RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/373  
 
11 March 2016  
(16-1432)  Page: 1/17  
Dispute Settlement Body 
25 January 2016    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD 
ON 25 JANUARY 2016 
Chairman: Mr. Harald Neple (Norway) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda, the item concerning the adoption of the Panel Report in the 
dispute on: "Colombia – Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, Apparel and Footwear" 
(DS461) was removed from the proposed Agenda following Colombia's decision to appeal the Report. 
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 ............................................................................ 7  
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United States ................................................................................................................. .. 7 
D.  European Communities – Measures affect ing the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by  the European  Union ..................................................................... 8  
E.  United States – Anti–dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the Un ited States ................................................................................................ 8  
F.  United States – Countervailing measures on certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat 
products from India: Status re port by the Unit ed States ......................................................... 9  
G.  Argentina – Measures affecting the importat ion of goods: Status report by Argentina ........... 10 
2   UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT 
OF 2000: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECO MMENDATIONS ADOPTE D BY THE DSB ......... 13  
A.  Statements by the Eu ropean Union and Japan ................................................................. 13 
3   CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECT ING ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SERVICES ........... 14  
A.  Statement by th e United States .................................................................................... 14 
4   THAILAND – CUSTOMS AND FISCAL MEASURES ON CIGARETTES FROM 
THE PHILIP PINES .......................................................................................................... 14  
A.  Statement by the Philippines ........................................................................................ 14 
5   UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN SHRIMP FROM 
VIET NAM ...................................................................................................................... . 15 
A.  Statement by Viet Nam ................................................................................................ 15 
6   APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT OF APPELLATE BO DY MEMBERS ........................... 16  WT/DSB/M/373 
 
- 2 - 
 
  7   THE DISPUTE SETTL EMENT WORKLOAD .................................................................... 17  
A. Statement by the Chairman ........................................................................................... 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.156) 
 
B.  United States – Anti–dumping measures on certain hot–rolled steel products from Japan: Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.156)  
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.131)  
D.  European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.94)  
E.  United States – Anti–dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.42)  F.  United States – Countervailing measures on certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat products from 
India: Status report by the United States (WT/DS436/14/Add.2) 
 G.  Argentina – Measured affecting the importation of goods: Status report by Argentina 
(WT/DS438/23 – WT/DS444/23 – WT/DS445/24) 
  
1.1.  The Chairman noted that there were seve n sub-items under this Agenda item concerning 
status reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU. He recalled that 
Article 21.6 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, 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 – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.156) 
1.2.  The Chairman drew attention to docu ment WT/DS176/11/Add.156, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
1.3.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 14 January 2016, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. Several bills 
introduced in the current US Congress would repeal Section 211. These were H.R. 274, H.R. 403, 
H.R. 635 and H.R. 735. Other bills, including H.R. 1627 and Senate Bill 757, would modify 
Section 211. The US Administration would continue to work on solutions to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The United States was also pleased to announce at the present meeting significant positive developments in relation to the Havana Club trademark at issue in the 
Section 211 dispute. The United States said th at as many at the present meeting may know, 
action on a petition for renewal of the Havana Club trademark had been suspended in 2006 pending the final disposition of certain litigation. Th at litigation had since concluded. Earlier in the 
year, on 11 January 2016, the United States had issued a specific license to Cubaexport that 
allowed it to pay fees for renewal of the US trademark registration. Then, almost two weeks ago, the US Patent and Trademark Office had granted th e petition to renew the trademark registration. WT/DSB/M/373 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Therefore, the Havana Club trademark had been successfully renewed. That Office was currently 
processing the trademark holder's renewal application for the period 2016-2026. These important steps resolved a long-standing issue of concern to the EU and others. The United States had notified the EU of these positive developments. In light of this step, the United States was moving 
this dispute into a more cooperative phase that it  hoped may create conditions for achieving a final 
resolution of this dispute. As part of its collaboration with the EU, the United States would be providing the EU directly with information and updates regarding this matter going forward. The 
United States expected that these recent positive developments also would be welcomed by other 
WTO Members. Indeed, the United States had been reaching out to provide information as relevant and would expect to continue those efforts in the coming days. 
1.4.  The representative of the European Union said  that the EU considered the grant of a specific 
license by the OFAC to constitute a very positive step. However, the EU did not consider the 
matter to be resolved within the meaning of Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU. In order to resolve the 
matter, the United States would have to repeal Section 211. Although the matter had not been 
resolved, in view of this positive development, an d for the time being, the EU did not consider it 
necessary for the United States to provide monthly reports for inclusion on the Agenda of regular DSB meetings. However, the EU reserved all its rights  in relation to this issue. In light of the US 
statement that it was not in full compliance, it was understood that should this item be 
re-inscribed on the Agenda by the United States, upon request by the EU, it would be placed under 
Agenda item 1. The EU's agreement to remove  this item from the Agenda of regular DSB 
meetings, despite the fact that the matter had not been resolved, was subject to that 
understanding. The EU further understood that the Un ited States agreed to confer closely with the 
EU to achieve the full reso lution of this dispute. 
1.5.  The representative of Cuba said that the year 2015 had passed but Members witnessed yet 
another DSB meeting with the unchanged situation concerning the Section 211 dispute. Almost 
14 years had passed since 2 February 2002, when the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute were adopted. The 14 years of non-compliance by the United States in this dispute 
undermined the security and predictability of th e multilateral trading system. The number of 
months that had passed far exceeded the time-frame  of 15 months stipulated in Article 21.3(c) of 
the DSU as the reasonable period of time for compliance, which had been determined through 
arbitration. The most recent status report submitted by the United States in this dispute remained 
practically the same like the previous status reports. Cuba also noted the statement made by the 
United States at the present meeting. In Cuba 's view, following the conclusion of the MC10, 
Members would have to face major challenges to meet their commitment to move forward with the 
WTO rules and, more importantly, to strike the right balance between the negotiations and future 
work, which would reaffirm the intrinsic value and effectiveness of this most important trade organization. Paragraph 13 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration adopted by all Members barely a 
month ago stated: "We […] commit to pursue and renew efforts to address current challenges and 
to further strengthen the system, including through effective implementation of the rulings and recommendations of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)". In Cuba's view, it was time to start acting in a manner consistent with multilateral trading system rules, and in particular Article 21.1 
of the DSU, which stated that "[p]rompt complia nce with recommendations [...] is essential in 
order to ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members". 
1.6.  Cuba recognized that the re-establishment of  diplomatic relations between the United States 
and Cuba was a positive step. However, more than a year had passed since 17 December 2014 
and nothing had changed in the intellectual property  rules that the United States applied towards 
Cuba, nor had there been any changes with regard to the many policies that were part of the 
economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed on Cuba. Cuba believed that the embargo 
should be lifted immediately and unconditionally. Cuba recognized that the renewal of Cubaexport's registration of the trademark by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was a positive and fair step by the US Administration, since it constituted recognition of the Cuban 
company's rights as owner of the trademark. Howeve r, one had to take into account the fact that 
while Section 211 remained in force, the US courts were prevented from recognizing Cuban trademarks and patents, and therefore the registra tion could still be cancelled, at any time, under 
this legislation, by decision of a US court. Thus , in the lawsuit filed by Bacardi in 2004, the Court 
o f  t h e  D i s t r i c t  o f  C o l u m b i a  c o u l d  r u l e  i n  f a v o u r  o f  c a n c e l l a t i o n  w i t h  a  v i e w  t o  s e c u r i n g  t h e  cancellation of the registration of the Havana Club trademark and the recognition of Bacardi as 
owner of this trademark. These proceedings had been suspended in 2006 awaiting action by the 
USPTO. In light of this and the recent statement made by Bacardi, the proceedings would WT/DSB/M/373 
 
