RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/338  
 
28 January 2014  
(14-0471)  Page: 1/13  
Dispute Settlement Body 
22 October 2013    
 
 MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD 
ON 22 OCTOBER 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 ............................................................................ 4  
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 ..................................................................... 5  
E.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status 
report by Thailand ............................................................................................................  6 
F.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the Un ited States ................................................................................................ 7  
2   CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON 
BROILER PRODUCTS FROM THE UNITED STATES ............................................................. 8  
A.  Implementation of the re commendations of  the DSB ......................................................... 8  
3   UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 
2000: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB ................ 9  
A.  Statements by the Eu ropean Union and Japan .................................................................. 9  
4   CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECT ING ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SERVICES ........... 10  
A.  Statement by th e United States .................................................................................... 10 
5   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – RECYCL ING FEE ON MOTO R VEHICLES ............................... 11  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union ........................................ 11 
6   ADOPTION OF THE 2013 DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DSB ................................. 12  
7   PROPOSED NOMINATIONS FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL 
AND NON-GOVERNMENTA L PANELISTS .......................................................................... 13  
8   STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGARDING MATTERS RELATED TO THE 
APPELLATE BODY ........................................................................................................... 13  
 WT/DSB/M/338 
 
- 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.131) 
 B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.131) 
 C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.106) 
 D.  European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.69) 
 
E.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status report by Thailand (WT/DS371/15/Add.18) 
 
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.17) 
 
 1.1.  The Chairman noted that there were six 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 otherw ise, 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 reasonab le period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved". Once again, he called on delegations 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.  
A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.131) 
1.2.  The Chairman drew attention to docu ment WT/DS176/11/Add.131, 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 10 October 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. H.R. 778 and S. 647 would modify Section 211, while H.R. 214, 872 and 873 would 
repeal Section 211. The United States said that its 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 statement made at the present meeting. The EU hoped that the US 
authorities would resolve this matter very soon. 
1.5.  The representative of Cuba said that, once again, her country wished to place on record its 
concern about the repeated failure by the United States to implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in the Section 211 dispute. The United States continued to ignore the DSB's rulings 
and, contrary to what its status report sought to convey, it continued to infringe fundamental intellectual property rights with respect to the Cuban rum trademark, Hava na Club. This reflected 
the unlawful US policy in support of the economic, commercial and financial blockade maintained 
by the United States against Cuba for more than 50 years. Cuba wished to point out that this hostile embargo, which prevented compliance with the DSB's rulings in this case had been rejected by the international community for 21 consecutive years before the UN General Assembly. In 
2012, 188 UN member States, almost all of which were also WTO Members, had voted for the  
 WT/DSB/M/338 
 
- 3 - 
 
  General Assembly resolution entitled "Necessity of Ending the Economic, Commercial and Financial 
Blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba". This resolution would be put to 
the vote again on 29 October 2013. Cuba was convin ced that, once again, the resolution would be 
overwhelmingly endorsed by the international community. However, neither the failure to comply with the DSB's rulings for more than 12 years nor the discredit that had befallen the United States 
in the UN General Assembly appeared to be of any concern to the US Government. As long as the 
United States did not offer assurances that it would meet its legal obligations, Cuba would continue to denounce the violations committed by the United States, a country that benefitted the most 
from the multilateral trading system. Cuba would act accordingly in order to demand that justice 
be done and that the rights enshrined in legal texts, which underpinned the functioning of the WTO, prevailed. Once again, Cuba reiterated and reaffirmed that the only satisfactory solution was 
to repeal Section 211, without further delay. 
 
