RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/331  
 
8 July 2013  
(13-3565)  Page: 1/23  
Dispute Settlement Body 
24 April 2013    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD 
ON 24 APRIL 2013 
Chairman: Mr. Jonathan Fried (Canada) 
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 ..................................................................... 6  
E.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status 
report by Thailand ............................................................................................................  7 
F.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the Un ited States ................................................................................................ 8  
G.  United States – Measures affecting the production and sale of clove cigarettes: Status 
report by the Un ited States ................................................................................................ 9  
H.  United States – Measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and 
tuna products ................................................................................................................... 9  
2   UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 
2000: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB .............. 10  
A.  Statements by the Eu ropean Union and Japan ................................................................. 10 
3   UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER SUPPLY OF 
GAMBLING AND BETTI NG SERVICES .............................................................................. 11  
A.  Statement by Antigua and Barbuda regarding the implementation of the 
recommendations and ruling s adopted by the DSB ............................................................... 11 
4   INDONESIA – IMPORTATION OF HO RTICULTURAL PRODUCTS, ANIMALS AND 
ANIMAL PRODUCTS ........................................................................................................ 13  
A.  Request for the establishment of  a panel by the United States ........................................... 13 
5   CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-
PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES FROM JAPAN ................................. 14  
A.  Request for the establis hment of a pane l by Japan ........................................................... 14 WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 2 - 
 
  6   CHINA – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON X-RAY SECURITY 
INSPECTION EQUIPMENT FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION ................................................ 15  
A.  Report of  the Panel...................................................................................................... 15 
7   APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT OF APPELLATE BO DY MEMBERS ........................... 16  
A.  Proposal by  the Chairman ............................................................................................ 16 
8   2012 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE APPELLATE BODY ...................................................... 22  
A.  Statement by the Chairman .......................................................................................... 22 
 
 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.125) 
 B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.125) 
 C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.100) 
 D.  European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.63) 
 
E.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status report by Thailand (WT/DS371/15/Add.12) 
 
F .   U n i t e d  S t a t e s  –  A n t i - d u m p i n g  m e a s u r e s  o n  c e r t a i n  s h r i m p  f r o m  V i e t  N a m :  S t a t u s  r e p o r t  b y  the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.11) 
 
G.  United States – Measures affecting the production and sale of clove cigarettes: Status report by the United States (WT/DS406/11/Add.4)  
H.  United States – Measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and tuna 
products (WT/DS381/18)  
 
1.1.  The Chairman noted that there were eight sub-items under Agenda item 1 which referred to 
status reports submitted by various delegations, pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU. As Members 
were aware, Article 21.6 of the DSU required that: "unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of 
implementation of the recommendations or ruling s shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB 
meeting after six months following the date of esta blishment of the reasonable period of time and 
shall remain on the DSB's Agenda until the issue is resolved". He recalled that, at the previous 
DSB meeting in March 2013, he had urged delegations to provide informative and up-to-date 
information about compliance efforts, and had encouraged delegations to make constructive comments focusing on new developments, suggestions and ideas on progress towards the 
resolution of disputes. At that meeting, he had mentioned that, in doing so, Members would be 
true to the intentions of the drafters of Article 21.6 of the DSU. 
A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.125) 
1.2.  The Chairman drew attention to docu ment WT/DS176/11/Add.125, 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 11 April 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As noted in the US 
status report, at least five bills had been introduced in the current Congress in relation to the WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 3 - 
 
  recommendations and rulings of the DSB. These included H.R. 214, H.R. 778, H.R. 872, H.R. 873, 
and S. 647. The US Administration would continue  to work on solutions to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  
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 very soon take steps toward s implementing the DSB's ruling and resolve this 
matter. 
1.5.  The representative of Cuba said that her country noted that it had been a practice for the 
United States to continue to submit status reports that did not contain any information on progress 
in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute, thereby violating Article 21.6 of the DSU. For many years, Cuba had heard of draft laws being introduced before 
various US government agencies with no results. Various initiatives, which could have worked in 
Cuba's favour and end this dispute, had been proposed. However, they had been rejected or remained a dead letter. With regard to the legislat ive texts referred to by the United States at the 
present meeting, no action had been envisaged, which would suggest that the legislation may be 
adopted. In fact, the draft H.R. 214 Cuba Reconciliation Act which, inter alia , provided for the 
repeal of Section 211 had been discussed in Congress since its 106
th session. The 113th session 
was under way and no decision had been taken on the issue. Another draft law that had been 
mentioned by the United States made minimal cosmetic changes to the wording of Section 211 in an attempt to avoid Cuba's continued denouncement of  that legislation. In light of this situation, 
Cuba emphasized that simply mentioning draft legislation that had never been approved could not 
be considered as progress or as a significant change in the US status report which, according to 
Article 21.6 of the DSU, should provide detail s on "progress in the implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings" of the DSB. Cuba regretted that it had to continue to make 
statements in the DSB to draw Members' attention to new violations by the United States under 
Section 211 and the US illegal blockade policy against Cuba.  
1.6.  Cuba noted that the United States proclaimed  itself as a leader and champion of intellectual 
property rights and free trade. However, within th e United States, usurpation of trademarks of a 
developing-country Member such as Cuba extend ed beyond the Havana Club to other renowned 
Cuban trademarks, flouting the protection that  had been granted to them under the trade 
agreements that underpinned the WTO. New infringe ments of Cuban intellectual property rights 
were regularly legalized in the United States and were also permitted under Section 211, despite 
the fact that, in 2002, the DSB had ruled that Section 211 was inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention. In response, the United States had done nothing more than 
to reaffirm the legal status of Section 211. Cuba found it contradictory and disgraceful to hear that 
the United States insist, before the DSB, that other Members establish and enforce high standards in the area of intellectual property rights, when Section 211 was inconsistent with the legal 
principles enshrined in US trademark legislation. Cuba questioned how many Cuban trademarks 
would continue to be counterfeited and marketed on US territory. In Cuba's view, the credibility 
and effectiveness of the multilateral trading sy stem was being undermined by the US failure to 
comply with the DSB's obligations, as it continued with impunity to market Havana Club rum of 
Puerto Rican origin. Cuba would continue to denounce these violations, stand up for its rights and 
seek prompt settlement of this dispute by repealing Section 211. 
1.7.  The Chairman said that, at this point, he wished to remind delegations of Rule 27 of the 
Rules of Procedure for meetings of the DSB. He suggested that delegations who had made written 
statements available for this meeting could consid er summarizing the essence of their statements 
in their oral interventions. The written statements  would be then made available to all delegations 
shortly after the meeting. 
1.8.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the United States for the status 
report and for its statement made at the present meeting. India noted with regret that there was 
no substantive change in the situation. Indi a reiterated its systemic concerns about the 
continuation of non-compliance, since this undermi ned the credibility and confidence that Members 
reposed in the system. India urged the United States to report full compliance without any further delay. 
1.9.  The representative of China said that her delegation understood the Chairman's intention to 
ask Members not to repeat previously stated positions or make the same statements. However, WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 4 - 
 
  since the United States had continued to repeat its status report, China felt obliged to repeat its 
position, as instructed by its capital. Therefore,  China asked for the Chairman's understanding and 
tolerance in this regard. China thanked the United States for its status report and the statement made at the present meeting. In China's view, th e prolonged situation of non-compliance in this 
dispute was highly incompatible with the prompt and effective implementation required under the 
DSU provisions, in particular since the interests of a developing-country Member were affected. China joined other Members in urging the United States to implement the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations without further delay. 
1.10.  The representative of Argentina said that his country thanked the United States for its 
status report and the statement made at the present meeting. Argentina noted that the US status 
report contained an additional paragraph with more information than what was contained in the 
usual status reports submitted by the United States. Argentina thanked the United States for the 
additional information and hoped that future status reports would provide an update on progress being made with respect to draft legislations. As Argentina had mentioned at previous DSB 
meetings, this situation of non-compliance in this dispute was inconsistent with the principle of 
prompt and effective implementation stipulated in the DSU provisions and affected the interests of a developing-country Member. Argentina, therefor e, supported the statements made by Cuba and 
other delegations and urged both parties to the disp ute, in particular the United States, to take 
necessary measures so as to remove this  matter from the Agenda of the DSB.  
1.11.  The representative of Angola said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report regarding the implementation of the DSB's decision and the Appellate Body's findings of 
12 February 2002 on Section 211. This was a positive step forward towards finding a solution to 
this systemic issue. However, Angola wished to emphasize that prompt compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings was essential to ensuring an effective resolution of disputes to the 
benefit of all Members. As Members were aware, the Panel Report had concluded that Section 211 
was inconsistent with Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement. In February 2002, the Appellate Body had confirmed that Section 211 violated the nati onal treatment and the most-favoured-nation 
principles under the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention, and had requested the 
United States to bring Section 211 into conformity with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. The delay in the implementation of the DSB's decision, despite the fact that Section 211 had been found to be inconsistent with WTO rules and principles, affected a central element of the 
multilateral trading system, which provided security and predictability for all Members. It also set a 
negative precedent for other cases. Angola believed that concrete steps and actions by the parties to this dispute would send a positive signal of respect for WTO rules. 
1.12.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that her country noted that 
the 125th US status report did not contain any information on progress in this dispute. In that 
regard, Venezuela had no option but to reiterate its disappointment and concern about the US 
continued disregard of the DSB's ruling of more th an 11 years ago and its lack of political will to 
resolve this dispute. Venezuela noted that the United States continued to maintain Section 211 and had initiated State proceedings aimed at continuing to usurp the well-known Cuban trademark, the Havana Club. This was part of the North American embargo to which the Cuban 
people were being subjected. Therefore, Venezuel a reiterated its support for Cuba and urged the 
United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and to put an end to its policy of economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba, as requested by the international 
community. In Venezuela's view, this situation of non-compliance was unacceptable, affected the 
interests of a developing-country Member and undermined the credibility of the DSB and the multilateral trading system. 
1.13.  The representative of Ecuador said that his country supported the statement made by Cuba 
at the present meeting. Ecuador stressed, once again, that Article 21 of the DSU specifically 
referred 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 recommendations and rulings by 
repealing Section 211. 
1.14.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that, for the past 11 years, 
Members had to listen to the US statements under this Agenda item, however no real progress had 
been made in this dispute. Bolivia, once again, reiterated its systemic concern about the US failure to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Bolivia was also concerned about the lack WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 5 - 
 
