RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/483  
19 October  2023 
(23-7029) Page: 1/22 
Dispute Settlement Body  
19 September 2023   
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 19 September  20231 
Chairman: H.E.  Mr Petter  ØLBERG (Norway ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating at 
the present DSB meeting both in -person and remotely . He reminded delegations that the technical 
instructions for the remote participation remained the same as was the case at the previous 
meetings ; (ii) the Chairma n made a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of 
the 28  April 2021 DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute . He said that, as Members recalled, 
that matter had been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chair 's consul tations 
with each interested party regarding that Agenda item . At the present meeting, he wished to inform 
delegations that, like the previous Chair of the DSB, he continued to consult with each interested 
party on this matter and that those consultations were ongoin g; (iii) the Chairman  informed 
delegations that China had notified the DSB of its decision to appeal the panel report in the dispute 
on: "China – Additional Duties on Certain Products from the United States " (DS558) . He said that 
under the circu mstances, pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DSU, the panel report could not be 
considered for adoption by the DSB until after completion of the appeal . Accordingly, this item was 
removed from the proposed Agenda ; (iv) the Chairman  informed delegations that t he Dominican 
Republic had notified the DSB of its decision to appeal the panel report in the dispute on : "Dominican 
Republic – Anti-Dumping Measures on Corrugated Steel Bars " (DS605) . He said that u nder the 
circumstances, pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DSU, the panel report could not be considered for 
adoption by the DSB until after completion of the appeal . Accordingly, the item was removed from 
the proposed Agenda ; and (v) the representative of the United States  said that, in light of the fact 
that the  panel report in DS55 8 on: "China – Additional Duties on Certain Products from the United 
States " had been withdrawn from the Agenda, the United States  wished to make a statement under 
"Other Business " regarding this dispute . 
 
The DSB took note  of the stat ements and adopted  the Agend a, as amended . 
 
 
Table of Contents  
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  2 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ................................  3 
B. United States – 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 United States  ................................ ................................ ............  4 
 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/483  
- 2 - 
  E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ...............................  5 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status report 
by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  5 
2  CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON STAINLESS STEEL PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN 
(DS601)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  6 
A. Implementation of the Recommendations of the DSB  ................................ .......................  6 
3  UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT (HONG KONG, CHINA)  
(DS597)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  7 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ....................  7 
4  UNITED STATES – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURE ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULA R GOODS  
FROM ARGENTINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  11 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Argentina  ................................ ....................  11 
5  INDIA – TARIFF TREATMENT ON CERTAIN GOODS IN THE INFORMATION AND 
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY SECTOR  ................................ ................................ ..... 12 
A. Joint request by the European Union and India for a decision by the DSB  ...........................  12 
6  INDIA – TARIFF T REATMENT ON CERTAIN GOODS IN THE INFORMATION AND 
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY SECTOR  ................................ ................................ ..... 13 
A. Joint request by the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu , 
and India for a decision by the DSB  ................................ ................................ ....................  13 
7  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BRUNEI DARUSSALAM; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; 
CABO VERDE; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CHAD; 
CHILE; CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D'IVOIRE; CUBA ; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMINICA; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; 
EL SALVADOR; ESWATINI; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; 
GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUINEA BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; 
INDIA; INDONESIA; ISRAEL; KA ZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; LAO PEOPLE'S 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC; LESOTHO; LIECHTENSTEIN; MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; 
MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF 
MOLDOVA; MOROCCO; MOZAMBIQUE; MYANMAR; NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND; 
NICAR AGUA; NIGER; NIGERIA; NORTH MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PANAMA; 
PARAGUAY; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES; QATAR; RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; SAINT 
KITTS AND NEVIS; SAINT LUCIA; SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; SINGAPORE; 
SOUTH AFRICA; SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE C USTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, 
PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; TANZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO;  TUNISIA; TÜRKIYE; 
UGANDA; UKRAINE; UNITED KINGDOM; URUGUAY; THE  BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.26)  ..............  14 
8  STATEMENT BY THE UNITED  STATES REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT IN THE DISPUTE: 
"CHINA – ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM THE UNITED STATES" 
(DS558)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  21 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS 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.2 42) 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.217) 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.180) 
D. United States – Anti-dumpi ng and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/A dd.64) WT/DSB/M/483  
- 3 - 
  E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/A dd.56) 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.51 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.51) 
 
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 . As Members would recall, 
Article  21.6 required that : "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved ." Under this Agenda item, the Chairman wished to invite 
delegations to provide up -to-date information about their compliance efforts . He also reminded 
delegations that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Pro cedure for DSB meetings : 
"Representatives should make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting 
on any issue that has already been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have 
been no change in Members' positions  already on record. " 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 42) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 42, which contained the status 
report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 5 September  2023, 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 of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration would 
confer with the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve 
this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thanked the United States for the most recent  
status report and the statement made at the present meeting . Japan,  once again , called on the 
United States to fully implement the DSB recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add. 217) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 217, 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 5 September  2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . The US 
Administration would continue to confer with the European Union, and 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 the European Union thank ed the United 
States for its status report and its statement made at the present meeting . The European Union  
wished to refer  to its previous statements  made on this matter and said that it wished  to resolve 
this case as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/483  
- 4 - 
  C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by th e European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 80) 
1.10.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 180, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affec ting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union  recall ed that the EU 
approval system was not covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings . The EU continue d to 
propose for vote authori zations for genetically modified organisms that, in the European Food Safety 
Authority 's risk assessment, had been concluded to be safe . On 8 September  2023, the Commission 
had presented to the Appeal Committee a draft decision authori zing the placing on the market of 
GM maize2 and a decision renewing the authori zation for placing on the market of a GM maize .3 The 
votes had resulted in "no opinion ". It was now for the Commission to decide on the adoption of the 
draft decisions . On 13 September  2023, the Commission had presented to the Standing Committee 
a draft decision renewing the authorization  for placing on the market of a GM oilseed rape GT73 for 
food uses . The Commission would refer the decision to the Appeal Committee in October  2023. 
1.12.  The representative of the United States  thank ed the European Union ( "EU") for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting . The United States continue d to engage with 
the EU on these issues, and had provided recommendations on several occasions as to how the EU 
could address the undue delays in its approval procedures . The United States ha d described these 
problems in detail and noted its concerns with t he EU 's biotech approval procedures monthly in the 
DSB and during the semi-annual  US-EU biotech consultations, the most recent of which had taken 
place on 22 June 2023. The United States again request ed that the EU move to issue final approvals 
for all pro ducts that had completed science -based risk assessments at the European Food Safety 
Authority, including those products that were with the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee . 
Based on the parties'  conversation in June, the United States looked forwar d to the EU announcing 
additional authorizations before the end of 2023. 
1.13.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 64) 
1.14.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 64, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recomm endations in the 
case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea . 
1.15.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 5 September  2023, in acco rdance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . On 
6 May 2019, the US Department of Commerce had published a notice in the US Federal Register 
announcing the revocation of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large 
residential washers from Ko rea (84 Fed . Reg. 19,763 ( 6 May 2019)) . With that action, the United 
States had completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping 
and countervailing duty orders . The United States would consult with interested parties on options 
to address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute.  
1.16.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting . Korea once again urge d the United States to take 
prompt and appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measure s 
in this dispute.  
 
 
2 GM maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MIR162 × NK603 × DAS-40278 -9 and its sub -combinations.  
3 GM maize MIR162.  WT/DSB/M/483  
- 5 - 
  1.17.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada wished to recall its statement made under this 
Agenda item at the 28  July 2023 DSB meeting.  
1.18.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 56) 
1.19.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 56, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning certain methodol ogies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China . 
1.20.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 5 September  2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . As explained 
in that report, the United States would consult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB . 
1.21.  The representative of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status  report and the statement made at the present meeting . China was disappointed that more 
than five  years after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States still fail ed to 
implement the adopted rulings and recommendations in this dispute . China,  therefore , once again , 
urged the United States to hono ur its obligation by bringing its measures into conformity without 
further delay . 
1.22.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 51 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 51) 
1.23.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 51 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 51, 
which contained the status report by I ndonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and animal 
products . 
1.24.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia provide d a status report in the 
DS477/ DS478 disputes , in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . Indonesia wished to further 
inform delegations  that it ha d implemented the DSB's rulings and recommendations in these  disputes  
through the implementation of Law No. 6/2023 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in 
lieu of Law No. 2/2022 on Job Creation  with regard to measure 18 on self -sufficiency as well as 
Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Trade Regulations and measures 1 -17, such as harvest  period 
restriction , import reali zation requirement, six-month harvest requirement, reference price and 
domestic purchase requirement . Indonesia acknowledge d the complainants concerns regarding the 
commodity balance mechanism . Its purpose was to facilitate trade through the establ ishment of an 
integrated national database system . Indonesia stood  ready to work with New Zealand and the 
United States in an effort to find amicable solutions to these disputes.  
