RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/343  
 
13 June 2014  
(14-3419)  Page: 1/30  
Dispute Settlement Body 
26 March 2014    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD 
ON 26 MARCH 2014 
Chairmen:  Mr. Jonathan Fried (Canad a)/Mr. Fernando De Mateo (Mexico) 
Table of Contents 
1   ELECTION OF  CHAIRMAN ............................................................................................ 2  
2   SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB ....................................................................................................................... .... 5 
A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. 5  
B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by  the United States ............................................................................ 9  
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. 9  
D.  European Communities – Measures affect ing the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the Europe an Union .................................................................... 10 
E.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status 
report by Thailand ........................................................................................................... 10 
F.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the Un ited States ............................................................................................... 11 
G.  Canada – Certain measures affecting th e renewable energy generation sector/Canada 
– Measures relating to the feed-in tari ff program: Status re port by Canada .............................. 11 
3   UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 
2000: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB .............. 13  
A.  Statements by the Eu ropean Union and Japan ................................................................. 13 
4   CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECT ING ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SERVICES ........... 14  
A.  Statement by th e United States .................................................................................... 14 
5   UKRAINE – DEFINITIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON CERTAIN PASSENGER 
CARS .......................................................................................................................... .... 14 
A.  Request for the establis hment of a pane l by Japan ........................................................... 14 
6   UNITED STATES – CERTAIN METHODOLOGIES AND THEIR APPLICATION TO 
ANTI-DUMPING PROCEEDINGS  INVOLVING CHINA ....................................................... 15  
A.  Request for the establis hment of a pane l by China ........................................................... 15 
7   AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS 
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PR ODUCTS AND PACKAGING ................................................ 16  
A.  Request for the establishm ent of a panel by Indonesia ..................................................... 16 
8   EUROPEAN UNION – ANTI-DUMPI NG MEASURES ON BIODIESEL FROM 
ARGENTINA .................................................................................................................... 18  WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 2 - 
 
  A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Argentina ...................................................... 18 
9   AUSTRALIA – TOBACCO PLAIN PACK AGING: STATEMENT BY AUSTRALIA ................. 19  
10   REPORT ON THE PROGRESS OF THE DIGITAL DS REGISTRY INITIATIVE ................ 25  
11   AB SELECTION PROCESS UPDATE ............................................................................ 28  
12   STATEMENT BY PANAMA REGARDIN G THE MEASURES TAKEN BY VENEZUELA 
VIS-À-VIS PA NAMA ........................................................................................................ 29  
 
 
1  ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN 
1.1.  The outgoing Chairman said that it was with mixed feelings that he would relinquish the 
Chairmanship of the DSB. He said that it had b een both a privilege and a pleasure to serve and 
work with Members. The DSB delegates were a group of highly talented and knowledgeable people with a remarkable accumulation of experience and knowledge and all the stronger by virtue of the 
way they were able to work together. This had made  his role easier and he was sure that the same 
would be true for his successor. He said that he would not review the activities over the past year 
given that he had shared some of his reflections on the past activities the previous week at a 
conference. Those reflections would be posted on the WTO website shortly. He thanked those that 
had made the work possible beginning with th e Secretary of the DSB whose institutional 
knowledge was remarkable. Her dedication and commitment to the institution and to the DSB was equally remarkable and her contribution should not be underestimated. She was assisted ably by 
her colleagues who made things easier and ensured that the documentation moved smoothly. He 
also thanked the Director of the Legal Affairs Di vision and her team, which provided good support 
not just during but also in between meetings. He noted that many Members were also engaged in a number of disputes and thus also benefited from the Legal Affairs Division and the Rules 
Division. He further noted that two thirds of the disputes proceeded to the Appellate Body. In that 
regard, he thanked the Director of the Appellate Body Secretariat and his team for their work in supporting the members of the Appellate Body. Once again, he thanked the Secretariat for the 
hard work, dedication and commitment extended to him during the course of his tenure as 
Chairman of the DSB. He recalled that, at its meeting of 14 March 2014, the General Council had taken note of the consensus that had been reached on a slate of names for Chairpersons to a 
number of WTO bodies, including the DSB. It wa s on the basis of the views expressed and the 
understanding reached by the General Council that he wished to propose that, at the present meeting, the DSB elect by acclamation H.E. Mr. Fernando De Mateo of Mexico as its Chairman. 
1.2.  The DSB so agreed. 
1.3.  The incoming Chairman said that he thanked Ambassador Fried for his outstanding leadership 
over the past year. Members had been fortunate to have had a seasoned diplomat and gifted 
lawyer at the helm of which, he believed, was the most important Body of the WTO. He had had 
the pleasure of collaborating with Ambassador Fried many years ago when they were both 
negotiating the NAFTA. He had learned much from him then and had continued to benefit from his wise counsel and to marvel at his seemingly endless talents. He was very much aware that he had 
especially big shoes to fill. He did not expect to match Ambassador Fried's skill, wisdom, energy, 
and intelligence in leading the DSB. He thanked Ambassador Fried for his dedicated service to the DSB. Although Members would miss his leadership and guidance in the DSB, they were nevertheless grateful that he had assumed the Chairmanship of the General Council, where his 
exceptional talents, deep wisdom and seemingl y boundless energy would serve the Membership 
well. He noted that this was his first day as Chairman of the DSB and that there were many things he still had to grasp and learn. As Members would have noticed, the Appellate Body selection 
process would be considered under item 11 of the Agenda of the present meeting. As the new DSB 
Chair, he recognized that he would have to deal with this as a matter of priority and urgency. He had been briefed by his predecessor on this matter. He thanked him and the members of the 
Selection Committee for their considerable efforts in this regard. He would have more to say about 
how he would wish to proceed with this issue under Agenda item 11. He thanked Members for their trust and confidence in electing him as the DSB Chair for 2014 and promised to work with all Members to ensure that matters before the DSB were resolved appropriately and promptly. He 
said that he would count on the support of the Secretariat.  WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.4.  The representative of the United States said that his country would like to congratulate 
Ambassador De Mateo on his election, and to extend its welcome to him as he assumed the 
Chairmanship of the DSB. The United States very  much looked forward to working with him over 
the coming year. The United States representative also said his country would like to thank Ambassador Fried for his many significant contributi ons to the work of the DSB during this past 
year. It had been a pleasure, and the United Stat es wished him even greater success chairing the 
General Council during this important year. 
1.5.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU wished to congratulate and 
warmly welcome Ambassador De Mateo as the new DSB Chair. The EU looked forward to the year 
ahead under his leadership. All indications suggested that this would be yet another busy year for the DSB. The EU wished to thank Ambassador Fried for a very active and entertaining year under his leadership. The EU noted that Ambassador Fried had kept Members on their toes and had 
ensured that they made best efforts to provide me aningful information to the DSB. The EU wished 
Ambassador Fried the best in his ever more challenging task as the General Council Chair. 
1.6.  The representative of Japan said that hi s country wished to express its appreciation to 
Ambassador Fried for his courageous initiatives on difficult tasks related to the DSB. Japan wished 
him success in his new role as General Council Chair. Japan looked forward to working with the new Chair, Ambassador De Mateo, in the coming year. 
1.7.  The representative of India said that his country wished to compliment Ambassador Fried for 
a very successful tenure as the DSB Chair. His in volvement and leadership was much appreciated. 
He had conducted the DSB in a very fair, impartial and inclusive manner. His efforts in improving DSB procedures and processes were praiseworthy. He had made an invaluable contribution in 
making the Annual Report of the DSB reader-friendl y. He had also brought to the attention of the 
Membership the issues of the workload of the Ap pellate Body and had taken proactive steps. India 
wished him all the best in his new assignment as the Chair of the General Council. India was 
confident that under his leadership, multilateralism would be further strengthened. India welcomed 
the new Chair of the DSB, Ambassador De Mateo. India was confident that his long and diverse experience would enrich the DSB. India assured th e Chairman of its continued support in all his 
endeavours and looked forward to clos ely working with him in the future. 
1.8.  The representative of Argentina said that  his country congratulated the incoming Chair and 
welcomed him to the DSB, an important WTO Body. It was a great satisfaction for all Members to 
be able to rely on him as the DSB Chair and Argentina was sure that both the WTO and the 
Members would benefit from his experience and professionalism. Argentina thanked 
Ambassador Fried for his leadership and energy over the past year. He had contributed greatly to the DSB's work and Argentina wished him success in his new role as the General Council Chair.  
1.9.  The representative of Honduras, speaking on behalf of GRULAC, said that he wished to thank 
Ambassador Fried for his excellent leadership at the helm of the DSB. GRULAC wished him success 
in his new function and assured him of its support in his work. GRULAC was proud to have 
Ambassador De Mateo as the new DSB Chai r and offered him its full support.  
1.10.  The representative of China said that her country welcomed and congratulated 
Ambassador De Mateo on his election as the DSB Ch air. She said that she had worked with him in 
the CTS Special Session and was familiar with his way of working. China was sure that the DSB 
would be in good hands and looked forward to working with him. China also thanked the outgoing 
Chair, Ambassador Jonathan Fried. Under his Chai rmanship the DSB's work during the past year 
was dynamic and he had led Members through some of the most challenging times. China wished 
him the best and looked forward to working with  him as the Chairman of the General Council.  
1.11.  The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia said that his country congratulated 
Ambassador De Mateo as the new Chair of the DSB for 2014. Saudi Arabia also thanked 
Ambassador Fried for his wise leadership in the past year and looked forward to his leadership in 
the General Council. 
1.12.  The representative of Canada said that his country congratulated Ambassador De Mateo on 
his election and welcomed him to the DSB. He said  that it was not an entirely new experience for 
him personally to work with Ambassador De Mateo as he had been the Chair of the OECD Trade 
Committee. Canada was confident that his wisdom and leadership that he had demonstrated in WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 4 - 
 
  that venue would be demonstrated again in the DSB and that he would serve Members well during 
what promised to be a busy and eventful year  in dispute settlement. Canada also thanked 
Ambassador Fried for his service. While it had obvi ously not been an entirely new experience for 
Canada to work with Ambassador Fried, it had been  a pleasure to work with him in this new and 
different context. As with others, Canada had learned much from his leadership and energy. He 
had brought a renewed dynamism to the DSB that was appreciated by all. Canada wished him the 
same success in the General Council as the one he had achieved in the DSB. 
1.13.  The representative of Cuba said that her country wished to congratulate 
Ambassador De Mateo for taking over the Chairmanship of the DSB. Cuba believed that his 
experience, professionalism and his negotiating sk ills would help move forward the issues on the 
DSB's Agenda. Cuba also thanked and congratulated Ambassador Fried for the work he had done over the past year with enthusiasm, passion an d a significant amount of energy thus giving 
greater momentum to the work of the DSB. This was essential to achieving results on different 
issues. Ambassador Fried's leadership and energy had enhanced the DSB's work over the past year. Cuba wished him all the best in his new role as the Chairman of the General Council.  
1.14.  The representative of Chile said that his country welcomed Ambassador De Mateo and 
wished him success during the coming year. Chile recalled that the DSB was the most important 
WTO Body. The past year's agenda was not easy an d Chile did not think that the agenda this year 
would be any easier. Chile noted that there wa s a lot of work to be done. Chile thanked 
Ambassador Fried for his work, enthusiasm, creativity and intelligence.   
1.15.  The representative of Mexico said that his country thanked Ambassador Fried for his work 
as the DSB Chair and wished him every success in his new role as Chairman of the General 
Council. Mexico welcomed Ambassador De Mateo as  the new Chairman of the DSB, expressed its 
support and wished him success.  
1.16.  The representative of New Zealand said th at, in keeping with Ambassador Fried's unfaltering 
efforts to promote efficiency and succinctness in interactions in the DSB, New Zealand thanked 
him for what had been a year of energetic service. In addition, New Zealand congratulated Ambassador De Mateo who, from the experience of  working with him in the CTS Special Session, 
brought a wealth of wisdom and experience to the DSB. 
1.17.  The representative of Thailand said that his country thanked Ambassador Fried for injecting 
energy and dynamism into the DSB over the pa st one year. Thailand had learned a lot from 
Ambassador Fried's Chairmanship. Thailand also welcomed Ambassador De Mateo as the new 
Chairman of the DSB and was sure that his rich experience would help advance the DSB's work in 
the coming year.  
1.18.  The representative of Hong Kong, China said that his country warmly welcomed 
Ambassador De Mateo and looked forward to wo rking closely with him in the coming year. 
Hong Kong, China also thanked Ambassador Fried for his excellent leadership over the past year. Hong Kong, China had benefited a lot from his dynamism and insights and wished him all the best 
in his new position as the General Council Chair. 
1.19.  The representative of Egypt said that his country welcomed Ambassador De Mateo and 
trusted that he would successfully manage the DSB over the coming year, especially with regard 
to certain issues as mentioned in the opening remarks. Egypt also thanked Ambassador Fried for 
the work he had done over the past year and wished him success during his tenure as Chairman of 
the General Council. 
1.20.  The representative of Colombia said that his country joined previous speakers in thanking 
Ambassador Fried and congratulated him for the work he had done over the past year. Colombia 
wished him success in his new role as Chairman of the General Council. Colombia welcomed Ambassador De Mateo as the new DSB Chairman. Colombia, like other countries from the region, 
was proud of his election and assured him of its full support during the coming year. 
1.21.  The representative of Brazil said that his country welcomed Ambassador De Mateo and 
wished him every success. Brazil was ready to work with him so as to overcome different 
challenges to be faced by Members this year. The challenges would at times be complex but with WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 5 - 
 
