 RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/448  
12 March  2021 
(21-2054) Page: 1/20 
Dispute Settlement Body  
25 January 2021   
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING   
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 25 JANU ARY 20211 
Chairman : H.E.  Mr Dacio Castillo  (Honduras ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) The Chairman  said that since this  was the first DSB meeting 
in a virtual format  he wished to  draw attention to the following  technical instructions : if a Member 
was unable to take the floor during the meeting because of a technical issue, th at Member 's 
delegation c ould inform the Chair or the Secretariat, and that Agend a item would remain open until 
the delegation c ould take the floor . If necessary , the item would remain open temporarily, the 
meeting would move on to the next Agenda item, and then the DSB could revert to the open item 
after the technical issue ha d been r esolved ; and (ii) The item concerning the adoption of the Panel 
Report in the dispute on:  "Korea – Sunset Review of Anti -Dumping Duties on Stainless Steel Bars" 
(DS553) was removed from the proposed Agenda following Korea 's decision to appeal the Panel 
Report. 
 
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  ................................ ................................ ..... 3 
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  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  6 
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  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ......................  8 
 
1 This meeting was held in virtual format only following the latest amendments to the COVID -19 related 
safety measures circulated by the WTO Health Task Force.  WT/DSB/M/448  
- 2 - 
  4  INDONESIA - MEASURES RELATING TO RAW MATERIALS  ................................ ............  9 
A. Request  for the establishment of a panel by the European Union  ................................ ..........  9 
5  UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT  ................................ .................  10 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Hong Kong, China  ................................ ...........  10 
6  PROPOSED NOMINATIONS FOR THE INDI CATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL 
AND NON -GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS  ................................ ................................ ..........  11 
7  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ARGEN TINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF 
BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; 
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 KORE A; 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; P ERU; 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.19)  ................................ ................................ ............................  12 
8  STATEMENT BY JAPAN REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT IN THE DISPUTE ON: 
"KOREA - SUNSET REVIEW OF ANTI -DUMPING DUTIES ON STAINLESS STEEL 
BARS"  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  17 
9  STATEMENT BY INDONESIA REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB IN THE DISPUTE ON: " AUSTRALIA – 
ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON A4 COPY PAPER"  ................................ ...........................  20 
 
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 States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 11) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.186) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.149) 
 
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.33) 
 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings invo lving 
China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/A dd.25) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.20 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.20) 
 
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. He recalled that Article 21.6 
required 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, he inv ited delegations to provide up to WT/DSB/M/448  
- 3 - 
  date information about their compliance efforts. He also reminded 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". He then turned to the first status report under this Agenda item . 
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 11) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.211, which contained the status 
report by the United Sta tes 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 14 January 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 DSB's recommendations that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration would work with 
the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that his country wished to thank the United States for its most 
recent status report and its statement made at the present meeting. Japan, once again, called on 
the United States to fully implemen t 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 
Unite d States (WT/DS160/24/Add.18 6) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.186, 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 14 January 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the E uropean 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  thanked the United States for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting. His delega tion wished to refer to the EU's statements 
made at previous DSB meetings under this Agenda item. The EU wished to resolve this dispute 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 . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.14 9) 
1.10.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.14 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 during the online meetings of the  Standing 
Committee on GM Food and Feed  held on 15  September and 7  October  2020, the European 
Commission had presented for vote eight authorizations representing 38 possible GMOs . As the 
Standing Committee had not reach ed an opinion, the European Commissio n had presented those 
eight authori zations for  a vote to the Appeal s Committee.  Although the Appeal s Committee could WT/DSB/M/448  
- 4 - 
  not reach an opinion on the authori zations presented for a vote, the eight authori zations for GM 
Food and Feed had been  adopted on 2 2 January  2021. The Standing Committee meeting had been  
held online on 1 6 December  2020. The European Commission had presented two authori zations .2 
The Standing Committee had not reach ed an opinion . The European Commission w ould present the 
two authori zation decisions at the next online meeting of the Appeal s Committee.  The EU continued 
to progress with the authorizations where the European Food Safety Authority had finalized its 
scientific opinion and concluded that there were n o safety concerns. As repeatedly explained by the 
EU and confirmed by the United States  during the EU -US biannual consultations held on 
27 October  2020, efforts to reduce delays in authori zation procedures were constantly maintained 
at a high level at all stages of the authori zation procedure.  The United States frequently refer red to 
what was known as the EU "opt-out Directive ". The EU wished to reiterate that the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings did not cover the "opt -out Directive". The EU acted in line with its 
WTO obligations. The EU wished to recall that the EU approval system was not covered by the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings . 
1.12.  The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union (EU) for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting. The EU had suggested that, with respect to these 
delays, the fault was with the applicants. However, US concerns related to delays at every stage of 
the approval process resulting from the actions or inactions of the EU and its member States. Recent 
outcomes of both the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee on Genetically Modified Food and 
Feed and Environmental Risk Assessment demonstrated the political nature of the comitology 
process – which repeatedly delayed safe products from r eceiving approval in the European market. 
During the most recent Standing Committee meetings (15 September 2020 and 7 October 2020), 
EU member States had cited the " Precautionary Principle " and " scientific reasons " as justification for 
not issuing approvals. However, these claims contradicted the fact that the European Food Safety 
Authority (EFSA) had successfully completed a science -based risk assessment for every product 
under consideration at these meetings. EU member States at the Standing Commi ttee had also cited 
"no agreed national position ", "negative public opinion ", and " political reasons " as justifications for 
reaching "no opinion" and for not approving these products. As could be seen, none of these 
justifications were science -based. The A ppeals Committee meetings held on 12 November 2020 and 
3 December 2020, which had been meant to address those instances where member States reached 
"no opinion" regarding product approvals, had cited the foregoing reasons as justification for not 
issuing b iotech product approvals. The United States failed to see how this approval process 
addressed the undue delays contemplated in this "EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products " 
dispute (DS291). In this light, and taking into account the EU's statement  at the present meeting, 
the United States requested a further update from the EU regarding the outcomes of the Standing 
Committee meeting held on 16 December 2020. The United States noted and appreciated the 
22 January 2021 announcement that the European Commission had authorized five biotech crops 
(three corn and two soybeans) and renewed the authorizations for three maize crops used for food 
and feed. However, the United States also urged and requested that the European Union move to 
issue final approval s for the remaining products that had completed science -based risk assessments 
at the EFSA, including those products that were with the Standing Committee and Appeals 
Committee .  
1.13.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at it s 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.3 3) 
1.14.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add.33, 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 14 January 2021, 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 F ederal 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 had completed implementation of the DSB' s recommendations concerning those 
 
2 Meeting of 16 December  2020: Maize MZIR086 and Cotton GHB614 x T3 04-40 x GHB  119. WT/DSB/M/448  
- 5 - 
  anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders. The representative of the United States said that the 
United States would consult with interested parties on options to address the DSB's 
recommendations relating to other meas ures challenged in this dispute . 
1.16.  The representative of Korea  said that his country wished to thank the United States for its 
status report. Once again, Korea urged the United States to take prompt and appropriate steps to 
implement the DSB's recommendations for the "as such" measure 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, arising out of the Appellate Body report in this dispute, that the "differential  pricing 
methodology" (DPM) was "as such" WTO -inconsistent . The United States had also ignored the DSB's 
recommendation that the United States bring itself into compliance with its obligations. Instead, the 
United States continued to apply the "as such" in consistent differential pricing methodology in 
investigations with respect to foreign companies and continued to collect cash deposits from foreign 
exporters based on its inconsistent methodology . The reasonable period of time to implement the 
recommendati ons relating to the "as such" WTO -inconsistency of the DPM had expired more than 
two years ago . However, in its most recent status report, the United States stated that it continued 
to consult with interested parties . Moreover, the continued use by the United States of the DPM had 
forced Members to resort to several dispute settlement proceedings concerning this measure. This 
was an inefficient and unnecessary use of dispute settlement resources . Canada remained deeply 
concerned with the continued US fai lure to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
this dispute. This failure seriously undermined the security and stability of the multilateral trading 
system . 
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.2 5) 
1.19.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add.25, 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 application 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 14 January 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As explained 
in that report, the United States would consult with interested parties on options to address the 
DSB's rec ommendations . 