1.6.  The representative of Mexico said that hi s country, once again, urged the parties to this 
dispute to adopt the necessary measures to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
for the benefit of all Members, in accordance with Article 21.1 of the DSU. 
1.7.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the United States for its status 
report. Brazil noted that, once again, the United St ates 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 rules. 
1.8.  The representative of China said that her country thanked the United States for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting. China remained concerned about the 
prolonged situation of non-compliance in this dispute, in particular since the interests of a 
developing-country Member were affected. China urged the United States to implement the DSB's 
rulings and recommendations without further delay. 
1.9.  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 with regret that the 
United States had not reported any progress in this long-standing dispute. India felt compelled to 
stress again that the principle of prompt compliance was missing in this dispute. India reiterated 
its systemic concern about the situation of continued non-compliance as this undermined the credibility and the confidence Members reposed in the system. India urged the United States to report full compliance without any further delay.  
1.10.  The representative of Argentina said that his country thanked the United States for its 
status report. Argentina regretted that, as had been the case for the past few years, the US status 
report contained nothing new and the United States  did not report on any progress. This lack of 
progress was inconsistent with the principle of prompt compliance within a reasonable period of 
time provided for in the DSU provisions and affected the interests of a developing-country Member. Argentina urged the United States to make an effort to resolve this dispute.  
1.11.  The representative of Viet Nam said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting. Once again, Viet Nam noted that the US 
report showed very low progress with regard to the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in this dispute. Viet Nam urged the United States to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings, without any further delay, so as to uphold WTO rules and to the 
benefit of Cuba, a developing-country Member. 
1.12.  The representative of Ecuador said that his country supported the statement made by Cuba. 
Ecuador was concerned that this prolonged situation of non-compliance was getting worse, in 
particular since it affected the interests of a developing-country Member. Ecuador hoped that the 
United States would step up its efforts in orde r to fully comply with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in this dispute.   
1.13.  The representative of Nicaragua said that his country thanked the United States for its 
status report. Nicaragua supported Cuba's position in this dispute regarding Section 211 and the 
Havana Club trademark. Nicaragua noted that, over the past years, no progress had been made in 
the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Nicaragua, once again, urged the 
United States to reconsider its measures which were affecting the interests of a developing-  WT/DSB/M/338 
 
- 4 - 
 
  country Member, Cuba. Nicaragua was concerned that the repeated US failure to comply 
undermined the credibility of the DSB and the mult ilateral trading system. It could also affect 
other Members, in particular developing countries such as Nicaragua. Nicaragua hoped that the US 
authorities would, as early as possible, introduce the necessary legislative reforms so as to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
 
1.14.  The representative of Angola said that his country supported the statement made by Cuba 
at the present meeting. Angola thanked the United States for the information it had provided 
regarding the implementation of the DSB's ruli ng of 2 February 2002 concerning Section 211, 
which reflected efforts towards settling the systemic problems. However, Angola wished to reiterate the importance of implementing the DSB's recommendations and rulings, which was an essential element for effective settlement of disputes for the benefit of all Members. Angola 
recalled that the Panel had concluded that Section 211 was incompatible with the TRIPS 
Agreement and with the most-favoured-nation principle. The DSB had recommended that the 
United States adopt measures to comply with the TRIPS Agreement. A delay in the implementation 
of the DSB's recommendations and rulings not only affected the multilateral trading system, which 
must ensure security and predictability for all Members, but it may also create a negative precedent for other cases in the future, in particular those affecting developing-country Members. 
Angola hoped that positive action would be taken to comply with WTO rules.  
1.15.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that his country supported 
Cuba, a developing-country Member that challenged the inconsistency of Section 211. The DSB 
had adopted the recommendations and rulings in the Section 211 dispute, but the United States 
had not yet complied with those recommendations. Venezuela was even more concerned about 
President Obama's renewal of the Helms Burton Act, which had a direct impact on this case. Eleven years had passed and the United States had not yet come into compliance within the 
reasonable period of time stipulated in Article 21.3 of the DSU. The United States submitted the 
same report at every meeting, stating that its Government was willing to comply with the DSB's 
ruling, without ultimately doing so. The current situation not only affected Cuba but also set a 
negative precedent in terms of the credibility of the WTO and its capacity to resolve disputes. 
Venezuela, therefore, urged the United States to bring this non-compliance to an end and to report to the next DSB meeting on the actions it intended to take to end this situation. 
1.16.  The representative of El Salvador said that her country thanked the United States for its 
status report. El Salvador joined previous speake rs in expressing its concern about the lack of 
compliance in this dispute, in particular since the interests of a developing-country Member were affected. El Salvador was also concerned that the lack of compliance affected the multilateral 
trading system. El Salvador urged both partie s to find a way of complying with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. 
1.17.  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.131) 
1.18.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.131, 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. 
1.19.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 10 October 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. With respect to 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that ha d yet to be addressed, the US Administration 
would work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter. WT/DSB/M/338 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.20.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked the United States for its 
statement and status report submitted on 11 October 2013. Since the content of the report had 
not changed from the previous ones, Japan's posi tion had not changed either as stated at the 
previous meetings. 
1.21.  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.106) 
1.22.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.106, 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. 
1.23.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 10 October 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. 
1.24.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and its statement made at the pr esent meeting. The EU referred to its previous 
statements regarding its wish to resolve this case as soon as possible. 
1.25.  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.69) 
1.26.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.69, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of 
biotech products. 
1.27.  The representative of the European Union sa id that, in recent meetings, the EU had already 
reported on authorization decisions taken in 2012.  More recently, at the end of June 2013, the 
European Commission had authorized three genetically modified oilseed rapes1, following the 
absence of an opinion from the Appeal Committee. In July 2013, the Appeal Committee had voted on three authorization decisions
2, rendering no opinion. They were now under political discussion 
at Commission level. In September 2013, the standing committee had voted on a draft 
authorization decision for drought-tolerant maize3 and had rendered no opinion. The draft decision 
had therefore been presented to the Appeal Commi ttee on 21 October 2013. In addition, at the 
beginning of October, the EFSA had published opinions on a GM maize4 and a GM soybean5, both 
for food and feed uses. As stated many times before, the EU recalled that the EU approval system 
was not covered by the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The GMO regulatory regime was working normally as evidenced by the approval  decisions and other actions towards approval 
decisions just mentioned. The details on the relevant products were set out in the written version 
of the EU statement. 
1.28.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meetin g. As it had explained at past meetings of the 
DSB, the United States had substantial concerns regarding EU measures affecting the approval of 
biotech products. At the present meeting, there was one specific issue the United States wished to 
highlight. This was the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to a variety of biotech 
                                               
