RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/410  
 
26 June 2018  
(18-3994) Page: 1/24 
Dispute Settlement Body  
27 March 2018    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 27  MARCH  2018 
Chairman: Mr. Junichi I hara (Japan ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda , the representative of China  indicated that China  would like to 
make a statement  under "Other Business" concerning the US Section  301 investigation against 
China . The representative of  the United  State s thanked China for providing  advance notice of its 
intention to make a statement under "Other Business", which was called for under Rule 6 of the 
General Council Rules of Procedure, which the DSB also applied. The United  States  said that under 
those Rules, in particular, Rule  25, "[r]epresentatives should avoid unduly long debates". Rule  25 
also provided that "[d]iscussions on substantiv e issues … shall be avoided, and the [DSB] shall 
limit itself to taking note of the announcement by the sponsoring delegation" and any reaction by 
another delegation "directly concerned". The United  States trusted that any statement made under 
"Other Busin ess" would be consistent with this rule. As a delegation  "directly concerned", the 
United  States  would provide a reaction to China's statement under "Other Business" . 
The DSB took note  of the statements.  
Table of Content s 
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  ................................ ................................ ..............  3 
B.  United  States – Sectio n 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 ................................ ................................ ....... 4 
D.  United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United  States  ................................ ..........................  4 
E.  China – Anti-dumping measures on impor ts of cellulose pulp from Canada: Status 
report by China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
2   UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT  
OF 2000: IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTED BY THE  DSB ...........  6 
A.  Statement by the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ....................  6 
3   EUROPEAN  UNION – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON BIODIESEL FROM 
INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  7 
A.  Statement by the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ....................  7 
4   THAILAND – CUSTOMS AND FISCAL M EASURES ON CIGARETTE S FROM THE 
PHILIPPINES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  7 
A.  Second recourse to Article  21.5 of the D SU by the Philippines: Request for the 
establishment of a panel  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 7 WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 2 - 
 
5   AUSTRALIA – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON A4 COPY PAPER  ................................ .... 8 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Indonesia ................................ ........................  8 
6   UNITED  STATES – COUNTERVAILING MEASU RES ON SOFTWOOD LUMB ER 
FROM CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  9 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada  ................................ ...........................  9 
7   UNITED  STATES – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES APP LYING DIFFERENTIAL 
PRICING METHODOLOGY TO SOFTWOOD LUMBER F ROM CANADA  ................................ ... 9 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada  ................................ ...........................  9 
8   PROPOSED NOMINATIONS  FOR THE INDICATIVE L IST OF GOVERNMENTAL 
AND NON -GOVERNMENTAL PANELIS TS ................................ ................................ ..........  11 
9   APPELLATE BODY MATTE RS ................................ ................................ ......................  11 
A.  Appellate Body Appointments: Proposal by Argentina; Australia; Plurinational State of 
Bolivia; Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; Colombia; Costa  Rica; Dominican  Republic; 
Ecuador; El  Salvador; the European  Union; Guatemala; Honduras; Hong  Kong, China; 
India; Israel; Kazakhstan; Korea; Mexico; New  Zealand; Nicaragua; Norway; Pakistan; 
Panama; Paraguay; Peru; the Russian  Federation; Singapore; Switzerland;  the Separate 
Customs Territory Of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen And Matsu; Turkey; Ukraine; Uruguay 
and Viet Nam ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 11 
10   INDONESIA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE  IMPORTATION OF CHICK EN 
MEAT AND CHICKEN PRO DUCTS  ................................ ................................ .....................  19 
A.  Statement by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .19 
11   US SECTION  301 INVESTIGATION OF  CHINA'S LAWS, POLICI ES, 
PRACTICES, OR ACTION S RELATED TO TECHNOL OGY TRANSFER, INTELL ECTUAL 
PROPERTY, AND INNOVA TION  ................................ ................................ .......................  20 
A.  Statements by China and the United  States  ................................ ................................ ......20 
12   DISPUTE SETTLEMENT W ORKLOAD  ................................ ................................ .........  22 
A.  Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ ............................ 22 
13   ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON ................................ ................................ ...................  22 
 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPL EMENTATION OF RECOMM ENDATIONS ADOPTED BY  THE DSB  
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the Unite d States (WT/DS184/15/Add.180)  
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United  States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.155)  
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.118)  
D.  United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS464/17/Add.2)  
E.  China – Anti-dumping measures on imports of cellulo se pulp from Canada: Status report 
by China (WT/DS483/7/Add.1)  
1.1.  The Chairman noted that there were five sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU. He recalled that Article  21.6 
of the DSU required that, "[u]nless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of tim e and shall remain on the DSB's  
Agenda until the issue is resolved". Under this Agenda item, he invited delegations to provide up WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 3 - 
 
to date information about compliance efforts and to focus on new developments, suggestions and 
ideas on progress towards the r esolution of disputes. He also reminded delegations that, as 
provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings: "[r]epresentatives 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 then turned to the first status report under this Agenda 
item. 
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled  steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS184/15/Add.181)  
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.181, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's  
recommen dations in the case "US – Hot-Rolled Steel".  
1.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States  provided a status report 
in this dispute on 15  March  2018, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. The United  States 
had addressed the DSB' s recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of 
anti-dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect 
to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the 
US Administ ration would work with the US  Congress with respect to appropriate statutory 
measures that would resolve this matter.  
1.4.  The representative of Japan  thank ed the United  States for the latest status report  and the 
statement made at the present meeting. Japan,  once again , called on the United  States to fully 
implement the DSB 's recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this matter . 
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the  
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.156)  
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.156, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the 
DSB's  recommendations in the case "US – Section 110(5) Copyright Act".  
1.7.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States  had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 15  March  2018, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. The 
US Administration would continue to confer with the EU, and to work closely with the US  Congress, 
in order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.  
1.8.  The representative of the European  Union  said that his delegation thanked the United  States 
for its status report and its statement at the present meeting. The EU referred to its previous 
statements, and reiterated that it would like to resolve this case as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The representative of China  said that according to the Panel Report in D S160, Section 110(5) 
of the US Copyright Act had not met the requirements of the exception under Article 13 of the 
TRIPS  Agreement, and was thereby inconsistent with Articles  11bis(1)(iii) and 11(1)(ii) of the 
Berne Convention, as incorporated into Article  9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The United  States had 
not complied with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 17  years after the Panel Report had 
been adopted. The United States was the only WTO Member who failed to comply with the DSB's  
recommendations and r ulings with regard to the TRIPS Agreement, this long after the expiry of the 
reasonable period of time. China reiterated its concerns over the fact that Intellectual Property 
right holders were still denied their legitimate rights and that the United  State s failed to provide 
minimum standards of protection as required by the TRIPS Agreement. China asked the 
United  States to elaborate, in its subsequent status report, the specific action that it had taken so 
far to ensure its compliance with the DSB's recomm endations and rulings. China, once again, 
urged the United  States to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings either by amending 
or withdrawing the law in question.  WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 4 - 
 
1.10.   The representative of the United  States  said that, as the United  States  had previous ly 
stated, these criticisms were completely unfounded. The intellectual property protection that the 
United  States provided within its own territory equalled or surpassed that of any other Member. 
The United  States indeed found it interesting that a Member  that continued to criticize the 
US commitment to strong intellectual property rights had a domestic record of protecting 
intellectual property rights that appeared less than robust, to say the least.  
1.11.   The representative of China  said that his country took note that the United States seemed 
to be accusing other WTO Members of not providing enough protection for intellectual property 
rights. China reminded the United States that the matter under this Agenda item was whether the 
United  States had implemented t he DSB's recommendations and rulings in "US – Section  110(5) 
Copyright Act" (DS160). China therefore urged the United States to implement the DSB's  
recommendations and rulings in this dispute as soon as possible.  
1.12.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.119)  
1.13.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS2 91/37/Add.119, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's  
recommendations in the case "EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products".  
1.14.   The representative of the European  Union  said that the EU c ontinued to progress with the 
authorizations where the European Food Safety Authority had finalized its scientific opinion and 
concluded that there were no safety concerns. On 19  March  2018, the draft authorization for the 
renewal of one GM sugar beet for food and feed had been submitted for a vote to the member 
States Committee, resulting in "no opinion". This measure would be submitted for a vote to the 
Appeal Committee in April  2018. The EU continued to be committed to acting in line with its WTO  
obligations. But more generally, and as had been stated many times before, the EU recalled that 
the EU approval system was not covered by the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
1.15.   The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States  thanked the  EU for its 
status report and its statement at the present meeting. The United  States reiterated its ongoing 
concerns that the EU measures affecting the approval of biotech products continued to involve 
prolonged, unpredictable and unexplained delays at ev ery stage of the approval process. These 
delays had affected the products that had been previously approved by the EU, and continued to 
affect the dozens of applications that still awaited approval. Further, even when the EU finally 
approved a biotech prod uct, the EU had facilitated the ability of individual EU member States to 
impose bans on the supposedly approved product. In particular, the EU had adopted legislation 
that allowed EU  member States to "opt out" of certain approvals, even where the European  Food 
Safety Authority had concluded that the product was safe. The United  States urged the EU to 
ensure that all of its measures affecting the approval of biotech products, including measures that 
had been adopted by individual EU member States, were supp orted by scientific evidence, and that 
decisions were taken without undue delay.  
1.16.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
D.  United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large resi dential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS464/17/Add.3)  
1.17.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add.3, which contained the status 
report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's  recommendati ons in 
the case "US – Washing Machines".  
1.18.   The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States  had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 15  March  2018, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. On 
15 December  2017, the United  States T rade Representative had requested that the US 
Department of Commerce make a determination under Section  129 of the Uruguay Round WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 5 - 
 
