WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/DSB/M/295 
30 June 2011 
 (11-3224) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
21 April 2011  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard 
on 21 April 2011 
 
Chairperson:  Mrs. Elin Østebø Johansen (Norway) 
 
 Subjects discussed: Page 
 
1.  Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB ......................... 2  
(a)  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States ............................................................................................................. ............ 2 
(b)  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by the Unite d States ................................................................................... 5 
(c)  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by 
the United States ............................................................................................................. ............ 6 
(d)  European Communities1 – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products:  Status report by the European Union ......................................................................... 6  
(e)  United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States ............................................................................................................. ............ 7 
(f)  United States – Continued existence and a pplication of zeroing methodology:  Status 
report by the United States ................................................................................................... ....... 7 
(g)  United States – Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States .......................................................................... 8  
(h)  China – Measures affecting trading righ ts and distribution services for certain 
publications and audiovisual entertainment products:  Status report by China .......................... 8  
2.  United States – Definitive anti-dum ping and countervailing duties on certain 
products from China............................................................................................................ ..... 9 
(a)  Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB ................................................................. 9  
3.  United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB .......................................... 10  
(a)  Statements by the European Union and Japan .......................................................................... 10  
4.  European Communities1 – Measures prohibiting the importation and marketing 
of seal products .............................................................................................................. .......... 11 
(a)  Request for the establishment of a panel by Norway ................................................................ 11  
                                                      
1 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amendi ng the Treaty on Europe an Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community (done at Lisb on, 13 December 2007) en tered into force.  On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a verbal note (WT /L/779) from the Council of the European Union and 
the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon, as of 
1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community. WT/DSB/M/295 
Page 2  
 
5.  United States – Anti-dumping admini strative reviews and other measures 
related to imports of certain orange juice from Brazil ........................................................ 14  
(a)  Joint request by Brazil and the United States for a decision by the DSB ................................. 14  
6.  Proposed nomination for the indicative list of governmental and 
non-governmental panelists ................................................................................................... 16 
7.  Statement by the Chairperson regarding some matters concerning 
the Appellate Body ............................................................................................................ ...... 16 
 
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.101) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on cer tain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.101) 
 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.76) 
 (d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of  biotech products:  
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.39) 
 
(e) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.19) 
 (f) United States – Continued existence and appli cation of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.16) 
 (g) United States – Laws, regulations a nd methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/38/Add.10) 
 (h) China – Measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications 
and audiovisual entertainment products:  Status report by China (WT/DS363/17/Add.3) 
  1. The Chairperson recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that unless the DSB decided 
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 establis hment of the reasonable 
period of time and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda  until the issue was resolv ed.  She proposed that 
the eight sub-items under Agenda item 1 be considered separately.  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.101) 
2. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS176/11/Add.101, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US Section 211 Om nibus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
3. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 April 2011, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  Legislative proposals that 
would implement the DSB's recommendations and ru lings had been introduced in the current 112th 
Congress.  In the Senate, S. 603 had been introduced  on 16 March 2011.  This bill had been referred  WT/DSB/M/295 
 Page 3 
 
 
to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.  In the House of Representatives, H.R. 1166 had been 
introduced on 17 March 2011.  The bill had been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.  
The US administration would continue to work with Congress to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. 
4. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and hoped that the US authorities woul d very soon take steps towards implementing the 
DSB's ruling and resolve this matter. 
5. The representative of Cuba said that the United St ates had just presented its 102 status report, 
which was not different from the previous status reports submitted by the United States.  At the 
present meeting, Cuba wished to share with othe r Members a new piece of information, which would 
only add to the long list of US violations.  Cuba recalled that Section 211 had been presented before 
the Judiciary Sub-Committee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the US Senate by an attorney and 
adviser of the Bacardi company in the context of a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York 
concerning Bacardi's fraudulent use of the "Havana Club" trademark.  On 29 March 2011, the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit had upheld, in a two-to-one vote, the US Office of 
Foreign Assets Control's refusal to allow the Cuba n company Cubaexport to renew the registration of 
the Havana Club trademark:  a right that that comp any had obtained in 1976.  Subsequently, the media 
had reported that the French company, Pernod Ricard, which marketed the well-known rum in 
association with Cuban companies, had lost its right  to the trademark in the United States, and that 
Bacardi was, once again, allowed to continue to u se the trademark, which le gally belonged to another 
owner.  Cuba questioned the legal basis for the US  courts' decision, which was Section 211 found in 
2002 to be inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement.  Regrettably, in practice Section 211 was applied 
retroactively to a trademark that had been registered  before its enactment.  A trademark that had been 
abandoned for more than 15 years before it was granted to Cubaexport.  This was despite the fact that 
during the Panel's proceedings, the United States ha d indicated that Section 211 would not apply to 
previously abandoned trademarks since there was no orig inal owner and thus no consent was required.   
6. Section 211 was part of the US policy against Cuba, which imposed great losses on Cuba, in 
particular in the area of rum marketing, and its ne gative effects were felt by foreign companies such 
as Pernod Ricard.  In addition to the market restrict ion, there was also a high financial cost of legal 
proceedings against actions that were inconsistent w ith the rules of international law.  Cuba wondered 
how long the United States would continue to di sregard the rules of international law and the 
recommendations of the Panel and the Appellate Body  Reports and to act in a manner inconsistent 
with its statements.  A Member who advocated the protection of intellectual property rights should not 
disregard the most basic provisions of the existing international rules in this area.  Cuba wondered 
whether the United States considered that the inte rnational protection of th ese rights only applied to 
US interests, and if US trademark holders were the only ones to be respected.  What authority the 
United States had to demand that other Members shou ld establish and enforce high standards in the 
area of intellectual property rights?  The Unite d States could no longer continue to delay its 
implementation.  Such conduct would seem entirely consistent with US policy which gave more 
importance to its own intangible assets.  Cuba would continue to raise its concerns, stand up for its 
rights, seek the prompt settlement of this disput e and demand the immediate repeal of Section 21, 
which was inconsistent with  international agreements. 
7. The representative of the Plurinational State of Bo livia said that her country regretted that the 
US status report was merely a repetition of its previo us reports and that no progress had been made in 
this dispute.  In that regard, Bolivia wished  to express its concern over the consequences of non-
compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations .  If the United States wished to preserve the 
integrity of the system, it should comply with the DSB's rulings and recommendations and lift the 
restrictions imposed under Section 211.  Given the importance of the DSB for the WTO and the 
multilateral trading system, Bolivia hoped that this dispute could be resolved promptly and fully 
supported Cuba's statement. WT/DSB/M/295 
Page 4  
 
8. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of  Venezuela said that her country fully 
supported Cuba on this matter.  Ve nezuela thanked the United States for its status report and noted 
that the United States had been repeating the same stat ement for more than nine years.  The continued 
use of Section 211 was inconsistent with the TR IPS Agreement and the MFN principle.  Such non-
compliance undermined the credibility of the disp ute settlement system and weakened the WTO 
system.  Venezuela hoped that, after so many years,  the United States would finally respect the DSB's 
rulings and recommendations.  As had been done  on previous occasions, Venezuela urged the 
United States to reconsider its political and economic  embargo against Cuba and to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
9. The representative of Zimbabwe said that his count ry thanked the United States for its status 
report pertaining to this dispute.  Zimbabwe regr etted that, despite the DSB ruling almost a decade 
ago, there was no indication thus far that the Unit ed States would implement that ruling.  In the 
meantime, Cuba as well as many Members expected pos itive actions to be taken by the United States.  
The continued US failure to comply with the DSB's recommendations undermined the WTO 
credibility.  Zimbabwe, therefore, urged the United States not only to respect the DSB's decision but 
also to abide by it, as that w ould enhance the WTO's credibility. 
10. The representative of Paraguay said that his count ry shared the concerns expressed by Cuba 
and other delegations about the lengthy delay in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
pertaining to this dispute.  In Paraguay's view, th is was not only a trade-related concern, but also a 
systemic one.  Thus, Paraguay urged the United States to comply with the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations and to repeal Section 211. 
11. The representative of Ecuador said that his country supported Cuba's statement and wished to 
emphasize that Article 21 of the DSU referred to prompt compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings, in partic ular with regard to matters aff ecting the interests of developing 
countries.  Ecuador hoped that the United States would accelerate its efforts to ensure compliance 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings by fully repealing Section 211. 
12. The representative of China said that her country  thanked the United States for its status 
report.  However, China regretted that the situ ation of non-compliance had not changed since the 
adoption of the DSB's decision more than nine years ago.  In China's view, this situation was highly incompatible with the principle of prompt implemen tation stipulated in the DSU, in particular since 
the interests of a developing-country Member were affected.  China, therefore, supported Cuba and 
urged the United States to implement the DSB's rulings without any further delay. 
13. The representative of Brazil said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report pertaining to this dispute.  Brazil remained concerned about the US lack of compliance with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Once again, Brazil urged the United States to take the steps 
necessary to comply with the DSB's recommenda tions and rulings without further delay. 
14. The representative of Nicaragua said that her c ountry thanked the United States for its status 
report, but regretted that the report confirmed the continued failure by the United States to comply 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Ni caragua hoped that the United States would soon 
take the necessary steps to comply with the DSB' s recommendations and resolve this long-standing 
dispute.  Nicaragua, once again, urged the United States to implement the DSB's recommendations so 
as to ensure that the dispute settle ment system worked well.    
15. The representative of Angola said that her country thanked the United States for providing 
information on the implementation of the DSB's d ecision and the Appellate Body's recommendations 
of 2002 regarding Section 211.  Angola reca lled that prompt compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings was fundamental to ensu ring the effective resolu tion of disputes to the 
benefit of all WTO Members.  The delay in the implementation of the DSB's decision affected the  WT/DSB/M/295 
 Page 5 
 
 
central element of the multilateral trading system that provided security and predictability for all 
Members, and set a negative precedent for other cas es.  Angola hoped that the parties to the dispute 
would take concrete action in order to se nd a positive signal of respect for WTO rules. 
16. The representative of Uruguay said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  However, as had been stated on many occasions, Uruguay shared the systemic concerns 
expressed by previous speakers.  The WTO was goi ng through a critical period, given its inability to 
conclude the Doha Development Round that had begun almost ten years ago.  Therefore, it was 
important to preserve the acqui s of the multilateral trading system and its most valuable asset, namely 
the DSU.  More than ever before, it was extremel y important that Members maintained the credibility 
of the dispute settlement system by ensuring the prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings as well as the legal certainty and the e ffective balance of rights and obligations provided 
under the multilateral trading system.  Uruguay, once again, urged the United States to make every effort to comply with the DSB's recommendations in this dispute, which affected the interests of a 
developing-country.   
17. The representative of Viet Nam said that his co untry thanked the United States for its status 
report and urged the United States to implement the DSB's decision and recommendations 
immediately.  Viet Nam supported Cuba's statement. 
18. The representative of Argentina said that his c ountry thanked the United States for its status 
report.  As at previous DSB meetings, Argentina called for the effective implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings pertaining to this disput e.  The US failure to comply had consequences 
which went beyond this dispute and affected all Memb ers.  Argentina, once again, urged the parties to 
this dispute, and in particular the United States, to  take every step necessary to ensure compliance.  
19. The representative of Mexico said that his count ry thanked the United States for its status 
report.  As at previous DSB meetings, Mexico urge d the parties to resolve this dispute through legal 
remedies provided for under the DSU.  Mexico noted  that any Member could initiate its own dispute 
if it considered that the matter was not resolved a nd that its rights were being nullified or impaired.  
Mexico also noted that the discussion under this Agenda item could provide useful input for the 
discussions carried out in the DSU negotiations, in pa rticular with regard to  the issue of effective 
compliance.   
20. 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.101) 
21. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS184/15/Add.101, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
22. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 April 2011, in accordance with Arti cle 21.6 of the DSU.  As of November 2002, the 
US authorities had addressed the DSB's recommendations  and rulings with resp ect to the calculation 
of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty investigation at issue in this dispute.  With respect to the DSB's recommendations  and rulings that had not already been addressed 
by the US authorities, the US administration woul d work with the US Co ngress with respect to 
appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter.  
23. The representative of Japan said that her country  thanked the United States for its statement 
and its most recent status report.  Japan noted th at the United States had taken certain measures to WT/DSB/M/295 
Page 6  
 