  patience, transparency and common sense, Brazil believed that Members would be able to 
overcome them. Brazil also thanked Ambassador Fried for his excellent work in the DSB. 
1.22.  The representative of Qatar said that his country thanked Ambassador Fried for his efforts in 
guiding the DSB during the past year. Qatar wished to congratulate Ambassador De Mateo on his 
Chairmanship and believed that the DSB would be in good hands in the year to come. 
1.23.  The representative of Ukraine said that his country thanked Ambassador Fried for his 
excellent leadership and welcomed Ambassador De Mateo in his new position. 
1.24.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
2  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.135)  
B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.135)  
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.110)  
D.  European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.73)  E.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status report 
by Thailand (WT/DS371/15/Add.22) 
 F .   U n i t e d  S t a t e s  –  A n t i - d u m p i n g  m e a s u r e s  o n  c e r t a i n  s h r i m p  f r o m  V i e t  N a m :  S t a t u s  r e p o r t  b y  
the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.21) 
 G.  Canada – Certain measures affecting the renewable energy generation sector/Canada – 
Measures relating to the feed-in tariff program: Status report by Canada (WT/DS412/17/Add.1 – 
WT/DS426/17/Add.1)   
2.1.  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 of the DSU required that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of 
implementation of the recommendations or ruling s shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB 
meeting after six months following the date of esta blishment of the reasonable period of time and 
shall remain on the DSB's Agenda until the issue is resolved". The DSB's obligation with respect to 
surveillance was a unique feature of the WTO dispute settlement system and Members must take 
full advantage of the opportunity that each DSB meeting provided to carry out the important responsibility of keeping under surveillance th e implementation of adopted recommendations or 
rulings. As Ambassador Fried had done over the past year, he also encouraged 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. With these introductory remarks, he turned to the first status report under this Agenda item.  
A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.135) 
2.2.  The Chairman drew attention to docu ment WT/DS176/11/Add.135, 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. 
2.3.  The representative of the United States said  that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 13 March 2014, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. At least six bills 
had been introduced in the current Congress in relation to the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings. This included H.R. 214, H.R. 778, H.R. 872, H.R. 873, H.R. 1917 and S. 647. The WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 6 - 
 
  US Administration would continue to work on solutions to implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings. 
2.4.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU thanked the United States for its 
most recent status report and statement made at the present meeting. The EU hoped that the US 
authorities would resolve this matter very soon. 
2.5.  The representative of Cuba said that the United States had submitted a total of 135 status 
reports, none of which had provided any solution to settle this dispute. Cuba also noted that the 
United States had started even reducing its already brief report and, as of the 133rd report 
(submitted on 10 January 2014), it had stopped alluding to legislative texts H.R. 214, H.R. 778, 
H.R. 872, H.R. 873 and S. 647. These were the only actions, still without results, that the United States had announced it was taking to comply with its obligations. This confirmed, once again, that the United States had no intention to find a way of complying in this dispute. Cuba 
reiterated that the US hostile economic, commercial and financial embargo policy against Cuba, 
underpinning this non-compliance, did not give the United States the right to ignore its WTO obligations. The US illegal conduct in this dispute over the years not only threatened intellectual 
property rights inherent in Cuban institutions, but also showed disregard for the dispute settlement 
system. In particular, Cuba wished to point out th at the objective of Article 21 of the DSU, which 
was to monitor implementation of recommendations and rulings of the DSB was being 
undermined. Cuba recalled that Article 21.1 of the DSU established the principle of "prompt 
compliance". Article 21.2 of the DSU indicated that the principle of special and differential treatment applied to the settlement of disputes, by stating that "particular attention should be paid to matters affecting the interests of developing country Members with respect to measures which 
have been subject to dispute settlement". Article 21 .3 of the DSU was of significant importance. It 
stated that "the Member concerned shall inform the DSB of its intentions in respect of implementation of the recommendations and ru lings of the DSB". Article 21.6 of the DSU 
stipulated the form and content of status reports and how often they should be submitted before 
the DSB. Article 21.6 stated that "at least 10 days prior to each such DSB meeting, the Member concerned shall provide the DSB with a status report in writing of its progress in the 
implementation of the recommendations or rulings". In Cuba's view, the United States had violated 
all these provisions for more than 12 years. Every month, this item was on the DSB's Agenda without any new developments to report on compliance and settlement of the dispute. Cuba was obliged, month after month, to raise its complaint concerning the irresponsible US conduct and 
failure to meet its obligations. Furthermore, Cuba reiterated that simply mentioning draft 
legislations that had never been adopted could not be seen as a step forward and, much less, as a 
relevant piece of information. Cuba would not cease to challenge these violations, to claim its 
rights and to demand the prompt settlement of this dispute by repealing Section 211. 
2.6.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that his country congratulated the 
Chairman on his appointment. With regard to this Agenda item, Bolivia recalled that this dispute 
had been on the DSB's Agenda for more than 12 years and was probably the oldest unresolved 
dispute. At the present meeting, the United St ates had presented the same status report. No 
substantive change had been made and no solu tion had been presented either. Bolivia, once 
again, reiterated its concerns about the systemic implications that this situation had for the dispute 
settlement system. Bolivia was also concerned about the lack of will to resolve this matter. In 
Bolivia's view, non-compliance undermined the cred ibility of the multilateral trading system and 
had a negative impact on a developing-country Member. Bolivia requested the United States to 
comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings  a n d  t o  m a k e  e f f o r t s  s o  a s  t o  r e m o v e  t h e  
restrictions imposed under Section 211. Bolivia, once again, shared the concerns expressed by 
Cuba.  
2.7.  The representative of Ecuador said that his country joined Honduras, which had spoken on 
behalf of GRULAC, in congratulating the Chairman on his election. Ecuador also thanked 
Ambassador Fried for his work in the past year. With regard to this particular Agenda item, Ecuador supported the statement made by Cuba. Ecuador recalled that Article 21 of the DSU called 
for the prompt compliance with the DSB's recommen dations or rulings, in particular since the 
interests of a developing country member were affected. Ecuador noted that Article 21.3 of the DSU stated that prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations was essential in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disputes. Ecuador hoped that the United States would promptly and 
fully comply with its WTO obligations.  WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.8.  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. China noted that the prolonged situation 
of non-compliance in this dispute was highly incompatible with the prompt compliance requirement 
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. 
2.9.  The representative of Argentina said that , once again, his country joined the previous 
speakers' request for a solution to this dispute. Failure to implement the DSB's rulings seriously 
affected the credibility and effectiveness of th e dispute settlement system. Argentina noted that 
the last sentence of Article 21.6 of the DSU stated  that: "At least 10 days prior to each such DSB 
meeting, the Member concerned shall provide the DSB with a status report in writing of its progress in the implementation of the recommendations or rulings". Argentina noted that the 
monthly US status report in this dispute did not contain any new information. The only apparent 
change was the addenda number in the document symbol. This was contrary to Article 21.6 of the DSU which required the Member concerned to report on its progress in the implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings. It was not enough to merely repeat that no progress had been made 
in finding a solution. Argentina, once again, ur ged both parties to the dispute, in particular 
the United States, to make an effort to find a solution to this issue and thus finally remove it from 
the DSB's Agenda.  
2.10.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting. India noted that the United States did not 
report any progress. India was therefore compelle d, yet again, to stress that the principle of 
prompt compliance was missing in this dispute. India renewed its systemic concerns about the 
continuation of non-compliance as this undermined the credibility and confidence that Members reposed in the system. India urged the United Stat es to report compliance in this dispute without 
any further delay. 
2.11.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the United States for its status 
report. Brazil noted that, once again, the United St ates reported lack of progress. Brazil remained 
concerned about this situation of non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and urged the 
United States to bring its measures into conformity with WTO rules. 
2.12.  The representative of Jamaica said that her country thanked the United States for its status 
report and Cuba for its statement. As it had repeatedly done in the past, Jamaica joined other 
delegations in voicing its concern regarding the continued failure by the United States to 
implement the DSB's recommendations adopted in 2002 with respect to Section 211. This protracted failure by the United States to take the steps necessary to comply with its DSB 
obligations was incompatible with the DSU requirement for prompt and effective implementation of 
the DSB's recommendations. This was of particular concern in cases such as this where the failure to respect an obligation had a negative impact on the economic interests of a developing-country 
Member. Jamaica noted that all Members, when ratifying the Marrakesh Agreement, had 
recognized the need for positive efforts designed to ensure that developing countries, like Cuba, secured a share in the growth in international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development. Furthermore, Jamaica was compelled to express its deep concern about 
the systemic implications of any disregard for th e DSB's rulings. Such disregard could serve to 
undermine the overall integrity of the dispute settl ement system which remained a key pillar of the 
WTO. Jamaica had repeatedly heard that this disregard for the DSB rulings did not pose systemic 
implications for the dispute settlement system. However, Jamaica disagreed because any 
derogation from the DSB's rulings had implications for the wider system. The aim was towards a 100% compliance with the DSB's rulings and the re peated inclusion of this item on the DSB's 
Agenda was of great concern to Jamaica. In that regard, Jamaica once again urged the 
United States to take the required steps and promptly implement the relevant DSB recommendations and rulings. Jamaica looked forward to the removal of this item from the DSB's Agenda. 
2.13.  The representative of El Salvador said that her country thanked the United States for its 
status report. Like previous speakers, El Salvador noted with concern the lack of compliance in this 
dispute which affected a developing-country Member and the multilateral trading system. In order 
to resolve this prolonged dispute, El Salvador ur ged the parties to the dispute to promptly find a 
solution and comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Finally, El Salvador supported WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 8 - 
 
  the statement made by Honduras on behalf of GRULAC welcoming the new Chairman and thanking 
Ambassador Fried for his work over the past year. 
2.14.  The representative of Mexico said that his country, once again, urged the parties to this 
dispute to take the necessary steps to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings to the 
benefit of all Members, in accordance with Article 21.1 of the DSU. Mexico noted that the status 
report submitted by the United States stated that  legislation had been introduced in the current 
session of the US Congress. The fact that the Un ited States had submitted legislation showed a 
willingness to comply. However, merely submitting the legislation may not be enough. Mexico 
recommended that further information be provided on this matter so that this dispute could move 
towards resolution. 
2.15.  The representative of Nicaragua said that his country congratulated the new Chairman on 
his appointment and wished him every success in his professional endeavours. With regard to this 
item, Nicaragua thanked the United States for its status report but regretted that this report did 
not show any progress towards implementation of the DSB's recommendations. Nicaragua supported the statement made by Cuba on Sectio n 211 regarding the rights of Cuban right holders 
of the Havana Club trademark. In Nicaragua's view, the repeated US failure to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings undermined th e credibility and efficiency of the dispute 
settlement system and the multilateral trading system. It could also set a precedent with 
consequences for other Members, in particular developing-country Members. Nicaragua, once 
again, urged the United States to take the necessary reforms and introduce legislation so as to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
2.16.  The representative of Uruguay said that his country congratulated the new Chairman on his 
appointment and wished him every success. Uruguay was certain that he would be able to meet 
the expectations. With regard to this dispute, Uruguay thanked the United States for its status report, but regretted that the United States did not provide any new information. In that regard, 
Uruguay urged the United State to resolve this matter so as to remove it from the DSB's Agenda. 
In Uruguay's view, the US failure to resolve this  dispute undermined the credibility of the dispute 
settlement system.   
2.17.  The representative of South Africa said that her country congratulated the Chairman on his 
appointment and trusted that his wise leadership and exemplary skills would guide the DSB going 
forward. South Africa also thanked Ambassador Fried for his dedicated, dynamic and efficient leadership over the last year. With regard to th e dispute at hand, South Africa thanked the United 
States for its status report which did not contain any new developments. South Africa referred to 
its previous statements stressing its systemic concern that non-compliance undermined the credibility and integrity of the dispute settlemen t system, an important enforcement pillar of the 
WTO. South Africa was also concerned that non-compliance perpetuated a negative impact on the 
economic interests of a developing-country Member. South Africa, therefore, urged the 
United States to bring its legislation into compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations. 
2.18.  The representative of Zimbabwe said that his country congratulated the Chairman for his 
election as DSB Chair. Zimbabwe thanked the United States for its status report and its statement 
made at the present meeting. However, like previous speakers, Zimbabwe was disappointed and regretted that the United States had continued to disregard the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations in this dispute concerning Section 211. The continued US failure to comply with 
its obligations seriously undermined the integrity of the DSB, as well as the efficacy and effectiveness of its rulings. For a number of year s Zimbabwe, along with ot her Members, had been 
calling on the United States to desist from this violation of WTO rules and to honour its obligations. 
Zimbabwe, therefore, strongly supported Cuba's st atement and urged the United States to comply 
with the relevant DSB's rulings and recommendations. 
2.19.  The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that his country, once again, 
supported Cuba, a developing country that had ch allenged the inconsistency of Section 211. The 
DSB had adopted the recommendations regarding Section 211, but the United States had yet to comply. At every regular DSB meeting, despite the many statements made in support of Cuba, the 
United States stated that it had complied with most DSB rulings. In Venezuela's view that claim 
was unfounded. Full compliance with all DSB's ru lings and recommendations was mandatory and 
non-compliance demonstrated blatant disregard for the DSB. The current situation of non-
compliance not only affected Cuba, but also set a negative precedent in terms of the credibility of WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 9 - 
 
