RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/383  
 
11 October  2016 
(16-5451) Page: 1/22 
Dispute Se ttlement Body  
21 July 2016    
 
 MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 21 JULY 2016  
Chairman: Mr. Xavier  Carim  (South Africa ) 
Table of Contents  
1   SURVEILLANCE OF IMPL EMENTATION OF RECOMM ENDATIONS ADOPTED BY  
THE DSB ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A.  United  States – Anti–dumping measures on certain hot –rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United  States  ................................ ................................ ..............  2 
B.  United  States – Section  110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  3 
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European  Union ................................ ................................ ....... 3 
D.  United  States – Anti–dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet  Nam: Status 
report by the United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 
E.  United  States – Anti–dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet  Nam: Status 
report by the United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 
2   COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO  THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, 
APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR  ................................ ................................ ................................  5 
A.  Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB  ................................ ..........................  5 
3   UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING  AND SUBSIDY OFFSET A CT 
OF 2000: IMPLEMENTATION  OF THE RECOMMENDATIO NS ADOPTED BY THE  DSB ...........  6 
A.  Statements by the European  Union and Japan  ................................ ................................ ... 6 
4   CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFF ECTING ELECTRONIC PA YMENT SERVICES  .............  7 
A.  Statement by the United  States  ................................ ................................ .......................  7 
5   UNITE D STATES - COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON CERTAIN 
HOT-ROLLED CARBON STEEL FLAT PRODUCTS FROM I NDIA  ................................ ............  7 
A.  Statement by India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  7 
6   UNITED  STATES – COUNTERVAILING MEASU RES ON SUPERCALENDER ED 
PAPER FROM CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada  ................................ ...........................  9 
7   THAILAND – CUSTOMS AND FISCAL M EASURES ON CIGARETTE S FROM THE 
PHILIPPINES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  9 
A.  Recourse to Article  21.5 of the DSU by the Philippines: Request for the establishment 
of a panel  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  9 WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 2 - 
 
  8   UNITED STATES – COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON CERTAIN 
PRODUCTS FROM CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................  10 
A.  Recourse to Article  21.5 of the DSU by China: Request for the establishment 
of a panel  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 10 
9   STATEMENT ON A MECHA NISM FOR DEVELOPING,  DOCUMENTING AND 
SHARING PRACTICES AN D PROCEDURES IN THE CONDUCT OF WTO DISPU TES .............  11 
10   PROPOSED NOMINATION FOR THE INDICATIVE L IST OF GOVERNMENTAL 
AND NON -GOVERNMENTAL PANELIS TS ................................ ................................ ..........  17 
11   APPELLATE BODY MATTE RS................................ ................................ .....................  17 
12   DISPUTE SETTLEMENT W ORKLOAD  ................................ ................................ .........  21 
A. Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ ............................. 21 
 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPL EMENTATION OF REC OMMENDATIONS 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.162)  
 
B.  United  States – Section  110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report b y the United  States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.137)  
 
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.100)  
 
D.  United  States – Anti–dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet  Nam: Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS404/11/Add.48)  
 
E.  United  States – Anti–dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet  Nam: Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS429/15)  
 
 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were five sub -items under th is Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU. He recalled that Article  21.6 
required that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be pl aced 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 reminded delegations that, as 
provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings: "Represent atives should make 
every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has already 
been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in Members' 
positions already on record". He turned to t he 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.162)  
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.162, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US  Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel 
products from Japan.  
1.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 9 July 2016, 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 t he 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 WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 3 - 
 
  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 its statement 
and its status report submitted on 9 July 2016. Japan wished to refer to its previous statements 
that this matter be resolved as soon as possible.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
B.  United  States – Section  110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.137)  
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attenti on to document WT/DS160/24/Add.137, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning Section  110(5) of the US Copyright Act.  
1.7.  The representative of the United  States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 9  July 2016, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the European  Union, and to work closely with the US Congress, in 
order to re ach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.  
1.8.  The representative of the European  Union  said that the EU thanked the United  States for its 
status report and its statement made at the present meeting. The EU referred to its statements 
made under thi s Agenda item at previous DSB meetings. The EU wished to resolve this dispute as 
soon as possible.  
1.9.  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 approv al and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.100)  
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.100, which contained the 
status report by the European  Union on progress in the implementation of the DS B's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of 
biotech products.  
1.11.   The representative of the European  Union  said that t wo GMOs1 had been voted on, with a 
no opinion result, in the Standing Committee on 8 July and at the Appeal Committee on 
2 June 2016. In accordance with the applicable regulations, the authorizing decisions would be 
submitted to the Appeal Committee for a vote. More generally, and as stated many times before, 
the EU recalled that the EU approval sy stem was not covered by the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.  
1.12.   The representative of the United  States  said that his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting. As the United  States had noted repeatedly 
at pa st DSB meetings, the EU measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products 
remained of substantial concern to the United  States. The EU's delay of approval for pending 
applications was having a dramatic impact on trade. For years, the delays  had been restricting US 
exports of key agricultural products to the EU. In the past, this had primarily affected corn, but 
this year, US exports of soybeans were being negatively impacted. As it had noted at a number of 
previous DSB meetings, the United  States had serious concerns with the EU's significant delay in 
approving the applications of three varieties of biotech soybeans. These varieties were critical for 
US farmers because they included important technologies that promoted weed control, and the 
varieties were grown across the United States. The EU's scientific body had concluded extensive 
scientific reviews of these soybean varieties in June and July  2015. Those reviews had confirmed 
that these biotech products were safe for use in the EU. The EU,  however, had continued to delay 
                                                
1 Maize MON 810 (renewal for food and feed uses) and cotton DAS-24236 -SxDAS-21023 - 
SxMON -88913 -8 (food and feed uses)  WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 4 - 
 
