WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/DSB/M/318 
27 August 2012  
 
(12-4625) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
25 June 2012  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard 
on 25 June 2012 
 
Chairman:  Mr. Shahid Bashir (Pakistan) 
 
  Prior to the adoption of the Agenda, the Chairm an informed delegations that the United States 
had requested, by letter addressed to the Chair, that  item 4 of the proposed Agenda entitled: "China – 
Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products:  Statemen t by the United States on Implementation of the 
Recommendations Adopted by the DSB" be removed from the proposed Agenda.  Therefore, he said 
that, in light of the US request, item 4 was withdrawn from the proposed Agenda.   
 
 The representative of the United States said th at his country thanked the Chairman for the 
statement.  The United States said that it would like to confirm that it had, through a letter earlier that 
day, withdrawn item 4 from the proposed Agenda in  light of bilateral communications between the 
United States and China, and without prejudice to  any systemic views regarding status reports. 
 
 The Agenda was adopted as amended. 
 
 Subjects discussed: Page 
 
1.  Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB ......................... 2  
(a)  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States ............................................................................................................. ............ 2 
(b)  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by the Unite d States ................................................................................... 6 
(c)  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by 
the United States ............................................................................................................. ............ 6 
(d)  European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products:  Status report by the European Union ......................................................................... 7  
(e)  United States – Anti-dumping administrative reviews and other measures related to 
imports of certain orange juice from Brazil:  Status report by the United States ....................... 8  
(f)  United States – Definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties on certain products 
from China:  Status report by the United States .......................................................................... 8  
(g)  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines:  Status 
report by Thailand ............................................................................................................ ........... 9 
(h)  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam:  Status 
report by the United States ................................................................................................... ..... 10 WT/DSB/M/318 
Page 2  
 
2.  United States – Measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of 
tuna and tuna products ........................................................................................................ .. 10 
(a)  Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB ............................................................... 10  
3.  United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB .......................................... 11  
(a)  Statements by the European Union and Japan .......................................................................... 11  
4.  India – Measures concerning the importatio n of certain agricultural products ............... 12  
(a)  Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States ................................................. 12  
5.  Report on the progress of the Digital DS Registry initiative ............................................... 13  
6.  Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and 
non-governmental panelists ................................................................................................... 20 
 
 1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.115) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.115) 
 (c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.90) 
 (d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of  biotech products:  
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.53) 
 
(e) United States – Anti-dumping administrative revi ews and other measures related to imports of 
certain orange juice from Brazil:  Status report by the United States (WT/DS382/10/Add.6) 
 (f) United States – Definitive anti-dumping a nd countervailing duties on certain products from 
China:  Status report by the United States (WT/DS379/12/Add.5) 
 
(g) Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures on ciga rettes from the Philippines:  Status report by 
Thailand (WT/DS371/15/Add.2) 
 (h) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.1) 
 
 1. The Chairman recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that unless the DSB decided 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the re commendations or rulings shall be placed on the 
Agenda of the DSB meeting after six months follo wing the date of establis hment of the reasonable 
period of time and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda  until the issue was resolved.  He proposed that 
the eight sub-items under Agenda item 1 be considered separately.  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.115) 
2. The Chairman drew attention to document  WT/DS176/11/Add.115, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US Section 211 Om nibus Appropriations Act of 1998.  WT/DSB/M/318 
 Page 3 
 
 
  3. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 14 June 2012, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  Legislative proposals had 
been introduced in the current 112th Congress to im plement the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB.  The US Administration would continue to work on solutions to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
4. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
most recent status report.  The EU hoped that the US authorities would very soon take steps towards 
implementing the DSB's ruling and resolve this matter. 
5. The representative of Brazil said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report, but noted that, once again, the United States reported lack of progress on this issue.  Brazil 
remained concerned about this situation of non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and 
urged the United States to bring its measures into conformity with WTO rules.  
6. The representative of Cuba said that recen t events in the United States concerning 
Section 211 were not encouraging and only confirme d the US violation and non-compliance with the 
DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute.  In light of the short status report (115th report) 
submitted by the United States, Cuba felt obliged to  inform the DSB of the most recent action taken 
by the United States.  That action, instead of  ensuring compliance with the DSB's rulings, only 
strengthened Section 211.  More than ten year s ago, the DSB had ruled that Section 211 was 
inconsistent with the TRIPS Agre ement and the Paris Convention.  On 14 May 2012, the US Supreme 
Court had refused the CUBAEXPORT company the possi bility of reviewing previous court rulings in 
favour of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (O FAC) of the Department of the Treasury, which in 
2006 had refused CUBAEXPORT a licence to renew th e registration of the prestigious Havana Club 
trademark with the US Patent and Trademark Offi ce (USPTO).  Cuba noted that until the introduction 
of Section 211 in 1998, this trademark had been renewed in 1986 and 1996 without any problem.  The 
refusal to grant CUBAEXPORT th is licence resulted from the unfair application of Section 211, as it 
was based on Executive Branch provisions (Title 31, Pa rt 515, of the Code of Federal Regulations) 
that had been amended in 1999 on the basis of Section 211.  Moreover, Section 211 served the 
interests of the Miami-based anti-Cuba faction and its allies in the US Congress, which received considerable financial contributions from the Bacardi  company in return for ensuring that no changes 
were made to the legislation that protected the ab errant actions aimed at usurping the trademark and 
markets of this genuinely Cuban rum.   
7. Since 1995, CUBAEXPORT, together with the French company Pernod Ricard, distributor of 
Havana Club rum, had defended its right to register  the renowned trademark.  Its actions had been 
supported by the WTO panel, which had ruled agains t the United States.  However, the US Congress' 
commitment to magnates and politicians was stronge r than its responsibility to implement the DSB's 
decisions and meet its commitments to the internatio nal community and the WTO.  Cuba reiterated its 
determination to continue to condemn, in each of the relevant WTO bodies and in the forums it 
considered appropriate, the unjustifiable arbitrarin ess of the United States.  The United States was 
entirely responsible for the violations against Cuba n patents and trademarks and, in particular, for 
legalizing the theft of the Havana Club trademark in the United States.  Despite the negative US 
attitude and in accordance with the primacy given to the full respect for the rule of law, Cuba 
respected, without any discrimination, its obligations  under international legal instruments relating to 
industrial property.  This meant that more than 5, 000 US trademarks and pa tents had benefited, and 
continued to benefit, from their registration in Cuba .  Therefore, Cuba would continue to assert its 
sovereign rights and attributes, and it would continue to request the United States to fulfil its legal and 
moral duty to repeal Section 211 immediately.  Furthermore, Cuba requested the United States to 
grant, without further delay, the licence allo wing CUBAEXPORT to renew the Havana Club 
trademark.  The United States should understand th at neither its economic, financial and commercial 
blockade against Cuba, nor the aberrations of its  foreign policy towards C uba, constituted extenuating WT/DSB/M/318 
Page 4  
 
