WT/AB/20  
 
14 March 2014  
(14-1580)  Page: 1/103  
   
 
  
 
 
  
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
   
APPELLATE BODY 
  
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2013 
 
 
 
  
MARCH 2014 WT/AB/20 
 
- 2 - 
 
  
   
 
  
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
   
 
  
 
  
The Appellate Body welcomes  comments and inquiries  
regarding this Annual Report at the  
following address: 
 
Appellate Body Secretariat 
World Trade Organization 
rue de Lausanne 154 
1211 Geneva, Switzerland 
e-mail: appellatebody.registry@wto.org 
<www.wto.org/appellatebody > WT/AB/20 
 
- 3 - 
 
 CONTENTS 
FOREWORD ...................................................................................................................... . 6 
1  INTROD UCTION ............................................................................................................ 8 
2  COMPOSITION OF TH E APPELLATE BODY .................................................................... 10  
Table 1: Composition of th e Appellate Bo dy in 2013 ..................................................... 11  
3  APPEALS .................................................................................................................... . 12 
Table 2: Appeals filed in 2013 ................................................................................... 12  
Chart 1: Total number of  appeals 199 5–2013 .............................................................. 12  
4  APPELLATE BODY REPORTS ......................................................................................... 13  
Table 3: Appellate Body repo rts circulated  in 2013  ....................................................... 13  
Table 4: WTO Agreements addressed in Appellate Body reports circulated in 2013 ............ 13  
Chart 2: WTO agreements addressed in appeals 1996–2013 .......................................... 13  
4.1  Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy 
Generation Sector and Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program , 
WT/DS412/AB/R and WT/DS426/AB /R ....................................................................... 14  
5  PARTICIPANTS AND THIRD PA RTICIPANTS IN APPEALS ............................................ 22  
Table 5: Participants and third participants in appeals for which an Appellate Body 
report was circulat ed in 2013 .................................................................................... 23  
Chart 3: WTO Member participation in appeals 1996–2013 ............................................ 23  
6  WORKING PROCEDURES FO R APPELLATE REVIEW ...................................................... 24  
6.1  Procedural issues ar ising in appe als in 2013 .................................................................. 24  
6.1.1  Amendment to the Notice of Appeal .................................................................. 24  
6.1.2  Amendments to the Work ing Schedule for Appeal ............................................... 24  
6.1.3  Open or al hearing .......................................................................................... 24  
6.1.4  Unsolicited amicus curiae  briefs ........................................................................ 25  
6.1.5  Request for separate findings in the reports ....................................................... 25  
7  ARBITRATIONS UNDER ARTI CLE 21.3(C) OF  THE DSU ................................................ 25  
7.1  Award of the Arbitrator, China – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain 
Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States , WT/DS414/ 12 ...................... 25  
8  WTO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND TRAINING  PLAN .................................................. 29  
9  OTHER ACTI VITIES ..................................................................................................... 30  
9.1  Meeting with representatives of the International La w Commission ................................... 30  
9.2  The Brandeis Institute for Internatio nal Judges .............................................................. 30  
9.3  Briefings, conferences, moot court competitions ............................................................. 30  
9.4  WTO internsh ip programme ........................................................................................ 30  
9.5  The WTO Digital Disput e Settlement Re gistry ................................................................ 30  
 
Annex 1 The Workload of the Appellate Body .................................................................. 32 
Annex 2 Members of the Appellate Bo dy 2013 – Biographic al notes .................................... 41 
Annex 3 Farewell speech of departing Appellate Body Member ........................................... 45 WT/AB/20 
 
- 4 - 
 
 Annex 4 Former Appellate Body Members and Chai rpersons .............................................. 49 
Annex 5 Appeals file d: 1995–2013  ................................................................................ 51 
Annex 6 Percentage of panel reports appealed by year of adoption: 1995–2013 ................... 52 
Annex 7 WTO agreements adddressed in Appellate Body reports circulated through 2013 ...... 53 
Annex 8 Participants and third partic ipants in appeal s: 1995–2013  .................................... 54 
Annex 9 Appellate Body Secretariat participation in the WTO Technical Assistance and 
Training Plan  in 2013 ...................................................................................... 79 
Annex 10 Appellate Body Secretariat participation in briefings, conferences, and moot 
court competitions in 2013 ............................................................................... 80 
Annex 11 WTO dispute settlement reports an d arbitration awards : 1995–2013 ...................... 81 WT/AB/20 
 
- 5 - 
 
 WTO ABBREVIATIONS USED IN  THIS ANNUAL REPORT 
Abbreviation Description 
ATC Agreement on Textiles and Clothing 
Anti-Dumping Agreement Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  
DSB Dispute Settlement Body  
DSU Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement 
of Disputes 
GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services  
GATT 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
Rules of Conduct Rules of Conduct for th e Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes, adopted by the DSB on 3 December 1996, WT/DSB/RC/1 
SCM Agreement Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
SPS Agreement Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures 
TBT Agreement Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade  
TRIMs Agreement Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures  
TRIPS Agreement Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights  
Working Procedures Working Procedures for Appellate Review, WT/AB/WP/6, 
16 August 2010 
WTO World Trade Organization 
WTO Agreement Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization 
  WT/AB/20 
 
- 6 - 
 
 FOREWORD 
In 2013, we witnessed the beginning of a new cycle in the Mayan calendar. This new cycle began 
both with sorrow – as we said goodbye to Pascal Lamy, and with happiness – as we welcomed Roberto Azevêdo, our new Director-General. 2013 was also a year in which the multilateral trading 
system was put to the test and showed that it could deliver. Fruitfully, WTO Members achieved 
consensus in Bali on a number of decisions that will streamline trade, allow developing countries more flexibility to ensure food security for th eir populations, boost trade for least developed 
countries, and help promote development more generally. This success was possible thanks to the 
willingness of the WTO Membership, as well as the efforts of the staff of the Organization, starting with our new Director-General.  
With respect to dispute settlement, this new cycle has coincided with a high level of activity. The 
year 2013 saw the largest number of panels established since 2006. It is to be expected that the 
majority of these cases will eventually lead to appeals in the Appellate Body. This underscores the great measure of confidence that Members continue to place in the WTO dispute settlement 
mechanism. 
In the summer of 2013, the Appellate Body sent a communication to the Membership highlighting 
several trends in dispute settlement activity, in particular as regards appellate proceedings. This 
paper, entitled "The Workload of the Appellate Body" (the "Workload Paper"), is reproduced in 
Annex 1 to this Annual Report. In the Workload Paper, several trends are identified. First, there has been significant growth in the average size of disputes brought before the Appellate Body. 
Second, the number of issues raised on appeal has increased considerably as compared to the 
early years of the WTO, including more frequent challenges under Article 11 of the DSU to the 
objectivity of panels' factual assessments. Third, the number of participants and third participants in appeals has grown over the years. Furthermore, the Workload Paper reveals a significant 
increase in the volume of submissions filed with the Appellate Body, as well as in the size of 
Appellate Body reports. In short, the paper demons trates that, while the workload of the Appellate 
Body is cyclical and, as such, shares a feature of the Mayan calendar, the overall trend since 1995 
has been a significant increase in the workload of the Appellate Body. The year 2013 has been an 
exceptionally busy year for WTO panels and it is to be expected that this will translate into a heavy workload for the Appellate Body in 2014 and beyond. The Appellate Body stands ready to face the upcoming challenges, and to make the most efficient use of the resources that will be made 
available to it. 
Even during this relatively quiet year, the Appellate Body was confronted with challenging legal 
questions. The Appellate Body heard the appeals in Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the 
Renewable Energy Generation Sector  and Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff 
Program . These disputes involved important questions regarding the use of subsidies in markets 
created by governments, such as the renewable en ergy sector, and marked the first time that the 
Appellate Body has been asked to clarify the scope  and limits of Article III:8(a) of the GATT 1994, 
which allows governments to discriminate in favour of domestic products in certain government procurement transactions.  
The last month of 2013 also brought with it the conclu sion of the second term of office of our dear 
colleague David Unterhalter. Throughout his tenure as an Appellate Body Member, David was a 
leading voice contributing to the development of the international rule of law. In hearing and deciding appeals, David invariably deployed his fo rmidable skills in logic and legal reasoning while 
adhering scrupulously to the values of independence and impartiality. I trust and expect that the 
WTO Membership realises the urgent need to fill the void that his departure has left, and recognizes the constraints that an empty seat on the Appellate Body places on the functioning of 
the Appellate Body and of the dispute settlement system as a whole. 
2013 also marked the end of the first term of office on the Appellate Body of Peter Van den 
Bossche. I am glad that, in renewing his tenure for a second term, the Membership recognized 
Peter's many attributes, including his steadfast commitment to independence and impartiality.  WT/AB/20 
 
- 7 - 
 
 Finally, on behalf of the WTO Appellate Body, I participated in the ninth meeting of the Brandeis 
Institute for International Judges. From 28-31 July 2013, 16 judges from 13 international courts and tribunals attended the meeting in Lund, Swed en. I am happy to report that the WTO dispute 
settlement system continues to serve as a model for the adjudication of international disputes. My 
colleagues and I are fully devoted to ensuring that this remains the case.  
 
Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández 
Chair, Appellate Body 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 8 - 
 
 WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 
APPELLATE BODY 
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2013 
1  INTRODUCTION 
This Annual Report summarizes the activities of th e Appellate Body and its Secretariat for the year 
2013. 
Dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO) is regulated by the Understanding on 
Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), which is contained in Annex 2 
of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement). Article 3.2 of the DSU states the overarching purp oses of the dispute settlement system as such: 
"The dispute settlement system of the WTO is a central element in providing security and 
predictability to the multilateral trading system." Further, Article 3.2 provides that the dispute 
settlement system "serves to preserve the rights and obligations of Members under the covered agreements, and to clarify the existing provisio ns of those agreements in accordance with 
customary rules of interpretation of public international law." The dispute settlement system is 
administered by the Dispute Settlement Body (D SB), which is composed of all WTO Members. 
A WTO Member may have recourse to the rules and procedures established in the DSU if it 
"considers that any benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly under the covered agreements are 
being impaired by measures taken by another Member".
1 The DSU procedures apply to disputes 
arising under any of the covered agreements listed in Appendix 1 to the DSU and include the WTO Agreement and all the multilateral agreements  annexed to it relating to trade in goods
2, 
trade in services3, and the protection of intellectual property rights4, as well as the DSU itself. 
Pursuant to Article 1.2 and Appendix 2 of the DSU, where the covered agreements contain special or additional rules and procedures, these rules an d procedures prevail over those contained in the 
DSU to the extent that there is an inconsistency. The application of the DSU to disputes under the 
plurilateral trade agreements annexed to the WTO Agreement
5 is subject to the adoption of 
decisions by the parties to these agreements setting out the terms for its application to the 
individual agreement.6 
Proceedings under the DSU take place in stages. In the first stage, Members are required to hold 
consultations with a view to reaching a mutually agreed solution to the matter in dispute.7 If these 
consultations fail to produce a mutually agreed solution, the dispute may advance to the 
adjudicative stage in which the complaining Member requests the DSB to establish a panel to 
examine the matter.8 Panelists are chosen by agreement of  the parties, based on nominations 
proposed by the Secretariat.9 However, if the parties cannot agree, either party may request the 
WTO Director-General to determine the composition of the panel.10 Panels shall be composed of 
well-qualified governmental and/or non-governmental individuals with expertise in international trade law or policy.
11 In discharging its adjudicative function, a panel is required to "make an 
objective assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of the 
case and the applicability of and conformity with  the relevant covered agreements, and make such 
other findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in the covered agreements."
12 The panel process includes written submissions by the 
                                               
1 Article 3.3 of the DSU. 
2 Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement . 
3 Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement . 
4 Annex 1C to the WTO Agreement. 
5 Annex 4 to the WTO Agreement. 
6 Appendix 1 to the DSU. 
7 Article 4 of the DSU. 
8 Article 6 of the DSU. 
9 Article 8.6 of the DSU. 
10 Article 8.7 of the DSU. 
11 Article 8.1 of the DSU. 
12 Article 11 of the DSU. WT/AB/20 
 
- 9 - 
 
 main parties and also by third parties that have no tified their interest in the dispute to the DSB. 
Panels usually hold two meetings with the parties, one of which also includes a session with third parties. Panels set out their factual and legal findings in an interim report that is subject to comments by the parties. The final report is first issued to the parties, and is subsequently 
circulated to all WTO Members in the three official languages of the WTO (English, French, and 
Spanish), at which time it is also posted on the WTO website. 
Article 17 of the DSU establishes a standing Appe llate Body. The Appellate Body is composed of 
seven Members who are each appointed to a four-y ear term, with a possibility to be reappointed 
once. The expiration dates of terms are staggered in order to ensure that not all Members begin and complete their terms at the same time. Memb ers of the Appellate Body must be persons of 
recognized authority, with demonstrated expertise in law, international trade, and the subject 
matter of the covered agreements generally. They  shall be unaffiliated with any government. 
Moreover, the Appellate Body membership shall be  broadly representative of the membership of 
the WTO. Appellate Body Members elect a Chairp erson to serve a one-year term, which can be 
extended for an additional one-year period. The Chairperson is responsible for the overall direction 
of Appellate Body business. Each appeal is heard by a Division of three Appellate Body Members. 
The process for the selection of Divisions is desi gned to ensure randomness, unpredictability, and 
opportunity for all Members to serve, regardless of their national origin. To ensure consistency and 
coherence in decision-making, Divisions exchan ge views with the other four Members of the 
Appellate Body before finalizing Appellate Body reports. The Appellate Body receives legal and administrative support from its Secretariat. The conduct of Members of the Appellate Body and its 
staff is regulated by the Rules of Conduct for the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes
13 (Rules of Conduct). These Rules emphasize that Appellate 
Body Members shall be independent, impartial, and av oid any direct or indirect conflict of interest.  
Any party to a dispute, other than third parties, may appeal a panel report to the Appellate Body. 
WTO Members that were third parties at the panel stage may also participate and make written and oral submissions in the appellate proceedings, but they may not appeal the panel report. The 
appeal is limited to issues of law covered in the panel report and legal interpretations developed by 
the panel. Appellate proceedings are conducted in accordance with the procedures established in the DSU and the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
14 (Working Procedures), drawn up by 
the Appellate Body in consultation with the Chairp erson of the DSB and the Director-General of the 
WTO, and communicated to WTO Members. Proceedings involve the filing of written submissions 
by the participants and third participants, as well as an oral hearing. The Appellate Body report is 
to be circulated to WTO Members in the three offi cial languages within 90 days of the date when 
the appeal was initiated, and is posted on the WTO website immediately upon circulation to 
Members. In its report, the Appellate Body may uphold, modify, or reverse the legal findings and conclusions of the panel.  
Panel and Appellate Body reports must be adop ted by WTO Members acting collectively through 
the DSB. Under the reverse consensus rule, a report is adopted by the DSB unless all WTO Members present at the meeting formally object to its adoption.
15 Upon adoption, Appellate Body 
reports and panel reports (as modified by the Appellate Body) become binding upon the parties. 
Following the adoption by the DSB of a panel or Appellate Body report that includes a finding of 
inconsistency of a measure of the responding Member with its WTO obligations, Article 21.3 of the DSU provides that the responding Member should, in principle, comply immediately. However, 
where immediate compliance is "impracticable", the responding Member shall have a "reasonable 
period of time" to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The "reasonable period of time" may be determined by the DSB, by agr eement between the parties, or through binding 
arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. In such arbitration, a guideline for the arbitrator 
is that the reasonable period of time to im plement panel or Appellate Body recommendations 
should not exceed 15 months from the date of adoption of the panel or Appellate Body report. 
However, that time may be shorter or longer, depending upon the particular circumstances. 
Arbitrators have indicated that the reasonable period of time shall be the shortest time possible in 
                                               
13 The Rules of Conduct, as adopted by the DSB on 3 December 1996 (WT/DSB/RC/1), are directly 
incorporated into the Working Procedures for Appell ate Review (WT/AB/WP/6), as Annex II thereto. (See 
WT/DSB/RC/2, WT/AB/WP/W/2) 
14 Working Procedures for Appellate Review, WT/AB/WP/6, 16 August 2010. 
15 Articles 16.4 and 17.14 of the DSU. WT/AB/20 
 
- 10 - 
 
 the implementing Member's legal system. To date, arbitrations pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the 
DSU have been conducted by current or former Appellate Body Members acting in an individual capacity. 
Where the parties disagree "as to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of 
measures taken to comply", the matter may be referred to the original panel in compliance 
proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU. In these Article 21.5 compliance proceedings, a panel report is issued and may be appealed to the A ppellate Body. Upon their adoption by the DSB, 
panel and Appellate Body reports in Article 21.5 compliance proceedings become binding on the 
parties. 
If the responding Member does not bring its WTO-inconsistent measure into compliance with its 
obligations under the covered agreements within the reasonable period of time, the complaining 
Member may request negotiations with the responding Member with a view to finding mutually 
acceptable compensation as a temporary and voluntary alternative to full compliance. Compensation is subject to acceptance by the complaining Member, and must be consistent with 
the WTO agreements. If no satisfactory compensa tion is agreed upon, the complaining Member 
may request authorization from the DSB, pursua nt to Article 22 of the DSU, to suspend the 
application of concessions or other obligations under the WTO agreements to the responding 
Member. The level of the suspension of concessi ons or other obligations authorized by the DSB 
shall be equivalent to the level of the nullification or impairment resulting from non-compliance with the DSB recommendations and rulings. The responding Member may request arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU if it objects to the le vel of suspension proposed or considers that the 
principles and procedures concerning the sector or covered agreement to which the suspension 
may apply have not been followed. In principle, the suspension of concessions or other obligations must relate to the same trade sector or agreement as the measure found to be inconsistent. 
However, if this is impracticable or ineffective for the complaining Member, and if circumstances 
are serious, the complaining Member may seek authorization to suspend concessions with respect to other sectors or agreements. The arbitration under Article 22.6 shall be carried out by the 
original panel, if its members are available. Co mpensation and the suspension of concessions or 
other obligations are temporary measures; neither is to be preferred to full implementation.
16  
A party to a dispute may request good offices, conciliation, or mediation as alternative methods of 
dispute resolution at any stage of dispute settlement proceedings.17 In addition, under Article 25 of 
the DSU, WTO Members may have recourse to arbitration as an alternative to the regular 
procedures set out in the DSU.18 Recourse to arbitration, including the procedures to be followed in 
such arbitration proceedings, is subject to mutual agreement of the parties.19 
2  COMPOSITION OF THE APPELLATE BODY 
The Appellate Body is a standing body composed  of seven Members, each appointed by the DSB 
for a term of four years with the possibility of being reappointed once for another four-year term. 
The first four-year term of Mr Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández expired at the end of June 2013. 
Mr Ramírez expressed his interest and willingness to be appointed for a second four-year term. No WTO Member expressed any reservations rega rding the reappointment of Mr Ramírez during 
consultations conducted by the Chair of the DSB. In the light of this, the DSB reappointed 
Mr Ramírez for a second four-year term beginning on 1 July 2013.
20 
The first four-year term of Mr Peter Van den Bossche expired on 11 December 2013. Mr Van den 
Bossche expressed his interest and willingness to be appointed for a second four-year term. During 
consultations conducted by the Chair of the DSB, no WTO Member expressed reservations 
                                               
16 Article 22.1 of the DSU. 
17 Article 5 of the DSU. 
18 There has been only one recourse to Article 25 of the DSU and it was not in lieu of panel or 
Appellate Body proceedings. Rather, the purpose of that  arbitration was to set an amount of compensation 
pending full compliance by the responding Member. (See Award of the Arbitrators, US – Section 110(5) 
Copyright Act (Article 25) ) 
19 Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU apply mutatis mutandis  to decisions by arbitrators. 
20 WT/DSB/M/330. WT/AB/20 
 
- 11 - 
 
 regarding the reappointment of Mr Van den Bossche. Consequently, the DSB reappointed Mr Van 
den Bossche for a second four-year term beginning on 12 December 2013.21 
The second term of office of Mr David Unterhalter expired on 17 December 2013.22 In order to fill 
the vacancy arising from the expiration of Mr Unterhalter's term, the DSB, at its meeting on 
24 May 2013, launched a selection process for the appointment of a new Appellate Body 
Member.23 Based on the procedures set forth in document WT/DSB/1, the DSB established a 
Selection Committee consisting of the Director-General and the 2013 Chairpersons of the General 
Council, Goods Council, Services Council, TRIPS Council, and the DSB.24 
Four candidates were nominated by four WTO Me mbers, namely, Australia, Cameroon, Egypt, and 
Kenya. These four candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee on 21 October 2013. At the DSB meeting held on 22 October, Members wishing to express their views on any of the 
candidates were invited to meet with the Select ion Committee. As previously agreed, the Selection 
Committee was to make its recommendation to the DSB no later than 7 November 2013, in order to enable the DSB to consider the recommendation at its regularly scheduled meeting on 
25 November 2013.
25 However, on 14 November 2013, the Chair of the DSB informed Members 
that, due to the intensive consultation process in preparation for the 9th Ministerial Conference in Bali in December 2013, the Selection Committee had not been able to complete its deliberations 
on a recommendation regarding a new Member of the Appellate Body. The Selection Committee 
proposed to resume its deliberations in 2014 with a view to making its recommendation as soon as 
practicable. 
The composition of the Appellate Body in 2013 and the respective terms of office of its Members 
are set out in Table 1. 
Table 1: Composition of the Appellate Body in 2013 
Name Nationality Term(s) of office 
Ujal Singh Bhatia India 2011–2015 
Seung Wha Chang Korea 2012–2016 
Thomas R. Graham United States 2011–2015 
Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández Mexico 2009–2013 
2013–2017 
David Unterhalter South Africa 2006–2009 
2009–2013 
Peter Van den Bossche Belgium 2009–2013 
2013–2017 
Yuejiao Zhang China 2008–2012 
2012–2016 
  
Pursuant to Rule 5.1 of the Working Procedures , the Members of the Appellate Body had elected 
Mr Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández to serve as Chairperson of the Appellate Body for the period 
1 January to 31 December 2013.26 In December 2013, Mr Ramírez was re-elected to serve a 
second term as Chairperson from 1 January to 31 December 2014.27 
Biographical information about the Members of the Appellate Body is provided in Annex 2. A list of 
former Appellate Body Members and Chairpersons is provided in Annex 4. 
                                               
21 WT/DSB/M/339. 
22 Mr Unterhalter delivered a farewell speech at the DSB meeting held on 22 January 2014. His remarks 
are attached as Annex 3 to this Annual Report. 
23 WT/DSB/60. 
24 WT/DSB/M/332. 
25 WT/DSB/338. 
26 WT/DSB/59. 
27 WT/DSB/62. WT/AB/20 
 
- 12 - 
 
 The Appellate Body receives legal and administrative support from the Appellate Body Secretariat, 
in accordance with Article 17.7 of the DSU. As at 31 December 2013, the Secretariat comprised a Director, thirteen lawyers, one administrative assistant, and three support staff. Werner Zdouc has been Director of the Appellate Body Secretariat since 2006. 
3  APPEALS 
Pursuant to Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures and Article 16(4) of the DSU, an appeal is 
commenced by a party to the dispute giving written notice to the DSB and filing a Notice of Appeal 
with the Appellate Body Secretariat. Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures allows a party to the 
dispute other than the initial appellant to join the appeal, or appeal on the basis of other alleged errors, by filing a Notice of Other Appeal within 5 days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal. 
Two panel reports were appealed in 2013. Both disputes related to original proceedings and an 
"other appeal" was filed pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures in each. Table 2 sets 
out further information regarding appeals filed in 2013. 
Table 2: Appeals filed in 2013 
Panel report 
appealed Date of 
appeal Appellant a Document 
symbol Other 
appellant b Document 
symbol 
Canada – Certain 
Measures Affecting the 
Renewable Energy 
Generation Sector 5 February 
2013 Canada WT/DS412/10  Japan WT/DS412/11  
Canada – Measures 
Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program 5 February 
2013 Canada WT/DS426/9 European 
Union WT/DS426/10
 
a Pursuant to Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures . 
b Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures . 
 
Information on the number of appeals filed each year since 1995 is provided in Annex 5. Chart 1 shows the number of appeals filed each year between 1995 and 2013. 
Chart 1: Total number of appeals 1995–2013 
 
The overall average of panel reports that have  been appealed from 1995 to 2013 is 67%. 
A breakdown of the percentage of panel reports appealed each year is provided in Annex 6. 
WT/AB/20 
 
- 13 - 
 
 4  APPELLATE BODY REPORTS 
Two Appellate Body reports were circulated in 2013, the details of which are summarized in 
Table 3. As of the end of 2013, the Appellate Body has circulated a total of 119 reports. 
Table 3: Appellate Body reports circulated in 2013 
Case Title Document symbol Date circulated Date adopted  
by the DSB 
Canada – Certain Measures 
Affecting the Renewable Energy 
Generation Sector * WT/DS412/AB/R 6 May 2013 24 May 2013 
Canada – Measures Relating to 
the Feed-in Tariff Program * WT/DS426/AB/R 6 May 2013 24 May 2013 
* These two Appellate Body reports were  circulated in a single document. 
 
