU should 
ensure that any revisions were consistent with its WTO obligations and should notify these 
revisions to the SPS Committee pursuant to Article 7 of the SPS Agreement. 
                                               
1 MON87427 maize. WT/DSB/M/368 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.36.  The representative of the European Union said that, as the EU had already stated at 
previous DSB meetings, the proposal that the United States had referred to fell outside the 
responsibilities of the DSB under Article 21.6 of the DSU. There was no basis for a discussion in 
the DSB on the consistency of the proposal with the EU's WTO obligations. 
1.37.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
E.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.39) 
1.38.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS404/11/Add.39, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US an ti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from 
Viet Nam. 
1.39.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 17 September 2015, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As the 
United States had noted at previous 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. 
1.40.  The representative of Viet Nam said that her country thanked the United States for its 
statement and the status report in this dispute. As Members recalled, Viet Nam considered that 
those actions found by the Panel in this dispute to  be WTO-inconsistent should be addressed in the 
context of US implementation of the DS429 disput e. In particular, the WTO-inconsistent margins 
of dumping found in each of the reviews at issu e in this dispute must be revised based on a 
WTO-consistent methodology in order for the United States to take the WTO-consistent action 
required by the DS429 dispute, in particular to conduct a redetermination of the sunset review on 
frozen warm water shrimp from Viet Nam and to re-examine individual company requests for revocations based on the continued absence of dump ing. Viet Nam believed that the United States 
was prepared to fully implement the recommendations in this dispute and that after the expiry of 
the reasonable period of time for implementation it would inform the DSB that it had fully complied 
in the DS429 dispute. 
1.41.  The representative of Cuba said that her country supported the statement made by 
Viet Nam. Cuba, once again, urged the United States to promptly comply in this dispute so that a 
solution could be found within the reasonable  period of time, as stated by Viet Nam. 
1.42.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that her country supported 
the statement made by Viet Nam and took note of the US status report. However, Venezuela 
wished to stress the importance of prompt compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations. As Venezuela had mentioned at previous DSB meetings, the prolonged situation 
of non-compliance undermined the credibility of the multilateral trading system and the dispute 
settlement system. Venezuela urged the United States  to take the necessary measures to end this 
situation of non-compliance and to inform the DSB at its next meeting of the measures it intended to take to resolve this dispute. 
1.43.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
F.  European Communities – Measures prohib iting the importation and marketing of seal 
products: Status report by the Eu ropean Union (WT/DS400/16/Add.6 – 
WT/DS401/17/Add.6) 
1.44.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS400/16/Add.6 – WT/DS401/17/Add.6, 
which contained the status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the 
DSB's recommendations in the case concerning the EU measures prohibiting the importation and marketing of seal products. WT/DSB/M/368 
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.45.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU continued to work on the 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute and was making its best 
efforts to complete the implementation before the expiry of the agreed reasonable period of time 
on 18 October 2015. As already reported at the previous DSB meetings, the European Commission 
had submitted a proposal to the Council and the European Parliament for amending those aspects 
of EC Regulation No. 1007/2009 on trade in seal products that had been found to be discriminatory. In particular, it proposed to remove the exception for maritime resource 
management hunts and provided for certain modifications to the exception of indigenous 
communities. This proposal had been, in its essenc e, approved by the European Parliament in its 
plenary session on 8 September 2015. The EU was confident that the Council would soon follow, 
so that the modifications would enter into force before the end of the reasonable period of time. In 
addition, and as the EU had reported in the previous DSB meeting, on 30 July 2015, an attestation 
system for Canadian Inuit was put in place through a Decision by the European Commission. This was the result of constructive cooperation with Canadian authorities, and provided the basis for 
Canadian Inuit to start using the IC exception. 
1.46.  The representative of Canada said that his country thanked the EU for its seventh status 
report regarding the implementation of the DSB' s recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
Since the conclusion of the agreement between Canada and the EU on a Joint Statement on 
"Access to the EU of Seal Products from Indigenous Communities of Canada", Canada had actively engaged with the EU to operationalize the indigenous communities' exemption, with the objective of ensuring practical market access for Canadian Aboriginal seal products. Canada was pleased 
that the Commission had, on 30 July 2015, adopte d a decision recognizing the Government of 
