RESTRICTED
WT/DSB/M/357
17 April 2015
(15-2050)  Page: 1/18
Dispute Settlement Body 
23 February 2015 
  
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD 
ON 23 FEBRUARY 2015 
Chairman: Mr. Fernando De Mateo (Mexico) 
Table of Contents 
1   SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB ....................................................................................................................... .... 2  
A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. 2  
B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by  the United States ............................................................................ 6  
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United States ................................................................................................................. .. 6 
D.  European Communities – Measures affect ing the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by  the European  Union ..................................................................... 7  
E.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the Un ited States ................................................................................................ 7  
2   IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RE COMMENDATIONS OF  THE DSB ..................................... 8  
A.  United States – Countervailing duty me asures on certain prod ucts from China ...................... 8  
B.  Argentina – Measures affect ing the importatio n of goods ................................................... 8  
3   UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 
2000: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB ................ 9  
A.  Statements by the Eu ropean Union and Japan .................................................................. 9  
4   CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECT ING ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SERVICES ........... 10  
A.  Statement by th e United States .................................................................................... 10 
5   THAILAND – CUSTOMS AND FISCAL MEASURES ON CIGARETTES FROM THE 
PHILIPPI NES ................................................................................................................. 1 1 
A.  Statement by the Philippines ........................................................................................ 11 
6   CANADA – ANTI-DUMPING MEASUR ES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN CARBON 
STEEL WELDED PIPE FROM THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU ....................................................................................... 12
 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ................................................................................... 12 
7   CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CELLULOSE PULP FROM 
CANADA ........................................................................................................................ . 12 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada ......................................................... 12 WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 2 - 
 
  8   EUROPEAN UNION – COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON CERTAIN 
POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE FROM PAKISTAN ........................................................ 13  
A.  Request for the establishm ent of a panel by Pakistan ....................................................... 13 
9   UNITED STATES – CONDITIONA L TAX INCENTIVES FOR LARGE CIVIL 
AIRCRAFT ......................................................................................................................  14 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union ........................................ 14 
10   ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON ................................................................................... 15  
 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998: Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.146) 
 B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on cert ain hot-rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.146) 
 C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.121) 
 D.  European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.84) 
 
E.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on cert ain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.32) 
 
