RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DS B/M/391  
 
27 February 2017  
(17-1157) Page: 1/8 
Dispute Settlement Body  
25 January 2017    
 
 MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 25 JANUARY 2017  
Chairman: Mr. Xavier  Carim  (South Africa ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda , the Chairman  welcomed Mr. John Adank , the new Director of 
the Legal Affairs Division.  
 
Table of Contents  
1   SURVEILLANCE OF IMPL EMENTATION OF RECOMM ENDATIONS ADOPTED BY  
THE DSB ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United  States  ................................ ................................ ..............  2 
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  2 
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European  Union ................................ ................................ ....... 3 
2   UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND  SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT 
OF 2000: IMPLEMENTATION  OF THE RECOMMENDATIO NS ADOPTED BY THE  DSB ...........  3 
A.  Statement by the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ....................  3 
3   CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFF ECTING ELECTRONIC PA YMENT SERVICES  .............  4 
A.  Statement by the United  States  ................................ ................................ .......................  4 
4   CHINA – DOMESTIC SUPPORT FOR  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE RS ................................  4 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the  United States  ................................ .............  4 
5   MOROCCO – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT -ROLLED STEEL 
FROM TURKEY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  5 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Turkey  ................................ ............................  5 
6   CANADA – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN C ARBON 
STEEL WELDED PIPE FR OM THE SEPARATE CUST OMS TERRITORY OF TAI WAN, 
PENGHU, KINMEN AND M ATSU  ................................ ................................ .........................  6 
A.  Report of the Panel ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  6 
7   PROPOSED NOMINATIONS  FOR THE INDICATIVE L IST OF GOVERNMENTAL 
AND NON -GOVERNMENTAL PANELIS TS ................................ ................................ ............  7 
8   APPELLATE BODY MATTE RS ................................ ................................ ........................  7 
A.  Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ .............................  7 
9   DISPUTE SETTLEMENT W ORKLOAD  ................................ ................................ .............  8 
A.  Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ .............................  8 WT/DSB/M/391  
 
- 2 - 
 
   
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPL EMENTATION OF RECOMM ENDATIONS ADOPTED BY  THE DSB 
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United  States (WT /DS184/15/Add.168)  
 
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United  States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.143)  
 
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the Eur opean  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.106)  
 
 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were three sub -items under the Agenda item concerning 
status reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU. He recalled that 
Article  21.6 required that: "Unless the DS B 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 u ntil the issue is resolved". Under this Agenda item, the Chairman invited delegations to 
provide up -to-date information about compliance efforts and to focus on new developments, 
suggestions and ideas on progress towards the resolution of disputes. He also  reminded 
delegations that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings: 
"Representatives should make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting 
on any issue that has already been fully debated in the pa st and on which there appears to have 
been no change in Members' positions already on record". He then turned to the first status report 
under this Agenda item.  
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Stat us report by the United  States (WT/DS184/15/Add.168)  
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.168, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning U S anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel 
products from Japan.  
1.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States  had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 12  January  2017, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. The 
United States had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the 
calculation of anti -dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at 
issue. With respect to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that had ye t to be addressed, 
the US Administration would work with the US  Congress with respect to appropriate statutory 
measures that would resolve this matter.  
1.4.  The representative of Japan  thanked the United  States for its statement and its status report 
submitted on 12  January  2017. Japan referred to its previous statements on this matter and hoped 
that this issue would be resolved as soon as possible under the new US Administration.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its nex t regular 
meeting.  
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.143)  
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.143, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on p rogress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning Section  110(5) of the US Copyright Act.  
1.7.  The representative of the United  States  said his country had provided a status report in this 
dispute on 12  January  2017, in accordanc e with Article  21.6 of the DSU. The US Administration WT/DSB/M/391  
 
