RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/390  
 
7 February  2017 
(17-0695) Page: 1/9 
Dispute Settlement Body  
16 December 2016    
 
 MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 16 DECEMBER 2016  
Chairman: Mr. Xavier  Carim  (South Africa ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda , the item concerning the adoption of the Panel Report in the 
dispute on: "United  States – Conditional Ta x Incentives for Large Civil Aircraft" (DS487) was 
removed from the proposed Agenda following the US decision to appeal the Report.  
 
Table of Contents  
1   SURVEILLANCE OF IMPL EMENTATION OF RECOMM ENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United  States  ................................ ................................ ..............  2 
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  2 
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and mark eting of biotech 
products: Status report by the European  Union ................................ ................................ ....... 3 
2   UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT  
OF 2000: IMPLEMENTATION  OF THE RECOMMENDATIO NS ADOPTED BY THE DS B ...........  3 
A.  Statements by the European  Union and Japan  ................................ ................................ ... 3 
3   CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFF ECTING ELECTRONIC PA YMENT SERVICES  .............  4 
A.  Statement by the United  States  ................................ ................................ .......................  4 
4   EUROPEAN UNION – COST ADJUSTMENT METH ODOLOGIES AND CERTAI N 
ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS FRO M RUSSIA (SECOND COM PLAINT)  .............  5 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the Russian Federation  ................................ ..... 5 
5   RUSSIA – MEASURES AFF ECTING THE IMPORTATI ON OF RAILWAY 
EQUIPMENT AND PARTS THEREOF  ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Ukraine  ................................ ..........................  5 
6   CHINA – DOMESTIC SUPPORT FOR  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE RS ................................  6 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the United  States  ................................ .............  6 
7   PROP OSED NOMINATION FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL 
AND NON -GOVERNMENTAL PANELIS TS ................................ ................................ ............  7 
8   COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO  THE IMPORTATION OF T EXTILES, 
APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR  ................................ ................................ ................................  7 
A.  Statement by Colombia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 7 
9   DISPUTE SETTLEMENT W ORKLOAD  ................................ ................................ .............  8 
A.  Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ .............................  8 WT/DSB/M/390  
 
- 2 - 
 
  10   APPELLATE BODY MATTE RS................................ ................................ .......................  9 
A.  Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ .............................  9 
 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF I MPLEMENTATION OF REC OMMENDATIONS ADOPTED  BY THE DSB  
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United  States (WT/DS184/15/Add.167)  
 
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United  States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.142)  
 
