RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/263 
25 March 2009 
 (09-1461) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
20 January 2009  
 
 
   
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 20 January 2009  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Mario Matus (Chile) 
  
Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........2  
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by  the United States...................................................................................6  
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by 
the United States ............................................................................................................. ...........6  
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products:  Status report by the European Communities..............................................................7  
(e) European Communities – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of 
bananas:  Second recourse to Article 21.5 by Ecuador:  Status report by 
the European Communities....................................................................................................... ..8 
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB ..........................................13  
(a) Statements by the European Communities and Japan ..............................................................13  
3. United States – Definitive anti-dum ping and countervailing duties on certain 
products from China............................................................................................................ ...14 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by China...................................................................14  
4. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and 
non-governmental panelists ...................................................................................................15  
5. Appointment of Appella te Body members............................................................................15  
(a) Statement by the Chairman...................................................................................................... .15 
 WT/DSB/M/263 
Page 2  
 
  1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.74) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on cer tain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.74) 
 (c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.49) 
 
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of  biotech products:  
Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS291/37/Add.12 – WT/DS292/31/Add.12 – WT/DS293/31/Add.12) 
 (e) European Communities – Regime for the impor tation, sale and distribution of bananas:  
Second recourse to Article 21.5 by Ecuador:  Status report by the European Communities 
(WT/DS27/96) 
 1. The Chairman
 recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that "unless the DSB decides 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the re commendations or rulings shall be placed on the 
Agenda of the DSB meeting after six months follo wing the date of establishment of the reasonable 
period of time pursuant to paragraph 3 and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda until the issue is 
resolved".  He proposed that the five sub-items to which he had just referred be considered separately. 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.74) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.74, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US Section 211 Omni bus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
3. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 January 2009, in accordance with Artic le 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that status 
report, a number of legislative proposals that would implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute had been introduced in th e previous US Congress, in both the US Senate and 
the US House of Representatives.   A legislative proposal that would implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute had al so been introduced in the new Congress, which had 
convened earlier in January.  Finally, the United States  noted that a new US administration would take 
office later in the day.  
4. The representative of the European Communities
 said that, at the present meeting, the 
United States submitted its seventy-fourth status re port on the lack of progress in the implementation 
of the DSB's rulings in this dispute.  In fact, si nce the condemnation of Section 211 in February 2002, 
the United States had failed to comply with its ob ligations.  The EC hoped that this pattern would 
change, and that the United States would take steps to implement the DSB's rulings. 
5. The representative of Cuba  said that an effective dispute settlement system would benefit all 
WTO Members, not just the parties to a particular dispute.  That was why, out of deep concerns about 
non-compliance in this case, more and more voices were being raised to urge the defendant to comply 
with the rulings made by the Appellate Body in 2002.  Prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings was essential if the dispute settlement mechanism was to function well 
and be credible.  Cuba had previ ously pointed out that, in this case, one could no longer speak of  WT/DSB/M/263 
 Page 3 
 
 
  prompt compliance.  Section 211, which violated the rules of international law, had been in force for 
more than 10 years and the Appellate Body Report pertaining to this dispute had been adopted more 
than six years ago.  The United States had not modified its status reports which it was submitting every month before the DSB.  In the meanti me, the United States passed judgements on the 
intellectual property policies of other Members and lodged new claims alleging violations of 
intellectual property rights. 
6. There was no doubt that the dispute settlement  system was ineffective and was becoming 
increasingly fragile.  As long as the United States fail ed to comply with the fundamental rules of the 
TRIPS Agreement, it should refrain  from filing new complaints in the area of intellectual property.  
Cuba wondered how one Member coul d ask another Member to comply with its WTO obligations, if 
that Member did not respect its own obligations.  Cuba pointed out that la ws had been passed that 
prejudiced the registration of Cuban marks, which facilitated the registration and marketing of marks 
by anti-Cuban companies such as Bacardi.  Furthermor e, there had been an increase in the registration 
of trademarks containing terms such as "Cuba".  In  2006, for example, cigarette trademarks:  i.e. 
"PRIMO DE CUBA" and "SPIRIT OF CUBA" had been registered with the US Patent and 
Trademark Office by the right holders in Pennsylvani a and Florida, respectively.  All knew that the 
term "Cuba" identified his country's official na me.  Thus the intention was misleading, and 
consumers' rights were not respected.   It should be noted that one of  the functions of trademarks was 
to indicate the origin of a product.  If Cuba's in tellectual property office re ceived an application from 
a Cuban legal or natural person to register tr ademarks containing the names of places in the 
United States or the name of that country, such an application would have to be rejected in accordance 
with Cuba's Decree-Law No. 203 on Marks and Ot her Distinctive Signs.  Cuba respected the 
international agreements that prohibited this type of fraudulent and misleading registration. 
7. Cuba, once again, requested that the United Stat es comply with the rulings of the Appellate 
Body by repealing, once and for all, Section 211, wh ich harmed not only Cuba's interests.  The fact 
that cases such as the one under consideration were ke pt indefinitely on the DSB's Agenda had serious 
systemic implications, which should be of concern not  only to the parties to the dispute, but to all 
Members.  The inauguration of a new US presi dent on 20 January generated a great deal of 
expectation, including in the WTO, given the importa nce of that Member to the international trading 
system and to compliance with multilateral rules.   One hoped that the new US government would 
have something new to tell, and that it would take  a different attitude towards its WTO obligations 
and the DSB's decisions.  
8. The representative of the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela
 said that her delegation thanked the 
United Stated for its status report and the statement made at the present meeting.  Her delegation also 
thanked Cuba for its statement and wished, once ag ain, to reiterate its systemic concern at the 
situation of continued non-compliance in this dis pute.  Venezuela urged the United States to take 
immediately measures to ensure the implementati on of the DSB's recommendations and to repeal 
Section 211.  This would address the concerns of the complainants and would recognize the 
importance of the DSB as a mechanism able to ensure that Members' rights under the multilateral 
trading system were respected.  The US comp liance would have a positive effect on the overall 
effectiveness of the WTO dispute settlement system.  
9. The representative of Uruguay  said that his country shared the systemic concerns expressed 
by previous speakers.  Uruguay considered that it was extremely important for Members to comply 
promptly with the DSB's recommendations.  This was essential for ensuring the smooth functioning 
of the dispute settlement system and its credibility  as well as the legal certainty and the effective 
balance of rights and obligations provided under the multilateral trading system.  Uruguay, therefore, 
again urged the United States to do its utmost  to comply with the DSB's recommendations. WT/DSB/M/263 
Page 4  
 
