 RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/ 458 
26 January  2022 
(22-0630) Page: 1/14 
Dispute Settlement Body  
29 November  2021   
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 29 NOVEMBER  20211 
Chairman : H.E.  Mr Didier  Chambovey  (Switzerland ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating in the 
meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body  (DSB)  both in -person and remotely ; (ii) the Chairman  said 
that he wished to recall a few technical instructions regarding the virtual participation of delegations. 
If a Member was unable to take the floor during the meeting because of a technical issue, the 
delegation c ould inform himself or the Secretariat and that Agenda item wo uld remain open until the 
delegation c ould take the floor.  In the alternative, the item would remain open temporarily, the 
meeting would proceed to the next Agenda  item, and the DSB would revert to the open item after 
the technical issue ha d been resolved.  If a technical issue remain ed unresolved, the delegation ha d 
the option to send the statement to the Secretariat with the request that it be read out by the 
Secretariat on behalf of that delegation during the meeting so that the statement could be reflect ed 
in the minutes of the meeting ; and (iii) the Chairman  made a  short statement regarding item 4 of 
the proposed Agenda of the 28  April 2021 DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute. He said 
that, as Members recalled, this matter had been removed from t he proposed Agenda to allow time 
for the Chairman's consultations with each interested party on this matter  and that those 
consultations were ongoing . 
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agenda.2 
 
Table of Contents  
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ .............  3 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by 
the United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  3 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Union  ................................ ................................ ...... 4 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ .........................  4 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ..............  5 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: 
Status  report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  
2 Following the adoption of the Agenda, Tunisia raised its flag to indicate that it would wish to include an 
item under "Other Business" in order to report on its consultations with Morocco reg arding the DS578 dispute. 
In light of this request, the Chairman asked if Members were in a position to amend the proposed Agenda in 
order to include the item proposed by Tunisia under "Other Business" . No delegation objected to this way of 
proceeding and the Agenda was adopted, as amended . WT/DSB/M/ 458 
- 2 - 
  2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ..........................  6 
A. Statement by the European Union  ................................ ................................ .....................  6 
3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES 
AFFECTING  TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ................................ ................................ .... 6 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ........................  6 
4  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING DOMESTIC AND 
FOREIGN PRODUCTS AND SERVICES  ................................ ................................ ................  7 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union ................................ ..........  7 
5  DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON CORRUGATED STEEL 
BARS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  7 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Costa Rica  ................................ .......................  7 
6  PROPOSED NOMINATION FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS ................................ ................................ ....................  8 
7  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF 
BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; 
CAMBO DIA; CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CHAD; CHILE; 
CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; EL 
SALVADOR; ESWATINI; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA;  GHANA; 
GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUINEA BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; 
ICELAND; INDIA; INDONESIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF 
KOREA; LESOTHO; LIECHTENSTEIN; MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; MALAYSIA; 
MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; 
MOROCCO; MOZAMBIQUE; NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND; NICARAGUA; 
NIGER; NIGERIA; NORTH MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PANAMA; 
PARAGUAY; PERU; QATAR; RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; SENEGAL; 
SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; SINGAPORE; SOUTH AFRICA; SWITZERLAND; THE  
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; 
TANZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO; TUNISIA; TURKEY; UGANDA; UKRAINE; UNITED 
KINGDOM; URUGUAY; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; 
ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.20)  ................................ ......................  9 
8  REPORT BY TUNISIA REGARDING THE CONSULTATIONS WITH MOROCCO 
CONCERNING THE DISPUTE: "MOROCCO – DEFINITIVE ANTI -DUMPING 
MEASURES ON SCHOOL EXERCI SE BOOKS FROM TUNISIA" (DS578)  .............................  14 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan : Status 
report by the United St ates (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 21) 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.196) 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.159) 
D. United States – Anti-dumpi ng and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/A dd.43) WT/DSB/M/ 458 
- 3 - 
  E. United States – Certain methodologies and their applica tion to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/A dd.35) 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.27 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.30) 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning 
status  reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU. As Members recalled, 
Article  21.6 require d that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved." Under this Agenda item, the Chairman  wished to invite  
delegations to provide up-to-date information about their compliance efforts. The Chairman also 
wished to remind delegations that, as provided for in  Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB 
meetings: " Representatives should make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each 
meeting on any issue that has already been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to 
have been no cha nge in Members' positions already on record."  
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 21) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 21, wh ich contained the 
status  report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
in the case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 18 November 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States 
had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of 
anti-dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect 
to the recommendations of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration would 
confer with the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve 
this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thanked the United States for its latest 
status  report and the statement made at the present meeting. Japan,  once again , called on the 
United  States to fully implement the  DSB's recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this 
matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular  
meeting . 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.1 96) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.19 6, which contained the 
status  report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act . 
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 18 November 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. 
The US Administration would continue to confer with the Europea n Union, and with the US Congress, 
in order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter . 
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union thank ed the 
United  States for its status report and its statement  made at the present meeting . The European 
Union  referred to its previous statements  and reiterated that it  wished to resolve  this case  as soon 
as possible . 
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular  
meeting . WT/DSB/M/ 458 
- 4 - 
  C. European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 59) 
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.15 9, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of 
biotech  products . 