- 4 - 
 
  presumably be resumed. Therefore, as long as Section 211 remained in force, Cuba would 
continue to demand its repeal since it represented a permanent violation of the TRIPS Agreement and the rulings of the DSB, which had declared that Section 211 was inconsistent with the WTO rules and principles. Therefore, Cuba made a form al request to the DSB that the request made by 
the EU at the present meeting be rejected, given that Section 211 remained in force and 
unchanged. The DSB rulings adopted by all Members in relation to this legislation had still not been complied with. In Cuba's view, the surveillance  of the implementation of these rulings should 
remain on the DSB's Agenda, pursuant to Article 21 .6 of the DSU. Cuba, therefore, reiterated its 
formal request that this matter remain on the Agenda of the DSB's regular meetings. 
1.7.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that, once again, her country 
wished to reiterate its concerns about the US non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations. 
Such non-compliance affected the credibility of the multilateral trading system. While Bolivia 
welcomed the recent step and the decision to issue a licence under the registration of the Havana Club trademark in the United States, the fact that Section 211 continued to remain in force 
undermined the credibility and sustainability of th e multilateral trading system, given its systemic 
implications and the negative effect on a WTO Member. Bolivia, once again, called on the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings and to immediately remove 
the restrictions imposed under Section 211. As long as Section 211 remained in force, it would 
continue to be in violation of WTO rules. The DSB's recommendations and rulings were still in force and, therefore, Bolivia supported Cuba's request not to agree to the US/EU request made at the present meeting and would wish that this item be kept on the DSB's Agenda. 
1.8.  The representative of Ecuador said that his country supported the statement made by Cuba. 
Ecuador noted that the item concerning Section 211 had been under the DSB surveillance for 
many years. The United States had been submitting status reports regarding its intentions to 
comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, as reflected in the most recent version of the 
report circulated in WT/DS176/11/Add.156. The US non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings had allowed Section 211 to remain in force for more than 14 years, 
despite the fact that it was declared inconsistent with WTO rules. Ecuador was one of the 
delegations that had clearly stated that the maintenance of Section 211 could undermine the credibility of the DSB and the WTO. This could have a negative effect on all Members, in particular developing-country Members. Ecuador recalled that Article 21 of the DSU referred specifically to 
prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. In that regard, Ecuador called on 
the United States to step up its work and promptly comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings and to repeal Section 211. Ecuador supported Cuba's request to keep this item on the 
DSB's Agenda. 
1.9.  The representative of Brazil said that her country thanked the United States for its status 
report. Brazil was pleased that the US Patent and Trademark Office had recently granted the 
registration of the Havana Club trademark to the Cuban company Cubaexport. This was certainly 
an important step towards the resolution of this long-standing dispute. Brazil hoped that the United States and the EU, as well as the United St ates and Cuba, encouraged by this decision and 
by the positive developments in the bilateral relationship between the United States and Cuba, 
would continue to work together in the search for a final and comprehensive solution to this 
dispute. 
1.10.  The representative of Zimbabwe said that his country welcomed the US status report 
regarding this dispute. Zimbabwe commended the positive steps that had been instituted since the 
restoration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba, in particular, the licensing of the trademark to Cubaexport in the United  States. To that end, Zimbabwe urged the 
United States to continue its efforts to fully repeal Section 211, in accordance with the DSB's 
rulings and recommendations, with a view to resolving this long-standing matter. Zimbabwe supported Cuba's request to keep this item on the DSB's Agenda. 
1.11.  The representative of Mexico said that his country thanked the United States for its 
statement made at the present meeting. Mexico would comment on this statement at a later stage 
since it had not yet received this statement in writing. However, Mexico considered the step taken to be positive in terms of complying with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Thus, Mexico 
hoped that the United States would promptly comply in this dispute. WT/DSB/M/373 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.12.  The representative of Viet Nam said that her country thanked the United States, Cuba and 
the EU for the report and statements. Viet Na m 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 toward s lifting the blockade against Cuba. However, 
Viet Nam also noted that, despite the positive steps taken, Section 211 remained in force and the 
United States had failed to comply with the WTO rules for almost 14 years. Viet Nam was concerned that such non-compliance continued to undermine the effectiveness of the multilateral 
trading system. Viet Nam urged the United States  to fully comply with the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations in this dispute. 
1.13.  The representative of Nicaragua said that his country supported the statement made by 
Cuba. Nicaragua reiterated its continued concerns with the prolonged situation of non-compliance 
on the part of the United States with the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute. 
Nicaragua had carefully listened to the US st atement, which had indicated a positive step 
regarding the renewal of the Cubaexport licence. However, Nicaragua noted that the US status 
report did not report on any progress made towards the resolution of this 14 year-old dispute. As 
it had previously stated, Nicaragua was of the view that such non-compliance severely affected the economic interests of a Member with a small economy and undermined the dispute settlement 
mechanism, a fundamental pillar of the WTO. Nica ragua, like other delegations, could not accept 
the EU's request that this item should be re moved from the DSB Agenda because this matter 
concerned non-compliance with the DSB's rulings. In Nicaragua's view, this item must remain on the DSB's Agenda. Nicaragua joined other Members in calling on the United States to promptly 
adopt necessary measures in order to comply with the DSB's rulings. 
1.14.  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, therefore, urged the United States to implemen t the DSB's rulings and recommendations without 
any further delay. 
1.15.  The representative of Angola said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report. Angola supported the statement made by Cuba and the previous speakers regarding the 
lack of progress in the implementation of the DS B's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
However, despite all the steps taken by the US authorities and legal institutions, the situation had 
not changed for the past 14 years. Continued non-compliance in this dispute had negatively affected the interests of Cuba, a country with a small and vulnerable economy. Angola noted the 
US statement on the new developments with regard to this matter. As it had stated several times, 
Ang ola we lc o me d  the  rece nt re -e s tab lis hme nt of diplomatic relations between the United States 
and Cuba, after half a century. Angola considered that the re-established bilateral relationship 
between the two countries provided an opportunity  and basis to consolidate relations between the 
countries in several areas, and in particular in the area of trade. Angola believed that all possible steps should be taken to improve relations between the United States and Cuba and to promptly resolve this dispute. In Angola's view, resolving this dispute would reinforce the DSB's ability to 
assist Members in settling their disputes. Angola was of the view that the United States should 
continue the process of implementing the DSB's recommendations and rulings and requested that 
this item be kept on the DSB's Agenda. 
1.16.  The representative of Argentina said that his country thanked the United States for its 
status report, which did not contain any new information. Argentina thanked the United States for 
its statement, which showed that some progress had been made in this dispute. As Cuba and other 
delegations had stated, there was still some way to go until full implementation was achieved. 
However, Argentina was pleased to see this new cooperation, and hoped that this was the beginning of a solution to this matter. 
1.17.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that her country supported 
the statement made by Cuba. Venezuela noted with concern that the most recent US status report 
did not contain any information on progress towards implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute. Venezuela noted the US statement with regard to recent 
progress made in this dispute, but it also noted that Section 211 was still in force. In Venezuela's 
view, the prolonged situation of non-compliance and delays in implementation by the United States undermined the credibility of the dispute settlement system. Venezuela reiterated WT/DSB/M/373 
 