 1.1.  The Chairman said that there were five sub-items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Articl e 21.6 of the DSU. He recalled that Article 21.6 
of the DSU required that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six months following the date of establishment of the reasonab le period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved". He invited delegations to provide up-to-date information about 
compliance efforts and to focus on new developments, suggestions and ideas on progress towards the resolution of disputes. He reminded delegations that, as provided for in Rule 27 of the Rules of 
Procedure for DSB meetings: "Representatives should  make every effort to avoid the repetition of 
a full 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 Me mbers' positions already on record". With these 
introductory remarks, he turned to the fi rst 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.146) 
1.2.  The Chairman drew attention to docu ment WT/DS176/11/Add.146, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
1.3.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 12 February 2015, in accordance wi th Article 21.6 of the DSU. Several bills that 
had been introduced in the current US Congress would repeal Section 211. These included H.R. 274, H.R. 403, H.R. 635 and H.R. 735 – introduced into the US House of Representatives, on 
12 January, 16 January, 2 February and 4 February respectively. Other previously introduced 
legislation would modify Section 211. The US Administration would continue to work on solutions to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings and resolve this matter with the EU. 
1.4.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU thanked the United States for its 
most recent status report and the statement made  at the present meeting. The EU hoped that the 
US authorities would resolve this matter very soon. WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.5.  The representative of Cuba said that, on 1 February 2002, the DSB had adopted the 
Appellate Body Report pertaining to this dispute. 13 years had passed since the Appellate Body 
had found that Section 211(a)(2) and (b) of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 violated the national treatment and most-favoured-nation obli gations under the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris 
Convention. During those 13 years, the United States had been unable to move forward with the 
amendment of Section 211, in order to bring it into conformity with the WTO Agreements. The 
continued non-compliance in this dispute could be understood by other Members to mean that 
there was no need to act promptly to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. It was 
common knowledge that a growing number of developing country respondents had made efforts to meet their legal obligations and settle disputes. Cuba reiterated that the only satisfactory solution to this dispute was the full repeal of Section 211, which required the end of the unfair policy of 
economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba. The US unilateral policies against Cuba 
had been denounced in many international forums. The international community had reacted in a positive and encouraging manner following the statements made by the US President in 
December 2014. On 29 January 2015, a Special Declaration had been adopted by all 
Latin American and Caribbean Heads of State and Government at the Third Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), which specifically addressed the 
need to end the embargo against Cuba. The repr esentatives of the region had endorsed the 
Declaration, expressing: "their strongest opposition to the coercive economic measures not supported by International Law. […] In light of the declaration formulated by President Obama, 
urge [him] to take all actions within his executive powers to substantially modify the blockade 
against Cuba, and the United States Congress to initiate, as soon as possible, a discussion on 
removing it. […] Reiterate their opinion that this blockade is contrary to the principles of the United Nations Charter and International Law. […] Request the Government of the United States of 
America to fulfil the successive resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, and 
in response to the repeated calls from the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, to put an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba, which is contrary to 
International Law, severely and unjustifiably da maging the well-being of the Cuban people, and 
affecting peace and coexistence among the nations of  the Americas". Similarly, during the recent 
24th Summit of the African Union (AU), held on 30 and 31 January 2015 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, a decision rejecting the embargo against Cuba had been adopted for the sixth time in a row. The 
Resolution, which was supported by 54 member States of the AU welcomed the decision adopted 
by Havana and Washington to re-establish diplomatic relations. It called for the lifting of the long-standing and unjust economic, commercial and financial blockade on Cuba, and urged the US 
President to take all the necessary measures within his executive powers to deal with all 
outstanding issues regarding the embargo. In Cuba 's view, the United States had the institutional 
capacity and the relevant powers to urge the US Congress to repeal Section 211 and to end this 
non-compliance, which seriously affected and undermined the equity that Members hoped to 
obtain through the WTO dispute settlement system. 
1.6.  The representative of the Dominican Republic said that his country thanked the United States 
for its status report on the steps taken to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
with regard to the inconsistency of Section 211 with Article 42 of TRIPS. The Dominican Republic, 
once again, called on the United States to accelerate its internal procedures so as to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The prolonged situation of non-compliance in this dispute 
undermined the credibility of the DSB. 
1.7.  The representative of Jamaica said that her country thanked Cuba, the United States and the 
EU for their statements, updates and the US status report under this Agenda item. Jamaica noted 
that the circumstances of this dispute had not changed and that no progress had been reported 
since the previous DSB meeting. As in past DSB meetings, Jamaica expressed its concern about the continued US failure to implement the DSB's recommendations adopted on 2 February 2002 with respect to Section 211. The US protracted failure to take the necessary steps to comply with 
its obligations under the DSU provisions was incompatible with the requirement for prompt and 
effective implementation of the DSB's decisions. Th is was of particular concern in cases such as 
this where the failure to meet an obligation had a negative impact on the economic interest of a 
developing-country Member. Jamaica reiterated its deep concern about the systemic implications 
of any disregard for DSB decisions. Such disreg ard could undermine the overall integrity of the 
dispute settlement system, which remained a key p illar of the WTO. Jamaica believed that, after 
13 years since the adoption of the DSB's recommend ations in this dispute, it was more than 
reasonable for Members to expect that this matter be resolved and removed from the DSB's 
Agenda. WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.8.  The representative of Ecuador said that his country supported the statement made by Cuba 
at the present meeting. Ecuador noted, once again, that Article 21 of the DSU referred specifically 
to prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, in particular since the interests of a developing-country Member were affected. Ecuador hoped that the United States 
would step up its efforts and promptly comply with the DSB's rulings and recommendations by 
repealing Section 211. He noted that 13 years of non-compliance in this dispute highlighted the main shortcomings of the WTO's dispute settlement system. 
1.9.  The representative of Mexico said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report. As had been stated by previous speakers, and as Mexico had stated in the past, Article 21 
of the DSU referred to the prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings "to the benefit of all Members". Mexico urged the parties to this dispute to adopt the necessary measures 
to ensure compliance. 
1.10.  The representative of Nicaragua said that his country supported the statement made by 
Cuba. Nicaragua reiterated its concern about the prolonged situation of non-compliance with the 
DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute.  Nicaragua noted that the US status report did 
not report on any progress in finding a solution to this dispute. Such non-compliance adversely affected the economic interests of a developing-country Member and undermined the overall 
integrity of the dispute settlement system, a ke y pillar of the WTO. Nicaragua supported the 
statements made by previous speakers who had urged the United States to take the necessary measures to ensure prompt compliance with th e relevant DSB's rulings and recommendations. 
1.11.  The representative of the Russian Federation said that, once again, his country was 
concerned about the lack of any progress in this lo ng-standing dispute. The lack of compliance in 
this dispute attracted the attention of many Members as an example of non-compliance with, and disregard of, the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Russia believed that due and timely 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings by all Members was essential for 
maintaining mutual trust and credibility in the WTO system. As it had previously stated, Russia urged the parties to this dispute to address the outstanding issues and to resolve this dispute as 
soon as possible. 
1.12.  The representative of Argentina said that his country thanked the United States for its 
status report and its statement and the EU for its statement. Argentina regretted that there had 
been no new developments in this dispute. As Argentina had previously stated many times, this 
lack of progress was inconsistent with the principl e of prompt and effective implementation of the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings, in particular since the interests of a developing-country Member were affected. Argentina supported Cuba and the EU in this dispute and urged the 
United States to adopt the necessary  measures to resolve this matter. 
1.13.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that, for 13 years, the 
United States had no new information to report in this dispute. Bolivia, once again, reiterated its 
concern about the systemic implications of the US non-compliance with the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations, in particular since this situation affected the economic interests of a small developing-country Member. Bolivia, once again, urged the United States to comply with the DSB's rulings and recommendations and to end the embargo against Cuba, and to remove the 
restrictions imposed under Section 211. Bolivia supported the statement made by Cuba at the 
present meeting. 
1.14.  The representative of Zimbabwe said that his country welcomed the US status report in this 
dispute. Zimbabwe, once again, continued to witn ess the flagrant violation of the DSB's rulings 
and recommendations by the United States. Zimb abwe was concerned that this non-compliance 
was setting a systemic precedent which could affect  other Members, in particular from developing 
countries. In that regard, Zimbabwe joined previous speakers in supporting Cuba and urged the 
United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
1.15.  The representative of Trinidad and Tobago said that her country thanked Cuba for its update 
and the United States for its status report under this Agenda item. As it had stated in its previous 
statements, Trinidad and Tobago once again regre tted that there had been no positive movement 
towards prompt compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations regarding Section 211. Article 3.2 of the DSU described the WTO's dispute settlement system as a central element in WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 5 - 
 