1 Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3. 
2 Maize stack events MON89034 x 1507 x MON88017 x 59122 and GM maize MON89034×1507×NK603 
as well as GM maize MON810 pollen. 
3 MON87460 maize. 
4 T25 maize. 
5 MON87708 soybean. WT/DSB/M/338 
 
- 6 - 
 
  corn known as BT-1507. The application for approval of this product had been pending since 2001, 
which was 12 years ago. In 2006, the DSB had found that the EU had breached its obligations with 
respect to this specific product by not undertaking and completing approval procedures without 
undue delay.6 Despite the DSB's recommendations and rulings, the approval application for 
BT-1507 was still pending. The EU's judicial system now had expressed its own concerns with 
respect to delays in the approval of BT-1507. Mo re specifically, on 26 September 2013, a court of 
the European Union had issued a decision concerni ng the long-pending application for approval of 
BT-1507.7 The court had found that the European Commission had breached the EU's own laws by 
failing to act with respect to this application. This finding served to reinforce that the EU had not 
addressed the delays in its measures affecting the approval of biotech products. The EU measures, including such delays in the processing of specific applications, were causing serious disruption of trade in agricultural products. Accordingly, the Un ited Sates urged the EU to take steps to address 
these matters.  
1.29.  The Chairman thanked the EU for providing up-to-date information, including developments 
on 21 October 2013. He thanked the United States for focusing on practical measures that might 
help resolve this dispute, which was the spirit of the surveillance discussion intended by the DSU 
negotiators.  
1.30.  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.18) 
1.31.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS371/15/Add.18, 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. 
1.32.  The representative of Thailand said that, as indicated in its most recent status report, 
Thailand had received a request from the Philippines for additional information on some of the 
technical aspects of its implementation, as well as other matters of concern to the Philippines. The relevant agencies of the Thai government were in the process of preparing responses to the 
Philippines' questions, many of which involved business confidential information. Thailand hoped to 
provide these responses on a bilateral basis to the Philippines shortly. Thailand also looked forward to continuing its discussions with the Philippines on these matters and to resolving this matter in an amicable manner. 
1.33.  The representative of the Philippines said that his country thanked Thailand for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting. The Philippines wished to address two 
issues. First, as mentioned in its statement at the previous DSB meeting and as referred to by 
Thailand in its status report, the Philippines had submitted a set of questions to Thailand regarding 
the information that Thailand had submitted to  the Philippines in late August. The Philippines 
recalled that the information, which was being withheld from the importer concerned, was relevant 
in assessing whether one of Thailand's reported implementation measures was in conformity with 
the Customs Valuation Agreement. The set of qu estions that the Philippines had submitted to 
Thailand addressed issues regarding this informat ion which, in the Philippines view, gave rise to 
serious misgivings regarding the WTO-consistency of Thailand's declared measure taken to 
comply. To date, the Philippines had not received any replies to those questions. The second issue, 
which the Philippines wished to address at the pr esent meeting, related to one of the criminal 
investigations that the Philippines had referred to consistently in its statements as an outstanding 
issue affecting Thailand's compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations. The Philippines 
recalled that the criminal investigations concerned alleged under-declaration of customs value on entries that seemed to be covered by this disput e. The concerns that the Philippines had raised 
related to the grounds on which the findings of under-declaration seemed to be based which, to 
the Philippines, were not supported by WTO cust oms valuation rules and directly contradicted 
findings made by Thai Customs and other Thai governmental agencies. Thailand, as recently as at 
                                               
