RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/333  
 
30 August 2013  
(13-4592)  Page: 1/19  
Dispute Settlement Body 
25 June 2013    
 
 MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD 
ON 25 JUNE 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 .............................................................................................................. 3  
B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by  the United States ............................................................................ 5  
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. 5  
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 ................................................................................................ 7  
G.  United States – Measures affecting the production and sale of clove cigarettes: Status 
report by the Un ited States ................................................................................................ 8  
H.  United States – Measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and 
tuna products: Status report  by the United States ................................................................. 8  
I.  China – Certain measures affecting electronic payment services: Status report 
by China  ..................................................................................................................... .... 9 
2   CANADA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECTING THE RENEWABLE ENERGY 
GENERATION SECTOR/CANADA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE FEED-IN TARIFF PROGRAM....................................................................................................................... 10
 
A.  Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB ........................................................ 10 
3   UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 
2000: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB .............. 11  
A.  Statements by the Eu ropean Union and Japan ................................................................. 11 
4   UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER SUPPLY OF 
GAMBLING AND BETTI NG SERVICES .............................................................................. 12  
A.  Statement by Antigua and Barbuda regarding the implementation of the 
recommendations and ruling s adopted by the DSB ............................................................... 12 WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 2 - 
 
  5   UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) 
REQUIREMEN TS ............................................................................................................. 13  
A.  Statements by Canada and Mexico ................................................................................ 13 
6   EUROPEAN UNION – ANTI-DUMPING  MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN 
FATTY ALCOHOLS FROM INDONESIA .............................................................................. 15  
A.  Request for the establishm ent of a panel by Indonesia ..................................................... 15 
7   ARGENTINA – MEASURES RELATING TO TRADE IN GOODS AND SERVICES ............... 15  
A.  Request for the establishm ent of a panel by Panama ........................................................ 15 
8   PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL 
PRODUCTS ..................................................................................................................... 17 
A.  Request for the establishm ent of a panel by Guat emala .................................................... 17 
9   PROPOSED NOMINATIONS FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL 
AND NON-GOVERNMENTA L PANELISTS .......................................................................... 18  
10   STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGARDING SOME MATTERS RELATED TO 
THE APPELLATE BODY .................................................................................................... 18  
 
 
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.127)  
B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.127)  
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.102)  
D.  European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.65)  E.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status report by 
Thailand (WT/DS371/15/Add.14) 
 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.13) 
 G.  United States – Measures affecting the production and sale of clove cigarettes: Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS406/11/Add.6) 
 H.  United States – Measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and tuna products: Status report by the United States (WT/DS381/18/Add.2) 
 
I.  China – Certain measures affecting electronic payment services: Status report by China (WT/DS413/9) 
 
 1.1.  The Chairman said that there were nine sub-items under Agenda item 1, which referred to 
status reports submitted by various delegations pu rsuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU. He recalled 
that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that the i ssue of implementation shall be placed on the 
Agenda of the DSB meeting after six months follow ing the date of establishment of the reasonable 
period of time and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda until the issue was resolved. The purpose of 
going through those items was to enable delegations to provide informative, up-to-date progress 
reports about compliance and to offer fresh, constructive comments focusing on new developments, suggestions and ideas on progress towards the resolution of disputes because all 
had a collective interest in the proper function ing of the dispute settlement system, which was 
designed to achieve mutually acceptable solutions.  WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 3 - 
 
  A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.127) 
1.2.  The Chairman drew attention to docu ment WT/DS176/11/Add.127, 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 13 June 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 
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 statement made at the present meeting. The EU hoped that the US 
authorities would very soon take steps towards implementing the DSB's ruling and resolve this 
matter. 
1.5.  The representative of Cuba said that more than 11 years had passed but the United States 
had not implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the Section 211 dispute. Members 
were at risk of becoming accustomed to this situation of prolonged non-compliance. In Cuba's 
view, it was important to recall that, on 1 February 2002, the DSB had adopted a decision regarding the US obligation to bring Section 211 into conformity with the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention. The United States must respect the DSB's rulings and its WTO commitments. 
As set out in Article 3 of the DSU, the disp ute settlement system was a central element in 
providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. When a Member deliberately failed to comply with its obligations, as was the case in this dispute, this undermined 
the security and predictability of the system. Cu ba considered that it was unacceptable for the 
United States to claim, month after month, that a set of legislative proposals submitted to Congress constituted some sort of effort to comply with the DSB's recommendations. Cuba 
reiterated that the proposals sought by the United States were cosmetic, produced no result and 
had not even been discussed in the bodies to which they had been submitted. In Cuba's view, 
three important questions needed to be raised in this context. First, whether there was a political will on the part of the United States to comp ly with the DSB's recommendations. Second, had the 
United States decided once and for all not to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
on Section 211? Third, was the United States aware that its conduct was detrimental to its image 
and to that of the WTO? In light of these circum stances, each month, Cuba had no choice but to 
raise its complaint concerning the theft of the Havana Club trademark and the continued failure by 
the United States to meet its obligations in the Section 211 dispute. It was impossible to ignore the concerns raised, on a monthly basis, by Cuba and a significant number of other Members that 
such situations undermined the credibility and effectiveness of the dispute settlement system. 
Cuba noted that the first item on the Agenda of  the present meeting contained six disputes in 
which the US compliance was still pending. More over, other items on the Agenda of the present 
meeting also dealt with the US non-compliance. Cuba urged the United States to act  in a manner 
consistent with its participation in the DSB as a major and frequent user of the dispute settlement 
system. Cuba reminded the United States that, to date, it had used the DSB more than any other Member to settle disputes.  
1.6.  The Chairman noted the extensive list of speakers and, once again, urged delegations to 
focus on recent developments, including the five bills that were before the US Congress, as 
referred to by the United States, and suggestions on how to get beyond the 11 years of lack of 
progress in this dispute. 
1.7.  The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that her country noted that 
the US status report was the same as the one that the United States had presented at previous 
DSB meetings. Therefore, Venezuela had no option but to reiterate its concern and urged 
the United States to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. In Venezuela's view, 
what was of serious concern in this dispute was not the time spent to repeat statements and calls for compliance, but the continued US failure to comply with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings and the harm that this caused to a developing-country Member. The lack of compliance had 
lasted for more than 11 years and was due solely and exclusively to the US Administration's lack WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 4 - 
 