circumstances or justified its violation of WTO ru les.  The US policy against Cuba could not be 
considered to be an excuse for di srespect of the system of rules that other Members made an effort to 
honour.  It was time to put an end to the dema gogic claim that the issue was being examined by 
Congress. 
8. The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that his country had, once again, 
heard the status report by the United States whic h did not report on any progress.  Throughout the 
years, Bolivia noted the lack of political will on the part of the United States to resolve this dispute.  
Bolivia, therefore, reiterated its concern about the US non-compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations.  This situation of non-complian ce undermined the credibility and integrity of the 
multilateral trading system, and caused serious ha rm to a developing-country Member.  Some 
delegations had stated that Cuba could initiate a new dispute on this  matter, but this would involve 
high costs and would result in the same ruling.  On ce again, Bolivia urged the United States to comply 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings and to  repeal Section 211, as stated by Cuba in its 
statement made at the present meeting.  
9. The representative of Angola said that her count ry thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Once again, Angola regretted that no conc rete progress had been made in the implementation 
of the DSB's decision and the Appellate Body's conc lusion of 12 February 2002, which had found that 
Section 211 was inconsistent with  WTO rules and principles.  A ngola hoped that concrete actions 
would be undertaken to resolve this matter and send a positive signal of respect for WTO rules.   
10. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that her country wished to 
reiterate what it had stated in many previous DSB meetings.  Ten years had passed since the DSB had 
ruled on the inconsistency of Section 211 with Ar ticle 42 of the TRIPS Agreement and the principles 
of national treatment and most-favoured-nation treatme nt.  However, Section 211 remained in force.  
This undermined the dispute settlement system, which was considered to be one of the main 
achievements of the Uruguay Round.  Venezuela welc omed the US status report but regretted, once 
again, that the report contained the same info rmation as the previous reports.  Venezuela was 
concerned about the US failure to comply with the Appellate Body's ruling.  Venezuela fully 
supported Cuba's statement made at the present mee ting.  As it had already done on numerous 
occasions, Venezuela urged the United States to end its policy of economic, commercial and financial 
blockade against Cuba and to meet its obliga tion to comply with the DSB's recommendations. 
11. The representative of Ecuador said that his c ountry supported the statement made by Cuba.  
Ecuador noted that Article 21 of the DSU re ferred to prompt compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings, in particular since th e interests of a developing-country Member were 
affected.  Ecuador hoped that the United States woul d step up its efforts in order to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings  by repealing Section 211. 
12. The representative of China said that his country thanked the United States for its status report 
and the statement made at the present meeting.  The prolonged situation of non-compliance in this 
dispute was highly incompatible with the prompt  and effective implementation required under the 
DSU provisions, in particular when the interests of a developing-country Member were affected.  
China urged the United States to implement the DS B's rulings and recommendations without further 
delay. 
13. The representative of Nicaragua said that, as her country had done on numerous occasions, 
Nicaragua remained concerned about the US failu re to comply with Article 42 of the TRIPS 
Agreement.  Nicaragua noted that ten years had p assed since the DSB had ruled that Section 211 was 
inconsistent with WTO rules and principles.  Howe ver, the United States had yet to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Once again, Nicaragua emphasized that delay in complying with the DSB's decisions in this case undermined  the credibility of the DSB and the multilateral 
trading system and could set a precedent affecting ot her Members, in particular developing countries.   WT/DSB/M/318 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Nicaragua supported the statement made by Cuba  and urged the United States to respect its 
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and to find a prompt and satisfactory solution to this dispute. 
14. The representative of Viet Nam said that his co untry thanked the United States for its status 
report and the statement made at the present meeti ng.  Once again, Viet Nam was concerned about the 
lack of progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings pertaining to this 
dispute.  Thus, Viet Nam urged the United States to promptly comply with the DSB's 
recommendations.  
15. The representative of Argentina said that his c ountry thanked the United States for its status 
report.  However, Argentina regretted that that status report was similar to the previous reports 
submitted by the United States over the past ten year s.  As Argentina had mentioned at previous 
meetings, when Members with greater economic weight  failed to comply with the DSB's rulings, this 
put into question the credibility of the multilateral trad ing system.  A Member's failure to comply with 
the DSB's rulings affected trade interests of other Members and demonstrated the DSB's inability to rectify situations where measures were found to be inconsistent with WTO rules to the detriment of 
developing countries.  Argentina supported the stat ements made by Cuba and other delegations, and 
urged the parties to this dispute, in particular the United States, to do their upmost so that this item 
could finally be removed from the DSB's Agenda. 
16. The representative of the Dominican Republic said that her country thanked the United States 
for its status report on implementation of th e DSB's rulings and recommendations regarding 
Section 211, which was inconsistent with Article  42 of the TRIPS Agreement.  The Dominican 
Republic urged the United States to step up its inte rnal procedures so as to comply with the DSB's 
decision.  The long period of time that had p assed with no implementation undermined the WTO's 
credibility.    
17. The representative of the United States said that his country thanked the EU for its comments, 
and would of course relay these to capital.  With respect to the other comments, the United States 
believed that they contained a number of inaccuracies that it would like to address.  In response to the 
comments about "systemic" concerns about the disp ute settlement system, the facts simply did not 
support Members' assertions or justify such syst emic concerns.  The United States had come into 
compliance, fully and promptly, in  the vast majority of its dis putes.  As for the remaining few 
instances where US efforts to do so had not yet b een entirely successful, the United States had been 
working actively towards compliance, such as in this dispute.  As had been noted at several past 
meetings and again at the present meeting, several  legislative proposals had been introduced in the 
current Congress:  in the Senate, S.603;  in the House of Representatives, H.R. 1166, H.R. 255, 
H.R. 1887, and H.R. 1888.  These proposals would either modify or repeal Section 211.  These proposals and continuing efforts demonstrated the US commitment to the dispute settlement system.  
In this regard, the United States could not help but note that most speakers under this Agenda item 
had been conspicuously silent when the United St ates had announced solutions to the zeroing issue 
that had occupied so much of the WTO's time and resources.  Having failed to credit US actions in 
those disputes, their statements at the present meeting regarding the credibility of the dispute 
settlement system themselves lack ed balance and credibility.   
18. Finally, in relation to comments on repealing S ection 211, the United States said that it would 
like to recall that Section 211 addressed the uncompe nsated expropriation of assets or businesses.  As 
set forth in paragraphs 362-63 of the Appellate B ody Report, the WTO had never challenged the right 
of the United States – or any other Member – to  refuse recognition "in its own territory [to] 
trademarks, trade names or other rights relating to  any intellectual property or other property rights 
that ... have been expropriated or otherwise confi scated in other territories".   Instead, the DSB had 
held that when a WTO Member chose not to recogni ze intellectual property rights in its own territory 
relating to an expropriation or co nfiscation of rights in another territory, its measures must comport WT/DSB/M/318 
Page 6  
 