6 European Communities – Measures Affecting th e Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products 
(WT/DS291/R), adopted 21 November 2006, at para. 8.18(a)(xi). 
7 Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. European  Commission, Case T-164/10, Judgment of the General 
Court (Seventh Chamber) (26 September 2013). WT/DSB/M/338 
 
- 7 - 
 
  the previous DSB meeting, had stated that it would strive to ensure that these investigations 
would be carried out in a WTO-consistent manner. Reports had recently appeared in the Thai press 
that Thailand had now adopted a decision to prosecute the importer and 12 of its current and 
former employees for alleged under-declaration of customs value. The press reports indicated that 
the prosecution order covered entries from the Philippines between the years 2003 to 2007, which 
included the period covered by the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute. The 
Philippines was concerned about these press report s and intended to seek confirmation of the 
reports from Thailand and on the bilateral level. The Philippines would welcome, if Thailand was 
already in a position to comment on these reports at the present meeting and, if the reports were 
accurate, could provide, in particular, an expl anation on the grounds that had motivated the 
Attorney General to issue the prosecution order. The Philippines would also appreciate receiving confirmation on whether or not the prosecution order included customs valuation entries that were 
covered by the DSB's rulings and recommendations in the DS371 dispute. To conclude, the 
Philippines had invested considerable effort in resolving outstanding issues on a bilateral basis in order to avoid further litigation. Given the notable developments, the Philippines urged Thailand to 
address the outstanding issues as soon as possibl e in order to avoid returning to formal dispute 
settlement. 
1.34.  The representative of Thailand said that her country took note of the Philippines statement 
and concern and would communicate with its relevant authorities in order to seek an official 
confirmation regarding the press report and other details mentioned by the Philippines. As stated 
at the previous meetings, Thailand wished to reiterat e that it would strive to ensure that it acted in 
a WTO-consistent manner to the extent that the investigations referred to by the Philippines 
involved Thailand's obligations under the WTO law. 
1.35.  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.17) 
1.36.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS404/11/Add.17, 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. 
1.37.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 10 October 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. In February 2012, the 
US Department of Commerce had published a modification to its procedures in order to implement DSB recommendations and rulings regarding the use of "zeroing" in anti-dumping reviews. That 
modification addressed certain findings 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. 
1.38.  The representative of Viet Nam said that his country thanked the United States for its most 
recent status report. As Members were aware, the reasonable period of time agreed by the parties 
had expired 14 months ago. However, the United States had not taken any action to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Viet Nam expressed its systemic concern about the US non-compliance with its international obligations. Once again, Viet Nam urged the United States to 
implement without any further delay, the DSB's recommendations and rulings, in particular to 
revoke the anti-dumping duty order that was inconsistent with WTO rules and to uphold the multilateral trade rules for the benefit of Viet Nam's exporters. 
1.39.  The representative of Cuba said that her country was concerned about the prolonged 
situation of non-compliance in this dispute, in particular since it affected the economic interests of 
Viet Nam, a developing-country Member. Cuba, therefore, urged the United States to comply with 
the DSB's recommendations in this dispute and to honour its WTO commitments. 
1.40.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that his country supported 
Viet Nam's concerns regarding the need for the United States to adopt the necessary measures 
that would put an end to this dispute.  WT/DSB/M/338 
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.41.  The representative of the United States said that his country wished to respond to some of 
the comments that had been made in particular by Viet Nam. As the United States had understood 
the Viet Nam statement, there was an express concern about a lack of effort to comply or to 
implement the DSB's recommendation and rulings. Th e United States wished to state that it was 
disappointed to have heard that from Viet Nam. As Viet Nam was aware, the United States had 
continually tried to engage with Viet Nam in bilateral discussions that would help resolve their 
concerns with respect to this issue. The United States encouraged Viet Nam to return to that avenue because it believed that this would be a more productive way forward to address the 
concerns that Viet Nam had raised. 
1.42.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 2  CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON BROILER 
PRODUCTS FROM THE UNITED STATES 
A.  Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB 2.1.  The Chairman recalled that in accordance with the DSU provisions, the DSB was required to 
keep under surveillance the implementation of reco mmendations and rulings of the DSB in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members. Article 21.3 of the DSU 
provided that the Member concerned shall inform the DSB, within 30 days after the date of 
adoption of the panel or Appellate Body report, of its intentions in respect of implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. He recalled that, at its meeting on 25 September2013, the DSB had adopted the Panel Report pertaining to the dispute on: "China – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States". He invited China to 
inform the DSB of its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings. 
2.2.  The representative of China said that, on 25 September 2013, the DSB had adopted the 
Panel Report in the dispute: "China – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler 
Products from the United States" (DS425). According to Article 21.3 of the DSU, China wished to inform the DSB of its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in a manner 
that respected its WTO obligations.  China would, therefore, need a reasonable period of time for 
implementation and stood ready to discuss this matter with the United States at any time convenient to both delegations. 
2.3.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked China for its statement 
made at the present meeting, indicating that it  intended to implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in this dispute. China's anti-dumpi ng and countervailing duty measures on broiler 
products from the United States had been and continued to be of significant concern. The 
United States, therefore, looked forward to Chin a moving promptly to bring its measures into 
compliance with its obligations. The United States noted China's comments regarding the need for a reasonable period of time and stood ready to discuss with China, under Article 21.3(b) of the 
DSU, a reasonable period of time for implementa tion of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
2.4.  The representative of China said that her country wished to respond to the comments the 
United States had made at the previous DSB meeting regarding the so-called "systemic misuse by 
China of AD and CVD measures". In China's view, it was unfair and without any grounds to criticize 
a Member's trade remedy practice as having systemic problems, just because one measure of that 
Member had been found to be inconsistent with WTO rules in limited aspects. If this logic stood, China did have serious concerns about the systemic  problems within the US trade remedy system. 
The United States, not China, was a Member that had been challenged in the WTO in 46 out of the 
97 disputes in which the Anti-Dumping Agreement was cited, and in 32 out of the 99 disputes in 
which the SCM Agreement was cited. China wondered whether this data suggested the existence 
of serious systemic problems in the US trade remedy investigation practice. As all Members were 
aware, the US zeroing practice had been found to be inconsistent with WTO rules in various cases such as DS294, DS322, DS350 and DS422. The Appellate Body, in the DS379 dispute, had found that the United States had failed to determine public bodies in a WTO-consistent manner, and had 
failed to properly address the double remedy i ssue. As a developing-country Member, although 
China's investigation authority was quite young, China had always endeavoured to conduct trade remedy investigations in a manner consistent with WTO rules. Even though China had been found WT/DSB/M/338 
 