The following table shows which WTO agreements were addressed in the Appellate Body reports 
circulated in 2013. 
Table 4: WTO Agreements addressed in A ppellate Body reports circulated in 2013 
Case Document symbol WTO agreements addressed 
Canada – Certain Measures 
Affecting the Renewable Energy 
Generation Sector WT/DS412/AB/R GATT 1994 
SCM Agreement 
TRIMs Agreement 
Canada – Measures Relating to 
the Feed-in Tariff Program WT/DS426/AB/R GATT 1994 
SCM Agreement 
TRIMs Agreement 
 
Chart 2 shows the number of times specific WTO agreements have been addressed in the 119 Appellate Body reports circulated from 1996 through 2013. 
Chart 2: WTO agreements addressed in appeals 1996–2013 
 
 
Annex 7 contains a breakdown by year of the frequency with which the specific WTO agreements have been addressed in appeals from 1996 through 2013. 
The findings and conclusions contained in the Appellate Body reports circulated in 2013 are 
summarized below. 
WT/AB/20 
 
- 14 - 
 
 4.1  Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Certain Measures A ffecting the Renewable Energy 
Generation Sector , WT/DS412/AB/R, and  Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed-in 
Tariff Program , WT/DS426/AB/R 
These disputes concerned challenges brought by  Japan and the European Union (complainants) 
against Canada with respect to the Canadian Province of Ontario's Feed-in Tariff Program 
(FIT Programme) and related FIT and microFIT Cont racts relating to wind and solar photovoltaic 
(PV) electricity generation projects. 
The FIT Programme is a scheme implemented by  the Government of Ontario since 2009 to 
increase the supply of electricity generated from certain renewable sources of energy into the Ontario electricity system. Generators of electricity participating in the FIT Programme "are paid a guaranteed price per kWh of electricity delivered into the Ontario electricity system under 20-year 
or 40-year contracts with the [Ontario Power Authority]".
28 Participation in the FIT Programme is 
open to facilities located in Ontario that produce electricity from the following renewable energy 
sources: wind, solar PV, renewable biomass, biogas, landfill gas, and waterpower.29 
The relationship between Article III:8(a) of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.2 of the 
TRIMs Agreement and the Illustrative List annexed thereto 
The Appellate Body began by examining the European Union's claim that the Panel erred in finding 
that Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs Agreement) and paragraph 1(a) of the Illustrative List of measures in the Annex thereto do 
not preclude the application of Article III:8(a) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
(GATT 1994). The European Union argued that the disciplines applying to measures falling within the scope of the Illustrative List are conclusively regulated in the TRIMs Agreement and that 
therefore Article III:8(a) is not applicable to such measures. 
The Appellate Body explained that the cross-refe rence in Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement to 
Article III of the GATT 1994 is not limited to specific sections of Article III and is thus a reference 
to that Article in its entirety. This means that a measure that is inconsistent with Article III:4 of 
the GATT 1994 would also be a TRIM that is incomp atible with Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement. 
The Appellate Body noted, however, that the cross-reference to Article III also includes paragraph 8(a) of that provision. Hence, a measure that falls within the scope of paragraph 8(a) 
does not violate Article III of the GATT 1994. This, in turn, means that such a measure would not 
be inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement. 
The Appellate Body found that Article 2.2 of the TRIMs Agreement provides further specification as 
to the type of measures that are inconsistent with Article 2.1. The operative part of Article 2.2 is 
the reference to the Illustrative List, which provides examples of measures that are inconsistent with the national treatment obligation. Accordingl y, Article 2.2 and the Illustrative List provide 
clarification as to which TRIMs are subject to the general obligation in Article 2.1. However, the 
Appellate Body explained that the absence of a reference to Article III:8(a) of the GATT 1994 in 
Article 2.2 of the TRIMs Agreement and in the Illust rative List indicates that these provisions are 
neutral as to the applicability of Article III:8(a). 
On appeal, the European Union emphasized that "the object and purpose of the TRIMs Agreement 
was … to 'elaborate' 'further' or 'additional' provisions to the already existing ones"
30, and that the 
Panel's interpretation would make Article 2.2 and the Illustrative List largely redundant. The 
Appellate Body observed that the "further" provis ions that the TRIMs Agreement contains clarify 
the application of Articles III and XI of the GATT 1994 to a specific set of measures – namely, TRIMs. The Appellate Body saw no indication th at the provisions of the TRIMs Agreement were 
intended to override rights recognized in the GATT 1994, such as the right provided in 
Article III:8(a). To the contrary, several provisions of the TRIMs Agreement – particularly the initial clause of Article 2.1, and Articles 3 and 4 – reflect reiterative attempts to safeguard rights recognized in the GATT 1994. 
                                               
28 Panel Reports, para. 7.64. 
29 Panel Reports, para. 7.66. Under the FIT Programme, all renewable fuels other than waterpower are 
awarded 20-year contracts. Waterpow er facilities are awarded 40-year  contracts. (Ibid., paras. 7.64 
and 7.195) 
30 European Union's other appellant's submission (DS426), para. 35. (fn omitted) WT/AB/20 
 
- 15 - 
 
 For these reasons, the Appellate Body concluded that the Panel correctly rejected the 
European Union's claim that the Panel erred in finding that Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TRIMs Agreement and paragraph 1(a) of the Illustrative List in the Annex thereto do not preclude the application of Article III:8(a) of the GATT 19 94. Accordingly, the Appellate Body upheld the 
Panel's finding that "Paragraph 1(a) of the Illust rative List in the Annex to the TRIMs Agreement 
d[id] not obviate the need for [the Panel] to undertake an analysis of whether the challenged measures are outside of the scope of application of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 by virtue of the 
operation of Article III:8(a) of the GATT 1994." 
Article III:8(a) of the GATT 1994 Canada, requested the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding that the FIT Programme and 
related FIT and microFIT Contracts were not covered by Article III:8(a), to find instead that the 
FIT Programme and Contracts fell within the scope of Article III:8(a), and consequently to find that 
these measures were not in breach of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 or Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement. The European Union and Japan requested the Appellate Body to uphold the 
Panel's finding that the FIT Programme and Contracts were not covered by Article III:8(a) and 
that, consequently, Canada could not rely on that provision to exclude the application of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. The European Union and Japan also supported the Panel's 
conclusion that the FIT Programme and Contracts were inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the 
TRIMs Agreement and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. However, in their other appeals, the 
European Union and Japan each appealed several aspects of the Panel's interpretation and application of Article III:8(a) of the GATT 1994 an d requested the Appellate Body to modify certain 
intermediate findings by the Panel. 
Article III:8(a) of the GATT 1994 provides: 
The provisions of this Article shall not apply to laws, regulations or requirements 
governing the procurement by governmental  agencies of products purchased for 
governmental purposes and not with a view to  commercial resale or with a view to use 
in the production of goods for commercial sale. 
The Appellate Body explained that this provisio n establishes a derogation from the national 
treatment obligations of Article III for certain government procurement transactions. Measures satisfying the requirements of Article III:8(a) are not subject to the national treatment obligations 
set out in other paragraphs of Article III. The Appe llate Body also clarified that the characterization 
of the provision as a derogation does not pre-de termine the question as to which party bears the 
burden of proof with regard to the requirements stipulated in the provision.  
The Appellate Body then considered several elements  of the text of Article III:8(a) describing the 
types and the content of measures falling within the ambit of the provisio n. The Appellate Body 
emphasized the linkages between the different te rms used in the provision and the contextual 
connections to other parts of Article III, as well as to other provisions of the GATT 1994.  
With regard to the types of measures falling with in the ambit of the provision, the Appellate Body 
considered that Article III:8(a) requires an ar ticulated connection between the laws, regulations, 
or requirements and the procurement, in the sense that the act of procurement is undertaken within a binding structure of laws, regulations, or requirements. Furthermore, the Appellate Body 
distinguished the concepts of "procurement" and "purchase in Article III:8(a), understanding the 
term "procurement" as referring to the proces s pursuant to which a government acquires 
products. The word "purchased" is used to describe the type of transaction used to put into effect 
the procurement. The Appellate Body clarified that "procurement" does not always be effectuated 
by means of a purchase. Article III:8 also specifies what is procured and by whom. The subject matter of the procurement is a "product", and it is being procured by a "governmental agency". 
The Appellate Body found that a "governmental agency" is an entity acting for or on behalf of the 
government and performing governmental functions within the competences conferred on it.  
With respect to the term "products purchased", the Appellate Body recalled its finding that 
Article III:8(a) stipulates conditions under which derogation from the obligations in Article III 
takes place. The Appellate Body added that the derogation of Article III:8(a) becomes relevant 
only if there is discriminatory treatment of foreign products that are covered by the obligations in WT/AB/20 
 
- 16 - 
 
 Article III, and this discriminatory treatment results from laws, regulations, or requirements 
governing procurement by governmental agencies . The Appellate Body explained that, because 
Article III:8(a) is a derogation from the obligations contained in other paragraphs of Article III, the same discriminatory treatment must be considered both with respect to the obligations contained 
in Article III and with respect to the derogation of  Article III:8(a). Accordingly, the Appellate Body 
held that Article III:8(a) concerns, in the first instance, the product that is subject to the discrimination. In addition, the coverage of Articl e III:8 extends to "like" products and to products 
that are directly competitive to, or substitutable with, the product purchased under the challenged 
measure. The Appellate Body noted that the dete rmination of the range of products in such a 
competitive relationship may require consideration of inputs and processes of production used to produce the product. However, the Appellate Body did not decide in this case whether the 
derogation in Article III:8(a) can extend also to discrimination relating to inputs and processes of 
production used in respect of products purchased by government. 
Furthermore, the Appellate Body found that th e requirements of procurement being made for 
"governmental purposes" and not "with a view to commercial resale" are cumulative requirements. 
Therefore, a purchase that does not fulfil the requirement of being made "for governmental purposes" will not be covered by Article III:8(a) regardless of whether it complies with the 
requirement of being made "not with a view to commercial resale". With regard to the phrase 
"products purchased for governmental purposes" in Article III:8(a), the Appellate Body considered that a harmonious reading of the clause in the three official languages suggested that the p r o v i s i o n  r e f e r s  t o  w h a t  i s  c o n s u m e d  b y  g o v e r n m e n t  o r  w h a t  i s  p r o v i d e d  b y  g o v e r n m e n t  t o  
recipients in the discharge of its public functions.  The Appellate Body considered that this reading 
was further supported by context, in particular Article XVII:2 of the GATT 1994, which refers to "imports of products for immediate or ultimate consumption in governmental use". The Appellate 
Body found that this provision identifies instances in which a product is purchased for 
governmental purposes. While Article III:8(a) does not refer to "immediate or ultimate" consumption, it does refer to what is consumed by government or what is provided by government 
to recipients in discharge of public functions. The Appellate Body also noted that the word "for" 
relates the term "products purchased" to "governmental purposes", and thus indicates that the products purchased must be intended to be directed at the government or be used for governmental purposes.  
With respect to the phrase "and not with a view to commercial resale or with a view to use in the 
production of goods for commercial sale", the Appellate Body considered that a "commercial resale" is a resale of a product at arm's length between a willing seller and a willing buyer. The 
participants held different views with respect to the question of whether procurement "with a view 
to commercial resale" must involve profit. The Appellate Body held that whether a transaction constitutes a "commercial resale" must be assessed having regard to the entire transaction, taking 
into account the perspective of the seller as well as that of the buyer, and saw profit-orientation 
generally as an indication that a resale is at arm's length. However, the Appellate Body also noted that there may be circumstances where a seller enters into a transaction out of his or her own interest without making a profit, or sometimes even without fully recouping cost. The Appellate 
Body found it useful to look in such circumstances at the seller's long-term strategy, because loss-
making sales could not be sustained indefinitely and a rational seller would be expected to be profit-oriented in the long term.  
With regard to the last clause of Article III:8(a), "not … with a view to use in the production of 
goods for commercial sale", the Appellate Body held that, where the provision uses the same words as in the phrase "not with a view to commercial resale", the words have the same meaning 
in both clauses. Furthermore, the Appellate Bo dy explained that the use of the words "in the 
production" suggests that the product must have a role in the production of goods.  
With regard to the measure at issue, the Appella te Body considered whether the Panel erred in 
finding that the Minimum Required Domestic Content Levels of the FIT Programme and related 
FIT and microFIT Contracts were not covered by Article III:8(a) and that they were therefore 
subject to the disciplines of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. The Appellate Body found that the derogation under Article III:8(a) must be understood in relation to the obligations stipulated in the 
other paragraphs of Article III, and that, accordingly, the product of foreign origin allegedly being 
discriminated against must be in a competitive relationship with the product purchased. The Appellate Body noted that, in the case at hand , the product being procured was electricity, 
whereas the product discriminated against for reason of its origin was generation equipment. The WT/AB/20 
 
- 17 - 
 
 Appellate Body found that these two products were not in a competitive relationship, and that 
consequently the discrimination relating to generation equipment contained in the FIT Programme and Contracts was not covered by the deroga tion of Article III:8(a) of the GATT 1994. 
Having found that the Minimum Required Domestic Content Levels did not fall within the ambit of 
the derogation in Article III:8(a), the Appellate Bo dy considered that it did not need to address 
further the allegations of error raised by the European Union and Japan seeking reversal of 
interpretations and intermediate findings by the Panel, because these findings were moot. 
In the light of its finding that the Minimum Required Domestic Content Levels did not fall within 
the ambit of Article III:8(a), and in the light of the fact that Canada had not otherwise appealed the Panel's finding that the FIT Programme and Contracts were inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreem ent, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's 
conclusion, that the Minimum Required Domestic Content Levels prescribed under the 
FIT Programme and related FIT and microFIT Contracts were inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.
31 
The Panel's exercise of judicial economy regarding Japan's "stand-alone" claim under 
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 
Before the Panel, Japan claimed that the measures at issue were inconsistent with Article III:4 of 
the GATT 1994 because they imposed "requirements"  on renewable energy generators "affecting" 
the "internal" "sale", "purchase", and "use" of  renewable energy generation equipment, and 
accorded imported equipment treatment less favourable than "like products" of Ontario origin. This claim was independent from, and additional to, its claim of violation of the TRIMs Agreement, 
which also included Article III:4.
32 For convenience, the first claim of Japan's was referred to as 
the "stand-alone Article III:4 claim". The second claim was referred to as Japan's "TRIMs–Article III:4 claim". Having accepted Japan's TRIMs-Article III:4 claim, the Panel did not believe it 
was necessary for the purpose of resolving the disputes also to address Japan's stand-alone 
Article III:4 claim. Japan alleged on appeal that, in proceeding in this manner, the Panel exercised false judicial economy. 
The Appellate Body noted that the Panel had made a finding of violation of Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994, and that this finding rested on an assessment of the measures at issue under the 
Illustrative List of TRIMs annexed to the TRIMs Agreement, and in particular on paragraph 1(a). The Appellate Body noted that paragraph 1(a) is an instance in which an imported product is 
treated less favourably than a like domestic product. The Appellate Body rejected Japan's 
contention that a stand-alone finding of violation of Article III:4 would result in broader implementation obligations.  
The Appellate Body was not persuaded that the Panel's failure to make a finding on Japan's 
stand-alone Article III:4 claim provided only a "partial resolution of the matter at issue" or that an additional finding on Japan's stand-alone Article III:4 claim was "necessary in order to enable the 
DSB to make sufficiently precise recommendations and rulings so as to allow for prompt 
compliance"
33 by Canada with those recommendations an d rulings. Therefore, the Appellate Body 
rejected Japan's claim that the Panel failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of the DSU and exercised false judicial economy by declining to make a finding on Japan's stand-alone Article III:4 
claim. 
Claims under the SCM Agreement Article 1.1(a) – "Financial contribu tion" or "income or price support" 
Japan appealed the Panel's finding that the measures at issue constituted government "purchases 
[of] goods" pursuant to Article 1.1(a)(1)(iii) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement). In addition, Japan a sserted that the Panel erred in finding that 
                                               
31 Japan Panel Report, para. 8.2 an d EU Panel Report, para. 8.6. 
32 Japan's first written submission to  the Panel (DS412), para. 295 et seq. 
33 Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico) , para. 403 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Australia – 
Salmon , para. 223). WT/AB/20 
 
- 18 - 
 
 subparagraphs (i) and (iii) of Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement were mutually exclusive.34 
The Appellate Body disagreed with the Panel's finding to the extent it meant that the coverage of 
subparagraphs (i) and (iii) of Article 1.1(a)(1) we re mutually exclusive. The Appellate Body held 
that, when determining the proper legal characteri zation of a measure under Article 1.1(a)(1) of 
the SCM Agreement, a panel should scrutinize the me asure both as to its design and operation and 
identify its principal characteristics.35 A transaction may fit into one of the types of financial 
contributions listed in Article 1.1(a)(1). However, transactions may also be complex and 
multifaceted, and thus different aspects of the same transaction may qualify as different types of financial contributions. It may also be the case that the attributes of a measure do not allow identification of a single category of financ ial contribution and thus, as explained by the 
Appellate Body in US – Large Civil Aircraft (2
nd complaint) , a transaction may fall under more than 
one type of financial contribution.  
Consequently, the Appellate Body declared moot and of no legal effect the Panel's finding that 
government purchases of goods could not also be le gally characterized as direct transfers of funds 
without infringing the principle of effective treaty interpretation36, inasmuch as it negated the 
possibility that a transaction might fall under more than one type of financial contribution under 
Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement. 
The Appellate Body then turned to Japan's claim that the Panel erred in its application of 
Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement by find ing that the FIT Programme and Contracts were 
government "purchases [of] goods" within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iii). The Appellate Body 
recalled that the Panel concluded that the measures at issue were government "purchases [of] 
goods" on the basis of three elements. First, the Ontario Power Authority pays for electricity that is delivered into Ontario's electricity grid. Second, the Government of Ontario takes possession of the 
electricity and therefore purchases electricity. Third, the Panel took into account that "the 
Electricity Act of 1998 , the Ministerial Direction, the FIT and microFIT Contracts and other 
documents, all in one way or another characterize  the challenged measures as a procurement or 
purchase of electricity".
37 The Appellate Body agreed with the Panel that "the combined actions of 
all three 'public bodies'"38 – Ontario Power Authority, Hydro One, and the IESO – demonstrated 
that the Government of Ontario purchases electricity within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iii) of 
the SCM Agreement. In the light of this, the Appe llate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the 
FIT Programme and related FIT and microFIT Contracts were government "purchases [of] 
goods".39 
Japan claimed, furthermore, that the measures at issue may also be characterized as "direct 
transfer[s] of funds" or "potential direct transfers of funds" within the meaning of 
Article 1.1(a)(1)(i).40 The Appellate Body noted that Japan's arguments in this respect did not 
present any new characteristics of the measures at issue that went beyond, or were different from 
those considered in finding that the measures at issue were properly characterized as government purchases of goods. Therefore, the Appellate Body  found that Japan had not established that the 
measures at issue should be characterized as "dir ect transfer[s] of funds" or "potential direct 
transfers of funds" under Article 1.1(a)(1)(i) of the SCM Agreement, in addition to being 
characterized as government purchases of goods. 
Moreover, the Appellate Body rejected Japan's claim that the Panel improperly exercised judicial 
economy with respect to Japan's claim that the FIT Programme and related FIT and microFIT Contracts constitute "income or price support" under Article 1.1(a)(2) of the SCM Agreement, and thereby failed to make an objective assessment of the matter as required by 
Article 11 of the DSU. In the Appellate Body's vi ew, an additional finding by the Panel that the 
                                               
34 Panel Reports, para. 7.246. 
35 Appellate Body Reports, China – Auto Parts , para. 171. See also, Appellate Body Report, US – Large 
Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint) , para. 586. 
36 Panel Reports, para. 7.246. 
37 Panel Reports, para. 7.242. 
38 Panel Reports, para. 7.239. (emphasis added; fn omitted) 
39 Panel Reports, paras. 7.243 and 7.328(i). 
40 Given that Japan also claimed that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU by 
exercising false judicial economy with respect to its claim that the challenged measures constitute "income or 
price support", the Appellate Body decided to address Ja pan's request to find that the measures at issue may 
be characterized as "income or pr ice support" once it had made a de termination on whether the Panel 
exercised false judicial economy regarding this claim of Japan. WT/AB/20 
 
- 19 - 
 
 challenged measures constituted "income or price support" was not necessary to resolve the 
dispute. Given that it rejected Japan's claim that the Panel exercised false judicial economy, the Appellate Body declined to make a finding on whether the FIT Programme and Contracts could be characterized as "income or price support" under Article 1.1(a)(2) of the SCM Agreement. 
Article 1.1(b) – "Conferral of benefit" 
The European Union and Japan requested the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding that 
they had failed to establish that the challenged measures conferred a benefit within the meaning 
of Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement, and to complete the legal analysis and find that the 
challenged measures conferred a benefit, based on the factual findings made by the Panel and uncontested facts on the Panel record. In the al ternative, the European Union and Japan claimed 
that the Panel failed to make an objective assessm ent of the matter, under Article 11 of the DSU, 
in concluding that there was not sufficient evidence on the record that would allow it to make 
findings on the existence of benefit under Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement, based on its own approach to the question of benefit. Under both lines of argumentation, both the European Union 
and Japan requested the Appellate Body to complete the analysis and find that the challenged 
measures constituted subsidies prohibited under Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement. 
The legal standard for the determination of benefit under Article 1.1(b) of the 
SCM Agreement 
The Appellate Body began by reviewing the legal standard adopted by the Panel in its 
Article 1.1(b) analysis. First, the Appellate Body found that the Panel had not erred in the interpretation of Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement by analysing whether a benefit is conferred 
on the basis of the guidelines contained in Articl e 14(d). The Appellate Body noted that whether a 
financial contribution confers an advantage on its recipient cannot be determined in absolute terms, but requires a comparison with a benchmark,  which, in the case of subsidies, derives from 
the market. Article 14(d) contains guidelines for determining whether government purchases of 
goods make a recipient "better off" than it would otherwise be in the marketplace. Thus, the Appellate Body concluded that the Panel's approach to the question of benefit under Article 1.1(b) 
of the SCM Agreement, including the reliance on the context found in Article 14(d), was correct. 
Indeed, a determination of the existence of a bene fit under Article 1.1(b), read in the context of 
Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement, requires a comparison between actual remuneration and a 
market-based benchmark or proxy, and thus between amounts, in order to determine the 
existence of a benefit. 
The relevant market The Appellate Body saw several problems with the Panel's analysis of the relevant market for the 
purpose of the benefit comparison in these disputes . First, the Appellate Body considered that the 
Panel should have addressed the definition of the relevant market at the outset of its analysis, rather than addressing it after its benefit analysis. The Appellate Body highlighted that the 
definition of the relevant market was central to, and a prerequisite for, a benefit analysis under 
Article 1.1(b) the SCM Agreement. 
Second, the Appellate Body found that the Panel had not analysed supply-side factors in its 
examination of the relevant market. The Appellate Body stated that, had the Panel undertaken an 
analysis of supply-side factors, the significance of government intervention in the electricity 
market to the definition of the relevant market would have become evident. Such an analysis would have permitted the Panel to define separate markets for wind and solar PV electricity, 
particularly if it was of the view, as it explained later, that the competitive wholesale electricity 
market was not the appropriate focus of the benefit analysis in these disputes. 
The Appellate Body considered that, in circumstances where electricity generated from different 
sources was sold as an undistinguished product and, for as long as the differences in production 
costs for conventional and renewable electricit y were so significant, markets for wind- and 
solar PV-generated electricity could only come into existence as a matter of government regulation. It was therefore often due to the gove rnment's choice of supply-mix of electricity 
generation technologies that markets for wind- and solar PV-generated electricity were created. A 
government may choose the supply-mix by setting administered prices for technologies that would WT/AB/20 
 
