RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 62 
19 May 2022 
(22-3848) Page: 1/12 
Dispute Settlement Body  
28 March 2022  
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 28 MARCH  20221 
Chair person : H.E.  Dr Athaliah Lesiba MOLOKOMME (Botswana ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairperson  welcomed all delegations participating 
in the  present  meeting of the DSB both in -person and remotely and said that she wished to recall a 
few technical instructions regarding this virtual meeting. She said that i f a Member was unable to 
take the floor during the meeting because of a technical issue, the delegation could inform the 
Secretariat and that Agenda item would remain open until the delegation could take the floor. In the 
alternative, the item would remain open temporarily, the meeting would proceed to the next Agenda 
item, and the DSB would r evert to the open item after the technical issue had been resolved. If a 
technical issue remained unresolved, the delegation had the option to send the statement to the 
Secretariat with the request that it be read out by the Secretariat on behalf of that d elegation during 
the meeting so that the statement could be reflected in the minutes of the meeting; (ii) the 
Chairperson  made a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of the 28  April 2021 
DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute. She said that, as Members would recall, that matter 
had been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chair 's consultations with each 
interested party regarding that Agenda item. At the present meeting, she wished to inform 
delegations that , like the previous Chair of the DSB,  she continued to consult with each interested 
party on this matter and that th ese consultations were ongoing ; and (iii) the Chairperson  informed 
delegations that prior to the present meeting, Korea informed  the Chairperson  in writing  on 
25 March  2022 of Korea's decision to withdraw  item 2 from the proposed Agenda, which related to 
the Panel Report  on: "United States – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Large Residential Washers " 
(DS546).  
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agenda, as amended.  
 
Following the adoption of the Agenda , the representative of Ukraine  said that b efore the start 
of the meeting, Ukraine wished  to make a statement with regard to the current situation in Ukraine  
and its effects on Ukraine 's participation in the DS proceedings.  As the DSB was meeting  now, the 
Russian Federation continue d to commit a blatant act of aggression against Ukraine  throug h its 
brutal and unprovoked military intervention, an attack on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of 
Ukraine, whic h affected Ukraine 's entire territory.  This was already the thirty -third day of the Russian 
war, which caused terrifying times, in par ticular for Ukraine's  civilians and children, many of whom 
had been killed. Some of Ukraine's cities and infrastructure had been  completely destroyed, and 
civilians were cut off from electricity, food and running water. Many of  the Ukrainian delegation's  
colleagues in Kyiv, as well as their families, were either hiding from attacks in bomb shelters or had 
been forced to flee their homes along with millions of other Ukrainians. This was a tragedy that the 
world ha d not seen for many decades.  This tragedy, however, also prevent ed Ukraine from 
exercising effectively its rights under the DSU, including in many ongoing panels'  proceedings in 
which Ukraine ha d reserved its third -party rights. As Members were  well aware, pursuant to 
Article  10.2 of th e DSU, any Member having a substantial interest in a matter before a panel and 
having notified its interest to the DSB "shall have an opportunity to be heard ". Russia 's military 
aggression against Ukraine ha d effectively deprived Ukraine of these fundament al WTO rights.  
Ukraine was very grateful to all WTO Members that  had stood with Ukraine in these terrifying times , 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/4 62 
- 2 - 
  in response to this terrible war, and to all countries that were refusing to engage with Russia.  
In these circumstances, the Russian Federati on did not have any legal or moral grounds on which to 
call into question or to challenge through  the DSU mechanism , for as long as its troops remain ed in 
Ukraine.  Ukraine w ould take all actions necessary to protect its essential security interests, to restore 
security and predictability in the multilateral trading system, and to preserve the carefully crafted 
balance of the rights and obligations of WTO Members.  
The representati ve of Georgia  said that  more than one month ago the Russian Federation had 
unleashed a devastating, full -scale military aggression against Ukraine,  leading to death, destruction 
and humanitarian disaster. Fundamental human rights of Ukrainians, first and f oremost, the right to 
life, were being massively violated , and forced displacement was surging. Georgia  condemn ed in the 
strongest possible terms Russia 's unprovoked, unjustified and premeditated military aggression 
against Ukraine. Russia 's attacks on  civilian infrastructure including kindergartens, schools and 
hospitals represent an assault  and a gross violation of key principles of the UN Charter , Helsinki Final 
Act and the Paris Charter.  Georgia  called on the Russian Federation to immediately and withou t any 
preconditions cease its military aggression against Ukraine and withdraw all its military forces from 
the territory of that sovereign democratic state. Finally,  Georgia  reiterate d its unwavering support 
for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity  of Ukraine within its international 
recognized borders.  