Agreements Act to address the DSB's  recommendations relating to the Department's 
countervailing duty investigation of washers f rom Korea. On 18  December  2017, the Department 
of Commerce had initiated a proceeding to make such determination. Since that time, the 
Department had issued initial and supplemental questionnaires seeking additional information 
necessary to conduct the Sec tion 129 proceeding. The United  States continued to consult with 
interested parties on options to address the recommendations of the DSB relating to anti -dumping 
measures that had been challenged in this dispute.  
1.19.   The representative of Korea  said that his c ountry thanked the United  States for its status 
report and its statement at the present meeting. Although more than 18  months since the 
adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports had passed, Korea did not register any progress 
in the US  status report . Korea found it difficult to understand why it had taken 18  months to 
simply "consult with interested parties on options to address the recommendations of the DSB 
relating to anti -dumping measures challenged in this dispute" before the US Department of 
Commerce officially initiated the proceedings as required under US law. Korea, once again, urged 
the United  States to make progress in its implementing measures, so that it could fully comply 
with the DSB's  recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  
1.20.   The re presentative of Canada  said that his country was concerned that the United  States 
had not implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. In particular, Canada 
was deeply disappointed that, despite the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the 
United  States continued to collect cash deposits from Canadian exporters based on a methodology 
that had been found to be "as such" inconsistent with WTO obligations in this dispute.  
1.21.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to thi s matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
E.  China – Anti-dumping measures on imports of cellulose pulp from Canada: Status 
report by China (WT/DS483/7/Add.2)  
1.22.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS483/7/Add.2, which contained the status 
report by China  on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the case 
"China – Cellulose Pulp".  
1.23.   The representative of China  said that her country had provided a status report in this 
dispute on 15  March  2018, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. China intended to comply 
with the DSB's  recommendations and rulings within the agreed reasonable period of time, which 
would expire on 22  April 2018. China had launched a re -investigation, which was ongoing. 
Interested parties were invited to submit t heir comments.  
1.24.   The representative of Canada  said that his country thanked China for its status report in 
respect of its implementation efforts in this dispute. Canada noted that the reasonable period of 
time in this matter would expire next month, on 22  April 2018. As a result, Canada would take this 
opportunity to make the following points. First, in conducting its reinvestigation, China had to fully 
take into account the key DSB's rulings and recommendations. Fundamental to the Panel's 
conclusion had been  the investigating authority's failure to adequately explain how changes in the 
prices and volumes of the alleged dumped imports had affected the domestic like product prices. 
Another key aspect of this dispute had been the investigating authority's failur e to adequately 
explain its consideration of price depression in light of the undisputed fact that the prices of 
subject imports had been considerably higher than those of the domestic like product during the 
period, in which the alleged price depression h ad been found.  
1.25.   The Panel had also found that the investigating authority had failed to demonstrate that 
there had been a causal relationship between the alleged dumped imports and the alleged injury 
to the domestic industry. China should also take into acc ount a number of more likely causes of 
injury to the Chinese domestic industry. These had included positive evidence of the decline in the 
prices of the primary downstream good, viscose staple fibre and of cotton. There had also been 
evidence of the Chines e domestic industry's own over -expansion, over -production and inventory 
build-up, and the impact of imports of cellulose pulp from non -subject countries. Canada was 
confident that through its review of the record of the original investigation, the investig ating 
authority would see that there was insufficient evidence to make findings of price depression or WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 6 - 
 
causation. As a result, the appropriate compliance measure was to rescind this anti -dumping order 
against imports from Canada, which had been in place si nce April  2014. Canada looked forward to 
the completion of China's review of this matter as soon as possible. Canada expected that a 
negative injury finding prior to the expiry of the reasonable period of time would resolve this 
dispute.  
1.26.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
2  UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT  OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTED BY THE  DSB 
A.  Statement by the European  Union  
2.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European  Union and invited the representative of the EU to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of the European  Union  said that his delegation requested, once again, that 
the United  States stopped transferring anti -dumping and countervailing duties to the US industry. 
Each disbursement that still took place was clearly an act of non -compliance with the DSB's  
recommendations and rulings. The EU renewed its call on the United  States to a bide by its 
obligation under Article  21.6 of the DSU to submit implementation reports in this dispute. The EU 
would continue requesting this Agenda item, for as long as the United  States had not implemented 
the WTO ruling.  
2.3.  The representative of Canada  said that his country thanked the EU for keeping this item on 
the DSB Agenda. Canada shared the EU's view that the Byrd Amendment dispute should remain 
under surveillance by the DSB until the United  States complied with the DSB's  recommendations 
and rulings.  
2.4.  The representative of Brazil  said that her country, once again, thanked the EU for keeping 
this item on the DSB Agenda. As an original party to the Byrd Amendment dispute, Brazil referred 
to its previous statements made on this matter and called on the Uni ted States to fully comply 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  
2.5.  The representative of the United  States  said that as the United  States  had noted at previous 
DSB meetings , the Deficit Reduction Act, which included a provision repealin g the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, was 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 had acknowledged 
that the Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods entered 
after 1  October  2007, more than 10  years ago. With respect to the EU's request for status reports 
in this matter, as the United  States had already explained at previous DSB meetings, there was no 
obligation under the DSU to provide further status reports, once a Member announced that it had 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings, regardless of whether the c omplaining party 
disagreed about compliance. As the United  States had noted many times previously, the EU had 
demonstrated repeatedly that it shared this understanding, at least when it was the responding 
party in a dispute. Once again, this month the EU h ad provided no status report for disputes in 
which there was a disagreement between the parties on the EU's compliance.  
2.6.  The representative of the European  Union  said that his delegation had provided status 
reports on all cases, in which the EU was involved , currently, "EC – Approval and Marketing of 
Biotech Products" (DS291).  
2.7.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 7 - 
 
3  EUROPEAN  UNION – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON BIODIESEL FROM INDON ESIA  
A.  Statement by the European  Union  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European  Union. He then invited the representative of the EU to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of the European  Union  said that the EU intended to implement the DSB's  
recommendations and rulings in this dispute  in a manner that respected its WTO obligations. The 
EU required a reasonable period of time to do so, which had already been agreed by the EU and 
Indonesia. The EU referred to its communication to the DSB, circulated as document WT/DS480/7 
on 1 March  2018. The reasonable period of time was set to expire on 28  October  2018.  
3.3.  The representative of Indonesia  said that her country would like to confirm the statement 
that had just been made by the EU with regard to the agreed reasonable period of time of 
eight months. Indonesia stood ready to work closely with the EU to ensure a prompt settlement of 
this dispute.  
3.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
4  THAILAND – CUSTOMS AND FISCAL M EASURES ON CIGARETTE S FROM THE 
PHILIPPINES  
A.  Second recourse to Article  21.5 of th e DSU by the Philippines: Request for the 
establishment of a panel (WT/DS371/22)  
4.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the Philippines, contained in 
document WT/DS371/22, and invited the representative of the Philippines to speak.  
4.2.  The repre sentative of the Philippines  recalled that her country had first requested 
consultations in  2008, with regard to the concerns it had raised about customs and fiscal measures 
in Thailand. The Philippines regretted that, one decade later, Thailand had still not taken the 
necessary steps to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. While the Philippines 
recognized that Thailand had taken a number of steps to remove WTO -inconsistent measures over 
the years, the Philippines, however, regretted that Thai land had also introduced new 
WTO-inconsistent measures that prolonged this dispute. These second compliance proceedings 
concerned two principal measures: one measure was criminal charges concerning the customs 
valuation of entries for the period from 2002 to 2003, which were an example of Thailand's pattern 
of non -compliance with its WTO  customs valuation obligations. Thailand had wrongly rejected the 
transaction values and had established alternative values in a manner contrary to the WTO 
Customs Valuation  Agreement. A first set of criminal charges, which had been brought against this 
importer, was already the subject of compliance proceedings in this dispute, and these were at an 
advanced stage. The Philippines considered that both sets of criminal charges  were 
WTO-inconsistent. The second measure concern notices of assessment for 1'052 entries for the 
period from 2000 to 2003, which sought payment of customs duties and internal taxes exceeding 
US$800 million. Thailand had improperly rejected the transactio n values and had established 
alternative values in a manner contrary to the WTO  Customs Valuation Agreement.  
4.3.  The Philippines had been informed by Thailand that some or all of these notices would be 
withdrawn or revised. The Philippines welcomed such develo pments, which demonstrated a step 
into the right direction. The Philippines hoped that such developments foreshadowed the resolution 
of all aspects of this longstanding dispute with Thailand, a valued ASEAN partner, encompassing 
the issues that had been ra ised in both compliance proceedings, including any inconsistent criminal 
or administrative proceedings. The Philippines noted that it requested the establishment of a 
compliance panel only reluctantly at the present meeting. Nevertheless, the Philippines a lso 
recalled the Philippines -Thailand Sequencing Agreement. Pursuant to that Agreement, Thailand 
would not object to the first request for the establishment of a compliance panel in this dispute. 
The Philippines reiterated that it remained ready to seek an  amicable solution to this dispute with 
its ASEAN partner, Thailand.  WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 8 - 
 
4.4.  The representative of Thailand  said that her country regretted the Philippines' decision to 
request the establishment of a panel in this second recourse to Article  21.5 of the DSU. Pursu ant 
to the Sequencing Agreement between the Philippines and Thailand, Thailand did not object to this 
first panel request at the present meeting. Thailand noted that the notices of assessment, which 
had been referred to in paragraphs  9 to 16 in the Philipp ines' panel request, had been withdrawn 
and, thus, would not form part of the Panel's terms of reference. Concerning the other measure at 
issue, Thailand would defend its interests before a panel. Thailand reiterated its willingness to 
continue engaging in  discussions with the Philippines on possible amicable solutions to this 
dispute.  
4.5.  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, contai ned in document 
WT/DS371/22. It was agreed that Panel would have standard terms of reference.  
4.6.  The representatives of Australia ; China ; the European  Union ; India; Indonesia ; Japan ; the 
Russian  Federation ; Singapore  and the United  States  reserved their third -party rights to 
participate in the Panel's proceedings.  
5  AUSTRALIA – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON A4 COPY PAPER  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Indonesia (WT/DS529/6)  
5.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Indonesia, contained in  document 
WT/DS529/6, and invited the representative of Indonesia to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of Indonesia  said that, on 1  September  2017, her country had requested 
consultations with Australia regarding Australia's anti -dumping duties on A4 copy paper fr om 
Indonesia. As had been noted in Indonesia's request for consultations, Australia's anti -dumping 
determination appeared to be inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the GATT  1994 and  
the Anti -Dumping Agreement. Indonesia and Australia had held c onsultations on 31  October  2017, 
which, unfortunately, had not resolved the dispute. Indonesia, therefore, requested the DSB to 
establish a panel. As set out in Indonesia's request for the establishment of a panel, a number of 
substantive deficiencies exis ted in Australia's anti -dumping determination, which appeared to be 
inconsistent with its obligations under the GATT  1994 and the Anti -Dumping Agreement. Indonesia 
requested that the DSB establish a panel to examine the matter that had been set out in 
Indonesia's panel request, with the standard terms of reference.  
5.3.  The representative of Australia  said that her country considered it unfortunate that Indonesia 
had requested a WTO panel on this matter at this time. In Australia's view, the ability to take 
remedial action against dumped imports that were causing or threatening material injury to a 
domestic industry formed part of the critical balance of Members' rights and obligations provided 
under WTO  rules. The WTO Anti -Dumping Agreement was designed to remedy injurious dumping, 
which had been caused or threatened to be caused, by goods being export ed at a price below their 
normal value. The WTO Anti -Dumping Agreement was drafted in a manner, which accommodated 
a range of scenarios, which could arise in an anti -dumping investigation and flexibility ought to be 
maintained to ensure investigating autho rities could exercise discretion, where appropriate, based 
on the specific evidence and facts of an investigation. Australia considered the investigation and 
the subsequent imposition of dumping duties on certain imports of A4 copy paper from Indonesia 
had been entirely consistent with the WTO Anti -Dumping Agreement.  
5.4.  Australia was of the view that its anti -dumping system provided due process to all interested 
parties, and noted that the Government of Indonesia and affected Indonesian exporters had 
availed t hemselves of Australia's system of merits review. This system enabled interested parties 
to seek a review of the decisions of the investigation to ensure the correct and preferable decision 
was made. Australia highlighted that to demonstrate that its anti -dumping system was open, 
transparent and evidence -based, fully consistent with Australia's WTO obligations. While Australia 
acknowledged Indonesia's rights under the WTO Agreement to seek the establishment of a panel, 
it noted that Indonesia had yet to exh aust all the domestic review options available to it. For 
example, Indonesia had 28  days from the date of decision to seek judicial review, or seek a review 
of the measures by the Anti -Dumping Commission 12  months after the imposition of the measure. 
Austr alia, therefore, encouraged Indonesia and affected Indonesian exporters to exhaust these WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 9 - 
 