- 6 - 
 
  the importance of implementing the DSB's recommendations and rulings. As Venezuela had 
previously stated, this situation of prolonged non-compliance was inconsistent with the DSB's rulings and recommendations. Venezuela urged the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings and to repeal Section 211. Venezuela thanked Cuba for its 
statement and joined the previous speakers in suppo rting Cuba's request to keep this item on the 
DSB's Agenda. 
1.18.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the United States for its update on 
the development in this dispute. There had been a positive movement in terms of the renewal of 
the trademark, but as noted by other Members, the repeal of Section 211 would be required for full compliance in this dispute. India noted that Article 21.6 of the DSU stated that the issue of 
implementation may be raised at the DSB by any Member at any time following the adoption of 
the DSB's recommendations or rulings. India, ho wever, hoped that the positive developments 
would lead to a mutually satisfactory solution in this matter, especially since a developing-country Member was seeking compliance. India urged, in particular, that the United States take the 
positive development reported at the present meeting to its natural culmination and bring its 
measures into compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
1.19.  The representative of Peru said that her country thanked the United States for its statement 
made at the present meeting. Peru supported the statements made by Cuba and other delegations 
and noted that Section 211 was still in effect and that this dispute remained unresolved. 
1.20.  The representative of Jamaica said that her country thanked the United States, the EU and 
Cuba for the statements made under this Agenda  item. Jamaica noted and welcomed the positive 
developments in this dispute since the DSB's consideration of this item in November 2015. 
Jamaica, however, reiterated its concerns regardin g the continued failure of the United States to 
come into full compliance with the DSB's recommendations adopted in 2002 regarding 
Section 211. The continued US failure to take all the necessary steps to comply with its obligations 
under the DSU was incompatible with the requirem ent for prompt and effective implementation of 
the DSB's decisions, in particular since the US actions affected a developing-country Member with 
a small, vulnerable, economy. Jamaica, once again,  reiterated its deep concern about the systemic 
implications of such disregard for DSB decisions, which could undermine the overall integrity of the 
dispute settlement system, a system that remain ed a cornerstone of the WTO. Jamaica believed 
that after 14 years since the adoption of the DS B's recommendations, it was more than reasonable 
for Members to expect that this matter would be resolved in accordance with the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations. Jamaica supported the call for keeping this item on the DSB's Agenda until its final resolution. 
1.21.  The representative of Uruguay said that her country thanked the United States for its status 
report. Uruguay noted that efforts were being ma de, leading to a first positive step in the 
settlement of this dispute. Uruguay urged the parties to this dispute to continue to cooperate with 
Cuba and to ensure the effective implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this 
dispute. 
1.22.  The representative of the Russian Federati on said that her country welcomed the positive 
development in this long-standing dispute which ha d been attracting the attention of Members as 
an example of non-compliance with, and disregard of, the DSB's rulings and recommendations. 
Russia believed that due and timely implementation  of the DSB's recommendations and rulings by 
all Members was essential for maintaining mutual trust and credibility within the entire WTO 
framework. Russia hoped that the parties to this dispute would build on this momentum and would 
fully address the remaining issues in this dispute as soon as possible. 
1.23.  The representative of El Salvador said that her country thanked the United States for its 
statement made at the present meeting. El Salvador noted the positive steps mentioned at the 
present meeting. El Salvador hoped that the United States would effectively implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings and resolve this long-standing dispute. 
1.24.  The Chairman proposed that the DSB take note of the statements and agree that it may 
revert to this matter. WT/DSB/M/373 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.25.  The representative of Cuba said that her delegation sought clarification from the Chair as to 
what was meant by the phrase that the DSB "may revert to this matter". 
1.26.  The Chairman said that, it was his understanding that status reports were placed on the 
DSB's Agenda by the Members concerned, and not by the Chairman. This meant that the status 
reports were placed on the Agenda by the respective  parties to the dispute. Therefore, it would be 
up to them in this case to decide if they wished to do so. Alternatively, pursuant to Article 21.6 of 
the DSU, the issue of implementation may be raised at the DSB by any Member as a separate item 
on the Agenda. In other words, if Cuba so wished, or if any other Member so wished, it could put 
this matter on the DSB's Agenda as a separate item but not under Agenda item 1, which was based on the status report submitted by the relevant parties to disputes. 
1.27.  The representative of Cuba said that her country wished to reiterate its request made at the 
present meeting in its opening statement, whic h was supported by a significant number of 
countries, namely, that this item be kept on the Agenda of regular DSB meetings. In Cuba's view, proceeding in this way would be in accordance with the DSU provisions. She therefore reiterated 
Cuba's formal request to keep this item on the Agenda of regular DSB meetings. 
1.28.  The Chairman said that the DSB would take note of Cuba's statement. However, as he had 
stated previously, it would be up to the Member concerned to submit a status report since it was 
not up to the DSB Chairman to make such decisions. He reiterated that Cuba's statement was duly 
noted and would be reflected in the minutes of the present 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.156) 
1.29.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.156, 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. 
1.30.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 14 January 2016, in accordance wi th Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States 
had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of 
anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect to the recommendations and rulings of the DS B that had yet to be addressed, the US 
Administration would work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures 
that would resolve the matter. 
1.31.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked the United States for its 
statement and its status report submitted on 14 January 2016. Japan wished to refer to its 
previous statements that this issue should be resolved as soon as possible. 
1.32.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS160/24/Add.131) 
1.33.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.131, 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. 
1.34.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 14 January 2016, in accordan ce with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US 
Administration would continue to confer with the European Union, and to work closely with the 
US Congress, in order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. WT/DSB/M/373 
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.35.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and its statement made at the present meeting. The EU referred to its statements 
made under this Agenda item at previous DSB meet ings. The EU wished to resolve this dispute as 
soon as possible. 
1.36.  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.94) 
1.37.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.94, 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. 
1.38.  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. On 4 December 2015, the European Commission had authorized the placing on 
the market of two GM maize products for food and feed use.1 The Appeal Committee of 
11 January 2016 had voted on three draft Commissi on Implementing Decisions authorizing the 
placing on the market of three GM soybean products2 with a "no opinion" result. It was now for the 
European Commission to decide on the authorisations. More generally, and as stated many times previously, the EU recalled that the EU appr oval system was not covered by the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. 