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.105)  
 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were three  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 required that: "Unless 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 time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved". Under this Agenda item, the Chairman invited d elegations to 
provide up to date information about compliance efforts and to focus on new developments, 
suggestions and ideas on progress towards the resolution of disputes. He also reminded 
delegations that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Proc edure for DSB meetings: 
"Representatives 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.167)  
1.2.  The Chairman  drew atte ntion to document WT/DS184/15/Add.167, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel 
products from Japan.  
1.3.  The representative of the United  States  said his country had provided a status report in this 
dispute on 5  December  2016, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. The United  States had 
addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the ca lculation 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 Administration 
would work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would 
resolve this matter.  
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said her country thanked the United  States for its statement and 
its status report submitted on 5  December  2016. Japan referred to its previous statements that 
this issue should be resolved as soon as possible.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/2 4/Add.142)  
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.142, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act.  WT/DSB/M/390  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.7.  The representative of the United  States  said his country had provided a status report in this 
dispute on 5  December  2016, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the European  Union, and to work closely w ith the US Congress, in 
order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.  
1.8.  The representative of the European  Union  said his delegation thanked the United  States for 
the status report and its statement made at the present meeting. The EU ref erred to its previous 
statements made at previous meetings and said that it would like to resolve this case as soon as 
possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.105)  
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.105, which contained the 
status report by the European  Union on progress i n the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of 
biotech products.  
1.11.   The representative of the European  Union  said that there had been no new developments 
since the previous DSB meeting  on 23  November  2016. The EU continued to be committed to 
acting in line with its WTO obligations. But, more generally, and as stated many times before, the 
EU recalled that the EU approval system was not covered by the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.  
1.12.   The representative of the United  States  said his country thanked the EU for its status report 
and its statement at the present meeting. As the United  States had noted at past meetings of the  
DSB, the EU measures affecting the approval and marketing of biote ch products were 
characterized by lengthy, unpredictable, and unexplained delays in approvals. This remained a 
substantial concern to the United  States. As the EU was aware, the United  States was concerned 
that the EU's scientific review process seemed to have slowed in recent years. Many corn and soy 
products had now been under consideration by the EU's scientific authority for several years. 
Further, even after products had received positive scientific evaluations, they continued to languish 
without appro val by the relevant EU bodies. The delays in approvals caused adverse effects on 
trade, particularly with respect to soybeans and corn. The United  States encouraged the EU to 
ensure that products in the biotech approval pipeline moved forward in a timely m anner, as 
required by EU regulations and WTO rules.  
1.13.   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  ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A.  Statements by the European  Union and Japan  
2.1.  The Chairman  said this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of the 
European  Union and Japan and he invited the respective representatives to speak.  
2.2.  The representativ e of the European  Union  said his delegation requested, once again, that the 
United  States stop transferring anti -dumping and countervailing duties to the US industry. Every 
disbursement that still took place was clearly an act of non -compliance with the DS B'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 implementation reports in this dispute. The EU 
would continue to put this point on the Agenda as long as the US had not implemented the WTO 
ruling.  WT/DSB/M/390  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.3.  The representative of Japan  said that US Customs and Border Protection had just issued the 
CDSOA Annual Report for Financial Year  2016.1 According to the report, some $46 million had 
been disbursed for financial year 2016. These latest distributions showed that the CDSOA still 
remained operational. It was Japan's firm view that as long as distributions continued the 
United  States was not in full compliance. It was also under an obligation to provide the DSB with a 
status report in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. Japan recalled that, for years, it had been 
inscribing this item on the Agenda of each and every regular DSB meeting and Japan's position on 
the matter was well known. In order to avoid undue repeti tion of its positon and to expedite the 
conduct of business of the DSB, Japan had decided not to continue this practice as of the next 
regular DSB meeting. Needless to say, this was without prejudice to Japan's positon on this matter 
and Japan reserved all  its rights under the DSU, including the right to raise this matter again in the 
DSB and its right under Article  22.7 of the DSU.  
2.4.  The representative of Canada  said that his country wished to refer to its previous statements 
made on this matter.  
2.5.  The represe ntative of Brazil  said that her country , once again, thank ed the EU and Japan for 
placing  this item on the Agenda of the DSB.  As one of the original parties to this matter, Brazil 
referred to its earlier statements on the subject, specifically with continu ing payment of illegal 
disbursements. These had to stop immediately. Brazil called upon the United  States to comply with 
the DSB's rulings and recommendations. The United  States, of course, was now responsible for 
providing status reports, pursuant to Arti cle 21.6 of the DSU.  
2.6.  The representative of China  said that her country thanked the EU and Japan for placing this 
item on the Agenda of the present meeting. China urged the United  States to fully implement the 
DSB's rulings on this matter as soon as possibl e. 
2.7.  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 repealing the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of  2000 – had been enacted into law  in February  2006. 
Accordingly, the United  States had taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes. The United  States recalled, furthermore, that the 
EU, Japan, and other Members had acknowledged that the  Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the 
distribution of duties collected on goods entered after 1  October  2007, over nine years ago. In 
light of this, the  United  States was pleased to note Japan's statement, at the present meeting, that 
it would not cont inue to inscribe this item on the DSB Agenda while reserving its rights. The 
United  States viewed this as a positive development, illustrative of the close and cooperative 
relationship it shared with Japan. With respect to comments regarding continued stat us reports in 
this matter, as it had already explained at previous DSB meetings, the United  States failed to see 
what purpose would be served by further submission of status reports which would repeat, again, 
that the United  States had taken all actions ne cessary to implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in these disputes. Indeed, as these very WTO Members had demonstrated repeatedly 
when they had been a responding party in a dispute, there was no obligation under the DSU to 
provide further status reports once a Member announced that it had implemented those DSB 
recommendations and rulings, regardless of whether the complaining party disagreed about 
compliance.  
2.8.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
3  CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFF ECTING ELECTRONIC PA YMEN T SERVICES  
A.  Statement by the United  States  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United  States and he invited the representative of the United  States to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of the United  States said that the DSB had adopted its recommendations 
in this dispute more than four years ago, and the reasonable period of time had long since expired. 
                                                