1.25.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States continue d to have concerns 
with Indonesia 's compliance with the DSB 's recommendations . With respect to measures 1 -17, the 
United States would still appreciate further clarity on which regulations now comprise d Indonesia 's 
import licensing regimes and on any forthco ming regulations that would affect the regimes . The 
United States  noted that measures 9 and 17 were, respectively, the horticultural products and animal 
and animals products import licensing regimes as a whole . As the United States had expressed  
before , it continue d to have concerns about Indonesia 's administration of these regimes . The United 
States was not in a position to agree with Indonesia 's claim of compliance regarding Measure 18 
because it was still reviewing Indonesia 's statement that Law No. 6/2023 on the Stipulation of the 
Government Regulation in lieu of Law No. 2/2022 on Job Creation remove d Measure 18 . The United 
States remain ed willing to work with Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute . WT/DSB/M/483  
- 6 - 
  1.26.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thank ed Indonesia for its status 
report and acknowledge d Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the DSB 's recommendations 
and rulings . Both compliance deadlines had long since expired and New Zealand remain ed concerned 
about a number of measur es. As outlined in previous DSB meetings , New Zealand would appreciate 
understanding better the regulations that currently  underpin ned Indonesia 's import licensing 
regimes as a result of the relevant legislative adjustments, as well as any regulations or o ther 
amendments that were forthcoming . New Zealand also remain ed interested in better understanding 
how the new commodity balance would in fact operate to simplify and facilitate trade in affected 
products . New Zealand look ed forward to further constructiv e engagement with Indonesia on the 
outstanding issues.  
1.27.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
2  CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON STAINLESS STEEL PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN 
(DS601)  
A. Implementation of th e 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 DSB recommendations and rulings in order to ensure 
effective resolution of disputes, for t he benefit of all Members . In that respect, Article 21.3 of the 
DSU provided that the Member concerned shall inform the DSB within 30 days of the date of adoption 
of the panel report of its intentions with respect to implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings . He recalled that at its meeting on 2 8 July 2023, the DSB had adopted the Panel Report 
in "China – Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Products from Japan ". The 30 -day time -period 
in this dispute had expired on 2 7 August  2023 and on 2 5 August  2023 China had informed the DSB 
in writing of its intentions with respect to implementation of the recommendations and rulings . He 
said that t he relevant communication was contained in document WT/DS601/7 . He then invited the 
representa tive of China to make a statement.  
2.2.  The representative of China  said that, i n a communication , dated 2 5 August  2023, China had 
informed the DSB of its intention s to implement the recommendations and rulings in the dispute 
"China - Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Products from Japan"  (DS601) , pursuant to 
Article  21.3 of the DSU . At the present meeting, China wished to take this opportunity to reaffirm 
its intention s to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a manner that respect ed 
its WTO obligations . As notified, China would  need a reasonable period of time to do so and was 
currently discussing this matter with Japan.  
2.3.  The representative of Japan  said that , as set out in Japan's communication , dated 
30 August  2023, in response to China 's statement concerning its intention s to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, Japan welcome d China's intentions in this regard . 
However, Japan and China had not yet been able to agree on a reasonable period of time ( "RPT") 
despite the fact that more than 45 days ha d passed since the adoption of the recommendations and 
rulings . Japan regret ted that the bilateral discussions had not been as frequent  as Japan would have 
expected during the 45 -days period . However,  Japan remained ready to explore a mutually 
agreeable RPT as expeditiously as possible . Japan hope d that the discussions with China on this 
matter  would be accelerated.  
2.4.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union welcome d China 's 
intention s to comply with its WTO obligations . The European Union said that it would closely follow 
China 's implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case . The European 
Union wished to know  whether China  also intend ed to bring in to compliance its measures with 
respect to the EU companies.  
2.5.  The representative of China  said that China  thank ed Japan and the European Union for their  
statements . China said that with regard to  Japan' s point on accelerating the discussion s on the RPT , 
China and Japan were on the same page , and China had made every effort to be able to reach an 
agreement with Japan bilaterally on the RPT . With regard to the European Union's point, China said 
that it would ensure  that its measures were in full compliance with the recommendations and rulings 
of the DSB.  WT/DSB/M/483  
- 7 - 
  2.6.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan,  once again , welcome d China 's decision to proceed 
with the a doption of the Panel Report . However , Japan underlined  that the 45 -day time -period set 
out in Article 21.3(b) of the DSU should be respected . Japan request ed China to further accelerate 
its internal coordination  in order to  promptly  find an agreement on RTP .  
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 recommen dations . 
3  UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT (HONG KONG, CHINA) (DS597)  
A. Statement by the United States  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United States . He said that b efore he would invite the representative of the United States to 
speak, he wished to refer to Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings regarding the need 
to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on the matter that had already been debated 
previousl y. He then invited the representative of the United States to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States recall ed that this dispute 
had serious systemic and practical implications . GATT 1994 Article XXI(b), the essential security 
exception, recognize d the inherent right of a Member to take "any action which it considers " both 
"necessary " for the protection of its essential security interests and "relating to " or "taken " in the 
circumstances s et out in the subparagraphs . All of the elements in the text were expressly left to 
the determination of the Member . In the Origin Marking  dispute, Hong Kong, China, had nevertheless 
sought to have the WTO adjudicate the essential security interests of the  United States . The WTO 
panel erred in deciding that it had been appropriate to substitute its security judgment for the US 
sovereign judgment of its own security interests . And the panel had also erred in finding that the 
pattern of human rights abuses an d the erosion of autonomy in Hong Kong, China, did not "meet 
the requisite level of gravity "4 to qualify as an "emergency in international relations " under 
Article  XXI(b) – as if some  human rights abuses and some suppression of democracy were 
permissible, and as if the WTO prevent ed the United States or any other Member from taking action 
to address it . The United States disagree d with this WTO panel 's assessment in the strongest terms . 
The WTO did not have the competence or authority to pass j udgment on the importance that the 
United States place d on fundamental freedoms and human rights, or actions taken to support those 
values . In past DSB statements, the United States ha d explained factual developments since the 
circulation of the panel repo rt that reinforce d US concern with those findings . 
3.3.  At the present meeting, t he United States was again compelled to draw attention to 
deteriorating circumstances in Hong Kong, China . And, as the United States had noted in prior 
statements, it was not alone  in its concerns . According to a Human Rights Watch statement in July5: 
"Since the Chinese government imposed the draconian National Security Law in June 2020, 
authorities have turned the city 's semi -democratic Legislative Council into a rubber stamp ; arrested 
and prosecuted the city 's pro -democracy leaders ; dismantled its civil society organizations, 
independent labour  unions, and most popular pro -democracy newspapers ; throttled the free press ; 
censored films ; and mandated 'patriotic education. ' Police ha ve arrested 260 people for national 
security offenses . Dozens have been prosecuted and convicted of sedition for online posts, displaying 
placards in public, or publishing children 's books ." Since the last DSB meeting, Hong Kong, China, 
had arrested 10 people related to a now -disbanded fund for pro -democracy protesters for alleged 
"conspiracy to collude with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security " 
and incitement of a riot, before releasing them on bail .6 This had followed the arrests of six other 
individuals also affiliated with the fund in May on similar charges . The Hong Kong, China authorities 
had also been harassing and detaining the family members in Hong Kong of democracy advocates 
living overseas . The Unit ed States ha d condemned these actions as a "deliberate campaign to 
intimidate and silence individuals for exercising their human rights and fundamental freedoms, " 
 
 
4 US – Origin Marking Requirement, WT/DS597/R, para. 7.353.  
5 https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/06 /japan -should -push-back-hong-kongs -rights -violations . 
6 https://www.reuters.com/world/china/hon g-kong-police -arrest -10-suspected -foreign -collusion -over-
fund-2023-08-10; https://hon gkongfp.com/2023/08/10/breaking -national -security -police -arrest -6-linked -to-
2019-protester -relief-fund-reports ; https://www.scmp.com/news/hong -kong/law -and-
crime/article/3230879/hong -kong-national -security -law-10-linked -protest -fund-released -bail-after-arrest . WT/DSB/M/483  
- 8 - 
  which was "a further step in the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong " as well as "a form of tran snational 
repression to intimidate and silence individuals abroad and to coerce their return. "7 The United States 
had called on the Hong Kong, China government to cease all harassment of the democracy activists ' 
family members . In addition, there was evid ence of the growing use of immigration bans against 
(actual or perceived) foreign critics of the Hong Kong and Chinese governments, including an 
American photography professor and Japanese journalists and artists .8 Hong Kong 's Immigration 
Department ha d not provided clear reasons for these entry denials, but the affected individuals ha d 
documented Hong Kong 's pro-democracy movement or ha d supported related activists . According 
to Human Rights Watch, "[b]y wielding the threat of entry denials to visitors and criminalizing free 
speech abroad, Hong Kong authorities aim to intimidate critical voices – including those abroad – 
into silence. "9 
3.4.  Moreover, the Hong Kong police ha d issued arrest warrants and were maintaining bounties on 
eight pro -democracy activis ts who no longer live d in Hong Kong . As the United States had raised 
during the previous  DSB meeting, these bounties had been placed on individuals who were currently 
residing in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, and a Hong Kong police 
spokesperson had stated that the National Security Law applie d to non-residents  outside Hong Kong  
and against conduct "including through the internet. "10 As the United States had previously 
explained, these types of facts further demonstrate d the error in the WTO panel finding that the 
pattern of human rights abuses and the erosion of autonomy in Hong Kong, China, did not "meet 
the requisite level of gravity to constitute an emergency in international relations under 
Article  XXI(b)(iii). "11 Again, the Unite d States fundamentally disagree d with the panel 's approach, 
which suggest ed that a state ought to defer consideration of its essential security interests until after 
a breakdown in relations with another Member . A WTO Member could not be expected to wait until 
it was too late to act, or be required to sever relations with another as a prerequisite for action it 
consider ed necessary to safeguard its essential security interests . The United States reiterate d that, 
in order to prevent furt her undermining of the WTO, Members need ed to clarify and adopt a shared 
understanding of the essential security exception, which was a critical element in the international 
trading system and permi tted Members to take on trade commitments to each other.  