Nunavut as an attestation body under the EU's Seal Regime. Nunavut was in the process of finalizing its reapplication in order to renew its recognized certifying body status upon the entry 
into force of the proposed amended Seal Regime. Canada expected that this process would be 
managed in such a way so as to ensure a smooth transition between the existing Seal Regime and the amended one. Canada had also been following  closely the debate concerning amendments to 
the EU Seal Regime. Canada expected that any su ch amendments, to the Basic Regulation as well 
as to the Implementing Regulation, would be  implemented consistently with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings, and in a manner that would not adversely affect Inuit and other indigenous communities, in particular regarding the renewal of Nunavut's recognized certifying 
body status. Canada hoped that Nunavut's reapplication would proceed in a timely manner as this 
would be key to assessing compliance. Canada reiter ated its view that Canada 's seal harvests were 
humane, sustainable and well-regulated activities that provided an important source of food and 
income for coastal and Inuit communities. 
1.47.  The representative of Norway said that his country thanked the EU for its most recent status 
report concerning the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
Norway continued to follow with interest the legislative process in the EU, including the proposal 
for an amendment of the Basic Seal Regulation. In that regard, Norway had noted that the European Parliament had approved the proposal, earlier this month with some minor amendments, approved the proposal, and that the proposal wo uld be considered by the Council. In addition, 
Norway had noted that there would be a need fo r a new implementing regulation. Norway wished 
to reiterate its position that the Norwegian seal hunt was well-regulated, that it was conducted in a humane manner and contributed to the sustainable management of its living marine resources. 
Norway would continue to follow the legislative proc ess as the end of the reasonable period of time 
was approaching. 
1.48.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 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. He then invited the respective representatives to speak. WT/DSB/M/368 
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.2.  The representative of the European Union 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 in previous meetings, Japan was of the view 
that the United States was under obligation to provide the DSB with a status report in this dispute in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As stated in its communication (WT/DS217/68) submitted on 18 September 2015, Japan continued its non-application of suspension of 
concessions or other obligations in the form of the imposition of additional import duties, since 
Japan's level of authorization established thro ugh arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU 
continued to be marginal. However, as Japan acknowledged that a considerable amount remained 
not disbursed and that the United States might execute another round of disbursements to its 
domestic companies under the CDSOA, Japan reserved its rights under Article 22.7 of the DSU. Further, Japan's decision not to suspend concessions and related obligations did not mean at all 
that Japan accepted the contention of the United States that its measure found to be inconsistent 
with the covered agreements had been removed within the meaning of Article 22.8 of the DSU. 
2.4.  The representative of India said that his country shared the concerns raised by the EU and 
Japan. The WTO-inconsistent disbursements conti nued unabated to the US domestic industry. The 
latest data available2 for the fiscal year 2014 indicated that about US$70 million had been 
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. 
2.5.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda. Brazil, like other delega tions, was of the view that the United States 
was under an obligation to provide status reports in this dispute. Brazil noted that disbursements 
continued to be made under the Byrd Amendment. Brazil, a party to this dispute, was of the view 
that the United States was under obligation to discontinue those disbursements. Although the United States alleged that the Act had been repe aled in 2006 and, therefore, compliance had been 
achieved, disbursements related to investigations initiated before the repeal of the Act in 
February 2006 were not discontinued. In Brazil's view, this seemed to reflect a misunderstanding 
of the principle of non-retroactivity. Since the DSB had confirmed the illegal nature of the disbursements under the Byrd Amendment more than 10 years ago, any disbursements to 
petitioners must be discontinued. Only then would compliance be achieved in this dispute. 
2.6.  The representative of Canada said that his country agreed with the previous speakers and 
had nothing to add to what they had stated, in particular Canada supported the statement made 
by Brazil. 
2.7.  The representative of China said that her country thanked the EU and Japan for placing this 
item on the Agenda of the present meeting. Ch ina shared the concerns raised by previous 
speakers and joined them in urging the United Stat es to fully comply with the DSB's rulings on this 
matter. 
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, was enacted into law in February 2006. Accordingly, the 
United States had taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes. The United States recalled, furthermore, that the EU, Japan, and other 
Members had acknowledged that the Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties 
collected on goods entered after 1 October 2007, over seven and a half 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 
                                               
