 RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/438  
 
25 February  2020 
(20-1424) Page: 1/17 
Dispute Settlement Body  
18 December 2019    
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 18 DECEMBER 2019 
Acting Chairperson : H.E. Ms. Sunanta KANGVALKULKIJ  (Thailand ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda , the Chairperson of the General Council, Ambassador Sunanta 
welcomed delegations and said that she h ad the pleasure of chairing  the present DSB meeting  in 
the absence of Ambassador David Walker , the Chairman of the DSB. She said that t his was in 
accordance with the Rules of Procedure for meetings of the DSB, which provide d that: "If the DSB 
Chair person  was absent from any meeting or part thereof, the Chairperson of the General Council, 
or in the latter 's absence, the Chairperson of the Trade Policy Review Bo dy, shall perform the 
functions of the DSB Chairperson ".  
 
Also prior to the adoption of the Agenda , the item concerning the adoption of the Panel Report in 
the dispute on: " United States  – Countervailing  Measures on Certain Hot -Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from India : Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India " (DS436) was removed from the 
proposed Agenda following the US decision  to appeal the Panel Report.  
 
 
Table of contents  
 
1   SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RE COMMENDATIONS  
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 ................................ ................................ ....... 3 
D. United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential  
washers from Korea: Status report by the United  States  ................................ ..........................  5 
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  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  6 
G/H. Brazil – Certain measures concerning taxation and charges: Status reports by Brazil  ...........  7 
2   UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT  OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTED BY THE DSB  ..........................  9 
A. Statement by the European Union  ................................ ................................ .....................  9 WT/DSB/M/43 8 
 
- 2 - 
 
 
3   EUROPEAN COMMUNI TIES AND CERTAIN MEM BER STATES – MEASURE S  
AFFECTING TRADE IN L ARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT:  IMPLEMENTATION OF T HE 
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOP TED BY THE DSB  ................................ ................................ .. 10 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ....................... 10 
4   PROPOSED NOMINAT IONS FOR THE INDICAT IVE LIST OF GOVERNME NTAL  
AND NON -GOVERNMENTAL  PANELISTS  ................................ ................................ ..........  11 
5   APPELLATE BODY A PPOINTMENTS: PROPOSA L BY AFGHANISTAN; AN GOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA ; BENIN; PLURINATION AL STATE OF BOLIVIA;  BOTSWANA; 
BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; CAMEROON; CANADA; CE NTRAL 
AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CH AD; CHILE; CHINA; CO LOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA  RICA; 
CÔTE  D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMO CRATIC REPUBLIC OF C ONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMI NICAN  
REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; E GYPT; EL SALVADOR; E SWATINI; THE EUROPEA N UNION; 
GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHA NA; GUATEMALA; GUINE A; GUINEA -BISSAU; HO NDURAS; 
HONG KONG, CHINA; IC ELAND; INDIA; INDONE SIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHS TAN; KENYA; 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA; L ESOTHO; LIECHTENSTEI N; MADAGASCAR; MALAW I;  
MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; MA URITIUS; MEX ICO; MOROCCO; 
MOZAMBIQUE; NAMIBIA;  NEW ZEALAND; NICARA GUA; NIGER; NIGERIA;  
NORTH  MACEDONIA; NORWAY; P AKISTAN; PANAMA; PAR AGUAY; PERU; QATAR; 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; SENEGAL; SEY CHELLES; SIERRA LEON E;  
SINGAPORE; SOUTH AFR ICA; SWITZERLAND; TH E SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY  
OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, K INMEN AND MATSU; TAN ZANIA; THAILAND; TOG O;  
TUNISIA; TURKEY; UGA NDA; UKRAINE; URUGUA Y; THE BOLIVARIAN RE PUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA; VIET NAM;  ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE  ................................ ..........................  11 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPL EMENTATION OF RECOMM ENDATIONS ADOPTED BY  THE DSB  
A. United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United  States ( WT/DS184/15/Add.20 2) 
 
B. United  States – Section  110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United  States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.17 7) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the Eur opean Union (WT/DS291 /37/Add.1 40) 
 
D. United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea: Status report by the United States ( WT/DS464 /17/Add.2 4) 
 
E. United  States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti-dumping proceedings 
involving China: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS471/17/Add.1 6) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 11 – WT/DS478/22 /Add. 11) 
 
G/H. Brazil – Certain measures concerning taxation and charges: Status report s by Brazil 
(WT/DS472/16 /Add.1  - WT/DS497/14/Add.1)  
 
1.1.  The Chairperson  noted that there were eight sub-items under this Agenda item concerning 
status reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU. She recall ed that  
Article  21.6 require d that: " [u]nless 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, she invite d delegat ions to provide up 
to date information about their compliance efforts. She also remind ed delegations that, as provided 
for in Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings: " [r]epresentatives 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 change in Members' positions 
already on record". She then turned to the first status report under this Agenda item.  WT/DSB/M/43 8 
 
- 3 - 
 
 
A. United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS184/15/Add.20 2) 
1.2.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.20 2, which contain ed the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
in the dispute  concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan.  
1.3.  The representative of  the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 5 December 2019, 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 DSB's recommendations and rulings that ha d yet to be addressed, the US Administration would  
work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this 
matter.  
1.4.  The representative of  Japan  said that Japan wished to thank the United States for its latest 
status report and its 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 agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
B. United  States – Section  110(5) of the US Co pyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.17 7) 
1.6.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.17 7, which contain ed the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
in the dispute  concerning Section  110(5) of the US Copyright Act.  
1.7.  The representative of  the United States  said that t he United States  had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 5 December 2019, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US 
Administration would  continue to confer with the European Union, and to work closely with the US 
Congress, in order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.  
1.8.  The representa tive of  the European Union  said that his delegation wished to thank the United 
States for its status report and its statement made at the present meeting . The EU wished to refer 
to its previous statements  and wished to resolve this dispute as soon as possi ble. 
1.9.  The representative of China  said that his country  noted that the United States ha d thus far 
provided 178 status reports in this dispute. However, none of these reports indicate d any progress 
on implementation. Nearly two decades after the DSB had adopted the Panel Report in this dispute , 
the United States continued to fail to bring its WTO -inconsistent measures into conformity  with WTO 
rules. Prompt compliance , a fundamental legal obligation  of Members Article 21.1 of the DSU , was 
essential in order to ensure the posi tive resolution of disputes . By not complying with its  
implementation  obligation s, the United States ha d been continuously failing to accord the minimum 
standard of protection require d by the TRIPS Agreement and ha d become the only WTO Member 
who fail ed to implement the DSB 's recommendations and rulings under the TRIPS Agreement. China,  
therefore , urged the United States to faithfully hono ur its commitments under the DSU and the 
TRIPS Agreement by implementing the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in this dispute  without 
further delay.  
1.10.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
C. European  Communities – Measures affecting t he approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 40) 
1.11.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.1 40, which contain ed the 
status report by the European  Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's WT/DSB/M/43 8 
 