The representative of the United States  thanked Ukraine for its statement. The United States and 
other Members had jointly issued document WT/ GC/244: "The Joint Statement on Aggression by the 
Russian Federation against Ukraine with the Support of Belarus", which condemned Russia's actions 
as a violation of international law, the UN Charter, and fundamental principles of international peace 
and s ecurity. The United States reiterated its support for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult 
time. The United States paid tribute to the heroism of the Ukrainian people, their armed forces and 
leaders . 
The representative of the United Kingdom  thanked Ukraine for its important intervention.  The work 
of the DSB  concern ed the upholding of the rules -based international system.  When speaking of that 
order , the United Kingdom  also c ould not ignore the Russian Federation 's invasion of Ukraine, which 
violate d international law and the UN Charter. As the UN Secretary -General ha d said, such unilateral 
measures conflict ed directly with the UN Charter - the use of force by one country against another 
was a repudiation of the principles that every cou ntry ha d committed to uphold.  As a Permanent 
Member of the UN Security Council, Russia ha d a particular responsibility to uphold international 
peace and security. Instead, it was violating the borders  of another country and its actions were 
causing widespr ead suffering.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation wished  to raise a point 
of order . The Russian Fede ration then asked if Members could now start discussing  the items  
contained on  the Agenda of the present meeting  instead of making  political statements . 
The Chairperson  noted  the Russian Federation's  point of order and asked whether the Russian 
Federation would allow the Chair  to continue with  the current list of speakers  and then the Chair  
would give the floor to the Russian Federation to make a statement.  She also sought clarification 
from the Russian Federation regarding the point of order.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  said that if the DSB were now to move  to the items on  
the Agenda  of the present meeting  then the Russian Federation would make its  statement  in that 
context.  If Members  continue d to make  political statements at this point , then the Russian Federation 
would prefer to  be the last speaker on the Chair's list.  
The Chairperson  thanked the  Russian Federation for its understanding. She said that she would 
proceed  with the current  list of speakers and then she would invite the Russian Federation to take 
the floor  as the last speaker.   
The representative of Canada  said that Canada thank ed Ukraine and other delegations for their 
statements on the current  situation. Canada strongly condemn ed the unjustifiable and unprovoked 
invasion of Ukraine ordered by President Putin.  These attacks were having a considerable 
humanitarian impact and were resulting in the senseless deaths of innocent people. Canada 
remain ed of the view that the entire intern ational community must address this matter immediately.  WT/DSB/M/4 62 
- 3 - 
  This was not only about an attack on Ukraine. It was about an attack on international law, including 
the UN Charter, as well as on democracy, freedom and human rights.  
The representative of the Europe an Union  said that t he European Union  condemn ed in the strongest 
possible terms the Russian Federation 's unprovoked and unjustified military aggression in Ukraine. 
That aggression grossly violate d international law and undermine d international security and  
stability. The European Union called on Russia to end immediately its acts of aggression, to withdraw 
its troops , and to respect fully Ukraine 's territorial integrity, sovereignty , and independence within 
its internationally recognised borders. The European Union stood  firmly by Ukraine and its people.  
The representative of Norway  said that Norway continue d to condemn Russia 's egregious attack on 
its neighbour Ukraine. The attack was unjustified, unprovoked, and irresponsible  – a clear breach of 
international law.  Norway  reiterate d its unwavering support for Ukraine 's sovereignty and territorial 
integrity within its internationally recognised borders.  
The representative of Korea  said that Korea strongly condemn ed Russia 's armed invasion against 
Ukrain e as a violation of principles of the UN charter and international law.  The use of force that 
cause d innocent casualties c ould not be justified under any circumstances.  Ukraine 's sovereignty, 
territorial integrity and independence should be respected.  Korea also share d deep concerns of the 
international community over the unfolding humanitarian situation in Ukraine.  
The representative of Japan  said that , as a strong supporter of the rule of law in the international 
community, which the dispute settlement system uph eld, Japan was deeply concerned about  the 
egregious violation of international law, the UN Charter, and fundamental principles of international 
peace and security committed by the Russian Federation. Japan  consider ed that Russia 's acti ons 
constituted  an unprovoked and premeditated attack against a sovereign democratic state. Japan 
condemn ed it in the strongest terms. Japan st ood in solidarity with Ukraine and its people, together 
with the international community.  
