RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/334  
 
2 October 2013  
(13-5277)  Page: 1/15  
Dispute Settlement Body 
23 July 2013    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD 
ON 23 JULY 2013 
Chairman: Mr. Jonathan Fried (Canada) 
Table of Contents 
1   SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB ....................................................................................................................... .... 2 
A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. 2  
B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by  the United States ............................................................................ 5  
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by 
the United States  ............................................................................................................ . 5 
D.  European Communities – Measures affect ing the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by  the European  Union ..................................................................... 6  
E.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status 
report by Thailand ............................................................................................................  7 
F.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the Un ited States ................................................................................................ 7  
G.  United States – Measures affecting the production and sale of clove cigarettes: Status 
report by the Un ited States ................................................................................................ 8  
H.  United States – Measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and 
tuna products ................................................................................................................... 9  
I.  China – Certain measures affecting electronic payment services: Status report 
by China  ..................................................................................................................... ... 10 
2   UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 
2000: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB .............. 12  
A.  Statements by the Eu ropean Union and Japan ................................................................. 12 
3   PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL 
PRODUCTS ..................................................................................................................... 12 
A.  Request for the establishm ent of a panel by Guat emala .................................................... 12 
4   STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN RE GARDING SOME MATTERS RELATED TO 
THE APPELLATE BODY .................................................................................................... 14  
5   STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGARDING THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 
DSB FOR 2013 ................................................................................................................ 15  
 WT/DSB/M/334 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB 
A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.128)  
B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.128)  
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.103)  D.  European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.66) 
 E.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status report by 
Thailand (WT/DS371/15/Add.15) 
 F .   U n i t e d  S t a t e s  –  A n t i - d u m p i n g  m e a s u r e s  o n  c e r t a i n  s h r i m p  f r o m  V i e t  N a m :  S t a t u s  r e p o r t  b y  
the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.14) 
 G.  United States – Measures affecting the production and sale of clove cigarettes: Status report by the United States (WT/DS406/11/Add.7) 
 
H.  United States – Measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and tuna products: Status report by the United States (WT/DS381/18/Add.3) 
 