- 20 - 
 
 not otherwise be able to recover their costs on the spot market or by requiring private distributors 
or the government itself to buy part of their requirements of electricity from certain specified generation technologies. The Appellate Body indicated, however, that, in both instances, the definition of a certain energy supply-mix by the government could not in and of itself be 
considered as conferring a benefit within the meaning of Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement. 
Identification of a benefit benchmark for elec tricity produced from windpower and solar 
PV technologies 
Bearing in mind the relevant market in the light of the Government of Ontario's definition of the 
energy supply-mix and the prevailing market conditions for wind- and solar PV-generated 
electricity in Ontario, the Appellate Body then turned to identify what it considered to be the appropriate benchmark for a benefit comparison under Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement. 
The Appellate Body indicated that a benefit analysis under Article 1.1(b), read in the context of 
Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement, necessarily involves a comparison with a market benchmark or proxy. While policy considerations are not to be included in the determination of benefit under 
Article 1.1(b), the Appellate Body clarified that a market-based approach to benefit benchmarks 
does not exclude taking account of the fact that  governments intervene to create markets that 
would otherwise not exist. The Appellate Body observed that considerations relating to the choice 
of energy supply-mix by a government, including wind- and solar PV-generated electricity, might 
be crucial to the viability and sustainability of the electricity market in the long term. Government intervention in favour of the substitution of fo ssil energy with renewable energy today was meant 
to ensure the proper functioning or the existence of an electricity market with a constant and 
reliable supply of electricity in the long term. The Appellate Body explained that, although this type 
of intervention had an effect on market prices , as opposed to a situation where prices were 
determined by unconstrained forces of supply and demand, it did not exclude per se  treating the 
resulting prices as market prices for the purposes of a benefit analysis under Article 1.1(b) of the 
SCM Agreement.  
The Appellate Body cautioned, however, that a distinction should be drawn between, on the one 
hand, government interventions that created markets that would otherwise not have existed and, 
on the other hand, other types of government interventions in support of certain players in markets that already existed, or to correct market distortions therein. Where a government created a market, it cannot be said that the go vernment intervention distorted the market, as 
there would not have been a market if the government had not created it. In the light of the 
above, the Appellate Body concluded that benefit benchmarks for wind- and solar PV-generated electricity should be found in the markets for wind- and solar PV-generated electricity that result 
from the supply-mix definition. 
The Panel's benefit benchmark analysis The Appellate Body then turned to examine the European Union's and Japan's challenges of the 
Panel's assessment of the benefit benchmarks submitted by the complainants. The European Union 
and Japan argued that the Panel erred in engaging in the examination of market counterfactuals to 
determine "benefit" and that it should have determ ined the existence of "benefit" based on a "but 
for" test. The Appellate Body observed that if, as the Panel acknowledged, windpower and solar PV 
energy generation would not occur in Ontario abse nt the government's definition of the energy 
supply-mix, a "but for" approach would be inappo site for establishing benefit, because such an 
approach would, by definition, not measure what the recipient could obtain in the marketplace for 
windpower and solar PV energy generation. For th is reason, the Appellate Body did not consider 
that the Panel should have determined that benefi t existed based on a "but for" approach. Rather, 
in the Appellate Body's view, the relevant questi on was whether windpower and solar PV electricity 
suppliers would have entered the wind- and solar PV-generated electricity markets absent the 
FIT Programme, not whether they would have entered the blended wholesale market of electricity generated from all energy generation technologies. 
Japan further contended that the Panel wrongly rejected the weighted-average wholesale rate and 
the commodity portion of Ontario retail prices und er the Regulated Price Plan (RPP retail prices) as 
market benchmarks because they were distorted by government intervention. The Appellate Body 
found that the weighted-average wholesale rate and the RPP retail prices reflected prices for WT/AB/20 
 
- 21 - 
 
 blended electricity (i.e. electricity generated from all sources of energy supply) and thus, were not 
appropriate benchmarks to determine whether the FIT Programme conferred a benefit on windpower and solar PV generators. For the same reason, the Appellate Body rejected the other in-province and out-of-province (Alberta, New York State, New England and Mid-Western United 
States) blended electricity benchmarks that had been submitted to the Panel. 
In the light of the above, the Appellate Body co nsidered that the Panel committed an error in not 
conducting the benefit analysis on the basis of a market that was shaped by the government's 
definition of the energy supply-mix, and that wa s based on a benchmark located in that market 
reflecting competitive prices for windpower and solar PV generation. Therefore, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel's findings that Japan and th e European Union failed to establish that the 
challenged measures conferred a benefit within the meaning of Article 1.1(b) of the 
SCM Agreement and thereby that Canada acted incons istently with Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the 
SCM Agreement.
41  
Having reversed the Panel's findings under Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement, the Appellate 
Body did not address the complainants' conditional claim that in its analysis of "benefit" the Panel 
acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU, as the condition on which it was premised did not occur. 
The Appellate Body noted that, having reversed the Panel's findings under Article 1.1(b) of the 
SCM Agreement, no determination existed as to wh ether or not the challenged measures conferred 
a benefit within the meaning of Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement. Thus, the Appellate Body 
turned to determine whether, on the basis of fact ual findings of the Panel and undisputed facts on 
the Panel record, it could complete the analysis and determine whether the challenged measures 
conferred a benefit within the meaning of Article 1.1(b) and whether Canada had acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement. 
The Appellate Body found it appropriate to compare the remuneration obtained by solar PV and 
windpower generators under the FIT Programme with a market benchmark that reflected the 
Government of Ontario's definition of energy supply-mix, as including solar PV- and windpower-
generated electricity. The Appellate Body examined  the relevant facts and arguments submitted by 
the participants. In particular, the Appellate Body considered evidence concerning contracts for solar PV and wind projects awarded by competitive bidding under the FIT predecessor in Ontario, that is, the Renewable Energy Supply (RES) initiative, and contracts for wind projects awarded by 
competitive bidding in the Province of Quebec.  
The Appellate Body did not consider that a co mparison of FIT prices with the prices of 
wind-generated electricity in Quebec would be possible for the purposes of completing the analysis 
in this appeal, considering that the "standard of comparability", including the necessary 
adjustments that are required under Article 14(d) for an out-of-country benefit benchmark, that 
would be required for such an out-of-province benchmark was not raised before the Panel, or 
before the Appellate Body. 
Turning to the RES initiative, the Appellate Body observed that, while in principle RES I, II, and III 
prices, which resulted from competitive bidding , might have represented a market outcome for 
renewable electricity generation, in order to carry out a meaningful comparison of the 
FIT Programme and the RES initiative, it would be necessary to ensure that the comparison was 
made between prices referring to the same period , the same type of generation technology, the 
same overall supply-mix, projects of the same or  similar scale, and supply contracts of the same 
duration. In the Appellate Body's view, if any of  these conditions was not met by the proposed 
benchmark, adjustments in the light of the factors listed in Article 14(d) and of the supply-mix defined by the government would be necessary to ensure comparability. 
With respect to solar PV generators, the Appellate Body noted that, although the RES initiative was 
also open to this type of technology, there did not seem to be any evidence on the Panel record 
that solar PV generators were awarded contracts under any of the three RES initiatives. Thus, it 
did not appear that the FIT remuneration for solar PV generators could be compared to prices 
under the RES initiative to establish whether the FIT Programme conferred a benefit in respect of 
solar PV energy generation. 
                                               
41Panel Reports, para. 7.328(ii); Japan Panel Repo rt, para. 8.3; EU Panel Report, para. 8.7. WT/AB/20 
 
- 22 - 
 
 In contrast, the Appellate Body considered that it would be, in principle, possible to make a 
comparison of the FIT remuneration of windpower generators with the remuneration that windpower generators obtained under the RES initiative to determine whether the former conferred a benefit. However, because the relevant evidence had not been sufficiently debated 
before the Panel and before the Appellate Body, the Appellate Body found itself not in position to 
complete the analysis. The Appellate Body recalled that in previous cases it had also refrained from completing the legal analysis in the light of the complexity of the issues and in the absence of 
full exploration of the issues before the Panel. Consequently, the Appellate Body made no 
determination as to whether the challenged meas ures conferred a benefit within the meaning of 
Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement and whet her they constituted prohibited subsidies 
inconsistent with Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement. 
5  PARTICIPANTS AND THIRD PARTICIPANTS IN APPEALS 
Table 5 lists the WTO Members that participated in  appeals for which an Appellate Body report was 
circulated in 2013. It distinguishes between Members that filed a Notice of Appeal pursuant to 
Rule 20 of the Working Procedures  (appellants) and Members that filed a Notice of Other Appeal 
pursuant to Rule 23(1) (known as the "other appellants"). Rule 23(1) provides that "a party to the dispute other than the original appellant may join in that appeal, or appeal on the basis of other 
alleged errors in the issues of law covered in the panel report and legal interpretations developed 
by the panel". Under the Working Procedures, partie s wishing to appeal a panel report pursuant to 
Rule 23(1) are required to file a Notice of Other A ppeal within 5 days of the filing of the Notice of 
Appeal. 
Table 5 also identifies those Members that participated in appeals as third participants under 
paragraphs (1), (2), or (4) of Rule 24 of the Working Procedures. Under Rule 24(1), a WTO Member that was a third party to the panel proceedings may file a written submission as a 
third participant within 21 days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal. Pursuant to Rule 24(2), a 
Member that was a third party to the panel proceedings and that does not file a written submission with the Appellate Body may, within 21 days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal, notify its 
intention to appear at the oral hearing and indicate whether it intends to make a statement at the 
hearing. Rule 24(4) provides that a Member that was a third party to the panel proceedings and neither files a written submission in accordance with Rule 24(1), nor gives notice in accordance with Rule 24(2), may notify its intention to appear at the oral hearing and request to make a 
statement. WT/AB/20 
 
- 23 - 
 
 Table 5: Participants and third participants  in appeals for which an Appellate Body 
report was circulated in 2013 
Case Appellanta Other 
appellantb Appellee(s)
c Third participants 
Rule 24(1)  Rule 24(2) Rule 24(4)  
Canada – Certain 
Measures Affecting the Renewable 
Energy Generation 
Sector Canada Japan Japan 
Canada Australia 
Brazil 
China 
Saudi 
Arabia 
United 
States El Salvador 
European 
Union 
Honduras 
India 
Korea 
Mexico 
Norway 
Chinese 
Taipei  
Canada – Measures 
Relating to the Feed-
in Tariff Program Canada European 
Union European 
Union 
Canada Australia 
Brazil 
China 
Saudi 
Arabia 
United 
States El Salvador 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
Mexico 
Norway 
Chinese 
Taipei 
Turkey  
a Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures. 
b Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures. 
c Pursuant to Rule 22 or 23(3)  of the Working Procedures. 
 
A total of 16 WTO Members appeared at least once as appellant, other appellant, appellee, or third participant in appeals for which an Appellate Body report was circulated in 2013. Of these 16 WTO Members, 6 were developed country Members, and 10 were developing country Members. 
Chart 3 shows the ratio of developed country Members to developing country Members in terms of 
appearances made as appellant, other appellant, appellee, and third participant in appeals for which an Appellate Body report was circulated from 1996 through 2013. 
Chart 3: WTO Member participation in appeals 1996–2013 
 
 
WT/AB/20 
 
- 24 - 
 
 Annex 8 provides a statistical summary and details on WTO Members' participation as appellant, 
other appellant, appellee, and third participant in appeals for which an Appellate Body report was circulated from 1996 through 2013. 
6  WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW 
6.1  Procedural issues arising in appeals in 2013 
6.1.1  Amendment to the Notice of Appeal In Canada – Renewable Energy / Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program , the European Union sent a 
letter to the Appellate Body Secretariat on 12 February 2013 indicating that there was a "clerical 
mistake" in its Notice of Other Appeal, filed on 11 February, and requesting authorization to 
correct it. In accordance with Rule 18(5) of th e Working Procedures, the Appellate Body Division 
hearing the appeal provided Canada, Japan, and the third participants with an opportunity to 
comment in writing on the request. No objections were received and, on 15 February 2013, the 
Division authorized the correction to the European Union's Notice of Other Appeal. 
6.1.2  Amendments to the Working Schedule for Appeal 
On 5 February 2013, the day that the Notice of Appeal was filed by Canada in Canada – Renewable 
Energy / Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program , the Appellate Body received a letter from Japan 
requesting that the oral hearing in the appellate proceedings not be scheduled during the period 
11-13 March 2013. Because the Working Schedule for Appeal drawn up by the Appellate Body 
Division hearing the appeal provided for the oral hearing to be held on 14-15 March 2013, it was unnecessary for the Division to consider further Japan's request. 
6.1.3  Open oral hearing 
In the proceedings in Canada – Renewable Energy / Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program , the 
Appellate Body received letters from Canada, Japan, and the European Union requesting the Appellate Body to allow observation by the public of the oral hearing in the appellate proceedings. 
Canada requested public observation of the oral  statements and answers to questions of the 
Appellate Body by the participants, as well as those of third participants who agreed to make their statements and responses to questions public. Canada proposed that public observation be 
permitted via simultaneous closed-circuit television broadcasting with the option for the 
transmission to be turned off should the participants find it necessary to discuss confidential information, or if a third participant had indicated its wish to keep its oral statement confidential. In its letter, Japan supported Canada's request, indicating that it also wished to make public its 
statements and answers to questions by the Appellate  Body in the course of the hearing, and that 
it agreed with Canada's request that the Appellate Body hold an open hearing in this appeal. Japan further agreed that public observation be allowed by means of simultaneous closed-circuit video 
broadcasting. For its part, the European Union stated that it agreed and associated itself with 
Canada's request for an open hearing. 
The Appellate Body Division hearing the appeal in vited the third parties to comment in writing on 
the requests of the participants to open the hearing to public observation. Responses were 
received from Australia, Brazil, China, El Salv ador, India, Mexico, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, 
and the United States. In their respective comment s, Brazil, China, El Salvador, India, Mexico, 
Saudi Arabia, and Turkey stated that they did not ob ject to allowing public observation of the oral 
hearing in the present disputes. Brazil, China, Indi a, Mexico, and Turkey further emphasized that it 
was without prejudice to the systemic views each had on the issue of public observation of panel 
and Appellate Body hearings. Australia, Norway, and the United States stated their support for the 
participants' request to allow public observation of the oral hearing. China, India, and Saudi Arabia 
indicated that they wished to maintain the conf identiality of their statements and responses to 
questions during the hearing. WT/AB/20 
 
- 25 - 
 
 On 19 February 2013, the Division issued a Proc edural Ruling authorizing the opening of the 
hearing to public observation and adopting additional procedures for the conduct of the hearing.42 
Public observation of the oral hearing in the proc eedings took place via simultaneous closed-circuit 
television broadcast to a separate room. Transmission was turned off during statements made by 
those third participants who had indicated their wish to maintain the confidentiality of their 
statements. 
6.1.4  Unsolicited amicus curiae  briefs 
The Appellate Body received two unsolicited briefs  from an energy company and from an academic 
during the Canada – Renewable Energy / Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program  proceedings. The 
participants and third participants were given an opportunity to express their views on the briefs at the oral hearing. Ultimately, the Division did not find it necessary to rely on these briefs in 
rendering its decision.
43 
6.1.5  Request for separate findings in the reports In the appellate proceedings in Canada – Renewable Energy / Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program , 
Japan and the European Union requested the Appell ate Body to issue two reports in one single 
document with separate sections containing findings and conclusions for each complainant. Canada was afforded an opportunity to comment on the requests of Japan and the European Union, and 
raised no objection. The Appellate Body issued the reports in the form of a single document 
constituting two separate Appellate Body Reports: Canada – Certain Meas ures Affecting the 
Renewable Energy Generation Sector , WT/DS412/AB/R; and Canada – Measures relating to the 
Feed-in Tariff Program , WT/DS426/AB/R. 
7  ARBITRATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(c) OF THE DSU 
Individual Appellate Body Members have been  appointed to serve as arbitrators under 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU to determine the "reaso nable period of time" for the implementation by 
a WTO Member of the recommendations and rulings adopted by the DSB in dispute settlement 
cases. The DSU does not specify who shall serve as arbitrator. The parties to the arbitration select the arbitrator by agreement or, if they cannot agr ee on an arbitrator, the Director-General of the 
WTO appoints the arbitrator. To date, all those who have served as arbitrators pursuant to 
Article 21.3(c) have been current or former Appellate Body Members. In carrying out arbitrations under Article 21.3(c), Appellate Body Members act in an individual capacity. 
One Article 21.3(c) arbitration proceeding was carried out in 2013. Further information about this 
arbitration is provided below. 
7.1  Award of the Arbitrator, China – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain 
Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical  Steel from the United States , WT/DS414/12 
Background 
This dispute concerned the United States' challenge of China's anti-dumping and countervailing 
duties on imports of grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel (GOES) from the United States. On 16 
November 2012, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as upheld by 
the Appellate Body Report in this dispute. 
The Panel found that China had acted inconsistent ly with the Agreement on Implementation of 
Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement) and the 
SCM Agreement in relation to various aspects of the underlying anti-dumping and countervailing 
duty investigations, including the initiation of the countervailing duty investigation, the treatment of confidential information, the use of "facts available" in the calculation of dumping margins and 
subsidy rates, the causation determination, and the related disclosure of certain facts in 
                                               
42 The Procedural Ruling was attached as Annex 4 to the Appellate Body Reports in Canada – Renewable 
Energy / Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program , WT/DS412/ABR / WT/DS426/AB/R. 
43 Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Renewable Energy / Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program , para. 1.30. WT/AB/20 
 
- 26 - 
 
 connection with the determinations made by the Mi nistry of Commerce of the People's Republic of 
China (MOFCOM). China did not appeal these findings of the Panel. 
The Panel also found that China had acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 15.1 and 15 .2 of the SCM Agreement, because MOFCOM's 
price effects finding was neither made pursuant to an objective examination, nor based on positive 
evidence. Furthermore, the Panel found that China had acted inconsistently with Articles 6.9 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 12.8 and 22.5 of the SCM Agreement, 
because MOFCOM's disclosure and public notice regarding the facts underlying its finding as to the 
"low price" of subject imports did not fulfil the requirements of these provisions. China appealed 
these findings of the Panel. 
The Appellate Body upheld, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's findings on appeal.
44 
At the DSB meeting of 30 November 2012, China indicated its intention to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute, and stated that it would require a reasonable period of time in whic h to do so. Consultations between the parties failed to result in an 
agreement on the reasonable period of time fo r implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings. Therefore, the United States reques ted that such period be determined through 
binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The United States and China were 
unable to agree on the appointment of an arbi trator and, consequently, the United States 
requested the Director-General to appoint an arbitr ator pursuant to footnote 12 of Article 21.3(c). 
On 28 February 2013, the Director-General, after consultation with the parties, appointed former Appellate Body Member, Mr Claus-Dieter Ehle rmann, as Arbitrator in these proceedings. 
Award of the Arbitrator 
Withdrawal or modification of the measure at issue China requested a reasonable period of time for implementation of 19 months from the date of 
adoption by the DSB of the Panel and Appellate Body  reports. This period reflected: (i) 9.5 months 
for the purpose of adopting rules providing MOFCOM with legal authority and a mechanism to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings concerning trade remedies; and (ii) a further 
9.5 months to conduct an administrative redetermination of the anti-dumping and countervailing 
duties at issue. 
The United States argued that the reasonable  period of time for implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB should be either: (i) 1 month, if China revoked the 
relevant anti-dumping and countervailing duties in the absence of clear legal authority to revise 
these duties; or (ii) 4 months and 1 week, if Ch ina conceded that an existing administrative 
reconsideration procedure could be used to implement the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB in this dispute.  
The Arbitrator began by addressing the United St ates' contention that, if China maintained that 
there was no clear legal basis pursuant to wh ich MOFCOM could modify the anti-dumping and 
countervailing duties at issue through remedial action, the reasonable period of time for 
implementation should be based on the time ne cessary for China to withdraw those duties. The 
Arbitrator noted that, although withdrawal of an inconsistent measure was the preferred means of implementation, it was not necessarily the only means of implementation consistent with the 
covered agreements.
45 The Arbitrator recalled, in this connection, that an implementing Member 
retains the discretion to select its preferred means of implementation, provided that the method chosen falls within the range of permissible actions that can be taken to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The Arbitrator thus reasoned that, even assuming that 
withdrawal of the relevant duties were possible under China's existing legal system, it did not 
follow that the reasonable period of time for im plementation must be based on that method of 
implementation, as opposed to modification of the measure through remedial action. The 
                                               
44 See Appellate Body Annual Report for 2012 , Section 4.6, pp. 82-90. 
45 The Arbitrator agreed with the arbitrator in Japan – DRAMs (Korea) (Article 21.3(c))  that "a Member 
whose measure has been found to be inconsistent with the covered agreements may generally choose between 
two courses of action: withdrawal of the measure; or mo dification of the measure by remedial action". (Award 
of the Arbitrator, Japan – DRAMS (Korea) (Article 21.3(c)) , para. 37) WT/AB/20 
 
- 27 - 
 
 Arbitrator therefore proceeded to consider China's request for a reasonable period of time for 
implementation on the basis of the two stages of implementation that China proposed. 
Administrative rulemaking  China requested a period of 9.5 months for the purpose of adopting rules providing MOFCOM with 
legal authority and a mechanism to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute. China explained that, because China's Anti-Dumping Regulations and Countervailing Duty 
Regulations did not clearly authorize the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings, MOFCOM could not take such action while complying with the requirement to act 
in accordance with those Regulations. The United States countered that MOFCOM did in fact have the ability to re-examine duties, including in response to adverse DSB recommendations and rulings.  
As an initial matter, the Arbitrator noted that the question of whether MOFCOM could conduct an 
administrative redetermination of the anti-dumping  and countervailing duties at issue only after 
adopting specific rules authorizing such action hinged on the scope and meaning of China's laws. 
The Arbitrator accepted China's assertion that, under China's existing laws, there was no legal 
authority and mechanism allowing it to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. The Arbitrator then considered whether the reasonable period of time for implementation 
should be determined on the basis of the proposition that China had to adopt rules providing 
MOFCOM with legal authority and a mechanism to take specific implementation action in respect of DSB recommendations and rulings concerning trade remedies. 
The United States pointed out that the DSB had no t adopted any findings with respect to China's 
"broader legislative or regulatory system". The Un ited States further argued that, while "nothing 
prevent[ed] China from undertakin g a more ambitious legislative endeavour", the time necessary 
to undertake such an endeavour was not relevant to  the determination of the reasonable period of 
time for implementation in this dispute.  
The Arbitrator disagreed with the United States to the extent that it suggested that, when an 
implementing Member's laws or regulations have  not been the subject of recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB, the time required to amend su ch laws or regulations, as a first step of the 
implementation process, was not relevant to the de termination of the reasonable period of time for 
implementation under Article 21.3(c). Instead, th e Arbitrator did not exclude that there may be 
circumstances in which bringing a measure into conformity with the recommendations and rulings 
of the DSB may require, as a first step, legislative action or administrative rulemaking by the 
implementing Member.  
Although the Arbitrator accepted China's assertion that MOFCOM lacked legal authority and a 
mechanism to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, he found it relevant, 
nonetheless, that China, through its proposed fi rst stage of implementation, was seeking to fill a 
gap in its legal system that long pre-dated the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute.
46 The Arbitrator considered that circumstances pre-dating the adoption of panel or 
Appellate Body reports may inform what is reasonable in a given case, and may thus be relevant to the determination of the reasonable period of time for implementation under Article 21.3(c).
47 
He noted, in particular, that the United States had filed a request for the establishment of a panel 
in this dispute on 11 February 2011, and considered that, as of that time, China was apprised that 
the measure at issue would be scrutinized by a WTO panel, and that the range of possible outcomes of the panel proceedings included the challenged measure being found to be inconsistent 
with China's WTO obligations. In the Arbitrator's view, those circumstances served notice to China 
that its trade remedy system might have to accommodate adverse recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 
The Arbitrator further considered that the circulation of the Panel report on 15 June 2012 should 
also have alerted China to the possible eventual need to bring its measures into compliance with recommendations and rulings of the DSB. He explai ned that this was not altered by the fact that 
                                               
46 China acceded to the WTO on 11 December 2001. 
47 In doing so, the Arbitrator re called that the arbitrator in US – COOL (Article 21.3(c))  took into account 
the United States' "awareness of the need to modify th e COOL measure even before the adoption of the Panel 
and Appellate Body Reports." (Award of the Arbitrator, US – COOL (Article 21.3(c)) , para. 84) WT/AB/20 
 
- 28 - 
 
 on 20 July 2012 China appealed certain aspects of the adverse findings contained in the Panel 
report. 
Against this background, the Arbitrator considered that China should have, in the circumstances of 
this case, taken steps to ensure, in a timely manner, that it had a legal basis, if necessary, to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings concerning trade remedies well before the 
adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body reports in this dispute. He therefore declined to award China time for the purpose of adopting rules providing MOFCOM with legal authority and a 
mechanism to implement adverse DSB recommendations and rulings concerning China's 
anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures. 
Administrative action Regarding China's second step of implementation  – namely, conducting a redetermination of the 
anti-dumping and countervailing duties imposed on imports of GOES from the United States – 
China requested the Arbitrator to allocate a total of 11 months, consisting of 45 days for "preparatory work", in particular, translation an d study of the Panel and Appellate Body reports, 
and 9.5 months to conduct the actual redetermination of the anti-dumping and countervailing 
duties imposed on imports of GOES from the United States.  
Like arbitrators in previous arbitrations under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, the Arbitrator considered 
that, in determining the reasonable period of time for implementation, time may be allocated for 
preparatory work. He expressed concern, however, that China had not commenced this preparatory work until the Panel and Appellate Body reports were adopted on 16 November 2012. The Arbitrator considered that, while the reasonable period of time for implementation under 
Article 21.3(c) is measured from the date of adop tion of a panel and/or Appellate Body report by 
the DSB, China could have commenced translation and study of the relevant reports immediately after circulation, rather than waiting for them to be adopted by the DSB. 
The Arbitrator turned next to address China's request for 9.5 months to conduct an administrative 
redetermination in respect of the anti-dumping and countervailing duties at issue. China's envisaged administrative redetermination procedure consisted of the following steps and 
associated timeframes: drafting and approval of the public notice of the redetermination 
(20 days); consideration of comments of interested parties (30 days); submission of rebuttal comments from interested parties (30 days); holding a hearing (37 days); drafting the initial determination (30 days); internal review of the re levant documents and approval of the disclosure 
documents by MOFCOM's Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports and Exports and Investigation Bureau 
for Industry Injury (30 days); review of the a pproved documents by MOFCOM's Department of 
Treaty and Law (10 days); consideration of comments from interested parties on the documents 
(20 days); drafting and review of the final de termination (40 days); approval of the final 
determination by the Tariff Commission (30 days); and publication of the announcement and 
notice (10 days). 
The United States argued that the timeframes envisaged by China for the various steps of its 
proposed administrative redetermination procedure were inflated, and would result in a redetermination process that would take four times longer to complete than the average time in which MOFCOM had, thus far, completed review s under China's Anti-Dumping Regulations and 
China's Administrative Reconsideration Law.  
The Arbitrator did not agree with the United States  to the extent that it suggested that the time 
within which MOFCOM should conduct a redetermination in this case should be based on the 
average time in which MOFCOM completed three previous reviews under China's Anti-Dumping 
Regulations and Administrative Reconsideration Law. In this regard, the Arbitrator noted that these reviews were conducted pursuant to procedures that were, by nature, distinct from a 
redetermination for the purpose of implementing DSB recommendations and rulings.  
Turning to the steps of China's proposed redeterm ination procedure, the Arbitrator noted that, at 
the oral hearing in this arbitration, China had clarified that only two steps of its proposed procedure had specific timeframes prescribed by law, and that the other timeframes that China 
associated with the steps of its proposed redete rmination procedure were inspired by MOFCOM's 
"practice and experience" in original investigations. WT/AB/20 
 