1.39.  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. The United States remained concerned with 
the EU's measures affecting the approval and ma rketing of biotech products. Dozens of biotech 
applications remained pending in the EU approv al system and were subject to numerous delays. 
An EU official responsible for reviewing EU administrative actions had recently confirmed the existence of widespread delays in the EU biotech approval measures. In particular, the EU 
Ombudsman had concluded that the Commission had failed to take its decisions with respect to 
biotech products within a reasonable time. Furt her, 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. Instead 
of taking steps to address this problem, the EU Commission had proposed an amendment to EU 
biotech approval measures that would facilitate the adoption of additional EU member state bans on biotech products approved at the EU-level. The United States understood that the European 
Parliament had sought the withdrawal of this pr oposal. Nonetheless, the proposal had yet to be 
withdrawn. Accordingly, the United States remained concerned about so-called "opt-out" proposals for biotech products. Indeed, at least 19 member states or sub-regions had declared their 
intention to "opt-out" of certain biotech approvals without providing any scientific basis. In closing, 
the United States urged the EU to ensure that its biotech approval measures were consistent with its obligations under the SPS Agreement. 
1.40.  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.42) 
1.41.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS404/11/Add.42, 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 MON 87427 maize and NK 603xT25 maize 
2 MON 87705xMON 89788 soybean, MON 87708xMON 89788 soybean, FG72 soybean WT/DSB/M/373 
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.42.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 14 January 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. 
1.43.  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. 
1.44.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that her country supported 
the statement made by Viet Nam. Venezuela had taken note of the most recent US status report 
dated 14 January 2016. Venezuela emphasized the importance of prompt and effective 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations an d rulings. As stated on previous occasions, 
protracted failure to comply in this dispute under mined Members' confidence in the system and set 
a negative precedent for the credibility of the DSB. Venezuela urged the United States to take 
necessary measures to end this situation of non-compliance and to report on the measures it intended to take at the next DSB meeting. 
1.45.  The representative of Cuba said that her country supported the statement made by 
Viet Nam. Cuba expressed its concern about the prolonged situation of non-compliance with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  Cuba reiterated the importance of prompt and 
effective compliance with the DSB's rulings, in particular when a developing-country Member, in 
this case Viet Nam, was affected. Cuba noted that the US status report did not report on any 
progress made towards compliance in this dispute. Cuba urged the United States to comply with its obligations. 
1.46.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
F.  United States – Countervailing measures  on certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat 
products from India: Status report by  the United States (WT/DS436/14/Add.2) 
1.47.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS436/14/Add.2, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning the US countervailing measures on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat 
products from India. 
1.48.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 14 January 2016, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 5 October 2015, 
pursuant to section 129(b) of the Uruguay Ro und Agreements Act ("URAA"), 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. Also, on 5 October 2015, pursuant to section 129(a) of the URAA, the US 
Trade Representative had requested the US International Trade Commission (USITC) to issue an 
advisory report on whether US law permitted the Commission to take steps in connection with the underlying proceeding that would render its determination subject to the DSB's recommendations 
not inconsistent with the WTO findings. On 23 October 2015, the USITC had responded in the 
affirmative. On 6 November 2015, the US Trade Representative had proceeded to request 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. WT/DSB/M/373 
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.49.  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. 
1.50.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. G.  Argentina – Measures affecting the import ation of goods: Status report by Argentina 
(WT/DS438/23 – WT/DS444/23 – WT/DS445/24) 
1.51.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS438/23 – WT/DS444/23 – WT/DS445/24, 
which contained the status report by Argentina on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning Argentina' s measures affecting the importation of goods. 
1.52.  The representative of Argentina said that his country had submitted its status report 
regarding disputes DS438-DS444-DS445, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. Argentina 
noted that the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, had determined that the measures identified during the proceedings as "TRRs" (trade-related requirements) and "DJAI" 
(Advance Sworn Import Declaration) were inconsistent with Articles III:4 and XI:1 of the 
GATT 1994 and Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, respectively. Argentina and the three co-complainants had agreed on a reasonable period of time, in accordance with Article 21.3(b) of 
the DSU. Argentina had worked to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings within that 
time-frame, which had expired on 31 December 2015. In order to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings, Argentina had withdrawn the measures declared to be WTO-inconsistent, in line with Article 3.7 of the DSU and certain WTO case law
3, on the 
understanding that it was the best option in this case. As mentioned in the status report, Argentina 
had stopped applying the "TRRs" measures in October 2015, as was duly reported to the three co-complainants. Thereafter, through General AFIP Resolution No 3823 of 21 December 2015, 
Argentina repealed the legislation under which the "DJAI" measure was established, taking the 
necessary steps to ensure that, by the end of the reasonable period of time, there would be no more DJAI applications pending approval. Finally, through the Secretariat of Trade Resolution No 2/2016, Argentina had repealed Resolution No 1/2012 of the Secretariat of Domestic Trade, 
which had empowered that body to intervene in all foreign trade operations, thereby dispensing 
with one of the elements of discretion that the Panel and the Appellate Body had observed in the 
measures. 
1.53.  In addition, and in order to ensure the tr ansparency of the implementation procedure, the 
status report described the foreign trade meas ures adopted by the new Government. First, 
General AFIP Resolution No 3823 established the Comprehensive Import Monitoring System 
(SIMI). This system operated through a virtua l platform, which enabled information to be 
standardized and which facilitated the exchange of such information between bodies that were part 
of the Single Electronic Window (VUCE), according to their relevant spheres of competence, thus making it possible to streamline, simplify and ensure the transparency of all foreign trade 
operations. The AFIP website would provide operators with access to online information that 
continued to be updated, thus, ensuring the predictability and simplicity of operations. Furthermore, pursuant to Resolution No 5/2015 of the Ministry of Production, and its 
supplementary text, Resolution No 2/2016 of the Secr etariat of Trade, the handling of applications 
for the definitive importation of goods for consumption remained subject to the advance processing of automatic import licences, except for around 15% of the tariff universe, which was 
subject to non-automatic licensing. Both measures would be applied in a transparent manner 
consistent with WTO rules. Argentina had provided the Secretariat with copies of the legislation referred to in the status report, which was publicly available on the official Infoleg Website (infoleg.gov.ar). In light of the foregoing, Argentina considered that it had fully implemented the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings of 26 January 2015, within the time-frame agreed with the 
three co-complainants pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU. 
                                               