I.  China – Certain measures affecting electronic payment services: Status report by China (WT/DS413/9/Add.1) 
 
 1.1.  The Chairman noted that there were nine sub-items under this Agenda item, which referred 
to status reports submitted by various delegations pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU. He recalled 
that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that the issue of implementation of recommendations and 
rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DS B meeting after six months following the date of 
establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda until the 
issue was resolved. He urged delegations to provide new information about compliance and looked 
forward to comments that would be considered constructive and focused on new developments, suggestions and ideas on progress towards the resolution of disputes. With these introductory 
remarks, the Chairman proposed to turn to the fi rst status report on the Agenda of the present 
meeting.   
A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.128) 
1.2.  The Chairman drew attention to docu ment WT/DS176/11/Add.128, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
1.3.  The representative of the United States said  that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 July 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As noted in the US status 
report, at least five bills had been introduced in the current Congress in relation to the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. These included H.R. 214, H.R. 778, H.R. 872, H.R. 873, 
and S. 647. The US Administration would continue  to work on solutions to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. 
1.4.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU thanked the United States for its 
most recent status report and the statement made  at the present meeting. The EU hoped that the 
US authorities would very soon take steps toward s implementing the DSB's ruling and resolve this 
matter. WT/DSB/M/334 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.5.  The representative of Cuba said that, for the past 12 years, her country had continued to 
make statements, once a month, before the DSB in order to condemn the continued US failure to 
comply with the DSB's rulings in this dispute. Unfortunately, Cuba noted that under the mechanism of the surveillance of implementation of recommendations and rulings adopted by the 
DSB, as set out under Article 21 of the DSU, the US non-compliance continued. Cuba regretted 
that the current provisions of the DSU failed to  provide a developing country, such as Cuba, an 
effective mechanism to end this dispute. The United States had taken advantage of the DSU 
shortcomings with regard to effective compliance. The US company, Bacardi, continued with 
impunity to use the "Havana Club" trademark to market a line of rum, which was not of Cuban origin. The counterfeiting of this well-known Cuban brand was fully supported by the US government and its domestic legislation. At the same time and paradoxically, the United States 
was one of the strongest advocates of the enfo rcement of intellectual property rights, as 
demonstrated by the new strategic plan released by the White House in June 2013 with the purpose of protecting US intellectual property rights, and taking bold measures against piracy and 
counterfeiting both on US territory and abroad. Furthermore, it had been announced that the US 
Administration intended to intensify its efforts to ensure that other countries protected and respected intellectual property. In 2010, the first ve rsion of this strategic plan had been released, 
which was sought to be endorsed under the EU-U S Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership 
(TTIP). The plan had also established that the Office of the USTR would, in conjunction with other Members, strengthen its efforts to advance the objectives of the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).  
1.6.  Cuba noted that the United States felt entitled to publicly present its intellectual property 
requests with respect to certain Members while systematically breaching its WTO commitments in this area. This reaffirmed one of the characteristic features of the incoherent US foreign policy, 
namely, double standards. Cuba found it ironic th at the United States was drafting strategic plans 
and international agreements on intellectual property while maintaining violations such as Section 211. Cuba questioned whether the new USTR's agenda would include a provision on the 
enforcement of Cuban intellectual property rights. The United States had a legal and moral 
obligation to resolve the issues pending before the DSB. These included Section 211, the full repeal of which, without further delay, was the only way of putting an end to this dispute. Cuba would continue to denounce the situation of non-compliance, which undermined the WTO dispute 
settlement system and constituted an infringement of  intellectual property rights. In Cuba's view, 
this situation demonstrated the need to introduce far-reaching amendments to the DSU provisions and to put in place specific provisions in order to ensure effective compliance with the DSB's 
rulings. 
1.7.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting. India noted that there was no change in 
the situation and that the status report repeated the pattern of previous reports showing lack of 
progress. India, once again, was compelled to stress that the principle of prompt compliance was missing in this dispute. India renewed its systemic concern about the situation of continued non-compliance by Members, as this undermined the credibility and the confidence that Members 
reposed in the system. India urged the United States to report full compliance in this dispute 
without any further delay. 
1.8.  The representative of Argentina said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meet ing. Argentina regretted that the United States 
did not provide any substantive information on this dispute, other than reiterating that relevant draft legislation had been introduced in the US Congress, as had already been mentioned in the 
past three DSB meetings. As Argentina had stated several times before, this lack of progress was 
inconsistent with the principle of prompt and effective compliance stipulated in the DSU provisions, in particular since the interests of a developi ng-country Member were affected. Argentina, 
therefore, supported Cuba and other previous speake rs in their requests and called on both parties 
to the dispute, in particular the United States, to take the necessary measures so as to finally 
remove this item from the DSB's Agenda. 
1.9.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the United States for its status 
report on the surveillance of implementation of the recommendations in this dispute. Brazil noted 
that, once again, the United States reported lack of progress. Brazil remained concerned about this 
situation of non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and urged the United States to bring 
its measures into conformity with WTO disciplines WT/DSB/M/334 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.10.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that, as his country had noted 
for the past ten years, the US status report did not contain any new information on progress 
towards solving this dispute. Bolivia reiterated its concern about the US failure to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Bolivia was also concerned about the US lack of political will 
to resolve this dispute. This situation of non-compliance undermined the credibility of the 
multilateral trading system and harmed the inte rests of a developing-country Member. Bolivia, 
once again, urged the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings and to 
take measures to lift the restrictions imposed under Section 211. Bolivia supported the concerns 
expressed by Cuba at the present meeting. 
1.11.  The representative of Dominica, speaking on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda, thanked the 
United States for its status report and for its statement made at the present meeting. The US 
status report was similar to reports delivered at previous meetings, which did not indicate any 
substantive change in the situation. This continued the situation of prolonged non-compliance. As a country which currently faced the same situation, Antigua and Barbuda could understand the 
frustration and shared the same systemic concerns about the negative impact that such non-
compliance would have on the credibility and confidence that Members placed in the system. Antigua and Barbuda, therefore, supported the calls  for full compliance with the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations without any further delay.  
1.12.  The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that his country wished to 
express its discontent regarding the US lack of effo rt to resolve this dispute on Section 211. Given 
the long-standing nature of this dispute, Venezuela had no option but to reiterate its concern that 
this dispute not only negatively affected the inte rests of one Member, Cuba, but it would also set a 
precedent for the future, and other WTO Members could be affected. In light of these facts, Members must reflect on the effectiveness of the WTO rules and the level of compliance with the 
DSB's rulings. Venezuela hoped that the summer break would help Members in this respect. 
Venezuela recalled that the DSB was one of the mu ltilateral trading system's major achievements, 
created precisely to make the system more effective as a whole, and that it was the highest 
authority to which Members could turn when they believed that trade measures imposed by 
