RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/389  
 
23 January 2017  
(17-0385) Page: 1/17 
Dispute Settlement Body  
23 November 2016    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN  THE CENTRE WILLIAM R APPARD  
ON 23  NOVEMBER 2016  
Chairman: Mr. Xavier  Carim  (South Africa ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda , the Chairman  informed delegations  that consultations  
regarding  the first item o n the Agenda of the pres ent meeting concern ing the A ppellate Body 
appointments were ongoing . Therefore,  he proposed that t he item regarding the Appellate Body  
appointments be considered as the last item on the  Agenda  (WT/DSB/W/584 ). 
Table of Contents  
1   SURVEILLANCE OF IMPL EMENTATION OF RECOMM ENDATIONS ADOPTED BY  
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United  States  ................................ ................................ ..............  2 
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by 
the United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  3 
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the  European  Union ................................ ................................ ....... 3 
2   IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS OF  THE DS B ................................ ..... 4 
A.  India – Certain measures relating to solar cells and solar modules  ................................ ....... 4 
B.  European  Union - Anti-dumping measures on biodi esel from Argentina  ................................ . 4 
3   UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT  
OF 2000: IMPLEMENTATION  OF THE RECOMMENDATIO NS ADOPTED BY THE DS B ...........  5 
A.  Statements by the European  Union and Japan  ................................ ................................ ... 5 
4   CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFF ECTING ELECTRONIC PA YMENT SERVICES  .............  6 
A.  Statement by the United  States  ................................ ................................ .......................  6 
5   UNITED STATES – COUNTERVAILING MEASU RES ON CERTAIN HOT -ROLLED 
CARBON STEEL FLAT PR ODUCTS FROM INDIA  ................................ ................................ . 6 
A.  Statement by India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  6 
6   INDIA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF C ERTAIN 
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT S ................................ ................................ ..............................  7 
A.  Statement by the United  States  ................................ ................................ .......................  7 
7   UNITED  STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING T HE CROSS -BORDER SUPPLY OF 
GAMBLING AND BETTING  SERVICES  ................................ ................................ ................  7 
A.  Statement by Antigua and Barbuda  ................................ ................................ ..................  7 WT/DSB/M/389  
 
- 2 - 
 
  8   CHINA – DUTIES AND OTHER MEA SURES CONCERNING THE  EXPORTATION 
OF CERTAIN RAW MATER IALS  ................................ ................................ ........................  10 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the European  Union ................................ ......... 10 
9   EUROPEAN  UNION – COST ADJUSTMENT METH ODOLOGIES AND CERTAI N 
ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS FROM RU SSIA (SECOND COMPLAI NT) ...........  11 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the  Russian Federation  ................................ ....11 
10   RUSSIA – MEASURES AFFE CTING THE IMPORTATIO N OF RAILWAY 
EQUIPMENT AND PARTS THEREOF  ................................ ................................ .................  11 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Ukraine  ................................ ......................... 11 
11   PROPOSED NOMINATION FOR THE INDICATIVE L IST OF GOVERNMENTAL 
AND NON -GOVERNMENTAL PANELIS TS ................................ ................................ ..........  12 
12   DISPUTE SETTLEMENT W ORKLOAD  ................................ ................................ .........  12 
A.  Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ ............................ 12 
13   APPELLATE BODY APPOI NTMENTS  ................................ ................................ ..........  13 
 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPL EMENTATION OF RECOMM ENDATIONS ADOPTED BY  THE DSB  
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United  States (WT/DS184/15/Add.166)  
 
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United  States  
(WT/DS160/24/Add.141)  
 
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the  European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.104)  
 
 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were three sub -items under this Agenda item concerning 
status reports submitted  by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU. He recalled that 
Article  21.6 required that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six mo nths 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved". Under this Agenda item, the Chairman invited delegations to 
provide up to date information about compliance efforts  and to focus on new developments, 
suggestions and ideas on progress towards the resolution of disputes. He also reminded 
delegations that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings: 
"Representatives should make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting 
on any issue that has already been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have 
been no change in Members' positions already on record". He then turned to the first status report 
under t his Agenda item.  
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS184/15/Add.166)  
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.166, which contained the 
status rep ort by the United  States  on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel 
products from Japan.  
1.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that his country had provi ded a status report in 
this dispute on 10  November  2016, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. The United  States  
had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of 
anti-dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect 
to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the WT/DSB/M/389  
 
- 3 - 
 
  US Administration would work with the US  Congress with respect to appropriate statutory 
measures that would resolve this matte r. 
1.4.  The representative of the Japan  said his country thanked the United  States  for its statement 
and status report submitted on 10  November  2016. Japan referred to its previous statements that 
this issue should be resolved as soon as possible.  
1.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  (WT/DS160/24/Add.141)  
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24 /Add.141, which contained the 
status report by the United  States  on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning Section  110(5) of the US Copyright Act.  
1.7.  The representative of the United  States  said his country had prov ided a status report in this 
dispute on 10  November  2016, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. The US  Administration 
would continue to confer with the EU, and to work closely with the US  Congress, in order to reach 
a mutually satisfactory resolution  of this matter.  
1.8.  The representative of the European  Union  said his delegation thanked the United  States  for 
the status report and its statement at the present meeting. The EU referred to its previous 
statements and said it would like to resolve this case a s soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the  European  Union (WT/D S291/37/Add.104)  
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.104, which contained the 
status report by the European  Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of 
biotech products.  
1.11.   The representative of the European  Union  said that there had been no new developments 
since the last DSB meeting held on 26  October  2016. The EU said it continued to be committed to 
act in line with its WTO obligations. But m ore generally, and 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.  
1.12.   The representative of the United  States  thanked the EU for its status report and its 
statement at  the present meeting. As the United  States  had noted at past DSB meetings, 
EU measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products remained of substantial 
concern to the United  States . The EU measures were characterized by lengthy, unpredictab le, and 
unexplained delays in approvals. The United  States  noted that the EU's scientific review process 
seemed to have slowed in recent years. For instance, many corn and soy products had now been 
under consideration by the EU's scientific authority for s everal years. Further, the United  States  
was concerned that products that had received positive scientific evaluations continued to languish 
without approval by the relevant EU bodies. The delays in approvals caused adverse effects on 
trade, particularly w ith respect to soybeans and corn. The United  States  encouraged the EU to 
ensure that products in the biotech approval pipeline move forward in a timely manner, as 
required by EU regulations and WTO rules.  
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  WT/DSB/M/389  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS OF  THE DSB  
A.  India – Certain measures relating to solar cells and solar modules  
 
