RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/415  
 
12 October 2018  
(18-6303) Page: 1/15 
Dispute Settlement Body  
20 July 2018    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 20 JULY 2018 
Chairperson: Ms. Sunanta Kangvalkulkij (Thailand)  
Table of Contents  
1   SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RE COMMENDATIONS ADOPTE D BY 
THE DSB ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from  
Japan: Status report by the Unit ed States  ................................ ................................ ..............  2 
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by  
the United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  3 
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech  
products: Status report by the European  Union ................................ ................................ ....... 4 
D.  United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential  
washers from Korea: Status report by the Unite d States  ................................ ..........................  4 
2   UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT  OF 
2000: IMPLEMENTATION  OF THE RECOMMENDATI ONS ADOPTED BY  THE DSB ................  5 
A.  Statement by the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ....................  5 
3   CANADA – MEASURE S GOVERNING THE SALE  OF WINE IN GROCERY  
STORES (SECOND COMPL AINT)  ................................ ................................ .......................  6 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the United  States  ................................ .............  6 
4   UNITED  STATES – ANTI -DUMPING  MEASURES ON FISH FI LLETS  
FROM VIET  NAM ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  7 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Viet  Nam ................................ ........................  7 
5   PROPOSED NOMINAT IONS FOR THE INDICAT IVE LIST OF GOVERNME NTAL  
AND NON -GOVERNMENTAL  PANELISTS  ................................ ................................ ............  7 
6   APPELLATE BODY A PPOINTMENTS: PROPOSA L BY ARGENTINA; AUST RALIA; THE 
PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA; BRAZIL; CANADA; CHILE; CHINA ; COLOMBIA; 
COSTA  RICA; DOMINIC AN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR ; EL SALVADOR; THE E UROPEAN UNION; 
GUATEMALA; HONDURAS;  HONG  KONG, CHINA; I CELAND; INDIA ; INDONESIA; ISRAEL;  
KAZAKHSTAN; KOREA; M EXICO; NEW ZEALAND; NICARAGUA; NORWAY; P AKISTAN; 
PANAMA; PARAGUAY; PE RU; THE RUSSIAN FEDE RATION; SINGAPORE;  SWITZERLAND; 
THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS  TERRITORY OF TAIWAN , PENGHU, KINMEN AND  MATSU; 
TURKEY; UKRAINE; URU GUAY; THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF VENEZUE LA AND 
VIET  NAM  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  8 
7   STATEMENT BY THE  CHAIRPERSON  REGARDING THE POSSI BLE 
REAPPOINTMENT OF ONE  APPELLATE BODY MEMB ER ................................ ....................  13 
8   FOSTERING A DISC USSION ON THE FUNCTI ONING OF THE APPELLA TE BODY  ..........  13 
A.  Statement by Honduras  ................................ ................................ ................................ .13 WT/DSB/M/415  
 
- 2 - 
 
  9   UNITED  STATES – CERTAIN MET HODOLOGIES AND THEIR  APPLICATION TO 
ANTI -DUMPING PROCEED INGS INVOLVING CHINA  ................................ .......................  14 
A.  Statement  by China  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......14 
10   EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER S TATES — MEASURES  
AFFECTING TRADE IN L ARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT ................................ ...............................  14 
A.  Statement by the United  States  ................................ ................................ ...................... 14 
 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPL EMENTATION OF RECOMM ENDATIONS ADOPTED BY  THE DSB 
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United  States (WT/DS184/15/Add.185)  
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US copyright act: Status report by the United  States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.160)  
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting th e approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the  European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.123)  
D.  United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS464/17/Ad d.7) 
1.1.  The Chairperson  noted that there were four sub -items under this Agenda item concerning 
status reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU. She recalled that 
Article  21.6 required that: "[u]nless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time … and shall remain on the DSB's  
Agenda until the issue is resol ved". Under this Agenda item, she invited delegations to provide 
up-to-date information about their compliance efforts. She also reminded delegations that, as 
provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings: "[r]epresentatives should mak e 
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".  
A.  United  States – Anti-dumpin g measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS184/15/Add.185)  
1.2.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.185, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the i mplementation 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 that the United  States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 9 July 2018, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. The United  States had 
addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti -dumping 
margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With re spect 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 that his  country thanked the United  States for the latest status 
report  and the statement made at the present meeting. Japan, once again , called on the 
United  States to fully implement the DSB 's recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this 
matter . 
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  WT/DSB/M/415  
 
- 3 - 
 
  B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.160)  
1.6.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS1 60/24/Add.160, 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.  
1.7.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 9  July 2018, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the European  Union, and to work closely with the US Congress, in 
order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.  
1.8.  The representative of the European  Union  said that his delegation thanked the United  States 
for its status report and its statement made at the present meeting. The EU referred to its previous 
statements on this matt er and reiterated that it would like to resolve this case as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The representative of China  said that the United  States had  submitted the  161st status report 
in this dispute , which  was not different from the reports provided  by the United St ates at previous 
DSB meetings, including its  first report  in November  2004. No further progress toward s 
implementation had been  registered  since then . China was  curious about the reasons  as to why the 
United  States had  failed to implement the DSB 's recomme ndations and rulings for more than 
ten years.  As a result of the US non-compliance, Section  110(5) of the US  Copyright  Act, which  the 
Panel had  found to be inconsistent with the requirements of the Berne  Convention and the 
TRIPS  Agreement , was still in effect. The United States failed  to provide intellectual property  right 
holders the minimum standards of protection  as required by the TRIPS  Agreement . The United States 
remain ed the only WTO Member who fail ed to implement  the DSB's  recommendatio ns and rulings 
with regard to the TRIPS  Agreement,  long after the expiry  of the reasonable period of time . 
Article  II.2 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing  the World Trade Organization provide d that: 
"[t]he  agreements and associated legal instruments i ncluded in Annexes  1, 2 and 3 are … binding 
on all Members ". China urge d the United States  to faithfully honour  its commitments under the DSU 
and the TRIPS  Agreement by implementing the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
China, once again,  strongly advised  that the United States  should  consider including in its next status 
report the specific reasons as to why it had failed to implement the DSB 's recommendations and  
rulings in this case , for this long. 
1.10.   The representative of the United  States  said that by intervening under this item, China 
attempted to give the appearance of concern for intellectual property rights. At recent DSB meetings, 
the United  States had discussed at some length some significant and trade distorting shortcomings 
in Chin a's treatment of intellectual property. If China was interested in discussing the protection of 
intellectual property rights, the United  States was certainly willing to cooperate by bringing that 
matter to the DSB's attention again. For now, the United  States could say that, as the companies 
and innovators of China and other Members well knew, the intellectual property protection that the 
United  States provided within its own territory equalled or surpassed that of any other Member. 
Indeed, as China also we ll knew, none of the damaging technology transfer practices of China that 
the United  States had discussed at recent DSB meetings were practices that Chinese companies or 
innovators faced in the United  States.  
1.11.   The representative of China  said that the Unite d States intervened  again to shift Members ' 
focus away from  this Agenda item. The issue under this Agenda item was  whether the United  States 
had implemented the DSB 's recommendation s and rulings in  this dispute, a nd the answer was 
negative. As before , China continued to  urge the United  States  to comply  with the DSB 's rulings.  
1.12.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
  WT/DSB/M/415  
 