The representative of Australia  said that Australia also thanked  Ukraine for its statement and echo ed 
what other  delegations  had already stated  at the present meeting . Australia continue d to condemn 
in the strongest terms Russia 's unprovoked, unjustified and illegal invasion of Ukraine. Australia  
strongly support ed Ukraine in opposing Russia 's hostilities.  Russia 's actions were a gross violation 
of international law, including the UN Charter. They were inconsistent with the global  rules and 
norm s that underpin ned multilateral organisations such as the WTO. Australia  called on Russia to 
cease all hostilities.  
The representative of New Zealand  said that  New Zealand join ed other delegations  in condemning 
in the strongest possible term s President Putin 's unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine. 
Russia 's illegal invasion ha d caused widespread humanitarian consequences and had resulted in the 
senseless deaths of innocent people. New Zealand strongly support ed Ukraine 's sovereignty an d 
territorial integrity and st ood with Ukraine as it defend ed itself against Russian aggression. New 
Zealand  support ed steadfastly collective action by the international community to denounce the 
egregious and unlawful actions taken by Russia and to censure  those in President Putin 's government 
who bore the responsibility for them.  
The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that Chinese Taipei  condemn ed the Russian Federation 's 
military attack in Ukraine, which  had jeopardized regional and global peace  and stability and caused 
devastating losses of lives of civilians , including children. This was absolutely not acceptable from 
any perspectiv e and it was a clear violation of human rights and an obvious breach of the rules of 
international law. Chinese Taipei  called on the Russian Federation to end its acts of aggression 
immediately. Chinese Taipei  stood firmly by Ukraine and  its people.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  said that, in order to address certain political 
declarations made by some WTO Members at the present meeting, h is delegation  wished to state 
the following.  First, Members should  discuss the items contained on the Agenda of the present 
meeting , as set out  in document WT/DSB/W/694 , which had been  amended. The political statements  
made by some WTO Members d id not concern the surveillance of implementation of the adopted 
recommendatio ns under Article 21.6 of the DSU  pertaining to  item 1 on the Agenda of the present 
meeting.  In addition , the problem related to the Appellate Body appointments had not yet been 
resolved.  Second, the WTO was not a political organization and Members should  refrain from WT/DSB/M/4 62 
- 4 - 
  address ing issues in the  WTO that were not in the competence of the organization. Members should 
remember that the WTO, as the centrepiece of the multilateral trading system,  had been  created to 
raise standards of living and stimulate economic development. The WTO had proved to be an 
organization that was primarily guided by economic considerations and solid legal standards. 
Regrettably, an ever -increasing pressure for its politization  had already brought numerous 
inefficiencies and now threaten ed the existence and effectiveness of the organization and the 
multilateral trading system.  Third, the DSB had its own tasks and mandate set out in different DSU 
provisions . Members still had  to deal with the issue of appeals into the "void" and continued to cope  
with the  absence of the functioning Appellate Body, and non-adoption of panel reports. These 
matters had not  yet been resolved . Russia consider ed that one of the root causes of the curren t 
crisis of the multilateral trading system that Members were  facing was the Appellate Body impasse  
as well as the attempts to politicize the WTO that Members had  witnessed at the present meeting . 
Russia encourage d WTO Members to focus on resolving the current problems and not to create new 
ones, unless any WTO Member ha d an intention to destroy the multilateral trading system even 
further.  
The DSB took note  of the statements . 
Table of Contents  
1 SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  5 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ..............  5 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  5 
C. Eur opean Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Union ................................ ................................ ....... 6 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ ..........................  7 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ...............  7 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status 
report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  7 
2 APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF 
BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; 
CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL  AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CHAD; CHILE; 
CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; EL 
SALVADOR; ESWATINI; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; 
GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUI NEA BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; 
ICELAND; INDIA; INDONESIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF 
KOREA; LESOTHO; LIECHTENSTEIN; MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; MALAYSIA; 
MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; 
MOROCCO; MOZAMBIQUE; NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND; NICARAGUA; 
NIGER; NIGERIA; NORTH MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PANAMA; 
PARAGUAY; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES; QATAR; RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; 
SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; SINGAPORE; SOUTH AFRICA; 
SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUS TOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU; TANZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO; TUNISIA; TURKEY; UGANDA; 
UKRAINE; UNITED KINGDOM; URUGUAY; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.21)  ................  8 WT/DSB/M/4 62 
- 5 - 
  1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan : Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 25) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.200) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.163) 
 
D. United States – Anti-dumpi ng and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/A dd.47) 
 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/A dd.39) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.34 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.34) 
 
 
1.1.  The Chairperson  noted that there were  six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU . As Members  recall ed, 
Article  21.6 require d that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall  remain on the DSB 's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved ." Under this Agenda item, the Chair  invite d delegations to provide 
up-to-date information about their compliance efforts . She also  remind ed delegations that, as 
provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings : "Representatives should make 
every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has already 
been fully debated in the past and on  which there appears to have been no change in Members ' 
positions already on record. " 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 25) 
1.2.  The Chairperson  drew at tention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 25, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 17 March 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States had 
addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti -dumping 
margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect to the 
recommendations of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration would confer with 
the US Congress with r espect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thank ed the United States for the latest status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting . Japan , once again , called on the United 
States to fully implement the DSB recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add. 200) 
1.6.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 200, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act . WT/DSB/M/4 62 
- 6 - 
  1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 17 March 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. Th e US Administration 
would continue to confer with the European Union, and with the US Congress, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter . 