implement part of the DSB's recommendations in November 2002.  As for the remaining part of the DSB's recommendations,  Japan hoped that the United States would soon be in a position to report to 
the DSB on more tangible progress.  Full and prompt implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings was "essential to the effective functi oning of the WTO and the maintenance of a proper 
balance of the rights and obligations of Members".
2  Japan called on the United States to fully 
implement the DSB's recommendations in this long-standing dispute without further delay. 
24. 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.76) 
25. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS160/24/Add.76, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning Section 110(5)  of the US Copyright Act. 
26. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 April 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US administration 
would continue to confer with the EU, and to work  closely with the US Congress, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. 
27. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and noted that the United States was again reporting non-compliance.  The EU remained 
keen to work with the US authorities toward s the complete resolution of this case.   
28. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.39) 
29. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS291/37/Add.39, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning its measures a ffecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products. 
30. The representative of the European Union said that the EU was pleased to report on the 
constructive technical meeting it had held w ith the United States on 28 March 2011.  The EU 
welcomed the continuation of this technical dialogu e with the United States which gave both parties 
an opportunity to discuss directly, issues of their concern regarding biotechnology.  The meeting had 
followed an earlier meeting held on 20 July 2010.  The EU hoped that this constructive approach 
based on dialogue would allow the parties to leave litig ation aside.  Once again, the EU noted that its 
regulatory procedures on biotech prod ucts continued to work as foreseen in the legislation.  The 
number of GMOs authorized since the date of establishment of the Panel was thirty-four.  In 2010, 11 applications had been authorized, which was more than double the number of authorizations in 2009, 
including one authorization for cultivation.  At  the Agriculture Council held on 17 March 2011, two 
authorizations had been examined, together with the renewal of the authorization of maize 1507.  
Progress had also been made on other applications for authorization.  Four more draft applications had 
been voted in the Standing Committee in Febr uary 2011.  The Council would examine those 
applications in the following weeks. 
                                                      
2 Article 3.3 of the DSU.  WT/DSB/M/295 
 Page 7 
 
 
31. The representative of the United States said that  his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement at the present meeting.  On 28 March 2011, as noted by the EU, a US 
delegation had met with EU officials in Brussels to discuss delays in the EU's approval system for biotech products and related issues.  The Unite d States believed that the discussions had been 
constructive.  Based on those discussions, the United States was hopeful that the EU would make 
significant progress in the coming months with r espect to its approvals of biotech products. 
32. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(e) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.19) 
33. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS322/36/Add.19, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews. 
34. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 April 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As the United States had 
explained in its status report, in December 201 0, the US Department of Commerce had announced a 
proposal to change the calculation of weighted  average dumping margins and assessment rates in 
certain anti-dumping proceedings.  At the present time, the US Department of Commerce was continuing with its ongoing work on the December proposal. 
35. The representative of Japan said that her country  thanked the United States for its statement 
and its most recent status report.  Japan took note of the statements that the internal consultation 
process and ongoing work was under way, based on the proposal announced by the US Department of 
Commerce on 28 December 2010.  While taking the US implementation efforts as a positive step 
forward, Japan continued to seek prompt and full co mpliance by the United States with respect to all 
of the measures at issue that were subject to th e recommendations in this dispute.  Japan looked 
forward to an on-going dialogue with the United St ates and would closely monitor any developments 
on this matter.  Japan reserved its right under the DSU to take appropriate action, if necessary. 
36. The representative of China said that her country welcomed the steps taken by the 
United States towards the implementation of th e DSB's rulings and recommendations on zeroing 
issues.  At the 25 March 2011 DSB meeting, China had provided some comments on the proposal of the US Department of Commer ce, which had been published in the Federal Register on 
28 December 2010.  China looked forward to the US feedback regarding this issue.  
37. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(f) United States – Continued existence and appli cation of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.16) 
38. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS350/18/Add.16, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning the existence and application of zeroing methodology by the United States. 
39. The representative of the United States said th at his country had addressed the issue of 
compliance with the findings in this dispute in th e status report provided on 8 April 2011, and earlier 
in the context of the discussion under Agenda item 1( e) of the present meeting.  The United States, 
therefore, referred Members to that re port and statement for further details. WT/DSB/M/295 
Page 8  
 
40. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
most recent status report.  Since the United Stat es had not reported on any steps taken to address the 
concerns raised by the EU in the DSB, the EU re ferred Members to its statements made at the DSB 
meetings in January and February 2011.  The EU re mained ready to engage with the United States in 
multilateral and bilateral discussions in order to en sure that its concerns were addressed by the 
United States. 
41. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(g) United States – Laws, regul ations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/38/Add.10) 
42. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS294/38/Add.10, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US laws, regulations and me thodology for calculating dumping margins. 
43. The representative of the United States said th at his country had addressed the issue of 
compliance with the findings in this dispute in th e status report provided on 8 April 2011, and earlier 
in the context of the discussion under Agenda item 1( e) of the present meeting.  The United States, 
therefore, referred Members to that re port and statement for further details. 
44. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and referred Members to its stat ement made under Agenda item 1(f) of the present 
meeting concerning the US proposal of 28 December 2010. 
45. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(h) China – Measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications 
and audiovisual entertainment products:  Status report by China (WT/DS363/17/Add.3) 
46. The Chairperson drew attention to document WT/DS363/17/Add.3, which contained the 
status report by China on progress in the implemen tation of the DSB's recommendations in the case 
concerning China's measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications 
and audiovisual entertainment products. 
47. The representative of China said that her country had provided a status report in this dispute 
on 8 April 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  China had made tremendous efforts to 
implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations, a nd had thus far completed amendments to most 
measures at issue, including Regulations on the Ma nagement of Publications, Regulations on the 
Management of Audiovisual Produc ts, and Provisions on the Administration of the Publications 
Market.  The draft amendment to the Catalogue of  Industries for Guiding Foreign Investment had 
been published for public comment.  This demonstrat ed China's sincerity towards the implementation 
of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Chin a and the United States had signed the Agreed 
Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in this  dispute on 8 April 2011.  China believed that 
this matter would be resolved properly through jo int efforts and mutual cooperation with relevant 
parties. 
48. The representative of the United States said that his country thanked China for its status report 
and its statement.  The United States remained concerned about the lack of progress by China in 
bringing its measures relating to films for theat rical release into compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  The United States also  had significant concerns about the incomplete 
progress relative to China's measures relating to audiovisual home entertainment products, reading  WT/DSB/M/295 
 Page 9 
 
 
materials, and sound recordings.  The United St ates was conferring closely with China on these 
matters.  In that regard, the United States and Chin a had entered into a sequencing agreement, which 
would govern the procedural aspects of any even tual request for a compliance proceeding under 
Article 21.5 of the DSU and any eventual request  for authorization to suspend concessions under 
Article 22.6 of the DSU.  That agreement ha d been circulated to Members in document 
WT/DS363/18. 
49. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
2. United States – Definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties on certain products 
from China 
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB 
50. The Chairperson recalled that in accordance w ith the DSU provisions, the DSB was required 
to keep under surveillance the implementation of r ecommendations and rulings of the DSB in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members.  In that 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.  She re called that at its meeting on 25 March 2011, the 
DSB had adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, pertaining to the dispute on:  "United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China".  She invited the United States to inform the 
DSB of its intentions in respect of im plementation of the DSB's recommendations. 
51. The representative of the United States said that , on 25 March 2011, the DSB had adopted the 
Panel and the Appellate Body Reports in the disp ute:  "United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China"  (DS379).  At the March 2011 DSB meeting, 
the United States and a number of other Members ha d raised serious concerns with the Appellate 
Body Report in this dispute.  The United Stat es looked forward to further conversations with 
interested Members on the implications of that Re port.  The United States did not, however, seek to 
engage in a further discussion of those concerns at  the present meeting, which it and other delegations 
had expressed in their statements to the DSB on 25 March 2011.  At the present meeting, as provided 
in the first sentence of Article 21.3 of the DSU, the United States wished to state that it intended to 
comply in this dispute with its WTO obligations and would be considering carefully how to do so.  The United States would need a reasonable period  of time in which to implement the DSB's 
recommendations. 
52. The representative of China said that Article 21 of the DSU provided clearly that "prompt 
compliance with recommendations or rulings of the DSB is essential in order to ensure effective 
resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Member s".  China welcomed the US declaration of its 
explicit intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute.  China hoped that the United States would take all the necessary measures to fully comply 
with the DSB's rulings and recommendations as soon as possible.  China took note that the United States would need a reasonable period of time to comply, and was ready to enter into 
discussion on this matter with the Un ited States as soon as possible.   
53. The DSB took note of the statements, and of the information provided by the United States 
regarding its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations. WT/DSB/M/295 
Page 10  
 
3. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation of 
the recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) Statements by the European Union and Japan 
54. The Chairperson said that this item was on the Agen da of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union and Japan.  She then invited the respective representatives to speak. 
55. The representative of Japan said that, as the latest distributions showed3, the CDSOA 
remained operational.  According to US Customs a nd Border Protection, "the distribution process will 
continue for an undetermined period".4  Japan urged the United States to stop the illegal distributions 
and repeal the CDSOA, not just in form but in substa nce, so as to resolve this dispute.  According to 
Article 21.6 of the DSU, the United States was unde r obligation to provide the DSB with a status 
report in this dispute.  
56. The representative of the European Union said th at it had already informed the DSB about the 
annual adjustment in the level of duties applied by  the EU in this case in a document circulated on 
12 April 2011.  At the present meeting, and as it had done many times before, the EU wished to ask the United States when it would effectively st op the transfer of anti-dumping and countervailing 
duties to the US industry and, hence, put an e nd to the condemned measure.  The fact that the 
United States had stopped disbursing duties collected af ter a certain point in time did not achieve full 
compliance.  Every disbursement that still took pl ace was clearly an act of non-compliance with the 
DSB's recommendations.  Once again, the EU renewe d its call on the United States to abide by its 
clear obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU and to submit status reports pertaining to this dispute. 
57. The representative of Brazil said that his country  thanked Japan and the EU for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda.  As stated at previous  meetings, Brazil believed that non-compliance in 
this dispute would persist until the United States ceased all disbursements made pursuant to the 
CDSOA.  Until then, the issue in this dispute would not be "resolved" within the meaning of 
Article 21.6 of the DSU and the United States w ould be required to submit status reports.  
58. The representative of Canada said that her count ry thanked the EU and Japan for placing this 
item on the DSB's Agenda.  In Canada's view, the CD SOA remained subject to the surveillance of the 
DSB until the United States ceased to administer it.  
59. The representative of India said that his country  thanked the EU and Japan for bringing this 
issue before the DSB once again.  India wished to renew its systemic concerns about the continuous 
non-compliance by Members and the resultant growing lack of credibility and confidence of the system.  India urged the United States to report full compliance without any further delay. 
60. The representative of Thailand said that his count ry thanked the EU and Japan for bringing 
this issue before the DSB again.  Thailand agreed  with previous speakers and urged the United Sates 
to cease the disbursements and fully comply with the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this matter. 
61. The representative of the United States said that, as his country had already explained at 
previous DSB meetings, the US President si gned the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 
8 February 2006.  That Act included a provisi on repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000.  Thus, the United States had taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
                                                      