- 4 - 
 
  C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biote ch 
products: Status report by the  European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.123)  
1.13.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.123, 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.  
1.14.   The representative of the European  Union  said that the EU continued to progress with the 
authorizations in respect of which the European Food Safety Authority had final ized its scientific 
opinion and concluded that there were no safety concerns. The EU continued to be committed to 
acting in line with its WTO obligations. But more generally, and as had been stated many times 
before, the EU recalled that the EU approval sy stem was not covered by the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings.  
1.15.   The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States thanked the EU for its 
status report and its statement at the present meeting. The United  States also thanked the EU for 
hosting recent discussions on these and related issues, and the United  States looked forward to 
continued engagement. Nonetheless, the United  States remained concerned with the EU's measures 
affecting the approval of biotech products. Delays in approvals conti nued to affect the dozens of 
applications that had been awaiting approval. Further, even when the EU finally approved a biotech 
product, EU member States continued to impose bans on the supposedly approved product. The 
United  States again urged the EU to e nsure that all of its measures affecting the approval of biotech 
products, including measures adopted by individual EU member States, were based on scientific 
principles, and that decisions were taken without undue delay.  
1.16.   The DSB took note  of the statement s and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
D.  United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS464/17/Add.7)  
1.17.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add.7, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
in the case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washer s from 
Korea.  
1.18.   The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 9  July 2018, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. On 
15 December  2017, the United  States Trade Representative had reque sted the US Department of 
Commerce to make a determination under Section  129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act to 
address the DSB's  recommendations relating to the Department's countervailing duty investigation 
of washers from Korea. On 18  December, the Department of Commerce had initiated a proceeding 
to make such determination. Following initiation, Commerce had issued initial and supplemental 
questionnaires seeking additional information. On 4  April 2018, Commerce had issued a preliminary 
determination  revising certain aspects of its original determination. Following issuance of the 
preliminary determination, Commerce had provided interested parties with the opportunity to submit 
comments on the issues and analysis in the preliminary determination and r ebuttal comments. 
Commerce had reviewed those comments and rebuttal comments and had taken them into account 
for purposes of preparing the final determination. On 4  June 2018, Commerce had issued a final 
determination, in which Commerce had revised certain  aspects of its original determination. 
Specifically, Commerce had revised the analysis underlying the CVD determination, as it pertained 
to certain tax credit programs, in accordance with findings adopted by the DSB. The United  States 
continued to consult  with interested parties on options to address the recommendations of the DSB 
relating to anti -dumping measures challenged in this dispute.  
1.19.   The representative of Korea  said that his country thanked  the United  States for its status 
reports and its statement  made at the present meeting . In its two recent status reports, the 
United  States had informed the DSB  that the US Department of Commerce had issued a final 
determination to address the DSB 's recommendations and rulings relating to the Department of 
Commer ce's countervailing duty investigation of washers from Korea. Nonetheless, in Korea's  view, WT/DSB/M/415  
 
- 5 - 
 
  it was questionable whether the results of the final determination properly reflect ed the DSB's  
recommendations and rulings. At the same time, Korea,  once again , express ed serious concern 
about the absence of US implementation efforts  to date  relating to its anti -dumping measures, more 
than 22  months after the adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports in  this dispute.  In this 
regard, Korea,  once again , called on the United  States to faithfully implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute in order to fully comply with its obligations under the 
covered agreements.  
1.20.   The representative of Canada  said that his country was concerned that the United  States had 
not implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. In particular, Canada was 
deeply disappointed that, despite the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United  States 
continued to collect cash deposits from Canadian ex porters based on a methodology that had been 
found to be "as such" inconsistent with WTO obligations in this dispute.  
1.21.   The representative of the United  States  said that with respect to Korea's statement on the 
anti-dumping measures, the United  States had ex plained to Korea the special challenges arising 
from the recommendations in this dispute. Nevertheless, Korea had requested authorization 
pursuant to Article  22.2 of the DSU to suspend concessions and other obligations. Korea's decision 
to proceed in that regard was disappointing, and not constructive. As the United  States had objected 
to the level of suspension proposed by Korea, the matter had been referred to arbitration pursuant 
to Article  22.6 of the DSU.  
1.22.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
2  UNITED  STATES – CONTI NUED DUMPING AND SUB SIDY OFFSET ACT OF  2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION  OF THE RECOMMENDATI ONS ADOPTED BY THE  DSB 
A.  Statement by the European  Union  
2.1.  The Chairperson  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request 
of the European Union. She then invited the representative of the EU to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of the European  Union  said that, once again, his delegation requested that 
the United  States stop transferrin g anti -dumping and countervailing duties to the US industry. Every 
disbursement that still took place was clearly an act of non -compliance with the DSB's  
recommendations and rulings. The EU renewed its call on the United  States to abide by its clear 
obliga tion under Article  21.6 of the DSU to submit status reports in this dispute. The EU would 
continue requesting this Agenda item for as long as the United Sta tes had not implemented the WTO  
ruling.  
2.3.  The representative of Canada  said that his country thanked t he EU for keeping this item on the 
Agenda of the DSB. Canada agreed that the Byrd Amendment remained subject to the surveillance 
of the DSB until the United  States ceased to administer it.  
2.4.  The representative of Brazil  said that, as an original party to thi s dispute, her country thanked, 
once again, the EU for keeping this item on the Agenda of the DSB. More than 15  years after the 
DSB's recommendations in this dispute, and more than 12  years after the Deficit Reduction Act had 
repealed the Byrd Amendment, m illions of dollars' worth of anti -dumping and countervailing duties 
charged on Brazilian and other WTO Members' exports were still being illegally disbursed to US 
domestic petitioners. Brazil, thus, called on the United  States to fully comply with the DSB' s 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  
2.5.  The representative of the United  States  said that as the United  States had noted at previous 
DSB meetings, the Deficit Reduction Act – which included a provision repealing the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Off set 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 had ackn owledged 
that the Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods entered 
after 1  October  2007, more than 10  years ago. With respect to the EU's request for status reports 
in this matter, as the United  States had already explained at previous DSB meetings, there was no WT/DSB/M/415  
 