- 9 - 
 
  to be inconsistent with the WTO rules in two disputes, it had fully implemented the DSB's rulings 
and recommendations by the end of the reasonable period of time in one dispute, and was in the 
process of implementing within the reasonable period of time in the other dispute. 
2.5.  The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked China for its 
intervention but, quite frankly, the United St ates was not quite sure that it understood the 
relevance of China's remarks under this Agenda it em, which was about DS427. With respect to this 
dispute, the United States was curious as to how China intended to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. Regarding China's comments as to whether or not there 
were systemic concerns, the United States urged all delegates to take a look at the Panel and 
Appellate Body Reports involving China and th e AD and SCM Agreements. Those Reports all 
highlighted similar problems with China's administration of its trade remedy laws, and delegates could draw their own conclusions from those Reports. 
2.6.  The Chairman thanked the two delegations for their statements. As he had said at the outset 
of this Agenda item, following the adoption of a panel/AB report, the DSU set out a very 
methodical progression. First, the affected country had to inform the DSB as to how it intended to 
implement the DSB recommendations. Second, as had been seen under Agenda item 1 of the 
present meeting as well as in subsequent meetings, the DSB monitored and surveyed whether that implementation was unfolding as promised. With regard to systemic issues concerning the 
structure or administration of a trade remedy law, he noted that there was another WTO 
Committee where that information could be ex changed and explored in further detail.  
2.7.  The DSB took note of the statements, and of  the information provided by China regarding its 
intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
3  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 
3.1.  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. 
3.2.  The representative of the European Union said that, once again, the EU requested that the 
United States stop transferring anti-dumping an d countervailing duties to the US industry. Such 
disbursements were clearly incompatible 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. 
3.3.  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 long-standing dispute. In Japan's view, 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. 
3.4.  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 in  previous meetings, Brazil was of the view that 
the United States was under obligation to stop making disbursements pursuant to the Byrd 
Amendment. Only then would the issue be reso lved within the meaning of the DSU and the 
United States would be released from its obligations to provide status reports in this dispute. 
3.5.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for bringing this 
issue before the DSB Agenda. India shared their co ncerns and supported their views. India agreed 
with the previous speakers that the United States was under obligation to submit status reports and that this issue should remain under the DSB's surveillance until the United States fully 
implemented the DSB's rulings and recommendations. 
3.6.  The representative of Thailand said that her country thanked Japan and the EU for bringing 
this item before the DSB. Thailand continued to urge the United States to cease the disbursements 
and fully implement the DSB's rulings on this matter. WT/DSB/M/338 
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.7.  The representative of Canada said that his country wished to refer to its previous statements 
on this Agenda item. Canada's position had not changed. 
3.8.  The representative of China said that her country shared the concerns that had been 
expressed by the previous speakers on this item. 
3.9.  The representative of the United States said that, as his country had noted at previous DSB 
meetings, the President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 8 February 2006 which 
included a provision repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. Accordingly, the United States had taken al l actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes. The United States recalled furthermore that 
Members, including the EU and Japan, had acknowledged during previous DSB meetings that the 2006 Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods entered after 1 October 2007, more than six years ago. Th e United States therefore did not understand the 
purpose for which the EU and Japan had inscribed th is item on the Agenda of the present meeting. 
With respect to comments regarding further status reports in this matter, as it had already explained at previous DSB meetings, the United Stat es failed to see what purpose would be served 
by further submission of status reports repeatin g, again, that the United States had taken all 
actions necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes. 
3.10.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
4  CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECTING ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SERVICES A.  Statement by the United States 4.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United States and invited the representative of the United States to speak. 
4.2.  The representative of the United States said that the reason why the United States had 
placed this item on the Agenda was because it continued to have serious concerns that China had 
not implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. Most notably, China was 
currently not allowing any non-Chinese suppliers of electronic payment services to do business in 
China. The United States recalled that this dispute was about measures China had taken that blocked and discriminated against non-Chinese suppliers of electronic payment services, in favour 
of providing protection and privilege to its own domestic champion, China Union Pay. The DSB had 
concluded that China's measures were inconsistent with China's WTO obligations. With regard to China's commitments, the Panel Report adopted by the DSB had made two unequivocal statements: "China has made a commitment on market access concerning mode 3"
8; and "China 
has made a commitment on national treatment concerning mode 3".9 At present, nearly three 
months after the expiration of the reasonable period of time, and nearly 14 months after the 
adoption of the Panel Report, two facts remained clear. No foreign suppliers of electronic payment 
services were doing business in China, nor could they. China Union Pay, China's only electronic 
payment services supplier, was still the only supplier that was doing business, and was authorized to do business, in China. This meant that despite China's two mode 3 commitments, which the 
United States had highlighted earlier, China Union Pay, China's domestic champion, was still 
receiving unfairly advantageous treatment because it could do business in China while foreign suppliers could not. China's measures that were ta ken just before the end of the reasonable period 
of time provided that an EPS supplier, dubbed a clearing institution, must be approved by the 
government before it could do business. However, China had issued no regulation and had 
provided no pathway for that approval which, even under China's own domestic law, it was required to do. Accordingly, that left China Union Pay as the only domestic Chinese clearing 
institution doing business at the present day. China's commitments and the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings regarding an open and fair market in China for electronic payment services were clear. The United States expected and called on China to respect its WTO obligations 
without further delay. 
                                               
8 "China – Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services", WT/DS413/R (adopted on 
31 August 2012), para. 7.575. 
9 Idem,  para. 7.678. WT/DSB/M/338 
 