1.21.  The representative of China  said that, on 22 May 2017, the DSB had adopted the Appellate 
Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body, in this dispute, which had 
found that the US measures  at issue were  in violation of anti -dumping rules . Since the United States 
continue d to fail to implement the DSB's rulings in this dispute, China had been  left with no other 
option but to request the DSB's authorization to retaliat e in accordance with Article 22.2 of t he DSU . 
On 1 November  2019, the arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU had concluded that China could  
request the DSB 's authorization to retaliate at a level not exceeding USD 3.579 billion  annually.  
China expressed  serious  disappoint ment with the unwillingness of the United States to move forward 
in this dispute . More than 29 months after the reasonable period of time had expired, the 
WTO-inconsistent US measures remain ed intact . The most recent US  status report s had once again 
failed to identify any implementation action . China's legitimate interests continue d to be infringed 
and there was no  meaningful remedy  available . Unfortunately, what China experienced in this 
dispute was  not a single case . The record reveal ed that US implementation ha d long become a 
systemic concern to the entire Membership . In many of its defensive cases, especially trade remedy 
cases , the United States had substantially delayed or even completely  ignored its compliance 
obligation s. The recent paraly sis of the Appellate Body ha d further exacerbated the situation . In the 
"US – Softwood Lumber VII" dispute ( DS533 ) and in the "US – Tariff Measures" dispute ( DS543 ), 
the United States had chose n to avoid multilateral disciplines simply by appealing into th e void . 
These actions  had severely undermined the effectiveness of the WTO dispute settlement  system . 
Article 21.1 of the DSU makes it clear that: "[p]rompt compliance with recommendations or rulings 
of the DSB is essential in order to ensure effective res olution of disputes to the benefit of all WT/DSB/M/448  
- 6 - 
  Members".  Therefore , China  urged the United States to fulfil its implementation obligation in this 
dispute without further delay . 
1.22.  The DSB 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. 20 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 20) 
1.23.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/ 21/Add.20 – WT/DS478/22/Add.20, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and animal 
products . 
1.24.  The representative of Indonesia  said that his country had provided a status report pursuant 
to Article 21.6 of the DSU . Indonesia reiterated its commitment to implementing the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes . Indonesia had also taken note of the continued 
concerns raised by New Zealand and the United States at previous DSB meetings, in particular with 
regard to measures 1 –17. With respect to Measure 18, as  Indonesia had  indicat ed at the 
18 December 2020 DSB mee ting, the new Law that addresse d this specific Measure, namely Law 
No. 11/2020 on Job Creation, had been  promulgated and ha d entered into force on 
2 November  2020. The Government of Indonesia wa s currently working on the implementing 
regulations of Law  11/2020. Indonesia would continue to engage with New Zealand and the United 
States regarding matters related to the DSB 's recommendations and rulings . 
1.25.  The representative of New Zealand  wished to thank Indonesia for its status report and 
acknowledged Indonesia's commitment to comply fully with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
in this dispute . However, both compliance deadlines had long since expired, and a number of 
measures remained  non-compliant . These included Measure 18 and the continued enforcement of 
limited application windows and validity periods, harvest period import bans, import realization 
requirements and restrictions placed on import volumes based on storage capacity . New Zealand 
was particularly concerned that difficulties continued to be experienced in obtaining import 
recommendations and approvals . New Zealand would be watching closely as the application windows 
for the 2021 import period opened . New Zealand understood  that Indonesia's Parliament had 
recently passed the Job Creation Bill. However, New  Zealand did not yet have the information 
necessary to assess what impact this would have on Indonesia's compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispu te, in particular in respect of Measure 18. New  Zealand 
strongly encouraged Indonesia to achieve full compliance in this dispute . 
1.26.  The representative of the United States  thanked Indonesia for its status report. The United 
States understood that Indonesia h ad recently amended the relevant laws that would address 
Measure 18. The United States looked forward to receiving further detail from Indonesia regarding 
these legislative changes and their implementation by the government. The United States remained 
willing to work with Indonesia to fully and meaningfully resolve this dispute . 
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 ACT 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. H e then invited the representative of the European Union to speak . 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that despite the repeated indications by the 
United States that the DSB's recommendations and rulings had been fully implemented by adopting 
the Deficit Reduction Act , disbursements under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act  
(CDSOA) had been made every year since . Every disbursement that still took place under this legal 
basis was clearly an act of non -compliance with the DSB's recommendat ions and rulings in this WT/DSB/M/448  
- 7 - 
  dispute. For this Agenda item to be considered resolved and removed from the DSB's surveillance, 
the United States had to fully stop transferring collected duties . The EU would continue to place this 
item on the Agenda of DSB meetings as long as the United States had not fully implemented the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings and the disbursements had not ceased completely . The EU 
would continue to insist – as a matter of principle – independently of the cost resulting from the  
application of such limited duties . The EU reiterated 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 since the 
issue remained unresolved . If the United States d id not agree that the issue remained unresolved, 
nothing prevented it from seeking a multilateral determination through a compliance procedure . 
2.3.  The representative of Canada  said that his country wished to thank the European Union for 
placing this item on t he Agenda of the present meeting. Canada agreed with the EU that the Byrd 
Amendment should remain subject to the surveillance of the DSB until the United States ceased to 
administer it . 
2.4.  The representative of the United States  said that as the United States  had noted at previous 
DSB meetings, the Deficit Reduction Act – which included a provision repealing the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 – had been enacted into law more than 14 years ago in 
February 2006. The Deficit Reduction Act did no t permit the distribution of duties collected on goods 
entered after 1 October 2007, more than 12 years ago. Accordingly, the United States had long ago 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes. Even aside from this, it was 
evide ntly not common sense that was driving the EU's approach to this Agenda item. On 
26 June 2020, the EU had notified that it would apply an additional duty of 0.012% on certain 
imports of the United States. There was no trade rationale for inscribing this it em month after month. 
As it had done many times before, at the 18 December 2020 DSB meeting, the EU had once again 
called on the United States to abide by its "clear obligation" under Article 21.6 of the DSU for the 
United States to submit a status report in this dispute. Notably, the EU had not called on any other 
Member in any other dispute to abide by this so -called "clear obligation", despite the fact that several 
Members were in the same situation as the United States. As the United States had explaine d 
repeatedly, there was no obligation under the DSU for a Member to provide further status reports 
once that Member announced that it had implemented  the DSB's recommendations. The widespread 
practice of Members – including the European Union as a respondi ng party – confirmed this 
understanding of Article 21.6. Indeed, at recent meetings, three Members – Australia, Brazil, and 
China – had informed the DSB that they had come into compliance with the DSB recommendations 
in four disputes (DS472, DS497, DS517, and DS529), and the complaining parties did not accept 
the claims of compliance. Those Members announcing compliance had not provided status reports 
for the present meeting. This was consistent with the understanding that there was no obligation for 
a Memb er to provide further status reports once that Member announced that it had implemented 
the DSB recommendations. The EU was the complaining party in one of those disputes (DS472). If 
the EU believed that status reports were "required" under the DSU, it wou ld have insisted that the 
responding Member provide a status report in that dispute, or the EU would have inscribed that 
dispute as an item on the present meeting's Agenda. The EU had taken neither action. Therefore, it 
was once again clear that the EU did  not truly believe that there was a "clear obligation" under 
Article  21.6 of the DSU to submit a status report after a party had claimed compliance. The EU had 
simply invented a rule for this dispute, involving the United States, that it did not apply to o ther 
disputes involving other Members . 
2.5.  The representative of the European Union  said that his delegation wished to  recall that the 
CDSOA had been  found to be in breach of WTO rules for transferring anti­dumping and countervailing 
duties to the US industry, and that the DSB had authori zed sanctions on the basis of the US failure 
to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings . That situation pe rsisted as long as the 
redistribution of collected duties continue d. The circumstances of thi s case with regard to relevant 
DSU provisions and procedures were therefore entirely differen t from those in the DS472  dispute . 
2.6.  The DSB took note of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/448  
- 8 - 
  3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING 
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 of the present meeting at the request of 
the United States. He then invited the representative of the United States to speak . 
3.2.  The representative of the United States  noted that once again the European Union had not 
provided Members with a status rep ort concerning the dispute "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" (DS316). 