- 29 - 
 
 China argued that "many of the time periods" that  would apply to the specific steps that MOFCOM 
considered necessary for implementation were based on important procedural obligations arising under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Ag reement, including, for example: giving "all 
interested parties … a full opportunity for the defense of their interests"; providing "timely 
opportunities" for interested parties to see information relevant to their cases and to prepare 
presentations based on that information; and givi ng public notice and explanation of preliminary 
and final determinations. China argued further th at, given the Panel and Appellate Body findings 
on issues such as the choice of adverse "facts available", the determination of the "all others 
rates" for unknown companies, and the findings related to MOFCOM's injury determination, interested parties would certainly have views that MOFCOM would need to consider and address. 
The Arbitrator noted that even if some steps and time periods may not be required by law, they 
may nonetheless be useful in ensuring that im plementation is effected in a transparent and 
efficient manner, fully respecting due process for all interested parties. The Arbitrator further considered that a determination of the reasonable period of time for implementation involves 
balancing various considerations. Article 21.1 of the DSU indicates that implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB must be prompt. To that end, all flexibilities within the legal system of an implementing Member must be employed in the implementation process. At the 
same time, implementation must be effected in  a transparent and efficient manner that affords 
due process to all interested parties. The Arbitr ator explained that the imperatives of prompt 
compliance, on the one hand, and of ensuring the du e process rights of interested parties, on the 
other hand, are not mutually exclusive. Rather, a reasonable period of time for the implementation 
of DSB recommendations and rulings is capable of accommodating both. This requires striking a 
balance between respecting the due process rights of interested parties and the promptness required in implementation. 
Ultimately, the Arbitrator was not persuaded that each of the steps of China's proposed 
redetermination procedure, and their associated ti meframes, reflected China's use of the flexibility 
available to it within its legal system. The Arbitrator observed that China had available to it a 
considerable degree of flexibility to conduct a redetermination in a shorter period of time than it 
had proposed, as evidenced by, inter alia , the absence of mandatory timeframes in relation to the 
majority of the component steps of its proposed redetermination procedure. Moreover, he was not 
convinced that conducting a redetermination in a shorter period of time than China had proposed 
would, in the circumstances of this dispute, infr inge upon the due process rights of interested 
parties. 
In the light of these considerations, the Arbitrator  determined that the "reasonable period of time" 
for China to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute was 
eight months and 15 days, which expired on 31 July 2013. 
8  WTO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING PLAN 
Appellate Body Secretariat staff participated in the WTO Biennial Technical Assistance and Training 
Plan: 2012–2013
48, particularly in activities relating to training in dispute settlement procedures. 
Annex 9 provides a list of the technical assistance activities carried out by Appellate Body Secretariat staff in 2013 under the WTO Technical Assistance and Training Plan. 
                                               
48 WT/COMTD/W/180/Rev.1. WT/AB/20 
 
- 30 - 
 
 9  OTHER ACTIVITIES 
9.1  Meeting with representatives of the International Law Commission 
On 6 June 2013, Appellate Body Members and Me mbers of the United Nations International Law 
Commission held an informal meeting to discuss issues of common interest in the field of 
international adjudication and the work of both institutions.  
9.2  The Brandeis Institute for International Judges The Chairman of the Appellate Body, Mr Ricard o Ramírez-Hernández, represented the Appellate 
Body at a meeting of the Brandeis Institute for International Judges held at the University of Lund, 
Sweden, from 28 to 31 July 2013. The Brandeis Institute brings together judges serving on 
international courts and tribunals around the world to reflect on the practical challenges, as well as philosophical aspects, of their work. The over arching theme of the 2013 conference was "The 
International Rule of Law in a Human Rights Era" and was attended by 16 judges from 
13 international courts and tribunals.   
9.3  Briefings, conferences, moot court competitions 
Appellate Body Secretariat staff participate in briefings organized for groups visiting the WTO, 
including students. In these briefings, Appellate Bo dy Secretariat staff speak to visitors about the 
WTO dispute settlement system in general, and appellate proceedings in particular. Appellate Body 
Secretariat staff also participate as judges in moot court competitions. A list of these activities carried out by Appellate Body Secretariat staf f during the course of 2013 can be found in 
Annex 10. 
9.4  WTO internship programme 
The Appellate Body Secretariat participates in the WTO internship programme, which allows post-
graduate university students to gain practical experience and a deeper knowledge of the global 
multilateral trading system in general, and WTO dispute settlement procedures in particular. 
Interns in the Appellate Body Secretariat obtain  first-hand experience of the procedural and 
substantive aspects of WTO dispute settlement and, in particular, appellate proceedings. The 
internship programme is open to nationals of WTO Members and to nationals of countries and 
customs territories engaged in accession negotiations. An internship is generally for a three-month period. During 2013, the Appellate Body Secretariat welcomed interns from Canada, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Spain, Ukraine, and the United States. A total of 115 post-graduate students, of 
50 nationalities, have completed internships with the Appellate Body Secretariat since 1998. 
Further information about the WTO internship programme, including eligibility requirements and application instructions, may be obtained online at:  
<https://erecruitment.wto.org/public/hrd-cl- vac-iew.asp?jobinfo_uid_c=3475&vaclng=en > 
9.5  The WTO Digital Dispute Settlement Registry 
The WTO Digital Dispute Settlement Registry is being developed as a comprehensive application to 
manage the workflow of the dispute settlement process, as well as to maintain digital information 
about disputes. This application features: (i) a secure electronic registry for filing and serving dispute settlement documents online; (ii) a central electronic storage facility for all dispute settlement records; and (iii) a research facility on dispute settlement information and statistics. 
The Digital Registry will provide for the electronic  filing of submissions in disputes, and for the 
creation of an e-docket of all documents submitte d in a particular case. The system will feature: 
(i) a facility to securely file submissions and other dispute-related documents electronically; (ii) a 
means of paperless and secure service on other parties of submissions and exhibits; and  
(iii) a comprehensive calendar of deadlines to assist Members and the Secretariat with workflow management. WT/AB/20 
 
- 31 - 
 
 As a storage facility, the Digital Registry will provide access to information about WTO disputes, in 
particular, it will serve as an online repository of all panel and Appellate Body records. Over the 
course of 2013, a large amount of dispute-related documents were scanned, catalogued and entered into the system. This work will continue in 2014.  
As a research facility, the Digital Registry will al low Members and the public to search the digital 
records of publicly available data of past disputes. Users will have access to a broader range of information and statistics than in the past. With the extent of the information available, WTO 
Members and the Secretariat, as well as the intere sted public, will be able to generate more in-
depth and informative statistics on WTO dispute settlement activity.  
The creation of the Digital Registry is a cross-divi sional project led by the Legal Affairs Division and 
involving the Appellate Body Secretariat, the Rules Division, and the Information Technology 
Solutions, Languages, Documentation and Information Management Divisions. Work on this 
project began in 2010. In 2013, work focused on th e development of the design, functionality, and 
security of the new system. The Appellate Body  Secretariat participated in the review and 
cataloguing of data to be uploaded into the database. 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 32 - 
 
 ANNEX 1 
In May 2013, the Appellate Body issued a comm unication addressing the development of the 
workload of the Appellate Body over time based on a number of different variables. This paper 
describes various trends that can be observed in the practice of dispute settlement. This paper was 
communicated to the WTO Membership, the DSB, and the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration, in particular, and is reproduced below.  
 
JOB/AB/1   30 May 2013 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY 
_______________ 
THE WORKLOAD OF THE APPELLATE BODY 
This note on the workload of the Appellate Body  contains three parts. Part I provides a brief 
overview of the appellate process. Part II survey s the evolution of the size and complexity of 
appeals over time based on a number of variables and an analysis of various data sets. Part III 
looks at the recent increase in dispute settlement activity.  
I. The appellate process 
Article 17.1 of the DSU provides that the Appella te Body shall be composed of seven Members. 
While appeals are heard by Divisions of three, al l Members read all submissions and participate in 
the exchange of views with the Division. Division s are assisted by teams composed of 3-4 lawyers 
and support staff. At the date of writing, the Appellate Body Secretariat comprises a Director, 
eleven lawyer posts, an administrative assistant and three support staff posts.
1 
For the Appellate Body, work on an appeal typicall y begins with the circulation of a panel report 
and ends with the circulation of the Appellate Body  report in the three official languages of the 
WTO.2 The following timeline illustrates the phases  of an appeal process and indicates the 
timeframes set out in Articles 16.4 and 17.5 of the DSU. 
                                               
1 As of 13 May 2013.  
2 In accordance with the requirem ent in Article 17.3 of the DSU for Appellate Body Members to stay 
abreast of dispute se ttlement activities, and in an effort to organize its work efficiently and minimize delays, 
the Appellate Body seeks to prepare for potential appeals well in advance. This work is done even in cases 
where an appeal is eventually not file d. Pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DS U, a panel report must be adopted or 
appealed within a period of 60 days from the date of it s circulation to WTO Members. In many cases there is 
considerable uncertainty regarding whether an appeal will be filed, regarding when, du ring the 60-day period it 
will be filed, as well as re garding the scope of the appeal. WT/AB/20 
 
- 33 - 
 
 Chart 1 - Phases of the appellate process 
 
 
II. Evolution of the size and co mplexity of appeals over time 
In order to assess the evolution of the size and complexity of appeals over time, we consider, as a 
first step, the size of the underlying dispute. We do this by surveying the length of each panel 
report subject to appeal as well as the size of the factual (panel) record in each case (as evidenced 
by the number of exhibits submitted to the panel).3 As a second step, we consider factors having a 
direct bearing on the size and complexity of th e appellate proceeding: (i) the number of issues 
raised on appeal, including claims under Article 11 of the DSU and procedural issues; (ii) the 
number of pages of submissions to the Appellate Body per appeal; and (iii) the number of third 
participants in appeals.4  
Starting with factors relating to the size of the underlying dispute, we note that the average length 
of WTO panel reports that have been appealed has more than doubled since the early years of WTO dispute settlement to an average of approximately 364 pages.
5 Moreover, some panels in 
recent years have involved two or three complaining parties, and all disputes have involved 
several third parties.6 This multiplies the number of written and oral submissions as well as 
exhibits to be considered. In addition, the numbe r of claims raised per panel request has been 
significant, often rising to double digits. Requests for preliminary rulings have also become a 
common feature of panel work.7 This increase in the workload of panels translates into an increase 
in the Appellate Body's workload given that all panel reports, as well as relevant parts of the panel record, must be thoroughly read by Appellate Body Members and lawyers of the Appellate Body 
Secretariat, in order to prepare for an upcoming appeal as well as potential appeals. 
                                               
3 We use these metrics to provide a rough measur e of the size of the underlying dispute while 
recognizing that not all issues be fore a panel will be appealed.  
4 To the extent possible, we have charted the evolution of each indicator from the time of the first 
appeal in 1996 to the last appeal completed in 2012 (Appeal Number 108).  
5 For the ten most recent panel reports appealed by the end of 2012. 
6 High numbers of third parties in proceedings were  the exception in the early years of WTO dispute 
settlement, and only very rare ly did early disputes involve more than five Members as third parties. In 
contrast, over the last five years, on ly four proceedings have had five or fewer  third parties. The average 
number of third parties in curre ntly active panels is 10. 
7 A total of sixteen panel reports containing prelimin ary rulings were circulated in the period between 
2010 and 2012. WT/AB/20 
 
- 34 - 
 
 Chart 2 - The number of pages in panel reports appealed 
 
 
The factual complexity of disputes before panels and the Appellate Body has also grown over time. 
The following chart demonstrates how the average number of exhibits submitted by the parties to 
panels has increased from 62 in the early years of WTO dispute settlement to 552 today.8 
                                               
8 These numbers reflect a comparison of the average nu mber of exhibits submitte d by the parties to the 
panels in the first ten appeals for which data was availabl e as compared to the number of panel exhibits in the 
ten most recent appeals decided by the end of 2012.  
WT/AB/20 
 
- 35 - 
 
 Chart 3 - The number of panel exhibits 
 
 
 
Turning to factors that have a direct bearing on the amount of work associated with an appellate 
proceeding, we recall the Appellate Body's obligation under Article 17.12 of the DSU to address each of the issues raised by the participants on appeal.
9 As can be seen from the chart below, the 
average number of issues raised in each ap peal has increased by more than 160% from 
approximately eight issues per case in the first ten appeals during the period between 1996 and 
early 1998 to more than 13 issues per case in the ten appeals adjudicated by the Appellate Body between the beginning of 2011 and the end of 2012.
10 
                                               
9 This includes issues raised in "other appeals", often called "cross-appeals". These are appeals by a 
party to the dispute other than the or iginal appellant. Cross-appeals (invol ving one or more claims) have been 
filed in 77 of the 108 disputes (71%) brought before the Appellate Body. 
10 This may reflect the growing number of claims brought before WTO panels.  
WT/AB/20 
 
- 36 - 
 
 Chart 4 - The number of issues per appeal 
 
 
 The number of appeals including claims relating to the scope of original proceedings or compliance 
proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU has also increased over time. While such claims were 
raised in only four of the first 20 appeals (20%), ten of the 20 most recent appeals (50%) included 
such claims. Although the Appellate Body's jurisd iction is limited by Article 17.6 of the DSU to 
issues of law, the factual complexity of a disput e has nonetheless an impact on the work involved 
in an appeal for two main reasons. First, in order to properly discharge its functions, which include 
reviewing a panel's application of the law to the facts of the case, the Appellate Body must familiarize itself with the panel record. Second, Article 11 of the DSU requires a WTO panel to 
make an objective assessment of the matter befo re it, including an objective assessment of the 
facts of the case. When parties to the dispute raise claims under that provision on appeal, the Appellate Body must engage in a review of wh ether the panel's assessment of those facts was 
objective while, at the same time, being mindful of the need to give due deference to the 
discretion of the panel, as the "trier of fact", to weigh the evidence before it. 
The number of claims brought under Articl e 11 of the DSU has increased over time.
11 In fact, such 
claims were raised in 18 of the 20 most recent appeals decided by the end of 2012 (90%), and in 
many of these appeals multiple Article 11 claims were raised. This represents a significant increase 
compared to the first 20 appeals, only eight of which (40%) included claims alleging that a panel acted inconsistently with Article 11. 
It has also become increasingly common for participants or third participants in disputes to make 
procedural requests of or seek procedural ru lings from the Appellate Body during appellate 
proceedings. Procedural issues have arisen in all but one case completed in the last three years.
12  
                                               
11 This phenomenon may be attributable to the growing factual complexity of disputes. It may also 
reflect increasing legalistic tendencies or sophistication in parties' argumentation.  
12 Requests for procedural rulings may concern, for example, extensions of th e time-limits for filing 
written submissions, the timing of the oral hearing, the protection of business confid ential information, public 
observation of oral hearings, the correction of clerical  errors in written submissions, and the issuance of 
separate Appellate Body reports. 
WT/AB/20 
 
- 37 - 
 
 As already explained, the number of parties and third parties in disputes has increased since the 
early years of WTO dispute settlement, resulting in a greater number of submissions to be reviewed and considered by the Appellate Body.
13 The following chart shows that the average 
number of third participants has nearly triple d between 1996 and today to an average of eight 
third participants in the ten most recent appeals decided by the end of 2012.  
Chart 5 - The number of third participants in appeals 
 
 
 The existence of a substantial and growing body of  WTO jurisprudence also contributes to the total 
length of submissions filed with the Appellate Body  in a given appeal. One reason for this is that 
WTO Members invariably cite prior panel and Appella te Body reports in support of their arguments 
in any particular case. In order to address these arguments, and in an effort to ensure consistency 
and coherence of WTO jurisprudence, panels and th e Appellate Body are called upon carefully to 
consider prior panel and Appellate Body reports.
14 As can be seen from the following chart, the 
number of pages of submissions filed with the Appellate Body has more than doubled to an 
average of 450 pages per case in the ten most recent appellate proceedings completed by the end 
of 2012. 
                                               
13 Most third parties file a third participant's submis sions and/or make an open ing statement at the oral 
hearing. 
14 At the time of the first appeal in 1996, only 84 adopted panel reports under GATT 1947 existed. 
Today, in addition to those reports, there are 109 Appellate Body reports and 177 WTO panel reports, comprising thousands of pages of jurisprudence. 
WT/AB/20 
 
- 38 - 
 
 Chart 6 - The number of pages of su bmissions to the Appellate Body 
 
 
 
In sum, our analysis reveals: (i) a growth in the size of disputes appealed to the Appellate Body; 
(ii) a higher number of issues raised on appeal, including more frequent claims under Article 11 of the DSU; (iii) an increased number of participants and third participants in appeals; and (iv) a 
consequent increase in the total length of submissions filed with the Appellate Body in an average 
appeal. Taken together these factors naturally have led to a significant increase in the average length of Appellate Body reports. As can be s een from the chart below, the average length of 
Appellate Body reports has more than quadrupled from the early years of WTO dispute settlement 
to close to 210 pages per Appellate Body report.
15 
                                               
15 This figure reflects the average number of page s for the ten most recent  Appellate Body reports 
circulated by the end of 2012. 
WT/AB/20 
 
- 39 - 
 
 Chart 7 - The number of pages in Appellate Body reports 
 
 
 
The Appellate Body's workload is particularly intense in situations where several appeals in different disputes are filed simultaneously or within a short period of time.
16 As explained above, 
the Appellate Body is composed of seven Appellate Body Members, three of whom serve on any 
one case. When three or more appeals are pend ing at the same time, several of the seven 
Appellate Body Members will be on more than on e appeal. When an Appellate Body Member is on 
the Divisions in two simultaneous appeals, there can be no overlap in the scheduling of hearings 
and internal meetings for those appeals. In each appeal, Division Members will spend several weeks engaged in thorough deliberations. In addition to participating in such deliberations, the Division Members must also read and analyse voluminous submissions and documents from the 
panel record and prepare and revise drafts. It is not possible for an Appellate Body Member to 
simultaneously do this for multiple appeals that are on identical or largely overlapping time schedules. It is also extremely difficult for one in dividual to complete the necessary work at the 
required level of engagement when serving as a Division Member on multiple overlapping appeals 
that have staggered schedules. 
                                               
16 The timing of panel report circulation depends on a number of variables, including the date of the 
request for the establishment of the pa nel, the time required for panel comp osition, the reques ts of the parties 
concerning scheduling and the size of the underlying dispute. Because each panel of three is composed of 
different individuals, multiple panel proceedings may run in parallel and multiple panel reports may be 
circulated within a short period of time. No mechanism currently exists for staggering the working schedules of 
WTO panels so as to make more efficient use of tran slation resources available to the WTO and permit the 
staggering of panel report circulation. 
WT/AB/20 
 
- 40 - 
 
 III. Outlook 
Panel activity has been intense in recent years. For the period 2010 through 2012, 25 panel 
reports were circulated, compared to 18 in the previous three year period of 2007-2009.17  
According to the Legal Affairs Division and the Rules Division, a large number of panels will 
continue to be active for the foreseeable future. Twenty-seven requests for consultations were 
received in 2012, the highest number since 2002. This led to the establishment of 11 panels in 2012, the highest number in five years.
18 There are currently seven panels in composition, and six 
more panel requests are pending before the DSB.19 Third party participation continues to be 
high.20 Four new requests for consultations have b een received in 2013, and four panels have 
already been established this year covering five disputes.21 Significantly, the compliance 
proceedings in the aircraft subsidy disputes between the United States and the European Union are 
also presently under way. Thus, a large number of panel proceedings are currently in progress or 
about to begin. Assuming: (1) that panel proceeding s take, on average, one year from the time of 
establishment of the panel; (2) that the compliance panel proceedings in the aircraft subsidy 
disputes will take 1.5-2 years; and (3) that, based on the consistent practice of WTO Members 
involved in disputes since 1996, roughly two-thirds of all panel reports circulated will be appealed22 
the Appellate Body can expect to receive up to  a dozen appeals towards the end of 2013 and in 
2014. Such an increase in the number of appeals, on top of the increased complexity and size of 
the average appeal, is likely to exacerbate the challenges confronting the WTO dispute settlement 
system in the near future.23 
 
                                               
17 These figures include the very voluminous panel re ports in the large civil aircraft disputes between 
the European Union and the United States.  
18 These panels cover 13 disputes. Si milar disputes may be consolidated under a single panel pursuant 
to Article 9 of the DSU. 
19 As of 13 May 2013.  
20 In one dispute, 35 Members have reserved third party rights. In two others, 19 and 17 Members, 
respectively, have reserv ed third party rights. 
21 As of 13 May 2013.  
22 The overall average of panel reports that were appealed from 1995 to 2012 was 67%. 
23 The increased workload of panels and the Appellat e Body will exacerbate the burden already placed 
on the translation resources available to the WTO. Indeed, it is well-known that panel and Appellate Body reports are circulated simultaneously in the three official languages of the WTO and therefore require 
translation. Highly specialized expertise is required in or der to ensure the quality of translations and, in turn, 
the coherence and consistency of reports in the three o fficial language versions. The translation process has 
become particularly intense and demanding given the increased size and complexity of disputes brought to the 
WTO together with the short amount of time available for translation. This is so  particularly given that 
allowance must also be made for revision of translations, as well as for text-processin g, production control, and 
the printing process. WT/AB/20 
 
- 41 - 
 
 ANNEX 2 
MEMBERS OF THE APPELLATE BODY 
(1 JANUARY TO 31 DECEMBER 2013) 
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 
Ujal Singh Bhatia  (India) (2011–2015) 
Ujal Singh Bhatia was born in India on 15 April 1950. He was India's Permanent Representative to 
the WTO from 2004 to 2010 and represented India in a number of dispute settlement  cases. He 
also served as a WTO dispute settlement panelist in 2007–2008. 
Mr Bhatia has also served as Joint Secretary in the Indian Ministry of Commerce, as well as Joint 
Secretary of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, apart from two decades in Orissa State in various fields and State-level administrative assignments that involved development 
administration and policy-making. His legal and ad judicatory experience spans three decades, and 
focused on domestic and international legal/jurisprudence issues, negotiations in trade agreements and policy issues at the bilateral, regional, and multilateral levels, and the implementation of trade 
and development policies in the agriculture and service industries. 
Mr Bhatia has often lectured on international trade issues  and has published numerous  papers and 
articles on a wide range of trade and economic topics. He holds an MA in Economics from the 
University of Manchester and from Delhi University, as well as a BA (Hons) in Economics, also from 
Delhi University. 
Seung Wha Chang  (Korea) (2012–2016) 
Born in Korea on 1 March 1963, Seung Wha Chang is currently Professor of Law at Seoul National 
University where he teaches International Trade Law and International Arbitration. 
He has served on several WTO dispute settlement panels, including US – FSC , Canada – Aircraft 
Credits and Guarantees , and EC – Trademarks and Geographical Indications . He has also served as 
Chairman or Member of several arbitral tribuna ls dealing with commercial matters. In 2009, he 
was appointed by the International Chamber of Co mmerce (ICC) as a Member of the International 
Court of Arbitration. 
Professor Chang began his professional academic car eer at the Seoul National University School of 
Law in 1995, and was awarded professorial tenure in 2002. He has taught international trade law and, in particular WTO dispute settlement, at more than ten foreign law schools, including Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Stanford Law Scho ol, New York University, Duke Law School, and 
Georgetown University. In 2007, Harvard Law School  granted him an endowed visiting professorial 
chair title, the Nomura Visiting Professor of International Financial Systems. 
In addition, Professor Chang previously served as a Seoul District Court judge, handling many 
cases involving international trade disciplines. He also practised as a foreign attorney at an 
international law firm in Washington DC, handling international trade matters, including trade remedies and WTO-related disputes. 
Professor Chang has published many books and articles in the field of international trade law in 
internationally recognized journals. In addition, he serves as an Editorial or Advisory Board Member of the Journal of International Economic Law  (Oxford University Press) and the Journal of 
International Dispute Settlement  (Oxford University Press). 
Professor Chang holds a Bachelor of Laws degree  (LLB) and a Master of Laws degree (LLM) from 
Seoul National University School of Law; and a Master of Laws degree (LLM) as well as a Doctorate in International Trade Law (SJD) from Harvard Law School. WT/AB/20 
 