another Member were causing injury to their trade and economy, as was the case in this dispute which affected Cuba. The DSB had ruled that the United States was violating multilateral rules and caused injury to trade in many of Cuba's export items, one of which was Havana Club rum. In light 
of these principles and facts, Venezuela wished to remind the United States that it was obliged to 
comply with the DSB's rulings. Venezuela and ot her Members, who had expressed similar views at 
the present meeting, were not asking the United States for a favour or requesting that it comply 
as an act of good will. They were simply asking it to act in conformity with the WTO rules which 
the United States should respect as a Member with full rights and obligations.  
1.13.  The representative of Uruguay said that his country thanked the United States for its most 
recent status report. Uruguay regretted that the situation in this dispute had not changed and, 
therefore, it supported the systemic concerns rais ed by previous speakers at the present meeting. 
In Uruguay's view, it was important to respect the principles of the multilateral trading system, and in particular the DSU provisions since they constituted the most important elements of the 
multilateral trading system. Members must fully comply with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings. This was essential in order to ensure the proper functioning of the dispute settlement 
system and its credibility. The system provided legal security and ensured the proper balance of 
rights and obligations within the multilateral trading system. Uruguay reiterated its concerns and 
urged the parties to this dispute to step up their efforts and make use of the remedies provided under the DSU provisions to resolve this dispute that had lasted for more than ten years.  
1.14.  The representative of Nicaragua said that his country, once again, supported Cuba's position 
with regard to the rights of Cuban owners of the Havana Club Rum trademark. The US status 
reports, which had been submitted for the past ten years, did not offer any concrete steps towards the implementation of the DSB's recommendations. Nicaragua, therefore, urged the United States 
to reconsider its economic policy against Cuba, which had a negative impact on its economy. 
Nicaragua was concerned that the US failure to comply with its obligations undermined the credibility of the DSB and the multilateral trading system. It could also set a precedent with 
consequences for other Members, in particular developing-country Members. Nicaragua hoped that 
the US authorities would introduce the necessary reforms without delay so as to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. WT/DSB/M/334 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.15.  The representative of China said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and the statement made at the present meet ing. As it had said at previous DSB meetings, 
China believed that the prolonged situation of non-compliance in this dispute was highly incompatible with the prompt implementation required under the DSU provisions, in particular 
since the interests of a developing-country Member  were affected. China joined other Members in 
urging the United States to implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations without further delay. 
1.16.  The representative of Viet Nam said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report. Viet Nam noted that more than ten years had passed, but the United States had not taken 
any action to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Viet Nam, once again, urged the 
United States to respect the DSB's recommendation so as to uphold the rule of law and to rectify 
the situation vis-à-vis  Cuba. 
1.17.  The representative of Mexico said that, on ce again, his country urged the parties to this 
dispute to take the necessary measures in orde r to comply with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings to the benefit of all Members, as  stipulated in Article 21.1 of the DSU. 
1.18.  The Chairman noted the exchange of views regarding an outstanding measure and said that 
all delegations should reflect on more constructive ways of moving towards resolution. 
1.19.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures  on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the Un ited States (WT/DS184/15/Add.128) 
1.20.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.128, which contained the 
status report by the United States on pr ogress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel 
products from Japan. 
1.21.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 July 2013, 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 in this dispute. With respect to the recommendations and rulings of th e DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US 
Administration would work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures to 
resolve the matter.  
1.22.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked the United States for its 
statement and status report submitted on 11 July 2013. Since the content of the report had not 
changed from the previous report, Japan's positi on had not changed either as expressed in the 
previous meetings. 
1.23.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS160/24/Add.103) 
1.24.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.103, which contained the 
status report by the United States on pr ogress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act. 
1.25.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 July 2013, 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. WT/DSB/M/334 
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.26.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for the 
status report and statement made at the pres ent meeting. The EU referred to its previous 
statements regarding its wish to resolve this case as soon as possible. 
1.27.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. D.  European Communities – Measures affect ing the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the Eu ropean Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.66) 
1.28.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.66, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on pr ogress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products. 
1.29.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU, once again, hoped that it would 
continue on the constructive path of dialogue with the United States. In 2012, the Commission had 
authorized five new GMOs1 and had renewed the authorization of a sixth one.2 Three of those 
decisions3 had been adopted only six months after the relevant EFSA opinions had been published, 
while the decision on MIR162 had been adopted less than four months after the EFSA opinion.4 
The details were set out in the EU's written stat ement. Regarding the concerns expressed by the 
United States on the back-log of approvals, th e EU recalled that its approval system was not 
covered by the DSB's recommendations and ruli ngs. The GMO regulatory regime was working 
normally as evidenced by the approval decisions just mentioned. The Appeal committee had recently voted for one GMO, where no opinion was rendered.
5 Three more decisions6 had also been 
presented at recent meetings of the standing committees for discussion and vote, rendering no 
opinion. Those decisions had been submitted to the Appeal committee on 11 July 2013 and, as there had been no opinion, the Commission would move to adopt all three in the coming weeks. 
1.30.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked the EU for its status 
report, for its statement made at the present meeting and for the information provided in that 
statement. As it had stated in the DSB before, the United States continued to have serious 
concerns regarding EU measures affecting the approval of biotech products. As the United States 
had noted, the relevant EU regulatory committee often skipped its monthly meeting. As the United States understood, the committee had failed to meet in July, and was not scheduled to meet again until September. Under the EU syst em, a product could not be approved unless and 
until an approval measure was placed on the agenda of the regulatory committee and the 
infrequency of committee meetings thus contributed to ongoing delays. As an example, the United States was awaiting a decision on a biotech corn product that had received a favourable 
EFSA opinion last November. The fact that no m eeting of the regulatory committee was scheduled 
until September meant that a minimum of ten mont hs would have elapsed between the time of the 
favourable scientific opinion and the first consideration by that committee. Even when the EU's 
regulatory committee did consider a biotech product, it did not approve the product, in accordance 
with the scientific opinion and, in fact, this had not happened once in the last ten years. Instead, 
what happened was that the approval was further delayed as the application was forced to proceed through additional and unnecessary steps. As an example, the three biotech products that the 
United States had discussed at the June meeting of the DSB had been recently considered by an 
appeals committee. Even though each of those th ree products had been supported by a favourable 
EFSA opinion, there was no action taken by that committee. The United States was hopeful that 
those three products finally would be approved in the near future, but regretted the many delays 
that the United States had experienced. As a result of EU delays, the EU measures affecting approval of biotech products continued to cause substantial restrictions on trade. As it had said 
before, the United States urged the EU to take steps to address these problems. 
                                               