As the United States had noted at several recent DSB meetings, the EU had argued – under the 
previous Agenda item – that where the EU as a complaining party did not agree with the responding 
party Member's " assertion  that it has implemented the DSB ruling", "the issue remains unresolved 
for the purposes of Article 21.6 of the DSU".  Under this Agenda item, however, the EU argued that 
by submitting a compliance communication, the EU as the respon ding party no longer needed to file 
a status report, even though the United States as the complaining party did not agree with the EU's 
assertion that it had complied . The EU's position was erroneous and not based on the text of the 
DSU. The EU argued that  where "a matter is with the adjudicators, it is temporarily taken out of the 
DSB's surveillance" and the DSB was somehow deprived of its authority to "maintain surveillance of 
implementation of rulings and recommendations". Yet, there was nothing in the D SU text to support 
that argument, nothing in Article 2 of the DSU or elsewhere that limited the DSB's authority in this 
manner, and the EU provided no explanation for how it read Article 21.6 of the DSU to contain this 
limitation. The EU was not providing a status report because of its assertion that it had complied, 
demonstrating that the EU's principles varied depending on its status as complaining or responding 
party. The US position on status reports had been consistent: under Article 21.6 of the DSU, o nce a 
responding Member announced to the DSB that it had complied, there was no further "progress" on 
which it could report, and therefore no further obligation to provide a status report. But as the EU 
allegedly disagreed with this position, it should for  future meetings provide status reports in this 
"EC – Large Civil Aircraft " dispute (DS316).  
3.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that, as during previous DSB meetings, the 
United States had implied that the EU was taking inconsistent positions un der Article 21.6 of the 
DSU, depending on whether the EU was a complaining party or a defending party in a dispute. The 
US assertions were without merit. As the EU had repeatedly explained during 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" (DS316)  case (the Airbus case), the dispute 
was at a stage where the defending party did not have an obligation to submit status reports to the 
DSB. The EU wished to re call that in the Airbus case, the EU had notified a new set of compliance 
measures to the DSB. That new set of compliance measures had been a clear demonstration that 
the EU – contrary to the United States in the parallel "US – Large Civil Aircraft (second complaint)" 
case (DS353)  (the Boeing -case) – was serious about and committed to achieving comp liance. That 
new set of compliance measures had been subject to an assessment by a compliance panel and that 
panel report had been issued on 2 December 2019. As noted in the EU's statement made at the 
18 December 2019 DSB meeting, the EU believed that sign ificant aspects of the compliance panel 
report could not be regarded as legally correct and were very problematic from a systemic 
perspective when it came to assessing compliance with the subsidy disciplines of the WTO 
Agreements. It was in order to have t hese legal errors corrected that the EU had filed an appeal 
against the compliance panel report on 6 December 2019. The EU was concerned that with the 
current blockage of the two -step multilateral dispute settlement system, the EU was losing the 
possibilit y of a proper appellate review of the serious flaws contained in the panel report. While the 
blockage continued, the EU stood ready to discuss with the United States alternative ways to deal 
with this appeal. The EU was also committed to finding a balanced  negotiated solution with the 
United States that would allow leaving both aircrafts disputes behind them . The EU noted that these 
considerations did not, however, alter the fact that the compliance proceeding in this dispute had 
not been concluded. Whether  or not the matter was "resolved" in the sense of Article 21.6 of the 
DSU remained the very subject matter of this ongoing litigation. The EU asked how it could be 
claimed that the defending party should submit "status reports" to the DSB in these circumst ances. 
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 settlem ent proceedings on that precise issue were 
ongoing. The EU noted that its reading of the provision was supported by other WTO Members. The WT/DSB/M/448  
- 9 - 
  view of the European Union was further supported by Article 2 of the DSU on the administration of 
the dispute settlem ent rules and procedures: where, further to the disagreement between the parties 
on compliance, a matter was with the adjudicators, it was temporarily taken out of the DSB's 
surveillance .  
3.4.  The E U consider ed that i nstead of progressively stepping -up retalia tory measures, the EU and 
the United States  should step them down. With that in mind, the EU reaffirm ed its determination to 
obtaining a long -term resolution to the WTO aircrafts disputes. A balanced negotiated settlement 
was the only way to avoid mutually imposed countermeasures . The EU 's willingness to find a 
negotiated solution was also shown by its notification dated  21 August 2020, which had been  
discussed at previous  DSB meeting s, of additional and extraordinary compliance measures that 
withdr ew all remaining subsidies and constitute d appropriate steps to remove adverse effects, 
substantially in excess  of what was required by Article 7.8 of the SCM Agreement. These additional 
and extraordinary measures went far beyond what was required in order to discharge the EU's 
compliance obligations under Article 7.8 of the SCM Agreement. The EU ha d procured these  
additional, extraordinary and costly compliance measures in an effort to persuade rational and 
reasonable stakeholders in the United States, including consumers, employers, workers, government 
officials and entities, airlines and other economic operators,  that now was the time to draw a line 
under these disputes. It was not in the interests of anyone that the EU and the United States proceed 
to, or continue, mutually assured retaliation, and certainly not in the current economic climate . 
3.5.  The DSB took note of the statements . 
4  INDONESIA - MEASURES RELATING TO RAW MATERIALS  
A. Request  for the establishment of a panel by the European Union (WT/DS592/3)  
4.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the European Union contained in 
document WT/DS592/3 . He then invite d the representative of European Union to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that Indonesia ha d had a policy in place for a 
number of years designed to boost its industrial capacities at the intermediate stages o f stainless 
steel production . This policy include d a number of measures aimed at developing a rapid increase of 
Indonesian production for exports in the steel sector.  As a result of Indonesia's measures, stainless 
steel capacity in Indonesia ha d grown from zero in 2015 to 6  million  metric tonnes in 2020, while 
the capacity in the EU ha d been reduced  from 9.5  million  tonnes to 8.4  million  tonnes in a very short 
period of time. In order to reach and support this exponential growth, Indonesia ha d a number of 
measures in place that heavily affect ed trade in stainless steel raw materials.  One of the measures 
maintained by Indonesia was an export prohibition on nickel ore . Varying degrees of restrictions on 
exports of nickel ore ha d been in place since 2014 at the latest and enforced in different manners 
and through different sets of rules throughout the years . As of January  2020, a full ban was in place 
on all exports of nickel ore, which in this way remain ed reserved for the Indonesian industry only.  
In addition, Indonesia ha d domestic processing requirements in place for nickel ore and iron ore . 
These requirements oblige d businesses to enhance the value added of the raw materials in Indonesia 
prior to exporting them, by subjecting them to mandatory pro cessing and purification operations in 
Indonesia . These requirements unduly restrict ed exports of unprocessed raw materials.  These 
measures were in clear violation of Indonesia's WTO obligations, specifically the prohibition of 
restricting exports of produ cts, in this case raw materials for the production of stainless steel, to 
other WTO Members.  The EU urge d Indonesia to bring these measures in line with its WTO 
obligations . To this end, the EU request ed the establishment of a panel to fully assess and rul e on 
the legality of Indonesia 's measures.  The EU also st ood ready to discuss with Indonesia reciprocal 
interim arrangements that would preserve the availability of appeal review in this and other disputes 
on the basis of Article 25 of th e DSU, either throug h an arbitratio n agreemen t as set forth in Anne x 1 
of the Multi-party interim appeal arbitration arrangement (MPIA) or through such an agreement 
concluded on an ad hoc basis .  
4.3.  The representative of Indonesia  said that g iven consultations held in good faith between 
Indonesia and the EU on 3 0 January  2020, his coun try expressed regret that the EU ha d decided to 
move forward with a request for the establishment of a panel in this dispute  at the present meeting.  
During consultations, Indonesia had provided comprehensive responses to all questions raised by 
the EU and had engaged constructively with the EU towards  finding accommodating solutions for WT/DSB/M/448  
- 10 - 
  both parties . In this regard, Indonesia welcome d the fact that the European Union ha d decided not 
to further pursue claims under the G ATT 1994 and the SCM Agreement in relation to certain 
measures that had been  subject to consultations.  Indonesia believe d that progress c ould still be 
achieved in relation to other measures at issue . Accordi ngly, Indonesia believed  that it was 
premature for the EU  to request the establishment of a panel at the present meeting . For this reason , 
Indonesia wa s not in a position to agree with this panel request . Indonesia st ood ready to consult 
further with the E U regarding this matter.  
4.4.  The representative of the European Union  said that his delegation  also expressed regret that 
consultations ha d failed to settle th is dispute . As a result, the EU need ed to proceed with the panel 
process.  The EU remain ed available to find a mutually agreed solution at any time, provided that 
such solution include d the elimination of the violating measures  by Indonesia . 
4.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter, should a requesting 
Member wish  to do so.  