3.5.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China t hanked the Chair man for 
making a reference to Rule 27  of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings12 at the start of the 
meeting and under  this Agenda item. Indeed, this was already the fifth time that DS597 had been  
placed on the Agenda for discussion s at DSB meetings since the U nited States  had lodged an appeal 
on 26 January  2023 against the ruling of the DS597 panel report . Hong Kong, China did not 
understand the rationale  as to why  the U nited States placed this matter yet again on the Agenda . 
As demonstrated in its statement at the present meeting , no new substantive point had been raised 
by the U nited States. Hong Kong, China  strongly regret ted the US total disre gard of the rules -based 
dispute settlement system in the WTO , which was designed for resolving trade disputes, and it 
emphasize d the fact that the panel and the Appellate Body  were the entities entrusted to rule on 
dispute cases . It was highly problematic and disrespectful for a losing party to keep criticizing  openly 
at regular DSB meetings, time and again, a ruling made by an independent panel, established  and 
adjudicated in accordance with the  DS rules and procedures . Hong Kong, China  also strongly 
deplo red the U nited States abusive use of DSB meetings that sought  to challenge a ruling that was 
not in their favour, by conducting political smearing and slandering against Hong Kong, China and 
demoniz ed the actions of its law enforcement authorities . As Hong Kong, China had pointed out 
before, the DSB was not the right forum for discussions of the internal affairs of any individual 
Member . However, as in previous DSB meetings, Hong Kong, China was forced to respond to let the 
 
 
7 https://www.state.gov/hong -kong-authorities -ongoing -harassment -campaign . 
8 See https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/hongkong -interview -photographer -
08292023170220.html ; https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/06/japan -should -push-back-hong-kongs -rights -
violations ; https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/06/30/national/japan -journalist -hong-kong; 
https://cpj.org/2023/01/hong -kong-denies -entry -to-japanese -photographer -who-covered -2019-pro-
democracy -protests . 
9 https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/06/japan -should -push-back-hong-kongs -rights -violations . 
10 https://www.police.gov.hk/ppp_en/03_police_message/pr/press -release -
detail.html?refno=P202307030002 . 
11 US – Origin Marking Requirement, WT/DS597/R, para. 7.353.  
12 Rule 27 of the Rules of Pro cedure for DSB meetings reads "[r]epresentatives should make every effort 
to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has already been fully debated in the 
past and on which there appears to have been no change in Members' po sitions already on record."  WT/DSB/M/483  
- 9 - 
  facts be heard . Endangering national security was a very serious offence  and n o country would watch 
with folded arms those acts and activities th at endanger ed national security.  
3.6.  The Hong Kong SAR law enforcement agencies h ad been taking law enforcement actions based 
on evidence and strictly in accordance with the law in respect of the acts of the persons or entities 
concerned, and had nothing to do  with their political stance, background or occupation . The National 
Security Law ha d provided a clear definition to the actus reus and mens rea of the four categories 
of offences, namely , secession, subversion of state power, terrorist activities, and col lusion with a 
foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security . No one would unwittingly 
breach the Law . Apart from providing that the principle of the rule of law should be adhered to, 
Article 5 of the National Security Law also pro vided for the presumption of innocence, the prohibition 
of double jeopardy, and the right to defend oneself and other rights in judicial proceedings that a 
criminal suspect, defendant and other parties in judicial proceedings were entitled to under the law . 
No matter how the relevant country trie d to exonerate the absconders in any form, means or excuse, 
it could not change the fact that the persons involved, who ha d fled overseas, were suspected of 
having continued to commit offen ces under the National Security Law, seriously endangering 
national security . The listing of the persons who h ad absconded overseas and allegedly committed 
offences under the National Security Law as wanted persons in accordance with the law, as well as 
the subsequent further investigation and law enforcement actions, were totally reasonable, rational, 
legal and necessary.  
3.7.  Hong Kong, China wished to reiterate that the Hong Kong National Security Law fully align ed 
with the principles of international law, in ternational practice and common practice adopted in 
various countries and regions . As elaborated in its interventions at the previous DSB meeting on 
28 July 2023, the national security law of various countries, including the United States, the United 
Kingd om, Australia, Canada and the EU member States , also h ad extraterritorial effect under the 
principles of "personality " and "protective jurisdictions ". All in all, Hong Kong residents enjoy ed the 
rights and freedoms under the Basic Law, our mini constitutio n, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights 
Ordinance and other relevant laws . The National Security Law clearly stipulate d that human rights 
should be respected and protected in safeguarding national security in the Hong Kong SAR . Any law 
enforcement actions to safeg uard national security w ould not affect the rights and freedoms that 
Hong Kong residents enjoy ed under the Basic Law, its mini constitution, and the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, So cial 
and Cultural Rights as applied to Hong Kong . Hong Kong, China wished to recall that implementation 
of the Hong Kong National Security Law ha d enabled the livelihood and economic activities of the 
Hong Kong community at large to resume as normal, after  the prolonged period of serious violence 
in 2019 during which many Hong Kong people were indeed deprived of their usual rights and 
freedoms due to the illegal actions of the rioters . It had been  the implementation of the National 
Security Law that had swi ftly and effectively restored stability and security in Hong Kong, and 
brought  the city back to order from serious chaos and violence.  
3.8.  Hong Kong, China said that t he United States had  stated that the DS597 Panel had erred in 
deciding that it had been appropriate to substitute its security judgment for the US sovereign 
judgment of its own security interests . The United States stated that  the Panel had also erred in 
finding that the situation in Hong Kong, China did not "meet the required level of gravity " to qualify 
as an "emergency in international relations ". Hong Kong, China wished  to point out, once again, 
that, despite the US insistence on its view that Article XXI of the G ATT 1994 was self -judging in 
entirety, in DS597, among the 13 third parties in this case, none of the Members had agreed with 
the U nited States on that point. On the other hand, if the United States consider ed the Panel  had 
erred in its findings, then it should let the Appellate Body  adjudicate on  the case to get a final ruling . 
Instead, the U nited States continue d to block the appointments of new Appellate Body members . 
Alternatively, the U nited States might  seek authoritative interpretation of G ATT 1994 Article XXI 
pursuant to  Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement . It was unfathomable that the U nited States 
would take the DSB regular meetings to have hearings on its claims that had already been rejected 
by a panel, while the U nited States had also already lodged an appeal to th e Appellate Body  that it 
had wrecked single -handedly . Hong Kong, China wished  to reiterate that it was ultimately the 
Members hip's fundamental systemic interest to uphold a rules -based dispute settlement system . 
Members should be allowed to raise claims ag ainst WTO -inconsistent measures under the WTO 
covered agreements,  and should be able to expect panels to rule in an objective and impartial 
manner without undue influence, and that rulings that came out from the established adjudicative 
process would be re spected and complied with.  WT/DSB/M/483  
- 10 - 
  3.9.  The representative of the United States  said that, it was, of course, not the United States that 
had brought these circumstances into the WTO. It had been Hong Kong, China's choice to challenge 
a US national security action and t o encourage the WTO panel to review the US invocation of the 
essential security exception. It was, therefore, Hong Kong, China, that invited WTO Members in the 
Dispute Settlement Body to review its actions that had eroded protected rights and freedoms in 
Hong Kong, which undermined its obligations under the Hong Kong Basic Law and the Sino -British 
Joint Declaration. And the United States did not agree that the circumstances in Hong Kong, China, 
merely involved "political issues." The US actions at issue, an d its presentation at the present 
meeting related to those actions and the new developments it had reported, were grounded in the 
facts, including the recent warrants for individuals engaging in constitutionally -protected activities 
in the United States. T hose facts demonstrated the pattern of human rights abuses and the erosion 
of autonomy in Hong Kong, China. And those facts form the basis for the challenged US actions 
taken to protect its essential security interests. In its prior DSB statements, and aga in at the present 
meeting, Hong Kong, China had stated that it did not see "how it would help resolve the dispute," 
for the US to raise this issue at the DSB again , "when those issues should be heard by adjudicators 
in accordance with  the relevant rules an d procedures in the [DSU]." The United States did not agree 
that adjudicators should hear and decide issues of essential security. These were questions reserved 
for Members to decide. But WTO adjudicators were charged to make such findings as would assist 
the Dispute Settlement Body in making recommendations provided for in the WTO Agreement. The 
Dispute Settlement Body was comprised of WTO Members, and so it was entirely appropriate to 
bring forward the facts to WTO Members concerning the pattern of human rights abuses and erosion 
of autonomy in Hong Kong, China, that formed the basis for the challenged US actions. If Hong 
Kong, China, or other Members did not wish Members in the Dispute Settlement Body to hear and 
be aware of the facts related to essential  security concerns, then they should not have brought this 
complaint to the Dispute Settlement Body . 
3.10.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China did not fear allowing  any 
facts of Hong Kong, China to be heard in the DSB or any other forum . Hong, Kong China wished to 
reiterate that it was ultimately the Members hip's fundamental system ic interest that Members should 
be allowed to raise claims against WTO -inconsistent measures under the WTO covered agreements, 
without any fear or t hreat from another stronger power.  