1 A5547-127 soybean, 356043 soybean, MON87701 soybean, MON87701 x MON89788 soybean, 
MIR162 maize. 
2 40-3-2 soybean. 
3 Authorization decision for 356043 and MON87701 soybeans, MON87701 x MON89788 soybean. 
4 EFSA opinion: 21 June 2012 EFSA Journal 2012;10(6):2756. Decision on authorization: 
18 October 2012. 
5 Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3 oilseed rape. 
6 Maize stack events MON89034 x 1507 x MON88017 x 59122 and GM maize MON89034×1507×NK603 
as well as GM maize MON810 pollen. WT/DSB/M/334 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.31.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU wished to reassure the 
United States that the three decisions just mentioned would be adopted shortly. 
1.32.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
E.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures  on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status 
report by Thailand (WT/DS371/15/Add.15) 
1.33.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS371/15/Add.15, which contained the 
status report by Thailand on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Thailand's customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines. 
1.34.  The representative of Thailand said that, as indicated in its most recent status report, 
Thailand was continuing to provide additional technical information regarding its implementation, 
as requested by the Philippines during the informal bilateral consultations held in Bangkok on 
3-4 May 2013 regarding the outstanding issues in this dispute. Thailand remained at the Philippines' disposal to answer any further questions the Philippines may have regarding Thailand's 
implementation. Thailand looked forward to continuing its discussions with the Philippines and to 
resolving this matter in an amicable manner. 
1.35.  The representative of the Philippines said that his country thanked Thailand for its status 
report and for its statement made at the present meeting. In its previous statement at the 
25 June 2013 DSB meeting, the Philippines had referred to the fact that it continued to have concerns with a number of issues that affected Thailand's full compliance in this dispute. The Philippines had explained some of those concerns in more detail at the June DSB meeting and had 
referred Members to its statement as recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Thus, the Philippines 
would not repeat its position at the present meeting. The Philippines continued to be deeply disappointed that Thailand had failed to comply fully with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
The Philippines was also disappointed that Thailand  had failed to provide information that had been 
promised during the bilateral meeting in May 2013. Thailand's failure to adhere to WTO disciplines concerning customs valuation was of considerable importance, both to the system and to the 
Philippines. Therefore, the Philippines continued to consider the next steps in this dispute. 
1.36.  The Chairman noted that the two countries did not agree on the facts. Thailand had stated 
that additional information had been provided subsequent to the May meeting while the Philippines 
had stated that they were still waiting for information. He believed that further dialogue on this 
matter would follow. 
1.37.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
F.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.14) 
1.38.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS404/11/Add.14, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US an ti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from 
Viet Nam. 
1.39.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 July 2013, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU. In February 2012, the US 
Department of Commerce had published a modification  to its procedures in order to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings regarding the us e of "zeroing" in anti-dumping reviews. That 
modification addressed certain findings in this dispute. In June 2012, the United States Trade 
Representative had requested, pursuant to Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, that the Department of Commerce take action necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute. The United States would continue to consult with 
interested parties as it worked to address the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. WT/DSB/M/334 
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.40.  The representative of Viet Nam said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meet ing. Viet Nam noted that the reasonable period 
of time, mutually agreed by the parties, had expired one year ago. However, the US Department of Commerce had not taken any action to recalculate the anti-dumping duty for the second and 
third periods of review. This was inconsistent with the DSB's recommendations. Once again, 
Viet Nam requested that the United States fully co mply without any further delay for the benefit of 
Viet Nam's exporters. 
1.41.  The representative of Cuba said that her country supported Viet Nam's concerns regarding 
the lack of progress in this dispute.   
1.42.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
G.  United States – Measures affecting the pr oduction and sale of clove cigarettes: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS406/11/Add.7) 
1.43.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS406/11/Add.7, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning the US measures affecting the production and sale of clove cigarettes. 
1.44.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 July 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As the United States had 
reported to the DSB, US authorities had confe rred with interested parties and had worked to 
implement the recommendations and rulings of th e DSB in a manner that was appropriate from 
the perspective of public health. The United States recalled that, in this dispute, the DSB had 
found that the challenged US measure reflected th e overwhelming view of the scientific community 
that banning clove and other flavoured cigarettes  benefited the public health by reducing the 
likelihood that youth would enter into a lifetime of cigarette addiction. At the same time, the DSB 
had also found that the US measure provided less favourable treatment to clove cigarettes 
imported from Indonesia than to menthol cigarettes that had been made in the United States. To come into compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, the United States had taken 
and was taking a number of actions in relation to menthol cigarettes. At the present meeting, the 
United States was announcing several actions by US health authorities. First, the US Food and Drug Administration was publishing an Advanced  Notice of Proposed Rule Making concerning 
menthol cigarettes. The Notice initiated a process to receive public comment on potential 
regulatory options that the Food and Drug Administration might consider and seek additional 
information. The Notice would be published in th e US Federal Register. Second, the US Food and 
Drug Administration was releasing its Preliminary Scientific Evaluation on the Possible Public 
Health Effects of Menthol Versus Non-Menthol Ci garettes. The Preliminary Scientific Evaluation 
addressed the association between menthol cigarettes and various outcomes, including initiation, addiction, and cessation. The Preliminary Evaluation included a finding that the presence of 
menthol in cigarettes negatively affected cessation  and attempts of smokers to quit smoking. The 
Preliminary Evaluation would be available for public comment. 
1.45.  Third, the US Food and Drug Administration was announcing the development of a youth 
education campaign that was designed to prevent and reduce demand for tobacco products and 
menthol cigarettes. Fourth, the US Department  of Health and Human Services was sharing 
information through the US online hub for tobacco information and cessation tools, called BeTobaccoFree.gov, which had initially been launched in November 2012. This online hub provided 
information on the health risks posed by mentho l cigarettes to raise awareness of those risks. 
Fifth, the National Cancer Institute was educating the public on the health risks posed by menthol 
cigarettes through its website designed to help persons quit smoking, which was SmokeFree.gov. 
The health risks posed by using tobacco were well-documented, and the public health challenges 
posed by menthol cigarettes in particular were significant. In the United States, approximately 30% of adult smokers and 40% of all youth smokers reported smoking menthol cigarettes. Raising awareness and educating about the health risks of tobacco could be an important means to 
discourage its use. In light of the significant public health challenges posed by menthol cigarettes, 
these actions by US health authorities brought the United States into compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute within the reasonable period of time for compliance, 
which expired on 24 July 2013. The United States looked forward to continuing to confer with WT/DSB/M/334 
 