B.  European  Union – Anti-dumping measures on biodiesel from Argentina  
 
2.1.  The Chairman  recalled that, in accordance with the DSU provisions, the DSB was required to 
keep under surveillance the implementation of recommendations and rulings of the DSB in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members. In this re spect, Article  21.3 of 
the DSU provided that the Member concerned had to inform the DSB, within 30  days after the date 
of adoption of the panel or Appellate Body report, of its intentions in respect of implementation of 
the recommendations and rulings of t he DSB. The Chairman proposed that the two sub -items be 
considered separately.  
A.  India – Certain measures relating to solar cells and solar modules  
2.2.  The Chairman  recalled that at its meeting on 14  October  2016, the DSB had adopted the 
Appellate Body Repor t and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, pertaining 
to the dispute on: "India – Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules". As 
Members were aware, the 30 -day time -period in this dispute had expired on 13  November  2016, 
and prior to this date, on 10  November  2016, India had informed the DSB in writing of its 
intentions with respect to implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The 
relevant communication was contained in document WT/DS456/14. He the n invited the 
representative of India to speak.  
2.3.  The representative of India said that, on 14  October  2016, the DSB had adopted the Reports 
of the Appellate Body and of the Panel in the dispute: "India – Certain Measures Relating to Solar 
Cells and Solar Mo dules" (DS456). In this dispute, the 30 -day time -period stipulated in Article  21.3 
of the DSU had expired prior to the present meeting. In those circumstances, the United  States  
had agreed with India that it was appropriate for India to inform the DSB of I ndia's intentions by 
letter, rather than to call for a special DSB meeting in order to do so. Accordingly, on 
10 November  2016, India had informed the DSB by letter that it intended to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a manner that r espected its WTO obligations. As India 
had noted in its letter, it would need a reasonable period of time in which to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. In accordance with Article  21.3(b) of the DSU, India would seek an 
agreement with the United States  on the period of time for implementation. India looked forward 
to working with the United  States  on reaching a mutually acceptable reasonable period of time for 
implementation.  
2.4.  The representative of the United  States  thanked India for its letter  dated 8  November  2016, 
and its statement at the present meeting, indicating that it intended to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute. The United  States  noted India's comments regarding 
the need for a reasonable period of time an d stood ready to discuss with India, under 
Article  21.3(b) of the DSU, a reasonable period of time for implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  
2.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements, and of the information provided by India regarding its 
intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations.  
B.  European  Union - Anti-dumping measures on biodiesel from Argentina  
2.6.  The Chairman  recalled that, at its meeting on 26  October 2016, the DSB had adopted the 
Appellate Body Report and the Pa nel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, pertaining 
to the dispute on: "European  Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina" 
(DS473). The Chairman invited the representative of the EU to inform the DSB of its intentions in 
respe ct of implementation of the DSB's recommendations.  
2.7.  The representative of the European  Union  said his delegation wished to inform the DSB that 
it intended to implement the recommendations and rulings in this dispute, in a manner that 
respected its WTO oblig ations. As it was impracticable to comply immediately, the EU would need WT/DSB/M/389  
 
- 5 - 
 
  a reasonable period of time in which to do so. The EU was ready to discuss this matter with 
Argentina, in due course, in accordance with Article  21.3(b) of the DSU.  
2.8.  The representative  of Argentina  said his country thanked the EU for its intention to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. As it had stated previously, Argentina had 
hoped that the EU would immediately take all actions necessary for implementation in accordance 
with the WTO rulings in this dispute. Since the procedures to enable the EU to implement the 
recommendations and rulings were not too complex, the reasonable period of time for 
implementation should be rather short. Argentina hoped that the EU would propose  a short 
reasonable period of time for implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this 
dispute. In this regard, Argentina was ready to meet with the EU in an effort to agree on a 
reasonable period of time for implementation.  
2.9.  The DSB took no te of the statements, and of the information provided by the European  Union 
regarding its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations.  
3  UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT  OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMEN DATIONS ADOPTED BY T HE DSB 
A.  Statements by the European  Union and Japan  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European  Union and Japan, and he invited the respective representatives to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of the European  Union  said his delegation requested, once again, that 
the United  States  stop transferring anti -dumping and countervailing duties to the US industry. 
Every disbursement that still took place was clearly an act of non -complianc e with 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. The EU would 
continue to place this matter on the Agenda as long  as the United  States  had not implemented the 
WTO ruling.  
3.3.  The representative of the Japan  said his country wished to refer to its previous statements 
made under this Agenda item.  
3.4.  The representative of Canada  said his country wished to refer to its previous  statements 
made under this Agenda item. Canada thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this item on the 
Agenda of the DSB and agreed with them that the Byrd Amendment remained subject to the 
surveillance of the DSB until the United  States  ceased to administe r it. 
3.5.  The representative of Brazil  said her country, once again, thanked the EU and Japan for 
keeping this item on the Agenda of the DSB. As an original party to the Byrd Amendment dispute, 
Brazil referred to its previous statements on this matter, specifi cally with regard to the 
continuation of illegal disbursements, which should be ceased immediately. Brazil also renewed its 
call on the United  States  to fully comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute. Until then the United  States  was under the obligation to submit status reports.  
3.6.  The representative of China  said her country wished to refer to its previous statement made 
under this Agenda item. China thanked the EU and Japan for placing this item on the Agenda of 
the present meeting and urged the United  States  to come into full compliance with the DSB's 
rulings and recommendations on this matter as soon as possible.  
3.7.  The representative of the United  States  said that, as the United  States  had noted at previous 
DSB meetings, the Deficit Reduction Act – which included a provision repealing the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 – had been enacted into law in February  2006. 
Accordingly, the United  States  had taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations an d rulings in these disputes. The United  States  recalled, furthermore, that the 
EU, Japan, and other Members had acknowledged that the Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the 
distribution of duties collected on goods entered after 1  October  2007, nearly ni ne years ago. 
The United  States  therefore 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 WT/DSB/M/389  
 
- 6 - 
 
  further status reports in this matter, as it had already ex plained at previous DSB meetings, the 
United  States  failed to see what purpose would be served by further submission of status reports 
which would repeat, again, that the United  States  had taken all actions necessary to implement 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes. Indeed, as these very WTO Members 
had demonstrated, repeatedly, when they had been a responding party in a dispute, there was no 
obligation under the DSU to provide further status reports once a Member announced that it had 
implemented those DSB recommendations and rulings, regardless of whether the complaining 
party disagreed about compliance.  
3.8.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
4  CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFF ECTING ELECTRONIC PA YMENT SERVICES  
A.  Statement by the United  States  
4.1.  The Chairman  said this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United  States  and he invited the representative of the United  States  to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of the United  States  said that the DSB had adopted its recommendat ions 
and rulings in this dispute more than four years ago, and the reasonable period of time had 
expired more than three years ago. To the present day, however, China's domestic supplier and 
national champion – a business set up by the People's Bank of Chi na and other Chinese 
Government -related entities – remained the only entity authorized to provide electronic payment 
services (EPS) in China. China had issued a regulation a few months ago that appeared to set out 
a licensing application process for EPS su ppliers to enter the domestic market. However, to date 
no foreign EPS supplier was permitted to operate in the domestic Chinese market. 
The United  States  urged China to ensure that approvals for foreign EPS suppliers to operate in 
China occurred without de lay, in accordance with China's WTO obligations.  
4.3.  The representative of China  said her country regretted that the United  States  had, once 
again, brought this matter before the DSB. China referred to its statements made at previous 
meetings and emphasized th at it had taken all necessary actions and had fully implemented the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. China said it would also like to reiterate that 
the regulation referred to by the United  States  was not relevant to the implementation of  the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. Nor was the DSB meeting an appropriate 
forum to discuss China's domestic regulatory action, which was irrelevant to this specific dispute.  
4.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
5  UNITED STATES – COUNTERV AILING MEASURES ON C ERTAIN HOT -ROLLED CARBON 
STEEL FLAT PRODUCTS FROM INDIA  
A.  Statement by India  
5.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
India and he invited the representative of India to speak.  
5.2.  The re presentative of India said his country was raising the issue of non -compliance, and 
failure to submit a status report, by the United  States  in this dispute, in accordance with 
Article  21.6 of the DSU. India reiterated the statements it had made on this iss ue in earlier DSB 
meetings. The United  States , inter alia, was bound to remove the inconsistency in its statute to 
ensure that USITC could not cumulate the effects of subsidized imports with the effects of 
dumped, non -subsidized imports. India thus urged the United  States  to fully comply with the 
DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute and, until then, file status reports.  
5.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that, as the United  States  had explained at prior 
DSB meeting s, the United  States  had completed implemen tation with respect to the DSB  
recommendations in this dispute. The United  States  referred to its past statements in this regard. 
As had been stated previously, the United  States  remained willing to discuss with India any 
questions i t may have. India, however, had not contacted the United  States  to do so. Accordingly, WT/DSB/M/389  
 
