RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/388  
 
9 December 2016  
(16-6707) Page: 1/3 
Dispute Settlement Body  
8 November 2016    
 
 MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 8 NOVEMBER  2016 
Chairman: Mr. Xavier  Carim  (South Africa ) 
Table of Contents  
1   CHINA – EXPORT DUTIES ON CER TAIN RAW MATERIALS  ................................ ............  1 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the United  States  ................................ .............  1 
2   CHINA – DUTIES AND OTHER MEA SURES CONCERNING THE  EXPORTATION 
OF CERT AIN RAW MATERIALS  ................................ ................................ ..........................  2 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the European  Union ................................ ..........  2 
 
 
1  CHINA – EXPORT DUTIES ON CER TAIN RAW M ATERIALS  
A.  Requ est for the es tablishment of a panel by the United  States (WT/DS508/6)  
1.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that, at its meeting on 26  October  2016,  the DSB  had considered this 
matter and agreed to revert to it. He dre w attention to the communication from the United  States 
containe d in document WT/DS508/6  and invite d the representative of the United  States to speak.  
1.2.  The representative of the United  States  said that, as had been  explained at the 
26 October 2016 DSB meeting, the United  States  was concerned that China continued  to impose 
export restraints on raw materials – antimony, chromium, cobalt, copper, graphite, indium, lead, 
magnesia, talc, tantalum, and tin – that were important inputs to industries in the United  States 
and in other Members.  China 's restrictions on the exports of these materials were similar to th e 
restrictions which the DSB had  found , in two prior disputes , to be  inconsistent with WTO rules. 
The export restraints at issue include d China 's export duties, export quotas  and restrictions on the 
rights of enterprises s eeking to export.  As had been  described in more detail in the US panel 
request, these restraints appear ed to be inconsistent with provisions of the GATT  1994 and China 's 
Protocol of Accession.  Accordingly, the United  States requested  that the DSB establish  a panel to 
examine the matter set out in the US panel request with standard terms of reference.  
1.3.  The representative of China  said that her country wished  to express its disap pointment with 
the US  decision to request the establishment  of a panel , for the se cond time.  First, as had been  
expressed at  the 26 October  2016 DSB meeting, after the United  States had filed the request for 
consultations and supplementary request for c onsultations, China had held consultations  in good 
faith and had tried to find approp riate solution s to resolve this  dispute with  the United  State s. 
Second, China had  reiterated its steadfast stance on  respecting  WTO rules and abiding by  the 
commitments it had undertaken upon its  accession to the WTO. Given the  increasing pressure on 
the protection o f exhaustible  natural resources and  the environment , China's policies concerning 
the products at issue  were an integral  part of the comprehensive measures taken to promote the 
scientific management o f natural resource products and strengthen eco logical environment 
protection , with the purpose of achiev ing sustainable development.  Third, on 31  October  2016, 
China had  published its Total Export  Quotas  of Industrial Produc ts and Agricultural Products WT/DSB/M/388  
 
- 2 - 
 
  of 2017. Regrettably, the United  States had not carefully review ed the new measures and had 
decided to move this dispute into the panel  stage.  
1.4.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU wi th standard terms of reference.  
1.5.  The representatives of Brazil , Canada , the European  Union , India, Indonesia , Japan , 
Kazakhstan , Korea , Mexico , Norway , the Russian  Federation , Singapore , Chinese  Taipei  and 
Viet Nam reserved their third -party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings . 
2  CHINA – DUTIES AND OTHER MEA SURES CONCERNING THE  EXPORTATION OF 
CERTAIN RAW  MATERIALS  
A.  Requ est for the establishment of a panel by the European  Union (WT/DS509/6)  
2.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the European  Union contained in 
document WT/DS509/6  and invite d the representative of the European  Union to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of the European  Union  said that the EU  regre tted the fact that it had  to 
request the establishment of a panel in this dispute.  The WT O dispute settlement sys tem had 
already  dealt twice with the s ame type of export restrictions  imposed by China on different raw 
materials.  Each time , the WTO dispute settlement system had confirmed that such restrictions 
were inconsistent with China's obligations unde r the covere d agreements and had  asked China to 
bring its measures into compliance with its obligations.  The EU expressed  its disappointment abo ut 
the fact that China continued  to impose such export restrictio ns on a number of raw materials, 
despite the DSB's  recommen dations and rulings on this point.  The EU regretted  China's 
unwillingness to bring its legislation concerning the export of raw materials in -line with its 
WTO-commitments.  This forced the EU  to, once again , bring China's export regime before the WTO 
disput e settlement system.  The EU considered  that China's export restrictions on raw materials 
undermine d core principles of the multilateral trading system, as they discriminate d against 
foreign users of these materials and provide d substantial and unfair advan tages to Chinese firms. 
China 's position as a leading global produ cer of these raw materials meant  that its export 
restrictions affect ed global supply and pricing. These measures could  provide important 
advantages to Chinese firms that use d the raw materia ls, to the detriment of the EU and other 
foreign counterparts. These measures  could  also create substantial pressure on foreign producers 
to move their operations, jobs, and technologies to China.  The EU had  already held consultations 
with China on these m easures.  While the consultations had been  constructive in clarifying the 
Chinese measures and their application, th ere had  been no basis for a negoti ated solution to this  
dispute.  The EU was , therefore , requesting the establishment of a p anel to examine th ese 
measures, with standard terms of reference.  
2.3.  The representative of China  said her country wished to express its disappointment with the 
EU's decision to request the establishment of a panel to examine this matter . First , after  the EU 
had filed the request for consultations  and s upplementary  request  for consultations, China had 
held consultations  in good faith , and had tried to find appropriate solution s to resolve this  dispute 
with the  EU. Second , China  had reiterated  its steadfast  stance on respecting  WTO rules and 
abiding by the  commitments  it had undertaken upon its  accession to the WTO. Given the 
increasing pressure on the  protection o f exhaustible  natural resources and  the environment , 
China's policies concerning the products at issue  were an integra l part of the comprehensive 
measures taken to promote the scientific management o f natural resources products and 
strengthen ecological environment protection , with the purpose of achiev ing sustainable 
development.  Third, on 31 October  2016, China had published  its Total  Export  Quotas  of Industrial 
Products and Agricultural Products of 2017. She said that China was  not in a position to accept the 
establishment  of a panel  at the present meeting . 
2.4.  The representative of the United  States  said that, as  mentioned  under the previous Agenda 
item, the United  States  shared  the concerns of the EU that China 's export duties, export quotas 
and restrictions on the rights of enterprises seeking to export were inconsistent with WTO rules.  
The United  States  recognize d that C hina had exercis ed its right under the DSU to block the 
establishment of a panel to consider the EU 's complaint.  Nonetheless, it would have been more 
efficient for China and the DSB had China accepted establishment  of a single panel at the present WT/DSB/M/388  
 
- 3 - 
 
  meeting,  as had  happened in a number of previous disputes, such as in "China – HP-SSST ". The 
United  States said that it  looked forward to prompt establishment of a panel to consider the EU 's 
complaint at a future  DSB meeting so that both the US and EU complaints , covering the same 
matter , could  move forward together.  
2.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter.  
__________