- 6 - 
 
  obligation under the DSU to provide further status reports once a Member announced that it had 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings, regardless of whether the complaining party 
disagreed about c ompliance. And, as the United  States had noted many times previously, the EU 
had demonstrated repeatedly it shared this understanding, at least when it was the responding party 
in a dispute. Once again, this month the EU had provided no status report for d isputes in which there 
was a disagreement between the parties on the EU's  compliance.  For example, as the United  States 
would note in a statement made later at this meeting, the EU had not submitted a status report this 
month in the "EC – Large Civil Aircr aft" dispute (DS316), despite the fact that the DSB had recently 
adopted two further reports finding that the EU had not complied. The United  States failed to see 
how the EU's behaviour was consistent with the alleged systemic view it had been espousing un der 
this item for more than 10  years. As the EU was aware, the United  States had announced in this 
dispute that it had implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  If the EU disagreed, there 
would simply appear to be a disagreement between the partie s to the dispute about the situation of 
compliance.  
2.6.  The representative of the European  Union  said that the EU had provided status reports in all 
cases in which it was involved. Earlier in the course of the present meeting, the EU had provided a 
status report in respect of the "EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products" (DS291) dispute. 
As explained in detail during the previous DSB  meeting, the EU believed that the "US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment)" dispute differed from the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute (DS316), since the 
former dispute had been adjudicated and no further compliance p roceedings were pending.  
2.7.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
3  CANADA – MEASURES GOVERNING THE SALE OF WINE IN GROCERY STORES (SECO ND 
COMPLAINT)  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the United  States (WT/DS531/7)  
3.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the  DSB had considered this m atter at its meeting on 
22 June 2018 and had agreed to revert to it. She then drew attention to the communication from 
the United  States contained in document WT/DS531/7, and invited the representative of the 
United  States to spea k. 
3.2.  The representative of the United  States  said that as had been stated at the 22  June 2018 DSB 
meeting, the United  States had serious concerns with British Columbia regulations governing the 
sale of wine in grocery stores. The British Columbia (BC) regula tions excluded all imported wine from 
grocery store shelves, an important retail channel for wine sales in BC. It was obvious that such 
discriminatory measures limited sales opportunities for US wine producers and provided a substantial 
competitive advanta ge for BC wine. The US panel request explained that the measures at issue 
appeared to be inconsistent with Article  III:4 of the GATT  1994 because they accorded less 
favourable treatment to imported products than to like products of national origin. Accordi ngly, the 
United  States requested at the present meeting, for the second time, the DSB to establish a panel 
to examine the matter set out in the US panel request with standard terms of reference.  
3.3.  The representative of Canada  said that his country regretted  that the United  States had decided 
to make a second panel request at the present meeting with respect to Canadian measures 
governing the sale of wine in grocery stores in British  Columbia. Canada questioned the commercial 
rationale of the US request as im ported wines accounted for almost 90  per cent of wine sales in 
Canada. In BC alone,  there were over 1,000  points of sale where imported wine was sold. As had 
been indicated in the statement at the June DSB meeting, Canada had made efforts, and continued 
to be open, to resolving this matter through consultations with the United  States. Nevertheless, 
Canada was prepared to defend the Canadian measures governing the sale of wine in grocery stores 
in British  Columbia before a panel.  
3.4.  The DSB took note  of the sta tements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference.  
3.5.  The representatives of Argentina , Australia , Chile, China , the European  Union , India, Israel , 
Korea , Mexico , New Zealand , the Russian  Federation  and Chinese  Taipei  reserved their third -party 
rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings.  WT/DSB/M/415  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4  UNITED  STATES – ANTI -DUMPING  MEASURES ON FISH FI LLETS FROM VIET  NAM  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Viet  Nam (WT/DS536/2)  
4.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the DSB had considered t his matter at its meeting on 
22 June 2018 and had agreed to revert to it. She then drew attention to the communication from 
Viet Nam contained in document WT/DS536/2, and invited the representative of V iet Nam to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of Viet Nam said that her country thanked the DSB for having allowed it to 
address Viet Nam's second request for the establishment of a panel in this dispute. The first request 
for the establishment of a panel had been made and considered at the DSB meeting on 
22 June 2018. Viet Nam would, thus, not repeat the procedural and substantive history of this 
dispute, which it had fully addressed in its statement made at the previous DSB meeting. 
Nevertheless, Viet  Nam wished t o reiterate the principal point that it had made in its previous 
statement in support of its first request for the establishment of a panel, namely, that each of the 
claims in its request for consultations had been the subject of prior dispute settlement p roceedings 
and that all claims had been resolved in a manner favourable to Viet  Nam. Given that the dispute 
settlement system was already overburdened, Viet  Nam believed that this case should be settled 
without proceeding to the panel stage. However, after  filing its first request for the establishment of 
a panel, Viet  Nam had not received a positive response from the United  States to resolve this case. 
Viet Nam was, therefore, left with no other choice than to submit a second request for the 
establishment of a panel in this dispute. Viet Nam, thus, looked forward to the establishment of a 
panel at the present meeting.  
4.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States was disappointed that 
Viet Nam had chosen to move forward with a request for the establishment of a panel. As the 
United  States had explained to Viet  Nam, the determinations identified in Viet  Nam's request for the 
establishment of a panel were fully consistent with US obligations under the WTO Agreement. 
Additionally, as the U nited States had noted at the DSB meeting held on 22  June 2018, Viet  Nam 
sought to challenge certain items that were not measures and would not fall within the scope of a 
dispute settlement proceeding. In the panel proceeding that Viet  Nam had requested, t he 
United  States would vigorously defend its rights to adopt anti -dumping measures with respect to 
unfairly traded imports.  
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 Canada , China , the European  Union , Egypt , India, Japan , Malaysia , the 
Russian  Federation , Singapore  and Thailand  reserved their third -party rights to participate in the 
Panel's proceedings.  
5  PROPOSED NOMIN ATIONS FOR THE INDIC ATIVE LIST OF GOVERN MENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL  PANELISTS (WT/DSB/W /625)  
5.1.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/625, which contained two additional 
names proposed by Singapore for inclusion on the Indicative List of Governm ental and 
Non-Governmental Panelists, in accordance with Article  8.4 of the DSU. She then proposed that the 
DSB approve the names contained in document WT/DSB/W/625.  
5.2.  The DSB so agreed . WT/DSB/M/415  
 
