RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/407  
 
25 April 2018 
(18-2256) Page: 1/22 
Dispute Settlement Body  
22 January 2018    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 22  JANUARY  2018 
Chairman: Mr. Junichi I hara (Japan ) 
Table of Contents  
1   SURVEILLANCE OF IMPL EMENTATION OF RECOMM ENDATIONS ADOPTED BY  
THE DSB ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  3 
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United  States  ................................ ................................ ..............  3 
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  4 
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European  Union ................................ ................................ ....... 4 
D.  Canada – Anti-dumping measures on imports of certain carbon steel welded pipe from 
the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu: Sta tus report 
by Canada ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  5 
E.  United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Stat us report by the United  States  ................................ ..........................  5 
F.  China – Anti-dumping measures on imports of cellulose pulp from Canada: Status 
report by Chi na ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  6 
2   INDONESIA – IMPORTATION OF HORTI CULTURAL PRODUCTS, A NIMALS AND 
ANIMAL PRODUCTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  6 
A.  Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB  ................................ ..........................  6 
3   INDONESIA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF C HICKEN 
MEAT AND CHICKEN PRO DUCTS  ................................ ................................ .......................  8 
A.  Implementa tion of the recommendations of the DSB  ................................ ..........................  8 
4   UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT  
OF 2000: IMPLEMENTATION  OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE  DSB ...........  9 
A.  Statement by the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ....................  9 
5   UNITED  STATES – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERV AILING MEASURES ON 
LARGE RESIDENTIAL WA SHERS FROM KOREA  ................................ ................................ . 9 
A.  Recourse to Article  22.2 of the DSU by Korea  ................................ ................................ .... 9 
6   UNITED  STATES – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERV AILING MEASURES ON 
CERTAIN COATED PAPER  FROM INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ .. 12 
A.  Report of the Panel ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 12 
7   PROPOSED NOMINATIONS  FOR THE INDICATIVE L IST OF GOVERNMENTAL 
AND NON -GOVERNMENTAL PANELIS TS ................................ ................................ ..........  13 WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 2 - 
 
  8   APPELLATE BODY MATTE RS ................................ ................................ ......................  14 
A.  Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ ............................ 14 
B.  Appellate Body appointments: Proposal by Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Chile; China; 
Colombia; Costa  Rica; Ecuador ; El Salvador; the European  Union; Guatemala; Honduras; 
Hong Kong, China; Kazakhstan; Korea; Mexico; New  Zealand; Nicaragua; Norway; 
Pakistan; Panama; Paraguay; Peru; the Russian  Federation; Singapore; Switzerland; 
the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan,  Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Turkey; Ukraine; 
Uruguay and Viet  Nam ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 14 
9   DISPUTE SETTLEMENT W ORKLOAD  ................................ ................................ ...........  21 
A.  Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ ............................ 21 
 
  WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 3 - 
 
   
 
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.179)  
 
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United  States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.154)  
 
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.117)  
 
D.  Canada – Anti-dumping measures on imports of certain carbon steel welded pipe from the 
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu: Status report by Canada 
(WT/DS482/7/Add.4)  
 
E.  United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS464/17/Add.1)  
 
F.  China – Anti-dumping measures on imports of cellulose pulp from Canada: Status report by 
China (WT/ DS483/7)  
 
 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU. He recalled that Article  21.6 
of the DSU required that, "Unless the DSB decides other wise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved". Under this Agenda item, he invited delegations to provide 
up-to-date information about compliance efforts and to focus on new developments, suggestions 
and ideas on progress towards the resolution of disputes. He also reminded delegations tha t, as 
provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings, "Representatives should make 
every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has already 
been fully debated in the past and on which there app ears 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: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS184/15/Add.179)  
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.179, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case "US – Hot-Rolled Steel".  
1.3.  The represen tative of the United  States  said that the United  States  had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 11  January  2018, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. The 
United  States had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the 
calculation of anti -dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at 
issue. With respect to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, 
the US  Administration would work with the US  Congress with respect  to appropriate statutory 
measures that would resolve this matter.  
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that his country thanked the United States for the latest 
status report and the statement at the present meeting. Japan called, once again, on the 
United  States to fully implement the DSB's  recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this 
matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 4 - 
 
  B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: S tatus report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.154)  
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.154, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case "US – Section 110(5) Copyright Act".  
1.7.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States  had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 11  January  2018, 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 reac h a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.  
1.8.  The representative of the European  Union  said that his delegation 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 reiterated that it would like to resolve this dispute as soon 
as possible.  
1.9.  The representative of China  recalled that, in 2000, the Panel had found that Section  110(5) 
of the US Copyright Act had been inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreemen t. Specifically, the Panel 
had found that the US law at issue had failed to meet the requirements under Article  13 of the 
TRIPS  Agreement and Articles  11bis (1)(iii) and 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention, which had been 
incorporated into Article  9.1 of the  TRIPS Agreement. Nonetheless, the law in question was still in 
effect to the detriment of the interests of copyright holders of musical work. China referred to its 
previous statements made under this Agenda item, and urged the United States, once again, t o 
fully implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings by amending or withdrawing the said law 
to fulfil its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, which set out only the minimum standards of 
protection that WTO Members were required to provide to intelle ctual property right holders.  
1.10.   The representative of the United  States  said that as the United States had previously stated, 
China's criticisms were completely unfounded. The intellectual property protection that the 
United  States provided within its own te rritory equalled or surpassed that of any other Member. 
The United States said that,  indeed , it found it interesting that many of the Members that 
continued to criticize the US commitment to strong intellectual property rights had domestic 
records of prote cting intellectual property rights that appeared less than robust.  
1.11.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
prod ucts: Status report by the European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.117)  
1.12.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.117, which contained the 
status report by the European  Union on progress in the implementation of the 
DSB's  recommendations in the case "EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products".  
1.13.   The representative of the European  Union  said that on 22  December  2017, the Commission 
had adopted six  decisions concerning the authorization for GM food and feed products, which 
included the authorization  of four new GM  soybeans1, one new GM rapeseed2 and the renewal of 
one GM  maize3. The EU continued to be committed to act in line with its WTO obligations. As 
stated many times before, the EU recalled that the EU approval system was not covered by the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
1.14.   The representative of the United  States  thanked the European Union for its status report 
and its statement at the present meeting. The United States understood that before the close 
of 2017, the EU had approved a small number  of the pending applications for biotech products. 
While this development was welcome, the United States nonetheless noted its continuing concerns 
that the EU  measures affecting the approval of biotech products involved prolonged, unpredictable, 
                                                
1 Soybeans: DAS -44406 -6, FG72 x A5547 -127, 305423x40 -3-2 and  DAS-68416 -4. 
2 Oilseed rape: MON88302 x Ms8 x Rf3.  
3 Renewal of maize: 1507.  WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 5 - 
 
  and unexpl ained delays at every stage of the approval process. These delays had affected the 
recently approved products, as well as the great majority of applications that were still awaiting 
approval. Furthermore, even when the EU finally approved a biotech product , the EU had 
facilitated the ability of individual EU member States to impose bans on the approved product. The 
United States urged the EU to ensure that its measures affecting the approval of biotech products, 
including measures that had been adopted by i ndividual EU member States, were based on 
scientific evidence, and that decisions were taken without undue delay.  
1.15.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
D.  Canada – Anti-dumping measures on imp orts of certain carbon steel welded pipe 
from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu: Status 
report by Canada (WT/DS482/7/Add.4)  
1.16.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS482/7/Add.4, which contained the status 
report by Cana da on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the case 
"Canada – Welded Pipe".  
1.17.   The representative of Canada  said that, as agreed with the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu in January 2017, the reasonable period of time in this dispute 
would expire on 25  March  2018. Canada was pleased to report that it had fully implemented the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute well in advance of that date. As had been 
previously reported to the DSB, the Gov ernment of Canada had enacted, on 22  June 2017, 
amendments to the Special Import Measures Act in respect of exporters that had been found to 
have de minimis  margins of dumping. In addition, and as also previously reported to the DSB, on 
29 September  2017, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) had amended the final 
determination of dumping of carbon steel welded pipe from Chinese Taipei in order to exclude two 
Chinese  Taipei exporters that had had de minimis  dumping margins. The CBSA had also revised 
the margins of dumping for "all other exporters" from Chinese Taipei. On 8  December  2017, the 
Canadian International Trade Tribunal had completed its review and had continued the original 
finding of threat of injury, excluding Chinese Taipei exporters with de minimis  margins of dumping. 
These legislative amendments, together with the issuance of the amended final determination of 
dumping and the threat of injury finding brought Canada into compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute. C anada stated that, therefore, this would be its final 
status report in this dispute.  
1.18.   The representative of Chinese  Taipei  said that her delegation thanked Canada for its status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting. Chinese Taipei also welc omed Canada's 
intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings before the expiry of the agreed 
reasonable period of time. Chinese Taipei was in the process of reviewing the legislative 
amendments and the revised determination of dumping and inj ury finding. Chinese Taipei would 
continue its discussions with Canada with a view to resolving this matter shortly.  
1.19.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
E.  United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS464/17/Add.1)  
1.20.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add.1, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's  recommendations in 
the case "US – Washin g Machines".  
1.21.   The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States  had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 11  January  2018, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. On 
15 December  2017, the US Trade Representative had requested tha t the US  Department of 
Commerce ma ke a determination under Section  129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act to 
address the DSB's recommendations relating to the Department's  countervailing duty investigation 
of washers from Korea. On 18  December 2017, the D epartment of Commerce initiated a 
proceeding to make such determination. On 21  December  2017, the Department had issued to 
interested parties questionnaires soliciting additional information. The United States continued to WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 6 - 
 