  providing security and predictability to the multil ateral trading system. In order to achieve that 
security and predictability, the prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations or rulings, required under Article 21.1 of the DSU was critical as it built confidence in the system and ensured 
the effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members. Trinidad and Tobago supported 
the call for prompt compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute in order 
to preserve the integrity of the WTO system. 
1.16.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that her country supported 
the statement made by Cuba. Venezuela noted with concern that the US status report did not 
provide any information on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. Venezuela noted that, since 2002, Section 211 had remained in force and this prolonged non-compliance in this dispute affected the interests of a small developing-country 
Member, which was inconsistent with WTO rules. The dispute settlement system was one of the 
key pillars of the multilateral trading system and provided greater efficiency to the system as a 
whole. In that regard, the continued US non-compliance in this dispute undermined the dispute 
settlement system as well as the WTO's ability to settle disputes. Venezuela urged the 
United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings by repealing Section 211. 
1.17.  The representative of El Salvador said that her country thanked the United States for its 
status report and Cuba for its update in this dispute. Like previous speakers, El Salvador noted 
with concern the lack of compliance in this dispute, which affected the interests of a country with a small and vulnerable economy. The non-compliance in this dispute also undermined the multilateral trading system. EL Salvador urged the parties to this dispute to resolve this dispute as 
soon as possible. 
1.18.  The representative of China said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and the statement made at the present me eting. The prolonged situation of non-compliance 
in this dispute was highly inconsistent with the principle of prompt compliance required under the 
DSU provisions, in particular since the interests of a developing-country Member were affected. China urged the United States to implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations without any 
further delay. 
1.19.  The representative of India said that his country shared the concerns raised by previous 
speakers about the lack of progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations. India 
recalled that, in 2002, the United States had info rmed the DSB of its intention to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. However, the recommendations still remained 
not implemented. India renewed its systemic concerns about the continuation of non-compliance as this undermined the confidence the Members repo sed in a rules-based system, especially in the 
context of a developing country seeking compliance. India urged the United States to report 
compliance to the DSB. 
1.20.  The representative of Viet Nam said that her country thanked the United States for its 
status report. Viet Nam supported Cuba's statement and the statements made by previous 
speakers expressing their concerns about the la ck of progress in this dispute. 13 years of 
non-compliance was a long period of time and, therefore, Viet Nam urged the United States to step up its compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
1.21.  The representative of Brazil said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report concerning the surveillance of implementation in this dispute, which had been initiated 
many years ago. However, the status report regrettably did not report on any substantial progress 
achieved in this matter. Brazil, once again, shar ed the concerns expressed by previous speakers 
about the lack of compliance and urged the United States to take concrete steps towards meaningful compliance. Such compliance would certainly strengthen the multilateral rules. 
1.22.  The representative of Uruguay said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and in particular for its indication that th e pertinent legislative texts had been presented to 
the 14th session of the US Congress. Uruguay wished that this information was sufficient. However, Uruguay wished to know when this it em would no longer be on the DSB's Agenda. 
1.23.  The representative of Kenya said that his country had been following  this issue with keen 
interest. Kenya was concerned that this dispute had remained an outstanding issue on the DSB's WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Agenda. Kenya joined previous speakers in urging the United States to expedite the repeal of 
Section 211 so as to comply with the DSB's recommendations. 
1.24.  The representative of Angola said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report regarding Section 211. Angola remained concerned that this matter had not yet been 
resolved and that Cuba, a country with a small vulnerable economy, continued to be adversely 
affected. Angola called for an appropriate and prompt  resolution of this dispute. In Angola's view, 
defending one Member's interests should not be  to the detriment of other Members. Such a 
situation could create a systemic precedent that  could undermine the dispute settlement system, 
which was recognized as one of the main achievem ents of the WTO. Angola reiterated its support 
for Cuba and encouraged the parties to this dispute to find a mutual solution as soon as possible. Angola urged the United States to show its commitment to resolve this matter by taking more 
concrete actions towards compliance. 
1.25.  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.146) 
1.26.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.146, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
1.27.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 12 February 2015, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States 
had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect 
to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the 
US Administration would continue to work with  the US Congress with respect to appropriate 
statutory measures that would resolve this matter. 
1.28.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked the United States for its 
statement and its status report submitted on 12 February 2015. Japan referred to its previous 
statements that this issue should be resolved as soon as possible. 
1.29.  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.121) 
1.30.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.121, 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. 
1.31.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 12 February 2015, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The 
US Administration would continue to confer with the European Union, and to work closely with the US Congress, in order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. 
1.32.  The representative of the European Union said 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 dispute as soon as possible. 
1.33.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 7 - 
 
  D.  European Communities – Measures affect ing the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the Eu ropean Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.84) 
1.34.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.84, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on pr ogress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of 
biotech products. 
1.35.  The representative of the European Union said that, in recent DSB meetings, the EU had 
already reported on authorisation decisions and other actions towards approval decisions taken up 
to January 2015. The Appeal Committee of 6 February 2015 had voted on a draft decision for authorisation of a soybean
1 product for food and feed use. The Committee had rendered no 
opinion. Four GM food and feed draft authorizatio n decisions would most probably be voted in the 
Standing Committee in March 20152. Two draft authorization decisions for non-food and non-feed 
uses would most probably be voted in the Standing committee in March3. The products just 
referred to were identified in the written version of the EU's statement. As had been stated many 
times before, the EU recalled that the EU a pproval system was not covered by the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. 
1.36.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meet ing. The EU measures affecting the approval of 
biotech products were seriously disrupting trade in  agricultural products between the United States 
and the EU. The EU had failed to approve a single new biotech product since November 2013. Having received positive evaluations by the EU's scientific authority, 13 applications were currently 
pending before the EU College of  Commissioners awaiting final, political approval. Furthermore, 
based on public statements by EU  officials, it appeared that the EU had decided not to make any 
further approvals until the EU conducts yet another re-examination of EU biotech approval 
measures. The United States failed to see how a re-examination of existing approval measures 
could provide a scientific basis for not making biotech product approvals. Indeed, many of the long-pending products had successfully passed co mprehensive safety assessments by the EU's 
scientific authority. The United States urged the EU to address these delays immediately. 
1.37.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. E.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.32) 
1.38.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS404/11/Add.32, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US an ti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from 
Viet Nam. 
1.39.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 12 February 2015, in accordance with  Article 21.6 of the DSU. As the United States 
had noted at past DSB meetings, in February 2012 the US Department of Commerce had modified its procedures in a manner that addressed certain findings in this dispute. The United States would continue to consult with interested parties as it worked to address the other recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB. 
1.40.  The representative of Viet Nam said that her country thanked the United States for its 
status report which did not contain any new information. Viet Nam strongly requested the 
United States to comply with the DSB's recommend ations and rulings in this dispute as soon as 
possible. Viet Nam hoped to continue its discussions with the United States in an effort to find a solution towards implementation. 
1.41.  The representative of Cuba said that her country reiterated its support for Viet Nam. Cuba, 
once again, called on the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
                                               
1 MON87769 soybean. 
2 MON531 cotton, MON1445 cotton, MON531xMON1445 cotton, MON15985 cotton. 
3 Carnations IFD-25958-3 and IFD-26407-2 (cut flowers). WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 8 - 
 