3.11.  The representative of China  said that, f irst, China wished to register its serious concerns about  
the United States fifth request to reintroduce this fully and repeatedly debated item into the DSB 
Agenda, which should hav e been avoided by the U nited States with every effort as required by Rule 
27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings, as rightly re called  by the Chair man in the beginning 
of every DSB meeting including at the present meeting .13 In the context of the WTO reform , Members 
would have expected the United States to lead by positive rather than negative example . China 
wonder ed how such obsessive behavio urs could reconcile with the United States call for more 
efficient operation of the WTO committees . As a th ird party to this dispute, China appreciate d the 
Panel 's impartial and objective rulings and recommendations . It was clear from the text, the context, 
the object and purpose and the negotiating history that the security exception under the GATT 1994 
was not entirely self -judging, as found by this Panel and six previous panels . China reject ed in the 
strongest terms the U nited States false allegations and unilateral judgement and interference of 
other Members ' internal affairs . The WTO dispute settlement mech anism was a forum to resolve 
trade disputes rather than a place to discuss political issues . Any Member, regardless of its power 
and size, should refrain from taking unilateral and protectionist measures in the name of "national 
security ", or using it as a  vehicle to disregard the core principles of the WTO or to interfere with 
other Members ' internal affairs . China urge d the United States to faithfully hono ur its multilateral 
obligations, and stop abusing national security . 
 
 
13 Rule 27 of Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the General Council (when convened as the Dispute 
Settlement Body) provides that Representatives should make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full 
debate at each meeting o n 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. (See WT/L/161 and WT/DSB/9).  WT/DSB/M/483  
- 11 - 
  3.12.  The representative of  the Russian Federation  said that t he Russian Federation highly regret ted 
that the United States ha d decided to use DSB meetings to promote its political agenda . Under the 
pretext of discussing the trade dispute and marking requirements, the United States in fa ct 
intensifie d its policy towards Hong Kong, China and derai led Members' discussions through deliberate 
politization . Such actions undermine d the trust amongst Members and impede d their work.  
3.13.  The representative of the United States  said that  having just he ard the recent statements, 
the United Stated refer red the DSB to its prior statements made  at the present meeting . 
3.14.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
4  UNITED STATES – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURE ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS FROM 
ARGENTINA  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Argentina (WT/DS617/3)  
4.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Argentina contained in document 
WT/DS617/3 and he invited the representative of Argentina to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of Argentina  said that, i n Octob er 2021, the United States had initiated an 
anti-dumping investigation on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Argentina . The petition 
submitted by the US industry had contained erroneous information and had not met the minimum 
regulatory requirements to justify the initiation of an investigation and had had to be reviewed and 
corrected on several occasions . However, the Department of Commerce had provided several 
opportunities for the Applicants to modify their submission, contrary to the provisions of Ar ticle 5.2 
of the Anti -Dumping Agreement (ADA) . This aspect had been  repeatedly pointed out by the 
Argentinian company under investigation, which  had participated with a collaborative and 
constructive attitude throughout the entire investigation . In additio n to this procedural defect in the 
initiation, Argentina consider ed that the investigation carried out by the International Trade 
Commission had not take n due account of fundamental factors for a determination of injury in 
accordance with the regulations o f the ADA . Situations such as the dramatic drop in the price of oil 
in 2020, the COVID -19 pandemic, the acute labo ur shortage subsequently and the excessive 
inventories that  had delayed the resumption of production in the United States - among other factor s 
necessary to correctly assess the conditions of competition during the period of investigation – had 
not been duly considered by the Investigating Authority . Finally , in November  2022, the United 
States had  imposed an anti -dumping order on OCTG, which Ar gentina consider ed to be inconsistent 
with WTO law, as it did not comply with the requirements of several provisions of Article 3 of the 
ADA, including those regulating the cumulation of imports from different origins . It should be noted 
that the challenged  measure  had significant economic repercussions for Argentina . In order to find 
a positive solution to the matter, Argentina had requested consultations , pursuant to Article 4 of the 
DSU, in May  2023. Consultations had taken place on 6 July 2023, but unfortunately, a mutually 
agreed solution had not been found . Although Argentina remain ed confident that it would be possible 
to find a mutually agreed solution, it ha d no other option than to continue with  the D S process . For 
that reason, Argentina was requesting the establishment of a panel  to examine this matter,  in 
accordance with the terms of reference set out in  Article 7 of the DSU . 
4.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States  regret ted that Argentina 
had sought the establ ishment of a panel in this matter . The anti -dumping duties had been imposed 
on oil country tubular goods from Argentina following a thorough anti -dumping duty investigation 
by the US Department of Commerce , and equally thorough , the injury investigation by the 
US International Trade Commission, fully consistent with WTO rules . For those reasons, the United 
States did not agree to the establishment of a panel at the present meeting . However, the United 
States remain ed willing to e ngage with Argentina to positively resolve this dispute.  
4.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter should a requesting 
Member wish to do so.  WT/DSB/M/483  
- 12 - 
  5  INDIA – TARIFF TREATMENT ON CERTAIN GOODS IN THE INFORMATION AND 
COMMUNICATIONS TECHN OLOGY SECTOR  
A. Joint request by the European Union and India for a decision by the DSB 
(WT/DS582/15)  
5.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the joint communication from the European Union and India 
contained in document WT/DS582/15 and invited the representative of the European Union to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that India and the E uropean Union had decided 
to continue their efforts to reach a possibl e amicable solution in this dispute . In order to support 
those efforts, the E uropean Union and India jointly request ed at the present DSB meeting  to provide 
additional time for the adoption or appeal of the panel report in this dispute by adopting the draft 
decision of the DSB circulated to Members on 6 September  2023 in document WT/DS582/15 . The 
DSB through the operative language in the draft deci sion would agree to consider the panel report, 
if proposed by a party for adoption in the future, under the negative consensus decision rule, unless 
either party were to appeal the panel report first . The European Union and India would use th at 
additional time to engage in constructive discussions in order to hopefully reach a commonly 
acceptable solution in this case.  
5.3.  The representative of India said that India thanked  the European Union for its statement . As 
mentioned, India and the European Union  had joi ntly requested that the DSB agree to provide 
additional time for the adoption or appeal of the panel report in this dispute by adopting the draft 
decision circulated in  document  WT/DS582/ 15. India welcome d the engagement on this issue and 
on finding a way forward . This draft decision would facilitate the continued engagement and possible 
resolution of this issue , and India would appreciate the support of the DS B for the proposed draft 
decision.  
5.4.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States welcome d the efforts of the 
European Union and India to continue their engagement in this dispute . The United States support ed 
efforts to continue dialogue with the aim of achieving a mutually agreed solution . The United States 
took note of t he draft decision circulated in document WT/DS582/15 . The United States  underst ood 
that the parties sought to preserve their existing rights with respect to the panel report under the 
DSU to enable time for further consultation . The DSB through the operati ve language in the first 
sentence of the draft decision would agree to consider the panel report, if proposed by a party for 
adoption in the future, under the negative consensus decision rule, unless either party were to appeal 
the panel report first . On that basis, the United States could support the parties ' efforts and join a 
consensus to adopt the draft decision.  
5.5.  The representative of China  said that China took note of the efforts made by the parties  in this 
dispute . As a third party with substantial in terest in tariff measures , China urge d the responding 
party to faithfully adjust its inconsistent measures according to the WTO rules . China also wished to 
express its serious concern about  the blockage of the Appellate Body , urge d its early restoration, 
and call ed for more Members  to join MPIA as an interim arrangement to protect and exercise appeal 
rights during the absence of a functioning Appellate Body . 
5.6.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
5.7.  The Chairman  proposed that : "the DSB agree that, upon a request by the European Union or 
India, the DSB shall no later than 18  December  2023 adopt the panel report in the dispute India – 
Tariff Treatment on Certain Goods in the Information and Communications Technology Sector  
(DS582) of 17 April 2023 unless ; (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to do so ; or (ii) either party 
to the dispute notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DSU . Any 
such adoption or appeal of the panel report will be deemed to ha ve occurred within the 60 -day 
time-period specified in Article  16.4 of the DSU ". 
5.8.  The DSB so agreed . WT/DSB/M/483  
- 13 - 
  6  INDIA – TARIFF TREATMENT ON CERTAIN GOODS IN THE INFORMATION AND 
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY SECTOR  
A. Joint request by the Separate Customs Territory of Taiw an, Penghu, Kinmen and 
Matsu , and India for a decision by the DSB (WT/DS588/13)  
6.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the joint communication from Chinese Taipei and India 
contained in document WT/DS588/13 and invited the representative of Chinese Taipei to speak . 
6.2.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that t he Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu and India agree d to continue their discussion to reach a constructive 
outcome for this dispute, during the period specified in the joint req uest circulated to WTO Members 
in document WT/DS588/13, which preserve d the parties ' existing rights with respect to the panel 
report under the DSU to enable further consultation . The DSB through the operative language in the 
draft decision would agree to consider the panel report, if proposed by a party for adoption in the 
future, under the negative consensus decision rule, unless either party were to appeal the panel 
report first . The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu and Indi a jointly 
request ed that the DSB provide additional time for the adoption or appeal of the Panel Report in this 
dispute . The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu would appreciate 
the DSB's support for the draft decision as set out in WT/DS588/13.  
6.3.  The representative of India said that India  thank ed the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu for their statement . As mentioned, the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu and India had  jointly requested that the D SB agree to provide 
additional time for the adoption or appeal of the panel report in this dispute by adopting the draft 
decision  circulated in document  WT/DS588/13 . India welcomed the engagement on this issue and 
on finding a wa y forward . This draft decision would facilitate the continued engagement and possible 
resolution of this issue , and India would appreciate the support of the DS B for the proposed draft 
decision.  