  consult with interested parties o n options to address the recommendations of the DSB relating to 
antidumping measures challenged in this dispute. The United States noted Korea's request 
pursuant to Article  22.2 of the DSU for authorization to suspend concessions and other obligations. 
The United States had explained to Korea the special challenges arising from the recommendations 
in this dispute. Particularly in this light, Korea's decision was disappointing, and not constructive. 
In any event, the United States had objected  to the level o f suspension proposed by Korea , by a 
US letter submitted on 19  January  2018, and the matter therefore had been referred to arbitration 
pursuant to Article  22.6 of the DSU.  
1.22.   The representative of Korea  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report. Korea took note that the United States had initiated its implementation process with 
respect to the  countervailing duty measures at issue. However, taking into account the significance 
of the present dispute, Korea called on the United State s to step up its efforts to ensure prompt 
compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations with respect to the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement and the SCM  Agreement.  
1.23.   The representative of Canada  said that his country was concerned that the United States 
had no t implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. In particular, Canada 
was deeply disappointed that, despite the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the 
United  States continued to collect cash deposits from Canadian exporters based  on a methodology 
that had been found to be "as such" inconsistent with WTO obligations in this dispute.  
1.24.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
F.  China – Anti-dumping measures on imports of ce llulose pulp from Canada: Status 
report by China (WT/DS483/7)  
1.25.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS483/7, which contained the status report 
by China on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the case "China — 
Cellulose Pulp".  
1.26.   The representative of China  said that his country had provided a status report in this 
dispute on 11 January 2018, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. China intended to comply 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings within the agreed RPT, which would expire on 
22 April 2018. China had launched a re -investigation, wh ich was under way, and interested parties 
had the possibility to submit their comments.  
1.27.   The representative of Canada  noted that China had indicated to the DSB on 19  June 2017 
that it had intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this d ispute. Canada 
thanked China for its status report of 11  January  2018, in respect of its implementation efforts. 
Canada looked forward to the completion of China's review of this matter as soon as possible and 
expected that a negative injury finding, prior  to the expiry of the reasonable period of time on 
22 April 2018, would resolve this dispute.  
1.28.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
2  INDONESIA – IMPORTATION OF HORTI CULTURAL PRODUCTS, A NIMALS AN D ANIMAL 
PRODUCTS  
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 the DSB's recommendations and rulings in order to  
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members. In this 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 it s intentions in respect of implementation of 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings. He recalled that, at its meeting on 22  November  2017, 
the DSB had adopted the Appellate Body Reports and the Panel Reports, as modified by the 
Appellate Body Reports, perta ining to the disputes on: "Indonesia – Import Licensing Regimes" WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 7 - 
 
  (DS477/478). He further stated that the 30 -day period pursuant to Article  21.3 of the DSU had 
expired on 21  December  2017, and prior to that date, Indonesia had submitted a communication 
under Article  21.3 of the DSU, contained in documents WT/DS477/16 and WT/DS478/16. He then 
invited Indonesia to inform the DSB of its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  
2.2.  The representative of Indonesia  informed the  DSB that Indonesia fully understood its 
obligation to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes. These disputes 
involved a broad and lengthy domestic process that raised many complexities and politically 
sensitive issues. Indonesia  was in the process of carefully examining its options on how to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings regarding the various measures at issue in 
these disputes. As had been communicated in documents WT/DS477/16 and WT/DS478/16, 
Indonesia asked f or an extension of the customary 45 -day period to reach a mutual agreement on 
the reasonable period of time with the complainants. Indonesia said that, at this stage, it was still 
discussing the reasonable period of time with New  Zealand and the United Sta tes, and looked 
forward to reaching an agreement on the reasonable period of time in the near future.  
2.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States  had reviewed Indonesia's 
communication4 and had listened carefully to its statement at  the present meeting. Article  21.3 of 
the DSU was clear that Members must "inform the DSB" at a DSB meeting "of its intentions in 
respect of implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB". Indonesia's written 
communication of 15  December  2017 stated that Indonesia needed a reasonable period of time for 
compliance, but the communication did not state Indonesia's intentions in respect of compliance. 
In Indonesia's statement at the present meeting, the United States had heard Indonesia say that it 
"understands fully its obligation to implement", but the United States had not heard Indonesia say 
that it intended to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The United States had 
discussed this deficiency bilaterally with Indonesia, so it w as concerning that Indonesia had not 
been clear at the present meeting. The United States asked whether Indonesia would, in its 
statement at the present meeting, announce its intention to comply with the DSB 
recommendations in this dispute.  
2.4.  The representat ive of New Zealand  said that, like the United States, her country sought 
clarification from Indonesia regarding its intervention. New Zealand noted that Indonesia had 
requested a reasonable period of time to comply with the DSB's recommendations and ruling s in 
this dispute and stated, at the present meeting, that it understood its obligation to comply. 
However, New Zealand asked if Indonesia could also confirm that it intended to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings, in accordance with the obli gation under Article  21.3 of 
the DSU. 
2.5.  The representative of Indonesia  said that her delegation took note of the concerns raised by 
the United States and New Zealand and said that her capital had already been informed of these 
concerns. At this stage, her delegation was still waiting for a reply.  
2.6.  The representative of the United States  said that this seemed like a simple question: did 
Indonesia intend to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings? It was troubling that 
Indonesia could not confirm so at the present meeting. Indonesia had said that it needed a 
reasonabl e period of time. But Indonesia had not said that Indonesia intended to comply. 
Moreover, Indonesia's failure to state that it intended to comply had consequences. Under 
Article  21.3 of the DSU, the right to a reasonable period of time for compliance exist ed only 
following a statement that the Member indeed intended to comply. Further, the Member that had 
brought the dispute would have immediate rights under Article  22 of the DSU. The United  States 
said that it would therefore again ask Indonesia to confirm  whether it intended to comply.  
2.7.  The Chairman  asked Indonesia if it was in a position to provide further  clarification to 
respond to the question raised by the United States.  
2.8.  The representative of Indonesia  said that her delegation took note of the US quest ion. 
Indonesia wished to reconfirm that the concerns had already been transmitted to capital. At the 
present meeting, her delegation had already made the statement in accordance with the 
instructions from capital.  
                                                
4 WT/DS478/16.  WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.9.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United States would like to express its 
understanding that Indonesia had not yet stated its intention to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations.  
2.10.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
3  INDONESIA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF C HICKEN MEA T AND 
CHICKEN PRODUCTS  
A.  Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB  
3.1.  The Chairman  recalled that in accordance with the DSU provisions, the DSB was required to 
keep under surveillance the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in ord er to 
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members. In this 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 DSB's recommendations and rulings. He recalled that, at its meeting on 22  November  2017, 
the DSB had adopted the Panel Report pertaining to the dispute on: "Indonesia – Chicken" 
(DS484). He noted that t he 30 -day period pursuant to Article  21.3 of the DSU had expired on 
21 December  2017, and prior to that date, Indonesia had submitted a communication under 
Article  21.3 of the DSU, contained in document WT/DS484/13. He then invited Indonesia to inform 
the DSB of its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's  recommendations and rulings.  
3.2.  The representative of Indonesia  said that her country wished to inform the DSB that it was 
impractical for Indonesia to comply immediately with the DSB's recommend ations and rulings. As 
set out in document WT/DS484/13, Indonesia further wished to have a sufficient time to discuss a 
reasonable period of time  (RPT)  in order to fully comply with its WTO obligations. Indonesia was 
still discussing the reasonable period of time with Brazil and looked forward to reaching an 
agreement on the RPT in the near future.  
3.3.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil took note of Indonesia's intentions in respect of 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in DS484.  Brazil hoped that both 
parties could reach a mutually agreed reasonable period of time as soon as possible. Brazil and 
Indonesia were engaged in discussions to define the RPT. Brazil invited Indonesia to abide by its 
WTO obligations. Brazil understood tha t Indonesia had already stated on 22  November  2017, when 
the Panel Report had been adopted, that it would comply with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings. According to the Panel's decision in DS484, Indonesia's measures had breached the WTO 
covered agree ments in several different aspects, namely, the requirements of a positive list of 
products, restrictions on the intended use of products, fixed license terms and undue delay in 
granting sanitary recognition for chicken meat and chicken products from Brazi l. Brazil understood 
that Indonesia's measures, which the Panel had found to be inconsistent with Articles  III:4 
and XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article  8 and Annex  C(1)(a) of the SPS  Agreement, were 
regulations enacted by that government's Executive branch and could, thus, be more easily 
amended. Brazil said that it had also noticed that some legal instruments underlying Indonesia's 
measures had been revoked and replaced twice during the course of the DS484 Panel proceedings, 
which demonstrated that adjustme nts to these measures could be made reasonably fast. 
Concerning Brazil's sanitary recognition that it had requested for the first time in 2009, Brazil said 
that taking account of the time that had already lapsed since the beginning of the dispute, as well 
as taking account of the decision of the Panel that there was no justified reason for the delay, 
Brazil believed that such recognition was an administrative measure that should be granted 
immediately.  
3.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements, and of the informa tion provided by Indonesia regarding 
its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 9 - 
 