  of political will. It reflected the US intention to continue to maintain the economic, trade and 
financial blockade, which had been applied illegally and illegitimately against a developing country, namely Cuba. Venezuela called on the US Administration to end its non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings by repealing Section 211. Venezuela supported Cuba's statement 
and shared its concern that non-compliance undermined the credibility of the DSB and of the 
multilateral trading system. 
1.8.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and the statement made at the present meet ing. India noted with regret that there was no 
substantive change in the situation. India, once ag ain, was compelled to state that the principle of 
prompt compliance was missing in this dispute. India reiterated its concerns about the continuation of non-compliance, since this undermined the credibility of the dispute settlement 
system. India urged the United States to report compliance in this dispute without any further 
delay. 
1.9.  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 in order to promptly comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
by repealing Section 211. In Ecuador's view, the non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute, which had lasted for more than eight years, demonstrated that the WTO dispute settlement system had a major shortcoming.   
1.10.  The representative of Argentina said that his country thanked the United States for its 
status report and the statement made at the pr esent meeting. Argentina regretted that, despite 
the Chairman's efforts to encourage Members to provide new information, nothing new had been 
reported in this dispute. Argentina, once again, reiterated that, as mentioned by the United States, 
bills had been submitted to the US Congress. The lack of progress in the US implementation was 
inconsistent with the principle of prompt and effective compliance, stipulated in the DSU 
provisions, in particular since the interests of  a developing-country Member were affected. 
Argentina supported Cuba's statement and urged the parties to this dispute, in particular the United States, to take the necessary measures so as to finally remove this item from the DSB's Agenda. 
1.11.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that, as his country had noted 
over the past 11 years, the US status report did not offer any new information on progress 
towards solving this dispute. Thus, Bolivia, once again, reiterated its concern about the systemic 
implications of the US failure to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Bolivia was 
also concerned about the US lack of political will to take steps towards compliance. This situation of non-compliance undermined the credibility and integrity of the multilateral trading system and 
harmed the interests of a developing-country Member. Bolivia, once again, called on the 
United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings and to lift the restrictions imposed under Section 211. Bolivia supported th e concerns expressed by Cuba at the present 
meeting.  
1.12.  The representative of China said that, as his country had stated at previous DSB meetings, 
China believed that the 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.  
1.13.  The representative of El Salvador said that her country thanked the United States for its 
status report. El Salvador noted, with concern, the lack of compliance in this dispute, which 
negatively affected the multilateral trading system. Ecuador urged the parties to this dispute to ensure compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this long-standing 
dispute.  WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.14.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the United States for its status 
report on implementation in this dispute. Brazil noted that, once again, the United States reported 
lack of progress. Brazil remained concerned with this situation of non-compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings and urged the United States to bring its measures into conformity 
with WTO rules. 
1.15.  The representative of Mexico said that his country wished to reiterate its position regarding 
the need for the parties to this dispute to take the necessary measures in order to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings to the benefit of  all Members as stipulated in Article 21.1 of 
the DSU, which referred to prompt compliance. 
1.16.  The representative of Viet Nam said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report. Viet Nam reiterated its concern about the US non-compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. Viet Nam requested the United States to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings without delay.  
1.17.  The Chairman said that there were a couple of observations that were worthy of reflection. 
First, what was the content of those five different bills and did they differ from each other? 
Second, did the US Administration have a position on any of those bills? He assumed that the US delegation would take those questions into consideration.  
1.18.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures  on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the Un ited States (WT/DS184/15/Add.127) 
1.19.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.127, 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. 
1.20.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 13 June 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 th e 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.  
1.21.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked the United States for its 
statement and the status report which was submitted on 13 June 2013. Since the content of the 
US report had not changed from the previous repo rts, Japan's position had not changed either, as 
expressed in the previous meetings. 
1.22.  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.102) 
1.23.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.102, 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. 
1.24.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 13 June 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the EU, and to work closely with the US Congress, in order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.25.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and statement made at the pres ent meeting. The EU referred to its previous 
statements regarding its wish to resolve this case as soon as possible. 
1.26.  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.65) 
1.27.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.65, 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. 
1.28.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU, once again, hoped that it would 
continue on the constructive path of dialogue with the United States. In 2012, the Commission had 
authorized five 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 decision on MIR162 had been adopted less than four months after the EFSA opinion.4 
The details were set out in the EU's written stat ement. Regarding the concerns expressed by the 
United States on the back-log of approvals, th e EU recalled that its approval system was not 
covered by the DSB's recommendations and ruli ngs. The GMO regulatory regime was working 
normally as evidenced by the approval decision s just mentioned. At the meeting of 27 May 2013, 
the Appeal committee had voted for one GMO, where no opinion was rendered.5 Three more 
decisions6 had been presented at the standing committees of 10 June 2013 for discussion and 
vote, rendering no opinion. Those decisions would be presented to the Appeal committee shortly. 
In addition, on 20 June 2013, EFSA had publishe d a favourable opinion on GM cotton T304-40.7  
1.29.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement made at the present m eeting. The United States continued to have 
serious concerns regarding the lack of progre ss in approvals of biotech products. As the 
United States had noted in prior meetings, the relevant EU regulatory committee has skipped 
some of its monthly meetings, which contributed to delay. The committee had met in June. It had considered three applications for authorizations of biotech corn. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had reviewed all three varieties, and had found them to be as safe as 
conventionally developed corn varieties. For two of those products, the EFSA opinions had been 
published in September 2010, meaning that close to three years had elapsed between the opinion and the consideration of the application for authorization. Despite the favourable EFSA opinions, 
the regulatory committee had not been able to reach the necessary qualified majority to adopt the 
approvals. The United States expected that th e applications would be put to an EU appeals 
committee, and hoped that approvals could be granted without further delay. As a result of EU 
delays, including those arising from the consistent failure of the regulatory committee to adopt 
approvals, the EU measures affecting approval of biotech products were causing serious restrictions on trade. As the United States had highlighted in the past, this situation arose in part from the EU's frequent failures to adhere to its own timelines for regulatory action under the 
relevant EU regulation. The United States urged the EU to take steps to address these problems 
with its measures affecting the approval of biotech products.  
                                               