- 8 - 
 
  6  APPELLATE BODY APPOI NTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY  ARGENTINA; AUSTRALI A; THE 
PLUR INATIONAL STATE OF B OLIVIA; BRAZIL; CANA DA; CHILE; CHINA; CO LOMBIA; 
COSTA  RICA; DOMINICAN REPU BLIC; ECUADOR; EL SA LVADOR; THE EUROPEAN  UNION; 
GUATEMALA; HONDURAS;  HONG  KONG, CHINA; I CELAND; INDIA ; INDONESIA; ISRAEL;  
KAZAKHSTAN; KOREA; M EXICO; NEW ZEALAND; NICARAGUA; NORWAY; P AKISTAN; 
PANAMA; PARAGUAY; PE RU; THE RUSSIAN FEDE RATION; SINGAPORE; S WITZERLAND; 
THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS  TERRITORY OF TAIWAN , PENGHU, KINMEN AND  MATSU; 
TURKEY; UKRAINE; URU GUAY; THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF VENEZUE LA AND VIET  NAM 
(WT/DSB/W/6 09/REV.4)  
6.1.  The Chairperson  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request 
of Mexico, on behalf of several delegations. In this regard, she drew attention to the proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.4, and invited the representative of Mexico to speak.  
6.2.  The representative of Mexico  said that the delegations mentioned in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.4 had agreed to submit the joint proposal, dated 17  May 2018, to launch the 
selection processes to fill the vacancies in the Ap pellate Body. At the present meeting, Mexico wished 
to make a statement on behalf of those 67  Members. Mexico said that the considerable number of 
Members submitting this joint proposal reflected the common concern about the current situation in 
the Appell ate Body, which was seriously affecting its work, as well as the work of the overall dispute 
settlement system, against the best interest of WTO Members. Mexico underlined that WTO Members 
had a responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system 
and the multilateral trading system. Thus, it was the Members' duty to launch the selection processes 
for new Appellate Body members, as set out in the proposal submitted to the DSB at the present 
meeting. That proposal sought , first, to start the three selection processes, namely, one to replace 
Mr. Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term of office expired on 30  June 2017; a second 
process to fill the vacancy that had arisen following the resignation of Mr. Hyun Chong Kim  with 
effect from 1  August  2017; and a third process to replace Mr. Peter Van den Bossche, whose second 
term expired on 11  December  2017. Second, to establish a Selection Committee. Third, to set a 
30-day deadline for the submission of candidates. Fourth, to request that the Selection Committee 
circulate its recommendation within 60  days after the deadline for the nomination of candidates. 
While the proponents were flexible with regard to the deadlines for the selection processes, these 
should, however, ref lect the urgency of the situation. The proponents continued to urge all WTO 
Members to support the proposal in the interest of the multilateral trading system and the dispute 
settlement system.  
6.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States thanked the Chairperson 
for the continued work on these issues. As the United  States had explained in prior meetings, the 
United  States was not in a position to support the proposed decision. The systemic concerns that 
the Unit ed States had identified remained unaddressed. For example, an individual who was not 
currently a member of the Appellate Body continued to decide appeals. As the United  States had 
explained many times, it was for the DSB, not the Appellate Body, to decide  whether a person who 
was no longer an Appellate Body member could continue to serve on an appeal.1 The United  States 
referred back to its statements at earlier DSB meetings for more elaboration on its concerns. The 
United  States therefore would continue i ts efforts and its discussions with Members and with the 
Chairperson to seek a solution on these important issues.  
6.4.  The representative of South  Africa , speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the 
African  Group wished to reiterate its previous sta tements made at the WTO on this matter. The 
African  Group also remained concerned about the current impasse and the developments that 
undermined the functioning of the dispute settlement system and posed unprecedented systemic 
risks to the multilateral tra ding system. The African Group reiterated its readiness to consult with 
Members on how to take matters forward.  
6.5.  The representative of Canada  said that his country deeply regretted that the DSB had been 
unable to fulfil its legal obligation under Article  17.2 of the DSU to appoint Appellate Body members 
as vacancies arose. Canada agreed that it was time to start a process or, if necessary, several 
processes to select new Appellate Body members for the three current vacancies. Canada was 
pleased to join the p roposal and urged the DSB to adopt it without further delay. Like other Members, 
                                                