1 CDSOA  2016 Annual Reports dated 1  December  2016. See US Cus toms and Border Protection's 
website at:  
https://www.cbp.gov/trade/priority -issues/adcvd/co ntinued -dumping -and-subsidy-offset -act-cdsoa -2000 WT/DSB/M/390  
 
- 5 - 
 
  China had issued a regulation several months ago that purported to set out a licensing application 
process for foreign EPS suppliers. However, the only entity authorized to provide electronic 
payment services (EPS) in China remained a business set up by the People's Bank of China and 
other Chinese Government -related entities. The United  States urged China  to ensure that foreign 
EPS suppliers may apply for and receive permission to operate in China, in accordance with China's 
WTO obligations.  
3.3.  The representative of China  said her country regretted that the United  States had once again 
brought this matter bef ore the DSB. China referred to its statements made at previous meetings 
and emphasized that China had taken all necessary actions and fully implemented the DSB 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute. China also reiterated that the regulation mentioned  
by the United  States was not relevant to the implementation of the DSB recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute. Nor was the DSB meeting an appropriate forum to discuss China's domestic 
regulatory action, which was irrelevant to this specific dispute.  
3.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
4  EUROPEAN UNION – COST ADJUSTMENT METH ODOLOGIES AND CERTAI N 
ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS FROM RUSSIA (SECOND COMPLAINT)  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the Russian Federation (WT/DS494/4)  
4.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
23 November  2016 and had agreed to revert to it. He drew attention to the communication from 
the Russian  Federation contained in document WT/DS494/4, and invited the representative of the 
Russian  Federation to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of the Russian  Federation  said that, at the previous meeting of the DSB, 
her country had requested the establishment of a panel to examine the EU's cost adjustment 
methodologies and certain anti -dumping measu res on imports from Russia. Russia referred to its 
statement made at the previous DSB meeting, where it had explained the reasons behind its 
request, and repeated its request to establish a panel at the present meeting. Russia noted that, 
at the previous D SB meeting, the EU had stated that, in its panel request "the Russian  Federation 
raises issues, such as for example Article  2(3) of the Basic EU Anti -Dumping Regulation that have 
never been raised in consultations". The grounds of the EU's statement were n ot clear. Apart from 
being incorrect, it prematurely and improperly raised issues that could not be resolved at this 
stage of the proceedings. Therefore, Russia considered it inappropriate to engage in any 
substantive discussion of this matter at the prese nt meeting.  
4.3.  The representative of the European  Union  said that his delegation regretted that the  
Russian  Federation had decided to request the establishment of a panel. The EU believed that its 
Basic Anti -Dumping Regulation and the measures adopted on the basis of this Regulation were 
WTO-consistent.  
4.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU, with standard terms of reference.  
4.5.  The representatives of Argentina , Australia , Brazil, Canada , China , India, Indonesia , Japan , 
Korea , Mexico , Norway , Ukraine , the United  States  and Viet Nam reserved their third -party rights 
to participate in the Panel's proceedings.  
5  RUSSIA – MEASURES AFFECTING T HE IMPORTATION OF RA ILWAY EQUIPMENT AND 
PARTS THEREOF  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Ukraine (WT/DS499/2)  
5.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
23 November  2016 and had agreed to revert to it. He drew attention to the communication from 
Ukraine contained in document WT/DS499/2, and invited the representative of Ukraine to speak.  WT/DSB/M/390  
 