6.4.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States welcome d the efforts of 
Chinese Taipei and India to continue their engagement in this dispute . The United States support ed 
efforts to continue dialogue with the aim of achieving a mutually agreed solution . The United States 
took note of the draft de cision circulated in document WT/DS588/13 . The United States understood 
that the parties sought to preserve their existing rights with respect to the panel report under the 
DSU to enable time for further consultation . The DSB through the operative language in the first 
sentence of the draft decision would agree to consider the panel report, if proposed by a party for 
adoption in the future, under the negative consensus decision rule, unless either party were to appeal 
the panel report first . On that basis, the United States could  support the parties ' efforts and join a 
consensus to adopt the draft decision.  
6.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
6.6.  The Chairman  proposed that : "the DSB agree that, upon a request by the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan,  Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu or India, the DSB shall no later than 
18 December  2023 adopt the panel report in the dispute India – Tariff Treatment on Certain Goods 
in the Information and Communications Technology Sector  (DS588) unless ; (i) the DSB decides by 
consensus not to do so ; or (ii) either party to the dispute notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal 
pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DSU . Any such adoption or appeal of the panel report will be deemed 
to have occurred within the 60 -day time -period specif ied in Article  16.4 of the DSU ". 
6.7.  The DSB so agreed . WT/DSB/M/483  
- 14 - 
  7  APPELLATE BODY  APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; ANGOLA ; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA ; ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA ; BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BRUNEI DARUSSALAM ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; 
CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA ; CAMEROON ; CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; 
CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; CONGO ; COSTA RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICA ; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; 
EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; 
GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, CHINA ; ICELAND ; 
INDIA ; INDONESIA ; ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF KOREA ; LAO PEOPLE'S 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC ; L ESOTHO ; L IECHTENSTEIN ; M ADAGASCAR ; M ALAWI ; 
MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; MALI; MAURITANIA ; MAURITIUS ; MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF 
MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; MOZAMBIQUE ; MYANMAR ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW ZEALAND ; 
NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; PANAMA ; 
PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES ; QATAR ; RUSSIAN FEDERATION ; RWANDA ; SAINT 
KITTS AND NEVIS ; SAINT LUCIA ; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; 
SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, 
PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; TOGO; TUNISIA ; TÜRKIYE ; 
UGANDA ; UKRAINE ; UNITED KINGDOM ; URUGUAY ; THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA ; VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 26) 
7.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Guatemala , on behalf of a number of delegations . He then drew attention to the proposal contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 26 and invited the representative of Guatemala  to speak . 
7.2.  The representative of Guatemala,  speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.2 6, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 6 September  2023 to launch the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body  members . On behalf of those 1 30 Members, Guatemala wished to 
state the following . This Agenda item and the extensive  number of  Members submitting the joint 
proposal reflected a common interest in the functioning of the Appellate Body  and, more generally, 
in the functioning of the dispute settlement system . The joint proposal sought to : (i) start seven 
selection processes ; (ii) to establish a Selection Committee ; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for the 
submission of candida tes; and (iv)  to request that the Selection Committee issue its 
recommendation s within 60  days after the deadline fo r nominations of candidates . The co -sponsors 
invited and urged all Members to support this proposal in the interest of the dispute settlement and 
multilateral trading systems . 
7.3.  The representative of the United States  said that, at the outset, the United Sta tes and other 
Members had jointly issued WT/GC/244, "The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian 
Federation against Ukraine with the Support of Belarus", which condemned Russia's actions as a 
violation of international law, the UN Charter, and fundame ntal principles of international peace and 
security . The United States reiterated its support for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult time . 
The United States paid tribute to the heroism of the Ukrainian people, their armed forces and 
Leaders . Turning to this Agenda item, the United States said that Members were aware of the 
long-standing US concerns with WTO dispute settlement . Those concerns remained unaddressed, 
and the United States did not support the proposed decision . The United States believed  that 
fundamental reform was needed to ensure a well -functioning WTO dispute settlement system . A 
well-functioning dispute settlement system supported WTO Members in the resolution of their 
disputes in an efficient and transparent manner, and in doing so limited the needless complexity and 
interpretive overreach that had characterized dispute settlement in recent years . As WTO Members 
continued working to better understand each other's interests in WTO dispute settlement, the next 
task of reform was to ens ure that any future system met the interests of all Members to the greatest 
extent possible . The United States had been working with Members to advance that goal and looked 
forward to continued engagement . The United States acknowledged that considerable w ork 
remained and that achieving fundamental dispute settlement reform would not be easy . But the 
United States continued to believe that working collectively towards that goal provided the greatest 
chance of achieving durable, lasting reform . The United St ates was committed to working towards 
an improved system . The United States looked forward to engaging further with those Members that 
also saw value in an improved and reformed dispute settlement system that was accessible to all.  WT/DSB/M/483  
- 15 - 
  7.4.  The representative of Canada said that, f irst, Canada strongly condemn ed President Putin's 
unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine . Canada wished to  express its solidarity with the 
Ukrainian people . President Putin's plans to "annex " Ukrainian territory had no legitimacy  and would  
never be recognized . Those hostile acts had been going on for well over a year . Those acts were a 
flagrant violation of international law and the rules -based international trading system . Ukraine's 
sovereignty and territorial integrity had to  be respected, and the Ukrainian people had to be free to 
determine their own future . Canada call ed on Russia to immediately cease all hostile and provocative 
actions against Ukraine, and to withdraw all its military and proxy forces from the country . With 
regard to the appointment of members of the Appellate Body , it ha d been more than three years 
since the Appellate Body  had lost quorum and ha d been unable to hear new appeals . Canada 
support ed the statement made by Guatemala,  on behalf of the sponsors . Canada  invite d those WTO 
Members  who h ad not yet sponsored the proposal to consider joining the 130 Members  requesting 
the launch of the selection process . The critical mass of WTO Members supporting this proposal 
clearly demons trated the importance Members all attach ed to a fully operational Appellate Body  as 
an integral part of the dispute settlement system . Canada reiterate d the Members' objective of 
having a fully operational and well -functioning dispute settlement system, ac cessible to all, by 2024 . 
Canada would c ontinue to participate actively in discussions aimed at finding solutions to the current 
situation . In short, Canada's priority remain ed to find a multilateral and lasting solution for all 
Members, including the Unit ed States . In the meantime, the Multiparty Interim Appeal Arbitration 
Arrangement or MPIA, provide d access to binding dispute settlement that include d the possibility of 
appeal in disputes between its participants . There were now 53 WTO Members endorsing t he MPIA . 
Members had witnessed the positive impacts of this arrangement in the context of several disputes . 
Canada invite d all WTO Members to consider participating in the MPIA, and was available to discuss 
the ins and outs of the MPIA with interested Members . 
7.5.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom reiterate d its support 
for launching the process for appointments to the Appellate Body . The United Kingdom referred to 
its previous statements on this issue and enco urage d all remaining Members to join and support  the 
proposal . The United Kingdom was committed to reaching a resolution to the current  AB impasse . 
Achieving a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system was the best means of ensuring 
that the rul es Members  had negotiated were respected and of securing the fair resolution of 
disagreements . The United Kingdom was encouraged by the progress made in reform discussions 
over recent months . Members now need ed to redouble their collective efforts to find solutions that 
could command consensus . The United Kingdom continue d to condemn President Putin's war against 
Ukraine in the strongest terms . The United Kingdom again recall ed that Russia's actions were a 
repudiation of the principles of the UN Charter and of the purpose and principles of this Organization. 
The United Kingdom stood  with Ukraine and would continue to do everything it could to support 
Ukraine's heroic resistance  to this assault on its sover eignty and territorial integrity.  
7.6.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand joined other Members in condemning 
unequivocally the unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russia on Ukraine . Those actions were 
egregious and unlawful . The act of agg ression was strictly prohibited under international law, as was 
the targeting of civilians . Russia's invasion of Ukraine's sovereign territory had deep implications for 
global peace, security, and economic stability . New Zealand continued to stand firmly a longside its 
Ukrainian partners and against any steps by Russia that risked a further escalation in this conflict . 
In relation to this Agenda item, New Zealand reiterated its support for the proposal now 
co-sponsored alongside 130 WTO Members, and wished t o refer to its previous statements  made on 
this matter . Reform of the dispute settlement system to ensure a fully and well functioning system 
accessible to all Members remained a priority for New Zealand . New Zealand continued to urge all 
Members to engage  in the ongoing discussions constructively and pragmatically in order to advance 
this critical work in line with the direction of Ministers . New Zealand also took this opportunity to 
invite those Members who had not yet joined the MPIA to consider doing so . The MPIA provided an 
avenue to safeguard access to an appeal level of review while Members worked collectively towards 
reform in order to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system.  
7.7.  The representative of Norway  said that Norway fully support ed the joint proposal presented by 
Guatemala to launch the process for appointments of Appellate Body  members , which was supported 
by 130 Members . A fully functioning dispute settlement  system accessible to all was critical to 
maintain the rules -based multilateral trading system and ensure the credibility of the WTO as a 
rules-based Organization a nd it was a top priority for Norway . Norway referred to its previous 
statements  made under this Agenda item . Norway was participating actively in the ongoin g 
discussions to address the current impasse  and wished to thank both the coordinator, Mr Molina and WT/DSB/M/483  
- 16 - 
  a large group of colleagues that were working at a breath -taking intensity to bring th ose discussions 
forward . The discussions should, however, not prevent Members  from launching the process of 
appointments to the Appellate Body . Norway wished  to also take that opportunity to remind Members 
of the Multiparty Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement  (MPIA) . The MPIA was open to WTO 
Members to join for as long as the Appellate Body  remain ed unable to function fully . Since the work 
of the DSB directly concern ed the upholding of the rules -based international order, Norway found it 
appropriate and pertinent to address the s ituation in Ukraine . Norway continue d to strongly condemn 
Russia's egregious military attack on Ukraine, Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine constitute d 
a gross  violation of international law , the rules -based system, which also underpin ned the work of 
this Organization  and the DSB . 