  the WTO and its ability to resolve disputes. Venezu ela, therefore, urged the United States to end 
this non-compliance and to report, at the next DSB meeting, on measures it intended to take to 
resolve this dispute.  
2.20.  The representative of Chile said that his country's position on this matter was well known. 
Chile wished to reflect on an important issue re ferred to by Uruguay. The fact that this matter 
remained on the DSB's Agenda was a permanent constant reminder that failure to comply 
undermined the dispute settlement system in the short-, medium- and long-term. Chile found it 
difficult to understand that, after a decade, Memb ers were still discussing the same dispute, the 
same circumstances and the same parties. Chile hoped that this matter would soon be removed 
from the DSB's Agenda.  
2.21.  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.135) 
2.22.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.135, which contained the 
status report by the United States on pr ogress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
2.23.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 13 March 2014, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States had 
addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect to the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration 
would work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve the matter. 
2.24.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked the United States for its 
statement and status report submitted on 13 March 2014. Japan referred to its previous 
statements regarding its desire that this issue would be resolved as soon as possible. 
2.25.  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.110) 
2.26.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.110, which contained the 
status report by the United States on pr ogress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act. 
2.27.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 13 March 2014, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the European Union,  and to work closely with the US Congress, in 
order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter. 
2.28.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and its statement made at the pr esent meeting. The EU referred to its previous 
statements regarding its wish to resolve this case as soon as possible. 
2.29.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 10 - 
 
  D.  European Communities – Measures affect ing the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the Eu ropean Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.73) 
2.30.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.73, 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. 
2.31.  The representative of the European Union said that, in recent DSB meetings, the EU had 
already reported on authorization decisions taken up to January 2014. The Appeal Committee of 
27 February 2014 had voted on a draft auth orization decision for an oilseed rape1 product, for food 
and feed uses and had rendered no opinion. Th e file was back to the European Commission for 
final adoption. In addition, the standing committee of 20 February 2014 had voted on a draft authorization decision for a cotton
2 product for food and feed uses and had rendered no opinion. 
The draft decision would be presented to the A ppeal Committee for a vote on 27 March 2014. As 
had been stated many times before, the EU recalled that the EU approval system was not covered by the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The GM O regulatory regime was working normally as 
evidenced by the approval decisions and other acti ons towards approval decisions just mentioned. 
The details on the relevant products were set out in the EU's written statement. 
2.32.  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. At the January and February 2014 DSB 
meetings, the United States had recalled that the EU had not addressed the product-specific DSB recommendation and ruling with respect to a variety of biotech corn known as BT-1507.
3 The 
application for approval of this product had been  pending since 2001. The United States took note 
that the EU representative had stated at the Fe bruary DSB meeting that measures approving the 
use of BT-1507 "are now to be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the applicable 
rules". The United States regretted, however, th at based on the information publicly available 
before the present meeting, it did not appear that the Commission had taken this action. 
Accordingly, the EU measures on the approval of  BT-1507 continued to be delayed. In addition, 
although the approval of this particular biot ech product after 13 years would be a positive 
development, the handling of this product approval application exemplified the problems with EU 
measures affecting the approval of biotech products . An approval by the Commission in the face of 
EU Council opposition was an extraordinary procedural step, and inevitably resulted in substantial delays. In closing, the United States urged the EU  to take steps to address the problems with EU 
measures affecting approval of biotech products, including delays in approvals and bans imposed 
by EU member States on produc ts approved at the EU level. 
2.33.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. E.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures  on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status 
report by Thailand (WT/DS371/15/Add.22) 
2.34.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS371/15/Add.22, which contained the 
status report by Thailand on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Thailand's customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines. 
2.35.  The representative of Thailand said that, as indicated in its most recent status report, 
Thailand had been collecting information in preparation for responses to the Philippines' request 
for additional information regarding certain aspects of Thailand's implementation as well as other matters of concern to the Philippines. Thailand  had provided some of these responses to the 
Philippines and had just received further information related to the decision by the Customs Board 
of Appeal from Bangkok that morning. Thailand would proceed with the formality of sharing that information with the Philippines immediately. Thailand was ready to discuss any other matters of 
concern bilaterally with the Philippines and looked forward to continuing discussions with the 
Philippines on these matters and to resolving this dispute in an amicable manner. 
                                               
1 GT73 oilseed rape. 
2 T304-40 cotton. 
3 "European Communities – Measures Affecting th e Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products" 
(WT/DS291/R), adopted on 21 November 2006, at para. 8.18(a)(xi).  WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 11 - 
 
  2.36.  The representative of the Philippines said  that her country congratulated the Chairman on 
his appointment as the DSB Chair. The Philippine s also thanked Ambassador Fried for his excellent 
work and wished him all the best in his new endeavour as the General Council Chair. With regard 
to this particular item, the Philippines thanked Thailand for its status report and for its statement made at the present meeting. The Philippines had hoped to be able to report on developments at 
the present meeting. The Philippines recalled from its statements made at previous DSB meetings 
that it was still waiting to obtain further information from Thailand on two issues. The first was the recent decision by the Thai Attorney General to prosecute an importer of Philippine goods, and 
several of the importer's current and former employees, for alleged under-declaration of customs 
values in the 2003-2007 time-period, which included the period covered by the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. The second issue concerned a decision by the Thai Customs Board of Appeals to reject the declared transaction values for 210 entries of Philippine 
goods from 2002. With respect to the second issue, the Philippines thanked Thailand for indicating 
that it would soon provide the Philippines with a se t of replies to the questions it had submitted to 
Thailand in September 2013. The Philippines thanked Thailand in advance for those replies, which 
it would study in detail as soon as it received them. The Philippines hoped that the responses 
would address its concerns in a meaningful way, wi th suggestions of how best to achieve full WTO 
compliance. The Philippines hoped that it could continue the dialogue with its ASEAN partner, in 
order to find a solution to the outstanding issues in this dispute.  
2.37.  The representative of Thailand said that her country took note of the Philippines statement 
and concern regarding the prosecution under Thai law. The Ministry of Commerce had 
communicated with the relevant authorities on the Philippines questions and concerns. As had 
been stated in previous meetings, Thailand reiterated that it would ensure that it acted in a WTO-
consistent manner to the extent that this particular concern of the Philippines involved Thailand's obligations under WTO law. 
2.38.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
F.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.21) 
2.39.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS404/11/Add.21, 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. 
2.40.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 13 March 2014, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As it had noted at past 
DSB meetings, the US Department of Commerce had published a modification to its procedures in 
February 2012 in order to implement the DSB's re commendations and rulings regarding the use of 
"zeroing" in anti-dumping reviews. That modification addressed certain findings in this dispute. The 
United States would continue to consult with in terested parties as it worked to address the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 
2.41.  The DSB took note of the statement and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
G.  Canada – Certain measures affect ing the renewable energy generation 
sector/Canada – Measures relating to the feed-in tariff program: Status report by Canada (WT/DS412/17/Add.1 – WT/DS426/17/Add.1) 
2.42.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS412/17/Add.1 – WT/DS426/17/Add.1, 
which contained the status report by Canada on  progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the cases concerning Canada's measures affecting the renewable energy 
generation sector and the measures rela ting to the feed-in tariff program. 
2.43.  The representative of Canada said th at the DSB had adopted the recommendations and 
rulings in these disputes on 24 May 2013. Canada, Japan and the European Union had initially 
agreed that the reasonable period of time for Canada to implement these recommendations and 
rulings would end on 24 March 2014. On Monday 24  March 2014, on the expiry of the reasonable WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 12 - 
 
  period of time, Canada, Japan and the EU had reached a mutual agreement to modify the 
reasonable period of time to expire on 5 June 2014. Furthermore, on 24 March 2014, the parties 
had reached a mutual agreement on procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU to reduce the 
scope for procedural disputes. The parties had notified that modification of the reasonable period of time and the sequencing agreement to the DSB Chair. The documents would be circulated to 
the Membership in due course. As set out in the documentation circulated with regard to this item 
(WT/DS412/17/Add.1 and WT/DS426/17/Add.1), Canada and the Government of Ontario had taken the following measures with a view to ensuring compliance with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings. On 12 June 2013, the Minister of Ener gy of the Province of Ontario had directed the 
Ontario Power Authority (OPA) not to procure any additional energy under the Feed-In Tariff (FIT) Program for large projects, and to instead develop a new competitive process for procurement of large renewable energy capacity through requests for proposals. The OPA was currently developing 
this process. As a result, large wind and solar electricity procurement were no longer subject to 
the domestic content requirements of the FIT program. On 16 August 2013, the Minister had 
directed the OPA to lower significantly the domestic content requirements for small FIT and micro 
FIT wind and solar electricity projects that were procured under the FIT program, starting with the 
Fall 2013 procurement window. In addition to these compliance steps, the Government of Ontario had tabled legislation to provide the Minister with the authority to direct the OPA to procure 
electricity under the FIT program without any domestic content requirements. This legislation was 
currently in Second Reading in the Ontario Legislative Assembly.  
2.44.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked Canada for its statement and 
status report submitted on 13 March 2014. Japan wished to express its regret that Canada could 
not complete its compliance by 24 March 2014 when the original reasonable period of time for this 
dispute had expired. However, given the fact that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario had been discussing a bill to remove domestic content requirements from the FIT program, upon a request 
by Canada, on 24 March 2014 Japan and Canada had agreed to modify the reasonable period of 
time to expire on 5 June 2014, when the current session of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario 
would end, in order to give further time for the bill to be passed. Japan had also taken into 
consideration the fact that Canada had taken intermediate measures to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. At the same time, Japan and Canada had agreed on a sequencing agreement. Japan strongly hoped that the bill would be passed and be in force prior to 5 June 2014 when the modified reasonable pe riod of time for this dispute expired. 
2.45.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked Canada for its second 
status report and the statement made at the present meeting. The reasonable period of time 
originally agreed between Canada and the EU was set to expire on 24 March 2014. Ontario's 
domestic rules would have allowed fast action to tackle the WTO-inconsistent aspects of Ontario's 
measures before that date, and the EU regretted that this had not been the case. However, in a 
spirit of cooperation and in order to facilitate co mpliance with the DSB's rulings, the EU had been 
willing to agree exceptionally on a modification of the reasonable period of time, in consideration 
of the specific and tangible steps that had thus far been taken by Canada. At present, the Ontario Parliament was considering an "Act to amend the Electricity Act, 1998 with respect to a World Trade Organization decision", aimed at the repeal of the provision in the 1998 Electricity Act 
concerning domestic content. The EU trusted that  the draft bill would be adopted into law within 
the modified reasonable period of time, which wa s to expire on 5 June 2014. Together with the 
modification of the reasonable period of time, Ca nada and the EU had also agreed on procedures 
under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in order to manage any disagreement as regards Canada's 
compliance actions, or a situation of non-compliance. That said, the EU hoped that Canada would make all necessary efforts to ensure full compliance by the end of the modified reasonable period 
of time, in a manner that would make further recourse to action under the DSU provisions 
unnecessary. In that regard, the EU wished to underscore again the importance of removing 
domestic content requirements from the FIT program. Similarly, it was essential to make sure that any new system introduced to replace the FIT pr ogram with regard to some project categories 
accorded no less favourable treatment to imported generation equipment compared to domestic 
g o o d s .  T h e  E U  l o o k e d  f o r w a r d  t o  f u r t h e r  r e p o r t s  f r o m  C a n a d a  i n  u p c o m i n g  D S B  m e e t i n g s  a s  regards the status of implementation of the DSB' s recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
2.46.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 13 - 
 