- 4 - 
 
 
recommendations in the dispute  concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of 
biotech products.  
1.12.   The representative of the European Union  said that t he EU c ontinue d to progress with the 
authori zations where the European Food Safety Authority ha d finalized its scientific opinion and had 
concluded that there were no safety concerns. On 28 November  2019, the European Commission 
had adopted eight authori zations f or GMOs for food and feed use: four new GM maize1 and the 
renewals of 2 GM soybean2, one GM cotton3 and one GM oilseed rape .4 On 9 December  2019, a draft 
authori zation for new GM soybean5 had been  presented for a vote in a Member States Committee 
with a "no opinion " result. This measure would  now be submitted for a vote in the Appeal Committee 
in January 2020. As  the EU had  repeatedly explained , and as confirmed by the U nited States during 
the EU -US biannual consultations held on 12 June 2019, efforts to reduce delays in authori zation 
procedures were constantly maintained at a high level at all stages of the authori zation procedure. 
This ha d resulted in a clear improvement of the situation. During previous DSB  meetings, the United 
States had referred to what was known as the EU "opt-out Directive ". The EU  wished to reiterate 
that the DSB 's recommendations and rulings d id not cover that "opt-out Directive ". The EU act ed in 
line with its WTO obligations . Finally, the EU wished to recall that the EU approval system was not 
covered by the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
1.13.   The representative of the United States  thank ed the European Union ( "EU") for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting . The United States continue d to see persistent 
delays that affect ed dozens of applications that ha d been awaiting approval for an extended period. 
The EU ha d previously suggested that th e fault was with the applicants. The United States  disagree d; 
US concerns relate d to delays at every stage of the approval process resulting from the actions or 
inactions of the EU and its member States. Even when the EU had finally approve d a biotech prod uct, 
EU member States continue d to impose unwarranted restrictions on the supposedly approved 
product. As the United States  had noted at prior DSB meetings, the amendment of EU Directive 
2001/18, through EU Directive 2015/412, permit ted EU member States to  restrict or prohibit certain 
uses of genetically  modified organisms ( "GMOs "), even where the European Food Safety Authority 
("EFSA") had concluded that the product was safe. At least 17 EU member States, as well as certain 
regions within EU member States,  had submitted requests to adopt such measures with respect to 
MON-810 maize. The EU 's only response, which it continue d to repeat, was that the member States 
did not restrict marketing or free movement of MON -810 in the EU. As the United States had noted 
at the prior DSB meeting, this answer did nothing to address US concerns. The restrictions adopted 
by the EU member States restrict ed international trade in these products, and ha d no scientific 
justification. Indeed, this was why the DSB  had adopted findings that such restrictions on MON -810 
were in breach of the EU 's WTO commitments. The United States urge d the EU to ensure that all of 
its measures affecting the approval of biotec h products, including measures adopted by individual 
EU member States, were based on scientific principles, and that decisions were taken without undue 
delay.  
1.14.   The representative the European Union  said that t he WTO Agreement did not require full 
internatio nal harmoni zation and le ft some regulatory space or autonomy to individual WTO Members. 
The European Union ha d different regulatory approaches to non -GMOs and GMOs but, in all cases, 
such regulations d id not discriminate between imported and domestic like products. No EU member 
State ha d imposed any "ban". Under the terms of the Directive, an EU member State could  adopt 
measures restricting or prohibiting cultivation only when such measures were in line with EU law 
and were reasoned, proportional, non -discriminatory and based on compelling grounds. The free 
movement of seeds was embedded in Article 22 of Directive 2001/18/EC  which provided that  
"[m]ember States may not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market of  GMOs, as or in 
products, which comply with the requirements of this Directive ". The EU also wished to note that , 
according to the provisions of the opt -out Directive (Article 26b, point 8) , the measures adopted 
under the Directive "shall not affect the fr ee circulation of authori zed GMOs " in the EU. Currently the 
EU Common Catalogue of varieties of agricultural species include d 150 varieties of maize MON -810, 
which were allowed to be marketed in the EU. Thus far , the European Commission ha d never received 
 
1 Maize MZHG0JG; maize MON 89034 x 1507 x NK603 x DAS -40278 -9; maize MON 89034 x 1507 x MON 
88017 x 59122 x DAS -40278 -9; maize Bt11 x MIR162 x MIR604 x 1507 x 5307 x GA21.  
2 Renewals of soybean MON 89788 and of soybean A2704 -12. 
3 Renewal of cotton LLCotton 25. 
4 Renewal of oilseed rape T45 . 
5 Soybean MON 87708 x MON 89788 x A5547 -127. WT/DSB/M/43 8 
 
- 5 - 
 
 
any complaint from seed operators or other stakeholders concerning the restriction of marketing of 
MON-810 seeds in the EU. This confirm ed the smooth functioning of the internal market of MON -810 
seeds. The EU wished to invite the U nited States to provide any evidence they m ight have at their 
disposal substantiating the disruption of the free movement of MON -810 seeds in the EU.  
1.15.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d 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.24)  
1.16.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document W T/DS464/17/Add.2 4, which contain ed the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
in the dispute  concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers 
from Korea.  
1.17.   The represe ntative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 5 December  2019, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 
6 May 2019, the US Department of Commerce had 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). With this action, the United 
States ha d completed implementation of the DSB 's recommendations concerning those anti -
dumping and countervailing duty orders. The United States continue d to consult with interested 
parties on options to address the DSB's recommendations relating to other measures challenged in 
this dispute.  
1.18.   The repres entative of  Korea  said that his country wished to thank the United States for its 
status report. Korea , once again,  strongly urge d the United States to take prompt and appropriate 
steps to implement the DSB 's recommendations for the "as such " measure in this dispute.  
1.19.   The representative of  Canada  said that the  United States continue d to fail to comply with the 
DSB's ruling, arising out of the Appellate Body report in this dispute , that the "differential pricing 
methodology " ("DPM") was "as such " WTO-inconsistent. It ha d also ignored the DSB 's 
recommendation that the U nited States bring itself into compliance with its obligations. Instead, the 
United States continue d to apply the "as such " inconsistent differential pricing methodology in 
investiga tions with respect to foreign companies and continue d to collect cash deposits from foreign 
exporters based on its inconsistent methodology. The reasonable period of time to implement the 
DSB's recommendations relating to the "as such " WTO-inconsistency of  the DPM had expired two 
years ago. However, in its status report of 5 December  2019, the United States  merely state d that 
it continue d to consult with interested parties. Moreover, the continued use by the United States  of 
the DPM ha d forced Members to re sort to several dispute settlement proceedings concerning this 
measure. This was an inefficient and unnecessary use of WTO dispute settlement resources.  Canada 
remain ed deeply concerned with the continued failure  by the United States  to comply with the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute. This failure seriously undermine d the security and 
stability of the multilateral trading system.  
1.20.   The representative of the United States  recall ed that Canada ha d commenced a dispute 
settlement proceeding against the United States concerning the use of a differential pricing analysis 
and zeroing. Canada had lost that dispute before the Panel. The United States was willing, of course, 
to discuss Canada 's concerns on  a bilateral basis.  
1.21.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d 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.1 6) 
1.22.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add.1 6, which contain ed the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations WT/DSB/M/43 8 
 
- 6 - 
 
 
in the dispute  concerning certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China.  
1.23.   The representative of  the United State s said that t he United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on  5 December 2019, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As explained 
in that report, the United States continue d to consult with interested parties on options to address 
the DSB's  recommendations.  
1.24.   The representative of  China  said that, o n 22 May 2017, the DSB had adopted the Appellate 
Body report and the Panel report , as modified  by the Appellate Body report,  which had found that 
certain measures taken by the United States were inconsistent with the requirements of the Anti -
Dumping Agreement, which include d: (i) the use of zeroing under the W -T methodology was "as 
such" inconsistent with Article 2.4.2; ( ii) the so -called "single ra te presumption " as such violate d 
Article s 6.10 and 9.2 ; and ( iii) the "adverse facts available " was a norm of general and prospective 
application which could be subject to future "as such " challenges. China  wished to recall that , at the 
19 June 2017  DSB me eting, which had been held  two and  a half years ago, the United States had 
stated its intention to implement the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. However, 
the sincerity of that statement was under serious doubt. Nearly  16 months after the expiry of the 
reasonable period of time, the implementation of the United States was at a standstill. None of its 
status reports provided thus far could indicate any concrete implementation action. The WTO-
incompatible US measures had remained  intact and continue d to infringe China 's legitimate interests 
provided for in relevant covered agreements. This situation was totally unacceptable. On 
1 November  2019, the Arbitrator appointed pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU had finally 
determi ned that the level of nullification or impairment incurred was US $ 3.579 billion. This number , 
which was the third largest in history of the  WTO, reveal ed the level of nullification and impairment 
of China's benefits as a result of the WTO -inconsistent met hodologies used by the United States. 
While China  awaited to hear concrete implementations from the United States, China  stood ready to 
take appropriate and proportionate actions to safeguard its legitimate interests. As a matter of fact, 
the failure  of the United States  to fulfil its implementation obligation, especially with respect to 
various trade remedy disputes, ha d become a systemic issue. Over the years, the United States ha d 
chosen to ignore the DSB's recommendations and rulings which adversely impacted  its interests. 
The United States  had either left its WTO -inconsistent measures intact or had applied certain 
cosmetic changes which had not fundamentally removed  such non-conformity . This le ft WTO 
Members with no other choice but to repe atedly bring those issues  which had already been decided  
before panels and before the Appellate Body. Article 21.1 of the DSU was clear: "prompt compliance 
with the DSB's recommendations or rulings is essential in order to ensure effective resolution of 
disputes to the benefit of all Members ". China, therefore , urged the United States to faithfully hono ur 
its implementation obligation and to fully compl y with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
this dispute without further delay.  
1.25.   The representative of  the United States  said that t he United States t ook note of China 's 
statement and would convey it to capital. To be clear, however, it was incorrect to suggest that the 
United States ha d taken no action. As the United States  had noted at the present meeting , the 
United States continue d to consult with interested parties on options to address the DSB's 
recommendations. That internal process was ongoing. The United States was aware of the decision 
of the Arbitrator concerning the level of nu llification or impairment. China 's decision to pursue that 
arbitration was disappointing, and not constructive. The United States was willing to discuss these 
matters with China on a bilateral basis.  
1.26.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d 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. 11 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 11) 
1.27.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS4 77/21/Add. 11 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 11, 
which contain ed the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the dispute  concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and 
animal products.  WT/DSB/M/43 8 
 