7.8.  The representative of Australia  said that, f irst, Australia wished  to note that it condemn ed in 
the strongest terms Russia 's illegal, unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine . Australia 
continue d to raise this issue in this forum because Russia 's actions were a violation of international 
law, and the fundamental international norms on which organizations such as the WTO were based . 
Australia stood  in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and call ed on Russia to withdraw its troops . 
Turning to this Agenda item, Australia 's number one WTO reform priority was delivering a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024, as agreed by 
Ministers at MC12 . A fully fun ctioning dispute settlement system was in Member's collective interest . 
Australia welcome d the progress being made in the ongoing informal discussions towards reaching 
consensus on meaningful and lasting reforms . Australia would continue working actively a nd 
constructively with all Members . Australia urged Members to continue their efforts to maintain 
momentum to meet the MC12 mandate . While Members collaborate d to restore a fully functional 
dispute settlement system as soon as possible, Australia encourage d all Members to join the MPIA 
as the best interim mechanism for ensuring Members ' rights under WTO Agreements c ould be 
enforced and protected . Australia was ready to engage with any delegation interested in joining  the 
MPIA.  
7.9.  The representative of Bangladesh  said that Bangladesh wished to thank Guatemala for 
presenting the proposal for appointments of Appellate Body member s, which was contained in 
document WT/DS B/W/609/R ev.26. For the immediate restoration of the Appellate Body , 
Bangladesh, along with the listed Members, as a co -sponsor of the proposal o f AB appointment s, 
was requesting th at the  DSB take a decision to launch the selection processes to fill the va cancies 
in the Appellate Body . If Members were truly respectful of the commitment by  Ministers, as set out  
in Paragraph 4 of the MC12 Outcome Document, Members had to engage in discussions for Appellate 
Body appointments as a top priority . In order to ensure  the security and predictability of this 
multilateral trading system, Members  had to launch the process for Appellate Body  appointments 
without further delay . Bangladesh was ready to continue constructive discussions in that regard.  
7.10.  The representative of China  said that Ch ina support ed the statement made  by Guatemala on 
behalf of 130 co -sponsors . China referred to its previous statements on this urgent matter, and 
called upon more Members to join this propo sal. Like others, China  reiterate d its firm commitment 
to an independent, impartial two -tier dispute settlement system, which ha d not only facilitated 
prompt and fair resolution of disputes between Members , but had also provided security and 
predictability to the multilateral trading system . To ensure that such objectives continue d to be 
fulfilled, China believe d that the most urgent task at present was  to immediately launch the selection 
process es and fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body . This was a treaty obligation of all WTO 
Members . No prerequisite should be attached to it . China would continue its constructive 
engagement in the ongoing discussion s on DS reform, and call ed upon all Members  to engage in this 
exercise in good faith and w ith pragmatic  and outcome -oriented spirit . Before concluding, China 
wished to take this opportunity to encourage more Members  to join the MPIA as a contingent 
measure to safeguard their right to appeal until the Appellate Body  was restored . China stood ready 
to discuss with , and provide further information for , any interested Members  on this matter . 
7.11.  The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland condemned Russia's military 
aggression against Ukraine in the strongest terms . It was a flagrant violation of international law, 
most notably the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of the territorial integrity of States . 
Switzerland called on Russia to take military de -escalation measures, end hostilities, and 
immediately withdraw its t roops from Ukrainian territory . Switzerland called on all actors to respect 
international law, in particular international humanitarian law . Turning to the Agenda item, 
Switzerland thanked Guatemala for p lacing  this item on the Agenda and wished to refer t o the 
statements made on this matter at previous DSB meetings . Switzerland called on all Members to WT/DSB/M/483  
- 17 - 
  continue their constructive engagement with the view to having a fully functioning dispute settlement 
system in place by 2024, as provided for in the MC12 O utcome Document . Switzerland would 
continue to participate constructively in the dispute settlement reform process, which would enable 
it to discuss and develop concrete solutions in the coming weeks and months . Switzerland 
encouraged all Members to join t he Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) . The 
MPIA was a pragmatic and effective way to preserve Members' rights until the Appellate Body 
impasse was resolved . Switzerland's priority remain ed, of course, to find a multilateral solution that 
would  ensure that the dispute settlement system was fully functioning.  
7.12.  The representative of Japan  said that, f irst, Japan wished to touch upon the situation in 
Ukraine . Japan strongly condem ned Russia 's aggression against Ukraine and its attacks agai nst 
civilian infrastructure and cities across Ukraine . Japan strongly urge d Russia,  once again , to stop the 
aggression and withdraw its forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized 
borders immediately . Japan would also continue to work firmly on the two pillars of imposing severe 
sanctions against Russia and providing r obust support to Ukraine, in cooperation with the 
international community . Turning to th is Agenda item, Japan refer red to its statements  made  at the 
previous DSB meetings and support ed the AB proposal . Japan absolutely shar ed the sense of 
urgency for refor m of the dispute settlement system and ha d set as the utmost priority to achieve 
a reform . For that purpose, Japan welcome d the intensive discussions in the informal DS reform 
initiative currently led by Members . With a view to having a fully and well -functioning DS system by 
2024, as agreed at MC12, Japan wished to work actively and constructively with all WTO Members . 
7.13.  The representative of Ukraine  said that Ukraine was ready to cooperate in the process of 
improving the functioning of the dispute settlement mechanism and its two -stage dispute review as 
a permanent supporter  of the international trade system . Ukraine also wished to make a statement 
regarding Russian aggression . Russia continue d terrorizing Ukrainian civilians by attacking critical 
infrastructure and residential areas resulting in significant casualties and destruction . The targets of 
enemy attacks were mainly port infrastructure s, grain warehouses, airfield network s and civilian 
buildings . As of 17 July 2023, Russia ha d withdrawn fro m the Black Sea Grain Initiative endangering 
global food security and blackmailing the whole world, it had started regularly attacking Ukrainian 
ports, storing grain intended for export . For example, in the last month, Ukraine ha d already suffered 
three ma ssive attacks of  Russian drones in the area of the  Izmail district in the Odesa region directed 
at destroying the Danube port and agricultural facilities with one killed and many severely wounded . 
This was yet another piece of evidence of deliberate Russian terror attacks against civilian 
infrastructure even in close proximity to neighbouring  countries . It was worth not ing that the rise in 
world grain prices as a result of this blockade also benefi tted Russia as an exporter . It was obvious 
that a war o f this scale could not affect only one country – the impact was indeed global, and it 
concern ed many  more issues than the economy and trade . Ukraine  called on all countries to stay 
strong and consolidated in the support of Ukraine, to continue to work in u nity for Ukraine and to 
uphold those countries  that were most affected by rising food prices to take joint global actions . 
7.14.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that c oncerning certain political statements 
made by certain Members, unfortunately  Russia was forced to stress the following : nothing in the 
DSU or other WTO Agreements permit ted to raise political issues falling outside the mandate and 
the functions of the Organization mandated solely to deal with trade relations of its Members . 
Moreov er, the issues th ose Members refer red to did not pertain to any item contained in the adopted 
Agenda of the present meeting , and such issues were not appropriate for the discussions in the 
course of the meeting . In this regard, the Russian Federation kindly remind ed the Chairman that 
Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure for the GC/DSB meetings g ave the Chairman the right to call the 
speaker to order if the remarks of the speaker were not relevant . Thus, Russia call ed to apply this 
rule more fre quently in order to expedite the conduct of business, since it was more important to 
restore the lack of respect for the meaning and purpose of dispute settlement system . Turning to 
the Agenda item,  Russia said that  as the result of the blockage of the Appellate Body  appointments 
process Members witness ed again another example of disputes in which the  outcome remained  
uncertain . If the problem with the Appellate Body  appointments was not fixed , the number of 
unresolved appeals , and as a consequence , of unre solved disputes would rise. In this vein, the 
Russian Federation wished  to refer to its previous statements made  on this matter  and thank ed 
Guatemala and the co-sponsors for their continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment 
processes of the Appellate Body  members . The Russian Federation  reiterate d its strong support for 
launching the appointment processes immediately as a vehicle to the restoration of th e well and 
fully functioning, two -tiered dispute settlement system . Now the proposal was supported by 130 
Members, including Russia . That explicitly show ed that Members had a particular interest in having WT/DSB/M/483  
- 18 - 
  the Appellate Body  in place . The Russian Federation  consider ed that the role of one particular 
Member in undermining the system should be frankly and unequivocally identified . Therefore, Russia 
urged more Members to join this proposal . 
7.15.  The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thanked Guatemala f or its statement, 
which Singapore  strongly support ed. Singapore wished to reiterate its previous statements  regarding 
the urgency and importance  of the AB proposal . Singapore was committed to participating 
constructively and with an open mind in the ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform . 
Singapore  also wished to thank Mr Marco Molina, the conven er, and all delegations who continued 
to work hard on these matters . Finally, while the Appellate Body  impasse persist ed, Singapore 
encourage d Membe rs to join the MPIA as an interim solution  that would preserve their right to appeal 
until Member's collectively found  a durable and lasting solution . Singapore, together with other MPI A 
participants, stood ready to engage with any delegation that wishe d to learn more about the MPIA. 