  10. The representative of China
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting.  In January 2009, a new US Congress, both the House 
of Representatives and the Senate, had begun their work.  On 20 January, the United States would 
have a new administration.  China hoped that those new elements would be translated into concrete 
implementing actions, which would be in the inter est of not only other Members, but also in the 
interest of the United States.  As previous speaker s had correctly pointed out, the situation of non-
compliance seriously damaged the authority of th e TRIPS Agreement and the creditability of the 
WTO dispute settlement system.  Therefore, China, once again, supported the statements made by the 
EC and Cuba, and urged the United States to impl ement the DSB's decision without further delay. 
11. The representative of India  said that her country thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement concerning the surveillance of impl ementation in this dispute.  As on previous 
occasions, India urged the United States to implem ent the DSB's recommendations in this dispute. 
12. The representative of Thailand  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting.  Like previous speakers, Thailand remained concerned about the systemic implications of this dispute.  Non-implementation of the DSB's rulings 
and recommendations undermined the integrity of  the rules-based multilateral trading system.  
Therefore, Thailand urged the United States to take all necessary steps to comply with its 
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement as soon as possible. 
13. The representative of Viet Nam
 said that his delegation thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Like other Members, Viet Nam supported Cu ba's statement urging the United States to bring 
its measures into conformity with the DSB's ruli ngs and recommendations.  Viet Nam believed that 
the new US administration to take office on 20 January, and the US Congress, would bring this 
dispute to an end. 
14. The representative of Ecuador  said that his country wished to thank the United States for its 
status report.  Ecuador supported the statements ma de by Cuba and other Memb ers on this matter.  All 
WTO Members were required to comply with th e DSB's recommendations and rulings.  After the 
Bananas dispute, the Section 211dispute was the longest-standing dispute in the WTO.  Ecuador 
urged the United States to comply with its WTO obligations.  Ecuador hoped that the new US 
administration, to be inaugurated on 20 January, and the US Congress, would put an end to this 
dispute and to the unfair econom ic blockade imposed on Cuba, wh ich had been condemned by the 
United Nations. 
15. The representative of Brazil  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  As Brazil and other Members had stated at previous DSB meetings, the lack of compliance in 
this dispute was of concern to the WTO Membership.  Brazil was confident that the new US administration would continue to work with th e US Congress, in a constructive and transparent 
manner, with a view to implementing the DSB's recommendations.  
16. The representative of Bolivia
 said that given that no progress had been made in this dispute, 
Bolivia wished to express its concern about negative implications of the failure to comply with WTO 
obligations.  If the United States wished to maintain  the integrity of the dispute settlement system, it 
must comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings and remove the restrictions under 
Section 211.  The WTO dispute settlement system was particularly important for the credibility of the WTO multilateral trading system.  Bolivia, therefor e, hoped that the new US administration would 
demonstrate the political will to resolve this dispute. 
17. The representative of Mexico
 recalled that Articles 3.3 and 21.1 of the DSU, respectively, 
stated that the "prompt settlement" of disputes was essential to the effective functioning of the WTO, and that "prompt compliance with recommendations or  rulings of the DSB" was essential in order to  WT/DSB/M/263 
 Page 5 
 
 
  ensure the effective resolution of disputes "to the be nefit of all Members".  Mexico, therefore, urged 
the parties to the dispute to respect those provisi ons, and to take the measures required to achieve 
compliance, to the benefit of both the functioning of the WTO and all its Members. 
18. The representative of Argentina  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Argentina wished, however, to note that the failure to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations had implications that went beyond th e interests of the parties to the dispute.  Any 
improvements to the dispute settlement system would have little impact if Members failed to 
demonstrate a strong commitment to compliance with  the DSB's recommendations.  Argentina wished 
to be associated with the request made by other Memb ers that the parties to the dispute, in particular 
the United States, take the necessary action to ensure implementation in this dispute.  
19. The representative of Nicaragua  noted that it was not an encouraging start at the beginning of 
the year that there were still some outstanding issu es such as the DSB's rulings in the Section 211 
dispute.  Nicaragua expressed systemic concerns  about the proper functioning of the multilateral 
dispute settlement system and called upon the Memb er concerned to comply with those rulings 
without further delay.  The statements made m onth after month by numer ous delegations had not 
produced the desired effects.  Many doubts had been raised as to the real intentions of the United 
States regarding its compliance in this dispute.  As  all were well aware, the DSB's rulings were not 
like a menu of options from which Members could choose.  Section 211 had been found to be in 
breach of Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement, given th at it limited, in specific circumstances, the right 
of trademark owners to have recourse to US civil judicial procedures in order to achieve the required 
compliance.  As a result, the door was left open for certain infringements of intellectual property 
rights in the US territory to go unpunished.  Nicarag ua would appreciate receiving further information 
on concrete measures aimed at bri nging Section 211 into conformity with WTO rules and principles. 
20. The representative of Chile  said that his delegation wished to join others in expressing deep 
systemic concerns at the lack of compliance in  this dispute.  Chile hoped that the new US 
administration, together with the US Congress, wo uld bring positive changes to this matter with a 
prompt adoption of the measures necessary for the United States to fully comply with the DSB's 
recommendations in this long-standing dispute. 
21. The representative of the United States  said that, in response to the "systemic" concerns 
expressed by some Members at the present meeting, as his delegation had stated at many previous DSB meetings, the United States had come into complia nce, fully and promptly, in the vast majority 
of its disputes.  As for the remaining few instances where US efforts to do so had not yet been entirely 
successful, the United States had been working actively towards compliance. 
22. The representative of Cuba
 said that his delegation wished to make a few brief comments.  
First, Cuba thanked all those de legations who had taken the floor.   Cuba believed that the views 
expressed by a number of Members representing various regions were very clear regarding this matter.  Second, delegations were tired of readi ng the same status reports  and hearing the same 
statements made by the United States.  Cuba woul d have hoped that the United States could have been 
a bit more creative.  As had been stated by one delegation at the present meeting, the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings were not like a shoppi ng list or a menu of options from which to 
choose.  As stated by another delegation, this w as one of the longest-standing disputes in the WTO.  
Cuba hoped that the new US administration would br ing the US legislation into compliance with the 
US obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and WTO rules. 
23. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. WT/DSB/M/263 
Page 6  
 
