RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/242 
11 February 2008 
 (08-0617) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
19 and 27 November 2007  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 19 and 27 November 2007  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Bruce Gosper (Australia) 
 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda1 
 
Subjects discussed : Page  
 
1. Appointment of Appella te Body members..............................................................................3  
2. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.......................11  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. .........11  
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by  the United States.................................................................................12  
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. .........13  
(d) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. .........13  
3. Turkey – Measures affecting the importation of rice ..........................................................14  
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB...............................................................14  
4. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB ..........................................15  
(a) Statements by the European Communities and Japan ..............................................................15  
5. China – Measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain 
publications and audiovisual entertainment products ........................................................17  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States .................................................17  
6. United States – Subsidies and other domestic support for corn and other 
agricultural products.......................................................................................................... ....18  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada ................................................................18  
7. United States – Domestic support and export credit guarantees for agricultural 
products ....................................................................................................................... ............19  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by  Brazil...................................................................19  
                                                      
1 See page 2. WT/DSB/M/242 
Page 2  
 
  8.
 Adoption of the 2007 draft Annual Report of the DSB .......................................................20  
9. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and 
non-governmental panelists ...................................................................................................21  
 Prior to the adoption of the Agenda
 
The Chairman  said that the items proposed for the Agenda of the present meeting were 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/364 and proposed that the DSB adopt the Agenda contained in 
the document to which he had just referred. 
 The representative of Chinese Taipei
 said that his delegation wished to propose that item 8, 
concerning the appointment of Appellate Body memb ers, be removed from the Agenda of the present 
meeting so that the DSB could proceed with the other items on the Agenda.   
The Chairman  said that in line with the WTO rules of procedure and established practice, the 
Agenda could be amended if there was a consensu s to do so.  He, theref ore, asked whether the 
proposal put forward by Chinese Taipei w ould be acceptable to other delegations. 
The representative of the United States  said that his country was very disappointed at this 
objection to the adoption of the Agenda, which include d several important items, but most particularly 
item 8.  The dispute settlement system, including the Appellate Body, was a critical aspect of the WTO and a smooth transition to new membership w as in everyone's interest .  The United States 
would urge reconsideration of any objection to th e adoption of the Agenda and would certainly not 
support the removal of item 8 from the Agenda of the present meeting.  
The representative of Japan
 said that item 8 was the most important item on the Agenda of the 
present meeting.  Japan could not agree to the adoption of the Agenda without item 8.   
The representative of China  said that item 8 was the most important item on the Agenda of 
the present meeting and China fully supported the statements made by  the United States and Japan.  
The representative of the Philippines  said that his country shared the United States' 
disappointment with the objection raised with rega rd to item 8 contained on the Agenda of the present 
meeting.  The Philippines would not be able to accept the adoption of the Agenda without item 8.  
The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC shared the view that item 8 
was so important that it should remain on the Agenda and that a solution to the problem at hand should be found as quickly as possible.  
The Chairman
 said that, in light of what had just been stated, it was clear that the proposal to 
postpone discussion of item 8 did not have consensus.  He asked if Chinese Taipei could indicate 
whether it could change its position at this time. 
The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that his delegation's position remained the same. 
The Chairman  said that, given the situation, the meeting could not proceed.  He, therefore, 
proposed that the meeting be suspended to allow an opportunity for informal consultations among 
those concerned.   
The DSB so agreed .   WT/DSB/M/242 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Upon the resumption of the meeting on 27 November 2007, the Chairman  recalled that on 
19 November, Chinese Taipei had requested that ite m 8 be removed from the proposed Agenda.  As 
there had been no consensus on this request, he ha d suspended the meeting so as to allow time for 
informal consultations.  He reca lled that on 23 November, he had c onvened an informal meeting of 
the DSB to update Members on the state of these consu ltations.  At that meeti ng, he had reported that 
the Director-General, the Chairman of the General Council and himself, had all explored with Chinese 
Taipei and interested delegations various ways to address the concerns raised by Chinese Taipei 
within the established WTO rules and procedures.  Immediately after the informal meeting on 
23 November, the Director-General and himself had continued intensive consultations.  On 
26 November, he had sent out a fax in which he had provided delegati ons with a further update of the 
situation.  In that fax, he had also indicated that it was his hope to resume the 19 November DSB 
meeting as quickly as possible.  At the present m eeting, he was in a position to announce that these 
consultations had produced a positive outcome.  He again emphasized that he had carried out these 
consultations strictly within the limits of the ag reed rules and procedures, which all Members had 
pledged to uphold.  He had assured the delegation of  Chinese Taipei of the guarantees that the agreed 
rules and procedures provided to all WTO Members.  He said that he would refer to these rules and 
procedures in his statement introducing item 8 at th e present meeting.  It was his understanding that 
the delegation of Chinese Taipei was now prepared to  lift its objection to item 8, and so the meeting 
could proceed.  He thanked the delegations involve d for their efforts and constructive engagement.  
He also thanked all Members for their patience and understanding.  With these words, he proposed to 
turn to the first item of business, namely, the adopti on of the Agenda.  In doing so, he suggested that 
item 8 be taken up first, so as to enable tho se Permanent Representatives who had taken a close 
personal interest in this issue – and he thanked th em – to attend to their other important commitments. 
The DSB adopted  the Agenda contained in WT/DSB/W/364 and agreed  that item 8 
concerning the appointment of Appellate Body me mbers be taken up as the first item on the Agenda 
of the present meeting.   
 
 
1. Appointment of Appellate Body members 
1. The Chairman  recalled that, at its meeting on 20  June 2007, the DSB had established a 
Selection Committee composed of the 2007 Chairper sons of the General Council, the Goods Council, 
the Services Council and the TRIPS Council, the Dir ector-General and the Chairman of the DSB.  
The Selection Committee had been entrusted with the task of carrying out a single selection process 
with regard to four upcoming positions in the Appellate Body.  These concerned the positions 
currently held by Ms Merit Janow and Mr Yasuhe i Taniguchi, whose terms of office would expire on 
10 December 2007, and by Messrs. Georges Abi-S aab and A.V. Ganesan, whose terms of office 
would expire on 31 May 2008.  The Selection Co mmittee's mandate was to make recommendations 
for appointment by the DSB to these four positions.  At the 20 June DSB meeting, it had also been 
agreed that the deadline for nominations of candidat es should be 31 August 2007.  He recalled that, by 
the agreed deadline, nine candidates had been nom inated by seven WTO Members.  Curricula Vitae 
of those candidates had been circulated to all de legations as Job documents.  In accordance with the 
DSB's decision of 20 June, the Selection Co mmittee had conducted thorough interviews, in 
September and October, with the ni ne candidates and had made itself available to hear the views of 
WTO Members regarding the candidates.  To this effect, 44 delegations had met with the Selection 
Committee and eight delegations had submitted wr itten comments.  The Selection Committee had 
approached its task of recommending four new Appe llate Body members with great care, consistent 
with the guidelines, rules and procedures containe d in the DSU provisions and document WT/DSB/1, 
which governed the selection and appointme nt of Appellate Body members.  
2. As Chairman of the Selection Committee, he wished to emphasi ze that, throughout its work, 
the Selection Committee had kept constantly in  mind the relevant WTO rules and principles, WT/DSB/M/242 
Page 4  
 