1.11.   The representative of the European Union  said that the United States frequently referred  to 
products that had successfully passed the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) risk assessment, 
but not yet received final approval through comitology . The European Union wished to point  out that 
there were administrative procedures between the publ ication of the EFSA's favourable opinion and 
the comitology vote that had to be respected . Those included, among others, procedures related to 
transparency, such as a one -month public consultation . The European Union failed to see how th ose 
procedures coul d be characterised as "undue delay" . The European Union reiterated  that it had acted 
in line with its WTO  obligations  and recalled that the EU approval system was not covered by the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.  To update the WTO Membership concerning the progress of 
the applications throughout the authorisation process, the European Union  noted that: ( i) the 
Standing  Committee meeting was held online on 22 November 2021; ( ii) the Commission presented 
a draft deci sion renewing the authorisation of GM cotton GHB614; and ( iii) the vote on that 
draft decision was ongoing by written procedure . 
1.12.   The representative of the United States  thanked the European  Union for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting. The  United  States continued to engage with the 
European Union in good faith on these issues, and had provided recommendations on 
several  occasions as to how the European Union could address the undue delays in its 
approval  procedures. The United S tates said that the European Union had recently cited 
"administrative procedures", such as a one -month public consultation period, as the reason that 
products had not made further progress through its comitology process in situations where the 
European Foo d Safety Authority (EFSA) had completed a risk assessment. The  United  Sates had 
previously noted that the European Union's "administrative procedures" and findings of "no opinion" 
at both the Standing  Committee and Appeals Committee meetings created delays  between the 
conclusion of an EFSA risk assessment and final approvals. It was the understanding of the 
United  States that there were still approximately eight (8) biotech products for which the EFSA had 
successfully completed a risk assessment, yet which had not received final  approval through 
comitology. The United States requested that the European Union move to issue final  approvals for 
all products that had completed science -based risk assessments at EFSA, including those products 
that were with the St anding  Committee and Appeals Committee . 
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next  regular  
meeting . 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 43) 
1.14.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 43, which contained the 
status  report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
in the case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea . 
1.15.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a 
status  report in this dispute on 18 November 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. 
On 6 May 2019, the US Department of Commerce published a notice in the US Federal Register 
announcing the revocation of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of 
large residential washers from Korea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 (6 May 2019)). Wit h this action, the 
United States had completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those 
anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders. The United States would consult with interested parties 
on options to address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this 
dispute .  WT/DSB/M/ 458 
- 5 - 
  1.16.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement  made at the present meeting . Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt 
and appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measures at issue 
in this dispute.   
1.17.   The representative of Canada  said that the United States continued to fail to comply with the 
DSB's ruling, a rising out of the Appellate Body report in "US – Washing Machines", that the 
"differential pricing methodology" (DPM) was "as such" inconsistent with the WTO Agreements. 
The United States had also ignored the DSB's recommendation that it had to  comply with  its 
obligations. Instead, the United States continued to apply the "as such" DPM in investigations with 
respect to foreign companies and continued to collect cash deposits from foreign exporters on the 
basis of that WTO-inconsistent methodology. The reaso nable period of time to implement the 
recommendations relating to the "as such" WTO inconsistency of the DPM had expired more than 
three years prior. However, in its most recent  status report, the United States declared that it 
continued to consult with in terested parties. Furthermore, the continued use of the DPM by the 
United States had obliged Members to resort to several dispute settlement proceedings concerning 
this measure. This was an inefficient and unnecessary use of WTO dispute settlement resource s. 
Canada remained deeply concerned about  the United States'  continued failure to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in "US – Washing Machines". This failure seriously undermined 
the security and predictability of the multilateral trading sy stem. 
1.18.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 35) 
1.19.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add.3 5, which contained the 
status  report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
in the case concerning certain methodologies and their ap plication to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China . 
1.20.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a 
status  report in this dispute on 18 November 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. 
As explained in that re port, the United States would consult with interested parties on options to 
address the recommendations of the DSB .  
1.21.   The representative of China  said that China thanked the United States for its most recent  
status  report. However, China  was disappoin ted that more than three years after the expiry of the 
reasonable period of time, the United  States had still fail ed to implement the adopted rulings and 
recommendations in this dispute. Prompt compliance was critical to the effectiveness and cred ibility 
of the dispute settlement system , which was in the best interests of the entire  Membership. 
China  urged the United  States to meet its obligation under  Article 21.1 of the DSU by  bringing full 
comp liance  in this dispute without further delay.  
1.22.   The DS B took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 30 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 30) 
1.23.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 30 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 30, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning importation of hort icultural products, animals and animal 
products . 
1.24.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia submit ted its status  report pursuant to 
Article 21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia wished to reiterate its commitment to implementing the 
recommendations and rulin g of the DSB in these disputes.  With regard to  measure 18, as reported 
at previous DSB meetings, Indonesia ha d removed all Articles in the relevant Laws that were found 
to be inconsistent with WTO rules , through the enactment of Law No.  11/2020 on Job Creation. 
With respect to measure s 1-17, Indonesia wished  to reassur e that, significant adjustment s in WT/DSB/M/ 458 
- 6 - 
  comply ing with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB had been car ried out through 
amendments to the relevant M inistry of Agriculture and Ministry of Trade Regulations. 
Those  adjustments include d the removal of disputed measures  including , inter alia : harvest period 
restriction , import realization requirements , six-months harvest requirement and reference price. 
Indonesia was commit ted to engag ing with New Zealand and the United States and reaffirm ed its 
commitment to implementing the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes . 
1.25.   The representative o f the United States  said that the United States was continuing to review 
Indonesia's new laws and regulations in light of Indonesia's recent statements and status reports. 