  3  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTE D BY THE DSB 
A.  Statements by the European Union and Japan 
3.1.  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. 
3.2.  The representative of the European Union sa id that, once again, the EU requested that the 
United States stop transferring anti-dumping an d countervailing duties to the US industry. Such 
disbursements were clearly 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. 
3.3.  The representative of Japan said that, since the distributions under the CDSOA had been 
continuing, Japan, once again, urged the United States to stop the illegal distributions in order to 
resolve this long-standing dispute. 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. 
3.4.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for regularly 
bringing this issue before the DSB. India shared their concerns and supported their views. As had 
been mentioned, the CDSOA remained operational and the WTO-inconsistent disbursements 
continued unabated to the US domestic industry. India agreed with previous speakers that this 
issue should continue to remain under the surveillance of the DSB until such time that full compliance was achieved. 
3.5.  The representative of Canada said that hi s country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda. Canada agreed with the EU and Japan that the Byrd Amendment 
remained subject to the surveillance of the DSB unt il the United States ceased to administer it. 
3.6.  The representative of Thailand said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for continuing 
to bring this item before the DSB. Thailand supported the previous speakers' statements and 
continued to urge the United States to cease the disbursements and fully implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations. 
3.7.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda. As it had expressed at  previous meetings, Brazil was of the view that 
the United States was under obligation to submit status reports in this dispute until such time that no more disbursements were made pursuant to the Byrd Amendment. Only then would the issue 
be resolved within the meaning of the DSU and the United States would be released from its 
obligation to provide status reports in this dispute. 
3.8.  The representative of the United States said that, as his country had noted at previous DSB 
meetings, the President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 8 February 2006, which 
included a provision repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. Accordingly, the United States had taken al l actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes. Fu rthermore, the United States recalled that 
Members, including the EU and Japan, had acknowledged during previous DSB meetings that the 2006 Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods entered after 1 October 2007, which was more than six ye ars ago. Therefore, the United States did not 
understand 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 actions necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes. 
3.9.  The DSB took note of the statements. WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 14 - 
 
  4  CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECTING ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SERVICES 
A.  Statement by the United States 
4.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United States. He then invited the representative of the United States to speak. 
4.2.  The representative of the United States said that his country continued to have serious 
concerns that China had not implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
The situation had not changed since the United States had first begun raising this matter in the DSB. In particular, China maintained a ban on foreign EPS suppliers by imposing a licensing 
requirement, while providing no procedures for foreign suppliers to obtain a license. As a result, 
China's own domestic champion remained the on ly EPS company that had ever been able to 
operate in China's domestic market. China's measures could not be reconciled with the DSB's findings that China's WTO obligations included both market access and national treatment 
commitments concerning Mode 3 for electronic payment services.
4 The United States did take note 
of China's statement at the February 2014 DSB m eeting that China was working on the necessary 
regulations that would allow for the licensing of foreign EPS suppliers. Unfortunately, the 
United States understood that no such regula tions had yet been issued. Accordingly, the 
United States urged China to adopt measures that would allow the licensing of foreign EPS suppliers and that would bring its measures into compliance with China's WTO obligations. 
4.3.  The representative of China said that her country regretted that the United States had, once 
again, brought this matter before the DSB. China referred to its statements made at previous DSB 
meetings regarding this matter. China had taken all necessary actions and had fully implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this disp ute. China had also further explained that the 
actions being sought by the United States were beyond the scope of China's compliance 
obligations. China hoped that the United States would reconsider the systemic implications of its position. 
4.4.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
5  UKRAINE – DEFINITIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON CERTAIN PASSENGER CARS 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Japan (WT/DS468/5) 
5.1.  The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
26 February 2014 and had agreed to revert to it. He drew attention to the communication from 
Japan contained in document WT/DS468/5, and invited the representative of Japan to make a statement.  
5.2.  The representative of Japan said that his country would not repeat in detail its position and 
claims in this dispute at the present meeting, which had already been explained in its panel 
request and the statement made at the 26 February DSB meeting. He recalled that the panel 
request had first appeared as an item on the Agenda of the DSB meeting on 26 February 2014. 
Following that meeting, Japan once again requested at the present meeting that the DSB establish a panel to examine the matter set forth in the pane l request, with standard terms of reference in 
accordance with Article 7.1 of the DSU. Japan reiterated its position that the door for reaching a 
mutually agreed solution remained open and that it looked forward to receiving a timetable for the 
abolishment of the measures. Japan wished to take this opportunity to express its strong hope that Ukraine's political and economic situation would be stabilized as soon as possible. Japan, as a 
member of the international society, had supported Ukraine in its efforts to promote market 
economy and democracy. In that regard, Japan had announced a package of financial assistance to Ukraine and would continue to support Ukraine's effort. 
5.3.  The representative of Ukraine said that his country regretted that Japan had considered it 
necessary to reiterate its request for the establishm ent of a panel in respect of Ukraine's safeguard 
measures on passenger cars. The relevant authorities in Ukraine had conducted an objective 
investigation which had concluded that the domestic car industry in Ukraine was under threat of 
                                               
4 "China – Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services", WT/DS413/R (adopted on 
31 August 2012), paras. 7.575, 7.678. WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 15 - 
 
  suffering serious injury as a result of the significant increase in imports of cars. In such 
circumstances, the rules of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards expressly allowed Members to 
impose temporary safeguard measures, in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner, as 
Ukraine had done. Ukraine had engaged in constructive and meaningful consultations with Japan in an effort to find an amicable solution that was respectful of Ukraine's rights under the relevant 
WTO Agreements. Ukraine regretted that Japan considered it necessary to seek for the second 
time the establishment of a panel rather than to pursue the search for an amicable solution through consultations. Ukraine expressed its concern about the fact that Japan's request for the 
establishment of a panel differed from its request for consultations. He noted that certain aspects 
that Japan wanted to raise before the panel had not been subject of consultations. Ukraine had also noted with regret that Japan's request for the establishment of a panel failed to provide the required summary of the legal basis of certain aspects of its complaint with sufficient clarity in 
violation of the relevant DSU provisions. At the present meeting, a panel would have to be 
automatically established, as provided for in the DSU. Ukraine considered that its measure was in full compliance with its obligations under the relevant WTO Agreements. In that regard, Ukraine 
would provide its full defence of the safeguards measure before the panel that would be 
established at the present meeting.  
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 the European Union, India, Korea, the Russian Federation and Turkey 
reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
6  UNITED STATES – CERTAIN METHODOLOGIES AND THEIR APPLICATION TO ANTI-
DUMPING PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING CHINA 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by China (WT/DS471/5 and Corr.1) 6.1.  The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
26 February 2014 and had agreed to revert to it. He drew attention to the communication from 
China contained in documents WT/DS471/5 and Corr.1,  and invited the representative of China to 
make a statement. 
6.2.  The representative of China said that, at the 26 February 2014 DSB meeting, China had 
discussed its request for the establishment of a panel, as set forth in document WT/DS471/5 and 
WT/DS471/5/Corr.1. This matter concerned a numbe r of US anti-dumping measures which China 
considered to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the 
GATT 1994. The United States had opposed the esta blishment of a panel at that meeting. Since 
the matter remained unresolved, China requested, for the second time, that the DSB establish a 
panel to examine this matter.   
6.3.  The representative of the United States said  that, as his country had explained both to China 
and to the DSB, the measures identified in China' s request – to the extent they had been properly 
identified – were fully consistent with US obligations under the WTO Agreement. Accordingly, the 
United States regretted that China had chosen for a second time to request the establishment 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 China had no legal basis for its claims. 
6.4.  The representative of Ukraine said that hi s country had made a written request to participate 
in this dispute as a third party but had not received any positive response. Ukraine had a systemic 
interest in this dispute and wished to reiterate its request to participate as a third party.  
6.5.  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. 6.6.  The representatives of Brazil, Canada, the Eu ropean Union, India, Japan, Korea, Norway, the 
Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia and Ukraine reserved their third-party rights to participate in the 
Panel's proceedings. WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 16 - 
 
  7  AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL 
INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO 
TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Indonesia (WT/DS467/15) 7.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the communication from Indonesia contained in document 
WT/DS467/15, and invited the representative of Indonesia to speak. 7.2.  The representative of Indonesia said that his country welcomed Ambassador De Mateo as the 
new Chair of the DSB. Indonesia believed that his experience would bring good leadership for the 
year ahead and assured him of its full support. He recalled that, on 20 September 2013, Indonesia 
had requested consultations with Australia pursuant  to Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXII of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (" GATT 1994"), Article 64.1 of the Agreement on 
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Righ ts ("TRIPS Agreement"), and Article 14.1 of the 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade ("TBT Agreement") with respect to certain Australian 
laws and regulations that imposed restrictions on  trademarks, geographical indications, and other 
plain packaging requirements on tobacco produc ts and packaging. Indonesia had held those 
consultations with Australia on 29 October 2013 with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory 
solution. The consultations had clarified certain issues pertaining to this matter, but had failed to resolve the dispute. This dispute concerned the following Australian measures: (i) the Tobacco 
Plain Packaging Act 2011, Act No. 148 of 2011, "An Act to discourage the use of tobacco products, 
and for related purposes"; (ii) the Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations 2011 (Select Legislative Instrument 2011, No. 263), as amended by the Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Regulation 
2012 (No. 1) (Select Legislative Instrument 2012, No. 29); (iii) The Trade Marks Amendment 
(Tobacco Plain Packaging) Act 2011, Act No. 149 of 2011, "An Act to amend the Trade Marks Act 
1995, and for related purposes"; and (iv) any related measures adopted by Australia, including measures that implemented, complemented or added to these laws and regulations, as well as any 
measures that amended or replaced these laws and regulations. These measures applied to the 
retail sale of cigarettes, cigars, and other toba cco products and established comprehensive and 
restrictive requirements regarding the appearance  and form of the retail packaging of tobacco 
products, as well as the tobacco products themselves. The measures also established penalties, 
including criminal sanctions, for the violation of these requirements. In Indonesia's view, Australia's measures appeared to be inconsistent with Australia's obligations under: (i) Articles 2.1, 3.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 20, 22.2(b) and 24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement; (ii) Articles 2.1 
and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement; and (iii) Article III:4
 of the GATT 1994. Therefore, Indonesia 
respectfully requested that, pursuant to Arti cle 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the 
GATT 1994, Article 64.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, and Article 14.1 of the TBT Agreement, the DSB 
establish a panel to examine the matter, with standa rd terms of reference, as set out in Article 7.1 
of the DSU.  
7.3.  The representative of Australia said that his country welcomed the appointment of 
Ambassador De Mateo as the DSB Chair. Having worked under his guidance in other forums and 
other cities, Australia had every confidence in the benefits that his leadership would provide as Members faced the challenges confronting them over the next year. Australia also wished to record its appreciation for the contribution made by the previous Chair, Ambassador Fried, for his 
dynamic and refreshing approach to his responsibilities.   
7.4.  With regard to the item at hand, the representative of Australia said that Australia's world 
first tobacco plain packaging measure had now been in force for over a year. This measure was 
the next logical step in Australia's long history of tobacco control. As part of Australia's 
comprehensive range of tobacco control measures , Australia believed it was already having a 
positive impact. As Members would be aware from Australia's previous statements to the DSB, 
tobacco plain packaging was a sound, well-considered measure designed and based on a broad 
range of scientific studies and reports to achieve a legitimate objective, the protection of public 
health. Australia's measure was consistent with the fundamental right of all Members under the 
WTO covered agreements to implement measures necessary to achieve this objective. The World 
Health Organization (WHO) had recognized the glob al nature of the tobacco epidemic and Australia 
was proud of its efforts to address this challenge. When Australia had implemented its ground breaking tobacco plain packaging measures, it was the first country to have done so and it did not 
believe that it would be the last. Australia comme nded those Members who were in the process of 
legislating or had signalled their intention to adopt similar measures in the future. Tobacco use WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 17 - 
 