2 http://www.cbp.gov/ sites/default/files/ documents/FY2014%20Annual%20Report%20wHolds.pdf WT/DSB/M/368 
 
- 10 - 
 
  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. With respect to Japan's remarks, the United States continued to 
view Japan's statement that it would not apply the suspension of concessions in the coming year as a positive development. However, the United States regretted Japan's statement that it may 
renew the suspension of concessions in the future. 
2.9.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
3  CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECTING ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SERVICES A.  Statement by the United States 
3.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United States. He invited the represen tative of the United States to speak. 
3.2.  The representative of the United States sa id that, despite numerous interactions between the 
United States and China in the DSB and elsewhere, the United States continued to have serious 
concerns that China had failed to bring its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations. 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. The United States noted that the People's Bank of China had issued draft regulations 
setting forth some procedures for EPS suppliers to follow when seeking a license. To date, however, the China Banking Regulatory Commission had not issued any draft or final regulations 
implementing the State Council's April 2015 decision . Nor had the People's Bank of China issued 
final regulations. As a result, a single, Chinese enterprise continued to be the only EPS supplier able to operate in China's domestic market. As required under its WTO obligations, China must 
adopt the implementing regulations necessary for allowing the operation of foreign EPS suppliers 
in China, and any regulations must be implemented in a consistent and fair way. The United States continued to look forward 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  her country, once again, regretted that the 
United States brought this matter before the DSB. China referred to its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings and emphasized that Chin a had taken all necessary actions and had fully 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. China reiterated that the 
regulation mentioned by the United States was not relevant for the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
3.4.  The representative of the United States said that, as his country had stated before, it 
strongly disagreed with China's statement. The DSB' s findings clearly stated that "China has made 
a commitment on market access concerning mode 3"3 and that "China has made a commitment on 
national treatment concerning mode 3".4 Indeed, China itself had noted that it was working on 
regulations that would provide access to foreign EPS suppliers. The United States urged China to 
move forward with these regulations and to allow the licensing of foreign EPS suppliers in China, consistent with China's WTO obligations. 
3.5.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
                                               
3 "China – Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services", WT/DS413/R (adopted 
31 August 2012), paragraph 7.575. 
4 Idem, paragraph 7.678. WT/DSB/M/368 
 
- 11 - 
 
  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. He invited the representative of the Philippines to speak. 
4.2.  The representative of the Philippines said that her country remained concerned about a series 
of outstanding compliance issues that remained despite Thailand's repeated statements that it had 
done all it was required to do to secure full compliance with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings. As at previous DSB meetings, the Philippi nes wished to highlight two issues due to their 
particular systemic impact on the DSB's ruling s and the Customs Valuation Agreement overall. 
First, the Philippines remained deeply concerned with the Thai Attorney General's decision to 
prosecute an importer of Philippine cigarettes for alleged under-declaration of customs value. The 
WTO Panel had ruled that Thailand had no legitima te grounds to reject the customs values that 
Thailand now sought to criminalize. In addition, Thai Customs Board of Appeals (or "BoA") had 
explicitly accepted those customs values, in a ruling heralded by Thailand itself as a measure 
taken to comply. Thailand's actions with the criminal prosecution directly undermined the implementation obligation placed on it by the DSB's recommendations and rulings. In systemic 
terms, there could be no doubt that the discipl ines of the Customs Valuation Agreement applied 
whenever a WTO Member engaged in the customs valuation of goods, including in the enforcement of domestic customs provisions. Despite this evident WTO-inconsistency, Thailand had explained in its statements made at previous DSB meetings that it "will take steps to ensure" the 
WTO-consistency of the criminal prosecution. While it appreciated the sentiment behind these 
repeated statements, the Philippines still had not received an explanation about precisely what steps Thailand would take to ensure the WTO-consistency of the criminal prosecution. The 
Philippines requested Thailand to deliver expedi tiously on its assurance. Second, the Philippines 
was also deeply concerned about a separate Thai BoA ruling rejecting transaction values for 210 entries from Indonesia that were covered by the rulings and recommendations in the original 
proceedings in this dispute. Thailand had submitted the BoA ruling as a declared measure taken to 
comply. However, as the Philippines had previously noted, the ruling was riddled with WTO-inconsistencies, and set out a methodology that perpetuated Thailand's application of WTO-inconsistent conduct with respect to customs valuation of related party transactions. In 
addition, as it had been explained at previous DSB meetings, the position that Thai Customs had 
taken in pending domestic judicial proceedings concerning the BoA ruling was disturbing. Thai Customs had explicitly advised the Thai court that it did not need to follow the WTO ruling 
because it supposedly bound only the Philippines, as the party that had brought the dispute, and 
not Thailand. The Philippines reiterated its appeal to Thailand to rise to its role as a responsible and important WTO Member, and to prove that its co mmitment to full compliance was real. If that 
was not possible, the Philippines reserved its right to return to dispute settlement. 
4.3.  The representative of Thailand said that  his country noted the Philippines' statement and 
wished to refer to the statements made by Thailand under this Agenda item at previous DSB 
meetings. 
4.4.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
5  UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON CERTAIN 
COATED PAPER FROM INDONESIA 
A.  Request for the establishment of  a panel by Indonesia (WT/DS491/3) 
5.1.  The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
31 August 2015 and had agreed to revert to it. He drew attention to the communication from 
Indonesia contained in document WT/DS491/3, and invited the representative of Indonesia to 
speak. 
5.2.  The representative of Indonesia said that, on 13 March 2015, her country had requested 
consultations with the United States regarding the US imposition of anti-dumping and 
countervailing duties on certain coated paper from Indonesia. Unfortunately, the consultations had WT/DSB/M/368 
 