  approval of these products, without any legitimate basis. The United  States again asked the EU to 
ensure that its biotech approval measures were consistent with its obligations under the 
SPS Agreement.  
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
D.  United  States – Anti–dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet  Nam: Status 
report by the United  States (WT/DS404/11/Add.48)  
E.  United  States – Anti–dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet  Nam: Status 
report by the United  States (WT/DS429/15)  
1.14.   The Chairman  said that it was his understanding that the two sub -items to which he had 
just referred would be taken up together.  
1.15.   The representative of the United  States  said tha t his delegation would address both disputes 
involving anti -dumping measures on shrimp from Viet  Nam together. The United  States was 
pleased to inform the DSB that, on Monday 18 July 2016, the United  States and Viet  Nam had 
reached a mutually agreed soluti on in both disputes. The United  States and Viet  Nam had 
submitted the mutually agreed solution to the DSB, which should be circulated shortly. The 
resolution of these two disputes was an element of an agreement between the United  States and 
Viet Nam resolv ing a number of outstanding issues involving the anti -dumping duty order on 
shrimp from Viet  Nam. The successful resolution of these disputes demonstrated the commitment 
of the United  States to compliance with the DSB recommendations and to securing positi ve 
solutions to outstanding disputes. The resolution also demonstrated the ability of the United  States 
and Viet  Nam to work together in a constructive manner to resolve difficult trade issues. The 
United  States looked forward to the continued enhancement of its bilateral trade relationship with 
Viet Nam.  
1.16.   The representative of Viet Nam said that her country thanked the United  States for its 
statement and its status report on implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
two disputes regarding t he US anti -dumping measures on certain shrimp imported from Viet  Nam 
(DS404 and DS429). At the present meeting, Viet  Nam wished to confirm that the United  States 
and Viet  Nam had reached a mutually agreed solution in both the DS404 and DS429 disputes, 
which had been initiated in 2009. While Viet  Nam did not achieve all it had desired from either the 
results of the Panel decisions or the resolution with the United  States, the result was nevertheless 
important. First, it demonstrated that the WTO dispute sett lement system continued to work by 
imposing international disciplines, which only few multilateral institutions had been able to 
accomplish. Second, the solution avoided further litigation at the time when the dispute settlement 
system was under serious re source constraints. Finally, it recognized that the dispute settlement 
process was essential for solving disputes among Members. In that spirit, Viet  Nam hoped that the 
implementation of the mutually agreed solution would be recognized as serving the inter ests of 
both parties to the dispute and of the dispute settlement system. Viet  Nam thanked the Panels in 
the DS404 and DS429 disputes, the Appellate Body members and the respective Secretariats.  
1.17.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that her country supported 
the statement made by Viet  Nam. Venezuela took note of the US statement regarding recent 
progress in this dispute and the fact that a mutually satisfactory solution had been found in these 
disputes. This was a positive develop ment that underscored the credibility of the dispute 
settlement system and its ability to resolve disputes. Venezuela hoped that the implementation of 
the mutually agreed solution would serve the interests of both parties to these disputes.  
1.18.   The representat ive of Cuba said that her country supported the statement made by 
Viet Nam. Cuba took note of the fact that a mutually agreed solution had been found in these 
disputes. Cuba hoped that similar solutions could also be found in the other unresolved disputes 
currently pending on the DSB Agenda.  
1.19.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2  COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO  THE IMPORTATION OF T EXTILES, APPAREL 
AND FOOTWEAR  
A.  Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB  
2.1.  The Chairman  recalled that in accordance with t he DSU provisions, the DSB was required to 
keep under surveillance the implementation of recommendations and rulings of the DSB in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members. In that respect, Article  21.3 of 
the DSU prov ided that the Member concerned had to inform the DSB, within 30  days after the date 
of adoption of the panel or Appellate Body report, of its intentions in respect of implementation of 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. He recalled that at its mee ting on 22  June 2016, the 
DSB had adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, pertaining to the dispute on: "Colombia – Measures Relating to the Importation of 
Textiles, Apparel and Footwear". He invite d Colombia to inform the DSB of its intentions in respect 
of implementation of the DSB's recommendations.  
2.2.  The representative of Colombia  said that, i n accordance with Article  21.3 of the DSU, his 
delegation wished to inform the DSB that Colombia intended t o implement the DSB's 
recommendations and ru lings resulting from the Appellate Body and Panel Reports in the dispute: 
"Colombia  - Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, Apparel and Footwear" (DS461).  
Colombia would need a reasonable period of ti me in order to do so since a rigorous analysis and 
administrative coordination by the Colombian Government were necessary to bring the disputed 
measure into conformity with the covered agreements. It was important to bear in mind that, as 
had been demonstr ated during the dispute settlement proceedings, the measure that had to be 
brought into conformity was essential for Colombia to achieve its objective of combating money 
laundering, on the grounds of Colombia's vital social interests. Currently, Colombia w as engaging 
in discussions with Panama in  order to reach an agreement on a reasonable period of time for the 
implementation of the DSB's  recommendations and ru lings in this dispute.  
2.3.  The representative of Panama  said that his country welcomed the opportunit y to express its 
views on this matter. Colombia's compound tariff on imports of textiles, apparel and footwear 
exceeded the bound -tariff level, which had previously been agreed for these products. Panama 
noted Colombia's statement on its intentions with re gard to implementation, but could not agree 
with Colombia's statement on this matter. Panama referred to its statement made at the 
22 June 2016 DSB meeting that Colombia should comply with the DSB's recommendations by not 
extending the measure found to be WTO-inconsistent. The measure in question would expire on 
30 July 2016, in accordance with the recent decree, which had extended it in March  2016 for 
another four months. In that regard, Panama urged Colombia to comply in good faith with the first 
objectiv e of the dispute settlement mechanism, provided for in Article  3.7 of the DSU, and 
withdraw the measure. In Panama's view, no further action was required by Colombia since the 
measure in question would expire by the end of the month. Panama reiterated the importance of 
prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in order to ensure effective 
resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members, as provided for in Article  21.1 of the DSU. 
Prompt compliance was also essential for maintaining t he trust in, and credibility of, the dispute 
settlement system.  Panama believed that it was feasible for Colombia to comply immediately with 
the DSB's recommendations in this dispute, as was stipulated in Article  21.3 of the DSU. If the 
measure continued to be in place after 30  July 2016 this would imply an extension of the 
WTO-incompatible measure. Panama noted that this was the third dispute that had been filed in 
the WTO with regard to the measures put in place by Colombia over the prior ten  years. All these 
disputes had involved similar measures, which had affected the same trade flows, and which had 
been declared incompatible with the agreements in question and with Colombia's specific 
commitments. Panama reserved its right to have recourse to Articles  21 and  22 of the DSU 
regarding this matter.  
2.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and of the information provided by Colombia regarding 
its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations.  WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3  UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY O FFSET ACT OF  2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTED BY THE  DSB 
A.  Statements by the European  Union and Japan  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that t his item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European  Union and Japan, and he invi ted the respective representatives to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of the European  Union  said that the EU, once again, requested the 
United  States to stop transferring anti -dumping and countervailing duties to the US industry. Every 
disbursement that still to ok 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 and to submit status reports in this dispute.  
3.3.  The represen tative of Japan  said that, since the distributions under the CDSOA had been 
continuing, Japan, once again, urged the United  States to stop the illegal distributions in order to 
resolve this long -standing dispute. As it had stated at previous DSB meetings, Japan was of the 
view that the United  States was under obligation to provide the DSB with a status report in this 
dispute, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU.  
3.4.  The representative of India said that his country shared the concerns of the EU and Japan . 
The WTO -inconsistent disbursements continued to the US domestic industry. In India's view, this 
item should continue to remain on the DSB's Agenda until such time that full compliance was 
achieved in this dispute.  
3.5.  The representative of Brazil  said that h er country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda. Brazil, as one of the parties to these disputes, wished to refer to its 
previous statements made under this Agenda item regarding the continuation of illegal 
disbursements. Braz il renewed its call on the United  States to fully comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  
3.6.  The representative of Canada  said that his country wished to refer to its previous statements 
made under this Agenda item. He said that Can ada's position on this matter had not changed.  
3.7.  The representative of China  said that her country thanked the EU and Japan for placing this 
item on the Agenda of the present meeting. China urged the United  States to fully comply with the 
DSB's recommendatio ns and rulings in this dispute.  
3.8.  The representative of the United  States  said that, as his country had noted at the 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. 
Accordingly, 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, Japan, and other Members had acknowledged that the Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the 
distribution of duties collected on goods entered after 1  October  2007, which was over eight  years 
ago. The United  States therefore did not understand the purpose for which the EU and Japan  had 
inscribed this item on the Agenda of the present meeting. With respect to comments regarding 
further status reports in this matter, as it had already explained at previous DSB meetings, the 
United  States failed to see what purpose would be served by f urther submission of status reports 
which would repeat, again, that the United  States had taken all actions necessary to implement 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes. Indeed, as these very WTO Members 
had demonstrated repeatedly when t hey had been a responding party in a dispute, there was no 
obligation under the DSU to provide further status reports once a Member announced that it had 
implemented those DSB recommendations and rulings, regardless of whether the complaining 
party disagre ed about compliance.  
3.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4  CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFF ECTING ELECTRONIC PA YMENT SERVICES  
A.  Statement by the United  States  
4.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the Unit ed States and invited the representative of the United  States to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of the United  States  said that the DSB had adopted its recommendations 
and rulings in this dispute in August  2012, and the reasonable period of time had expired in 
July 2013. As the United  States had noted at past meetings of the DSB, China's sole domestic 
supplier continued to maintain control of the domestic electronic payment services ("EPS") market. 
In accord with its WTO obligations, China had to adopt measures n ecessary and take the required 
steps to allow the operation of foreign EPS suppliers in China. The United  States took note that last 
month, nearly four  years after the DSB had adopted its recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute, China had issued a regu lation that appeared to set out a licensing application process for 
electronic payment service suppliers to obtain authorization to do business in the Chinese market. 
The United  States was in the process of reviewing these regulations and their operation, with a 
view to determining whether the regulations would allow for the approval of foreign EPS suppliers 
without further delays.  
4.3.  The representative of China  said that her country regretted that the United  States had, once 
again, brought this matter before the DSB. China wished to refer to its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings and emphasized that it had taken all necessary actions and had fully 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. China was pleased that the 
United  States had referred to the issuance of the regulation. China reiterated that the regulation 
mentioned by the United  States was not relevant for the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute. Nor was the DSB meeting an appropriate for um to 
discuss China's domestic regulatory action; which was irrelevant to this dispute.  
4.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
5  UNITED  STATES - COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT-ROLLED 
CARBON STEEL FLAT PR ODUCTS FROM INDIA  
A.  Statement by India  
5.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
India and invited the representative of India to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of India said that, as his country had pointed at the 22  June 2016 DSB 
meeting, the United  States had not filed a status report in this matter in accordance with its 
binding obligation under Article  21.6 of the DSU. The issue of the non -submission of the status 
report was important since there was a domestic law in this dispute that had been foun d to be 
inconsistent with a covered agreement. That law continued to remain on the US statute book. The 
United  States had made no efforts to repeal or amend 19  USC 1677(7)(G)(iii) of its domestic law 
so as to bring it into conformity with Articles  15.1, 15 .2, 15.3 and  15.5 of the SCM Agreement, in 
disregard of the DSB's recommendations. While the United  States might have taken some steps 
with regard to the CVD determinations or "as applied" claims, it was abundantly clear that no steps 
had been taken to add ress the "as such" claims by either repealing or modifying the law. This was 
not a minor procedural issue but a serious systemic issue for the dispute settlement mechanism. 
Ignoring this aspect would render Article  21.6 of the DSU ineffective and would ser iously 
undermine the surveillance mechanism under the DSU. India reiterated that the recently issued 
findings of the USDOC and USITC, purportedly issued to remove the inconsistencies noted by the 
Panel and the Appellate Body Reports in the DS436 dispute, w ere also not in full conformity with 
the covered agreements. While India would consider and pursue appropriate legal remedies in this 
respect, it urged the United  States to accord more serious consideration to implementing the 
DSB's recommendations through  a status report on the issue of inconsistency of its law.  
5.3.  India noted that the United  States had clarified at the previous DSB meeting that the 
provisions of the domestic law had never been utilized in any investigation. In India's view, the 
issue of non -utilization of a provision of a law was irrelevant in the context of implementation of WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 8 - 
 