- 42 - 
 
 Thomas R. Graham  (United States) (2011–2015) 
Born in the United States on 23 November 1942, Tom Graham is the former head of the 
international trade practice at a large international law firm, and the founder of the international trade practice at another large international law firm. He was one of the first US lawyers to 
represent respondents in trade remedy cases in various countries around the world, and he was 
among the first to bring economists, accountants, and other non-lawyer professionals into the international trade practices of private law firms. Mr Graham also headed his international trade 
practice group's committee on long-term planning and development. 
In private law practice, Mr Graham often collaborated with local counsel and national authorities in 
various countries to develop legal interpretations of laws and regulations consistent with GATT/WTO agreements, and in negotiating the re solution of international trade disputes. 
Mr Graham served as Deputy General Counsel in the Office of the US Trade Representative, where 
he was instrumental in the negotiation of the Tokyo Round Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and where he represented the US Government in dispute settlement proceedings under the 
GATT. Earlier in his career, Mr Graham served for three years in Geneva as a Legal Officer at the 
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). 
Mr Graham was the first chairman of the American Society of International Law's Committee on 
International Economic Law, and the chair of the American Bar Association's Subcommittee on 
Exports. He has been a visiting professor at the University of North Carolina Law School and an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and the American University Washington College of Law. He has edited books on international trade policy, and international 
trade and environment, and he has written many articles and monographs on international trade 
law and policy as a Guest Scholar at the Brookings Institution, and as a Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 
Mr Graham holds a BA in Political Science, with emphasis on International Relations and 
Economics, from Indiana University and a JD from Harvard Law School. 
Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández  (Mexico) (2009–2017) 
Born in Mexico on 17 October 1968, Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández holds the Chair of International 
Trade Law at the Mexican National University (UNAM) in Mexico City. He was Head of the International Trade Practice for Latin America of an international law firm in Mexico City. His practice focused on issues related to NAFTA and trade across Latin America, including international 
trade dispute resolution. 
Prior to practicing with a law firm, Mr Ramírez-Hernández was Deputy General Counsel for Trade 
Negotiations of the Ministry of Economy in Mexico for more than a decade. In this capacity, he 
provided advice on trade and competition policy matters related to 11 free trade agreements 
signed by Mexico, as well as with respect to multilateral agreements, including those related to the WTO, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and the Latin American Integration Association 
(ALADI). 
Mr Ramírez-Hernández also represented Mexico in complex international trade litigation and 
investment arbitration proceedings. He acted as lead counsel to the Mexican government in several WTO disputes. He has al so served on NAFTA panels. 
Mr Ramírez-Hernández holds an LLM degree in International Business Law from the American 
University Washington College of Law, and a law degree from the Universidad Autónoma 
Metropolitana. WT/AB/20 
 
- 43 - 
 
 David Unterhalter  (South Africa) (2006–2013) 
Born in South Africa on 18 November 1958, David Unterhalter holds degrees from Trinity College, 
Cambridge, the University of the Witwatersrand, and University College, Oxford. Mr Unterhalter 
has been a Professor of Law at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa since 1998, and 
from 2000 to 2006, he was the Director of the Mandel a Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, 
an institute focusing on global law. He was Visiting Professor of Law at Columbia Law School in 2008. 
Mr Unterhalter is a member of the Johannesburg Bar.  As a practising advocate, he has appeared in 
a large number of cases in the fields of trade law, competition law, constitutional law, and commercial law. His experience includes repres enting different parties in anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty cases. He has acted as an advisor to the South African Department of Trade 
and Industry. In addition, he has served on  a number of WTO dispute settlement panels. 
Mr Unterhalter has published widely in the fields of public law and competition law.  
Peter Van den Bossche  (European Union; Belgium) (2009–2017) 
Born in Belgium on 31 March 1959, Peter Van den Bossche is Professor of International Economic 
Law at Maastricht University, the Netherlands. Van den Bossche is also visiting professor at the College of Europe, Bruges (since 2010); the University of Barcelona (IELPO Programme) (since 
2008); the China-EU School of Law, Beijing (since 2008); and the World Trade Institute, Berne 
(MILE Programme) (since 2002). He is member of the Board of Editors of the Journal of 
International Economic Law  and member of the Advisory Board of the  Journal of World Investment 
and Trade and the Revista Latinoamericana de Derecho Comercial International . He is also 
member of the Advisory Board of the WTO Chairs Programme (WCP). 
Mr Van den Bossche holds a Doctorate in Law from the European University Institute in Florence, 
an LLM from the University of Michigan Law School, and a Licence en Droit magna cum laude  from 
the University of Antwerp. From 1990 to 1992, he served as a référendaire of Advocate General W. 
van Gerven at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. From 1997 to 2001, Mr Van den Bossche was Counsellor and subsequently Acting Director of the WTO Appellate Body Secretariat. 
In 2001, he returned to academia and from 2002 to 2009 frequently acted as a consultant to 
international organisations and developing countries on issues of international economic law. He also served on the faculty of the Université libre de Bruxelles (2002–2009); at the Trade Policy 
Training Centre in Africa (trapca), Arusha, Tanzania (2008 and 2013); at the Foreign Trade 
University, Hanoi & Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam (2009 and 2011); at the Universidad San Francisco 
de Quito, Ecuador (2013); and at the Law Scho ol of Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey (2013). 
Mr Van den Bossche has published extensively in the field of international economic law. He is 
author of the book The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization . The third edition (with 
Werner Zdouc) was published by Cambridge University Press in 2013. 
Yuejiao Zhang  (China) (2008–2016) 
Yuejiao Zhang is Professor of International Economic Law at Tsinghua University and at Shantou 
University in China. She is an arbitrator at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and at China's International Trade and Economic Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). She served as Vice-President of China's International Economic Law Society. She is also a member of the 
Advisory Board of the International Development Law Organization (IDLO). 
Professor Zhang served as a Board Director to the West African Development Bank from 2005 to 
2007. Between 1998 and 2004, she held various senior positions at the Asian Development Bank 
(ADB), including as Assistant General Counsel, Co-Chair of the Appeal Committee, and 
Director-General. She was the head of the ADB ex perts group on international trade and the ADB 
contact point to the WTO. Prior to this, she held several positions in government and academia in 
China, including as Director-General of Law and Treaties at the Ministry of Foreign Trade and 
Economic Cooperation (1984–1997). She participated in the preparation of China's first joint-venture law, general principles of civil law, contract law, and foreign trade law. From 1987 to 1996, she was one of China's chief negotiators on intellectual property and was involved in the 
preparation of China's patent law, trademark law, and copyright law. She also served as the chief WT/AB/20 
 
- 44 - 
 
 legal counsel for China's GATT resumption. Between 1982 and 1985, she worked as legal counsel 
at the World Bank. She was a Member of the Gove rning Council of the International Institute for 
the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) from 1987 to 1999 and a Board Member of IDLO from 1988 to 1999. Professor Zhang was a member of the UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL drafting 
committees concerning several international trade and economic conventions, such as the General 
Principles of Commercial Contract and the International Financial Leasing Convention. 
Professor Zhang has authored several books and articles on international economic law and 
international dispute settlement. She has a BA from China High Education College, a BA from 
Rennes University, France, and an LLM from George town University. Professor Zhang also lectured 
at universities in France and in Hong Kong, Macau of China. 
* * * 
DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLATE BODY SECRETARIAT 
Werner Zdouc 
 
Director of the WTO Appellate Body Secretariat since 2006, Werner Zdouc obtained a law degree 
from the University of Graz in Austria. He then went on to earn an LLM from Michigan Law School and a Ph.D. from the University of St Gallen in Switzerland. Dr Zdouc joined the WTO Legal Affairs 
Division in 1995, advised many dispute settlement panels, and conducted technical cooperation 
missions in many developing countries. He became legal counsellor at the Appellate Body Secretariat in 2001. He has been a lecturer and Vi siting Professor for international trade law at 
Vienna Economic University, the Universities of Zurich and Barcelona. From 1987 to 1989, he 
worked for governmental and non-governmental development aid organizations in Austria and 
Latin America. Dr Zdouc has authored various publications on international economic law and is a member of the Trade Law Committee of  the International Law Association. WT/AB/20 
 
- 45 - 
 
 ANNEX 3 
FAREWELL SPEECH OF DEPARTING APPELLATE BODY MEMBER  
Farewell remarks of Mr David Unterhalter to the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO, 
Geneva, 22 January 2014 
 
It has been a very great privilege and pleasure to  serve this institution, first as a panel member 
and then as a Member of the Appellate Body. 
 
I always considered my appointment to the Appellate Body improbable, and have carried with me, over the years of my tenure, a debt of gratitud e to those who gave me this most fulfilling and 
unexpected opportunity. 
 
It is usually imprudent for adjudicators to speak on the issues they are asked to decide, far better to leave reflections about what they do or ought to do to others. 
 
The good thing about sensible advice is that there are occasions not to follow it: and this may be one such occasion. Forgive me then, if I offer a few modest observations about the WTO dispute 
settlement system and the Appellate Body, as I take my leave. 
 What I wanted to say is divided into three parts. First, I will say something about the importance of WTO dispute settlement, as it enters a somewhat premature middle age. Second, I will offer 
some thoughts on the challenges faced by the system. And finally, in a more sentimental vein, I 
will reflect on some of the internal aspects of the Appellate Body that have lent it such vigour.  
Those who serve institutions for some time are not always reliable or objective guides to their 
value. Insiders are given to inflationary assessment.   
But that the institutions of WTO dispute settlemen t have gained such widespread acceptance, and, 
I think, legitimacy, in a relatively short period of time, is somewhat remarkable. There is much that evidences this legitimacy.  
First, in a world where the multilateral trade project so often appears assailed by ambitious 
regional and bilateral agreements, the WTO remains the forum of choice for resolving trade disputes. Second, the system is used by more and more WTO Members to ventilate ever greater 
numbers of disputes across diverse areas of th e covered agreements. Third, the WTO dispute 
settlement system is now regarded by international lawyers as one of the most prolific sources of 
international law. Fourth, the system has generated those hallmarks of institutional recognition: 
robust academic discourse on WTO law and the legal professions now count WTO law as a 
specialty.  This legitimacy and authority of the WTO disput e settlement system has been earned. It rests 
upon a number of key values. Above all else, ad judication is independent. Those who make 
decisions may fall into error. Their decisions may, by turns, infuriate, captivate or be considered 
banal. But they suffer no taint that they have not been rendered honestly, without favour, and 
under no conflict of interest. The virtue of independence may seem self-evident, but it is not to be 
taken for granted. Undue influence, conflicts of interest, compromised positions can arise all too easily, and, unchecked, can do grave damage to an institution. The price of independence is paid 
in a certain institutional distance. But it is indispensable. 
 Legitimacy comes about also because of the qualit y of decision-making. This has a twofold aspect. 
First, it matters that parties to a dispute are heard. And not just in a formal sense, but also that 
those who decide the dispute have come to grips with the issues and can engage fully on these 
issues with the parties. This permits those who must decide to make better decisions. And since litigation requires that in the end, on an issue, on e party must prevail, it is essential that the losing 
party comes away from the process with the conviction that its case was properly understood and 
considered. Appellate Body hearings are sometimes thought too protracted. I think otherwise. I have never come out of a hearing with anything but a much better understanding of the case as a WT/AB/20 
 
- 46 - 
 
 result of the debates that have taken place. An d I think that parties who lose on an issue may 
consider the decision wrong, but will have little reason to think it unfair.  The second aspect of decision-making is the qua lity of judgment. Good judgment is made up of 
many parts. There are those with a compendiou s knowledge of the law; those who excel at 
grasping principle and its logical implications; those who marshal complex facts and render them coherent; and those whose practical reasoning guides sensible outcomes. Very few people embody 
all of these qualities, and certainly not in equal measure. The Appellate Body has been fortunate to 
have attracted Members who have had many of the qualities that matter in rendering sound judgments. One way in which to measure the significance of decision-making is to consider the extent to which reliance is placed upon past decisions to incline the outcome of a new dispute. In a 
system that knows no formal doctrine of preced ent, the discourse before the Appellate Body and 
panels engages the content of past decision-making.  That is not just a function of convenience, 
but recognition of the value of what past decisions have had to contribute to the interpretation of 
the covered agreements. 
 Of course there are decisions that have not won universal acceptance and some that have been 
controversial. But, in the round, the body of law that has been developed is well regarded. It is a 
body of jurisprudence that has mostly proceeded step by step; it strives for coherence and clarity in the interpretation of negotiated texts; it has applied WTO law to diverse systems of domestic law; it has sought to strike the right balance between the imperatives of domestic policy and the 
disciplines of WTO law; and has navigated its way through large, complex disputes that have often 
seemed intractable.  
A further source of legitimacy is the question of access. It is said that WTO litigation requires 
patience, a great deal of time, significant resour ces and the ability to engage an increasingly 
complex body of law and procedure. There is some truth in this, though it is not true of all cases. 
And yet, more and more Members use the system, and do so repeatedly. The procedural rules are 
clear and deployed without undue formality. Decisi ons of the Appellate Body are for the most part 
rendered in 90 days. Third party submissions are encouraged. The system may require some understanding to engage, but it is not opaque. It is rule-bound and privileges procedural fairness. 
These attributes all foster access and hence legitimacy. 
 Finally, there is the issue of composition. The Appe llate Body is a central part of the adjudicative 
voice of the WTO membership. It does not represent the membership, but it must reflect the 
diversity that makes up the membership. It has alwa ys been a strength of the Appellate Body that 
its Members come from very different legal traditions, and very different societies. These 
perspectives are brought to bear upon a common purpose: the resolution of disputes under the 
discipline of WTO law. The decisions of the Appella te Body yield singular answers. The decision-
makers are diverse. The result is the richer for it.  
This is my summation of the attributes of the WTO dispute settlement system. 
 What then of its challenges? I turn next to this matter. 
 
As international trade constitutes an ever-greater share of global commerce, its regulation is ever-less effectively located within the domestic law of individual states. This is well known. What is 
emerging, however, is a palimpsest of legal regimes: private arbitration, investment treaties, and 
bilateral, regional, and multilateral agreements. The landscape of supranational regulation is fractured, overlapping; it proceeds in unpredictable ways and with complex interconnections. It is a process the end point of which is unforeseeable. 
 
In this ever-shifting space, the project of multilat eralism is not assured. If the WTO was to become 
but a historical commitment to a foundational set of rights and obligations, then the institution will 
wither, and with it, the system of dispute settlem ent. If the WTO agreements no longer capture 
the commitments of the membership to new trade issues, dispute settlement within the WTO will lose its pre-eminence. First, because many of the key issues in the covered agreements will, over 
time, have been clarified in disputes. Second, because trade issues of greatest currency will be 
regulated elsewhere, and disputes will be resolved at the point where the rights and obligations are located. Third, because, if the main busi ness of the WTO became dispute resolution, the 
institution would not hold together. Adjudication is robust when it lives in a dynamic relationship WT/AB/20 
 
- 47 - 
 
 with legislative competence. If too much rests up on dispute settlement, th e system gets out of 
kilter, and the atrophy of one part of the system ultimately takes hold of everything else.  During the long period over which the Doha Roun d failed to produce results, the stresses upon 
dispute settlement started to show. The Appellate Body was said to be too powerful, it was making 
decisions beyond its proper remit. I don’t think this  is so. But these voices reflect the inability to 
move forward the treaty commitments of the membership, important among them being the 
competence to change the interpretations of the Appellate Body. 
 There is of course little that those charged with  the functioning of the dispute settlement system 
can do to address the wider context of negotiation. But it is important to recognize that the system 
is fragile: its success depends upon its utility to the membership; and it will develop only if the 
WTO project as a whole does so.   
Those who serve the system of dispute settlement an d believe in its values always run the risk of 
thinking that the system is a self-standing good. It is not. If Members of the WTO cannot agree as 
to how they wish to take the multilateral project forward, the virtues of dispute settlement will not 
be saved from their disaffection. Happily, the outcome at Bali suggests that there is renewed faith 
that Doha and beyond is not out of reach.  There are other challenges, though I suspect these too are a symptom of the over-arching 
challenge I have just described. The WTO dispute settlement system has many attributes, but it 
needs to adapt to the changing nature of the disputes that come before it.   
When the WTO dispute settlement system was concei ved, it did not have in mind the complex, 
fact-heavy disputes that now come before panels and the Appellate Body, nor the number of such disputes. The system generates a high incidence of appeals, and a high rate of success on appeal. 
This suggests some disequilibrium in the system. Of  course, I recognize that Members, in seeking 
authoritative clarifications of the covered agreements, will incline towards seeking a second opinion from the Appellate Body. But many disputes do not rest solely on issues of law, and thus the system should be more efficient so as to resolve issues at first instance. This suggests that 
s o m e  r e f o r m  o f  t h e  p a n e l s  i s  n e e d e d .  I  f a v o u r  a n  e s t a b l i s h e d  b o d y  t h a t  w i l l  a d j u d i c a t e  a t  f i r s t  
instance to lend greater consistency to the results of adjudication at this level. Some think this unnecessary. But what is unfortunate is that we have no measured response to the need to 
conceive of better ways of doing things. 
 Even where there is consensus for change, we seem to have reached a point of stasis. Everyone 
accepts that disputes should have meaningful outcomes. That is sometimes not possible because 
of the limits of the findings made by a panel. Th e solution is to give the Appellate Body a remand 
power. Everyone thinks this sensible. But again that recognition flounders in technical circumlocution – and nothing gets done. 
 
Lastly, by way of example, the workload of the Appellate Body is unpredictable. There are periods 
when there are more appeals to decide than capa city permits. In these circumstances, we need 
some rules as to the order of determining appeal s. And we need a relaxation of the 90-day rule. 
Even this practical but important issue has been debated, but not resolved. So too, there should, 
in a rational system, be rules that determine when appeals are brought and the number that may 
be dealt with at one time. This would lend predictability to the process of appellate review, both for 
the Appellate Body and for the parties; it would also allow for the rational use of resources. The orderly, expeditious disposal of appeals must always be preferred to an unregulated free-for-all.  
With every passing year, I have observed the inco ming Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body fired 
with enthusiasm to do something about these and other issues. And every year, that enthusiasm comes up hard against the seeming impossibility of effecting even modest change. 
 
None of these matters imperils the system. They are the kind of incremental changes that would 
make the system work better. But they speak to a wider malaise that we should be careful to 
arrest. 
 I have emphasized the institutional value of independence. That is tested every time an 
appointment is made to the Appellate Body. As in the past, we all trust that a new Member will be 
appointed soon around whom there is consensus. WT/AB/20 
 
- 48 - 
 
  
The WTO system of dispute resolution has won justified praise. When Tribunals and Courts that consider questions of international law are assessed, the WTO panels and the Appellate Body are highly regarded for the reach, quality and number of their decisions. In a world where so many 
issues must now be faced outside of the remit of  domestic legal systems, supranational regimes 
require dispute settlement. The WTO system is a fi ne model of how this can be done. It should 
remain so. 
 
It is my great hope that all those who participate in the system will assist to redeem its promise, rather than tread water and allow others to eclipse its pre-eminence.  
I turn finally to say something of those who have made my time here so fruitful and enjoyable. 
 When I was appointed to the Appellate Body, I think there may have been some apprehension that 
I would be a dissonant voice (I had previously participated in a WTO panel that had taken a 
somewhat different line to the Appellate Body). What I found was an enormously friendly and welcoming place. 
 
Judging disputes can be an isolating business. It  is important to observe degrees of separation 
from litigants, or likely litigants. Appellate Body Members are thrown together for long periods of time. They must determine appeals under pressure of time. Appeals raise many issues over which 
reasonable people can disagree. The Appellate Body  engages in robust debate. And there is ample 
scope for seared feelings. But it has not been that way at all.  
What prevails is captured by the idea of collegiali ty. All voices are heard. There is an abundance of 
analysis. There is a shared desire to come up with  an answer that shows fidelity to the agreements 
and reflects consensual positions hammer ed out on the anvil of full debate. 
 
This engagement fosters friendship and respect, and I am very grateful to all my colleagues, past and present, who have made this such a fruitful time to contribute to the work of the Appellate 
Body. They have been companions on many long , legal roads. They have guided, assisted and 
made the work so very worthwhile, and my gratitude is, I hope, plain. 
 I began life at the WTO as a panelist. There too, I engaged with dedicated people of great ability. 
And I thank them and the Secretariat that supports the panels for so generously educating me in 
the ways of WTO law and overlooking my many frai lties as I attempted to come to grips with the 
system. 
 
The Members of the Appellate Body depend heav ily on the assistance they receive from the 
Appellate Body Secretariat. The Secretariat is the lifeblood of the institution. First, I pay tribute to the lawyers of the Secretariat who have assisted th e Appellate Body over the years. It is hard to 
imagine more talented people. Their collective knowledge of the law and their industry in 
researching and preparing for appeals is exemplar y. The Secretariat is headed by its Director. 
Throughout my time, he has guided the work of the Secretariat with great intellectual leadership, 
an unmatched eye for talent, and the ability to nurture that talent.  
 The Appellate Body also rests heavily on the enormous efforts of those who administer the work of 
the Appellate Body. With calm efficiency they assemble the Members of the Appellate Body from 
the four corners of the world, and keep us here  free of many burdens that would otherwise take 
time from our principal task. To them all my great thanks.  
Finally, as I say farewell to the WTO, there are many people both inside and outside of the House 
who have made my time here memorable. Among them, WTO interpreters and translators, though 
seldom seen, are indispensable in a multilingual organization. Thank you. Importantly, to the 
delegates who appeared before the Appellate Body in the many cases we have heard over the last 
seven years, it is the quality of your arguments and the acuity of your engagements with us that have helped to produce an important body of law to which I was privileged to make a contribution. 
 
Goodnight and goodbye.  WT/AB/20 
 
- 49 - 
 
 ANNEX 4 
I. FORMER APPELLATE BODY MEMBERS 
Name Nationality Term(s) of office 
Said El-Naggar Egypt   1995–2000 * 
Mitsuo Matsushita Japan   1995–2000 * 
Christopher Beeby New Zealand 1995–1999 
1999–2000 
Claus-Dieter Ehlermann Germany 1995–1997 
1997–2001 
Florentino Feliciano Philippines 1995–1997 
1997–2001 
Julio Lacarte-Muró Uruguay 1995–1997 
1997–2001 
James Bacchus United States 1995–1999 
1999–2003 
John Lockhart Australia 2001–2005 
2005–2006 
Yasuhei Taniguchi Japan 2000–2003 
2003–2007 
Merit E. Janow United States    2003–2007 ** 
Arumugamangalam 
Venkatachalam Ganesan India 2000–2004 
2004–2008 
Georges Michel Abi-Saab Egypt 2000–2004 
2004–2008 
Luiz Olavo Baptista Brazil 2001–2005 
2005–2009 
Giorgio Sacerdoti Italy 2001–2005 
2005–2009 
Jennifer Hillman United States 2007–2011 
Lilia Bautista Philippines 2007–2011 
Shotaro Oshima Japan     2008–2012 *** 
 
* Messrs El-Naggar and Matsushita decided not to se ek a second term of o ffice. However, the DSB 
extended their terms until the end of March 2000 in order to allow the Selection Committee and the DSB the time necessary to complete the selection process of replacing the outgoing Appellate Body Members. (See WT/DSB/M70, pp. 32-35) ** Ms Janow decided not to seek a second term of office. Her term ended on 11 December 2007. *** Mr Oshima's resignation became effective on 6 April 2012. 
Mr Christopher Beeby passed away on 19 March 2000. 
Mr Said El-Naggar passed away on 11 April 2004. 
Mr John Lockhart passed away on 13 January 2006. WT/AB/20 
 
- 50 - 
 
 II. FORMER CHAIRPERSONS OF THE APPELLATE BODY 
Name Nationality Term(s) as Chairperson 
Julio Lacarte-Muró Urug uay 7 February 1996 – 
6 February 1997 
7 February 1997 – 
6 February 1998 
Christopher Beeby New Zealand 7 February 1998 – 
6 February 1999 
Said El-Naggar Egypt 7 February 1999 – 
6 February 2000 
Florentino Feliciano Philippines 7 February 2000 – 
6 February 2001 
Claus-Dieter Ehlermann Ge rmany 7 February 2001 – 
10 December 2001 
James Bacchus United States 15 December 2001 – 
14 December 2002 
15 December 2002 – 
10 December 2003 
Georges Abi-Saab Egypt 13 December 2003 – 
12 December 2004 
Yasuhei Taniguchi Japan 17 December 2004 –  
16 December 2005 
Arumugamangalam 
Venkatachalam Ganesan India 17 December 2005 –  
16 December 2006 
Giorgio Sacerdoti Italy 17 December 2006 –  
16 December 2007 
Luiz Olavo Baptista Br azil 17 December 2007 –  
16 December 2008 
David Unterhalter South Africa 18 December 2008 – 
11 December 2009 
12 December 2009 – 
16 December 2010 
Lilia Bautista Philippines 17 December 2010 –  
14 June 2011 
Jennifer Hillman United States 15 June 2011 –  
10 December 2011 
Yuejiao Zhang China 11 December 2011 –  
31 May 2012 
1 June 2012 –  
31 December 2012 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 51 - 
 