- 7 - 
 
 
1.28.   The representativ e of Indonesia  said that his country had submitted this report pursuant to 
Article 21.6 of the DSU. As reported at the 22 November  2019 DSB meeting, Indonesia ha d made 
significant changes or adjustments to the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) regulation as well as the 
Ministry of Trade (MoT) regulation that were relevant to this dispute.  Those changes or adjustments 
include d the removal inter alia  of the disputed meas ures regarding:  (i) harvest period restriction s; 
(ii) import realization requirements ; (iii) six -months harvest requirement s; and (iv) reference price s. 
Indonesia reaffirm ed its commitment to implementing the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
these disputes. With regard to Measure 18, the Indonesia n Government  had incorporated the 
amendment s to relevant laws into the list of the national legislation program me to be discussed with 
Parliament. Indonesia commit ted itself to continu ing the process of amending its relevant laws in 
conformity with national laws and regulations. Indonesia would  continue to engage with New Zealand 
and the United States regarding matte rs related to the DSB's recommendations and rulings  in these 
disputes . 
1.29.   The representative of  New Zealand  said that  his country  acknowledge d the steps that had 
been taken by Indonesia and Indonesia's commitment to comply fully with the WTO decision. Both 
compliance deadlines that had been  agreed between the parties had now expired. New Zealand was 
seriously disappointed that full compliance ha d still not been reached. New Zealand was particularly 
concerned about the failure to remove Measure 18  and the continued enfo rcement of limited 
application windows and validity periods , harvest period import bans , import realization 
requirements  and restrictions placed on import volumes based on storage capacity. These issues, 
and others, continue d to adversel y impact New Zealand exporters. Indonesia had yet to provide a 
clear explanation of how it would  bring those measures into compliance and timelines for doing so. 
New Zealand strongly encourage d Indonesia to take appropriate steps swiftly to achieve long te rm, 
commercially meaningful compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings  in this dispute . 
1.30.   The representative  of the United States  said that Indonesia continue d to fail to bring its 
measures into compliance with WTO rules. The United States and New Zealand agree d that 
significant concerns remain ed with the measures at issue, including the continued imposition of: 
harvest period restrictions, import realization re quirements, warehouse capacity requirements, 
limited application windows, limited validity periods, and fixed licensed terms. The United States 
remain ed willing to work with Indonesia to fully and meaningfully resolve this dispute. The United 
States unders tood that Indonesia claim ed to have "completed its enactment process " of certain 
regulations, but the United States was still waiting to hear from Indonesia on whether and how such 
action would bring its measures into full compliance. It also remain ed unclear how Indonesia 's 
proposed legislative amendments would address Measure 18 and when Indonesia w ould complete 
its process. The United States look ed forward to receiving further detail from Indonesia regarding 
the changes to its regulations and laws, espec ially with respect to Ministry of Agriculture Regulation 
39/2019 on RIPH requirements and Regulation 46/2019 on Strategic Horticultural Commodities.  
1.31.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
G/H. Brazil – Certain measures concerning taxation and charges: Status report s by Brazil 
(WT/DS472/16/Add.1  - WT/DS497/14/Add.1)  
1.32.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS472/16 /Add.1 , which contain ed the 
status report by Brazil  on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
dispute  with regard to certain measures concerning taxation and charges . 
1.33.   The representative of Brazil  requested  that the two sub-items under this Agenda item be 
considered together because they pertained to the same matter.  He said that Brazil had submitted  
status reports in these  dispute s on 5 December 2019, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. 
In this regard, Brazil wished  to address certain questions formulated by the EU  and Japan  on the 
steps which it had taken towards the implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations in 
these dispute s. With regard to prohibited subsidies, Brazil ha d revised 14 implementing orders found 
to be WTO-inconsistent. These imple menting orders correspond ed to products accounting for around 
95% of the revenue stemming from  the "Basic Production Processes" ("Processos Produtivos 
Básicos " (PPBs)) that had been found to be inconsistent with the SCM Agreement. Furthermore, an 
implement ing order revoking an additional 27 orders was currently under going  public consultations 
and would  be adopted before the end of 2019. The revision of the implementing orders ha d to follow WT/DSB/M/43 8 
 
- 8 - 
 
 
specific procedures and timelines and require d significant human resources from the relevant 
ministries. Brazil had chose n to prioritize the implementing orders which ha d the greatest economic 
impact. With regard to the Informatics Law and the PADIS programme, an amendment to the se 
programmes aimed at  adjusting them in line with  the findings  of the Panel and of the Appellate Body 
was in the final stages of the legislative process in the Brazilian Congress, on track to meet the 
31 December  2019 deadline  agreed by the parties . 
1.34.   The representative of the European Union  said that  his delegation wished to thank Brazil for 
its status report and its statement made at the present meeting . The European Union wished  to 
resolve this case as soon as possible and was following Brazil 's implementation efforts very closely. 
The EU  recall ed that the reasonable period of time agreed by the parties would expire on 
31 December 2019. In addition, as agreed between the parties in document WT/DS472/15, the time 
period for the withdrawal of the subsidies that had been found to be prohibited had expired on 
21 June 2019. The European Union took note of the steps taken by Brazil towards compliance in this 
dispute, as set out in its status report. The EU wished to reiterate the questions that it had raised at 
the 22 November 2019 DSB meeting and look ed forward to receiving Brazil 's reply to these 
questions. First, with regard to prohibited subsidies, the EU  took note of Brazil 's contention that 
certain programmes had expired before the adoption of the  reports in this dispute, and that they 
had not been renewed. The EU  also t ook note that , for the findings on the so -called nested "Processos 
Produtivos Básicos " (PPBs), Brazil ha d revoked certain measures, i.e. Implementing Orders, and that 
some new measu res had been enacted in substitution. The EU asked  whether Brazil could confirm 
that all Implementing Orders concerned ha d been revoked . The EU believed that many of these 
measures remain ed in force . It would , therefore , be useful for the EU to receive a detailed list of the 
Implementing Orders that ha d been revoked. Assuming that some of the measures at issue remain ed 
in force,  the EU asked whether Brazil could explain what it was doing to address this  issue.  In 
addition, the UE  wished to expres s its concerns about many of the substitute Implementing Orders 
that had been enacted. The EU wished to recall that such substitute measures also  had to  be 
consistent with WTO rules, and the EU reserve d its position in this respect. The EU would appreciate  
it if Brazil could provide a detailed list of the substitute Implementing Orders so that the EU could 
ascertain that the matter was satisfactorily resolved. With respect to the removal of the other 
discriminatory elements covered by the reasonable period of time , the EU  underst ood that Brazil 
was preparing to enact legislation and look ed forward to Brazil 's full compliance with respect to these 
measures before the expiry of the reasonable period of time. The EU expect ed Brazil to do its utmost 
to comply with the 31 December  2019 deadline , as Brazil ha d indicated in its status report. The EU  
looked forward t o finding a good outcome with Brazil and remained available to discuss this matter 
bilaterally.  
1.35.   The representative of Japan  said that his country wished to thank Brazil for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting . As Japan had stated at the 22 November 2019  DSB 
meeting, Japan continue d to seek a full and prompt implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings  in this dispute , as agreed between the parties. Japan  took note of the clarification s made  
by Brazil on some of the points that Japan had raised at the 22 November 2019 DSB meeting and 
would certainly look into them. However, Japan  still ha d concerns regarding the status of 
implementation  of the DSB's recommendations and rulings  in this dispute . As the expiry , on 
31 December 2019 , of the reasonable period of time was fast approaching, Japan look ed forward to 
full responses from Brazil with respect to  the following points. First, regarding the prohibited 
subsidies  at issue , Brazil had informed Japan  that all the prohibited subsidies had been revoked. 
However, it appear ed that more than half of the "nested PPBs " which had been found to constitute 
prohibited subsidies remain ed in force. Brazil  had explained at the present meeting that it  had 
prioritiz ed the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings based on economic 
impacts . However,  that would also suggest that certain PPBs remained in force . Bearing in mind that 
the agreed time period for the withdrawal of the prohibited subsidies had expired on 21 June 2019, 
Japan would be grateful if Brazil could explain how it planned to address PPBs that remained in force , 
including the timeline of implementation  for these measures . Second, J apan consider ed that the 
Implementing Orders that amend ed or replace d the prohibited subsidies appear ed to be inconsistent 
with the covered agreements. Japan asked  Brazil , once again , to provide a list of these substitute 
measures so as to allow Japan to verify that they were all WTO -consistent. Additionally, Japan asked 
whether Brazil could confirm that the new orders that were in force did not contain any WTO -
inconsistent aspects such as local manufacturing obligations or other discriminatory treatments. 
Third, as Brazil was preparing to bring the Informatics and PADIS programmes into compliance, 
Japan expect ed that Brazil would achieve full compliance with respect to these programmes  within WT/DSB/M/43 8 
 