  of political will on the part of the United States to resolve this dispute. This situation of non-
compliance undermined the credibility and integrity of the multilateral trading system and caused harm to a developing-country Member. Bolivia urged the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings and to take steps to remove the restrictions imposed under 
Section 211. Bolivia supported the concerns ex pressed by Cuba at the present meeting. 
1.15.  The representative of Uruguay said that his country noted that the Chairman had requested 
delegations not to repeat the same statements concerning Section 211. Once again, Uruguay 
emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The 
DSB was the basis of the WTO legal system and a forum in which the compliance with WTO obligations had to be ensured. Therefore, Uruguay unfortunately had to, once again, urge the parties to this dispute to take up their responsibilities and redouble their efforts to resolve the 
matter. Uruguay noted that it had been 11 years of non-compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.   
1.16.  The representative of Viet Nam said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report. Viet Nam noted that, once again, the US status report showed little progress in the 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. Viet Nam urged the United States to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
1.17.  The representative of Nicaragua said that his country thanked the United States for its 
status report. As had been stated by Cuba, for more than 11 years, this dispute demonstrated the 
lack of will on the part of the United States to comply with the DSB's ruling. Nicaragua supported Cuba's systemic concerns regarding the US failure to comply with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings. This situation of non-compliance undermined the credibility of the multilateral trading 
system and had a negative impact on a small country like Cuba. Nicaragua, once again, urged the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings by adopting the necessary 
measures that would eliminate the restriction imposed under Section 211. 
1.18.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the United States for its status 
report on the implementation of the DSB's recomme ndations in this dispute. Brazil noted that, 
once again, the United States reported lack of  progress. Brazil remained concerned about this 
situation of non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and urged the United States to bring its measures into conformity with the relevant WTO rules. 
1.19.  The representative of Mexico said that his country wished to reiterate its position regarding 
the need to take the necessary measures to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
to the benefit of all Members, as stipulated in Article 21.1 of the DSU. 
1.20.  The representative of the Dominican Republic said that his country thanked the 
United States for its status report in this dispute. The Dominican Republic would have wished to 
abide by the Chairman's opening remarks made at the March DSB meeting. However, there had been no change in this dispute and the United States had, once again, reported non-compliance. 
The Dominican Republic supported the statement made by Uruguay regarding the US failure to 
comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings  concerning the inconsistency of Section 211 
with Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Dominican Republic, once again, urged the United States to step up its internal efforts so  as to comply with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings. The long period of time that had passed with no implementation undermined the credibility 
of the WTO. 
1.21.  The Chairman said that, in order to assist delegations in reporting to their capitals, including 
the United States – which would no doubt report to its various authorities on this matter – he 
wished to draw Members' attention to the fact that, in addition to the United States, the delegations of the EU, Cuba, China, Argentina, An gola, Ecuador and Bolivia had made their written 
statements available at the present meeting, and thus delegations could refer to them in greater 
detail.  
1.22.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 6 - 
 
  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.125) 
1.23.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.125, which contained the 
status report by the United States on pr ogress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel 
products from Japan. 
1.24.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 April 2013, 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 in this dispute. With respect to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the 
US Administration would work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory 
measures that would resolve this matter.  
1.25.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked the United States for its 
statement and status report submitted on 11 April 2013. Since the content of the US status report 
had not changed from the previous one, Japan's po sition had not changed either, as expressed at 
the previous DSB meeting. 
1.26.  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.100) 
1.27.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.100, which contained the 
status report by the United States on pr ogress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act. 
1.28.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 April 2013, 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.  
1.29.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and its statement made at the pr esent meeting. The EU referred to its previous 
statements regarding its wish to resolve this dispute as soon as possible. 
1.30.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
D.  European Communities – Measures affect ing the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the Eu ropean Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.63) 
1.31.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.63, 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. 
1.32.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU, once again, wished to express 
its hope that it would continue on the constructive path of dialogue with the United States. Over 
the past three years, four technical meetings had taken place, the most recent one had been held 
only a few days ago. The discussions had offered a good opportunity to address directly issues of concern to both sides and to follow up closely on developments in the biotech field. The EU 
authorization system continued to function normally. In 2012, the Commission had authorized five 
 WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 7 - 
 
  new GMOs1 and had renewed the authorization of a sixth one.2 Three of those decisions3 had been 
adopted only six months after the relevant EFSA opinions had been published, while the recent decision on MIR162 had been adopted less th an four months after the EFSA opinion.
4 Regarding 
the concerns expressed by the United States on the back-log of approvals, the EU, once again, 
recalled that the EU approval system was not co vered by the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
The EU underlined that the GMO regulatory regime was working normally as evidenced by the 
approval decisions just mentioned. At the meet ing of the relevant committee of 26 April 2013 the 
Commission would present, for discussion and vote, an authorizing decision for three GMOs5, and 
two more decisions6 would be submitted to the following meeting.  
1.33.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked the EU for its status 
report as well as its statement made at the present meeting. As the EU was well aware, the 
United States continued to have serious concerns regarding EU measures affecting the approval of 
biotech products. The United States had noted these concerns at the last three meetings of the DSB and, in particular, its concerns with the progress of applications for a new biotech soy variety 
and a new biotech corn variety. While the United States understood that the EU's scientific 
authority (EFSA) had published positive opinions for both products in 2012, the United States understood that consideration of those products remained delayed in the EU approval system. As 
the United States had noted at the last DSB meeting, the relevant Standing Committee had 
discussed the EFSA opinion for the corn event at its March 2013 meeting, but a regulatory proposal for approval had still not yet been presented. As this illustrated, the EU measures affecting the approval of biotech products currently resulted in serious restrictions on trade in 
agricultural commodities. The United States contin ued to urge the EU to take steps to address 
these matters. The United States also said that it would like to comment briefly on what the EU delegate had said with respect to technical discussions that had been taking place. The 
United States appreciated the opportunity to discuss with the EU its concerns with market access 
for products derived from biotechnology. The discussions of late had been very helpful for the United States to review in detail the status of applications before the EU authorities. That said, as 
the United States had expressed during those di scussions and at the present meeting, the United 
States continued to have concerns regarding delays in approvals and the negative impact this had had, and hoped that the parties could resolve this matter. 
1.34.  The Chairman thanked the EU and the United  States for their statements. Although he had 
detected some repetition in each of their statements, he thought that both parties had provided a 
substantive update on their respective perspectives and on initiatives that had been taken in their capitals and with each other in consultations. This helped to inform the broader Membership of the 
nature of the dispute and gave Members a chance to consider whether, and in what ways, they 
might be helpful in nurturing the two sides towards a mutually acceptable solution. He thanked both parties for providing a good model of status report updates. 
1.35.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
E.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures  on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status 
report by Thailand (WT/DS371/15/Add.12) 
1.36.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS371/15/Add.12, which contained the 
status report by Thailand on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Thailand's customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines. 
1.37.  The representative of Thailand said that her country wished to refer Members to its most 
recent status report in this dispute, which had been circulated on 12 April 2013. Thailand and the 
Philippines would hold informal consultations in this dispute in Bangkok the following week. 
Thailand hoped that the informal consultations would lead to a mutually satisfactory outcome to 
                                               