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union thank ed the United 
States for its status report and its statement. The European Union  referred to its previous statements  
and wished to resolve this case as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regu lar 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 63) 
1.10.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 163, which contained the 
status r eport by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.   The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union recall ed that the EU 
approval system was not covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings. The E uropean Union  
continue d to propose for vote authori sations for genetically modified organisms that, in the European 
Food Safety  Authority 's (EFSA)  risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe. To update the 
Membership of  the WTO concerning the progress of the applications throughout the authorisation 
process, the European Union noted  the following.  First, the written procedure o n two draft decisions 
authorising genetically modified oilseed rape 73496 and genetically modified cotton GHB811 (both 
of which were presented at the on -line Appeal Committee meeting on 10 February 2022) resulted 
in "no opinion ". It was subsequently  for th e Commission to decide on the adoption of these 
Implementing Decisions.  Second, the written procedure on the vote on the draft authorising 
genetically modified soybean GMB151 (which was presented at the online Appeal Committee 
meeting of 3 March 2022) resu lted in "no opinion ". It was subsequently  for the Commission to decide 
on the adoption of this Implementing Decision.  Third, on 1 April 2022, the Commission plan ned to 
present in the Standing Committee a draft decision authorising genetically modified maiz e NK603 x 
T25 x DAS -40278 -9. Finally, the written procedure on the draft decision authorising a genetically 
modified soybean MON 87769 × MON 89788 (which was presented at the online Standing Committee 
meeting of 16 February) resulted in "no opinion ". This decision had been  subsequently referred to 
the Appeal Committee of 5 April 2022.  
1.12.   The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement at the present meeting. The United States  continued to engage  with the European 
Union in good faith on these issues, and had provided recommendations on several occasions as to 
how the European Union could address the undue delays in its approval procedures. The United 
States had described these problems in detail, at nearly every monthly meeting of the DSB since 
the European Union had begun submitting reports on the status of its implementation. As the United 
States had noted on multiple occasions, including in the most recent bilateral consultations in 
December 202 1, its concerns related to delays at every stage of the approval process resulting from 
the actions or inactions of the European Union and its member States at the Standing Committee or 
Appeals Committee. The United States again requested that the European  Union move to issue final 
approvals for all products that had completed science -based risk assessments at the European Food 
Safety Authority, including those products that were with the Standing Committee and Appeals 
Committee .  
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the s tatements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/4 62 
- 7 - 
  D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 47) 
1.14.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 47, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large reside ntial washers from 
Korea . 
1.15.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 17 March 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 6 May 2019, 
the US Department of Commerce published a notice in the US Federal Register announcing the 
revocation of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large residential 
washers from Korea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 (6 May 2019)). With this action, the United States had 
completed implem entation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping and 
countervailing duty orders. The United States would consult with interested parties on options to 
address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dis pute.  
1.16.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement at the present meeting . Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt and 
appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measures at issue in  
this dispute.   
1.17.   The representative of Canada  said that Canada wished to refer to its statement made  under 
this Agenda item at  the DSB meeting held on  25 January 2022.  
1.18.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 39) 
1.19.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add.3 9, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerni ng certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China . 
1.20.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 17 March 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 o f the DSU. As explained in 
that report, the United States would consult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB .  
1.21.   The representative of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status report and its statement made at the present meeting . As stated repeatedly on various 
occasions, it was disappointing that more than three years after the expiry of the reasonable period 
of time, the United States still fail ed to implement the adop ted rulings and recommendations in this 
dispute. China  urged the United States to honour its obligation by bringing its measures into 
conformity with WTO rules without further delay.  
1.22.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter a t its next regular 
meeting . 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 34 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 34) 
1.23.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 34 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 34, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and ani mal 
products . 