- 9 - 
 
 
the reasonable period of time . In this regard, Japan took note of Brazil 's explanation that the 
implementation of these measures was in its final stage s. Japan was closely monitoring all actions 
taken by Brazil to bring the measures at issue into c onformity, as well as a ny substitute measures 
that had been  or would be in effect. Japan look ed forward to consulting this matter with Brazil.  
1.36.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to these  matter s at its next regular 
meeting.  
2  UNITED STATES – CONT INUED DUMPING AND SU BSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the European Union  
2.1.  The Chairperson  said that t his item was on the Agenda of the present  meeting at the request 
of the European Union . She then invite d the representative of the European Union to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that his delegation  request ed, once again , that 
the United States stop transferring anti -dumping and countervailing duties to the US industry. Even 
if the amounts had considerably decreased, the most recent report under the Continued Dumping 
and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000  (from December 2018 ) showed that amounts were still being 
disbursed  in practice . Every disbursement that still took place was clearly an act of non -compliance 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. As long as the U nited States did not fully stop 
transferring collected duties,  this Agenda  item would rightly  remain  under the surveillance of the 
DSB. The EU assured Members that, due to the long -standing nature of this breach, it would  continue 
to insist  in this respect,  as a matter of principle  and independent of the cost resulting from the 
application of such limited duties. The EU renew ed its call on the United States to abide by its clear 
obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU to submit implementation reports in this dispute. The EU 
would continue to place this item on the DSB's A genda as long as the United States  had not fully 
implemented the WTO ruling and the disbursements cease d completely.  
2.3.  The representative of the United States  said that, a s the United States ha d noted at previous 
DSB meet ings, the Deficit Reduction Act – which include d a provision repealing the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 – had been  enacted into law in February 2006. Accordingly, 
the United States ha d implemented the DSB 's recommendations and rulings i n these disputes. The 
United States  recall ed, furthermore, that the EU ha d acknowledged that the Deficit Reduction Act 
did not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods entered after 1 October 2007, more than 
12 years ago. Even aside from this, the United States question ed the trade rationale for inscribing 
this item  on the DSB's Agenda . In May 2019, the EU had notified the DSB that disbursements related 
to pre -October 2007 EU exports to the United States  had totalled US$ 4,660.86 in fiscal year 2018. 
As such, the EU had announced it would apply an additional duty of 0.001 % on certain imports of 
the United States. These minuscule tariffs vividly demonstrate d what ha d been evident for years – 
it was not common  sense that was driving the EU 's approach to this Agenda item. While the EU 
suggest ed it had requested the DSB 's consideration of this Agenda item "as a matter of principle ", 
the EU 's principles shift ed depending on its status as the complaining or responding party. Ther e 
was no obligation under the DSU to provide further status reports once a Member announce d that it 
had implemented the DSB 's recommendations, regardless of whether the complaining party 
disagree d about compliance. The practice of Members – including the E uropean Union as a 
responding party – confirm ed this widespread understanding of Article 21.6  of the DSU . Accordingly, 
since the United States ha d informed the DSB  that it ha d come into compliance in this dispute, there 
was nothing more for the United States to provide in a status report.  
2.4.  The representative of Brazil  said that his country wished to  thank the European Union for 
placing this item on the  DSB's  Agenda. As an original party to the Byrd Amendment dispute, Brazil 
called on the United States to comply fully with the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute.  
2.5.  The representative of Canada  said that his delegation wished to thank the European Union for 
placing this item on the DSB's A genda. Canada agree d with the European Union that the  Byrd 
Amendment should remain subject to the  surveillance of the DSB until the United States cease d to 
administer it .  
2.6.  The DSB took note of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/43 8 
 