  4  UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT  OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTED BY THE  DSB 
A.  Statem ent by the European  Union  
4.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European  Union. He then invited the European  Union to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of the European  Union  said that, once again, the EU re quested that the 
United  States stopped 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 to abide by its 
clear obligation under Article  21.6 of the DSU to submit implementation reports in this dispute. 
The EU would continue requesting the inclusion of this item on the Agenda as long as the 
United  States did not implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
4.3.  The representative of Canada  said that his country thanked the European Union for having 
placed this item on the Agenda of the DSB. Canada shared the view of the EU that the 
Byrd Amendment dispute should remain under surveillance of the DSB until the United  States 
complied with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
4.4.  The representative of Brazil  thanked the EU for keeping this item on the Agenda of the DSB. 
As an original party to the Byrd Amendment dispute, Brazil ref erred to its previous statements on 
this matter. Specifically, with respect to the continuation of illegal disbursements, Brazil requested 
that these should cease immediately. Despite allegations to the contrary, these disbursements 
continued to this day, ten years after the Repeal Act. Brazil renewed its call on the United  States 
to fully comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. Until then, the 
United  States was under the obligation to submit status reports.  
4.5.  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 Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, had been enacted into law in February  2006. 
Accordin gly, the United  States had taken all actions necessary to implement the 
DSB's  recommendations and rulings in these disputes. The United States recalled, furthermore, 
that the EU had acknowledged that the Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distributio n of 
duties collected on goods entered after 1  October  2007, more than ten years ago. With respect to 
the EU's request for status reports in this matter, as the United States had already explained at 
previous DSB meetings, there was no obligation under the  DSU to provide further status reports 
once a Member announced that it had implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings, 
regardless of whether the complaining party disagreed about compliance. As the United States had 
noted many times previously , the EU had demonstrated repeatedly that it shared this 
understanding, at least when it was the responding party in a dispute. Once again, this month the 
EU had provided no status report for disputes, in which there was a disagreement between the 
parties on the  EU's compliance.  
4.6.  The representative of the European  Union  said that the EU disagreed with the latest 
statement by the United States. The EU reminded the DSB that it had provided status reports on 
all cases in which it had been involved. Currently , this wa s only  the dispute on  "EC – Approval and 
Marketing of Biotech Products" (DS291).  
4.7.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
5  UNITED  STATES – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERV AILING MEASURES ON L ARGE 
RESIDENTIAL WASHERS FROM KOREA  
A.  Recourse to Article  22.2 of the DSU b y Korea (WT/DS464/18)  
5.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Korea contained in document 
WT/DS464/18, and invited the representative of Korea to speak.  WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 10 - 
 
  5.2.  The representative of Korea  said that, on 26  September  2016, the DSB had adopted the 
Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, in this 
dispute. The DSB had ruled that the US measures at issue were inconsistent both "as such" and 
"as applied" with relevant provisions of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and the SCM  Agreement, and 
accordingly, had recommended the United States to bring its measures into compliance with these 
Agreements. Upon Korea's request for arbitration under Article  21.3(c) of the DSU, the Arbitrator 
had determined a 15 -month RPT, which ha d expired on 26  December  2017. Despite the lengthy 
reasonable period of time, the United  States had not taken any substantial steps to bring the 
measures at issue into conformity with its WTO obligations within that period. Furthermore, the 
United States h ad not claimed that it had implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings. In 
the absence of an agreement on sequencing or compensation, and to preserve its rights under 
Article  22.2 of the DSU, Korea requested the authorization from the DSB to suspend certain tariff 
concessions and related obligations under the GATT 1994 vis-à-vis the United States. Specifically, 
Korea requested DSB authorization to suspend concessions with respect to the United  States' 
non-compliance with both "as applied" and "as such " DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute. Concerning the "as applied" violations, Korea requested an authorization to suspend 
concessions at an annual amount of USD  711 million. Korea said that it would modify this amount 
annually to reflect the  growth rate of the washing machines market in the United  States and that it 
would report accordingly to the DSB. Furthermore, Korea requested authorization to suspend 
concessions at an annual level, based on a formula commensurate with the trade effects t hat 
would be caused to exports from Korea, aside from washing machines, due to the US 
non-compliance with "as such" DSB's  recommendations and rulings. Korea considered that 
pursuant to Article  22.4 of the DSU, the requested annual value with regard to both  "as applied" 
and "as such" was equivalent to the annual level of nullification or impairment of benefits to Korea 
caused or to be caused by the US  measures. Korea would provide the DSB with a list of goods and 
tariff levels that would be applied to those goods in due course.  
5.3.  As indicated in the US status report, Korea noted that the United States had initiated its 
implementation process, under Section  129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, with respect to 
its countervailing measures at issue, close to th e expiry of the reasonable period of time. Korea 
welcomed that the process had started. However, Korea noted that the United States had not yet 
initiated any implementation process with respect to the anti -dumping measures at issue. Taking 
into account the  significance of this dispute, Korea called on the United States to step up its efforts 
in order to ensure prompt compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations vis-à-vis both 
the Anti -Dumping Agreement and the SCM  Agreement. Korea understood that t he suspension of 
concessions or other obligations should be taken as temporary measures, as prescribed by 
Article  22.1 of the DSU. Korea, thus, urged the United States to promptly and fully implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings. Korea would conti nue to discuss the necessary issues 
required for reaching a prompt and mutually satisfactory solution with the United States.  
5.4.  The representative of the United  States  said that, on 11  January  2018, Korea had requested 
that the DSB authorize Korea to suspend  concessions and related obligations under the 
GATT  1994. By letter, dated 19  January  2018, the United States had objected to the level of 
suspension of concessions or other obligations proposed by Korea. Under the terms of Article  22.6 
of the DSU, the fil ing of such an objection automatically resulted in the matter being referred to 
arbitration. Article  22.6 of the DSU did not refer to any decision by the DSB, and no decision was 
therefore required or possible. Consequently, because of the US objection und er Article  22.6 of the 
DSU, the matter had already been referred to arbitration. Nevertheless, although unnecessary, the 
DSB may take note of that fact and confirm that it may not therefore consider Korea's request for 
authorization.  
5.5.  The representative of Canada  said that his country had noted that Korea's request for 
authorization to suspend concessions with respect to the possible non -compliance by the 
United  States with the DSB's "as such" recommendations and rulings did not contain a proposed 
level of s uspension. However, Canada noted that, at the present meeting, it understood that Korea 
clarified that the level it had proposed in its request was in respect of both the "as such" and "as 
applied" recommendations and rulings. Canada noted that, in any eve nt, for the reasons explained 
at the previous DSB meeting in the context of DS456, a request under DSU Article  22.2 should 
include either a proposed amount for the level of suspension or a description of a formula to 
determine that level.  WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 11 - 
 