  the DSB's rulings and recommendations and did not detract from the finding that the provisions of 
the law had been found to be inconsistent and still remained on the sta tute book. Thus, the 
United  States continued to have provisions inconsistent with the SCM Agreement in spite of the 
unambiguous DSB rulings and recommendations. India urged the United  States to fully comply 
with the DSB's rulings and recommendations in thi s dispute and to submit a status report in this 
dispute as it had done under sub -items 1(a) and 1(b) of the Agenda of the present meeting.  
5.4.  One other aspect that India wished to touch upon at the present meeting was the practice of 
entering into agreed sequ encing procedures. India and the United  States had entered into a 
sequencing agreement in this dispute, which essentially sequenced compliance proceedings and 
suspension of obligations. India had entered into such an agreement with the United  States 
consid ering the logical nature and practical effectiveness of the procedures, which was common 
practice adopted by WTO Members, even though technically India could have argued that it had an 
option of seeking suspension of concessions since it did not agree with  the US's view of 
compliance. However, the appropriate approach in such scenarios would be a sequencing 
agreement. India urged the United  States to do so in the DS430 dispute to avoid inefficient and 
avoidable legal uncertainties in that dispute, which wer e alluded to in the previous DSB meeting.  
5.5.  The representative of the United  States  said that, as his country had explained at previous 
DSB meetings, the United  States had completed implementation with respect to the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this  dispute. The United  States was prepared to confer further 
with India should it have any questions, but India had not contacted the United States prior to or 
since proposing this item for the Agenda of the present meeting. Therefore, it would not appear 
that resolving its concerns was India's intent in taking the time of the DSB at the present meeting. 
With respect to the "as such" finding on Section  1677(7)(G)(i)(III) of the Tariff Act of  1930, the 
United  States had explained both to India and to the DSB t hat no further US action was needed. 
As the United  States had explained previously, under US law, Commerce had discretion with 
respect to the timing of a self -initiated investigation, and Commerce had confirmed its 
commitment to exercise this discretion in  a manner that was consistent with the international 
obligations of the United  States. Indeed, this provision of US law had never been applied at all. 
Therefore, India had no basis for its insistence that US law must be changed in order for the 
United  States to comply with the DSB's recommendations in this dispute. Given that the 
United  States had fully complied in this dispute, the United States was not required to submit 
further status reports in this matter. Regarding the subsidies determinations, as des cribed in 
previous DSB meetings, on 14  April 2016, the US Department of Commerce had issued a new CVD 
determination rendering its determination with respect to subsidization and the calculation of 
countervailing duty rates consistent with the DSB's recomme ndations in this dispute. Commerce's 
determination fully complied with the findings of the Panel and the Appellate Body in this dispute 
regarding subsidization and the calculation of countervailing duty rates. As also described in 
previous DSB meetings, on  7 March  2016, the US International Trade Commission had issued a 
new CVD injury determination rendering the findings with respect to injury in the underlying CVD 
proceeding on hot -rolled steel from India consistent with the DSB's recommendations in this 
dispute. Regarding the issue of sequencing agreements that India had raised, the United  States, 
and presumably India, had entered into a sequencing agreement in the DS436 dispute based on 
an assessment of this dispute. Both parties had appeared to agree tha t a sequencing agreement 
could help them in resolving this dispute. With respect to the DS430  dispute , that matter was not 
on the Agenda of the present meeting, but as had been explained at the previous DSB meeting, 
the United  States had considered that th e circumstances warranted moving forward with a request 
under Article  22.2 of the DSU. The United  States remained engaged with India on issues of 
procedure and substance and sought to find a positive solution in that dispute.  
5.6.  The representative of the European Union  said that it was clear that there was a 
disagreement on compliance in this dispute. He noted that the EU did not have any position on this 
issue. However, the EU recalled that previously the DSB had collectively agreed to revert to this 
matter. That agreement had a consequence. In other words, there would be a status report at the 
next meeting at which a Member could then claim full compliance. The EU did not understand why, 
in this particular instance, this practice had not been followed. The EU  found it surprising that in 
one case Members acted in one way and in other case s they acted differently . In the EU's view, it 
would be in good order for Members to follow certain established practices so that there would be 
no surprises. This however was not the case in this dispute.  
5.7.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 9 - 
 
  6  UNITED  STATES – COUNTERVAILING MEASU RES ON SUPERCALENDER ED PAPER FROM 
CANADA  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada (WT/DS505/2)  
6.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had consi dered this matter at its meeting on 
22 June 2016 and had agreed to revert to it. He drew attention to the communication from Canada 
contained in document WT/DS505/2 and he invited the representative of Canada to speak.  
6.2.  The representative of Canada  said tha t, at the previous regular DSB meeting, Canada had 
made its first request for the establishment of a panel to assess the US countervailing duties 
on imports of supercalendered paper from Canada. As it had explained then, and as was set 
out in its request i n document WT/DS505/2, Canada considered the US measures to be 
inconsistent with its obligations under the SCM Agreement and the GATT  1994. Canada would 
not repeat at length the details of its claims. However, Canada would again request that the 
DSB establ ish a panel in this dispute with standard terms of reference. Canada remained open 
to continuing its dialogue with the United  States in order to find a way to resolve this dispute.  
6.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that his country regretted tha t Canada had 
chosen, for a second time, to request the establishment of a panel with regard to this matter. As it 
had explained both to Canada and to the DSB, the US actions described in Canada's request were 
fully consistent with US obligations under the WTO Agreement. The United  States was prepared to 
engage in these proceedings and to explain to the panel that Canada had no legal basis for its 
claims. Further, the US statement was without prejudice to whether each of the items cited in 
Canada's panel req uest constituted a measure for purposes of the DSU, and therefore was subject 
to examination by the panel.  
6.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference.  
6.5.  The representatives of Brazil , China , the European  Union , India, Japan , Korea , and Turkey  
reserved their third -party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings.  
7  THAILAND – CUSTOMS AND FISCAL M EASURES ON CIGARETTE S FROM THE 
PHILIPPINES  
A.  Recourse to Article  21.5 of the DSU by the Philippines: Request for the establishment 
of a panel (WT/DS371/18)  
7.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the Philippines contained in 
document WT/DS371/18 and he invited the representative of the Philippines to speak.  
7.2.  The representative of the Philippines  recalled that, at the 22  June 2016 DSB meeting, the 
Philippines had reported on constructive consultations held between the Philippines and Thailand in 
Bangkok on 2  June 2016. The Philippines had also reported on Thailand's commitment to provide 
the Philippines with specific documents and information pertinent to the Philippines' concerns. In 
particular, Thailand had committed to provide an explanation of the specific allegations underlying 
crimina l charges Thailand was pursuing against a Thai importer of Philippine exports, ostensibly for 
under -declaration of customs value. Thailand had committed to provide this material no later than 
27 June 2016. In return, and in recognition of the relationship between the two countries, the 
Philippines had agreed to postpone any request for establishment of a panel until the 27  June 
deadline. No material had been received from Thailand by the 27  June deadline. Furthermore, the 
Philippines understood that active steps had been taken in the domestic proceedings to prevent 
sharing with the Philippines the documents and information related to the criminal charges that 
Thailand itself had earlier committed to provide to the Philippines. The Philippines had been 
exceed ingly solicitous of its ASEAN partner over the course of the many years that had elapsed 
since the expiry of the reasonable period of time in this matter. Over that extended period, the 
Philippines had demonstrated its good faith by allowing time and offer ing Thailand opportunities to 
explain and substantiate its position. However, with Thailand failing entirely to carry through on its 
own commitments, the Philippines considered that its only remaining option was to request the 
establishment of a compliance  panel. In that regard, the Philippines noted again Thailand's WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 10 - 
 
  agreement, in a sequencing arrangement concluded between the parties, not to object to the 
establishment of a compliance panel at the first DSB meeting at which the request appeared on 
the Agen da. While the Philippines returned to multilateral review of the disagreement between the 
parties, its readiness to seek an amicable solution to this dispute with its valued ASEAN partner 
remained undiminished.  
7.3.  The representative of Thailand  said that his country was disappointed that the Philippines had 
chosen to move forward with an Article  21.5 panel request at the present meeting. However, since 
the Understanding between the Philippines and Thailand on Sequencing provided that: "Thailand 
shall not objec t to the establishment of that panel at the first DSB meeting at which the request 
appears on the agenda" , Thailand did not object to this request. Thailand was strongly supportive 
of the existence of a binding system of dispute settlement in the multilate ral trading system, on 
which Thailand had successfully relied in the past to vindicate its rights and obligations under WTO 
law. Thailand would continue to work cooperatively with the Philippines.  
7.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed , pursuant to  Article  21.5 of the DSU, to 
refer to the original Panel, if possible, the matter raised by the Philippines in document 
WT/DS371/18. The Panel would have standard terms of reference.  
7.5.  The representatives of Australia , Canada , China , the European  Union , Japan, the 
Russian  Federation  and the United  States  reserved their third -party rights to participate in the 
Panel's proceedings.  
8  UNITED STATES – COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM 
CHINA  
A.  Recourse to Article  21.5 of the DSU by China: Reque st for the establishment of a 
panel (WT/DS437/21)  
8.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from China contained in document 
WT/DS437/21 and invited the representative of China to speak.  
8.2.  The representative of China  said that, on 13  May 2016, China h ad requested consultations 
with the United  States with respect to the US failure to implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in the DS437 dispute. The parties had held consultations on 27  May 2016, pursuant to 
the sequencing agreement, but the consu ltations had failed to resolve the dispute. China, 
therefore had requested, in document WT/DS437/21, that the DSB establish a compliance panel to 
examine this matter. The sequencing agreement provided that the United  States would accept the 
establishment o f a panel at the present DSB meeting. In its panel request, China made claims 
against a number of the Section  129 determinations, periodic review determinations and sunset 
reviews determinations made by the USDOC as its measures to implement the rulings in  the 
DS437  dispute . These measures were related to the continued and ongoing application by the 
USDOC of unlawful standards and methodologies for determining public body, specificity, benefit 
and facts available, etc., which, in China's view, led to the US  failure to bring the measures in 
dispute into compliance with the SCM Agreement. China requested that the DSB establish a panel 
to consider the matter described in its panel request.  
8.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that his country was disapp ointed that China had 
chosen to request the establishment of a compliance panel in this matter. As the United  States had 
stated at the June meeting of the DSB, contrary to China's view, there was no basis for suggesting 
that US compliance was inadequate. T he United States maintained that the measures identified in 
China's request for establishment of a panel were fully WTO -consistent. Nevertheless, the 
United  States recognized that the procedures set forth in the sequencing agreement between 
China and the U nited States provided that the United States would accept the establishment of a 
compliance panel at the first DSB meeting in which China's request appeared on the Agenda. The 
United  States was prepared to engage in these proceedings and to explain to the compliance panel 
that China had no legal basis for its claims. The US statement was without prejudice to whether 
each of the items cited in China's panel request constituted a measure for purposes of the DSU, 
and therefore was subject to examination by the  panel.  WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 11 - 
 