review options before engaging the resources of the WTO dispute settlement system. Australia 
reiterated its willingness to engage bilaterally on the domestic review op tions available to 
Indonesia and affected exporters. Australia, thus, rejected Indonesia's panel request at the 
present meeting.  
5.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter.  
6  UNITED  STATES – COUNTERVAILING MEASU RES ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER FROM 
CANADA  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada (WT/DS533/2)  
6.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Canada, contained in document 
WT/DS533/2, and invited the representative of Canada to speak.  
6.2.  The representative of Canada  said that, on 16  December  2016, the US Department of 
Commerce had announced the initiation of an investigation into the alleged subsidization of certain 
softwood lumber products from Canada. The US Department of Commerce had announced its 
preliminar y and final countervailing duty determinations on 24  April 2017 and 2  November  2017, 
respectively, resulting in the imposition of countervailing duties of up to 17.99 % on imports of 
softwood lumber from Canada. As had been outlined in Canada's request for the establishment of 
a panel, Canada considered that the US measures were inconsistent with its obligations under the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and the GATT  1994. In particular, Canada 
considered that the United States had violated  its obligations under these Agreements by 
improperly initiating an investigation, incorrectly determining the existence and amount of any 
benefit, improperly conducting the underlying investigation, improperly determining countervailing 
duty rates, and im properly attributing to the production of softwood lumber certain alleged 
subsidies that had been bestowed on the production of products that had not been under 
investigation. The duties that had been imposed, as a result of the United  States' countervaili ng 
measures, were having a negative impact on Canadian softwood lumber producers in various 
Canadian provinces. Canada had held consultations with the United  States on these measures on 
17 January  2018. Unfortunately, Canada and the United  States had been unable to resolve their 
differences. Consequently, Canada was now requesting that a WTO panel be established to 
examine this matter with standard terms of reference. Canada remained open to continue its 
dialogue with the United States in a manner that woul d address Canada's concerns.  
6.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States  was disappointed that 
Canada had chosen to move forward with a request for panel establishment. The United  States 
had explained to Canada that the measures in its request were fully consistent with US obligations 
under the WTO Agreement. The United  States also would like to point out that the panel request 
before the DSB at the present meeting identified a measure that had not existed at the time that 
Canada had  requested consultations with the United  States, namely the countervailing duty order 
on softwood lumber from Canada. This measure had been published more than one month after 
Canada had requested consultations. Canada could not request the establishment o f a panel to 
review a measure that had not existed at the time of its consultations request, and which 
necessarily had not been the subject of consultations. For these reasons, the United  States urged 
Canada to reconsider its decision to pursue a panel in this dispute, and the United  States was not 
in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel at this time.  
6.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter.  
7  UNITED  STATES – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES APP LYING DIFFERENTIAL P RICING 
METHODOLOGY TO SOFTWOO D LUMBER FROM CANADA  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada (WT/DS534/2)  
7.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Canada, contained in document 
WT/DS534/2, and invited the representative of Canada to speak.  
7.2.  The representative of Canada  said that, on 16  December  2016, the US Department of 
Commerce had announced the initiation of an investigation into the alleged dumping of softwood WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 10 - 
 
lumber products from Canada. The US Department of Commerce had announced its pr eliminary 
and final anti -dumping determinations on 26  June 2017 and 2  November  2017, respectively, 
resulting in the imposition of anti -dumping duties of up to 7.28% on imports of softwood lumber 
from Canada. As outlined in Canada's request for the establis hment of a panel, Canada considered 
that the United  States' application of the Differential Pricing Methodology was inconsistent with its 
obligations under the Anti -Dumping Agreement and the GATT  1994. More specifically, Canada 
considered that the United  States had violated its obligations under these Agreements by applying 
zeroing in its weighted -average -to-transaction calculation methodology and, in applying the 
weighted -average -to-transaction calculation methodology, improperly aggregated random and 
unrelated price variations and had failed to identify a pattern of export prices. Combined with the 
countervailing measures that the United  States had imposed on Canadian softwood lumber, these 
anti-dumping duties represented a considerable hardship for Canadi an softwood lumber producers 
and communities across Canada that relied on this industry to serve as their main economic 
anchor. Canada had held consultations with the United  States on these measures on 
17 January  2018. Unfortunately, Canada and the United  States had been unable to resolve their 
differences. As a result, Canada was now requesting that a WTO panel be established to examine 
this matter. Canada was also requesting that this matter be referred to the original panel that 
considered the Differenti al Pricing Methodology in "US  – Washing Machines" (DS464) in 
accordance with Article  10.4 of the DSU. Canada remained open to continue its dialogue with the 
United  States in a manner that would address Canada's concerns.  
7.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that, as for the prior Agenda item, the 
United  States was disappointed that Canada had chosen to move forward with a request for panel 
establishment. The United  States had explained to Canada that the measures in its request were 
fully consiste nt with the US obligations under the WTO Agreement. In addition, the United  States 
observed that Canada had identified in its panel request a measure that had not existed at the 
time that Canada had requested consultations with the United States, namely, t he anti -dumping 
order on softwood lumber from Canada. This measure had been published more than one month 
after Canada had requested consultations. It was not appropriate for a Member to request the 
establishment of a panel to review a measure that had not  existed at the time of its consultations 
request, and which necessarily had not been the subject of consultations. The United  States took 
note of Canada's references to Articles  4.9 and 10.4 of the DSU in its panel request. The 
United  States did not see t he basis on which Canada considered that Articles  4.9 and 10.4 of the 
DSU were relevant to this matter. First, Canada's panel request made no attempt to explain why it 
considered this to be a case of urgency under Article  4.9. Softwood lumber from Canada w as not a 
perishable good. Second, Canada had no basis for relying on Article 10.4 of the DSU. That Article 
concerned measures already the subject of a panel proceeding. Canada's panel request referred to 
"[t]he US anti -dumping measures applying the Differe ntial Pricing Methodology ('DPM') to certain 
softwood lumber products from Canada". As the final determination in the anti -dumping 
investigation of softwood lumber from Canada had been issued this past November, clearly it was 
not the case that those measu res were already the subject of a panel proceeding. For these 
reasons, the United  States was not in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel.  
7.4.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea took note of Canada's statement at the present 
meeting. Kor ea believed that Canada would not have requested the establishment of a panel if the 
United  States had already completed its implementation in "US  – Washing Machines" (DS464) 
dispute because the measure at issue in the dispute with Canada (DS534) would not  have existed 
if the United  States had fully complied with "as such" violation with regard to its anti -dumping 
measures in the dispute with Korea (DS464). Korea was, thus, of the view that full implementation 
of the DSB's recommendations by the United  States in DS464 would have made Canada's request 
in DS534 unnecessary.  
7.5.  The representative of Canada  said that, with regard to the urgent character of this dispute, 
Canada noted that there was no procedural requirement in Article  4.9 of the DSU. Communities 
from across Canada struggled daily because of the unwarranted and unjustified duties, which had 
been imposed by the United  States on certain Canadian softwood lumber imports. Canada believed 
that the continued use of zeroing through the Differential Pricing M ethodology in the final 
anti-dumping determination was clearly inconsistent with the Anti -Dumping Agreement and the 
GATT  1994. The United  States had been required to bring its anti -dumping measures related to 
softwood lumber from Canada into conformity wit h the DSB's rulings and recommendations in 
DS464 by 26  December  2017. As the United  States had failed to do so, Canada was requesting 
that this matter be treated as urgent. Regarding Canada's request that this matter be referred to WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 11 - 
 
the original panel, Cana da noted that Article  10.4 of the DSU stipulated that if a third party 
considered that a measure already the subject of a panel proceeding nullified or impaired benefits 
accruing to it under any covered agreement, the Member in question could have recourse  to 
normal dispute settlement procedures and that, wherever possible, the dispute should be referred 
to the original panel. The measures Canada was challenging had already been the subject of a 
Panel proceeding in "US  – Washing Machines" (DS464), which Can ada had joined as a third party. 
As a result, Canada believed that Canada's current dispute with the United  States regarding 
anti-dumping measures should be referred to the original Panel in "US  – Washing Machines" 
(DS464).  
7.6.  The representative of the United  States  said that the assertion that Canadian producers 
would suffer irreparable harm lacked foundation. Such alleged harm was no different from the 
harm that had been alleged by nearly all complainants in WTO dispute settlement. If mere 
assertion of an al leged harm had been sufficient to invoke Article  4.9 of the DSU, as Canada 
appeared to suggest, then every WTO dispute would be a case of urgency. The existence of 
Appellate Body findings or DSB recommendations in prior disputes concerning allegedly simila r 
issues did not make this a case of urgency within the meaning of Article  4.9 of the DSU. With 
respect to Article  10.4 of the DSU, the United  States continued to struggle to understand Canada's 
assertion that measures, which had been issued in November  2017, had been somehow already 
subject to a panel proceeding that occurred several years prior.  
7.7.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter.  
8  PROPOSED NOMINATIONS  FOR THE INDICATIVE L IST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELIS TS (WT/DSB/W/618)  
8.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/618, which contained additional 
names proposed by the EU (Sweden), for inclusion on the Indicative List of Governmental and 
Non-Governmental Panelists, in accordance with Article  8.4 of the  DSU. He then proposed that the 
DSB approve the names contained in document WT/DSB/W/618.  
8.2.  The DSB so agreed . 
9  APPELLATE BODY MATTE RS 
A.  Appellate Body Appointments : Proposal by Argentina;  Australia;  the Plurinational 
State of Bolivia; Brazil;  Canada;  Chile;  China;  Colombia;  Costa  Rica;  Dominican  Republic;  
Ecuador;  El Salvador;  the European  Union;  Guatemala;  Honduras;  Hong  Kong, China; 
India;  Israel;  Kazakhstan;  Korea;  Mexico;  New Zealand;  Nicaragua;  Norway;  Pakistan;  
Panama;  Paraguay;  Peru;  the Russian  Federation;  Singapore;  Switzerland;  the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Turkey;  Ukraine;  Uruguay and 
Viet Nam  (WT/DSB/W/6 09/Rev.2 ) 
9.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was placed on the Agenda of the present meeting at the 
request of Mexico, on behalf of several delegations. He drew attention to the proposal, contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.2, and invited the representative of Mexico to speak.  
9.2.  The representative of Mexico  said that the delegations of Argentina; Australia; Plurinational 
State of Bolivia; Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; Colombia; Costa Rica; Dominican Republic; 
Ecuador; El  Salvador; the European  Union; Guatemala; Honduras; Hong  Kong, China; India; 
Israel; Kazakhstan; Korea; Mexico; New Zealand; Nicaragua; Norway; Pakistan; Panama; 
Paraguay; Peru; the Russian Federation; Singapore; Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory 
of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Turkey; Ukraine; Urugu ay and Viet  Nam had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal dated 15  February  2018, contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.2, 
to launch the Appellate Body selection processes.  Mexico was making a statement, on behalf of 
64 Members, as well as Indonesia, which had recently expressed its intent ion to co -sponsor the 
proposal. Mexico said that the large number of co -sponsors of this proposal reflected the collective 
concern about the current situation in the Appellate Body. This situation was affecting the WTO's 
work and the functioning of the dispute settlement system and was against the best interest of 
WTO Members. Mexico noted that WTO Members had a responsibility to safeguard and preserve 
the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system and the multilateral tr ading system. Thus, it WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 12 - 
 