- 12 - 
 
  failed to resolve the matter and Indonesia had re quested a panel, for the first time, at the DSB 
meeting on 31 August 2015. As noted in Indonesia's request for consultations and as stipulated in Indonesia's panel request, the US dumping, subsidy, and threat of injury determinations appeared to be inconsistent with the US obligations und er the GATT 1994, the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 
the SCM Agreement. Consequently, Indonesia was requesting, for the second time, that the DSB 
establish a panel with standard terms of reference. 
5.3.  The representative of the United States sa id that, as the United States had stated at the 
August DSB meeting, the US actions described in In donesia's request were fully consistent with US 
obligations under the WTO Agreement. Accordingly, the United States regretted that Indonesia had chosen, for a second time, to request the establishm ent of a panel with regard to this matter. The 
United States was prepared to engage in these proceedings and to explain to the panel that 
Indonesia had no legal basis for its claims. 
5.4.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference. 
5.5.  The representatives of Canada, China, the European Union, Korea and Turkey reserved their 
third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
6  KOREA – IMPORT BANS, AND TESTING AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 
RADIONUCLIDES 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Japan (WT/DS495/3) 6.1.  The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
31 August 2015 and had agreed to revert to it. He drew attention to the communication from 
Japan contained in document WT/DS495/3, and invited the representative of Japan to speak. 
6.2.  The representative of Japan said that the matter in this dispute was well-known and was 
explained in the panel request and at the previous DSB meeting. In the interests of brevity, there 
was no need to repeat or further elaborate the matter. It sufficed to state for the present purpose 
that Korea had adopted and maintained certain SPS measures, which were  inconsistent with 
several provisions of the SPS Agreement, in particular, its Articles 2.3, 5.5, 5.6 and 8 and 
Annex C, and Korea's omissions relating to its transparency obligations under the SPS Agreement 
were inconsistent with Articles 4, 5.8, 7 and Annex B of the Agreement. The panel request in this dispute had first appeared as an item on the DSB's Agenda on 31 August 2015. Following that meeting, Japan once again requested that, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, a panel be established 
to examine the matter, as set out in its panel request, with standard terms of reference in 
accordance with Article 7.1 of the DSU. Japan noted that, at the previous DSB meeting, Korea had expressed its concerns about delays in the dispute settlement process. Korea had stated, among 
others issues, that: "the principle of prompt settl ement of disputes … is at the core of the DSU"; 
"but WTO disputes are not about abstract disagreements. There are people who are suffering real losses while a dispute is pending"; "Long delays create perverse incentives by lowering the cost of 
adopting and maintaining WTO-inconsistent measures. Interest groups seeking protection will 
pressure Members to adopt these measures, insistin g, rightly, that they will not be subject to 
review by the WTO for years. We can therefore expect more protectionist measures and more, not fewer, disputes being brought to the WTO. These, in turn, will cause further delays, prompting a 
vicious, never-ending cycle". Japan shared the general concerns expressed by Korea with respect 
to the substantial delays in the dispute settl ement process and their impact on the prompt 
resolution of individual disputes. Korea's observations appeared to equally apply in this dispute. 
Japan was ready to work and cooperate with Korea in this dispute to facilitate the panel process, 
which would be initiated at the present meeting, without any substantial delay so as to avert or put an end to the "vicious, never-ending cycle" and promote the principle of prompt settlement of 
a dispute. 
6.3.  The representative of Korea said that his country regretted that Japan had chosen, for a 
second time, to request the establishment of a panel with regard to this matter. As explained by 
Korea at the previous DSB meeting, the catastrophic Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011 had 
resulted in an extensive contamination of th e environment. It continued to pose serious 
environmental and health risks because of, among other reasons, the ongoing leakage of WT/DSB/M/368 
 