  5.6.  The representativ e of Mexico  said that although her country had not participated in this 
dispute as a third party, Mexico had an interest in the procedural aspects concerning this dispute. 
Mexico noted that, unless no compliance measure existed, it was past practice to fir st request the 
compliance procedure before requesting the suspension of concessions, in accordance with a 
sequencing agreement. However, in this dispute, Mexico noted that the United States had not 
taken a compliance measure as was evident from the US stat us report (WT/DS464/17/Add.1). 
Mexico called on Members to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings within the 
reasonable period of time to avoid similar situations.  
5.7.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil wished to make two brief comments.  First, Brazil 
supported Canada's statement and also noted that Korea had provided more specificity concerning 
its request, and thus, its request met the adequacy level of arbitration requirements and requests. 
Concerning the issue of automatic referral to  arbitration, as had been mentioned by the 
United  States, Brazil said that one reason to have such referrals done in DSB meetings was that it 
allowed the rest of the WTO Membership, which would otherwise not be able to participate as a 
third party in the a rbitration proceedings, to comment with respect to the adequacy of the request 
or any other issue of systemic importance.  
5.8.  The representative of the European  Union  said that with respect to the last part of the 
statement by the United States, as well as the  last part of the statement by Brazil, the EU noted 
that the conclusion that should be drawn from this discussion was that the DSB took note of the 
statements and that the DSB agreed that the matter had been referred to arbitration.  
5.9.  The representative of t he United  States  said that the United States did not agree with the 
EU's last statement. There was no DSB decision to take at this moment. The DSB could take note 
of the statements made and that the matter had been referred to arbitration, but there was 
nothing for the DSB to "agree" to. On Brazil's last comment, Brazil suggested that a referral to 
arbitration should occur at a DSB meeting for the sake of transparency. The United States did not 
agree. Transparency was provided by the fact that a request for  authorization to suspend 
concessions, as well as any objection to that request, would be circulated to WTO Members. If a 
Member wished to comment on either of these documents, they would be free to request an 
Agenda item and make a statement. The United S tates said that it did agree with Brazil's last 
statement that there were no third parties to a DSU Article  22.6 arbitration.  
5.10.   The representative of the European  Union  said that the EU disagreed with the last statement 
made by the United States and recalled  that the language of the DSB agreeing that the matter had 
been referred to arbitration could be found in many minutes of past DSB meetings, including in the 
case DS217, to which the United States was also a party.  
5.11.   The representative of the United  States  pointed delegates to the minutes of the 
3 January  2018 DSB meeting, concerning the EU's request to suspend concessions and the 
language that was used in that meeting regarding the matter referred to arbitration. No action by 
the DSB had been required for th e matter to be referred to arbitration.  
5.12.   The representative of the European  Union  said that the EU had not yet seen the minutes of 
the 3 January DSB meeting.  
5.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and that the matter raised by the United  States in 
document WT/ DS464/19 has been referred to arbitration, as required by Article  22.6 of the DSU.  
5.14.   The representative of the European  Union  said that his delegation took note of the 
Chairman's statement, and the EU reminded delegations that the DSB agreed, at the present 
meeting, that the matter had been referred to arbitration.  
5.15.   The representative of the United  States  said that the United States had heard the 
Chairman's comments and the statement. The United States disagreed with the EU's 
characterization. There had been n o statement that the DSB had "agreed" to refer the matter to 
arbitration. The matter had been automatically referred to arbitration under DSU Article  22.6 by 
virtue of the objection filed by the United States on 19  January  2018.  WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 12 - 
 
  5.16.   The representative of Brazil said that his country would like to come back to the point raised 
by the United States concerning transparency. Brazil noted that the latest exchange between the 
EU and the United States illustrated that it was important to have such matters referred to 
arbitration in open DSB meetings, which was the "modern agora" for discussion on dispute 
settlement matters. As the United States had said, interested Members had access to the 
documents and they could bear the burden of requesting that an item be placed o n the Agenda if 
they wished to make comments. Brazil noted, however, that, in its view, it would make more 
sense to have the discussion and action on such an item in this forum.  
5.17.   The representative of the United  States  said that, for the United States, it w as not a 
question of what might be the "best" practice according to the views of certain Members. It was a 
question of what was provided for in the text of the DSU. The text of Article  22.6 of the DSU did 
not provide for the DSB to take any action with res pect to a Member's objection, which referred 
the matter to arbitration.  
5.18.   The representative of the European  Union  informed the DSB that the EU had a different 
reading of the text of the DSU.  
5.19.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
6  UNITED  STATES – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING M EASURES ON CERTAIN 
COATED PAPER FROM IN DONESIA  
A.  Report of the Panel (WT/DS491/R and WT/DS491/R/Add.1)  
6.1.  The Chairman  recalled that, at its meeting on 28  September  2015, the DSB had established a 
Panel to examine the complaint by Indone sia pertaining to this dispute. The Panel Report, 
contained in documents WT/DS491/R and Add.1 had been circulated on 6  December  2017 as 
unrestricted documents. The Panel Report was before the DSB for adoption at the request of 
Indonesia. This adoption proc edure was without prejudice to the right of Members to express their 
views on the Panel Report.  
6.2.  The representative of Indonesia  said that the dispute DS491 had raised a number of 
important issues. First, whether the USDOC reached a per se  finding of price distortion in violation 
of Article  14(d) of the SCM  Agreement. The Panel had fundamentally misunderstood the nature 
and purpose of Indonesia's forestry programs, which were in place to protect the forest rather 
than to provide benefits to industries. This had led to several wrong findings by the Panel. Second, 
whether the USDOC had acted inconsistently with Article  12.7 of the SCM  Agreement by resorting 
to facts available and taking an adverse inference, despite Indonesia's full cooperation. Indonesia 
said that, unfortunately, the Panel had relied on an interpretation of Article  12.7 that no 
responding party could ever satisfy when an investigating authority made numerous unjustified 
requests for irrelevant information at the end of an investigation. Third, whether the USDOC could 
find the existence of a subsidy program, despite the lack of any written evidence for such a 
scheme, as required by Article  2.1(c) of the SCM  Agreement. The Panel had incorrectly interpreted 
Article  2.1(c) to permit anything in writ ing to qualify as a subsidy program, even if there had been 
no evidence that it had operated in such manner. Fourth, whether the USITC had reached a threat 
of injury determination based on factors that had not been attributable to subject imports and 
based  on conjecture and remote possibility in violation of Articles  3.5 and 3.7 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement and Articles  15.5 and 15.7 of the SCM  Agreement. The Panel had failed to recognize 
that the USITC's threat analysis had improperly attributed injury fr om other factors to subject 
imports based on anecdotal statements of the domestic industry rather than what had actually 
happened during the investigation. Fifth, whether the United  States tie vote provision violated 
Articles  3.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreem ent and 15.8 of the SCM  Agreement, as such. Even 
though this provision of US law always operated to the disadvantage of the exporters, the Panel 
had erred by finding this provision of law procedural rather than substantive. Although Indonesia 
was disappoin ted with the Panel's ruling, it thanked the Panel for its efforts and professionalism. In 
conclusion, although Indonesia was not pursuing an appeal of the Panel's decision, it would 
continue to strongly pursue its interests at the WTO and defend Indonesian  producers targeted by 
anti-dumping and countervailing duty proceedings.  WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 13 - 
 
  6.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United States thanked the Panel, and 
the Secretariat staff assisting it, for their work in this dispute. The United States partic ularly 
appreciated the Panel's thorough review of the facts, legal claims, and arguments in this dispute, 
while at the same time having applied the appropriate standard of review in a dispute involv ing 
administrative determinations in a trade remedy procee ding. As a result of that review, the Panel 
had rejected all of Indonesia's claims. The United States was gratified by this outcome. The United 
States also welcomed Indonesia's decision not to further expend the resources of the parties and 
the WTO dispute  settlement system on this dispute. Indonesia had brought numerous claims 
regarding the anti -dumping and countervailing duties on coated paper from Indonesia, as well as 
one "as such" challenge to a US statute. The United States said that, turning first to  the challenges 
to the determinations in the coated paper investigation , the United  States  would draw Members' 
attention to certain Panel findings. First, in calculating the level of benefit provided by Indonesia's 
subsidies, the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) had conducted a thorough review of the 
record and had concluded that an out -of-country benchmark had been appropriate with respect to 
both the stumpage and log export ban programs. The Panel had properly rejected Indonesia's 
argument that the USDOC 's choice of benchmark had been inconsistent with Article  14(d) of the 
SCM Agreement. Second, the USDOC had found that the sale of the producer's debt had not been 
an arm's length transaction but instead a debt buyback, which was a subsidy in the form of d ebt 
forgiveness. Because neither Indonesia nor the responding paper producer had provided necessary 
information during the investigation on the identity of the purchaser of the debt, the USDOC had 
resorted to the use of facts available. The Panel had caref ully examined the record, and had 
properly rejected Indonesia's claim that the use of facts available had been inconsistent with 
Article  12.7 of the SCM  Agreement. Third, the USDOC had found during the investigation that 
Indonesia had provided subsidies to  its paper industry through various subsidy programs, and that 
these subsidies had been specific under Article  2.1(c) of the SCM Agreement. The Panel had 
properly rejected Indonesia's claims that USDOC's specificity analysis had not adequately identified 
the relevant subsidy programs. Fourth, also in connection with USDOC's specificity findings, the 
Panel had properly rejected Indonesia's argument that the USDOC had failed to specify either the 
identity or relevant jurisdiction of the granting authority und er Article  2.1 of the SCM Agreement. 
Fifth, the US International Trade Commission (USITC) had conducted an extensive, thorough, and 
well-reasoned investigation, and had found that Indonesia's exports of coated paper had 
threatened injury to the US domestic  industry. Indonesia's arguments with respect to injury had 
essentially amounted to a request that the Panel conduct a de novo review . The Panel had properly 
rejected Indonesia's approach and instead had found no error under Article  3 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement and Article  15 of the SCM  Agreement in the analysis and reasoning of the USITC. The 
Panel had also rejected Indonesia's "as such" claim concerning the US statute governing USITC 
voting procedures. There had been no reason for Indonesia to bring th is claim as the statutory 
provision had not even been applied in the coated paper investigation. But in any event, the Panel 
had properly rejected Indonesia's argument that the statute as used in threat of injury cases was 
inconsistent with the "special ca re" provisions of Article  3.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and 
Article  15.8 of the SCM  Agreement. In so doing, the Panel had properly rejected the proposition 
that these special care provisions could serve as a means for intruding into the internal 
decisi on-making procedures of investigating authorities. In conclusion, the United States welcomed 
the Panel's Report and was pleased to support its adoption at the present meeting.  
6.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Panel Report contained in 
WT/DS491/R and Add.1.  
7  PROPOSED NOMINATIONS  FOR THE INDICATIVE L IST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELIS TS 
7.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/614, which contained additional 
names proposed by Brazil, Chile and Singapore for inclusion on the Indicative List of Governmental 
and Non -Governmental Panelists, in accordance with Article  8.4 of the DSU. He then proposed that 
the DSB approved the names contained in document WT/DSB/W/614.  
7.2.  The DSB so agreed . WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 14 - 
 