1 A5547-127 soybean, 356043 soybean, MON87701 soybean, MON87701 x MON89788 soybean, 
MIR162 maize. 
2 40-3-2 soybean. 
3 Authorization decision for 356043 and MON87701 soybeans, MON87701 x MON89788 soybean. 
4 EFSA opinion: 21 June 2012; decision on authorization: 18 October 2012.  
5 Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3. 
6 Maize stack events MON89034 x 1507 x MON88017 x 59122 and GM maize MON89034×1507×NK603. WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 8 - 
 
  the dispute without the need for further WTO proceedings. In that regard, Thailand looked forward 
to constructive discussions.  
1.38.  The representative of the Philippines said that his country thanked Thailand for its status 
report and for its statement made at the present meeting. As referred to by Thailand, the 
Philippines had agreed to hold a further bilateral meeting to discuss outstanding issues of 
compliance. The meeting would take place the follo wing week in Bangkok. From the Philippines' 
point of view, this was the last attempt to avoi d further litigation. The Philippines, therefore, 
expected tangible progress towards a resolution of the outstanding issues from that meeting. 
Should there be no progress, the Philippines was ready to return to dispute settlement proceedings. 
1.39.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. F.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.11) 
1.40.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS404/11/Add.11, 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. 
1.41.  The representative of the United States said that his country had circulated a status report 
in this dispute on 11 April 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. In February 2012, the 
US Department of Commerce had published a modification to its procedures in order to implement 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings regarding th e use of "zeroing" in anti-dumping reviews. 
That modification addressed certain findings in this dispute. In June 2012, the US Trade Representative had requested, pursuant to Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 
that the US Department of Commerce take action necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. The United States would continue to consult with interested parties as it worked to address the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 
1.42.  The representative of Viet Nam said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting. Viet Nam recalled that the reasonable 
period of time that had been mutually agreed by  both parties had expired nine months ago but the 
United States had not taken any action to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
Viet Nam reiterated its systemic concerns about the US non-compliance in this dispute and its 
failure to meet its international obligations. Viet Nam, once again, urged the United States to implement, without any further delay, the DSB's recommendations and rulings and, in particular, 
to revoke the anti-dumping duty order that was inconsistent with WTO rules.   
1.43.  The representative of Cuba said that he r country wished to reiterate the importance of 
effective compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, in particular since the interests 
of a developing-country Member were affected. In Cuba's view, unjustified lack of compliance by a 
country with great economic weight like the United States was of great concern. Cuba noted that this was, unfortunately, another case of non-compliance on the part of the United States. Cuba urged the United States to take stock of the pending non-compliance issues in the DSB and to find 
solutions to all its disputes that were currently before the DSB.  
1.44.  The representative of the United States said that it was important to recognize that the 
United States had come into compliance fully and promptly in the vast number of disputes in which 
it had been a party. As the Agenda of the pr esent meeting demonstrated, there remained a few 
instances where US efforts to come into compliance had not been successful. However, the United States did continue to work towards compliance and it was important not to allow the 
comments regarding the US compliance record to go unanswered. 
1.45.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 9 - 
 
  G.  United States – Measures affecting the pr oduction and sale of clove cigarettes: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS406/11/Add.4) 
1.46.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS406/11/Add.4 which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning the US measures affecting the production and sale of clove cigarettes. 
1.47.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 April 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As noted in the status 
report, US authorities continued to confer with interested parties and work to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a manner  that was appropriate from the perspective of 
the public health.   
1.48.  The representative of Indonesia said that his country thanked the United States for its 
status report and wished to reiterate its statement made at the previous DSB meeting on 
26 March 2013. Indonesia noted that the reasonable period of time for the United States to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute would expire in about three 
months. Indonesia appreciated the US position to uphold its interest to promote the public health, 
as long as the measure was not more trade restrictive than necessary. Therefore, Indonesia urged the United States to report on more concrete  progress on the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute at the next DSB regular meeting. 
1.49.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. H.  United States – Measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and 
tuna products (WT/DS381/18) 
1.50.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS381/18 which contained the status report 
by the United States on progress in the implemen tation of the DSB's recommendations in the case 
regarding the US measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and tuna 
products. 
1.51.  The representative of the United States said that, as Members were aware, the 
United States had provided a status report in this dispute on 11 April 2013, in accordance with the 
DSU. As noted in its status report, on 5 April 2013, the United States had published, in the Federal Register, a proposed rule related to the US dolphin-safe labeling standards that had been at issue in this dispute.
7 The proposed changes included in the Federal Register would help ensure that 
consumers received accurate information concerning whether the tuna in a product labeled 
"dolphin safe" had been caught in a manner that caused harm to dolphins. The United States would continue to work to implement the recomme ndations and rulings of the DSB by the end of 
the reasonable period of time. 
1.52.  The representative of Mexico said that his country took note of the US publication in the 
Federal Register of draft regulations amending cert ain requirements on "dolphin-safe" labelling, in 
order to comply with the WTO decision in this di spute. Unfortunately, the proposed regulations did 
not remove discrimination against Mexican tuna. Mexico believed that Mexican tuna products would continue to be denied access to a "dolphin-safe" label, even though the Mexican fleet complied with the world's most extensive and sophisticated dolphin protection regime, the 
Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program. The proposed regulations 
recognized that the United States did not apply the same "dolphin-safe" labelling rules to other countries. Their aim was to step up the monitoring of fishing practices in oceans other than the 
Eastern Pacific. However, they did not provide for an effective verification and enforcement 
mechanism. The proposed regulations, therefore, did not eliminate the economic injury caused to 
the Mexican industry, nor did they address the damage caused to the environment and dolphins by 
fishing fleets from other countries in other oceans. In that regard, Mexico was examining all the 
legal options available to it. 
                                               
7 Enhanced Document Requirements to Support Us e of the Dolphin Safe Label on Tuna Products, 
78 Fed. Reg. 20604 (proposed 5 April 2013) (to be codified at 50 CFR pt. 216). WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.53.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked Mexico for its 
comments on US implementation efforts in this di spute, but the United States would take some 
exception to the way in which Mexico had characterized the proposed rule. It was the US view that the proposed rule would bring it into compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
That said, the United States took note of Mexico's comments at the present meeting and would 
welcome further bilateral discussion with Mexico to discuss this matter.  
1.54.  The Chairman noted that the reasonable period of time for compliance was unfolding and 
hoped that constructive consultations could assist in resolving differences between the parties on 
implementation in this dispute.  
1.55.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
2  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 
2.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union and Japan. He then invited the respective representatives to speak. 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union said  that the EU wished to inform the DSB that the 
authorized level of retaliation against the United States would amount to US$60,774,402 from 
1 May 2013. The regulation containing the EU measures had been published on 18 April 2013 and would soon be notified to the DSB. The EU noted the great increase in the levels of disbursements 
from US authorities to its industry and the corresponding increase in sanctions. Every 
disbursement that still took place was clearly an act of non-compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. The EU was concerned that the US lack of implementation in this dispute was worsening. Once again, the EU requested that the United States stop transferring anti-
dumping and countervailing duties to the US industry and to abide by its clear obligation under 
Article 21.6 of the DSU to submit status reports in this dispute. 
2.3.  The representative of Japan said that, as the EU had mentioned, given the fact that the 
distributions under the CDSOA had been continuing to date, Japan, once again, urged the 
United States to stop the illegal distributions so as to resolve this dispute. Japan noted that the United States was under obligation to provide the DSB with a status report in this dispute in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. 
2.4.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda. As had been expressed at previous meetings, Brazil was of the view 
that the United States was under obligation to submit status reports in this dispute until such time 
that no more disbursements were made pursuant  to the Byrd Amendment. Only then would the 
issue be resolved within the meaning of the DSU an d the United States would be released from its 
obligation to provide status reports in this dispute. 
2.5.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for regularly 
bringing this issue before the DSB. India shar ed their concerns and supported their views. 
2.6.  The representative of Canada said that his country wished to refer to its previous statements 
made under this Agenda item at previous DSB meetings. He said that Canada's position on this 
matter had not changed. 
2.7.  The representative of Thailand said that her country supported the statements made by 
previous speakers and continued to urge the United States to cease the disbursements and fully 
implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations on this matter. 
2.8.  The representative of the United States said that his country appreciated the opportunity to 
respond to some of the comments made at the pr esent meeting. The United States thanked the 
other delegates for sharing their views on this item and the EU for the information that it had 
provided. The United States regretted to hear the EU's announcement about its proposed level of WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 11 - 
 