- 3 - 
 
  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.  
1.8.  The representative of the European  Union  thanked the United  States for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting. The EU referred to its previous statements on this 
matter and said that it would wish to resolve this dispute as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the state ments and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.106)  
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to do cument WT/DS291/37/Add.106, which contained the 
status report by the European  Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of 
biotech products.  
1.11.   The representative of the European  Union  said that the draft authorisation decision for one 
GM maize, for food and feed uses, would be submitted for a vote at the member States Committee 
on 27  January  2017. There had not been any further developments since the previous regul ar 
DSB meeting held on 16  December  2016. The EU continued to be committed to acting in line with 
its WTO obligations. But more generally, and as had been stated many times before, the EU 
recalled that the EU approval system was not covered by the DSB's rec ommendations and rulings.  
1.12.   The representative of the United  States  said his country thanked the EU for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting. The EU measures affecting the approval and 
marketing of biotech products continued to be characterized by lengthy, unpredictable, and 
unexplained delays in approvals. For example, the EU's scientific review process had slowed in 
recent years. Many corn and soybean products had now been under consideration by the EU's 
scientific authority for s everal years. Furthermore, the EU had recently proposed regulations that 
created more, rather than less, uncertainty with regard to the information required for scientific 
evaluation of biotech products. The delays in approvals caused adverse effects on tr ade, 
particularly with respect to soybeans and corn. The United  States encouraged the EU to ensure 
that products in the biotech approval pipeline moved forward in a timely manner, as was required 
by EU regulations and WTO rules.  
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the st atements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
2  UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT  OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTED BY THE  DSB 
A.  Statement by the European  Union  
2.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European  Union, and he invited the representative of the European  Union to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of the  European  Union  said that his delegation requested, once again, that 
the Uni ted States stop transferring anti -dumping and countervailing duties to the US industry. 
Every disbursement that still took place was clearly an act of non -compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. The EU renewed its call on the United  States t o abide by its clear 
obligation under Article  21.6 of the DSU to submit status reports regarding implementation in this 
dispute. The EU would continue to place this matter on the Agenda for as long as the United  States 
had not implemented the WTO ruling.  
2.3.  The representative of Brazil  said that his country thanked the European  Union for keeping 
this item on the Agenda of the DSB. As an original party to the Byrd Amendment dispute, Brazil 
referred to its previous statements on this matter. In particular, Brazi l referred to its statements 
regarding the continuation of illegal disbursements, which should cease immediately. Brazil 
renewed its calls on the United  States to fully comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings WT/DSB/M/391  
 
- 4 - 
 
  in this dispute. Until then, the Unit ed States was under an obligation to submit status reports, 
pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU.  
2.4.  The representative of Canada  said his country thanked the EU for keeping this item on the 
Agenda of the DSB. Canada agreed that the Byrd Amendment remained sub ject to the surveillance 
of the DSB until the United  States ceased to administer it.  
2.5.  The representative of China  said her country thanked the EU for placing this item on the 
Agenda of the present meeting. China urged the United  States to fully implement th e DSB's 
recommendations and rulings on this matter as soon as possible.  
2.6.  The representative of the United  States  said that, as the United  States  had noted at previous 
DSB meetings, the Deficit Reduction Act – which included a provision repealing the Continu ed 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 – had been enacted into law in February  2006. 
Accordingly, the United  States had taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes. The United  States recalled, further more, that the 
EU had acknowledged that the Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties 
collected on goods entered after 1  October  2007, over nine years ago. Nevertheless, the EU 
continued to request status reports in this matter. As it  had already explained at previous DSB 
meetings, the United  States failed to see what purpose would be served by further submission of 
status reports which would repeat, again, that the United  States had taken all actions necessary to 
implement the DSB's r ecommendations and rulings in these disputes. Indeed, as the EU ha d 
demonstrated repeatedly when it had been a responding party in another dispute, such as in the 
"EC – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute, there was no obligation under the DSU to provide further  status 
reports once a Member announced that it had implemented those DSB recommendations and 
rulings, regardless of whether the complaining party disagreed about compliance.  
2.7.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
3  CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFF ECTING ELECTRONI C PAYMENT SERVICES  
A.  Statement by the United  States  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United  States and he invited the representative of the United  States to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of the United States  said the DSB had adopted its recommendations in 
this dispute in August  2012, and the reasonable period of time had long since expired. China had 
issued a regulation several months before that purported to set out a licensing application proces s 
for foreign electronic payment services (EPS) suppliers. However, the only entity authorized to 
provide EPS in China remained a business set up by the People's Bank of China and other Chinese 
Government -related entities. The United  States urged China to ensure that foreign EPS suppliers 
could apply for and receive permission to operate in China, in accordance with China's WTO 
obligations.  
3.3.  The representative of China  said her country regretted that the United  States had, once 
again, brought this matter bef ore the DSB. China referred to its statements made at previous 
DSB meetings and emphasized that it had taken all necessary actions and had fully implemented 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. China also reiterated that the regulation 
mentioned by the United  States was not relevant to the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. Nor was the DSB meeting an appropriate forum to discuss China's 
domestic regulatory action which was irrelevant to this specific dispute.  
3.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
4   CHINA – DOMESTIC SUPPORT FOR  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE RS 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the  United States (WT/DS511/8)  
4.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
16 December  2016 and had agreed to revert to it. He drew attention to the communication from WT/DSB/M/391  
 