  8  APPELLATE BODY MATTE RS 
A.  Statement by t he Chairman  
B.  Appellate Body appointments : Proposal by Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Chile; China; 
Colombia; Costa  Rica; Ecuador; El  Salvador; the European  Union; Guatemala; Honduras; 
Hong  Kong, China; Kazakhstan; Korea; Mexico; New  Zealand; Nicaragua; N orway; 
Pakistan; Panama; Paraguay; Peru; the Russian  Federation; Singapore; Switzerland; 
the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Turkey; Ukraine; 
Uruguay and Viet Nam (WT/DSB/W/6 09/Rev.1 ) 
8.1.  The Chairman  proposed that the two sub -items under this Agenda item be taken up together. 
He said that he would first make a report to update delegations regarding his consultations on 
Appellate Body matters. Subsequently, he would invite Mexico to introduce the propo sal contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 and he would then open the floor to other delegations to 
speak. He hoped that this was agreeable to all delegations. The Chairman said that, as he had 
stated on several occasions at previous DSB meetings, in ord er to effectively address the issues on 
Appellate Body matters, the DSB needed concrete ideas, which could provide a viable solution to 
the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to the previous regular DSB meeting, which took 
place in November  2017,  at which he had taken note of informal and exploratory technical 
discussions that were taking place among experts of several delegations. As he had stated at the 
November meeting, he had tried to reach out to hear those delegations' views and ideas. At th e 
same time, he had invited delegations to share their thoughts with him about how they wished to 
approach these issues in general. He said that, based on these contacts, he would now report back 
to the DSB. He recalled that Rule  15 of the Working Procedur es for Appellate Review had been first 
raised by the United States at the DSB meeting in August  2017 in relation to the launch of 
selection processes of Appellate Body members. The US statement on this matter was reflected in 
the minutes of the August  2017 DSB meeting contained in document WT/DSB/M/400. He also 
recalled that the Appellate Body, in its communication JOB/AB/3 of 24  November  2017, explained 
how the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, including Rule  15, had been drafted and 
finalized as we ll as how this Rule had been applied in practice. He said that, through his recent 
informal consultations in January  2018, he had learned that there were different views on whether 
Rule 15 posed any legal questions, and, in turn, different views on the app ropriate mode to 
address these questions. He added that it appeared, however, that there was a common 
understanding among many delegations about the need for a sort of transitional arrangement such 
as the one that had been provided for in Rule  15. At the s ame time, he said there also appeared to 
be broad recognition that Rule  15 could be updated and improved in light of the current 
circumstances surrounding the dispute settlement system. For example, some delegations were 
discussing the possibility of estab lishing objective criteria to allow a continued service of outgoing 
Appellate Body members. In this respect, he noted that several delegations considered the 
Appellate Body's explanation of the operation of Rule  15 and its practice set out in its 
communica tion of 24  November  2017 to be a useful clarification. He further said that a number of 
delegations had suggested that, independently of those generic questions about Rule  15, the 
continued service of Mr. Ramírez and Mr. Van den Bossche should be addressed  by, for example, 
the DSB's endorsement of the transition arrangement made by the Appellate Body. Many 
delegations had emphasized that, while addressing matters related to Rule  15, the selection 
processes of Appellate Body members should be launched withou t any further delay. In this 
context, as part of an overall solution, some delegations had proposed to review the procedures 
for the Appellate Body selection and reappointment processes, suggesting an introduction of some 
sort of automaticity. He thanked a ll delegations who had participated in his consultations in early 
January  2017, and had come up with concrete ideas and had shared their thoughts on these 
matters. It was not his intention to enter into a detailed discussion of those issues at the present 
meeting. He said that he would continue his informal consultations with interested delegations and 
he encouraged those delegations who had been working on concrete ideas of a possible solution to 
continue their endeavours. He then turned to the proposal co ntained in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 and invited the representative of Mexico to introduce the proposal.  WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 15 - 
 
  8.2.  The representative of Mexico  said that the delegations of Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Chile; 
China; Colombia; Costa  Rica; Ecuador; El  Salvador; the  European  Union; Guatemala; Honduras; 
Hong Kong, China; Kazakhstan; Korea; Mexico; New  Zealand; Nicaragua; Norway; Pakistan; 
Panama; Paraguay; Peru; the Russian  Federation; Singapore; Switzerland; the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen an d Matsu; Turkey; Ukraine; Uruguay and Viet  Nam had 
agreed to submit a joint proposal to launch the selection processes for the vacancies of the 
Appellate Body members. At the present meeting, Mexico wished to speak on behalf of the  60 
above -mentioned Membe rs, as well as the delegations of Canada and the Dominican Republic who 
had also expressed their intention to co -sponsor this proposal. Mexico said that this joint proposal 
reflected the increasing concerns, of a considerable number of Members, about the p resent 
situation in the Appellate Body. This situation was seriously affecting the WTO's work and the 
overall functioning of the dispute settlement system and was against the best interest of WTO 
Members. WTO  Members had a responsibility to safeguard and p reserve the Appellate Body, the 
dispute settlement system and the multilateral trading system. Thus, it was the Members' duty to 
launch the selection processes for new Appellate Body members at the present meeting, as set out 
in the proposal that had been submitted to the DSB. This proposal sought to fill the current 
vacancies, which had increased to three since the last regular DSB meeting. The proposal sought 
to, first, start three selection processes, namely, one to replace Mr. Ricardo Ramírez, whose 
second term had expired on 30 June  2017; a second process to fill the vacancy that had arisen 
with the resignation of Mr.  Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 1  August  2017; and a third process to 
replace Mr. Peter Van den Bossche, whose second term had expired on  11 December  2017. 
Second, to establish a Selection Committee. Third, to set 22  February 2018, as the deadline, for 
the submission of candidacies. Fourth, to request that the Selection Committee circulate its 
recommendation as soon as possible. Mexico said  that while the proponents were flexible with 
regard to the deadlines for the selection processes, these should, however, reflect the urgency of 
the situation. The co -sponsors of the proposal urged all Members to support this proposal in the 
interest of sa feguarding the multilateral trading system and the dispute settlement system.  
8.3.  The representative of Pakistan  said that his country thanked the Chairman for holding 
informal consultations to resolve this matter. Pakistan said that it used the dispute settle ment 
mechanism very rarely. Nevertheless, Pakistan greatly valued this very important aspect of the 
WTO, and regarded it as the pivot around which the whole edifice of the multilateral system 
rested. Pakistan suggested that linking systemic concerns on the  work of the Appellate Body with 
the selection processes to appoint new AB members was not advisable. Pakistan strongly 
supported the views expressed by Mexico, on behalf of the proponents, to urgently fill the 
Appellate Body vacancies. In light of the cur rent trend in the global trade environment, wherein 
Members were taking actions in their national interest, the efficient functioning of the Dispute 
Settlement System was gaining added importance for the multilateral trading system. As already 
expressed at  previous meetings where the Appellate Body selection processes had been discussed, 
Pakistan reiterated its concern that the DSB had been unable to fulfil its obligation contained in 
DSU Article  17.2 to appoint Appellate Body members as vacancies arise. Cu rrently, there were 
three vacancies, which remained to be filled. Pakistan noted that the situation had come to such a 
pass, that it seemed that the above -mentioned selection processes could not be initiated unless 
and until the systemic concerns that had been raised would be addressed by the DSB. Pakistan 
was of the view that the problems that had been highlighted vis-à-vis the transitional 
arrangements were rooted in the succession of the retiring members of the Appellate Body. 
Appointment or reappointmen t rules were weak and unclear. There was no predictability or 
certainty in the time -lines for the appointment process. WTO was an organization which viewed 
predictability as one of its bedrock values. This had to be somehow reflected in the timelines for 
the appointment process. Pakistan, once again, urged all Members to discuss this matter with an 
open mind and not link it with the regular work and functioning of the WTO. In addition, Pakistan 
urged Members to show the utmost flexibility in order to ensure  that the DSB surpassed this 
deadlock, for the benefit of the system. Pakistan supported the proposal put forward by Mexico 
with regard to filling the current vacancies in the Appellate Body.  
8.4.  The representative of China  said that his country appreciated th e Chairman's efforts and his 
hard work in holding consultations with Members. China also thanked the Chairman for his update 
on this matter. China had decided to join the co -sponsorship of the proposal on Appellate Body 
appointments, contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1, along with Australia, Kazakhstan, 
New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay and Ukraine. The growing number of co -sponsors of the joint 
proposal demonstrated the increasing concern among the WTO Membership over the current 
situation. China noted th at even though three vacancies had arisen in the Appellate Body, none of WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 16 - 
 