1 Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes,  Articles 17.1, 17.2 
("DSU" ). WT/DSB/M/415  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Canada was disappointed that the United  States had linked the start of the Appellate Body selection 
processes to the resolution of certain procedural concerns it had shared wi th the WTO Membership. 
Canada invited the United  States to engage in discussions with interested Members with a view to 
expeditiously developing a solution to the concerns that it had raised. Canada remained committed 
to working with other interested Membe rs – including the United  States – with a view to finding a 
way to address those concerns, so as to allow the selection processes to start and be completed as 
soon as possible.  
6.6.  The representative of the European  Union  said that his delegation referred to i ts statements 
made on this matter at previous DSB meetings, from February  2017 onward. With each passing 
month, the gravity and urgency of the situation increased. WTO Members had a shared responsibility 
to resolve this issue as soon as possible. The EU th anked all Members that co -sponsored the 
proposal, and invited all other Members to endorse this proposal, so that the appointment of new 
Appellate Body members could take place as soon as possible. The EU referred, once again, to its 
statement made at prev ious DSB  meetings. The EU was very clear that – even though it considered 
Rule 15 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review as legitimate – the EU was ready to engage 
in discussions on the said rule, if this would help to unblock the appointment of ne w Appellate Body 
members. The EU was still awaiting an engagement by the delegation that was blocking the selection 
processes of new Appellate Body members.  
6.7.  The representative of Japan  said that his country welcomed  the proposal, which it support ed, 
and re ferred  to its previous statements  made  on this matter.  
6.8.  The representative of Costa  Rica, speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and 
Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), said that the WTO was undergoing a delicate period due to the 
blockage in appointin g new Appellate Body members. First of all, the GRULAC wished to acknowledge 
the Chairperson's efforts in seeking a solution to this problem and for providing opportunities to 
Members to express their views on this situation. In this regard, the GRULAC sta ted its deep concern 
about the situation, which affected the functioning of one of the WTO's principal bodies. If this 
problem was not resolved, it would lead practically, in the short term, to  the paralysis of the Appellate  
Body, putting the entire disput e settlement system at risk. The GRULAC noted that the delay in 
launching the selection processes, with three vacancies at present, meant that WTO Members were 
failing to comply with an existing mandate, and thus, amounted to a flagrant breach of a legal 
obligation under a covered agreement. This had serious systemic consequences and set a bad 
precedent for the WTO, causing damage and affecting the image and credibility of the WTO. In 
particular, in light of the complex international context that adversely affected the multilateral 
trading system. The GRULAC had heard the concerns raised with regard to the functioning of the 
Appellate Body and the specific issues regarding decision -making processes, which hindered the 
launch of the selection processes. The G RULAC could not accept that the concerns raised were linked 
to current or future AB selection processes, and thus, prevented the WTO Membership from fulfilling 
its legal obligation. The dispute settlement system could not be prevented from operating until the 
concerns raised by some Members had been addressed. The GRULAC further noted that it seemed 
that a proper interpretation of Article  17 of the DSU, together with Article  2 of the DSU, would not 
warrant the view that a consensus decision was necessary to  launch the Appellate Body selection 
processes. Therefore, the GRULAC did not understand why these processes had not yet been 
initiated. The GRULAC called for the attention of all Members with regard to the seriousness of a 
continued blockage of the select ion processes of new Appellate Body members. The GRULAC also 
reiterated that the selection processes of new Appellate Body members should not be linked to the 
systemic concerns raised by one Member, which should be addressed on their own merit. In this 
regard, the GRULAC called on the entire WTO  Membership to find a solution as soon as possible, in 
order to meet the previously mentioned legal obligation of Members. Finally, the GRULAC asked the 
Chairperson to continue to actively seek a solution to this pro blem.  
6.9.  The representative of Pakistan  said that his country wished to refer to its previous statements 
made on this matter, and wished to register its concern on the current impasse and the 
consequences to the multilateral trading system. Pakistan renewed i ts call on Members to work 
together and show flexibilities, so as to move forward in a direction that would benefit the multilateral 
trading system. Pakistan supported the proposal, put forward by Mexico at the present meeting, to 
launch the selection proc esses to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body. Pakistan was one of the 
co-sponsors of the proposal and called on other Members to agree to it.  WT/DSB/M/415  
 