- 6 - 
 
  5.2.  The representative of Ukraine  said that, at the previous DSB meeting on 23  November  2016, 
Ukraine had requested, for the first time, the establishment of a panel to examine certain 
measures imposed by Russia on imports of railway products from Ukraine. At the present meeting, 
Ukraine was requesting the establishment of a panel for a second time. Pursuant to Article  6.1 of 
the DSU, this panel would have to be establish ed at the present meeting. Ukraine wished to 
reiterate its grave concerns over the measures imposed by Russia on imports of railway products 
from Ukraine. As discussed at the DSB meeting on 23  November  2016 and explained in detail in 
Ukraine's panel reques t, since 2014 Russia had been systematically suspending the conformity 
assessment certificates held by Ukrainian producers of railway products, rejecting new applications 
for conformity assessment certificates and refusing to recognize valid conformity ass essment 
certificates issued by other countries of the Eurasian Customs Union. As a result, certain railway 
products of Ukrainian origin had been effectively banned from the Russian market. These 
measures have had very detrimental economic consequences and were inconsistent with several 
provisions of the GATT  1994 and the TBT Agreement. Since the Russian measures remained in 
force and continued to violate several WTO obligations, Ukraine once again requested that a panel 
be established to examine this matter , with standard terms of reference, in accordance with 
Article  7.1 of the DSU.  
5.3.  The representative of the Russian  Federation  said that her country would like to reiterate its 
disappointment with Ukraine's decision to, once again, request the establishment o f a panel to 
examine the subject matter of the DS499  dispute  at the present meeting. As had been stated at 
the previous DSB meeting, Russia had entered into consultations in good faith and had attempted 
to find appropriate solutions to resolve the dispute with Ukraine. Russia stood ready to defend its 
rights under the covered agreements.  
5.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU, with standard terms of reference.  
5.5.  The represe ntatives of Canada , China , the European  Union , Indonesia , Japan , Singapore  and 
the United  States  reserved their third -party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings.  
6  CHINA – DOMESTIC SUPPORT FOR  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE RS 
A.  Request for the establishm ent of a panel by the United  States (WT/DS511/8)  
6.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the United  States contained in 
document WT/DS511/8, and invited the representative of the United  States to speak.  
6.2.  The representative of the United  States  recalled that all WTO Members, including China, had 
undertaken to limit the trade – or production -distorting government support they provided to 
agricultural producers. For each WTO Member, non -exempt domestic support, as defined by the 
Agreement on Agric ulture, may not exceed the level agreed to by that Member as reflected in its 
WTO Schedule. Unfortunately, it appeared that China maintained domestic support at levels well in 
excess of its scheduled commitments, including with respect to wheat, Indica ric e, Japonica rice, 
and corn. When China joined the WTO, it committed not to provide support in favour of domestic 
producers, expressed in terms of China's Current Total Aggregate Measurement of Support 
(Current Total AMS), in excess of its final bound commi tment level of "nil". China had further 
agreed that its de minimis  exemption for product -specific support would be equivalent to 
8.5 percent of the total value of production of a basic agricultural product during the relevant year.  
6.3.  For the years  2012,  2013, 2014 and  2015, however, it appeared that China had exceeded its 
final bound commitment level on the basis of China's market price support (MPS) programs for 
wheat, Indica rice, Japonica rice, and corn alone. That is, China's support for these products ha d 
exceeded 8.5  percent of the total value of production for each product. Prior to initiating this 
dispute, the United  States had attempted to resolve these issues with China, both bilaterally and in 
the Committee on Agriculture. However, China had continu ed to provide domestic support at levels 
well in excess of its WTO commitments. In September  2016, the United  States and China had held 
formal WTO consultations, but these efforts also unfortunately had failed to resolve US concerns. 
Accordingly, the Unite d States requested that the DSB establish a panel to examine the matter set 
out in its panel request, with standard terms of reference.  WT/DSB/M/390  
 