- 7 - 
 
  the United  States  failed to understand what purpose was served by India's decision to place this 
item on the Agenda of the present meeting.  
5.4.  The DSB took note  of the stat ements.  
6  INDIA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF C ERTAIN AGRICULTURAL 
PRODUCTS  
A.  Statement by the United  States  
6.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United  States  and he invited the represe ntative of the United  States  to speak.  
6.2.  The representative of the United  States  referred Members to the statements made by 
the United  States  at previous DSB meetings in which the United  States  had expressed concerns 
with India's actions. However, the United  States  also noted that India required a sanitary import 
permit before any poultry products could enter India. India had stated that it had stopped 
accepting paper applications for these permits in favour of online applications. However, the online 
portal India directed applicants to was non -functional, meaning no importer could even attempt to 
obtain approval to enter poultry products. Despite this situation, the United  States  remained open 
to reaching a constructive solution with India that was consistent  with the DSB's 
recommendations. The United  States  said it would rather work constructively with India to resolve 
this dispute than make further use of the WTO dispute settlement system. However, until its 
concerns were resolved, the United  States  would co ntinue to preserve and enforce US rights under 
the DSU.  
6.3.  The representative of India said that, in this dispute, the measure that had been found to be 
inconsistent by the DSB was no longer in force. It had been superseded and revised measures, 
consisting of  S.O.2337 (E) and S.O.2998 (E) as well as the guidelines and questionnaire, were in 
force. In view of the above, India considered that it had brought itself into conformity with its WTO 
obligations. In view of the fact that India had brought itself into co nformity with its WTO 
obligations, India urged the United  States  to also terminate the Article  22.6 proceedings in this 
dispute. India noted the US statement on working on this issue and looked forward to do so.  
6.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
7  UNITED  STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING T HE CROSS -BORDER SUPPLY OF GAM BLING 
AND BETTING SERVICES  
A.  Statement by Antigua and Barbuda  
7.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Antigua  and Barbuda and he invited the rep resentative of Antigua and Barbuda to speak.  
7.2.  The representative of Antigua and Barbuda  said her delegation very much regretted that, 
once again, it had to appear before the DSB regarding the dispute on: "Measures Affecting the 
Cross -Border Supply of Gambli ng and Betting Services" (DS285). It had been 12 long years since 
an Arbitration Panel had issued a decision that found the United  States  to be in violation of its 
international obligations under the GATS. This decision had been upheld by the Panel and the  
Appellate Body. Over that entire 12 -year period, Antigua, with a GDP of just $1 billion had been 
deprived of trade revenues which now exceeded $250 million. For Antigua's tiny economy, 
$250 million was a meaningful sum of money. Its loss had significantly  retarded Antigua's 
economic growth and social development. By the same token, $250 million represented the paltry 
sum of point nought, nought, nought, three per cent (0003%) of only one year of the US GDP. 
Further, over the past 12 years, the United  State s had enjoyed a balance of trade surplus with 
Antigua of over $1  billion. Over all this time Antigua had patiently engaged , in good faith , 
consultations with the United  States  in the genuine hope that the harm done to its economy by US  
action would be repa ired through a settlement that recognized justice and fairness. Alas, 
the United  States  had not been able to propose terms for a settlement that would even remotely 
compensate for the harm that had been done to Antigua's economy, and continued to impact it  WT/DSB/M/389  
 
- 8 - 
 
  negatively. And while the United  States  continued to act in contradiction of the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations, it remained the most active user of the WTO dispute settlement system.  
7.3.  The US continued non -compliance in this matter should concern every Member of this 
Organization. Each Member – and all Members – were equally responsible for upholding and 
safeguarding the WTO's institutional integrity. Consequently, the protracted failure by 
the United  Sates to settle this matter, despite the fact that it  was not compliant with WTO rules, 
had the potential to undermine confidence in the efficacy and credibility of the rules -based 
multilateral trading system. Antigua, one of the smallest economies in the world, was yet to reap 
any benefit from having prevai led against the United  States  through the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations. Antigua had almost exhausted its patient efforts to reach a settlement with 
the United  States . This was regrettable since, from its side, Antigua had always conducted its 
relation s with the United  States  at a high level of regard and cooperation.  
7.4.  Antigua wished to inform the DSB that it was now engaged in a final effort with 
representatives of the US Trade Representative's Office to reach an agreed settlement. Antigua 
hoped that a sense of right would prevail. But, it could not go beyond the end of 2016. Its 
economic growth and social development had been materially, and adversely, affected by the loss 
of substantial trade revenues. In light of the above, Antigua informed the DSB th at, if an 
appropriate and beneficial settlement was not reached with the United  States  by year -end, the 
Government would be compelled to take action to enforce the suspension of copyright on the sale 
of US intellectual property, consistent with the award o f the Arbitrator. Antigua was obliged to 
uphold the authority of the WTO. It also had a duty of care to its people who had suffered as a 
result of non -compliance by the United  States  with the DSB rulings.  
7.5.  The representative of the United  States  said that, as the United  States  had noted at past 
meetings where Antigua and Barbuda placed this item on the Agenda, the United  States  remained 
committed to resolving this matter. That said , the United  States  was disappointed that Antigua 
characterized the United  States as acting in bad faith when the United  States  had taken a 
constructive approach to resolving this matter in a way that would bring benefits to Antigua's 
economy and its citizens. It was notable that the United  States  had worked for months with 
Antigua on a settlement package in 2008 and thought that the parties had reached agreement, 
only to have Antigua subsequently repudiate it. The United  States  had also offered Antigua a broad 
range of useful suggestions to settle this dispute in November  2013, only  to have Antigua ignore 
the US offer for a long period of time before finally indicating that it was not acceptable.  
7.6.  It was clear that the United  States  had tried repeatedly to resolve this dispute with Antigua, 
and considered its suggestions to the contra ry to be not based on any facts. The United  States  also 
had put forth, pursuant to Article  XXI of the GATS, a generous package of services concessions as 
compensation for removing internet gambling from the US schedule. Antigua was the only Member 
to block  the United  States  from completing this process. The United  States  also recalled that the 
regulation of cross -border gambling was a matter of public morality. Indeed, the Appellate Body 
had confirmed that the US measures at issue were "necessary to protect  public morals" under 
Article  XIV of the GATS. The only reason for the finding against US gambling measures had 
involved a narrow, technical issue under the chapeau of Article  XIV of the GATS. Regarding 
settlement, the United  States  had had numerous discus sions with Antigua's new government in 
the past several months, and looked forward to future engagement. The United  States  was 
reviewing this most recent communication, which it had only recently received, and would continue 
to work expeditiously toward fi nding a realistic settlement. The United  States  also noted the 
explanation of how Antigua planned on applying a suspension of intellectual property rights. 
The United  States  would review Antigua's stated plans carefully. The United  States  expected 
further engagement with Antigua to ensure that any suspension was implemented in a transparent 
way and consistent with the DSB's authorization. The United  States  noted, however, that 
implementing suspension of intellectual property rights was counter to Antigua's own interests and 
to the interests of other WTO Members. The United  States  would urge that Antigua reconsider 
before taking this extraordinary, unprecedented step.  WT/DSB/M/389  
 