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 EFSA Journal 2012;10(6):2756. Decision on authorisation: 
18 October 2012. 
5 Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3 oilseed rape. 
6 Maize stack events MON89034 x 1507 x MON88017 x 59122 and GM maize MON89034×1507×NK603 
as well as GM maize MON810 pollen. 
7 Insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant genetically modified cotton T304-40 for food and feed uses, 
import and processing. WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.30.  The Chairman said that the timing of the appellate process was not clear to him and that it 
would be interesting to know.   
1.31.  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.14) 
1.32.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS371/15/Add.14, 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. 
1.33.  The representative of Thailand said that, as indicated in its most recent status report, 
Thailand and the Philippines continued to follow up on their discussions during the informal 
bilateral consultations held in Bangkok in May 2013. Thailand also continued to discuss with 
private stakeholders in Bangkok on one of the issu es of concern to the Philippines. Thailand would 
also provide additional information on other issues to the Philippines. Given the confidential nature 
of some of those discussions, it was not possible to engage in a detailed discussion at the present 
meeting. Thailand looked forward to further progress in this dispute and hoped that those discussions would lead to an amicable resolution of the matter.  
1.34.  The representative of the Philippines said that his country thanked Thailand for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting. In its previous statement at the 
24 May 2013 DSB meeting, the Philippines had referred to the fact that certain technical issues, as discussed at the parties' bilateral meeting in Bangkok in early May 2013, had required follow-up 
action by Thailand. At the May 2013 DSB meeting, the Philippines had also referred to concerns 
that related to the actions of certain governmental agencies that appeared to make findings on customs valuation issues without operating under the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement. Those 
concerns remained. In particular, the Philippines was concerned about ongoing investigations by 
Thai authorities against a Thai importer of cigare ttes from the Philippines, Philip Morris Thailand 
Limited, Thailand Branch, regarding alleged under-declaration of customs values. Those 
investigations, which potentially carried criminal fines and imprisonment, appeared to the 
Philippines to be based on grounds not supported by WTO customs valuation rules, and to be inconsistent with several decisions that had already been taken by Thai Customs and other Thai governmental agencies. Thailand's failure to adhere to WTO disciplines concerning customs 
valuation was of considerable systemic importance. The Philippines continued to consider the next 
steps in this dispute. 
1.35.  The representative of Thailand said that her country wished to respond to the statement 
made by the Philippines. Thailand was awar e of the Philippines concerns regarding the 
investigations referred to by the Philippines. However, Thailand considered it premature to discuss, in the DSB, ongoing confidential investigations, the outcome of which was not yet known. Thailand 
and the Philippines had discussed the matter bilate rally and Thailand looked forward to further 
negotiations, as appropriate. 
1.36.  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.13) 
1.37.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS404/11/Add.13, 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. 
1.38.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 13 June 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. WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 8 - 
 
  That modification addressed certain findings in this dispute. In June 2012, the USTR had 
requested, pursuant to Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, that the Department of Commerce take action necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. The United States would continue to consult with interested parties as it worked to 
address the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  
1.39.  The representative of Viet Nam said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meet ing. Viet Nam noted that the reasonable period 
of time mutually agreed by the parties had expired 11 months ago. However, the US 
Administration had not taken any action to recalculate the anti-dumping duty for the second and third periods of review. This was inconsistent  with the DSB's recommendation. Once again, 
Viet Nam requested the United States to fully comply without any further delay for the benefit of 
Viet Nam, a developing-country Member. 
1.40.  The representative of Cuba said that, since September 2011, the DSB had adopted the 
rulings and recommendations in this dispute, but progress in implementation in this dispute was 
slow. Cuba noted that continued failure to comply in this dispute affected the interests of 
Viet Nam, a developing-country Member, and had a negative impact on the production of goods that were central to its development. Cuba urge d the United States to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
1.41.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. G.  United States – Measures affecting the pr oduction and sale of clove cigarettes: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS406/11/Add.6) 
1.42.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS406/11/Add.6 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. 
1.43.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 13 June 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As noted in its status 
report, US authorities were conferring with interested parties and working to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a manner  that was appropriate from the perspective of 
the public health. As the end of the reasonable pe riod of time was approaching, the United States 
was accelerating its implementation efforts and expected to be in communication with Indonesia.  
1.44.  The representative of Indonesia said that his country welcomed the status report by the 
United States. However, Indonesia remained concerned that the status report did not contain any 
information on significant progress by the United States regarding the necessary measures to 
comply with the DSB's ruling of 2012. 
1.45.  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: Status report by th e United States (WT/DS381/18/Add.2) 
1.46.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS381/18/Add.2 which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case regarding the US measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and 
tuna products. 
1.47.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 13 June 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of 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 labelling standards.
8 The proposed changes would help ensure that 
                                               
8 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/333 
 
- 9 - 
 
  consumers received accurate information concerning whether the tuna in a product labelled 
"dolphin safe" was caught in a manner that had caused harm to dolphins. The period for comment on the proposed rule had closed on 6 May 2013. The United States continued to evaluate the 
comments received concerning the proposed rule, and would work to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB by the end of the reasonable period of time on 
13 July 2013. 
1.48.  The representative of Mexico said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report. However, the US status report was identical to that submitted at the previous DSB meeting 
held on 24 May 2013. Mexico recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU provided Members with an obligation to report on progress in the implementation of the recommendations or rulings of the DSB. However, at the present meeting, no significant progress had been reported. Mexico wished 
to reiterate the point it had made previously that, unfortunately, the proposed US regulations did 
not remove the discrimination against Mexican tuna, or address the damage caused to the 
environment and dolphins by fishing fleets from other countries in other oceans. Mexico hoped that 
the United States would duly comply with the DSB's recommendations and recalled that the 
reasonable period of time for compliance would expire on 13 July 2013. 
1.49.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked Mexico for its 
comments. The United States would work toward compliance by the end of the reasonable period 
of time on 13 July 2013. As had been noted, the United States had published a proposal to amend 
aspects of the US dolphin-safe labelling regulations. The proposed rule would enhance documentary requirements for certifying that no dolphins had been killed or seriously injured in 
the sets or other gear deployments in which the tuna were caught. The United States took note of 
Mexico's statement and was willing to engage in further bilateral discussions. In the US view, the 
proposed changes would bring the dolphin-safe la belling requirements into compliance with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
1.50.  The representative of Mexico said that his country was open to continue bilateral 
consultations with the United States. Mexico wished to ensure that discrimination against Mexican 
tuna would end, as well as the discrimination concerning dolphin-safe labelling. He added that this 
matter had been raised by Mexico for a long period of time. 
1.51.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
I.  China – Certain measures affecting elec tronic payment services: Status report by 
China (WT/DS413/9) 
1.52.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS413/9 which contained the status report 
by China on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the case concerning 
China's measures affecting electronic payment services. 
1.53.  The representative of China said that hi s country had provided a status report in this 
dispute on 13 June 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. After the DSB's adoption of 
the Panel Report, the relevant Chinese government agencies had begun to actively study various possible ways of implementation. Since this dispute concerned a number of Chinese administrative measures on financial services and was embodied with more complexity and sensitivity than other 
disputes, China was working towards amending the relevant measures at issue. China would 
accelerate the process and implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
1.54.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked China for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting. China's measures affecting electronic 
payment services had been and continued to be of significant concern to the United States. 
Electronic payment services (EPS) allowed consumers to purchase goods and services without 
cash. EPS enabled, facilitated and managed the flow  of information and the transfer of funds from 
cardholders' banks to merchants' banks. These services were vital to facilitating global commerce and essential to the operation of any modern econ omy. In this dispute, the DSB had found that 
China had instituted measures that discriminated against foreign EPS suppliers at every stage of a 
card-based electronic payment that took place in China in China's domestic currency. China's 
discriminatory measures had ensured the market dominance of a Chinese entity, China UnionPay, WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 10 - 
 