- 7 - 
 
  6.4.  The representative of China  said his country regretted the US request for the establishment 
of a panel. China could not accept that request at this time. Indeed, China was particularly 
disappointed by the United  States' unprecedented and unjustified step to challenge China's 
legitimate and WTO -consistent domestic support with respect to vital agricultural staples including 
wheat, Indica rice, Japonica rice and corn. In responding to the consultation request by the 
United  States, China had agreed to conduct consultations. In Geneva, on 20  October  2016, during 
the consultations, China had made efforts to clarify its agricultur al policies. It noted that, after the 
implementation of reform and opening up of its policy, and especially after its accession to the 
WTO, its economy had been developing rapidly. Against this background, China had provided more 
supports for its farmers, mainly for the livelihood of its enormous agricultural populations. All 
these measures were consistent with WTO rules. China was thus very disappointed to learn that 
the United  States, for domestic political reasons, had requested the establishment of a pa nel. 
China had always respected the WTO rules in calibrating and adapting its domestic support for 
China's agricultural production and development. This support was consistent with well -recognized 
WTO rules and practices confirming that WTO Members had the  right to provide support to their 
respective domestic agricultural sectors. Indeed, WTO rules not only permitted such support, but 
also actively facilitated and encouraged Members to implement measures protecting the interests 
of their agricultural produc ers. Should the United  States continue to seek the establishment of a 
panel in this dispute, China would strongly defend its interests and demonstrate the 
WTO-consistency of its measures.  
6.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this mat ter. 
7  PROPOSED NOMINATION FOR THE INDICATIVE L IST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELIS TS (WT/DSB/W/585)  
7.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/585, which contained one additional 
name, proposed by Mexico, for inclusion on the Indicative Li st of Governmental and 
Non-Governmental Panelists, in accordance with Article  8.4 of the DSU. He proposed that the DSB 
approve the name contained in document WT/DSB/W/585.  
7.2.  The DSB so agreed . 
8  COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO  THE IMPORTATION OF T EXTILES, APPA REL 
AND FOOTWEAR  
A.  Statement by Colombia  
8.1.  The representative of Colombia , speaking under "Other Business", referred to Colombia's 
communication contained in WT/DS461/15, which had been circulated on 15  December  2016. In 
that communication, Colombia had in formed the DSB, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU, 
that on 2  November  2016 the Colombian Government had issued Decree  1744 of 2016 modifying 
the tariffs applicable to imports of products classified in Chapters  61, 62 and 63 of the Customs 
Tariff, and certain items in Chapter  64. He noted that Decree  1744 had set an ad valorem  
MFN tariff of 40% for imports of products classified in Chapters  61 and 62 when the declared FOB 
import price was less than or equal to US$10  per gross kilogram. This tariff w as equal to the 
bound tariff in Colombia's Schedule  LXXVI, Part  I – Most-Favoured -Nation Tariff, Section  II – Other 
products, annexed to the GATT  1994. In cases where the import price for these products exceeded 
US$10, the MFN tariff would be as provided i n Decree  4927 of 2011 or any amending decree, 
containing the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Colombia, and, as such, it will not exceed 
Colombia's bound tariffs. With regard to imports of products classified under tariff headings 6401, 
6402, 6403, 6404 a nd 6405 of the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Colombia, an MFN tariff of 
35% ad valorem  was applied when the declared FOB import price was less than or equal to prices 
that varied between US $6 and US $10 per pair, in accordance with the said Decree. For imports of 
products classified under sub -heading 6406.10.00.00, an MFN tariff of 35% ad valorem  would be 
applied when the declared FOB price was less than or equal to US $5 per gross kilogram. These 
tariffs were equal to the tariff bound in Colombia's Sched ule LXXVI, Part  I – Most-Favoured -Nation 
Tariff, Section  II – Other products, annexed to the GATT  1994. In cases where the import price for 
these products exceeded the above -mentioned prices, the MFN tariff would be as provided in 
Decree  4927 of 2011 or an y amending decree, and as such it would not exceed Colombia's bound 