with the national treatment and most-favoured nati on (MFN) obligations of the TRIPS Agreement.  
The United States continued to make efforts to address these inconsistencies. 
19. The representative of Cuba said that the facts did not support what had just been alleged by 
the United States.  The United States had stated that it worked intensively to try to resolve this matter 
for the past ten years, but with no result.  Cuba wish ed to see results and a satisfactory solution to this 
long-standing dispute as quickly as possible.  
20. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that her delegation supported 
the statement that had just been made by Cuba.     
21. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.115) 
22. The Chairman drew attention to document  WT/DS184/15/Add.115, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
23. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 14 June 2012, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  As of November 2002, the 
US authorities had addressed the DSB's recommendations  and rulings with resp ect to the calculation 
of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty investigation at issue in this dispute.  With respect to the recommendations an d rulings of the DSB that had not already been 
addressed by the US authorities, the US Administ ration would work with the US Congress with 
respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter. 
24. The representative of Japan said that his country  thanked the United States for, and took note 
of, its statement and status report.  Japan, once again, called on the United States to fully implement 
the DSB's recommendations in this long-s tanding dispute without further delay. 
25. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.90) 
26. The Chairman drew attention to document WT/D S160/24/Add.90, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act. 
27. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 14 June 2012, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the European Uni on, and to work closely with the US Congress, in 
order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. 
28. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report of which it took note.  As it had stated  many times in the past, the EU wished to resolve 
this case as soon as possible. 
29. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  WT/DSB/M/318 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.53) 
30. The Chairman drew attention to document WT/D S291/37/Add.53, which contained the status 
report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning its measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products. 
31. The representative of the European Union said th at the EU, once again, wished to express its 
hope that it would continue on the constructive pa th of dialogue with the United States.  Three 
technical meetings had taken place since 2011.  The meetings had offered a good opportunity to 
discuss directly issues of concern to both sides an d to follow up closely on developments in the 
biotech field.  In 2012, the European Commission had already authorized three more GMOs1 and had 
renewed the authorization of a fourth one.2  Two of those decisions3 had been adopted only six 
months after the relevant EFSA opinions had been published.  Fu rthermore, on 2 May 2012, the 
Commission had submitted to the relevant Committ ee a decision for authorization of a soybean.4  No 
qualified majority had been reached and the Co mmission had convened an appeal committee on 
13 June 2012 and again there had been no qualifie d majority.  The Commissi on expected that this 
authorization would be adopted in the coming weeks.   In addition, EFSA had adopted an opinion on 
MIR 162 maize, but the opinion was not yet published.  Regarding the concerns expressed by the United States on the back-log of approvals, the EU  once again recalled that its approval system was 
not covered by the DSB's recommendations and rulin gs.  The EU underlined that the GMO regulatory 
regime was working normally, as evidenced by th e approval decisions just mentioned.  The 
functioning of the GMO regime should not be rigidly assessed purely quantitatively and in the 
abstract, in terms of the number of authorizations  per year, since this was dependent on various 
product and case-specific elements and in particular on the quality of applications and on the time 
needed by applicants to answer requests from EFSA on additional scientific information. 
32. 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 explained at past 
meetings of the DSB, the United States said that it continues to have substa ntial concerns regarding 
EU measures affecting the approval of biotech pr oducts.  These concerns included delays in the 
approval of biotech products.  An  important source of delay was the failure of the EU biotech 
regulatory committee to act in accord ance with the findings of the EU's  own scientific authority.  For 
example, as the EU had noted in its statement at the May 2012 meeting of the DSB and again at the present meeting, on 2 May 2012, the EU regulator y committee had considered an application for 
approval of a biotech soybean variety.
5  The application had been supported by a risk assessment 
issued by the European Food Safety Authority (E FSA).  Nonetheless, the application had not been 
approved.  Instead, action on the application was dela yed.  After the regulatory committee's failure to 
act, the application had been sent to an EU a ppeals committee.  The United States understood from 
the EU's statement that the appeals committee had al so failed to act in accordance with the EU risk 
assessment.  This would result in yet further dela ys.  These types of delays were, unfortunately, 
routine in the EU approval system.  As a result,  the EU measures, including delays in approvals, 
continued to result in substantial restrictions on the importation of US agricultural products.  The 
United States looked forward to the EU making progress on this issue. 
33. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
                                                      
1 A5547-127 soybean, 356043 soybean, MON87701 soybean. 
2 40-3-2 soybean. 
3 Authorization decision for 356043 and MON87701 soybeans. 
4 MON87701xMON 89788. 
5 Soybean MON87701xMON89788. WT/DSB/M/318 
Page 8  
 
(e) United States – Anti-dumping administrative review s and other measures related to imports of 
certain orange juice from Brazil:  Status report by the United States (WT/DS382/10/Add.6) 
34. The Chairman drew attention to document WT /DS382/10/Add.6, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US anti-dumping administrative reviews and other measures related to imports of 
certain orange juice from Brazil. 
35. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 14 June 2012.  As had been previ ously noted, in February 2012, the US Department of 
Commerce had published a modification to its pr ocedures in order to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings regarding the use of "zeroing" in all anti-dumping reviews, including 
those concerning the products of Brazil covered in  this dispute.  In April 2012, as a result of a 
determination by the US International Trade Commission, the anti-dumping duty order on the 
products covered in this dispute was revoked.  The revocation was effective as of 9 March 2011.  In 
May, the United States had rescinded the administra tive review of the anti-dumping duty order for the 
period 1 March 2011, through 8 March 2011.  The notice of rescission had been published on 
23 May 2012.6  In light of the fact that imports of orange juice from Brazil currently entered the 
United States free from anti-dumping duties or cash deposits, and pursuant to the agreement between 
Brazil and the United States7, the United States was ready to engage with Brazil on any further 
questions regarding this matter. 
36. The representative of Brazil said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Brazil was following attentively the implem entation of the final rule published by the US 
Department of Commerce, which modified the calcu lation of dumping margins in reviews.  Brazil 
intended to consult with the United States with a view to achieving a solution to this dispute. 
37. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(f) United States – Definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties on certain products from 
China:  Status report by the United States (WT/DS379/12/Add.5) 
38. The Chairman drew attention to document WT /DS379/12/Add.5, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US definitive anti-dumping and count ervailing duties on certain products from China. 
39. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 14 June 2012, in accordance with Arti cle 21.6 of the DSU.  As had been noted at the 
May 2012 meeting of the DSB, the US Depart ment of Commerce ("Commerce") had issued 
preliminary determinations with respect to cer tain issues in this dispute on 6 April 2012, on 
9 April 2012, and on 18 May 2012.  Subsequent ly, on 31 May 2012, the Department of Commerce 
had issued to interested parties a preliminary de termination with respect to the issue of "double 
remedy" in the anti-dumping and countervailing duty i nvestigations of circular welded pipe, light 
walled rectangular pipe and tube, certain new pne umatic off the road tires, and laminated woven 
sacks.  The Department had provided an opportunity  for interested parties to provide comments on 
those preliminary determinations and to prov ide rebuttal comments on any comments submitted by 
other interested parties.  Members would recall that on 14 May 2012, the United States and China had 
notified the DSB that they had reached an agre ement on procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the 
                                                      