  retaliation and was looking forward to reviewing the EU's notification on this issue. However, the 
United States wished to be clear that, at the present meeting, the United States was not able to share the EU's characterization about the level of authorization as the DSB had only authorized the suspension of concessions as had been provided in the Award of the Arbitrator. With respect to 
comments made calling for the United States to provide further status reports in this matter, the 
United States had addressed at length in the last DSB meeting and would refer to the comments that had been made at that meeting. The United States had taken all steps necessary to 
implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute and it was not necessary to 
repeat that again at the present meeting. 
2.9.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
3  UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER SUPPLY OF GAMBLING 
AND BETTING SERVICES 
A.  Statement by Antigua and Barbuda regarding the implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings adopted by the DSB 
3.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Antigua and Barbuda. He noted that the represen tative of Dominica, with the authorization of 
Antigua and Barbuda, would make a statement under this Agenda item. Before giving the floor to 
Dominica, he recalled that Members had briefly touched on this subject at the March DSB meeting 
under "Other Business". At that meeting, the repr esentative of Dominica had made a statement on 
behalf of Antigua and Barbuda. That generated a bi t of a side debate as to what was appropriate 
to take up under "Other Business". Certain delegations had highlighted the fact that substantive 
items should be placed on the Agenda in advance of the meeting. Other delegations had pointed 
out that any Member was free to raise any items under "Other Business". There was also a debate 
on whether written statements, which had not been circulated in advance, should be incorporated 
into the minutes of meetings under "Other Busine ss". Following a good exchange on this matter at 
that meeting, he had invited delegations who had further thoughts on the matter to provide comments. In the meantime, the delegation of An tigua and Barbuda had requested that the longer 
version of the statement prepared for the March DSB meeting be circulated as a DS document to 
all Members. He was informed that that statement would be circulated as document WT/DS285/26. In light of this, the question rais ed at the last DSB meeting as to whether the 
longer version of the statement would appear in the minutes or not was, in effect, a moot 
question. He then invited the representative of Dominica to make the statement on behalf of 
Antigua and Barbuda. 
3.2.  The representative of Dominica, speaking on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda, read out the 
following statement: "The delegation of Antigua an d Barbuda requested that this item be placed on 
the Agenda for today's meeting of the DSB in order to draw attention to the fact that to date, the United States has not complied with the recommendations or rulings of the DSB in dispute 
WT/DS285. Nor have the United States and Antigua and Barbuda negotiated and approved an 
agreed compromise in the matter. And, despite our bringing this matter to the attention of the DSB on a number of occasions, the United States continues to fail to comply with its obligation under the DSU to provide the DSB with a status report in writing of its progress in the 
implementation of the recommendations or rulings on a monthly basis until the dispute is resolved. 
W e  h a v e  a l s o  a s k e d  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  o n  a  n u m b e r  o f  o c c a s i o n s  t o  c o m p l y  w i t h  i t s  m o n t h l y  reporting obligations under the DSU, or at least ex plain why it has failed and refused to do so. To 
date, the United States has done neither, so in stead of receiving monthly progress reports from 
the United States and having our dispute on th e regular Agenda for DSU meetings, every month 
now it seems we are going to be required to pu t the item on the Agenda, express our dismay at 
the lack of progress in our case and at the failure and refusal of the United States to follow a very 
basic and unambiguous obligation of it under the DSU. If that is what it will take to keep our long-standing unresolved trade dispute before this Body, then that is what Antigua and Barbuda will do. 
But particularly in light of the woeful result we have achieved to date here at the WTO in claiming 
our proper rights under the GATS and the DSU, the more or less cavalier flaunting of its reporting 
obligations by the United States in DS285 does nothing to lessen our increasing fear that there is nothing on offer here for small, vulnerable economies." 
3.3.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked the Chairman and 
Dominica for delivering the statement on behalf  of Antigua and Barbuda. The United States WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 12 - 
 
  remained committed to constructive dialogue with Antigua to resolve this matter. The 
United States remained of the view that a negotiated resolution was the best outcome and would continue to proceed with those efforts. In relation to comments made at the present meeting about the need for the United States to provide status reports in this dispute and for this item to 
remain on the Agenda of the DSB, the United States recalled that it had invoked the GATS 
Article XXI process to withdraw the gambling concessions at issue in this dispute. In conjunction with that action, the United States had reached agreement with all other interested Members to 
complete that process by offering substantia l new services concessions. Only Antigua had 
prevented the completion of that process by its actions. While the United States noted Antigua's 
willingness to discuss this issue at the DSB, the Un ited States believed that the GATS Article XXI 
process was the proper forum for further discussion of this matter.  
3.4.  The representative of Jamaica said that his country supported the statement made by 
Dominica on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda. It wa s unfortunate that this case remained unresolved 
after such a protracted period and despite the clear and unambiguous DSB rulings in favour of 
Antigua and Barbuda. Jamaica had increasingly heard that the WTO's credibility and the wider 
multilateral system were at stake, largely due to persistent challenges confronting the WTO's negotiating pillar. Despite that, the dispute settlement aspect of the WTO's work had continued to 
demonstrate that it was possible for countries at any level of development to file cases and to 
expect a clear and transparent adjudication of trade disputes. The protracted failure to bring 
closure to this dispute, however, could have systemic and other implications for the dispute settlement process. Jamaica, once again, urged both parties to the dispute to leave no stone 
unturned in bringing the dispute to a swift, just and lasting conclusion. Developing countries and 
LDCs would continue to pay close attention to the ou tcome of this dispute, as it reflected on their 
ability to fully benefit from the multilateral trading system and the dispute settlement process in 
particular. 
3.5.  The representative of Trinidad and Tobago  said that her country supported the statement 
made by Dominica on behalf of Antigua and Barb uda. Trinidad and Tobago recalled its statement 
made on behalf of CARICOM at the DSB meeting on 27 February 2013. At that meeting, CARICOM 
states had urged the United States to engage Antigua and Barbuda in meaningful and constructive negotiations in order to arrive at a mutually acceptable settlement to this long-standing dispute. The WTO's dispute settlement system was widely rega rded as one of the most useful and critical 
features of the multilateral trading system. In that regard, in order to maintain the high degree of 
confidence in the system, Trinidad and Tobago looked forward to an amicable resolution of this matter in the near future. 
3.6.  The representative of Cuba said that her country supported the statement made by Dominica 
on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda. Cuba agreed with previous speakers that this was a regrettable 
case of non-compliance. Once again, Cuba urged the United States to resolve its pending disputes 
and, in particular, those affecting the interests of developing-country Members. 
3.7.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked Antigua and Barbuda for including 
this item on the DSB's Agenda. As it had previously stated, Brazil was of the view that the WTO 
dispute settlement system had proved to be a us eful tool for resolving trade disputes among 
Members through a rules-based mechanism. However, the credibility and effectiveness of the 
system depended on the premise that the mech anism worked for the benefit of all Members, 
regardless of their size or level of development. Bearing that in mind, Brazil encouraged both 
parties to the dispute to engage in effective negotiations with a view to reaching a mutually-
agreed solution to the long-standing "US-Gambling " case, in line with the DSB's rulings in this 
dispute. 
3.8.  The representative of the Dominican Repub lic said that his country supported the statement 
made by Dominica on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda. The Dominican Republic noted that this case 
affected the interests of a small economy and th at non-compliance undermined the credibility of 
the rules-based system. The Dominican Republic, th erefore, urged the United States to comply 
with the DSB's recommendations so as to ensure equal opportunities in trade for small and 
vulnerable economies. 
3.9.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that her country supported 
the statement made by Dominica on behalf of An tigua and Barbuda, as well as the statements 
made by previous speakers on this matter. Venezu ela noted that this was another case of failure WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 13 - 
 
  by one Member to respect the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The United States continued to 
repeatedly fail to comply with the DSB's ru ling of 2005. Venezuela recalled that, in 2007, the 
compliance panel had confirmed that the United States had failed to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. Non-compliance in this dispute affected a small developing-country 
Member whose economy was services-based, with services comprising about 78% of its GDP. 
Thus, any restriction on services would have a serious impact on Antigua and Barbuda's income. Venezuela supported Antigua and Barbuda, a memb er of the Bolivarian Alliance, and condemned 
the US lack of compliance. Venezuela urged the United States to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  
3.10.  The representative of Dominica, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Eastern 
Caribbean States (OECS), recalled the statement made at the 17 December 2012 DSB meeting on 
behalf of OECS member States. The member Stat es of the OECS continued to call for a speedy 
resolution of this long-standing dispute in line with the DSB's rulings and recommendations and, more importantly, in line with the fundamental principles, objectives, goals and WTO Agreements, 
in order to take in account the needs of a small and vulnerable developing-country Member. 
3.11.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
4  INDONESIA – IMPORTATION OF HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS, ANIMALS AND ANIMAL 
PRODUCTS 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS455/7) 4.1.  The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
26 March 2013 and had agreed to revert to it. He drew attention to the communication from the 
United States contained in document WT/DS455/7, and invited the representative of the 
United States to speak. 
4.2.  The representative of the United States said that, as noted at the last DSB meeting, the 
United States was concerned about Indonesia's broad use of import licensing measures on 
horticultural products, animals, and animal products. Among other things, Indonesia's discretionary and non-automatic import licensing regime required importers to obtain import 
recommendations from the Ministry of Agriculture and import permits from the Ministry of Trade. 
Indonesia also set import quotas for animals and animal products and its import licensing regime 
was non-transparent. These measures had had a significant adverse impact on exports to Indonesia of a range of products from the United States and other Members, including fruits, 
vegetables, flowers, dried fruits, juices, and meat. Further, they appeared to be in breach of some 
of Indonesia's core WTO obligations involving trade in goods. For several years, the United States had attempted to resolve its concerns through dialogue with Indonesia, but unfortunately those 
efforts had failed to resolve the dispute. The United States remained open to any action by 
Indonesia to remove its WTO-inconsistent measures and remained willing to find a mutually satisfactory solution to the dispute. However, at the present time, the United States was not in a 
position to conclude that Indonesia had taken acti on that addressed the problems identified in the 
US panel request. Accordingly, the United States was renewing the request that it had first made at the March 2013 DSB meeting and asked the DSB to establish a panel to examine the matter set out in the US panel request, with standard terms of reference.   
4.3.  The representative of Indonesia said that his country regretted that the United States had 
requested the establishment of the panel to exam ine this matter. Indonesia had taken seriously 
the US concerns that Indonesia's regulations on the importation of some horticultural products, 
animals, and animal products were inconsistent with the provisions of Articles X:1, X:3(a), and 
XI(1) of the GATT 1994; Article 4.2 of Agreement on Agriculture; as well as Articles 1.2, 3.2, and 3.3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing. Follow ing the consultations held in Geneva on 21 and 
22 February 2013, Indonesia had undertaken prof ound measures to respond appropriately to 
those concerns. With a strong good faith intention, Indonesia had also conducted intensive consultations amongst relevant ministries and other relevant stakeholders. Indonesia wished to refer to a number of high-level political meetings it had initiated to resolve this matter, namely: 
following the Cabinet meeting on 13 April 2013, a special meeting had been scheduled on 
17 April 2013, chaired by the Coordinating Mini ster for the Economy in Indonesia; and on 
19 April 2013, a meeting had been held between the Minister for Trade of the Republic of WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 14 - 
 