tariffs. For imports of the other products that were covered by the compound tariffs introduced by WT/DSB/M/390  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Decree  456 of 2014, including the products classified in Chapter  63 of the Customs Tariff  and 
those classified under the headings of Chapter  64 not mentioned above, the applicable tariff, as 
from 2  November  2016, was the MFN ad valorem  tariff set forth in Decree  4927 of 2011 or any 
amending decree, and, as such, it would not exceed Colombia's bound tariffs. Thus, Colombia had 
fully complied with the DSB's recommendations and rulings adopted on 22  June 2016 in the 
dispute on: "Colombia – Textiles Apparel and Footwear" (DS461).  
8.2.  The representative of Panama  said that his country welcomed the infor mation provided by 
Colombia. Panama was in the process of examining Decree  1744,  to which Colombia had referred. 
On a preliminary basis, in Panama's view, Colombia's modification of the compound tariff, by 
means of Decree  1744 of 2  November  2016, lost any capacity to ensure compliance with the 
findings and recommendations in this dispute, if it was accompanied by measures that imposed 
requirements, strict controls and special customs obligations in respect of the relevant goods, and 
that excessively restric ted access to the Colombian clothing and footwear market, as did those set 
forth in Decree  1745 of 2  November  2016. He said that Panama had placed copies of this Decree, 
in Spanish, at the back of the room. Panama also wished to express concern that, among  the 
customs control measures adopted under Decree  1745 of 2  November  2016, there were renewed 
restrictions on ports of entry of the goods in question. Such measures had already been declared 
to be inconsistent by the DSB in the DS366 dispute. Regardless o f whether Colombia opted to 
comply with the WTO rulings by temporarily replacing the compound tariff – that had been 
declared inconsistent with its commitments under the GATT  1994 – with ad valorem  tariffs, such a 
course of action was undermined by the ado ption of the measures that violated Canada's market 
access and customs valuation obligations. This was evidenced by the fact that Colombia sought to 
base these measures on the general exceptions of Article  XX(a) and (d), which presupposed 
violations of obl igations – an argument that had been used by Colombia in an attempt to justify 
the compound tariffs. That had been dismissed by the two bodies dealing with this case. In view of 
the foregoing, Panama had no alternative but to reserve the right to seek the other remedies 
available under the DSU in order to ensure that Colombia proceeded in accordance with the 
commitments that it had undertaken as a WTO Member.  
8.3.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
9  DISPUTE SETTLEMENT W ORKLOAD  
A.  Statement by the Chairman  
9.1.  The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business", said that he wished to provide the DSB with 
information about the Appellate Body's workload, the number of disputes before panels, and at the 
panel composition stage, and the ability of the Secretariat to meet exp ected demand over the 
coming period. With regard to appeals, he said that the Appellate Body was currently dealing with 
four appeals, including the extremely complex compliance proceedings in "EC and Certain Member 
States – Large Civil Aircraft " (Airbus). One of these appeals was filed on 16  December  2016 and 
could not be staffed immediately. In addition, one panel report had been circulated on 
15 December  2016 and four final panel reports that had been issued to the parties were currently 
being translated.  Of the reports being translated, two panel reports were scheduled to be 
circulated in December  2016. Two more were expected to be circulated in the next three months. 
If they were appealed, they could not be staffed immediately. With regard to panels and 
arbitrations, there were currently 18 active panels (including five panels under Article  21.5 of 
the DSU) that had not yet issued a final report to the parties. Multiple disputes that were being 
considered simultaneously by the same panel were being counte d as one. As of the present 
meeting, all composed panels had been assigned staff to assist them and were active or in the 
process of commencing proceedings. There were an additional six panels at the composition stage. 
This did not count panels for which t here had been no composition activity in the last 12  months. 
In addition, two matters had been referred to arbitration under Article  22.6 of the DSU and one 
under Article  21.3(c) of the DSU.  
9.2.  The DSB took note  of the statement.  WT/DSB/M/390  
 