- 10 - 
 
  6.10.   The representative of Australia  said that her country referred to its previous statements made 
on this matter  and reiterated, once again, its serious concerns regarding the DSB's inability to 
commence the selection processes of new Appellate Body members. Australia remained committed 
to resolving this impasse as a priority, and stood ready and willing to work wit h others on pragmatic 
solutions.  
6.11.   The representative of New Zealand  said that as her country had previously stated, 
New Zealand was pleased to co -sponsor the proposal presented by Mexico . New Zealand sought to 
launch the processes to fill the vacancies in t he Appellate Body as soon as possible. While 
New Zealand disagreed with the linkages drawn, it remained ready to work constructively with 
Members to try and address any issues that might be preventing them from allowing this to occur.  
6.12.   The representative of  Norway  said that her country referred to its previous statements made 
at the DSB, under the same Agenda item. Norway continued to encourage all Members to support 
the proposal to launch the processes of filling the vacancies in the Appellate Body without further 
delay. Although Norway disagreed that there was a link between filling the Appellate Body vacancies 
and solving the procedural issues raised before the DSB, Norway reiterated its continued openness 
and willingness to engage constructively with all and any Member on their grievances with the 
system.  
6.13.   The representative of Switzerland  said that, like others, his country referred to its previous 
statements made on this matter. Switzerland emphasized once again its deep systemic concerns. 
The mounting in security surrounding the future of the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism was 
increasingly affecting all dimensions of the multilateral trading system. Switzerland believed that it 
was a shared responsibility of all WTO Members – and particularly major one s – to engage seriously 
and constructively in order to address the present challenges and move beyond this impasse without 
further delay.  
6.14.   The representative of the Russian  Federation  said that her country referred to its statements 
made at the previous DSB  meetings regarding this issue.  
6.15.   The representative of Chinese  Taipei  said that his delegation simply referred to its statements 
made at the previous DSB meetings. As one of the original co -sponsors of the proposal , 
Chinese  Taipei hoped  that Members could w ork together to find a solution to this impasse as soon 
as possible.  
6.16.   The representative of Hong Kong,  China  said that her delegation referred to its statements 
made at the previous DSB meetings on this matter. Hong Kong, China reiterated its deep concern 
about the prolonged impasse over the Appellate Body selection processes. Hong  Kong, China was 
prepared and c ommitted to engage with all Members constructively in further discussions on a 
possible way forward that might address the procedural concerns raised by one Member. Hong  Kong, 
China invited the concerned Member to submit a concrete proposal to facilitate a  meaningful 
discussion.  
6.17.   The representative of China  said that his country  referred to its previous statements  made  on 
this matter. China believed that w hen Members had different views on a specific issue, discussion s 
and negotiation s were the only way to m ove forward. The United States, however,  constantly refuse d 
to engage in a meaningful discussion after raising its concerns with respect to the functioning of the 
Appellate  Body. China, once again, urged the United States  to fulfil its commitments under th e WTO 
Agreements and interpret all WTO rules in good faith.  
6.18.   The representative of Chile said that his country fully endor sed the statement made by 
Costa  Rica, on behalf of the GRULAC, and Mexico, on behalf of the co -sponsors. Chile reiterated its 
concern w ith regard to the highly negative systemic implications for the WTO that were generated 
by the failure to comply with the obligation to fill the current Appellate Body vacancies. For this 
reason, Chile, once again, called on the WTO Membership to launch th e selection processes of new 
Appellate Body members as soon as possible, and without linking them to other matters, which 
should be considered separately. Chile reiterated its readiness to explore options, which would seek 
to improve the functioning of the  dispute settlement system.  WT/DSB/M/415  
 
- 11 - 
 
  6.19.   The representative of Thailand  said that her country, once again, thanked Mexico and all 
Members that co -sponsored the proposal for this Agenda item. Thailand referred to its statements 
made at the previous DSB meetings. Thailan d supported the launch of the selection processes to 
appoint new Appellate Body members and stood ready to engage constructively with all Members in 
order to find solutions to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body as soon as possible.  
6.20.   The representative  of Brazil  said that his country thanked Mexico for its statement, on behalf 
the proponents, and reiterated its previous statements made on this matter. Brazil believed that a 
lot had been said on the importance of restoring the Appellate Body to its full composition as required 
by Article  17 of the DSU. Unfortunately, no action had been taken due to the current deadlock. The 
concerns raised by the United  States at the present meeting, systemic or not, in no way justified the 
blocking of the selection proce sses for new Appellate Body members. In fact, this blockage worsened 
and deepened the very concerns that the United  States wished to resolve. Brazil noted at the same 
time, however, new consultation and panel requests were being filed by many Members, incl uding 
by the United  States. Based on a rough perusal of the latest figures with regard to disputes, there 
were currently more than 30  disputes in which panels had been established or consultations had 
been requested. If the current impasse was not addresse d urgently, the system would soon come 
to a halt. Members would not be able to appeal panel reports in most cases, and would, thus, not 
be able to adopt them either. This was a scenario that clearly constituted a serious and concrete 
nullification and impa irment of the rights of Members under the DSU, who spent a considerable 
amount of resources initiating dispute settlement proceedings and submitting disputes to the rule of 
law. This scenario deprived Members, and their private sectors, of a trusted, indep endent and 
efficient means of resolving trade disputes. This extreme fallout from the current impasse was simply 
one that Members could not afford to accept. Brazil hoped that all Members would work together to 
overcome any sustained reluctance towards ini tiating the selection processes for new Appellate Body 
members.  
6.21.   The representative of Singapore  said that his country referred to its past statements made on 
this matter, and reiterated its serious systemic concerns with regard to the lengthy delays in 
launching the Appellate Body selection processes. The clock was ticking and the term of another 
Appellate Body member was set to expire on 30  September  2018. Singapore appreciated the 
Chairperson's efforts regarding the possible reappointment of this Appellat e Body member and 
launching the selection processes for the other vacancies. Singapore welcomed any positive efforts 
in this regard. The dispute settlement mechanism would be paralysed if Appellate Body vacancies 
were not filled as they arose, since panel reports once appealed to a non -functioning Appellate Body 
could not be adopted by the DSB and would be, thus, rendered unenforceable. Singapore called on 
the WTO Membership to fill all Appellate Body vacancies immediately. Systemic issues, which had 
been r aised, could be discussed in a separate process. Singapore stood ready to engage 
constructively and work with other Members, as well as the Chairperson, to help resolve this 
impasse.  
6.22.   The representative of Ecuador  said that his country supported the stateme nt made by Mexico. 
Ecuador was a co -sponsor of the proposal contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.4. Ecuador 
also supported the statement made by Costa  Rica on behalf of the GRULAC. Ecuador noted that one 
of the basic principles governing the multilateral  trading system was compliance with the rules, 
which had been adopted by Members. By not having initiated the selection processes for new 
members of the Appellate Body when the vacancies arose, the WTO Membership was clearly failing 
to comply with those ru les. Ecuador considered that it was inappropriate to link the initiation of the 
AB selection processes with other procedural issues. For Ecuador, it was clear that the application of 
Article  17.2 of the DSU required that vacancies were to be filled as soon  as possible. Therefore, 
Ecuador reiterated that it was the prerogative of the DSB Chairperson to take a decision to launch 
the selection processes to fill the Appellate Body vacancies as soon as  possible. The text of 
Article  17.2 of the DSU did not stipul ate that a decision was required in order to initiate the selection 
processes for new Appellate Body members.  
6.23.   The representative of Korea  said that his country  support ed the statement made by Mexico,  
on behalf of the proponents of the joint  proposal . He also referred  to his country's previous 
statements  made on this matter . Korea encourage d all Members to make constructive efforts to 
resolve  the current deadlock.  
6.24.   The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 67  co-sponsors of the proposal, said 
that the proponents regretted that, for the thirteenth time, WTO Members had still not achieved WT/DSB/M/415  
 