 ANNEX 5 
APPEALS FILED: 1995–2013 
Year Notices of 
Appeal filed Appeals in 
original 
proceedings Appeals in 
Article 21.5 
proceedings 
1995   0 0 0 
1996   4 4 0 
1997   6 a 6 0 
1998   8 8 0 
1999   9 b 9 0 
2000  13 c 11 2 
2001   9 d 5 4 
2002   7 e 6 1 
2003   6 f 5 1 
2004   5 5 0 
2005  10 8 2 
2006   5 3 2 
2007   4 2 2 
2008  13 g 10 3 
2009 3 1 2 
2010 3 3 0 
2011 9 9 0 
2012 5 5 0 
2013 1 1 0 
Total 120 101 19 
 
a This number includes two Notices of Appeal that were filed at the same time in related matters, 
counted separately: EC – Hormones (Canada)  and EC – Hormones (US).  A single Appellate Body report was 
circulated in relation to those appeals. 
b This number excludes one Notice of Appeal that was withdrawn by the United States, which 
subsequently filed another Notice of Appeal  in relation to the same panel report: US – FSC . 
c This number includes two Notices of Appeal that were filed at the same time in related matters, 
counted separately: US – 1916 Act (EC)  and US – 1916 Act (Japan).  A single Appellate Body report was 
circulated in relation to those appeals. 
d This number excludes one Notice of Appeal that was withdrawn by the United States, which 
subsequently filed another Notice of Appeal  in relation to the same panel report: US – Line Pipe . 
e This number includes one Notice of Appeal that was subsequently withdrawn: India – Autos ; and 
excludes one Notice of Appeal that was withdrawn by  the European Communities, which subsequently filed 
another Notice of Appeal in rela tion to the same panel report: EC – Sardines . 
f This number excludes one Notice of Appeal that was withdrawn by the United States, which 
subsequently filed another Notice of Appeal  in relation to the same panel report: US – Softwood Lumber IV . 
g This number includes two Notices of Appeal that were filed at the same time in related matters, 
counted separately: US – Shrimp (Thailand)  and US – Customs Bond Directive.  A single Appellate Body report 
was circulated in relation to those appeals. WT/AB/20 
 
- 52 - 
 
 ANNEX 6 
PERCENTAGE OF PANEL REPORTS APPEALED BY YEAR OF ADOPTION: 1995–2013  a 
 
All panel reports Panel reports other than  
Article 21.5 reports b Article 21.5 
panel reports 
Year of 
adoption Panel 
reports 
adopted c Panel 
reports 
appealed d Percentage 
appealed e Panel 
reports 
adopted  Panel 
reports 
appealed Percentage 
appealed Panel 
reports 
adopted  Panel 
reports 
appealed Percentage
appealed  
1996 2 2 100% 2 2 100% 0 0 – 
1997 5 5 100% 5 5 100% 0 0 – 
1998 12 9 75% 12 9 75% 0 0 – 
1999 10 7 70% 9 7 78% 1 0 0% 
2000 19 11 58% 15 9 60% 4 2 50% 
2001 17 12 71% 13 9 69% 4 3 75% 
2002 12 6 50% 11 5 45% 1 1 100% 
2003 10 7 70% 8 5 63% 2 2 100% 
2004 8 6 75% 8 6 75% 0 0 – 
2005 20 12 60% 17 11 65% 3 1 33% 
2006 7 6 86% 4 3 75% 3 3 100% 
2007 10 5 50% 6 3 50% 4 2 50% 
2008 11 9 82% 8 6 75% 3 3 100% 
2009 8 6 75% 6 4 67% 2 2 100% 
2010 5 2 40% 5 2 40% 0 0 – 
2011 8 5 63% 8 5 63% 0 0 – 
2012 18 11 61% 18 11 61% 0 0 – 
2013 4 2 50% 4 2 50% 0 0 – 
Total 186 123 67% 159 104 66% 27 19 70% 
 
a No panel reports were adopted in 1995. 
b Under Article 21.5 of the DSU, a panel may be established to hear a "disagreement as to the existence 
or consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings" of the DSB upon the adoption of a previous panel or Appellate Body report. 
c The Panel Reports in EC – Bananas III (Ecuador) , EC – Bananas III (Guatemala and Honduras) ,  
EC – Bananas III (Mexico) , and EC – Bananas III (US)  are counted as a single panel report. The Panel Reports 
in US – Steel Safeguards , in EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar , and in EC – Chicken Cuts , are also counted as 
single panel reports in each of those disputes.  
d Panel reports are counted as having been appealed  where they are adopted as upheld, modified, or 
reversed by an Appellate Body report. The number of panel reports appealed may differ from the number of 
Appellate Body reports because some Appellate Bo dy reports address more than one panel report. 
e Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. 
  
 WT/AB/20  
 
- 53 - ANNEX 7 
WTO AGREEMENTS ADDRESSED IN APPELLATE BODY REPORTS CIRCULATED THROUGH 2013 a 
Year of 
circulation DSU WTO 
Agmt GATT 
1994 Agri- 
culture SPS ATC TBT TRIMs Anti- 
Dumping  Import 
Licensing SCM Safe-
guards GATS TRIPS 
1996 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
1997 4 1 5 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 
1998 7 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 
1999 7 1 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 
2000 8 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 2 1 1 
2001 7 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 4 0 1 2 0 0 
2002 8 2 4 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 1 1 1 
2003 4 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 
2004 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 
2005 9 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 
2006 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 
2007 5 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 
2008 8 1 9 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 
2009 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 
2010 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
2011 7 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 
2012 9 0 7 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 
2013 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 
Total 94 11 77 13 7 3 6 2 29 2 30 7 5 3 
a No appeals were filed in 1995. 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 54 - 
 
 ANNEX 8 
PARTICIPANTS AND THIRD PARTICIPANTS IN APPEALS: 1995–2013 
As of the end of 2013, there were 159 WTO Members, of which 70 have participated in appeals in 
which Appellate Body reports were circulated between 1996 and 2013.
1 
The rules pursuant to which Members participate in appeals as appellant, other appellant, 
appellee, and third participant are described in section V of this Annual Report.  
I. STATISTICAL SUMMARY 
WTO Member Appellant Other 
appellant Appellee Third 
participant Total 
Antigua & 
Barbuda 0 1 1 0 2  
Argentina 2 3 5 13 23 
Australia 2 2 6 34 44  
Bahrain, 
Kingdom of 0 0 0 1 1 
Barbados 0 0 0 1 1  
Belize 0 0 0 4 4 
Benin 0 0 0 1 1  
Bolivarian 
Republic of 
Venezuela 0 0 1 6 7 
Bolivia, 
Plurinational State of 0 0 0 1 1
 
Brazil 5 7 12 28 52 
Cameroon 0 0 0 3 3  
Canada 12 9 20 23 64 
Chad 0 0 0 2 2  
Chile 3 0 2 12 17 
China 10 2 6 37 55  
Colombia 0 0 0 15 15 
Costa Rica 1 0 0 3 4  
Côte d'Ivoire 0 0 0 4 4 
Cuba 0 0 0 4 4  
Dominica 0 0 0 4 4 
Dominican 
Republic 1 0 1 4 6  
                                               
1 No appeals were filed and no Appe llate Body reports were circulated  in 1995, the year the Appellate 
Body was established. WT/AB/20 
 
- 55 - 
 
 WTO Member Appellant Other 
appellant Appellee Third 
participant Total 
Ecuador 0 2 2 10 14 
Egypt 0 0 0 2 2  
El Salvador 0 0 0 4 4 
European Union 21 16 41 59 137  
Fiji 0 0 0 1 1 
Ghana 0 0 0 2 2  
Grenada 0 0 0 1 1 
Guatemala 1 1 1 8 11  
Guyana 0 0 0 1 1 
Honduras 0 2 2 3 7  
Hong Kong, 
China 0 0 0 8 8 
India 6 2 7 36 51  
Indonesia 0 1 1 1 3 
Israel 0 0 0 1 1  
Jamaica 0 0 0 5 5 
Japan 6 5 12 53 76  
Kenya 0 0 0 1 1 
Korea 3 4 6 27 40  
Kuwait, the 
State of 0 0 0 1 1 
Madagascar 0 0 0 1 1  
Malaysia 1 0 1 0 2 
Malawi 0 0 0 1 1  
Mauritius 0 0 0 2 2 
Mexico 5 4 7 33 49  
New Zealand 0 3 6 13 22 
Nicaragua 0 0 0 4 4  
Nigeria 0 0 0 1 1 
Norway 0 1 1 21 23  
Pakistan 0 0 2 3 5 
Panama 0 0 0 3 3  
Paraguay 0 0 0 5 5 
Peru 0 0 1 4 5  
Philippines 3 0 3 1 7 
Poland 0 0 1 0 1  
Senegal 0 0 0 1 1 
Saint Lucia 0 0 0 4 4  
Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of 0 0 0 7 7 
St Kitts & Nevis 0 0 0 1 1  WT/AB/20 
 
- 56 - 
 
 WTO Member Appellant Other 
appellant Appellee Third 
participant Total 
St Vincent &  
the Grenadines 0 0 0 3 3 
Suriname 0 0 0 3 3  
Swaziland 0 0 0 1 1 
Switzerland 0 1 1 0 2  
Chinese Taipei 0 0 0 35 35 
Tanzania 0 0 0 1 1  
Thailand 3 2 5 20 30 
Trinidad 
&Tobago  0 0 0 1 1  
Turkey 1 0 0 10 11 
United States 33 21 71 32 157  
Viet Nam 0 0 0 3 3 
Total 119 89 225 638 1071 
 
 
 
   
II. DETAILS BY YEAR OF CIRCULATION 
1996 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Gasoline 
WT/DS2/AB/R  United States - - - Brazil 
Venezuela European 
Communities 
Norway 
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II 
WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R 
WT/DS11/AB/R Japan United States Canada 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
United States - - - 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 57 - 
 
 1997 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Underwear 
WT/DS24/AB/R Costa Rica - - - United States India 
Brazil – Desiccated Coconut 
WT/DS22/AB/R  Philippines Brazil Brazil 
Philippines European 
Communities 
United States 
US – Wool Shirts and Blouses  
WT/DS33/AB/R and Corr.1  India - - - United States - - - 
Canada – Periodicals 
WT/DS31/AB/R  Canada United States Canada 
United States - - - 
EC – Bananas III 
WT/DS27/AB/R  European 
Communities Ecuador 
Guatemala 
Honduras 
Mexico 
United States Ecuador 
European 
Communities 
Guatemala 
Honduras 
Mexico 
United States Belize 
Cameroon 
Colombia 
Costa Rica 
Côte d'Ivoire 
Dominica 
Dominican 
Republic 
Ghana 
Grenada 
Jamaica 
Japan 
Nicaragua 
St Lucia 
St Vincent 
& the 
Grenadines 
Senegal 
Suriname 
Venezuela 
India – Patents (US) 
WT/DS50/AB/R  India - - - United States European 
Communities WT/AB/20 
 
- 58 - 
 
 1998 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
EC – Hormones 
WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R  European 
Communities Canada 
United States Canada 
European 
Communities 
United States Australia 
New Zealand 
Norway 
Argentina – Textiles and Apparel  
WT/DS56/AB/R and Corr.1  Argentina - - - United States European 
Communities 
EC – Computer Equipment 
WT/DS62/AB/R, WT/DS67/AB/R 
WT/DS68/AB/R  European 
Communities - - - United States Japan 
EC – Poultry  
WT/DS69/AB/R  Brazil European 
Communities Brazil 
European 
Communities Thailand 
United States 
US – Shrimp  
WT/DS58/AB/R  United States - - - India 
Malaysia 
Pakistan 
Thailand Australia 
Ecuador 
European 
Communities 
Hong Kong, 
China 
Mexico 
Nigeria 
Australia – Salmon 
WT/DS18/AB/R  Australia Canada Australia 
Canada European 
Communities 
India 
Norway 
United States 
Guatemala – Cement I 
WT/DS60/AB/R  Guatemala - - - Mexico United States 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 59 - 
 
 1999  
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
Korea – Alcoholic Beverages 
WT/DS75/AB/R, WT/DS84/AB/R  Korea - - - European 
Communities 
United States Mexico 
Japan – Agricultural Products II 
WT/DS76/AB/R  Japan United States Japan 
United States Brazil 
European 
Communities 
Brazil – Aircraft 
WT/DS46/AB/R  Brazil Canada Brazil 
Canada European 
Communities 
United States 
Canada – Aircraft 
WT/DS70/AB/R  Canada Brazil Brazil 
Canada European 
Communities 
United States 
India – Quantitative Restrictions  
WT/DS90/AB/R  India - - - United States - - - 
Canada – Dairy  
WT/DS103/AB/R, 
WT/DS113/AB/R and Corr.1  Canada - - - New Zealand 
United States - - - 
Turkey –Textiles 
WT/DS34/AB/R  Turkey - - - India Hong Kong, 
China 
Japan 
Philippines 
Chile – Alcoholic Beverages 
WT/DS87/AB/R, WT/DS110/AB/R  Chile - - - European 
Communities Mexico 
United States 
Argentina – Footwear (EC) 
WT/DS121/AB/R  Argentina European 
Communities Argentina 
European 
Communities Indonesia 
United States 
Korea – Dairy  
WT/DS98/AB/R  Korea European 
Communities Korea 
European 
Communities United States 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 60 - 
 
 2000  
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – FSC  
WT/DS108/AB/R  United States European 
Communities European 
Communities 
United States Canada 
Japan 
US – Lead and Bismuth II 
WT/DS138/AB/R  United States - - - European 
Communities Brazil 
Mexico 
Canada – Autos 
WT/DS139/AB/R  Canada European 
Communities 
Japan Canada 
European 
Communities 
Japan Korea 
United States 
Brazil – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Canada) 
WT/DS46/AB/RW  Brazil - - - Canada European 
Communities 
United States 
Canada – Aircraft 
(Article 21.5 – Brazil) 
WT/DS70/AB/RW  Brazil - - - Canada European 
Communities 
United States 
US – 1916 Act 
WT/DS136/AB/R, 
WT/DS162/AB/R  United States European 
Communities 
Japan European 
Communities 
Japan 
United States European 
Communities a 
India 
Japan b 
Mexico 
Canada – Term of Patent 
Protection 
WT/DS170/AB/R  Canada - - - United States - - - 
Korea – Various Measures on 
Beef 
WT/DS161/AB/R, 
WT/DS169/AB/R  Korea - - - Australia 
United States Canada 
New Zealand 
US – Certain EC Products  
WT/DS165/AB/R European 
Communities United States European 
Communities 
United States Dominica 
Ecuador 
India 
Jamaica 
Japan 
St Lucia 
US – Wheat Gluten 
WT/DS166/AB/R  United States European 
Communities European 
Communities 
United States Australia 
Canada 
New Zealand 
a In complaint brought by Japan. 
b In complaint brought by the European Communities. WT/AB/20 
 
- 61 - 
 
 2001 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
EC – Bed Linen 
WT/DS141/AB/R  European 
Communities India European 
Communities 
India Egypt 
Japan 
United States 
EC – Asbestos  
WT/DS135/AB/R  Canada European 
Communities Canada 
European 
Communities Brazil 
United States 
Thailand – H-Beams 
WT/DS122/AB/R  Thailand - - - Poland European 
Communities 
Japan 
United States 
US – Lamb  
WT/DS177/AB/R, 
WT/DS178/AB/R  United States Australia 
New Zealand Australia 
New Zealand 
United States European 
Communities 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel 
WT/DS184/AB/R  United States Japan Japan 
United States Brazil 
Canada 
Chile 
European 
Communities 
Korea 
US – Cotton Yarn 
WT/DS192/AB/R  United States - - - Pakistan European 
Communities 
India 
US – Shrimp 
(Article 21.5 – Malaysia) 
WT/DS58/AB/RW  Malaysia - - - United States Australia 
European 
Communities 
Hong Kong, 
China 
India 
Japan 
Mexico 
Thailand 
Mexico – Corn Syrup 
(Article 21.5 – US) 
WT/DS132/AB/RW  Mexico - - - United States European 
Communities 
Canada – Dairy 
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand 
and US) 
WT/DS103/AB/RW, 
WT/DS113/AB/RW  Canada - - - New Zealand 
United States European 
Communities 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 62 - 
 
 2002  
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Section 211 Appropriations 
Act  
WT/DS176/AB/R  European 
Communities United States European 
Communities 
United States - - - 
US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC) 
WT/DS108/AB/RW  United States European 
Communities European 
Communities 
United States Australia 
Canada 
India 
Japan 
US – Line Pipe 
WT/DS202/AB/R  United States Korea Korea 
United States Australia 
Canada 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Mexico 
India – Autos  c 
WT/DS146/AB/R, 
WT/DS175/AB/R India - - - European 
Communities 
United States Korea 
Chile – Price Band System  
WT/DS207/AB/R and Corr.1 Chile - - - Argentina Australia 
Brazil 
Colombia 
Ecuador 
European 
Communities 
Paraguay 
United States 
Venezuela 
EC – Sardines  
WT/DS231/AB/R  European 
Communities - - - Peru Canada 
Chile 
Ecuador 
United States 
Venezuela 
US – Carbon Steel 
WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1  United States European 
Communities European 
Communities 
United States Japan 
Norway 
US – Countervailing Measures on 
Certain EC Products 
WT/DS212/AB/R  United States - - - European 
Communities Brazil 
India 
Mexico 
Canada – Dairy 
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US II) 
WT/DS103/AB/RW2, 
WT/DS113/AB/RW2  Canada - - - New Zealand 
United States Argentina 
Australia 
European 
Communities 
c India withdrew its appeal the day before the oral hearing was scheduled to proceed. 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 63 - 
 
 2003 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment ) 
WT/DS217/AB/R, 
WT/DS234/AB/R United States - - - Australia 
Brazil 
Canada 
Chile 
European 
Communities 
India 
Indonesia 
Japan 
Korea 
Mexico 
Thailand Argentina 
Costa Rica 
Hong Kong, 
China 
Israel 
Norway 
EC – Bed Linen 
(Article 21.5 – India ) 
WT/DS141/AB/RW India - - - European 
Communities Japan 
Korea 
United States 
EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings WT/DS219/AB/R Brazil - - - European 
Communities Chile 
Japan 
Mexico 
United States 
US – Steel Safeguards 
WT/DS248/AB/R, 
WT/DS249/AB/R,  
WT/DS251/AB/R, 
WT/DS252/AB/R,  
WT/DS253/AB/R, 
WT/DS254/AB/R,  
WT/DS258/AB/R, 
WT/DS259/AB/R  United States Brazil 
China 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Korea 
New Zealand 
Norway 
Switzerland Brazil 
China 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Korea 
New Zealand 
Norway 
Switzerland 
United States Canada 
Cuba 
Mexico 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
Turkey 
Venezuela 
Japan – Apples WT/DS245/AB/R Japan United States Japan 
United States Australia 
Brazil 
European 
Communities 
New Zealand 
Chinese Taipei 
US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel 
Sunset Review 
WT/DS244/AB/R Japan - - - United States Brazil 
Chile 
European 
Communities 
India 
Korea 
Norway 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 64 - 
 
  2004 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Softwood Lumber IV 
WT/DS257/AB/R  United States Canada Canada 
United States European 
Communities 
India 
Japan 
EC – Tariff Preferences 
WT/DS246/AB/R  European 
Communities - - - India Bolivia 
Brazil 
Colombia 
Costa Rica 
Cuba 
Ecuador 
El Salvador 
Guatemala 
Honduras 
Mauritius 
Nicaragua 
Pakistan 
Panama 
Paraguay 
Peru 
United States 
Venezuela 
US – Softwood Lumber V 
WT/DS264/AB/R  United States Canada Canada 
United States European 
Communities 
India 
Japan 
Canada – Wheat Exports and 
Grain Imports 
WT/DS276/AB/R  United States Canada Canada 
United States Australia 
China 
European 
Communities 
Mexico 
Chinese Taipei 
US – Oil Country Tubular Goods 
Sunset Reviews 
WT/DS268/AB/R  United States Argentina Argentina 
United States European 
Communities 
Japan 
Korea 
Mexico 
Chinese Taipei 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 65 - 
 
  2005 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Upland Cotton 
WT/DS267/AB/R  United States Brazil Brazil 
United States Argentina 
Australia 
Benin 
Canada 
Chad 
China 
European 
Communities 
India 
New Zealand 
Pakistan 
Paraguay 
Chinese Taipei 
Venezuela 
US – Gambling 
WT/DS285/AB/R and Corr.1  United States Antigua & 
Barbuda Antigua & 
Barbuda 
United States Canada 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Mexico 
Chinese Taipei 
EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar 
WT/DS265/AB/R, 
WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R  European 
Communities Australia 
Brazil 
Thailand Australia 
Brazil 
European 
Communities 
Thailand 
 Barbados 
Belize 
Canada 
China 
Colombia 
Côte d'Ivoire 
Cuba 
Fiji 
Guyana 
India 
Jamaica 
Kenya 
Madagascar 
Malawi 
Mauritius 
New Zealand 
Paraguay 
St Kitts & 
Nevis 
Swaziland 
Tanzania 
Trinidad & 
Tobago 
United States 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 66 - 
 
  2005 (CONT'D) 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
Dominican Republic – Import and 
Sale of Cigarettes 
WT/DS302/AB/R  Dominican 
Republic Honduras Dominican 
Republic 
Honduras China 
El Salvador 
European 
Communities 
Guatemala 
United States 
US – Countervailing Duty 
Investigation on DRAMS 
WT/DS296/AB/R  United States Korea Korea 
United States China 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Chinese Taipei 
EC – Chicken Cuts 
WT/DS269/AB/R, 
WT/DS286/AB/R,  and Corr.1  European 
Communities Brazil 
Thailand Brazil 
European 
Communities 
Thailand China 
United States 
Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures 
on Rice 
WT/DS295/AB/R  Mexico - - - United States China 
European 
Communities 
US – Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Oil Country Tubular Goods 
WT/DS282/AB/R  Mexico United States Mexico 
United States Argentina 
Canada 
China 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Chinese Taipei 
US – Softwood Lumber IV 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) 
WT/DS257/AB/RW  United States Canada Canada 
United States China 
European 
Communities 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 67 - 
 
  2006 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – FSC 
(Article 21.5 – EC II) 
WT/DS108/AB/RW2 United States European 
Communities European 
Communities 
United States Australia 
Brazil 
China 
Mexico ‒ Taxes on Soft Drinks 
WT/DS308/AB/R Mexico - - - United States Canada 
China 
European 
Communities 
Guatemala 
Japan 
US – Softwood Lumber VI 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) 
WT/DS277/AB/RW and Corr.1 Canada - - - United States China 
European 
Communities 
US – Zeroing (EC) 
WT/DS294/AB/R and Corr.1 European 
Communities United States United States 
European 
Communities Argentina 
Brazil 
China 
Hong Kong, 
China 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
Mexico 
Norway 
Chinese Taipei 
US – Softwood Lumber V 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) 
WT/DS264/AB/RW Canada - - - United States China 
European 
Communities 
India 
Japan 
New Zealand 
Thailand 
EC – Selected Customs Matters 
WT/DS315/AB/R United States European 
Communities European 
Communities 
United States Argentina 
Australia 
Brazil 
China 
Hong Kong, 
China 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
Chinese Taipei 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 68 - 
 
  2007 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Zeroing (Japan) 
WT/DS322/AB/R Japan United States United States 
Japan Argentina 
China 
European 
Communities d 
Hong Kong, 
China 
India 
Korea 
Mexico 
New Zealand 
Norway 
Thailand 
US – Oil Country Tubular Goods 
Sunset Reviews 
(Article 21.5 – Argentina) 
WT/DS268/AB/RW United States Argentina Argentina 
United States China 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Korea 
Mexico 
Chile – Price Band System 
(Article 21.5 – Argentina)  
WT/DS207/AB/RW  Chile Argentina Argentina 
Chile Australia 
Brazil 
Canada 
China 
Colombia 
European 
Communities 
Peru 
Thailand 
United States 
Japan – DRAMs (Korea) 
WT/DS336/AB/R and Corr.1 Japan Korea Korea 
Japan European 
Communities 
United States 
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres WT/DS332/AB/R European 
Communities - - - Brazil Argentina 
Australia 
China 
Cuba 
Guatemala 
Japan 
Korea 
Mexico 
Paraguay 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
United States 
 d By virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon, as of 1 December 2009, "European Union" replaced and succeeded 
"European Communities". For disputes that began before the entry into force of the Treaty, the WTO dispute 
settlement reports refer to  "European Communities". WT/AB/20 
 
- 69 - 
 
  2008 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) 
WT/DS344/AB/R Mexico - - - United States Chile 
China 
European 
Communities 
Japan  
Thailand 
US – Upland Cotton 
(Article 21.5 – Brazil) 
WT/DS267/AB/RW  United States Brazil Brazil 
United States Argentina 
Australia 
Canada 
Chad 
China 
European 
Communities 
India 
Japan 
New Zealand 
Thailand 
US – Shrimp (Thailand)  
WT/DS343/AB/R  
 Thailand 
 United States 
 United States 
Thailand 
 Brazil 
Chile 
China 
European 
Communities 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
Mexico 
Viet Nam 
US – Customs Bond Directive 
WT/DS345/AB/R  
 India United States United States 
India Brazil 
China 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Thailand 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 70 - 
 
  2008 (CONT'D) 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Continued Suspension 
WT/DS320/AB/R 
 European 
Communities 
 United States 
 United States 
European 
Communities 
 Australia 
Brazil 
China 
India 
Mexico 
New Zealand 
Norway 
Chinese Taipei 
Canada – Continued Suspension 
WT/DS321/AB/R 
 