  Ltd. (CUP) and had prevented foreign suppliers from providing this important service. In China, 
each year well over US$1 trillion worth of electr onic payment card transactions were processed. 
The United States looked forward to China fu lly implementing the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings by the expiration of the reasonable period  of time on 31 July 2013. In the meantime, the 
United States welcomed the opportunity to confer with China regarding actions it was taking in 
connection with this dispute.  
1.55.  The Chairman noted that the next DSB meet ing coincided closely with the expiration of the 
reasonable period of time and, therefore, he l ooked forward to further progress at that time. 
1.56.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 2  CANADA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECT ING THE RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION 
SECTOR/CANADA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE FEED-IN TARIFF PROGRAM 
A.  Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB 2.1.  The Chairman recalled that, in accordance with the DSU provisions, the DSB was required to 
keep under surveillance the implementation of reco mmendations and rulings of the DSB in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disp utes to the benefit of all Members. In that respect, Article 21.3 of 
the DSU provided that the Member concerned shall inform the DSB, within 30 days after the date 
of adoption of the panel or Appellate Body report, of its intentions in respect of implementation of 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. He recalled that at its meeting on 24 May 2013, the DSB had adopted the Appellate Body Reports and the Panel Reports, as modified by the Appellate Body Reports, pertaining to the disputes on: "Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable 
Energy Generation Sector/Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed-In Tariff Program". The 30-day 
time period in this case had expired on 23 June 20 13. In order to comply with the requirements of 
Article 21.3 of the DSU, on 20 June 2013, Canada had informed the DSB in writing of its intentions 
in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations. The relevant communication was 
contained in document WT/DS412/15 – WT/DS426/14. He invited Canada to inform the DSB of its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
2.2.  The representative of Canada said that, at its meeting on 24 May 2013, the DSB had adopted 
the Reports of the Panel and the Appellate Body in the disputes on: "Canada – Certain Measures 
Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector/Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed-In Tariff Program" "FIT" disputes (DS412 and DS426). On 20 June 2013, Canada had informed the 
DSB by letter that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in a manner 
that respected its WTO obligation s. The letter had also indicated that the Government of Ontario 
had advised Canada that it was developing options to implement the appropriate compliance 
measures, including the necessary legislative steps, to ensure that its FIT program was brought 
into compliance with those rulings. That letter was circulated to the DSB in documents WT/DS412/15 and WT/DS426/14. Japan and the EU had agreed with Canada that it was 
appropriate for Canada to inform the DSB of its intentions by letter, rather than at a special 
meeting, in light of the fact that the 30-day period specified in Article 21.3 of the DSU was to expire shortly before the regularly scheduled DSB meeting in June. As also noted in the letter, 
those compliance measures would need a reasonable period of time in which to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings, and Canada had already begun discussions with Japan and 
the EU on this matter. Canada hoped to reach agreement shortly, in accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, and would notify th at agreement to the DSB once it was achieved. 
2.3.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked Canada for its written 
communication and its statement made at the present meeting that Canada would bring the 
measures that had been examined by the Panel and the Appellate Body into compliance with the 
WTO Agreement. To do so, Canada had stated that it needed a reasonable period of time. The EU 
was ready to engage with Canada wi th a view to determining a period of time that was satisfactory 
to both parties. 
2.4.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked Canada for informing the DSB of 
its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings as stated in its letter dated 
20 June 2013 and in its statement made at the present meeting. In order to ensure clear and WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 11 - 
 
  prompt settlement of this dispute, Japan expe cted Canada to take the necessary actions to 
promptly implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Japan was ready to discuss this matter with Canada, together with the EU, in good faith. 
2.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and of the information provided by Canada regarding 
its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
3  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTE D BY THE DSB 
A.  Statements by the European Union and Japan 
3.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union and Japan. He then invited the respective representatives to speak. 
3.2.  The representative of the European Union said that, once again, the EU requested that the 
United States stop transferring anti-dumping an d 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 to abide by its clear 
obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU to submit status reports in this dispute. 
3.3.  The representative of Japan said that, since the distributions under the CDSOA had been 
continuing, Japan, once again, urged the United States to stop the illegal distributions so as to 
resolve this dispute. As it had stated in previous DSB meetings, Japan was of the view that the 
United States was under obligation to provide the DSB with a status report in this dispute in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. 
3.4.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for their 
statements. India shared their concerns and agreed that this item should continue to remain under 
the surveillance of the DSB until  full compliance was achieved. 
3.5.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda. As it had stated at pr evious DSB 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 and the United States would be released from its 
obligation to provide status reports in this dispute. 
3.6.  The representative of Canada said that his country wished to refer to its statements made 
under this Agenda item at previous DSB meetings. He said that Canada's position on this matter 
had not changed.  
3.7.  The representative of Thailand said that, li ke Canada, her country's position on this matter 
had not changed.  
3.8.  The representative of the United States sa id that, as his country had explained at previous 
DSB meetings, the President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 8 February 2006. 
That Act included a provision repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. 
The United States had taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in these disputes. The United States recalled, furthermore, that Members had acknowledged during previous DSB meetings that  the 2006 Deficit Reduction Act did not permit 
the distribution of duties collected on goods entered after 1 October 2007. With respect to 
comments regarding further status reports in this matter, as it had already explained at previous 
DSB meetings, the United States failed to see what  purpose would be served by further submission 
of status reports repeating the progress the United States had made in the implementation of the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.    
3.9.  The DSB took note of the statements. WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 12 - 
 