  was the leading global cause of preventable death and was the only legal product that killed up to 
half of those who used it as intended. According to the WHO, tobacco killed nearly six million 
people a year worldwide, meaning someone died roughly every six seconds from tobacco. It was 
estimated that tobacco-related deaths would increase to over eight million per year by 2030 worldwide, an increase which would affect developing countries like Indonesia. Most of tobacco's 
damage to health did not become evident until years or even decades after the onset of use.  
7.5.  Australia noted that the harmful effects of tobacco were also of concern to the Indonesian 
Government. Australia understood that Indonesia was one of the largest tobacco markets in the 
world. The WHO estimated that 67% of male adul ts in Indonesia were current smokers and that 
57% were daily smokers, the second highest male smoking rate in the world. The WHO had noted that 41% of Indonesian males aged between 13 and 15 years smoked. Female smoking rates, 
while much lower than male smoking rates, were also increasing. Global evidence showed that 
88% of adults who became daily smokers first used cigarettes by 18 years of age. In 2012, 
Indonesia's president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono had signed into law tobacco control regulations aimed at protecting the health of individuals, families, communities and the environment from the 
hazards of materials that contained carcinogens and addictive substances in tobacco products. 
Australia recognized Indonesia's efforts to strengthen its tobacco control laws and welcomed recent statements by Indonesia's Minister of Health, Nafsiah Mboi, signalling that Indonesia would 
seek to accede to the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. 
Against that background, Australia was disappoin ted that Indonesia had requested the DSB to 
establish a panel in relation to tobacco plain packaging. However, in the interests of ensuring a harmonized panel process and to avoid contributing to any further delay in the multiple disputes 
relating to Australia's tobacco plain packaging measure, and consistent with Australia's desire to 
ensure the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the WTO dispute settlement system, Australia 
accepted, at the present meeting, Indonesia's re quest for the establishment of a panel in this 
dispute. In the same vein, Australia hoped that the three complaints regarding its tobacco plain 
packaging measure could be managed in the most efficient way possible. Australia noted that panels had already been established in September 2012 and September 2013, with Ukraine and 
Honduras respectively. Regrettably, there had been  no agreement to establish a single panel to 
consider both disputes, as should have been the ca se under Article 9.1 of the DSU. This made it all 
the more important that, to the greatest extent  possible, the same persons were appointed to 
serve as panelists in all of the disputes involving Australia's tobacco plain packaging measure, and 
that the timetable for the panel process in these disputes be harmonized, pursuant to Article 9.3 of 
the DSU. 
7.6.  The representative of Ukraine said that, as  Members were aware, Ukraine had also initiated a 
dispute settlement proceeding over the same pl ain packaging measure imposed by Australia on 
tobacco products that was at issue in Indonesia's panel request. Ukraine thus shared the concerns expressed by Indonesia regarding the lack of consistency of this measure with Australia's WTO 
obligations and welcomed Australia's decision to accept Indonesia's panel request at the present 
meeting.   
7.7.  The representative of Honduras said that his country had followed with interest the dispute 
initiated by Indonesia against Australia's plain packaging measures on certain tobacco products. As 
Members were aware, Honduras was also challenging these measures. He recalled that at the 
September 2013 meeting, the DSB had establishe d a panel to examine Honduras' complaint 
regarding this matter. As it had previously indicated, Honduras supported the adoption of tobacco 
control measures to protect public health, as long as the measures were compatible with WTO 
rules. Australia's measures undermined the main f unction of a trademark, it seriously affected 
geographical indications of tobacco products and was contrary to the TRIPS Agreement. These 
measures were also inconsistent with the provisions of the TBT Agreement since they were more 
trade restrictive than necessary to attain a legitimate objective. Honduras would continue to support the efforts of other Members who also considered that Australia's plain packaging measures were not consistent with WTO rules. 
7.8.  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. 
7.9.  The representatives of Brazil, Canada, China, Cuba, the European Union, Guatemala, 
Honduras, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexi co, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, 
Oman, the Philippines, the Russian Federation , Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 18 - 
 
  the United States and Uruguay reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's 
proceedings. 
8  EUROPEAN UNION – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON BIODIESEL FROM ARGENTINA 
A.  Request for the establishment of  a panel by Argentina (WT/DS473/5) 
8.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the comm unication from Argentina contained in document 
WT/DS473/5, and invited the representative of Argentina to speak. 
8.2.  The representative of Argentina said that biodiesel was an energy commodity made from fats 
or oils of various products of plant or animal origin, in Argentina's case, soya bean. The efficient 
production of biodiesel was dependent on the fulfilment of particular requirements, the most 
relevant of which included access to raw materials (in terms of both quantity and quality) and an 
appropriate scale of production. Biodiesel production in Argentina had both of these characteristics in abundance. As the world's leading exporter of soya bean oil, the supply of this input (the raw 
material used for biodiesel produced in Argentina) was abundant and of good quality. However, 
the high level of vertical integration and the scale of production of the companies producing it also made it possible to supply the markets with a high quality product, at a very good price and under 
efficient conditions. None of this, however, wa s sufficient if market access was hindered by 
measures which appeared to seek solely to reserve the market for local production, which was what Argentina believed was happening in this case. Between 2009 and 2011 Argentina had 
become the leading supplier of biodiesel to th e EU market, with exports amounting to some 
US$1,800 million in 2011. Towards the end of 2012, Argentinian biodiesel had been subject to two 
investigations, one involving alleged subsidies and another concerning alleged dumping. Argentina had participated actively and constructively, through both the Government and the private sector, 
in both proceedings, providing the information requested by the investigating authority, helping 
with verification in each of the investigatio ns and, most notably, providing the European 
Commission with the reasons why both investigations should be concluded without imposing 
measures. Argentina was pleased to note that, in December 2013, in view of the total lack of 
evidence of the existence of alleged subsidies, the subsidies investigation had been closed without imposing measures, and rightfully so.  
8.3.  Regrettably, the investigating authorit y had not done the same in the anti-dumping 
investigation and had found a way, on the basis of the reconstruction of the normal value based on information different from that provided by the ex porters, of imposing a definitive anti-dumping 
measure with duties ranging from 20% to 24%, depending on the company concerned. On 
19 December 2013, Argentina had requested consultations with the EU under Article 4 of the 
DSU.
5 The consultations, which had taken place on 31 January 2014, had been useful, but had not 
led to any solution to this situation. While Argentina was prepared to do its utmost to find an 
appropriate solution to the problem posed by this  measure, there did not appear to be any such 
solution on the horizon for the time being. Argentina considered the anti-dumping measures imposed by the EU to be in breach of various prov isions of Articles 2, 3 and 9 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, as well as Article VI of the GATT 1994. Argentina also believed that certain provisions 
of Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 (the "Basic Regulation") which enabled the investigating authority to make determinations in relation to the reconstruction of the normal value, were themselves inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the obligations assumed by the EU under the 
Marrakesh Agreement. For that reason, pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6.1 of the DSU, Article XXIII 
of the GATT 1994 and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Argentina requested the establishment of a panel with standard terms of reference set forth in Article 7.1 of the DSU. 
8.4.  The representative of the European Un ion said that the EU's impression after the 
consultations was that Argentina was willing to find a mutually acceptable solution to the dispute. 
Therefore, the EU considered Argentina's request for the establishment of a panel premature. In 
any event, the EU was convinced that the measures identified in its panel request fully respected 
its WTO obligations. The EU did not agree to the establishment of a panel at the present meeting. 
8.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter. 
                                               
5 Document WT/DS473/1.  WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 19 - 
 
  9  AUSTRALIA – TOBACCO PLAIN PACKAGING: STATEMENT BY AUSTRALIA 
9.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Australia and invited the representative of Australia to speak. 
9.2.  The representative of Australia said that more than two years had elapsed since WTO dispute 
settlement proceedings had been initiated by Ukra ine with respect to Australia's tobacco plain 
packaging measure. Since that time, another fo ur WTO Members had started proceedings against 
Australia concerning the same measure. A record number of Members had joined the disputes as third parties. Tobacco plain packaging had also be en the subject of extensive debate in the TBT 
Committee and TRIPS Council. With that level of interest, Australia intended at the present 
meeting to update Members about progress in these disputes and to inform Members about certain procedural issues that had arisen. Australia beli eved that these procedural issues had broader 
implications for the proper functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system, which should be a 
shared interest of the WTO Membership as a whole. Between April 2012 and October 2013, 
Australia had participated in separate WTO dispute consultations with each of the five complainants – Ukraine, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Cuba and Indonesia – on the tobacco 
plain packaging measure.
6 As of the present day, three separate Panels had been established by 
the DSB in relation to Australia’s measure: with Ukraine in September 2012, Honduras in September 2013 and at the present meeting, Indone sia. Australia, Ukraine and Honduras had held 
several rounds of discussions, but it had not been  possible to reach agreement. Thus, nearly two 
years on, panel proceedings were yet to commence in any of the complaints brought against tobacco plain packaging. In December 2012, Aust ralia and Ukraine had agreed to suspend panel 
composition discussions to allow Honduras and Dominican Republic, which had each made a first 
request for establishment of a panel, time to catch up by having panels established in those 
disputes. However, following its first request for the establishment of a panel in November 2012, ten months had elapsed before Honduras again requested the establishment of a panel in 
September 2013. Following panel establishment, Honduras had immediately sought to suspend the 
panel composition process. In the meantime, Ukraine had advised Australia it had wanted to resume composition discussions in relation to its complaint. Australia had, therefore, refused 
Honduras' request to suspend panel composition, so as to ensure the two processes would proceed 
together, given that Honduras had declined to have the complaints considered by a single panel under Article 9.1 of the DSU. To maximize efficiency, Australia had suggested joint panel composition discussions with Ukraine and Honduras, a proposal that Honduras eventually had 
agreed to after several round s of separate meetings.  
9.3.  In the most recent developments, in a letter dated 24 March 2014, Ukraine had requested 
that the Director-General compose the panel in its complaint against Australia. Australia would, on 
the present day, request the Director-General to  compose the panel in relation to Honduras' 
complaint against Australia to ensure harmonization of the two disputes, consistent with Article 9.3 of the DSU. Dominican Republic had made its first request for establishment of a panel in 
December 2012. Australia had rejected that request, in line with normal practice. In the nearly 
16 months since that date, Dominican Republic had not made a further panel request. However, on 3 March 2014, Dominican Republic had requested "full participation" in the joint panel composition discussions between Australia, Ukraine and Honduras, but had given no indication 
about when it would seek to have a panel estab lished in its own dispute. Australia had rejected 
that request. Consultations had also been held with Cuba, in June 2013. Cuba was yet to request the establishment of a panel.  
9.4.  The progress of these disputes to date rais ed three issues for Members to consider. The first 
concerned the role of the WTO dispute settlement syst em in providing security and predictability to 
the multilateral trading system. The second related to the resource implications of the way the 
complaints had proceeded to date. The third compri sed some of the procedural questions that had 
arisen. The general provisions in Article 3 of the DSU set out a number of overarching principles underpinning the operation of the dispute settlemen t system. Article 3.2 of the DSU provided that 
the WTO dispute settlement system "is a central elem ent in providing security and predictability to 
the multilateral trading system". Further, Articl e 3.3 of the DSU recognized that the prompt 
settlement of disputes was "essential to the effective functioning of the WTO and the maintenance 
                                               
6 WTO dispute consultations were held with Ukrain e on 12 April 2012, with Honduras on 1 May 2012, 
with the Dominican Republic on 27 September 2012, with Cuba on 13 June 2013 and with Indonesia on 29 October 2013. WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 20 - 
 