  8.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed , pursuant to Article  21.5 of the DSU, to 
refer to the original Panel, if possible, the matter raised by China in document WT/DS437/21. The 
Panel would have standard terms of reference.  
8.5.  The representati ves of Australia , Canada , the European  Union , India, Japan , Korea , 
the Russian  Federation  and Viet Nam reserved their third -party rights to participate in the Panel's 
proceedings.  
9  STATEMENT ON A MECHA NISM FOR DEVELOPING,  DOCUMENTING AND SHAR ING 
PRACTICES A ND PROCEDURES IN THE  CONDUCT OF WTO DISPU TES (JOB/DSB/1)  
9.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Canada. He drew attention to document JOB/DSB/1 and invited the representative of Canada to 
speak.  
9.2.  The repr esentative of Canada  said that, a s all Members would agree, the WTO dispute 
settlement system was a critical pillar of the multilateral trading system. Its undeniable appeal was 
confirmed by the fact that it had been asked to deal with more than 500  disput es in 20  years, 
making it by far the most prolific and successful forum for international dispute settlement in 
history. From the very outset, WTO Members had agreed that this new treaty -based system of 
dispute resolution might need to be modified and impr oved over time. Almost from the very 
outset, Members had been discussing various ways that it might be improved, without thus far 
having reached agreement on any major changes. In recent years, the need for the system to 
evolve in response to experience, t he changing nature of disputes, and the changing expectations 
of Members, had become increasingly apparent. The increase in both the volume and complexity 
of disputes had placed a heavy burden on the resources that supported dispute settlement, such 
that M embers now experienced delays in finishing disputes and even queues in getting disputes 
started. These developments threatened both the objective, and the reputation, of WTO dispute 
settlement for timely resolution, and risked putting the system even furth er out of the reach of 
smaller and developing countries that already had to overcome their own internal barriers to have 
effective access. While the Director -General had increased the Secretariat's capacity to support 
this growing demand and complexity, he  had also called upon Members to do more to ensure the 
sustainability and success of the system in the long run. For a while now, Members had been 
discussing potential collective responses to the Director -General's call to action, but had thus far 
not been  able to agree on any solutions. Some incremental change was being pursued, and was 
happening, at the level of individual disputes. But, bringing about change in this way would be a 
slow and unpredictable process.  
9.3.  To foster a more -organic evolution of disp ute settlement practices in response to growing 
challenges and the changing environment, Members must find a systematic way to do more. 
Therefore, as announced at the June  2016 DSB meeting, at the present meeting, Canada was 
formally inviting willing Membe rs to join together in efforts to develop, document, and share new 
approaches designed to streamline, strengthen and improve the dispute settlement system. This 
invitation was set out in the document circulated as JOB/DSB/1, which contained a "Statement on  
a Mechanism for Developing, Documenting and Sharing Practices and Procedures in the Conduct of 
WTO Disputes". A companion document, circulated as JOB/DSB/1/Add.1, further set out a list of 
the 17  Members that had thus far endorsed this Statement, and in d oing so had endorsed this 
approach to experimenting with new ideas. These Members included: Australia, Canada, Colombia, 
Costa  Rica, the European  Union, Guatemala, Hong  Kong, China; Japan, Korea, New  Zealand, 
Norway, Singapore Switzerland, the Separate Cus toms Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and 
Matsu; Uruguay, Ukraine and Viet  Nam. As the title suggested, the circulation and endorsement of 
the Statement launched an informal Mechanism for the development, documentation and sharing 
of novel practices and  procedures. Specifically, at paragraph  6, the Statement invited Members to 
develop and circulate documents in at least three  different formats. First, agreements between 
Members that set out their intentions to follow certain practices and procedures in t heir future 
disputes. Second, bilateral agreements made in specific disputes that may serve as models for 
other Members. Third, sample, model or proposed practices and procedures for the purpose of 
provoking further discussion among the Membership.  
9.4.  As a fi rst instalment in the development of sharing practices using this Mechanism, several 
Members had already cooperated to circulate Practice Documents in four  areas. These included 
additional written notifications, the participation of third -parties in disput e proceedings, WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 12 - 
 