  4  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 
4.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Antigua and Barbuda. He said that it was his understanding that the representative of St. Lucia 
would make a statement on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda. 
4.2.  The representative of St. Lucia, speaking on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda, read out the 
following statement: "As our colleague from Dominica has done in recent months, we are today 
speaking on behalf of the delegation of Antigua and Barbuda, which has requested that this item be placed on the Agenda for today's meeting of the DSB. At the risk of stating the obvious, and 
being repetitive as well, Antigua and Barbuda once  again observes, first, that the United States 
has failed to comply with its obligation under the DSU to provide a monthly status report to the DSB on its progress, or in this case, lack thereof, on its compliance with the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB in DS285. The apparent United States belief that it is excused from its 
obligations under the DSU by simply reciting every month its opinion that Antigua and Barbuda is preventing the United States from complying with the recommendations and rulings by withholding 
consent to a modification of the treaty that would deny Antigua and Barbuda any benefit from its 
lengthy and expensive journey through the dispute resolution process is disingenuous in the extreme. As we have pointed out many times in the past, while the Americans may have their own 
opinion on the issue, Antigua and Barbuda does not believe that a Member can wriggle its way out 
of a long-standing – and, in this case, extremely deleterious – violation of its international treaty 
obligations by re-writing the rules retroactively. Second, and with apologies to the Chair and the DSB for having to again state the obvious, the United States has failed to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings in DS285, has put forth no sincere settlement proposal and since the 
beginning of this year, has made no offers whatsoever, expended no efforts, in short, has done nothing to bring this dispute to a fair and reasonable conclusion. We would further observe that 
during this long period of non-compliance, and up to the very present day, the United States 
continues to prosecute Antiguan operators under the very laws ruled in violation of the GATS; the Antiguan remote gaming industry has been virtually destroyed without any compensation from or indeed offer by the United States to in any me aningful way compensate Antigua and Barbuda for 
what has happened to this tiny country by virtue of the United States' GATS violations; and in the 
United States, domestic-only remote gaming is expanding virtually unabated. Mr Chairman, Antigua and Barbuda very much hopes that it will have something positive, or even different to 
report to this Body next month, and offers its apologies in advance if it is unable to do so." 
4.3.  The representative of the United States said that his country remained committed to 
constructive dialogue with Antigua to resolve this matter. While Members were aware that the 
United States had invoked the GATS process to withdraw the gambling concession at issue, the 
United States remained of the view that a nego tiated resolution was the best outcome here and 
would continue with those efforts. It was US policy not to comment publicly on ongoing negotiations, and consistent with that practice, the United States would not address the specific 
remarks about the status of negotiations. The United States noted, however, that it was 
committed to working with Antigua and its focus on this effort continued unabated.  
4.4.  The representative of Brazil said that his country thanked Antigua and Barbuda and St. Lucia 
for including this item on the DSB's Agenda. As  it had previously expressed, the WTO dispute 
settlement system had proved to be a remarkable  tool in resolving trade disputes among WTO 
Members through a rules-based mechanism. However, the credibility and effectiveness of the 
system depended on the assumpti on that the mechanism was capable of protecting the rights of 
all Members, regardless of their size or level of development. In that regard, Brazil, once again, encouraged both parties to the dispute to engage in  effective negotiations with a view to reaching 
a mutually satisfactory solution to this long-standin g dispute, in line with the DSB's rulings on this 
matter. 
4.5.  The representative of Jamaica said that her country supported the statement made by 
St. Lucia on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda. Jamaica noted with concern the long period of time 
that had elapsed without resolution in this dispute despite the clear and unambiguous DSB ruling 
in favour of Antigua and Barbuda. Jamaica reaffirmed its previous statements made on this issue WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 13 - 
 
  noting, in particular, that the protracted failure to bring closure to this dispute could have systemic 
and other implications for the WTO dispute settlement system. In Jamaica's view, it was incumbent on Members to ensure that all Member s, irrespective of their size or level of 
development, were able to benefit from the just, equitable and transparent operation of the WTO 
dispute settlement system. Jamaica, therefore, emphasized the need for redoubled efforts to 
achieve a just and lasting conclusion to this dispute. 
4.6.  The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that her country noted that 
this was another case of prolonged non-complianc e which affected a developing-country Member. 
Venezuela supported the statement made by St Lucia, on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda. In Venezuela's view, the repeated refusal by the United States in this dispute and in many other disputes, to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings, violated the most fundamental 
rules of the multilateral trading system, and had serious systemic repercussions on the credibility 
and effectiveness of the DSB as the appropriate platform for settling trade disputes among Members. Moreover, failure to comply had a dire ct impact on the supply of services by a 
developing-country Member whose economy was based primarily on services. Thus, any restriction 
on the supply of a service seriously affect ed Antigua and Barbuda's economy and income. 
Venezuela considered it necessary to remind the United States that, in 2007, the compliance Panel 
had found that the United States had not implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
this dispute. Six years had passed and the US Administration had not indicated any real and effective intention of settling this dispute fairly. Therefore, Venezuela supported Antigua and Barbuda, vigorously condemned the US conduct, and urged the United States to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings. Venezuela also  requested that the United States submit a 
status report in this dispute without delay.  
4.7.  The representative of Argentina said th at his country thanked Antigua and Barbuda for 
inscribing this item on the Agenda of the presen t meeting. Argentina, once again, expressed its 
concern about the systemic implications of the US failure to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, in particular since the interests of a developing-country Member 
were affected. Article 21.1 of the DSU was clear in this regard by stating that "prompt compliance 
with recommendations or rulings of the DSB is esse ntial in order to ensure effective resolution of 
disputes to the benefit of all Members". Argentina, therefore, joined previous speakers who had urged the parties to this dispute to redouble their efforts towards reaching a fair and equitable 
solution to this long-standing dispute, in accord ance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
4.8.  The representative of Cuba said that her country supported the statement made by St. Lucia, 
on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda. Cuba, once again, urged the United States to take stock of the 
pending compliance issues before the DSB. In Cu ba's view, failure to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings undermined the cred ibility and the efficiency of the dispute 
settlement system. Cuba was concerned that lack of compliance in this dispute affected the 
interests of a small-economy country. Cuba was also concerned that the United States was 
indifferent towards compliance in this dispute. Cuba, therefore, urged the United States to adopt the necessary measures so as to end this dispute.   
4.9.  The Chairman noted that the statements ha d shown contrasting descriptions of negotiations 
and their status. He hoped that both sides would redouble efforts to reach a mutually acceptable 
solution.  
4.10.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
5  UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) REQUIREMENTS A.  Statements by Canada and Mexico 5.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Canada and Mexico. He then invited the respective representatives to speak. 
5.2.  The representative of Canada said that, on 23 May 2013, the United States had implemented 
regulatory changes to its country of origin labelling (or COOL) regime in an effort to comply with 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the "US-COOL" dispute (DS384). As it had indicated at 
the previous DSB meeting, Canada was extremely disappointed with those changes. In proceeding WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 14 - 
 