- 9 - 
 
  7.7.  The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said his country fully supported 
the statement made by Antigua  and Barbuda. Venezuela highlighted the importance to fully and 
promptly comply with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB. As it had mentioned in its 
previous statements, the ongoing non -compliance undermined Members' con fidence in the system. 
It also undermined the credibility of the WTO and the DSB in their ability to resolve disputes. 
Venezuela urged the United  States  to take the necessary measures to end this situation of 
non-compliance, and requested that at the next DSB meeting, the United  States  inform Members 
about the measures that it intended to take to do so.  
7.8.  The representative of Argentina  said his country shared the systemic concerns with regard to 
non-compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations by on e Member. Argentina hoped 
that WTO Members would comply with their obligations undertaken in the framework of the 
multilateral trading system.  
7.9.  The representative of Jamaica  said her country supported the statement made by Antigua 
and Barbuda under this Age nda item and took note of updates provided by the United  States  on 
the matter. Jamaica emphasized that this was a matter of particular concern to it, as a member 
state of the Caribbean Community. Jamaica was one of those Members which had consistently 
called for a timely conclusion to this protracted dispute, especially in the light of the clear ruling in 
favour of Antigua, within the context of the DSB. Jamaica was, therefore, hopeful that renewed 
efforts by both countries in 2015 to resolve the matter wou ld have borne fruit, and that the 
removal of this item from the DSB's Agenda would have been permanent. Sadly, Jamaica was, 
once again, forced to reiterate its call for all WTO Members to fully comply with their obligations; 
including those arising from the DSB's rulings. For small vulnerable economies in particular, it was 
important that the integrity of the dispute settlement mechanism be preserved as a vital element 
within a rules based system regulating international trade. Jamaica therefore took note o f the 
commitment of Antigua to continue bilateral consultations with the United  States  to resolve the 
matter by the end of  2016, and urged both governments to renew their efforts to implement the 
decision of the DSB by year end, in line with the appeal mad e by Antigua. Jamaica underscored 
the fact that resolution of this matter was critical to safeguarding the legitimacy of the multilateral 
trading system.  
7.10.   The representative of Dominica , speaking on behalf of the member States of the 
Organisation of Eastern  Caribbean States (OECS), wished to express support for their fellow OECS 
member Antigua and Barbuda. It was about two years since this matter had been on the Agenda 
of the DSB. The last time this matter had been on the Agenda was 29  August  2014. Between 2 012 
and 2014 Antigua had placed this matter on the Agenda approximately 12  times, making, or 
having statements made on its behalf, to highlight the ongoing lack of implementation by 
the United  States  of the rulings and recommendations of the Panel, Appella te Body and the DSB. 
Since  2014 the OECS member States had been aware that Antigua had been engaged in 
discussions with the United  States . The OECS member States had been hopeful that progress was 
being made towards a final resolution of this long outstand ing matter. They therefore shared in the 
regret and deep disappointment of Antigua that this matter had to be placed on the Agenda once 
again. It was disappointing to hear from Antigua, once again in this body, that the matter 
remained unresolved. The coun tries in question had previously made statements on this matter 
and wished to reiterate these statements. In those statements, they had emphasized that a well -
functioning rules -based multilateral trading system that was fair and equitable had to address th e 
needs, concerns and interests of all its Members, in particular the smallest, weakest and most 
vulnerable. This was critical for the long term credibility and relevance of this Organization. A key 
element of the rules -based multilateral trading system wa s the dispute settlement mechanism. The 
DSU had to also function well. The rulings of the Panel and the Appellate Body in favour of Antigua 
had been seen as a clear demonstration that a tiny Member could win a case against a major 
Member in the hope of rec tifying the situation that had led to the dispute. The inability, thus far, 
for those rulings to have been translated into implementation and/or for Antigua to have obtained 
a fair settlement of the case was however a persistent stain against the system. T he countries in 
question, therefore, fully understood the frustration of Antigua. They hoped that the currently 
ongoing engagement with the United  States  would bring this matter to a final resolution. The 
OECS member States, once again, therefore called fo r a speedy resolution to this long -standing 
dispute in line with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB, and more importantly, in line 
with the fundamental principles, objectives and goals of the WTO and its Agreements.  WT/DSB/M/389  
 
- 10 - 
 
  7.11.   The representative of Cuba said that, like previous speakers, Cuba wished to support and 
thank Antigua and Barbuda for the update regarding this dispute. This was a clear case of non -
compliance , which affected one of the smallest economies in the world, and demonstrated the 
importance of  maintaining the balance and stability of the dispute settlement system. Once again, 
Cuba urged the United  States  to continue its consultations with Antigua in an effort to comply with 
the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute as soon as possib le. 
7.12.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
8  CHINA – DUTIES AND OTHER MEA SURES CONCERNING THE  EXPORTATION OF 
CERTAIN RAW MATERIAL S 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the European  Union (WT/DS509/6)  
8.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered  this matter at its meeting on 
8 November  2016 and had agreed to revert to it. He then drew attention to the communication 
from the EU contained in document WT/DS509/6, and he invited the representative of the EU to 
speak.  
8.2.  The representative of the Europea n Union  said that at the previous DSB meeting, the EU had 
requested, for the first time, the establishment of a panel to examine certain measures imposed 
by China on the exportation of certain raw materials. At the present meeting, the EU was 
requesting th e establishment of th e panel for a second time. In accordance with Article  6.1 of the 
DSU, th e panel would have to be established at the present meeting. The EU referred to its 
statement made at the previous DSB meeting, which explained the reasons for whi ch it was 
requesting the establishment of this panel. The EU noted that, at the DSB meeting, China had 
stated that, on 31  October  2016, it had published its Total Export Quotas of Industrial Products 
and Agricultural Products in 2017. The significance of C hina's statement was not clear. If it meant 
that China would remove the export quotas for the raw materials that were the subject matter of 
this dispute, as of 1  January  2017, then the EU welcomed this positive development. If, by this 
statement, China ind icated that it intended to remove entirely and definitely all restrictions on the 
exportation of the raw materials that were the subject matter of the EU's request, both export 
duties and export quotas, the EU indicated its continued willingness to work wi th China towards a 
mutually satisfactory solution, even during the dispute settlement proceedings before the panel 
which would be established at the present meeting.  
8.3.  The representative of China  said her country wished to express its disappointment with the  
EU's decision to request the establishment of a panel to examine this dispute. First, as stated at 
the 8  November  2016 DSB meeting,  after the EU had filed the request for consultations and its 
supplementary request for consultations, China had held consul tations in good faith and had tried 
to find appropriate solutions to resolve this dispute with the EU. Second, China had reiterated its 
steadfast stance on respecting the WTO  rules and to abide by its WTO accession commitments. 
There was increasing pressur e on the protection of exhaustible natural resources and the 
environment. Given this, China's policies concerning the products at issue were an integral part of 
the comprehensive measures taken to promote the scientific management of natural resource 
produ cts and strengthen ecological environmental protection, with the purpose of achieving 
sustainable development. Third, on 31  October  2016, China had published its Total Export Quotas 
of Industrial Products and Agricultural Products of 2017. Regrettably, the  EU had not carefully 
reviewed the new measures and had decided to bring this dispute before the panel. China stood 
ready to safeguard its rights under DSU and the covered agreements.  
8.4.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States  shared the concerns of 
the European Union that China's export duties, export quotas, and restrictions on the rights of 
enterprises seeking to export were inconsistent with WTO rules. In fact, the United  States  had also 
brought a dispute regarding those export restraints, in the DS508 dispute. A panel had been 
established in that dispute at the 8 November  2016 DSB meeting. As the United  States  had noted 
at that meeting, it would have been more efficient for China and the DSB if China had accepted 
establishment o f a single panel at that time. The United  States  noted that the EU's complaint 
related to the same matter as was being examined by the Panel that had been established at the 
request of the United  States  in the DS508 dispute. The United  States  therefore con sidered that the 
provisions of Article  9.3 of the DSU applied, so that both the US and EU complaints could move WT/DSB/M/389  
 