  of a proper balance between the rights and obligations of Members". Until the complaints about 
Australia's measure were resolved, there would be  uncertainty about tobacco plain packaging, and 
the application of relevant provisions of the GA TT 1994, the TBT and the TRIPS Agreements to it. 
That uncertainty had a cost for all Members which extended beyond the circumstances of this case.  
9.5.  Since the introduction of tobacco plain packaging in Australia, a number of Members had 
indicated that they were also considering introducing tobacco plain packaging. In response, Honduras, Dominican Republic and Cuba had stated in the TRIPS Council and TBT Committee that 
those other Members should wait until the outcome of the disputes against Australia's measure 
was known. The cost of the continued uncertain ty engendered by these proceedings and the 
failure to proceed to a prompt settlement of the di sputes was a regulatory chilling effect on other 
WTO Members that may wish to take into account the outcome of the disputes against Australia 
before implementing their own tobacco control measures. Australia noted that, when the measure 
at issue was genuinely designed to protect public health (as was the case with tobacco plain packaging measures), then the human cost of delays in implementation could be especially 
serious. Against that background, prompt resolution of these complaints was essential. There were 
also resource implications of prolonging dispute settlement procedures. Participating as a principal party in a dispute was a resource-intensive exercise for any Member, which was exacerbated when 
the progress of a dispute was unpredictable. Members may consider that Australia, as a developed 
country, should be well placed to manage the defence of a complaint lodged by multiple complainants. However, Members may wish to reflect upon the implications should a developing country itself face the sort of situation Australia found itself in at the moment – a scenario that the 
DSU would not prevent. Delays in dispute settlement processes also affected the resources of the 
third parties and the WTO Secretariat. Members were aware of the difficulties the Secretariat was already facing in managing its workload. Though the Secretariat had not raised the issue with 
Australia, its planning for the support of the toba cco plain packaging panels must have been made 
very difficult by the continuing uncertainty as to  the timing and indeed number of those panels. In 
turn, this situation must impact on the Secretariat's capacity to support disputes more generally.  
9.6.  The third area Members may wish to consider concerned certain procedural questions that 
had arisen in the dispute. Members would recall the debate in the September 2013 DSB meeting about the application of Article 6.1 of the DSU to Honduras' panel request. Australia was not seeking to reopen that debate at the present me eting, but clearly substantial delay between panel 
requests undermined the secure and predictable op eration of the system. The fact that Australia 
will, at the present day, request the Director-General to compose the panel in relation to Honduras' dispute, and had agreed to Indonesia's first request for the establishment of a panel, 
demonstrated that Australia's views were not motivated by any interest in delaying the tobacco 
plain packaging proceedings. Indeed, prolonged delay was contrary to Australia's interests in these proceedings, and to the effective functioning of  the WTO dispute settlement system as a whole. 
The second procedural issue related to the request by Dominican Republic to participate in 
discussions among the parties on panel composition. While Australia was seeking to promote coherence in the progress of the disputes, including in panel composition, it would have been extraordinary for it to have accepted that reques t in the absence of a further request by Dominican 
Republic for the establishment of a panel in relation to its own complaint. Had Dominican Republic 
followed normal practice for panel requests, a panel would have been established by now and 
Dominican Republic would have already joined the panel composition discussions in its own right. 
Australia did recognize that there may be circumstances where prolonging formal dispute 
processes might be justified. The first was where the parties were seeking to settle the issue bilaterally, including through a mutually agreed solution. Australia noted that this was a course 
that was appropriately encouraged in the DSU. But it was not the case here. Not one of the parties 
had approached Australia to resolve the dispute through a mutually agreed solution.  
9.7.  Alternatively, where the measure or measures at issue were evolving, a complainant may 
need to delay dispute processes to ensure it was targeting the measure in a way that would be 
effective. Complainants should have that leeway . Again, however, that was not the case here. 
Australia's measure had been foreshadowed by the Australian Government in April 2010, nearly four years ago, and it had been notified to the TBT Committee in April 2011. Moreover, the 
measure had been in full force since December 2012. There were compelling reasons why the DSU 
was drafted to ensure that complainants could pursue dispute settlement in a way that respondents could not block. Australia did not question that general approach. Yet under that 
general approach, complainants also had responsibilities. Thus, Article 3.3 of the DSU provided WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 21 - 
 
  that prompt settlement of disputes was "essential to the effective functioning of the WTO and the 
maintenance of a proper balance between the righ ts and obligations of Members". Article 3.7 of 
the DSU provided that "before bringing a case, a Member shall exercise its judgment as to whether 
action under these procedures would be fruitful".  In Australia's view, this meant that a Member 
should not request consultations or a panel and only afterwards start considering whether it had a 
case that was capable of succeeding. In conclu sion, Australia thanked the Chairman and Members 
for the opportunity to set out the unique circumstances of these disputes. Australia's aim had been to give Members the opportunity to consider some of the systemic questions it had touched on. 
Australia would welcome the opportunity to hear the views of other Members, either at the DSB or 
in some other forum. Australia would also make available, at the end of the present meeting, a chronology table for these disputes, as a further reference for Members. 
9.8.  The representative of Ukraine said that, given that Australia had expressed a clear preference 
to have a single panel for all disputes, Ukraine and Australia had agreed to suspend the panel 
composition process to allow the other Members that had initiated a dispute against Australia to establish their panels and join the process, in accordance with Article 9 of the DSU. In the absence 
of any progress, Ukraine had decided to re-start the panel composition process in August 2013 and 
had since met with Australia to discuss criteria and names of panelists in several rounds of constructive and open discussions. Any delays in the context of this process were therefore due 
only to Ukraine's desire to respond to the system ic issues expressed in Article 9 of the DSU to 
ensure that disputes relating to the same matte r proceeded, to the greatest extent possible, 
before the same panelists and on the basis of a harmonized timetable. Ukraine understood that this was also Australia's wish. Ukraine had always acted in a manner that sought to achieve its 
own objective for a prompt resolution of the dispute, while respecting the systemic objectives. 
Ukraine remained actively committed to proceed with its dispute with Australia. In fact, as of Monday 24 March 2014, and due to the lack of progress between Australia and Ukraine over the 
proposed panelists, Ukraine had requested that the Director-General compose a panel and allow 
the dispute to move into the panel litigation stage.  
9.9.  The representative of New Zealand said that her country thanked Australia for the detailed 
update it had provided and the important ques tions it had raised at the present meeting. 
New Zealand wished to provide the DSB with its views on some of these issues, including with reference to the current status of New Zealand's proposed tobacco plain packaging measures. New Zealand recalled that it had welcomed the Australian Government's decision to legislate for 
the plain packaging of tobacco products. New Zeal and shared Australia's public health objective 
and also had a strong trade and systemic interest in seeing WTO disciplines correctly applied. In 
New Zealand's view, Australia had paid close attention to and had respected its WTO obligations in 
developing and implementing its tobacco plain packaging measures. New Zealand shared 
Australia's concerns about the time it was taking for this matter to progress through the dispute settlement process. In particular, New Zealand was struck by the fact that, for three of those 
disputes, initial panel requests had been made in 2012 but to date, 18 months later, no panel had 
yet been composed. New Zealand, therefore, welcomed the developments reported by Australia at the present meeting. New Zealand agreed that the procedural issues that had been raised by Australia had broader implications for the proper  and effective functioning of the WTO dispute 
settlement system that were relevant for the WTO Membership as a whole. New Zealand noted 
that Article 3.2 of the DSU clarified the role of the WTO dispute settlement system in considering it 
to be "a central element in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system". 
Furthermore, Article 3.3 of the DSU emphasized  that the prompt settlement of disputes "is 
essential to the effective functioning of the WTO and the maintenance of a proper balance between 
the rights and obligations of Members". By high lighting the "effective functioning of the WTO", 
Article 3.3 of the DSU indicated that the prom pt settlement of disputes was an element of 
providing security and predictability to the multil ateral trading system. When interpreting the DSU 
provisions relating to procedures and time-frames, those provisions should be interpreted in accordance with their ordinary meaning in their context and in light of the DSU's object and 
purpose. In New Zealand's view, Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of the DSU provided context when 
interpreting the DSU's procedures and time-frames and expressed one of the key objects or purposes of the DSU.  
9.10.  New Zealand was of the view that delays in establishing a panel may be consistent with the 
DSU's object and purpose in certain circumstances, including: (i) where such delays enabled efforts to reach a mutually agreed solution; (ii) where the measure or measures in question were 
evolving and the complainant needed time to upda te or amend its complaint; or (iii) where the WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 22 - 
 
  delay reflected an intention of a complainant not to prosecute the dispute. New Zealand was not 
aware of any of those situations applying in th ese cases. These disputes were of direct trade 
interest to New Zealand because of its Government's decision to introduce a plain packaging 
regime for tobacco products in New Zealand. Legislation to give effect to that decision had been introduced to the New Zealand Parliament. On 11 February 2014, the Smoke-free Environments 
(Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill had passed its first reading in Parliament and, as a 
consequence, had been referred to a parliamentary select committee for further consideration. It was important to note that New Zealand's tobacco plain packaging Bill was draft legislation. In 
accordance with its domestic legislative process,  and its obligations under the TBT Agreement, the 
New Zealand Government had invited submissions in respect of the legislation, and the deadline for Members to provide any comments or submissions was 18 April 2014. In conclusion, New Zealand referred to the requests from a number of Members made elsewhere in the WTO that 
it should suspend its legislative process and wait for the outcome of the WTO disputes regarding 
Australia's tobacco plain packaging measures. New Zealand noted in that regard that its legislative and regulatory process allowed ample opportunity for New Zealand to take into account 
developments in the dispute settlement processes in relation to Australia's tobacco plain packaging 
measures before finalizing and implementing its own tobacco plain packaging measures. Nevertheless, and in light of Article 3.3 of the DSU, New Zealand felt that it was reasonable to 
expect the complainants in these disputes to progress their complaints as promptly as possible, 
particularly if those complainants were also requesting that New Zealand and other Members delay their consideration or development of tobacco plai n packaging legislation pending resolution of the 
disputes. 
9.11.  The representative of Honduras said that his country noted the statement by Australia 
concerning its understanding of the facts with regard to Australia's tobacco plain packaging 
legislation. Honduras considered this to be a complex case, given that it involved five 
complainants. Honduras also noted that Australia had raised three issues. Honduras did not agree 
with Australia's assessment of the facts. In Honduras' understanding, and contrary to what Australia had put forward, every WTO Member was entitled both legally and politically to present 
its claim under the DSU provisions when it thought it was most timely. The DSU did not specify 
when a Member could or should initiate a dispute, regardless of whether there was one complainant or several. WTO Members were free to decide when to initiate procedural steps. The DSU did not provide a time-frame in this regard. This right included the choice of the most 
appropriate time to submit a request for the establishment of a panel for consideration by the 
DSB. Members could choose not to submit their requests in two consecutive DSB meetings. As Members were aware, at the DSB meeting on 25 September 2013, Members had discussed this 
matter. At that meeting, the DSB had established a panel despite the fact that Honduras had not 
presented its request for the establishment of a panel in two consecutive DSB meetings. Regarding 
the issue of panel composition, Honduras had taken part, in good faith, in the discussions and had 
sought to ensure that the panels' timetables would be harmonized for the benefit of the 
multilateral trading system. Honduras was surprized by Australia's decision to request the Director-General to compose a panel in DS435 because normally the complainant would do so and not a respondent. Honduras regretted Australia's decision and believed that the two parties had 
been engaged in a constructive process to seek consensus on the choice of panelists, without the 
Director-General's intervention, with a view to having the same panelists serve in the separate panels in accordance with Article 9.3 of the DSU.  Honduras thought that it was unfortunate that 
Australia's request had interrupted this fruitful process, which was mutually agreed. 
9.12.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked Australia for updating 
Members on the procedural aspects of the plain packaging cases and the systemic implications 
that arose from the current situation. The EU shared Australia's concerns and called upon the 
relevant Members to proceed in a manner that en sured that the disputes were settled promptly, 
with a view to providing security and predictab ility to the multilateral system. The situation 
necessarily affected all concerned and not least the WTO Secretariat which would not only need to 
find the panelists to adjudicate these disputes, but also to support the panels once they were 
established and composed while ensuring that other disputes also received the necessary support. In the EU's view, applying Article 9 of the DSU in these disputes was necessary in order to ensure 
optimal resource allocation not only for these disputes but ongoing and future disputes more 
generally. 
9.13.  The representative of Uruguay said that hi s country wished to reiterate the importance of 
maintaining and strengthening the efficient functioning of the DSB, which was an important pillar WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 23 - 
 