  the way it had, the United States had increased the discriminatory effect on the conditions of 
competition for Canadian cattle and hogs in the US market. In the Reports adopted by the DSB, both the Panel and the Appellate Body had found that the previous COOL measure violated the TBT Agreement. The new COOL rule of 23 May 2013 would increase the discrimination against 
Canadian and Mexican cattle and hogs in the United States, and in so doing, it remained contrary 
to the WTO obligations of the United States. A legislative change that eliminated the discriminatory aspect of COOL was required, as the legislation was the source of the discrimination. Legislative 
extension or renewal of the US Farm Bill, which would expire in 2013, provided an excellent 
opportunity to resolve this dispute, although ot her mechanisms also existed. Canada strongly 
encouraged the United States to implement a legislative solution to comply with its WTO 
obligations so as to avoid both the need for continued WTO proceedings and the possibility of 
Canada being forced to institute trade retaliation in order to effect a change. More importantly, a 
legislative change to remove the discriminatory aspect of COOL would avoid any further harm and job losses to Canadian, US and Mexican industries and would restore the integrated North 
American market for cattle and hogs that created jobs, allowed for economic efficiencies, and 
increased choice and value to consumers. In the meantime, Canada was preparing to initiate compliance proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU to challenge the consistency of this new 
COOL rule. On 7 June 2013, Canada had also released a list of US products that may be targeted 
and it was consulting with the Canadian public on what actions would follow. Canada would, therefore, be in a position to impose retaliation as soon as it was authorized to do so by the DSB. Canada reiterated its hope that the intransigence of  the United States did not force Canada to take 
that step. Canada remained committed to taking whatever steps may be necessary to achieve the 
removal of that discriminatory trade barrier. 
5.3.  The representative of Mexico said that, on 13 June 2013, Mexico and the United States had 
notified the DSB of the agreed procedures under  Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU. However, the 
measure taken by the United States to implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations, as published in the Federal Register, was even strict er than the original measure. The new measure 
would cause even greater harm to Mexican cattle exports as well as greater and more serious 
trade distortions, as it unnecessarily increased costs for the livestock sector. Pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU, Mexico considered that this dispute had not yet been resolved and, therefore, requested that this matter be included on the DSB's Agenda. Mexico would take the 
appropriate legal measures under the WTO, so as to proceed, if necessary, with the corresponding 
suspension of concessions against the United States. This dispute had begun in 2008 and, in spite of the fact that Mexico had obtained a favourable ruling, exports of Mexican cattle continued to be 
subject to measures that affected conditions of competition on the US market. Mexico encouraged 
the United States to implement measures that complied with, and were not more restrictive than, the DSB's recommendations. 
5.4.  The representative of the United States said  that, as noted at the last meeting of the DSB, 
the US Department of Agriculture had issued a final rule on 23 May 2013 that made certain 
changes to the country-of-origin (COOL) labelling requirements found by the DSB to be inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. Under the final rule, country of origin labels 
must include information about where each of the production steps (i.e., born, raised, slaughtered) 
had occurred for covered muscle cut commodities derived from animals slaughtered in the United States. The final rule ensured that US customers were provided with more detailed and 
accurate origin information for muscle cut meats to allow them to make informed purchasing 
decisions. That final rule brought the United States into compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  
5.5.  The United States had studied the DSB's recommendations and rulings closely and believed 
that the final rule brought it into compliance. If necessary, the United States was fully prepared to 
defend the final rule in further WTO proceedings. At the same time, the United States remained 
open to further discussions with Canada or Mexico in relation to any concerns that they may have. 
5.6.  The Chairman noted the statements made and said that this matter may be back on the 
DSB's Agenda in a slightly different form. 
5.7.  The DSB took note of the statements. WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 15 - 
 
  6  EUROPEAN UNION – ANTI-DUMPING ME ASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN FATTY 
ALCOHOLS FROM INDONESIA 
A.  Request for the establishment of  a panel by Indonesia (WT/DS442/2) 
6.1.  The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
24 May 2013 and had agreed to revert to it. He drew attention to the communication from 
Indonesia contained in document WT/DS442/2, and invited the representative of Indonesia to speak. 
6.2.  The representative of Indonesia said that his country was, for the second time, requesting 
the establishment of a panel to examine this disp ute. At the DSB meeting in May 2013, the EU had 
stated that it was unable to accept Indonesia's request, as it believed that Indonesia's request was premature. The EU had also reaffirmed its commitment to dialogue with the Indonesian authorities 
to find an amicable solution to this dispute. Indonesia noted that the EU continued to review 
aspects of its injury determination, since consultations had first taken place almost nine months ago. However, to date, Indonesia had no assurance that this process would address Indonesia's 
main concerns. Although the EU had undertaken some efforts to find a mutually agreed solution, 
Indonesia wanted a solution that directly addressed its concerns, in particular with regard to the current injury review. While Indonesia was open to the continued dialogue with the EU authorities, 
there had not been sufficient time to pursue those discussions. In the meantime, the contested 
anti-dumping duties were continuously affecting Indonesia's exports in an important sector on a daily basis. Under the circumstances, even though it would prefer to resolve this dispute without 
resorting to panel proceedings, Indonesia neverthe less felt compelled to take further procedural 
steps, so as to preserve its right to obtain a legal solution to this matter. As it had stated before, 
Indonesia maintained an open and cooperative atti tude. At the same time, Indonesia also needed 
to ensure that its rights under the Anti-Dumping  Agreement were properly secured by the system. 
Indonesia, therefore, once again requested the DS B to establish a panel with standard terms of 
reference to address the matters set out in its panel request contained in document WT/DS442/2.  
6.3.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU regretted Indonesia's decision to 
request a panel. Even at that late stage, the EU remained open to dialogue with the Indonesian 
authorities to find an amicable solution. In any case, the EU was convinced that its measures were in conformity with the WTO Agreements and would defend them vigorously. 
6.4.  The Chairman said that Indonesia had indi cated that dialogue would continue in parallel. 
However, at the present meeting, the DSB had no discretion but to agree to establish a panel in 
accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference, as 
mentioned by Indonesia.  
6.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference. 
6.6.  The representatives of India, Korea and United States reserved their third-party rights to 
participate in the Panel's proceedings. 7  ARGENTINA – MEASURES RELATING TO TRADE IN GOODS AND SERVICES A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Panama (WT/DS453/4) 7.1.  The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
24 May 2013 and had agreed to revert to it. He drew attention to the communication from Panama 
contained in document WT/DS453/4, and invited the representative of Panama to speak. 
7.2.  The representative of Panama said that hi s country's request for the establishment of a panel 
was self-explanatory and that Panama had alre ady commented on this matter at the 24 May 2013 
DSB meeting. Panama's complaint concerned a set of measures imposed by Argentina which  were 
contrary to Argentina's WTO commitments and violated basic WTO principles. Panama hoped that 
the panel that would address this matter would be categorical in its findings and rulings and grant 
a remedy befitting the circumstances, which in this case should be for Argentina to eliminate all forms of discrimination and barriers to market access. Panama thanked Argentina for its positive WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 16 - 
 