5  UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Hong Kong, China (WT/DS597/5)  
5.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Hong Kong, China contained in 
document WT/DS597/5 . He then  invite d the representative of Hong Kong, China to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that his delegation wa s requesting the 
establishment of a panel to examine the revised US origin marking requirement that was inconsistent 
with various provisions under several WTO covered agreements.  Despite Hong Kong, China 's strong 
opposition, the United States ha d implemented a revised origin marking requirement starting from 
10 November  2020 which require d that imported goods produced in Hong Kong could no longer be 
marked to indicate "Hong Kong " as their origin but  had to  be marked to indicate "China " for the 
purposes of the said revised origin marking requirement.  Hong Kong, China strongly object ed to this 
arbitrary, unilateral, unnecessary and unju stifiable requirement . The revised origin marking 
requirement impair ed Hong Kong, China 's rightful and legitimate interest under the relevant WTO 
covered agreements . It was also inconsistent with, among others, the fundamental WTO obligation 
to provide Mos t-Favoured -Nation (MFN) treatment to all Members and  violate d various provisions of 
the WTO covered agreements , including the G ATT 1994, the Agreement on Rules of Origin, and the 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade , as stated in Hong Kong, China's  panel request.  
5.3.  Hong Kong, China  said that f or many decades before the implementation of the revised origin 
marking requirement at issue, goods originating from Hong Kong ha d been marked as products of 
"Hong Kong " origin . The United States ha d now i mposed a restriction requiring goods originating 
from Hong Kong to be marked as products of "China ". The revised requirement disregard ed the fact 
that Hong Kong, China was a separate customs territory and a Member of the WTO in its own right . 
The revised r equirement was also blatantly discriminatory in nature, because it d id not extend to 
products of Hong Kong origin immediately and unconditionally the same advantages, favours, 
privileges, or immunities that the United States extend ed to like products origi nating in the territory 
of other countries and customs territories . The United States  also d id not accord to the products of 
Hong Kong treatment with regard to origin marking requirements no less favourable than the 
treatment that the United States accord ed to like products of other countries and customs territories . 
Nor did the United States  admin ister its origin marking requirements in a uniform, impartial and 
reasonable manner.  
5.4.  Hong Kong, China said that t he revised origin marking requirement impose d unnecessary 
burdens upon its business enterprises and cause d confusion to consumers . Both before and after 
the resumption of the exercise of sovereignty by the People 's Republic  of China on 1 July 1997, 
goods produced in Hong Kong ha d been marked, correctly, as products of "Hong Kong" or "Made in 
Hong Kong". This was how their products were known arou nd the world, including among consumers 
in the United States . The unilateral imposition of the revised origin marking requirement confuse d 
the market, and its business enterprises now need ed to mark their products in one way when 
destined for sale in the United States, and in the correct way when destined for sale elsewhere . Not 
only was this revised requirement logistically burdensome, but it  also undermine d the investments 
that its business  enterprises ha d made in developing the Hong Kong brand . It should be further WT/DSB/M/448  
- 11 - 
  noted that Hong Kong, China  had its own laws and regulatory regimes, for example product safety 
standards and licensing requirements . Therefore,  consumers in the United States sh ould not be 
deprived of such factual and important information if a product originated from Hong Kong.  The 
revised origin marking requirement also disregard ed the fundamental objective of the Agreement 
on Rules of Origin, which s ought  to determine, objecti vely, precisely and accurately, the origin of 
imported products . In respect of products produced in Hong Kong, the United States impose d a 
requirement that mandate d the fulfilment of a certain condition not relating to manufacturing or 
processing, as a pre requisite for the determination of their origin . The United States also failed to 
administer its rules of origin in a consistent, uniform, impartial and reasonable manner . The above 
was clearly not WTO -consistent.  Hong Kong, China said that f rom the standp oint of the multilateral 
trading system, it was deeply erroneous for any WTO Member to impose on another Member a 
unilateral and arbitrary origin marking requirement that b ore no relationship to the actual origin of 
the product under the WTO regime and  that misinform ed consumers that the product originated 
from a third WTO Member . The proper determination of a product 's origin should be a technical and 
rules-based exercise exclusively informed by the facts surrounding its manufacturing or processing, 
and not an occasion for political theatrics . Otherwise, rules of origin would lose their function of 
relating the origin of an imported product to a particular WTO Member, which was the basis to 
determine many of the rights and obligations in relation to tha t product under  international trade  
law. The application of rules of origin should in no circumstances be deployed as a means for 
achieving political ends.  
5.5.  Hong Kong, China said that it had requested consultations with the United States on 
30 October  2020. Consultations had been  held on 2 4 November  2020,  but the parties had failed to 
reach a mutually satisfactory solution to resolve th is dispute. Hong Kong, China reiterate d that the 
revised origin marking requirement imposed by the United States was not WTO -consistent and had 
substantial trade and systemic implications for the multilateral trading system . As a result , Hong 
Kong, China request ed that the DSB establish a panel with standard terms of reference to examine 
this matter . In the meantime, Hong Kong, China continue d to urge the United States to honour its 
commitments under the WTO covered agreements and immediately withdraw its revised 
requirement . 
5.6.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States regretted the request by 
Hong K ong, China and  was not in a position to support the proposed decision. As Members knew, a 
new US President had been inaugurated on 20 January 2021 and the United States was currently 
transitioning to a new Administration . 
5.7.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that his delegation  took note of the circumstances 
mentioned by the United States . Hong Kong, China  still consider ed it necessary and appropriate for 
a panel to be established to examine th is matter in accordance with the DSU provisions.  
5.8.  The DSB  took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter, should a requesting 
Member wish to do so.  
6  PROPOSED NOMINATION S FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS (WT/DSB/W/ 675) 
6.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/67 5 which contained  new nomination s 
proposed by Ecuador for inclusion on the Indicative List of Governmental and Non -Governmental 
Panelists, in accordance with Article  8.4 of the DSU. He proposed that the DSB approve the names 
contained i n document  WT/DSB/W/675.  
6.2.  The DSB so agree d. WT/DSB/M/448  
- 12 - 
  7  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; A NGOLA ; 
ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA ; 
BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; CABO VERDE ; 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 ; GUINE A; 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 T ERRITORY 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.1 9) 
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.1 9 and invited the representative of Mexico to speak . 
7.2.  The representa tive of Mexico  speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained  in document  WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.19, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal dated  7 December 2020 to launch the AB selection processes . Her 
delegation, on behalf of 121 Members, wished to make the following statement . The extensive 
number of Members submitting this joint proposal reflected a common concern with the current 
situation of the Appellate Body , which  was seriously affecting the overall dispute settlement system 
against the best interest of WTO Members . Members had a responsibility to safeguard and preserve 
the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system and the multilateral trading system. Thus, it was 
the Members' duty to launch the AB selection processes without further delay as set out in the joint 
proposal, which sought the following : (i) to 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 that had resulted 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 ex pired on 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 
R. Graham , whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019 ; and a seventh process to repl ace 
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 nominating candidates ; and 
(iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its recom mendation s within 60 days after the 
deadline for nominations of candidates. She said that t he proponents were flexible in the 
determination of the deadlines for the AB selection processes . However, they believed that Members 
should consider the urgency of the situation . They continued to urge all Members to support this 
proposal in the interest of the multilateral trading system and the dispute settlement system . 
7.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that his delegation wished to refer to the EU 
statements made on this issue at previous DSB meetings, starting in February 2017, as well as to 
its statements made at the General Council meetings, including at the 9 December 2019 General 
Council meeting . Since 11 December 2019, 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 repeatedly, Members had 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 renewed its call on all WTO Members to engage in a construc tive discussion so that the 
AB vacancies could be filled as soon as possible. The EU thanked all Members that had co -sponsored 
the proposal to launch the AB selection processes. The EU invited all other Members to endorse this 
proposal.  