was the WTO Members' duty to launch the selection processes for new Appellate Body members, 
as set out in the proposal that was before the DSB at the present meeting. This proposal sought 
to, first, start three selection processes, n amely, one to replace Mr. Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, 
whose second term of office had expired on 30  June 2017; a second process to fill the vacancy 
that had arisen with the resignation of Mr. Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 1  August  2017; and a 
third proces s to replace Mr.  Peter Van den Bossche, whose second term of office had expired on 
11 December  2017. Second, to establish a Selection Committee. Third, to set a deadline of 
30 days for nominations  of candidates. Fourth, to request the Selection Committee t o make its 
recommendations to the DSB within 60  days after the deadline for nominations of candidates. 
While the proponents were flexible with regard to the deadlines for the selection processes, these 
should, however, take into account the urgency of the situation. The co -sponsors of the proposal 
urged all Membe rs to support this proposal in the interest of safeguarding the multilateral trade 
system and the dispute settlement system.  
9.3.  The representative of the European  Union  said that his delegation referred to its statements 
made on this issue at previous DSB mee tings, starting in February  2017. With each passing 
month, the gravity and urgency of the situation increased. WTO Members had a shared 
responsibility to resolve this issue as soon as possible. The EU thanked all Members that had co -
sponsored the proposal,  and invited all other Members to endorse this proposal to ensure that the 
Appellate Body appointments could be made as soon as possible.  
9.4.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States  thanked the Chairman  for 
his continued work on the se issues. The United  States was  not in a position to support the 
proposed decision. The United  States had listened carefully to the interventions of other Members 
at recent meetings and appreciated the willingness expressed by some Members to engage on th e 
important issues and concerns that the United  States had raised. However, the DSB had not yet 
addressed the problem of persons continuing to serve on appeals well after their terms had  
expired. Under the DSU, it was the DSB that had the authority to appo int Appellate Body members 
and to decide when their term in office expired1, and so it was up to the DSB to decide whether a 
person who was no longer an Appellate Body member could continue to serve on an appeal. At the 
28 February  2018 DSB meeting, the Un ited States had drawn Members' attention to questions 
raised  by the Appellate Body's unsolicited "Background Note on Rule  15". The United  States noted 
that, in several respects, the document had failed to provide a correct or complete presentation of 
the issue, and therefore had failed to contribute to Members' consideration of this issue. In light of 
the troubling omissions that the United States had identified, the United  States would request 
additional information to understand the reasons for these omis sions. For example, the 
United  States had called Members' attention to the statements in the background note that 
"[m]any international adjudicative bodies follow transitional rules or practices similar to Rule  15" 
and "the statutes of some international t ribunals contemplate that the term of office of an 
adjudicator is automatically extended until a successor is appointed".2 The background note had 
only acknowledged that no rule providing for the extension of a member's term until a successor 
was appointed  existed in the DSU.3 However, in analogizing to the rules of "some international 
tribunals", which remained unnamed, the document had failed to acknowledge a key fact apparent 
from even a cursory review of such rules, which one would assume had been under taken to 
support the analogy, that the rules for those other tribunals were based on their constitutive texts. 
Last month, i n February  2018, the United  States had pointed to the example of the Statute of the 
International Court of Justice, which was annexe d to and an integral part of the United Nations 
Charter.4 For the benefit of other Members, the United  States would like to share what it had 
learned reviewing the rules applying to other international tribunals. This review confirmed that 
the issue of who  may continue to serve and decide a dispute was not a mere "working procedure" 
to be decided by the tribunal. For example, like in the case of the International Court of Justice, 
the Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea set out for that Tribunal in 
                                                
1 Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Articles. 17.1, 17.2 
("DSU").  
2 Background Note, para. 3.  
3 Background Note, para. 3.  
4 Statute of the International Court of Justice, Art. 13(3) ( "The members of the Court shall continue to 
discharge their duties until their places have been filled. Though replaced, they shall finish any cases which 
they may have begun. "); UN  Charter, Art.  92 ("The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial 
organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the 
Statute of the P ermanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter. "). WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 13 - 
 
Article  5(3) a transition rule for departing members.5 Similarly, for the European Court of Human 
Rights, Article  23(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights set out a rule for judges who 
had been replaced.6 Unlike those other tribunals, Rule  15 was not set out in the constitutive text of 
the WTO dispute settlement system, the DSU. It had therefore not been agreed to by WTO 
Members. The United  States would appreciate understanding from the Appellate Body why this 
basic difference between the DSU and "some international tribunals" had not been reflected in 
what had been purported to be a background document.  
9.5.  The United  States had also previously called Members' attention to the Appellate Body's 
assertion in the  Background Note that "[u]ntil recently, the application of Rule  15 has never been 
called into question by any participant or third participant in any appeal, nor has it been criticized 
by any Member in the DSB when an Appellate Body report signed by an AB  member completing an 
appeal pursuant to Rule  15 was adopted by the DSB".7 This statement was  misleading at best. The 
language appeared to have been very carefully crafted to avoid mentioning that Rule  15 had been, 
in fact, "criticized by [a WTO] Member in  the DSB" and was "called into question" at the time of its 
adoption. In particular, India had stated explicitly that Rule  15 and, specifically, the continuation of 
an Appellate Body member after the expiry of his or her term without the approval of the DS B, had 
raised a "systemic concern" and "was contrary to Article  17.1 of the DSU".8 The criticism of 
Rule 15 in the DSB by a WTO Member at the time of its adoption was the type of basic information 
one would expect to be included in a document with the inte ntion to make an objective 
presentation of the issue. Its omission raised serious concerns. The United  States would appreciate 
receiving information from the Appellate Body explaining why India's intervention had not been 
drawn to the attention of WTO Memb ers in this document. The United  States would further 
appreciate understanding why the Appellate Body's statement had been drafted in the manner it 
had been.  
9.6.  Finally, as the United  States had also noted at the last meeting, only one Member had 
attempted to  offer a substantive explanation of the legality of Rule  15. China had asserted that the 
"rotation" required by the DSU provided the legal basis for Rule  15. As the United  States had 
explained, this argument exhibited a fundamental misunderstanding of the DSU. Article  17.1 
provided, in relevant part, that the Appellate Body "shall be composed of seven persons, three of 
whom shall serve on any one case. Persons serving on the Appellate Body shall serve in rotation. 
Such rotation shall be determined in the wo rking procedures of the Appellate Body". Rotation, as 
used in this provision, was concerned with ensuring variation among the individuals serving in 
different appeals. But the very provision speaks of "[p]ersons serving on the Appellate Body", not 
"person[ s] who [have] cease[d] to be a member of the Appellate Body".9 The DSU provision on 
"rotation" had no relevance to the question raised by Rule  15, continued service on an appeal by 
an individual who had ceased to be a member of the Appellate Body. In concl usion, as the 
United  States had noted previously, some WTO Members may be comfortable with the situation of 
former members continuing to act as though they were still members of the Appellate Body, but it 
was not legal under the multilaterally agreed rules . The United  States remained resolute in its view 
that Members needed to resolve that issue first before moving on to the issue of replacing such a 
                                                
5 Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Art. 5(3) ( "The members of the Tribunal 
shall continue to discharge their duties until their place s have been filled. Though replaced, they shall finish 
any proceedings which they may have begun before the date of their replacement. "). 
6 European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 23(3) ( "The judges shall hold office until replaced. They 
shall, however, continue to deal with such cases as they already have under consideration. "). 
7 Background Note, para. 2.  
8 DSB Meeting Minutes for 21 February  1996 at 12 (WT/DSB/M/11) ( 19 March  1996): India raised "a 
systemic concern with regard to Rule  15 which implied that the Appellate Body could authorize a member to 
continue to be a member after it ceased to be a member. This was contrary to Article  17.1 of the DSU which, 
inter alia, provided that a standing Appellate Body shall be established by the DSB and that it shall be 
composed of seven persons. Rule  15 would lead to a situation where the Appellate Body could consist of more 
than seven members or an Appellate Body member continued after the expiry of his term without the approval 
of the DSB. While the practical need for the provision contained in Rule  15 was understandable, he would be 
seriously concerned if a member of the Appellate Body could continue without concurrence or approval by the 
DSB. This Rule provided for notification to the DSB instead of approval and therefore was in violation of 
Article  17.1 of the DSU ". 
9 Working Procedures for Appellate Review, Rule  15: "A person who ceases to be a member of the 
Appellate Body may, with the authorization of the Appellate Body and upon notification to the DSB, complete 
the disposition of any appeal to which that person was assigned while a member, and that person shall, for 
that purpose only, be deemed  to continue to be a member of the Appellate Body ". WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 14 - 
 