  them could be filled because of the concerns raised by the United States. With regard to Rule  15 of 
the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, China was open to engage in further di scussions on 
this matter. China noted, however, that this was without prejudice to its position that China was 
not in agreement with the United States that Rule 15 gave rise to any concerns. As China had 
previously stated, a careful reading of the DSU sugg ested that the Appellate Body was acting 
within its mandate under the DSU by including Rule 15 in the Working Procedures for Appellate 
Review. First, Rule  15 applied only to "a person who ceases to be a member of the Appellate 
Body", it did not extend the terms of the Appellate Body members. Second, past DSB decision 
supported the inclusion of Rule 15 in the Working Procedures for Appellate Review. Paragraph  14 
of the document "Establishment of the Appellate Body", contained in document WT/DSB/1, which 
had been adopted by the DSB in 1995, stated that "[m]atters such as guaranteeing the rotation 
required by the DSU  […] should form part of the working procedures". By allowing Appellate Body 
members, whose terms had expired, to finish the cases to which they ha d been assigned prior to 
their term's expiry, Rule  15 guaranteed the rotation, which was required by the DSU, and should 
therefore be included in the Working Procedures of the Appellate Body.  
8.5.  As Members had previously pointed out, the settlement of dispute s was one of the major 
functions of the WTO. The Appellate Body was a crucial component to the WTO disputes settlement 
mechanism. Ensuring the integrity, independence and impartiality of the Appellate Body 
contributed immensely to the proper settlement of disputes between WTO  Members, and ensured 
the stability of the application and predictability of WTO rules. Moreover, it was the responsibility 
and obligation of the DSB to launch the selection process because Article  17.2 of the DSU provided 
that "[v]acan cies shall be filled as they arise". By linking the start of selection processes with the 
alleged systematic concerns, the United States failed to fulfil its obligation and was undermining 
the proper functioning of the dispute settlement system. The United  States refused to put an end 
to such blockage. Moreover, the United States also refused to elaborate all of its concerns or 
provide any concrete proposals to resolve its concerns. In this regard, China urged the 
United  States to lift its illegal and unrea sonable blockage and requested the DSB to launch the 
selection processes immediately.  
8.6.  The representative of Australia  said that his country was pleased to join the proposal to 
commence the three selection processes to fill current Appellate Body vacancies.  Australia 
welcomed the broad support shown for this proposal, and looked forward to it receiving further 
support from the WTO Membership. In Australia's view, all Members had to give priority to 
reaching agreement on a process that would ensure the three outstanding vacancies on the 
Appellate Body were filled and guarantee the on -going effective functioning of the WTO dispute 
settlement system. Australia stood ready to engage in constructive discussions regarding the 
outstanding concerns raised by Members in the context of the selection processes. Australia also 
remained hopeful that other Members would similarly demonstrate their commitment to the 
dispute settlement system and exercise flexibility in finding a mutually acceptable way forward.  
8.7.  The represent ative of the United  States  said that the United States thanked the Chairman for 
his continued work on these issues. The United States was not in a position to support the 
proposed decision. As noted in the past, Mr.  Ramírez continued to serve on an appeal,  despite 
ceasing to be a member of the Appellate Body nearly seven months ago. Now, a new situation had 
arisen : Mr. Van den Bossche continued to serve on five appeals, despite ceasing to be a member 
of the Appellate Body in December  of last year ( 2017). The latest decision by the Appellate Body 
to, in its words, "authorize" a person who was no longer a member of the Appellate Body to 
continue hearing appeals created a number of very serious concerns. First and foremost, as stated 
at past meetings, the Appel late Body simply did not have the authority to deem someone who was 
not an Appellate Body member to be a member. It was the DSB that had a responsibility under the 
DSU to decide whether a person whose term of appointment had expired should continue serving . 
The United  States was resolute in its view that Members needed to resolve that issue first before 
moving on to the issue of replacing such a person. Second, consider that in one current appeal, 
only one member of the Division hearing that appeal continue d to be a member of the Appellate 
Body pursuant to DSB appointment decisions. Third, the United States noted that, with the most 
recent Appellate Body "authorization", one person who was no longer a member of the Appellate 
Body was serving on more appeals  – at least five  – than anyone who was a member of the 
Appellate Body. And so, in addition to the US concern that all of this was contrary to the DSU and 
without any DSB authorization, the United States had to ask whether this was reasonable or 
appropriate.  The United States had continued to convene meetings to discuss this issue informally 
with a number of delegations. This outreach had been productive in that the United  States WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 17 - 
 
  believed it had heard a general recognition that it was the DSB that had the aut hority to set the 
term of an Appellate Body member under DSU Article  17.2; it followed that the DSB had a 
responsibility to decide whether a person should continue serving beyond that term. The 
United  States had also heard agreement from several delegation s that Rule 15 raised difficult legal 
questions that the DSB should address. In the course of its engagement, the United States had not 
heard delegations reject the importance of the issue that it had brought to the DSB's attention. To 
the contrary, the Un ited States had heard a willingness of delegations to work together on this 
issue to find a way forward. The United States also recalled that the Appellate Body had provided 
Members with a Background Note on Rule  15. That communication appeared to raise more 
questions than it answered. The United States looked forward to discussing that communication 
with Members as well. The United States would therefore continue its efforts and its discussions 
with Members and with the Chairman to seek a solution on thi s important issue.  
8.8.  The representative of Canada  said that his country thanked the Chairman for his report and 
efforts on this matter. Canada deeply regretted that the DSB had been unable to fulfil its legal 
obligation under DSU Article  17.2 to appoint Appe llate Body members as vacancies arose. Canada 
agreed with other delegations that it was time to start a process or, if necessary, several 
processes to select new Appellate Body members for the three current vacancies. Canada joined 
the proposal submitted b y more than 50 delegations and urged the DSB to adopt it without further 
delay. Like other Members, Canada was disappointed that the United States had linked the start of 
the Appellate Body selection processes to the resolution of certain procedural concer ns that the 
United  States had raised. However, Canada remained committed to work with other interested 
Members, including the United States, with a view to finding a way to address those concerns so 
as to allow the selection processes to start and be compl eted as soon as possible.  
8.9.  The representative of Colombia , speaking on behalf of the GRULAC countries, reiterated once 
again that the WTO was going through a delicate period at the moment due to the deadlock in the 
Appellate Body selection processes. Colomb ia recognized the Chairman's efforts to seek a solution 
to the current problem and thanked the Chairman for the opportunities that he had provided to 
Members to exchange views on this matter. Colombia underscored its deep concern about the 
present situatio n, which was hindering the proper functioning of a key WTO  Body. If the problem 
persisted, the Appellate Body would be virtually paralyzed in the near future, which would 
jeopardize the entire WTO dispute settlement system. Colombia noted that with the con tinued 
delay in launching the selection processes, the number of vacancies had further increased to three. 
Members had failed to comply with an existing mandate, and, thus, breached their legal 
obligations under a covered agreement. This had serious system ic consequences and set a bad 
precedent for the WTO. It undermined the image and credibility of the WTO, particularly given the 
complex international environment that was adversely affecting the multilateral trading system. 
Concerns had been raised regardi ng the functioning of the dispute settlement system and some 
specific issues regarding the decision -making process. These concerns now prevented the launch 
of the selection processes. Colombia found it unacceptable that these concerns had been linked to 
the, present and forthcoming, Appellate Body vacancies, and, thus, hindered the WTO  Membership 
to meet its legal obligation. The functioning of the system should not be undermined because the 
concerns of some Members had not been addressed. Colombia called o n Members to reflect on the 
serious repercussions of a continued blockage. Colombia further stated that the selection 
processes should not be linked to systemic concerns but instead they should be addressed on the 
basis of their own merit. It was therefore  urgent to find a rapid solution to ensure that the WTO 
Members complied with their legal obligations. Colombia requested the  Chairman to continue his 
efforts in order to find a solution on this matter.  
8.10.   The representative of Brazil  said that, at the presen t meeting, 60 Members had endorsed 
the proposal to immediately launch the selection processes to fill the vacancies in the Appellate 
Body. Brazil noted that both Members, those that were frequent users of the system and had 
concrete, tangible interests in the smooth functioning of the dispute settlement system, as well as 
Members that were less frequent users, recognized the systemic and fundamental importance of 
the Appellate Body for the WTO. As had already been stated at the present meeting, Brazil asked  
how the WTO rules -based system could prosper without the ultimate guarantor of those rules. 
Brazil said that it was clear that Members were not simply discussing the gradual dismantling of 
the Appellate Body, in a manner unparalleled in the history of int ernational organizations, but also 
the inevitable repercussions for the WTO, which rested to a significant extent on the dispute 
settlement pillar. One year had passed and Members were still attempting to overcome this 
impasse. This impasse would stay in p lace until the WTO Membership would hear explicitly from WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 18 - 
 