  transparency of dispute proceedings and streamlining and improving the panel process. These 
documents had been circulated as Addenda  2 through  5 of document JOB/DSB/1 that contained 
the original Statement. In addition to the four  Practice Do cuments that corresponded to the 
invitation specified in paragraph  6(a) of the Statement, Canada had separately circulated, in 
JOB/DSB/1/Add.6, an annotated example of a Sequencing Agreement, corresponding to the 
invitation specified in paragraph  6(b) of t he Statement. While this document had already been 
circulated in the document series of the dispute in which it had been agreed, circulating it again 
with background and annotations, provided for greater transparency of procedural issues that only 
got reso lved on an ad  hoc basis.  The four  Practice Documents set out the intention of the 
Members that endorsed them to act in the ways prescribed when they were in disputes with 
other endorsing Members. However, the specific issues set out in these four documents  were 
not the end of the process, far from it. They were intended to provide, at least in part, 
examples of the kinds of practices that could be developed through this Mechanism. They 
were also meant to be living documents themselves that could be updated as experience 
grew and new Members signed on. More importantly, Canada encouraged Members to 
consider and advance other ideas. The initial focus should perhaps be on ideas that would 
help address the pressing issue of workload and capacity constraints. But  Members should 
not discount even more ambitious and novel ideas for improvements, such as ex ante 
remand, post -retaliation procedures, procedures to simplify the fact -finding responsibilities of 
panels, and more complete elaborations of conciliation and m ediation procedures under 
Article  5 or arbitration procedures under Article  25. Ideas need not just be developed by 
Members that were frequently involved in disputes. Those who used the system less 
frequently, or not yet at all, could propose approaches th at might make it easier for them to 
have access to expedited proceedings that reflected the level of development or the value of 
trade at issue.  
9.5.  Canada wished to be clear, however, that efforts to develop practices under this 
Mechanism were not intended to  replace either the discussions in the DSB in Special Session 
on binding improvements to the DSU, or discussions in organizational meetings of specific 
disputes on other potential case -specific innovations. On the contrary, the discussions and 
experiences generated by this exercise complemented and would facilitate those other 
efforts. Canada also wished to emphasize that the Members that endorsed the Statement did 
not intend any resulting practices to diminish the rights of third parties, nor did they inte nd 
that such practices would affect in any way the interpretation of any provision of any covered 
agreement, including the DSU. This process of experimentation should be allowed to proceed 
without raising concern that it would affect the rights and obligat ions of non -endorsing and 
non-participating Members or, for that matter, the rights of endorsing Members in other 
areas. Any attempt to give these documents legal status and effect beyond what was 
intended by the endorsing Members only risked putting a chi ll on experimentation with new 
approaches. For the purposes of the present meeting, Canada invited other delegations that 
had not yet done so to endorse the Statement, and put their voice behind efforts to 
experiment with approaches that may foster more or ganic evolution of the dispute 
settlement system. Canada also encouraged those who could, to endorse one or more of 
the four  initial Practice Documents, either at the present meeting or in the near future. In 
the longer run, Canada hoped that delegations w ould use this Mechanism to develop and 
experiment with other creative and constructive ideas to improve the functioning of the 
system. Canada thanked all delegations it had worked with over the past year in 
developing this approach. Canada wished delegatio ns the best in engaging in this process 
of experimentation to make the already great WTO dispute settlement system even 
greater.  
9.6.  The representative of the European  Union  said that the EU thanked Canada for its efforts and 
supported this Member -driven initi ative. In part, this responded to the call by the WTO 
Director -General to Members to do more to address the workload issues. The EU agreed that 
additional practices and procedures exchanged via this mechanism could facilitate the resolution of 
disputes and  reduce the scope for procedural disagreements and delays. The EU was pleased to be 
a founding endorser of the Statement on a mechanism circulated as JOB/DSB/1. As was clear from 
the other documents, the EU also endorsed three practice documents circulated  under 
Paragraph  6(a) of the mechanism on the streamlining of procedures on transparency and 
third-party participation. That having been said, the EU wished to make it clear that it did not see 
this exercise as a substitute for the DSU negotiations. Rather , this exercise could generate 
practical experience with approaches that Members may choose to follow. As other endorsing WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Members, the EU would continue to engage in the DSB Special Session with a view to identifying 
and codifying improvements and clarific ations to the DSU.  
9.7.  The representative of Japan  said that his country thanked Canada for its efforts in 
coordinating Members to produce a mechanism for documenting and sharing practices and 
procedures in the conduct of WTO disputes. Japan endorsed the mecha nism as it would put 
together and accumulate good practices and procedures as a useful reference for all Members. 
Japan also endorsed a document for additional practices and procedures for written notifications 
along with the main document. Japan believed that the notifications set out in the document would 
improve information sharing about the status and progress of ongoing disputes. Japan 
acknowledged the initiative by Canada as a useful contribution to the improvement and the proper 
functioning of the WT O dispute settlement system. Japan reaffirmed its commitment to the 
advancement of the negotiations on the improvement and clarifications of the DSU.  
9.8.  The representative of Guatemala  said that his country thanked Canada for its initiative and 
its efforts, w hich had finally materialized in document JOB/DSB/1, containing the mechanism for 
developing, documenting and sharing practices and procedures in the conduct of WTO disputes. 
Guatemala noted that currently, there was a diverse and increasing number of non -documented 
practices. For those Members that were less experienced in the use of the dispute settlement 
system, this was a challenge, as there was no single place where those practices could be found. 
Guatemala had endorsed the mechanism precisely because it was convinced that it was important 
for the DSB to facilitate and encourage the development, documentation and sharing of practices 
and procedures, with a view to increasing the transparency, predictability and efficiency of the 
WTO dispute settlement s ystem. With this mechanism, Guatemala believed that Members would 
continue to engage in discussions of current practices or practices that they wished to see 
developed in the near future, based on their previous experiences. That would allow for the 
identi fication and/or creation of the best practices that could be found in document JOB/DSB/1 and 
its addenda. Considering the voluntary nature of this mechanism, and that any documented 
practice under such mechanism did not amend the DSU, it was important to r ecognize its 
limitations. Guatemala noted that there was no shortcut for the successful conclusion of the DSU 
negotiations and that Members also needed to work on this front. Guatemala encouraged those 
that had not yet endorsed the mechanism to do so as so on as possible.  
9.9.  The representative of Australia  said that her country was pleased to join Canada, together 
with a significant number of other WTO Members, in endorsing the joint "Statement on a 
Mechanism for Developing, Documenting and Sharing Practices an d Procedures in the Conduct of 
WTO Disputes". Australia thanked Canada for its initiative in guiding the development of this 
mechanism. In Australia's view, the proposed formal information sharing mechanism would 
promote transparency in the dispute settlem ent system and support the ongoing efforts of the 
WTO Secretariat to streamline dispute settlement processes. Australia hoped that, over time, the 
mechanism would facilitate improved common practices and procedures in WTO dispute 
settlement, leading to mor e predictable and harmonized dispute settlement practices, and reduce 
procedural delays and disagreements. All Members shared a responsibility to continue to work to 
support and improve the operation of the WTO dispute settlement system. With that in mind,  
Australia would further consider the individual practice documents that had been circulated by 
Canada under the Statement and looked forward to notifying its endorsement of these documents 
at future DSB meetings.  
9.10.   The representative of Switzerland  said tha t his country once again thanked Canada for its 
important and timely initiative and great work. The fact that Switzerland was not, at the present 
meeting, in a position to endorse the additional practices and procedures, but only the basic 
document, the St atement on a mechanism, did not mean or imply that Switzerland was in 
disagreement with the substance thereof. It was merely a reflection that Switzerland needed a bit 
more time to observe and evaluate how this mechanism would develop in practice. Switzerl and 
recommended and encouraged all Members to engage in this process without neglecting the 
important DSU negotiations.  
9.11.   The representative of Norway  said that her country thanked Canada for its efforts on this 
initiative, and for working with other Members  in developing this mechanism. Norway trusted that 
the mechanism would be a useful contribution in facing some of the current challenges of the WTO 
dispute settlement system. Norway was therefore pleased to endorse the Statement contained in 
document JOB/D SB/1. Furthermore, Norway was also of the view that the four practice documents WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 14 - 
 
  covered topics of importance. In that regard, Norway was for the time being in a position to 
endorse the documents concerning transparency and written notifications. Norway wou ld continue 
to assess the possibilities for also endorsing the other two practice documents, and looked forward 
to further discussions with Canada and other Members on this matter. Norway encouraged 
Members who had not yet already done so to endorse and us e this mechanism.  
9.12.   The representative of the United  States  said that his country thanked Canada for circulating 
the various documents and for being willing to work with Members. However, the United  States 
continued to have a number of questions about the St atement and accompanying documents. For 
instance, it was not clear to the United  States what the legal effect was, if any, of "endorsing" the 
Statement or the individual practice documents. As a result, the United  States was continuing to 
examine the State ment and individual practice documents. The United  States looked forward to 
continuing to discuss these matters with interested Members.  
9.13.   The representative of Singapore  said that his country welcomed and endorsed the 
"Statement on a Mechanism for Developin g, Documenting and Sharing Practices and Procedures in 
the Conduct of WTO Disputes ". Members were well aware of the importance of the dispute 
settlement system to the security and predictability of the multilateral trading system. However, 
the dispute sett lement system was currently under stress due to issues such as the increased 
number and complexity of disputes, and the lack of resources. While this mechanism would not 
necessarily resolve the issues, it would help by developing, documenting and sharing p ractices and 
procedures for WTO disputes. This would in turn facilitate the resolution of disputes, reduce the 
scope for procedural disagreements and delays, and generate practical experience. In Singapore's 
view, it was critical to highlight two key safeg uards in this mechanism which would allow for more 
Members to participate in the mechanism. First, it was clear that endorsement of the mechanism 
did not constitute endorsement of any documents, or acceptance of any of the terms of any 
documents, circulate d by other Members via this mechanism. Members that endorsed this 
mechanism would not be deemed to endorse any document circulated via this mechanism unless 
they did so expressly. Second, there was provision that endorsement of this mechanism and any 
docum ents circulated via this mechanism was without prejudice to any endorsing Member's views 
on the correct interpretation of, or the need for and merits of amendments to, the DSU, and this 
mechanism and the documents circulated via this mechanism were not int ended to affect in any 
way the interpretation of any provision of any covered agreement. Singapore looked forward to 
more Members participating in this mechanism. Singapore was of the view that this mechanism 
would provide all Members with more information  and could help the on -going discussions in the 
DSB Special Session. With more information flowing through this mechanism, there could be 
greater awareness and acceptance of certain practices. This could lead in the long run to possible 
codification of cer tain practices with the agreement of all Members. Singapore thanked Canada for 
its efforts on this initiative.  
9.14.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong  Kong, China thanked Canada for its 
efforts in circulating the document on the mechanism for  developing, documenting and sharing 
practices and procedures in the conduct of WTO disputes to the DSB (JOB/DSB/1). Hong  Kong, 
China was pleased to be one of the founding endorsers of the document, and it would examine and 
consider the additional practice  documents as circulated in due course. Nonetheless, her 
delegation was committed to contributing to the ongoing discussion in the DSB Special Session to 
improve and clarify the DSU.  
9.15.   The representative of Colombia  said that his country  welcomed the opportu nity to comment 
on this matter. Colombia considered that Canada's proposal was very important in preparing the 
ground for progress in the negotiations to improve and clarify the DSU. For the time being, 
Colombia supported only the creation and establishmen t of the mechanism. Nevertheless, 
Colombia was reviewing the documents on individual good practices that had also been proposed 
by Canada, in order for them to be codified under the recently created mechanism. Colombia 
considered that the establishment of this system for the codification of good practices would, in 
the future, allow for: (i) the establishment of a database of good practices in the WTO dispute 
settlement; and (ii) the establishment of a pilot system, which would enable the consolidation, in 
good faith, of developments in dispute settlement, similar to those achieved during the first years 
of the GATT. Colombia thanked Canada for the initiative.  
9.16.   The representative of Brazil  said that his country thanked Canada for all the work it had put 
into elaborating this initiative. Brazil could only welcome the efforts by all users of the dispute WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 15 - 
 