 European 
Communities Canada Canada 
European 
Communities Australia 
Brazil 
China 
India 
Mexico 
New Zealand 
Norway 
Chinese Taipei 
India – Additional Import Duties WT/DS360/AB/R United States India India 
United States Australia 
Chile 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Viet Nam 
EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – Ecuador II) 
WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU  
and Corr.1 European 
Communities 
 Ecuador 
 
 Ecuador 
European 
Communities 
 Belize 
Brazil 
Cameroon 
Colombia 
Côte d'Ivoire 
Dominica 
Dominican 
Republic 
Ghana 
Jamaica 
Japan 
Nicaragua 
Panama 
St Lucia 
St Vincent & the 
Grenadines 
Suriname 
United States WT/AB/20 
 
- 71 - 
 
  2008 (CONT'D) 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – US) 
WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA  
and Corr.1 
 European 
Communities - - - United States Belize 
Brazil 
Cameroon 
Colombia 
Côte d'Ivoire 
Dominica 
Dominican 
Republic 
Ecuador 
Jamaica 
Japan 
Mexico 
Nicaragua 
Panama St Lucia 
St Vincent & the 
Grenadines 
Suriname 
China – Auto Parts (EC) 
WT/DS339/AB/R  China - - - European 
Communities 
 Argentina 
Australia 
Brazil 
Japan 
Mexico 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
China – Auto Parts (US) WT/DS340/AB/R  China - - - United States 
 Argentina 
Australia 
Brazil 
Japan 
Mexico 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
China – Auto Parts (Canada) 
WT/DS342/AB/R  China - - - Canada Argentina 
Australia 
Brazil 
Japan 
Mexico 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 72 - 
 
  2009 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Continued Zeroing 
WT/DS350/AB/R  European 
Communities United States European 
Communities 
United States Brazil 
China 
Egypt 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
Mexico 
Norway 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
US – Zeroing (EC) 
(Article 21.5 – EC) 
WT/DS294/AB/RW and Corr.1 European 
Communities United States European 
Communities 
United States India 
Japan 
Korea 
Mexico 
Norway 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
US – Zeroing (Japan)  
(Article 21.5 – Japan) 
WT/DS322/AB/RW United States - - - Japan China 
European 
Communities 
Hong Kong, 
China 
Korea 
Mexico 
Norway 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
China – Publications and 
Audiovisual Products 
WT/DS363/AB/R China United States China 
United States Australia 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Korea 
Chinese Taipei 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 73 - 
 
  2010 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
Australia – Apples 
WT/DS367/AB/R Australia New Zealand New Zealand 
Australia Chile 
European Union 
Japan 
Pakistan 
Chinese Taipei 
United States 
 
  
2011 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Duties (China) 
WT/DS379/AB/R China - - -  United States Argentina 
Australia 
Bahrain 
Brazil 
Canada 
European Union 
India 
Japan 
Kuwait 
Mexico 
Norway 
Saudi Arabia 
Chinese Taipei 
Turkey 
EC and certain member States – 
Large Civil Aircraft 
WT/DS316/AB/R European 
Union United States United States 
European 
Union Australia 
Brazil 
Canada 
China 
Japan 
Korea 
Thailand – Cigarettes 
(Philippines) 
WT/DS371/AB/R Thailand - - -  Philippines Australia 
China 
European Union 
India 
Chinese Taipei 
United States 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 74 - 
 
  2011 (CONT'D)  
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
EC – Fasteners (China) 
WT/DS397/AB/R European 
Union China China  
European 
Union Brazil 
Canada 
Chile 
Colombia 
India 
Japan 
Norway 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
Turkey 
United States 
US – Tyres (China) 
WT/DS399/AB/R China - - -  United States European Union 
Japan 
Chinese Taipei 
Turkey 
Viet Nam 
Philippines – Distilled Spirits 
(European Union)  
WT/DS396/AB/R Philippines European 
Union European 
Union 
Philippines 
 Australia 
China 
India 
Mexico 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
Philippines – Distilled Spirits 
(United States)  
WT/DS403/AB/R  Philippines - - - United States Australia 
China 
Colombia 
India 
Mexico 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 75 - 
 
  2012 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
China –  Raw Materials 
(United States) 
WT/DS394/AB/R  China United States China 
United States Argentina 
Brazil 
Canada 
Chile 
Colombia 
Ecuador 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
Norway 
Saudi Arabia 
Chinese Taipei 
Turkey 
China – Raw Materials 
(European Union) 
WT/DS395/AB/R China European 
Union China 
European 
Union Argentina 
Brazil 
Canada 
Chile 
Colombia 
Ecuador 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
Norway 
Saudi Arabia 
Chinese Taipei 
Turkey 
China – Raw Materials  
(Mexico) 
WT/DS398/AB/R China Mexico China 
Mexico Argentina 
Brazil 
Canada 
Chile 
Colombia 
Ecuador 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
Norway 
Saudi Arabia 
Chinese Taipei 
Turkey 
 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 76 - 
 
  2012 (CONT'D) 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Large Civil Aircraft 
(2nd complaint) 
WT/DS353/AB/R European 
Union United States United States 
European 
Union Australia 
Brazil 
Canada 
China 
Japan 
Korea 
US – Clove Cigarettes 
WT/DS406/AB/R United States - - -  Indonesia Brazil 
Colombia 
Dominican 
Republic 
European Union 
Guatemala 
Mexico 
Norway 
Turkey 
US – Tuna II (Mexico) WT/DS381/AB/R United States Mexico Mexico 
United States Argentina  
Australia 
Brazil 
Canada 
China 
Ecuador 
Guatemala 
Japan 
Korea 
New Zealand 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
Turkey 
Venezuela 
US – COOL (Canada) 
WT/DS384/AB/R United States Canada Canada 
United States 
 Argentina  
Australia 
Brazil 
China 
Colombia 
European Union 
Guatemala 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
New Zealand 
Peru 
Chinese Taipei 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 77 - 
 
  2012 (CONT'D) 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – COOL (Mexico) 
WT/DS386/AB/R United States Mexico Mexico 
United States Argentina  
Australia 
Brazil 
China 
Colombia 
European Union 
Guatemala 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
New Zealand 
Peru 
Chinese Taipei 
China – GOES 
WT/DS414/AB/R China - - - United States Argentina  
European Union 
Honduras 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
Saudi Arabia 
Viet Nam 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 78 - 
 
  2013 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
Canada – Certain Measures 
Affecting the Renewable Energy 
Generation Sector 
WT/DS412/AB/R Canada Japan Japan 
Canada  Australia 
Brazil 
China 
El Salvador 
European Union 
Honduras 
India 
Korea 
Mexico 
Norway 
Saudi Arabia 
Chinese Taipei 
United States 
Canada – Measures Relating to 
the Feed-in Tariff Program 
WT/DS426/AB/R Canada European 
Union European 
Union 
Canada Australia 
Brazil 
China 
El Salvador 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
Mexico 
Norway 
Saudi Arabia 
Chinese Taipei 
Turkey 
United States WT/AB/20 
 
- 79 - 
 
  ANNEX 9 
APPELLATE BODY SECRETARIAT PARTICIPATION IN  
THE WTO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING PLAN IN 2013 
Course / Seminar Location Dates 
Advanced Training Programme 
for Senior Government Officials (OAS) Washington, DC, USA 19-21 June 2013 
Advanced Trade Policy Course 
(Dispute Settlement) Geneva, Switzerland 9-11 July 2013 
Regional Trade Policy Course for 
the Asia-Pacific Region (Basic Principles) New Delhi, India 11-12 September 2013 
Advanced Course and Regional 
Dialogue on WTO Dispute 
Settlement for Latin American 
Countries Brasilia, Brazil 8-11 October 2013 
National Seminar Brasilia, Brazil 14-16 October 2013 
Advanced Dispute Settlement 
Course Geneva, Switzerland 14-18 October 2013 
Regional Trade Policy Course for 
the Asia-Pacific Region 
(Dispute Settlement) New Delhi, India 23-25 October 2013 
Specialized Course on the WTO 
Dispute Settlement Mechanism Bogotá, Colombia 23-26 October 2013 
Short Trade Policy Course for 
ALADI Member States  
(Dispute Settlement) Montevideo, Uruguay 7-8 November 2013 
National Seminar Tehran, Iran 16-21 November 2013 
 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 80 - 
 
  ANNEX 10 
APPELLATE BODY SECRETARIAT PARTICIP ATION IN BRIEFINGS, CONFERENCES,  
AND MOOT COURT COMPETITIONS IN 2013 
Activity Location Dates 
5th General GNLU Moot Court 
Competition Ahmedabad, India 11-14 February 2013 
ELSA Moot Court Competition Barcelona, Spain 11-12 February 2013 
ELSA Moot Court Competition San José, Costa Rica 11-14 March 2013 
107th ASIL Annual Meeting Washington, DC, USA 3-5 April 2013 
IELPO Moot Court Competition  Barcelona, Spain 20-21 June 2013 
IELPO/WTI Moot Court 
Competition Barcelona, Spain 27 June 2013 
Asian International Economic 
Law Network (AIELN) III:  
"WTO at 20 and the Future of 
the International Law on Trade, Investment and Finance" Seoul, Korea 18-19 July 2013 
4th Annual WTO/FTA Moot Court 
Competition Seoul, Korea 20 July 2013 
Seoul National University – 
Summer Course in International 
Trade Law Seoul, Korea 22 July-3 August 2013 
2nd Biennial Conference of the 
Latin American Network in 
International Economic Law Lima, Peru 27-30 October 2013 
Conference on BRICS and WTO 
Dispute Settlement Shanghai, China 4- 11 November 2013 
 
 WT/AB/20 
 
- 81 - 
 
  ANNEX 11 
WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORTS AND ARBITRATION AWARDS: 1995–2013 
Short title Full case title and citation 
Argentina – Ceramic Tiles Panel Report, Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports 
of Ceramic Floor Tiles from Italy , WT/DS189/R, adopted 5 November 
2001, DSR 2001:XII, p. 6241 
Argentina – Footwear (EC) Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Safeguard Me asures on Imports of 
Footwear , WT/DS121/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, 
p. 515 
Argentina – Footwear (EC) Panel Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measur es on Imports of Footwear , 
WT/DS121/R, adopted 12 January 2000, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS121/AB/R, DSR 2000:II, p. 575 
Argentina – Hides and 
Leather Panel Report, Argentina – Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides 
and Import of Finished Leather , WT/DS155/R and Corr.1, adopted 16 
February 2001, DSR 2001:V, p. 1779 
Argentina – Hides and 
Leather  (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Argentina – Measures Affecting the Export of 
Bovine Hides and Import of Finished Leather – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS155/10, 31 August 2001, 
DSR 2001:XII, p. 6013 
Argentina – Poultry 
Anti-Dumping Duties Panel Report, Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Poultry 
from Brazil , WT/DS241/R, adopted 19 May 2003, DSR 2003:V, p. 1727 
Argentina – Preserved 
Peaches Panel Report, Argentina – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of 
Preserved Peaches , WT/DS238/R, adopted 15 April 2003, DSR 2003:III, 
p. 1037 
Argentina – Textiles and 
Apparel Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of 
Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and Other Items , WT/DS56/AB/R and 
Corr.1, adopted 22 April 1998, DSR 1998:III, p. 1003 
Argentina – Textiles and 
Apparel Panel Report, Argentina – Measures Affect ing Imports of Footwear, 
Textiles, Apparel and Other Items , WT/DS56/R, adopted 22 April 1998, 
as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS56/AB/R, DSR 1998:III, 
p. 1033 
Australia – Apples Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of 
Apples from New Zealand , WT/DS367/AB/R, adopted 17 December 
2010, DSR 2010:V, p. 2175 
Australia – Apples Panel Report, Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples 
from New Zealand , WT/DS367/R, adopted 17 December 2010, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS367/AB/R, DSR 2010:VI, p. 2371 
Australia – Automotive 
Leather II Panel Report, Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters 
of Automotive Leather , WT/DS126/R, adopted 16 June 1999, 
DSR 1999:III, p. 951 
Australia – Automotive 
Leather II  (Article 21.5 – US) Panel Report, Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters 
of Automotive Leather – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States , WT/DS126/RW and Corr.1, adopted 11 February 2000, 
DSR 2000:III, p. 1189 
Australia – Salmon Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of 
Salmon , WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, 
p. 3327 
Australia – Salmon Panel Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon , 
WT/DS18/R and Corr.1, adopted 6 November 1998, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/D S18/AB/R, DSR 1998:VIII, p. 3407 WT/AB/20 
 
- 82 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
Australia – Salmon 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of 
Salmon – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS18/9, 
23 February 1999, DSR 1999:I, p. 267 
Australia – Salmon 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Panel Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon  
– Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada , WT/DS18/RW, 
adopted 20 March 2000, DSR 2000:IV, p. 2031 
Brazil – Aircraft Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft , 
WT/DS46/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, DSR 1999:III, p. 1161 
Brazil – Aircraft Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft , 
WT/DS46/R, adopted 20 August 1999, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS46/AB/R, DSR 1999:III, p. 1221 
Brazil – Aircraft 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft 
– Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS46/AB/RW, 
adopted 4 August 2000,  DSR 2000:VIII, p. 4067 
Brazil – Aircraft 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft  
– Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS46/RW, 
adopted 4 August 2000, as modifi ed by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS46/AB/RW, DSR 2000:IX, p. 4093 
Brazil – Aircraft 
(Article 21.5 – Canada II) Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft  
– Second Recourse by Canada  to Article 21.5 of the DSU , 
WT/DS46/RW2, adopted 23 Au gust 2001, DSR 2001:X, p. 5481 
Brazil – Aircraft 
(Article 22.6 – Brazil) Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for 
Aircraft – Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement , WT/DS46/ARB, 28 August 
2000, DSR 2002:I, p. 19 
Brazil – Desiccated Coconut Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut , 
WT/DS22/AB/R, adopted 20 March 1997, DSR 1997:I, p. 167 
Brazil – Desiccated Coconut Panel Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut , 
WT/DS22/R, adopted 20 March 1997, up held by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS22/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, p. 189 
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded 
Tyres , WT/DS332/AB/R, adopted 17 December 2007, DSR 2007:IV, 
p. 1527 
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres Panel Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres , 
WT/DS332/R, adopted 17 December 200 7, as modified by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS332/AB/R, DSR 2007:V, p. 1649 
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of 
Retreaded Tyres – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , 
WT/DS332/16, 29 August 2008, DSR 2008:XX, p. 8581 
Canada – Aircraft Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of 
Civilian Aircraft , WT/DS70/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, 
DSR 1999:III, p. 1377 
Canada – Aircraft Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian 
Aircraft , WT/DS70/R, adopted 20 August  1999, upheld by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS70/AB/R, DSR 1999:IV, p. 1443 
Canada – Aircraft 
(Article 21.5 – Brazil) Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of 
Civilian Aircraft – Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU , 
WT/DS70/AB/RW, adopted 4 Augu st 2000, DSR 2000:IX, p. 4299 
Canada – Aircraft 
(Article 21.5 – Brazil) Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft 
– Recourse by Brazil to  Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS70/RW, adopted 
4 August 2000, as modified by Appe llate Body Report WT/DS70/AB/RW, 
DSR 2000:IX, p. 4315 WT/AB/20 
 
- 83 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
Canada – Aircraft Credits and 
Guarantees Panel Report, Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for 
Regional Aircraft , WT/DS222/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 February 2002, 
DSR 2002:III, p. 849 
Canada – Aircraft Credits and 
Guarantees 
(Article 22.6 – Canada) Decision by the Arbitrator, Canada – Export Credits and Loan 
Guarantees for Regional Aircraft – Recourse to Arbitration by Canada 
under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement , 
WT/DS222/ARB, 17 February 2003, DSR 2003:III, p. 1187 
Canada – Autos Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the 
Automotive Industry , WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, adopted 
19 June 2000, DSR 2000:VI, p. 2985 
Canada – Autos Panel Report, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive 
Industry , WT/DS139/R, WT/DS142/R, adopted 19 June 2000, as 
modified by Appellate Body Repo rt WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, 
DSR 2000:VII, p. 3043 
Canada – Autos 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the 
Automotive Industry – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , 
WT/DS139/12, WT/DS142/12, 4 Oc tober 2000, DSR 2000:X, p. 5079 
Canada – Continued 
Suspension Appellate Body Report, Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in 
the EC – Hormones Dispute , WT/DS321/AB/R, adopted 14 November 
2008, DSR 2008:XIV, p. 5373 
Canada – Continued 
Suspension Panel Report, Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the  
EC – Hormones Dispute , WT/DS321/R and Add.1 to Add.7, adopted 
14 November 2008, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS321/AB/R, DSR 2008:XV, p. 5757 
Canada – Dairy Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of 
Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products , WT/DS103/AB/R, 
WT/DS113/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 27 October 1999, DSR 1999:V, 
p. 2057 
Canada – Dairy Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and 
the Exportation of Dairy Products , WT/DS103/R, WT/DS113/R, adopted 
27 October 1999, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS103/AB/R, WT/DS113/AB/R, DSR 1999:VI, p. 2097 
Canada – Dairy 
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand 
and US) Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of 
Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of 
the DSU by New Zealand and the United States , WT/DS103/AB/RW, 
WT/DS113/AB/RW, adopted 18 December 2001, DSR 2001:XIII, 
p. 6829 
Canada – Dairy 
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand 
and US) Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and 
the Exportation of Dairy Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU 
by New Zealand and the United States , WT/DS103/RW, WT/DS113/RW, 
adopted 18 December 2001, as reversed by Appellate Body Report WT/DS103/AB/RW, WT/DS113/AB /RW, DSR 2001:XIII, p. 6865 
Canada – Dairy 
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand 
and US II) Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of 
Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States , 
WT/DS103/AB/RW2, WT/DS113/AB/RW2, adopted 17 January 2003, 
DSR 2003:I, p. 213 
Canada – Dairy 
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US II) Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and 
the Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States , WT/DS103/RW2, 
WT/DS113/RW2, adopted 17 January 20 03, as modified by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS103/AB/RW2, WT/DS113/AB/RW2, DSR 2003:I, p. 255 
Canada – Patent Term Appellate Body Report, Canada – Term of Patent Protection , 
WT/DS170/AB/R, adopted 12 October 2000, DSR 2000:X, p. 5093 WT/AB/20 
 
- 84 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
Canada – Patent Term Panel Report, Canada – Term of Patent Protection , WT/DS170/R, 
adopted 12 October 2000, upheld by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS170/AB/R, DSR 2000:XI, p. 5121 
Canada – Patent Term 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Canada – Term of Patent Protection – 
Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS170/10, 28 February 
2001, DSR 2001:V, p. 2031 
Canada – Periodicals Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning 
Periodicals , WT/DS31/AB/R, adopted 30 July 1997, DSR 1997:I, p. 449 
Canada – Periodicals Panel Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals , 
WT/DS31/R and Corr.1, adopted 30 July  1997, as modified by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS31/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, p. 481 
Canada – Pharmaceutical 
Patents Panel Report, Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products , 
WT/DS114/R, adopted 7 April 2000, DSR 2000:V, p. 2289 
Canada – Pharmaceutical 
Patents  
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical 
Products – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS114/13, 
18 August 2000, DSR 2002:I, p. 3 
Canada – Renewable Energy 
/ Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program  Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the 
Renewable Energy Generation Sector / Canada – Measures Relating to the 
Feed-in Tariff Program , WT/DS412/AB/R / WT/DS426/AB/R, adopted 
24 May 2013 
Canada – Renewable Energy 
/ Canada – Feed-in Tariff 
Program Panel Reports, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable 
Energy Generation Sector / Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed-in 
Tariff Program , WT/DS412/R / WT/DS426/R  / and Add.1, adopted 
24 May 2013, as modified by Appella te Body Reports WT/DS412/AB/R / 
WT/DS426/AB/R  
Canada – Wheat Exports and 
Grain Imports Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat 
and Treatment of Imported Grain , WT/DS276/AB/R, adopted 27 
September 2004, DSR 2004:VI, p. 2739 
Canada – Wheat Exports and 
Grain Imports Panel Report, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and 
Treatment of Imported Grain , WT/DS276/R, adopted 27 September 
2004, upheld by Appellate Body Re port WT/DS276/AB/R, DSR 2004:VI, 
p. 2817 
Chile – Alcoholic Beverages Appellate Body Report, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , 
WT/DS87/AB/R, WT/DS110/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, p. 281 
Chile – Alcoholic Beverages Panel Report, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS87/R, 
WT/DS110/R, adopted 12 January 2000, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS87/AB/R, WT/DS110/AB/R, DSR 2000:I, p. 303 
Chile – Alcoholic Beverages 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages  
– Arbitration under Arti cle 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS87/15, 
WT/DS110/14, 23 May 2000, DSR 2000:V, p. 2583 
Chile – Price Band System Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard 
Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products , WT/DS207/AB/R, 
adopted 23 October 2002, DSR 2002:VIII, p. 3045 (Corr.1, 
DSR 2006:XII, p. 5473) 
Chile – Price Band System Panel Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures 
Relating to Certain Agricultural Products , WT/DS207/R, adopted 
23 October 2002, as modified by A ppellate Body Report WT/DS207AB/R, 
DSR 2002:VIII, p. 3127 
Chile – Price Band System 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard 
Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products – Arbitration under 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS207/13, 17 March 2003, 
DSR 2003:III, p. 1237 WT/AB/20 
 
- 85 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
Chile – Price Band System 
(Article 21.5 – Argentina) Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard 
Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina , WT/DS207/AB/RW, adopted 
22 May 2007, DSR 2007:II, p. 513 
Chile – Price Band System 
(Article 21.5 – Argentina) Panel Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures 
Relating to Certain Agricultural Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of 
the DSU by Argentina , WT/DS207/RW and Corr.1, adopted 22 May 
2007, upheld by Appellate Bo dy Report WT/DS207/AB/RW, 
DSR 2007:II, p. 613 
China – Auto Parts Appellate Body Reports, China – Measures Affecting Imports of 
Automobile Parts , WT/DS339/AB/R / WT/DS340/AB/R / 
WT/DS342/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2009, DSR 2009:I, p. 3 
China – Auto Parts Panel Reports, China – Measures Affecting Imports of Automobile Parts , 
WT/DS339/R / WT/DS340/R / WT/DS342 /R / Add.1 and Add.2, adopted 
12 January 2009, upheld (WT/DS339/ R) and as modified (WT/DS340/R 
/ WT/DS342/R) by Appellate Bo dy Reports WT/DS339/AB/R / 
WT/DS340/AB/R / WT/DS342/AB/R, DSR 2009:I, p. 119 
China – Broiler Products Panel Report, China  Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures 
on Broiler Products from the United States , WT/DS427/R and Add.1, 
adopted 25 September 2013 
China – Electronic Payment 
Services Panel Report, China – Certain Measures Af fecting Electronic Payment 
Services , WT/DS413/R and Add.1, adopted 31 August 2012 
China – GOES Appellate Body Report, China – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties 
on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States , 
WT/DS414/AB/R, adopted 16 November 2012 
China – GOES Panel Report, China – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain 
Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States , 
WT/DS414/R and Add.1, adopted 16 November 2012, upheld by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS414/AB/R 
China – GOES 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, China – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties 
on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electr ical Steel from the United States – 
Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of  the Understanding on Rules and 
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes , WT/DS414/12, 
3 May 2013 
China – Intellectual Property 
Rights Panel Report, China – Measures Affecting the Protection and 
Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights , WT/DS362/R, adopted 
20 March 2009, DSR 2009:V, p. 2097 
China – Publications and 
Audiovisual Products Appellate Body Report, China –  Measures Affecting Trading Rights and 
Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products , WT/DS363/AB/R, adopted 19 January 2010, 
DSR 2010:I, p. 3 
China – Publications and 
Audiovisual Products Panel Report, China –  Measures Affecting Trading Rights and 
Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual 
Entertainment Products , WT/DS363/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 January 
2010, as modified by Appellat e Body Report WT/DS363/AB/R, 
DSR 2010:II, p. 261 
China – Raw Materials Appellate Body Reports, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of 
Various Raw Materials , WT/DS394/AB/R / WT/DS395/AB/R / 
WT/DS398/AB/R, adopted 22 February 2012 
China – Raw Materials  Panel Reports, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various 
Raw Materials , WT/DS394/R / WT/DS395/R / WT/DS398/R / Add.1 and 
Corr.1, adopted 22 February 2012, as  modified by Appellate Body 
Reports WT/DS394/AB/R / WT/D S395/AB/R / WT/DS398/AB/R WT/AB/20 
 