3 See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/tr ade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/annual_report/ 
4 See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trad e/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cont_dump_faq.xml  WT/DSB/M/295 
 Page 11 
 
 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  Furthermore, the United States recalled that Members, including the EU and Japan, had acknowl edged during previous DSB meetings that the 
2006 Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribu tion of duties collected on goods entered after 
1 October 2007.  With respect to comments regardi ng further status reports in this matter, as the 
United States had already explained at previous DSB meetings, the United States failed to see what 
purpose would be served by further submission of status reports repeating, again, that the 
United States had taken all actions necessary to im plement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
these disputes.  With respect to the EU's statemen t at the present meeting, the United States continued 
to review the action by the EU.  As the United States had observed previously, the DSB only authorized the suspension of concessions or othe r obligations as provided in the Award of the 
Arbitrator. 
62. The DSB took note of the statements. 
4. European Communities – Measures prohibitin g the importation and marketing of seal 
products 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Norway (WT/DS401/5) 
63. The Chairperson recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
25 March 2011 and had agreed to revert to it.  She then drew attention to the communication from 
Norway contained in document WT/DS401/5, and invited the representative of Norway to speak. 
64. The representative of Norway said that, at the DSB meeting of 25 March 2011, Norway had 
requested the establishment of a panel in the long- standing dispute with the EU regarding its ban on 
trade in seal products.  At that meeting, Norway had outlined some important points related to the 
dispute and did not wish to repeat them at the presen t meeting.  It was, however, Norway's firm view 
that the EU's seal regime was inconsistent with its WTO obligations, including under the  Agreement 
on Agriculture, the TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994.   Norway, therefore, requested, once again, 
that a panel be established with standard terms of reference.  In line with Article 9.1 of the DSU, 
Norway requested that the matter be referred to  the Panel established at the 25 March 2011 DSB 
meeting to examine Canada's complain t regarding the same matter (DS400). 
65. The representative of the European Union said th at the EU took note of Norway's request for 
the establishment of a panel.  The EU recalled that , while it had agreed to hold consultations with 
Norway, it believed that the WTO was not the appropr iate forum to discuss Norway's concerns with 
regard to the seals regulation and its implementing regulation.  Unlike previous EU measures which 
had been the subject of WTO dispute settlement between Norway and the EU, the seals regulation 
concerned products that fell within the scope of  the EEA Agreement.  The parties to the EEA 
Agreement were bound by a special duty of loyal c ooperation under Article 3 of that agreement.  
They should not seek to evade the application of the specific rules governing the "privileged 
relationship" established by the EEA Agreement by resorting to dispute settlement under a different 
agreement, which pursued a very different objective.  The EU further recalled that the EU institutions 
had taken the view that the seals regulation was of "EEA relevance" and that  this had consequences 
under the EEA Agreement.  The EU, therefore, reserv ed all rights to pursue these matters under the 
EEA Agreement.  Norway's panel request was little more than a long list of provisions.  Norway had 
provided no meaningful explanation of the reasons  why the EU measures were  deemed inconsistent 
with each of the provisions listed.  The EU considered  that the request lacked the degree of specificity 
required by the DSU provisions.  Furthermore, the Norwegian request raised some new claims under 
the TBT Agreement, which were not identified in an y of the two requests for consultations.  Thus, the 
EU reserved the right to raise those issues before the panel.  The EU was strongly convinced of the 
strength of its case and stood ready to defend its measu res which it considered to be fully consistent 
with WTO law.  Finally, the EU wished to express its  agreement with the request for a single panel to 
examine the DS400 and DS401 disputes.  WT/DSB/M/295 
Page 12  
 
66. The representative of Namibia sai d that his country supported Norway's request to establish a 
panel in the dispute concerning the EU's measur es prohibiting the importation and marketing of seal 
products.  Namibian products to the EU market were  affected and, therefor e, Namibia wished to 
express its strong dissatisfaction with the import ba n by Belgium and the Netherlands.  The measures 
adopted by those countries were inconsistent w ith the EU's obligations under the GATT 1994 and the 
TBT Agreement.  Furthermore, Namibia believed th at the internationally recognized principles on 
which conservation and management of marine re sources were regulated were being undermined.  
Specifically, the trade in endangered species was undert aken and regulated in terms of the provisions 
of the CITES Convention.  To Namibia's knowledge, all EU member States we re parties to that 
Convention.  The measures adopted by Belgium and the Netherlands actively undermined the 
authority of the Convention.  Therefore, Namibia wished to participate as a third-party in the 
proceedings of the Panel to be established at Norway's request.   
67. He further stated that the exploitation of  the Cape fur seal along the Namibian coast 
represented one of the oldest commercial utilization forms in the region and dated back to the 17th 
century.  The Cape fur seal occupied 25 coloni es along the Namibian coastline.  The harvesting of 
seals in Namibia was done in line with the Marine Resources Act of 2000, and was harvested in the 
presence of a fisheries inspector.  Moreover, Namibi a took cognizance of the UN Code of Conduct for 
Responsible Fisheries whenever se als were harvested.  It was wort h noting that the principle of 
sustainable management was also taken into consid eration whenever seals were harvested.  This was 
in line with the FAO Code of Conduct for res ponsible Fisheries, which was contained in the 
Constitution of the Republic of Namibia, Chapter 11, Ar ticle 95.  That provision read and directed as 
follows:  "The State shall actively promote and ma intain the welfare of the people by adopting, inter-
alia, policies aimed at maintenance of ecosystem s, essential ecological processes and biological 
diversity of Namibia and utilization of living natural resources on a sust ainable basis for the benefit of 
all Namibians, both present and future".  
68. Namibia also wished to turn to some sp ecific seals concerns, which highlighted the 
importance of trade in seal products for Namibia.   The seal population in Namibia had grown to 
enormous numbers over the years and consumed hi gh qualities of fish, such as hake and sardines, 
which were of high commercial importance to th e fishing sector.  In addition, seal harvesting 
interactions which caused heavy lo sses to the line fish industry were occurring frequently.  Therefore, 
Namibia needed to keep the seal population in ba lance.  Regular aerial surveys were conducted to 
ensure that the population did not decline to enda ngered levels.  It was worth noting that the seal 
industry was very important in terms of employme nt and GDP contribution to Namibia's economy.  
Employees in the seal sector were all Namibians an d had acquired harvesting skills as per the Marine 
Resource Act of 2000.  It was important to note th at, those that were doing the harvesting normally 
underwent training as to how to harvest and handle the seals during the harvesting season.  Indirect employments were also created from other workplaces such as shops, tannery and manufacturers, 
specialized in manufacturing and exporting for interna tional designers.  It was also important to note 
that there were two factories which processed the s eal oil for local consumption.  There were two 
commercial uses for seal oil, as industrial grade oil and for the production of cosmetics, paints, soaps 
and manufacturing of low-grade margarine.  Namibia had become aware of the importance of seal derivatives to the health and medical fraternity.  Health products such as the Omega 3 oils and 
capsules derived from seal products had already been  part of over-the-counter medicine in some 
countries, including Namibia.  Possible surgical implants from seal tissue had been on the table from 
an international scientific point of view and that  would also have a positive impact on human health 
globally and in Namibia.  Usage of seal heart valv es for human heart surgery had recently shown to be 
promising.  In terms of seal products trading, th at was a key issue for Namibian exporters as Namibia 
had established traditional markets for seal products.  Namibia did not see any reason to stop the 
harvesting of seals.  Namibia had not been shown any evidence that the Cape fur seal populations 
along its coastline were threatened.  Namibia, as a c ountry, had an obligation to make sure that laws 
were adhered to.  Equally, it had a responsibility to wards its citizens in terms of creating jobs that 
were sustaining families, utilizing resources in the be st way that Namibia could maximize the benefit  WT/DSB/M/295 
 Page 13 
 