person. The United  States therefore would continue its efforts and its discussions with Members 
and with the  Chairman  to seek a solution on this important issue.  
9.7.  The representative of Canada  said that his country deeply regretted that the DSB had been 
unable to fulfil its legal obligation under Article  17.2 of the DSU to appoint Appellate Body 
members as vacanci es arose. Canada agreed that it was time to start a process or, if necessary, 
several processes to select new Appellate Body members for the three current vacancies. Canada 
was pleased to join the proposal submitted by more than 30  delegations and urged th e DSB to 
adopt it without further delay. Like other Members, Canada was disappointed that the 
United  States had linked the start of the Appellate Body selection processes to the resolution of 
certain procedural concerns that it had shared with the WTO Memb ership. Canada invited the 
United  States to engage in discussions with interested Members with a view to expeditiously 
developing a solution to the concerns that it had raised. Canada remained committed to working 
with other interested Members, including t he United  States, with a view to finding a way to 
address those concerns, so as to allow the selection processes to start and be completed as soon 
as possible.  
9.8.  The representative of Brazil  said that her country welcomed Indonesia as co -sponsor. The 
proposa l was now co -sponsored by 65  Members. These Members were from diverse regions, and 
the large number of co -sponsors demonstrated that the current impasse was of concern to all WTO  
Members. Brazil invited those Members that had not yet joined the proposal to  support it to ensure 
that the WTO Membership could continue benefitting from a well -functioned dispute settlement 
system. The importance of a well -functioned dispute settlement system had never been more 
evident than now. With the resurgence of unilateral  measures and protectionism, the only 
appropriate means to avoid conflicts was to have recourse to a rules -based, efficient and neutral 
WTO dispute settlement system. Brazil had carefully read recent documents containing concerns 
about the multilateral tra ding system. There were certainly issues that could be improved at the 
WTO in general and its dispute settlement system in particular. Brazil was willing to engage in 
conversations with interested Members in order to find solutions that were acceptable to the WTO 
Membership. Brazil, however, reiterated that it was unfortunate that the concerns, which had been 
raised, were linked to the mandate to fill Appellate Body vacancies, as they arose.  
9.9.  The representative of India said that her country supported the proposal to launch the 
selection processes to fill current Appellate Body vacancies, on a priority basis. India recognized 
that the WTO dispute settlement system was a central element in providing security and 
predictab ility to the multilateral trading system. India regretted that the DSB had been unable to  
fulfil its legal obligation under Article  17.2 of the DSU to appoint new Appellate Body members as 
vacancies arose. This was a serious and urgent concern for the mult ilateral trading system, and 
threatened to undermine the rights and obligations of WTO Members. India, therefore, urged all 
Members to engage constructively to resolve this issue as early as possible. India remained 
committed to work with other interested WTO Members with a view to finding a way to launch and 
complete the selection processes as soon as possible.  
9.10.   The representative of Pakistan  said that the issue of Appellate Body selection processes 
remained a serious concern for his country, and Pakistan r egretted that the DSB had been, once 
again, unable to fulfil its obligation under the DSU to appoint new Appellate Body members, as 
vacancies arose. Currently, there were three Appellate Body vacancies. In light of the WTO 
Membership's failure to act on th is matter, a situation would arise whereby a party, against whom 
a determination had been made at the panel stage in a dispute, could adversely affect the entire 
dispute settlement process by simply filing an appeal regardless of its merits, as this would further 
delay the implementation of the DSB's recommendations, as well as the ultimate resolution of the 
dispute. Such a situation was contrary to the very principle of the prompt settlement of disputes 
enshrined in the DSU. As co -sponsor, Pakistan support ed the proposal, as introduced by Mexico, to 
launch the Appellate Body selection processes, and thanked those Members that supported the 
proposal to fill the three Appellate Body vacancies. Delaying the launch of the Appellate Body 
selection processes woul d mean that the appellate proceedings in any new appeals could be 
delayed and take months, if not more than a year, to complete. This would erode Members' 
confidence in the WTO's dispute settlement system. Pakistan reiterated, once again, that it was 
the r esponsibility of the entire WTO Membership, acting as the DSB, to ensure the proper 
functioning of the WTO  dispute settlement system in a manner consistent with the DSU.  WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 15 - 
 
9.11.   The representative of Korea  said that his country referred to its previous statements under 
this Agenda item and reiterated its support for Mexico's statement made on behalf of 
65 proponents. The Appellate Body, and the WTO dispute settlement system as a whole, 
constituted the very backbone of the multilateral trading system. Failure to fil l the three Appellate 
Body vacancies would weaken the entire multilateral trade system and make it vulnerable. Korea 
was of the view that most WTO Members shared its view, and called on the entire WTO  
Membership to engage in the discussions to find ways to  protect and preserve the dispute 
settlement system.  
9.12.   The representative of Australia  said that her country thanked the Chairman  for his 
continued efforts in making progress on this key issue. Australia also thanked all the WTO 
Members, now more than 60, wh ich had co -sponsored the proposal for the DSB to launch 
immediately a process to make Appellate Body appointments. As had been repeated in this forum 
over many months, this proposal gave effect to the DSB's responsibility under Article  17.2 of the 
DSU requ iring that Appellate Body vacancies were to be filled as they arose. Australia invited other 
Members to show their support for this proposal, and join the long list of co -sponsoring Members. 
Like others, Australia was disappointed that no progress had been  made on the Appellate Body 
appointments. Australia was concerned that, first, the DSB continued a discussion which was now 
over a year old. Second, during this time, the Appellate Body's caseload had grown. Third, a 
system, which Australia supported, and had helped build with other WTO Members, was no longer 
functioning as it should and that this situation was only set to worsen. This stalemate within the 
DSB posed a systemic threat to the WTO's ability to settle disputes in accordance with the DSU. In 
light of such risks, Australia, like other Members, was now grappling with many questions about 
the immediate and long -term impact on the WTO's dispute settlement system, including on how to 
assure the ability as Members to enforce other Members' obligations under the WTO Agreements 
and provide security and predictability to the multilateral trading system in the absence of a 
properly functioning dispute settlement system; and did the WTO Membership need to review 
elements of the WTO dispute settlement system.  
9.13.   Australia believed that, among the WTO Membership, there was a group of Members with 
the will and commitment to find a way forward. Australia had heard the concerns raised by one 
Member regarding the operation of the transitional provisions for outgoing A ppellate Body 
members. However, the WTO Membership had to move beyond discussing the "problem", and turn 
its energy to discussing solutions. To this end, Australia had also heard other Members indicate 
their willingness to explore options for addressing th e concerns that had been identified. Many 
WTO Members had been engaged in working with others to find positive solutions. Australia 
remained committed to such efforts and invited all WTO Members, including the United  States, to 
join, so that the WTO Member ship could move forward together and find ways to ensure the 
ongoing integrity and functioning of the WTO's  valued dispute settlement system.  
9.14.   The representative of Colombia , speaking on behalf of the GRULAC, said that the WTO was 
undergoing a delicate peri od due to the blockage with regard to the Appellate Body selection 
processes. At the outset, Colombia wished to acknowledge the Chairman 's efforts to seek a 
solution to the current problem, and thanked the Chairman  for the opportunities that he had 
provide d to Members to exchange views on this matter. Colombia reiterated its deep concern 
about the present situation, which affected the functioning of a key WTO body. If this problem 
prevailed without resolution, it would bring about the paralysis of the Appel late Body in the near 
future. This would, in turn, put the entire dispute settlement system at risk. With the continued 
delay in launching the selection processes, the WTO Membership was failing to comply with an 
existing mandate, and thus, breached its le gal obligations under a covered agreement. This had 
serious systemic consequences and set a bad precedent for the WTO. This situation caused 
damage and affected the image and credibility of the WTO; in particular, given the complex 
international environmen t that was adversely affecting the multilateral trading system. Concerns 
had been raised regarding the functioning of the dispute settlement system and some specific 
issues regarding the decision -making process. These concerns had been linked to, present a nd 
future, Appellate Body vacancies, and thus, barred the WTO  Membership from meeting its legal 
obligation. The proper functioning of the system should not be undermined because the concerns 
of some Members had not been addressed. Colombia called on the WT O Membership to 
understand the gravity of a continued blockage. The selection processes should be delinked from 
unrelated concerns and should be addressed on the basis of their own merit. In this regard, 
Colombia urged WTO Members to find a solution that w ould allow the WTO  Membership to meet its 
legal obligation. Colombia requested the Chairman  to continue to seek a solution on this matter.  WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 16 - 
 
9.15.   The representative of Indonesia  recalled the statement made by the Indonesian Minister at 
the Informal WTO Ministeria l Meeting in New Delhi from 19 to 20  March  2018. Indonesia confirmed 
its support to, and the co -sponsorship of, the joint proposal to launch the selection processes for 
the Appellate Body vacancies. The DSB had been entrusted to resolve trade disputes betw een 
Members since its establishment and it had also been widely recognized as the essential 
component to safeguard the WTO. Indonesia was of the view that the dispute settlement system 
was at the heart of the WTO. If one's heart was not functioning well, t he entire system of one's 
body did not function. The current impasse on the Appellate Body selection processes should be of 
concern to all WTO  Members, as the credibility of the rules -based multilateral trading system was 
at stake. The WTO Membership shoul d seek to resolve this issue as quickly as possible, and find a 
way to keep the system effective and functional. With regard to the Appellate Body selection 
processes, Indonesia was of the view that any systemic concern raised by any Member should not 
be linked to the decision to fill Appellate Body vacancies, which, according to Article  17 of the DSU, 
"shall be filled as they arise". If a WTO Member considered that Rule  15 was the real issue, 
Indonesia would invite that WTO Member to submit a concrete prop osal, which would facilitate the 
discussion on this matter. Indonesia stood ready to engage in discussions and work with others to 
improve the dispute settlement system to make it more effective in the future.  
9.16.   The representative of China  said that his coun try welcomed Indonesia as a co -sponsor, and 
encouraged all Members to co -sponsor this proposal, so that the selection processes could be 
launched and vacancies filled in a timely manner. WTO Members had discussed this matter, over 
and over again, at previo us DSB meetings. While the importance of the matter could not be 
stressed any further at the present meeting, China did remind WTO Members, once again, that the 
dispute settlement mechanism was one of the fundamental WTO functions, if not the most 
importan t one. By establishing the dispute settlement system, Members were assured that 
negotiating outcomes would be enforceable; regardless of their economic strength or trade 
volume, Members would have equal rights before independent adjudicators; disputes woul d be 
adjudicated based solely on the merit of claims and facts; and, retaliation would not be 
implemented unilaterally and used as a weapon against others in order to achieve a goal that 
would serve only sovereign interests. The WTO dispute settlement syst em, after its establishment, 
had resolved hundreds of disputes between WTO Members, and had proven to be the most 
efficient and effective international dispute resolution mechanism throughout the history. This 
system had contributed immensely to the intern ational law jurisprudence. China, therefore, hoped, 
together with other WTO Members, that this system would live up to the high expectations of the 
legal practitioners in the area of international law.  
9.17.   Currently, the WTO Membership was unable to fill the A ppellate Body vacancies because of 
the reasons that all Members were aware of. China was particularly concerned with the current 
situation where, by seeking to disable the functioning of the Appellate Body, the United  States 
appeared to intend to dismantle  the enforceable dispute settlement system, and thereby, 
potentially impair the key function of the WTO. China reminded the United  States that if the 
operation of the Appellate Body was disabled, not only the functionality of the multilateral trading 
system but also the interests of the United  States would be severely jeopardized. While China 
reiterated its position that it did not share the position of the United  States that Rule  15 of the 
Working Procedures for Appellate Review raised any concerns, it nev ertheless remained open to 
engage in discussions about Rule  15. The United States had raised an issue of interpretation of 
Article  17.1 of the DSU during the present meeting, and China stood ready to discuss this issue 
with the United States and other WTO Members. China was of the view that blocking the selection 
processes was a wrong approach, and thus called on the United States to delink the concerns it 
had raised from the start of the selection processes. China invited the United States to reconsider 
its position. While many WTO Members, including China, had demonstrated their willingness to 
engage in a discussion on this matter, the discussion would not be productive without the 
constructive engagement by the United  States. China urged the WTO Membershi p to strengthen 
the dispute settlement mechanism instead of undermining its operation. China looked forward to 
working with all WTO Members to launch the selection processes as soon as possible.  
9.18.   The representative of Panama  said that his country thanked th e Chairman  for his continued 
efforts in holding consultations with Members on this matter. This matter had been on the agenda 
for quite some time. Panama was one of the 65 WTO Members that supported the proposal to 
break the deadlock on the Appellate Body selection processes. Unfortunately, Panama had to make 
yet another statement on this matter. The inability to launch the selection processes gravely 
affected and threatened the functioning of the WTO and the rules -based multilateral trading WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 17 - 
 