The United States also reiterated the question it had asked the previous month. It s eemed that 
Indonesia was in the process of issuing new regulations implementing Law No. 11/2020 on 
Job Creation that would affect Indonesia's import licensing regimes. In particular, the United States 
understood that Indonesia was developing a Presidential  Regulation on Commodity Balances, as well 
as new Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Trade regulations. The United States would appreciate 
further clarity on which regulations presently comprised Indonesia's import licensing regimes and 
on forthcoming  regulations that would affect the regimes. The United States remained willing to 
work with Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute . 
1.26.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thanked Indonesia for its 
status  report,  and acknowledged Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. Both compliance deadlines had, however, long since expired, and a 
number of measures remained non -compliant. New Zealand continued to review recent 
legislative  adjustments in order t o assess what impact this would have on Indonesia's compliance, 
in particular in respect of Measure 18. New Zealand understood that Indonesia was in the process 
of issuing new regulations under Law No. 11/2020 on Job Creation, which would impact this 
asses sment.  This include d the recently -released Ministry of Trade Regulation 20/2021 . New Zealand 
sought clarity on how the implementation of this regulation would amend Indonesia's 
import  licensing system . New Zealand invited Indonesia to provide further details as soon as possible 
and looked forward to further bilateral engagement to that end . 
1.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET AC T OF 2000 : 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the European Union  
2.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union , and he invited the representative of the European Union to speak . 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union wished to refer to its 
previous statements made under this Agenda  item. 
2.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States took note of the 
European  Union's statement. In that regard, the United States referred to its own prior statements 
under this Agenda item regarding Article 21.6 of the DSU . 
2.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES AFFE CTING 
TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT : IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS 
ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the United States  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda at the request of the United States, and 
he invited the representative of the United States to speak . 
3.2.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States referred to its previous 
statements under this agenda item regarding Article 21.6 of the DSU . The United States wished to WT/DSB/M/ 458 
- 7 - 
  simply note at the present meeting that, as Members were aware, on 15 June 2021, the 
United  States and the European Union had reached an "Understanding on a cooperative framework 
for Large Civil Aircraft." The United States looked forward to engaging with its European partners to 
bring about a more level global playing field . 
3.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union wished to refer to its 
previous stateme nts made under this Agenda item . 
3.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
4  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN 
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union (WT/DS604/2)  
4.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the European Union contained in 
document WT/DS 604/2, and he invite d the representative of the European Union to speak . 
4.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that i n the framework of the WTO, the 
Russian Federation had taken certain commitments as regards procurements of State -related 
entities for commercial purposes, including not to discriminate between domestic and 
imported  products and between services from Russian and foreign entities. However, f or several 
years, the Russian Federation had developed several measures seriously disadvantaging 
EU companies when selling goods and services to Russian State -related enterprises and other 
entities through procurement for commercial purposes. The European Union  had raised this issue a 
number of times bilaterally and in WTO fora. Unfortunately , without solving the problem. In 2019, 
the value of published tenders by State -owned enterprises amounted to RUB 23.5 trillion 
(approximately EUR 290 billion) the equi valent of around 20% of Russia 's GDP. The European Union  
had requested consultations with the Russian Federation on this matter on 22 July 2021. 
A consultations meeting had taken  place on 13 September 2021. The meeting was useful in clarifying 
certain points, but did not resolve the dispute. The European Union  urged the Russian Federation to 
withdraw the measures in question or to make them compliant with its WTO obligations. To that 
end, the European Union request ed the establishment of a panel to fully examine  the measures.  
4.3.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that  the Russian Federation regre tted the 
decision of the European Union to request establishment of a panel  in the dispute DS604 
"Russian  Federation – Certain Measures Concerning Domestic and Foreign Products and Services ". 
She recalled that t he European Union  had requested consultations on 22 July 2021. Following that 
request, the  Russian Federation had engaged constructively in consultations and provided detailed 
explanation of its laws and regulations at issue with a view to resolv ing this dispute. 
The Russian  Federation was confident that its measures were in compliance with its WTO obligations. 
At the same time, the Russia n Federation  was ready and willing to continue to consult  with Brussels 
on this matter . In light of that, the Russian Federation was not in a position  at the present meeting  
to support the request for the establ ishment of a panel.  
4.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter should a requesting 
Member wish to do so.  
5  DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON CORRUGATED STEEL BARS  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Costa R ica (WT/DS605/2)  
5.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Costa Rica contained in document 
WT/DS 605/2, and he invite d the representative of Costa Rica to speak . 
5.2.  The Representative of Costa Rica  said that, f or Costa Rica, the good functioning of the 
multilateral trading system , which  was open, transparent and rules -based, was fundamental for 
complying with  its trade and investment policy objectives. For that reason, Costa Rica was  firmly 
committed to strength ening the system and to acting in compliance with its WTO  commitments . 
Part of this relate d to the possibility of resorting  to the dispute  settlement mechanism when 
necessary. This had been, was, and continue d to be, a pillar and a very important element  of this WT/DSB/M/ 458 
- 8 - 
  Organization, and an important  tool for  Members  in their efforts  to find balanced solutions to actions , 
which they considered to undermine  their rights and had an impact on their trade  interests.  With 
this objective , and being aware of the options  provided  for by the dispute settlement mechanism, 
Costa  Rica had requested the inclusion of  this matter  on the Agenda of the present meeting . This 
dispute concerned definitive anti -dumping dut ies imposed by the Dominican Republic on im ports of 
corrugated or deformed steel bars or rods from Costa Rica.  In Costa Rica's view,  this measure was 
not compatible  with the obligations of the Dominican  Republic under Article VI of the GATT  1994 and 
of the Agreement on Implementation of Article  VI of the GATT  1994 ("Anti -Dumping Agreement").  