  particularly those laid down in Article 17.3 of the DSU, and had assured itself that its 
recommendations would conform fully with these provisions.  He reminded delegations that 
Article 17.3 of the DSU stated that:  "The Appe llate Body shall comprise persons of recognized 
authority, with demonstrated expertise in law, inte rnational trade and the subject matter of the covered 
agreements generally.  They shall be unaffilia ted with any government.  The Appellate Body 
membership shall be broadly representative of Memb ership in the WTO.  All persons serving on the 
Appellate Body shall be available at all times and on short notice, and shall stay abreast of dispute 
settlement activities and other relevant activities of the WTO.  They shall not participate in the 
consideration of any disputes that would create a direct or indirect conflict of interest." 
3. As Chairman of the DSB, he wished to recall that the functioning of the Appellate Body and 
the conduct of its members were governed by rules and procedures agreed by the WTO Membership.  
In addition to Article 17 of the DSU, these were set out in documents WT/DSB/1 and WT/AB/WP/5.  
These rules and procedures ensured that the interest of all WTO Members, in a fair and impartial appeals process, was fully safeguarded.  They  provided all WTO Members with the necessary 
assurances of impartiality and independence.  Clear ly these rules, procedures and principles would 
continue to govern the appointment of Appellate Body members and the functioning of the Appellate 
Body.  And, as all knew, the scope of the Appella te Body's decisions was clearly limited under the 
rules agreed by WTO Members in th e DSU, notably Article 17.6, to i ssues of law covered in the panel 
report and legal interpretations developed by the panel.    
4. Having said that, he noted that the Selection Committee had also been guided by the 
statement made in November 1995 by the (then) Ch airman of the DSB to the effect that composition 
of the Appellate Body could vary over time, that no rights should be derived from the initial 
composition, and that initial appointments did not  compromise the scope for different regional or 
national compositions in future.  He said that the Selection Committee's task was far from easy, owing 
to the excellence of the candidates.  However, with the cooperation of delegations, the Selection 
Committee had been able to conclude its work on schedule.  On 7 November, following its extensive 
deliberations on all candidates, the Selection Comm ittee had reached firm recommendations that the 
following persons be appointed to the Appellate Body:  Ms Lilia R. Bautista (Philippines), 
Ms Jennifer Hillman (United States), Mr Shotaro Os hima (Japan), and Ms Yuejiao Zhang (China).  
The Selection Committee's recommendations had been  communicated by fax to all delegations on 
7 November, immediately after the Committee had arrived at its decision.  Today, in light of the recommendations reached by the Selection Committee,  he would first like to propose that the DSB 
take a decision on the recommendations of the Sel ection Committee, and immediately after he would 
open the floor to delegations who would wish to make  statements for the record.  He hoped that this 
would be agreeable to all delegations. 
5. The DSB so agreed
.  
6. The Chairman  proposed that, as recommended by th e Selection Committee, the DSB decide 
to appoint Ms Lilia R. Bautista and Ms Jennifer H illman as members of the Appellate Body for four 
years commencing on 11 December 2007, and to appoi nt Mr Shotaro Oshima and Ms Yuejiao Zhang 
as members of the Appellate Body for four years commencing on 1 June 2008. 
7. The DSB so agreed .  
8. The Chairman  said that, before giving the floor to delegations wishing to make statements, on 
behalf of the Selection Committee, he wished to  take this opportunity to thank all individual 
candidates who had come forward and their respec tive Governments as well as to congratulate those 
four newly appointed Appellate Body members.  He  then proposed to open the floor for statements, 
starting with those delegations who had nominated ca ndidates for the Appellate Body, if they wished 
to do so.   WT/DSB/M/242 
 Page 5 
 
 
  9. The representative of the United States  said that, first of all, his delegation wished to express 
its deepest gratitude to the Chairman, for his tireless  efforts in resolving Members' concerns so that 
the DSB could take this decision to ensure th e smooth functioning of the WTO dispute settlement 
system.  In helping to bring Members to this pos ition, the Chairman had displayed firmness, but also 
sensitivity to the interests of all Members.  Second,  his delegation wished to thank Chinese Taipei for 
the flexibility that it had shown in dealing with th is matter, and its willingness to engage intensively 
with the Chairman of the DSB, the Director-Gener al, and other Members to resolve its concerns.  
With respect to the issues that had been o ccupying delegations over the past 10 days, the 
United States emphasized that it was satisfied that  the selection process that had been used to 
recommend the four candidates for the Appellate Body fully respected all of the criteria set forth in 
Article 17.3 of the DSU.  
10. In this regard, the United States shared the vi ew of all Members that the Appellate Body's 
consideration of an appeal must be impartial, i ndependent and objective, a nd must not be politicized 
in any way.  But this was not simply the US opinion:  the dispute settlement system contained 
numerous checks and balances to ensure such beha viour.  The DSB had agreed to the Rules of 
Conduct which applied to Appellate Body member s, and Article II of those Rules – entitled 
"Governing Principle" – required that an Appellate Body member "shall be i ndependent and impartial, 
shall avoid direct or indirect conflicts of interest and shall respect the confiden tiality of proceedings of 
bodies".  In addition, each Appellate Body member was to take an oath that obligated him or her to 
abide by this Governing Principle.  Specifically, an incoming member was to swear to perform his or 
her duties "honourably, independently , impartially, conscientiously, and in accordance with the law of 
the World Trade Organization" and "at all times, avoid direct or indirect conflicts of interests".  These 
checks and balances ensured, among other things, that Members should have no fear that a member of 
the Appellate Body would seek or  accept instructions from anyone regarding the outcome of an 
appeal.  The United States was confident that the fo ur individuals, appointed to the Appellate Body at 
the present meeting, would abide by the pr inciples that had just been described.  
11. The United States wished to th ank the Chairman of the DSB and the other members of the 
Selection Committee for their hard work and reco mmendations, which had helped the DSB in taking 
its decision at the present meeting.  The United Stat es also wanted to thank all delegations who had 
nominated candidates for this selection process, as well as those delegations who had met with the 
nominees and had expressed their views to the Sel ection Committee.  Finally, the United States was 
grateful to the Secretariat for its assistance during the process.  The United States wished to take the 
opportunity to congratulate the four new members of the Appellate Body that had just been appointed 
by the DSB.  It would also like to thank the de parting Appellate Body members – Mr Taniguchi and 
Ms Janow – for their contributions, and wished them well in their future pursuits. 
12. The representative of Japan  said that her delegation wished to extend Japan's sincere gratitude 
to the Chairman of the DSB and the other memb ers of the Selection Committee for their tireless 
efforts devoted to the selection process.  Japan be lieved that the task entrusted to the Selection 
Committee was extremely difficult.  This time four  vacancies had to be filled out of the seven 
positions in the Appellate Body, and the choices made  would have a defining importance for the work 
of the Appellate Body in the years to come.  The high quality of candidates nominated by several 
Members had made the Selection Committee's task ev en harder.  Japan congratulated and welcomed 
the four distinguished individuals who had been appointed at the present meeting as new members of 
the Appellate Body.  The impartiality and independe nce of Appellate Body members were essential to 
the credibility and effective functioning of the WT O dispute settlement system.  Japan hoped, and was 
convinced, that the newly appointed Appellate Body members would live up to the trust that the WTO 
Membership had placed in them by discharging th eir duties faithfully, independently and impartially, 
and that they would contribute to enhancing the credibility and authority of the Appellate Body, 
which was recognized as a key institution in th e rules-based multilateral trading system.  Japan 
appreciated that Chinese Taipei had taken into  consideration the views expressed by other WT/DSB/M/242 
Page 6  
 