6 77 Fed. Reg. 30504. 
7 WT/DS382/11.  WT/DSB/M/318 
 Page 9 
 
 
  DSU.8  The United States would continue to work  on solutions to implement fully the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. 
40. The representative of China said that his country thanked the United States for its status report 
and statement made at the present meeting.  Chin a took note that the US Department of Commerce 
had issued to interested parties a preliminary de termination with respect to the issue of "double 
remedy" in some anti-dumping and countervailing dut y investigations on 31 May 2012.  However, 
15 months had lapsed since the adoption of the Ap pellate Body Report and the Panel Report in this 
dispute, and the implementation process was being seriously delayed.  China urged the United States to expedite its work and fully implement the DS B's rulings and recommendations without any further 
delay.  China would also study carefully the prelim inary determinations that had been issued by the 
US Department of Commerce during the previous months.  China reserved its right to take further 
action in accordance with the DSU provisions. 
41. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(g) Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures on cigare ttes from the Philippines:  Status report by 
Thailand (WT/DS371/15/Add.2) 
42. The Chairman drew attention to document WT /DS371/15/Add.2, which contained the status 
report by Thailand on progress in the implementati on of the DSB's recommendations in the case 
concerning Thailand's customs and fiscal m easures on cigarettes from the Philippines. 
43. The representative of Thailand said that her country had provided a status report in this 
dispute on 14 June 2012, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As explained in that status 
report, Thailand had recently issued the Cust oms Regulation on Administration Regarding the 
Customs Guarantees, which established an independent  review process for the review of decisions to 
require customs guarantees.  Thailand's Board of Appeals was meeting in the coming weeks with a 
view to completing the appeals on the valuation of the entries at issue in this dispute.  Thailand also 
continued to work towards completion of the re vision of the administrative requirements for VAT 
reporting by the expiration of the reasonable period of time on 15 October 2012.  As explained in the 
status report, Thailand had conc luded a sequencing agreement with the Philippines covering the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings for which the reasonable period of time was ten months, and had 
expired on 15 May 2012.  This se quencing agreement had been circul ated to Members on 7 June 2012 
in document WT/DS371/16.  Tha iland reiterated its commitment to fully implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings and to achieve a satisfactory resolution of this dispute. 
44. The representative of the Philippines said that his country thanked Thailand for its third status 
report and for the statement made at the present mee ting.  As Thailand had noted in its status report, 
on 1 June 2012, the parties had concluded a sequenc ing agreement, which covered those findings for 
which the reasonable period of time had expired on 15 May 2012.  The Philippines was currently 
assessing the implementation efforts undertaken a nd would continue to c onsult with Thailand. 
45. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
                                                      
8 WT/DS379/14.   WT/DSB/M/318 
Page 10  
 
(h) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.1) 
46. The Chairman drew attention to document WT /DS404/11/Add.1, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam. 
47. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 14 June 2012, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  In October 2011, the 
United States and Viet Nam had jointly notified the DSB of their agreement that the reasonable period 
of time for the United States to implement the r ecommendations and rulings of the DSB would end on 
2 July 2012.9  In February 2012, the US Department of  Commerce had published a modification to its 
procedures in order to implement the DSB's re commendations and rulings regarding the use of 
"zeroing" in anti-dumping reviews.  This modificatio n addressed certain findings in this dispute.  The 
United States would continue to consult with in terested parties as it worked to address the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 
48. The representative of Viet Nam said that his co untry thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Viet Nam expected the United States to full y comply within the reasonable period of time, as 
agreed by the parties.  Viet Nam reiterated its right to pursue any legal proceeding under the WTO in 
order to protect the legitimate interests of Vietna mese enterprises and farmers, who were affected by 
the US WTO-inconsistent measures.    
49. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
2. United States – Measures concerning the import ation, marketing and sale of tuna and 
tuna products 
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB 
50. The Chairman recalled that, in accordance with the DSU provisions, the DSB was required to 
keep under surveillance the implementation of recomme ndations 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 provided that the Member concerned shall in form 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 recal led that at its meeting on 13 June 2012, the DSB 
had adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Pa nel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body 
Report, pertaining to the dispute on:  "Unite d States – Measures Concerning the Importation, 
Marketing and Sale of Tuna and T una Products".  He invited the United States to inform the DSB of 
its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations. 
51. The representative of the United States said th at, on 13 June 2012, the DSB had adopted its 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  As pr ovided in the first sentence of Article 21.3 of the 
DSU, the United States wished to inform the DSB that the United States intended to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a mann er that respected its WTO obligations.  The 
United States would need a reasonable period of time in which to do so. 
                                                      
9 WT/DS404/10.  WT/DSB/M/318 
 Page 11 
 
 
  52. The representative of Mexico said that his country  thanked the United States for the statement 
made.  Mexico wished to point out that it was ready to discuss the reasonable period of time necessary 
for the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations.  Mexico hoped that the United States would be able to comply soon.  
53. The DSB took note of the statements, and of the information provided by the United States 
regarding its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations. 
3. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation of 
the recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) Statements by the European Union and Japan 
54. The Chairman said that this item was on the Age nda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union and Japan.  He then i nvited the respective representatives to speak. 
55. The representative of the European Union said th at, as it had done many times before, the EU 
requested the United States to stop transferri ng anti-dumping and countervailing duties to the US 
industry.  Every disbursement that still took place was clearly an act of non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Once again, the EU renewed its call on the United States to 
abide by its clear obligation under Article 21. 6 of th e DSU to submit status reports pertaining to this 
dispute. 
56. The representative of Japan said that, on 1 June  2012, US Customs and Border Protection had 
announced FY 2012 Preliminary CDSOA Amounts Available.10  This showed that the CDSOA 
remained operational.  Japan urged the United States  to stop the illegal distributions and repeal the 
CDSOA, not just in form but in substance, so as to  resolve this dispute.  According to Article 21.6 of 
the DSU, the United States was under obligation to provide the DSB with a status report pertaining to 
this dispute. 
57. The representative of India said that his country  thanked Japan and the EU for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda.  India shared their concerns and supported their views. 
58. The representative of Canada said that his dele gation wished to simply refer to Canada's 
previous statements made under this Agenda item at past DSB meetings.  He said that Canada's 
position on this matter had not changed.  
59. The representative of Brazil said that his country  thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda.  As it had expressed in previous meetings, Brazil was of the view that the 
United States was under obligation to submit status re ports in this dispute until such time as no more 
disbursements were made pursuant to the Byrd Amen dment.  Only then woul d the issue be "resolved" 
within the meaning of the DSU and the United States  would be released from its obligation to provide 
status reports pertaining to this dispute.  
60. The representative of Thailand said that her count ry thanked Japan and the EU for continuing 
to bring this item before the DSB.  Thailand supp orted the statements made by previous speakers and 
urged the United States to cease the disbursements and fully implement the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations in this dispute.  
                                                      
10 http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/pr iority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/  WT/DSB/M/318 
Page 12  
 