  in the structure of the multilateral trading system. In that respect, the parties' procedural conduct 
must be in line with the DSU to ensure the prompt and efficient settlement of the disputes. 
Uruguay was a developing country who believed in and defended the multilateral system. It also 
believed that the DSB should provide security and pr edictability for Members. This applied not only 
to the timing of filing complaints, but also to compliance with the DSB recommendations. For that 
reason, Uruguay fully shared the systemic concerns raised at the present meeting regarding the 
disputes in question and urged Members to meet the DSU objectives. With regard to the substance of the disputes in question,  Uruguay reiterated its position regarding the legitimacy of the 
measures on plain packaging for tobacco-based products under WTO rules. Uruguay supported 
Australia's view that delaying other Members from implementing policies to control tobacco consumption until these disputes were resolved may result in high cost for the protection of the public health of their populations. Uruguay noted that the protection of health was within the 
sovereign authority of States and that Members' actions aimed at preventing thousands of deaths 
each day due to tobacco consumption could not be left subject to the uncertainty. 
9.14.  The representative of Norway said that his country welcomed Ambassador De Mateo as the 
new DSB Chair. Norway thanked Australia for putting  this item on the Agenda and for providing a 
useful overview of the status of the cases and th e procedural issues that arose. As repeatedly 
stressed in various fora, public health and tobacco control were topics of particular interest to 
Norway. Like Australia, Uruguay and New Zealand, Norway noted that certain Members had stated 
in the TRIPS Council and the TBT Committee that other Members should wait to introduce plain packaging until the outcome of the disputes agai nst Australia's measure. Norway fully shared 
Australia's concern with regard to the delays in these disputes and referred to the overarching 
principles in Article 3 of the DSU of providing secu rity and predictability to the multilateral trading 
system. 
9.15.  The representative of Cuba said that her country fully supported the statement made by 
Honduras. Cuba noted Australia's statement. However, it believed that the procedural concern in 
these disputes resulted from the difficulties faced by developing countries under the dispute settlement system. In the case of Cuba, as Australia had stated, consultations had taken place on 
14 June 2013, in accordance with the rules established in the DSU, the GATT 1994 and the TRIPS 
Agreement as well as the TBT Agreement. Since then, Cuba had carefully analysed the effects of the plain packaging measures in Australia with regard to the level of the consumption of tobacco on the Australian market. Cuba had also analysed the trade impacts of such measures. On that 
basis, and after 15 months of its analysis, Cuba had much more concrete information on the 
effects of the measures adopted by Australia. As Honduras had rightly stated, there was no time-frame established in the DSU as to when a panel request must be submitted before the DSB. Cuba 
considered that a requirement of this nature would not be consistent with the objective of the 
dispute settlement mechanism, which was to seek a positive solution to disputes. Currently, different actions initiated by Members were still pending. Australia had also mentioned systemic 
concerns relating to the burden imposed on the Secretariat and other Members. Cuba noted that, 
as mentioned by Honduras, a request for the composition of a panel had been made to the Director-General. Cuba further noted that Australia had accepted the establishment of a panel at the present meeting, pursuant to Indonesia's first request. Cuba closely monitored the situation on 
the Australian market and believed that Australia should also assess the effect of its measures.  
9.16.  The representative of Indonesia said that his country thanked Australia for its statement. 
Indonesia noted that initiating a dispute was not a step to be taken lightly. Members recognized 
this and Article 3.7 of the DSU provided that befo re bringing a case, a Member shall exercise its 
judgment as to whether action under the DSU would be fruitful. This was part and parcel of a set of rules that were designed to avoid disputes and to allow Members to find ways to secure a 
positive solution to a dispute without compelling a complainant to proceed to a panel. Members 
would not be forced to proceed to a panel until they believed it was fruitful to do so. Any other position would deny Members the opportunity to avoid dispute settlement proceedings, if possible. 
To that end, the DSU did not impose or prescrib e any other limits for the time-period between a 
request for consultation and a first panel request, or between a first and second panel request. 
When Honduras had made its second request for the establishment of a panel to examine its dispute with Australia over plain packaging in September 2013, the DSB had considered Australia's 
argument regarding the timing for establishing panels. Many Members that had spoken at that 
meeting had emphasized that a complainant was indeed not required to present its first and second panel request at consecutive DSB meetin gs. Moreover, a respondent was by no means 
prejudiced by allowing a complainant time to bring a dispute. Indeed, if a complainant took time to WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 24 - 
 
  seek the establishment of a panel, the respondent was given more time to seek a mutually agreed 
solution and avoid the dispute. Moreover, the respon dent also enjoyed the benefit of extra time to 
prepare its case. The fact that the complainants took time before seeking the establishment of a 
panel did not create prejudice for the respondent in  the panel proceedings should they be brought. 
The respondent would have more time to seek a mu tually agreed solution to avoid the dispute and 
would have additional time to prepare its rebutta l submissions should a case be brought. Any due 
process related concern that the respondent may have could and should be raised with the panel and not by introducing arbitrary deadlines to the DSU that the drafters themselves had not 
established. 
9.17.  The representative of Canada said that his country thanked Australia for putting this item on 
the Agenda of the present meeting and for bringi ng these issues to the attention of the DSB. 
Canada had been at the forefront of the deve lopment of labelling requirements for tobacco 
products. Canada, therefore, followed with interest the ongoing international developments 
regarding the plain packaging of tobacco products, and how such measures interacted with both international trade and public health. As mentioned by Australia and others at the present 
meeting, and as was highlighted in Article 3.2 of the DSU, the WTO dispute settlement played a 
pivotal role in providing security and predictability  to the multilateral trading system. Article 3.3 of 
the DSU further recognized the importance of the prompt settlement of disputes. The protracted 
and differential pursuit of disputes concerning the same issue or similar ones, as seemed to be the 
case in these disputes, was not conducive to security and predictability and it was not an effective use of the resources of either the institution or  the Membership. Among other detrimental effects, 
to have WTO resources allocated to a given dispute (or disputes), and then suspended in 
uncertainty indefinitely, had an impact on the ability to proceed quickly on other unrelated 
disputes and, therefore, on the interests of non-disputing Members. It was incumbent on all 
actors, including the disputing parties, panels and the Appellate Body, to act in a manner that 
promoted the settlement of disputes in a timely and effective manner. As Canada had said on 
other occasions, it was Members' responsibility, when acting as disputing parties, to act in a manner that took into account the systemic and institutional consequences of their actions. This 
would seem to suggest a degree of coordination when it came to disputes related to similar 
measures. 
9.18.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked Australia for the update on these 
important disputes. Although Japan would not be taking any position regarding any factual matters 
of these disputes at the present meeting, it wished  to reiterate the importance of Article 9 of the 
DSU to have consistent panel decisions and effective panel proceedings from a systemic point of view. 
9.19.  The representative of Zimbabwe said that this item of the Agenda had similar elements to 
Agenda item 7 which the DSB had already considered. Zimbabwe had keen interest in both Agenda 
items: 7 and 9. In that regard, Zimbabwe welcomed  Australia's acceptance to establish a panel to 
examine its tobacco packaging measures. Zimbabwe also welcomed Australia's statement 
introducing this Agenda item. Zimbabwe wished to express its concern that the tobacco plain packaging measures by Australia would restrict trade and that they appeared to be inconsistent with the TRIPS and TBT Agreements. According to Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, the technical 
regulations at issue created unnecessary obstacles to trade because they were more trade 
restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective. The measures appeared to be inconsistent with Australia's obligations under Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement because the measures 
prevented owners of registered trademarks from enjoying the rights conferred by a trademark. 
Zimbabwe was of the view that there was no demonstrable scientific evidence that the measures proposed would be effective in influencing the behaviour of consumers or reducing smoking among 
the youth or the rest of the population in general. In fact, Zimbabwe believed that the Australian 
measures would result in illicit trade and would re duce the value of the products and exports.  
9.20.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked Australia and other Members that 
had spoken with regard to the update on the procedural challenges in the "Australia - Plain 
Packaging" disputes. Brazil appreciated the sharing of concrete experiences and of the difficulties 
in the framework of the DSU. As these disput es concerned important issues of trade, the 
protection of human health and intellectual property, it was in the interest of the entire 
Membership to follow closely the procedural aspects and to encourage the parties to cooperate and 
coordinate so as to ensure that the DSU procedures were properly observed, that due process was preserved, and that the efficiency of the dispute settlement was maintained.  WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 25 - 
 
  9.21.  The representative of Hong Kong, China said that his delegation joined the previous 
speakers in thanking Australia for bringing this important issue before the DSB. Without 
commenting on the substance of the disputes concerned, Hong Kong, China shared Australia's 
systemic concern regarding the need for the prompt settlement of disputes. This was of utmost importance for the predictability and security of the multilateral trading system. Hong Kong, China 
also shared the views of Japan and the EU with respect to Article 9 of the DSU.  
9.22.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
10  REPORT ON THE PROGRESS OF THE DIGITAL DS REGISTRY INITIATIVE 
10.1.  The Chairman said that, under this Agenda item, as requested by Argentina, Australia, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Japan, 
Korea, Lesotho (on behalf of the African Group), New Zealand, Norway, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and the United States, he wished to invite the representative of the Secretariat, 
Ms Valerie Hughes, Director of the Legal Affairs Division, to report to Members on the progress of 
the Digital DS Registry initiative. 
10.2.  The Director of the Legal Affairs Division, Ms Valerie Hughes, made the following statement: 
"The Secretariat is pleased to provide a further report to the DSB on the Digital Dispute Settlement 
Registry initiative (which I will refer to as the DDSR), as requested by the delegations referred to 
by the Chair. 
 
This report will cover progress made since our last  report to the DSB in December 2012, including 
discussions that took place at meetings of th e open-ended Working Group on the DDSR and the 
technical work that has been underway for some months now. It will also provide information on 
activity anticipated for the coming months. 
 We have left copies of a room document – a power point presentation – that outlines some of the 
main aspects of this presentation, so that Member s will be able to follow along and visualize some 
of the processes I will be referring to. The Secretar iat's full report will, of course, appear in the 
minutes of this meeting. Should any Member wi sh to have an electronic copy of the room 
document, please do not hesitate to contact me and I will be pleased to provide it.  
 Members will recall that the DDSR project has three elements: (1) the development of a central electronic storage facility  for all WTO dispute settlement records; (2) the design of a research 
facility  to be used by Members and the Secretariat to search for dispute settlement information; 
and (3) the creation of a secure electronic registry  for filing and serving dispute settlement 
documents on line.  
 
1.  Central Electronic Storage Facility  
The DDSR will serve as a secure electronic facility  for the storage of all panel and Appellate Body 
records. In order to have a complete database, we have to upload existing dispute settlement 
material into the new system. When the DDSR becomes operative, new dispute settlement material will be loaded directly into the system. 
 
As I reported previously, WTO dispute settlement re cords dating back to 1995 had been stored in 
cardboard boxes in the basement of this building and then later moved offsite in rented space 
during the renovation project. Unfortunately, the boxes were not well-organized and retrieving old 
records was often time consuming and difficult. As I explained in our last report, past records – some of it hard copy materials and some of it in electronic formats that are no longer readable on 
today's computers – are being inventoried, catalogued and scanned for eventual uploading into the 
DDSR. You will see an illustration of one of the excel sheet inventories on the first page of the 
room document. This will give you an idea of the detailed work involved in cataloguing this material. Each phase of a dispute (for example, pa nel, appeal, compliance, arbitration) requires a 
separate inventory to ensure efficient searching and retrieving of material, as well as to ensure 
protecting dispute settlement material from improper disclosure. Many thousands of pages have been processed so far. 
 WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 26 - 
 
  We will soon begin uploading scanned records into the system and will then run tests to check 
whether they have uploaded properly. Unfortunately, the cataloguing and scanning of old records 
are not yet complete and, given the enormous volu me of documents, it may be some time before 
we have the entire archive uploaded into the system.  
Let me emphasize that scanned material will be retrievable only by those authorized to have 
access to such material. For example, if a Member wished to retrieve a copy of a submission it made in an arbitration proceeding several years ago,  it will be able to do so. However, a Member 
that did not participate in that arbitration will not be able to access that submission. 
 2.  Research Facility  
We have made great progress on the Research Facility in the last several months. Lawyers from 
the Legal Affairs Division, the Appellate Body Secretariat, and the Rules Division were all assigned a number of cases to process. These assignments involved developing what is known as the 
"metadata" for every phase of every dispute, so that  those using the facility will be able to conduct 
sophisticated searches. For example, cases have been assigned thematic keywords (such as burden of proof, national treatment, treatment no less favourable, and appropriate level of 
protection). In addition, the findings of each pa nel and Appellate Body report have been linked 
with each relevant WTO provision. The subject-matter of the disputes (be it products, services, or IP) has also been gathered. An example of this "m etadata-related" work is illustrated in the room 
document. While it is true that some of this information is available on the WTO dispute settlement 
website, it is much less detailed and is not complete for each stage of the proceedings. For 
example, it is currently not possible to conduct a search for all Appellate Body reports dealing with the term "burden of proof", or with a claim under Article 11 of the DSU. Nor is it possible to 
conduct a search on today's website to find out which panelists have dealt with specific provisions 
under specific WTO Agreements. The new research fac ility has been designed to allow this kind of 
searching. You can see a screen shot of what such  a search would look lie in the room document 
that we circulated today. 
 Uploading of that data began this month and should be completed in April. We have recently begun testing the search facility in the three legal divisions to ensure that the data were loaded 
properly.  
 3.  Electronic Registry  
 
As we reported previously, the main hallmarks of the new electronic registry will be: (i) increased security in filing confidential dispute settlement submissions, because it will no longer be done 
through e-mail, which is highly insecure; (ii) paperless service on other parties and third parties; 
(iii) paperless distribution of submissions and exhibits to panel and Appellate Body Members located across the globe; and (iv) a comprehensive calendar of dispute settlement deadlines to assist Members and the Secretariat with workflow management. In other words, each Member will 
be able to see on a calendar when their next submissions are due and when their next hearings 
will take place, which will facilitate organizational meetings when deadlines for new disputes are being agreed. 
 
As Members are aware, the Secretariat has been consulting with a "Working Group" open to all Members to obtain input on the design of the regist ry so that it will align with Members' needs. 
The Working Group has met several times since our last report to the DSB (specifically, in June, 
July, and October of 2013). We plan to hold the next meeting of the Working Group on Thursday, 
3 April 2014, at 14h00 in Room D. All Members are of course invited to attend.   
In the most recent meetings of the Working Grou p, the discussion focused on the implementation 
of additional layers of security for accessing the DDSR, most notably what is referred to as "the second factor of authentication". Members provided valuable input on this as well as on aspects of 
how Members will administer their own DDSR accounts and the accounts of their individual 
employees authorized to access the system. You will  see illustrations of these two aspects in the 
room document. 
 