- 12 - 
 
  consensus to start the selection processes for the Appellate Body vacancies. WTO Members had, 
thus, failed to fulfil their duties as WTO Members. No discussion should prevent the Appellate Body 
from continuing to function properly. WTO Members should comply with their obligation under the 
DSU to fill the Appellate Body vacancies as they arose. By failing to act at the present meeting, the 
WTO Membership would mai ntain the current situation, which was seriously affecting the work of 
the Appellate Body against the best interest of WTO Members.  
6.25.   The representative of Uruguay  said that her country wished to express its concern about the 
current impasse regarding the se lection processes to appoint new Appellate Body members. Uruguay 
fully supported the statements made by Mexico and Costa  Rica at the present meeting, and 
reiterated its previous statements made at past DSB meetings under the same Agenda item.  
6.26.   The represent ative of Egypt  said that his country thanked the Chairperson for her efforts in 
this regard. Egypt also thanked Mexico and the co -sponsors for their proposal. Egypt also supported 
the statement made by South Africa, on behalf of the African Group. As state d at the previous DSB  
meetings, Egypt was deeply concerned about the prolonged impasse with regard to the initiation of 
the Appellate Body selection processes. This situation threatened the proper functioning of the WTO  
dispute settlement system. Therefore, vacancies in the Appellate Body should be filled as quickly as 
possible without any further delay. Egypt was prepared to engage with all Members in future 
discussions on a possible way forward.  
6.27.   The representative of Turkey  said that his country also wished to refer to its statements made 
at the previous DSB meetings. Turkey also reiterated that it was deeply disappointed with the current 
situation. Turkey said that it was ready to constructively engage in the process with other Members 
in order t o overcome this impasse.  
6.28.   The representative of the Bolivarian  Republic of  Venezuela  said that his country supported 
the statements made by Mexico, on behalf of the proponents, and by Costa  Rica, on behalf of the  
GRULAC. Venezuela encouraged other Members t o support the proposal, contained in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.4, to launch the selection processes to appoint new Appellate Body members, 
as quickly as possible.  
6.29.   The representative of New Zealand  said that, unless his country had misunderstood the 
stateme nt made by Brazil, New Zealand sought a clarification from Brazil with regard to its statement 
that a panel report that could not be appealed could not be adopted. It was New  Zealand's 
understanding that if none of the parties to a dispute sought to appeal , then a panel report was 
adopted according to the normal DSU procedures.  
6.30.   The representative of Brazil  said that New Zealand's understanding was correct. If both parties 
agreed, a panel report could be adopted. This, however, would only happen in approxima tely one 
fourth of all the cases, namely the less important cases. In most cases which involved important 
interests, one party, usually the losing party, would be tempted to appeal as it would have the 
legitimate right to do so. Without an appeal stage, ho wever, the winning party would have an empty 
document in its hands after two or three years of panel proceedings. This would be extremely 
pernicious for all WTO Members.  
6.31.   The representative of Indonesia  said that her country referred to its previous stateme nts 
made in the past DSB meetings. In this regard, Indonesia was of the view that any systemic concerns 
raised by certain M embers should not be linked to decision to fill the current vacancies in the 
Appellate Body. Indonesia hoped that this current impass e could be resolved soon.  
6.32.   The Chairperson  thanked all delegations for their statements. She regretted that the DSB 
was, once again, not in a position to agree to launch the selection processes to fill the three vacancies 
in the Appellate Body. She understo od that this matter required political engagement on the part of 
all Members. She said that she was in the hands of Members and that her door was open to any 
delegation wishing to share ideas or views on this matter. She then invited any delegations with 
views on this matter to contact her directly.  
6.33.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/415  
 