61. The representative of the United States said that, as his country had already explained at 
previous DSB meetings, the President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 
8 February 2006.  That Act included a provisi on repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000.  Thus, the United States had ta ken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  The United States recalled, furthermore, that 
Members, including the EU and Japan, had acknowl edged during previous DSB meetings that the 
2006 Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribu tion of duties collected on goods entered after 
1 October 2007.  The United States, therefore, di d 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, the United States may have a disagreement regarding 
this matter, but the United States failed to see what  purpose would be served by further submission of 
status reports repeating, again, that the United St ates had taken all actions necessary to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes. 
62. The DSB took note of the statements. 
4. India – Measures concerning the importation of certain agricultural products 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS430/3) 
63. The Chairman recalled that the DSB had c onsidered this matter at its meeting on 
24 May 2012 and had agreed to revert to it.  He then drew Members' attention to the communication 
from the United States, contained in document WT/DS430/3, and invited the representative of the 
United States to speak. 
64. The representative of the United States said that , as his country had explained at the May 
DSB meeting, the United States – and other WTO Memb ers – had raised concerns with India's avian 
influenza measures for several years.  These measures prohibited the importation of various agricultural products into India from Members re porting outbreaks of Low Pathogenic Notifiable 
Avian Influenza ("LPAI").  These restrictions appeared  to lack scientific justification and were not 
consistent with the guidelines of the World Organi zation for Animal Health.  The measures appeared 
to be inconsistent with a number of India's WTO obligations.  At the May DSB meeting, India had 
asserted that its measures did not currently prohi bit imports from the United States because the 
United States had not had an outbreak of LPAI in the past few months.  As the United States had 
explained then, neither the measures nor any other doc ument stated this, and the United States was not 
aware of any current US shipments.  But in any ev ent, India did not dispute that its measures imposed 
nationwide import prohibitions on a Member as s oon as it reported an outbreak of LPAI.  These 
measures created a substantial impediment to trade.  While the United States appreciated India's 
engagement during consultations, In dia had made clear that it intended to maintain its measures in 
force.  Therefore, the United States made this  second request for the DSB to establish a panel to 
examine the matter set out in the US panel re quest, with standard terms of reference. 
65. The representative of India said that his country  was disappointed that the United States had 
made its second request for the establishment of a pa nel in this dispute.  During the consultations, 
India had provided detailed explanation and the scien tific rationale for the measures being challenged.  
India had continuously demonstrated its willingness to engage on this matter and to arrive at a 
mutually-acceptable solution.  With that in mi nd, India had proposed a technical-level dialogue.  
However, the United States had chosen to litigate rath er than to negotiate.  India considered that its 
measures were consistent with WT O law and relevant international guidelines and would be able to 
defend its measures before the panel. 
66. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU w ith standard terms of reference.  WT/DSB/M/318 
 Page 13 
 
 
  67. The representatives of China, Colombia, Ecuador, the European Union, Guatemala, Japan and 
Viet Nam reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
5. Report on the progress of the Digital DS Registry initiative 
68. The Chairman said that, under this Agenda item, as requested by Argentina, Australia, 
Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, 
Norway, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Stat es, he wished to invite the representative of 
the Secretariat, Ms Valerie Hughes, Director of the Legal Affairs Division, to report to Members on the progress of the Digital DS Registry initiative. 
69. The Director of the Legal Affairs Division, Ms Valerie Hughes, made the following 
statement:   
"The Secretariat is pleased to provide a repor t to the DSB on the Digital Dispute Settlement 
Registry initiative, as requested by the delegations re ferred to by the Chair.  I will start with a general 
description of the project, followed by  an explanation as to why it is be ing developed and when it is to 
be completed.  I will also report what work has been undertaken thus far to develop and design the 
project, in consultation with an open-ended working group of WTO Members.  First: what is the 
Digital Dispute Settlement Registry initiative?  Essentially, the project has three elements:  
(i) development of a central electronic storage facility  for all dispute settlement records;  (ii) design of 
a research facility  for Members and the Secretariat to search for dispute settlement information;  and 
(iii) creation of a secure electronic registry  for filing and serving dispute settlement documents on 
line.  I will explain these elements in more detail mome ntarily.  Second:  why is this being developed?  
Following discussions in 2009 with Members who ha ve been frequent users of the dispute settlement 
mechanism, we have been inv estigating options for leveraging more recent technological capabilities 
in order to increase efficiency, reduce costs includi ng for courier services, reduce paper, and enhance 
document security.  We have also been worki ng to develop a more complete, user-friendly and 
accurate dispute settlement research tool than is currently available through Documents Online or the 
Dispute Settlement Gateway section of the website.  As you may know, a number of institutions, both 
domestic and international, currently require or offer the possibility to file and serve dispute 
settlement documents electronically in a central elec tronic location.  We have  consulted a number of 
these institutions to determine what benefits may be derived by moving from our current practice, 
which is essentially filing submissi ons through e-mail attachments followed by hard copy service to 
the Secretariat, to a system that involves uploa ding documents into a central, secure web-based 
system to be accessed by Members involved in the dis pute.  Third:  what is the timing for completion?  
At this stage, we do not have a definite timeline for moving to a Digital Dispute Registry system.  
This is being discussed by Members participating in  the open-ended Working Group.  It may be that 
we would be ready to proceed to a test phase early  in 2013, and sometime thereafter to broad usage 
once any necessary adjustments have been made.  At  this point, we envision using both the current 
practice together with the new system for a phase-in period to be determined.  We will also need to 
consider any amendments that would be required to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, 
which involve following certain procedures. 
Turning back to the first of the three elem ents I mentioned above – a central electronic 
storage facility – the Digital DS Registry will be a secure electronic facility for the storage of dispute 
settlement records (both panel and Appellate Body r ecords).  In other words, it will centralize all 
dispute settlement records (past, present and future) in one place in electronic format.  Currently, we 
have paper records for past disputes in different locations in the Centre William Rappard, as well as 
off site.  Current dispute records are stored in different elect ronic drives and in hard copy in different 
Divisions.  In the future, we plan to have one set of paper records located in  a secure archive facility 
on site, where access will be controlled.  In addition  to this paper archive, the electronic records of 
past, current and future disputes will be centralized  in the electronic Registry, where access will be WT/DSB/M/318 
Page 14  
 
