RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/427  
 
21 May 2019 
(19-3523) Page: 1/8 
Dispute Settlement Body  
11 April  2019    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 11 APRIL  2019 
Chairperson s: H.E. Ms. Sunanta Kangvalkulkij (Thailand) /H.E. D r David Walker (New Zealand)  
Table of Contents  
1   ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON ................................ ................................ .......................  1 
2   TURKEY – ADDITIO NAL DUTIES ON IMPORT S OF AIR CONDITIONIN G  
MACHINES FROM THAILA ND ................................ ................................ ............................  4 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Thailand  ................................ .........................  4 
3   EUROPEAN UNION – ANTI -DUMPING MEASUR ES ON CERTAIN COLD -ROLLED  
FLAT STEEL PRODUCTS FROM RUSSIA  ................................ ................................ .............  5 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the Russian Federation  ................................ ..... 5 
4   UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING TRA DE IN LARGE CIVIL AI RCRAFT  
(SECOND COMPLAINT): RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY T HE  
EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  6 
A.  Report of the Appellate Body and Report of the Panel  ................................ .........................  6 
 
 
1  ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON 
1.1.  The outgoing  Chairperson  said that before mov ing on to the election of the DSB's  new 
Chairperson, and in the tradition of her predecessors, she wished  to say a few final words.  It had 
been her great honour and privilege  to have been entrusted by Members to chair the DSB. Since 
she had taken over the position of C hairperson  following  in the footsteps of Ambassador Junichi 
Ihara  of Japan in March 2018, she had witness ed Members' remarkable reliance on the WTO dispute 
settlement mechanism. Members had filed new panel requests , with an unprecedented number of  
panel requests having been filed in October and November 2018. In total, the DSB ha d agreed to 
establish as many as 33 panels  since she had  assumed this role in March 2018. The increased 
reliance on the WTO dispute settlement mechanism demonstrate d contin ued belief and trust in the 
multilateral rules -based trading system. Indeed, the DSB ha d been one of the most active 
decision -making bodies in the WTO. It appear ed to her that the regular  work of the DSB ha d been 
efficiently run in a very well -organized manner. She believed that t his tradition should be preserv ed 
and should continu e, given  the importance of this Body and its indispensable role in the success of 
the WTO dispute settlement system. At the same time, the DSB and the WTO dispute sett lement 
mechanism were facing unprecedented challenges with a far -reaching effect for the Organization. 
She recall that in 2018 , she had carried out informal consultations  on the issue of 
the possible  reappointment of one Appellate Body member, whose term o f office w as to expire on 
30 September 2018. Unfortunately, the DSB had been  unable to agree to reappoint that Appellate 
Body member. It was also regrettable that  no consensus had been  reached to launch new selection 
processes to replace four Appellate Bod y members. She thank ed all delegations that ha d been taking 
up initiatives, sharing ideas and participating in th ose discussions constructively, either in the DSB 
or during the informal consultations. Certainly, there were areas that could be improved and WT/DSB/M/427  
 