  (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.74) 
24. The Chairman
 drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.74, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
25. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 January 2009, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As of 
23 November 2002, the US authorities had addresse d the DSB's recommendations and rulings with 
respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty investigation at issue in this di spute.  Details were provided in document  WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  With 
respect to the recommendations and rulings of the DS B that had not already been addressed by the US 
authorities by 23 November 2002, as mentioned in the status report, the new US Congress had convened earlier this month.  As mentioned earlier, the new US administration would take office later 
in the day.  
26. The representative of Japan
 said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and its status report.  As had already been repor ted, the United States had taken certain measures to 
implement part of the DSB's recommendations in November 2002.  Since then, however, there had 
been little tangible progress with regard to the remaining part of the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.  A full and prompt implementation of th e DSB's recommendations and rulings was "essential 
to the effective functioning of the WTO and the maintenance of a proper balance of the rights and 
obligations of Members".  Japan hoped that unde r the new US administration and the US Congress, 
the United States would accelerate its work and put an end to this long-standing dispute without 
further delay. 
27. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.49) 
28. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.49, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act. 
29. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 January 2009, in accordance with  Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As mentioned under 
previous items of the Agenda of the present m eeting, a new Congress had convened this month, and 
the new US administration would take office later in the day.    
30. The representative of the European Communities  said that the present meeting was the forty-
ninth time that the United States had reported on its continued non-compliance without offering any 
concrete means to bring itself into compliance.  Despite the EC's request, "Father Christmas did not 
have anything in his bag for the EC on this one".  So the EC was left with the more "grown-up hope" 
that the United States would deliver, a hope that had been repeatedly dashed, fo r the forty-ninth time.  
The EC hoped that in this year of change, the Unite d States would manage to make this small change, 
and would bring itself into conformity with its WTO obligations.  
31. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  WT/DSB/M/263 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS291/37/Add.12 – WT/DS292/31/Add.12 – WT/DS293/31/Add.12) 
32. The Chairman
 drew attention to document WT/D S291/37/Add.12 – WT/DS292/31/Add.12 – 
WT/DS293/31/Add.12, which contained the status report by the European Communities on progress 
in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the case concerning the EC's measures 
affecting the approval and mark eting of biotech products. 
33. The representative of th e European Communities  said that her delegation wished, once again, 
to bring new evidence contesting arguments of undue  delays in the implementation of the EC's 
regulatory procedures on biotech products.  On 19 January, the EC Agriculture Council had voted on 
two draft authorization decisions on a GM oilseed rape (T-45, of interest to Canada) and a GM 
carnation.  The authorization of these GM products was now expected as early as next month.  This would bring the number of authorizations since the establishment of the panel to 21, a figure that strongly contradicted any possible claim of morato rium.  And further progress was expected in the 
weeks to come.  Notably, the adoption by the Eu ropean Commission of draft authorization decisions 
on cultivation of GM maize 1507 and Bt11.  Such decisions would be put through the Comitology 
procedure shortly thereafter.  Draft authorizati on decisions on two other maize applications had 
received a positive opinion by EFSA (maize 59122× NK603 and MON89034) should also be adopted 
soon.  With respect to national measures, the Eu ropean Commission was expected to adopt draft 
decisions on several measures prohibiting cultivatio n of GM maize MON810, including the Austrian 
measure condemned by the Panel.  The EC believe d that the progress described in such a sensitive 
area showed that the only appropriate way forwar d was dialogue and cooperation.  The EC remained 
open to continue discussions w ith the three complainants. 
34. The representative of the United States
 said that his country thanked the EC for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting.  Since the last EC status report in December 2008, the United States had seen no progress in resolving this dispute.  In particular, the 
EC had not authorized any of the approximately  50 pending applications for approval of biotech 
products.  The United States respectfu lly referred delegations to the prior US statements explaining 
the serious concerns of the United States with the b acklog of pending applications and the EC's lack 
of progress.  As the United States had stated many times before, the commercial impact of this dispute 
was significant and growing.  The United States thanked the DSB for its attention to this matter.  
35. The representative of Canada
 said that her country thanked th e EC for its statement.  While 
there had been recent progress in the dossier on Bayer CropScience's T-45, Canada would underline 
that this event had been in the approval process, in  one form or another, since March 2004.  Canada 
noted that the Council of Agriculture Ministers had voted on the Commission Proposal to approve 
T-45 at its meeting in Brussels on 19 January, and that  a qualified majority had not been obtained to 
either approve or reject this proposal.  It w as disappointing to Canada that T-45 had not been 
approved by EU Agriculture Ministers since the European Food Safety Authority adopted a positive 
opinion of it on 30 January 2008.  Since the proposal  had neither been approved nor rejected, Canada 
understood that the proposal now passed to the Co mmissioner for Health for her approval.  Canada 
expected that that this approval would be accorded  promptly.  Finally, Canada was also concerned 
with the continued bans by some EC member States  on the importation of certain GM events that had 
been given EU-wide approval for importation.  In th ese situations Canada would monitor very closely 
the EC's efforts to have these national bans removed. 
36. The representative of Argentina  said that his delegation had little to add to what had been 
stated by the EC other than to thank the EC for its report.  As mentioned previously, Argentina hoped 
that another working session would be held with the Commission and that this would prove useful and 
would enable the parties to continue al ong the path of progress and cooperation.  WT/DSB/M/263 
Page 8  
 