- 13 - 
 
  contaminated water. The scientific community was still struggling to understand the consequences 
of the accident, just as the operator of the Fukushima nuclear power plants was still struggling to ensure that it no longer constituted an environmental threat. Korea reiterated that Members had the right to take sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures necessary for the protection of 
human, animal life or health, and Korea's measur es were consistent with the SPS Agreement. 
Given the serious nature of the risks posed by radioactive contamination, Korea's measures were justifiable and necessary to protect the life and health of its people, animals and plants. However, 
Korea understood that a panel would be established at the present meeting in accordance with 
Article 6.1 of the DSU. Korea was convinced that its measures were in conformity with the WTO 
Agreement and was prepared to explain and defend them before the panel. 
6.4.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference. 6.5.  The representatives of China, the European  Union, Guatemala, India, New Zealand, Norway, 
the Russian Federation, Chinese Taipei and the Unit ed States reserved their third-party rights to 
participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
7  INDONESIA – SAFEGUARD ON CERTAIN IRON OR STEEL PRODUCTS A.  Request for the establishment of a pa nel by the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (WT/DS490/2) 
7.1.  The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
31 August 2015 and had agreed to revert to it. He drew attention to the communication from the 
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Taipei) contained in 
document WT/DS490/2, and invited the representative of that delegation to speak. 
7.2.  The representative of Chinese Taipei said that, for the second time, the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu wish ed to request that a panel be established by 
the DSB to examine the safeguard measure imposed by Indonesia. At the previous DSB meeting, 
Chinese Taipei had explained the inconsistency between these challenged measures and the WTO Agreements and the inconsistency had not yet been removed. Without any signalled intention 
to remove these challenged measures, the Separa te Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu was left with no choice, but to request a panel in this dispute in order to secure a solution to this dispute. 
7.3.  The representative of Indonesia said that her country wished to reiterate that Indonesia and 
the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu had conducted 
consultations concerning this dispute on 16 April 2015 in Geneva. Indonesia believed that it had delivered a clear explanation regarding the safegu ard measure imposed by Indonesia on imports of 
certain iron or steel products in order to resolve any misunderstanding on the safeguard measure. 
Although Indonesia understood that this was the second time that the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu had put its request for panel establishment on the Agenda. 
Indonesia asserted that the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu's 
panel request failed to satisfy the requirements  of Article 6.2 of the DSU, specifically the 
requirement to identify the specific measure at issue and the panel request was therefore 
defective. 
7.4.  In Section LA.2 titled "Final Determinatio n" of its request for the establishment of panel 
(WT/DS490/2), the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu identified the Regulation Number 137.1/PML.011/2014 of Indone sia's Minister of Finance as the measure at 
issue, which was inconsistent with certain provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on 
Safeguards. However, Indonesia had never issued such a regulation. In Indonesia's Notification to the Committee on Safeguard under Article 12.1(B), 12.1(c) and Article 9, footnote 2, dated 
23 July 2014 (which had been circulated in 28 July 2014 in document G/SG/N/8/IDN/16/Suppl.1, 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/16/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/11/IDN/14) the Minister of Finance's Regulation number was different from what was stated in the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu's request for panel establishment (document WT/DS490/2 dated 20 August 2015 which had 
been circulated on 21 August 2015). Since the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu had misidentified the specific me asure at issue and violated Article 6.2 of the WT/DSB/M/368 
 