  Indonesia and the Acting USTR during the APEC's Ministers Responsible for Trade meeting in 
Surabaya. At the meeting on 19 April 2013 in Surabaya, Indonesia had again reiterated its strong commitments as a WTO Member and its good faith intention to resolve the case in accordance with the WTO Agreements. Indonesia had conveyed to the United States that the regulations under 
scrutiny would be amended or replaced. Those measures would be carried out with the spirit of 
providing enhanced transparency, certainty, an d simplicity, as well as taking into account 
Indonesia's commitments in the WTO. Efforts had also commenced to bring the administration of 
imports of such products under a "one-roof services" system. This mechanism would be integrated 
i n t o  I n d o n e s i a ' s  N a t i o n a l  S i n g l e  W i n d o w  ( I N S W )  s o  a s  t o  e n s u r e  t h e  a p p l i c a t i o n  o f  n o n -discriminatory treatment of the importation of prod ucts in question. Amendment or replacement of 
the regulations pertaining to the importation of horticultural products would take place as soon as 
possible. Meanwhile, amendment or replacement of  the regulations concerning the importation of 
animal and animal products would take place on a gradual basis due to the specific nature of the 
tasks to be addressed. Indonesia reserved the right to administer its import policies in accordance 
with Article XX of the GATT 1994. 
4.4.  Finally, Indonesia wished to refer to Article 4.7 of the DSU which stated: "If the consultations 
fail to settle a dispute within 60 days after the date  of receipt of the request for consultations, the 
complaining party may request the establishment of a panel." Indonesia, therefore, understood 
that the process to resolve this matter was still being undertaken and the "consultation" that was 
governed by that provision had not failed. For those reasons, Indonesia was not in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel. However,  Indonesia stood ready to contribute and take 
positive actions under the DSU provisions. Indonesia would continuously engage in bilateral 
exchanges and discussions with a view to achiev ing a mutually satisfactory outcome to this 
dispute. 
4.5.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked Indonesia for, and 
appreciated, its explanation of the steps it had ta ken to address the matter raised in the US panel 
request. The United States was looking forward to receiving additional information on any steps 
that Indonesia had taken or planned to take, incl uding copies of amendments and things of that 
nature. The United States would be pleased to review those details carefully and was optimistic that they could help resolve this dispute, if they removed the WTO-inconsistencies the United States had identified. However, at the present meeting, the United States was not in a 
position to say that the measures referenced addressed the serious WTO-inconsistences that had 
been identified in its panel report, which was why the United States was reluctantly continuing to move forward with this dispute.   
4 . 6 .   T h e  C h a i r m a n  s a i d  t h a t ,  b e f o r e  c o n c l u d i n g  t h i s  m a t t e r ,  h e  w i s h e d  t o  m a k e  a  c l a r i f i c a t i o n  
given that Indonesia had cited Article 4.7 of the DSU, suggesting that consultations had not yet 
failed. However, given that the request for the establishment of the panel was on the DSB's 
Agenda for the second time, the DSB must agree to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference. He hoped that continued consultations would lead to an amicable resolution of this dispute and a withdrawal or termination of the panel proceedings. 
4.7.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference. 
4.8.  The representatives of Australia, Canada , China, the European Union, Japan, Korea and 
Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
5  CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-D UMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE 
STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES FROM JAPAN 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Japan (WT/DS454/4) 
5.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the communication from Japan contained in document 
WT/DS454/4, and invited the representative of Japan to speak. 5.2.  The representative of Japan said that his country had made this request for the 
establishment of a panel on 11 April 2013. As ha d been explained in the panel request, this WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 15 - 
 
  dispute concerned China's anti-dumping measures on high-performance stainless steel seamless 
tubes ("HP-SSST") originating from Japan, thereby challenging their consistency with several provisions of the WTO Agreement. As set out in  the request for the establishment of a panel, 
Japan's concerns related to every aspect of China's investigation. It appeared that MOFCOM's 
explanation was insufficient throughout the investigation and it did not meet the transparency 
requirements and procedural obligations under th e WTO Agreement. For example, China had failed 
to make an objective examination on the injury determination based on positive evidence, 
including price effect analysis and the consequent impact of the alleged dumped imports on 
domestic producers of such products. China had failed to inform the essential facts underlying its determination and make available all relevant information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which had led to the imposition of the fi nal measures. China's treatment of confidential 
information had not allowed the interested parties to obtain a reasonable understanding of the 
substance of the confidential information. With  respect to the determination of the dumping 
margin for all other Japanese companies, China had improperly applied facts available, and had 
failed to disclose adequately to all interested parties the essential facts and make available all 
relevant information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which had led to the imposition of final measures. Japan considered that China's anti -dumping measures at issue were inconsistent 
with its various obligations under the WTO Agreement, as had clearly been explained in Japan's 
panel request. Japan had requested consultations on 20 December 2012 and had engaged in consultations in good faith with China on 31 January and 1 February 2013 with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. While the consultations had provided useful opportunities for the 
parties to better understand their respective positions on this matter, the consultations had not 
resolved the dispute. Japan, therefore, requested, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, that a panel be established to examine the matter as set out in its panel request with standard terms of reference 
in accordance with Article 7.1 of the DSU. 
5.3.  The representative of China said that he r country was disappointed that Japan had requested 
the establishment of a panel to examine this di spute. As noted by Japan, on 31 January and 
1 February 2013, China had held consultations with Japan in good faith. During the consultations, 
China had introduced the relevant facts, had prov ided explanations to Japan and had answered its 
questions. The WTO Agreements permitted Members to levy on any dumped product an anti-dumping duty in order to offset or prevent dumping. With respect to the investigations at issue in 
this dispute, China's investigating authorities had found that the imports of high-performance 
stainless steel seamless tubes from Japan constituted dumping and the dumped imports had caused material injury to China's domestic industry. As a result, China had decided to levy an anti-
dumping duty on the dumped high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes from Japan. The 
imposition of the anti-dumping measure was consistent with China's obligations under the WTO rules. Therefore, pursuant to the DSU, China was no t in a position to agree to the establishment of 
a panel at the present meeting. 
5.4.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter. 
6  CHINA – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DU TIES ON X-RAY SECURITY INSPECTION 
EQUIPMENT FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION 
A.  Report of the Panel (WT/DS425/R and WT/DS425/R/Add.1) 
6.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at its meet ing on 20 January 2012, the DSB had established a 
panel to examine the complaint by the European Union pertaining to this dispute. The Report of 
the Panel contained in document WT/DS425/R and Add.1 had been circulated on 26 February 2013 
as an unrestricted document. The Report of the Panel was before the DSB for adoption at the request of the European Union. The adoption procedure was without prejudice to the right of 
Members to express their views on the Report. 
6.2.  The representative of the European Unio n said that the EU thanked the Panel and the 
Secretariat for their work in this dispute. The EU welcomed the Panel's findings. The Panel had 
upheld the EU claims with regard to all aspects of the investigation challenged by the EU, i.e. price 
effects analysis, injury determination and causality as well as the transparency of the proceedings. 
Consequently, crucial aspects of China's assessment, necessary for the imposition of the duties, had been found to be inconsistent with the requirements of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The EU 
also believed that those clear findings had an effect beyond the particular investigation in this 
dispute and would be in the interest of all Members. In that context, the EU particularly welcomed WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 16 - 
 