- 5 - 
 
  the United  States contained in document WT/DS511/8, and invited the representative of the 
United  States to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of the United  States  said that, as explained at the 16  December  2016 DSB 
meeting, the United  States was concerned that China provided domestic support for agricultural 
producers at a level in excess of the commitments it had agreed to when it joined the WTO. In 
particular, the United  States was conce rned that China's market -price support for wheat, rice, and 
corn each exceeded China's permissible level of domestic support for agricultural producers. The 
US panel request specified the US claims under the Agreement on Agriculture. The United  States 
therefore requested, again, that the DSB establish a panel to examine the matter set out in the US 
panel request, with standard terms of reference.  
4.3.  The representative of China  said her country regretted the US request for the establishment 
of a panel. China wa s particularly disappointed by the US unprecedented and unjustified step to 
challenge China's legitimate and WTO -consistent domestic support with respect to vital agricultural 
staples including Indica rice, Japonica rice, wheat and corn. Indeed, it was a w ell-recognized 
international practice, supported by WTO rules, that WTO Members had the right to provide 
necessary and essential support to their respective domestic agricultural sectors. China said it 
would strongly defend its interests and demonstrate th e WTO -consistency of its measures before 
the panel.  
4.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU, with standard terms of reference.  
4.5.  The representatives of Australia , Brazil , Canada , Colombia , the European  Union , Egypt , 
El Salvador , India, Indonesia , Japan , Kazakhstan , Korea , Norway , Pakistan , Paraguay , 
the Philippines , the Russian  Federation , Saudi  Arabia , Singapore , Chinese  Taipei , Thailand , Turkey  
and Viet Nam reserved their third party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings.  
5  MOROCCO – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT -ROLLED STEEL FROM 
TURKEY  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Turkey (WT/DS513/2)  
5.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Turkey contained in document 
WT/DS513/2, and he invited the representative of Turkey to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of Turkey  welcomed Turkey's request for the establishment of a panel on 
the Agenda of the present meeting. He recalled that on 26  September  2014, Morocco had imposed 
definitive anti -dumping duties on imports of certain hot -rolled steel from, inter alia, Turkey. These 
duties applied to two large Turkish exporters and had already had significant effects on Turkish 
exports of this product. Turkey h ad consulted with Morocco in order to address the fundamental 
deficiencies of the definitive measure. Turkey's concerns related in particular to: (i) the duration of 
the investigation  – which had exceeded 18  months; (ii) the arbitrary use of facts availabl e in the 
dumping calculation; (iii) the lack of sufficient disclosure in the essential facts letter; (iv)  the 
unsubstantiated finding of material retardation; and (v) the trade -restrictive system for import 
surveillance. Notwithstanding the efforts made by  Turkey to avoid a formal dispute under the DSU, 
Morocco had failed to heed its concerns regarding the infirmities of the definitive measure. 
On 3 October  2016, Turkey had requested consultations with Morocco in accordance with Article  4 
of the DSU. Consul tations had been held on 18 and 28  November  2016. Unfortunately, however, 
these consultations had failed to resolve the dispute. Turkey had hoped that this matter could 
have been resolved without the need to resort to a panel. Turkey hoped that it still ma y be 
possible to resolve this matter. However, while maintaining an open and cooperative attitude, 
Turkey also had to preserve its rights under the Anti -Dumping Agreement. Turkey, therefore, 
requested the DSB to establish a panel, with standard terms of re ference, to address the matter 
set out in its panel request.  
5.3.  The representative of Morocco  said that his delegation regretted Turkey's decision to request 
the establishment of a panel in the DS513 dispute. Morocco considered that the anti -dumping duty 
imposed on imports of certain hot -rolled steel from Turkey on 26  September  2014, and notified to 
the Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices in G/ADP/N/265/MAR on 13  March  2015, were WT/DSB/M/391  
 