- 10 - 
 
 
3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES AF FECTING  
TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL  AIRCRAFT: IMPLEMENT ATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS 
ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the United States  
3.1.  The Chairperson  said that  this item was on the Agenda of the present  meeting at the request 
of the United States . She then invite d the representative of the United States to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of  the United States  noted that, once again , the European Union ha d not 
provided Members with a status report concerning the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft " dispute  (DS316). 
As the Un ited States had noted at several recent DSB meetings, the EU ha d argued – under a 
different Agenda item – that where the EU as a complaining party d id not agree  with another 
responding party Member 's "assertion  that it has implemented the DSB ruling ", "the issue remains 
unresolved for the purposes of Article 21.6 DSU ". Under this Agenda item, however, the EU argue d 
that by submitting a compliance communication, the EU no longer need ed to file a status report, 
even though  the United States as the complaining party d id not agree with the EU 's assertion  that 
it had complied. The EU 's position appear ed to be premised on two unfounded assertions, neither of 
which was based on the text of the DSU. First, the EU ha d erroneously argued that where "a matter 
is with the adjudicators, it is temporarily taken out of the DSB 's surveillance ". There was nothing in 
the DSU text to support that argument, and the EU provide d no explanation for how it read Article 
21.6 of the DSU to contain this limitation. And as Members well kn ew, based on the DSB 's findings 
of EU non -compliance in this dispute, the DSB had recently authorized the United States to impose 
countermeasures of approximately US$ 7.5 billion annually due to the adverse effects on  the United 
States from subsidies provided by four EU member States. Second, the EU once again relie d on its 
incorrect assertion that the EU 's initiation of compliance panel proceedings mean t that the DSB was 
somehow deprived of its authority to "maintain surveillance of implementation of rulings and 
recommendations ". Yet again, there was nothing in Article 2 of the DSU or elsewhere that limit ed 
the DSB 's authority in this manner. It was another invention of the EU. The EU was not providing a 
status report because of its assertion that it ha d complied, demonstrating the EU 's principles var ied 
depending on its status as complaining or responding party. Moreover, the EU 's inconsistent views 
appear ed convenient because, rather than actually attempt ing to achieve compliance in this dispute, 
the EU ha d pursued a strategy of endless and meritless litigation. The most recent reminder of this 
misguided approach had been  the recently circulated report of the second compliance panel. This 
compliance panel, like the prior one, had rejected the EU 's claim of compliance. But , despite yet 
another finding of non -compliance, the EU had chose n to appeal the panel report just days ago, 
seeking yet more litigation in this 15 -year dispute. The representative of the  United States asked 
whether it would  not be more productive for the EU and its member States to focus on resolving this 
dispute . In sum, the US position on status reports ha d been consistent and clear: under Article 21.6 
of the DSU, once a responding Member provi ded the DSB with a status report that announce d 
compliance, there was no further "progress " on which it could report and , therefore , no further 
obligation to  provide a report. But , as the EU allegedly disagree d with this position, it should for 
future meet ings provide status reports in this "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute  (DS316) , in which 
no adjudicator ha d ever agreed that the EU and its Member States were complying with WTO rules.  
3.3.  The representative of  the European Union  said that, a s in previous DSB meetings, the U nited 
States had, once again , implied that the EU was taking inconsistent positions under Article 21.6 of 
the DSU, depending on whether the EU was a complaining party or a defending party in a dispute. 
The US assertion remain ed without merit. As the EU ha d repeatedly explained in past DSB meetings, 
the crucial point for the defending party 's obligation to provide status reports to the DSB was the 
stage of the dispute. In the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute (DS316) , the disput e was at a stage 
where the defending party did not have an obligation to submit status reports to the DSB. The EU  
wished to remind Members  that in the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute (DS316) , a new set of 
compliance measures had been  notified by the EU to the DSB and ha d been subject to an assessment 
by a compliance panel. As the United States ha d recalled, t he compliance panel 's report ha d been 
issued on 2 December 2019. The EU believed  that significant aspects of the compliance panel 's 
report could not  be regarded as legally correct and were very problematic from a systemic 
perspective. It was in order to have these legal errors corrected, that the EU ha d filed an appeal 
against the complian ce panel 's report on 6 December  2019, as recalled by the United States . The 
EU was  concerned that , with the current blockage of the two -step multilateral dispute settlement 
system, the EU  would be  losing the possibility of benefit ting from a proper appella te review of the WT/DSB/M/43 8 
 
- 11 - 
 
 
serious flaws contained in the panel report. This did not, however, alter the fact that the compliance 
proceeding in this dispute ha d not been concluded. Whether or not the matter was "resolved " in the 
sense of Article 21.6 of the DSU remain ed the very subject matter of this ongoing litigation. The EU 
asked how it  could  be said that the defending party should submit "status reports " to the DSB in 
these circumstances . The EU would be very concerned with a reading of Article 21 .6 of the DSU that 
would require the defending party to notify the purported "status of its implementation efforts " 
through the submission of status reports to the DSB , while dispute settlement proceedings on that 
precise issue were ongoing. The EU note d that its reading of the provision was supported by other 
WTO Members. The EU 's argument  was further supported by Article 2 of the DSU on the 
administration of the dispute settlement rules and procedures: where, further to the disagreement 
between the partie s on compliance, a matter was with the adjudicators, it was temporarily taken 
out of the DSB 's surveillance. Under Article 21.6 of the DSU, the issue of implementation had to 
remain on the DSB's Agenda until the issue was resolved. In the "US — Offset Act (Byrd 
Amendment)" dispute , the EU did not agree with the US assertion that  it had implemented the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings. This mean t that the issue remain ed unresolved for the purposes of 
Article 21.6 of the DSU. If the U nited States did not agree that the issue remain ed unresolved, 
nothing prevent ed it from seeking a multilateral determination through a compliance procedure, 
asking for a confirmation of its assertion that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act  of 2000 
had been repe aled in line with WTO findings, just like the EU was trying to  do in th is dispute . 
3.4.  The DSB took note of the statements.  
4  PROPOSED NOMINATIONS  FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL  AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELIS TS (WT/DSB/W/657)  
4.1.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/657 which contain ed additional 
names proposed by Argentina and Pakistan for inclusion on the Indicative List of Governmental and 
non-governmental Panelists, in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU. She then propose d that t he 
DSB approve the names contained in document  WT/DSB/W/657.  
4.2.  The DSB so agreed . 
5  APPELLATE BODY APPOI NTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY  AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA ; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA ; BENIN; PLURINATION AL STATE OF BOLIVIA;  BOTSWANA; 
BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; CAMEROON; CAN ADA; 
CENTRAL  AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CH AD; CHILE; CHINA; CO LOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA  RICA; 
CÔTE D'IVOIRE; CUBA;  DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC  OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI;  
DOMINICAN  REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; E GYPT; EL SALVADOR; E SWATINI; THE EUROPEA N 
UNION; GABON; THE GA MBIA; GHANA; GUATEMALA;  GUINEA; GUINEA -BISS AU; 
HONDURAS; HONG KONG,  CHINA; ICELAND; IND IA; INDONESIA; ISRAE L; KAZAKHSTAN; 
KENYA; REPUBLIC OF K OREA; LESOTHO; LIECH TENSTEIN; MADAGASCAR ; MALAWI; 
MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; MA URITIUS; MEXICO; MOR OCCO; 
MOZAMBIQUE; NAMIBIA; NEW ZEALAND; NICARAG UA; NIGER; NIGERIA; 
NORTH  MACEDONIA; NORWAY; P AKISTAN; PANAMA; PAR AGUAY; PERU; QATAR; 
RUSSIAN  FEDERATION; RWANDA; SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES;  SIERRA LEONE; SINGA PORE; 
SOUTH AFRICA; SWITZE RLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITOR Y OF TAIWAN, 
PENGHU, KINMEN AND M ATSU; TANZANIA; THAI LAND; TOGO; TUNISIA;  TURKEY; 
UGANDA; UKRAINE; URU GUAY; THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF VENEZUE LA; VIET NAM; 
ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.15 )  
5.1.  The Chairperson  said that this  item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request 
of Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegations. She drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 5. She then invite d the representative of Mexico to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of  Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained  in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 5, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal dated 5 December  2019 to launch the  AB selection  processes.  She 
welcome d Afghanistan and the Maldives as new co -sponsors, as well as Moldova who ha d expressed 
its intention to co -sponsor this proposal.  Her delegation , on behalf of the 11 9 Members, wished to 
make the following  statement.  The increasing and considerable number of Members submitting this 
joint proposal reflect ed a common concern with the current situation in the Appellate Body that was WT/DSB/M/43 8 
 