- 2 - 
 
  strengthened in order for the system to better meet the great expectation s of the WTO Membership. 
She encourage d all Members to continue their engagement with a solution -oriented spirit under the 
leadership of her competent successor. As the Chairperson of the General Council, she would  keep 
working closely with the DSB Chairperson  and all delegations towards a solution to the current 
situation. Last but not least, she wished to  exten d her gratitude  to the WTO Secretariat for constant 
support and excellent collaboration throughout the year. At this point, s he wished to express her 
deep appreciation to Mr. Victor do Prado, Director of the Council and TNC Division for his insightful 
advice and Ms Bozena  Mueller -Holyst  for her tremendous efforts in assisting her in the conduct of 
meetings month after month with such ease. The o utgoing Chairperson  also wish ed to extend her 
appreciation to the interpreters for their support and flexibility .   
1.2.  Finally, t he outgoing Chairperson recalled that, a s Members we re aware, at its meeting on 
28 February 2019 , the General Council  had taken  note of the consensus on a slate of names for 
Chairpersons to a number of WTO bodies including the D ispute Settlement Body. On the basis of the 
understanding reached by the General Council , she propose d that the D SB elect by acclamation 
Ambassador  David Walker of New Zealand as the new  Chairperson  of this Body.   
1.3.  The DSB  so agreed . 
1.4.  The incoming Chairperson  wished to begin by thanking Members for their trust and confidence 
in appointing him to this position. It was a great privilege and honour to have this role , but also a 
great responsibility. He hoped that he could  adequately repay Members' trust and confidence in  the 
discharge of his responsibilities in this role , following in the very fine footsteps of Ambassador 
Sunanta . He then invite d delegations wishing to make statements under this Agenda item to raise 
their flags.  
1.5.  The representative  of the United States  said that as someone who had spent a fair amount of 
time over the past year at DSB meetings, he simply wished to extend his thanks to 
Ambassador  Sunanta for her able service and for her fair -mindedness over the past year. The 
United  States wished her much  success in her new role as General Council Chair. The United States 
welcomed Ambassador Walker to the Chairmanship of the DSB and wished him the very best of luck.  
1.6.  The representative of the European Union  said that his delegation  wished  to thank the outg oing 
Chairperson  for her work during  the past year, including her efforts to address the current crisis 
related to Appellate Body appointments. The EU  also wish ed to warmly welcome the incoming  
Chairperson . The EU  wished him well in this important and chal lenging role. In these difficult times, 
it was all the more important that the DSB continue to properly exercise its functions as envisaged 
by the DSU. The EU trusted in the incoming  Chairperson 's ability to ensure that  and said that he 
could count on the EU's full support in that regard . 
1.7.  The representative of China  said that his country  wished to thank Ambassador Sunanta  for her 
excellent leadership and hard work as the DSB Chair person . During the previous  year, the DSB had 
been called upon to discuss and debate a variety of systemically important matters. Amid rampant 
unilateralism and protectionism, the DSB had been  relied on more than ever by Members to 
safeguard the core principles of this rules -based Organization. All Member s benefi tted from her 
leadership, dedication and wisdom. Her contributions w ould be remem bered  and China  wished her 
every success in her future endeavo urs as the Chair of the General Council . China also wished  to 
congratulate Ambassador  Walker on his election as DSB Chairperson . In 2019,  the WTO dispute 
settlement system would be  facing unprecedented challenges and opportunities. Given all the 
uncertainties that lied ahead, China renew ed its firm support for the rules -based multilateral trading 
system. China looked forward to working with the incoming DSB Chair person  in the coming year.  
1.8.  The representative of India said that h is country  would  like to join other delegations in 
expressing India's  thanks to Ambassador Sunanta  for skilfully handling this important responsibility 
over the past year. India also congratulate d the incoming Chairperson  and welcome d him to this 
new and difficult role. He said that India had  full confidence that he would  be able to fulfil those 
respon sibilities with skill and flair.  
1.9.  The representative of Japan  said that his country  wished to  echo other delegations in thanking 
Ambassador Sunanta  for her able leadership as DSB Chairperson . Ambassador Ihara was truly 
thankful for having been succeed ed in his role as DSB Chair by Ambassador Sunanta  and for her WT/DSB/M/427  
 