7.4.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that her country wished  to thank Mexico for 
its statement made on behalf of the co -sponsors . The Appellate Body crisis was a problem that struck 
at the heart of this Organization . While the A ppellate Body remained only  in tex t of the WTO WT/DSB/M/448  
- 13 - 
  Agreement, certain WTO Members continue d to file appeals into the void . As of the present meeting,  
the resolution of seven disputes w as effectively blocked . This was a clear indication that WTO 
Members d id not have an adequate alternative  to the Appellate Body. Unfortunately, this represented  
a stalemate for WTO Members and blocked panel reports . However, the downside of appeals into 
the void did not cause risks only for complainants . On a broader  scale, the confidence in the WT O 
as a whole wa s being severely undermined.  Russia was greatly concerned with the critical condition  
of the Appellate Body  and its consequences for the multilateral trading system . Russia was  
determined to continue working with all WTO Members , including t he United States and its new 
administration , towards a constructive dialogue aimed at  resolv ing the  AB crisis . It was also 
important to start thinking  of how to prevent such problems in the future.  It was Russia 's top priority 
to immediately launch the AB selection processes . At the same time, Russia  was committed to 
engag ing constructively in negotiations on AB reform.  
7.5.  The representative of Indonesia  said that his country wishe d to refer to its statements made 
at previ ous DSB meetings under this A genda  item. Members  continued the long -standing discussion 
on the effort to immediately  launch the Appellate Body selection  processes . Notwithstanding the fact 
that the current situation ha d adversely impacted the interests of the majority of WTO Members in 
terms of bringing predictability to global trade, Members had  yet to agree on a solution to the current  
crisis. Hence, given the situation, it should be the utmost priority of all Members  to solve this crisis.  
Indonesia  offered it s long -standing commitment to constructively engage and contribute to the effort 
to resolve this issue . Indonesia,  once again , urged all Members to give serious attention,  willingness 
and commitment towards  the im mediate appointment of new Appellate Body members . 
7.6.  The representative of Colombia  said that t he effective settlement of disputes was at the core 
of the multilateral trading system . If for an extended period of time there was no  workable solution 
to resolve  disputes, this could  result in a progressive erosion of WTO Members ' rights and 
commitments . The incentives to strictly follow a given discipline, to strictly communicate about it 
and monitor it or to act in good faith during negotiations over new rules w ould progressively weaken.  
Colombia co -sponsor ed the proposal under this Agenda item and invite d Members to collectively 
unblock the AB selection process es as a multilateral solution  to the current impasse.  Colombia had  
seen with concern a significant number of new disputes risking the possibility of remaining 
unresolved  should  they be appealed into the void after the panel stage . This was particularly 
worrisome from the perspective o f small and medium -sized Members . In the interim, while Members  
collectively put in place a multilateral solution, Colombia wished  to invite other  Members to join the 
MPIA.  It was time to avoid the progressive erosion of Members ' rights and obligations under the DSU 
and other pillars that c ame with a non -fully functioning  dispute settlement mechanism .  
7.7.  The representative of Thailand  said that his country support ed the statement made by Mexico 
on behalf of the co -sponsors.  Thailand  reiterate d its continued concern about the fact that all 
vacancies in the  Appellate Body remain ed unfilled . This  reflect ed deeply divergent views among  
Members . Thailand noted  the high importance that Members ha d placed on a two-tier dispute 
settlement sy stem, as many Members continue d to file for appeal s before a non -functioning 
Appellate Body.  Therefore, Thailand  strongly urge d Members to find possible ways to reach a solution 
expeditiously in order to resume the full function ing of the Appellate Body.  Thailand st ood ready to 
engage constructively with Members in these efforts.  
7.8.  The representative of China  said that his country support ed the statement made by Mexico on 
behalf of the 121 Members that co-sponsor ed this proposal . China  wished to  refer to its statements 
made at previous  meetings  of the DSB  and the General Council on this important matter . China  
reiterate d its firm support for a two -tier, independent and impartial dispute settlement system . The 
current two -tier dispute settlement system was an integral part of the Uruguay Round Single 
Undertaking . Articles 17.1 and 17.2 of the DSU specifically require d that WTO Members maintain a 
standing Appellate Body by promptly filling its vacancies . In other words, absent consensus, there 
was no legitimate reason for any  Member  to disrespect this legal obligation and try to unilaterally 
rewrite the negotiated outcome.  As Me mbers had observed in 2020 , a non-functioning  Appellate 
Body ha d seriously undermined the security of the multilateral trading system, especially in this 
once-in-a-century pandemic when the world need ed such security more than ever . The contin ued 
Appellate  Body paralysis , accompanied by an increasing number of "appeals into the void ", made it 
easier for WTO-inconsistent measures to avoid sanctions . When old rules beg an to lose their 
enforceability, Members ha d less appetite for negotiating new rule s. Hence, if Members truly wished  
to reinvigorate the WTO's negotiating pillar, the right direction for Members was  to further 
strengthen rather than cripple the dispute settlement pillar. China believed that t he status quo was WT/DSB/M/448  
- 14 - 
  unsustainable . China  called on M embers to constructively participate in solution s-based 
consultation s and to launch the AB selection process es without further delay . China st ood ready to 
further engage with Members on this important matter .  
7.9.  The representative of India said that his country wished to refer to its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings on this matter . Since 11 December 2019, the WTO no longer guarantee d 
access to a binding, two -tier, independent and impartial system for the resolution of trade disputes , 
as there was no standing Appellate Body to hear appeals from panel s. Therefore , India  request ed 
that all WTO Members resolve this matter and work on filling the outstanding AB vacancies as set 
out in Article 17.2 of the DSU.  
7.10.  The representative of Korea  said that his country  noted that many Members ha d continuously 
voiced their concerns over the Appellate Body impasse and the urgency to revive the two -tier dispute 
settlement system. His country  support ed the statement made by Mexico on behalf of the 
co-sponsors of the joint proposal  contained  in document  WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 9. Korea urge d all 
Members to engage constructively in the discussions  aimed at resolv ing this important issue as soon 
as possible . 
7.11.  The representative of New Zealand  said that her count ry reiterate d its support for the 
co-sponsor ed proposal and wished to refer to its statements made at previous DSB meetings on this 
matter . New Zealand  continue d to urge all Members to engage constructively on th e issues with a 
view to urgently addressing this very serious situation.  
7.12.  The representative of South Africa  said that his country support ed the statement s made by 
Mexico on behalf of the co -sponsors  and by  Nigeria  on behalf of the African Group . South Africa 
wished to recall its statements made at previous DSB meetings on this matter . Once again , South 
Africa emphasize d the need to resolve the current impasse urgently and to find a permanent solution 
to the appointment of the members of the Appellate Body. Therefore , South Africa  called on all 
Members to ensure that they discharge d their collective duty to select and app oint Appellate Body 
members as soon as possible. The resolution of the appointment process of Appellate Body members 
had to  be high on Members ' agenda going  forward. His delegation st ood ready to further engage 
with all Members on this very important issue . 
7.13.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group , said that t he Group 
wished to refer to their statements made at previous DSB meetings on this very important issue . 
The Group also wished to thank Mexico for its statement made at th e present meeting on behalf of 
the co -sponsors of the AB proposal . The Group wished to express regret that up to now the DSB ha d 
failed in the performance of its function under Article 17.2 of the DSU . This wa s clearly in breach of 
the rules despite the overwhelming number of Members submitting this joint proposal . 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 ensure that the Appellate Body d id not collapse permanentl y. The African 
Group believed  that procedural matters could  be addressed alongside substantive issues.  The African 
Group  encourage d Members to sincerely engage constructively with each other in order to finally 
put this issue to rest. The African Group  stood ready to engage constructively with other Members.  
7.14.  The representative of Switzerland  said that her country wished to refer to its statements made 
at previous DSB  meetings  on this matter . Members should continue to try to resolve the current  AB 
impasse.  Switzerland  called on all Members to engage  constructive ly to find concrete solutions . At 
the start of a year filled with uncertainty, Switzerland  remain ed hopeful and reiterate d the 
importance of finding a solution. Switzerland  urged all WTO Mem bers to join  discussion s in order to 
overcome the current situation.  Switzerland remain ed committed to working with all Members to 
achieve this goal. Ensuring that the appe llate stage  once again bec ame fully functional in the interest 
of all Members remain ed Switzerland 's priority.  
7.15.  The representative of Canada  said that his country supported the statement made by Mexico 
and shared the concerns expressed by other Members at the present meeting. Canada invited WTO 
Members that had not yet co -sponsored the proposal contained  in document  WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 9 
to consi der joining the 121 Members 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 they all 
accorded to a fully  functioning Appellate Body as an integral part  of the dispute settlement system . 