  the Panel's findings with regard to the methodology followed by China's authorities in its price 
effects analysis. In light of the clear findings of the Panel, the EU trusted that China would promptly take the necessary steps to ensure WTO compatibility of the measure. The EU expected 
that this would lead to the removal of the duties on x-ray security inspection equipment from the 
EU.  
6.3.  The representative of China said that he r country thanked the Panel and the Secretariat for 
their timely and efficient work in this dispute. China did not agree with the EU on its assessment 
that all aspects of China's investigation in this Panel Report were inconsistent with the Anti-
Dumping Agreement. China drew Members' attentio n to the fact that the Panel supported China's 
claims regarding certain issues at issue in this dispute such as disclosure before final determination, public notice of final determinatio n, and positive-evidence based examination of the 
state of the industry and non-attribution analysis. China welcomed those findings and believed 
that they were correct and represented a proper resolution of this issue. However, China did not believe that the Panel Report was entirely free from error. In particular, China was troubled by the 
Panel's approach to price effect analysis and di sclosure before final determination. The Anti-
Dumping Agreement provided considerable latitude to investigating authorities in conducting an anti-dumping investigation, permitting different approaches and findings by WTO Members that 
may nevertheless all be in compliance with the Anti-Dumping Agreement. While China was 
troubled by the Panel's approach to these issu es, China believed that there might be other 
opportunities where more definitive resolution of those controversial issues would be clarified by a future panel or Appellate Body decision. 
6.4.  The representative of the United States sa id that his country welcomed the issuance of the 
Panel Report in this dispute. The United States noted that the Panel dealt with several important 
procedural and substantive issues related to China's application of trade remedies, some of which 
were similar to issues that had been addressed by the DSB in its recommendations and rulings in 
2012 in the dispute: "China – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States" (DS414). It appeared that the DSB was, with ever 
greater frequency, being called upon to consider Members' concerns regarding China's application 
of trade remedies, as had been illustrated by th e previous item on the Agenda of the present 
meeting, as well as two other pending disputes re lated to these issues. In each of these cases, 
Members appeared to have identified similar issues  regarding lack of robustness of China's injury 
analysis, procedural defects in its investigations, and its apparent failure to comply with important 
transparency obligations. The United States hoped that China would carefully consider these developments as it applied its trade remedies laws and worked to bring its measures into 
compliance in connection with the GOES matter. 
6.5.  The representative of China said that her country welcomed the statement and remarks 
made by the United States on the Panel Report in this dispute concerning x-ray security inspection 
equipment. However, China could not agree that  some matters concerning the "GOES" dispute 
would be the same as the dispute under consideration. In China's view, each dispute was specific and unique in terms of the legal interpretation of the covered agreement based on the different factual situations. China did not see whether the US comments could help or be useful in resolving 
this dispute. 
6.6.  The Chairman said that the purpose of this  item on the DSB's Agenda was for the parties to 
the dispute, the third parties or any other interested party to express their views on the Panel 
Report, as stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU.  
6.7.  The DSB took note of the statements and adopted the Panel Report contained in document 
WT/DS425/R and Add.1. 
7  APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT OF APPELLATE BODY MEMBERS 
A.  Proposal by the Chairman 7.1.  The Chairman said that, as he had promised  at the previous DSB meeting, he had circulated 
a more formal proposal for a procedure regarding the appointment and reappointment of certain 
Appellate Body members. He recalled that, in March 2013, he had informed Members that the 
second four-year term of office of Mr. David Unte rhalter and the first four-year term of office of WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 17 - 
 
  Mr. Peter Van den Bossche would expire on 11 December 2013. He had also informed delegations 
that Mr. Van den Bossche, who was eligible for a second four-year term, pursuant to Article 17.2 of the DSU, had expressed his interest and willi ngness to be reappointed. Thus, on 12 April 2013, 
he had sent out a proposed approach to delegations by fax that contained five elements for the 
DSB to decide: (1) to agree to launch a selection process for one position in the Appellate Body, 
currently held by Mr. David Unterhalter; (2) to  establish a Selection Committee comprising the 
Director-General and the 2013 Chairpersons of the General Council, the Goods Council, the 
Services Council, the TRIPS Council and the DSB, following customary practice based on the 
procedures set out in document WT/DSB/1; (3) to set a deadline of 30 August 2013 for Members' nominations of candidates for Mr. Unterhalter's position; (4) to agree that the Selection Committee carry out its work in September/ October 2013 and make its recommendations to the DSB by no 
later than 7 November 2013, so that the DSB could take a final decision on this matter at the 
latest at its regular meeting on 20 November 2013; and (5) to request the DSB Chair to carry out consultations on the possible reappointment of Mr. Peter Van den Bossche, who was eligible and 
willing to be reappointed for a second four-year te rm. Having circulated his proposal in advance, 
the Chairman understood that there had been some  debate, deliberation and consideration of his 
proposal by certain Members. This was reflected in a room document made available by Norway 
and the United States to all Members at the present meeting. The Chairman said that he had had a 
chance to review those proposed refinements to his proposal and, in his view, they were for the most part editorial in nature. They were also consistent with his intent and, in some respects, helpful in clarifying his intent. He said that he valued the encouragement reflected in the revised 
proposal to preserve the August summer break in that all Members were encouraged to use best 
efforts to meet the August deadline a little earlier if possible, but noted that this was only to encourage Members who wished to make nominations to consider doing so in July. He said that he 
would invite Norway or the United States to say a few words on the room document first and then 
he would open the floor to other delegations for comments.     
7.2.  The representative of the United States said that his country appreciated the 12 April 2013 
Chairman's communication to Members circulating proposed language for a DSB decision on the 
approach to the appointment and reappointmen t of Appellate Body members in 2013. The 
United States appreciated the Chairman's willingness to receive suggestions from Members with respect to the decision and to work with Members on improving the language. The United States 
also appreciated the comments offered by the Chai rman at the present meeting in support of its 
proposal. The United States had spoken with the Chairman and a number of delegations on ideas to further clarify the decision, and the joint proposal that the United States had produced with 
Norway had been sent to delegations and was also  available in the room. The joint suggestions to 
the proposed decision were modest, but the United States believed they strengthened the decision in, at least three, important ways. First, the proposed language was consistent with past DSB 
decisions and practices governing an Appellate Bo dy appointment process. The suggested changes 
ensured such consistency. Second, the proposed language clarified the role of the DSB Chair on the Selection Committee and clarified the specific tasks Members were asking the Selection Committee to undertake in that process. Third, the proposed language suggested a time-period 
that may assist Members in putting forward candidates so that Members would be best positioned 
to consider a broad and highly-qualified pool of candidates to fill the position currently held by Mr. Unterhalter as well as, as the Chair had noted, to preserve the holiday when Members may not 
be focused on the selection process. The United  States and Norway had had extremely positive 
feedback on the proposed language from many  Members, and the discussions they had with 
Members had further reinforced the co-sponsors' belief that the proposed revisions helped to 
clarify and strengthen the proposed decision. The United States believed that the proposed 
revisions put forward with Norway were quite straightforward, but, if Members would be interested in hearing more about the suggested edits, the United States would be happy to go through those suggestions in more detail. 
7.3.  The representative of Norway said that, as a co-sponsor of the proposal, her delegation 
wished to echo the statement just made by the United States and she underlined the importance 
that Norway attached to the consistency of the text with past DSB decisions and practice. 
7.4.  The representative of Japan said that his country appreciated and supported the suggestions 
proposed by the United States and Norway. Ja pan understood that the suggestions sought to 
clarify the Chairman's proposal without changing  any substance and that these suggestions were 
consistent with the language used in past selection processes. Japan thanked the Chairman for 
providing his proposal prior to the present meeting. Japan wished to reiterate that it was in WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 18 - 
 