 
and also produce products that would display the Na mibian image.  It was from that historical 
background that Namibia would continue with the su stainable management of all its natural resources, 
both renewable as well as non-renewable.  This  would continue to include seals.   
69. In conclusion, he said that the Namibia's se al harvest was labelled "inhumane" by animal 
activists.  However, the Ministry of Fisheries a nd Marine Resources responsible for seals had, on 
several occasions, asked for public opinion on a more "humane" way of harvesting, but to date no 
animal rights organization had come up with an a lternative method.  He sai d that he believed that 
Namibia had the most ethical laws of harvesting seals.  The Government's main objective for all fisheries sectors was to utilize the country's marine resources on  a sustainable basis and to develop 
industries based on them in a way that ensured thei r lasting contribution to the country's economy and 
overall development objectives.  Seals were consid ered as a natural resource from which Namibians 
could derive economic benefits through consumptive and non-consumptive use.  The Namibian 
Government's approach to seal harvesting was guide d by the same principles which were applied to 
the utilization of any other natural resource falli ng within its jurisdiction, namely sustainable 
utilization, whereby the main management objectives fo r the Cape fur seal in Na mibia were to ensure 
the sustainable utilization and ecological role of th e Cape fur seal.  Namibia was a member of the 
Convention on International Trade in Enda ngered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES).  Animals and Plants were protect ed by CITES against over-exploitation through 
international trade.  Cape Fur Seals were liste d in Appendix II of the CITES Convention.  Namibia 
noted that species on this Appendix were not necessa rily threatened with extinction but the trade of 
them should be closely controlled to prevent their ex tinction in future.  It was against this background 
that Namibia would continue with the sustainable management of all of its natural resources, both 
living and non-living, including seals.  Namibia suppor ted an outcome that would result in an increase 
of exports of seal products.  Such an outcome sh ould involve substantial improvements in market 
access and eliminate any ban on seal products. 
70. The representative of Canada said that his count ry welcomed the establishment of a panel as 
requested by Norway.  That panel would examine the same EU measures raised by Canada in 
previous DSB meetings, and for which a separat e panel had been established on 25 March 2011 at 
Canada's request.  Canada and Norway had long made efforts to ensure that the seal hunt was 
humane, well managed and sustainable.  Therefore, Canada wished to reserve its third-party rights in 
the DS401 dispute.  Given the similarities between Norway and Canada's complaints, Canada also 
requested that, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, panels under the DS400 and DS401 disputes be 
joined so that a single group of panelists would hear the two disputes.  In addition, Canada reiterated 
its preference to have DS369 heard by the same panelists as those that would be selected for the 
DS400 and DS401 disputes.  Canada hoped that these di sputes would cast meaningful light on what it 
considered to be unjust and unnecessary measures. 
71. The representative of Iceland said that, as at the 25 March 2011 DSB meeting, Iceland again 
took note of Norway's request for the establishmen t of a panel in the long-standing dispute concerning 
the EU measures prohibiting the importation and marketing of seal products.  Those measures were also a source of concern for Iceland.  It had re peatedly been pointed out, in the DSB, including in 
Iceland's statement made at the 25 March 2011 DSB meeting, that this dispute was not just about seal products.  It related also to the principle of sust ainable utilization of all living marine resources and 
the right to market the products stemming from su ch legitimate practices.  Iceland agreed with 
Norway that there were no justifiable grounds for th e EU's ban.  The seal populations around Iceland 
were subject to management, their existence was not  threatened, and their utilization was considered 
desirable.  Iceland had a substantial interest in the matter.  Therefore, Iceland supported Norway's 
request for a panel and wished to participate in the Panel's proceedings as a third-party. 
72. The representative of the United States said that  his country noted Norway's reference to 
Article 9.1 of the DSU and also that the EU was amenable to having a single panel.  The United States 
was pleased that the parties had cooperated and had reached an agreement on this issue.  The WT/DSB/M/295 
Page 14  
 