- 6 - 
 
  consistent with its obligations under Article  VI of the GATT  1994 and the Anti -Dumping Agreement. 
Following an objective investigation, Morocco's competent authorities had concluded that imports 
of certain hot -rolled steel from Turkey were being dumped and caused injury to the domestic 
industry producing like products. Morocco, therefo re, had the right to impose anti -dumping 
measures on these imports. Morocco had engaged in substantive and constructive consultations 
with Turkey in an effort to reach an amicable settlement consistent with its rights under the WTO 
Agreement. At the presen t meeting, Morocco objected to the establishment of the panel and 
believed that the two countries could reach a diplomatic settlement of this dispute through further 
bilateral consultations.  
5.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter.  
6  CANADA – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN C ARBON STEEL 
WELDED PIPE FROM THE  SEPARATE CUSTOMS TER RITORY OF TAIWAN, PE NGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU  
A.  Report of the Panel (WT/DS482/R and WT/DS482/R/Add.1)  
6.1.  The Chairman  recalled that, at its meeti ng on 10  March  2015, the DSB had established a 
Panel to examine the complaint by Chinese  Taipei pertaining to the DS482 dispute. The Report of 
the Panel, contained in document WT/DS482/R and Add.1 had been circulated on 
21 December  2016 as an unrestricted document. The Panel Report was now before the DSB for 
adoption at the request of Chinese  Taipei. This adoption procedure was without prejudice to the 
right of Members to express their views on the Panel Report.  
6.2.  The representative of Canada  said his country  thanked the Panel and the Secretariat for the 
time and effort that they had devoted to the DS482  dispute . Canada welcomed the Panel's finding 
that Chinese  Taipei had failed to establish that Canada had not undertaken a proper 
non-attribution analysis. In particular, Canada welcomed the Panel's rejection of Chinese  Taipei's 
argument that the Anti -Dumping Agreement required an investigating authority to distinguish the 
effect of subsidization from the effect of dumping in respect of goods that were both subs idized 
and dumped. However, Canada regretted certain aspects of the Panel's findings. However, taking 
into account the burden currently placed on the Appellate Body, including the backlog of cases in 
the dispute settlement system, Canada decided not to app eal the Panel Report. In summary, while 
Canada did not agree with all of the findings of the Panel, it accepted the Report. Pursuant to 
Article  21.3 of the DSU, Canada would inform the DSB of its intentions in respect of 
implementation of the DSB's recomme ndations and rulings within the next 30  days.  
6.3.  The representative of Chinese  Taipei  said his country thanked the Panel and the WTO 
Secretariat for their dedication and hard work throughout the proceedings. Chinese  Taipei also 
thanked Canada and the third pa rties for their constructive participation and appreciated all the 
time and effort everyone had dedicated to resolving the DS482 dispute. In its Report, circulated on 
21 December  2016, the Panel had confirmed that Canada's anti -dumping measures on carbon 
steel welded pipe and certain provisions of Canada's anti -dumping legislation were inconsistent 
with multiple WTO Agreements. The outcome of this dispute was significant, not only because it 
meant the end of unfair treatment towards Chinese  Taipei's exporte rs of carbon steel welded pipe 
to Canada, but also because of the systemic effects of some of the Panel's findings. Indeed, some 
of the findings effectively required Canada to modify its anti -dumping practices. This dispute 
involved multiple challenges con cerning provisional and definitive anti -dumping measures imposed 
by Canada on imports of certain carbon steel welded pipe. In particular, Chinese  Taipei welcomed 
the Panel's findings that Canada had acted inconsistently with Article  5.8 of the Anti -Dumping  
Agreement by failing to immediately terminate the investigation with respect to individual 
exporters whose final margins of dumping had been found to be de minimis . The Panel had 
concluded that the second sentence of Article  5.8 referred to the margin of dumping established 
for each producer or exporter individually, rather than a country -wide margin of dumping. The 
Panel had also found that Canada had acted inconsistently with Article  9.2 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement by imposing definitive anti -dumping d uties on imports from Chinese  Taipei's exporters 
with final de minimis  margins of dumping. The Panel further agreed that the volumes of exports 
from these exporters should not have been included in the injury and causation analyses. 
Consequently, Chinese  Taipei welcomed the Panel's decision that Canada's treatment of these 
exporters had violated the relevant provisions of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and the GATT  1994.  WT/DSB/M/391  
 