Costa Rica consider ed that the investigation conducted prior to the application of the anti -dumping 
duty, initiated on 30  July 2018 at the request of a Dominican producer , did not meet the minimum 
requirements o f the Anti -Dumping Agreement. This was because, following an investigation 
containing innumerable flaws, the Regulatory Commission on Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard 
Measures of the Dominican Republic issued a final determination providing for the app lication of 
definitive anti -dumping measures, despite the fact that there was no evidence  of dumping , injury or 
causation .  
5.3.  Therefore , on 23  July 2021, Costa Rica had requested consultations with the 
Dominican  Republic, in line with  Articles 1 and 4 of the DSU, Article 17 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement, and Article  XXII of the GATT  1994.  The consultations between the two countries  had 
taken place on 20 September  2021. However, the consultations  had failed to settle  this dispute. 
Costa  Rica thank ed the Dominican  Republic for its readiness to hear questions and requests for 
information put forward  by Costa Rica during the consultations . However, the serious concerns of 
Costa  Rica about  the investigation and the anti -dumping dut ies impose d still remained . Given that , 
Costa Rica respectfully request ed that a panel be established pursuant to Articles  4.7 and 6 of the 
DSU, Article 17.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, and Article  XXIII of the GATT  1994, to examine 
this matter . Costa Rica also r equest ed that the panel be given standard terms of reference provided 
for in Article 7.1 of the DSU . 
5.4.  The representative of the Dominican Republic  said that the Dominican Republic regretted 
Costa  Rica's decision to request the establishment of a panel to examine this matter.  The 
Dominican  Republic consider ed that this request was premature because the parties ha d not 
exhausted all possibilities to reach an amicable solution. In fact, the Dominican Republic was 
surprised by Costa Rica's decision to request the establishment of a panel at that time, since the 
Dominican Republic had shown that it was ready and willing to engage in further rounds of 
consultations to try to settle this dispute amicabl y. At the present meeting, t he Dominican Republic 
was not in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel . The Dominican Republic reiterate d 
that it was ready to  continue to coordinate and cooperate with Costa Rica in an effort to finding  an 
amicable s olution and thus avoid a panel procedure.  
5.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter should a requesting 
Member wish to do so . 
6  PROPOSED NOMINATION FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS (WT/DSB/W/689)  
6.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/689 which contained a new nomination 
proposed by Qatar for inclusion on the Indicative List of Governmental and Non -Governmental 
Panelists, in accordance with Article  8.4 of the DSU. He propos ed that the DSB approve the name 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/689.  
6.2.  The DSB so agreed . WT/DSB/M/ 458 
- 9 - 
  7  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA; 
BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO; B URUNDI; CABO VERDE; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; 
CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CHAD; CHILE; CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA 
RICA; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMINICAN 
REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; EL SALVADOR; ESWATINI; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; 
THE GAMBIA; GHANA; GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUINEA BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, 
CHINA; ICELAND; INDIA; INDONESIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF 
KOREA; LESOTHO; LIECHTENSTEIN; MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; 
MALI; MAURITANIA; MAURIT IUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; MOROCCO; 
MOZAMBIQUE; NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND; NICARAGUA; NIGER; NIGERIA; NORTH 
MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PANAMA; PARAGUAY; PERU; QATAR; RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION; RWANDA; SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; SINGAPORE; SOUTH  
AFRICA; SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU; TANZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO; TUNISIA; TURKEY; UGANDA; 
UKRAINE; UNITED KINGDOM; URUGUAY; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA; 
VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609 /REV. 20) 
7.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegations. He then drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 20, and invited the representative of Mexico to spea k. 
7.2.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 20, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 18 November 2021, to launch the sel ection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body members. First of all, Mexico wished to welcome Cambodia as a 
new co -sponsor of this proposal.  On behalf of those 12 2 Members, Mexico wished to state the 
following. The  extensive number of Members su bmitting this joint proposal reflected a common 
concern with the current situation in the Appellate Body that was seriously affecting the overall 
dispute settlement system, against the best interest of its Members. WTO Members had a 
responsibility to safeguard and pres erve the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system, and the 
multilateral trading system. Thus, it was their duty to proceed, without further delay, with the 
launching of the selection  processes for the Appellate Body members, as submitted to the DSB at  
the present meeting. The proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection processes (one process to 
replace Mr  Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term had expired on 30 June 2017; a second 
process to fill the vacancy result ing from the resignation of Mr  Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 
1 August  2017; a third process to replace Mr  Peter Van den Bossche, whose second term had expired 
on 11 December 2017; a fourth process to replace Mr  Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, whose 
four-year term of office expired o n 30 September  2018; a fifth process to replace Mr  Ujal Singh 
Bhatia, whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; a sixth process to replace Mr  Thomas 
Graham whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; and a seventh selection process to 
replace Ms  Hong Zhao, whose first four -year term of office had expired on 30  November  2020); 
(ii) to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for the submission of 
candida tes; and (iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its  recommendation s within 
60 days after the deadline for nominations of candidates. The proponents were flexible in the 
determination of the deadlines for the selection processes, but Members should consider the urgency 
of the situation. The proponents conti nued to urge all Members to support this proposal in the 
interest of the dispute settlement and multilateral trading systems . 