  approach during the consultations and in the weeks following the 24 May DSB meeting, a period in 
which the parties to this dispute had continued to exchange views. However, those efforts had not enabled the parties to resolve this dispute. Panama was still of the view that the measures imposed by Argentina violated various provisions  of the WTO Agreements. Panama, therefore, was 
submitting its panel request for the second time and hoped that the DSB would establish a panel 
with standard terms of reference. 
7.3.  The representative of Argentina said that discussions had been held at the highest diplomatic 
level with a view to settling this dispute. Ar gentina expressed disappointment that Panama had 
requested the DSB to establish a panel and Argentin a was deeply disappointed by that decision. It 
had been and remained Argentina's desire to resolve this dispute through negotiation, as it was convinced that this was the most suitable option for both parties. This was borne out by the fact 
that Argentina had repeated its offer to Panama to negotiate a tax cooperation agreement to 
ensure transparency in this area in accordance with the OECD standards. Furthermore, Argentina 
considered that the claims made by Panama concerned measures that were in conformity with 
WTO rules. Panama was challenging rules relating to tax and capital – market matters that were 
similar to those adopted by other countries. Panama was also challenging Argentina's implementation of international standards on anti -abuse rules to avoid tax fraud, which had been 
adopted by the OECD Global Forum and the G-20 . The absence of fiscal transparency made it 
impossible to know the identity of the author of a transaction. This supported the assumption that 
individuals resorted to such fraudulent practices to avoid paying taxes, hence the need for measures to prevent abuse that may potentially damage the financial and tax system. These were 
the measures that Panama was challenging and which Argentina believed to be in line with 
international legislation. It had been estimated that the developing world had lost around a billion dollars annually in illegal flows, which included tax evasion. 
7.4.  Argentina considered that Panama's request for the establishment of a panel did not meet 
the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU because it failed to identify the specific measures at issue in precise terms. In fact, the main rule upon which Panama had based its panel request, 
Decree No. 1037/00 (Regulations to the Income/Profit Tax Law), had been amended by Decree 
No. 589/2013, which had been published in the Offi cial Journal of the Republic of Argentina on 
30 May 2013. That tax rule contained an Article, which had now been replaced and which had identified a list of "countries with low or no taxes" that included Panama. That rule constituted the 
measure upon which Panama had based its complaint during the consultations and in its panel 
request (WT/DS453/4). The new Decree removed all reference to "countries with low or no taxes" and, therefore, it also removed the list of co untries under that heading, including Panama. In 
short, Argentina had eliminated the list of countries with low or no taxes and was following 
guidelines on cooperation towards fiscal transparency, in full compliance with OECD standards. For the aforementioned reasons, Argentina considered th at the claims relating to the replaced Article 
lacked substance and that the legal requirements set out in Article 6.2 of the DSU for the DSB to 
consider Panama's request for the establishment of a panel had, therefore, not been fulfilled. This 
lack of substance would affect Argentina's right of  defence. If a panel was established, Argentina 
would raise this issue before the panel. Nevertheless, Argentina remained at the complainant's 
disposal to find a satisfactory solution to this dispute. 
7.5.  The representative of Panama said that his country took note of Argentina's views that the 
request made by Panama did not comply with th e provisions of Article 6.2 of the DSU, as 
Argentina had changed its legislation following th e consultations. In Panama's view, that was a 
tactic that Argentina had used in other cases, which had recently been filed against Argentina. Panama was aware of the fact that, on 30 May 2013, Argentina had published Decree 
No. 589/2013, which had replaced an Article in the Argentine legislation that was the subject of 
the current dispute. As stated by Panama, this Decree had recently been discussed with Argentina. He said that, in Argentina's view, that Decree would address Panama's concerns. However, in Panama's view, that decree simply provided for cosmetic changes to the rules at issue and did not 
substantially modify the measure that had given rise to this dispute. The key aspect to this dispute 
had not, in any way, been altered and Panama would receive, with interest, any clarification or proposal that Argentina may wish to submit, following the establishment of the panel at the 
present meeting. 
7.6.  The Chairman said that the point raised by  Argentina regarding compliance with Article 6.2 of 
the DSU was not a matter for the DSB to decide. Article 6 of the DSU, as a whole, in effect, left the 
DSB with no discretion but to establish a panel at the second meeting upon a second request. The WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 17 - 
 