At the Working Group meeting scheduled for 3 Ap ril, we will be reviewing and demonstrating 
where we stand with these two aspects. In additi o n ,  w e  h o p e  t o  f i n a l i z e  a t  t h a t  m e e t i n g  t h e  
number of security tokens to be provided to each Member, so that Members can access the system WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 27 - 
 
  (be it in Geneva or their capitals) when it goes "live". Some Members have already identified their 
needs regarding the number of tokens; we are still waiting for most Members to provide us with 
this information.  
 We will also discuss the pilot project, which will involve identifying Members who wish to 
participate in a trial of the actual system when it goes "live" for testing purposes. Finally, we hope 
to discuss plans for training in the application for all Members later this year.  
In addition to participating in the Working Group sessions, Members have been encouraged to visit 
the Secretariat and receive a hands-on demonstration or to conduct a "test drive" of the registry function. The illustration in the room document is not quite how this will work! But Members will be able to file a fake submission in a fake case on a prototype of the system and will be walked 
through the steps of that process. So far, Aust ralia, Argentina, Canada, China, the European 
Union, Japan, Korea, Panama, Chinese Taipei, and the United States have done a test drive with the Secretariat. We encourage all interested Members to arrange for such a demonstration. 
 
4.  Anticipated Milestones  
Let me turn finally to a few anticipated milestones for the coming months.  
 Certain changes to the application that were necessary based on Member's comments, Secretariat testing, and identification of bugs, were delivered  at the end of 2013 and in the course of January 
and February. Testing of these new features has been underway and will continue over the coming 
months as new aspects are added, data are uploaded, and bugs are rectified.  
We expect the delivery of the application with th e "second factor of authentication" sometime in 
May. Once we have that, Members should be able to log in to the DDSR from outside the WTO internal environment. A pilot project could begin with a few Members filing actual documents in 
ongoing disputes, although we would still maintain paper and e-mail filing as the official method.  
 Further aspects of the application that address functions performed by the Secretariat will be delivered in the course of May and June. These will be tested in the weeks following.  
 
After a period of testing with real documents and after getting feedback from Members who participate in the pilot project, and after adjustme nts are made in the light of such experience, we 
can begin to plan for a gradual phase-in of the DDSR for all Members in all disputes. As we have 
explained previously, we would run two parallel systems initially – the one that we use now as well as the electronic registry. We have yet to determine for how long we will run both systems before 
switching to the electronic registry as the official  version. We will determine that in consultation 
with Members. We may be in a position to start running the parallel systems as early as during the 4th quarter of 2014. However, this would not occur until after we have offered training sessions for all Members. 
 
We have recently conducted a recruitment proces s for a new DS Registrar. The new DS Registrar 
is expected to take up duties soon, and will play an active role in providing training to Members 
and assisting them with any problems they encounter with e-filing. 
 5.  Concluding Remarks 
 
To sum up, then, I am happy to report that we have made good progress in 2013 and the beginning of 2014 towards the finalization of the application and in archiving of old records. 
Members' input has been invaluable in helping us develop an application that aligns with their 
needs.   
 As mentioned earlier, all Members are invited to attend the Working Group meeting on Thursday, 
3 April 2014 at 14h00 in Room D. We also stand ready to respond to Members' questions at any 
time.   
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not salute the members of the Secretariat who have 
worked especially hard on this project, including Marisa Goldstein, Xiaolu Zhu, Patricia Crawley, Elisabeth Upton, Ravi Soopramanien, Ric Romea, and Oliver Murillo."   WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 28 - 
 
  10.3.  The DSB took note of the report, and the Chairman invited delegations to make statements, 
if they so wished.  
10.4.  The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked the Chair for 
requesting this report and the Secretariat for providing it, particularly as it had been over a year 
since the Secretariat's last report in the DSB on this important initiative. The Secretariat's report 
was informative, and the United States hoped th at other Members found it useful as well. The 
United States had joined several other delegations in requesting that this information be brought to the DSB, similar to the reports provided by th e Secretariat during the DSB meetings in June and 
December 2012. The United States considered that it was important that the Secretariat's report 
was presented to all Members for transparency and inclusiveness, and to allow all Members to participate, including those that may have not been able to attend the informal working group meetings, for example, due to other commitments. The United States looked forward to future 
opportunities to discuss this issue, and as future test pilots of the new system moved forward, the 
United States looked forward to examining and testing that system, in light of US interests and values in dispute settlement. The United States representative said his country would also like to 
briefly comment on something that had been mentioned by the Secretariat at the present 
meeting; namely, the implication that this system might become mandatory for all Members in all disputes after some period in which Members could choose between this system for filing and the 
current one. The United States saw this issue di fferently and thought that it was of systemic 
importance. The United States did not see how the system could be mandatory in all disputes without agreement of all WTO Members. Pragmatically, the United States did not see how it would be desirable to try to compel a WTO Member to us e a filing system that it had considered did not 
preserve its interests in some way. The United States expected that the development of the 
system would fully take on board the interests and concerns of the Members and that they would be fully consulted with during its development. The United States looked forward to further 
discussion of this issue with Members in th e informal working group and in the DSB. 
10.5.  The DSB took note of the statement. 
11  AB SELECTION PROCESS UPDATE  
11.1.  The Chairman said that, as he had indicated in his initial remarks with respect to his 
election, one of the most urgent and pressing issues before the DSB was to fill the vacancy in the 
Appellate Body, which had been left by David Unterh alter at the conclusion of his second term in 
December 2013. He recalled that, at the February 2014 DSB meeting, Ambassador Fried had 
drawn attention to a fax from the Selection Committee informing delegations that the Committee 
had been unable to recommend a candidate for the vacant position in the Appellate Body and that it had recommended that the DSB commence as soon  as practicable a new selection process, to be 
carried out by the Director-General and the 2014 Chairpersons. He also recalled that at that 
meeting, delegations had made statements regarding this matter. Various views had been expressed and he had been apprised of all of th em. As he had mentioned previously, he had been 
briefed by Ambassador Fried regarding this issue. He was fully aware of where matters stood and 
he was mindful of the importance of this matter for the DSB and for the WTO as a whole. Despite the considerable efforts of the Selection Committee, this matter remained outstanding and Members must find a way forward together. He said that having been Chair of the DSB for just a 
couple of hours, Members may agree that it would be important for him to take the time needed to 
consult on this matter so that he could obtain Members views in finding the best way forward. He would be reaching out to Members regarding this matter and his door was open should any 
delegation wish to contact him directly. He was aware of the fact that this issue needed to be 
resolved as quickly as possible in order to enable  the Appellate Body to function smoothly and in 
particular in light of the expected increase in the workload of the Appellate Body for 2014. It was 
his intention to propose the way forward as soon as at the next regular DSB meeting scheduled for 
25 April 2014 or, if necessary, a special DSB meeting might be convened for that purpose.  
11.2.  The representative of Kenya said that his country congratulated the Chairman on his 
election. Kenya attached great importance to the DSB as a pillar and icon of confidence that gave 
credence and respect to the multilateral system. Having a seasoned diplomat and skilful negotiator 
as the DSB Chair, Kenya was convinced that Am bassador De Mateo's appointment as Chair was 
obviously not by accident but was due to his hard work and rich experience of many years of 
matters of international trade. Given his positive record and high qualities, Kenya had unreserved 
confidence in his leadership and ability to take the DSB to the next level of its operation. With WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 29 - 
 
  regard to the update on the Appellate Body selection process, Kenya thanked the Chair for his 
report and hoped that together Members would constructively continue building on the progress 
achieved until the issue was fairly concluded. Kenya would continue to engage constructively and 
fairly and would also give unreserved support to the process. 
11.3.  The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia said that Mr. Hamid Mamdouh, 
nominated by Egypt, was a candidate with demonstrated expertise in law, international trade and 
the WTO Agreements in general including the DSU. Saudi Arabia saw him as a solution to the deadlocked position in the unwritten geographical  distribution rules and the composition of the 
standing Appellate Body. Saudi Arabia believed in his credibility as an independent Appellate Body 
member. With regard to voting, Saudi Arabia no ted that Article IX of the WTO provided that 
"except otherwise provided … the matter at issue sh all be decided by voting". With regard to this 
issue, Article 2.4 of the DSU clearly stated th at "where the rules and procedures of this 
Understanding provide for the DSB to take a decision , it shall do so by consensus". In this regard, 
Saudi Arabia believed that this matter could only be resolved by consensus.  
11.4.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
12  STATEMENT BY PANAMA REGARDING THE MEASURES TAKEN BY VENEZUELA VIS-À-
VIS PANAMA 
12.1.  The representative of Panama, speaking under "Other Business", said that his country 
supported the statement made by Honduras on behalf of GRULAC to congratulate the new 
Chairman of the DSB on his appointment. Panama also thanked the outgoing Chairman of the DSB. Under "Other Business", Panama wished to express its concern regarding Venezuela's decision to break off economic and trade relations with Panama, and the fact that this decision was 
being implemented by means of restrictive and discriminatory measures against Panama's trade in 
goods and services. Panama had learnt from various sources, including Panamanian and Venezuelan traders and citizens, that Venezuela's authorities had suspended authorizations from 
the Foreign Currency Administration Commission (C ADIVI) for purchasing foreign currency to use 
for trips to Panama, and authorizations for sending family remittances to Panama. As a result, Venezuelan citizens could not purchase dollars to  use during visits to Panama and dollar payment 
operations with credit cards were blocked in Pana ma. Venezuelans residing or studying in Panama 
did not have access to money from Venezuela, a ll of which affected trade in Panamanian goods 
and services. Panama had also learnt, from Venezuelan importers who had received official communications, that Venezuela had suspended the purchasing of foreign currency for imports of 
merchandise from Panama. This constituted a restriction on trade in goods. None of these 
measures, or the grounds therefore under the Agreements, had been notified to Panama or to the WTO. Panama continued to examine the appropriate follow-up that should be given to this 
situation in all the relevant WTO forums, with a view to invoking its rights under the multilateral 
trade agreements. This could include the initiation of dispute settlement proceedings, should Panama not be able to obtain the necessary clarification or resolve the situation in a 
mutually agreed manner. Panama would keep Me mbers informed of any developments in this 
regard.  
12.2.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that his country noted the 
statement by Panama and wished to reiterate what it had stated at the General Council meeting 
on this matter. In Venezuela's view, such political matters should not be discussed under "Other 
Business". Furthermore, Venezuela did not think that the situation between Venezuela and Panama should be raised in the DSB. Venezuela believed that given the actions taken by Panama against 
Venezuela, his country had acted in line with the international rules and regulations. 
12.3.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that his country shared the view 
expressed by Venezuela that political issues should not be discussed in the DSB.  
12.4.  The representative of Cuba said that her country supported the statements made by 
Venezuela and Bolivia. Cuba did not think that it was appropriate to include this matter on the 
Agenda of the DSB. Article 4 of the DSU stipulated that a Member shall enter into consultations in good faith and that consultations provided Memb ers with the possibility to exchange views on 
trade concerns in order to find an amicable solution. Cuba believed that consultations should be 
held first before the matter could be brought for consideration by the DSB. Cuba, therefore, urged 
the parties to consult on possible options in order to address this matter. WT/DSB/M/343 
 
- 30 - 
 
  12.5.  The representative of Nicaragua said that his country wished to reiterate what it had already 
stated at the General Council meeting. Nicaragu a fully supported the statements made by Cuba 
and Venezuela. Nicaragua had some concerns as to whether the DSB was the appropriate forum to 
deal with such matters. 
12.6.  The representative of Ecuador said that his country shared the systemic concerns raised by 
previous speakers. Ecuador wished to highlight tw o elements. First, Article 2.1 of the DSU stated 
that the DSB was established to administer the DSU rules and procedures. Article 1.1 of the DSU stated that these rules and procedures would be applied to disputes brought pursuant to the 
consultation and dispute settlement provisions of the agreements listed in Appendix 1 of the DSU. 
The DSB was a specialized WTO Body with specif ic mandate and the DSU's scope of application 
was clearly defined. Second, in accordance with Ar ticle 3.7 of the DSU, before submitting a claim, 
a Member shall exercise its judgment as to whether action under these procedures would be 
fruitful. The objective of the dispute settlement system was to secure a positive solution to a 
dispute and Article 3.7 of the DSU provided that a mutually agreed solution between the parties 
was the preferred option. As explained in the "Mexic o - Corn Syrup" dispute, Article 3.7 of the DSU 
reflected the need for Members to resort, in good faith, to discussions to resolve the dispute before 
making recourse to the DSU provisions. As stated in the dispute: "US - FSC", the principle of good 
faith was a general principle of law and a general principle of international law.  
12.7.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
__________