- 9 - 
 
  10  APPELLATE BODY MATTE RS 
A.  Statement by the Chairman  
10.1.   The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business", said he wished to make two short 
announcements regarding the Appellate Body matters. First, he drew attention to the fact that the 
second  four–year term of Mr. Ricardo Ramírez Hernández  would expire on 30  June 2017. Also, the 
second  four–year term of Mr. Peter Van den Bossche would expire on 11  December  2017. 
Accordingly, in 2017, the DSB would have to decide on the appointments of two new Appellate 
Body members to replace them. It was t herefore the Chairman's intention to circulate a draft 
decision in early 2017 in respect of a new selection process for these two upcoming positions in 
the Appellate Body to be adopted by the DSB. For efficiency, and taking into account that in the 
second half of the year delegations would be very busy with the preparations for the next 
Ministerial Conference, the Chairman proposed that the DSB carry out one selection process for 
the two positions, at the same time, with a view to completing the process by the end of 
June 2017. However, a selection committee would make recommendations for filling one position 
as of 1  July 2017 and the other as of 12  December  2017. The Chairman's proposal setting out 
details regarding the process would be formally submitted b efore the DSB in the beginning 
of 2017. However, in the meantime, the Chairman encouraged delegations to start thinking about 
possible candidates for the two positions. Second, the Chairman informed delegations that, in 
regard to the two new appointments a pproved by the DSB in November  2016, there would be a 
swearing -in ceremony for Ms.  Zhao Hong and Mr. Hyun Chong Kim. This ceremony would be held 
on 25  January  2017 following the DSB meeting scheduled for that day. A formal fax to this effect 
would be circu lated in January  2017.  
10.2.   The representative of Turkey  said his delegation had  planned to make its statement at the 
previous DSB meeting on 23  November  2016 under the Agenda item regarding the new 
appointments to the Appellate Body. However, due to the need f or further consultations, the 
meeting had been postponed  on this Agenda item . Subsequently, t he item had been considered in 
the afternoon  of 23  November . However, Turkey had been unaware of this. As such, Turkey had 
not had the opportunity to make a statem ent on this matter. Therefore, Turkey requested that this 
statement be registered under the relevant Agenda item of the November  meeting.2 With regard 
to the statement at hand, Turkey wished to congratulate Ms.  Zhao Hong and Mr. Hyun Chong Kim 
on their app ointments to the Appellate Body. Both Ms.  Zhao Hong and Mr. Hyun Chong Kim had 
impressive backgrounds in both WTO -issues and international law. Turkey said it was sure they 
would act independently, impartially and within the framework of the DSU during the ir respective 
terms. Turkey wished them all the best and a successful career in Geneva. Turkey also thanked 
the Selection Committee for its hard work and cooperation with Members. Although it had been a 
delicate and lengthy process, Turkey considered that the Selection Committee had completed its 
task successfully. As Members knew, Turkey had, for the first time, nominated a candidate for one 
of the vacant positions on the Appellate Body. Turkey thanked all WTO Members who had shown 
interest in the Turkish  nominee and expressed special thanks to those who had indicated their 
support to the Selection Committee for the Turkish candidate. Turkey said that it believed that 
diversity among the members of the Appellate Body was important and hoped to see more 
candidates from different WTO Members for future vacancies.  
10.3.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
__________  
                                                
2 WT/DSB/M/389.