- 3 - 
 
  contribution to strengthen ing this institution.  Japan also wished to  congratulate Ambassador Walker 
on his new assignment . He noted that  Ambassador Walker was also serving  as Facilitator in the 
informal process o n Appellate Body matters . He said that Japan  hoped that he would be successful 
in this process.  
1.10.   The representative of Canada  said that his country  wishe d to thank Ambassador Sunanta  for 
her dedicated work as  DSB Chairperson  over the past year. Canada  wished her well in her new role 
as General Council Chair. Canada  also warmly welcome d Ambassador Walker as the new DSB Chair 
and look ed forward to his leadership moving forward.  
1.11.   The representative of Korea  said that his country  wished  to join other Members in welcoming 
Ambassador Walker as the new DSB Chair . He said that Korea  looked forward to working with him. 
Korea also join ed other delegations in thanking Ambassador Sunanta  for her service as DSB Chair 
and wishe d her good luck in her new role.  
1.12.   The representative of Singapore , speaking on behalf of ASEAN, express ed his appreciation to 
Ambassador Sunanta  for her able and skilful stewardship of the DSB. Singapore believed that she 
had discharged her responsibilities in a very effective and efficient manner.  He extend ed his warmest 
congratulations to Ambassador Walker  on his new role . Singapore  believe d that there was no person 
better equipped in this room than Ambassador Walker  to take over this responsibility at this very 
delicate juncture . Singapore  wished him all the very best and assure d him  of its fullest support.  
1.13.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that h is delegation  wished  to join other Members to 
thank the outgoing Chairperson for her leadership in 2018  and for  her great efforts in addressing 
the Appellate Body member  situation . He wished  Ambassador Sunanta all the best in her new 
capacity as the Chairperson of the General Council. Chinese Taipei  welcome d Ambassador  Walker 
as the new DSB Chair and wish him every success in taking on this great responsibility. In these 
difficult times , it was all the more important that the DSB continue to properly exercise its functions 
as instructed  by the DSU.  Chinese Taipei  trusted in Ambassador  Walker's  ability to ensure this and 
reaffirm ed its full support  of Ambassador  Walker in his new role .  
1.14.   The representative of Mexico  wished  to express his country's deepest thanks to 
Ambassador  Kangvalkulkij  for having guided Members  to this point in a pa th full of challenges. 
Mexico believe d that  she was  leaving Members  at a point where they had elements to reflect upon 
and to build upon going forward.  Mexico  also wished  to welcome Ambassador Walker and wish ed 
him every  success in his new role as  DSB Chair. Mexico  knew that Members  were facing a series of 
challenges and a very difficult road ahead . However, Mexico  was certain  that under Ambassador 
Walker's leadership, Members would  be able to transform those challenges into opportunities.   
1.15.   The representative of Turkey  said that his country  also wished  to thank Ambassador Sunanta  
for her wise guidance and leadership during her term  and wish ed her every success in her new role 
as Chairperson of the General Council. Turkey  also wished  to congratulate Ambassador Walker on 
his election as  DSB Chair and wish ed him every success in his tenure. Turkey was ready to work 
closely with him to overcome the upcoming challenges in the DSB .  
1.16.   The representative of Honduras  wished  to congratulate Ambassador Walker  on his new 
position and express ed his thanks to Ambassador Sunanta  for her contribution to the work of the 
DSB. Honduras st ood ready to support Ambassador Walker and to work with him as necessary.   
1.17.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that  her country  wished to thank 
Ambassador Sunanta  for her hard work and significant contribution as the DSB Chairperson  through  
challenging times. Russia  wished her all the best in her new capacity . Russia wished to congratulate 
Ambassador Walker on his election as the new DSB Chair and wish ed him success in  fulfilling his 
duties as DSB Chair as well as Facilitator of the informal process  on Appellate Body matters .  
1.18.   The representative of Australia  said that her country wished to  join others in thanking 