controlled and limited to those entitled to see the reco rds.  Past records must be scanned and then 
entered into the system, and the Secretariat has made  good progress in this work.  A side benefit is 
that this work has enabled us to put more order in our dispute settlement paper records, eliminate 
numerous boxes of duplicates collected by Secretariat staff over time, and create real space savings so that we will be able to store everything on site in the new archive space.  Fu ture dispute records will 
be uploaded directly by Members into the system .  The process for uploading submissions onto the 
site is virtually identical to sending an e-mail attaching submissions.  
Turning to the second element mentioned above – a research facility – once past records have 
been scanned and uploaded into the system and the el ectronic Registry is up and running with future 
dispute settlement records being uploaded direc tly onto the site, the Registry will serve as a 
searchable digital record for all disputes.  Member s will be able to easily find accurate, complete and 
up-to-date information about disputes, such as th e claims addressed, the subjects covered (such as 
national treatment), procedural rulings, and even wh at agreements certain panelists have adjudicated 
in the past.  Of course, nothing will change in  terms of the current practice with respect to 
confidentiality.  Access to dispute records will be limited to those entitled to have such access in the 
same way as it is under the current system.  What will be new is that, contrary to what is available 
now under Documents Online or the Dispute Se ttlement Gateway section of the website, the 
information will not be limited to claims set out in  the request for consultations and will reflect how a 
dispute evolves and how claims change through the different stages of dispute settlement.  
Turning to the third element – electronic regist ry – as noted earlier, the system will have a 
facility for parties to disputes to upload their submis sions (and possibly some or all exhibits) directly 
into the system.  Filing via the Digital Dispute Settle ment Registry is anticipated to provide additional 
security for Members' submissions to that provi ded by the current system, which relies on e-mail 
attachments.  The system will be password protect ed and encrypted, and will be maintained behind 
the WTO firewall.  The system will also facilitate  secure paperless service on other parties, third 
parties, and distribution to panel and Appellate B ody Members.  Parties entitled to receive documents 
will receive an electronic notification that a docum ent has been served and is ready for downloading 
from the registry site.  The system will also assi st Members and the Secretariat in managing dispute 
settlement workflow by providing comprehensive cale ndars of deadlines across all relevant disputes.  
Thus if a delegate logs into the system, in add ition to being able to upl oad documents or download 
others' documents for disputes in which access is permitte d, he or she will be able to see all of his or 
her dispute settlement deadlines and meeting dates for each  dispute in which he or she is involved.  As 
I will explain below, the Working Group is discu ssing the appropriate means for controlling access.  
Let me now turn to the process for developing the Digital Dispute Settlement Registry.  With 
respect to the design of the database and the deve lopment of the e-filing facility, the Secretariat 
designed an initial 'look and feel' prototype.  In July 2011, the Secretariat shared this prototype with a 
focus group of Members active in dispute settleme nt to get some initial feed-back and further 
suggestions.  The Secretariat also sent written questi ons about design and desirable features to those 
Members.  The Secretariat provided a briefing on a nd demonstration of this same prototype to all 
interested Members in an open meeting follow ing the 27 September 2011 DSB meeting.  All 
Members were invited to provide answers to the Secretariat's questions and to participate in a 
'Working Group' of Members interested in providing comments and advice to the Secretariat in the development of the Digital DS Registry.  Several Members have been participating actively in the 
Working Group.  
The Working Group has met regularly since its first meeting in October 2011 (twice in 
November 2011 and then once each in February, Marc h, April, and May of 2012).  It has discussed 
several design issues and desirabl e features including account manageme nt, security of the system as 
a whole and of particular documents, the process of electronic filing, research, and statistics.  In 
addition, some Members have re quested one-on-one briefings.  In  addition, a presentation of the 
prototype was provided by the Secretariat at MC8 and all Members and delegates had an opportunity  WT/DSB/M/318 
 Page 15 
 
 
  to try the prototype during MC8.  The Working Gro up's input has been invaluable in assisting the 
Secretariat in ensuring that the ultimate design of the Digital DS Registry is one that satisfies 
Members' needs and the needs of the dispute settlement system more generally.  As part of the Working Group process and in order to learn of b est practices for the development and design of a 
Digital Registry, the Secretariat contacted several  other organizations and institutions that use 
electronic filing in dispute settlement.  In particul ar, the Secretariat has met or had teleconferences 
with the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Centre, the Canadian 
International Trade Tribunal, the North American Free Trade Agreement Secretariat, the European 
Court of Justice, the Supreme Court of Singapore, and the United States Department of Commerce.  A 
telephone consultation with the In ternational Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes 
(ICSID) will take place next month.  The Secretar iat has presented the findings of its consultations 
with these organizations and institutions to the Wo rking Group and in one instance the institution in 
question (the Supreme Court of Singapore) provide d a briefing by telephone to the Working Group.  
These consultations have proved highly useful.  
Following a procurement process concluded in Dece mber last year, the Secretariat retained a 
software development company this Spring to build  the Digital Dispute Settlement Registry in the 
light of suggestions and input of Members and th e information gleaned through consultations with 
other organizations and institutions .  The development of the system is under way.  As of now, the 
system is being developed in the light of the following suggestions: 
 passwords would be used to gain access and th ey would have to be renewed periodically; 
 there will be a distinction between 'read' acces s and the ability to upload documents into the 
system; 
 access to the system would be limited to government officials in the light of Members' 
preference at this time; 
 e-filing should not be used to replace the government-to-government nature of dispute 
settlement; 
 e-filing would not remove personal responsibility for documents filed; 
 each Member should be accorded access through a master account, and that Member will 
have the ability to provide access via a user na me and password to selected staff members for 
a particular dispute;  'group' accounts should not be used as they could prove difficult for 
accountability, transparency, and security;  
 the system will have a test-phase that could i nvolve a few Members agreeing to e-file in all 
cases in which they participate over a period of  time, and manual filing would continue in 
parallel for those cases. 
 
 Several other issues are in discussion, including:   
 how to provide additional security to the Member  account that will administer sub-accounts;  
IP Address limiting and randomly genera ted passwords were discussed;    
 how to provide transparency to the other parties and third parties in the dispute as to who will 
have access to the documents they file.  The pr ototype contemplates that each case will have a 
list of users so that the other parties and third parties can know who has access to their 
documents.  Further discussion is needed to se e whether this is sufficient to accommodate 
Members' concerns.  One suggestion was that this  issue could be discussed by the parties on a 
case-by-case basis at the organizational meeting where the Working Procedures are set.  This 
would replicate the current system where each pa rty gives the other a list of e-mail addresses 
for those they want included in service of documents;  
 how to enable special features for additional pr otection of the various types of confidential 
information that gets filed in some disputes. 
 WT/DSB/M/318 
Page 16  
 
The Secretariat would be pleased to provide im mediately after this meeting a demonstration 
of an updated prototype of the system reflecting features and design developed by the software 
developer in the light of input from the Working Group.  We would also be pleased to respond to 
Members' questions at that time." 
70. The DSB took note of the report, and the Chairman invited delegations to take the floor to 
make statements if they so wished.  
71. The representative of the United States said th at his country thanked the Chairman for 
requesting this report and the Secretariat for providing  this information.  The United States had joined 
16 other delegations in supporting a request that this information be brought to the DSB.  The United States and various others had been activel y participating in the Working Group in which 
delegates and the Secretariat had been exchanging information and views on the process of 
developing an e-filing system and the possible elements of such a system.  The United States wanted to thank the Secretariat for organizing these informal meetings, which it had fou nd to be very valuable 
in deepening the US understanding and clarifying its thinking on elements of such a system.  The United States viewed the informal Working Group pr ocess as a useful addition to but not a substitute 
for consideration of this issue by the DSB.  WTO Members had expressed their desire recently to 
reinvigorate the bodies and committees of this organization.  And as the DSB was charged with oversight of the dispute settlement system, this was the appropriate meeting of WTO Members for 
consideration of a Digital DS Registry, includ ing an e-filing system.  The United States also 
considered that bringing this issue to the DSB pr omoted even greater transp arency, inclusiveness, and 
participation by Members, including those that may not  be able to participate in the informal Working 
Group meetings, for example, due to other time co mmitments.  The United States considered that it 
was important, for the development and success of the system, for all Members to have received the same information about the system.  As an e-filing sy stem would affect participation in disputes by all 
Members, all Members should have an opportunity to  provide input on the same basis and with the 
same information.  All Members had an equa l stake in the dispute settlement system.   
72. The United States recalled the very extensive and useful materials provided to participants in 
the Working Group, for example, in relation to ot her e-filing systems.  One important lesson the 
United States had learned already from the informatio n shared in the informal Working Group was the 
importance of developing an e-filing system in phases.   That is, the experience of developing other e-
filing systems, including that of organizations w ithin the United States, was that it required time and 
significant input from stakeholders to understand the relevant issues for a system and then to develop 
appropriate responses.  Once a basic model had been  developed, further phases of development would 
serve to identify inevitable problems with the orig inal design or further enhancements.  Development 
in phases permitted stakeholders to gain confidence in that system and an understanding that their 
interests were well reflected in the system.  The potential benefits of an e-filing system could be realized, the United States believed, through a su fficiently robust process of development, with 
adequate input from Members.  The United States al so noted that, based on the experiences of other e-
filing systems, it would be important that adequa te resources be allocated to support such an 
undertaking from within existing WTO resources.  With respect to particular elements of the 
Secretariat presentation made at the present meeting,  including elements of an e-filing system and 
timeline, the United States took note of the in formation and would reflect further on it.   
73. In sum, the United States wished to reiterate its thanks to the Secretariat for the report 
provided at the present meeting.  The United States considered that this report and Agenda item 
benefitted the entire Membership.  The United States  looked forward to future opportunities to discuss 
the issue both in the informal Working Group setti ng and in the DSB as work continued on this 
important initiative.  The United States believed th at an e-filing system could bring benefits to 
Members, and looked forward to continuing w ith a process for its development that permitted 
Members to realize those benefits.   WT/DSB/M/318 
 Page 17 
 