3 Report of the Arbitrator, "Japan – DRAMs" (Kor ea), Article 21.3(c); Report of the Arbitrator, 
"Colombia - Ports of Entry" (Article 21.3(c)). WT/DSB/M/373 
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.54.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU noted the fact that Argentina had 
claimed to have ceased to apply the WTO-inconsistent trade-restrictive requirements, so-called 
"TRRs"; to have repealed the WTO-illegal import-licensing procedure known as the Advanced Sworn Import Declaration ("Declaración Jurada Anticipada de Importación" or DJAI); and to have 
adopted resolutions establishing new import monitoring and licensing systems. The EU was 
carefully reviewing the compliance measures adopted by Argentina, and would continue assessing related regulations, user guides, management guidelines and operating manuals as soon as they 
were published. At the present time, the EU was not fully convinced that measures at issue were 
sufficient to bring Argentina into full compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. With respect to the TRRs measure, th e EU was still verifying on the ground that these 
requirements had ceased to apply and had not morphed into another mechanism. With respect to 
the DJAI, the EU had noticed that according to Arge ntina, "at the date of expiry of the reasonable 
period of time for implementation, there were no  more DJAIs pending approval by the authorities 
involved within the terms of the findings of the Panel and the Appellate Body". The EU wished to 
receive clarification on the exact meaning contained in that statement. With respect to the new 
import monitoring and licensing system, the EU wa s particularly worried about the fact that, while 
most imports into Argentina would seem to be subject to an automatic import licencing system, 
certain imports (covering approximately 15% of  the tariff lines) would be subject to a 
non-automatic import licencing system. The EU would be interested in having an explanation of the rationale and justification for subjecting such a high fraction of imported goods to an import-restrictive licensing procedure. The EU looked forward to cooperating with Argentina to 
enhance its understanding of the scope and operation of Argentina's measures taken to comply. 
1.55.  The representative of the United States said that his country recalled that, in disputes 
brought by the United States, the EU, and Japan,  the DSB had adopted the findings of the Panel 
and the Appellate Body that Argentina's import licensing measures breached Argentina's 
obligations under the GATT 1994. These measures included the so-called "DJAI", an import licensing regime, and other trade-related restrictions including unwritten trade balancing 
requirements. Pursuant to the agreement of the pa rties to the dispute, the period of time for 
Argentina to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings had ended on 31 December 2015. Shortly before the end of the reasonable period of time, Argentina had a change of administrations. The United States we lcomed the public statements of Argentina's new 
government that it intended to end the trade-re strictive policies of the prior government. The 
United States also looked forward to working with the new government to address US concerns with Argentina's trade measures. The United States would need to do so with respect to the 
measures at issue in this dispute. The United States could not agree at the present meeting with 
Argentina's claim, in its status report of 14 January 2016, and at the present meeting, that it had come into compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The United States was in 
the process of reviewing the measures cited in Argentina's status report. Based on the face of the 
new measures, however, the United States had significant questions about how they could serve to bring Argentina's import licensing measures into compliance with its WTO obligations. In particular, the United States was concerned that Argentina appeared to have replaced its DJAI 
import licensing system with a new system that subjected numerous products to non-automatic 
import licensing, and which appeared to leave gove rnment officials with discretion on whether to 
grant or deny import licenses. This would, unfo rtunately, be the same problem that the WTO had 
found with respect to the previous import licensing regime. The United States also had questions 
with regard to whether Argentina had released importers from the numerous trade restrictive commitments that were imposed as part of Argentina's trade-related requirements. Despite its 
concerns, the United States understood that Argentina would be prepared to confer with the 
complaining parties on implementation actions in this dispute, and the United States was willing 
and ready to engage in discussions with Argentina. The United States looked forward to working with Argentina's new government to address these matters with the goal of seeing full compliance 
with WTO rules and a satisfactory resolution of this dispute. 
1.56.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked Argentina for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting. To Japan's surprise and dismay, Argentina had just 
stated in its status report that it had fully implemented the DSB's recommendations and ruling. 
Japan had serious concerns about Argentina's current status of implementation. In particular, the introduction of the Comprehensive Import Monitori ng System (SIMI) to replace the DJAI seemed 
to be highly problematic for the purpose of effective resolution of this dispute. For example, 
Article 5 of the General AFIP Resolution No 3823 on which the SIMI was based seemed to allow relevant agencies the broad discretion to restrict an importation on wide-ranging grounds. As the WT/DSB/M/373 
 