- 7 - 
 
  6.4.  The Panel had also found that Canada's treatment of non -cooperative exporters was 
inconsist ent with Article  6.8 and Annex  II of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. In this regard, Canada 
had been using the highest dumping margin, based on a single transaction, from a cooperative 
exporter, from a third country, for the imposition of anti -dumping duties – with no comparative 
assessment or logical relationship to the rate established for Chinese  Taipei's exporters. 
Furthermore, with respect to Chinese  Taipei's claim under Article  9.3, which concerned the 
imposition of anti -dumping duties on new product mode ls or types from investigated and 
cooperative exporters, the Panel had emphasised the fundamental link between the dumping 
margin determined for a specific exporter and the maximum amount of anti -dumping duty 
applicable to that exporter – even for new prod uct models or types. Thus, Chinese  Taipei stood by 
the Panel's conclusion that resorting to facts available and applying anti -dumping duties on 
imports of new products models or types  based on the all others rates, violated Article  9.3, 
Article  6.8 and Ann ex II of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. Finally, Chinese  Taipei was pleased that 
the Panel had upheld its claims that multiple provisions of Canadian law, concerning the treatment 
of exporters with final de minimis  dumping margins, were "as  such" inconsistent  with provisions of 
the Anti -Dumping Agreement, the GATT  1994 and the Marrakesh Agreement. Chinese  Taipei 
invited Canada to take all the necessary steps to promptly and fully implement the Panel's 
recommendations and rulings. In its view, the necessary ste ps towards full compliance would be 
for Canada to withdraw, in a timely manner, its anti -dumping measures on imports of certain 
carbon steel welded pipe products originating from Chinese  Taipei, and to amend its anti -dumping 
legislation to comply with the Panel's rulings and recommendations. Chinese  Taipei therefore 
requested that the DSB adopt the Panel Report in the DS482 dispute and sought Canada's 
cooperation to resolve this dispute, as soon as possible.  
6.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Panel Report contained in 
WT/DS482/R and Add.1.  
7  PROPOSED NOMINATIONS  FOR THE INDICATIVE L IST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELIS TS (WT/DSB/W/587)  
7.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/587, which contained additional 
names proposed by  Korea and Singapore for inclusion on the Indicative List of Governmental and 
Non-Governmental Panelists, in accordance with Article  8.4 of the DSU. He proposed that the DSB 
approve the names contained in document WT/DSB/W/587.  
7.2.  The DSB so agreed . 
8  APPELLATE  BODY MATTERS  
A.  Statement by the Chairman  
8.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the second four -year term of Mr.  Ricardo Ramírez Hernández 
would expire on 30  June 2017. Also, the second four -year term of Mr.  Peter Van den Bossche 
would expire on 11  December  2017. P ursuant to Article  17.2 of the DSU, they would not be eligible 
for reappointment. Accordingly, as had been announced at the DSB meeting on 
16 December  2016, the DSB would have to decide on the appointments of two new Appellate Body 
members to replace them.  It was therefore the Chairman's intention to outline two possible 
approaches for a new selection process to fill these two upcoming vacancies on the Appellate 
Body, on which he would consult with Members. One approach would be for each vacancy to be 
subje ct to its own selection process, conducted in due time, to select the new Appellate Body 
member before the expiry of the relevant second four -year term. A second approach – and one 
that had been taken in similar situations in the past – would be to conduct  one selection process 
for both positions, at the same time, with a view to completing the process by the end of  June. In 
this approach, the Selection Committee would make recommendations for filling one position as of 
1 July 2017 and the other as of 12  December  2017. Such a single approach, in the past, had 
consisted of the following elements: (i) to launch one selection process for the two vacant 
positions in the Appellate Body; (ii) to establish a Selection Committee composed of the 
Director -General and the 2017  Chairpersons of the General  Council, the Goods Council, the 
Services Council, the  TRIPS Council and the DSB, to be chaired by the DSB Chair; (iii) to set a 
deadline for Members to submit nominations of candidates; and (iv) to request the Selection  
Committee to carry out its work and make a recommendation to the DSB so that the DSB could WT/DSB/M/391  
 