 
  74. The representative of Brazil said that his country  welcomed the inclusion of this item on the 
Agenda of the present meeting and the report provi ded by the Secretariat, which enhanced the 
awareness of the broader Membership regarding the Di gital DS Registry initiative.  Brazil welcomed 
the efforts of Members and the Secretariat to creat e a secure, predictable and user-friendly digital DS 
registry in order to simplify pr ocedures and avoid the unnecessary use of paper.  Brazil was confident 
that the new system would be implemented in a gradual manner and would take into account any 
difficulties faced by developing-country Members. 
75. The representative of Japan said that her country welcomed the inclusion of this matter on the 
Agenda of the present meeting.  Japan also appreci ated the detailed report provided by the Secretariat 
on the progress of the Digital DS Registry initiative  made thus far in collaboration with several 
Members.  Given the progress in digital and info rmation technology, Japan generally found this 
Digital DS Registry initiative to be a positive deve lopment.  At the same time, the introduction of a 
Digital DS Registry would affect the operation of the WTO dispute settlement system and would possibly change the way in which day-to-day business in the system currently worked.  Therefore, it 
was important that the entire Membership be proper ly informed of any progress made thus far and to 
be made in the future on the initiative.  Tran sparency on the initiative would serve to promote 
Members' participation in, and contribution to, the in itiative.  On the substance of the system to be 
developed, Japan wished to emphasize, as the report by  the Secretariat noted, that such a system must 
be flexible enough to accommodate the needs of Members and be able to adapt to particular situations 
that may arise in each individual dispute.  Furthermore, Japan was of the view that any development of a system of this kind must be evolutionary and incremental in nature so that any experiences to be 
obtained in the actual use of the system could be taken into account in the further development of the 
system.  Japan would continue to par ticipate in discussions on this initiative. 
76. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the Chairman and the 
Secretariat for the information provided.  A lthough the EU was not among the Members that had 
requested the inscription of this item on the Agenda  of the present meeting, it welcomed the e-filing 
initiative and looked forward to a system that would facilitate its work and allow it to transmit dispute 
settlement documents in an easy, cheap and, hopefull y, secure way.  The EU also appreciated the 
Secretariat's efforts in ensuring full transparency  on this initiative and the numerous technical 
meetings open to all Members.  As the Secretar iat continued its reflections on the design of the 
system, the EU trusted that the Secretariat would give all necessary thought to the technical details 
and ensure that the system would be secure, and th at it would have sufficient physical and technical 
capacity to handle all dispute settlement documents of past, present and future disputes.  The EU also 
considered that it may be desirable to plan a tr ansitional period during which the system would be 
tested with a view to ensuring that Members were fully comfortable with its functioning.  Finally, and 
depending on its security capabilities, it may also be necessary for the system to provide some 
flexibility in dealing with strictly confidentia l documents, which required extra protection.   
77. The representative of Canada said that, like othe r delegations, his country also welcomed the 
inclusion of this item on the Agenda of the present meeting and thanked the Secretariat for the 
progress report.  Canada had been involved in th e work of the Working Group and, therefore, the 
content of the report was not new to it.  Canada wished to register its support for the initiative in 
general and to commend the Secretariat team and the Working Group, in particular, for the progress 
they had made.  In Canada's view, it seemed an anomaly that in 2012 the WTO dispute settlement 
system still functioned with a largely paper-based re gistry system, supplemented informally with e-
mail communications.  There were many benefits to  be gained from the digital registry.  Those 
benefits had been outlined by the Secretariat and there did not seem to be too much debate about 
them.  In that regard, Canada would not elaborat e any further on what those benefits were.  The 
Working Group discussions had been a useful vehicl e for bringing the views of the users of this 
system to the table and had resulted in what Cana da saw as a number of notable improvements to the 
planned functionality of the registry.  Canada not ed that Members would not get it perfectly right WT/DSB/M/318 
Page 18  
 
from the outset.  No project of this nature was ever perfect right at the outset.  Nonetheless, a quest for perfection should not hold Members back from movi ng forward with experimentation on elements 
known to be necessary and that would work well.  There was nothing that Members could not change 
based on their initial experiences.  Canada exp ected that, even when the system was fully 
implemented, it would retain a degree of flexibility  in how it would be used in given cases as it was 
going to be decided by the working procedures.  Th erefore, Canada encouraged the Secretariat to 
continue to consult frequently with Members and to  continue to inform the broader Membership of 
progress made.  For its part, Canada would continue  to engage in the Working Group process and in 
the DSB as necessary.  Canada looked forward to the launc h of a pilot or a test stage to the extent that 
the timing corresponded with any of its activities related to dispute settle ment.  There was no 
guarantee of that but if it did, Canada would be willing to participate in such a pilot project.    
78. The representative of Singapore said that her count ry thanked the Secretariat for its report on 
the Digital DS Registry.  Singapore agreed with pr evious speakers that it was important for the wider 
Membership to be kept informed of this initiativ e, and welcomed the inclusion of this item on the 
Agenda of the present meeting.  The Digital DS Re gistry had important storage, research and filing 
functions.  It had the potential to save time and co sts for both the Secretariat and the Membership.  
However, Singapore stressed that the dispute settle ment mechanism was an important pillar of the 
WTO.  For Members to be able to rely on an auto mated system like this, it was important to develop a 
good and robust system, which was accessible to th e entire Membership.  Having had the experience 
of e-filing in its domestic courts, Singapore recognized that putting a system like this in place was not 
an easy task.  Singapore appreciated the Secretariat's effort, it would assist wherever it could and 
looked forward to future updates. 
79. The representative of Mexico said that his country welcomed the ongoing initiative, which 
would improve the administration of disputes and thanked the Secretariat for its work.   
80. The representative of China said that his country thanked the Secretariat for its report and for 
the fruitful work done on the Digital DS Registry initiative.  As a Member  of the Working Group, 
China had attended the group's mee tings and agreed that progress had been achieved.  China believed 
that the digital system would improve the efficiency of submissions by the parties to a dispute, facilitate the management of doc uments, and reduce the human and financial costs of both Members 
and the Secretariat.  All those benefits would depe nd on the secure, stable and reliable operation of the 
system.  China hoped that the system would also  respond to the different needs of Members and 
provide the necessary flexibility.  For example,  Members should be allowed to submit their 
submissions through alternative means in cases where the digital registry was not accessible.  China 
would continue to engage in this  work, together with the Secretariat and other Members, to develop 
the system and hoped that it would contribute to the WTO dispute settlement system. 
81. The representative of Chile said that, as a par ticipant in the Working Group, his country 
welcomed the fact that this ma tter was on the Agenda of the pre sent meeting.  Chile supported the 
work of the Working Group and highlighted the impor tance of the work that was being carried out.  
As indicated by other delegations, Chile was also  surprised that the WTO was still using a paper-
based system while the rest of the world seemed not to .  Papers could get lost or damaged.  Therefore, 
for several reasons Chile supporte d the DS Registry initiative. 
82. The representative of Australia said that his country supported most of the comments made by 
previous speakers and welcomed the Secretariat's in itiative.  As mentioned by Chile and Canada, in 
this modern age it seemed strange that WTO Me mbers continued to operate under a paper-based 
system.  For all the reasons that had been outlined , there were many benefits that could be gained 
through the Digital DS Registry.  Thus, Australia supported the idea and would continue to participate 
actively in the Working Group to see it through.  As mentioned by other delegations, it would be 
important for the registry, when it was up and running,  to provide the required level of security for all 
Members.  It was also important for the system to have sufficient flexibility to be able to adapt to  WT/DSB/M/318 
 Page 19 
 