- 12 - 
 
  Panel in this case had repeatedly observed, the discretionary elements were essential features of 
the original measures, i.e. the DJAI procedure which was found to be inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. The SIMI appeared to retain this essential feature. Japan called on Argentina to explain how the SIMI could comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. According to its 
status report, "[Argentina] is still evaluating the issuing of regulations relating to the regime, the 
user manuals and management guidelines, which, if adopted, will be published promptly". It 
appeared that Argentina was still in the process of developing the SIMI, the work of which had yet 
to be completed. Japan urged Argentina to design and devise implementing regulations, manuals 
and guidelines, which would implement the SIMI in a manner that ensured the WTO-consistency of the newly developed import monitoring system. Argentina had also announced that it was introducing new non-automatic import licensing measures within the framework of the SIMI. Japan 
had to express its particular concerns that the new non-automatic import licensing measures 
would restrict the importation and would be WTO-inconsistent. Thus, the introduction of the new 
non-automatic import licensing measures was also far from due implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. Japan strongly urged Argentina to reconsider its plan. To that end, 
Japan strongly encouraged Argentina to regularly consult with Japan and other complainants to address its concerns with the SIMI and the non-automatic import licensing measures it was now 
contemplating. Japan emphasized that a continue d dialogue between the parties was the preferred 
avenue to achieve the full implementation by Argentina of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Should Argentina fail to act promptly to rectify the current situation, Japan would have to exercise its right under the DSU to secure full compliance in this dispute. 
1.57.  The representative of Argentina said that his country wished to make a statement to 
respond to the concerns raised by the co-complainants at the present meeting. Argentina thanked 
them for their respective statements and appreciated the positive tone of those statements. 
Argentina was fully committed to continue to work with the co-complainants in order to clarify any 
questions they may have with regard to Argentina's implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. At this point, Argentin a wished to clarify certain aspects of the steps 
it had taken in order to implement the DSB's rulings. With regard to the EU's request for 
clarification as to what exactly Argentina meant by  stating that "there were no more DJAI pending 
approval" by the expiry of the reasonable period  of time, he recalled that on 21 December 2015 
Argentina's authorities had decided to repeal the DJ AI system and replace it with a new one, which 
was not subject to this dispute. At that time, there were concerns among the operators regarding 
the DJAI requests pending for approval due to the need to adapt them to the new system. In this regard, the authorities had looked for the most expeditious way to approve these DJAI requests, 
which would be valid for 180 days. The DJAI system  no longer existed. Consequently, there was 
no other way to request a certificate for importing to Argentina but through the new system that had been put into place on 21 December 2015. With regard to the co-complainants' question 
concerning the number of tariff lines subject to the non-automatic import licensing procedure, 
Argentina understood that there were some conc erns. However, the fact that the number may be 
considered large by the co-complainants did not mean (for that reason alone) that this procedure was inconsistent with the WTO law. Argentina reiterated its readiness and willingness to cooperate 
with the co-complainants. With regard to Japan's statement, Argentina considered that it was an 
error to assume that a non-automatic import licensing, per se , should restrict trade. For that 
reason, Argentina could not accept the assertion that, because it had decided to implement a 
non-automatic import licensing system, it was far from fully complying with the Panel's rulings and 
recommendations. In addition, Argentina noted that the non-automatic import licensing procedure was not subject to the Panel's examination. Argentin a, once again, reiterated that it was ready and 
willing to cooperate with the co-complainants. 
1.58.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked Argentina for the 
additional explanation. Since this was a very complex issue, the EU would appreciate receiving in 
writing the explanation that had ju st been provided by Argentina. 
1.59.  The representative of Argentina confirmed that the statement just made by his delegation 
would be circulated to all Members after this meeting. 
1.60.  The DSB took note of the statements. WT/DSB/M/373 
 