The fact that the Appellate Body could not hear new appeals was of great concern. Canada reiterated WT/DSB/M/448  
- 15 - 
  that it was fully committed to discussions on matters related to the functioning of the Appellate 
Body. Canada's priority  remained to find a long -lasting multilateral resolution to the impasse that 
covered all Members, including the United States. In the meantime, Canada and 23 other WTO 
Members had endorsed the Multi -Party Interim Appeal -Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) as a 
contingency measure to safeguard their rights to binding two -stage dispute settlement in disputes 
amongst themselves . The MPIA was open to all WTO Members. Canada invited all WTO Members to 
consider joining the MPIA to safeguard their dispute settlement ri ghts to the greatest extent possible 
until Members collectively found a permanent solution to the AB impasse. Canada remained available 
to discuss the MPIA with any interested Member . 
7.16.  The representative of Japan  said that his country wished to refer to its  statements made at 
previous DSB meetings on this matter . Japan support ed the proposal  contained  in document  
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 9. Japan completely share d the sense of urgency  of other WTO Members  
regarding  an expeditious reform of the WTO dispute settlement system . As mentioned at previous  
DSB meetings, Japan 's top priority was to reform the WTO dispute settlement system in a manner 
that would serve to achieve a long -lasting solution t o Appellate Body matters . To that end, Japan 
consider ed it essential that Members , as the owners of the dispute settlement system, participate d 
actively in discussions on reform ing he system . Members  had to face the present situation , whereby 
the Appellate Body ha d become  virtually non -operational , seriously . Meanwhile , seven cases ha d 
already been appealed into the void.  For that purpose, Japan would spare no effort in collaborat ing 
with other Members . 
7.17.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States wa s not in a position to 
support the proposed decision. As Members knew, a new US President had been inaugurated on 
20 January  2021 and the United States was currently transitioning to a new Administration . 
7.18.  The representative of Singapore  said that his country thank ed Mexico for its statement  and 
said that Singapore supported Mexico's statement . Singapore wished to refer to its statements made 
at previous DSB meetings on this matter . Singapore  reiterated its strong systemic interest in the 
maintenance of  the two -tier binding WTO dispute settlement mechanism that was underpinned by 
negative consensus . The unblocking of the AB selection process es had to  remain the paramount 
priority for all Members, especially with the continued filing of appeals , including  a new appeal that 
had just been filed.  Singapore urged all Members, including the United States, to constructively 
engage in finding a lasting multilateral solution  to this matter .  
7.19.  The representative of Turkey  said that his country wished to  thank Mexico for having placed  
this item on the Agenda  of the present meeting . As a co -sponsor of this proposal, Turkey  stressed  
the urgent need to launch  the AB selection processes  and to find a multilateral solution to this 
persistent impasse.  Turkey re cognize d the importance of maintaining the two-tier, binding dispute 
settlement system . Turkey d id not see an alternative to a well -functioning Appellate Body.  Turkey 
believed that  the demise of the current dispute settlement system posed  a risk to the ent ire 
multilateral trading system . Turkey believe d that in the absence of a functioning Appellate Body, 
predictability and security as prescribed in WTO rules and as had been built over the years 
would gradually fade away.  Turkey maintain ed its confidence in the resumed functioning of  the 
Appellate Body and st ood ready to engage constructively to help overcome this impasse.  
7.20.  The representative of Afghanistan  said that his country continue d to maintain its view that a 
well-functioning DSB was  essential  to the multilateral trading system and to the WTO itself. 
Afghanistan  believe d that it was important to ensure full and fair enforcement of rules and obligations 
of Members and reiterate d the importance of the  dispute settlement system in promoti ng a 
rules-based, open, transparent, inclusive, non -discriminatory and equitable international trad e 
system . Hence, Afghanistan wished to thank Mexico for its statement on behalf of the co -sponsors 
and reiterate d its support for the two-tier WTO dispute settlement system . Afghanistan  called upon 
all Members to fill the Appellate Body vacancies without any further delay. His delegation was ready 
to engage with all Members to overcome this challenge as soon as possible.  
7.21.  The representative of th e United Kingdom  said that his country continue d its support for th e 
proposal to launch the AB selection processes.  The United Kingdom support ed a dispute settlement 
system which  was compulsory, binding, impartial, and with two -tier adjudication, as the be st means 
of ensuring the fair resolution of disagreements and preventing recourse to unilateral measures.  As 
2021 beg an, the United Kingdom reiterate d its commitment to work constructively with all Members 
to restore to full functioning their dispute settlement system.  The United Kingdom  had listened WT/DSB/M/448  
- 16 - 
  carefully to concerns raised and w ould continue to listen . The United Kingdom  recogni zed the need 
for re form. All Members  had to work constructively together if they were  to reach lasting solutions 
for the two -stage process, which should be a central pillar of their multilateral trading system . The 
United Kingdom  recogni zed that in a  consensus -based organi zation such as  the WTO, any dispute 
resolution mechanism had to  carry the trust and support of all Members.  The United Kingdom st ood 
ready to engage with all Members in the solutions -based discussions that had to  take place ahead 
of the next Ministerial Conf erence.  The United Kingdom  looked forward to the important discussions 
to come . Nevertheless,  the United Kingdom believe d that the se discussions  should not preclude 
access to two -stage dispute settlement in the interim . Therefore , the United Kingdom  called on all 
Members to launch the Appellate Body selection process es for all seven vacancies so that Members  
could restore the system to full functioning while Members  hasten ed towards a permanent solution.  
7.22.  The representative of Mexico , speaking  on beha lf of the 121 co -sponsors of the joint proposal  
contained  in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 9, expressed regret that for the thirty -ninth occasion, 
Members had still not been able to launch the AB selection processes and had thus continuously 
failed to fulfil their duty as Members of this Organization . The fact that a Member might have 
concerns about certain aspects of the functioning of the Appellate Body should not serve as a pretext 
to impair  and disrupt its work as well as the work of the dispute set tlement system  in general . There 
was no legal justification for the current blockage of the AB selection processes, which resulted in  
nullification and impairment of Members ' rights . As Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly stated: 
"[v]acancies shall be filled a s 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 due to the continued failure to act at the 
present meeting, the Appellate Body would continue to be unable to perform its functions, against 
the best interest of all Members .  
7.23.  The representative of Mexico  said that  her country wished to refer to its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings under this Agenda item . For more than two years, Mexico  had continuously 
been deeply concerned by this unprecedented situation with a non-operative and non-existing 
Appellate Body . The proposal supported by 121 Members sought  the launch of seven AB selection 
processes to fill the seven seats on the Appellate Body . This situation was unsustainable . Members  
should not become accustomed to it . All ongoing disputes were being affected by t he lack of a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system . This undermine d the right of all Members to re sort to an 
appellate stage  and jeopardize d speedy compliance with and adoption of panel reports . As Members  
could see at the present meeting, to date there had been seven appeals into the void. Mexico  urged 
those Members that had not already done so to support the proposal  contained in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.19. Mexico remained ready  to engage  constructively and m ake concrete 
proposals aimed at resolving this matter .  
7.24.  The Chairman  said that he wished to inform delegations that the delegation of Brazil  was 
encountering technical difficulties  and had therefore requested that its statement be delivered  by 
the Secretar iat on its behalf under this Agenda item. He then requested the Secretariat to read out 
the statement on behalf of Brazil.  
7.25.  As requested by the Chairman, the representative of the Secretariat read out the following 
statement on behalf of the delegation of Brazil: Brazil  said that his country wished to thank Mexico 
for present ing the proposal on behalf of the co-sponsors . Brazil wished to refer to its statements 
made at previous DSB meetings. Brazil st ood ready, as it had always been,  to engage with all 
Members in order to find a lasting solution to this impasse . 
7.26.  The Chairman  thanked delegations for their statements. He said that  as in the past, the DSB 
would take note of the statements expressing their respective positions, which would be reflected in 
the minutes of the present meeting. He noted that as Members were aware, this matter required a 
political engagement on the part o f all WTO Members . 