United States understood, therefore, that the decisi on to be taken by the DSB at the present meeting 
was to refer the matter set out by Norway in WT/D S401/5 to the Panel previously established by the 
DSB to consider the matter raised by Canada in the DS400 dispute.   
73. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed that the request by Norway for the 
establishment of a panel with standard terms of re ference was accepted, and that as provided for in 
Article 9.1 of the DSU in respect of multiple comp lainants, the Panel that was established at the 
25 March 2011 DSB meeting to examine the co mplaint by Canada contained in document 
WT/DS400/4 would also examine the complaint by Norway contained in document WT/DS401/5.   
74. The Chairperson said that, since a single Panel had been established, those delegations that 
had reserved their third-party rights to participate in  the Panel established at the request of Canada 
shall be considered as third-parties in the single Pa nel.  She recalled that the following countries had 
reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel established at the request of Canada:  
Argentina, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Iceland,  Japan, Mexico, Norway and the United States. 
75. The representatives of Canada and Namibia also reserved their third-party rights to participate 
in the Panel's proceedings. 
5. United States – Anti-dumping administrative reviews and other measures related to 
imports of certain orange juice from Brazil 
(a) Joint request by Brazil and the United Stat es for a decision by the DSB (WT/DS382/7) 
76. The Chairperson drew attention to the co mmunication from Brazil and the United States 
contained in document WT/DS382/7 and inv ited the representative of Brazil to speak. 
77. The representative of Brazil said that, in respon se to an informal request by the Appellate 
Body, Brazil and the United States had agreed to ask  the DSB to adopt a decision providing additional 
time for the adoption or appeal of the Panel Report in  this dispute.  A draft decision was contained in 
document WT/DS382/7.  If approved, the decision w ould extend to 17 June 2011, the period within 
which the parties may appeal the Panel Report or  request its adoption by the DSB by negative 
consensus, thus providing greater flexibility in the scheduling of any possible appeal. 
78. The representative of the United States said that his country joined Brazil in asking that the 
DSB agree to provide additional time for adoption or appeal of the Panel Report in this dispute by 
adopting the draft decision set forth in document WT /DS382/7.  To facilitate its work, the Appellate 
Body had informally requested the parties to delay any appeal in this dispute until June 2011.  After 
discussions with Brazil, the United States had agreed to join Brazil in making the request before the 
DSB at the present meeting.  The United States noted that this was the fourth decision that the DSB 
had been asked to take in recent months to dela y a possible appeal.  In taking the previous three 
decisions, all Members had cooperated to permit adopti on or appeal to be delayed.  Furthermore, the 
parties to those disputes had cooperated by delaying  the filing of any appeal.  It should be clear, 
however, that the cooperation of Memb ers in this dispute, as well as any others, was contingent on not 
viewing themselves as being prejudiced by that cooperation, for example, by accepting a delay while 
seeing another Member gain a timing or other proced ural advantage through its non-cooperation.  The 
draft decision would provide for the DSB's adopti on of the Panel Report by negative consensus until 
17 June 2011, unless either party appealed the Re port.  The United States appreciated the DSB's 
support for the draft decision. 
79. The representative of Australia said that her country recently noted that a number of Members 
had agreed to postpone the adoption, and therefor e potential appeal, of panel reports to assist the 
Appellate Body to manage its current workload.  The joint request by Brazil and the United States 
was just the most recent example of such action.  In Australia's view, Memb ers who had cooperated in  WT/DSB/M/295 
 Page 15 
 
 
this way should not be disadvantaged by the subs equent scheduling of other appeal actions.  In 
particular, Australia considered that, to ensure fa irness and predictability in the appellate process, all 
Members should be accorded the same procedural treatment, including in the scheduling of the 
appellate proceedings. 
80. The representative of the European Union said th at the EU was slightly puzzled about the 
apparent possibility that there might be an appeal in this dispute taking also into account that other 
recent "zeroing" reports had not been appealed.  The EU had just heard from the United States about 
US efforts to implement the previous "zeroing" case s and had now understood that the United States 
might be appealing the "zeroing" Report pertaining to this dispute.  The EU did not intend to be polemic but it was difficult to avoid the feeling of  a mixed message.  The EU did not wish to block 
consensus, but it would appreciate if the United St ates could elaborate on how the possibility of an 
appeal could be squared with its intentions to implement th e previous "zeroing" reports. 
81. The representative of Japan said that, with  respect to panel reports issued since 
November 2010 which were likely to be appealed, th e parties to the disputes had requested, and the 
DSB had decided, to extend the 60-day time period in Article 16.4 of the DSU for adoption and 
appeal of those panel reports.  Those decisions were not just a collection of a single isolated act of the 
DSB, but rather a series of acts that would allow possible appeals from those reports to be staggered 
and thus enable the Appellate Body to organize its work in a fair, efficient and orderly manner.  The 
draft decision that Brazil and the United States had jointly proposed to be adopted by the DSB at the present meeting was the latest of a series of those decisions.  Given recent decisions, Japan wished to 
offer the following three observations from the system ic point of view.  First, the decision to be 
adopted at the present meeting and similar precedi ng decisions "would provide greater flexibility in 
scheduling" recent appeals
5 and, consequently, would allow the Appellate Body to manage its recent 
heavy workload.  But, more impor tantly, those decisions would give greater transparency and legal 
certainty as to adoptions and appeals of the panel reports subject to those decisions because Members had committed themselves to abide by the rule set out in the decisions by adopting them.   
82. Second, it should be recalled, however, that Article 3.3 of the DSU set out the general 
principle of "prompt settlement" of disputes in  the WTO dispute settlement and time limits and 
automaticity in the process provided for thro ughout the DSU, including the time period in 
Article 16.4, were specific expressions of this genera l principle of "prompt settlement".  Since a series 
of the latest decisions by the DSB to postpone a doption and appeal of the panel reports was a clear 
departure from the text of the DSU and the general principle of "prompt settlement", these decisions 
and an arrangement created by them must be deemed  to be of a temporal or emergency nature that 
purported to address very exceptional circumstances.  In other words, this arrangement should not 
become a norm or general rule, it must remain as an exception.   
83. Third, the principle of "prompt settlement" of disputes set out in Article 3.3 applied equally to 
all Members and all disputes brought under the DSU.  Japan understood that nothing in the DSU 
established hierarchy among such disputes in terms of th eir significance or urgenc y, or gave particular 
preference to one dispute over the others.
6  All Members and all cases were expected to be treated 
even-handedly.  Furthermore, the temporal arrange ment created by a series of the DSB decisions was 
dependent on consent by the parties to the disp utes to delay the initiation of their appellate 
proceedings.  It appeared that the parties to the disputes had been willing to do so, contrary to their 
legitimate interests in prompt resolution of their disputes, to support, in good faith, the proper and 
orderly functioning of the Appella te Body.  If all cases were not treated equally, though, as previous 
                                                      