- 12 - 
 
 
seriously affecting its workings and the overall dispute settlement system against the best interest 
of its Members. WTO Members ha d a responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate Body, 
the dispute settlement system  and the multilateral trad ing system. Thus, it was the Members' duty 
to launch the AB selection processes, as set out in the joint proposal before the DSB at the present 
meeting . This proposal sought  to: (i) start six selection processes: one process to replace Mr. Ricardo 
Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term had expired on 30 June 2017; a second process to fil l the 
vacancy resulting 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 had expired on 30 September 2018; a fifth process to replace Mr. Ujal Singh 
Bhatia, whose second term had expire d on 10 December 2019; and a sixth process to replace 
Mr. Thomas  R. Graham , whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; (ii) to establish a 
Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for the submission of candidacies; and (iv) to 
request that the Selection Committee issue its recommendation within 60 days after the deadline 
for nomina tions of candidates. The proponents were flexible regarding  the deadlines for the AB 
selection processes . However, they believed that Members should consider the urgency of the 
situation. Mexico continue d to urge all Members to support this proposal in the interest of the 
multilateral trading system and the dispute settlement system.  
5.3.  The representative of  the European Union  said that his delegation wished to refer to its 
statements made on this matter at previous DSB meetings starting on  February 2017  onward , and 
to its statement s made in the General Council meetings, including the statement  made at  the 
9 December 2019  meeting . From 11 December 2019  onward , the WTO no longer guarantee d access 
to a binding, two-tier, independent and impartial resolution of trade disputes. This was in clear 
breach of the WTO Agreements. As the EU had stated  many times, 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 EU wished to thank all Members that ha d co-sponsored the 
proposal contained  in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 5 to launch the AB selection processes and 
invite d all other Members to endorse this proposal.  
5.4.  The representative of  Brazil  said that Brazil wished to  refer to its statements made at previous 
DSB meetings on this matter. This was the first DSB meeting where Members were faced with the 
situation that the Appellate Body  could no longer function.  Members needed to resolve this impasse 
as soon as possible. Therefore,  Brazil welcome d the consultations launched by the Director General 
in order to address the Appellate Body impasse and st ood ready to engage constructively in these 
procedures.  
5.5.  The representative of  Ecuador , speaking o n behalf of the Group of Latin American and 
Caribbean countries (GRULAC) that were Member s of the WTO, said that the countries in question 
wished to express their serious disappointment the current AB impasse. T he Appellate Body  was a 
fundamental  pillar of the WTO  and of the multilateral trading system . Since the moment when  this 
issue was first raised , the majority of WTO Members , including  GRULAC Members , had contributed 
in a constructive fashion to seeking a solution which would enable Members  to launch  the AB 
selection process es. However, despite Members' efforts, and despite the efforts of DSB Chairma n 
Ambassador  Walker  as Facilitator in the informal process  on AB matters , Members found themselves 
with an Appellate Body  that could no longer function in accordance with WTO rules . All Members had 
access to the Appellate Body . However, Ecuador believe d that this was not the time to be frustrat ed 
or discoura ged. The Director -General ha d stated t hat he would undertake  high-level intensive  
consultations with a view to resolving the AB impasse. GRULAC Members would continue to support 
these efforts.  The countries in question had paid close attention to  the concerns that ha d been raised 
regarding the functioning of the Appellate Body and had taken an active  part in the discussions  on 
these matters.  It should be  highlight ed that, pursuant  to Article 17.2 of the DSU, Members had the 
obligation to fill AB vacancies as they ar ose. The countries in question  reaffirm ed their support for 
the efforts undertaken by the  DSB Chairman Ambassador  Walker , the GC Chair Amb assador  Sunanta  
and the WTO Directo r-General . They wished to reiterate that they stood ready to continue to 
contribut e to Members ' efforts to achieve the priority objective, namely, to launch the selection 
processes to appoint new AB members.  
5.6.  The representative  of New Zealand  said that his country wished to reiterate its support for the 
co-sponsored proposal contained  in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 5 and wished to refer to its 
statements  made at previous  DSB meetings . New Zealand was deeply disappointed that the WT/DSB/M/43 8 
 
- 13 - 
 
 
Appellate Body was no longer able to perform its full functions. New Zealand continue d to encourage 
all Members to engage constructively with a view to urgently addressing the situation.  
5.7.  The representative of  the United States  thank ed the Chairman  for the continued work on these 
issues. As the United States  had explained at prior DSB meetings, the United States was not in a 
position to support the proposed decision. The systemic concerns that the United States had 
identified remain ed unaddressed. T he United States recognize d the work of Ambassador  Walker as 
Facilitator  in the informal process  on AB matters , including the report provided to Members at the 
December  2019 General Council meeting. The US view across multiple US Administrations ha d been 
clear and consistent: when the Appellate Body overreache d and abuse d the authority it had been  
given within the dispute settlement system, it undermine d the legitimacy of the system and 
damage d the interests of all WTO Members who care d about having the agr eements respected as 
they had been  negotiated and agreed. As the United States had explained, the fundamental problem 
was that the Appellate Body was not respecting the current, clear language of the DSU. Members 
could not find meaningful solutions to this  problem without understanding how they had arrived at 
this point. The United States ha d not posed this question as part of an academic exercise. Rather, 
this question was critical in the context of any "solution -focused discussion ". Without an accurate 
diagnosis, Members  could not assess the likely effectiveness of any potential solution. And the United 
States was determined to bring about real WTO reform, including to ensure that the WTO dispute 
settlement system reinforce d the WTO 's critical negotiating and monitoring functions, and did not 
undermine those functions by overreaching and gap -filling. As discussions among Members 
continue d, the dispute settlement system continue d to function. The central objective of that system 
remai ned unchanged: to assist the parties in the resolution of a dispute. As before, Members ha d 
many methods to resolve a dispute, including through bilateral engagement and mutually agreed 
solutions. For instance, on 18 December 2019 , the United States had appealed the compliance 
Panel 's report in the "US — Carbon Steel (India) " dispute ( DS436 ). While no division could  be 
established to hear this appeal at this time, the United States would confer with India so that the 
parties could determine the way forward in this dispute, including whether the matters at issue might 
be resolved at this stage or to consider alternatives to the appellate process. Consistent with the 
aim of the WTO dispute settlement system, the parties should make efforts to find a positive s olution 
to their dispute, and this remain ed the US preference. And the United States would continue to insist 
that WTO rules be followed by the WTO dispute settlement system. The United States would continue 
its efforts and its discussions with Members to seek a solution on these important issues.  
5.8.  The representative of  Canada  said that his country  support ed the statement made by Mexico 
and share d the concerns expressed by many Members  on this matter. Canada welcome d Afghanistan 
and the Maldives on the growing list of co -sponsors that sought the launch of the AB selection 
process. Canada invite d WTO Members that ha d not yet sponsored the proposal contained  in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 5 to consider joining the 118 Me mbers calling for the launch of the 
AB selection processes. The critical mass of WTO Members behind this proposal was a clear testimony 
to the importance that Members collectively accord ed to a fully functioning Appellate Body as an 
integral part of the di spute settlement system. Canada, therefore , called on the United States to act 
in accordance with Article 17.2 of the DSU and unblock the AB selection process es. The fact that the 
Appellate Body could not hear new appeals was of great concern. However, Mem bers' reliance on 
WTO panels continue d to be high, which demonstrate d the value that Members accord ed to 
independent third-party adjudication through the WTO dispute settlement system. The WTO rules 
remain ed in force and binding. The Membership 's commitment to their observance in good faith was 
at the core of the multilateral rules -based trading system that benefi tted all Members . It was 
paradoxical and unfortunate that on 18 December 2019 the United States, which ha d been blocking 
the AB selection processes for more than two years, ha d filed an appeal in the "US – Carbon Steel  
(India) " dispute (DS 436) that could not  be heard becaus e of the blockage.  Canada  invite d disputing 
parties to respect each other 's existing rights to binding adjudication and to identify a path forward 
to resolve their dispute in that spirit.  Canada wished to reiterate that it was fully committed to 
discussion s on matters related to the functioning of the Appellate Body. Canada's priority remain ed 
to find a multilateral resolution to the impasse that cover ed all Members, including the United States. 
To that effect, Canada  called on the United States to engage, constructively, in solution -focused 
discussions. In the meantime, Canada would continue its work on interim approaches to safeguard 
its rights to bindi ng adjudication and access to appellate review, such as the Canada -EU Appeal -
Arbitration Arrangement.  WT/DSB/M/43 8 
 