- 13 - 
 
  7  STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  REGARDING THE POSSI BLE REAPPOINTMENT OF  
ONE APPELLATE BODY M EMBER  
7.1.  The Chairperson  said that, under this Agenda item, she recalled that the first four-year term 
of office of Mr. Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing would expire on 30  September  2018. Pursuant to 
Article  17.2 of the DSU, he was eligible for reappointment to a second and final term of office. As all 
Members already knew, on 15  May 2018, the  Chairperson had received a letter from Mr. Servansing, 
in which he had indicated that, as envisaged in Article  17.2 of the DSU, he would like to convey his 
interest to the DSB to be considered for reappointment as a member of the Appellate Body. As 
Member s were already aware, the Chairperson had been consulting informally with delegations since 
May 2018 on the issue of the possible reappointment of Mr. Servansing, as well as on the process 
to be followed in this regard. These consultations were ongoing and  she took the opportunity to 
invite any delegation with views on this matter to contact her directly. She would report back to 
delegations on this matter at the next regular meeting.  
7.2.  The DSB took note  of the statement.  
8  FOSTERING A DISCUSSI ON ON THE FUNCTI ONING OF THE APPELLA TE BODY  
A.  Statement by Honduras  
8.1.  The representative of Honduras , speaking under "Other Business", said that the DSB had just 
witnessed, under the previous Agenda item, another lengthy debate on Appellate Body matters. As 
a small countr y and as an active user of the dispute settlement system, Honduras attached great 
importance to the Appellate Body. In light of the current situation, Honduras believed that action 
was urgently needed. Therefore, Honduras had taken the initiative to presen t a non -paper entitled: 
"Fostering a Discussion on the Functioning of the Appellate Body" (JOB/DSB/2), for Members' 
consideration. The purpose of this non -paper was to foster a discussion among WTO Members on 
one of the current concerns surrounding the fun ctioning of the Appellate Body. Like many other WTO 
Members, Honduras was of the view that the WTO dispute settlement system was crucial to the 
proper functioning of the WTO. Honduras firmly believed that it was vital that all Members engage 
constructively  in finding a solution to the current impasse. Members should start a constructive 
discussion to address all Members' concerns and to respect the principle that "nothing was agreed 
until everything was agreed". Honduras was fully aware that there were seve ral issues that had to 
be resolved but considered that Members' discussions should start by addressing two core concerns 
with regard to Rule  15 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review. These two core issues were: 
(i) the parameters governing the ext ension of Appellate Body members' terms; and (ii) who should 
decide on the extension of Appellate Body members' terms, for the purpose of finishing an ongoing 
appeal. The representative of Honduras said that that non -paper was aimed at reflecting various 
positions on this matter. Honduras was, however, aware that there might be other possible 
approaches. He said that Honduras presented this non -paper to Members in an effort to make a 
positive contribution to the current discussion. Honduras believed that th e only solution to the 
current situation was constructive dialogue and real engagement by all WTO Members. Honduras 
remained available for any questions and comments by Members.  
8.2.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States thanked Ho nduras for its 
engagement on this issue. The United States agreed with the view that the only solution to the 
current situation was dialogue and engagement from all WTO Members. The United States looked 
forward to reviewing the non -paper.  
8.3.  The representativ e of Canada  said that his country thanked Honduras for this non -paper on 
one of the issues facing the WTO. Canada had consistently signalled its willingness to engage with 
other Members and the United  States to resolve this issue. Canada was willing to eng age in 
discussions with all interested Members in order to resolve the many issues facing the WTO.  
8.4.  The representative of Australia  said that her country acknowledged the contribution from 
Honduras to the discussion of procedural and systemic concerns that had been raised in the WTO, 
including in relation to the operation of Rule  15 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review. 
Australia remained willing to explore options for improving the functioning of the WTO dispute 
settlement system. Australia looked forward to reviewing the paper referred to by Honduras at the 
present meeting.  WT/DSB/M/415  
 
- 14 - 
 
  8.5.  The Chairperson  said that the proposal by Honduras  would be circulated to all Members as 
JOB/DSB/2.  
8.6.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
9  UNITED  STATES – CERTAIN METHODOLOGIE S AND THEIR APPLICAT ION TO 
ANTI -DUMPING PROCEED INGS INVOLVING CHINA  
A.  Statement  by China  
9.1.  The representative of China , speaking unde r "Other Business", said that his country had been 
closely monitoring actions taken by the United States regarding implementation in this dispute.  
China noted that the reasonable period time for implementation of the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings would  expire on 22  August  2018 according to the Arbitration award  pursuant to 
Article  21.3(c)  of the DSU. China was, thus,  deeply concerned that no apparent step had  been taken 
by the United  States to comply with its implementation  obligations so far . China, th erefore, urged 
the United  States to  implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute  in order  to 
fully comply with its obligations under the covered agreements , within the reasonable period of time . 
9.2.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United  States was aware that the 
reasonable period of time as determined by the arbitrator under Article  21.3(c) of the DSU would 
expire on 22  August  2018. In accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU, the United  States would 
provide a status report in this dispute at the August DSB meeting. It was incorrect to suggest that 
the United  States had taken no action in this dispute. If China sought information on the internal 
US process prior to the August DSB meeting, it could raise this issue bilaterally with the 
United  States.  
9.3.  The DSB took note of the statements.  
10  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES AND CERT AIN MEMBER STATES — MEASURES AFFECTING 
TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL  AIRCRAFT  
A.  Statement by the United  States  
10.1.   The representative of the United  States , speaking under "Other Business", said that at the 
June DSB meeting, the United  States had noted that the EU had not provided a status report 
concerning the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute (DS316). The United  States said that the EU had 
failed to provide such a report despite the recent adoption by the DSB of panel and appellate reports 
finding that the EU had failed to comply with the DSB's  recommendations to bring its subsidies for 
Airbus into compliance with WTO rules. It was disappointing, if not entirely une xpected, that the EU 
had again this month failed to provide a status report. Members would recall that for many years, 
and again this month, the EU had taken the position that, under DSU Article  21.6, a responding 
party Member was required to provide a sta tus report whenever a complaining party Member 
disagreed with the responding party's claim that it had complied. And yet, in this dispute, the 
United  States disagreed with the EU's  most recent claim that it had complied. Indeed, the EU had 
provided the Uni ted States with no information – and the United States meant, literally, no 
information – to support the EU's  assertion that it had complied. The United  States had therefore 
recently requested the WTO  arbitrator to resume its work to determine the level of  countermeasures 
in this dispute.2 Given the disagreement on compliance between the parties, the EU should, to be 
consistent with the view it had taken when it was a complaining party, now be providing status 
reports. Instead, now that the EU was a respond ing party, the EU was choosing to contradict the 
reading of DSU  Article  21.6 it had long promoted. Last month, the EU had stated that it need not 
provide a status report because it had requested consultations under DSU Article  21.5. But as the 
United  State s had asked last month, where could Members find this status report exception in the 
text of DSU Article  21.6? The answer, of course, was nowhere. The EU had simply invented a status 
report exception, just as it had invented the supposed status report obli gation. Rather than disregard 
the text of the DSU, the EU should acknowledge that it was applying the same approach as every 
responding party in every other dispute: that was, a responding party had no obligation under 
                                                
2 See WT/DS316/37.  WT/DSB/M/415  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Article  21.6 of the DSU to continue s upplying status reports once that Member announced that it 
had implemented the DSB's recommendations.  
10.2.   The representative of the European  Union  said that, as had been explained under Agenda 
item 2 and at previous DSB meetings, the EU did see a difference wi th the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" 
dispute (DS316). The EU believed that since this dispute was under adjudication, and compliance 
proceedings were pending, no status report needed to be provided.  
10.3.   The DSB took note of the statements.  
__________