- 9 - 
 
  Indonesia regarding these compliance actions. Bilateral meetings were being arranged to answer 
any questions Indonesia may have. 
1.46.  The representative of Indonesia said that his country thanked the United States for its 
status report, and wished to reiterate its statement made at the 25 June DSB meeting. The 
reasonable period of time for the United States to implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in this case would expire on 24 July 2013.  To date, Indonesia strongly believed that the 
United States would make an effort and take positive actions to adopt its law and regulations in a 
non-discriminatory manner, as stipulated in the WTO Agreements. Indonesia also appreciated the 
US position to uphold its interest to promote the public health, as had been consistently stated by 
the United States, as long as the measure was not more trade restrictive than necessary. Therefore, Indonesia urged the United States to ab ide by the principles and stipulations regulated 
in the WTO Agreements, in particular, the TB T Agreement and the GATT 1994. Indonesia noted 
that time was short and thus urged the United States to provide more concrete progress on the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. Indonesia stood ready 
to resolve this matter and to cooperate more intensively with the United States in order to achieve 
a mutually satisfactory solution in accordance with the DSU provisions. 
1.47.  The Chairman said that there seemed to be an agreement to have more intense 
engagement as the United States had offered bilateral consultations on the measures it was 
announcing at the present meeting. He hoped that, during those consultations, there would be a better understanding of the proposed rule-making versus actual changes and how that related to full compliance. In light of this, the DSB may still need to decide, once it heard back from the 
parties on their bilateral consultations, whether it would revert to this matter at its next meeting.    
1.48.  The representative of the United States said that the US statement at the present meeting 
was quite clear in that the United States had taken measures to come into compliance. The 
United States would be happy to provide Indonesia with more information. In light of this, it was 
the US view that there was no need to revert to this matter.  
1.49.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
H.  United States – Measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and 
tuna products: Status report by th e United States (WT/DS381/18/Add.3) 
1.50.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS381/18/Add.3, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case regarding the US measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and 
tuna products. 
1.51.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 July 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As was noted in that 
report, on 13 July 2013, the United States had ma de effective a final rule that amended certain 
dolphin-safe labelling requirements7 and had brought those requirements into compliance with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. Th e amended regulations enhanced documentary 
requirements for certifying that no dolphins had been killed or seriously injured when tuna were caught to also now cover tuna that had been caught in oceans other than the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). Those changes ensured that  consumers would not be misled or deceived 
about whether the tuna in a product labelled "dolphin safe" was caught in a manner that had 
caused harm to dolphins. The final rule brought the United States into compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings within the reasonable period of time agreed to by Mexico and the 
United States. The rule demonstrated that the United States could prevent consumer deception 
and protect dolphins consistent with WTO rules. 
1.52.  The representative of Mexico said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report. Mexico noted that the measure implemen ting the DSB's rulings and recommendations, as 
reported by the United States, had been published in the US Federal Register on 9 July 2013. That 
measure had entered into effect on 13 July 2013, th e date of expiry of the reasonable period of 
time for implementation, as agreed between Mexi co and the United States. Mexico had submitted 
                                               
7 Enhanced Document Requirements to Support Use of  the Dolphin Safe Label on Tuna Products: Final 
Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 40997 (9 July 2013) (to be codified at 50 CFR pt. 216). WT/DSB/M/334 
 
- 10 - 
 
  its comments during the US regulatory process. In  Mexico's view, the new measure did not comply 
with the WTO ruling, and it maintained two separate regulatory regimes. The first consisted of highly effective measures agreed at international level to protect dolphins in the zone where Mexico fished (Eastern Pacific). The second one consisted of a lax measure without any 
enforcement mechanism that had been established unilaterally for other fishing zones where fleets 
such as the US fleet operated and in which a high level of dolphin mortality continued to be recorded. As Mexico had already stated, th e new measure unfortunately did not remove 
discrimination against Mexican tuna, nor did it eliminate the economic injury caused to the 
Mexican industry or address the damage caused to the environment and dolphins by fishing fleets from other countries in other oceans. Contrary to the US view, Mexico considered that the new measure adopted under the "dolphin-safe" labelling regime was inconsistent with the DSB's rulings 
and recommendations. In that regard, Mexico was continuing to examine the measure 
and to consider all the legal options available to it in order to find an effective solution to this dispute, including the suspension of concessions. 
1.53.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked Mexico for its 
statement, but respectfully took exception to the point on discrimination. As the United States had 
indicated, the final rule addressed the DSB’s recommendations and rulings by increasing 
documentation requirements for oceans other than the ETP to make those certification 
requirements commensurate with those applying in side the ETP. In doing so, the United States 
ensured that there was no discrimination between WTO Members. If it did become necessary, the 
United States said that it was fully prepared to defend the final rule. The United States remained 
open to further discussions, as it had noted, to address any concerns.   
1.54.  The Chairman noted that the best form of dispute settlement was dispute avoidance and 
thus hopefully a mutual understanding may avoid a compliance panel. He noted the possibility of 
reverting to this matter under some form at the ne xt DSB meeting. He said that he was not trying 
to prejudge whether or not this matter woul d be raised again under Agenda item 1.  
1.55.  The representative of the United States said that his country noted the delicate nature of 
the Chairman's phrasing. With respect to both of  the last two items discussed, the United States 
had described actions that did constitute compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. As such, the United States was not required to give further status reports pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU. Under that reading of Article 21.6, a Member would be required to provide status 
reports until the complaining party relieved it of that responsibility. As the United States looked 
through the history of the DSB, that was not how it had worked previously.  
1.56.  The Chairman said that he wished to reassure the United States that he did not, in any way, 
mean to imply any expectation one way or another of a status report. He simply meant that the 
subject matter may be brought back to the DSB under one or another item.  
1.57.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
I.  China – Certain measures affecting elec tronic payment services: Status report by 
China (WT/DS413/9/Add.1) 
1.58.  The Chairman drew attention to document  WT/DS413/9/Add.1, which contained the status 
report by China on progress in the implementati on of the DSB's recommendations in the case 
concerning China's measures affecting electronic payment services. 
1.59.  The representative of China said that hi s country had provided a status report in this 
dispute on 11 July 2013, in accordance with Articl e 21.6 of the DSU. At the last DSB meeting, the 
United States had asserted that China's measures had ensured the market dominance of China 
UnionPay (CUP) and had prevented foreign suppliers  from providing this service. As the Panel's 
ruling on the market access commitment issue wa s very limited, the US assertion was over 
generalized and not fully consistent with the Panel's finding. The Panel had concluded that there 
was no requirement that mandated the use of CUP or established CUP as the "sole supplier" of EPS 
for all domestic RMB payment card transactions. The Panel had also found that China had not undertaken a market access commitment under mode 1 in Sector 7.B(d) of its Schedule in respect 
of the services at issue in this dispute. With re spect to mode 3 under Article XVI of the GATS, the 
Panel had rejected the US claim that the impositi on of issuer, acquirer and terminal equipment WT/DSB/M/334 
 