  delegations, and had decided to w ithdraw its objection regarding the item related to the appointment 
of Appellate Body members in the interest of the Organization as a whole.  For its part, Japan would 
continue to cooperate with the work of the Appellate  Body.  Finally, Japan wished to pay tribute to 
the outgoing Appellate Body members for th eir remarkable and persevering services and 
contributions, over the past years, to the WTO multilateral trading system. 
13. The representative of China
 said that his country wished to thank the Selection Committee for 
its tremendous work to put forward these balanced  recommendations and for its transparent and 
efficient manner in conducting the selection process.  China, like many other Members, highly appreciated the tremendous efforts made by the Chai rman of the DSB, the Director-General and the 
Chairman of the General Council to make sure that  the DSB meeting finally take place, without which 
the operation of the dispute settlement mechanism,  one of the key elements of the WTO system, 
would be endangered.  China wished to pay tribut e to all candidates for their professionalism, strong 
capabilities and ample experiences.  The high qua lity of these candidates and the constructive 
engagement in the selection process of Members refl ected their genuine interest in strengthening the 
multilateral trading system by contributing to th e consolidation of the Appellate Body, a key 
institution within the WTO.  China also wished to  extend its sincere congratulations to the four 
outstanding individuals recommended by the Select ion Committee.  China believed that the four 
newly appointed Appellate Body members would add values to the already high quality of the 
Appellate Body and would contribute to the normal functioning of the multilateral trading system and 
its stability and predictability.  China, as an in creasingly substantial participant in the dispute 
settlement mechanism, had the same interests as any other Member in ensuring that the relevant DSU 
rules and provisions were faithfully adhe red to by all Appellate Body members. 
14. The representative of the Philippines
 said that, first of all, his delegation wished to thank the 
Chairman of the DSB for his efforts in dealin g with the delicate situation that Members had 
encountered in the past several days.  His c ountry also wished to thank Chinese Taipei for 
demonstrating its flexibility and sensitivity with re gard to the views expressed by Members at the 
informal DSB meeting held on 23 November.  The Philippines wished to join  previous speakers in 
extending congratulations and best wishes to the four  individuals including Ms Lilia Bautista of the 
Philippines, who had been appointed at the present meeting to the Appellate Body.  His country wished to be associated with the statemen ts commending the Selection Committee for their 
professional and impartial manner with which it ha d conducted the selection process.  The Philippines 
believed that throughout this process the Selec tion Committee had worked on the basis of the 
guidelines, rules and procedures containe d in the DSU and document WT/DSB/1.  
15. He said that Ms Bautista's professional car eer was characterized by her long and deep 
involvement in the Philippines' trade law and policy.   She had also been uniquely positioned to have 
been present at the concluding years of the Urugua y Round negotiations, and had participated in the 
first years of the WTO, including the Appellate Bo dy.  After she had left her government service in 
2004, she had continued to monitor the growth a nd development of the WTO, albeit from a distance 
as a scholar, consultant and private practitioner.  Therefore, she had no second thoughts that her name 
be submitted as a candidate for the upcoming vacan cies in the Appellate Body, knowing that her 
appointment was not guaranteed and that the selec tion process would be rigorous.  On behalf of 
Ms Bautista, his delegation wished to express her d eepest gratitude to Members of the DSB for their 
trust and confidence, as demonstrated by a decision taken at the present meeting.  His delegation 
shared collective aspirations that panels and the Appellate Body would continue to strengthen the 
foundations of the rules-based multilateral trading sy stem.  This task would remain challenging and 
might never be completed since the WTO system, including the DSU, would constantly need to respond to new challenges and opportunities in the year s to come.  But his country was confident that 
the individuals appointed at the present meeti ng had the required intellectual calibre and would 
faithfully discharge their duties with the highest im partiality and independence.  Finally, his country 
wished to pay tribute to the other nominees to the Appellate Body and their respective governments.   WT/DSB/M/242 
 Page 7 
 
 
  His country thanked these individuals for allowing their names to be put forward and wished them 
well in all their future endeavours. 
16. The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that his delegation wish ed to reiterate its position, 
namely, that it had expressed deep concern about one candidate for this ve ry important Appellate 
Body position, and greatly appreciated the time a nd efforts that the Chairman of the DSB, the 
Director-General, the Chairman of General Counc il and other Members had devoted to discuss this 
matter.  Throughout the selection process, as a matte r of principle, Chinese Taipei had made it 
absolutely clear that all Appellate Body members should be selected according to criteria set out in 
the guidelines, rules and procedures of the DSU.  Members appointed to serve on the Appellate Body 
should be committed to the obliga tions enshrined in the Rules of  Conduct for the Understanding on 
the Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement  of Disputes with regard to impartiality, 
independence, fairness and objectiveness.  In partic ular, Appellate Body members should not seek or 
receive instructions and opinions from, or be influen ced by, the government of their country of origin.  
Nor should their judgment and decisions, in any way, imply that they reflected their country's political 
views, values or positions.  These obligations shou ld always be observed and respected in their 
conduct of the official business of the Body.  Similarl y, documents issued by the Appellate Body shall 
not prejudice the legal rights and status of any Member.  His delegation would also like to be associated with the statement made by the Chairman  of the DSB in reminding Members that the scope 
of the Appellate Body was limited as per Article 17. 6 of the DSU:  "The Appellate Body shall be 
limited to issues of law covered in the panel report and legal interpretations developed by the panel". 
His delegation wished that the DSB take note of this  statement and that it be recorded in the minutes 
of the meeting accordingly.  
17. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the EC thanked the Chairman of 
the DSB for his efforts to achieve a positive outcome in his consultations.  The EC also thanked the 
Selection Committee for its hard work.  The EC w as aware that Chinese Taipei had had some serious 
concerns and had needed some time to overcome its reservations.  The EC was grateful that Chinese 
Taipei had been able to reconsider its position and had thus contributed to the proper functioning of 
the DSB in the interest of all Members.  The EC  noted that Chinese Taipei, like others, had paid 
particular attention to the principle of a fair se lection process as well as impartiality of the Appellate 
Body members.  The EC could not but underline the importance of these aspects for their future work.  
The EC finally thanked the outgoing members of the Appellate Body for their work and congratulated 
the four new incoming Appellate Body members.  The EC looked forward to working with them 
during the four-year term for which they ha d been appointed at the present meeting.  
18. The representative of Uruguay  expressed his country's satisfaction that the DSB meeting had 
now been resumed and that the four excellent candidates recommended by the Selection Committee 
had been appointed as members of the Appellate Bo dy.  Uruguay congratulated the newly appointed 
members of the Appellate Body.  The decision taken at the present meeting ensured the continuity of 
the functioning of the Appellate Bo dy which, as had already been stated on many occasions, was of 
great importance for the whole system.  For that reason, Uruguay congratulated the Chairman of the 
DSB for the way in which he had taken this process forward and thanked the Director-General for his 
efforts.  Uruguay also thanked Chinese Taipei for its understanding, which had enabled it to join in 
the consensus at the present meeting.  This demons trated Chinese Taipei's constructive participation 
in the work of the DSB.  As his delegation ha d already stated, Uruguay considered that the DSU 
provisions and the Appellate Body working procedur es as well as the regular monitoring mechanism 
under the dispute settlement system, constituted impo rtant practices and rules to ensure the necessary 
guarantees of the principle of impartiality.  Urugua y believed that the four candidates, who had just 
been appointed as members of the Appellate Body, would live up to the trust that WTO Members had 
placed in them, and that their professionalism and im partiality would ensure the continuity of the 
highly technical work being carried out under the dispute settlement system.  WT/DSB/M/242 
Page 8  
 
