./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DSB/W/137
21 June 2000
(00-2519)
Dispute Settlement Body
19 June 2000Original:  English
STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DSB
The following statement was made by the Chairman at the DSB meeting on 19 June 2000 in
response to certain questions raised by delegations at the DSB meeting on 7 June 2000.
_______________
In the DSB meeting on 7 June 2000 during the discussion under the agenda item concerning
the adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports on United States – Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead  and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating
in the United Kingdom,  several delegations put the question to me whether the Appellate Body during
the time it was drawing up its report in this case consulted with me, as Chairman of the DSB, and with
the Director-General under the provisions of Article 17.9 of the DSU.  As you will recall thisprovision prescribes that the Appellate Body consult with me and with the Director-General, when
drawing up its Working Procedures.
The answer to this question is in the negative.  The Appellate Body did not consult with me or
with the Director-General.  This was because the Appellate Body was not drawing up new Working
Procedures for Appellate Review.  The Appellate Body  had merely been asked in this specific case by
the European Communities as appellee in the case to rule on whether it could accept and consider twounsolicited briefs which had been presented by two US steel industry associations to the division
hearing this appeal.
I would like to point out that paragraph 39 of  the Appellate Body report merely notes that
nothing in the DSU or in the Working Procedures for Appellate Review provides for acceptance ofamicus curiae  briefs or for prohibition thereof. It then goes on to say that "the Appellate Body has
broad authority to adopt procedural rules which do not conflict with any rules and procedures in the
DSU or the covered agreements."  This statement is underpinned by a quotation from Article 17.9 of
the DSU and further completed by an important footnote reference to Rule 16(1) of the Working
Procedures, which allows a division hearing an appeal to develop an appropriate procedure in certainspecified circumstances where a procedural question arises that is not covered by the Working
Procedures.  Rule 16(1) of the Working Procedures al so makes it clear that any such ruling is for the
purposes of that appeal only.  This reasoning of the Appellate Body finally leads to the concluding
sentence of paragraph 39, which I will quote in full:
"Therefore we are of the opinion that as long as we act consistently with the
provisions of the DSU and the covered agreements, we have the legal authority to
decide whether or not to accept and consider any information that we believe is
pertinent and useful in an appeal."
To recapitulate, the Appellate Body was merely ruling on a specific procedural objection
made by one of the parties to the dispute concerning these two unsolicited briefs.  It was not and IWT/DSB/W/137
Page 2
emphasize that it was not drawing up new Work ing Procedures and therefore was not under an
obligation to consult me, as Chairman of the DSB, or the Director-General.  Indeed, I have to say that
in the context of deciding issues raised in a particular appeal, in fact, it would seem to me to be highly
inappropriate for the Appellate Body to consult e ither with the Chairman of the DSB or with the
Director-General in that specific context.
__________