Ambassador Sunanta  for her leadership during a very busy and challenging time for the DSB . Her 
country wished  her all the best in her role as Chair of the General Council.  Australia  also wished  to 
welcome Ambassador Walker in his new role and to offer its full support in ad dressing the 
challenges  ahead.   WT/DSB/M/427  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.19.   The representative of Argentina  said that his country  wished to thank Ambassador Sunanta  
for her contribution, patience, tolerance, and leadership. At the same time, Argentina  wished  to 
congratulate Ambassador Walker and wished him complete  success in his new duties.   
1.20.   The representative of Peru said that his country wished to  thank Ambassador Sunanta  for her 
leadership and availability. Peru also wish ed Ambassador Walker  success in his duties as DSB Chair. 
Peru stood ready to work with Ambassador Walker .  
1.21.   The representative of Qatar  said that his delegation  wished to thank 
Ambassador  Kangvalkulkij  for her leadership during the DSB  for the  past year . Qatar also wished  to 
congratulate Ambassador Walker and wished him  all the best. He said that Qatar st ood ready to 
support Ambassador Walker  in his new role.  
1.22.   The representative of Brazil  said that his country  wished  to thank Ambassador Sunanta  for 
her work as DSB Chairperson , and that it wished Ambassador Walker all the b est in his functions.  
1.23.   The representative of Jamaica , speaking on behalf of the ACP Group,  said that her country 
wished to thank  Ambassador Sunanta  for her able leadership and stewardship of the DSB , and 
wished her every success in her new role.  Jamaica  also wish ed to congratulate Ambassador Walker 
in his new role , and to indicate that Jamaica st ood ready to work with him and support ed him as he 
discharge d his duties. Jamaica  hoped to work with Ambassador Walker  closely during his tenure.  
1.24.   The representat ive of Guatemala  said that his country wished to  thank Ambassador Sunanta . 
Guatemala also  wished  her success in her new role as Chair of the General Council .  
1.25.   The representative of Colombia , speaking also on behalf of Chile, said that both countries 
wished  to thank Ambassador  Sunanta.  They also wished  to congratulate  Ambassador Walker  for his 
election  as DSB Chair , and wish ed him every  success in his new role .  
1.26.   The representative of Kenya  said that his country wished to thank Ambassador Sunanta  for 
her able leadership in steering the work of the DSB . Kenya also wish ed to convey its best wishes to 
Ambassador Walker in his new role as DSB Chair .  
1.27.   The representative of Afghanistan  said that he wished to express his country's  sincere 
appreciation to  Ambassador Sunanta  for her excellent leadership during her term as DSB Chair. 
Afghanistan also welcome d and congratulate d Ambassador Walker  for his election as  incoming DSB 
Chair and wish ed him  all the best during his term.   
1.28.   The representative of Pakistan  said that his country wished to thank Ambassador Sunanta  for 
her contribution to the work of the DSB. Pakistan  wished to congratulate Ambassador Walker for 
taking up the role of incoming DSB Chair . Pakistan wishe d him complete  success and expresse d its 
support in all  his work.   
1.29.   The representative of Cuba, speaking on behalf of GRULAC  Members, thank ed Ambassador 
Sunanta  for her work and wish ed her every  success in her new duties going forward. The GRULAC  
Members ha d contributed to  the various discussions that had taken place in the DSB to date . The 
incoming DSB Chair  could  count on their support in future work  related to such discussions .  
1.30.   The DSB took note of the statements .  
2  TURKEY – ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON IMPORTS OF  AIR CONDITIONING MA CHINES FROM 
THAILAND  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Thailand (WT/DS573/2)  
2.1.  The Chair person  recall ed that the DSB had considered this matter at its  25 February 2019 DSB 
meeting and had agreed to revert to it . He then drew  attention to  the communication from Thai land 
contained in document WT/DS 573/2 and invite d the representative of Thailand to speak.  WT/DSB/M/427  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.2.  The representative of Thailand  said that on 14 February 2019, his country had  requested the 