- 11 - 
 
  forward together. For many years, the United  States , as well as other WTO Members, had actively 
engaged China regarding its widespread use of ex port restraints on raw materials. Since the 
"China – Rare Earths" and " China – Raw Materials" disputes, the United  States  had continued to 
raise its concerns. However, despite its repeated efforts to engage with China on those concerns, 
the United  States  had seen no movement by China to eliminate these export restraints. Regarding 
the 31  October  2016 measure referenced by China, it was not clear that this measure had fully 
addressed the concerns reflected in the United  States ' panel request. If China had ad ditional 
information that it would like to provide, the United  States  would appreciate the opportunity to 
review that information.  
8.5.  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.  
8.6.  The representatives of Brazil , Canada , Chile, Colombia , India, Indonesia , Japan , Kazakhstan , 
Korea , Mexico , Norway , Oman , the Russian  Federation , Singapore , Chinese  Taipei , 
the United  States  and Viet Nam reserved their th ird-party rights to participate in the Panel's 
proceedings.  
9  EUROPEAN  UNION – COST ADJUSTMENT METH ODOLOGIES AND CERTAI N 
ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS FROM RUSSIA (SECOND COMPLAINT)  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the  Russian Federation (W T/DS494/4)  
9.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the Russian  Federation contained in 
document WT/DS494/4, and he invited the representative of the Russian  Federation to speak.  
9.2.  The representative of the Russian  Federation  said that her count ry had certain concerns 
regarding the EU's cost adjustment methodologies and certain anti -dumping measures on imports 
from Russia. Russia was disappointed that the EU maintained such measures despite Members' 
concerns formally raised in several disputes: i n DS473 with Argentina and DS480 with Indonesia. 
Russia had held two rounds of consultations with the EU: first in June 2015 and second in May 
2016 with respect to Council Regulation (EC) No.  1225/2009 of 30  November  2009 on the 
protection against dumped i mports from countries that were not members of the EC, in particular 
Articles  2.3 and 2.5 thereof, the cost adjustment methodology used by the EU authorities in 
anti-dumping procedures, as well as anti -dumping measures imposed on imports of ammonium 
nitrat e and certain welded tubes and pipes of iron or non -alloy steel originating in the 
Russian  Federation (DS494). The consultations, unfortunately, had not resolved the dispute. 
Accordingly, Russia was requesting the DSB to establish a panel to examine this d ispute.  
9.3.  The representative of the European  Union  said his delegation regretted that the 
Russian  Federation had decided to request the establishment of a panel. After Russia had filed its 
request for consultations, and its supplementary request for consulta tions, both parties had held 
constructive consultations in which the EU had provided extensive explanations. The EU regretted 
that in its panel request  Russia had raised issues, such as for example, Article  2(3) of the Basic EU 
Anti-dumping Regulation, whi ch had never been raised in consultations. The EU believed that its 
Basic Anti -Dumping Regulation, and the measures adopted on the basis of this Regulation, were 
WTO-consistent. The EU, therefore, did not agree to the establishment of a panel at the presen t 
meeting.  
9.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter.  
10  RUSSIA – MEASURES AFFECTING T HE IMPORTATION OF RA ILWAY EQUIPMENT AND 
PARTS THEREOF  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Ukraine (WT/DS499/2)  
10.1.   The Chairman  drew at tention to the communication from Ukraine contained in document 
WT/DS499/2, and he invited the representative of Ukraine to speak.  
10.2.   The representative of Ukraine  said that since 2014, the validity of conformity assessment 
certificates for railway products i ssued to his country's producers of railway rolling stock, railroad WT/DSB/M/389  
 
- 12 - 
 
  switches, other railroad equipment and parts thereof had systematically been suspended by the 
authorities of the Russian  Federation without any reasonable explanation to Ukrainian producer s or 
to the Ukrainian authorities. Furthermore, the applications filed by some Ukrainian producers to 
obtain new conformity assessment certificates had systematically been rejected or returned 
without consideration. In addition, conformity assessment certi ficates that had been issued by the 
certification bodies in other countries of the Eurasian Economic Union (the Republic of Belarus and 
the Republic of Kazakhstan), under the same technical regulations, had not been recognized by 
the authorities of Russia.  As a consequence, products of certain Ukrainian producers could neither 
be imported nor registered for operation in the territory of Russia. As a result, certain railway 
products of Ukrainian origin had been effectively banned from the Russian market.  The effects of 
the measures were clearly demonstrated by the statistics: while exports of such products from 
Ukraine to Russia had reached US$1.7 billion in  2013, it had decreased to US$600 million in 2014, 
US$110 million in 2015, and had amounted to only US$ 560,000 in the eight month period 
(January – August) in 2016. With a view to finding a mutually agreed solution, on 21  October  2015 
Ukraine had requested consultations with Russia. These consultations were held on 
4 December  2015 but, unfortunately, had fa iled to settle the dispute. On 10  November  2016 
Ukraine had submitted its request for the establishment of a panel to examine this matter, with 
standard terms of reference. As described in more detail in Ukraine's panel request, the measures 
taken by Russi a appeared to be inconsistent  with several provisions of the  GATT 1994 and the TBT 
Agreement.  
10.3.   The representative of the Russian  Federation  said that her country wished to express its 
strong disappointment with Ukraine's decision to request the establishmen t of a panel to examine 
this dispute. Ukraine had filed the request for consultations and supplementary request for 
consultations with Russia on 21  October  2015. Russia had had fruitful consultations with Ukraine 
on 4 December  2015 and had positively respo nded to the relevant questions. Notably, Russia had 
affirmed its continuing respect for the WTO rules and its accession commitments. Russia regretted 
Ukraine's decision to bring this dispute before the panel. At the present meeting, Russia was not in 
a pos ition to accept the establishment of a panel. Russia stood ready to defend its rights under the 
DSU and the covered agreements.  
10.4.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter.  
11  PROPOSED NOMINATION FOR THE INDICATI VE LIST OF GOVERNME NTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELIS TS (WT/DSB/W/583)  
11.1.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/583, which contained one additional 
name, proposed by Mexico, for inclusion on the Indicative List of Governmental and 
Non-Governmental Panelists, in accord ance with Article  8.4 of the DSU. He proposed that the DSB 
approve the name contained in document WT/DSB/W/583.  
11.2.   The DSB so agreed . 
12  DISPUTE SETTLEMENT W ORKLOAD  
A.  Statement by the Chairman  
12.1.   The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business", said that he wished to provide the DSB 
with information about the Appellate Body's workload, the number of disputes before panels, and 
at the panel composition stage, and the ability of the Secretariat to meet expected demand over 
the coming period. On appeals, the Appellate Body was currently dealing with three appeals1, 
including the extremely complex compliance proceedings in "EC and Certain Member States – 
Large Civil Aircraft" (Airbus). In addition, five panel reports that were expected to be circulated in 
the next three months could also be appealed after their circulation.2 Given the limited number of 
staff available in the Appellate Body Secretariat, there would soon likely to be a waiting period 
before appeals could be staffed and Appellate Body members could turn to d ealing with them. With 
regard to panels and arbitrations, he said that there were, currently, 19 active panels (including 
                                                