7.3.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States was not in a position to 
support the proposed decision. The U nited States continued to have systemic concerns with the 
Appellate Body. As Members knew, the United States had raised and explained its systemic concerns 
for more than 16 years and across multiple US Administrations. The United States believed that 
Membe rs had to undertake fundamental reform if the system was to remain viable and credible. 
The dispute settlement system could and should better support the WTO's negotiating and 
monitoring functions. The United States looked forward to further discussions wi th Members on those 
important issues . 
7.4.  The representative of Iceland  said that a s one of the many co -sponsors to this proposal, Iceland 
was concerned about  this Organisation 's long-standing lack of progress in filling the vacancies of the 
Appellate Body. Ic eland was of the view that the two -step WTO dispute settlement system play ed a 
central role in providing predictability within the multilateral trading system and securing a fair WT/DSB/M/ 458 
- 10 - 
  playing field for all participants – large and small. Iceland,  therefore , called on all Members to engage 
constructively and resolve this impasse without further delay . 
7.5.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union wished to refer to its 
previous statements made on this issue. Since 11 December 2019, the WTO no longer guarantee d 
access to a binding, two -tier, independent and impartial resolution of trade disputes. A fully 
functioning WTO  dispute settlement system was critical for a rules -based multilateral trading 
system. This was why the most urgent area of WTO reform involve d finding an agreed basis to 
restore such a system and proceeding to the appointment of the members of the Appellate Body. 
This task should be addressed as a priority. As the European Union had consistently  noted, WTO 
Members ha d a shared responsibility to resolve this issue as soon as possible, and to fill the 
outstanding vacancies as required by Article 17.2 of the DSU. The E uropean Union  agree d that a 
meaningful reform was needed in order to achieve th is objective. The European Union,  therefore , 
renew ed its call on all WTO  Members to engage in a constructive discussion as soon as possible in 
order to restore a fully  functioning WTO dispute settlement system. The European Union  thank ed all 
Members that ha d co-sponsored the proposal to launch the appointment processes.  
7.6.  The representative of China  said that China warmly welcome d Cambodia 's decision to 
co-sponsor the joint proposal. China  support ed the statement made  by Mexico on behalf of 
122 co-sponsors and call ed upon other  Members to join this proposal. China  referred to its previous 
statements on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm commitment to an independent and 
impartial two -tier dispute  settlement syst em. The paralysis of the Appellate Body ha d posed a 
serious challenge to the multilateral trading system, and more than a dozen cases had been appealed 
into the void. This unsustainable situation not only deprive d Members ' right to defend their interests, 
but also jeopardize d the security and predictability of this rules -based organization. 
China  appreciate d the hard work undertaken by Members under the capable leadership of the 
General Council  Chair in preparation for the MC12 outcome document, in particul ar the progress 
made on paragraph 8 on the dispute settlement system. In spite of postponement of MC12, China  
urged all Members to maintain the positive momentum and engage in constructive discussions with 
a view to having a fully and well -functioning disp ute settlement system . 
7.7.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China wished  to join Mexico and 
other Members including the new co -sponsor, Cambodia, to express its deep concern about the 
Appellate Body impasse and the dysfuncti onal dispute settlement system in the WTO. Hong  Kong, 
China wished to reiterate its commitment to engagi ng in constructive discussions, including on any 
necessary reforms, to resolve th is problem, with a view to restoring a full y function ing dispute 
settlement system as soon as possible. Despite the postponement of MC12, Hong Kong, China 
consider ed that Memb ers should continue to press ahead with any discussion and reform to achieve 
the said goal . 
7.8.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan referred to its statements made at the previous 
DSB meetings and supported the proposal. Japan shared the sense of urgen cy for reform of the 
dispute settlement system. As Japan had stated consistently, Japan considered it the utmost priority 
to achieve an expeditious reform that would contribute to a long -lasting solution to the structural 
and functional problems of the dis pute settlement system. Therefore, every WTO Member, as the 
owner of the system, had to  take seriously the current situation where the Appellate  Body had 
virtually ceased its operation a long time ago, and meanwhile, a number of cases had been appealed 
into the void. Furthermore, Japan considered it essential that every WTO Member re -start 
constructive discussions on the reform of the dispute settlement system, including on how to address 
the concerns surrounding the Appellate Body. Japan would spare no eff orts to collaborate with all 
WTO Members to that end . 
7.9.  The representative of Norway  said that Norway fully support ed the joint proposal pr esented  by 
Mexico on behalf of 122  co-sponsor s Norway  also welcome d Cambodia as a new cosponsor of the 
proposal.  A fully functioning dispute settlement mechanism was an indispensable part of the 
multilateral trading system. Members  urgently need to fulfil their duty as Members of the WTO and 
start the selection processes to fill the vacancies in the Appellate  Body, in accordance with the DSU  
provisions. New developments that had taken this very weekend were no doubt an anti -climax. 
The postponement of the Ministerial Conference was, however, the right decision given recent  
developments. Health and safety had to  always come first . As the Director -General non etheless 
underlined , momentum that had been  established should be maintained. Norway was ready to WT/DSB/M/ 458 
- 11 - 
  continue discussions to ensure the re -establishment of the dispute settlement system as soon as 
possible . 