  19. The representative of Mexico
 said that his delegation wished to extend its warm welcome and 
congratulations to the four new members of the Ap pellate Body.  Mexico was convinced that they 
would demonstrate full impartiality and independen ce, and that they would act in an objective 
manner.  Mexico was satisfied that it had been po ssible to resume the DSB meeting, which had been 
suspended on 19 November.  Mexico thanked the Ch airman of the DSB and the Director-General for 
their work, which had made it possible for this proces s to end in a satisfactory manner.  Mexico also 
thanked Chinese Taipei for its flex ibility because a serious precedent could have been set if the DSB's 
work had continued to be suspended.  Furthermor e, the smooth functioning of the multilateral trading 
system could have been undermined.  What had ha ppened on 19 November demonstrated that, on the 
one hand,  the system was vulnerable and that, on the other hand, the system was working.  It also 
showed how important it was to continue working t ogether, in particular at a time when Members 
were trying to bring to a successful conclusion th e most ambitious round of trade negotiations.  
Mexico had a systemic interest in the proper func tioning of the dispute settlement mechanism.  In 
concluding, he noted that Members had been able to solve the matter at a technical level and they 
must ensure that this continued to be the case.  
20. The representative of Brazil  said that his delegation wished to congratulate the Chairman of 
the DSB on the successful outcome of his consultati ons.  This was extremely important for the proper 
functioning of the DSB.  His delegation also wish ed to congratulate the Selection Committee for its 
hard work in recommending four excellent candidates who had just been appointed by the DSB as Appellate Body members.  Brazil congratulated th e four new Appellate Body members and wished 
them well in their new functions.  Brazil believed th at during this process, all the rules and disciplines 
of the WTO had been appropriately followed, and th at the selection process had been carried out in an 
impartial and fair manner.  Brazil was also conf ident that the new Appellate Body members would 
abide by these rules and did not see any reason for doubting their impartiality.  Brazil also thanked Chinese Taipei for reconsidering its position so th at the DSB could move forward with its work.  
Finally, Brazil thanked the outgoing members of the Appellate Body for their work.  
21. The representative of Nicaragua
 said that her delegation noted with satisfaction the outcome 
of the consultations held by the Chairman of th e DSB.  Nicaragua congratulated Chinese Taipei for 
having acted with a sense of responsibility, placing collec tive interests first before individual interests.  
All Members should do the same in order to work in an efficient and impartial manner.  It was for that 
reason that each Member was required to act with wisdom so as to avoid jeopardizing the dispute settlement system, which was the cornerstone of th e multilateral trading system.  She said that the 
basis of the governance of this system, namely, the pr inciple of consensus had been put into question.  
In Nicaragua's view, the principle of consensus should be safeguarded, however difficult that might be 
in certain situations.  Nicaragua was satisfied that , in this instance, the principle of consensus had 
been respected, and that the cooperation and dialogu e had enabled the parties to reach a successful 
and satisfactory outcome for all.  Nicaragua congrat ulated the four newly appointed members of the 
Appellate Body.  Nicaragua was convinced that th ey would act in compliance with the requirements 
of impartiality and would avoid any conflict of inte rests which might arise in their work as members 
of the Appellate Body. 
22. The representative of India
 said that his country was delighted that the matter had been 
resolved in accordance with  the best traditions of the WTO.  Like all Members, India attached the 
utmost importance to the Appellate Body.  The rules and procedures put in place by WTO Members 
required that individuals of unimpeachable character and great competence be selected to the 
Appellate Body.  The Selection Committee had fully adhered to this requirement and deserved to be 
complimented.  India welcomed the four candidate s who had just been appointed to the Appellate 
Body.  India was fully confident th at they would make a valuable c ontribution to the Appellate Body 
and wished them a very fruitful tenure.  India wi shed to thank the outgoing Appellate Body members 
for their valuable contribution in developing fu rther the WTO jurisprudence and for upholding the 
highest standards in their work.  India thanked Ch inese Taipei for their flexibility and for joining the  WT/DSB/M/242 
 Page 9 
 
 
  consensus at the present meeting.  He was sure that  the delegation of Chinese Taipei would share with 
other Members the enormous confidence that the Appellate Body enjoyed among the Membership.  
Finally, India wished to thank the Chairman of th e DSB and his colleagues for their tireless efforts in 
resolving this issue. 
23. The representative of El Salvador  said that his delegation wished to thank the Chairman of the 
DSB, the Director-General and the Secretariat for their efforts undertaken in order to be able to 
resume the DSB meeting, which had been suspe nded on 19 November.  El Salvador was satisfied 
with the agreement reached, which pleased all Member s, since it enabled them to continue to carry 
out the work of the DSB, which his country regard ed as one of the cornerstones of the WTO.  His 
country attached particular importance to the i ssue of the appointment of new members of the 
Appellate Body, which had the important task of judging appeals lodged against panels' decisions.  
El Salvador recalled that the membership of th e Appellate Body, under the provisions of the DSU, 
must be broadly representative of the WTO Membership.  Furthermore, Appellate Body members were legally required, inter alia , to be persons of recognized author ity, with demonstrated expertise in 
law, international trade and the subject matter of the covered agreements ge nerally, and must refrain 
from participating in the consideration of any disputes that would create a direct or indirect conflict of 
interests.  El Salvador believed that it was on that  basis that the WTO Members had been able to rely, 
with full confidence, on the existence and operation of an effective, impartial and fair mechanism 
such as the DSB and, consequently, on the important  work of the Appellate Body.  In view of the 
importance of the DSB in the world trading system , El Salvador, like other delegations, wished to 
express its appreciation for the flexibility shown by all Members, in particular Chinese Taipei, in 
reaching a consensus regarding this agenda item, wh ich enabled the DSB to continue to carry out its 
responsibilities.  Finally, El Salvador wished the new members of the Appellate Body success in their 
new responsibilities.  
24. The representative of Canada
 said that his country was very pleased that Members had been 
able to resume the work of the DSB.  Canada  welcomed Chinese Taipei's decision to agree to 
proceeding with the full agenda, including the nomin ations of four new members to the Appellate 
Body.  This was a decision that demonstrated Ch inese Taipei's commitment to the multilateral trading 
system and its clear understanding of how all WTO Members must work together to maintain the strength, objectivity and credibility of the dispute settl ement system.  As Canada had stated in the past 
week, all were protected by the rules and proce dures that Members had negotiated to govern dispute 
settlement proceedings and the operation of the Ap pellate Body.  These rules required the Appellate 
Body members to exercise the duties of their offi ce in a professional and impartial manner.  Canada 
believed that impartiality and pr ofessionalism had always characteri zed the work of the Appellate 
Body and – like Chinese Taipei – Canada woul d demand no less of each and every new Appellate 
Body member.  Canada believed that the candidate s that had been appointed at the present meeting 
were all eminently qualified.  Ca nada had no doubt each candidate clearly understood his or her duty 
to act impartially – and had every confidence that each of them would do so.  Canada congratulated 
them on their appointments.  Canada would also li ke to extend its thanks to the outgoing members of 
the Appellate Body.  They had demonstrated in tegrity, dedication and thoughtfulness and had 
contributed to the respect and esteem that all Members had for the Appellate Body.  Canada would like to offer a word of thanks to the Representative of Chinese Taipei who had shown great courtesy 
throughout this difficult debate.  He had defended his position and the interests of Chinese Taipei with 
poise – under conditions that all r ecognized had been very trying.  Finally, he wished to offer 
Canada's sincere appreciation to the Chairman of  the DSB.  He had worked tirelessly and very 
skilfully to resolve this impasse.  In so doing, he  had demonstrated respect for all Members.  Most 
importantly his efforts had ensured the maintenance of a sound, credible, highly respected dispute 
settlement system.  Canada recognized that this had been an exhausting task, but it was certain that all 
Members would agree that it was worth the effort.   WT/DSB/M/242 
Page 10  
 