1.24.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia submit ted this report pursuant to 
Article  21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia wished to  again reiterate its commitment to implementing the WT/DSB/M/4 62 
- 8 - 
  recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes.  On measure 18, as reported in previous 
DSB meetings, Indonesia ha d removed all Articles in the relevant Laws that had been  found  to be 
inconsistent with WTO rules , following  the enactment of Law No.  11/2020 on Job Creation.  With 
respect to measur es 1 to 17, Indonesia said that significant adjustments, in complying with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, ha d been carried out through the amendments of the 
relevant M inistry of Agriculture and Ministry of Trade Regulations. Those adjustments also include d 
the removal of disputed measures, inter alia , harvest period restriction, import realization 
requirements, six –months harvest requirement, and reference price.  Indonesia was commit ted to 
engage with New Zealand and the United States and reaff irmed its commitment to implementing 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes . 
1.25.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thank ed Indonesia for its status 
report, and acknowledge d Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the DSB 's recommendations 
and rulings.  Both compliance deadlines ha d long since expired, and a number of measures  remain ed 
non-compliant.  Further to questions as ked at previous meetings of the DSB, New Zealand  sought  
clarity  on how the most recent import regulations w ould impact the import licensing  process and 
how this relate d to the implementation of a new commodity balance  mechanism.  Specifically, New 
Zealand  sought  clarity on which products were included in the commodity  balance mechanism; what 
was the method for calculating the commodity balance;  and when the implementing regulations 
would be released for specific product  commodity balance mechanisms.  New Zealand was  also 
interested in which products no longer need ed import  recommendations, and whether they were 
limited only to products that w ould be included in the commodity balance mechanism.  New Zealand 
invite d Indonesia to provide furthe r details as soon as possible.  
1.26.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States was continuing to review 
Indonesia's new laws and regulations in light of Indonesia's recent statements and status reports. 
As stated at the previous DSB mee ting, the United States had learned that Indonesia's Constitutional 
Court ruled that the Omnibus Law on Job Creation (No. 11/2020) was unconstitutional and ordered 
the government to revise the law. The United States questioned how that ruling affected Indo nesia's 
implementation of the DSB recommendation concerning measure 18. With respect to measures 1 to 
17, the United States still appreciated further clarity on which regulations now comprised Indonesia's 
import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming reg ulations that would affect the regimes. 
In particular, the United States understood that Indonesia had issued Presidential Regulation 
No. 32/2022 on Commodity Balances. The United States would welcome an explanation of how this 
regulation affected Indonesi a's import licensing regimes, as applied to beef and to horticultural 
products. The United States remained willing to work with Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute . 
1.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next reg ular 
meeting . 
2  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; A NGOLA ; 
ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA ; 
BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON ; 
CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; CONGO ; COSTA 
RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICAN 
REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; 
THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; GUINEA BISSA U; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, 
CHINA ; ICELAND ; INDIA ; INDONESIA ; ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF 
KOREA ; LESOTHO ; LIECHTENSTEIN ; MADAGASCAR ; MALAWI ; MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; 
MALI; MAURITANIA ; MAURITIUS ; MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; 
MOZAMBIQUE ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW ZEALAND ; NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH 
MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; PANAMA ; PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES; 
QATAR ; RUSSIAN FEDERATION ; RWANDA ; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA LEONE ; 
SINGAPORE ; SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUST OMS TERRITORY OF 
TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; TOGO; TUNISIA ; 
TURKEY ; UGANDA ; UKRAINE ; UNITED KINGDOM ; URUGUAY ; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC 
OF VENEZUELA ; VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 21) 
2.1.  The Chairperson  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request 
of Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegations. She then  drew attention to the proposal contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 21 and invited the representative of Mexico to spea k. WT/DSB/M/4 62 
- 9 - 
  2.2.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 21, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 17 February  2022 to launch the sele ction processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body members. On behalf of those 12 3 Members, Mexico wished to state 
the following. The extensive number of Members submitting the joint proposal reflected a common 
concern with the current situation in th e Appellate Body that was seriously affecting the overall 
dispute settlement system, against the best interest of its Members. WTO Members had a 
responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system, and the 
multilatera l trading system. Thus, it was their duty to proceed, without further delay, with the 
launching of the selection processes for the Appellate Body members, as submitted to the DSB at 
the present meeting. The proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection pro cesses (one process to 
replace Mr . Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term had expired on 30 June 2017; a second 
process to fill the vacancy resulted from the resignation of Mr . Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 
1 August  2017; a third process to replace  Mr. Peter Van den Bossche, whose second term had 
expired on 11 December 2017; a fourth process to replace Mr . Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, 
whose four -year term of office expired on 30 September  2018; a fifth process to replace Mr . Ujal 
Singh Bhatia, w hose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; a sixth process to replace 
Mr. Thomas Graham whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; and a seventh selection 
process to replace Ms  Hong Zhao, whose first four -year term of office had expired on 
30 November  2020); (ii)  to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for 
the submission of candidacies; and (iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its 
recommendation within 60  days after the deadline for nominations of candidates. The proponents 
were flexible in the determination of the deadlines for the selection processes, but Members should 
consider the urgency of the situation. The proponents continued to urge all Members to support this 
proposal in the interest of t he dispute settlement and multilateral trading systems . 