- 11 - 
 
  requirements imposed a limitation on the number of EPS suppliers in China in the form of a 
monopoly or exclusive service supplier, and thus the Panel was "unable to conclude that the issuer, terminal equipment and acquirer requir ements, considered either separately or in 
combination, are inconsistent with Article XVI:2(a) of the GATS"; by contrast, the Panel had only 
found that the Hong Kong/Macao requirements imposed a limitation on the number of service 
suppliers in the form of a monopoly and were thus inconsistent with Article XVI:2(a) of the GATS. That was the only finding of inconsistency with regard to China's market access commitments in 
this dispute.  
1.60.  After adoption of the Panel Report by the DSB, the relevant Chinese government agencies 
had begun to actively work for the purpose of  implementing the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings. On 28 June 2013, five measures at issue in this dispute had been repealed or invalidated 
by the People's Bank of China Announcement [2013]  No.7. On 5 July 2013, the relevant articles of 
the three other measures at issue in this dispute had been announced not to be implemented anymore by the notice of the People's Bank of China on simplifying cross-border RMB business 
processes and improving relevant policies. The details of the measures were set out in the status 
report. Through those efforts, China had full y implemented the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings within the reasonable period of time. 
1.61.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked China for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting. As the United States had described, China's 
measures affecting electronic payment services (E PS) had been and continued to be of significant 
concern to the United States. In this dispute, the DSB had found that China instituted measures 
that discriminated against foreign EPS suppliers at every stage of a card based electronic payment 
that took place in China in China's domestic currency. China's discriminatory measures had developed China UnionPay, Ltd. (CUP) and protecte d it from free and fair market competition by 
blocking foreign EPS suppliers from providing this important service for over ten years. The 
United States did take note of China's statement in its status report, a statement that had been 
repeated again at the present meeting, that "it has fully implemented the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB within the reasonable period of  time". However, the United States was not in a 
position to agree with that statement at the present meeting. The United States understood that there was a number of additional critical measures affecting the regulation of EPS in China that were material to this dispute, that were clos e to finalization, and yet were not mentioned in 
China's status report. The United States did not hear any mention of those at the present meeting 
either. Recognizing that, the United States would be closely monitoring China's activity in this area, in addition to reviewing the actions described in China's status report and discussed again at 
the present meeting so that the United States could evaluate whether those actions together 
constituted full implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB within the reasonable period of time, which was noted to ex pire at the end of the month on 31 July 2013. 
1.62.  The representative of China said that, wi th respect to the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute, China wished to confirm again that it had taken all 
the necessary steps to bring its measures into full compliance. There were nine documents subject to the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute, and China had repealed, invalidated or 
no longer implemented the relevant articles of eight documents. As the inconsistency of the ninth 
document (Document no. 17) had been found based on its application in conjunction with Document no. 76, and Document no. 76 had been re pealed by the People's Bank of China, China 
did not need to take any further action with resp ect to Document no. 17. With respect to the other 
US concerns, China was open to further discussion with the United States bilaterally.  
1.63.  The Chairman said that he would not try to find the exact magic phrase, but noted that with 
regard to clove cigarettes from Indonesia, tuna in the Pacific, electronic payments in China there 
had been statements of full implementation, which were being examined by the complaining 
parties and thus, whether the DSB would revert to this, in whatever form, depended very much on the views of the Membership. 
1.64.  The DSB took note of the statements. WT/DSB/M/334 
 