system as a who le. This situation was threatening WTO Members' economies and would eventually 
also lead to economic losses of WTO  Members. Panama was of the view that there was no reason 
to continue delaying the three Appellate Body selection processes. The WTO Membershi p could 
launch and carry out the selection processes, and, at the same time, review the Working 
Procedures for Appellate Review, which appeared to give rise to concern to some WTO  Members. 
Panama called for flexibility and pragmatism to achieve consensus, which would allow the WTO 
Membership to launch and conclude the process as soon as possible.  
9.19.   The representative of Thailand  said that her country thanked the proponents for submitting 
the joint proposal. Thailand welcomed Members' efforts and dedication in  an attempt to find a way 
forward on the Appellate Body matters. Thailand shared the view that the current impasse gave 
rise to a serious systemic concern over the proper functioning of the WTO dispute settlement 
mechanism, as well as the credibility and s ustainability of the rule -based multilateral trading 
system as a whole. The DSB was entrusted with a duty to establish a standing Appellate Body, and 
therefore, the WTO Membership had a shared responsibility to exercise this important function. 
Thailand wa s of the view that the Appellate Body selection processes should be launched as soon 
as possible. It appeared, however, that divergent views continued to keep the DSB away from 
reaching consensus on this matter. Despite the fact that the impasse over the c urrent Appellate 
Body remained, Thailand was encouraged by Members' willingness to engage in a constructive 
manner. In particular, Thailand appreciated the points made by the United States at the previous 
DSB meeting, as well as at the present meeting, whi ch had further clarified the US  concerns over 
the Appellate Body's authority and long -standing practice, which allowed former Appellate Body 
members to continue to serve on appeals, and its consistency with the DSU. Thailand welcomed 
this constructive enga gement and was of the view that it was important to clearly understand what 
the problem was, before the DSB could, properly and collectively, address the question of how to 
address the concerns raised. Thailand encouraged the continued engagement by the en tire WTO 
Membership, and looked forward to the US suggestions on a possible way forward on how to 
address the concerns raised and help unlock the current impasse. Thailand stood ready to work 
with WTO Members in order to find a prompt resolution of this ma tter. 
9.20.   The representative of Norway  said that, as her country had stated at previous meetings, a 
well-functioning WTO dispute settlement system was Norway's primary interest. Norway 
encouraged all WTO Members to support the proposal, which had been co -spons ored by over 
60 WTO Members. Norway referred to its previous statements on this issue, and urged all WTO  
Members to work together and show flexibility and commitment to find solutions to surpass this 
deadlock. Norway reiterated its openness and willingness  to listen seriously and engage 
constructively with all and any WTO Member on any grievances with the dispute settlement 
system.  
9.21.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that her delegation was pleased to co -sponsor 
the proposal on Appellate Body selection processes, which was supported by more than 60  WTO 
Members. Hong  Kong, China encouraged other WTO Members to support the proposal. As 
Hong Kong, China referred to its statements at previous DSB meetings, and reiterated that 
Appellate Body vacancies should be filled as quickly as possible without any delay. A prolonged 
impasse over the selection processes was threatening the proper functioning of the WTO dispute 
settlement system. While Hong  Kong, China understood that some procedural concerns had been 
raised by a WTO Member, however, it did not see a linkage between launching the selection 
processes and addressing these procedural concerns. Hong  Kong, China was prepa red to engage 
with all WTO  Members in further discussions on a possible way forward that may address the 
concerns raised by the WTO  Member. Hong  Kong, China, once again, urged WTO Members to 
exercise maximum flexibility in order to reach an agreeable solut ion to end the current impasse, so 
as to minimize the impact on the WTO dispute settlement system.  
9.22.   The representative of New Zealand  said that her country, once again, thanked Mexico and 
the co -sponsors for their efforts to launch the Appellate Body select ion processes as soon as 
possible. New  Zealand welcomed Indonesia as a co -sponsor and hoped others would join the 
proposal too. New  Zealand wished to underscore, once again, the urgency of appointing new 
Appellate Body members. A predictable, rules -based t rading system was critical. The Appellate 
Body needed to be given the resources to function and New  Zealand stood ready to work 
constructively to ensure that the WTO dispute settlement mechanism continued its essential role 
within the broader WTO  system. N ew Zealand disagreed that discussions on the concerns, which 
had been raised, should prevent the launch of the Appellate Body selection processes. The WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 18 - 
 
selection processes would require time to be carried out and concluded. New  Zealand did, 
however, acknowl edge the concerns, which had been raised, regarding the Appellate Body, and 
was willing to engage constructively in discussions with all WTO Members, which sought to resolve 
these concerns.  
9.23.   The representative of Switzerland  said that his country thanked th e Chairman  for his much 
appreciated efforts on this matter throughout his tenure as DSB Chairman . Like others, 
Switzerland deeply regretted that the DSB continued to be unable to launch the processes towards 
filling the three accumulated Appellate Body vac ancies. Switzerland referred to its previous 
statements and, once again, called on all WTO Members, and particularly the major ones, to 
seriously engage in discussions on concerns that had been raised, with a view to building trust and 
finding a solution t o this stalemate with a sense of urgency.  
9.24.   The representative of Peru said that his country called on the WTO Membership to review 
the present situation, which was a result of the deadlock to initiate the Appellate Body selection 
processes. This deadlock ha d already lasted more than a year. From a practical point of view, WTO 
Members were faced with a situation whereby it would become impossible to lodge an appeal in 
the future. This situation was, thus, eroding one of the fundamental pillars of the WTO. Sin ce the 
outset of the discussion on this matter, Peru had disagreed with those who wished to link certain 
concerns and conditions to the issue of the selection processes of new Appellate Body members. 
WTO Members had the right to appeal. Peru had been caref ully following detailed statements 
recently made by the United  States before the DSB as well as in other for a. While the recent 
statements had clarified the concerns that had been raised by the United  States, Peru was of the 
view that it was nevertheless essential to start and conclude the selection processes without 
further delay. A solution should be sought through dialogue, in a collaborative manner. To block 
the selection processes undermined the functioning of the WTO and it was, thus, vital to start the 
Appellate Body selection processes as soon as possible. More than a year had been dedicated to 
this matter, it was important that WTO Members remain flexible in their individual positions in 
order to ensure that the WTO dispute settlement system contin ued to function properly. Peru, 
thus, urged all WTO  Members, in particular the United  States, to remain flexible and creative, and 
to think outside the box, as suggested by the DSB Chairman, so that a prompt solution could be 
found to the current impasse, which undermined the proper functioning of the WTO dispute 
settlement system.  
9.25.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that his country wished to 
reiterate its deep concern with regard to the unacceptable delay in appointing new Appe llate Body 
members due to the lack of consensus. Like many other WTO Members, Venezuela reiterated the 
importance it attached to the Appellate Body, and the major contribution that the Appellate Body 
made to the multilateral trading system, and in particul ar, to the smooth functioning of the 
system. Venezuela also hoped that WTO Members would be able to overcome their differences 
and, as a result, rapidly appoint new Appellate Body members. This action was needed urgently, 
as it would not only bring back Me mbers' confidence in the WTO dispute settlement system but 
also strengthen it.  
9.26.   The representative of Chinese  Taipei  said that her delegation echoed the views of other 
WTO Members that had made statements on this matter. Chinese  Taipei regretted that, once 
again, the DSB could not initiate the selection Appellate Body processes. The delay had already 
serious implications on the proper functioning of the Appellate Body and the entire system. 
Chinese  Taipei reiterated that it stood ready to work with other WTO  Members and that it 
remained flexible in finding a solution.  
9.27.   The representative of Turkey  said that his country, a co -sponsor of the joint proposal, 
wished to be associated with the statement made by Mexico, on behalf of the proponents. Turkey 
thanked the  United States for the explanations. Nevertheless, Turkey regretted that the DSB had, 
once again, failed to launch the Appellate Body selection processes. As for other WTO Members, 
Turkey's concerns about the workload of the Appellate Body, the WTO dispute  settlement system 
and the WTO as a whole, increased after each DSB meeting. The failure to launch Appellate Body 
selection processes had lasted for over a year. Turkey was of the view that the concerns, which 
had been raised by the United  States, about the Working Procedures for Appellate Review should 
be dealt with separately and should not block the immediate start of the selection processes. 
Turkey urged all WTO Members to endorse the joint proposal.  WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 19 - 
 