7.16.  The representative of Cameroon , speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the African 
Group thank ed Guatemala for its statement regarding the proposal on Appellate Body  appointments 
of which the African Group were co-sponsors . The African Group reiterate d its support for a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system that was accessible to all Members  by 2024 in accordance 
with the mandate from their M inisters at MC12 . The fact that the Appella te Body  could not hear new 
appeals remain ed a concern . The African Group urge d the D SB to urgently fulfil its obligation under 
the DSU, which was to fill vacancies as they ar ose, so as to maintain the two -tier dispute settlement 
system . Without a fully fun ctional dispute settlement system , the security, credibility and 
predictability of the multilateral trading system  was at risk . The critical mass of Members  asking for 
the launch of the selection process indicate d the importance that Members  attach ed to having a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system  for the multilateral trading system . The African Group stood 
ready to engage constructively in the ongoin g discussions on dispute settlement reform in order to 
restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system by 2024 , as agreed at MC12.  
7.17.  The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa wished to be associated with the 
statement made  by Guatemala on the proposal for Appellate Body  appointments  and thank ed 
Guatemala for its statement made on behalf of the co-sponsors . South Africa also support ed the 
statement made  on behalf of the Africa Group . South Africa reiterate d its previous statements 
regarding the urgency of this matter . When Members had agreed to bind themselves to the Uruguay 
Round agreements, this was on the understanding that their rights would be protected by a 
predictable , binding rules -based order underpinned by  two-tier dispute settlement system . The 
assurance that their trade relations would be subject to rules rather than soft power was a 
fundamental  element of the bargain struck in Montevideo and the continued dysfunctionality of the 
Appellate Body  undermine d the c onsensus reached in the Uruguay Round and imperil led the 
multilateral trading system . A fully functioning Appellate Body  was a top priority for reform of the 
WTO and it was crucial to the effective operation of the multilateral trading system . South Africa  
welcome d the commitment undertaken by Members during MC12 for a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system accessible to all Members  by 2024 . This commitment was reiterated 
during the recent  informal discussions that were currently taking place in the WTO , and South Africa 
continue d to work actively and constructively with all Members  in these informal discussions in trying 
to find a lasting solution to the current impasse that would ensure an effective dispute settlement 
system.  
7.18.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that, a s Hong Kong, China had stated in its 
previous statements in the DSB and in other fora, in its view, the top priority for the WTO was to 
restore a fully -functioning, two -tiered, binding dispute settl ement system . The Appellate Body  
impasse ha d put many cases in limbo, including DS597, and this was highly prejudicial to the 
systemic interest of the Members hip. Hong Kong, China reiterate d its commitment to work 
constructively with all WTO Members to achieve the goal of restoring a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system . 
7.19.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea echoed other delegations and reaffirmed its 
consistent position on Russia's aggression that the sovereignty, territorial integrity and 
independence of Ukraine should be respected . Korea, as a responsible member of the international 
community, supported various diplomatic and economic efforts of the internation al community to 
contribute to the end of the aggression and the restoration of peace, and would more actively 
participate in those efforts . As for the item at hand, Korea thanked Guatemala and the co -sponsors 
for their continuous support in favour of launc hing the Appellate Body selection process . Korea WT/DSB/M/483  
- 19 - 
  reiterated its support for the joint proposal and wished to refer to its previous statements on this 
matter . The WTO dispute settlement system had enhanced the security and predictability of the 
rules-based multilateral trading system in response to the needs of WTO Members . With that in 
mind, Korea welcomed Members' continuous interests in ongoing discussions on dispute settlement 
reform and very much appreciated all the efforts to materialize the mandate of  the MC12 Outcome 
Document in achieving a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all 
Members by 2024.  
7.20.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union  reiterated its resolute 
condemnation of the Russian Fede ration's war of aggression against Ukraine, which deliberately 
violated the UN Charter and disregarded the rules -based international order . It undermined 
international security and stability and should have  no place in the 21st century . The European 
Union's support for Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and right of self -defence 
was unwavering . The European Union called on the Russian Federation to stop its acts of aggression 
and withdraw its troops from Ukraine . Russia had to cease actions endangering the civilians and 
respect international humanitarian law . The European Union was firmly committed to ensuring full 
accountability for war crimes and other crimes committed against Ukraine and its people . The 
European Unio n wished to refer to its previous statements  made  on this matter and thank ed all 
Members that ha d co-sponsored the proposal to launch the AB appointment processes . Since 
11 December  2019, the WTO no longer guarantee d access to a binding, two -tier, independ ent and 
impartial resolution of trade disputes . A fully functioning WTO dispute settlement system was crucial . 
That was evidenced by the large number of Members co -sponsoring the AB proposal . The European 
Union believe d that restoring a fully functioning d ispute settlement system and appointing members 
of the Appellate Body  was a key priority . This task was a shared responsibility of WTO Members . In 
order to achieve that objective, the E uropean Union agree d that a meaningful reform was needed . 
The European Union support ed a reform that would preserve the core features of the dispute 
settlement system  and treated very seriously the commitment made at MC1 2 to have  a fully and 
well-functioning system by 2024 . The European Union was committed to continuing to work towards 
meeting that goal . In the meantime, the European Union was concerned with the impact that the 
absence of a fully functioning dispute settlement system had on the international trading order . In 
that context, the MPIA ha d been put in place as an interim arrangement to preserve a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system among its participants and to support rules -based trade . The 
MPIA was open to any WTO Member, and the European Union  invite d any WTO Member to join  this 
arrangement  as long as a solution to this impasse ha d not been found . 
7.21.  The representative of the Philippines  said that t he Philippines thank ed the representative of 
Guatemala,  Mr Marco Molina , for its statement reiterating the proposal on the Appellate Body  
appointments, which was supported and co-sponsored by 130 WTO Members . When the Philippines 
had spoken for the first time on this proposal , in early 2022 , it had stressed that it had always been 
supportive of Members  appeals to revive a fully functioning , two-tier dispute settlement system . The 
Philippines had also noted that the key component of the MC12 Agenda was th at very issue of the 
WTO dispute settlement system  as part of the overall W TO reform process, which Ministers at various 
meetings ha d repeatedly urged . As MC13 was approaching , the Philippines remain ed ready to 
constructively  engage in all fora and  discussions that could hopefully achieve WTO reform and the 
revival of their well-functioning dispute settlement system for the WTO by 2024 . The Philippines 
emphasise d that a functional Appellate Body  ensure d that multilateral trading rules were upheld and 
that countries could rely on a fair and impartial mechanism to settle these disputes . This was 
particularly important for developing countries such as the Philippines, which relie d on international 
trade for economic growth . As a developing economy, the Philippines could rely o n its functioning 
WTO dispute settlement mechanism that protect ed market access and export opportunities . Without 
an effective Appellate Body , countries might  resort to unilateral measures and protectionism . This 
would  harm the Philippines'  ability to trade with international markets . The predictability and stability 
of international trade was crucial for the Philippines economic planning and development . By 
supporting the revival of the Appellate Body , the Philippines demonstrate d its commi tment to global 
cooperation and the multilateral trading system.  
7.22.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Guatemala for presenting the proposal 
on behalf of so many co -sponsors to call for the selection of new Appellate Body  members without 
further delay , and wished to refer to its previous statements made under this Agenda item . Brazil 
also wished to join other Members in acknowledging and commending the work of Mr Marco Molina 
in this process . Reform of the dispute settlement mechanism to ensure a fully and well -functioning 
two-tier binding system accessible to all Members by 2024 was Brazil's  top priority . Brazil WT/DSB/M/483  
- 20 - 
  appreciate d the collective efforts shown by several delegations concerning both constructive 
discussions and the cu rrent drafting exercise in the informal process o n DS reform, which Brazil  
believe d would contribute to fulfilling the mandate agreed  by Ministers at MC12 . 
7.23.  The representative of Cambodia  said that Cambodia wished to be associated  with the 
statement  made  by Guatemala on behalf of the 130 co-sponsors . Cambodia called for more Members 
to consider co-sponsor ing the AB proposal . Cambodia wished to refer to its previous statements 
made on this Agenda item and reiterate d its firm commitment to this issue and su pport ed the 
restoration of the Appellate Body  to ensure a fully and well -functioning two-tier dispute settlement  
system accessible to all Members  by 2024, as mandated at MC12 . Finally , Cambodia stood  ready to 
continue the constructive engagement in the dis cussions  on DS reform.  
7.24.  The representative of Indonesia  said that, a t the outset, Indonesia thank ed Guatemala for 
presenting the AB proposal  on behalf of all the co-sponsors . Since 2017, the proposal had been 
supported  by three quarters  of the WTO Members hip, which consist ed of 130 Members  and it was 
definitely a testament  of urgency to reinvigorate  the standing Appellate Body  in order to hear appeals 
from cases . Indonesia, along with many Members , was concerned that the Appellate Body  was 
currently  in impasse and the ability to enforce and uphold the rules-based system was severely 
compromised . The current crisis also hamper ed the timely resolution of dispute s and pose d a risk to 
the relevance of the WTO as well as its credibility  to the p ublic. Therefore , while reiterating  its 
statements made at previous DSB meetings, Indonesia  believe d that in accordance with the DSU, 
vacancies should be filled as they ar ose. This effort could be conducted in parallel with the 
discussion s of the dispute settlemen t reform that was still underway . Indonesia ha d been engaging 
in efforts to address the situation of the Appellate Body  under this Agenda item and in the informal 
discussion s on DS reform . However,  despite th ose efforts and the uncertain circumstances of a 
dispute under appeal, Indonesia was concerned that the situation remain ed unresolved . In light of 
this, Indonesia  urged WTO Members  to take a constructive approach to finding acceptable solutions.  