  settlement system to search for better practices and more streamlined and efficient procedures. 
Brazil would follow closely the operation of this mechanism and, in the future, may also participate 
in the sharing and documenting of some practices that may be helpful to the parties involved in 
disputes. In Brazil's view, the transparency provided by the mechanism was positive. He said that 
while sharing and document ing practices may prove useful when dealing with procedural hurdles 
faced by Members in disputes, Brazil would remain attentive to the aspect of "developing practices 
and procedures", included in the mechanism. It would be important to monitor how this ele ment 
would play out in the dispute settlement system in future. Brazil welcomed paragraphs  7 and  8 of 
the Statement on the mechanism, which invited Members to explain the notified practices and to 
discuss new practices in DSB meetings. These provisions wou ld contribute to enabling other 
Members to better understand alternative procedures being used by the parties to a dispute and 
would, at the same time, create an opportunity for monitoring new practices. Members may wish 
to reflect on the scope and effects  to be given to practices developed by just a few Members, and 
adopt safeguards so that they were not applied to others who had not supported them.  
9.17.   The representative of New Zealand  said that her country thanked Canada for its work in 
driving forward this initiative on documenting and sharing practices and procedures in the conduct 
of WTO disputes. New  Zealand agreed that the initiative would lead to enhanced transparency and 
information sharing, and as such, would have a positive influence on the developme nt of the 
dispute settlement system and was therefore in the interest of all Members. That was the reason 
why New  Zealand endorsed the joint Statement. New  Zealand hoped that the Statement would not 
be the end of the process, but would be a contribution to  responding to the real workload issues 
facing the dispute settlement system. But, it could not alone be the solution. Members needed to 
continue to participate in this mechanism and other initiatives that may come forward and to hope 
that the lessons lear ned through greater transparency of actual practice may assist Members in 
their broader efforts to take forward the DSU negotiations. New  Zealand, like the previous 
speakers, encouraged others to endorse and use the mechanism and thanked Canada, once again , 
for its efforts.  
9.18.   The representative of the Dominican  Republic  said that her country thanked Canada for its 
efforts. The Dominican  Republic supported the mechanism and would follow the discussions on the 
practices to be developed.  
9.19.   The representative of Chile said that her country welcomed Canada's efforts and 
commitment towards a mechanism for sharing practices. Chile would continue to follow up on the 
evolution of the mechanism in order to better understand its implications and effects. Chile hoped 
that t hese efforts would serve to support the work carried out in the Special Session of the DSB.  
9.20.   The representative of Korea  said that his country was pleased to endorse the Statement on 
a mechanism for developing and sharing practices. Korea thanked Canada for  its tireless efforts to 
improve the dispute settlement system and hoped that the sharing of experiences among 
Members, both good and bad, would facilitate greater efficiency, predictability and constructive 
cooperation in dispute settlement.  
9.21.   The represent ative of China  said that her country wished to refer to its statement made at 
the DSB meeting of 22  June 2016 regarding this matter. Given the importance of prompt and 
effective settlement of trade disputes, China welcomed some Members' efforts to share be st 
practices and procedures in the conduct of disputes. It was understood that the proposed 
mechanism was not agreed by the DSB, the WTO or all Members, but only by those voluntary 
participating Members. In order to avoid duplicating the proposals and work  in the DSB Special 
Session, China encouraged the endorsing Members of the Statement to carefully and appropriately 
define the scope of its application and share what was common in many disputes and what 
Members considered to be good practices. As clarifie d in paragraph  3 of the Statement 
(JOB/DSB/1), this Statement and any documents circulated via this mechanism was without 
prejudice to the interpretation of the DSU, and could not be taken into account in the proper 
interpretation of any provision of the D SU according to Articles  31 and  32 of the Vienna 
Convention on the Law of Treaties. It also meant that this Statement and any documents 
circulated via the mechanism did not add new obligations, nor detract from Members' existing 
obligations under the DSU.  
9.22.   The representative of El Salvador  said that her country welcomed the mechanism for the 
sharing of good practices contained in document JOB/DSB/1. In El  Salvador's view, the mechanism WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 16 - 
 
  was valuable. El  Salvador thanked the proponents for their efforts, and i n particular Canada. 
El Salvador believed that this was a good way forward in examining dispute settlement procedures 
and to making sure that the procedures were transparent, expeditious and reduced the workload. 
El Salvador was positively examining the do cuments and would continue to follow -up discussions 
on this matter with the aim of being in a position to fully support the mechanism in the future.  
9.23.   The representative of the Russian  Federation  said that his country thanked Canada for its 
presentation of a  mechanism for developing, documenting and sharing practices and procedures in 
the conduct of WTO disputes. Russia acknowledged that the mechanism was intended to provide 
an additional platform for improving the dispute settlement process. Russia recognize d the 
significance of such an opportunity and appreciated the discussions it had held with delegations on 
these documents. Russia would pay full attention to the implementation of this mechanism and the 
practices and procedures that would be developed, doc umented and shared by participating 
Members. At the same time, Russia wished to emphasize the importance of other ongoing efforts 
in improving dispute settlement procedures and practices, namely the ongoing work in the DSB 
Special Session. Russia believed that such efforts should in no way compromise each other, but 
should rather be complementary with a view to achieving consistent results that contributed to 
providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system.  
9.24.   The representative of India said that his country thanked Canada for its statement and 
submission of a Statement on a mechanism for developing, documenting and sharing practices and 
procedures in the conduct of WTO disputes. Considerable intellectual effort and time had evidently 
gone into this exercise and many Members had been involved in varying degrees at varying stages 
in discussing these issues amongst themselves. India had also been actively engaged in these 
informal deliberations. India's comments on the Statement and docum ents were in no way a 
reflection of its assessment of Canada's and other Members' efforts and contributions to this 
process. India believed that sharing, explaining and documenting experiences that were not 
inconsistent with the DSU would be useful to the Membership as a whole. This provided an 
opportunity for Members to discuss their experiences as well as approaches to different situations 
that might arise in the context of a particular dispute. This was especially useful for Members who 
had little experi ence or limited resources in dispute settlement. India was analysing the Statement 
and additional documents submitted by Canada and other Members and looked forward to hearing 
from other Members. India did not intend to discuss substance at the present mee ting. India 
agreed with Canada's assessment about the importance of the dispute settlement system and the 
need for improvement. Canada had referred to delays and workload. However, India noted that 
the additional documents referred to issues that may have no bearing on the workload issue and 
necessitated a close assessment. It was important to bear in mind that an exercise that could 
enhance acceptance of a wide Membership should ideally be a platform for information sharing and 
capacity building and not ne cessarily a pre -judging of eventual codification of practices and 
procedures, presently followed by a few Members. A practice and procedure followed by a few 
Members in some disputes should not be elevated to the level of codified rules that the entire 
Membership must follow as a fait accompli  due to overwhelming endorsement. However, knowing 
them and discussing them in the spirit of understanding them and eventually using them in a 
particular dispute without a binding obligation to do so would be a more nu anced and pragmatic 
option.  
9.25.   India's initial assessment of the documents circulated at the present meeting was that many 
of these practices did not address the delay or workload issues. Some may also create more 
burden on the dispute settlement system rathe r than addressing it. Some were indeed 
controversial and Members had different views on them. While sharing of practices and models 
was useful in understanding the considerable experience and practice that had accumulated in the 
operation of the dispute se ttlement system, one must acknowledge that they should not replace 
the process of improving and clarifying the DSU. Improving and clarifying the DSU was an 
important task that India hoped Members would continue to pursue in the DSB Special Session in 
order  to address issues of access, compliance and capacity. Members must be wary of repeating or 
transporting issues that had been discussed for a long time in the DSB Special Session into this 
process of sharing experiences where the same concerns would inevit ably arise. Members may, 
based on their assessment and the context of a dispute, decide to engage with the shared 
practices. India looked forward to engaging positively in this information exchange exercise with 
the belief that this was not a norm setting or codification exercise, affecting the rights and 
obligations of Members under the DSU. India noted that a more non -formal process of exchange of 
practices would have perhaps achieved greater acceptance amongst Members.  WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 17 - 
 
  9.26.   The representative of Argentina  said that his country thanked Canada for its efforts. 
Argentina was in the process of examining the practical and legal implications of these documents 
and would closely follow any further developments in this regard.  
9.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
10  PROP OSED NOMINATION FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND NON-
GOVERNMENTAL PANELIS TS (WT/DSB/W/572)  
10.1.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/572, which contained one additional 
name proposed by the European  Union (Denmark) for inclusion on the In dicative List of 
Governmental and Non -Governmental Panelists, in accordance with Article  8.4 of the DSU. He 
proposed that the DSB approve the name contained in document WT/DSB/W/572.  
10.2.   The DSB so agreed . 
11  APPELLATE BODY MATTE RS 
11.1.   The Chairman  recalled that, on 11 July 2016, he had circulated a fax regarding the 
Appellate Body matters. He then read out the following text for the record: "Members are aware 
that I have been consulting on current Appellate Body matters. Based on these consultations, it 
appears to me  that Members are ready to pursue work on these matters based on the following 
understandings: First, beginning in September  2016, I will convene Dedicated Sessions for a 
focused discussion by Members on any issue that has been raised in respect of Appella te Body 
reappointments, including whether we wish to modify the rules governing reappointments. I wish 
to be clear that the purpose of these Dedicated Sessions is to discuss issues relating to  
reappointment only,  with particular attention paid to assuring the independence and impartiality of 
the Appellate Body, and not to discuss any other issues including those raised in the DSU 
negotiations. I expect and encourage all Members to fully and actively engage in these Dedicated 
Sessions with a sense of urgency  so as to reach an agreement on this matter at the earliest 
moment  with a view to making recommendations to the DSB . Second, Members will adopt a 
decision in respect of the 2016  Appellate Body selection process at our next DSB meeting 
scheduled for 21  July 2016. That decision will contain five elements: (i) To launch a selection 
process to fill the vacancy left by the non -reappointment of one Appellate Body member; (ii) To 
invite Members to nominate candidates to fill that vacancy and to set a deadline of 
14 September  2016 by 6  pm for Members' nominations; (iii) To agree that, should any of the 
candidates nominated for the 2016  process initiated by the DSB at its meeting on 25  January  2016 
(WT/DSB/70) wish to participate in this selection process, the Member  who nominated the 
candidate shall inform the Selection Committee of the candidate's intention to participate by the 
deadline stated in paragraph (ii), and that such candidate will not need to be interviewed by the 
Selection Committee for a second time; (i v) To agree that the 2016  Selection Committee should 
also carry out this new selection process; and (v) To request the Selection Committee to carry out 
its work, including conducting interviews of any new candidates and hearing the views of 
delegations on all candidates during the month of October in order to make recommendations to 
the DSB as soon as possible so that the DSB can take a decision to appoint the new Appellate 
Body member at the latest by its regular meeting in November  2016". 
11.2.   He said that all  delegations were familiar with the approach being proposed in the fax, but 
he wished to clarify one point. The new selection process, concerning the non -reappointment of 
one Appellate Body member, was indeed separate from the selection process initiated i n 
January  2016 to replace Ms.  Zhang. He hoped that the Selection Committee would be in a position 
to make recommendations to fill both vacancies no later than November  2016. He trusted that this 
approach was now agreeable to all delegations.  
11.3.   The DSB so agreed. 
11.4.   The representative of Chinese  Taipei  said that Chinese  Taipei wished to make a few 
comments on the new selection process adopted at the present meeting. Chinese  Taipei 
understood that the current selection process for the vacant position left by Ms . Zhang was not yet 
completed. Therefore, allowing the current candidates to join the new selection process may 
create some uncertainty for the new process and the candidates themselves. Chinese  Taipei urged WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 18 - 
 