1 DS316 "EC and Certain Member States – Large Civil Aircraft" ( Article  21.5 – US); DS471 
"US - Anti-Dumping Methodo logies" (China); and DS475 "Russia – Pigs".  
2 DS442 "EU – Fatty Alcohols" (Indonesia); DS477/DS478 "Indonesia – Import Licensing Regimes"; 
DS479  "Russia – Commercial Vehicles"; DS482 "Canada – Welded Pipe"; and DS487 "US – Tax Incentives".  WT/DSB/M/389  
 
- 13 - 
 
  five panels under Article  21.5 of the DSU) that had not yet issued a final report to the parties. He 
noted that multiple disputes that  were being considered simultaneously by the same panel were 
being counted as one. As of the present meeting, all composed panels had been assigned staff to 
assist them and were active or in the process of commencing proceedings. There were an 
additional f ive panels at the composition stage. This did not count panels for which there had been 
no composition activity in the last 12  months. In addition, two matters had been referred to 
arbitration under Article  22.6 of the DSU.  
12.2.   The DSB took note  of the stateme nt. 
Note: 
The meeting was suspended on the Agenda item regarding the Appellate Body appointments  to 
allow time for  further consultations . Subsequently,  the meeting  was reconvened in  the afternoon  
at 3 pm to take up th is matter . 
13  APPELLATE BODY APPOI NTMENTS  
13.1.   The Chairman  said that, as had been announced in the fax sent out to all delegations on 
3 November  2016, he intend to propose under this Agenda item that the DSB take a decision to 
appoint two new Appellate Body members. However, he would first like to bri efly review the two 
separate processes that had led the DSB to this point. With regard to the first selection process, 
delegations would recall that a Selection Committee had been established by the DSB at its 
meeting on 25  January  2016 and had been reques ted to carry out a selection process on the 
appointment of a new Appellate Body member to replace Ms.  Yuejiao Zhang whose second term of 
office had expired on 31  May 2016. The Selection Committee had also been requested to make its 
recommendation on a repl acement before 12  May 2016, in time for the meeting of the DSB 
scheduled for 23  May 2016. In carrying out this request, the Selection Committee had conducted 
interviews with seven nominated candidates on 7 and 8  April 2016 with a view to identifying those 
individuals who possessed the qualifications and expertise as required by the DSU for Appellate 
Body members. As part of the selection process, the Committee had met individually with 
50 delegations to hear their views on the candidates. The Committee had also received, in writing, 
the views of 23  delegations. Throughout the process, the Committee had based its work on the 
guidelines, rules and procedures contained in the DSU, WT/DSB/1 and WT/DSB/70 governing the 
selection and appointment of Appellate Body members. He recalled that on 12  May 2016, the 
Selection Committee had informed delegations, in writing, that it was not in a position to 
recommend a candidate that it believed would enjoy the consensus of the entire Membership. 
Thus, the Selection Committe e had requested more time to consult further on this matter. At the 
time of sending the fax on 3  November  2016, the Selection Committee had been placed in a 
position where it could make a recommendation on the vacancy left by Ms. Zhang's departure.  
13.2.   With re gard to the second selection process, he recalled that, at its meeting on 
21 July 2016, the DSB had agreed to launch a new selection process to fill the vacancy left by the 
non-reappointment of one Appellate Body member. Pursuant to the 21  July DSB decisio n, 
Members had been invited to nominate candidates to fill that vacancy by the deadline of 
14 September  2016. Furthermore, the DSB had agreed that should any of the candidates 
nominated for the 2016 process initiated by the DSB at its meeting on 25  January  2016 wish to 
participate in the second selection process, the Member who had nominated the candidate had to 
inform the Selection Committee of the candidate's intention by the agreed deadline and those 
candidates would not need to be interviewed by the Sel ection Committee for the second time. 
Pursuant to the 21  July DSB decision, the 2016 Selection Committee had been requested to carry 
out its work in the month of October in order to make a recommendation to the DSB as soon as 
possible so that the DSB could  take a decision to appoint a new Appellate Body member at the 
latest by its regular meeting in November  2016. By the agreed deadline seven candidates had 
been presented to be considered in the second selection process. Five candidates from the 
previous se lection process had been re -nominated by the respective Members and two new 
candidates had been submitted. Pursuant to the 21  July DSB decision, only two new candidates 
had been interviewed by the Selection Committee. Subsequently, as part of the selection  process, 
the Selection Committee had met individually with 57  delegations to hear the views on the seven 
candidates. The Committee had also received, in writing, the views of 30 delegations. Throughout 
the process, the Committee had again based its work o n the guidelines, rules and procedures 
contained in the DSU and WT/DSB/1 governing the selection and appointment of Appellate Body WT/DSB/M/389  
 