7.27.  The DSB took note of the statements . WT/DSB/M/448  
- 17 - 
  8  STATEMENT BY JAPAN REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT IN THE DISPUTE ON : 
"KOREA - SUNSET REVIEW OF ANTI -DUMPING DUTIES ON STAINLESS STEEL BARS " 
(DS553)  
8.1.  The representative of Japan , speaking under "Other Business",  said that his country wished  to 
express its appreciation to the  Panel members and the WTO Secretariat for their tireless work in this 
dispute . Japan also wished  to express  its gratitude to third party participants for their contributions 
in this case . This dispute had been  caused by repeated extensions of anti -dumping duties over a 
15-year period  against stainless steel bars originating from Japan as a result  of multiple sunset 
reviews by Korea . The Panel had appropriately co ncluded that the likelihood of injury determination 
in the third sunset review by Korea  had not been reasoned and adequate.  Specifically, the Panel had 
found that Korea had not conducted "unbiased and objective " evaluation s of facts . Korea had 
concluded that Japanese imports would increase in volume and weaken the price competitiveness of 
Korea 's domestic products due to the price drop upon the removal of anti -dumping duties . In 
reaching this conclusion, Korea had not taken into account the following fact s, among others, that 
were critical to this case , namely : (i) that prices of Japanese imports would remain substantially 
higher than those of domestic like products and other imports even after the removal of the 
anti-dumping duties ; and (ii) that third -party imports whose prices were at levels lower than 
domestic like products and which occupied a substantial market share represent ed a substantial 
source of price pressure on the Korean market.  The Panel had rightly determined that these 
deficiencies in Kor ea's review were central to its aforementioned conclusion, and thus necessarily 
invalidate d its overall likelihood -of-injury determination.  Japan consider ed that the Panel 's finding 
was critically meaningful as it made clear that Article 11.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement shall 
function as a discipline that would not  allow an abusive application of sunset reviews.  Given the 
objective and sound assessment made by  the Panel, Japan expressed deep disappoint ment at  
Korea 's decision to appeal the Panel Report to the non -functioning Appellate Body . Korea's decision 
to appeal effectively sen t this dispute into the void.  In this regard , Japan w ished to highlight that 
Korea had changed its methodology for purposes of its  fourth sunset review following the ou tcome 
of the Interim Report of the Panel and ha d continued applying the anti -dumping duties to  this day. 
Korea's change of methodology, though still considered to be inconsistent with the WTO Agreements, 
clearly demonstrate d that Korea itself could only admit that the methodology in its third sunset 
review, which Japan had disputed in this case, was inconsistent with the WTO Agreements.  
Therefore, given the principle of prompt settlement of dispute s and the proper implementation of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Japan consider ed that Korea 's decision to appeal the Panel Report 
was only meant to delay the implementation of recommendations , based on the objective and sound 
findings of the Panel , to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations un der the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Japan strongly hope d that Korea will comply with its obligations under 
the WTO Agreements, and terminate the anti -dumping duties on stainless steel bars from Japan . 
8.2.  The representative of Korea  said that his country had exerc ised its right to appeal the Panel 
Report in this dispute  on 22 January  2021. Given the circumstances, Korea had felt obliged to 
present the errors of law associated with the Panel Report before the Members so as to clarify that 
its appeal of the Panel Report in this dispute  was based on  valid and legitimate concerns . In good 
faith, therefore, Korea ha d filed its Not ice of Appeal in a form and manner  that present ed in sufficient 
detail  the problems that it had with the Panel Report in  this dispute . In particular, Korea wishe d to 
stress that Korea 's appeal d id not purport to unduly delay  the resolution of dispute . Rather, it 
purport ed to address serious legal flaws in the Panel Report that could  very well have overarching 
and systemic implication vis-à-vis the multilateral trading system and its dispute resolution function . 
Korea respectfully invite d Members to review i ts Notice of Appeal for the specific reasons of its 
appeal.  Although Korea 's Notice of Appeal was meant to serve the role of an appellate submission 
in the absence of any further instruction s by the Appellate Body, as explicitly stated in its Notice of 
Appeal, Korea reserve d its right to file a proper appellate submission to further elaborat e its case 
should such opportunity presents itself.  Regarding  Japan 's assertion that the Panel 's finding s were 
proper, Korea appreciate d Japan 's views on the Panel Report . It was unsurprising that Korea and 
Japan ha d diverging  views  on the matter . Korea, of course , believe d that the Panel Report was 
deeply flawed and refer red to its Notice of Appeal for deta ils of its rationale .  
8.3.  At the present meeting, Korea wished to  briefly illustrate the problem with regard to  the Panel 
Report.  The problem in this dispute c ould be summ arized  by pointing to the Panel 's "result -driven " 
approach . The Panel had adopted such an approach in order to reach a predetermined finding . This  
had been  vividly revealed at an early stage in the dispute . Unfortunately, the Panel not been able  to 
depart from its pre determin ed outcome despite having been forced to explicitly abandon its original WT/DSB/M/448  
- 18 - 
  bias. In reaching that predetermined outcome, the Panel had overstepped its mandate by making 
findings that Japan 's request had never sought . The Panel had exercised a false judicial economy 
after artificially dissecting a key matter between an issue on which  it had been  forced to rule in 
favour of Korea and an issue on which it had continued to build upon, only to mischaracterize the 
key matter that had been  before it . The Panel had also committed a multitude of errors of  law by 
engaging in de novo  reviews and by applying impermissible double standard s of proof . The Panel 
had then effectively introduced new legal standards of its own making  into Article s 11.3 and 6.8 of 
the Anti -Dumping Agreemen t while neglecting to apply the correct  legal standard under Article 11.3.  
Korea , once again , respectfully noted Japan 's position . At this point, it would suffice to say that there 
certainly w ould be an opportunit y for Japan and Korea  to voice their  disagre ement.  Regarding  
Japan 's accusation that Korea ha d made an appeal into the void, Korea  believe d that  Japan was well 
aware that Korea was deeply concerned with the Panel 's findings in  this dispute . Indeed, Korea had 
taken issue with the manner in which the Panel had conducted the proceeding on multiple occasions  
and even during the course of the Panel proceeding . Korea had elected to pursue an adjudicative 
pathway to redress the problems that it had identified. A ll such concerns had been  proven to be real 
and serious, as demonstrated in Korea 's Notice of Appeal.   
8.4.  Korea duly underst ood Japan 's concerns , as the complaining party , and its wish for a quick 
resolution of th is dispute . Therefore, Korea had offered Japan multiple options to remedy the 
situation, including alternative arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU.  Korea respect ed Japan 's 
decision to turn down all of Korea 's propo sed options, as doing so was within its right . However,  it 
was incorrect to say that Korea ha d appealed this case into the void. Korea oppose d any undue 
sugges tion that it had appealed th e Panel Report in bad faith.  Korea believe d that the current unusual 
circumstance s in which  the Appellate Body was unable to properly  fulfil its role should  not be 
conceived as granting unfettered discretion to a panel . If a panel err ed in its findings or decision s, 
its report should be properly challenged and modifi ed at the appellate level . This was especially true 
if a panel report was so problematic that it  had potentially deteriorating implication s for the dispute 
settlement system as a whole . In light of the forego ing and owing to errors in the Panel 's findings, 
Korea consider ed it inevitable that the current matter be referred to an appellate procedure . At the 
same time, Korea would  remain committed to support ing the  restoration  of a functioning Appellate 
Body.  Regarding  Japan 's assertion that the Korea Trade Committee 's fourth sunset review confirm ed 
that the Panel 's findings were proper, with respect, Korea was slightly  puzzled by Japan 's reference 
to the KTC 's fourth sunset review . In that fourth sunset review, the Korean Investigating Authorities 
had reached the same conclusion as it had in the third sunset review , i.e.,  that the stainless steel 
bars from Japan were a cause of injury to Korea 's domestic industry.  In any event , as Japan was 
aware, during the Panel proceeding Korea had explained various methodological considerations 
adopted by the Korea n Trade Committee during  the underlying third sunset review . The Panel, while 
accepting the validity of such considerations, had rejected most of them as being ex po st 
rationalizations . In the parallel fourth sunset review, the Korea n Trade Committee had naturally 
applied the same methodologies as explicitly as possible . The result in the fourth sunset review had 
remained the same as in the third sunset review because  the said methodologies had actually been 
adopted during  the third sunset review , as Korea had submitted to the Panel.  If anything, therefore, 
the fourth sunset review support ed Korea 's case in this dispute . 
8.5.  The representative of the European Union  said that this was yet another dispute that illustrated 
the grave consequences of the blockage of AB appointments since 2017. That blockage frustrated 
the essential rights of Members that had been agreed multilaterally in the DSU . The EU referred to 
its statement  under Agenda item 6 of the 28 September 2020 DSB meeting, where the EU had 
elaborated on these consequences and on the possibility of appeals being adjudicated upon through 
appeal arbitration based on Article 25 of the DSU, consistently with the pr inciples of the DSU . 