  37. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(e) European Communities – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas:  
Second recourse to Article 21.5 by Ecuador:  Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS27/96) 
38. The Chairman
 drew attention to document WT/DS27/96, which contained the status report by 
the EC on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the case concerning the EC's regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas.  
39. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the EC stood ready to implement 
the recommendations made in Ecuador's Report by means of modifying its bound duty.  The EC still 
hoped that this rebinding could be made in the c ontext of a comprehensive agreement with Latin 
American suppliers of bananas, an agreement th at had been sought since the EC had initiated GATT 
Article XXVIII negotiations back in 2004.  The EC was fully committed to finding, very soon, a final 
solution to this long-standing "banana saga".  The re quests made to the EC to sign the draft agreement 
established in the margins of the July Ministerial Me eting in 2008 had simply disregarded the fact that 
the signature of that agreement was subject to th e successful adoption of DDA Agriculture modalities.  
Having said that, the EC stood ready to discuss the po ssibility of concluding that draft agreement, 
subject to necessary adjustments to the current situ ation, and hoped that Latin American suppliers 
would constructively engage in the necessary discussions. 
40. The representative of Ecuador  said that his country thanked the EC for its status report.  He 
noted that, as a courtesy, Ecuador would have appreciat ed receiving that status report in advance.  He 
recalled that, at the December 2008 DSB meeting, the EC had made an inappropriate comment 
comparing Ecuador's statements to statements ma de by a baneful person of repugnant memory in 
European and world history.  Ecuador strongly rejected  the EC's assertion in this regard.  In its status 
report, the EC gave no indication as to when it exp ected to comply with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in this case.  Furthermore, the EC, on ce again, disregarded the existence of the Geneva 
Agreement on Trade in Bananas, which had b een reached with the main MFN suppliers on 
27 July 2008.  Nor did the EC express any willingn ess to comply with that Agreement, which was 
regrettable.  Ecuador, once again, called upon the EC  to sign the Banana Agreement of 27 July 2008 
and to put an end to this long-standing dispute.  If the EC did so, Ecuador would not need to exercise 
its retaliation rights or to make ne w claims on bananas.  A unilatera l decision by the EC on this matter 
would have serious repercussions. 
41. The representative of the United States  said that, first of all, his country was extremely 
disappointed that the EC had submitted a status report with respect to implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings in Ecua dor's proceeding but had neglected to file a report, as required 
by Article 21.6 of the DSU, that covered all of  the operative recommendations and rulings.  In this 
connection, it appeared that the United States ne eded to repeat a point that it had made at the 
December 2008 DSB meeting, namely, that th e Appellate Body had found that the "DSB 
recommendations and rulings from the original pro ceedings remain in eff ect until the European 
Communities brings itself into substantive compliance."1  The Panel had conc luded similarly.  
Moreover, the United States regretted that in the report  that the EC had filed with respect to Ecuador's 
proceeding, the EC had provided no informati on as to how its bananas import regime, as of 
1 January 2008, was in compliance with its obliga tions under Articles I and XIII of the GATT 1994.  
Turning to the finding of inconsistency with Article II of the GATT 1994 made in Ecuador's 
proceeding, the United States saw that the EC had merely noted its willingness "to explore the 
possibility of agreeing on the new bound tariff in th e context of a broader agreement on bananas". 
                                                      
1 Appellate Body Report, para. 273; see Panel Report, para. 8.13.   WT/DSB/M/263 
 Page 9 
 
 
  After all those years, the United States would have hoped that the EC would be well beyond 
"exploring possibilities".  The United States would like to recall that while there might well be other 
legal provisions pursuant to which the EC was obliged to rebind its bananas tariffs, such as 
Articles XXIV and XXVIII of the GATT 1994, the EC w as also required to do so (or to provide the 
appropriate tariff treatment set out in its Schedul e) independently of those provisions, as a dispute 
settlement compliance matter.    
42. As the United States had stated many times before, the United States was very much 
encouraged by the progress that the EC and the Latin American suppliers had made over the summer 
in their negotiations on the long-standing bananas issue.  The United States was very disappointed 
when the EC had unilaterally decided to suspend those negotiations.  So, the United States hoped that 
at the next DSB meeting, the United States would receive a status report on the Bananas disputes, and 
a more comprehensive explanation of how the EC in tended to come into substantive compliance with 
its obligations, and a description of the progress it was making towards that end.  Finally, the 
United States was looking forward to hearing tho se Members previously speaking under Item 1(a) 
also express their systemic concerns under this item, including, for example, Venezuela, Uruguay, 
China, India, Thailand, Viet Nam, Braz il, Bolivia, Mexico, Argentina, and Chile. 
43. The representative of Colombia  said that his country thanked the EC for its status report in 
which the EC outlined its intention to bring its bana nas import regime into conformity with Article II 
of the GATT 1994 by modifying its WTO bound tariff.  In this regard, Colombia recalled that both 
the Panel and the Appellate Body had found that th e EC bananas tariff of €176/mt exceeded the EC's 
WTO bound tariff.  At the present meeting, the EC had stated that instead of modifying the tariff that 
was inconsistent with its obliga tions under Article II of the GATT 1994, the EC was going to modify 
its obligations under Article II of the GATT 1994.  It was not necessary to remind the EC that any 
change to the bound tariff must improve competition conditio ns for MFN bananas.  The EC had stated 
that, despite the lack of agreement to date, it w as still willing to agree on the new bound tariff in the 
context of a broader agreement on bananas.  In that  respect, the EC must make a concrete proposal.  
Thus far, no such a proposal had been made.  This long-running dispute should have ended in 
July 2008 with the "Geneva Agreement on Trade in  Bananas".  Unfortunately, more and more WTO 
bodies had been required to deal with this matter.  In any case, Colombia noted the EC's statement 
concerning its intention to seek a broader agreemen t on bananas.  Colombia regretted, however, the 
EC's failure to provide a status report on the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings regarding the US proceeding on bananas concerning the way in which the EC would bring 
itself into conformity with its obligations under Articles I and XIII of the GATT 1994.  Once again, 
Colombia joined persistent calls of the MFN c ountries urging the EC to bring its bananas import 
regime into line with WTO rules, and to stop prolo nging a dispute that had already attracted a lot of 
attention at the WTO.  This could be achieved by matching words with action.  The prompt settlement 
of this matter was in the EC's hands.  
44. The representative of Costa Rica  said that, since 1992, the EC bananas import regime had 
been examined by a number of different WTO bodies, all of which, as in this case, had confirmed the 
EC's violations under the rules of the multilateral trading system, the GATT and the WTO.  Costa 
Rica continued to hope that the EC would comply with its WTO obligations.  The status report submitted by the EC was vague and raised serious questions about the EC's compliance with the 
recommendations of the Panel and th e Appellate Body, which had been adopted by the DSB.  The EC 
did not indicate when it would comply with the DS B's recommendations nor did it provide any details 
as to how it would do so.  Costa Rica awaited further clarification from the EC as to how and when the EC would reduce its tariff of €176/mt, which ha d been considered to be in breach of the EC's 
WTO obligations.  The EC maintained in its st atus report that it "has already been seeking an 
agreement with Latin American banana supplying  countries" on this matter.  Such a statement 
appeared to give the impression that no agreement ha d yet been reached to this effect or that the MFN 
bananas exporters were preventing an agreement wh ich could enable the EC to remedy its bananas WT/DSB/M/263 
Page 10  
 