  this dispute. Cuba noted that the prolonged situation of non-compliance had a negative impact on 
Viet Nam, a developing-country Member. 
1.42.  The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that her country fully 
supported the statement made by Viet Nam. Ve nezuela stressed the importance of prompt and 
effective implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations. Venezuela urged the 
United States to promptly resolve this dispute. 
1.43.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 2  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DSB A.  United States – Countervailing duty me asures on certain products from China 
B.  Argentina – Measures affecting the importation of goods 
2.1.  The Chairman recalled that, in accordance with the DSU provisions, the DSB was required to 
keep under surveillance the implementation of reco mmendations and rulings of the DSB in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disp utes to the benefit of all Members. In that respect, Article 21.3 of 
the DSU provided that the Member concerned shall 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 the DSB. He pr oposed that the two sub-items to which he had 
just referred be considered separately. 
A.  United States – Countervailing duty measures on certain products from China 
 2.2.  The Chairman recalled that, at its meet ing on 16 January 2015, the DSB had adopted the 
Appellate Body Report in the dispute on: "United States – Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain 
Products from China" and the Panel Report on the same matter, as modified by the Appellate Body Report. As Members were aware, the 30-day time-period in this dispute had expired on 
15 February 2015, and on 13 February 2015, the United States 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/DS437/12. He invited the United States to 
make a statement. 
2.3.  The representative of the United States said that, on 16 January 2015, the DSB had adopted 
the Reports of the Panel and the Appellate Body in the dispute: "United States – Countervailing 
M e a s u r e s  o n  C e r t a i n  P r o d u c t s  f r o m  C h i n a "  ( D S 4 3 7 ) .  I n  t h i s  d i s p u t e ,  t h e  3 0 - d a y  p e r i o d  o f  t i m e  
described in Article 21.3 of the DSU had expired be fore the next regularly scheduled DSB meeting. 
In those circumstances, China had agreed with the United States that it was appropriate for the United States to inform the DSB of US intentions by letter, rather than at a special meeting of the 
DSB. Accordingly, on 13 February 2015, the United States had informed the DSB by letter that it 
intended to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a manner that respected 
US WTO obligations. As the United States 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, the United States would seek to reach agreement with China on the period of time for implementation. 
2.4.  The representative of China said that his country thanked the United States for stating its 
intention to comply both in writing in the communication dated 13 February 2015 and orally in its 
statement made at the present meeting. China recall ed that the findings of the Appellate Body and 
the Panel in this dispute constituted an emphat ic rejection of the USDOC's entire analytical 
framework for determining the existence of a lleged input subsidies. China hoped that the 
United States would implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings as early as possible. China stood ready to discuss with the United States the reasonable period of time for compliance with 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
2.5.  The DSB took note of the statements, and of  the information provided by the United States 
regarding its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations. WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 9 - 
 
  B.  Argentina – Measures affecting the importation of goods 
 2.6.  The Chairman recalled that, at its meeting on 26 January 2015, the DSB had adopted the 
Appellate Body Reports in the disputes on: "Argentina – Measures Affecting the Importation of 
Goods" and the Panel Reports on the same matter, as modified and upheld by the respective 
Appellate Body Reports. He invited Argentina to inform the DSB of its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations. 
2.7.  The representative of Argentina said that , at its meeting on 26 January 2015, the DSB had 
adopted the recommendations and rulings conc erning the following disputes: WT/DS438; 
WT/DS444; and WT/DS445 in relation to the complaints brought by the EU, the United States and Japan, respectively. Argentina intended to impl ement these recommendations and conclusions, in 
conformity with its WTO obligations, and was in the process of evaluating and analysing the most 
appropriate way to do so. The implementation would require a reasonable period of time and Argentina was willing to discuss the matter with the three co-complainants. 
2.8.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU thanked Argentina for stating its 
intention to comply. The EU recalled the clear verdict made by the Panel and the Appellate Body. 
Argentina had acted illegally under WTO law by forcing local importers or foreign firms to respect  
various trade-related requirements (TRRs) as a condition for importing goods into the country – 
requirements that would continue to be impose d "until and unless the policy is repealed or 
modified", as stated by the Panel. Argentina had acted illegally under WTO law by devising the DJAI procedure, which, since February 2012, required firms to secure the approval by its 
authorities before importing goods. The EU considered that Argentina should no longer require 
importers to offset the value of their imports with  equivalent exports, to limit their imports in 
volume or in value, to use certain amount of Argentine content in their products, to invest in 
Argentina and/or keep their profits there, as a condition or conditions to engage in the importation 
of goods into that country. Argentina should also refrain from requiring importers to secure an approval for their imports. The EU stood ready to discuss with Argentina with a view to agreeing to 
a reasonable period of time for compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
2.9.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked Argentina for its 
statement made at the present meeting indicating that it intended to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute. The WTO-inconsistent measures in this dispute 
continued to be of significant concern, and the United States continued to receive reports 
regarding their application by Argentine authorities.  The United States therefore looked forward to 
Argentina moving promptly to bring its measures into compliance with its obligations. The 
United States stood ready to discuss with Argentina, under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, a 
reasonable period of time for implementation  of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
2.10.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked Argentina for its intention to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings as expressed in its statement made at the 
present meeting. In order to ensure prompt settl ement of this dispute, Japan expected Argentina 
to take necessary actions for prompt implementation of the recommendations and rulings. Japan was willing to discuss this matter, including an appropriate reasonable period of time, with 
Argentina together with the EU and the United States in good faith. 
2.11.  The DSB took note of the statements, and of the information provided by Argentina 
regarding its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations. 
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 invited the respective representatives to speak. 
3.2.  The representative of the European Unio n said that, once again, the EU requested the 
United States to stop transferring anti-dumping and countervailing duties to the US industry. Every 
disbursement that still took place was clearly an act of non-compliance with the DSB's WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 10 - 
 
  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 Stat es to stop the illegal distributions in order to 
resolve this long-standing dispute. As it had stated in previous meetings, Japan was of the view 
that the United States was under obligation to provide the DSB with a status report in this dispute in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. 
3.4.  The representative of India said that his country shared the concerns of the EU and Japan. 
The WTO-inconsistent disbursements continued unabated to the US domestic industry. India 
agreed that the Byrd Amendment should continue to remain subject to the DSB's surveillance until 
the United States ceased to administer it. India was also of the view that this item should continue 
to remain on the DSB's Agenda until such time that  full compliance was achi eved in this dispute. 
3.5.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country, as one of the parties to these disputes, 
thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this item on the DSB's Agenda. As it had stated in previous 
DSB meetings, Brazil was of the view that the United States was under an obligation to discontinue 
any disbursements made pursuant to the Byrd Amendment. The fact that the current disbursements may be related to investigations initiated before the repeal of the Act did not mean 
that they were somehow excluded from complianc e obligations. On the contrary, the confirmation 
of the illegal nature of some of its features by the DSB and the repeal of the Act by the United States made it even more egregious to continue to disburse substantial amounts to petitioners on the basis of a provision found to be inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
Only with the discontinuation of the disbursements would compliance be achieved and the 
United States would be released from its obligation to submit status reports in this dispute. 
3.6.  The representative of Canada said that his country referred to its previous statements made 
on this issue. Canada's position had not changed. 3.7.  The representative of the United States said that, as his country had noted at previous DSB 
meetings, the Deficit Reduction Act, which included a provision repealing the Continued Dumping 
and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, was enacted into law in February 2006. Accordingly, the 
United States had taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes. The United States recalled, furthermore, that the EU, Japan, and other Members had acknowledged that the Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties 
collected on goods entered after 1 October 2007, which was over seven 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 meetin g. With respect to comments regarding further 
status reports in this matter, as it had already explained at previous DSB meetings, the 
United States failed to see what purpose would be served by further submission of status reports which would repeat, again, that the United States had taken all actions necessary to implement 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes. Indeed, as these very WTO Members 
had demonstrated repeatedly when they had been responding parties in disputes, there was no obligation under the DSU to provide further reports once a Member announced that it had implemented those DSB recommendations and rulings, regardless of whether the complaining 
party disagreed about compliance. In fact, one Member that used to call for US status reports was 
not currently supplying such reports itself in another matter being raised at the present meeting under Agenda item 5, given its position that it had taken all actions necessary to comply. 
3.8.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
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 invited the represen tative 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 failed to bring its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations more WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 11 - 
 