- 14 - 
 
  DSU, Indonesia, therefore, requested that the panel pertaining to the DS490 dispute should not be 
established at the present meeting until the panel request was fully consistent with the DSU. 
7.5.  The representative of Chinese Taipei said  that with regard to the correct number of the 
Indonesian regulation, Chinese Taipei would further confirm with its database. Chinese Taipei 
believed that it may have been a typo. Chinese Taipei wished to reiterate that the DSB establish a 
panel at the present meeting. 
7.6.  The Chairman said that this item was on the Agenda of the DSB for the second time, and 
therefore, the DSB had no choice but to establish a panel. Indonesia was free to raise this issue 
before the panel once such a panel was established. 
7.7.  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. 
7.8.  The representatives of Chile, China, the Eu ropean Union, Korea, the Russian Federation, the 
United States and Viet Nam reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's 
proceedings. 
8  INDONESIA – SAFEGUARD ON CERTAIN IRON OR STEEL PRODUCTS 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Viet Nam (WT/DS496/3) 8.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the comm unication from Viet Nam contained in document 
WT/DS496/3, and invited the representative of Viet Nam to speak. 
8.2.  The representative of Viet Nam said that, on 28 July 2014, WTO Members were notified of 
Indonesia's imposition of a safeguard measure on imports of certain flat-rolled product of iron or 
non-alloy steel. This measure had been imposed pursuant to a regulation adopted by Indonesia's 
Minister of Finance after a positive finding by Indonesia's investigating authority of threat of 
serious injury caused by increased imports of the said product. The safeguard measure consisted of a specific duty to be applied from 22 July 2014  and subsequently reduced in accordance with a 
prescribed timetable. Prior to the imposition of the safeguard measure, Viet Nam had a 
considerable share of the Indonesian market for flat-rolled iron or non-alloy steel products. The imposition of the safeguard measure was significantly affecting Viet Nam's industry. Viet Nam was 
concerned that Indonesia's measure was inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the 
GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards. In particular, Indonesia had failed to provide a 
reasoned and adequate explanation of the existence of unforeseen developments and of the effect of the GATT 1994 obligations in order to proceed with the imposition of the safeguard measure at 
issue. Indonesia had also failed to substantiate ad equately its finding of serious injury (or threat 
thereof) caused by increased imports. Furthermore,  it had failed to provide reasoned and adequate 
explanation of its determination of the causal link between the alleged serious injury (or threat 
thereof) and increased imports. Indonesia had also  applied a safeguard measure on the basis of a 
product scope that was different from that on which it had conducted the analysis of imports increase. Viet Nam was concerned that Indonesia had failed to notify all interested parties of its 
actions properly and had failed to provide an opportunity to hold consultations prior to the 
imposition of a safeguard measure. Viet Nam had requested consultations with Indonesia on 1 June 2015. Consultations had been held on 28 July 2015 with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. Unfortunately, however, these consultations had failed to resolve the dispute. 
While Viet Nam remained hopeful that this matter could be resolved without resort to a panel, it 
also wished to ensure that its rights under the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards were properly secured. Viet Nam was proceeding to the next stage of the dispute settlement process 
and was requesting that the DSB establish a panel with standard terms of reference to address the 
matters set out in its request for the establishment of a panel, circulated in document WT/DS496/3. If the DSB established a panel on this  request at the present meeting, pursuant to 
Article 9.1 of the DSU, Viet Nam also requested that this complaint be examined by the same 
panel that would examine the complaint of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu regarding the same measure (DS490). WT/DSB/M/368 
 
- 15 - 
 
  8.3.  The representative of Indonesia said that her country had conducted consultations with 
Viet Nam concerning this matter on 28 July 2015 in Bali (Indonesia). Her country believed that it 
had delivered a clear explanation during the consultation concerning the legal and factual aspects of the safeguard measure imposed by Indonesia on imports of certain flat-rolled iron or non-alloy 
steel products in order to resolve any misunderstanding on the safeguard measure. Indonesia had 
also responded, in writing, to Viet Nam's outstanding questions after the consultation in writing. Despite Indonesia's efforts to clarify that the safeguard measure was consistent with not only the 
WTO Safeguard Agreement but also with Indonesia's domestic safeguard regulation, Indonesia 
was disappointed that Viet Nam was still requesting the DSB to establish a panel at the present meeting. As provided by the DSU, Indonesia o pposed the establishment of panel at the present 
meeting. 
8.4.  The representative of Chinese Taipei said that, since this dispute related to the same matter 
raised in the DS490 dispute, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and 
Matsu supported Viet Nam's request that once a panel in this dispute was established, a single 
panel should examine both matters, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU. 
8.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter. 
9  BRAZIL – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TAXATION AND CHARGES 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Japan (WT/DS497/3) 
9.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the communication from Japan contained in document 
WT/DS497/3, and invited the representative of Japan to speak. 9.2.  The representative of Japan said that this case concerned Brazil's measures concerning 
taxation and charges. As explained in Japan's pa nel request, Brazil had introduced a number of 
measures that enabled domestic companies to reduce their obligation to pay certain internal taxes and charges. Such measures included tax incentive programmes in the automotive and the ICT 
sectors, which lowered the burden of taxes and charges for domestic producers and incentivised 
the use of domestically sourced inputs. Coupled with Brazil's complex and heavy internal tax system in general, these measures had had a serious trade-restrictive effect on a broad range of 
products imported into Brazil from Japan and other Members. In Japan's view, these measures 
unjustifiably protected domestic industries, misguided investments, and manipulated the trade balance to the detriment of the legitimate inte rests of Japan and other Members. In addition, 
Brazil maintained tax advantages for certain exporting companies, which were contingent on their 
export performance. Japan considered Brazil's meas ures to be inconsistent with Brazil's obligations 
under the GATT 1994, the TRIMs Agreement and the SCM Agreement, as had clearly been explained in Japan's panel request. Japan had requested consultations on 2 July 2015 and had 
engaged in consultations in good faith with Brazil on 15 and 16 September 2015 with a view to 
reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. While the consultations had provided useful opportunities for the parties to better understand the respective positions on this matter, they were unable to 
resolve the dispute. Japan, therefore requested, pu rsuant to Article 6 of the DSU, that a panel be 
established to examine the matter as set out in its panel request, with standard terms of reference, in accordance with Article 7.1 of the DSU. 
9.3.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country regretted Japan's decision to request the 
establishment of a panel to examine this dispute. As  stated on previous occasions, Brazil wished to 
reaffirm that the programmes challenged by Ja pan were part of Brazil's efforts to promote 
economic development in line with the WTO's objectives and principles. These programmes had 
been conceived to foster innovation, safety, environmental protection and workforce 
capacity-building in Brazil, in highly technological and complex sectors, while at the same time increasing trade and promoting a dynamic relationship of the covered sectors with global trade and 
investment flows. The measures did not have any detrimental trade effects on imports from other 
WTO Members. On the contrary, they had paved the way for better and more solid partnerships with foreign companies. With regard to the ICT se ctor, a fruitful cooperation had been established 
with Japanese companies, concerning the develo pment of the digital television system IDBT-T. 
In Brazil's view, Japan advocated, in its pane l request, a very broad interpretation of the 
disciplines relating to national treatment and loca l content. If accepted, this vision of core WTO 
rules would unduly curtail Members' ability to promote social and technological development and WT/DSB/M/368 
 