  25. The representative of Honduras
 said that his delegation welcomed the resumption of the DSB 
meeting that had been suspended on 19 November.  Honduras wished to express its gratitude to the 
delegation of Chinese Taipei for the flexibility it ha d shown in this matter. Honduras was aware of the 
importance of the DSB in the WTO. One of the aspects of the WTO's work was to settle trade 
disputes between Members and this objective was achieved by means of the dispute settlement 
mechanism. Chinese Taipei's flexibility demonstr ated that a constructive dialogue had enabled 
Members to move forward for the benefit of the Orga nization and, above all, it demonstrated Chinese 
Taipei's commitment to the rules which all Me mbers had accepted when signing and ratifying the 
WTO Agreement.  In addition to thanking Chines e Taipei for its flexibility, Honduras thanked the 
outgoing members of the Appellate Body for their work and  congratulated the new members who 
were taking up their duties.  
26. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that his delegation thanked the Chairman for 
resuming the DSB meeting that had been suspe nded on 19 November following Chinese Taipei's 
objection to the agenda item regarding the appointme nt of Appellate Body members and thanked him 
for proposing to deal with that critical agenda ite m first.  For its part, Hong Kong, China had been 
fully supportive of the recommendation of the Sel ection Committee for the appointment of the four 
new Appellate Body members.  The launching of a single selection process for the four positions of 
the Appellate Body and the procedures for the appoint ment had all been agreed on by Members.  The 
selection process had been very transparent and fair .  All Members had had the opportunity to meet 
with the candidates to assess their qualifications a nd competences.  Members had also been given the 
opportunity to meet with the Selection Committee to express their views on the candidates.  
Hong Kong, China had taken a very active part in  the process and had subsequently met with the 
Selection Committee to express its views.  Hong K ong, China was confident that the Committee had 
given due regard to Members'  views and had exercised due diligence in making its final 
recommendations.  Unquestionably the four candi dates recommended by the Committee had all 
completely fulfilled the requirements laid down in Ar ticle 17.3 of the DSU.  There should be no doubt 
as regards their impartiality or their qualifications.  In addition, as the Chairman had pointed out, the 
DSU, the working procedures of the Appellate Bo dy and the rules of conduct provided sufficient 
safeguards for the impartiality and independence of the Appellate Body members.  Any member of 
that Body, once appointed, must abide by such rules and the code of conduct.  Dispute settlement was 
a central pillar of the multilateral trading sy stem and the mechanism was the WTO's unique 
contribution to the stability of the global economy.  The appointment of Appellate Body members was 
a very important matter within the WTO disput e settlement system.  Hong Kong, China greatly 
appreciated the efforts undertaken by the Chairm an of the DSB and the Director-General in 
conducting their intensive consultations sensitiv ely with Chinese Taipei and other Members 
concerned and that, as a result of these, the potential threat to the WTO dispute settlement system had 
now been satisfactory resolved.  Hong Kong, China was pleased that the con sensus had finally been 
reached by Members on this important matter and we lcomed the approval that had now been given by 
the DSB to the appointment of the four Appellate Body members as recommended by the Selection Committee.  Last but not least, Hong Kong, China al so wished to congratulate the new Appellate 
Body members on their appointment and wished the outgoing members of the Appellate Body well in their future walks of life. 
27. The representative of Thailand
 said that his country warmly welcomed the DSB's decision to 
appoint new Appellate Body members to fill th e upcoming vacancies in the Appellate Body.  
Thailand had every trust and confidence in those indivi duals.  As a nation that attached great value to 
the WTO, Thailand was grateful to all those wh o had exercised their good offices, including the 
Chairman of the DSB, which had made the consensu s possible at the present meeting.  He said that 
Thailand had urged Chinese Taipei to show its res ponsibility, leadership and wisdom by joining the 
consensus of the WTO Membership.  At the presen t meeting, Chinese Taipei had demonstrated all 
these qualities, thus allowing the work of the DSB to continue.  What had happened at the present 
meeting had not only renewed Members' faith in multila teralism to bring forward the best in all, but it  WT/DSB/M/242 
 Page 11 
 
 
  had also reinforced the fact that an individual di ssenting voice counted a great deal under this system.  
By placing the system first, all Members were winners.  They renewed faith in each other and in the WTO. 
28. The representative of Switzerland
 said that his country wished to thank the Director-General, 
the Chairman of the General Council and the Chairm an of the DSB for conducting their consultations, 
which had led to the positive result, as outlined by the Chairman of the DSB in  his statement, and to 
the most important decision that had been taken by  the DSB at the present meeting.  Switzerland also 
thanked Chinese Taipei for its flexibility and constructive engagement  demonstrated during 
consultations.  Switzerland attached the highest impor tance to the multilateral trading system and, its 
institutionally most important aspect;  i.e. the dispute settlement mechanism.  Switzerland was 
convinced that the procedure which had led to th e selection of the four new Appellate Body members 
had worked well, that the selection process had be en followed according to the existing procedures 
and that the appointed individuals had responded to  the criteria set out in the DSU.  Switzerland, 
therefore, sincerely welcomed and congratulated the new Appellate Body members appointed for the 
four-year term and paid tribute to the outgoing me mbers of the Appellate Body that had served the 
international trading system with so much dedication in these past four years. 
29. The Chairman  proposed that the DSB take note of the statements and thanked all Members 
for their understanding, patience and support as they all had reached a satisfactory conclusion on this 
matter. 
30. The DSB took note  of the statements.  
2. 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.60) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.60) 
 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.35) 
 (d) United States – Measures relating to zeroing a nd sunset reviews:  Status report by the United 
States (WT/DS322/22) 
 
31. 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 four 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.60) 
32. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.60, 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. 
33. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 November 2007, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that status WT/DSB/M/242 
Page 12  
 
  report, a number of legislative proposals that would implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute had been introduced in th e current Congress, in both the US Senate and the US 
House of Representatives.  The US administratio n continued to work with the US Congress to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
34. The representative of the European Communities
 recalled that at the 22 October DSB 
meeting, the United States had, once again, reitera ted its strong commitment to the TRIPS Agreement.  
This brought the EC to the same question again a nd again.  The EC was still left to wonder how the 
US statement reconciled with the US ignoring fo r years fundamental obligations of the TRIPS 
Agreement.  And to make things worse, this was not  only in this dispute, but also in the Section 110 
dispute.  The outright neglect of the TRIPS Agre ement and the DSB's rulings enforcing it necessarily 
sent wrong signals, which undermined the authority of the TRIPS Agreement and the DSU.  The 
introduction of bipartisan bills that would repeal Section 211 was a positive step.  The EC sincerely 
hoped that this would show a rene wed and genuine interest of the United States to finally put itself 
into compliance with its TRIPS obligations.  It was in  the interest of all, including of the US industry, 
that the United States finally complied with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. 
35. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.60) 
36. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.60, 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. 
37. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 November 2007, 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 dispute.  Details  were provided in document WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  The 
US administration would work with the US Congress with respect to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that had not already been addressed by the US authorities by 23 November 2002. 
38. The representative of Japan
 said that her delegation tha nked the United States for its 
statement and the latest status report in this dis pute.  Japan also acknowledged that in November 2002 
the United States had taken certain measures to implement the part of the DSB's recommendations, as 
reported by the United States.  However, the fact re mained that, while it was more than six years after 
the adoption by the DSB of the recommendations, the i ssue of implementation in this case was still on 
the DSB's agenda because the remaining part of the recommendations had not yet been implemented.  As Japan had repeatedly stated before the DSB,  a full and prompt implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings was essential for ma intaining the credibility of the WTO dispute 
settlement system.  Japan noted that, in its statemen t and its status report, the United States had stated 
that the US administration was working with the new Congress to pass specific legislative 
amendments that would implement the DSB's reco mmendations and rulings.  In this regard, Japan 
asked the United States to indicate when such am endment would be introduced in the new US 
Congress.  Finally, Japan wished to renew its hope that the United States accelerate its work to come 
to full compliance with its obligations without further delay. 
39. The representative of the United States
 said that, as his delegation had noted in the past, the 
US Trade Representative and the Secretary of Commerce had written to the Congress to support 
amendment of the statute to implement that portion of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  As  WT/DSB/M/242 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Members knew, the legislative process was the responsibility of the US Congress, and the US 
administration had been working closely with th e US Congress concerning those recommendations 
and rulings. 
40. 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.35) 
41. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.35, 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. 
42. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 November 2007, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US administration would work closely with the US Congress and would continue  to confer with the 
European Communities, in order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.  In this 
regard, the United States appreciated the EC's st atement at the 22 October 2007 meeting that it 
remained prepared to work with  the United States to seek a re solution to this dispute. The 
United States shared the EC's goal of discussing how  such a mutually satisfactory solution could be 
achieved. 
43. The representative of the European Communities
 said that there was no need to repeat what 
the EC had stated countless times.  The EC was still waiting for compliance.  
44. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by the United 
States (WT/DS322/22) 
45. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS322/ 22, which contained the status report 
by the United States on progress in the implementa tion of the DSB's recommendations in the case 
concerning US measures relating to  zeroing and sunset reviews. 
46. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 November 2007, in accordance with  Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The United States and 
Japan had agreed that the reasonable period of tim e would expire on 24 December 2007, and, as noted 
in the status report, the United States had alr eady addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
with respect to certain of the measures at issue in  this dispute.  In addition, the United States was 
continuing to consult internally on  steps to be taken with respect to the other DSB recommendations 
and rulings. 
47. The representative of Japan  said that her country thanked the United States for its statement 
and its first report on the status of implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute.  In its report, the United States had mentioned that, as from 22 February 2007, the US 
Department of Commerce had ceased to use th e zeroing methodology in weighted-average-to-
weighted-average comparisons in original investig ations.  Japan recognized that the withdrawal of 
zeroing measures in this context was a positive step forw ard in the right direction.  However, this step 
by the United States had addressed only a part of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  In fact, as 
suggested by the status report, it was a course of action already contemplated well before the adoption 
of the DSB's recommendations in this dispute.  For the remaining part of the DSB's recommendations WT/DSB/M/242 
Page 14  
 