 
  changes that may take place over time in the disput e settlement process.  Australia had been an active 
Member of the Working Group thus far and looked forward to continuing to participate in the 
Working Group and also to further discussions in the DSB, as this moved hopefully towards a quick 
conclusion. 
83. The representative of Costa Rica said that his coun try thanked the Secretariat for the report.  
Costa Rica was interested in, and supported, the initiative which would reduce costs and improve the 
efficiency of the dispute settlement system.  Bearing in mind the progress made on this initiative, Costa Rica understood the challenges involved and hope d that Members would be able to continue 
working together on this in a flexible manner. 
84. The representative of Indonesia said that, like other delegations, her country welcomed and 
appreciated the Secretariat's report on the DS Regist ry.  This initiative was a positive breakthrough in 
making a comprehensive and advanced way of secu ring confidential information, especially during 
the dispute settlement process.  Indonesia sought clarif ication as to whether the Secretariat anticipated 
making this system work appropriately for all Member countries, including countries whose technology information infrastructure was not yet at an advanced stage, as was the case of developing 
countries and LDCs.  Therefore, Indonesia hoped that  this initiative could contribute significantly to 
the benefit and interest of all Me mbers.  In that regard, Indonesi a looked forward to further progress 
of the Working Group.  
85. The representative of Argentina said that his country thanked the Secretariat for the report.  
Argentina was one of the countries that had requested  the inclusion of this item on the Agenda of the 
present meeting.  Argentina had been participating in the Working Group and, while being aware that 
this was not something that could easily be implemented, it was the 21st century and perhaps it was 
time for the WTO to modernize.  Argentina noted th at the implementation of the system would be a 
step-by-step process which would be flexible, u ser-friendly, and easy for developing countries.  
Argentina thanked the Secretariat fo r the work done thus far.    
86. The representative of Nigeria said that his count ry thanked those Members who had requested 
the inscription of this item on the Agenda of the present meeting.  Nigeria supported the effort to 
enhance transparency on the Digital DS Registry initiative.  As mentioned by previous speakers, 
Nigeria believed that the system should be flexib le and user-friendly in order to allow developing 
countries and LDCs to make use of it.  Nigeria recall ed that in 2011, it had requested the Legal Affairs 
Division to brief the African Group, the ACP Group and the LDCs on this issue.  Nigeria believed 
that by raising this matter at the formal DSB mee ting, the transparency and credibility of the initiative 
would be enhanced.  Nigeria, therefore, requested th at this matter be included on the Agenda of every 
regular DSB meeting so that all Members were  kept informed of developments.      
87. The representative of Turkey said that his count ry thanked the Secretariat for its detailed and 
comprehensive report on the Digital DS Registry.  Furthermore, Turkey thanked the Secretariat and 
Members for their efforts to improve this system .  As pointed out by previous speakers, it was 
important for the entire Membership that the system  be secure, user-friendly and efficient.  As a 
participant in the Working Group, Turkey would continue to engage and participate in the ongoing work. 
88. The representative of Nigeria said that his delegation wished to add that it was not sure about 
regular reporting to the DSB and whether it would be feasible to provide regular reports, since this 
item had been inscribed on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of some Members.  In 
Nigeria's view, keeping this item on the Agenda of regular DSB meetings would allow all Members to 
be informed of developments on the Digital DS Registry and would enhance the credibility of the 
exercise.    WT/DSB/M/318 
Page 20  
 
89. The representative of Canada said that, with regard  to the request that this item be placed on 
the DSB's Agenda regularly, Canada did not oppose or  disagree with that and thought that it might be 
the best course.  However, Canada wondered whet her it would be better to have the Secretariat's 
reports on the work of the Working Group circulated to the larger Membership.  Reporting at every 
DSB meeting may become cumbersome, especially if th e progress to be reported was fairly marginal.  
It was not Canada's intention to oppose the incl usion of this item on the Agenda, but if Members 
agreed, reports could be circulated electronically.   
90. The Chairman asked whether delegations had an y views on Canada's proposal to circulate the 
reports on the work of the Working Group electronically. 
91. The representative of Nigeria said that his c ountry believed that if substantial progress was 
made, it would be in the interest of the system that reports were to be presented in the DSB and 
reflected in the minutes of the DSB meetings.  Th is would enhance the cred ibility of the exercise, 
rather than just circulating such reports.  In Nigeria's view, the initiative could result in possible 
amendments to the Appellate Body's Working Pr ocedures and, if so, it would require Members' 
agreement.  Therefore, regular reporting to the DS B would help Members, in particular those with 
capacity constraints.   
92. The Chairman said that this matter could be placed on the Agenda of a DSB meeting 
whenever substantial progress was made.  As Members were aware, the DSB meetings were held 
once a month.  Therefore, this matter could be pl aced on the Agenda of a DSB meeting sometime in 
the Autumn.    
93. The representative of India sought clarification regarding the Chairman's suggestion.  If this 
matter were to be placed on the Agenda in the Autu mn, he wished to know whether delegations would 
have to make the request to place it on the Agenda, or whether it would be the Chairman's responsibility to do so.    
94. The Chairman said that he would monitor the s ituation and, if substantial progress was made, 
he would include this matter on the Agenda of a DSB meeting to enable the Secretariat to make a 
progress report.  
95. The DSB took note of the statements.  
6. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental 
panelists (WT/DSB/W/483) 
96. The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/483, which contained additional 
names proposed for inclusion on the indicative list of governmental and non-g overnmental panelists, 
in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU.  He proposed that the DSB approve the names contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/483. 
97. The DSB so agreed. 
__________