7.10.   The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland wished to refer to its statements made 
on this matter at previous DSB meetings. She said that a  fully functional appeals stage was in 
everyone's interest , and Switzerland hoped that fresh impetus could be given rapidly  to resolve the 
impasse that Members had been facing for too long. Switzerland remained ready to work towards 
that objective, and strongly encouraged all Members to engage constructively in s eeking concrete 
solutions to unlock the current situation.  
7.11.   The representative of India said that  India wished to refer to its statements made on this 
matter  at previous DSB meetings  and also welcome d Cambodia in supporting th e proposal for the 
Appellate Body appointments. Finally, India request ed all WTO Members to resolve this matter and 
work on filling the outstanding vacancies , as set out in Article 17.2 of the DSU.  
7.12.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia wishe d to refer to its previous statements 
delivered at the previous DSB meetings with regard to this agenda  item. Indonesia  wished to again 
avail itself of this opportunity to urge all Members to attach  their serious attention, willingness, and 
commitment towards  the immediate appointment of the Appellate Body members . 
7.13.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that  the Russian Federation wished  to thank 
Mexico and co -sponsors for their continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment processes 
of the Appellate Body members. The Russian Federation wished  to warmly welcome Cambodia as a 
new co -sponsor. Russia reiterate d its strong support for launching the appointment  processes 
immediately. At the same time, the Russian Federation call ed upon all Members  to engage in urgent 
constructive discussions towards a fully functioning dispute settlement system as soon as possible.  
7.14.   The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Mexico for its statement  and 
welcome d Cambodia 's co-sponsorship of th e joint  proposal. Singapore  wished to reiterat e its 
previous statements on this matter and urge d all Members, including the United States, to 
commence constructive discussions with a view to find ing a lasting multilateral solution in or der to 
restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system as soon as possible .  
7.15.   The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d to support 
this agenda item to launch the process for appointments to the Appellate Body and welcome d 
Cambodia as a new co -sponsor. The impasse in appointments was continuing to prevent the 
dispute  settlement system from being of proper utility to Members consistently securing positive 
solutions to their disputes. The United Kingdom said that it  was the time for the whole 
WTO Membership to commit urgently to ensuring the full functioning of the dispute settlement 
system, and to collaborate with action and energy to deliver. As others had stated , Members  had to  
maintain the momentum they had started to build. Members  needed  to work together to understand 
what a well and fully functioning system look ed like for all Members and to bring that into being, 
without delay. An effective dispute settlement system benefit ed all Members . It ensure d that the 
rules Members  had negotiated were enforceable, and in doing so, contribute d to realising the benefits 
of trade liberalisation. It serve d as a backstop against WTO inconsistent trade practices, and it help ed 
to create a more predictable and stable trad ing environment.  The United Kingdom would  continue 
to work with all Members on this important matter.  
7.16.   The representative of Canada  said that  Canada support ed Mexico 's statement and share d the 
concerns expressed by other Members at the present meeting . Canada congratulate d Cambodia for 
having joined this proposal and invite d those WTO Members who had not yet endorsed the proposal 
to consider joining the 12 2 Members who were calling for the selection process to be launched. 
The critical mass of WTO Members who support ed this proposal was a clear testimony to the 
importance they all attach ed to a fully operational Appellate Body as an integral part of the 
dispute  settlement sy stem. The fact that the Appellate Body could not  hear new appeals was very 
worrying. Canada reiterate d its interest in contributing to discussions aimed at finding solutions 
regarding the functioning of the Appellate Body. It remain ed Canada's  priority to find a lasting 
multilateral solution for all Members, including the  United  States. Meanwhile, Canada and 24 other 
WTO Members had endorsed the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) as a 
contingency measure. This measure sought  to safegu ard their rights to binding dispute settlement , 
including the possibility of appeal in disputes among themselves . The MPIA was open to all WT/DSB/M/ 458 
- 12 - 
  WTO Members. Canada  invite d all WTO Members to consider joining the MPIA to safeguard their 
dispute settlement rights  to the greatest extent possible until Members  collectively found  a 
permanent solution to the impasse in the Appellate Body. Canada was available to discuss the MPIA 
with any interested Member.  
7.17.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand wished  to reiterate its support for 
the co -sponsored proposal and to refer to its previous statements. New Zealand  also welcome d 
Cambodia as the latest co -sponsor of this proposal. New Zealand  continue d to urge all Members to 
constructively engage on the issues with a view to addressing this situation as a priority.  
7.18.   The representative of Brazil  said that  Brazil thank ed Mexico for the presentation of the 
proposal on behalf of the co-sponsors  and welcome d Cambodia as the most recent co -sponsor. 
Brazil  wished to refer to its previous statements and stood  ready, as it had always been, to engage 
with all Members in order to find a lasting solution to this impasse.  
7.19.   The representative of Thailand  said that  Thailand thank ed Mexico for its statement and 
welcome d Cambodia as the newest co -sponsor.  Thailand wished to refer to its previous statements 
and reiterate d its strong concerns over the long absence of a functioning Appellate Body and the 
importance of a two-tier binding dispute settlement system , which was an integral part of the core 
elements of the WTO. Thailand  remain ed fully committed to a solution -oriented discussion and 
renew ed its call on all Members to continue their constructive engagement with a  view to finding 
ways to solve this impasse.  