  than one and a half years after the end of its period of time for compliance. The situation 
unfortunately had not changed since the United States had first begun raising this matter in the DSB and despite repeated interactions between the United States and China. China continued to maintain a ban on foreign suppliers of electronic payment services ("EPS") by imposing a licensing 
requirement on them, while at the same time provid ing no procedures to obtain that license. As a 
result, an enterprise located in China remained the only EPS supplier that could operate in China's domestic market. To comply with China's WTO obligations, and despite China's assertions in 
previous DSB statements, China must adopt the regulations necessary for allowing foreign EPS 
suppliers to operate in China. Nearly four months had now passed since China's State Council had announced that China would open the EPS market to qualified suppliers, but foreign enterprises remained barred from operating in China. The United States, therefore, continued to call on China 
to issue promptly the regulations needed to follow through on the announcement by the State 
Council. 
4.3.  The representative of China said that his country regretted that the United States brought 
this matter before the DSB once again. China refe rred to its statements made under this Agenda 
item at previous DSB meetings. China had taken all necessary actions and had fully implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. China had also further explained that the 
actions being sought by the United States were beyond the scope of China's compliance 
obligations. China reiterated that the regulation mentioned by the United States was not relevant to the implementation of the DSB's recommendations  and rulings in this dispute and that the DSB 
meeting was not an appropriate forum to discuss that regulation. China hoped that the 
United States would reconsider the systemic implications of its position. 
4.4.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
5  THAILAND – CUSTOMS AND FISCAL MEASURES ON CIGARETTES FROM THE 
PHILIPPINES 
A.  Statement by the Philippines 5.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the Philippines. He invited the representative of the Philippines to speak. 
5.2.  The representative of the Philippines said that her country continued to be concerned about a 
series of outstanding compliance issues in this dispute that were, by now, well known to the DSB, 
and were important for Philippine economic interests and on a systemic level. Without prejudice to 
the other issues of concern it had raised at pr evious DSB meetings, the Philippines noted at the 
present meeting, two outstanding issues in particular. First, the Philippines recalled the Thai Attorney General's recent confirmation of his de cision to prosecute an importer of Philippine 
cigarettes for alleged under-declaration of customs value, threatening the existence of the 
importer itself as well as the imprisonment of individuals. The WTO Panel had ruled that Thailand enjoyed no legitimate grounds to reject the customs values that Thailand now sought to 
criminalize. In addition, Thai Customs' Board of Appeals had explicitly accepted those customs 
values, in a ruling heralded by Thailand itself as a measure taken to comply. Second, the Philippines noted recent developments concerning a separate Board of Appeals ruling rejecting transaction value for 210 entries from Indonesia that had been covered by the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations in the original proceedings in this dispute. Thailand had submitted the Board of 
Appeals' ruling as a declared measure taken to comply. The Philippines had previously noted that the ruling was riddled with WTO inconsistencies, and set out a methodology that put Thailand on 
the wrong course regarding customs valuation of related party transactions. The Philippines was 
encouraged to learn that the Thai Tax Court had recently struck down Thai Customs' initial assessments as contrary to Thai law, thus nullifying the Board of Appeals' ruling and subsequent 
assessments. In contrast, the Philippines was disturbed to learn that, in appealing the tax court's 
ruling, Thai Customs had reverted to arguments that Thailand had made and had lost in the WTO proceedings, and had explicitly advised the Thai co urt that it did not need to follow the WTO ruling 
because it supposedly bound only the Philippines, as the party that had brought the dispute, and 
did not bind Thailand. Thailand had repeatedly stated that it had done all it was required to do to 
secure full compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. It was difficult to reconcile that statement, with the two actions just described. This was the time for Thailand to bring its 
actions in Thailand and its words in the DSB into alignment, to prove that its commitment to WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 12 - 
 
  compliance was real, and to rise to its role as a responsible and important WTO Member. If that 
was not possible, the Philippines would take recourse to its rights under the DSU. 
5.3.  The representative of Thailand said that he r country took note of the Philippines' statement 
made at the present meeting. As stated in its previous status reports and at the DSB meetings, 
Thailand had taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
this dispute. This was without prejudice to any other rights of the Philippines under the DSU. 
Thailand reiterated that it had been and remained, available to discuss the specific concerns of the 
Philippines bilaterally, including those not addressed in the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
5.4.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
6  CANADA – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN CARBON STEEL 
WELDED PIPE FROM THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU 
A.  Request for the establishment of a pa nel by the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (WT/DS482/2) 
6.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the communi cation from the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu contained in document WT/DS482/2, and invited the 
representative of that delegation to speak. 
6.2.  The representative of Chinese Taipei said th at her delegation wished to formally request that 
the DSB establish a panel to examine the anti-dumping measures imposed by Canada, and the 
relevant Canadian laws. In its view, these measures, and the laws per se , were not consistent with 
the WTO Agreements. Therefore, trade in carbon steel welded pipe was being seriously affected. 
Chinese Taipei and Canada had previously held consultations on this issue on two occasions, on 
24 July and 4 December 2014 respectively. While these consultations had resulted in some clarification of certain aspects of the measures an d the laws concerned, regrettably they had failed 
to produce a mutually agreed solution. Throughout the anti-dumping investigation, the treatment 
given to Chinese Taipei exporters with de minimis  dumping margins had been totally inconsistent 
with the provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement. For example, the 
investigating authority had failed to terminate the investigation of these exporters, and had 
continued to impose provisional and definitive measures on their imports. With respect to the determination of "all other rates" and the calculation of dumping margins for cooperative exporters of new models, the action taken by the authority had again been inconsistent with the 
Agreements. Furthermore, Canada's actions were based entirely on the relevant provisions in its 
own laws, the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) and the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR). This subject had also been thoroughly  discussed in the previous consultations, and 
remained to be challenged in this dispute. In th e circumstances, and with the continuation of the 
said measures and laws, Chinese Taipei was left with no choice but to request the establishment of a panel to examine this dispute. 
6.3.  The representative of Canada said that hi s country was disappointed that Chinese Taipei had 
decided to request a panel with respect to Canada's anti-dumping measures on imports of certain 
carbon steel welded pipe. As had been indicate d, on 24 July and again on 4 December 2014, 
Canada and Chinese Taipei had held consultations concerning the measures at issue. During those 
meetings, Canada had engaged constructively with Chinese Taipei to explain aspects of Canada's 
trade remedy system. Canada was confident that its measures were consistent with its WTO obligations. Accordingly, Canada was not in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel at 
the present meeting. 
6.4.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter. 
7  CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CELLULOSE PULP FROM CANADA 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada (WT/DS483/2) 
7.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the communication from Canada contained in document 
WT/DS483/2, and invited the representative of Canada to speak. WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 13 - 
 