9.28.   The representative of Singapore  said that his count ry reiterated its systemic concerns with 
regard to the delays in launching the Appellate Body selection processes. Singapore had 
co-sponsored the joint proposal to launch the selection processes since it had been first introduced 
at the November  2017 DSB m eeting, and the growing number of co -sponsors since then indicated 
the serious concern that Members had over the present impasse. With only four out of seven 
Appellate Body positions filled, and with the term of another Appellate Body member set to expire 
in September  2018, the WTO Membership would be facing an imminent paralysis if the vacancies 
were not filled. Given its heavy workload and significance, a fully -staffed Appellate Body was 
crucial to the proper functioning of the WTO dispute settlement mech anism, which in turn was an 
integral part of the rules -based multilateral trading system. The continued impasse adversely 
affected the credibility and functioning of the WTO, and it was essential that the Appellate Body 
vacancies were filled expeditiously.  Systemic issues, which had been raised, could be discussed in 
a separate process. Singapore stood ready to engage constructively and work with other WTO  
Members, as well as the Chairman , to help resolve this impasse.  
9.29.   The representative of Japan  said that his country thanked the Members who had placed the 
proposal contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.2 on the Agenda of the present meeting. 
Japan referred to its statements made at previous DSB meetings under this Agenda item, and 
reiterated that it was the  responsibility of the entire WTO Membership, acting as the DSB, to 
ensure the proper functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system in a manner consistent with 
the DSU.  
9.30.   The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 65 co -sponsors of the propos al, said 
that the proponents regretted that, for the tenth time, the WTO Membership had still not achieved 
consensus to start the Appellate Body selection processes and had, thus, failed to fulfil their duty 
as WTO Members. No discussion should prevent the  Appellate Body from continuing to function 
fully and WTO Members should comply with their obligation under the DSU, to fill the vacancies as 
they arose. By failing to act at the present meeting, the DSB would sustain the current situation, 
which was serio usly affecting the work of the Appellate Body against the best interest of its 
Members.  
9.31.   The Chairman  thanked delegations for their statements under this Agenda item. The DSB 
was not in a position at the present meeting to reach a consensus to launch the se lection 
processes. At the 27  February  2018 DSB meeting, he had expressed his intention to continue 
informal consultations on this matter to hear the views of Members and to facilitate a dialogue on 
this matter. He had, however, not received any requests fo r consultations. While he had some 
personal thoughts on this matter, he was of the view that it would not be appropriate to share 
these under this Agenda item. He hoped that the DSB would revert to this matter and address it in 
the coming meetings, in a mo re constructive and creative manner, and that the sense of crisis and 
urgency, which had been shared by many Members at the present meeting, would be translated 
into meaningful and concrete actions.  
9.32.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
10  INDONESIA – MEASURES  CONCERNING THE IMPOR TATION OF CHICKEN ME AT AND 
CHICKEN PRODUCTS  
A.  Statement by Indonesia  
10.1.   The representative of Indonesia,  speaking under "Other Business", said that Brazil and 
Indonesia had agreed that the reasonable period of time to implement the DSB' s recommendations 
and rulings in DS484 would be eight months, starting from 22  November  2017, which was the 
date of adoption of the Panel Report. The reasonable period of time would expire on 22  July 2018. 
A joint communication by Brazil and Indonesia to t his effect had been circulated to the DSB on 
19 March  2018.  
10.2.   The representative of Brazil  said that her country thanked Indonesia for its statement and 
welcomed its commitment to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
Brazil also t hanked Indonesia for its engagement in the negotiations concerning the reasonable 
period of time, and hoped that Indonesia would implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings expeditiously. Brazil stood ready to work with Indonesia in order to achieve th is goal. Brazil WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 20 - 
 
expected that, by the expiry of the reasonable period of time, chicken meat and chicken products 
from Brazil would be granted access to the Indonesian market.  
10.3.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
11  US SECTION  301 INVESTIGATION OF  CHINA' S LAWS , POLICIES, PRACTICE S, OR 
ACTIONS RELATED TO T ECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, INTELLECTUAL PROPERT Y, AND 
INNOVATION  
A.  Statements by China and the United  States  
11.1.   The representative of China , speaking under "Other Business", said that, on 22  March  2018, 
the United  States had published the report of its Section  301 investigation. As a result of the 
findings of the said report, the United  States had issued a list of measures that it would be 
implement against China. China strongly opposed this unilateral action. Secti ons 301-310 of the 
Trade Act of  1974, commonly referred to as Section  301, specifically authorized the United States 
to make a unilateral determination of inconsistency of trade measures of other countries and take 
unilateral actions accordingly where the proceedings at the WTO had not been exhausted. The 
legality of such provisions had been challenged by the EU in "US  – Section  301 Trade 
Act" (DS152). In January  2000, the DSB had adopted the Panel Report in this dispute. The Panel's 
key finding had been th at under certain circumstances, Section  301 was not inconsistent with 
Article  23 of the DSU. The Panel had concluded that "should the undertakings articulated in the 
Statement of Administrative Action and confirmed and amplified by the US to this Panel be 
repudiated or in any other way removed by the US  Administration or another branch of the US 
Government, this finding of conformity would no longer be warranted". In that dispute, the 
United  States, through both representations before the Panel and the Stat ement of Administrative 
Action, which had been submitted to the Panel, "explicitly, officially, repeatedly and unconditionally 
confirmed" its commitments that the United States would take a Section  301 decision or action 
only in line with the adopted DSB's  recommendations and rulings. Eighteen years later, by taking 
the actions mentioned above on 22  March  2018, the United  States was repudiating the 
commitment it had once made. China was very concerned about this situation, and the unilateral 
action that wou ld have profound and negative implications. China was strongly against the 
irresponsible action taken by the United States, and called on all WTO Members to safeguard the 
rules-based multilateral trading system. China was ready to defend and safeguard its legitimate 
interests and, in this regard, work with all WTO Members.  
11.2.   The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States would be pleased to 
discuss at length the seriously trade distorting policies adopted by China that were the subject of  
the ongoing Section  301 investigation mentioned in China's statement. It was these policies, and 
not responses by the United  States or other Members, that were a threat to the international 
trading system. As Members were aware, however, pursuant to DSU r ules, substantive discussions 
under Other Business were to be avoided. Accordingly, the United  States would keep its comments 
brief. All interested Members, however, were invited to engage in a careful review of the detailed 
factual report issued in the co urse of the investigation. The report was approximately 200  pages in 
length, and was available on the USTR website. The report contained extensive evidence that 
China engaged in the following four types of practices involving technology transfer. First, Ch ina 
used foreign ownership restrictions, such as joint venture requirements and foreign equity 
limitations, and various administrative review and licensing processes, to require or pressure 
technology transfer from US companies. Second, China's regime of t echnology regulations forced 
US companies seeking to license technologies to Chinese entities to do so on non -market -based 
terms that favour Chinese recipients. Third, China directed and unfairly facilitate d the systematic 
investment in, and acquisition of , US companies and assets by Chinese companies to obtain 
cutting -edge technologies and intellectual property and generated the transfer of technology to 
Chinese companies. Fourth, China conducted and supported unauthorized intrusions into, and theft 
from, the computer networks of US companies to access their sensitive commercial information 
and trade secrets. These policies harmed every Member, and every industry in every Member, that 
relied on technology for maintaining competitiveness in world markets and  increasing its people's 
standards of living.  
11.3.   Instead of addressing its harmful policies, China accused the United  States of 
"unilateralism". This criticism had absolutely no validity. The United  States had made no findings in 
the Section  301 investigation  that China had breached its WTO obligations. From the outset of the WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 21 - 
 
investigation, the United  States had been clear that where an act, policy, or practice appeared to 
involve WTO rules, the United  States would pursue the matter through WTO dispute settlem ent. In 
fact, one of the areas of investigation, involving technology licensing, appeared to be amenable to 
WTO dispute settlement. In particular, certain technology licensing measures adopted by China 
appeared to deny patent rights to foreign IP holders a nd discriminated against foreign IP holders. 
Thus, China's measures appeared to be inconsistent with China's obligations under the TRIPS 
Agreement. Accordingly, on 23  March  2018, the United  States had initiated a WTO dispute on this 
issue.10 The consultatio n request had been circulated, and WTO Members may review the request 
to see the TRIPS  Agreement issues involved. To be absolutely clear, the United  States had made 
no findings in the Section  301 investigation that the licensing measures at issue were inconsistent 
with China's  TRIPS Agreement obligations. Rather, as for any WTO dispute, the matter would be 
resolved by the parties or findings may be sought through WTO dispute settlement. In contrast, 
the three other categories of measures covered in the US investigation did not appear to implicate 
specific WTO obligations. Nonetheless, if China wished to inform the DSB that the three other sets 
of acts, policies, and practices covered in the Section  301 investigation did amount to breaches of 
WTO rules, i t may do so now. Accordingly, China's argument that the United  States had somehow 
acted inconsistently with Article  23 of the DSU was completely lacking in foundation. Indeed, by 
asserting that the United  States had breached the DSU, it was China itself th at was acting 
inconsistently with Article  23. More broadly, the WTO  system was not threatened, as China 
claimed, where a Member took steps to address harmful, trade distorting policies not directly 
covered by WTO rules. To the contrary, what did threaten t he WTO was where a Member, such as 
China, asserted that the mere existence of the WTO prevented any action by any Member to 
address unfair, trade -distorting policies, unless those policies were currently subject to WTO 
dispute settlement. If the WTO was se en instead as protecting those Members that chose to adopt 
policies that could  be shown to undermine the fairness and balance of the international trading 
system, then the WTO and the international trading system would lose all credibility and support 
amon g Members' citizens.  
11.4.   The representative of Pakistan  said that his country echoed the systemic concerns on the 
matter, which had been raised by China, on measures taken by the United  States under 
Section  301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Pakistan was of the vie w that such measures could bear 
serious consequences from a global perspective and, in particular, from a developing country 
perspective. This action had the potential to spur full -scale protectionist retaliation by other WTO 
Members, which would not only lead to dire consequences for developing countries but, more 
importantly, would weaken the entire edifice of the global trading system. The WTO faced already 
so many challenges, Pakistan, therefore, urged all WTO Members to continue to work towards 
trade m ultilateralism and openness, as this was the only way for all Members, especially the 
smaller economies, to flourish through trade.  
11.5.   The representative of Japan  noted that China had raised this matter under "Other Business". 
Japan noted that Rule  25 of the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the DSB, which provided that 
"[r]epresentatives should avoid unduly long debates under 'Other Business'" and "[d]iscussions on 
substantive issues under 'Other Business' shall be avoided". Rule  25 also provided that the "[ DSB] 
shall limit itself to taking note of the announcement by the sponsoring delegation, as well as any 
reactions" from others. Japan understood that China was not seeking any action by the DSB with 
regard to the matters it had raised at the present meetin g, and noted that China had raised similar 
matters under "Other Business" at the 26  March meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods. At that 
meeting, Japan had stated that Japan was reviewing the USTR report, which had been released on 
22 March  2018. Japan  also noted that it shared the views of the United  States that stronger and 
enforceable intellectual property protection was important. Japan also shared the concerns raised 
by the United  States about the disclosure requirement of technological information  and 
discriminatory licensing practices. Nevertheless, Japan reiterated that any trade measure had to 
be consistent with the WTO Agreement, and Japan, thus, expected that the United  Sates would 
implement such measures in a manner consistent with the WTO Ag reement.  
11.6.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
                                                
10 "China – Certain Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights " (DS542).  WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 22 - 
 