2.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union wished to refer to its 
previous statements made on this matter.  Since 11 December 2019, the WTO no longer guarantee d 
access to a binding, two -tier, independent and impartial resolution of trade disputes. A fully 
functioning WTO dispute settlement system was critical for a rules -based multilateral trading system. 
This was why the most urgent area of WTO reform involve d finding an agreed basis to restore such 
a system and procee d with the appointment of the AB members . This task should  be addressed as 
a priority. As the European Union  had consistently noted, WTO Members ha d a shared responsibility 
to resolve this issue as soon as possible, and to fill the outstanding vacancies as required by 
Article  17.2 of the DSU. The E uropean Union agree d that a meaningful reform was needed in order 
to achieve th at objective. The European Union,  therefore , renew ed its call on all WTO Mem bers to 
engage in a constructive discussion as soon as possible in order to restore a fully functioning WTO 
dispute settlement system. The European Union thank ed all Members that ha d co-sponsored the 
proposal to launch the appointment processes.  
2.4.  The repre sentative of the United States  said that t he United States was not in a position to 
support the proposed decision. The United States continued to have systemic concerns with the 
Appellate Body. As Members knew, the United States had raised and explained its systemic concerns 
for more than 16 years and across multiple US Administrations. The United States believed that 
Members had to undertake fundamental reform if the system was to remain viable and credible. The 
dispute settlement system could and should support rather than undermine the WTO's negotiating 
and monitoring functions. The United States looked forward to further discussions with Members on 
these important issues . 
2.5.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom c ontinue d to support 
the launch of the process for appointments to the Appellate Body and refer red to its previous 
statements made on this matter.  Restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement system should be 
an urgent, shared priority for the whole Mem bership. The United Kingdom  encourage d Members to 
engage in substantive discussions on reform and work together with purpose and creativity. The 
United Kingdom stood  ready to play its part  and looked forward to working with Members to achieve 
a successful outcome.  
2.6.  The representative of Canada  said that f or more than two years the Appellate Body ha d no 
longer had a quorum and ha d been unable to hear new appeals. Canada support ed Mexico 's 
statement and share d the concerns expressed by other Members at the present meeting . Canada  
invite d WTO Members that ha d not yet sponsored the proposal to consider joining the 123 Members 
requesting the launch of the selection process. The critical mass of WTO Members support ing th at WT/DSB/M/4 62 
- 10 - 
  proposal clearly reflect ed the importance they all attach ed to a fully operational Appellate Body as 
an integral part of the dispute settlement system. The fact that the Appellate Body c ould not hear 
new appeals was of great concern. Canada reiter ated its interest in contributing to discussions 
focused on finding solutions regarding the functioning of the Appellate Body. Canada's  priority 
remain ed finding a multilateral and lasting solution for all Members, including the United States. 
Meanwhile, C anada and 24 other WTO Members ha d approved the Multi -Party-Interim -Appeal 
Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) as an emergency measure. The purpose of this measure was to 
safeguard their rights to a binding settlement of disputes that include d the possibility t o appeal in 
disputes between them. The MPIA was open to all WTO Members. Canada  invite d all WTO Members 
to consider joining the MPIA in order to safeguard their dispute settlement rights to the maximum 
extent possible until Members  collectively f ound a per manent solution to the impasse in the Appellate 
Body. Canada st ood ready to discuss the MPIA with any interested Member.  
2.7.  The representative of Korea  thanked Mexico for its statement and reiterated its support  for the 
joint AB proposal. Korea also referred to its previous statements on this issue and  strongly believe d 
that the  WTO dispute settlement system was essential for  providing security and predictability to 
the multilateral trading system . Korea st ood ready to engage constructively in relevan t discussions 
to find a solution to enhance the functioning of the dispute settlement system and to work with other 
Members building on what they had  achieved in preparation for a Ministerial Declaration for MC12 
on this matter.  