- 16 - 
 
  reduce their policy space more generally, thus contributing to preserve, or freeze, the status quo 
and its imbalances in terms of economic development. This was definitively not an expected outcome of the covered Agreements and one that Members should not endorse. The specific tax 
and regulatory regimes under the INOVAR-AUTO, the Informatics Law and the related legislation 
were not linked to the domestic origin of goods,  but rather to the compliance, by interested 
companies, with targets related to technological innovation, workforce capacity-building, safety and sustainable development. The Special Regime for the Purchase of Capital Goods for Exporting 
Enterprises (RECAP) and the tax suspension to pr edominantly exporting companies (PEC), in turn, 
were simply mechanisms to improve tax administration by Brazilian authorities and tools to prevent the collection and the reimbursement of ta xes structurally paid in excess by certain types 
of taxpayers. They encompassed exporting compan ies simply because these companies, under the 
Brazilian tax system, were those that mostly accumulated tax credits and had the greatest 
difficulties to offset them. Therefore, both prog rammes, irrespective of their denominations, were 
definitively not subsidies contingent on the exportation of goods. In sum, the measures at issue 
had been put in place to promote Brazil's de velopment, though not at the expense of its 
multilateral obligations or other WTO Members' trade opportunities. Despite these considerations, and taking into account the agreement reached between Brazil and Japan on 28 July 2015 to 
regulate the consultation procedures, Brazil would not object to the establishment of the panel at 
the present meeting. 
9.4.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU shared Japan's concerns with 
respect to Brazilian programmes that conferred tax advantages, inter alia,  to domestic 
automobiles and ICT products. As Members were aware, the EU had raised essentially the same 
matter against Brazil in the DS472 dispute. In that context, the EU wished to state its dissatisfaction with Brazil's rejection of the EU's request to join the consultations in this dispute 
brought by Japan, especially since Brazil had agreed that there were aspects of "genuine 
substantial trade interests of the European Union" . In that regard, the EU considered that Brazil 
should have, in accordance with Article 4.11 of the DSU, accepted the EU's request. 
9.5.  The representative of Japan said that his country noted that Japan's complaint was related to 
the same matter raised in another on-going dispute: "Brazil – Certain Measures Concerning 
Taxation and Charges" (DS472). Japan further recalled that a panel had already been established and composed in that dispute. Under those circumst ances, and in light of Article 9.3 of the DSU, 
Japan expressed its intention to accept the sa me persons serving on the Panel in the DS472 
dispute to serve as panelists on the panel in th e dispute under consideration. Furthermore, Japan 
was ready to cooperate with the panel and other relevant parties with a view to harmonizing the 
timetable for the panel process in these disputes to the greatest extent possible. 
9.6.  The representative of the European Union said that, with regard to Japan's reference to 
Article 9.3 of the DSU, the EU had no objection to the proposed way forward. Indeed, given the 
current situation with the workload, the proposal seemed a sensible way forward. 
9.7.  The representative of Brazil said that his country was prepared to consult with the Panel and 
the parties to the disputes regarding this matter. 9.8.  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. 9.9.  The representatives of Argentina, Australia, China, the European Union, India, Korea, the 
Russian Federation and the United States reserved their third-party rights to participate in the 
Panel's proceedings. 10  STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGARDING SOME MATTERS RELATED TO THE 
APPELLATE BODY 
10.1.  The Chairman, speaking under "Other Busi ness", recalled that at the previous regular DSB 
meetings, he had informed delegations that the first four-year terms of office of Mr. Ujal Singh 
Bhatia and Mr. Thomas Graham would expire on 10 December 2015 and that both were eligible for 
reappointment to a second and final term of offi ce, pursuant to Article 17.2 of the DSU. He had 
also informed delegations that both Mr. Bhatia and Mr. Graham had expressed their willingness to 
serve for a second four-year term. In light of this, he had announced that he would consult WT/DSB/M/368 
 