- 12 - 
 
  2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTE D BY THE DSB 
A.  Statements by the European Union and Japan 2.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union and Japan. He then invited the respective representatives to speak. 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union sa id that, once again, the EU requested that the 
United States stop transferring anti-dumping an d countervailing duties to the US industry. Every 
disbursement that still took place was clearly an act of non-compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. The EU renewed its call on the United States to abide by its clear obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU to submit status reports in this dispute. 
2.3.  The representative of Japan said that, since the distributions under the CDSOA had been 
continuing, Japan, once again, urged the United States to stop the illegal distributions so as to 
resolve this dispute. Japan was of the view that the United States was under obligation to provide 
the DSB with a status report in this dispute,  in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. 
2.4.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for bringing this 
issue before the DSB once again. India shared their concerns and supported their views. 
2.5.  The representative of Canada said that his country shared the concerns expressed by the 
previous speakers.   
2.6.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda. As it had expressed at  previous DSB meetings, Brazil was of the view 
that the United States was under obligation to submit status reports in this dispute until such time 
that no more disbursements were made pursuant  to the Byrd Amendment. Only then would the 
issue be resolved within the meaning of the DSU an d the United States would be released from its 
obligations to provide status reports in this dispute. 
2.7.  The representative of Thailand said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for continuing 
to bring this item before the DSB. Thailand supported the statements made by the previous 
speakers and continued to urge the United States  to cease the disbursements and fully implement 
the DSB's rulings and recommendations on this matter. 
2.8.  The representative of the United States said  that his country had addressed this issue before 
and would thus be brief. The United States did not understand the reason that this item continued 
to be inscribed on the Agenda of the DSB. The United States had been clear and had previously 
talked about the action taken in February 2006 when the President had signed the Deficit 
Reduction Act into effect, repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. With that enactment, the United States had taken all action necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. Furthermore, pu rsuant to that action, anti-dumping and 
countervailing duties on current imports were no lo nger distributed to domestic firms. Accordingly, 
the United States did not understand why this conti nued to be an issue on the Agenda of the DSB.  
2.9.  The Chairman said that the discussion und er the various items and sub-items had revealed 
an interesting horizontal issue as to what constituted full compliance and who should decide on 
this matter. 
2.10.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
3  PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS A.  Request for the establishment of  a panel by Guatemala (WT/DS457/2) 
3.1.  The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
25 June 2013 and had agreed to revert to it. He drew attention to the communication from 
Guatemala contained in document WT/DS457/2, and invited the representative of Guatemala to speak. WT/DSB/M/334 
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.2.  The representative of Guatemala said that the parties to this dispute continued to have 
divergent interpretations in relation to the lega lity and scope of Peru's price-band system. The 
parties also disagreed over the interpretation and relevance of the reference made by Peru to the 
Free Trade Agreement between Guatemala and Peru  with regard to the measure at issue. 
Guatemala had no doubt that Peru's price-band system was inconsistent with 
the WTO Agreements. Guatemala was also fully co nvinced that the Free Trade Agreement between 
the two countries did not release Peru from its WTO obligations in respect of import charges 
prohibited by the Agreement on Agriculture and the GATT 1994. The Free Trade Agreement should 
not be construed as an abandonment by Guatemala of the legitimate exercise of its rights under 
the WTO. Rather, Guatemala regretted the attempts to use the Free Trade Agreement between the two countries with a view to circumventing commitments under the WTO Agreements. The Free 
Trade Agreement between Guatemala and Peru had been approved by Guatemala's Congress on 
4 July 2013 following tireless efforts by its Ministry of the Economy. It demonstrated Guatemala's commitment to strengthening trade and diplomatic relations between Guatemala and Peru. 
Guatemala, therefore, regretted that, in exerci sing its rights within the WTO, it was being 
subjected to criticism and political pressure by Peru. Those political manoeuvres would not 
persuade Guatemala to relinquish its right to obtain an objective ruling based on WTO law. The 
key issue was whether the measure concerned was consistent or inconsistent with 
Peru's obligations under the covered agreements. Guatemala, therefore, requested, for the second time, that the DSB establish a panel. Guatemala was confident of the legitimacy of its rights both 
under the WTO Agreements and the Free Trade Agreement with Peru. 
3.3.  The representative of Peru said that his country was disappointed that Guatemala had 
submitted, for the second time, its request for the establishment of a panel in this case, given that 
the Peruvian price-band system was fully consistent with Peru's WTO obligations. Peru recalled 
that it had presented its position with regard to Guatemala's request in its statement made at 
the DSB meeting on 25 June 2013. Thus, there was no need for Peru to reiterate its position at the 
present meeting. Peru regretted that Guatemala ha d chosen to disregard Peru's position on this 
matter. Peru reiterated that it had provided Gu atemala with a significant amount of additional 
information on the measure both before and during the consultations held in Lima on 14 and 15 May 2013. Peru found it surprising that Guatemala had opted for this unnecessary next step, especially since, on 4 July 2013, Guatemala had ra tified, as a matter of pressing national need, a 
bilateral agreement with Peru, which provided that Peru may maintain its price-band system. Peru 
drew Members' attention to the fact that a panel had never, in the entire history of the WTO, had to rule on a Peruvian measure. This reinforced  what had previously been stated at the DSB, 
namely that Peru was particularly respectful of its international obligations, including all of its WTO 
commitments. In that regard, Peru was concerned that Guatemala failed to recognize this key 
point. While it strongly disagreed with Guatemala's position, Peru recognized that a panel would 
have to be established at the present meeting. Peru stressed that it remained open to dialogue 
with Guatemala in order to reach a mutually satisfactory solution, in accordance with the DSU provisions. However, should Guatemala insist on proceeding with the establishment of a panel, Peru was certain that its price-band system would be found to be fully consistent with its WTO 
commitments. 
3.4.  The Chairman said that, as both parties ha d acknowledged, under the provisions of Article 6 
of the DSU, given the fact that this was the se cond meeting at which the request for a panel had 
been made, and given that there was no mutually agreed solution, the DSB would have to agree to 
establish a panel, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 with standard terms of reference. In light of the statements made, the Chair obse rved two things. First, as the DSU provided, 
recourse to a panel and having a dispute was not a contentious act, and he had detected that 
spirit from both parties. Second, the establishment and the unfolding of a panel process did not preclude parallel discussions in order to seek a mutually agreed solution.  
3.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference. 3.6.  The representatives of Argentina, China, El Salvador, the European Union, India and the 
United States reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. WT/DSB/M/334 
 