- 8 - 
 
  take a decision to appoint two new Appellate Body members prior to the expiry of the first expiring 
four-year term in order to ensure there was continuity in the wo rk of the Appellate Body. The 
Chairman said that he intended to consult with Members on these approaches, and on the 
elements outlined  above, with respect to the two vacant positons. He encouraged delegations to 
contact him directly or the Secretariat shou ld they have any comments on any aspect of the 
approaches and elements outlined at the present meeting. He noted that the DSB would take up 
this matter at its next regular meeting, scheduled for 20  February  2017.  
8.2.  The DSB took note  of the statement.  
9  DISPUTE  SETTLEMENT WORKLOAD  
A.  Statement by the Chairman  
9.1.  The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business", said that he wished to provide the DSB with 
information about the Appellate Body's workload, the number of disputes before panels, and at the 
panel compositio n stage, and the ability of the Secretariat to meet expected demand over the 
coming period. With regard to panels/Arbitrations, there were currently 16 active panels (including 
five panels under Article  21.5 of the DSU) that had not yet issued a final repo rt to the parties. 
Multiple disputes that were being considered simultaneously, by the same panel, were being 
counted as one. As of the present meeting, all composed panels had been assigned staff to assist 
them and were active or in the process of commenc ing proceedings. There were an additional six 
panels at the composition stage. This did not count panels for which there had been no 
composition activity in the last twelve months. In addition, two matters had been referred to 
arbitration under Article  22.6 of the DSU, and one under Article  21.3(c) of the DSU. With regard to 
appeals, the Appellate Body was currently dealing with four appeals, including the extremely 
complex compliance proceedings in "EC and Certain Member States – Large Civil Aircraft " (Airbus). 
One of these appeals could not be staffed immediately. He noted that three panel reports had 
been circulated in December  2016 and another panel report would be circulated in January  2017. 
If they were appealed they could not be staffed immediately. I n addition, four final panel reports 
that had been issued to the parties were currently being translated.  
9.2.  The DSB took note  of the statement.  
__________