- 13 - 
 
  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. 
These disbursements were incompatible 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 India said that his co untry shared the concerns of the EU and Japan in 
these disputes. The WTO-inconsistent disbursements continued unabated 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 Canada said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for having 
placed this item on the DSB's Agenda. Canada shared their position that this matter should remain 
subject to the DSB's surveillance until full compliance was achieved. 
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 this dispute. 
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. 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. The 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, which was over eight years 
ago. The United States therefore did not underst and the purpose for which the EU and Japan had 
inscribed this item on the Agenda of the present meeting. 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 necessary actions 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. WT/DSB/M/373 
 
- 14 - 
 
  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. 
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 had also noted that the People's Bank of China had issued some 
draft regulations. 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 forwar d 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 co untry 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 and underlined 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. She noted that the 
United States had referred to China's State Council decision to further open and regulate the bank card clearing market, raising the level of opening up in the financial sector. However, as stated at 
previous meetings, China reiterated that the regu lation mentioned by the United States was not 
relevant to the implementation of the DSB's reco mmendations and rulings in this dispute. The DSB 
meeting was not the appropriate forum to discuss this regulation. 
3.4.  The representative of the United States said that the State Council's decision itself referenced 
the need for additional regulations for administrati ve licensing from PBOC and CBRC before foreign 
suppliers could conduct EPS business in China. Could China inform the United States of when it could expect to see the publicatio n of all the relevant measures? 
3.5.  The representative of China said that  his country noted the request made by the 
United States. The regulation mentioned by the United States was not relevant with respect to the 
implementation in this dispute. Thus, China had no information to provide regarding this matter. 
3.6.  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 invited the representative of the Philippines to speak. 
4.2.  The representative of the Philippines said that, despite the repeated statements made in the 
DSB that it "will take steps to ensure" the WTO-consistency of its actions, Thailand had just filed 
criminal charges against an importer of Philippine cigarettes for the alleged under-declaration of customs value. The circumstances surrounding the prosecution demonstrated a very close 
relationship to the circumstances surrounding the measures at issue in the original WTO 
proceedings. Specifically, the original WTO proc eedings and the prosecution involved the same 
importer into Thailand, the same exporter, the same exporting country, the same product, the WT/DSB/M/373 
 
- 15 - 
 
  same declared customs values for the same brands, and the same circumstances of sale. 
Moreover, the original WTO proceedings and the prosecution involved the same type of legal determination, namely, a determination by Thailand that the importer had under-declared customs values of Philippine goods. To determine what it considered to be proper customs value, Thailand 
had used, as the basis for the prosecution, a WTO-inconsistent method that Thailand had initially 
relied upon in the original panel proceedings, but then it had expressly abandoned as the grounds 
for its valuation decisions. The WTO panel had ruled that Thailand enjoyed no legitimate grounds 
to reject the customs values it now subjected to criminal prosecution. In short, the prosecution 
involved an attempt by Thailand to criminalize declared customs values that the original Panel in this dispute had ruled should not be rejected, through the resurrection of a WTO-inconsistent valuation method that Thailand itself had abandoned in the original proceedings in this dispute. 
The Philippines was evidently very concerned about this development. 
4.3.  The Philippines was also concerned about a series of further compliance issues that remained 
outstanding, nearly four years after Thailand was supposed to fully comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. Of particular importance was a ruling by the Thai Customs Board of 
Appeals (or "BoA") rejecting transaction value for 210 entries from Indonesia that were covered by the DSB's rulings and recommendations in the original proceedings. 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-inco nsistent conduct with respect to the customs 
valuation of related party transactions. It was disturbing that Thai Customs had explicitly advised the Thai court that they did not need to follow  the WTO ruling because it supposedly bound only 
the Philippines, as the party that had brough t the dispute, and did not bind Thailand. The 
Philippines had for some time emphasized its openness to resolving these issues bilaterally. In light of the unfortunate developments reported at  the present meeting, the Philippines continued 
to reserve its right to revert to dispute settlement proceedings. 
4.4.  The representative of Thailand said that hi s country took note of the Philippines' statement 
made at the present meeting. As stated in its status reports and at the DSB meetings, Thailand 
had taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute. Thailand, therefore, referred to its previous statements made under this Agenda item. 
4.5.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
5  UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN SHRIMP FROM VIET NAM 
A.  Statement by Viet Nam 
5.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Viet Nam and invited the representative of Viet Nam to speak. 
5.2.  The representative of Viet Nam said that her country appreciated the opportunity to address 
the DSB, once again, regarding implementation in this dispute (DS429). Viet Nam noted that, 
pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU, surveillance of implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
in this dispute would be on the Agenda of the June 2016 DSB meeting. However, Article 21.6 of 
the DSU also provided that any Member may ra ise the issue of implementation at any time 
following the adoption of the relevant panel and Appellate Body reports. As Members were aware, the DSB had adopted the Panel and Appellate Body Reports in this dispute at its meeting in 
April 2015. At the DSB meeting in May 2015, the United States had expressed its intention to fully 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Having failed to reach agreement on a reasonable period of time for implementation, Viet Nam had sought arbitration and the arbitral 
award provided for a period of 15 months from th e date of the adoption of the Reports in this 
dispute. The purpose of Viet Nam's statement at the present meeting was to express its continued 
concerns about implementation in this dispute. Nine months had passed since the DSB's adoption 
of the Reports in this dispute and Viet Nam had no t received any information or evidence that the 
United States had taken any steps towards implementation. While Viet Nam recognized, as did the arbitrator, that the "as such" violation associated with the US "country-wide rate" practice required a change in US policy which may require internal deliberations before announcing proposed 
WTO-consistent changes in that policy, such deliberations were not required for the "as applied" 
violations. Nor was bringing the "as applied" violations into conformity with US WTO obligations dependent on how the United States addressed the "as such" violation. Viet Nam was concerned WT/DSB/M/373 
 