7.25.  The represen tative of Thailand  said that Thailand wished to reiterate its statements made at 
the previous DSB meetings as it continue d to support and co-sponsor the AB proposa l. Thailand 
agree d with other  co-sponsors that there was an urgency to appoint  the Appellate Body  members . 
Thailand agreed that the full y function al WTO dispute settlement mechanism should  be restored . 
Thailand was committed to discuss ing the dispute settlement reform in a constructive manner and 
to be in line with the mandate of MC12 , namely, that the WTO dispute settlement system should be 
fully function al by 2024.  
7.26.  The representative of Guatemala  said that Guatemala, on behalf of the 130 co -sponsors, 
regretted that for the sixty -ninth occasion, Members had not been able to launch the se lection 
processes for the vacancies in the Appellate Body . Thus, Members continued to fail fulfilling their 
duties as Members of the WTO . As Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly stated, "vacancies shall be filled 
as they arise ". Ongoing conversations about reform of the dispute settlement system should not 
prevent the Appellate Body  from continuing to operate fully, and Members shall comply with their 
obligation under the DSU to fill vacancies as they arise . Guatemala noted with de ep concern that by 
failing to launch the selection processes at the present meeting, the Appellate Body  would continue 
to be unable to perform its functions, against the best interest of all WTO Members . Finally, he 
wished to underline  the great efforts by  delegates in the DSU informal process . He thank ed all those 
who were working overtime to achieve a common goal to restore the dispute settlement system 
accessible to all by 2024.  
7.27.  The Chairman  thanked all delegations for their statements . As in the past, t he DSB would take 
note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which would be reflected in the minutes 
of the present meeting . Once again, he took the opportunity to recall Members' commitment at 
MC12 to conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement 
system accessible to all Members by 2024 . He hoped that collectively Members would be able to find 
a solution to this matter . 
7.28.  The DSB took note  of the statements . WT/DSB/M/483  
- 21 - 
  8  STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES REGARDI NG THE PANEL REPORT IN THE DISPUTE : 
"CHINA – ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM THE UNITED STATES " 
(DS558)  
8.1.  The representative of the United States , speaking under "Other Business",  said that t he United 
States welcome d the findings of the Panel in this report, recognizing that the US Section 232 actions 
on steel and aluminium  were security measures, and that China illegally retaliated with sham 
"safeguard " tariffs . Specifically, the Panel had found that Article 8.2 of t he Agreement on Safeguards 
and Article XIX:3(a) of the G ATT 1994 did not apply to China 's additional duties measure . This was 
because the US measures were sought, taken, or maintained pursuant to provisions of the 
GATT 1994 other than Article XIX – namely,  the security exception at Article XXI of the G ATT 1994. 
China's decision to pursue its own dispute on the US Section 232 measures highlight ed its hypocrisy 
by both suing the United States in the WTO and at the same time unilaterally retaliating with tarif fs. 
The Panel had rightly rejected China 's argument that the US Section 232 actions were safeguard 
measures that might be "rebalanced " under WTO rules . Instead, the panel had seen China 's sham 
measures for what they were: illegal retaliation . The United St ates reiterate d that China 's use of the 
WTO dispute settlement system to challenge the US Section 232 national security actions ha d caused 
grave systemic damage to the WTO . The WTO did not have the authority to second -guess a WTO 
Member 's response to threats to its security, and WTO reform had to ensure that issues of national 
security could not be reviewed in WTO dispute settlement.  
8.2.  The representative of China  said that China thank ed the Panel and the Secretariat staff for their 
efforts in the panel proceeding o n China – Additional Duties on Certain Products from the United 
States (DS558) . China ha d notified its decision to appeal before th e present  meeting, and wishe d to 
further clarify its position . First, there were errors in legal int erpretations in the Panel's findings . The 
undisputed fact underlying this dispute was that China 's measures at issue were not stand -alone 
measures . They were measures taken by China in response to the additional duties imposed by the 
United States on impor ts of certain steel and aluminium  products . The US measures clearly 
present ed the constituent features of WTO safeguards measures under Article XIX of the GATT 1994, 
and should be governed by the WTO safeguards disciplines . Unfortunately, the Panel had held – 
incorrectly, in China's view – that the Section 232 measures were not subject to the Agreement on 
Safeguards because the United States supposedly "took" those measures pursuant to Article XXI of 
the GATT 1994. China was concerned that the findings of the Panel invalidated the rights of WTO 
Members to take rebalancing measures and to defend their legitimate rights and interests in 
accordance with Article XIX:1 (a) of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards, and had 
opened another "black hole " for certain Members who adopt ed unilateralist and protectionist 
measures to evade their obligations . This would have systemic impacts on the multilateral trading 
system . In addition, the Panel had conflated the conditions concernin g the consistency of a 
rebalancing measure with Article 8 of the Agreement on Safeguards with the features of a measure 
concerning the applicability of Article 8 to a measure . The Panel  had also erred in rejecting China 's 
request under Article 6.2 of the D SU. Therefore, China had decided to appeal . Second, the issues 
underlying the measures in this case ha d not yet been resolved . The root of China 's rebalancing 
measures lie d in the US Section 232 tariffs on certain steel and aluminium  products . At the time of 
the imposition of the US measures, many Members, including China, had implemented rebalancing 
measures against the United States . In December  2022, a WTO Panel had found that the US 
measures had violated the rules and had not met the Article XXI threshold . Regrettably, the United 
States had openly refused to implement the Panel's rulings, and ha d still maintained its measures 
thus far. Third, the United States should change its course and return to multilateralism as soon a s 
possible . Due to the obstruction by the United States, the Appellate Body  was currently unable to 
hear the case, and China's appeal request would therefore be shelved . This was definitely not the 
result that China wished  to see . China request ed that the United States immediately withdr aw its 
Section 232 measures inconsistent with the WTO rules, and work with other WTO Members  to restore 
the binding dispute settlement mechanism as soon as possible to provide solutions to the disputes 
that could not be hand led due to the dysfunction al Appellate Body . 
8.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union had to reiterate one of 
the points it had made in the DSB on 2 7 January  202314 in relation to other panel reports which had 
already found that those US measures d id not constitute safeguard measures . The European Union,  
then and again at the present meeting, strongly disagree d with the Panel's finding that the 
 
 
14 See: WT/DSB/M/475, para 5.12 . WT/DSB/M/483  
- 22 - 
  US "Section 232 measur es" were not safeguard measures . The Panel in this case purport ed to 
support its finding with a reasoning that was not convincing . This was not least because the Panel 
again entirely omit ted the crucial point that the rights for other Members to rebalance under Article 
8 of the Agreement on Safeguards flow from a measure being a safeguard . Hence, that 
characterisation ha d to be an objective exercise, based on the nature of the measure, and could not 
depend on the Member's unilateral declaration . This Panel instead relie d heavily on the 
characterisation of the measure given in the domestic legal system of the U nited States, namely 
"national security ", under a terminology and substance that found  no correspondence in the WTO 
Agreement . This was not defendable . An international adjudicative body had to rule on the basis of 
international law, not national law . The European Union wa s strongly concerned , and believed that 
other Members should also be concerned , about  the idea proposed by th e Panel that a n importing 
country could protect a suffering domestic industry against imports without incurring the 
consequences of recourse to safeguards, just by claiming that there was some security, health or 
moral basis as well as by the long duration which this pa nel process had taken – over four years for 
a Panel report that did not sufficiently consider the arguments of the complainant.  
8.4.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that, a s a third party in this dispute, the 
Russian Federation wished to make the following observations . The Russian Federation highly 
regret ted another Panel's decision with the total deference accorded to the United States domestic 
law, making it de facto  determinative for the proper legal qualification of the measure at issue . Such 
approach did not seem to comply with the requirement to make an objective assessment by the 
panel and undermine d the core features of the dispute settlement system . While the Panel in DS558 
acknowledge d that the phrase "pursuant to " might have different meanings within the Agreement 
on Safeguards, including "in consistency with " a provision, in case of Article 11.1(c) of the Agreement 
of Safeguards, it had interpreted this expression as "by virtue or under " a provision . This 
interpretation  had been based solely on the immediate context and negotiating history . The fact that 
this led to de facto  inapplicability, in light of the object and purpose of the Agreement, had been 
completely ignored . As per the Panel 's reading of this Article, if a measure was formally taken not 
under the Agreement of Safeguards and with no reference thereto, then in the Panel 's view such 
measure could not be qualified as a safeguard even if it met all substantive features thereof . 
Moreover, the qualification of the measure entirely depend ed on its characterization under domestic 
law. Accordingly, the Panel had reviewed the U S domestic considerations, notifications and 
responses to the WTO bodies related to adoption of the additional tariffs under Section 232 and 
based on this review had found these measures not falling under the Agreement of Safeguards . The 
Panel had concluded, "the United States'  determination of a threat to its national security … is a 
central aspect of the measures with respect to their legal chara cterization ". Therefore, in the view 
of the Panel, the trigger was the way the Member determine d the measure regardless of the validity 
of such determination . Based on the interpretation developed by the Panel, an Agreement would not 
apply unless a Member declare d that it intend ed to adhere to this Agreement while it impose d a 
measure . This clearly contradict ed Article 11 of the DSU, as a top priority was given to domestic 
classifications irrespective of the measure 's objective legal status.  
8.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
__________