./. RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/158 
19 December 2003 
 (03-6655) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
21 November 2003  
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 21 November 2003  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Shotaro Oshima (Japan) 
 
 
1. European Communities – Customs classifica tion of frozen boneless chicken cuts 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Thailand (WT/DS286/5) 1. The Chairman
 recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
7 November 2003 and had agreed to revert to it.   He drew attention to the communication from 
Thailand contained in document WT/DS286/5. 
2. The representative of Thailand  said that his country had requested a special DSB meeting in 
order to request, for the second time, the establishmen t of a panel in the dispute regarding the EC's 
classification of frozen boneless chicken cuts.  He recalled that Thailand's reasons for requesting a 
panel on this matter had been provide d in detail at the 7 November DSB meeting.  Therefore, at the 
present meeting, he would briefly note that, as a resu lt of the EC's measure, the product classified as 
frozen boneless chicken cuts with a salt content of 1.2 per cent or more, which had previously been 
classified as salted meat at the ad valorem  rate of 15.4 per cent, was now classified as frozen chicken 
subject to a tariff rate in excess of the bound rate for salted meat in the EC's schedule of concessions 
under the GATT 1994.  In view of Thailand, its expo rts of salted meat to the EC were being accorded 
less favourable treatment than that provided in the EC 's Schedule and was in contravention of the EC's 
obligations under Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.  In  addition, the EC's measure 
created distortions in trade that nullified or impaired, within the meaning of Article XXIII, the benefits accruing to Thailand under the GATT 1994.  Thailand was now, for the second time, 
requesting for the establishment of a panel with sta ndard terms of reference.  Thailand recalled that 
Brazil had requested a panel against the EC with regard to the same matter and the DSB had 
established such a panel on 7 November 2003.  Thaila nd considered that it would be appropriate for 
the DSB to establish a single panel to examine thes e two complaints, as provided for in Article 9.1 of 
the DSU. 
3. The representative of th e European Communities
 said that Thailand's decision to reiterate its 
request for the establishment of a panel could not, but  cause great disappointment to the EC.  The EC 
regretted that Thailand, like Brazil, had chosen this course of action.  The EC would defend its 
position before the panel and would demonstrate that  it had acted consistently  with its schedule of 
commitments, as read in the light of the Harmonized  System of product classification.  The EC agreed 
to the establishment of a single panel under Article 9.1 of the DSU. 
4. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  that the request by Thailand for the 
establishment of panel with standard terms of re ference is accepted and that as provided for in 
Article 9.1 of the DSU, in respect of procedures for multiple complainants, the Panel established at WT/DSB/M/158 
Page 2  
 
 the 7 November DSB meeting to examine the comp laint by Brazil contained in WT/DS269/3 would 
also examine the complaint by Thailand containe d in WT/DS286/5 which pertained to the same 
matter. 
5. The Chairman
 said that since a single Panel had been established, those delegations who had 
reserved their third-party rights to participate in th e Panel established on 7 November at the request of 
Brazil shall be considered as third parties in the si ngle Panel.  He recalled that the following countries 
had reserved third-party rights at the 7 November  DSB meeting:  Chile, China, Thailand and the 
United States.  He invited other delegations who woul d wish to reserve their third-party rights to raise 
their flags. 
6. The representatives of Brazil , Chile  and Colombia  reserved their third-party rights to 
participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
7. The representative of Chile  said that he wished to explain why his delegation had raised its 
flag to reserve third-party rights in the proceedi ngs of the Panel established at the present meeting, 
which would become a single Panel.  He said that  Chile, without prejudging its position regarding the 
question if there was one or two disputes under the single Panel, wished to protect its third-party 
rights in the dispute between Thailand and the EC.  In this regard, he wished to know whether there 
were now two disputes or just one. 
8. The Chairman  said that, as he had previously stated, since there was an agreement to establish 
a single Panel, he had referred to Article 9.1 of th e DSU, which provided that if complaints pertained 
to the same matter, it would be preferable to estab lish a single panel.  As he had noted, Chile had 
already been recognized as a third party in the Panel established on 7 November to examine the 
complaint by Brazil and, at the present meeting, th e DSB had agreed that the Panel established at the 
7 November DSB meeting to examine Brazil's co mplaint would also examine the complaint by 
Thailand which pertained to the same matter. 
9. The representative of Chile  said that although a single Panel had been established there were 
two different complaints brought separately by two Me mbers.  Therefore, Chile wished to reserve its 
third-party rights in both complaints. 
10. The Chairman  said that Chile's right to be a third party in the dispute between Thailand and 
the EC had been recognized. 
11. The representative of the United States  said that to the extent it would be of help to the 
delegation of Chile, he wished to recall that the DSB had followed a similar procedure in a previous 
dispute, namely, the dispute involving safeguard meas ures on steel.  He drew the attention of the DSB 
to what had occurred at the meeting on 14 June 20021, in which a similar procedure had been 
followed and delegations that had reserved third-party rights in a panel established at a previous 
meeting, had been considered third parties in the disputes that had then been referred to that same 
panel at subsequent meetings. 
12. The DSB took note  of the statements. 
 
__________ 
                                                      
1 WT/DSB/M/127.