  7.2.  The representative of Canada said that, on 6 February 2013, China's Ministry of Commerce, 
MOFCOM, had initiated an investigation into the alleged dumping of cellulose pulp originating from 
Canada, the United States and Brazil. MOFCOM had made preliminary and final determinations of dumping and injury on 6 November 2013, and 4 April 2014, respectively, resulting in the 
imposition of anti-dumping duties of up to 23.7%  on imports of cellulose pulp from Canada. As 
outlined in its request for the establishment of a panel, Canada considered that China's measures were inconsistent with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994. In 
particular, Canada considered that China had violated its obligations under these agreements by 
improperly determining dumping margins, making injury determinations and conducting the underlying investigation. The duties imposed as a result of China's anti-dumping determinations were having a negative impact on Canadian dissolving pulp producers in various Canadian 
provinces. Canada had held consultations with China on these measures on 2 November 2014. 
While Canada appreciated the opportunity to raise its concerns, unfortunately, a mutually satisfactory solution could not be found. Consequently, Canada was now requesting that a WTO 
panel be established to examine this matter with standard terms of reference. Canada remained 
open nonetheless to continuing its dialogue with China in order to find a way to address its concerns. 
7.3.  The representative of China said that his country regretted that Canada had requested the 
DSB to establish a panel in this dispute. During the consultations, China had provided relevant 
information and detailed explanations as Canada had asked for, and had made utmost efforts to seek a mutually agreed solution to settle this dispute. It was China's wish that the dispute could be 
settled through consultation. With regard to the measure identified in the panel request, the 
Chinese Investigating Authority had found that the imports of the product concerned originating in Canada was dumped and that the dumped imports ca used material injury to the domestic industry 
of China. As a result, the anti-dumping measure was imposed by the Chinese Investigating 
Authority. China was convinced that the measure was consistent with its WTO obligations. Thus, China did not agree with Canada's request that a panel be established at the present meeting. 
7.4.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter. 
8  EUROPEAN UNION – COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON CERTAIN POLYETHYLENE 
TEREPHTHALATE FROM PAKISTAN 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Pakistan (WT/DS486/2) 
8.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the comm unication from Pakistan contained in document 
WT/DS486/2 and invited the representative of Pakistan to speak. 
8.2.  The representative of Pakistan said that his country wished to request the DSB to establish a 
panel to examine the countervailing measures imposed by the EU on imports of certain 
polyethylene terephthalate, commonly called PET products, from Pakistan. The measures at the heart of this dispute were EU Commission regulations No. 473/2010 and 857/2010, imposing 
provisional and definitive countervailing duty measure respectively on imports of PET from 
Pakistan. Pakistan was of the view that first, some aspects of the investigations that led to the imposition of the countervailing measure were inconsistent with the EU's obligations under the SCM Agreement. Second, some aspects of the determination or calculation of the countervailing 
duty were also inconsistent with the EU's obligations under the SCM Agreement. Since 2010, given 
the importance of the PET industry for Pakistan , this matter had been extensively raised by 
Pakistan with the EU at different levels. On 17 December 2014, Pakistan had held consultations 
with the EU. Pakistan sincerely acknowledged the efforts and thanked the EU for its active 
engagement throughout the consultative process. These consultations had helped to clarify some points. However, they had failed to resolve the matter and no mutual agreement had been 
reached between Pakistan and the EU. In light of that, Pakistan requested that the DSB establish a 
panel to examine its complaint. 
8.3.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU took note of Pakistan's decision to 
request a panel regarding the EU's countervailing measures on imports of PET products from 
Pakistan, and with respect to certain aspects of the investigation underlying those measures. The 
EU had imposed the countervailing duties based on  the grounds that imports from Pakistan were 
receiving trade distorting subsidies and had genera ted an injury to the European PET industry. The WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 14 - 
 
