WT/DS384/29  
WT/DS386/28  
 
2 December 2014  
(14-6999)  Page: 1/2  
  Original: English  
 
 UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING  
(COOL) REQUIREMENTS 
 
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY CANADA AND MEXICO 
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL  BY THE UNITED STATES 
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES 
AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SE TTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),  
AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW 
 The following notification, dated 28 Nove mber 2014, from the Delegation of the 
United States, is being circulated to Members. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
1. Further to Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes  ("DSU") and pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate 
Review , the United States hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain 
issues of law covered in the Reports of the Panels in United States – Certain Country of Origin 
Labelling (COOL) Requirements: Recourse to Articl e 21.5 of the DSU by Canada / Recourse to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU by Mexico  (WT/DS384/RW and WT/DS386/RW) ("Panel Reports") and 
certain legal interpretations developed by the Panels.  
2. The United States seeks review by the A ppellate Body of the Panels' findings and 
conclusion that amended U.S. COOL measure is inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the Agreement on 
Technical Barriers to Trade  (the "TBT Agreement") because the amended COOL measure accords 
less favorable treatment to complainants' livestock exports.1 This conclusion is in error and is 
based on erroneous findings on issues of law and legal interpretations, including: 
(a)  the Panels' finding that the detrimental impact does not stem exclusively from 
legitimate regulatory distinctions beca use the amended COOL measure entails an 
increased recordkeeping burden and increased segregation.2  
(b)  the Panels' finding that the detrimental impact does not stem exclusively from 
legitimate regulatory distinctions because the current labels provided by the 
amended COOL measure have a potential for label inaccuracy.3 
(c)  the Panels' finding that the detrimental impact does not stem exclusively from 
legitimate regulatory distinctions because the amended COOL measure continues 
to exempt a large proportion of muscle cuts.4 
3. In the event that Canada or Mexico appeals the ultimate findings of either Panel that the 
amended U.S. COOL measure is not inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement5, the 
United States seeks conditional review of the Panels' legal interpretation of the phrase "the risks 
                                               
1 See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 7.284-7.285, 8.3(b) (DS384), 8.3(b) (DS386).  
2 See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 7.134, 7.149-7.150, 7.220-7.221, 7.271-7.272, 7.282.  
3 See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 7.243-7.244, 7.252-7.254, 7.269-7.270, 7.282. 
4 See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 7.216-7.219, 7.201-7.203, 7.272-7.277, 7.282.  
5 See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 8.3(c) (DS384), 8.3(c) (DS386). WT/DS384/29 • WT/DS386/28 
 
- 2 - 
 
  non-fulfilment would create."6 This analysis is based on erroneous findings on issues of law and 
legal interpretations, including: the Panels' interpre tation of what effect a finding with regard to 
"the risks non-fulfilment would create" can have as to whether any particular alternative measure 
makes a contribution to the objective equivalent to the contribution made by the challenged 
measure.7  
4. The United States seeks review by the A ppellate Body of the Panels' findings and 
conclusion that the amended U.S. COOL measur e is inconsistent with Article III:4 of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  (the "GATT 1994").8 This conclusion is in error and is based 
on erroneous findings on issues of law and legal interpretations, including that "the amended COOL measure accords less favourable treatment within the meaning of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994"
9 
and that the amended COOL measure would not be examined under Article XX of the GATT 1994.10 
5. The United States seeks review by the Appellate  Body of the Panels' failure to address the 
aspect of the relationship between Article 2. 1 of the TBT Agreement and Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994 related to the availability of an exce ption under Article XX of the GATT 1994 and the 
Panels' failure to address the availability of Article XX as an exception for Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994 with respect to the amended U.S. COOL measure.11 
6. Finally, in the event that Canada or Mexico appeals the determination by either Panel not 
to make findings or legal conclusions in relation to the non-violation claim by that complainant 
under Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994, the United States seeks conditional review by the Appellate Body of the Panels' findings and co nclusion that the non-violation claims under 
Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994 were within the Panels' terms of reference.
12 This conclusion is 
in error and is based on erroneous findings on issues of law and legal interpretations, including 
that "reviewing the 'consistency' of a measure taken to comply under Article 21.5 of the DSU 
extends to non-violation claims under Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994 and Article 26.1 of the 
DSU." 
__________ 
 
 
 
                                               
6 See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 7.374-7.383.  
7 See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 7.481-7.488, 7.501-7.502.  
8 See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 7.625, 7.642, 7.643, 8.4 (DS384), 8.4 (DS386) . 
9 See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 7.642-7.643. 
10 See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 6.70, 6.75. 
11 See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 6.70-6.75. 
12 See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 7.647-7.663.