  the Selection Committee to speed up the current pro cess and make the recommendation as soon 
as possible. In the meantime, Chinese  Taipei was concerned that putting the current unselected 
candidates into the new selection pool may undermine the credibility of the candidates and the 
Appellate Body. However, Chinese  Taipei understood that it was a practical and efficient way to 
resolve the problem of vacancy.  
11.5.   The representative of Korea  said that, over the past few months, his country had witnessed 
the Membership come around a common purpose like never before.  Virtually the entire dispute 
settlement community, the overwhelming majority of Members, the academia, the press, sitting 
members of the Appellate Body, every former member of the Appellate Body, was united in 
delivering a clear message that ousting an Ap pellate Body member for allegedly suspect decisions 
made on the bench would shake the bedrock of the dispute settlement system. There was a 
palpable and shared sense of urgency that too much was at stake for Members to simply sweep 
this matter under the ru g and carry on. More recently, Members had been facing growing pressure 
to take into account the short -term convenience of the Appellate Body. For the record, Korea 
firmly believed that maintaining focus on preserving the long -term integrity and independen ce of 
the institution was paramount. But Korea had decided not to ignore the utilitarian demands by 
some Members for the practical approach. At the present meeting, Korea would not object to the 
launching of a selection process to fill the vacancy left by the non -reappointment of Professor  
Chang. Korea believed that the WTO deserved, at a minimum, an earnest effort from its Members 
to mend and improve the reappointment process whose pitfalls had now been plainly laid bare. 
The recent approach must not be al lowed to become the gold standard for how a Member settled 
its grievances with the Appellate Body. Korea's fear was that the dispute settlement system would 
not be able to withstand another political decision of this kind packaged in legal reasoning. If wh at 
had happened could not be undone, Korea hoped that Members would convert this unfortunate 
event into a rare but singular opportunity to foster positive change. It was in this spirit that Korea 
welcomed the Dedicated Sessions to discuss issues relating t o reappointment. Korea urged all 
Members, including those that were the most frequent users of the system and thus its main 
beneficiaries, to participate in the discussions with a deep sense of ownership. Korea's decision not 
to object to the launching of the selection process reflected its trust that these Dedicated Sessions, 
which should begin in September, would produce constructive results, particularly given the wide 
support among the Membership to review the reappointment process. Korea took the oppor tunity 
to extend its profound gratitude to Members and individuals who had recognized the crucial 
significance of this moment in the development of the dispute settlement system, and had 
responded in kind by lending Korea their support and guidance.  
11.6.   The re presentative of the European  Union  said that the EU thanked the Chairman for his 
efforts in exploring the way forward following the non - reappointment of Professor Chang. The EU 
had supported the reappointment of Professor Chang and remained seriously conc erned about his 
non-reappointment. The EU referred to its statements made at previous DSB meetings regarding 
this matter. That being said, in the EU's view, the Appellate Body should be fully operational as 
soon as possible. The EU, therefore, supported th e launching of a new selection process under the 
terms stipulated in the Chairman's fax, which had been circulated on 11 July 2016. As the EU had  
explained at previous meetings, it was its view that the non -reappointment of Professor Chang 
also had systemi c implications, and it was of utmost importance that a systemic solution be found. 
Therefore, the EU supported the Chairman's initiative to convene Dedicated Sessions on this 
matter. The EU agreed that it was useful to focus the discussions on issues relat ing to 
reappointment, with particular attention paid to assuring the independence and impartiality of the 
Appellate Body and its members. The EU called on all Members to participate constructively in 
those discussions.  
11.7.   The representative of Mexico  said tha t his country thanked the Chairman for his statement. 
Mexico welcomed the fax circulated on 11  July 2016, which indicated that a Dedicated Session 
would be held in September to discuss the issue of reappointment of Appellate Body members, 
with a particular  focus on the independence and impartiality of the Appellate Body. Without 
prejudice to possible solutions, Members had already expressed several ideas such as establishing 
rules for the renewal of terms of appointment or introducing a longer non -renewable  term of office 
(WT/DSB/W/117). Mexico reaffirmed its commitment to working together under the Chairman's 
leadership, and hoped that all Members would engage in these efforts, and that an outcome would 
be reached this year in order to resolve the systemic issues in question.  WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 19 - 
 
  11.8.   The representative of the United  States  said that his country thanked the Chairman for his 
work in outlining a process for the DSB to move forward to fill two vacancies in the Appellate Body. 
The United  States looked forward to a prompt  conclusion of that process. The appointment process 
was critical to ensure that Appellate Body reports were focused and of high quality, thereby 
strengthening Members' confidence in the dispute settlement system. The United  States also 
looked forward to e ngaging with all Members on how to reinforce the aim and proper adjudicative 
approach of the dispute settlement system.  
11.9.   The representative of Guatemala  said that his country appreciated the Chairman's 
consultations and ongoing efforts regarding the issues that had been raised in respect of Appellate 
Body reappointments. Guatemala was ready to engage actively and constructively in the Dedicated 
Sessions of the DSB that the Chairman intended to convene to discuss Appellate Body matters. 
Guatemala noted that t he Chairman had, in his fax of 11  July 2016, explicitly indicated that "the 
purpose of these Dedicated Sessions is to discuss issues relating to reappointment only, with 
particular attention paid to assuring the independence and impartiality of the Appella te Body, and 
not to discuss any other issues including those raised in the DSU negotiations". Guatemala agreed 
that Appellate Body matters should be discussed separately from other issues, including those 
raised in the DSU negotiations. There was a need fo r an urgent solution to a problem that put in 
jeopardy the well -functioning dispute settlement system. Therefore, Members could not afford to 
have a solution to Appellate Body matters until they reached an agreement in the context of the 
DSU negotiations. However, Guatemala understood that by making an explicit reference to the 
issue of "reappointments", the Chairman was not precluding Members from discussing issues 
related to reappointments, for example, the rules governing appointments, the Appellate Body  
composition or the length of the term to serve as an Appellate Body member. In Guatemala's 
view, Members should have, at the very least, the opportunity to discuss these issues openly 
without prejudging the final recommendation to be made to the DSB.  
11.10.   The representative of Singapore  said that his country welcomed the dedicated sessions for 
a focused discussion by Members on the issue of Appellate Body reappointments and the new 
selection process to fill the vacancy of one Appellate Body member. Singapore wa s pleased that a 
path forward had been found through dialogue and discussions amongst Members. Singapore 
looked forward to engaging actively in the Dedicated Sessions on the issue of Appellate Body 
reappointments. Singapore also noted the new selection pro cess and the time -lines set out in the 
decision. Time was of the essence as there were currently two vacancies in the Appellate Body and 
the workload of the Appellate Body was expected to increase significantly in the latter part of that 
year and the follo wing year. Members should decide on the appointment of two Appellate Body 
members by the November  2016 DSB meeting so that the Appellate Body would have a full 
membership to tackle the upcoming appeals. Singapore thanked the Chairman for his efforts in 
finding a solution to this matter.  
11.11.   The representative of Brazil  said that his country thanked the Chairman for his update and 
for both the selection process for the new vacancy at the Appellate Body and of the dedicated 
sessions on issues relating to reappoin tment. At the previous DSB meeting, Brazil had recalled that 
WTO Members were faced with two equally important issues: (i) the current situation of the 
Appellate Body with only five  members; and (ii) a systemic preoccupation with the fundamental 
tenets tha t upheld the Appellate Body, namely its impartiality and independence. Brazil had also 
shared its conviction that Members would know how to resist the temptation to allow the negative 
systemic implications of the current events simply to fade away, by focu sing only on the need to 
fill the vacancies left open in the Appellate Body. The Chairman's process managed, on paper at 
least, to convey a sense of balance and urgency with respect to both issues. It was in the interests 
of all Members to not only select the best possible candidates to the two vacancies; but to also 
engage in the Dedicated Session with focus and good faith. This would allow the selected 
candidates to discharge their functions in an environment that was free from interference and was 
respec tful of their independence. These were sine qua non conditions for any institutional body 
that was tasked with preserving and clarifying Members' rights and obligations under the covered 
agreements. Brazil was certain that all Members agreed that the Appel late Body, to properly serve 
its purpose, must be 100% independent. It could not be one -third independent or two -thirds 
independent. An independent Appellate Body was clearly in the interest of all Members. Brazil 
found it unfortunate that the reappointmen t of one sitting Appellate Body member was blocked on 
grounds of how some disputes had been decided. This was contrary to the notion of independence. 
Brazil hoped that Members would know how to remedy this situation in the Dedicated Sessions, so 
as to rest ore the full integrity of the Appellate Body. Several ideas on how to tackle the root WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 20 - 
 