  EU was convinced that these measures were in conformity with the WTO Agreements. Moreover, 
Pakistan and the EU had agreed to continue discussions on a technical level as regards these measures. Against this backdrop, the EU consider ed the request premature and did not agree to 
the establishment of a panel at the present meeting. 
8.4.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter. 
9  UNITED STATES – CONDITIONAL TAX INCENTIVES FOR LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union (WT/DS487/2) 
9.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the comm unication from the European Union contained in 
document WT/DS487/2 and invited the representative of the European Union to speak. 
9.2.  The representative of the European Union said that, in 2013, Washington State had decided 
to extend until the end of 2040 very significant tax breaks, already found to be illegal in 2012. The 
amount of the subsidies under the new Washington State measure was very high – US$8.7 billion 
– and created a massive disadvantage to European aircraft industry. The subsidies scheme was also conditional upon the use of domestic over imported goods, as the Washington State tax 
incentives had been made contingent upon: (i) siting production of the wings and final assembly 
for a new commercial aircraft model or variant in Washington State; and (ii) maintaining all wing assembly and final assembly of such commercial aircraft exclusively in Washington State. The EU 
believed that the 2013 Washington State measure was inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and in particular with the per se  prohibition of subsidies 
contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods. The consultations in this dispute had taken place on 2 February 2015 and could not resolve the dispute. The EU was, therefore, left with 
no choice but to request the immediate establishment of a panel in this dispute. As regards the 
reference to "immediate establishment", the EU drew attention to Article 4.4 of the SCM Agreement. 
9.3.  The representative of the United States sa id that his country was disappointed that the EU 
had chosen to request the establishment of a panel with regard to this matter. As the 
United States had explained to the EU, the measures  identified in its request were fully consistent 
with US obligations under the relevant WTO agreements. The United States was therefore 
prepared to engage in these proceedings, and to  explain to the Panel that the EU had no legal 
basis for its claims. However, the United States had to express its strong view that the EU's actions should not be allowed to delay further the first aircraft dispute - "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" 
(or the "Airbus" dispute) - which had already suffered significant delays. The compliance 
proceeding had been pending for nearly three years, and written submissions had been finished for some time. In fact, responses to the last full set of panel questions had been submitted in 
October 2013, and comments on responses to six follow-up questions had been submitted in 
May 2014. The subsidies that the EU continued to provide, contrary to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, were continuing to cause great harm to the United States. 
9.4.  The United States also questioned whether the initiation of a new aircraft dispute at this time 
was the best use of already strained WTO resources. This should be an issue of concern for all Members. If the EU's decision to initiate a new aircraft dispute was allowed to delay the Airbus dispute, this would prolong the time that the current and substantial secretariat resources were 
devoted to that dispute. Conversely, the sooner  that dispute was resolved, the sooner those 
resources could be freed up and allocated to other disputes. To be clear, the EU's request was a brand new, free-standing WTO dispute on large commercial aircraft. There was no basis to accept 
the EU's construction that this new, free-standing dispute was merely a new procedural step or 
somehow a continuation of the current disputes. The compliance panel in the "US – Aircraft" dispute had already considered those arguments, and had rejected them. It had found that the 
arguments the EU sought to make were new and different from the claims in the compliance 
proceeding. Ultimately, the EU had the right to ch oose, as did any Member, to seek resolution of 
its concerns through WTO dispute settlement. However, the choice made by one Member should not be allowed to delay the right of another Member to seek resolution of its concerns through 
these same means. WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 15 - 
 
  9.5.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU wished to react to the systemic 
comments made by the United States. In the EU 's view, there was a simple solution to any 
allegation of burdening the system, the withdrawal of the subsidies. The EU noted that there were 
two ongoing aircraft disputes and not just one. 
9.6.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 4.4 of the SCM Agreement an d Article 6 of the DSU, with standard terms of 
reference. 
9.7.  The representatives of Brazil, China, India,  Japan, Korea and the Russian Federation reserved 
their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
10  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON 10.1.  The outgoing Chairman said that it had b een a privilege for him to have chaired the DSB, a 
vital part of the most successful international dispute settlement system. Never before had 
international public law seen such a highly de veloped and genuinely efficient system. The WTO 
dispute settlement system was the most successfu l dispute settlement system in the world. He 
said that he had been fortunate to have been a part of the DSB and that it was a privilege for him 
to have served as the Chairman. He noted that there were some challenging matters in the past year which all Members had managed to resolve successfully. He was proud to have been the 
Chairman of the DSB for the past year. He recalle d that, at its meeting on 20 February 2015, the 
General Council had endorsed the appointmen t of his successor, Ambassador of Norway, 
Mr. Harald Neple. Ambassador Neple was a great professional, a career diplomat and a genuine expert. The DSB was one of the most active and interesting Bodies in the WTO. The challenges 
facing the dispute settlement system were great and there were great expectations and demands 
put on it. That was why he was sure that the ne xt few months would be essential and vital in 
resolving the problems facing the dispute settlement system. There had been around 500 disputes 
submitted in the 20 years of the WTO's existence.  This, in his view, was clear evidence of the 
confidence that Members had in this system and the challenge facing the dispute settlement 
system in meeting Members' expectations. The dispute settlement system was perhaps the most 
vital pillar and one of the reasons why the crisis in 2009 and 2011 did not result in what happened 
in the 1930s. There were a number of new protectionist measures but not to the extent of what could have been otherwise. In Latin there was a saying: ubi ius, ibi remedium, which meant 
"wherever there is a right, there is a remedy":  Members must ensure that the DSB addressed 
many of the disputes of non-compliance and that  Members respect their obligations. Finally, he 
thanked the Secretariat for its support over the past  year. He then proposed that the DSB elect by 
acclamation H.E. Mr. Harald Neple of Norway as the Chairman of the DSB. 
10.2.  The DSB so agreed. 
10.3.  The incoming Chairman thanked Members for his election and said that it would be an 
honour for him to chair the DSB. He supported the outgoing Chair's remarks about the importance 
of the dispute settlement system for the overa ll multilateral trading system as well as the 
credibility of international rules. The DSB's experience and results was extremely important in upholding the WTO rules and that was why he appr eciated the opportunity to chair the DSB. He 
thanked the outgoing Chairman, Ambassador De Mateo for a job well done over the past year. He 
had heard nothing but positive feedback on Amba ssador De Mateo's role as the DSB Chairman and 
so it was an honour and a challenge to take over from him. He said that he was an economist like his predecessor and had worked on trade-policy issues. His first Ministerial meeting was in 1988 so 
he had a fairly long experience in trade policy. 
10.4.  The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia said that his country congratulated 
Ambassador Neple for the trust that all Members had put in him in chairing the DSB. Saudi Arabia 
assured him of its full support. Saudi Arabia also thanked Ambassador De Mateo for his highly 
appreciated role played by him during his term. Saudi Arabia wished him all the success as the Chairman of the General Council. 
10.5.  The representative of Argentina said that his country congratulated Ambassador Neple for 
his election and welcomed him as the new Chairman  of the DSB. Argentina was looking forward to 
working with him in the DSB, an important Body  in the WTO, and assured him of its support. WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 16 - 
 