7.20.   The representative of Malaysia  said that  Malaysia wished  to thank Mexico for presenting the 
proposal on behalf of the co -sponsors and wish ed to express its support for the statements made 
by Mexico.  Malaysia  also warmly welcome d Cambodia as the latest co -sponsor of this proposal. The 
fact that nearly 75% of the WTO Membership were co-sponsoring this proposal and the number of 
times the proposal had been tabled at the DSB underscore d the importance of this issu e to all 
Members . It was very unfortunate that no positive outcome  had been achieved on this matter  despite 
the overwhelming support from Members. Once again, Malaysia  wished  to state its strong support 
for a fair, open and non -discriminatory rules -based m ultilateral trading system. Members  had to  
ensure the two -tier dispute settlement system remain ed as the central pillar of this institution. It 
was the responsibility of all WTO Members to preserve the system and maintain the credibility and 
predictability  of the multilateral trading system. Malaysia  called upon all Members to exercise the 
necessary flexibility to enable and restore the Appellate Body selection process  and request ed that 
the Appellate Body members  be appointed immediately.  
7.21.   The representati ve of Australia3 said that Australia share d the disappointment of all Members 
that MC12 could not be have been held, given the emergence of new pandemic concerns and 
restrictions. However, Australia  remain ed strongly committed to finding a solution in the interests 
of all Members to revitalise and reform the dispute settlement system. Members had to  harness the 
momentum and unity they achieved on this issue in drafting a Ministerial Declaration for MC12, 
which "recognize[d] the importance and urgency of addressing [the] challenges and concerns [with 
respect to the dispute settlement system], and commit[ed] to conduc t discussions with the view to 
having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by MC13 ". 
Australia  urged Members to build on this constructive engagement in taking forward this 
commitment, so they could  begin the cri tical work required to meet this shared objective.  
7.22.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed Mexico and reiterat ed its support for the 
joint proposal . Korea a lso welcome d Cambodia  as a new co -sponsor and wished to refer to its 
previous statements  made on this matter.  The WTO dispute settlement system ha d been a central 
element in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system , and Korea, as a 
firm supporter of the multilateral  trading system, was ready to engage  constructively in discussions 
in order to find a solution to enhance the functioning of the dispute settlement system with a view 
to accommodating the needs of WTO Members . 
7.23.   The representative of Mexico , speaking  on behalf of the 12 2 co-sponsors, regret ted that for 
the forty -eighth  occasion, Members had  still not been able to start the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body , and ha d thus continuously failed to fulfill their duty as Members of 
 
3 The statement b y Australia , who participated remotely and was unable to connect for technical reasons, 
was read out by the representative of the Secretariat.  WT/DSB/M/ 458 
- 13 - 
  this Organization. The fact that a Member may have had concerns about certain aspects of the 
functioning of the Appellate Body could not serve as  a pretext to impair and disrupt the work of this 
body and dispute settlement in general. There was no legal justification for the current blocking of 
the selection processes, which nullif ied and imp aired the rights of  many Members. As Article 17.2 of 
the DSU clearly stat ed, "vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". No discussion should prevent the 
Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully and Members shall comply with their obligation s 
under the DSU to fill the vacancies. Mexico  noted with deep concern that by failing to act at the 
present meeting , the Appella te Body w ould continue to be unable to perform its functions against 
the best interest of all Members . 
7.24.   The representative of Mexico  said that f or more than two years, Members had been requesting 
that this proposal  be approved by the DSB  in order  maintain t heir right to appeal,  as set out  in the 
DSU. Mexico wished to refer to its previous statements made on this matter  and continue d to express 
its deep concern as Members  were faced with an unprecedented situation , namely, an inoperativ e 
Appellate Body.  As Members  had seen at the present meeting  and in previous DSB meetings, all 
ongoing disputes were being affected by not having a fully functioning two -tier dispute settlement 
system, putting at risk the prompt compliance with  the recommendations of panel  reports . 
Mexico  wished  to highlight that when the Ministerial Conference did take place this would be an 
opportunity to give a signal to start working on a real multilateral solution . This was an urgent  matter  
and Mexico  called on other Members who had not done so to join th e proposal. Mexico  remain ed 
ready to work constructively on a real and multilateral solution . 
7.25.   The representative of Chad, speaking on behalf of the LDC  Group, thank ed Mexico for its 
commitment and welcomed  Cambodia , who as a member of Group , had become  a co-sponsor of the 
document. The LDCs being the most vulnerable Members had an interest in ensuring the continued 
existence of the Appellate Body . Maintaining a solid and robust dispute settlement system with forms 
of legal con trol was an essential pillar of the WTO as a whole as it maintain ed the rule of law , which 
allowed trade disciplines to be effective. For this reason, a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system was in the interest of all regardless of their level of development . It was 
particularly useful for least developed countries, the most fragile countries among Members . 
The Appellate Body crisis was weakening the rules of the WTO  and it would seem clear that stronger 
Members were now in a better position to impose their views when faced with less  powerful 
Members. Therefore, t he Group  support ed the multilateral  trading system and a fully functioning 
Appellate Body.  
7.26.   The representative of Nigeria , speaking on  behalf of the African Group , said that t he Group  
wished to refer to its previous statements  and commend ed Mexico for its statement on the proposal 
for Appellate Body appointments. The fact that the Appellate Body could not  hear new appeals 
remain ed a concern. Members had a shared responsibility to safeguard the two -tiered dispute 
settlement system so as to prevent undermini ng the multilateral trading  system , particularly through 
a number of cases where Members had appealed into the void. Therefore, the Group urge d the DSB 
to urgently fulfil its obligation under the DSU which was to fill vacancies as they ar ose so as to 
maint ain the two -tiered dispute settlement system. This would  ensure predictability within the 
multilateral trading system. Finally, the Group encourage d all Members to engage constructively 
with each other in addressing the specific concerns raised against the  functioning of the Appellate 
Body, with a view to finding a solution. The African Group  urged all Members who had yet to 
co-sponsor the proposal to do so as soon as possible . 