2.8.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand reiterate d its support for the 
co-sponsored proposal and refer red to its previous statements  made on this matter.  New Zealand  
continue d to urge all Members to constructively engage on the se issues with a view to addressing 
this situation as a priority, in order to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system. New 
Zealand  joined others in welcoming the progress made at the end of the previous  year towards 
setting clear parameters and  time-frames for advancing this important work. New Zealand was ready 
to continue th at momentum and get to work.  
2.9.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking o n behalf of the African Group , said that  the African 
Group wished to refer to its previous statements made on this matter and commend ed the delegation 
of Mexico for its statement on this urgent matter. The fact that the Appellate Body c ould not hear 
new appeals remain ed a concern. The African Group urge d the DSB to urgently fulfil its obligation 
under the DSU, which was to fill vacancies as they ar ose so as to maintain the two -tiered dispute 
settlement system.  Finally, the African Group  stood ready  to engage constructively in discussions so 
as to address the specific concerns raised against the functioning of the Appellate Body , with a view 
to finding a solution. The African Group  urged all Members who were yet to co -sponsor this proposal 
to do so as soon as possible.  
2.10.   The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Mexico on 
behalf of 123 co -sponsors and call ed upon more Members to join th e AB proposal. China  referred to 
its previous statements made on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm commitment to an 
independent , impartial and two -tier dispute settleme nt system. The paralysis of the Appellate Body 
had posed serious challenges to the multilateral trading system. More than 20 cases ha d been 
appealed into the void up to the present moment , and the figure w ould continue to grow if no swift 
and concrete acti ons were taken. This severe situation not only deprive d Members  of the  right to 
defend their interests, but also jeopardize d the security and predictability of th e rules-based 
organization. China  called upon all Members to  treat this issue as a priority, and to engage 
constructively in the solution -oriented consultation s with a view to breaking the AB selection impasse 
and restoring a fully  functioning dispute settlement system at the earliest  possible  date. China st ood 
ready to do its part in th at process.   
2.11.   The representative of Australia  said that Australia consider ed it critical that Members  start 
substantive discussions on the reforms required for a fully and well -functioning multilateral dispute 
settlement system. The inabili ty to finalise and enforce disputes ha d already impaired Members ' 
rights under the WTO agreements. It ha d caused commercial harm to many Members and systemic 
harm to the predictability and security of multilateral trade. As Australia had  stated previously,  the 
current situation was not in the collective interests of the Membership. Members had to  instead work 
together to find a meaningful and durable solution by MC13. Australia  looked forward to beginning 
this pressing work, and encourage d all Members to engage actively and constructively to achieve 
that shared objective.  WT/DSB/M/4 62 
- 11 - 
  2.12.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China reiterate d its grave 
concerns over the Appellate Body impasse.  Hong Kong, China  saw the importance of according every 
priority to conducting constructive discussion s to resolve the impasse , with a view to restoring a 
fully functioning dispute settlement system as soon as possible.  Hong Kong, China st ood ready to 
participate in any such constructive discussion s. 
2.13.   The representative of Japan  said that Japan wished to refer to its statements made at the 
previous DSB meetings and support ed the AB proposal. Achieving an expeditious reform of the 
dispute settlement system that w ould contribute to a long -lasting solution to its structural and 
functional problems was Japan's utmost priority. Japan consider ed it essential that every WTO 
Member, as the owner of the system, restart constructive discussions on s uch a reform, including 
on how to address the concerns surrounding the Appellate Body.  Japan would spare no effort to 
collaborate with all WTO Members to that end.   
2.14.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that t he Russian Federation wished to refer 
to its previous statements made on this matter and thank ed Mexico and the co-sponsors for their 
continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment processes of the Appellate Body members.  
Russia reiterate d its strong support for launching the appointment processes immediately and call ed 
upon all Members to engage in urgent constructive discussions towards  a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system as soon as possible.  
2.15.   The representative of Norway  said that Norway fully support ed the joint AB proposal presented 
by Mexico, and co -sponsored by 123 Members, to launch the process for appointments to the 
Appellate Body. Norway  referred to its previous  statements in th at regard. Norway st ood ready to 
engage urgently  in needed discussions to address the current AB impasse, and hope d that  the 
decision to hold the 12th Ministerial Conference during the week of 13 June  2022 in Geneva, w ould 
provide impetus and help focus Members'  work going forward.  