  import regime.  Costa Rica recalled that an agreement between Latin American MFN bananas 
exporters and the EC (the Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas) had been reached on 
27 July 2008, an agreement which the EC had unilate rally decided to forgo.  If the EC implemented 
that agreement, it would put an end to this disput e as well as to other complaints lodged at the WTO 
with respect to bananas.  Costa Rica urged the EC  to submit a clear and detailed status report on the 
bananas disputes, and on the way in which the EC  bananas import regime would be brought into 
compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
45. The representative of Honduras
 said that the statements made by his country at previous DSB 
meetings concerning bananas should be taken into consideration under this Agenda item since they 
reflected Honduras' position on this matter.  He said th at Honduras' interest in this dispute was clear.  
Honduras was one of the original compla inants in the Bananas III dispute  and was entitled to be 
recognized as a substantial supplier of bananas to  the EC's market.  For many years, however, 
Honduras' interests had not been recognized.  The ri ghts conferred on Honduras by the rulings in the 
Bananas III dispute had not yet been restored.  Honduras had not received any compensation as a 
result of the EC's enlargement and the violation that  had occurred in 2006 had not yet been rectified.  
Unfortunately, the matter continued to  be under the surveillance of the DSB.  The EC's last status 
report pertaining to the Bananas III dispute  had been submitted seven years ago, but, in terms of its 
content, the present status report was not so different .  In February 2002, the EC had maintained that it 
had fully complied with its obliga tions in the Bananas III dispute  and had requested that the matter be 
removed from the DSB's Agenda.  At that time, Honduras and other countries had objected to the EC's request.  On that occasion, faced with the possibility that in 2006 the EC would "impose a 
prohibitive tariff that would make it impossible for Honduran bananas to enter into the EC's market", 
Honduras had reserved its rights.  Honduras, as a deve loping country, had to bear the cost of the 
EC's continued non-compliance.  As had previ ously been stated, such prolonged non-compliance 
could not be considered consistent with the calls fo r prompt compliance, and that particular attention 
be paid to matters affecting the interests of deve loping-country Members, and the effective resolution 
of disputes, as stipulated in Article 21 of the DSU.  Honduras stood ready to insist on the EC's 
compliance with a view to resolving the bananas dispute under the terms accepted by the EC on 
27 July 2008.  However, since th e July Agreement had not been ratified, Honduras would now take 
the same position as in February 2002 as well as on many other occasions, and would reserve not only 
its rights pertaining to the Bananas III dispute, but  would also reserve its rights resulting from the 
EC's rebinding and its enlargement as well as the EC's discrimination.   
46. The representative of Panama
 said that his country supported the call by Ecuador for prompt 
compliance and regretted that, so many years after the adoption of the original Banana III Report, the 
EC still maintained a regime contrary to the DS B's rulings and recommendations.  In 2009, 17 years 
after the first bananas dispute had been initiated under the multilateral dispute settlement system, this 
longest dispute in the history of the multilateral sy stem continued to be di scussed and monitored.  
According to Article 21.6 of the DSU, the EC was required to report again to the Membership on its 
"progress" in the implementation of the rulings and recommendations contai ned in the 1997 and 2008 
WTO decisions.  Panama noted with interest the EC 's status report, but found no indication therein 
that the EC intended to comply promptly, as require d by Article 21 of the DSU.  One of the three 
sentences contained in the status report indicated that the EC had been seeking an agreement with 
Latin American banana supplying countries since 2004.   A reference to 2004 did not constitute a sign 
of progress.  It was precisely in 2004 that the EC had an obligation to provide compensation as a 
result of its enlargement from 15 to 25 members.  In 2006, the EC had been required to rebind its 
tariff appropriately.  Latin American countries were still waiting to benefit from  those adjustments.  
The status report also stated that "[d]espite the l ack of agreement to date, the EC is still willing to 
explore the possibility of agreeing on the new bound ta riff in the context of a broader agreement on 
bananas".  Latin American countries should not be bl amed for the "lack of agreement to date".  An 
agreement had been approved by the EC and by most Latin American banana supplying countries on 
27 July 2008.  The EC was the only party that  had gone back on that agreement.  If the  WT/DSB/M/263 
 Page 11 
 