establishment of a panel in this dispute . Turkey had not agree d to the establishment of a panel  at 
the 25 February 2019  DSB meeting . Thailand ha d, therefore , placed  its request for the establishment 
of a panel for the second time on the  DSB's Agenda. For the reasons indicated in Thailand's  request 
for establishment  of a panel , Thailand was concerned that the additional duties imposed by Turkey 
on air conditioning machines from Thailand were inconsistent with Turkey's obligations under the 
GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards. Accordingly, Thailand request ed, once again, that 
the DSB establish a panel to examine the matter set out in its request for the establishment of a 
panel, with standard terms of reference.  
2.3.  The representative of Turkey  said that his country regret ted Thailand's decision to request the 
establish ment of a panel. As Turkey had  stated at the 25 February 2019  DSB meeting , Turkey  
consider ed that Thailand's request was premature . Turkey  had hoped that consultations in this 
dispute would continue and that they would have enabled the parties to resolve this dispute 
amicably. Turkey remain ed available for further discussions with Thailand with a view to resolving 
this matter without pursuing panel proceedings. In the event that Thailand pursue d the panel 
process, Turkey was confident that a panel w ould find that Turkey  had acted consistently with its 
WTO obligations  in this dispute . 
2.4.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU , with standard terms of reference.  
2.5.  The representatives of Brazil , Canada , China , the European Union , India, Japan , Korea , the 
Russian Federation,  Singapore , Ukraine , and the United  States  reserved their third -party rights to 
participate in the Panel's proceedings.  
3  EUROPEAN UNION – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURE S ON CERTAIN COLD -ROLLED FLAT 
STEEL PRODUCTS FROM RUSSIA  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the  Russian Federation  (WT/DS521/2)  
3.1.  The Chairperson  drew attention to  the communication from the Russian  Federation contained 
in document WT/DS521/2 and invite d the representative of the Russian Federation to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of  the Russian Federation  said that o n 27 January 2017, Russia had 
requested consultations with the European Union with respect to the anti -dumping measures 
imposed by the EU on imports of certain cold -rolled flat steel products originating in Russia. The 
measures contested in this dispute had been  introduced by the EU on 5 August 2016. These 
anti-dumping duties , ranging from 18 .7% to 36 .1%, had been  impos ed following  serious violations 
by the EU of its WTO obligations committed in the course of the underlying anti -dumping 
investigation. Consequently, such violations nulli fied or impair ed benefits accruing to Russia under 
the WTO Anti -dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994. Russia , in good faith , had held consultations 
with the EU on 8 June 2017 , with a view to reaching a satisfactory settlement of the matter. 
Unfortunately, t hese consultations had failed to resolve the dispute.  Therefore, Russia request ed 
that the DSB establish a panel pursuant to Article  6 of the DSU and Article  17.4 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement to examine the matter with standard terms of reference, as set forth in Article  7.1 of 
the DSU.  
3.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that his delegation took note of Russia's decision 
to request a WTO panel on anti -dumping measures imposed by the EU in 2016 on certain cold -rolled 
flat steel products from Russia. The EU recall ed that it had held constructive consultations with 
Russia on 8 June 2017. The EU  had expressed hope that the consultations had provided the 
necessary information and clarificati ons. The EU also  indicated that in case of further questions , it 
was ready to provide further explanations. Russia and the EU had agreed to stay in contact in order 
to further discuss possible solutions to th is dispute. The EU  was convinced that its measur es were 
in conformity with WTO  Agreements and , therefore , the EU was not ready to accept the 
establishment of a panel  at the present meeting .  
3.4.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter.  WT/DSB/M/427  
 