- 14 - 
 
 
5.9.  The representative of  India said that his country was deeply disappointed with the state of 
affairs at the WTO with the dysfunctional Appellate Body. The Appellate Body ha d issued over 
350 rulings since its inception. In fact, the Appellate Body , which had been the most successful 
international court in history, was no longer available to review panel reports from 
11 December  2019 onward . India believe d that the WTO dispute settlement mechanism was an 
indispensable pillar of the multilateral trading system and that the Appellate Body was essential for 
the proper and effective functioning of the WTO. India ha d a deep interest in a stable and predictable 
dispute resolution system within the WTO, and was committed to the preservation of a functioning , 
two-stage , binding adjudication system. India deeply regret ted that the DSB was unable to fulfil its 
legal obliga tion to appoint AB members. India call ed upon all WTO Members to fulfil their obligations 
under Articles 17.1 and 17.2 of the DSU to start the AB selection process es as a matter of priority. 
Otherwise , appeals w ould go into the void, which would be contrar y to the right to access a two -
stage dispute settlement system  that Members  cherished . 
5.10.   The representative of  Switzerland  said that o ver the last 25 years, the WTO dispute settlement 
system ha d greatly contributed to the peaceful settlement of trade disputes, not only to the benefit 
of the parties in the se disputes, but also to the benefit of all Members. In doing so, the WTO dispute 
settlement system had fully played its role as a central eleme nt in providing security and 
predictability to the multilateral trading system. Members had been witnessing , for more than two 
years , the gradual dismantling of the Appellate Body which was an essential part of the dispute 
settlement system. As Members wer e aware , since 11 December  2019, the Appellate Body could no 
longer hear new appeals. Like the majority of Members, Switzerland deeply regret ted that, despite 
Members ' efforts, the DSB ha d remained unable to launch the AB selection process es. There was a 
period of uncertainty ahead. Switzerland hope d that this period would end soon, and that solutions 
could quickly be found in order to fully restore the two -tier dispute settlement system, while 
preserving its fundamental features, notably its binding nature . In this context, Switzerland  wished 
to call on each Member to act in a manner conducive to the prompt and final settlement of disputes 
and, therefore , to avoid so -called "appeal s into the void ". Switzerland also call ed on each Member 
to engage constructi vely, with a sense of urgency, in order to find concrete solutions under the 
auspices of the WTO's General Council. Switzerland remain ed strongly committed to working towards 
that goal. Switzerland wished to close this statement by thanking General Council  Chair 
Ambassador  Sunanta  and DSB Chairman Ambassador  Walker for their efforts and engagement.  
5.11.   The representative of  the Republic of Moldova  said that her country wished  to express its 
support towards a well-functioning, rules -based multilateral trading system and a fully functional 
dispute settlement system . Such a system  was imperative for the enforcement of the WTO legal 
framework  and represent ed a core legal guarantee. In this context, Moldova support ed and thank ed 
the 118 co -sponsors of the proposal  put forward  by Mexico to launch the AB selection  processes  as 
soon as possible  so as to overcome this unprecedented impasse in the Appellate Body . Moldova  
urged all Members to work together toward s a speedy  resolution t hat would reinforce the authority 
and the proper functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system. As a relatively small economy, 
Moldova was deeply concerned with developments regarding  the WTO . Moldova  believed  that the 
determination  of Members  to work together with the aim of preserv ing the centrality of the 
multilateral trading system , and with it a viable dispute settlement mechanism , was essential. In 
this context, Moldova was pleased to join the co-sponsors  in supporting the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 5 and commend ed Mexico for this initiative.  
5.12.   The representative of  Chinese Taipei  said that his delegation believe d that, to preserve  the 
rules-based multilateral trading system  and a well -functioning dispute settleme nt mechanism was 
indispensable. This was vital to resolv ing the current impasse and further open -minded discussions 
among Members  were required . Chinese Taipei agree d with the Director -General that there might 
be some missing pieces in the current discussions . It was time for Members to table all concerns in 
order to identify  the basic principles on which they all need ed to agree. His delegation looked forward 
to seein g the present  item removed from the DSB 's Agenda in the coming year.  
5.13.   The representative of  Singapore  said that, e ven though the Appellate Body was no longer fully 
functional, Singapore wished to reiterate its strong systemic interest in the maintenance of the two -
tier, binding WTO dispute settlement system that was underpinned by negative consensus. Although 
some discussions on interim arrangements  were ongoing , the unblocking of the AB selection 
process es had to  remain the paramount priority for all Members. Singapore was fully supportive of 
all efforts made towards this goal, bearing in mind that a multilateral dispute settlement mechanism WT/DSB/M/43 8 
 
- 15 - 
 
 
had to include all Members and could not  be short  of one Member. Singapore  urged all Members, 
especially the U nited States, to actively engage in finding concrete solutions. Singapore wished to  
take this opportunity to welcome Afghanistan and the Maldives as co -sponsors and to thank General 
Council Chair Amb assador  Sunanta  and DSB Chairman Ambassador  Walker for their efforts  regarding 
the AB matters.  
5.14.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that his delegation wished to refer to its 
statements made at previous DSB meetings. Hong Kong, China wished to reiterate its deep concern 
with the inability of the DSB to launch the AB selection process es. His delegation urged Members 
that had concerns with the dispute settlement system to lift the current blockage without further 
delay, and to constructively engage in separate discussions  to find solutions on this matter.  
5.15.   The representative of  Ukraine  said that her country  wished to  refer to its previous statements 
made on this matter and to reiterate its willingness to work towards findi ng a solution to the issue 
of launching the AB selection process es. Ukraine d id not w ish to disregard the current system or 
negotiation history that had led to the adoption of the DSU. Rather, Ukraine wished to draw Members ' 
attention to the fact that the world ha d changed  and that  patterns of world trade ha d also changed. 
Therefore , the dispute settlement mechanism need ed to respond to contemporary challenges. Both 
this fact and the fact that one Member might  have concerns a bout the functioning of the Appellate 
Body should  not impair the work of th e Appellate Body . Since 10 December  2019, the WTO dispute 
settlement  system ha d been disrupted. Blocking the AB selection processes would lead to the 
accumulation of unresolved  disputes. Such a development deal t a serious blow to the rule s-based 
international trading system . Consequently, Members could lose a valuable dispute settlement 
system that ha d been an independent guarantor of impartiality in the application of WTO rules . Thus, 
Ukraine called  upon Members to launch  the AB selection processes and welcome d Afghanistan, the 
Maldives and Moldova as new co -sponsors of the joint proposal  contained in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 5. Ukraine expressed gratitude for this opportunity  to express  its views on 
this matter  and stood  ready to engage constructively to help resolve th e AB impasse.  
5.16.   The representative of  China  said that his country wished to echo  the statement s made by 
Mexico at the present meeting on behalf of 118 WTO Members . China also wished to welcome 
Afghanistan and Maldives  as new co -sponsors of the joint proposal  contained in  contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 5. China  encourage d Members who ha d not joined as co-sponsors 
of this proposal to do so in order to  demonstrate their firm support and strong commitment to the 
two-tier dispute settlement system within the rules -based multilateral trading system. China deeply 
regret ted the current paralysis of the Appellate Body due to the  illegal blockage  by the United  States . 
Article 17.2 of the DSU could not be clearer : Members had the obligation of  filling AB vacancies. 
Nevertheless , the United States ha d not shown a willingness to fulfil this obligation. Over the past 
two years, Members ha d made various efforts to address US concerns  on this issue. In particular, 
12 proposals and a draft General Council decision ha d been tabled and vigorously discussed in 
different configurations. In spite of these efforts , the United States continue d to fail to constructively 
engage in these discussions . This had prevented any meaningful discussion s on the issue of 
unblocking  the AB selection processes and on how to improv e the functioning of the Appellate Body. 
The United States had repeatedly rais ed the "why" question . Thus far,  the United States had not 
tabled a single concrete proposal to address its concerns. The vital importance of the Appellate Body 
could not  be overstated  and its paralysis had devastating consequence s. At present, at least 
10 pending appeals had to be suspend ed until the resumption of a functioning Appellate Body. If the 
paralysis continue d, another 33 pending panel disputes would face a potential legal limbo if disputing 
parties could not agree on an interim arrangement  to set tle such disputes . In the meantime, China 
encourage d parties to quickly reach transitional arrangement s that would  promote the continuation 
of pending cases so as to avoid a n important backlog of unresolved appeals and potential obstacles 
to the restoratio n of the Appellate Body in the future. As  some Members  had mentioned  at the 
present meeting , the United States  had appealed the Panel Report in the  "US – Carbon Steel (India) " 
dispute (DS436) . It seem ed that the United States was either seeking a correctio n of possible errors 
in the Panel Report from the Appellate Body, or intentionally delaying or mooting the resolution of 
this case in bad faith. China  encourage d the United States to prompt ly unblock the AB selection 
processes  so as to show to the public its genuine and sincere good faith in this appeal. The Appellate 
Body crisis was also the crisis of the rules -based multilateral trading system. When the rule of law 
were to be  replaced by the rule of  the jungle, each and every Member would take a hit in the long 
term. Concrete and prompt actions need ed to be taken in order to resolve this matter . China renew ed 
its commitment to the informal process on AB matters and strongly encouraged  Ambassador  Walker WT/DSB/M/43 8 
 