  Argentina also congratulated Ambassador De Mateo for his contribution to the DSB's work over the 
past year and wished him success in his new role as Chairman of the General Council, in particular during such an important year, with the post-Ba li work programme to be completed by the end of 
July and the Ministerial Conference in December. 
10.6.  The representative of the United States said that his country congratulated Ambassador 
Harald Neple on his election, and welcomed him to the DSB 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 also thanked Ambassador De Mateo for his many contributions to the work of 
the DSB during the past year. 
10.7.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU extended its warm welcome to 
Ambassador Neple and was certain that the DSB would be in good hands. The EU looked forward 
to working with him in the coming year. The EU also thanked Ambassador De Mateo for the 
smooth operation of the DSB over the past year and was sure that the General Council would be in good hands. 
10.8.  The representative of Japan said that his country congratulated Ambassador Neple on his 
election as the new Chairman of the DSB and looked forward to working with him in the coming 
year. Japan thanked Ambassador De Mateo for his efforts in the DSB and wished him the best in 
his new challenging task as the Chairman of the General Council. 
10.9.  The representative of Canada said that his country thanked Ambassador De Mateo for his 
service to the DSB over the past year. It had been a busy year for the DSB and Ambassador De 
Mateo had handled it all with grace and efficiency. Canada wished him all the best in his new 
responsibility with the General Council during what was obviously going to be an important year 
for the WTO. Canada congratulated Ambassador Neple on his appointment as Chairman of the DSB and welcomed him to the DSB. As he had said at the appointment of Ambassador De Mateo the 
previous year, he personally knew Ambassador Neple from his time as Ambassador to the OECD. 
In that organization, Ambassador Neple had distin guished himself also as an effective Chairman 
and mediator as Ambassador De Mateo had before him. Canada could count on those qualities 
serving as well in what could be a ye ar with many challenges for the DSB. 
10.10.  The representative of Chile said that his country welcomed Ambassador Neple and wished 
him full success in his endeavours. Chile also thanked Ambassador De Mateo and wished him full 
success as the Chairman of the General Council. 
10.11.  The representative of China said that hi s country joined previous speakers in thanking 
Ambassador De Mateo for his active role in the past year as the Chairman of the DSB. China also 
welcomed the appointment of Ambassador Neple as the new DSB Chairman. China assured him of 
its support and cooperation and wished him a successful year. 
10.12.  The representative of India said that  his country congratulated Ambassador Neple for 
taking over the Chairmanship of the DSB. In that  regard, India offered him its full support. India 
also joined previous speakers in congratulating Ambassador De Mateo for the thoroughly 
professional and impartial role he had exercised as the Chairman of the DSB. At times, he had lightened up the rather dull proceedings that Members had to go through. India appreciated his role and wished him the best for the next professional role he was undertaking in the General 
Council. 
10.13.  The representative of Chinese Taipei sa id that Chinese Taipei congratulated Ambassador 
Neple for being elected as the DSB Chair and looked forward to working closely with him. 
Chinese Taipei also thanked Ambassador De Mateo for his hard work and excellent contribution 
over the past year. Chinese Taipei appreciated his efforts. 
10.14.  The representative of Mexico said that his country welcomed Ambassador Neple as the new 
Chairman of the DSB. Mexico wished him full su ccess, especially in what would be a challenging 
year. Mexico also thanked Ambassador De Mateo for his work and was confident that he would be very successful in his new role as Chairman of the General Council. WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 17 - 
 
  10.15.  The representative of Pakistan said that his country joined previous speakers in 
congratulating Ambassador Neple for his appointment as Chairman of the DSB. It was indeed a 
daunting challenge for him and Pakistan assure d him of its support. With his acumen and 
qualifications, Pakistan was sure that the DSB would be under good leadership. Pakistan was, at 
the same time, impressed by how Ambassador De Mateo had, at times, steered through difficult 
moments. Pakistan was pleased to note the number of qualifications, an economist, a diplomat and a negotiator, and all three were quite rewardin g and quite difficult. Pakistan was also pleased 
to note that Ambassador De Mateo had been promoted to the General Council as its new Chairman 
and was sure that Members were in good hands. 
10.16.  The representative of Colombia said that his country congratulated and welcomed 
Ambassador Neple on his election as the new Chairman of the DSB. Colombia wished him full 
success in his new endeavour. Colombia thanked Ambassador De Mateo for his work over the past 
year and wished him full success in his new role. 
10.17.  The representative of Kenya said that his country welcomed Ambassador Neple as the new 
DSB Chairman and looked forward to working closely with him during his tenure. Kenya also 
thanked Ambassador De Mateo for his diligence and commitment to the work of the DSB during his tenure as Chairman. Kenya particularly thanked Ambassador De Mateo for his support during 
Kenya's bid to host the 10th Ministerial Conference. Kenya congratulated Ambassador De Mateo on 
his election as the Chairman of the General Counc il and looked forward to working closely with him 
in the course of the year. 
10.18.  The representative of Brazil said that Members knew how important and sometimes 
complex the issues handled in the DSB could be. It was therefore only fair to thank Ambassador 
De Mateo for the good work he had conducted in  the past year. Brazil wished Ambassador Neple 
all the best in 2015. 
10.19.  The representative of New Zealand said that her country thanked Ambassador De Mateo 
for his Chairmanship and excellent guidance over the past year. New Zealand congratulated 
Ambassador Neple for his election as Chairman of the DSB. New Zealand looked forward to 
working with him and assured him of its full support and cooperation. New Zealand wished both 
the outgoing and incoming Chairmen the best in their new roles. 
10.20.  The representative of Egypt said that his country congratulated Ambassador Neple on his 
appointment as Chairman of the DSB. Egypt had had the great honour of working with him as 
Chairman of the Committee on Trade and Develo pment. Egypt congratulated Ambassador De 
Mateo for the excellent work he had done throughout the year and also congratulated him on his appointment as Chairman of the General Council. 
10.21.  The representative of Korea said that his country thanked Ambassador De Mateo for his 
guidance over the past year and wished him the be st in his new role as Chairman of the General 
Council. Korea joined previous speakers in congratulating Ambassador Neple on his election as the 
new Chairman of the DSB and looked forward to working closely with him. Korea assured him of 
its full support. 
10.22.  The representative of the Russian Federation said that his country joined previous 
speakers in congratulating Ambassador Neple on his appointment as Chairman of the DSB. Russia 
wished Ambassador Neple all the best in his new responsibilities. Russia thanked Ambassador 
De Mateo for his outstanding work over the past year. 
10.23.  The representative of Indonesia said that her country congratulated Ambassador Neple on 
his appointment and wished him full success in chairing the DSB. Indonesia thanked Ambassador 
De Mateo for the excellent professionalism in chairing the DSB and wished him full success in his role as the General Council Chairman during this important year. 
10.24.  The representative of Viet Nam said that her country thanked Ambassador De Mateo for 
his great contribution to the DSB and wished him continued success as the General Council 
Chairman. Viet Nam congratulated Ambassador Neple on his election and wished him a successful term as the DSB Chairman. WT/DSB/M/357 
 
- 18 - 
 
  10.25.  The incoming Chairman thanked all Members for their warm welcome and looked forward 
to working with them and with the Secretariat. He  said that he would need their full support and 
was of the view that 2015 would be an active year. There would be challenges but an effort would have to be made to resolve i ssues in mutual cooperation. 
10.26.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
__________