 
  above-mentioned sentence of the EC status report me ant that it was still prepared to honour the terms 
of the agreement in question, the long-standing bana na dispute could finally be settled.  If, on the 
other hand, the implication of the EC's statement was that it would be necessary to negotiate a new 
agreement, that sentence, like the EC's reference to the year of 2004, was the opposite of "progress".  
Any attempt by the EC to readjust the difficult ba lance achieved in that agreement would bring the 
parties back to the point of departure, would give rise to new requests for compliance with the 
Appellate Body's decisions and would aggravate th e dispute.  The EC had stated that the world 
needed "champions of trade" in these uncertain tim es.  Panama agreed and hoped that the EC would 
demonstrate its leadership by informing Members in the very near future that it had signed the 27 July 
Agreement and that it had corrected the longest las ting example of non-compliance in the history of 
the system. 
47. The representative of Nicaragua  said that her country noted the brief status report submitted 
by the EC on 8 January 2009.  Nicaragua regretted, however, that the report merely repeated the same 
assertion that the EC had been making since 2004, name ly, that the EC intended to modify the tariff 
commitments on bananas contained in its Schedules of Concessions.  Nicaragua had hoped to have 
more information in this regard.  The EC had unila terally imposed three tariffs on bananas, which had 
been condemned by the WTO.  Nicaragua regretted th at the EC had not indicated in its status report 
how and when it intended to "modify its Schedule" so as to comply, once and for all, with its 
rebinding obligations.  Nicaragua continued to be concerned that ACP suppliers – many of which 
were in a considerably better economic situation than Nicaragua – were entitled to access the EC's 
market at zero tariffs, while Nicaragua had effectiv ely been excluded from th e EC market due to the 
imposition of a tariff of US$4.27 per box.  For that reason, Nicaragua also regretted that the EC 
provided no indication in its status report as to how  it intended to bring its regime into conformity 
with Article I of the GATT, which remained a co mpliance obligation independent of the rebinding 
requirements.  In its statement at the 22 December 2008 DSB meeting,  the EC had maintained that it 
had no inconsistent preferences in favour of ACP count ries, in spite of the fact  that those preferences 
had repeatedly been found to be inconsistent w ith the GATT and WTO rules and principles.  Under 
those circumstances, Nicaragua requested greater tran sparency and clarity with regard to how the EC 
intended to comply – promptly and fully – with the obligations arising from the Bananas III dispute.  
Finally, Nicaragua noted that the reasonable period of time for the EC to comply with the DSB's 
rulings had expired a very long time ago. 
48. The representative of Guatemala  said that his country, as a developing-country Member of the 
WTO, had faith in the multilateral trading system, the greatest strength of which was, precisely, its 
dispute settlement mechanism.  Guatemala, therefor e, urged the EC to comply promptly with the 
recommendations and rulings of the Panel and Appellate Body in the disputes at issue brought both by 
Ecuador and the United States.  Furthermore, Guat emala was concerned about the statement made by 
the EC to explore possibilities of settling this issue in  the context of a broader agreement on bananas.  
Like other delegations, Guatemala considered that it would have been desirable for the EC to have 
gone beyond merely stating its willingness to "expl ore possibilities".  Guatemala believed that such 
possibilities had already been explored and the delicat e balance of the interests of all concerned had 
been achieved on 27 July 2008.  Had the EC not a nnounced its decision to disregard rather than to 
honour the Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas of  27 July 2008, statements such as those made 
under the present Agenda Item would not have been  necessary.  Guatemala hoped that the EC would 
submit more detailed status reports on the impl ementation of the recommendations and rulings 
contained in the adopted Reports, and that this ma tter would remain on the DSB's Agenda until it was 
resolved.  
49. The representative of Brazil  said that his delegation noted that the United States had referred 
to the statements of systemic concerns made by some Members, including by  Brazil, under Item 1(a) 
on the Agenda of the present meeting.  Brazil fu lly realized that the discussion under the present 
Agenda item concerned a different matter, but coul d not refrain from reiterating that the lack of WT/DSB/M/263 
Page 12  
 