- 14 - 
 
  4  STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGARDING SOME MATTERS RELATED TO THE 
APPELLATE BODY  
4.1.  The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business", said that, as announced at the outset of the 
meeting, he wished to update delegations on some  matters related to the Appellate Body. In this 
regard, he wished to reassure Members that he wa s continuing consultations on two aspects. First, 
as Members had requested him to do, he continued consultations on the possible reappointment of Mr. Peter Van den Bossche for a second fo ur-year term in the Appellate Body.  
4.2.  Second, the Chairman wished to refer to th e workload paper that had been circulated by the 
Appellate Body on its own initiative, which reflected a description of some of the potential work pressures facing the institution. This had triggere d, as many would be aware, a discussion at the 
informal meeting of the Budget Committee, which ha d focused not only on the Appellate Body but 
also on pressures facing the dispute settlement syst em overall. Ms. Valerie Hughes, Director of the 
Legal Affairs Division, Mr. Werner Zdouc, Director  of the Appellate Body Secretariat, Mr. Johann 
Human, Director of the Rules Division, and the head  of the translation services had been present. 
An extensive exchange had been held regarding th e Secretariat's matters and resource availability, 
both human and financial. This had taken place within a context where the general view was that it was an era of zero budget increases and thus the challenge for the Secretariat was to look at 
allocation and reallocation of resources, tempor ary or permanent, to respond to where the needs 
were greatest or strongest. The Director of th e Human Resources Division had been present and 
had taken careful note of the discussion. The Chair of the Budget Committee, Mr. Michael Stone (Hong Kong, China), had summed up by saying that there was an issue of allocation and 
reallocation that was the responsibility of the Secretariat to pursue. The Chairman said that, while 
some delegations had been present at the Budget Committee meeting, he wished to inform others about the discussion that had taken place at that meeting. In his soundings of the Membership, he 
was discovering that, in the view of many delegations, internal Secretariat resource allocation and 
reallocation did not necessarily exhaust all options for addressing what may be a temporary surge, or perhaps a more permanent pressure, on the workload of the Secretariat. However, views 
ranged widely thus far, on what some of those options might be. From practices that parties 
themselves might undertake, voluntarily, in parallel to what was occurring at the panel stage, where parties by mutual agreement might agree to shorten the time-period allotted for oral argument or joint filings, or to agreed statements  of facts, to suggestions that the Chair of the 
DSB may put forward to see whether the Appell ate Body could improve its working methods, 
scheduling and so on, to whether there was any interest in thinking a little more carefully about the 60-day period preceding the commencement of an appeal or about the 90-day period for 
completion of an AB report, a timeline that had not always been met. All of which was to say to 
those delegations that had not been thinking about these issues, that other delegations were thinking about these issues. The Chairman said that he was under no pressure or artificial deadline 
to try and force any kind of discussion. In his view, his role was very much to facilitate this 
thinking among delegations. In that regard, he would continue to take soundings and would welcome delegations coming forward with further views as to whether there was something or anything that he should be doing vis-à-vis  the Appellate Body or that the DSB should be doing as 
an institution, alongside what seemed to be under way in the Budget and Administration area.  
4.3.  Finally, the Chairman wished to underscore one other important aspect related to the 
Appellate Body. He recalled that there was an Appellate Body vacancy and that the DSB had set 
out the procedures for filling that vacancy with a formal adoption of a decision in May 2013. At 
that time, the DSB had agreed that, although nominations were open until 30 August 2013, Members wished to urge delegations to come forward as early as possible with nominees for this 
position so as to give Members adequate opportunity to consider the merits of such nominees. 
Thus far, only one nomination had been receiv ed by the Secretariat. Once again, he urged 
Members and through them their capitals to give every careful consideration to potential nominees to the Appellate Body. He also reminded Members that, unlike nominations for the Director-
General, there was no restriction of nationality on nominations and Members were free to 
nominate someone from another country. In that regard, he noted that Canada had, at the start of the WTO, nominated Mr. Julio Lacarte of Uruguayan nationality for the Appellate Body because of 
his esteem, merit and suitability for the position. Finally he noted that the communication 
regarding the current sole nominee was contained in document JOB/DSB/CV13/1. 
4.4.  The DSB took note of the statement. WT/DSB/M/334 
 
- 15 - 
 
  5  STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGARDING THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DSB FOR 
2013  
5.1.  The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business", said that he wished to make a statement 
regarding the Annual Report of the DSB for 2013. In  this regard, he noted that the DSB was under 
an absolute obligation to prepare an annual report as per document WT/L/105. The report would 
have to be adopted by the DSB and sent to the General Council, where it would form part of the General Council's report to Ministers. Ministers at MC9 would be free to review the Annual Report. 
In order to meet these requirements, this matter would need to be considered by the DSB at its 
regular meeting in October. Bearing that in mind, he had looked at previous Annual Reports of the 
DSB and, with all honesty and respect to the Se cretariat, found them not very user-friendly. 
Therefore, he had reflected on how best to pres ent the same information, but in a way that was 
more user-friendly and in keeping with the WTO's laudable goal of a paperless Organization. The 
revised format, which was now being distributed to delegations as a room document, was prepared under his own responsibility. It was much  shorter and grouped items thematically rather 
than chronologically. Given that the document had just been circulated to delegations, he would 
not go through it in detail. His intention was to give delegations a general idea of what a reformatted and redesigned layout might look like without changing the nature or the type of 
information to be included. As could be seen from  the table of contents, the information had been 
organized by the nature of the activity: surveill ance, panel establishment, panel adoption, rather 
than case-by-case. In his view, it was more user-friendly and much shorter. The Report would still make reference to a detailed table that would have the state of play on each and every WTO 
dispute by way of a compilation, should Members wish to have more information. Thus, the state 
of play table would still be produced. He encouraged delegations to read and reflect on the revised format, keeping in mind his reason for proposing a revision. The Report would be forwarded to the 
General Council, whose participants were non-specialists, and to Ministers. Thus, it was important 
that the Report be designed for its readers with all the detail that they might need. He observed that, working backwards, if the DSB was to produc e and adopt the Report at its regular meeting in 
October, having been translated into the three o fficial languages of the WTO and approved before 
finalization, that meant that the DSB would have to consider this matter early in the fall. Therefore, he urged delegations to provide him dire ctly or through the Secretariat, their reactions 
and level of comfort, by the end of July, before the summer break. That would enable the 
production of a draft report that would enjoy some basis of consensus as a first draft.   
5.2.  The DSB took note of the statement. 
__________