2.16.   The representative of Singapore  said that  Singapore thank ed Mexico for its statement , which 
Singapore  strongly support ed. Singapore  wished to reiterat e its previous statements made on this 
matter and look ed forward to all Members, including the United States, commencing constructive 
discussions with a view to restor ing a fully functioning dispute settlement system.  
2.17.   The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia thank ed Mexico for presenting the AB 
proposa l on behalf of the 123 co-sponsors and wish ed to express its support for the statement made 
by Mexico.  Malaysia  wished to refer to its statements made on this matter at previous DSB meeting s. 
Malaysia  reiterate d its strong support for a fair, open and non -discriminatory rules -based multilateral 
trading system. It must be ensured that t he two -tier dispute settlement system remain  as an 
essential pillar of this institution. It was the responsibility  of WTO Members to p reserve the system 
and ensure  the credibility and predictability of the multilateral trading system.  
2.18.   The representative of Thailand  said that  Thailand wished to join many other  delegations  in 
thanking Mexico for its statement  made at the present meeting . Thailand  express ed its support  for 
Mexico's  statement  made on behalf of the co -sponsors . Thailand  referred to its previous statements 
made under this Agenda item  at previous DSB meetings . The two -tier, binding dispute settlement 
system was an integral part of the core elements of the WTO . For that reason , Thailand  consider ed 
restoration of th at system to be a priority. Thailand therefore renew ed its call on all WTO Members 
to engage constru ctively in solution s-oriented discussions and  to intensify their efforts in finding the 
way forward.  
2.19.   The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland wished to refer to its statements made 
on this matter at previous DSB meetings. A fully functional dispute settlement system was in 
everyone 's interest. It was essential that constructive discussions would  take place as soon as 
possible  in order to find concrete solutions to resolve the impasse that Members had  been facing for 
too long. Switzerland remain ed ready to work towards th at objective and call ed on all Members to 
do the same.  
2.20.   The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Mexico for the AB proposal  presented  on 
behalf of its many co -sponsors . Brazil  referred to its previous statement s under this Agenda item. 
Brazil was ready to engage in constructive and meaningful discussions with Members in order to find 
a solution to th is problem as a matter of urgency.   WT/DSB/M/4 62 
- 12 - 
  2.21.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia wished to refer to its previous statements 
made  at previous DSB meetings with regard to this Agenda  item. Indonesia  again availed itself of 
the opportunity to urge all Members to attach  their serious attention, willingness, and commitment 
towards  the immediate appointment of the Appellate Body members.  Indonesia remain ed ready to 
work together and would engage constructively with other Members  to this effect.  
2.22.   The representative of Mexico , speaking  on behalf of the 12 3 co-sponsors, regretted that for 
the fifty-second  occasion, Members had still not been able to start the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body, and had thus continuously failed to fulfill their duty as Members of 
this Organization. The fact that a Member may have concerns about cert ain aspects of the 
functioning of the Appellate Body could not serve as a pretext to impair and disrupt the work of this 
body and dispute settlement in general. There was no legal justification for blocking the AB selection 
processes, which was causing con crete nullification and impairment for many Members. As 
Article  17.2 of the DSU clearly stated, "vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". No discussion should 
prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully and Members shall comply with their 
obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies. Mexico noted with deep concern that by failing to act 
at the present meeting, the Appellate Body would continue to be unable to perform its functions 
against the best interest of all Members.  
2.23.   The representati ve of Mexico  said that Mexico wishe d to refer to its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings  on this matter . For more than two years, Members ha d been requesting that 
the AB proposal be approved by the DSB  so as to preserve the right to appeal , as set out  in the 
DSU. Mexico continue d to express its deep concern and a sense of urgency regarding the fact that 
the Appellate Body was not operational. All current  disputes were being affected because the dispute 
settlement system was not fully operational, and th at had put at risk prompt compliance with, and 
the adoption of, panel  reports. Now more than ever, it was important and a priority to work towards  
finding a real and m ultilateral solution  to this matter.  Mexico continue d to stand ready to work 
constructively and called on Members who ha d not done so to co-sponsor the joint  AB proposal.  
2.24.   The Chairperson  thanked all delegations for their statements. She said that , as in th e past, 
the DSB w ould take note of the statements expressing Members'  respective positions, which w ould 
be reflected in the minutes of the present  meeting. She said that , as Members we re all aware, this 
matter require d political engagement on the part of all WTO Members. She recall ed that  the previous 
Chair of the General Council ha d been working on the issue of restoration of a fully functioning 
dispute settlement system in the context of the preparations for MC12, whi ch had been  postponed 
in 2021.  She hoped that, going forward, Members w ould be able to find a solution to this matter.  
2.25.   The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________