12  DISPUTE SETTLEMENT W ORKLOAD  
A.  Statement by the Chairman  
12.1.   The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business", said that, as he had announced at the 
beginning of the meeting, he would like to make a report to provide  the DSB with information 
about the number of disputes before panels and at the panel composition stage, the Appellate 
Body's workload and the ability of the Secretariat to meet expected demand over the coming 
period. This information reflected the status of disputes up until the present meeting. Other 
developments in the course of that meeting would be reflected in the information posted on the 
Members' website. Currently, there were 12 active panels (including two panels under Article  21.5 
of the DSU) tha t had not yet issued a final report to the parties. Multiple disputes being considered 
simultaneously by the same panel were counted as one. As of the present meeting, all composed 
panels had been assigned staff to assist them and were active or in the pro cess of commencing 
proceedings. There were a further four panels at the composition stage. This did not count panels, 
for which there had been no composition activity in the last twelve months. In addition, five final 
panel reports, which had been issued t o the parties, were currently being translated. The Appellate 
Body was currently dealing with six appeals, including the extremely complex compliance 
proceedings in "EC and Certain Member States – Large Civil Aircraft (Airbus)" and in "US – Large 
Civil Air craft (Boeing)". Submissions had been filed by the participants and third participants in all 
these six appeals. Divisions hearing these appeals had been composed and they were working on 
these appeals. All pending cases were staffed with Secretariat teams . Additional appeals could be 
filed within the next three months. Finally, four matters had been referred to arbitration under 
Article  22.6 of the DSU.  
12.2.   The DSB took note  of the statement.  
13  ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON 
13.1.   The outgoing Chairman  noted that this was th e last meeting of the DSB that he would have 
the privilege of chairing and said that he would like to make some personal remarks. He first 
thanked the CTNC Division, headed by Mr. Victor do Prado, for their support over the past year. He 
paid special tribu te to Ms. Bozena Mueller -Holyst who had taken good care of him to ensure that 
the important function s of the DSB were respected. In the beginning, he had wondered as to why 
he should follow so faithfully the way business had been conducted in the DSB in th e past. 
However, it had not taken long for him to realize why the DSB followed its traditions and well -
established practices. The DSB was an active decision -making body, which regularly took actions, 
such as establishing panels, adopting panel and Appellat e Body reports and authorizing 
suspensions of concessions and other obligations. Given the importance and far -reaching 
significances of DSB decisions, it was prudent that the DSB acted in an orderly and predictable 
manner. He had realized at the same time that while perpetuating these noble rituals, the DSB had 
had an elephant in the room growing larger, whose existence the DSB had been aware of, but 
which it had somehow avoided facing squarely. However, the moment of truth had finally come, 
and the issue o f filling the Appellate Body vacancies had unveiled the elephant in our midst. It had 
been a challenging year for the DSB and he , as the Chair , had kept his door open and tried to 
consult with WTO  Members as much as possible, while having also put forward some ideas himself. 
This, however, had not worked and WTO Members were still unable to find a consensus on the 
Appellate Body selection processes. The "elephant " was obviously much larger than Rule  15 of the 
Working Procedures for Appellate Review. Open -minded conversations among WTO Members 
would be indispensable to any further efforts. Professional discussion in the DSB could help, as 
long as WTO Members secured political engagement from their Capitals. While he would hand over 
this difficult file to his successor, he assured the WTO Membership that he would continue to stay 
engaged on this important matter in his capacity as Ambassador of Japan and also as the 
Chairman  of the General Council. Finally, he took the opportunity to thank the interpreters for their 
valuable contributions. The outgoing Chairman  then recalled that, on the basis of the 
understanding reached by the General Council on 7  March  2018 with regard to the appointment of 
officers to WTO bodies with respect to the Chairperson of the DSB, he proposed that the DSB elect 
by acclamation Ambassador Sunanta Kangvalkulkij of Thailand as Chairperson of the DSB.  
13.2.   The DSB so agreed . WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 23 - 
 
13.3.   The incoming Chairperson  expresse d her gratitude to the outgoing Chairman , for his tireless 
efforts and hard work during 2017 and noted that his leadership, as Chairman  of the General 
Council, would continue to guide WTO Members in carrying out the functions of the WTO. She 
wished him suc cess for his new role, and looked forward to working closely with him over the 
course of 2018. She then expressed her sincere gratitude to all WTO Members for their support 
and confidence in appointing her as the new DSB Chairperson. She considered it a gr eat honour to 
have an opportunity to work with all WTO Members during a period of unprecedented challenges. 
In this regard, she reiterated her pledge to devote efforts and dedication to serve the DSB in an 
impartial and transparent manner. Her door would a lways be open and all voices would be heard. 
She was convinced that, with Members' constructive engagement, coupled with Secretariat 
support, it was not beyond the WTO Membership's reach to find a way forward to the present 
challenge.  
13.4.   The representative of  the European  Union  said that his delegation thanked the outgoing 
Chairman  for his work in 2017, including his efforts to address the current crisis related to new 
Appellate Body appointments. The EU also welcomed the new Chairperson, and wished her succes s 
in this important and challenging role. In these difficult times, it was all the more important that 
the DSB continued to properly exercise its functions, as had been envisaged by the DSU. The EU 
trusted in the new Chairperson's ability to ensure that, a nd reaffirmed her of the EU's full support.  
13.5.   The representative of Brazil  said that her country warmly welcomed the new Chairperson of 
the DSB, and looked forward to working with her in 2018. Brazil also thanked the outgoing 
Chairman  for his work and servic e to the DSB in 2017. Brazil wished him all the best in his new 
capacity as Chairman  of the General Council.  
13.6.   The representative of Peru said that his country wished the incoming Chairperson every 
success in taking on this great responsibility. Peru assured  the new Chairperson of Peru's 
unwavering support and its readiness to work with her and the WTO Membership. Peru also 
acknowledged the work of the outgoing Chairman , and thanked him for his contributions in 
tackling, with exceptional skill and patience, t he institutional challenges faced by the DSB, in 
particular the issues linked to the Appellate Body. Peru said that in addressing this sensitive issue, 
the outgoing Chairman  had demonstrated initiative and dedication, and his approach had been 
characterize d by transparency, openness and leadership. Peru thanked the outgoing Chairman  for 
the attention that he had devoted to the sensitive issue related to the AB matters and to other 
duties that he had carried out in the course of his tenure.  
13.7.   The representativ e of China  said that his country thanked the outgoing Chairman  for his 
hard work in 2017 and wished him every success for his future endeavours as the Chairman  of the 
General Council. China congratulated the incoming Chairperson on her appointment and look ed 
forward to working with her in 2018.  
13.8.   The representative of Chinese  Taipei  said that his delegation joined others in thanking the 
outgoing Chairman  for his contributions to the DSB, and wished him success in his new capacity as 
the Chair man of the General Council. Chinese  Taipei also congratulated the incoming Chairperson 
on her appointment as DSB Chairperson and noted that, as had been mentioned by the outgoing 
Chairman , 2017 had been a challenging year for the DSB. Chinese  Taipei was of th e view that 
2018 could be even tougher. The WTO Membership would rely on the incoming Chairperson's 
leadership and would need to work with her to safeguard the valuable dispute settlement system.  
13.9.   The representative of Canada  said that his country warmly we lcomed the incoming 
Chairperson, and wished her and the DSB every success for 2018 in navigating through the 
challenging times that were ahead of the WTO. Canada also thanked the outgoing Chairman , for 
the time and efforts, which he had dedicated in resolv ing the current situation that the DSB was 
facing.  
13.10.   The representative of Thailand  said that her country joined other Members in thanking the 
outgoing Chairman  for his leadership and his efforts in 2017, and wished him all the best in his 
new role as Chairm an of the General Council. Thailand also welcomed Ambassador Sunanta's new 
responsibilities as the DSB Chairperson, and looked forward to working closely with her and the 
rest of the WTO Membership in yet another challenging year for the DSB and the WTO di spute 
settlement system.  WT/DSB/M/410  
 
- 24 - 
 
13.11.   The representative of India said that his country joined other WTO Members in thanking 
the outgoing Chairman  for the time and painstaking effort that he had dedicated to tackle various 
issues before the DSB. India also wished him a very productive tenure as Chairman  of the General 
Council. India also congratulated the incoming Chairperson and warmly welcomed her  in her new 
capacity as DSB Chairperson, in very challenging times. India hoped that, under her guidance, the 
DSB would soon find a way out of some of the challenges that the DSB was facing.  
13.12.   The representative of Korea  said that his country wished to expre ss its gratitude to the 
outgoing Chairman  for his endless efforts and hard work, and wished him good luck in his new 
responsibilities as Chairman  of the General Council. Korea also warmly welcomed the new 
Chairperson, hoping that under her leadership, the DSB could successfully address the challenges, 
which the DSB was facing at present.  
13.13.   The representative of Japan  said that his country joined others in welcoming the new DSB  
Chairperson. Japan looked forward to work ing with her. Japan also joined others in thanking the 
outgoing Chairman  for his service in 2017.  
13.14.   The representative of Mexico  said that her country joined others in thanking the outgoing 
Chairman  and wishing him success for his next post, as Chairman  of the General Council. Mexico 
welcomed the ne w Chairperson and was committed to continue its work with the new Chairperson 
in this challenging period. Mexico congratulated her on her appointment as new DSB Chairperson.  
13.15.   The representative of the Philippines  said that her country joined others in thank ing the 
outgoing Chairman  for his able leadership in 2017, especially since it had been a very challenging 
year. The Philippines wished him all the best in his new capacity as Chairman  of the General 
Council. The Philippines also congratulated and warmly w elcomed the incoming Chairperson in her 
new capacity as the DSB Chairperson and looked forward to working with her in  2018.  
13.16.   The representative of Indonesia  said that, like others, her country thanked the outgoing 
Chairman  for all his efforts, contributions  and leadership during his Chairmanship in 2017. 
Indonesia wished him all the best in his new capacity as Chairman  of the General Council. On this 
occasion, Indonesia also warmly welcomed the new DSB Chairperson. Indonesia looked forward to 
working with he r and wished her every success as DSB Chairperson in 2018.  
13.17.   The representative of Nepal  said that her country joined other WTO Members in thanking 
the outgoing DSB Chairman . Nepal also extended its congratulations to Ambassador Sunanta on 
her appointment as  new DSB Chairperson. Nepal believed in her leadership and wished her all the 
best. 
13.18.   The representative of the Russian  Federation  said that her country welcomed the new 
Chairperson and wished her all the best in his new position and looked forward to workin g together 
in the present challenging times and reassured her of Russia's support. The Russian  Federation 
also thanked the outgoing Chairman  for all his hard work, his wisdom and leadership, and wished 
him all the success for his new appointment.  
13.19.   The repre sentative of Singapore  said that his country was deeply grateful to the outgoing 
Chairman  for his great efforts in 2017 as DSB Chairman . Singapore also warmly welcomed the 
new DSB Chairperson and looked forward to working with her in 2018.  
13.20.   The representati ve of Pakistan  said that his country appreciated the efforts of the outgoing 
Chairman  and wished him all the best for the future in his new assignment as Chairman  of the 
General Council. Pakistan also welcomed the new DSB Chairperson and wished her all the  best. 
13.21.   The Chairperson  said that she would like to thank all Members for their warm welcome. 
She assured delegations that she did not assume this role and the responsibility entrusted to her 
lightly. She said that she looked forward to a fruitful collaboration with all Members in the year to 
come.  
13.22.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
__________