  certain Members, in particular from the United States, what actual concerns they had and what 
they concretely proposed to address them. No discussion would be fruitful if the main parties did 
not sta te their views and indicate possible alternatives. Otherwise, the rest of the WTO 
Membership, mirroring Robert Frost's image, would be left to " […] dance round in a ring and 
suppose, (while) the secret sits in the middle and knows".  
8.11.   Brazil noted that a few  Members had identified Rule  15 of the Appellate Body's Working 
Procedures as a source of concern, and said that, as much as this, or other rules, could be 
improved or updated, Brazil was ready to engage in discussions regarding such improvements. For 
Brazil, as important as the first part of Article  17.2, which had been invoked by the United States 
to justify its concern, were the DSU provisions that established that "the Appellate Body shall be 
composed of seven persons" and that "vacancies shall be fille d as they arise". It had also been 
implied that the concerns went beyond Rule  15, which made it even harder for Members to assess 
the real scope, purpose and consequences of any proposal or alternatives to procedural or 
substantive provisions. In any circu mstance, any proposed solution could only have been 
envisaged within the boundaries of the DSU. It would not be admissible, for instance, that the DSB 
would be invested with competences that were attributed directly to the Appellate Body, such as 
those ens hrined in Article  17.9 of the DSU. The present meeting demonstrated, once again, that 
most Members were willing to listen to concerns and to cooperate to find relevant solutions, even 
if most struggled to understand why Rule  15 was a problem in the first p lace. Brazil said that what 
seemed, however, beyond the scope of a collective endeavour to accommodate specific concerns 
was, first, the pre -emptive virtual paralysis of the appeal stage, which was already causing severe 
damage to the WTO in general and to  parties in disputes in particular, and, second, the attempt, 
under the guise of a mere tweak in a secondary procedural rule, to change the very nature of the 
dispute settlement system, which, as Brazil had stressed at the November  2017 DSB meeting, 
"provi des an operational system for securing values that we all desire", values such as 
independence, neutrality, professional competence, efficiency, clarity of reasoning and, as a result, 
high-quality reports, both at the panel and the appeal stage. In light o f this, Brazil asked whether, 
under this Agenda item, Members had asked and addressed the wrong questions and issues rather 
than focusing on how the dispute settlement system could be made more effective and useful. 
There were certainly many aspects Member s could discuss openly and in good faith with a view to 
achieving better efficiency in the system. Article  17.9 of the DSU itself could be construed as a 
space for a respectful institutional dialogue between the Appellate Body and Members, facilitated 
by the Chairman of the DSB. Nevertheless, it was difficult to see how any issue or concern, other 
than ensuring the full functioning of the Appellate Body, could be more urgent and pressing, and 
would receive more overwhelming support.  
8.12.   The representative of Uruguay  said that his country thanked the Chairman for his efforts to 
solve this situation. Uruguay was part of the group of Members that had requested this item to be 
included on the DSB Agenda and fully supported the statement made by Mexico and the concer ns 
that had been raised by other Members that this issue should be resolved on a priority basis. 
Uruguay called on the DSB to approve the four stages as contained in the joint proposal in order to 
initiate the selection processes to appoint three new Appel late Body members, without any further 
delay. Uruguay said that it had participated in the Chair's recent consultations. The resolution of 
the present crisis required Members not only to focus on launching the Appellate Body selection 
processes, but also t o undertake a comprehensive review on how to safeguard the multilateral 
trading system, and as a cornerstone thereof, the dispute settlement system. The challenges that 
the WTO had experienced with respect to the appointments of Appellate Body members in  2017 
had been raised in the context of the MC11 in Buenos Aires. Uruguay said that all this should be 
perceived as a warning, which, if heard in time, would allow Members to constructively improve 
the WTO. Uruguay believed that Members should have a forum t o discuss the challenges that the 
WTO was facing. Uruguay supported the statement made by Colombia, on behalf of the GRULAC 
countries.  
8.13.   The representative of Norway  said that her country was among the co -sponsors of the 
proposal. Norway thanked Mexico for i ts statement, with which it wished to be associated, and 
encouraged other Members to join the proposal. Norway continued to be deeply concerned about 
the situation in the DSB. Norway said that it was imperative to quickly and continuously fill the 
vacancie s in the Appellate Body to ensure a well -functioning of WTO dispute settlement system. 
Norway disagreed that the process of filling vacancies should be dependent on finding solutions to 
procedural issues related to the practice of the Appellate Body. As ha d been stated on previous 
occasions, Norway remained open and willing to listen seriously and engage constructively with all WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 19 - 
 
  and any Member on their grievances with the system, including procedural issues relating to the 
Appellate Body. However, Norway was  not willing to let the search for solutions put the system at 
risk. Norway again urged all Members to contribute to preventing a serious crisis in the dispute 
settlement pillar, and to agree, without any further delay, to launch the process of selecting n ew 
Appellate Body members.  
8.14.   The representative of Panama  said that her country thanked the Chairman for his report and 
his efforts in holding consultations on this matter. Panama supported the statements made by 
other delegations and agreed, with others, th at there were systemic implications due to the 
impasse in the DSB to select new Appellate Body members. The inability to complete this simple 
housekeeping task seriously affected the functioning and credibility of the WTO dispute settlement 
system. Panama believed that there were no reasons to further delay the start of the selection 
processes to fill the three vacancies. Panama therefore co -sponsored, with 60 other Members, the 
proposal presented by Mexico. Panama had carefully listened to the statements m ade by Members 
who had reservations concerning the functioning of the Appellate Body and the rules that governed 
the selection of Appellate Body members. Panama believed that Members could launch and 
complete the selection processes, while also initiating a process to address the concerns that had 
been raised. The earlier the WTO Membership found solutions to these concerns, the better for an 
improved WTO  dispute settlement system. Panama called for more flexibility and pragmatism to 
complete this matter by  consensus, as soon as possible.  
8.15.   The representative of Singapore  said that his country reiterated its systemic concerns with 
regard to the delays in launching the Appellate Body selection processes. Singapore co -sponsored 
the joint proposal and welcomed the new co -sponsors. Singapore noted that another vacancy in 
the Appellate Body had emerged in December  2017. Given its workload and significance, a 
fully-staffed Appellate Body was vital for the effective functioning of the WTO dispute settlement 
system. It was, therefore, essential that the vacancies in the Appellate Body were filled 
expeditiously. Singapore noted that the systemic issues, which had been raised, could be 
discussed in a separate process. Singapore stood ready to engage and work constructiv ely with 
other Members, as well as the Chairman, to help to resolve this impasse.  
8.16.   The representative of Switzerland  said that his country thanked the Chairman for his 
on-going efforts and his update on this matter. Switzerland shared the concerns expressed  in at 
least one statement at the MC11 plenary session, namely, that too many controversial issues were 
being brought to litigation rather than to resolution through dialogue and negotiations. Switzerland 
was of the view that the priority for dialogue and negotiations should also apply with regard to the 
rules and the functioning of the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism itself. Switzerland therefore 
reiterated its call on all interested Members, and particularly major ones, to engage in serious 
dialogue an d discussions on issues, which had been raised concerning the Appellate Body, and, if 
applicable, to the DSU more broadly, with a view to reaching sustainable solutions. In the 
meantime, and as a general principle, Switzerland strongly believed that pendin g vacancies on the 
Appellate Body should be filled without delays. Accordingly, Switzerland was co -sponsoring the 
revised proposal submitted by Mexico at the present meeting. By not launching the pending 
selection processes swiftly, the current strain on t he Appellate Body would increase, and the 
credibility of the dispute settlement mechanism, and the WTO as a whole, would continue to 
suffer.  
8.17.   The representative of New Zealand  thanked the Chairman for his on -going efforts and his 
report, at the present meet ing, concerning his consultations. New  Zealand also thanked Mexico for 
introducing the proposal to launch the Appellate Body selection processes, which it co -sponsored, 
and encouraged other Members to join. New Zealand believed that it was important to lau nch and 
conclude these processes as soon as possible to ensure the smooth functioning of the Appellate 
Body, and the dispute settlement and multilaterally trading systems more generally. New  Zealand 
was flexible on the precise modalities for launching the selection processes, and while it fully 
supported the proposal, it was willing to consider any other proposal that could gain consensus 
and encouraged Members to put forward concrete solutions and engage constructively to help 
address remaining concerns as  soon as possible. While New Zealand recognized that some 
Members had broader concerns regarding the Appellate Body, on which New Zealand was willing to 
engage, it disagreed that these concerns should prevent the launch of the selection processes.  WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 20 - 
 