- 6 - 
 
  4  UNITED STATES  – MEASURES AFFECTING T RADE  IN LARGE CIVIL AIRC RAFT (SECOND 
COMPLAINT): RECOURSE  TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY THE EUROP EAN UNION  
A.  Report of the Appellate Body ( WT/DS353/AB/RW  and WT/DS353/AB/RW/A dd.1) 
and Report of the Panel ( WT/DS353/RW and WT/DS353/RW/A dd.1)  
4.1.  The Chairperson drew attention to  the communication from  the Appellate Body contained in 
document WT/DS 353/31  transmitting the Appellate Body Report in the dispute: " United  States  – 
Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft  (second complaint): Recourse to Article  21.5 of the 
DSU by the European Union",  which had been circulated on 28 March 2019 as document s 
WT/DS353/ AB/RW and WT/DS353/ AB/RW/Add.1.  He then remind ed delegations that the Appellate 
Body Report and the Panel Report pertaining to this dispute ha d been cir culated as unrestricted 
documents.  As Members were aware, Article  17.14 of the DSU require d that: " [a]n Appellate Body 
report shall be adopted by the DSB and unconditionally accepted by the parties to the dispute unless 
the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the Appellate Body  report within 30  days following its 
circulation to Members. This adoption procedure is without prejudice to the right of Members to 
express their views on an Appellate Body report".  The Chair person  invited the representative of the  
European Union  to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that his delegation  welcome d the Appellate Body 
Report circulated  on 28 March 2019 in this long -running dispute , and that it welcome d its overall 
outcome. The rulings of the Panel and of the Appellate Body vindicate d most of the claims advanced 
by the EU. The Appellate Body 's ruling confirm ed that the United States ha d not brought itself into 
compliance with earlier rulings , as it continue d to illegally subsidi ze aircraft manufacturer B oeing, 
causing significant harm to its European competitor Airbus. The Appellate Body 's ruling also 
confirm ed that the United States ha d taken no appropriate action to comply with its obligation to 
withdraw subsidies declared illegal by the WTO back in 201 2, or to remove their adverse effects. 
The EU  regret ted that while on a number of points the Appellate Body had overturned the compliance 
Panel's conclusions, including the characteri zation of certain US measures and their specificity, in 
the absence of sufficient factual findings in the Panel Report, it had not been  in a position to complete 
its analysis in this respect. The EU expect ed the United States to promptly comply with this fi nal 
ruling. The EU w ished  to thank the Appellate Body, the Panel and their respective Secretariats for 
their hard work throughout this dispute.  
4.3.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States wished  to thank the 
members of the complianc e Panel, the Appellate Body,1 and the Secretariat assisting them for the 
hard work and long hours they dedicated to this lengthy proceeding.  It was quite likely that many 
in attendance had  read the press accounts in which the United States and the EU both claim ed to 
have come out the better in this dispute , and relative to the dispute concerning the EU 's subsidies 
to Airbus.  The United States wished  to take this opportunity to explain the US position . It was 
important to consider these compliance proceeding s within the overall context of this dispute and 
the US challenge to the EU 's subsidies to Airbus.  The dispute at issue at the  present meeting had 
come about because fourteen years ago, the United  States had challenge d launch aid, which was 
the form of financing whereby EU member States pa id for the development of Airbus aircraft, and 
which Airbus d id not have to repay if the aircraft prove d unsuccessful.  The United States believe d, 
and as had been found in  WTO panel and appellate reports in both the ori ginal and compliance 
proceedings, that these subsidies were responsible for the development and launch of every single 
Airbus aircraft, and had caused massive adverse effects to US trade.  The EU had responded by 
bringing this WTO dispute in 200 5, and had argued  that US subsidies were bigger and more distortive 
of trade.  Since initiating this dispute, the EU and its member States ha d tried to justify their vast 
subsidization of Airbus by claiming a need to offset US subsidies to Boeing. The reports in this 
compliance proceeding  – consistent with all previously adopted reports on these issues  – had 
vindicated the US position, and shown that the substantial and large subsidies provided by the EU 
to Airbus dramatically outweigh ed the findings of US subsidization  in this dispute.  In the original 
proceedings in this dispute, the EU had alleged subsidies of US$19 billion and a wide range of adverse 
effects in three market segments.  The panel and appellate reports in those original proceedings 
found that the United States had provided Boeing with  between US$3.2 and US$4.3 billion in 
subsidized research and development funding and income tax benefits, with far more limited market 
effects than the EU 's subsidies to Airbus.  As was evident, these findings were significantly less than 
                                                