  Chairman took note of the fact that a number of  recent panels had, as a matter of preliminary 
rulings, considered whether one or another party had petitioned in compliance with Article 6.2 of the DSU. Having listened closely to Argentina, he understood that this may be a point of early litigation in the panel proceedings. Thus, if his reading was correct, the DSB was obliged to take 
note of the statements and agree to the establishment of a panel, in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference. 
7.7.  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. 7.8.  The representatives of Australia, China, Ec uador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras, 
India and the United States reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's 
proceedings. 
8  PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 
A.  Request for the establishment of  a panel by Guatemala (WT/DS457/2) 
8.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the comm unication from Guatemala contained in document 
WT/DS457/2, and invited the representative of Guatemala to speak.  
8.2.  The representative of Guatemala said that the measure at issue consisted of an import levy 
that was imposed in addition to the ordinary customs duty and varied constantly in response to 
changes in the international prices of the affected products. This measure was determined by 
using a mechanism known as the price-band system, which sought to neutralize the effects of fluctuations in the international prices of certain products. The aim of offsetting fluctuations in international prices and insulating the domestic market from such fluctuations was explicitly 
established in the Peruvian legislative text. The measure violated Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, which prohibited variable import levies and minimum import prices for agricultural products. Furthermore, the measure at issue was inconsistent with Article II:1(b) of the 
GATT 1994. Clearly this was not an ordinary cust oms duty and it should, therefore, have been 
recorded in Peru's schedule of concessions, which had never been done. As indicated in Guatemala's request for the establishment of a panel, the challenged measure was also 
inconsistent with other provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Customs Valuation. The 
measure at issue was seriously affecting the Guatemalan sugar industry, which had witnessed a sharp decline in its exports to Peru and an indirect impact on supply and prices offered to other markets. Unfortunately, the informal and formal consultations with Peru had not resolved this 
dispute. Guatemala hoped that the panel, once esta blished, would quickly find this measure to be 
WTO-inconsistent and suggest appropriate remedies, so as to resolve this dispute. In that regard, such remedies should involve the removal of the additional variable levy determined by using the 
price-band system. Guatemala wished to make it cl ear that it remained open to dialogue and that 
it was prepared to continue to explore a mutually agreed solution with Peru on this matter. 
8.3.  The representative of Peru said that comp liance with international agreements was a key part 
of Peru's foreign policy and Peru honoured its international trade commitments. With regard to the 
measure challenged by Guatemala, Peru reiter ated that the Peruvian price-band system, 
established by Supreme Decree No. 115-2001-EF and other relevant legislation, was fully consistent with its WTO commitments and in particular with the GATT 1994, the Agreement on 
Agriculture and the Agreement on Customs Valuation. Peru was, therefore, surprised and 
concerned that Guatemala had decided to submit a panel request since it believed that dialogue between the two countries remained open. Notably, during the consultations held in Lima on 
14 and 15 May 2013, both parties had engaged in constructive discussions that had clarified a 
number of questions raised by Guatemala relating to the nature and functioning of the Peruvian price-band system. Moreover, Peru regretted that  Guatemala had lodged this request, given that 
the price-band system had been negotiated and accepted under the Free Trade Agreement signed 
by both Members and was currently being negotiated  within the ambit of the Pacific Alliance, of 
which Peru was a member and Guatemala an observer. On a bilateral level, on 6 December 2011 Guatemala had signed a Free Trade Agreement wi th Peru and, pursuant to paragraph 9 of 
Annex 2.3 ("Tariff Elimination Schedule") thereto, had explicitly accepted that "Peru may maintain 
its price-band system, established by Supreme Decree No. 115-2001-EF and amendments thereto, 
with respect to the products subject to the syst em that are marked with an asterisk (*) in WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 18 - 
 
  column 4 of Peru's schedule, as set out in this Annex". However, on a multilateral level, Guatemala 
sought to disregard that clause. In light of the ab ove, Peru did not agree to the establishment of a 
panel, requested by Guatemala. 
8.4.  The representative of Guatemala said that hi s country wished to make it clear that it did not 
intend to discuss the substantive issues in this dispute at the present meeting. Guatemala would 
evidently have the opportunity to do so before the Panel and possibly also before the Appellate 
Body. However, it was important for Guatemala to place on record that it disagreed with Peru's 
arguments on the content of the Bilateral Agreement. Both parties interpreted the provisions of 
that agreement differently. Furthermore, Guatem ala believed that the bilateral agreement was 
irrelevant to resolving this dispute and considered that Peru was wrongly interpreting its provisions. Guatemala was prepared to support those assertions, if necessary. 
8.5.  The representative of Peru said that there was more than one point in common for 
Guatemala and Peru. Both parties wished to maintain the dialogue as indicated in the initial 
statement made by Guatemala and agreed not to discuss the substantive positions at the present 
meeting. Following Guatemala's last statement, Peru felt obliged to make some clarifications, in 
particular with respect to the status of the bilateral agreement between the two countries. It was an agreement which, while it may not yet be in force, had been signed by both countries and as 
Members were aware, once an agreement had be en signed, the parties took on the commitment 
not to frustrate the objectives of that agreement. Peru wished to reaffirm the fact that, like Guatemala, it wished to continue discussion until a satisfactory solution was reached.  
8.6.  The Chairman said that he was sure that Members shared the view expressed by both parties 
that dialogue should continue. The statements revealed extensive exchange of views that had 
uncovered continuing differences, including on wh ether a panel should be established. He noted 
that the DSB could only take note of the statements and agree to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting with hopes for a resolution in the meantime.  
8.7.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter. 
9  PROPOSED NOMINATIONS FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS (WT/DSB/W/505) 
9.1.  The Chairman drew attention to docume nt WT/DSB/W/505, which contained additional 
names proposed 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/505. 
9.2.  The DSB so agreed. 
10  STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGARDING SOME MATTERS RELATED TO THE 
APPELLATE BODY 
10.1.  The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business" , said that he wished to make a brief update 
on three matters relating to the Appellate Body. Fi rst, he recalled that the DSB had decided to set 
in motion the selection process to fill one vacancy in the Appellate Body. In this regard, he drew 
attention to the fact that one nomination had been received and had been circulated to Members. He said that Members were invited to submit no minations until 30 August 2013. However, the DSB 
decision encouraged all delegations to submit nominations at the earliest possible time. The 
Appellate Body positions were important and, th e more time Members had to review and assess 
the quality of the nominations, the better it would be for all Members. The first nomination had been submitted by Kenya and had been circulat ed in document JOB/DSB/CV13/1. Second, and 
also pursuant to the DSB decision on Appellate Body matters (WT/DSB/60), he, as the DSB Chair, 
had been directed to begin consultations regarding the possible reappointment of Mr. Peter Van den Bossche who had indicated his willingness to be reappointed for a second four-
year term in the Appellate Body. He said that he had begun those consultations and he would 
welcome any views any Member may have if that  Member had not yet been contacted for the 
Chair's consultations. Third, he wished to refe r to the Annual Report of the Appellate Body for 
2012 (WT/AB/18) as well as to the communication from the Appellate Body entitled: "The 
Workload of the Appellate Body" circulated in document JOB/AB/1. A number of delegations had WT/DSB/M/333 
 
- 19 - 
 
  conveyed to him directly views on what implications may be drawn from the Appellate Body 
Annual Report and the Appellate Body's workload st udy. This had inspired him to undertake further 
consultations and he again invited any Member who had any reflections to share on these matters, to convey them to him in any appropriate form, orally or in writing, privately or publicly, however 
they deemed fit. He would, in the spirit of in clusiveness and transparency, report back on this 
matter to the DSB at a future meeting. 
10.2.  The DSB took note of the statement.  
__________