  concerning the other WTO-inconsistent zeroing measur es, the status report simply stated that the 
United States was "continuing to consult internally on  steps to be taken".  She recalled that the DSB 
had adopted the recommendations and rulings on 23 January 2007, and a reas onable period of time for 
implementation, which had been mutually agreed by the parties would expire on 24 December 2007.  
Since the expiry of the reasonable period of time was only about a month ahead, Japan encouraged the 
United States to further elaborate on the progress made thus far and on specific steps that it intended 
to take to comply with the remaining part of th e DSB's recommendations.  Japan believed that a full 
and prompt implementation of the DSB's recommenda tions and rulings was essential not only for the 
effective resolution of particular disputes, but  also for maintaining the credibility and proper 
functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system .  Japan would urge the US administration to 
accelerate its efforts to come into full compliance w ithin the reasonable period of time, as mutually 
agreed. 
48. The representative of the European Communities
 said that, as many other Members, the EC 
had a direct interest in this matter since it was s till awaiting full implementation of the rulings in its 
own zeroing case against the United States (DS294).  In addition, the EC had another dispute on the 
continued application of zeroing by the US pending be fore the Panel.  The issue of zeroing had been 
subject to extensive litigations since the first case brought against the EC in 1998.  To-date, 12 
disputes had been brought against the use of zeroi ng by the United States whether as the single subject 
of the dispute or as part of a wider dispute.  A ll issues of law had now been extensively pleaded and 
analysed.  There was no doubt that zeroing ran foul of fundamental obligations of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, which were to establish dumping in resp ect of an exporter and a certain product, and to 
conduct a fair comparison between the export pr ices and normal value.  The EC hoped that the 
United States would finally accept this and put an e nd to all remaining illegal practices of zeroing. 
49. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
3. Turkey – Measures affecting the importation of rice 
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB 
50. The Chairman  recalled that, in accordance with the DS U provisions, the DSB was required to 
keep under surveillance the implementation of reco mmendations and rulings of the DSB in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members.  In this respect, Article 21.3 of 
the DSU provided that the Member concerned shall in form the DSB, within 30 days after the date of 
adoption of the panel or Appellate Body report, of its intentions in respect of implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  He reca lled that at its meeting on 22 October 2007, the 
DSB had adopted the Panel Report pertaining to th e dispute:  "Turkey – Measures Affecting the 
Importation of Rice".  He then invited the representati ve of Turkey to inform the DSB of his country's 
intentions in respect of implementation of the recommendations. 
51. The representative of Turkey  said that, due to the suspension of the DSB meeting on 
19 November 2007, his country had not been able to  indicate orally its intentions in respect of 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations prior to the expiry of the 30-day period, as stipulated in Article 21.3 of the DSU.  Therefore, Turkey ha d provided its statement of intentions in writing, 
which was circulated in document WT/DS334/10.  At  the present meeting, his country would reiterate 
its intentions orally.  Turkey was pleased to info rm the DSB that it had already taken certain steps 
towards the implementation during the Panel's procee dings.  At the end of the process, importation of 
rice was thoroughly unfettered with no exceptions.  The Control Certificate system ran smoothly.  
Moreover, there was no single provision in the Turkis h legislation that could be interpreted as a base 
upon which a discretionary and restrictive import regime could be built.  Thus, there were no 
measures " de jure " or " de facto " that were used to restrict trade in rice.  In that respect, Turkey  WT/DSB/M/242 
 Page 15 
 
 
  believed that the system of Control Certificates fo r the importation of rice was in compliance with the 
DSB's recommendations.  Nevertheless, Turkey wished  to inform the DSB that it had already engaged 
in consultations with the United States to explore a ny additional steps that might be taken pursuant to 
the recommendation in order to find a mutually sa tisfactory outcome.  In that respect, Turkey 
preserved its right to seek a reasonable period of time depending on the outco me of its negotiations 
with the United States.  
52. The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked Turkey for its statement 
made at the present meeting.  In its letter of 20 N ovember to the Chairman of the DSB, Turkey had 
indicated that it was in the process of implementin g the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute.  However, at the present meeting, Turkey appeared to say that it was already in compliance 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  In light  of what the United States knew about Turkey's 
measures, and in light of the recommendations and ru lings that the DSB had adopted at its meeting in 
October, the United States had great difficulty seei ng how Turkey could already have implemented 
the DSB's recommendations or how Turkey would not need a reasonable period of time to do so.  The 
United States looked forward to discussing the matter of implementation with Turkey again very soon 
with a view to clarifying these issues. 
53. The DSB took note  of the statements, and of the inform ation provided by Turkey regarding its 
intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
4. 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 
54. The Chairman  said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Communities and Japan. He then i nvited the respective re presentatives to speak. 
55. The representative of the European Communities  said that by the end of November 2007, the 
United States would complete its seventh illegal distribution under the CDSOA.  The provisional 
amounts published earlier this year indicated that this was likely to be the most important  thus far.  
On 30 April 2007, already US$279 million was availabl e for distribution.  On the same date, there 
was only US$171 million in 2006 and US$97 million in 2005.  This distribution and those to come 
would continue to produce trade-distorting effects to the detriment of all WTO Members.  The EC was still waiting for a convincing explanation as to how  this was compatible w ith the United States' 
assertion month after month that it had taken all actions necessary to bring itself into compliance with its WTO obligations.  The EC wished to ask again the United States if and what steps it intended to 
take to stop the transfer of anti-dumping and co untervailing duties to its industry.  The EC also 
renewed its call on the United States to abide by its  clear obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU 
and to submit implementation reports in this dispute. 
56. The representative of Japan
 said that her country noted that, according to the Deficit 
Reduction Act of 2005, duties collected on entries entered as from 1 October 2007 were no longer 
subject to the distribution under the CDSOA.  The fact remained, however, that under the transitional 
clause "the distribution process will continue until a ll entries made before [that date] are liquidated 
and the duties are collected".2  Under the US system, such liquidation and collection could take years 
and the distribution would continue.  Thus, contrary  to the US position that it had taken all necessary 
steps for implementation in this dispute, the Un ited States had not fully implemented the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  Japan, once again, urged the United States to 
immediately terminate the illegal distribution and repeal the CDSOA not just in form but also in 
                                                      