- 17 - 
 
  informally with Members and he had invited delegations with views on these matters to contact 
him directly. At the present meeting, he wished to report that these consultations were still ongoing, and he would again encourage delegation s with views on these matters to contact him 
directly. He reminded delegations that a decision on these matters would have to be taken by the 
DSB at the latest at the regular meeting scheduled for 25 November 2015. 
10.2.  The DSB took note of the statement. 
11  STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGARDING THE PRESENTATION BY THE DIRECTOR-
GENERAL CONCERNING THE CURRENT CHALLENGES FACING THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 
SYSTEM 
11.1.  The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business". informed delegations that at the next DSB 
meeting scheduled for 28 October 2015, the Director-General would make a presentation on the 
current challenges facing the dispute settlement system, including delays in commencement of 
panel work in some cases due to the lack of available staff to assist panels in their work. In particular, the Director-General would brief delegations on the steps he had taken to address the 
situation following his presentation to the DSB meeting held on 26 September 2014. He would also 
speak about the current challenges and what he in tended to do going forward. Accordingly, the 
item regarding these matters would be placed on the Agenda of the regular DSB meeting in 
October. The meeting would start in the morning with the usual business and then resume in the 
afternoon at 3 pm with the presentation by the Di rector-General. As delegations were well aware, 
for much of the past 20 years, Members had enjoyed a dispute settlement mechanism that had functioned remarkably well. Although there ha d been some instances where delays had been 
experienced in certain very large disputes or at certain stages of the proceedings, the system had 
generally been praised for its efficiency. However, it had now reached a point where disputes were of a different nature in terms of complexity and breadth than they had been even just a few years 
ago. The Director-General would provide more deta ils in that respect. The Director-General had 
been working on solutions and ways to address this problem. But as the Director-General and 
several Members had made clear at the September 2014 DSB meeting, and what had also been 
clear from the discussions of this issue at the Au gust 2015 DSB meeting, resolving this issue was 
not the task of the Director-General and the Secret ariat alone. Members also had a role to play in 
finding solutions. Some Members had expressed their views and ideas at the August 2015 DSB meeting. The Chairman welcomed that input and was sure that there were more ideas out there. 
Therefore, he wished to invite delegations wi th views, ideas and suggestions to contact him 
directly. On his part, he was ready to hold informal consultations, if delegations so wished, to discuss any such suggestions on how the DSB could contribute to address the current situation as 
well as how to deal with the dispute settlement challenges going forward. Like the 
Director-General, the Chair was ready to assist Members in finding appropriate solutions and in identifying how to ensure that the dispute settl ement system would continue to serve Members 
well in the future. He would encourage all Members to give some careful thought to this matter, to 
be creative and to come forward with inspired ideas on what could be done in the DSB to address these difficult challenges. 
11.2.  The representative of Korea said that his country thanked the Chairman for the information 
regarding the Director-General's plans. Korea than ked the Secretariat and the Director-General for 
their efforts to address the critical issue of delays facing the dispute settlement system. Korea looked forward to what it anticipated would be concrete proposals from the Director-General on 
what the Secretariat planned to do to address the issue, as well as what the Membership could do. 
In addition, Korea wished to note that this particular and very important issue had a direct bearing not just on the DS488 dispute to which Korea was a complainant, or on the DS495 dispute to 
which Korea was a respondent and in which a pane l had been established at the present meeting, 
but on all disputes pending in the dispute settlement system. Korea thanked Japan for reminding Members at the present meeting of what Korea had said at the previous DSB meeting regarding delays. Korea looked forward to discussing ways to address the issue from a systemic standpoint, 
and in an unbiased and objective manner that would benefit all Members. 
11.3.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
__________