  Members' interest to have sufficient time to consider highly-qualified candidates for the position 
currently held by Mr. Unterhalter.  
7.5.  The representative of China said that her country had received the joint proposal from the 
United States and Norway a few hours before th e meeting. While China appreciated receiving the 
proposal in advance of the meeting, it had not had the chance to communicate with its capital on 
this matter. The proponents had stressed that th e suggested changes were minor. Although China 
believed that the changes were minor, at this point it had instructions to support the Chairman's 
proposal as it currently stood. At the present meeting, China wished to make preliminary remarks 
on the proposal by the United States and Norway  and would reserve its right to revert to this 
matter at a later date in the event that it received further comments from capital. With regard to the suggestion in paragraph 2, the insertion of "to be chaired by the DSB Chair" reflected the 
current practice, and China could support it. Ho wever, that language was not contained in 
document WT/DSB/1 and thus, in China's view, to use the language "consistent with" may be problematic. China sought further clarification from the proponents as to why they believed that 
adding "chaired by the DSB Chair" was consistent with the procedures set out in document 
WT/DSB/1. If it were not consistent with the proc edures set out in WT/DSB/1, China would wish to 
use the original language proposed by the Chairman. With regard to the suggestion in 
paragraph 3, China understood that there was only one deadline for Members' nominations of 
candidates, namely 30 August 2013. If 31 July was only a best endeavour deadline and would not impose any obligation on Members, China could agree to it so as to encourage Members to submit nominations before the summer break. With regard to the suggestion in paragraph 4, the insertion 
of "to conduct interviews with candidates and hear  the views of delegations" reflected the current 
practice and was reflected in past documents. It was China's understanding that those two activities would not restrict the Selection Committee's mandate to carry out other duties, if 
necessary, before formulating its recommendation consistent with the provisions on the selection 
procedure contained in document WT/DSB/1. China reserved its right to revert to this matter. 
7.6.  The Chairman thanked China for its constructive remarks and recognized that the 
suggestions proposed by the United States and Norway had been circulated at short notice. He 
said that he would make final comments after he aring Members' observations and that he would 
not seek to push through a decision if it did not adequately reflect a full consensus of the present DSB meeting. 
7.7.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU had been prepared to support the 
Chairman's proposal on the appointment/reappoin tment of Appellate Body members. The EU had 
learned about the proposed changes by the United States and Norway for the first time the 
previous day. As had just been mentioned, some Members had only heard about those suggestions 
through an e-mail sent a few hours prior to the present meeting. There had not been sufficient time to consider them. The EU regretted that the proponents had not engaged with the EU and 
many other delegations earlier, which would have allowed all participants to prepare better for the 
discussions. As regards the actual language prop osed by the United States and Norway, the EU 
had some difficulties understanding the differences between the original language and the proposed language in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5. However, the EU did not intend to stand in the way if 
Members preferred the language suggested by the Un ited States and Norway to that proposed by 
the Chairman, although the EU had been ready to  agree to the Chairman's proposed language. 
With regard to the language in paragraph 3 and in particular the proposal to bring the deadline for 
nominations forward to 31 July 2013, the EU was in  a position to support it. However, the EU 
wished to stress one issue that was, in its view, th e most important one, irrespective of whether or 
not Members were able to agree on the text of th e decision at the present meeting. The EU wished 
to encourage Members to submit nominations of candidates of the highest calibre for this 
important position, as required by the DSU. The EU hoped that there would be a good number of nominations for the position currently held by Mr. David Unterhalter. In that way, the Membership as a whole would have a wide choice and would maximize the chances of high-quality 
appointments. 
7.8.  The representative of Chile said that his country thanked the Chairman for the proposal on 
the appointment and reappointment of Appellate Bo dy members. In Chile's view, the Chairman's 
proposal was good and it was consistent with past practice. Chile noted that the United States and 
Norway had made some editorial rather than subs tantive changes to the Chairman's proposal that 
could help to clarify the text. Chile wished to take this opportunity to present its view on the 
systemic issue for the appointment of a new member of the Appellate Body, pursuant to WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 19 - 
 
  Article 17.3 of the DSU. Like the current Appellate Body members, a new Appellate Body member 
must also be a well-recognized person with recognized qualifications in international law and must be familiar with the covered agreements and the multilateral trading system. They must be highly professional. In Chile's view, those criteria had to be considered during the selection process. 
Geographical or regional considerations were not essential, in accordance with Article 17.3 of the 
DSU, which provides that members of the Appellate Body should be generally representative of the 
WTO Membership. Chile acknowledged that provision but, in its view, that provision did not imply 
that the new member of the Appellate Body should  necessarily come from the same geographical 
region as the outgoing member. 
7.9.  The representative of Switzerland said that his country thanked the Chairman for the 
proposal. He also thanked the United States and Norway for their suggested changes which, 
Switzerland believed, were mainly editorial. Switzerland could go along with the suggested 
changes, in particular with regard to paragraph 3, but was ready to engage in further discussions should Members so wish.  
7.10.  The representative of Brazil said that his country thanked the Chairman for the proposal and 
the United States and Norway for their suggestions. Brazil saw some merit in the changes, in 
particular with regard to the best endeavour deadline for the submission of nominations. Brazil 
understood that it would be just a reference date to request best efforts from Members, but that 
the deadline of 31 August 2013 would still stand. With regard to paragraph 2, Brazil shared China's concerns and would appreciate US clarification on this matter. Brazil considered that it was important that the proposal, once adopted, would guarantee the selection of the best possible 
candidate for the Appellate Body. 
7.11.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the Chairman for the proposal and 
also the United States and Norway for their proposal. India had received the suggestions from the 
United States and Norway only recently – in the afternoon of the previous day. Due to a public 
holiday in India, his delegation did not have instructions from its capital. At the present meeting, India had instructions to support the Chairman's  proposal, but since these new changes had been 
proposed, India would have to wait for instructio ns from the capital. Ho wever, India had a few 
comments or clarifications to seek from the United States that were more or less in line with what had been stated by China. With regard to paragraph 2, there was a reference to document WT/DSB/1. India had checked that document and it  did not mention who would be the chair of the 
Selection Committee. The past practice was that the DSB Chair was the Chairman of the Selection 
Committee and India agreed with that past practice. However, in India's understanding, that had been reflected correctly by the usage of the words "customary practice", which had been proposed 
to be deleted and replaced with the word "consi stent". Thus, India sought clarification from the 
United States as to why it had proposed to delete "customary practice" and replace it with "consistent". With regard to paragraph 3, he no ted that two deadlines were mentioned. One was 
the main deadline which was 30 August 2013, and the second deadline was 31 July 2013, which 
India was informed was the best efforts deadline. In India's view, if the intention were to encourage Members, it would be preferable to use the language "we encourage Members to file 
nominations as early as possible". In that regard, India did not see merit in adding another 
deadline to the existing deadline of 30 August 2013. With regard to paragraph 4, and as China had 
correctly pointed out, it was India's understanding that the word "carry out its work" was a broader term that provided the Selection Committee with the flexibility to carry out its work. This 
included: "to conduct interviews with candidates and hear the views of delegations". However, if 
that was deleted and instead only "to conduct interviews with candidates and hear the views of the delegations" were added, in India's understandi ng, this would actually limit the task of the 
Selection Committee. There could then be a question as to what work the Selection Committee 
had to carry out other than interviewing the cand idates and hearing the views of delegations. One 
possibility could be to deliberate and consult with delegations. India wanted to understand why the proponents had not considered inserting "carry out its work including conducting interviews". India 
reserved its right to come back to these issues once it received further instructions from the 
capital. 
7.12.  The representative of Canada said that hi s country was prepared to support the Chairman's 
proposal at the present meeting. Nonetheless, Ca nada thanked the United States and Norway for 
circulating the room document with some changes to the Chairman's proposal. Canada considered those changes to be acceptable since many of them, as the Chairman had noted, were largely 
editorial in nature and sought to make the decision more precise in certain elements. In Canada's WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 20 - 
 
  view, none of those proposed changes changed the substance of the Chairman's decision. If 
Members were to accept those changes at the present meeting and adopt the decision, as amended, the process would proceed exactly as it would have done without the changes. The only difference would be more certainty in some elements and more transparency as to how it might 
unfold. The only revision that introduced a new element, which other delegations had noted, was 
the addition of an interim deadline. Canada agreed  that this was a welcome effort to give Members 
more time to consider the candidates and possibly give Members more time to consider whether 
an earlier pool of candidates was sufficient. To the extent that those changes had the effect of 
ultimately broadening the pool of candidates and making the exercise a more competitive one, Canada would view that as an improvement. Howe ver, as other delegations and the Chairman had 
mentioned, Canada recalled that ultimately the proposal did not change the final deadline and any 
delegation wishing to wait for that deadline was entitled to do so. It was unfortunate that the room 
document containing the proposed changes had not been circulated well in advance of the present 
meeting. That would have provided some of the delegations with more time to consult. In the 
interest of time and of avoiding too much delay in adopting the decision, especially in light of the 
recognition by even those delegations that wanted the opportunity to consult that the revisions were generally of an editorial in nature, Canada would encourage delegations to support, or at 
least not object to the decision to be adopted as amended by the suggestions proposed by the 
United States and Norway. Canada also noted that, according to that decision, Members would still have time if they felt it necessa ry to delay this even further. 
7.13.  The representative of Nigeria said that his country thanked the Chairman for the proposal 
and the United States and Norway for their sugge sted changes to the proposal. At the present 
meeting, Nigeria had instructions to support the Chairman's proposal, dated 12 April 2013. However, given that it had just received a new proposal, Nigeria had no option but to consult with 
its capital. Nigeria believed that it was paramount to select the best candidate, in accordance with 
the guidelines contained in document WT/DSB/1. 
7.14.  The representative of Australia said that her country thanked the Chairman for his proposal 
and the United States and Norway for their suggest ed changes. Australia was comfortable with the 
changes proposed by the United States and No rway, but would have preferred to adopt the 
original version circulated by the Chairman. Australia's primary interest was to ensure that the DSB was able to take a positive decision on this issue without delay so that the formal selection 
process for Mr. Unterhalter's replacement could begin without further delay. 
7.15.  The representative of Argentina said that, at the present meeting, his country had 
instructions to support the Chairman's proposal and regretted that it had not received the paper 
from the United States and Norway in advance of  the meeting. Argentina was in a position to 
accept the proposed changes given that they were mainly editorial. Argentina supported the view that it was important to ensure that Members selected the best candidate for the Appellate Body 
position.  
7.16.  The Chairman said that he noted from th e discussion that there was a broad agreement to 
endorse a process that should identify and lead to ultimately Members' selection of the best 
candidate. In developing a formal decision fo r adoption, he would undertake to reflect that 
overarching philosophy. He acknowledged the comments made by India, China and Nigeria about 
the need to consult further with capitals. He further acknowledged the difficulty of drafting in a meeting of 159 Members but, as a native English speaker, he wished to offer a mundane 
observation. Using the words "consistent with" meant that what was said was not out of line with 
the cross-referenced document. To use the terms: "in accordance with" or "as reflected in" or "further to", indicated that what was said was actually contained in the cross-referenced 
document. However, if one said "is consistent with" it meant that what was being said did not run 
afoul of the cross-referenced document, but it was not necessary that the provision actually appeared in the cross-referenced document. In that regard, he was less concerned than China and a few others by the words "consistent with". Howeve r, on reflection, if Members wanted to improve 
the text, they could say "consistent with customary practice and the spirit of". In his view, that 
was what was intended in paragraph 2. With regard to paragraph 3, in light of India's comments, if Members were to say "as early as possible", "in advance of our holidays", in his view, there did not 
seem to be any disagreement with the objective in two respects. First, as stated by some 
delegations, it was necessary to preserve August for holidays. Second, there was a more substantive desire, as mentioned by a number of delegations, that the earlier candidates were 
brought forward, the better the global consideration and the chances of having the best possible WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 21 - 
 