  compliance in any dispute was of concern not only for the complainants but for all WTO Members.  
Moreover, the lack of transparency was also of system ic concern.  In that regard, Brazil recalled that it 
had suggested, at the August 2008 DSB meeting, that Members submitting status reports should 
inform the DSB of their specific actions concerning co mpliance in relation to various disputes.  Brazil 
would welcome any further deta ils regarding this dispute. 
50. The representative of Uruguay
 noted that one delegation had urged his country to take the 
floor under this Agenda Item to state systemic c oncerns.  Uruguay felt obliged to reject implications 
of any bias recognized by that delegation.  The co mpliance in the Bananas dispute was of importance 
to Latin American countries, including Uruguay.  However, Uruguay would make a statement on any matter if it considered that that was appropria te and when its interests were involved.  
51. The representative of Cameroon
 said that his delegation thanked the EC for its status report.  
Cameroon referred delegations to its previous stat ements made on the same matter.  Cameroon took 
note of the EC's apparent intention to come up w ith a new tariff in the framework of an agreement 
that would be broader in scope.  His delegation hop ed that this approach would be as inclusive as 
possible and that it would take into account the interests of all of the countries concerned.  
52. The representative of th e European Communities  said that the EC had taken good note of all 
comments made at the present meeting and would convey them to Brussels.  However, the EC would refrain from commenting on all the points that had been  made previously.  The EC had had this debate 
at previous DSB meetings and in other WTO bodies.  The position of the EC on what had happened at 
the negotiations in July 2008 was well known and th e EC could refer delegations to its previous 
statements made on other occasions.  There was, howev er, one point the EC wished to respond to at 
the present meeting and that con cerned the findings of violations  of Articles I and XIII of the 
GATT 1994 to which several delegati ons had referred.  The Appellate  Body had confirmed that no 
recommendation (as opposed to findings) was warranted with respect to the measure at issue in this 
dispute, since it was no longer in existence (para.  479 of the AB Report).  The Appellate Body had 
referred generally in that context to the principle th at in Article 21.5 of the DSU procedures, original 
DSB recommendations and rulings – and this was the part that the United States had quoted earlier – 
"remain in effect until the EC brings itself into  substantive compliance".  However, there was no 
longer a compliance issue here, since the measure at fault had ceased to exist in 2007.  That was the 
reason why the EC had not submitted a status repor t in the US case, because the United States had 
only made claims under Articles I and XIII and not  under Article II of the GATT 1994.  The current 
tariff treatment of bananas of ACP origin was a completely different measure, based on the 
negotiations of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with  the ACP countries concerned.  The EC pointed 
out that tariff preferences could equally result from FTA negotiations with Latin American suppliers.  
Finally, the EC noted that Brazil had requested furthe r clarification on what had been done thus far.  
The EC had held explorative talks with Latin Am erican countries before Christmas and intended to 
take up those talks shortly. 
53. The representative of Ecuador
 said that, as his delegation had previously stated, a decision on 
compliance with the DSB's rulings could not be interp reted unilaterally by the EC.  With regard to the 
Economic Partnership Agreements (E PAs) between the EC and the AC P countries, he recalled that 
the agreements negotiated with the ACP countries pr ovided the zero-tariff treatment for bananas.  The 
agreement that had been concluded in July 2008 in  Geneva, did not provide a reduction in the tariff 
rate below €100/mt nor did it provide the zero-tariff tr eatment.  He wished to mention this in order to 
demonstrate the level of discrimination that was still in  effect.  Ecuador also wished to respond to the 
statement made by Cameroon, namely that the MFN Latin American suppliers had never been 
consulted on the tariff level for the ACP countries, which was finally at zero, nor had they been consulted on subsidies that were granted to European  producers, mainly Spain and France.  Finally, 
Ecuador wished to ask a question to Canada.  As indicated in 23 December 2008 notification, Canada 
and the EC had reached a mutually agreed soluti on in the dispute on Canada 's exemptions and tax  WT/DSB/M/263 
 Page 13 
 
 
  reductions on wine and beer.  In the annex to th at notification, Canada had undertaken to make 
reductions in its customs duties.  Ecuador, theref ore, asked the following question: "Does Canada 
make the implementation in this case contingent  upon an agreement on modalities under the Doha 
Round"? 
54. The representative of Cameroon  said that his delegation wished to respond to the statement 
made by Ecuador, namely that the zero-tariff treatment was not free.  
55. The representative of Canada  said that her delegation suspected that Ecuador's question could 
have been rhetorical, but would answer it anyway .  The notification to which Ecuador had referred 
stood on its own and it was not contingent on anything. 
56. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation of 
the recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) Statements by the European Communities and Japan 
57. The Chairman  said that this matter was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the EC and Japan.  He then invited th e respective representatives to speak.  
58. The representative of th e European Communities  said that as the EC had stated many times, 
illegal distributions of anti-dumping and counterva iling duties collected on imports made prior to 
1 October 2007 would continue for an undetermined num ber of years.  Therefore, the EC wished to 
ask again the United States when it would stop the tr ansfer of those duties to its industry and finally 
put an end to the condemned measure.  The EC al so renewed its call on the United States to abide by 
its clear obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU and to submit status reports in this dispute. 
59. The representative of Japan  said that US Customs and Border Protection  had just issued the 
CDSOA Annual Report for FY 20082, according to which some US$180 million have been disbursed 
for FY 2008.  These latest distributions show ed that the CDSOA still remained operational.3  Japan 
urged the United States to terminate the illegal distri butions and repeal the CDSOA, not just in form 
but in substance, so as to resolve this dispute once and for all.  According to Article 21.6 of the DSU, 
the United States was under obligation to provide the DSB with a status report in this dispute "until 
the issue is resolved".  Japan reserved all its rights under the DSU until the United States came into 
full compliance. 
60. The representative of India  said that her country wished to thank the EC and Japan for 
bringing this issue before the DSB once again.  Indi a wished to reiterate that the disbursements made 
by the United States under the Byrd Amendment continue d to be in force affecting the rights of other 
WTO Members.  It was India's concern that non-co mpliance by Members led to a growing lack of 
credibility of the WTO dispute settlement system.  I ndia, therefore, urged the United States to cease 
its WTO inconsistent disbursement.  
                                                      
2 See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/ priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cdsoa_08/fy_annual_rep/  
3 In the words of the US Customs, "the distribution process will continue for an undetermined period". 
See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/tr ade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cont_dump_faq.xml  WT/DSB/M/263 
Page 14  
 