1 For ease of reference, in this statement the term "Appellate Body " is utilized  without prejudice to the 
adoption procedure applied by the DSB  to any particular appellate report.  WT/DSB/M/427  
 
- 7 - 
 
  the EU had alleged.  In response to the DSB's adopted recommendations, the United States had 
modified the research and development funding and revoked the inco me tax benefit to remove any 
adverse effects to the EU. Despite this, the EU had commenced a compliance proceeding in this 
dispute in 2012, claiming the United States had failed to comply with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings. The EU had also challeng ed 29 state and federal programs that it claim ed had allegedly 
conferred US$10.4 billion in subsidies to Boeing over six years. In 2017, the WTO compliance Panel 
report put forward for adoption at the present meeting  had found only one of those programs, a  
Washington state tax measure worth an average value of between US$100 and US$110 million from 
2013-2015, to be WTO -inconsistent.   
4.4.  The EU had appealed . The appellate report put forward for adoption at the present meeting  
likewise had found that the only WTO-inconsistent program was the Washington state tax measure.  
These findings st ood in sharp contrast to the panel and appellate reports in the US challenge to the 
EU subsidies to Airbus.  In the original proceedings in that dispute, the appellate report had found 
that the EU had granted subsidized financing amounting to approximately US$18 billion to Airbus 
that had caused Boeing to lose sales of more than 300 aircraft and market share throughout the 
world.  Following these proceedings, in 2011, the EU had claimed that it had removed more than 
US$18 billion in subsidized financing to Airbus that the WTO had previously found to be 
WTO-inconsistent. Yet in reality, the EU had only removed two minor subsidies  and had left  most of 
the rest unchanged. Additionally, the EU had granted Airbus more than US$5 billion in new 
subsidized "launch aid " to financ e the A350 XWB.  The United States had initiated compliance 
proceedings in March 2012 because the EU not only had failed to comply with the DSB's adopted 
recommendation s and rulings,  but had further breached WTO rules through the new subsidized 
financing for the A350 XWB.  The compliance panel report in 2016 and appellate report in 2018 had 
found that EU subsidies to high -value, twin -aisle aircraft ha d caused, and continu ed to cause, serious 
prejudice to US interests. The appellate report had found that billions of dollars in launch aid to the 
A350 XWB was causing significant lost sales of Boeing 787 aircraft. The report had found that 
subsidies to the A380 continue d to cause significant lost sales of Boeing 747 aircraft, as well as 
impedance of exports of Boeing very large aircraft to the EU, Australia, China, Korea, Singapore, 
and UAE markets. In light of these reports, the United States had requested authority to impose 
countermeasures commensurate with the adverse effects caused by EU subsidies. The United States 
estimated in the countermeasures arbitration that these adverse effects to the United States 
amounted to US$11.2  billion annually. In sum, the reports in these two disputes sp oke for 
themselves, and, taken together, they sp oke volumes.  The United States support ed the adoption of 
the panel and appellate reports in this dispute. The United States understood  that the EU and its 
member States, the other parties to the dispute, d id also, as the EU had proposed this item so that 
the DSB could adopt these reports.  Therefore, as the parties consider ed that adoption of these 
reports would help them achieve a "positive solution to the dispute ", the United States invite d other 
Members to join the parties ' consensus to adopt the reports proposed for adoption at the present 
meeting , that was , the appellate report contained in WT/DS353/AB/RW and 
WT/DS353/AB/RW/ Add.1 and the panel report con tained in WT/DS353/RW and 
WT/DS353/RW/ Add.1 as modified by the appellate report.  To be clear, the US preferred outcome 
was a mutually agreed solution with respect to aircraft financing. The United  States remain ed ready 
to hold serious discussions to achiev e this goal. The United States was  ready to discuss with the EU 
and its member States how the parties  might resolve both sides ' disagreements with respect to 
existing WTO -inconsistent subsidies and reach an agreement so that neither side adopt ed new 
WTO-inconsistent subsidies.   
4.5.  The representative of the European Union  said that his delegation  would like to stress the 
following: for the EU , there was not a shadow of a doubt that the report under this Agenda item was  
a report of the Appellate Body , and the EU  was looking forward to its adoption in accordance with 
the rules applicable  for the adoption of Appellate Body reports under Article  17.14 of the DSU, 
namely  by negative consensus – just as had been  the case in the "EC and certain member States – 
Large Ci vil Aircraft " dispute ( DS316 ). The EU recall ed that the rules and procedures of the DSU 
exclude d the right of any particular WTO Member to block the adoption of panel or Appellate Body 
reports. This was a central feature of the DSU. Article  17.14 of the DS U was clear: "[a]n Appellate 
Body report shall be adopted by the DSB and unconditionally accepted by the parties to the dispute 
unless the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the Appellate Body report […] ". The E U underst ood 
that there was no formal obje ction at the present meeting  against  the adoption of the Appellate 
Body report. The EU recall ed that these provisions were without prejudice to the right of Members 
to express their views o n a report, and such views had been  expressed at th e present  meetin g. WT/DSB/M/427  
 
- 8 - 
 
  However, while there was a right to express view s, there was no right to veto. Any theories 
attempting to underpin such a right to veto were without any merit.  
4.6.  The representative of Canada  said that a s a third participant in this dispute, Canada also wishe d 
to thank the Appellate Body and the Secretariat for their hard work in these proceedings. Canada 
recognize d and appreciate d the efforts that ha d gone into issuing this Appellate Body Report in this 
complex dispute. Canada also wishe d to recall that the Appellate Body , once again , had affirmed 
that there were two distinct compliance options available to implementing Members under Article  7.8 
of the SCM Agreement. In particular, the Appellate Body had affirmed that an implementing Member 
could  comply w ith Article  7.8 either  by withdrawing the subsidies that cause d adverse effects by the 
end of the implementation period, or by removing the adverse effects caused by such subsidies  by 
the end of the implementation period.  As such, an implementing Member no  longer b ore a 
compliance obligation under Article  7.8 if the subsidies were no longer being granted or maintained 
by the end of the implementation period, or if such subsidies  no longer constitute d a present cause 
of adverse effects to the interests of an other Member. Canada also wished  to add that the report of 
the Appellate Body was indeed an AB report , and that its adoption was subject to negative 
consensus , as provided for under Article  17.14 of the DSU.  
4.7.  The DSB took note of the statements and adopt ed the Appellate Body Report contained in 
WT/DS 353/AB/R W and WT/DS 353/AB/R W/Add.1  and the Panel Report contained in WT/DS353 /RW 
and WT/DS353 /RW/Add.1, as modified  by the Appellate Body Report.  
__________