- 11 - 
 
  4.3.  The representative of China said that her country regretted that the United States had 
inscribed this item on the Agenda of the present meeting. As it had reported at the DSB meeting 
on 23 July 2013, China had fully implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings within the 
reasonable period of time in this dispute. China did not understand the purpose for which this item had been inscribed by the United States. Rega rding the market access commitment issues, the 
Panel's ruling was very limited. 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. In respect to mode 3 under Article XVI of the GATS, the Panel had rejected the US claim that the imposition of issuer, acqu irer and terminal equipment 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 requirements, considered either separate ly 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, and China had 
fully implemented the recommendations. At the previous bilateral technical meetings between 
capital teams of both sides, China had provided the United States further explanation and clarification with respect to the implementation. With respect to other US concerns which were outside the implementation of the DSB's ruling s and recommendations in this dispute, China 
remained open to further bilateral discussion at the appropriate forum. 
4.4.  The Chairman said that he wished to invite  Members to reflect on the cumulative impact of 
items 2, 3 and 4 of the Agenda of the present m eeting. These items had several parallels to each 
other in terms of situations where the DSB was no longer exercising its mandatory surveillance in 
the wake of a statement of full compliance and yet Members came forward with concerns about non-implementation or non-compliance with decisions. There was, of course, the compliance panel 
route under Article 21.5 of the DSU. Therefore, de legations may wish to discuss informally, or in a 
special meeting, how the DSB could contribute ul timately to improving the implementation of 
decisions and rulings.  
4.5.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
5  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – RECYCLING FEE ON MOTOR VEHICLES A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union (WT/DS462/8) 
5.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the comm unication from the European Union contained in 
document WT/DS462/8, and invited the representative of the European Union to speak. 
5.2.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU requested the establishment of a 
panel concerning Russia's "recycling fee" on motor vehicles, with standard terms of reference. This 
request followed EU efforts to find a solution with Russia over more than a year, including through 
formal WTO consultations that had been held in July 2013. Despite those efforts, the measure was still in place and the fee continued to severely hamp er trade. In addition to its negative economic 
impact, the recycling fee also raised very import ant systemic concerns. Russia had introduced the 
fee on 1 September 2012, just days after joining the WTO, and the economic effect of the fee was 
to negate Russia's tariff commitments in the relevant sector. To mention only its most problematic element, the fee was imposed on imported vehicles, but vehicles produced in Russia were 
exempted. An exemption was also available for vehicles imported from Kazakhstan and Belarus. 
The EU therefore considered that the fee was in compatible with the WTO's most basic rules, inter 
alia, those prohibiting discrimination against and as  between imported products. The EU took note 
of the Duma's recent adoption of a law amending the measures. However, the EU had not received 
any clarifications regarding the implementing rules, under which the just described discrimination remained in place. Additionally, and despite re peated promises by the Russian Government, the 
EU had not obtained satisfactory responses in relation to further discriminatory elements of the 
recycling fee, which had also been the subject of  the consultations. The EU continued to await 
information from Russia about new developments and had no choice but to request the establishment of a panel to rule on this matter. WT/DSB/M/338 
 