2 71 Federal Register at 31336 et seq. (dated 1 June 2006). WT/DSB/M/242 
Page 16  
 
  substance.  Until then, Japan considered that th e US compliance was incomplete and the issue of 
implementation in this dispute must be under surve illance by the DSB, pursuant to Article 21.6 of the 
DSU.  In this connection, Japan reiterated that the United States was under obligation to provide a 
status report, pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU.   Japan reserved all its rights under the DSU until 
the United States had come into full compliance with its obligations.  
57. The representative of China
 said that his country thanked the EC and Japan for, once again, 
raising this item at the DSB meeting.  China shared  the view expressed by previous speakers.  China 
especially wished to emphasize that the continuous distributio n of anti-dumping and countervailing 
duty provided unlawful subsidies to the US domestic industries.  For instance, a recent report by the American Institute for International Steel disclo sed that the US steel industry had received around 
US$280 million from the government through the Byrd Amendment.  Because the full 
implementation of the DSB's rulings and recomme ndations in this dispute required to stop such 
distributions, China, once again, urged the United Stat es to take concrete action to comply fully with 
the DSB's rulings. 
58. The representative of Thailand
 said that his country wished to join previous speakers in 
thanking the EC and Japan for continuing to bring this item before the DSB.  Thailand noted with 
appreciation the positive steps taken by the United States not to disburse to its industries AD/CVD duties collected on goods entering the United States  from 1 October 2007.  According to the US 
statement made at the 22 October DSB meeting, "antidumping duties and countervailing duties that 
are being collected on goods now entering the United St ates will not be distributed to domestic firms". 
However, Thailand remained concerned that AD/CV D duties collected on goods that had entered the 
United States prior to 1 October 2007 would continue  to be disbursed to the domestic industry under 
the Byrd Amendment.  Thailand, therefore, urge d the United States to cease its WTO-inconsistent 
disbursements, to repeal the Byrd Amendment w ith immediate practical effect, and to resume 
providing status reports until such actions were ta ken and this matter had been fully resolved. 
59. The representative of Canada
 said that her country was pleased that duty deposits collected by 
the United States after 30 September would no longer be  subject to the Byrd Amendment.  While this 
was a significant step forward, duty deposits colle cted by the United States before 1 October 2007 
would, nevertheless, continue to be subject to th e Byrd Amendment.  Until the United States ceased to 
administer the Byrd Amendment, Canada shared  the view that surveillance by the DSB should 
continue. 
60. The representative of Brazil  said that his country wished to express its appreciation to the EC 
and Japan for maintaining this item on the DSB's agenda.  The United States had repeatedly asserted 
in the DSB that full compliance had been achieved in this case.  While Brazil noted that no anti-
dumping or countervailing duties, collected on products entered into the United States after 30 September 2007, would be handed out to the US domestic industry, there remained the fact that 
disbursements still occurred under the Byrd Amendm ent with trade-distortiv e effects for foreign 
producers and exporters.  Brazil wished to reiterate that WTO Members should be able to exercise its 
rights related to the non-compliance situation in  this case until the complete elimination of all 
disbursements under the Byrd Amendment.  
61. The representative of the United States
 said that, as the United States 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 States w as, therefore, all the more surprised to hear 
the EC and Japan make the statement that th e United States had not implemented the DSB's  WT/DSB/M/242 
 Page 17 
 
 
  recommendations and rulings.  The United States ask ed if it properly understood that the EC and 
Japan were saying that, notwithstanding the f act that anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties 
that were being collected on goods now entering the United States would not be distributed to domestic firms, they considered that the United States had not implemented the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations?  
62. With respect to comments regarding further status  reports in this matter, as the United States 
had already explained at previous DSB meetings, th e United States had taken all steps necessary to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  Those two Members who had inscribed this item on the agenda of the present meeting were, of course, free to do so, but the 
United States failed to see what purpose would be served by further submission of status reports 
repeating the progress the United States made in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings. 
63. The DSB took note
 of the statements.  
5. China – Measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain 
publications and audiovisual entertainment products  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS363/5) 
64. The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
22 October 2007, and had agreed to revert to it.  He drew attention to the communication from the 
United States contained in document WT/DS363/5, a nd invited the representative of the United States 
to speak. 
65. The representative of the United States  said that, at the 22 October DSB meeting, his country 
had briefly described its concerns with respect to  certain Chinese measures that affected market 
access for films for theatrical release;  for audiovi sual home entertainment products, such as DVDs 
and video cassettes;  for books, periodicals, j ournals, and other publications;  and for sound 
recordings.  The United States did not propose to rep eat that description at the present meeting.  The 
United States had taken note of China's statemen t at the October DSB meeting, including China's 
comments about access to its market for several of th e products mentioned in the US panel request as 
well as China's comments about its wish to r esolve this dispute through consultations. The 
United States, too, regretted that bilateral discu ssions on the specific matters described in the US 
panel request had, up to now, not resulted in a mutually agreeable solution to US concerns.  The 
United States, therefore, once again requested that  the DSB establish a panel to examine the matters 
set forth in the US panel request. 
66. The representative of China  said that his country had fully elaborated its position on this 
matter at the 22 October DSB meeting, and would not repeat it at the present meeting.  To be brief, 
China was disappointed with the United States pu rsuing this matter further by requesting the 
establishment of the panel for a second time despite  the ample market access that China granted to 
foreign publications, films and a udiovisual products and services.  China also disagreed with the US 
allegation in the past that China's relevant measu res exacerbate IPR infringement given the fact these 
measures actually contributed to the protection of IPR by ensuring dependable market channels for 
duly authorized culture products.  Besides, China had demonstrated good faith in order to find a 
positive solution to this dispute throughout the c onsultation process, but failed to see the same spirit 
by the complainant.  China would defend its position and interests before the Panel to be established 
and remained confident that China's relevant measu res were consistent with its WTO obligations.  WT/DSB/M/242 
Page 18  
 
  67. 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. 
68. The representatives of the European Communities  and Japan  reserved their third-party rights 
to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
6. United States – Subsidies and other domestic  support for corn and other agricultural 
products 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada (WT/DS357/12) 
69. The Chairman  drew attention to the communicati on from Canada contained in document 
WT/DS357/12, and invited the representative of Canada to speak. 
70. The representative of Canada  said that her country strongly supported the shared commitment 
of WTO Members to establish fair and market-orien ted, world agricultural markets.  This was why 
Canada continued to work with other WTO Member s to achieve an ambitious outcome on agriculture 
as part of the Doha Round negotiations.  At the sa me time, Canada must ensure that WTO Members 
were meeting their WTO commitments under the curre nt Agreement on Agriculture.  As outlined in 
Canada's letter of 8 November to the Chairman of  the DSB, Canada believed that the United States 
was providing trade-distorting agriculture subsid ies in a manner inconsistent with its WTO 
commitments.  More specifically, it was Canada's view that:  the US Current Total Aggregate Measurement of Support had exceeded its commitme nt levels in each of 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 
2004 and 2005, contrary to the Agreement on Agricult ure.  Canada estimated that, during these years, 
the United States had exceeded its WTO commitment levels by billions of dollars each year.  The 
measures at issue included a broad scope of US agriculture subsidy programmes, such as Direct 
Payments, Counter-Cyclical Payments and Loan De ficiency Payments, which provided large amounts 
of trade-distorting support.  
71. Canada and the United States had held consulta tions on these matters in February 2007.  The 
consultations had been useful in providing furt her information on the US programmes at issue.  
However, because the consultations had not produ ced a resolution of these matters, Canada was now 
requesting that a panel be established to examine this  issue.  Canada considered this request to be 
distinct from the one filed by Canada on 20 June 2007 and withdr awn on 15 November 2007 
(WT/DS357/13).  Notably, Canada's new request did not include a challenge to the US export credit 
guarantee measures in light of a recent decision on these measures by a WTO panel in the Brazil/US 
Cotton dispute.  Accordingly, Canada was submitting this request as a first request.  
72. The representative of the United States
 said that his country was disappointed that Canada 
had chosen to move forward w ith a new request for panel establishment at this time.  The 
United States noted first of all that the request fo r panel establishment that was on the DSB agenda of 
the present meeting was different from the panel re quest that the DSB had considered on 20 June 
2007.  In this connection, the United States welc omed the letter that it had received from Canada 
confirming that it had withdrawn its request for the establishment of a panel, dated 7 June 2007 and 
contained in WT/DS357/11.  The United States also noted that Canada was not pursuing two of the 
three claims raised in its consultations request – that US domestic support distorted trade in corn, and 
that US export credit guarantees conferred export subsid ies.  With corn prices near record highs and a 
compliance panel report on certain modifications to US export credit guarantee programmes to be 
circulated in the near future, the United States welc omed Canada's decision not to divert further time 
and resources into these matters.  Unfortunately, Ca nada had not equally r econsidered its claims 
regarding US total AMS reduction commitments.  This  dispute distracted attention from the essential 
task before WTO Members of completing th e Doha Development R ound negotiations.  The 
United States shared the objectives for the WTO ag riculture negotiations ag reed upon at Doha and  WT/DSB/M/242 
 Page 19 
 