- 16 - 
 
 
to continue his various efforts a s Facilitator and the Director -General to continue his coordination 
efforts as head of th e Organization. China also encouraged  Members to discuss various interim 
arrangements, while preserving the essential feature of the current dispute settlement  system , as 
the stop -gap solution  before the full restoration of the Appellate Body. China stood ready to further 
exchange views with relevant parties in this regard. As had emphasized at the 9-10 December 2019 
General Council meeting, institutional memory was extremely important to ensure the integrity of 
the rule s-based multilateral trading system. China wished to thank the Appellate Body Secretariat 
for its outstanding performance and long -term contribution  in this respect . China request ed that the 
Appellate Body Secretariat should remain stable during this period and its structure should be 
maintained according to the Decision on the Establishment of the Appellate Body (WT/DSB/1). The 
staff of  the Appellate Bo dy Secretariat should also remain on standby so that, at any given time, it 
could  be ready to return to work on new cases in a timely manner.  
5.17.   The representative of  the Russian Federation  said that  her delegation wished to  welcome the 
new Members who ha d joined  the proposal contained in  WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 5 on the AB selection 
processes.  Russia wished to thank all Members who support ed the letter and spirit of this proposal. 
The number of co -sponsors had continued to increase , which demonstrated the Members hip's 
position regarding the current situation in the Appellate Body. Russia wished to echo the statements 
made by other Members under this Agenda item and urge d Members to fulfil their commitments as 
provided by Article 17 of the DSU by launch the AB selection process es immediately.  
5.18.   The representative of  Korea  said that Korea wished to welcome the new co -sponsors and 
support ed the statement made by Mexico based on the joint proposal  contained in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 5. Korea deeply regret ted that Members had not been able to reach an 
agreement at the 9-10 December 2019 General Council  meeting. However, Korea believed that all 
Members should make  serious effort s to resolve the Appellate Body impasse as soon as possible. 
Korea urge d all Members  to engage constructively in the relevant discussions.  
5.19.   The representative of  Australia  said that her country  was deeply concerned that the Appellate 
Body was not able to fulfil its functions at this point in time. Australia wished to thank 
Ambassador  Sunanta  and Amb assador  Walker for their considerable efforts in seeking to resolve th is 
impasse. Australia remain ed strongly committed to the hard work required in the new year to 
advance reform and revive a properly functioning Appellate Body in t he interests of all Member s. 
Australia fully support ed the Director -General 's efforts toward this goal.  
5.20.   The representative of  Norway  said that his country wished to refer to its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings on this matter . Norway deeply regrett ed that th e Appellate Body was no 
longer able to perform its function s fully. This was damaging for the multilateral trading system . As 
Members knew , this situation could have been avoided. However,  the system was not broken. 
Members would do everything they could to safeguard what they had: their agreements, their panel 
processes and , hopefully, their interim arrangements that m ight secure the survival of the rule of 
law. Above all, Members had their engagement. Despite suggestions to the contrary, Norway and 
many other Members ha d, and would continue to, engage forcefully to find a solution to the AB 
crisis. Norway's message to the United States was to do the same . In this way,  Members would 
succeed together. Norway wished to be associate d with the words expressed by William Webster, 
the former Director of the CIA and FBI: " order protects liberty  and liberty protects order".  
5.21.   The representative of  Japan  said that his country wished to refer to its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings. J apan regret ted that, at the 9-10 December 2019 General Council meeting , 
Members had been  unable to adopt the draft decision proposed by Amb assador  Walker and , 
therefore,  were unable to launch the AB selection process es. The Appellate Body would effectively  
cease to function , at least for now. Members recognize d the urgent need for restoring a properly 
functioning dispute settlement system, which would serve the ultimate goal  of securing a positive 
solution to a dispute. Thanks to the informal process on AB matters and its out come  thus far, 
Members had a good amount of groundwork on which they could build in their future work. As a 
matter of priority, Members had to continue their serious discussions, including on difficult 
outstanding issues in order to find a long -lasting solution to the Appellate Body  impasse . Although 
Members were entering a realm of uncertainty, such uncertainty would also provide Members with 
a rare oppor tunity to experiment a variety of means to resolve disputes . This could , in turn , provide 
Members with the necessary tools to rebuild a viable and sustainable dispute settlement system that 
would work to the benefit of all WTO Members. In this respect, Japan wished to note th at serious WT/DSB/M/43 8 
 
- 17 - 
 
 
discussions were taking place on various ideas relating to temporary or interim means  to secure a 
positive and prompt solution to pending disputes  and Japan stood ready to engage in such 
discussions. Members own ed the system, not vice versa. Through their continu ed effort s, Members 
needed to make tangible progress to find a lasting solution to this matter and restore a properly 
functioning dispute settlement system as quickly as possible.  
5.22.   The representative of  Mexico  speaking on behalf of the 11 9 co-sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 5, regre tted that for the thirtieth  occasion, Members 
had still not been able to launch the AB selection processes and ha d thus continuously failed to fulfil 
their duty as Members of this Organization. The fact that a Member m ight have concerns about 
certain aspects of the functioning of the Appellate Body could not serve as a pretext to impair and 
disrupt its work. There was no legal justification for the current blocking of the AB selection 
processes, which was causing concrete nullification and impairment for many Members. As 
Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly state d: "[v]acancies shall be filled as they arise ". No discussion should 
prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully and Members had to comply with their 
obligation under the DSU to fill the AB vacancies. Mexico  noted with deep concern that the Members'  
contin ued failure to act  at the present meeting  mean t that  the Appellate Body would continue to be 
unable to perform its functions, against the best interest of all Members.  
5.23.   The representative of Mexico  said that her country  deeply regret ted the fact that Members 
were in an unprecedented situation where there was no longer an appel late mechanism in the  WTO 
dispute settlement system , given that  the Appellate Body was incomplete and inoperative. A total 
of 119 co ‑sponsors , which included  the representative s of cross‑section of the Members hip, 
underlin ed Members' interest in fulfilling their obligation to fill AB vacancies as they ar ose, in 
accordance with Article 17.2 of the DSU, in resolving the deadlock that ha d existed for over two 
years, and also in highlighting Members' interest in the dispute settlement system. The situation ha d 
become extremely worr isome . Nine disputes involving appeal proceedings ha d been suspended, and 
all ongoing disputes were being affec ted by the lack of a fully -functio ning dispute settlement system . 
This undermine d the right of all Members to engage in appeal proceedings. The confidence that 
Members ha d placed in the dispute settlement system since the creation of the WTO was undeniable . 
Moreover, the Membership ha d shown its serious commitment to finding a result ‑oriented process 
to address one Member's concerns, and this should have been sufficient to enable Members to launch 
the AB selection processes . Mexico regretted  that 164 Member s were deprived of their right of 
appeal . Mexico reiterate d its readiness to work toward a  solution and called for an end to the current 
impasse which affected the functioning of one of the central pillars of the multilateral trading system.  
5.24.   The Chairperson  thanked all delegations for their statements. She said that , as in the past, 
the DSB would take note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which would be 
reflected in the minutes of the present meeting. She further stated that Amb. Walker , the Chairman 
of the DSB,  and herself , as the Chair of the General Council , would be looking to assist Members in 
their efforts going forward in order to find a workable and agreeable solution to improve the 
functioning of the Appellate Body. A s Members were aware, at the General Council meeting on 
9 December 2019, the WTO Director -General had made a statement regarding the AB matters. In 
his statement, the Director -General informed Members that he would be undertaking more intensive 
high-level consultations on how to resolve the AB situation.  
5.25.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
 
__________  