- 12 - 
 
  5.3.  The representative of the Russian Federati on said that her country regretted that the EU 
requested the establishment of a panel to exam ine this matter. As requested by the EU, the 
consultations on this issue had been held on 29 and 30 July 2013 in Brussels. The Russian 
Federation had participated in those consultations in good faith and had demonstrated its willingness to resolve the issue. During the consultations held, the Russian Federation had 
provided the EU with answers to over 120 qu estions. The representatives of the Russian 
Federation had not only participated in those consultations, but had also provided the EU with additional information in writing after the consultations. It seemed, to the Russian Federation, that 
those consultations had not been treated with the respect they deserved. No effort had been made 
on the EU side to find the mutually agreed solution, which was the preferred option in case of any differences between Members in accordance with the DSU. The consultations, in Russia's view, 
were conducted as a mere formality. The Russian Federation also wished to inform the 
Membership that the EU request covered a number of measures in respect of which the 
Government of the Russian Federation had launched the process of modification in order to improve the utilization regime from the point of view of the legitimate policy objectives it was put 
in place for. As discussed with the EU during the consultations, the respective legislation had been 
adopted by the State Duma in the first reading on 8 October 2013 and finally on 16 October 2013. It had been signed by the President of the Russian  Federation. That legislation eliminated sections 
of existing utilization fee regime to which the EU had referred in its request for consultations. 
However, the EU in its request for the establishment of a panel had ignored this fact. The Russian Federation believed that the matter needed furthe r clarifications and could be resolved through 
consultations. For those reasons, the Russian Federation was not in a position to agree to the 
establishment of a panel at the present meeting. The Russian Federation sought the continuation 
of the consultations process. 
5.4.  The Chairman said that there was no agreement between the parties to move to the next 
step. In that regard, the DSB would take note of the statements. The DSB may well revert to this 
at its next meeting but he had heard, from both sides, a desire to have further clarifications and exchange. The EU, if he had heard the statement correctly, was looking forward to clarification 
regarding implementing rules and the Russian Federation had concluded its statement by 
confirming that it considered that the matter needed  further clarifications as well. He wished both 
parties well in their further consultations. 
5.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter. 
6  ADOPTION OF THE 2013 DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DSB (WT/DSB/W/508 & 
WT/DSB/W/508/ADD.1) 
6.1.  The Chairman said that he was submitti ng, for adoption, the draft text of the 2013 Annual 
Report of the DSB contained in document WT/DSB/W/508 and Add.1 pursuant to the Procedures 
for an Annual Overview of WTO Activities and for Reporting under the WTO, contained in document WT/L/105. The Report covered the work of the DSB since the previous Annual Report contained in 
document WT/DSB/58. The Report covered meetings of the DSB from 30 November 2012 through 
25 September 2013. He noted that the Report was in two parts: a summary report and an addendum, which was the overview of the state of play of WTO disputes covering the period from 
1 January 1995 to 30 September 2013, prepared by the Secretariat on its own responsibility. 
Before formally submitting the draft Report to the DSB for adoption, he wished to say a few words 
regarding the new format of the Report. He recalled that, at the DSB meeting in July 2013, he had circulated a revised format of the Annual Report. The new and redesigned layout contained 
information organized by the nature of the activity reported, such as surveillance, panel 
establishment, and adoption of panel and Appellate  Body reports. That design reflected a change 
from the case-by-case approach that had been fo llowed in previous reports. The revised format 
also contained a final section regarding the overall activity of the DSB and factual conclusions. The 