- 14 - 
 
  members. Once again, at the time of sending the fax on 3  November, the Selection Committee 
had been in a position to make a r ecommendation on the second vacancy left by the non -
reappointment of Mr. Chang. The Selection Committee's task with regard to the two processes had 
been a difficult one given the high quality of the candidates. Each of them had demonstrated 
experience, exp ertise, the relevant skills and a commitment to the WTO's dispute settlement 
system. On behalf of the Selection Committee, the Chairman commended the DSB to extend its 
full appreciation and gratitude to all the candidates for having participated in the two  processes, 
and to their respective Governments for nominating them.  He extended his personal thanks to the 
members of the Selection Committee for their cooperation, hard work and thoughtful consideration 
throughout the process, and for their willingness t o devote their time to this process.  
13.3.   Finally, the Chairman  propose d to turn to the matter at hand. He said that a s had been 
communicated by fax to all delegations on 3  November  2016, the Selection Committee had 
recommended that Ms. Zhao Hong and Mr. Hyun C hong Kim be appointed as new members of the 
Appellate Body for a four -year term, respectively, starting on 1  December  2016.  
13.4.   The DSB took note  of the statement and so agreed . 
13.5.   The Chairman  said that, before giving the floor to delegations who would wish to m ake 
statements, on behalf of the Selection Committee and the entire WTO Membership, he would like 
to congratulate Ms. Zhao Hong and Mr.  Hyun Chong Kim on their appointments. He also thanked 
the members of the Selection Committee for their hard work.  The th en invited delegations to make 
statements if they so wished.  
13.6.   The representative of Korea  thanked the Chairman and the Selection Committee for the 
hard work that enabled the DSB to make this decision at the present meeting. Korea wished to 
express its deep appreciation to the WTO Members who had actively engaged in the selection 
process. All Members recognized that  the Appellate Body played a very important role in the WTO 
dispute settlement system, which provided security, stability and predictability to th e multilateral 
trading system. However, the workload of the Appellate Body had increased to a substantial 
degree due to a rising number and growin g complexity of recent disputes. This had become a 
challenge to the proper functioning of the dispute settleme nt mechanism. It was for that reason 
that Korea had chosen  to approach the  selection process with a sense of responsibility, after the 
non-reappointment of the former Appellate Body  member, Mr. Seung Wha Chang. In the same 
vein, Korea recognized the import ance of nominating a candidate of distinguished quality and 
experience to ensure that the vacancy would be filled with the most qualified person. Korea 
believed that its candidate, Mr. Hyun Chong Kim was such a qualified person and appreciated that 
a large number of Members shared Korea's  view. Now that Mr. Kim had become a new Appellate 
Body member, Korea was confident that his expertise, experience, collegiality and balanced 
perspective would be the foundation for him to make a substantial contribution to  the Appellate 
Body, especially in dealing with recent challenges faced by  the Appellate Body under a rapidly 
changing global trading environment. Korea was also confident that Mr. Kim would do his best to 
meet Members' expectations and live up to the fait h that had been bestowed on him , in 
accordance with the DSU and other related provisions under the WTO Agreement. Korea also 
welcomed the appointment of Ms. Zhao Hong as a member of the Appellate Body. Korea  believed 
that Ms. Zhao had demonstrated sufficie nt expertise and experience in international trade law 
through the selection process and that she would make significant contributions to the work of the 
Appellate Body. Korea also noted that it had taken almost six months to fill the first vacancy, 
creati ng unnecessary disruption to the continued proper functioning of the Appellate Body. With a 
sense of responsibility and urgency, Members should have been able to agree on a new Appellate 
Body member before the term of previous member had expired on 31  May 2016, pursuant  to the 
rules and procedures to appoint Appellate Body  members. Korea hoped that a similar situation 
would not be repeated in the future. Finally, Korea said it would like to  thank  two former Appellate 
Body members, Ms. Yuejiao Zhang and Mr. Seung Wha Chang for their excellent service in the 
Appellate Body . Korea believed that both of them had made invaluable contributions to the work of 
the Appellate Body and to the enhancement of the multilateral trading system. Korea wished them 
all the bes t in their future endeavours.  
13.7.   The representative of China  said that , like Korea, her country warmly congratulated 
Ms. Zhao Hong and Mr. Hyun Chong Kim on their appointments as new Appellate Body  members. 
China thanked the Chairman and the Selection Committ ee for their  hard work . China also thanked 
the Secretariat for the good assistance they had rendered. China said that it highly appreciated the WT/DSB/M/389  
 
- 15 - 
 
  trust and support that all Members had given to its candidate. It was Members' collective and 
fruitful endeavour  that had made the appointments possible at the present meeting. China was 
confident that time would show that the DSB had made the right decision. China believed that 
Ms. Zhao Hong would faithfully discharge her duty as an AB member in an independent, imp artial 
and professional manner and would serve the Appellate Body with distinction. As always, China 
would respect and ensure the independence and impartiality of the Appellate Body, which was the 
cornerstone of the rules -based multilateral trading system.  
13.8.   The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States  would like to thank the 
Chairman and the other members of the Selection Committee for their hard work and 
recommendation which had aided the DSB in taking its decision at the present meet ing. 
The United  States  congratulated Ms . Zhao and Mr. Kim for their appointments to the Appellate 
Body. Given their previous extensive experience with the work of the WTO dispute settlement 
system, the United  States  was certain that they would make a major  contribution to the work of 
the Appellate Body. The United  States  was a frequent participant in Appellate Body proceedings, 
and very much look ed forward to working with Ms . Zhao and Mr. Kim in their new capacity. It was 
critical that the Appellate Body fu lfilled the important role assigned to it by Members in the DSU. 
That role was to review the legal interpretations and issues of law in a panel report as appealed by 
a party. The panel and appellate reports together assisted the DSB in securing a positive solution 
to the dispute by finding whether a measure at issue was inconsistent with WTO rules and, if so, 
then making the recommendation to bring a WTO -inconsistent measure into compliance with WTO 
rules. The United  States  trusted that these new Appellate Body member s would assist in ensuring 
that the Appellate Body fulfilled its important responsibilities under the DSU. The United  States  
also thanked all WTO Members that had put forward candidates for the Appellate Body. The 
nominations of a diverse and we ll-qualified set of individuals showed the willingness of those 
Members, and their candidates, to contribute to building the strength of the WTO dispute 
settlement system. The United  States  appreciated those efforts and was pleased to have had the 
opportun ity to converse with each of the candidates.  
13.9.   The representative of Canada  said his country thanked the Selection Committee for the 
work that they had undertaken over the past few months. Canada congratulated the new, 
incoming Appellate Body  members and hop ed that they would provide fruitful contributions to the 
work of the Appellate Body.  
13.10.   The representative of Mexico  said that his country would like to take this opportunity to  
thank the two outgoing Appellate Body  members, Ms . Zhang and Mr. Seung Wha Chang for their 
work in the Appellate Body. Mexico thanked the Chairman and the other members of the Selection 
Committee for their hard work. Finally , Mexico thanked all Members who had put forward 
well-qualified candidates in the selection process. Mexico congr atulated and welcomed the new 
incoming Appellate Body  members , Ms. Zhao Hong and Mr.  Hyun Chong Kim.  
13.11.   The representative of Australia  said his country would like to express its appreciation for 
the dedicated work of the Selection Committee over the past eig ht months to finalize its 
recommendations for appointments to the Appellate Body. In particular, Australia thanked the 
Chairman for his sustained efforts to conclude this process. Australia was pleased that the 
Selection Committee had been able to put forw ard its recommendations to the DSB and joined 
other Members in confirming the appointment of Ms . Zhao Hong and Mr. Hyun Chong Kim, by 
consensus. Australia welcomed the Appellate Body regaining its full complement of seven 
members. This was essential to ena ble the Appellate Body to fully perform its functions, and so 
discharge its important role in the efficient and effective settlement of disputes. Naturally, 
Australia was disappointed that its nominee, Mr. Daniel Moulis, was, on this occasion, not 
successf ul. Australia said it would nevertheless like to thank Mr. Moulis, and the other 
highly -qualified candidates nominated who had, also, not been successful, for putting themselves 
forward to serve on the Appellate Body.  
13.12.   The representative of Brazil  said his country wished to congratulate Ms . Zhao Hong and 
Mr. Hyun Chong Kim on their appointments to the Appellate Body. Both of them  demonstrated 
knowledge of the m ultilateral trade rules and  extensive experience in this field. Their wisdom and 
prudence would hel p the Appellate Body to perform its functions. Brazil thanked the Chairman and 
the other members of the Selection Committee for conducting this  selection  process. Brazil noted 
that the selection processes which were being completed at the present meeting w ith 
appointments of two excellent candidates by consensus, raised some important systemic concerns WT/DSB/M/389  
 