7.27.   The representative of Cambodia  said that  Cambodia support ed the joint proposal c ontained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.20 on Appellate Body appointments and highly  appreciate d the other 
co-sponsors , in particular  Mexico,  for their effort s and the work done thus far with the prime 
objective of addressing the  crisis of th e Appellate Body , which was one of the main pillars of the 
WTO. Cambodia remained a  staunch supporter of the multilateral trading system and firmly believe d 
that an effective dispute settlement sy stem was indispensable for ensuring open and fair trade.  
Cambodia,  as a new co -sponsor of the joint proposal,  once again , wished  to reiterate its support and 
encourage d more attention  and commitment from all Members to support and join this  proposal  to 
uphold the central pillar of the multilateral trading system , which was  rules-based, liberal , 
predictable and inclusive for all.  
7.28.   The Chairman  thank ed all delegations for their statements  and said that , as in the past,  the 
statements would  be reflected in the minutes of the present  meeting. As Members were all aware , 
this was a politically sensitive matter , which could  only be resolved by constructive engagement on WT/DSB/M/ 458 
- 14 - 
  the part of all Members. This matter  was discussed  in the context of prepara tions for the next 
Ministerial Conference. He noted  that s ome delegations  had mentioned the fact that the Ministerial 
Conference had to be  postponed given the restrictions imposed by the host country , Switzerland, in 
order  to face a rapid spread of the new  mutation  of the virus.  He hoped that despite the 
postponement of the Ministerial  Conference , Members would  address this issue constructively in 
order to find a mutually satisfactory solution as soon as possible.  
7.29.   The DSB took note  of the statements . 
8  REPORT BY TUNISIA REGARDING THE CONSULTATIONS WITH MOROCCO CONCERNING 
THE DISPUTE: "MOROCCO – DEFINITIVE ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON SCHOOL 
EXERCISE BOOKS FROM TUNISIA" (DS578)  
8.1.  The representative of Tunisia , speaking under "Other Business",  said that Tunisia wished to 
provide an update on  its consultations with Morocco in order to find common ground between the 
parties in the dispute : "Morocco – Definitive Anti -Dumping Measures on School Exercise Books from 
Tunisia" (DS578). As  Tunisia had explained at the 26 October 2021 DSB meeting , the parties had 
met for a second time on 22  October 2021 to discuss ways to implement the findings of the panel 
report. At that meeting, Morocco had undertaken  to transmit to Tunisia, not later than 
29 October  2021, a revised calc ulation of dumping  margins  for the two Tunisian exporters 
concerned. However, one month had gone by and Tunisia was still awaiting news from Morocco,  
despite the fact that Tunisia had, on more than one occasion, asked Morocco to transmit the revised 
calcul ation, as promised . However, Tunisia had not received  any positive  reply. In the absence of 
any response or explanation for that delay , Tunisia was concerned that the technical level discussions 
had already end ed without reaching a ny positive outcome. Furthermore, at the 30  August  2021 DSB 
meeting , Tunisia had indicated that it intended to request the DSB to adopt  the panel report  in the 
DS578 dispute  at the November  DSB meeting . Some Members had approached Tunisia to discuss 
this matter,  but Tunisia had stressed that it would only do this  if consultations for an amicable 
settlement between the two  countries  failed to lead to a positive ou tcome. Giving priority to a 
consensus -based approach, Tunisia wanted to exhaust all possible avenues, in particular by giving 
Ministers from both sides the opportunity to discuss th is matter on the margins of MC12, which 
unfortunately had been postponed . Tunisia thus refrained from requesting the adoption of the panel 
report at the present  meeting. Furthermore,  Tunisia , out of concern for the smooth running of MC12  
believed that this was  not the right moment for a legal discussion. In that context, Tunisia reaffirm ed 
its conviction,  that the Chairman's  involvement  in this process  would be greatly appreciated in order 
to pursue the diplomatic route . In this regard, Tunisia  was grateful for the recent eff orts by the 
Chairman to ascertain the availability of the parties for a meeting . Tunisia ha d, of course, expressed 
its willingness to participate in such a  meeting and hope d that Morocco would  do the same. Hence, 
Tunisia reiterated  its commitment to th e process of seeking a final outcome to this dispute as soon 
as possible, by proposing  a range of options . These options  includ ed bilateral discussions, pursuant 
to Morocco's wish , mediation by the DSB Chair and appeal proceedings , pursuant to Article 25 of th e 
DSU, in order to allow Morocco to defend its position before a functioning Appellate Body so that it 
would not have to appeal in to the void. To that end, Tunisia  intend ed to make one last attempt to 
pursue the discussions on the basis of what had been put forward. However, if Morocco were to 
clearly renege on its commitments or fail ed to respond positively to the Chairman's  efforts to invite  
the parties to a meeting at the  diplomatic level, Tunisia would seriously consider requesting the 
adoption of the panel report  by the DSB at its 20 December  regular  meeting. Tunisia stood  ready to 
engage in di scussions  with interested Members regarding the approach taken by Tunisia in this 
dispute.  
8.2.  The DSB took note  of the statement . 
__________  