  candidates. Without opening up a systemic discussion on what Chile had flagged regarding the 
geography of candidates, perhaps Members should consider having that discussion at an informal, open-ended meeting. With regard to paragraph 4, he said that what had been mentioned by delegations was easily resolved. As suggested by India and implied by China, consideration could 
be given to the language "to carry out its work including conducting interviews with a view to 
making recommendations". That made it clear th at the recommendations came at the end after 
due deliberation. In conclusion, he noted a significant degree of consensus for refinement, 
including a few items that were not in the proposal submitted by Norway and the United States, 
such as a chapeau that highlighted the ultimate goal of seeking the best possible candidates. He noted that India, China and Nigeria wanted to consult with their capitals. He was, however, not troubled by the fact that the DSB may not have a final decision at the present meeting because, in 
effect, the nominations would be opened shortly and Members had through July and August to 
submit nominations. In that regard, should the formal adoption of that DSB decision come a little later than the present meeting, that would be fine. But in light of the spirit shown, he did not wish 
to consider an interim decision. Instead, he sugg ested allowing enough time for delegations to go 
back to capitals if they needed to. Should Members wish, he could incorporate some of the comments and circulate his own updated refinement of the text to take account of Members' 
views. He proposed to circulate a revised proposal  by the end of the week with the request that 
Members provide any comments by 8 May 2013. Unless Members had strong objections to such a revised proposal, he would consider the revised text as agreed by the DSB. The revised decision, agreed by consensus of 8 May 2013, would allow the DSB to formally launch the process well in 
advance of its next meeting at the end of May.   
7.17.  The representative of the United States sa id that his country thanked the Chairman for his 
comments, which were extremely helpful, and to some extent, did pre-empt what the 
United States was going to say. From a broader standpoint, as the United States was developing 
this language, it did think that it would benefit from having views from other Members and did wish that it could have circulated a document earlier. However, as things had worked out, it had 
been hard to circulate a draft any earlier than it had and the United States did appreciate the 
feedback that it had heard at the present meeting.  The United States said that it would like to 
comment on a couple of the comments made by other Members. The United States had heard 
several Members asking whether outlining those steps with respect to the role of the Selection 
Committee was necessary. The proponents had wanted more clarity about what the Committee 
actually would do. Specifying that the Committee was chaired by the Chair of the DSB and that its role was to conduct interviews and hear the views of Members added clarity so that Members were 
clear regarding what they were agreeing to. Regarding paragraph 2, the United States would echo 
what the Chair had said in that "consistent with" allowed items that had not been referenced specifically in WT/DSB/1. Regarding paragraph 3, it sounded like there was an interest among 
Members in expediting this process before the summer break and that a specific date would be 
useful to focus the mind. The United States took note of India's comments, but cautioned that removing the second date may not achieve the desired results. Regarding paragraph 4, the United States drew Members' attention to WT/DSB/M/205, where that language was used in a 
previous DSB decision. However, perhaps it would have been useful to indicate that that was just 
an illustrative list. Coming back to paragraph 2,  there had been a question of whether the use of 
"following customary practice" was better than wh at the United States and Norway had proposed. 
However, the goal was to create clarity and that phrase did not have a specific meaning. The 
co-sponsors' concern was that the use of a phrase like that could be interpreted in an ambiguous fashion. The co-sponsors were cautious about reinserting ambiguous language when the goal was 
creating certainty.  
7.18.  The representative of Norway said that her country thanked delegations for their comments. 
Norway also thanked the Chairman for his helpful comments and did not have much to add to 
what the United States had just stated.  
7.19.  The Chairman said that he did not he ar any objection from the proponents of the 
amendments to the suggestion that he would ta ke ownership of the document and he had not 
seen any Member objecting to what he had suggested. Therefore, he would circulate a further 
revised text before the end of the week, perhaps a little more advanced as a text of a decision 
rather than just a proposal for a decision and it would have a chapeau.  WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 22 - 
 
  7.20.  The representative of Nigeria said that his country was not objecting to the Chairman's 
proposal, but wished to know if it could still submit comments should it receive further instructions 
from capital. 
7.21.  The Chairman said that it was not his expectation that the revised proposal would be 
endorsed by 26 April 2013. He thought that by  26 April 2013 Members would have forwarded to 
their capitals an updated text that would have taken full account of the concerns and diversity of views expressed at the present meeting. Members would then have from 26 April through to 
8 May 2013 to further review, reflect, offer further refinements and hopefully build a consensus on 
the text. In that regard, Members would have furthe r time to think of better drafting and ways of 
improving the text, bearing in mind the philosophical consensus amongst Members. 
7.22.  The representative of India said that his country sought clarification on one point. If 
Members were to receive the revised text on 26 April and had to react by 8 May, he wished to 
know if comments would have to be sent to all Members or just to the Secretariat.   
7.23.  The Chairman said that he would undertake to ensure the circulation of the comments 
received.   7.24.  The representative of Australia said that her delegation sought further clarification from the 
Chairman on what he meant when he said that he was not troubled about a final decision not 
being made at the present meeting as candidatures were open.  
7.25.  The Chairman said that he was not formally trying to launch a process in advance of the 
decision being adopted. What he said was that Members were all aware that by December 2013, 
they would need to have completed the selection process. That meant that capitals could already 
begin to think, cogitate and consult domestically. The process, at a more mundane level, would 
inevitably remain the same, which was that nominations of candidates together with their CVs would be sent to the Chair of the DSB with a copy to the Secretariat, through the Council and TNC 
Division. They would be circulated as Job documents to all Members. But that was only once the 
process had started. He did not mean to state that nominations were open at the present time.  
7.26.  The representative of the European Union said  that the EU wished to take the opportunity to 
ask Members to thoroughly consider the nominations and put forward candidates that could best 
serve the Membership in that important position. 
7.27.  The Chairman said that, unlike nomination s for a position of the WTO Director-General, 
Members were not limited to nominating persons of their own nationality.  
7.28.  The representative of China said that her country wished to give its preliminary assurance 
that it was comfortable with the language just used, which addressed the concerns raised by 
China. If that would be the basis for the Chairman's new version of the decision to be adopted by 
the DSB, then China would strongly recommend its capital to consider it.   
7.29.  The Chairman said that he would circulate the revised document on 26 April 2013 first in 
English and then in French and Spanish as soon as possible thereafter. He thanked Members for 
their understanding and active engagement.  
7.30.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
8  2012 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE APPELLATE BODY A.  Statement by the Chairman 
8.1.  The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business", said that, as he had stated at the beginning 
of the meeting, he wished to draw Members' atte ntion to the fact that the Annual Report of the 
Appellate Body for 2012 had been circulated on 9 April 2013 to all Members. The Report was 
contained in document WT/AB/18 and was also posted on the WTO website. He drew Members' 
attention to the Report, not because he had been  asked to do so, but because he had read the 
Report and had found it to include a wealth, richness, and abundance of valuable information. In 
t h a t  r e g a r d ,  h e  w i s h e d  t o  r e c o m m e n d  i t  t o  M e mbers for their reading and for reading in their WT/DSB/M/331 
 
- 23 - 
 
  capitals. In particular, he drew Members' attent ion to page 2 of the Report where the Appellate 
Body itself had invited comments and enquiries re garding the Report and had provided an address 
for that purpose. He encouraged Members to consider whether they wished to take advantage of that invitation. He also asked Members to reflect on, once they had read the Report and consulted 
with their capitals, whether they thought that the Report might merit or benefit from an informal 
discussion at an open-ended, informal DSB meet ing, either amongst Members or even possibly 
with the participation of, or an exchange of views with, members of the Appellate Body. He 
stressed that he was not driving this in any particular direction. He was quite agnostic whether 
Members should do anything collectively or whether some Members may wish to do something individually. In his view, there was enough ther e and, at the very minimum, each and every 
Member should read the Annual Report of the Appellate Body. Should any delegation wish to 
comment, or would wish to pass their comments through the Chairman, he would be happy to 
assist. 
8.2.  The DSB took note of the statement. 
__________