 
  reaffirmed at Hong Kong:  substantial improvement s in agricultural market access, elimination of 
agricultural export subsidies, and substantial reductions in trade- distorting domestic support.  The 
United States hoped that Canada shared these objectiv es as well.  Both Canada and the United States 
would better spend their efforts ensuring that the ne gotiations successfully increased farm trade, to 
provide a real boost to farmers and consumers worl dwide, rather than pursuing this dispute.  
73. For example, the United States saw that some of the measures identified by Canada had 
ceased to exist, in some cases more than five y ears ago.  Not only did the United States fail to see 
what legal basis there was for a panel to review su ch expired measures, but it also failed to see what 
Canada could hope to gain by making such a request .  In any event, the United States had carefully 
crafted its farm programmes to s upport US farmers within the nego tiated WTO limits on spending.  
The United States had provided suppor t within those limits and, therefore, consistently with its WTO 
obligations.  Canada had no basis to claim otherw ise.  Should this dispute move forward, the 
United States would vigorously defend its farm programmes. 
74. Finally, the United States wished to draw Canada 's attention to the fact that not all of the 
measures identified in the panel request had been su bject to consultations, and that, therefore, it was 
improper to include those measures in this request .  For all the preceding reasons, the United States 
strongly encouraged Canada to reconsider its decision  to pursue a panel in this dispute, and it was not 
in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel at this time. 
75. The representative of Canada  said that, in its request for the establishment of a panel, Canada 
claimed that the US Current Total Aggregate Measurement of Support had exceeded its commitment levels, contrary to Article 3.2 of the Agreemen t on Agriculture.  On 11 January 2007, Canada had 
requested that consultations be held on this ma tter.  The consultations with the United States had 
taken place on 7 February 2007, but had failed to settle the dis pute.  Consequently, additional 
consultations were not required. 
76. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
7. United States – Domestic support and export  credit guarantees for agricultural products 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil (WT/DS365/13) 
77. The Chairman  drew attention to the communicati on from Brazil contained in document 
WT/DS365/13, and invited the representative of Brazil to speak. 
78. The representative of Brazil  said that on 11 July 2007, pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU and 
Article XXII of the GATT 1994, Brazil had requested c onsultations with the United States (as set out 
in document WT/DS365/1 of 17 July 2007) co ncerning domestic support measures by the US 
Government in favour of agricultural producers.  In the consultations held  on 22 August 2007, Brazil 
had raised its concerns that the domestic s upport the United States provided through several 
programmes had exceeded the commitment levels specified in Section I of Part IV of the US Schedule in each of the years 1999, 2000, 2001,  2002, 2004 and 2005, contrary to  Article 3.2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  Despite the useful exchange of views and factual information during the 
consultations, the clarifications provided by the Un ited States were not sufficient to dissipate Brazil's 
concerns.  Brazil believed that the US measures nullif ied or impaired the benefits accruing to Brazil 
and had, therefore, requested the establishment of a panel with standard terms of reference to examine 
the matter.  The details of Brazil's request were set out in document WT/DS365/13, dated 
9 November 2007. 
79. The representative of the United States
 said that his country was disappointed that Brazil had 
chosen to move forward with a request for panel establishment at this time.  According to Brazil, WT/DSB/M/242 
Page 20  
 
  virtually all US support for agricultural producers w as trade-distorting.  There was no basis for this 
claim.  The United States welcomed that Brazil had chosen not to pursue claims in this dispute with 
respect to US export credit guarantee programmes that  would have largely duplicated those already 
before a panel in another dispute.  However, the Un ited States had many of the same concerns with 
Brazil's panel request that it had already pointed out  with the request that had been considered under 
the previous agenda item.  The United States was concerned that Brazil's request would divert time, 
resources, and attention from the Doha Developm ent Round negotiations, just as WTO Members had 
reached a critical moment for the success of the Ro und.  Much work was still required to achieve a 
result that would result in real new trade flows in  all areas of the negotiations – including expanded 
opportunities for market access as well as reducing trad e-distorting subsidies in agriculture.  The 
United States was fully committed to this outcome, and hoped that Brazil was committed to it as well.  
The United States and Brazil, and indeed the w hole WTO Membership, would be better served if 
Members focused their energy on making these negotiations a success.  In any event, the 
United States strongly disagreed with Brazil's clai ms that the United States had provided domestic 
support in excess of its WTO commitments.  If this  dispute did, unfortunately, proceed to the 
establishment of a panel, the United States would de monstrate that its domestic support was indeed in 
line with its WTO commitments. 
80. In addition, the United States must also point  out to Brazil that not all of the measures 
identified in Brazil's panel request had been the subj ect of consultations, and many of those that had 
been had long since ceased to exis t.  There was no legal basis for a panel to review such expired 
measures.  Furthermore, there seemed to be no point for Brazil to ask the DSB, for example, to make 
rulings about payments made in 1999, 2000, or 2 001 under programmes that had been abolished in 
the 2002 US Farm Bill and had not existed for many years.  For all the preceding reasons, the United States strongly urged Brazil to reconsider its decision to pursue a panel in this dispute, and it was not 
in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel at this time. 
81. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
8. Adoption of the 2007 draft Annual Report of the DSB (WT/DSB/W/362 and Add.1) 
82. The Chairman  said that, in pursuance of the procedures for an annual overview of WTO 
activities and for reporting under the WTO contained in document WT/L/105, he was submitting for 
adoption the draft text of the 2007 Annual Report of the DSB contained in document WT/DSB/W/362 
and Add.1.  This report covered the work of the DSB since the previous annual report contained in document WT/DSB/42 and Add.1.  For practical purposes, the overview of the state of play of WTO 
disputes covering the period from 1 January 1995 to 31 October 2007, prepared by the Secretariat on 
its own responsibility, was included in the addendum  to this report.  He proposed that after the 
adoption of the Annual Report at the present meeting, the Secretariat be authorized to update this 
Report under its own responsibility in  order to include actions taken by the DSB at the present 
meeting.  The updated Annual Report of the DSB w ould then be submitted for consideration by the 
General Council at its meeting to be held on 18 December.  Finally, he said that it was his 
understanding that the Secretariat had received some  comments of typographical nature on the draft 
Annual Report, which would be ta ken into account in the final version of the Annual Report. 
83. The DSB took note
 of the statement and adopted  the draft Annual Report of the DSB 
contained in WT/DSB/W/362 and Add.1 on the unders tanding that it would be further updated by the 
Secretariat.3 
                                                      
3 The Annual Report was subsequently circulated  in document WT/DSB/43 and Add.1  WT/DSB/M/242 
 Page 21 
 
 
  9. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental 
panelists (WT/DSB/W/363) 
84. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB /W/363, 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 th e DSU.  Unless there was any obj ection, he wished to propose that 
the DSB approve the names contained in document WT/DSB/W/363. 
85. The DSB so agreed . 
86. In connection with this agenda item, the Chairman  informed delegations that a new updated 
and consolidated indicative list of governmental and non-governmental panelists would be shortly 
issued by the Secretariat.4  In this regard, he thanked all delegations who had complied with his 
announcement of 24 April 2007 regarding the need to update the current list, as provided for in the 
proposals for the administration of the indicative list of panelists, approved by the DSB on 31 May 1995. 
87. The DSB took note
 of the statement. 
 
__________ 
 
   
                                                     
 
4 The new updated and consolidated indicative list of government and non-governmental panelists was 
circulated on 12 December 200 7 in document WT/DSB/44.