  8.18.   The repr esentative of Japan  said that his country thanked the Chairman for his statement 
and his efforts to reach out and listen to WTO Members' views on this matter. Japan was 
encouraged to learn from the Chairman's report that, although Members' views differed, the 
delegations, with whom the Chairman had met, engaged in substantive discussions. Japan 
considered this as an opportunity for the DSB to clarify and improve transitional arrangements, so 
as to assist the Appellate Body in functioning properly during a p eriod of transition, and in 
particular, given the present circumstances faced by the dispute settlement system. Japan 
believed that building trust among WTO Members was the key to resolving this pressing matter. 
Japan supported the Chairman's continued eff ort to seek common ground to find a possible 
solution, and would continue to work with other interested delegations to assist the Chairman and 
the DSB in this common endeavour. Japan then turned to the joint proposal and thanked the 
proponents for the prop osal. Japan supported the proposal and found it unfortunate that the DSB 
was not in a position to launch the selection processes at the present meeting. Appointing a 
member of the Appellate Body was one of the important functions entrusted to the DSB under  
the DSU. In this context, Japan emphasized that it was the responsibility of the WTO Membership, 
through the DSB, to ensure the proper functioning of the dispute settlement system, including the 
Appellate Body in transition, in a manner consistent with th e DSU.  
8.19.   The representative of Chinese  Taipei  said that her delegation joined other delegations in 
thanking the Chairman for his efforts to consult with Members and for his report at the present 
meeting. Chinese Taipei welcomed the opportunity to contribute to the system by supporting the 
joint proposal but was also disappointed that the deadlock prevailed. Chinese Taipei underscored 
that the credibility and effectiveness of the Appellate Body was in the interest of the entire WTO 
Membership. Chinese Taipei, therefore, called on all Members to launch the selection processes for 
all vacancies without further delay.  
8.20.   The representative of Turkey  said that, being a co -sponsor of the proposal, his country 
associated itself with the statement made by Mexico, on beha lf of the proponents. Turkey referred 
to its statement delivered at the DSB meeting on 22  November  2017 and reiterated its belief that 
the concerns raised by the United States about the Working Procedures for Appellate Review 
should be dealt with separatel y, and should not block the immediate start of the selection 
processes for the three Appellate Body positions. Turkey shared the concerns of many Members 
who had intervened at the present meeting. In Turkey's view, the more the launch of the selection 
processes was delayed, the more the systemic and workload concerns regarding the Appellate 
Body and the overall system would increase. Therefore, the WTO Membership should launch the 
selection process immediately, without further delay.  
8.21.   The representative of Mexico,  speaking on behalf of the 60 co -sponsors of the proposal, said 
that the proponents regretted that, for the eighth time, Members had not achieved consensus to 
start the selection processes for the vacancies of the Appellate Body and had, thus, had fa iled to 
fulfil their duty as WTO Members. As had been reiterated, Article  17.2 of the DSU contained an 
obligation for all Members stating that "[v]acancies shall be filled as they arise". Mexico said that 
no discussion should prevent the Appellate Body fro m continuing to operate fully. By failing to act 
at the present meeting, the DSB would sustain the current situation, which was seriously affecting 
the work of the Appellate Body against the best interest of its Members.  
8.22.   The representative of India said th at his country thanked the Chairman for his efforts thus 
far, and his statement at the present meeting, to address the current crisis by initiating the 
selection processes for Appellate Body members. India also thanked the proponents for the revised 
propos al targeting to resolve the present stalemate in the Appellate Body selection processes for 
the three vacancies. India said that the revised proposal had achieved common ground enabling 
the launch of the selection processes to fill the three vacancies. Ind ia fully supported the 
proponents' suggestion to urgently commence the selection processes for the three vacancies. 
There was a degree of urgency with regard to filling the Appellate Body vacancies, not only 
because of the legal obligation contained in Art icle 17.2 of the DSU, which provided that vacancies 
"shall be filled as they arise", but also because of the number of appeals that had already been 
filed or were being filed. India disagreed to link any alleged systemic issues with the launch of the 
selection processes, and reiterated that it shared the view of many of the other Members that 
these two issues were not dependent and should be dealt with separately. India strongly believed 
that certainty and predictability in trade rules could only be ensured  through the availability of an 
adequate dispute resolution instrument and the machinery to resolve such disputes. India was 
concerned about the significant delays in launching the Appellate Body selection processes, which WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 21 - 
 
  paralyzed the existing system and  hindered the timely delivery of dispute settlement outcomes. It 
was vital for the effective functioning of the dispute settlement system that the Appellate Body had 
a full complement of seven members to hear appeals. The continued impasse could bear major  
consequences for the system, and any further delay in this regard would jeopardize the timely and 
qualitative delivery of judicial remedies. India strongly believed that systemic issues raised by any 
Member could be dealt with on a different track, and th us, should not become a stumbling block in 
the launch of the Appellate Body selection processes. India urged Members to show flexibility in 
working towards a consensus to launch the Appellate Body selection processes expeditiously.  
8.23.   The representative of th e European  Union  said that his delegation took the floor to make 
three points. First, with each passing month, the gravity and urgency of the situation increased. 
Currently, there were only four out of seven Appellate Body members left. The WTO Members had  
a shared responsibility to resolve this issue as soon as possible. The EU thanked all Members that 
had co -sponsored the proposal, and invited all other Members to endorse the proposal. The EU's 
second point related to the Chairman's statement and to a par t of the statement made by the 
United States. More specifically, the EU referred to the statement that it had made at the regular 
DSB meeting in November  2017, in which the EU clearly stated that it considered that Rule  15 was 
legitimate. The EU said that it was, nonetheless, ready to engage in discussions concerning 
Rule 15, if that helped to unblock the Appellate Body appointments. The EU said that it was still 
waiting for such engagement, on the part of the delegation that was blocking the three Appellat e 
Body appointments. In the absence of such engagement, the EU considered that it was premature 
to talk about any solutions to the "Rule  15 issue". The EU's third point related to the United  States' 
statement, which questioned the situation of Mr.  Ramírez and Mr. Van den Bossche. Under the 
current rules, the Appellate Body had the full authority to apply Rule  15, as it had done for 
Mr. Ramírez and for Mr. Van den Bossche, which was particularly important in the present context 
with the Appellate Body not fu lly composed. As the Appellate Body had explained in its background 
note, this decision had to be taken in order to maintain the stability of the dispute settlement 
system to deal with the unprecedented workload of appeals and to preserve the rights of 
participants and third participants in pending appeals. The EU welcomed the decisions of the 
Appellate Body and, once again, thanked the Appellate Body and its staff for their continued work 
in this difficult context. Regarding the possibility of a DSB decisi on "endorsing" the decisions that 
had been taken by the Appellate Body, the EU reiterated that, under the existing rules, the 
Appellate Body had the full authority to apply Rule  15 as it had done for Mr. Van den Bossche and 
Mr. Ramírez. The EU was of the v iew that no DSB action was needed in that respect.  
8.24.   The representative of Egypt  said that his country thanked the Chairman for his report and 
his continued efforts to solve this issue. Egypt also thanked the proponents of the proposal, which 
reflected the i mportance of having a well -functioned dispute settlement system. Egypt supported 
the proposal and the statements made by other Members that vacant positions of the Appellate 
Body should be filled immediately. Egypt looked forward to discuss other proposals  related to the 
Working Procedures of the Appellate Body and concerns in this regard.  
8.25.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
9  DISPUTE SETTLEMENT W ORKLOAD  
A.  Statement by the Chairman  
9.1.  The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business", said that, as he had announced at the 
beginning of the meeting, he would like to make a report to provide the DSB with information 
about the number of disputes before panels and at the panel composition stage, the Appella te 
Body's workload and the ability of the Secretariat to meet expected demand over the coming 
period. This information reflected the status of disputes up until the present DSB meeting on 
22 January. Other developments in the course of that meeting would b e reflected in the 
information posted on the Members' website. Currently, there were 11 active panels (including 
three panels under Article  21.5 of the DSU) that had not yet issued a final report to the parties. 
Multiple disputes being considered simultane ously 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 commencing proceedings. There were a further four 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, seven final panel reports that had been issued to the parties 
were currently being translated. The Appellate Body was presently dealing wit h seven appeals, WT/DSB/M/407  
 
- 22 - 
 
  including the extremely complex compliance proceedings in "EC and Certain Member States – 
Large Civil Aircraft (Airbus)" and in "US – Large Civil Aircraft (Boeing)". Submissions had been filed 
by the participants and third participants in seven appeals. Divisions hearing these appeals had 
been composed and had started their work. However, three of these appeals could not be fully 
staffed at this point. Up to three additional appeals could be filed within the next three months. 
Finally, thre e matters had been referred to arbitration under Article  22.6 of the DSU.  
9.2.  The DSB took note  of the statement.  
__________