  causes of the recent developments concerning reappointment had already been suggested by 
several Members, such as having a single mandate or having specific rules, for re appointment. 
With regard to the scope of the work of the Appellate Body, Brazil believed that the DSU, in 
particular Articles  3 and  17 already set the limits of the dispute settlement mechanism. Brazil 
hoped that Members could start discussing these and ot her suggestions in September, so that they 
could reach an agreement and make a recommendation to the DSB at the earliest possible 
moment.  
11.12.   The representative of the Russian  Federation  said that his country strongly believed that 
the independence and imparti ality of the Appellate Body members was a guarantee of the proper 
functioning of the dispute settlement system. Russia welcomed Dedicated Sessions as a way for 
Members to reach an agreement on the issues relating to Appellate Body reappointments. Russia 
believed that Members could use this momentum in a constructive manner to reach concrete 
results that would help in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. 
Russia thanked the Chairman for providing information on further ste ps in the selection process. 
Russia would welcome greater transparency and consistency of the process in order to secure the 
effective participation of Members as well as the independence and impartiality of the candidates 
and their equal opportunity to co mpete. Russia emphasized that the task of addressing the issues 
relating to Appellate Body reappointments should in no way be viewed as less important for the 
entire Membership than the task of filling the Appellate Body vacancies.  
11.13.   The representative of China said that her country thanked the Chairman for his 
consultations on the Appellate Body matters, and welcomed the Chairman's fax circulated on 
11 July 2016. China would actively engage in the focused discussion regarding reappointments of 
Appellate Body  members in the context of the Dedicated Sessions of the DSB. China agreed with 
the decision adopted by the DSB at the present meeting in respect of the 2016  Appellate Body 
selection process. China hoped that both processes would proceed well and be succes sful in order 
to ensure the well -functioning of the Appellate Body and the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.  
11.14.   The representative of India said that his country welcomed the Chairman's announcement 
of Dedicated Sessions for a focused discussion by Members wi th respect to Appellate Body 
reappointments. That discussion was extremely critical in the context of the need to ensure the 
independence and impartiality of the Appellate Body. It was evident, and had to be recalled, that 
many Members had raised serious s ystemic concerns about the independence and impartiality of 
the Appellate Body being severely jeopardized due to the recent non -reappointment of Mr. Chang. 
Several suggestions had been made in the past to address this issue. There was need to focus on 
the issue at hand and address it directly. India looked forward to the entire Membership actively 
and constructively engaging in September with a sense of urgency so as to reach an agreement on 
this critical issue of systemic importance, not only for the dispu te settlement system, but for the 
WTO as a whole, in order to ensure the independence and impartiality of the Appellate Body. As 
regards filling the vacancy, India urged the Selection Committee to undertake the task assigned 
and make recommendations to the  DSB. 
11.15.   The representative of Chile said that her country welcomed the Chairman's proposal 
on Appellate  Body matters. First, Chile believed that the proposed process was essential in order 
to fill the new vacancy in the Appellate Body, which was supported by  Chile. This  process should 
be implemented while keeping in mind the first selection process. Given the imperative need for 
action and the delays exp erienced in the system, both vacancies should be addressed with the 
same level of urgency. Second, as it ha d pointed out at the previous DSB mee ting, Chile believed 
that holding a Dedicated Session on reappointments in the  Appellate Body was an effective way of 
leading discussions on an issue which had generated diverse reactions among Members. Chile 
considered  that it would be a useful and necessary exercise for finding consensus; while e nsuring 
the proper conduct of the system and disputes. Chile hoped that Members could move forward in a 
pragmatic manner with regard to discussions on the Appellate Body matter s. 
11.16.   The representative of Australia  said that her country welcomed the forward work plan set 
out by the Chairman to address the current issues regarding appointments to the Appellate Body. 
In particular, Australia supported the proposal to commence a proces s for filling the vacancy left 
by the non -reappointment of one Appellate Body member. As Australia had stated previously, 
restoring the full complement of seven  Appellate Body members was essential for the efficient and 
effective functioning of the Appella te Body. Filling each of the current vacancies must be one of the 
DSB's highest priorities. Australia remained committed to working with other Members to consider WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 21 - 
 
  issues raised in respect of Appellate Body reappointments and looked forward to engaging in t he 
proposed process.  
11.17.   The representative of Norway  said that her country thanked the Chairman for his efforts in 
addressing current Appellate Body matters. Norway fully supported the Chairman's suggestions for 
the way forward and looked forward to working w ith the Chairman and other Members to address 
the situation.  
11.18.   The representative of Oman  said that his country thanked the Chairman for his efforts in 
this matter and welcomed his initiative to hold Dedicated Sessions on matters related to Appellate 
Body ap pointments in September. Oman stood ready to engage actively in that process.  
11.19.   The representative of Colombia  said that her country noted the fax circulated on 
11 July 2016 containing the Chairman's proposal for action regarding the Appellate Body matters. 
Like the previous speakers, Colombia was pleased that the Chairman had made reference to 
Dedicated Sessions that would be held to discuss the reappointment of Appellate Body members, 
with a particular focus to ensuring the independence and impartiality of the Appellate Body. 
Colombia trusted that the process led by the Chairman would allow for: (i) the resolution to the 
impasse created by the non -reappointment of one Appellate Body members; and (ii) the selection 
of two candidates to be appointed to the App ellate Body, which would ultimately benefit Members, 
as they would have a fully composed Appellate Body to address the dispute settlement workload. 
Colombia reiterated its intention to actively and constructively participate in this process in order 
to res olve the issues currently faced by the Appellate Body.  
11.20.   The representative of Japan  said that his country thanked the Chairman for his efforts in 
putting forward the proposal. Japan expected the decision taken at the present meeting to 
facilitate the fillin g of the current vacancies of the Appellate Body by no later than November  2016, 
given the expected high workload of the Appellate Body. In addition, Japan looked forward to 
engaging with other Members in the Dedicated Sessions to discuss the reappointment  issue, as 
proposed by the Chairman.  
11.21.   The representative of Turkey  said that his country welcomed the Chairman's suggestion 
regarding the convening of Dedicated Sessions on the matter of reappointments of Appellate Body 
members in September. Turkey looked f orward to participating in the discussions so as to find a 
permanent solution to ensuring the independence and impartiality of the Appellate Body.  
11.22.   The representative of New Zealand  said that her country thanked the Chairman for his 
work and for putting for ward a pathway to resolve the many important issues before Members in 
relation to the current vacancies. New  Zealand supported the process put forward in the 
Chairman's fax and would engage accordingly. New  Zealand hoped that Members would be 
pragmatic and  allow both vacancies to be resolved as soon as possible to ensure that the Appellate 
Body had the necessary resources to carry out its work.  
11.23.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
12  DISPUTE SETTLEMENT W ORKLOAD  
A. Statement by the Chairman  
12.1.   The Chairman , speaki ng under "Other Business", said that he wished to provide information 
about the Appellate Body's workload, the number of disputes before panels, in the panel queue, 
and at the panel composition stage, and the ability of the Secretariat to meet expected dem and 
over the coming period. On appeals, the Appellate Body was currently dealing with three  appeals.2 
In addition, four  panel reports were expected to be circulated in the next three  months that may 
also be appealed3, including the report of the Panel in t he extremely complex compliance 
proceedings in the "EC and certain member  States – Large Civil Aircraft" (Airbus) dispute. Given 
the limited number of staff available in the Appellate Body Secretariat, there was soon likely to be 
                                                
2"India – Solar Cells" (DS456); "U S – Washing Machines" (DS464); and  "EU – Biodiesel" ( DS473) .  
3"EC and cert ain member States – Large Civil Aircraft" (DS316); "R ussia – Pigs" (DS475); "Russia – 
Tariff Treatment" (DS485); and " US – Anti-dumping Methodologies" (China, DS471 ). WT/DSB/M/383  
 
- 22 - 
 
  a waiting period before ap peals could be staffed and Appellate Body Members could turn to dealing 
with them. On panels/arbitrations, currently, there were 19  active panels (including three  panels 
under Article  21.5 of the DSU) that had not yet issued a final report to the parties. He noted that 
he was counting multiple disputes that were being considered simultaneously by the same panel 
as one. As of the present day, there were two composed panels awaiting staff to assist them4, 
which were composed after 31  October  2015 when the Dir ector-General had undertaken to staff all 
panels in the queue at that time. As of the present day, there were eight panels at the composition 
stage. In addition, two  matters had been referred to arbitration under Article  22.6 of the DSU.  
12.2.   The DSB took note  of the statement.  
__________  
                                                
4 "EU – Biodiesel" (Indonesia, DS480);  "China – Broiler Products " (Article 21.5 – United  States , DS427 ).