  61. The representative of China
 said that his country thanked the EC and Japan for, once again, 
raising this item at the DSB meeting.  China sh ared the views expressed by previous speakers and 
wished to join them in urging the United Stat es to comply fully with the DSB's rulings.  
62. The representative of Thailand  said that his country thanked the EC and Japan for bringing 
this item before the DSB.  As his delegation had previously stated, Thailand was disappointed at the 
US maintenance of these WTO-inconsistent disbursem ents.  Thailand urged the United States to cease 
the disbursements, repeal the Byrd Amendment with  immediate practical effect, and resume providing 
status reports until such actions were taken and th is matter was fully resolved.  Thailand also noted 
and congratulated the United States on its inco ming administration.  Thailand hoped that the new 
administration under President Obama's leadership would see the wisdom in immediately and fully 
repealing the Byrd Amendment, and would not give in to domestic pressure to reverse the current 
course towards full implementation. 
63. The representative of Canada  said that her delegation agreed with the EC and Japan that the 
Byrd Amendment remained subject  to the surveillance of the DS B until the United States ceased to 
administer it.  
64. The representative of Brazil  said that his country appreciated Japan's and the EC's initiative to 
keep this item on the DSB's Agenda.  As Br azil had pointed out on several occasions, the 
disbursements made by the United States to its  domestic industry under the Byrd Amendment 
continued to affect the rights of WTO Members.   Brazil stressed, once more, the need for the 
United States to take necessary actions in order to stop payments made under the CDSOA and thus to 
give real meaning to the DSB's recommendations and rulings.   
65. The representative of the United States  said that, as his country had already explained at 
previous DSB meetings, the US President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 
8 February 2006.  That Act included a provisio n repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000.  Thus, the United States had ta ken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  The United States welcomed the EC and Japan's 
recognition that the 2006 Deficit Reduction Act did not  permit the distribution of duties collected on 
goods entered after 1 October 2007.  The United Stat es, therefore, did not understand the purpose for 
which the EC and Japan had inscribed this item on th e Agenda of the present meeting. With respect to 
comments regarding further status reports in this  matter, the United States had taken all steps 
necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  And so, in this light, the United States failed to see what purpose wo uld be served by providing further status reports 
in this matter. 
66. The DSB took note
 of the statements.  
3. United States – Definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties on certain products 
from China 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by China (WT/DS379/2) 
67. The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
22 December 2008 and had agreed to revert to it .  He drew attention to the communication from 
China contained in document WT/DS379/2, and i nvited the representative of China to speak. 
68. The representative of China  said that, at 22 December 2008 DSB meeting, China had briefly 
described its concerns over the measures identified in its request for the establishment of a panel 
which had been circulated on 12 December 2008.  As  explained at that meeting, China was greatly 
concerned by the various substantive and proce dural problems found in the US anti-dumping and  WT/DSB/M/263 
 Page 15 
 
 
  countervailing duty investigations and measures against Chinese products at issue.  China did not 
intend to repeat those concerns since they had be en clearly set forth in the said request for the 
establishment of a panel.  Since the last DSB mee ting, the United States had failed to address China's 
concerns.  Therefore, given its immediate and syst emic concerns, China had no choice but to request, 
for the second time, that the DSB establis h a panel to resolve this dispute. 
69. The representative of the United States  said that his country was disappointed that China had 
chosen to pursue its request for a panel in this  matter.  The United States understood that a panel 
would be established at the present meeting.  Noneth eless, the United States continued to believe that 
the anti-dumping and countervailing duty determina tions identified by China, and the anti-dumping 
and countervailing duty measures imposed pursuant to t hose determinations, were  consistent with US 
WTO obligations.  As the United States had previously noted in the DSB, in the investigations at issue 
in this dispute, the US investigating author ities had made the necessary findings, supported by 
evidence, prior to imposing anti-dumping and coun tervailing measures on imports of the Chinese 
products in question.  China's complaint appeared to be an effort to hinder the effectiveness of these 
two remedies permitted under the WTO Agreemen ts for these two injurious practices.  The 
United States was also disappointed that China con tinued to request a panel to examine a so-called 
"absence" of "legal authority for the Department  of Commerce".  As the United States had observed 
in December 2008, whatever this phrase in the pane l request might be referring to, it was clear that 
China's consultation  request made no mention of this as a purported measure that was a subject of 
consultations under Article 4 of the DSU.  The United  States had drawn attention to this issue at the 
December 2008 DSB meeting and hoped that China w ould take the appropriate steps, rather than 
simply renewing its panel request.  The United States regretted that China had not done so. 
70. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU w ith standard terms of reference. 
71. The representatives of Argentina , Australia , Bahrain , Canada , the European Communities , 
Kuwait , Saudi Arabia  and Turkey  reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's 
proceedings. 
4. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental 
panelists (WT/DSB/W/396)  
72. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB /W/396, which contained additional 
names proposed for inclusion on the indicative list of governmental and non-g overnmental panelists, 
in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU.  He proposed that the DSB approve the names contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/396. 
73. The DSB so agreed . 
5. Appointment of Appellate Body members 
(a) Statement by the Chairman 
74. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business", said that as he had announced at the outset 
of the present meeting, he wished to make a statement regarding the process for selecting new 
Appellate Body members.  He recalled that at its  meeting on 22 December 2008, the DSB had agreed 
to the Chairman's proposal on the procedures for se lecting new Appellate Body members.  To this 
effect, the DSB had agreed to the following elemen ts:  "(i) to carry out a single selection process for 
the two positions in the Appellate Body presently held by Mr. Baptista and Mr. Sacerdoti;  (ii) to set a 
deadline of 20 March 2009 for Members' nominations of candidates for these two positions;  (iii) in 
the light of the exceptional circumstances resulting from the resignation of Mr. Baptista, to deem the WT/DSB/M/263 
Page 16  
 
  term of the position to which Mr. Baptista was appoi nted to expire on 30 June 2009, and to agree that 
the position previously held by Mr. Baptista be filled for a four-year term;  (iv) to follow the 
procedures set forth in document WT/DSB/1, and, in accordance with them, to agree to establish a 
Selection Committee consisting of the Director-Gen eral and the 2009 Chairpersons of the General 
Council, the Goods Council, the Services Council, the TRIPS Council and the DSB, and to be chaired 
by the 2009 DSB Chairperson;  (v) to request th e Selection Committee to conduct interviews with 
candidates and to hear views of delegations in Apr il and the first half of May 2009, and to make its 
recommendations to the DSB by no later than the e nd of May, so that the DSB can take a final 
decision by mid-June 2009;  and finally, (vi) to ask the DSB Chairman to continue to carry out consultations on the possible reappointment of Mr. Un terhalter".  The Chairman further stated that 
following the 22 December 2008 DSB meeting, Argen tina and Brazil had submitted their nominations 
of candidates, which had been circulated as Job documents to all WTO Members.  He reminded delegations that, in accordance with past practice, the nominations along with curricula vitae of the 
nominees should be sent to the Chairman of the DSB in care of the Council and TNC Division.   
75. The DSB took note
 of the statement. 
__________