- 16 - 
 
  that by failing to even begin the process of addressing the "as applied" violations, the 
United States would not be able to meet the deadline of the reasonable period of time. This in turn, may lead to further litigation and further strains on the dispute settlement system, which was already unable to meet the deadlines provided in the DSU. At the present meeting, Viet Nam 
was simply informing the DSB of these concerns and hoped that the United States would move 
forward with implementation within the reasonable period of time awarded by the arbitrator. 
5.3.  The representative of the United States said that his country simply did not understand 
Viet Nam's rationale for placing this matter on the Agenda of the present meeting. At the DSB 
meeting held on 20 May 2015, the United States had stated its intention to comply with the DSB's recommendations in this dispute, and that it woul d need a reasonable period of time (RPT) to do 
so. Viet Nam had subsequently requested that the RPT be determined by an arbitrator. On 
15 December 2015, the arbitrator determined that the RPT in this dispute would be 15 months, 
ending on 22 July 2016. Under Article 21.6 of the DS U, the first report of the United States to the 
DSB on the status of implementation was due six months after the date of the establishment of 
the RPT, that was, 15 June 2016. The United States recalled that the present date was 
25 January 2016. If Viet Nam had particular ques tions regarding the ongoing US implementation 
process, the United States was willing to address those questions on a bilateral basis. 
5.4.  The representative of Viet Nam said that her country thanked the United States for its 
statement. As provided in Article 21.6 of the DSU, any Member may raise the issue of 
implementation at any time following the adoption of the relevant panel and Appellate Body Reports. In Viet Nam's view, raising this matter at the present meeting was fully consistent with 
the DSU provisions. Viet Nam also wished to raise its concerns with the United States and would 
like the United States to take further steps and accelerate the implementation process. This was the aim and purpose of Viet Nam's statement at the present meeting. 
5.5.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
6  APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT OF APPELLATE BODY MEMBERS 
6.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at the November 2015 regular DSB meeting, he had made a 
statement to inform delegations about certain matters related to the Appellate Body. First, he had 
informed delegations that the second four-yea r term of Ms. Yuejiao Zhang would expire on 
31 May 2016 and that, pursuant to Article 17.2 of the DSU, she was not eligible for reappointment. Accordingly, the DSB would have to decide on the appointment of a new Appellate Body member 
to replace her. The Chairman said that he had al so informed delegations that the first four-year 
term of office of Mr. Seung Wha Chang woul d expire on 31 May 2016 and that Mr. Chang was 
eligible for reappointment to a second and final term of office and that he had expressed his 
interest and willingness to be reappointed for a second four-year term. The Chairman recalled 
that, at the November 2015 DSB meeting, he had announced his intention to circulate a proposal regarding these matters for a DSB decision at the present meeting. The Chair's draft proposal had 
been circulated to all Members on 15 January 2016 by fax. It was therefore his intention at the 
present meeting to propose that the DSB agree to the five elements contained in that fax. However, he wished to inform delegations that, in relation to paragraph 5 of his proposal, he had received some drafting suggestions. He hoped that  those drafting suggestions would be acceptable 
to all delegations. He therefore asked the Secretariat to distribute a room document to delegations 
containing those small drafting suggestions. He hoped that delegations would agree to the proposal since this was an urgent matter, which could not be left pending for another month. He 
then proposed that the DSB agree to the following: (i) to launch a selection process for one 
position in the Appellate Body to replace Ms. Yuejiao Zhang, whose second four-year term of office will expire on 31 May 2016; (ii) to establish a Selection Committee, consistent with the procedures 
set out in document WT/DSB/1 and with previous selection processes, composed of the Director-
General and the 2016 Chairpersons of the General Council, the Goods Council, the Services Council, the TRIPS Council and the DSB, to be chaired by the DSB Chair; (iii) to set a deadline of 15 March 2016 at 6 pm for Members to submit nominations of candidates; (iv) to request the 
Selection Committee to carry out its work in April/May 2016 in order to make a recommendation 
to the DSB by no later than 12 May 2016, so that the DSB could take a decision to appoint a new Appellate Body member at its regular meeting scheduled for 23 May 2016; and (v) to request the 
DSB Chairman to carry out consultations on the possible reappointment of Mr. Seung Wha Chang, 
whose first four-year term of office would expire on 31 May 2016, and who was eligible for WT/DSB/M/373 
 
- 17 - 
 
  reappointment by the DSB to a second four-yea r term and who had expressed his willingness to 
serve a second term. 
6.2.  The DSB took note of the statement and ag reed to the proposal outlined by the Chairman. 
6.3.  The Chairman further stated that the text of the decision taken at the present meeting would 
be circulated as a DSB document to all Members.4 H e  s a i d  t h a t ,  a s  w a s  d o n e  i n  t h e  p a s t ,  
nominations of candidates, together with their CV s should be addressed to the DSB Chairman, in 
care of the Council and TNC Division, and would be circulated as Job documents to all Members. 
6.4.  The DSB took note of the statement. 
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 one 
appeal.5 Based on the projected dates for the circulation of the next panel reports, the Appellate 
Body could expect that up to three appeals may be filed in the first quarter of 2016.6 With regard 
to panels/arbitrations, there were 20 active panels (including two panels under Article 21.5 of the 
DSU). He noted that he was counting multiple disputes that were being considered simultaneously 
by the same panel as one. For example, the "Aus tralia – 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 Rule s Division and the Legal Affairs Division were 
working together to reduce the queue of panels awai ting availability of staff to assist the panels 
that had been composed. In the previous two months, a number of panels in the queue as of October 2015, had been assigned staff and had established their time-tables. Currently, there 
were four composed panels awaiting staff to assist them
7 and eight panels at the composition 
stage. 
7.2.  The DSB took note of the statement. 
__________  
                                               
4 Subsequently, the text of the DSB decision rega rding this matter was circulated in document 
WT/DSB/70. 
5 DS453 "Argentina – Measures Related to Trade in Goods and Services". 
6 DS461 "Colombia – Textiles"; DS456 "India – Solar Cells"; and DS464 "US – Washing Machines". 
7 DS486 "EU – PET"; DS488 "US – OCTG" (Korea); DS480 "EU – Biodiesel" (Indonesia); and 
DS490/DS496 "Indonesia – Iron or Steel Products".