INTRODUCTION

On 16 January 2015, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, in United States — Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China. This dispute concerns China's challenge of countervailing duties imposed by the United States on certain products from China following 17 countervailing duty investigations initiated by the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) between 2007 and 2012. The Panel and the Appellate Body found the measures at issue to be inconsistent with several provisions of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement). By a letter to the Chair of the DSB dated 13 February 2015, the United States indicated its intention to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute in a manner that respects its WTO obligations, and stated that it would require a reasonable period of time within which to do so.

On 26 June 2015, China informed the DSB that consultations with the United States had not resulted in an agreement on the reasonable period of time for implementation. China therefore requested that this period be determined through arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU).

China and the United States were unable to agree on an arbitrator within 10 days of the referral of the matter to arbitration. Consequently, by letter dated 9 July 2015, China requested that the Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO) appoint an arbitrator pursuant to footnote 12 of Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The Director-General appointed the undersigned as the Arbitrator on 17 July 2015, after consulting with the parties. The parties were informed of the acceptance of the appointment by letter dated 22 July 2015.

The United States and China filed their written submissions, as well as executive summaries thereof, on 4 and 17 August 2015, respectively. A hearing was held on 9 September 2015. The parties have agreed that this award will be deemed to be an arbitration award under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, notwithstanding the expiry of the 90-day period stipulated in Article 21.3(c).