8.6.  The representative of Canada  said that since 11 December 2019, the Appellate Body had 
effectively been non -functioning. Article 3.10 of the DSU provided that, where a dispute arose, 
Members would engage in dispute settlement proceeding s in good faith and in an effort to resolve 
the dispute. The inability of the Appellate Body to carry out its appellate review responsibilities had 
undermined the established process under the DSU for dispute settlement. But the obligation in 
Article 3.10 to make good faith efforts to resolve the dispute still stood. In the context of specific 
disputes, solutions existed to address the current Appellate Body impasse. In particular, disputing 
parties could agree to resort to procedures such as those set out in Annex 1 to the MPIA (document 
JOB/DSB/1/Add.12) to complete the appeal process. Canada believed that it was crucial for all 
disputing parties to adhere to their good faith commitment under Article 3.10 of the DSU by making 
every effort to find an accept able solution.  Furthermore, Canada  reiterate d its invitation to Korea WT/DSB/M/448  
- 19 - 
  and Japan to consider joining the MPIA to safeguard binding and two -stage dispute settlement in 
disputes that involve d them and other MPIA participants.  
8.7.  The representative of the Russian  Federation  said that her country wished to refer to its 
statements made at previous DSB meetings with respect to the practice of appealing panel reports 
"into the void". The Russian Federation reiterated its disappointment with the fact that WTO Members 
continued to file appeals notwithstanding the Appellate Body's critical state. With the appeal notified 
by Korea, the resolution of seven disputes was effectively blocked.  Russia was deeply concerned 
that actions that prevent ed the settlement of  dispute s, in particular appeals into the void , aggravate d 
the WTO dispute settlement mechanism crisis and inevitably undermine d confidence in the WTO.  
8.8.  The representative of Japan  said that w hile Japan reserve d its right to develop formal and 
detailed lega l rebuttals in its appellate  submission once the Appellate Body resume d its activities , 
Japan had to  emphasize that Korea 's attempt to show that it had no choice other than  to appeal on 
the basis  of the alleged deficiencies in the Panel Report with a lengthy notice of appeal was 
unsuccessful . Since this item  had been raised under "O ther Business ", Japan only wished to make 
brief comments on Korea 's statement . Korea wrongfully allege d that the Panel  had erred for, in 
particular : (i) having made findings beyond its mandate ; and (ii) having introduc ed new legal 
standards regarding Article 11.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, presumably, by applying the 
provision s of Article 3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement to sunset reviews.  With regard to Korea 's first 
allegation , i.e., the allegation regarding  the Panel 's mandate, the claims in respect of  which the 
Panel had made findings all appear ed in Japan's p anel request . Japan had clearly and appropriately 
made all relevant arguments in the course of  the Panel proceeding . With regard to Korea's second 
allegation, i.e.,  the application of Article 3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, the Panel had specifically 
clarified that it had not ap plied that Article in this case.  Moreover, Japan consider ed that Korea's  
remaining allegations were essentially allegations of errors  that pertained to  factual findings by the 
Panel . For example, the core o f Korea 's allegation of false judicial economy on cumulative 
assessment was merely that the Panel had allegedly erred in making a factual finding that "the 
ultimate conclusion [for Japanese products] …  did not turn on a cumulative assessment ". Korea 
mischaracterize d an allegation of error regarding  factual findings as an error  of law. On the contrary , 
Japan consider ed that the Panel 's factual findings in th is case had been  objective and reasonable 
and fully complied with the relevant standard under Article 11 of the DSU.  Japan was also concerned 
with Korea 's erroneous  allegation s regarding  the Panel 's "pattern of behavio ur" and regarding  
de novo review, which had also been made during  the Panel proce eding . Again, with regard to  the 
issues on which  Korea had made allegations in its  notice of appeal, Japan consider ed that the factual 
findings and the legal analysis of the Panel were objective and sound, and fully complied with the 
relevant standard under Article 11 of the DSU.  Accordingly, Japan consider ed that Korea 's allegation  
of errors in the Panel Report was clearly unfounded and unreasonable and would not be upheld at 
the appellate level. Thus, Korea's appeal based on those invalid arguments would only delay the 
settlement of th is dispute.  As Korea had decided to a ppeal the Panel's finding s, Japan w ould duly 
respond during the appellate review by the Appellate Body in accordance with  the DSU, once the 
Appellate Body resume d its activities . Japan believe d that it was necessary and urgent for all WTO 
Members to solve the systemic issues pertaining to  the dispute settlement mechanism and to restore 
the function ing of the Appellate Body.  
8.9.  The Chairman  noted that , pursuant to  Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure for GC/DSB meetings , 
the representatives should avoid unduly long debates under "Other Business".   
8.10.  The representative of Korea  said that he  would not delve into the legal arguments of this 
dispute , as these should be reserved for appellate review by the Appellate Body . However, Korea 
wished  to note that the m ost important objective  of the WTO system was not attaining a "prompt " 
settlement of disputes in and of itself . Above all, the WTO system s ought  to ensure security and 
predictability to the multilateral trading system . It serve d to preserve the rights and obligations of 
Members and to clarify the existing provisions in a manner that d id not add to or diminish the rights 
and obligations of Members . Korea consider ed that the Panel 's errors with respect to Articles 7.1 
and 11 of the DSU , as well as Articles 6. 8, 11.3, 11.4 and 17.6 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement were 
not consistent with such objectives.  The Panel Report had to  be reviewed by the Appellate Body 
precisely in order to ensure the proper operation of anti -dumping measures in accordance with the 
disciplines set out in the Anti -Dumping Agreement without diminishing Members ' rights under t hat 
Agreement.  For these reaso ns, Korea had been  obliged to appeal this Panel Report.  
8.11.  The DSB took note of the statements . WT/DSB/M/448  
- 20 - 
  9  STATEMENT BY INDONESIA REGARDING  THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS  ADOPTED BY THE DSB IN THE DISPUTE  ON: "AUSTRALIA – 
ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON A4 COPY PAPE R" (DS529)  
9.1.  The representative of Indonesia , speaking under "Other Business",  said that his country wished 
to refer to its statement made at the  18 December  2020 DSB meeting  regrading this dispute . 
Indonesia note d that there was an ongoing review by the Australian Anti -Dumping Review Panel 
(the Review Panel) regarding the decision by the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology 
(AND No. 2020/090) . This review had been  initiat ed on 30 October  2020 following an application 
submitted by Paper Australia Pty Ltd.  Indonesia also note d Australia 's statement made at the 
18 December  2020 DSB meeting  that: "[t]he Review Panel is due to provide its report and 
recommendations to the Minister before 1 8 January  2021 and in usual circumstances, the Minister 
will then have 30 days to make a decision ". In light of this, Indonesia believe d that Australia should 
provide information on the progress of the review to th e DSB . Based on  that statement, it remain ed 
possible for the Minister to revoke the decision terminatin g the anti -dumping measure against 
Indonesian producers of A4 Copy Paper . That decision had been  the result of the interim review of 
the Australian Anti -Dumping Committee in relation to the implementation of the DSB 's rulings and 
recommendation s in this di spute . Should  this occur , Indonesia believe d that the effect would be to 
infringe on Indonesia 's exports of A4 Copy Paper to Australia . Indonesia, therefore, strongly 
encourage d Australia to provide status report s to the DSB  until the issue was resolved . Indonesia 
also urged Australia to ensure that all of its measures compl ied with the DSB 's recommendations 
and rulings in this dispute.  Indonesia st ood ready to communicate and work closely with Australia 
to resolve this matter with a view to achi eving a mutually satisfactory solution in accordance with 
the DSU.  
9.2.  The representative of Australia  said that a s her country  had stated at  the 28 September 2020  
DSB meeting, the decision of the Minister for Industry, Science, and Technology to revoke the 
anti-dumping measures at issue in this dispute had brought  Australia into full compliance with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Since the relevant anti -dumping measures ha d been – and 
remain ed – revoked, there was nothing further for Australia to report to the DSB regarding the 
status of its implementation. As Indonesia ha d noted, on 30 October 2020, the Australian 
Anti-Dumping Review Panel had initiated a review of the Minister 's decision following an application  
by Paper Australia Pty Ltd.  Unless and until the Minister 's original revocation decision was altered in 
a manner that call ed into question whether Australia ha d implemented the Panel 's findings, Australia  
consider ed the issue of implementation to  be resol ved. Australia  would continue to engage 
constructively with Indonesia on this matter.  
9.3.  The DSB took note of the statements . 
__________  