5 See e.g. WT/DS382/7. 
6 Japan would note, though, that a case that would so lely involve prohibited subsidies shall be subject 
to expedited proceedings under Article 4 of the SCM Agreement, and in urgent cases that typically concerned 
perishable goods, "panels and the Appellate Body shall make every effort to acceler ate the proceedings to the 
greatest extent possible" under the best endeavour provision of Article 4.9 of the DSU. WT/DSB/M/295 
Page 16  
 
speakers had pointed out, the parties may be less lik ely and less willing to agree to this temporal 
arrangement.  Given the current and prospective c aseload, this could further hinder the Appellate 
Body from organizing its work orderly and efficiently .  Therefore, the temporal arrangement created 
to address current unusual circumstances must be im plemented and managed in a fair, consistent and 
equitable manner.  In short, Japan believed that:  (i) the temporal arrangements were exceptional in 
nature, and (ii) the dispute settlement system woul d be better served if Members who were willing to 
support the system would have confidence in the fair ness and equity in the way in which the system 
worked. 
84. The representative of Canada said that, as in other cases and as other delegations had stated, 
parties had agreed to delay the adoption of the Pane l Report in order to assist the Appellate Body in 
managing its heavy work load.  At the present meet ing, Brazil and the United States were asking the 
DSB to adopt a decision to endorse that agreement.   Canada supported the c ooperative approach that 
Members had taken to assist the Appellate Body in recent months and agreed with the adoption of the 
decision.  That being said, Canada believed that Members would be more likely to continue such 
cooperation if all Members and a ll cases were treated equitably.  
85. The representative of the United States said that his country was also puzzled by one of the 
preceding interventions, namely, that of the EU.  Th e issue was very simple.  It was clear that both 
parties to this dispute had rights under Article 17 of  the DSU.  The Appellate Body had requested the 
assistance of the parties and, through the draft decisi on put forward by the parties, the assistance of all 
Members, including the EU.  The parties had jointly put forward a decision to the DSB at the present 
meeting and both parties to this dispute supported that decision.   
86. The DSB took note of the statements. 
87. The Chairperson proposed that:  "The DSB agree that, upon a request by Brazil or the 
United States, the DSB shall, no later than 17 June 2 011, adopt the Report of the Panel in the dispute:  
United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Reviews and Other Measures Related to Imports of 
Certain Orange Juice from Brazil , contained in document WT/DS382/R, unless (i) the DSB decides 
by consensus not to do so or (ii) either party to the dispute notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal 
pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DSU". 
88. The DSB so agreed. 
6. Proposed nomination for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental 
panelists (WT/DSB/W/447) 
89. The Chairperson drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/447, which c ontained an additional 
name proposed for inclusion on the indicative list of  governmental and non-governmental panelists, in 
accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU.  She propo sed that the DSB approve the name contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/447. 
90. The DSB so agreed. 
7. Statement by the Chairperson regarding so me matters concerning the Appellate Body 
91. The Chairperson, speaking under "Other Busi ness", said that, as she had announced at the 
outset of the present meeting, she wished to make  a statement under "Other Business" concerning 
some matters related to the Appellate Body.  As Members may have been aware, the first terms of 
office of two Appellate Body members, Ms. Lilia Ba utista and Ms. Jennifer H illman, would expire on 
10 December 2011.  In that regard, she recalled that under Article 17.2 of the DSU, "the DSB shall appoint persons to serve on the Appellate Body  for a four-year term and each person may be 
reappointed once".  As Members we re aware, the appointment of any individual on the Appellate  WT/DSB/M/295 
 Page 17 
 
 
Body required a formal decision of the DSB.  The Chairperson said that she had been informed by 
Ms Bautista that she would not seek reappointment for a second term.  Ms Hillman had informed the 
Chairperson that she was not requesting the DSB to  consider her for reappointment.  Therefore, on 
behalf of all WTO Members, the Chairperson th anked Ms. Bautista and Ms. Hillman for their 
contribution to the work of the Appellate Body and wished them success in th eir future endeavours.  
The Chairperson drew attention to the fact that, under the circumstances, the DSB would be required, 
in the near future, to take certain actions with respect to those Appellate Body positions.  It was, 
therefore, her intention to include this matter on the Agenda of the 24 May 2011 DSB meeting in 
order to propose the following:  (i) to launch as from 24 May 2011 the selection process for the two 
positions in the Appellate Body;  (ii) to set a de adline of 31 August 2011 for Members' nomination of 
candidates for the two positions;  (iii) to agree to establish a Selection Committee, based on the 
procedure set out in document WT/DSB/1, which w ould consist of the Director-General and the 2011 
Chairpersons of the General Council, the Goods Council, the Services Council, the TRIPS Council 
and the DSB, which would be presided by the 2011 DSB Chair;  and (iv) to request the Selection Committee to conduct interviews with candidat es and to hear views of WTO Members in 
September/October 2011, and to make reco mmendations to the DSB by no later than 
10 November 2011 so that the DSB could take a final decision on this matter at the latest at its regular 
meeting on 21 November 2011.   
92. The DSB took note of the statement.  
__________