- 16 - 
 
  about the appointment and reappointment mechanisms. With regard to the issue of 
reappointment, currently discussed in the DSB's Dedicated Session, Brazil bel ieved that the right 
not to reappoint, if exercised, should be done with caution in a way that ensured the impartiality 
and independence of the Appellate Body. With respect to the appointment process, Members 
should reflect on whether the current rules all owed for the level of transparency and assessment of 
objective criteria in a way that reinforced the credibility and legitimacy of a process. Brazil 
welcomed Ms . Zhao Hong and Mr. Hyun Chong Kim as new Appellate Body  members and hoped for 
productive years ahead in this institution that continued to be one of the pillars of the WTO and of 
the multilateral trading system.  
13.13.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  said his country congratulated the 
Chairman for leading this difficult process, and in re aching the final conclusion that satisfied all 
Members. Saudi  Arabia thanked all seven candidates who had shown a high  level of qualification 
and a sense of high responsibility to fill these two vacancies. Saudi Arabia congratulated Ms . Zhao 
Hong and Mr. H yun Chong Kim for achieving the trust of the Membership and was confident that 
this result was impartial, professional and was conducted to the benefit of the system.  
13.14.   The representative of Argentina  said his country wished to join the previous speakers who  
had thanked the Selection Committee for its work and welcomed the new members of the 
Appellate Body.  
13.15.   The representative of India said that, first, his delegation would like to join other Members 
in thanking the Chairman and the Selection Committee for com pleting the process and 
recommending Ms . Zhao Hong and Mr. Hyun Chong Kim as new Appellate Body  members. It had 
been a long, drawn out process but ultimately the DSB had arrived at a decision at the present 
meeting. All the candidates for the positions had  been of exceptional calibre and experience. India 
had had an opportunity to interact with many of them. India congratulated Ms . Zhao Hong and 
Mr. Hyun Chong Kim on their appointments and looked forward to working with the Membership in 
strengthening the A ppellate Body and making the Appellate Body function in an independent and 
impartial manner.  
13.16.   The representative of Singapore  said his country thanked the Selection Committee, and 
the Secretariat assisting the Committee, for their efforts and hard work in t he selection process for 
the appointment of two Appellate Body members. Singapore had participated actively in the 
selection process and had met with all the candidates. Singapore appreciated the Selection 
Committee's difficult task, given the high calibre  of the nine candidates from Australia,  China, 
Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Nepal, Chinese Taipei and Turkey. Singapore thanked the Members who 
had presented candidates, and thanked the candidates for going through the selection process. 
Singapore congratulated  Ms. Zhao Hung and Mr. Hyun Chong Kim on their appointment s to the 
Appellate Body. Given their previous experience in the work at the WTO, Singapore was confident 
that they would make valuable contributions to the Appellate Body and the WTO dispute 
settlem ent system. Singapore wished them every success in their new positions.  
13.17.   The representative of Montenegro  said her country wished to congratulate the Chairman 
and the Selection Committee for their hard work and constructive engagement with delegations 
and a ll the candidates throughout this process. Montenegro wished the new Appellate Body  
members, Ms . Zhao Hong and Mr. Hyun Chong Kim, a successful and productive work ahead. 
Montenegro wished to express appreciation that the Appellate Body would be working at  full 
capacity again, as it saw the work of the A ppellate Body as one of the pillars of the rules based 
multilateral trading system, and of the regular work of the WTO.  
13.18.   The representative of Pakistan  said his country would like to appreciate the efforts of  the 
Selection Committee, the DSB and the Secretariat. Pakistan congratulated Ms . Zhao Hong and 
Mr. Hyun Chong Kim as the new Appellate Body members. Pakistan believed that the dispute 
settlement system was the jewel in the crown of the multilateral tradin g system, and it should 
remain so. One such way was to achieve consensus on the appointment s of the Appellate Body 
members. Pakistan was glad this was the case at the present meeting and wished the new 
Appellate Body  members all the success in the future.  WT/DSB/M/389  
 
- 17 - 
 
  13.19.   The representative of Viet Nam said that her country thanked the Selection Committee for 
its hard work. Like other delegations, Viet  Nam congratulated Ms . Zhao Hong and Mr. Hyun Chong 
Kim on their appointment s as new Appellate Body  members.  
13.20.   The representat ive of Hong Kong, China  said her delegation would like to join other 
Members in thanking the Chairman and the Selection Committee for the ir efforts made in the two 
selection processes over the past few months. Hong Kong congratulated Ms . Zhao Hung and 
Mr. Hyun Chong Kim on their appointments and was confident that they would make valuable 
contributions to the Appellate Body, as well as the WTO dispute settlement system. Hong  Kong 
wished them all the success in the future.  
13.21.   The representative of Indonesia  said her delegation wished  to join other Members in 
thanking the Chairman and the Selection Committe e for their hard work . Indonesia congratulated 
Ms. Zhao Hong and Mr. Hyun Chong Kim as the new Appellate Body members and wished them 
success in their future  work. 
13.22.   The representative of the Republic of Moldova  said that her delegation wished to thank the 
Chairman, the Secretariat, and the Selection Committee for their work over the past few months. 
Moldova congratulated the candidates and their governments as we ll as the new members of the 
Appellate Body, Ms. Zhao Hong and Mr. Hyun Chong Kim . Moldova wished those new members 
every success in the exercise of their functions.  
13.23.   The representative of New Zealand  said that, first, his country wished to congratulate the  
Selection Committee and the Chairman for a successful process. It had been a difficult last several 
months but the process to get the DSB to this point over the past few months had been a very 
good one. New Zealand congratulated the new Appellate Body mem bers and was pleased to see 
that it now had a fully operational Appellate Body at full capacity.  
13.24.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said his country wished to thank 
the Chairman and the Selection Committee for their hard work and ef forts throughout this process. 
Venezuela wished the new members of the Appellate Body every success.  
13.25.   The representative of the Russian  Federation  said her country wished to thank the 
Selection Committee, the Chairman and the Secretariat for their hard work  in the selection 
process. Russia welcomed the appointment s of the two new members of the Appellate Body and 
extended its warmest congratulations to Ms. Zhao Hong and Mr. Hyun Chong Kim. Russia 
appreciated the bilateral meetings it had had with those candi dates and the very insightful 
discussions. Russia was glad that all the vacancies of the Appellate Body were finally filled and was 
confident that Ms. Zhao Hong and Mr. Hyun Chong Kim would make invaluable contributions to the 
work of the Appellate Body. R ussia wished all the best to Ms. Zhao Hong and Mr. Hyun Chong Kim 
in their future work.  
13.26.   The representative of the European  Union  said that, as he had stated in previous DSB 
meetings, it had been the EU's position throughout this crisis that the Appellate B ody should be 
fully operational as soon as possible. This was specifically important now with the increasing 
workload and the likelihood that a "queue" would be formed before the Appellate Body. With these 
two appointments, the composition of the Appellate  Body could again be complete and the EU 
wished the new appointees well in their challenging and important new role. The EU also wished to 
add that, despite the worrying events of past several months, it trusted in the ability of Appellate 
Body members, bo th present and new, to exercise their functions in an independent and impartial 
manner, whether or not they were eligible for re -appointment. The EU hoped that, in its new 
composition, the Appellate Body would continue to deliver high -quality reports. The EU also hoped 
that it could count on the valuable support of the Secretariat in that regard.  
13.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
__________