objective behind the change in format was to produce a more user-friendly and shorter report, and to seek to make the format more readable and more accessible to a broader public. At the July 2013 DSB meeting, he had asked delegations to comment on the revised format by the end of 
July. He had received some constructive comments endorsing the overall approach and offering a 
few refinements, which were mainly of an editorial nature. He thanked all delegations for their collaboration in creating this new and improved Report. He was confident that this Report would 
contribute to a broader understanding of the work of the DSB and that it would add to the efforts 
of the WTO Members to foster transparency in thei r activities. With these words of introduction, he 
proposed that the DSB adopt the draft Annual Report at the present meeting and that the WT/DSB/M/338 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Secretariat be authorized to update the Report under its own responsibility in order to include 
actions taken by the DSB at the present meetin g. The updated Annual Report would then be 
submitted for consideration by the General Council at its meeting to be held in November 2013. 
Subsequently, the Report would be forwarded to  the Ministerial Conference in December 2013, 
which would undertake the annual overview of WTO activities. Therefore, he proposed that the 
DSB take note of the statement and adopt the draft Annual Report of the DSB contained in 
WT/DSB/W/508 and Add.1 on the understanding that it would be further updated by the 
Secretariat.  
6.2.  The DSB took note of the statement an d adopted the draft Annual Report contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/508 and Add.1 on the understanding that it would be further updated by the 
Secretariat.10 
7  PROPOSED NOMINATIONS FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS (WT/DSB/W/514) 
7.1.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/514, which contained five new names 
that had been proposed by Argentina for inclusion on the indicative list of governmental and non-
governmental panelists, in accordance with Arti cle 8.4 of the DSU. He proposed that the DSB 
approve the names contained in document WT/DSB/W/514. 
7.2.  The DSB so agreed. 
8  STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGARD ING MATTERS RELATED TO THE APPELLATE 
BODY 
8.1.  The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business", said that he wished to make a short 
statement concerning matters related to the Appellate Body.  First, as Members would recall, the 
interviews by the Selection Committee of the four candidates for the vacancy in the Appellate Body 
had been held on 21 October 2013 in the afte rnoon. The next phase of the process was the 
opportunity for any delegation to meet with the Selection Committee to express their view on one 
or more of the candidates. The Selection Committ ee would be available to meet with delegations 
on 24, 25 and 28 October 2013. Those delegations who wished to meet with the Selection Committee should contact the Secretariat, the Council/TNC Division, to make an appointment or 
could also send comments in writing.  Written comments should be submitted in sealed envelopes 
and be addressed to the Chair of the DSB, in care of the Council/TNC Division and should be sent no later than 31 October  2013. Written comments would be made available only to the other 
members of the Selection Committee. As the DSB had previously agreed, following the interviews 
held the previous day and following the consultations with interested delegations, the Selection 
Committee was required to make its recommendation to the DSB no later than 7 November 2013. That recommendation would be sent by fax to delegations and would enable the DSB to consider 
the recommendation at its regularly scheduled meeting on 25 November 2013.  
8.2.  Second, on the possible reappointment of Mr. Peter Van den Bossche for a second-four year 
term in the Appellate Body, the Chairman wished to report that he was continuing his 
consultations. He said that he had benefitted greatly from the insights of key delegations and had 
sought the views of those with extensive experience in dispute settlement, either as litigants or as 
former DSB Chairs. He invited any other delegati on with views on the possible reappointment of 
Mr. Van den Bossche to consult with him by 31 October 2013. He hoped to conclude his 
consultations and to come forward with a recommendation by 7 November 2013.  
8.3.  The DSB took note of the statement. 
__________  
                                               
10 Subsequently, the Annual Report was circulated in document WT/DSB/61 and Add.1