- 86 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
China – X-Ray Equipment Panel Report,  China – Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on X-Ray Security 
Inspection Equipment from the European Union , WT/DS425/R and 
Add.1, adopted 24 April 2013  
Colombia – Ports of Entry Panel Report, Colombia – Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of 
Entry , WT/DS366/R and Corr.1, ad opted 20 May 2009, DSR 2009:VI, 
p. 2535 
Colombia – Ports of Entry 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia – Indicative Prices and Restrictions on 
Ports of Entry – Arbitration und er Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , 
WT/DS366/13, 2 October 2009, DSR 2009:IX, p. 3819 
Dominican Republic – Import 
and Sale of Cigarettes Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the 
Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes , WT/DS302/AB/R, adopted 
19 May 2005, DSR 2005:XV, p. 7367 
Dominican Republic – Import 
and Sale of Cigarettes Panel Report, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation 
and Internal Sale of Cigarettes , WT/DS302/R, adopted 19 May 2005, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS302/AB/R, DSR 2005:XV, 
p. 7425 
Dominican Republic – Import 
and Sale of Cigarettes  
(Article 21.3(c)) Report of the Arbitrator, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the 
Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes  – Arbitration under 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS302/17, 29 August 2005, 
DSR 2005:XXIII, p. 11665 
Dominican Republic – 
Safeguard Measures Panel Report, Dominican Republic – Safeguar d Measures on Imports of 
Polypropylene Bags and Tubular Fabric , WT/DS415/R, WT/DS416/R, 
WT/DS417/R, WT/DS418/R, and A dd.1, adopted 22 February 2012 
EC – The ACP-EC Partnership 
Agreement Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – The ACP-EC 
Partnership Agreement – Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the 
Decision of 14 November 2001 , WT/L/616, 1 August 2005, 
DSR 2005:XXIII, p. 11669 
EC – The ACP-EC Partnership 
Agreement II Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – The ACP-EC 
Partnership Agreement – Second Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001 , WT/L/625, 27 October 2005, 
DSR 2005:XXIII, p. 11703 
EC – Approval and Marketing 
of Biotech Products Panel Reports, European Communities – Measures Affecting the 
Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products , WT/DS291/R / 
WT/DS292/R / WT/DS293/R / Add.1 to Add.9 and Corr.1, adopted 
21 November 2006, DSR 2006:III, p. 847 
EC – Asbestos Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting 
Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products , WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 
5 April 2001, DSR 2001:VII, p. 3243 
EC – Asbestos Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and 
Asbestos-Containing Products , WT/DS135/R and Add.1, adopted 
5 April 2001, as modified by Appe llate Body Report WT/DS135/AB/R, 
DSR 2001:VIII, p. 3305 
EC – Bananas III Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Regime for the 
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas , WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 
25 September 1997, DSR 1997:II, p. 591 
EC – Bananas III (Ecuador) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale 
and Distribution of Bananas, Complaint by Ecuador , WT/DS27/R/ECU, 
adopted 25 September 1997, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:III, p. 1085 
EC – Bananas III (Guatemala 
and Honduras) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale 
and Distribution of Bananas, C omplaint by Guatemala and Honduras , 
WT/DS27/R/GTM, WT/DS27/R/HND, adopted 25 September 1997, as modified by Appellate Body Report  WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:II, p. 695 WT/AB/20 
 
- 87 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
EC – Bananas III (Mexico) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale 
and Distribution of Bananas, Complaint by Mexico , WT/DS27/R/MEX, 
adopted 25 September 1997, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:II, p. 803 
EC – Bananas III (US) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale 
and Distribution of Bananas, Complaint by the United States , 
WT/DS27/R/USA, adopted 25 Septembe r 1997, as modified by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:II, p. 943 
EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – Regime for the 
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Arbitration under 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS27/15, 7 January 1998, DSR 1998:I, 
p. 3 
EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – EC) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale 
and Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities , WT/DS27/RW/EEC, 12 April 1999, and Corr.1, 
unadopted, DSR 1999:II, p. 783 
EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – Ecuador) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale 
and Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by 
Ecuador , WT/DS27/RW/ECU, adopted 6 May 1999, DSR 1999:II, p. 803 
EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – Ecuador II) / 
EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – US) Appellate Body Reports, European Communities – Regime for the 
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Second Recourse to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador , WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU, adopted 
11 December 2008, and Corr.1 / European Communities – Regime for 
the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States , WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA and 
Corr.1, adopted 22 December  2008, DSR 2008:XVIII, p. 7165 
EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – Ecuador II) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale 
and Distribution of Bananas – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the 
DSU by Ecuador , WT/DS27/RW2/ECU, adop ted 11 Decemb er 2008, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU, 
DSR 2008:XVIII, p. 7329 
EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – US) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale 
and Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the 
United States , WT/DS27/RW/USA and Corr.1, adopted 22 December 
2008, upheld by Appellate Body  Report WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA, 
DSR 2008:XIX, p. 7761 
EC – Bananas III (Ecuador) 
(Article 22.6 – EC) Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities – Regime for the 
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Arbitration 
by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU , 
WT/DS27/ARB/ECU, 24 March 2000, DSR 2000:V, p. 2237 
EC – Bananas III (US) 
(Article 22.6 – EC) Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities – Regime for the 
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU , 
WT/DS27/ARB, 9 April 1999, DSR 1999:II, p. 725 
EC – Bed Linen Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties 
on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India , WT/DS141/AB/R, 
adopted 12 March 2001, DSR 2001:V, p. 2049 
EC – Bed Linen Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports 
of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India , WT/DS141/R, adopted 12 March 
2001, as modified by Appellat e Body Report WT/DS141/AB/R, 
DSR 2001:VI, p. 2077 
EC – Bed Linen 
(Article 21.5 – India) Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties 
on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Li nen from India – Recourse to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU  by India , WT/DS141/AB/RW, adopted 24 April 
2003, DSR 2003:III, p. 965  WT/AB/20 
 
- 88 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
EC – Bed Linen 
(Article 21.5 – India) Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports 
of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India , WT/DS141/RW, adopted 24 April 2003, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS141/AB/RW, DSR 2003:IV, p. 1269  
EC – Butter Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Butter 
Products , WT/DS72/R, 24 November 1999, unadopted 
EC – Chicken Cuts Appellate Body Report, European  Communities – Customs Classification 
of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts , WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB/R, 
adopted 27 September 2005, and Corr.1, DSR 2005:XIX, p. 9157 
EC – Chicken Cuts (Brazil) Panel Report, European  Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen 
Boneless Chicken Cuts, Complaint by Brazil , WT/DS269/R, adopted 
27 September 2005, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB /R, DSR 2005:XIX, p. 9295 
EC – Chicken Cuts (Thailand) Panel Report, European  Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen 
Boneless Chicken Cuts, Complaint by Thailand , WT/DS286/R, adopted 
27 September 2005, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB/R, DSR 2005:XX, p. 9721 
EC – Chicken Cuts 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – Customs Classification 
of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of 
the DSU , WT/DS269/13, WT/DS286/15, 20 February 2006 
EC – Commercial Vessels Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Trade in 
Commercial Vessels , WT/DS301/R, adop ted 20 June 2005, 
DSR 2005:XV, p. 7713 
EC – Computer Equipment Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Customs Classification 
of Certain Computer Equipment , WT/DS62/AB/R, WT/DS67/AB/R, 
WT/DS68/AB/R, adopted 22 June 1998, DSR 1998:V, p. 1851 
EC – Computer Equipment Panel Report, European Communities – Customs Classification of Certain 
Computer Equipment , WT/DS62/R, WT/DS67/R, WT/DS68/R, adopted 
22 June 1998, as modified by Appe llate Body Report WT/DS62/AB/R, 
WT/DS67/AB/R, WT/DS68/AB/R, DSR 1998:V, p. 1891 
EC – Countervailing Measures 
on DRAM Chips Panel Report, European Communities – Countervailing Measures on 
Dynamic Random Access Memory Chips from Korea , WT/DS299/R, 
adopted 3 August 2005, DSR 2005:XVIII, p. 8671 
EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar , WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R, adopted 
19 May 2005, DSR 2005:XIII, p. 6365 
EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar (Australia) Panel Report, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar, 
Complaint by Australia , WT/DS265/R, adopted 19 May 2005, as 
modified by Appellate Body Repo rt WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, 
WT/DS283/AB/R, DSR 2005:XIII, p. 6499 
EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar (Brazil) Panel Report, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar, 
Complaint by Brazil , WT/DS266/R, adopted 19 May 2005, as modified 
by Appellate Body Report WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, 
WT/DS283/AB/R, DSR 2005:XIV, p. 6793 
EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar (Thailand) Panel Report, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar, 
Complaint by Thailand , WT/DS283/R, adopted 19 May 2005, as modified 
by Appellate Body Report WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, 
WT/DS283/AB/R, DSR 2005:XIV, p. 7071 
EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar  
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar – Arbitration under Ar ticle 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS265/33, 
WT/DS266/33, WT/DS283/14, 28 October 2005, DSR 2005:XXIII, 
p. 11581 
EC – Fasteners (China) Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China , 
WT/DS397/AB/R, adopted 28 July 2011, DSR 2011:VII, p. 3995 WT/AB/20 
 
- 89 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
EC – Fasteners (China) Panel Report, European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China , WT/DS397/R 
and Corr.1, adopted 28 July 2011, as mo dified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS397/AB/R, DSR 2011:VIII, p. 4289 
EC – Hormones Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat 
Products (Hormones) , WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 
13 February 1998, DSR 1998:I, p. 135 
EC – Hormones (Canada) Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products 
(Hormones), Complaint by Canada , WT/DS48/R/CAN, adopted 
13 February 1998, as modified  by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:II, p. 235 
EC – Hormones (US) Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products 
(Hormones), Complaint by the United States , WT/DS26/R/USA, adopted 
13 February 1998, as modified  by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:III, p. 699 
EC – Hormones 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat 
Products (Hormones) – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , 
WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13, 29 May 1998, DSR 1998:V, p. 1833 
EC – Hormones (Canada) 
(Article 22.6 – EC) Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities – Measures 
Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Original Complaint by 
Canada – Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under 
Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS48/ARB, 12 July 1999, DSR 1999:III, 
p. 1135 
EC – Hormones (US) 
(Article 22.6 – EC) Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities – Measures 
Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Original Complaint by the United States – Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS26/ARB, 12 July 
1999, DSR 1999:III, p. 1105 
EC – IT Products Panel Reports, European Communities and its member States – Tariff 
Treatment of Certain Information Technology Products , WT/DS375/R / 
WT/DS376/R / WT/DS377/R, adopted 21 September 2010, 
DSR 2010:III, p. 933 
EC – Poultry Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting the 
Importation of Certain Poultry Products , WT/DS69/AB/R, adopted 
23 July 1998, DSR 1998:V, p. 2031 
EC – Poultry Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting the 
Importation of Certain Poultry Products , WT/DS69/R, adopted 23 July 
1998, as modified by Appellat e Body Report WT/DS69/AB/R, 
DSR 1998:V, p. 2089 
EC – Salmon (Norway) Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Measure on 
Farmed Salmon from Norway , WT/DS337/R, adopted 15 January 2008, 
and Corr.1, DSR 2008:I, p. 3 
EC – Sardines Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Trade Description of 
Sardines , WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 23 October 2002, DSR 2002:VIII, 
p. 3359 
EC – Sardines Panel Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines , 
WT/DS231/R and Corr.1, adopted 23 October 2002, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS 231/AB/R, DSR 2002:VIII, p. 3451 
EC – Scallops (Canada) Panel Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Scallops  
– Request by Canada , WT/DS7/R, 5 August 1996, unadopted, 
DSR 1996:I, p. 89 
EC – Scallops (Peru and 
Chile) Panel Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Scallops  
– Requests by Peru  and Chile , WT/DS12/R, WT/DS14/R, 5 August 1996, 
unadopted, DSR 1996:I, p. 93 WT/AB/20 
 
- 90 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
EC – Seal Products Panel Reports, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the 
Importation and Marketing of Seal Products , WT/DS400/R / WT/DS401/R 
/ and Add.1, circulated to WTO Members 25 November 2013  
[This report was appealed on 22 January 2014] 
EC – Selected Customs 
Matters Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Selected Customs 
Matters , WT/DS315/AB/R, adopted 11 December 2006, DSR 2006:IX, 
p. 3791 
EC – Selected Customs 
Matters Panel Report, European Communities – Selected Customs Matters , 
WT/DS315/R, adopted 11 December 200 6, as modified by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS315/AB/R, DSR 2006:IX, p. 3915 
EC – Tariff Preferences Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Conditions for the 
Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries , WT/DS246/AB/R, 
adopted 20 April 2004, DSR 2004:III, p. 925 
EC – Tariff Preferences Panel Report, European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of 
Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries , WT/DS246/R, adopted 
20 April 2004, as modified by Appe llate Body Report WT/DS246/AB/R, 
DSR 2004:III, p. 1009 
EC – Tariff Preferences 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – Conditions for the 
Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries  – Arbitration 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS246/14, 20 September 2004, 
DSR 2004:IX, p. 4313 
EC – Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications 
(Australia) Panel Report,  European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, 
Complaint by Australia , WT/DS290/R, adopted 20 April 2005, 
DSR 2005:X, p. 4603 
EC – Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications 
(US) Panel Report,  European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, 
Complaint by the United States , WT/DS174/R, adopted 20 April 2005, 
DSR 2005:VIII, p. 3499 
EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties 
on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil , 
WT/DS219/AB/R, adopted 18 August  2003, DSR 2003:VI, p. 2613 
EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil , WT/DS219/R, 
adopted 18 August 2003, as modifi ed by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS219/AB/R, DSR 2003:VII, p. 2701 
EC and certain member 
States – Large Civil Aircraft Appellate Body Report, European Communities and Certain Member 
States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft , 
WT/DS316/AB/R, adopted 1 June 2011, DSR 2011:I, p. 7 
EC and certain member 
States – Large Civil Aircraft Panel Report, European Communities and Certain Member States – 
Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft , WT/DS316/R, adopted 
1 June 2011, as modified by Appe llate Body Report, WT/DS316/AB/R, 
DSR 2011:II, p. 685 
Egypt – Steel Rebar Panel Report, Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar 
from Turkey , WT/DS211/R, adopted 1 October 2002, DSR 2002:VII, 
p. 2667 
EU – Footwear (China) Panel Report, European Union – Anti-Dumpi ng Measures on Certain 
Footwear from China , WT/DS405/R, adopted 22 February 2012 
Guatemala – Cement I Appellate Body Report, Guatemala – Anti-Dumping Investigation 
Regarding Portland Cement from Mexico , WT/DS60/AB/R, adopted 
25 November  1998, DSR 1998:IX, p. 3767 
Guatemala – Cement I Panel Report, Guatemala – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding 
Portland Cement from Mexico , WT/DS60/R, adopted 25 November 1998, 
as reversed by Appellate Body Report WT/DS60/AB/R, DSR 1998:IX, 
p. 3797 WT/AB/20 
 
- 91 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
Guatemala – Cement II Panel Report, Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Grey 
Portland Cement from Mexico , WT/DS156/R, adopted 17 November 
2000, DSR 2000:XI, p. 5295 
India – Additional Import 
Duties Appellate Body Report, India – Additional and Extr a-Additional Duties on 
Imports from the United States , WT/DS360/AB/R, adopted 
17 November 2008, DSR 2008:XX, p. 8223 
India – Additional Import 
Duties Panel Report, India – Additional and Extra-A dditional Duties on Imports 
from the United States , WT/DS360/R, adopted 17 November 2008, as 
reversed by Appellate Body Re port WT/DS360/AB/R, DSR 2008:XX, 
p. 8317 
India – Autos Appellate Body Report, India – Measures Affecting the Automotive 
Sector , WT/DS146/AB/R, WT/DS175/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2002, 
DSR 2002:V, p. 1821 
India – Autos Panel Report, India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector , 
WT/DS146/R, WT/DS175/R and Co rr.1, adopted 5 April 2002, 
DSR 2002:V, p. 1827 
India – Patents (EC) Panel Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products, Comp laint by the European Communities 
and their member States , WT/DS79/R, adopted 22 September 1998, 
DSR 1998:VI, p. 2661 
India – Patents (US) Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection  for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products , WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16 January 
1998, DSR 1998:I, p. 9 
India – Patents (US) Panel Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products, Complaint by the United States , 
WT/DS50/R, adopted 16 January 1998, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS50/AB/R, DSR 1998:I, p. 41 
India – Quantitative 
Restrictions Appellate Body Report, India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of 
Agricultural, Textile an d Industrial Products , WT/DS90/AB/R, adopted 
22 September 1999, DSR 1999:IV, p. 1763 
India – Quantitative 
Restrictions Panel Report, India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of 
Agricultural, Textile an d Industrial Products , WT/DS90/R, adopted 
22 September 1999, upheld  by Appellate Body Report WT/DS90/AB/R, 
DSR 1999:V, p. 1799 
Indonesia – Autos Panel Report, Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile 
Industry , WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R and Corr.1 
and Corr.2, adopted 23 July 1998, and Corr.3 and 4, DSR 1998:VI, p. 
2201 
Indonesia – Autos 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Indonesia – Certain Me asures Affecting the 
Automobile Industry – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , 
WT/DS54/15, WT/DS55/14, WT/DS 59/13, WT/DS64/12, 7 December 
1998, DSR 1998:IX, p. 4029 
Japan – Agricultural 
Products II Appellate Body Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural 
Products , WT/DS76/AB/R, adopted 19 March 1999, DSR 1999:I, p. 277 
Japan – Agricultural 
Products II Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products , 
WT/DS76/R, adopted 19 March 1999, as  modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS76/AB/R, DSR 1999:I, p. 315 
Japan – Alcoholic 
Beverages II Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , 
WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 
1996, DSR 1996:I, p. 97 
Japan – Alcoholic 
Beverages II Panel Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS8/R, 
WT/DS10/R, WT/DS11/R, adopted 1 November 1996, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, DSR 1996:I, p. 125 WT/AB/20 
 
- 92 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
Japan – Alcoholic 
Beverages II  
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages – 
Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS8/15, WT/DS10/15, 
WT/DS11/13, 14 February 1997, DSR 1997:I, p. 3 
Japan – Apples Appellate Body Report, Japan – Measures Affect ing the Importation of 
Apples , WT/DS245/AB/R, adopted 10 December 2003, DSR 2003:IX, 
p. 4391 
Japan – Apples Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples , 
WT/DS245/R, adopted 10 December 200 3, upheld by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS245/AB/R, DSR 2003:IX, p. 4481  
Japan – Apples 
(Article 21.5 – US) Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples  
– Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States , 
WT/DS245/RW, adopted 20 July 2005, DSR 2005:XVI, p. 7911 
Japan – DRAMs (Korea) Appellate Body Report, Japan – Countervailing Duties on Dynamic 
Random Access Memories from Korea , WT/DS336/AB/R and Corr.1, 
adopted 17 December 2007,  DSR 2007:VII, p. 2703 
Japan – DRAMs (Korea) Panel Report, Japan – Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access 
Memories from Korea , WT/DS336/R, adopted 17 December 2007, as 
modified by Appellate Body Re port WT/DS336/AB/R, DSR 2007:VII, 
p. 2805 
Japan – DRAMs (Korea) 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Japan – Countervailing Duties on Dynamic 
Random Access Memories from Korea – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) 
of the DSU , WT/DS336/16, 5 May 2008, DSR 2008:XX, p. 8553 
Japan – Film Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film 
and Paper , WT/DS44/R, adopted 22 April 1998, DSR 1998:IV, p. 1179 
Japan – Quotas on Laver Panel Report, Japan – Import Quotas on Dried Laver and Seasoned 
Laver , WT/DS323/R, 1 Febr uary 2006, unadopted 
Korea – Alcoholic Beverages Appellate Body Report, Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , 
WT/DS75/AB/R, WT/DS84/AB/R , adopted 17 February 1999, 
DSR 1999:I, p. 3 
Korea – Alcoholic Beverages Panel Report, Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS75/R, 
WT/DS84/R, adopted 17 February 1999, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS75/AB/R, WT/DS84/AB/R, DSR 1999:I, p. 44 
Korea – Alcoholic Beverages  
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages – 
Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS75/16, 
WT/DS84/14, 4 June 1999, DSR 1999:II, p. 937 
Korea – Bovine Meat 
(Canada) Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting the Importation of Bovine 
Meat and Meat Products from Canada , WT/DS391/R, 3 July 2012, 
unadopted 
Korea – Certain Paper Panel Report, Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper 
from Indonesia , WT/DS312/R, adopted 28 November 2005, 
DSR 2005:XXII, p. 10637 
Korea – Certain Paper 
(Article 21.5 – Indonesia) Panel Report, Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper 
from Indonesia – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Indonesia , 
WT/DS312/RW, adopted 22 October 2007, DSR 2007:VIII, p. 3369 
Korea – Commercial Vessels Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Tr ade in Commercial Vessels , 
WT/DS273/R, adopted 11 Apr il 2005, DSR 2005:VII, p. 2749 
Korea – Dairy Appellate Body Report, Korea – Definitive Sa feguard Measure on 
Imports of Certain Dairy Products , WT/DS98/AB/R, adopted 12 January 
2000, DSR 2000:I, p. 3 
Korea – Dairy Panel Report, Korea – Definitive Safeguar d Measure on Imports of 
Certain Dairy Products , WT/DS98/R and Corr.1, adopted 12 January 
2000, as modified by Appellat e Body Report WT/DS98/AB/R, 
DSR 2000:I, p. 49 WT/AB/20 
 
- 93 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
Korea – Procurement Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Government Procurement , 
WT/DS163/R, adopted 19 June  2000, DSR 2000:VIII, p. 3541 
Korea – Various Measures on 
Beef Appellate Body Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, 
Chilled and Frozen Beef , WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, adopted 
10 January 2001, DSR 2001:I, p. 5 
Korea – Various Measures on 
Beef Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and 
Frozen Beef , WT/DS161/R, WT/DS169/R, adopted 10 January 2001, as 
modified by Appellate Body Repo rt WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, 
DSR 2001:I, p. 59 
Mexico – Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Rice Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Beef and Rice, Complaint with Respect to Rice , WT/DS295/AB/R, 
adopted 20 December 2005, DSR 2005:XXII, p. 10853 
Mexico – Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Rice Panel Report, Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and 
Rice, Complaint with Respect to Rice , WT/DS295/R, adopted 
20 December 2005, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS295/AB/R, DSR 2005:XXIII, p. 11007 
Mexico – Corn Syrup Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose 
Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States , WT/DS132/R, adopted 
24 February 2000, and Corr.1, DSR 2000:III, p. 1345 
Mexico – Corn Syrup 
(Article 21.5 – US) Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High 
Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States – Recourse to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU  by the United States , WT/DS132/AB/RW, 
adopted 21 November 2001, DSR 2001:XIII, p. 6675 
Mexico – Corn Syrup 
(Article 21.5 – US) Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose 
Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU  by the United States , WT/DS132/RW, adopted 21 November 
2001, upheld by Appellate Bo dy Report WT/DS132/AB/RW, 
DSR 2001:XIII, p. 6717 
Mexico – Olive Oil Panel Report, Mexico – Definitive Countervailing Measures on Olive Oil 
from the European Communities , WT/DS341/R, adopted 21 October 
2008, DSR 2008:IX, p. 3179 
Mexico – Steel Pipes and 
Tubes Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Duties on Steel Pipes and Tubes 
from Guatemala , WT/DS331/R, adopted 24 July 2007, DSR 2007:IV, 
p. 1207 
Mexico – Taxes on Soft 
Drinks Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other 
Beverages , WT/DS308/AB/R, adopted 24 March 2006, DSR 2006:I, p. 3 
Mexico – Taxes on Soft 
Drinks Panel Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other 
Beverages , WT/DS308/R, adopted 24 March 2006, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/D S308/AB/R, DSR 2006:I, p. 43 
Mexico – Telecoms Panel Report, Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications 
Services , WT/DS204/R, adopted 1 June 2004, DSR 2004:IV, p. 1537 
Philippines – Distilled Spirits Appellate Body Reports, Philippines – Taxes on Distilled Spirits , 
WT/DS396/AB/R / WT/DS403/AB/R, adopted 20 January 2012 
Philippines – Distilled Spirits Panel Reports, Philippines – Taxes on Distilled Spirits , WT/DS396/R / 
WT/DS403/R, adopted 20 January 2012, as modified by Appellate Body 
Reports WT/DS396/AB/R / WT/DS403/AB/R 
Thailand – Cigarettes 
(Philippines) Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on 
Cigarettes from the Philippines , WT/DS371/AB/R, adopted 15 July 2011, 
DSR 2011:IV, p. 2203 
Thailand – Cigarettes 
(Philippines) Panel Report, Thailand – Customs and Fiscal  Measures on Cigarettes 
from the Philippines , WT/DS371/R, adopted 15 July 2011, as modified 
by Appellate Body Report WT/DS371/AB/R, DSR 2011:IV, p. 2299 WT/AB/20 
 
- 94 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
Thailand – H-Beams Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, 
Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from 
Poland , WT/DS122/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001, DSR 2001:VII, p. 2701 
Thailand – H-Beams Panel Report, Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and 
Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland , 
WT/DS122/R, adopted 5 April 2001, as  modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS122/AB/R, DSR 2001:VII, p. 2741 
Turkey – Rice Panel Report, Turkey – Measures Affecting the Importation of Rice , 
WT/DS334/R, adopted 22 October 2007, DSR 2007:VI, p. 2151 
Turkey – Textiles Appellate Body Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and 
Clothing Products , WT/DS34/AB/R, adopted 19 November 1999, 
DSR 1999:VI, p. 2345 
Turkey – Textiles Panel Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing 
Products , WT/DS34/R, adopted 19 November 1999, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS34/AB/R, DSR 1999:VI, p. 2363 
US – 1916 Act Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 , 
WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, adopted 26 September 2000, 
DSR 2000:X, p. 4793 
US – 1916 Act (EC) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, Complaint by 
the European Communities , WT/DS136/R and Corr.1, adopted 
26 September 2000, upheld  by Appellate Body Report WT/DS136/AB/R, 
WT/DS162/AB/R, DSR 2000:X, p. 4593 
US – 1916 Act (Japan) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, Complaint by 
Japan , WT/DS162/R and Add.1, adopte d 26 September 2000, upheld by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS136/ AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, DSR 2000:X, 
p. 4831 
US – 1916 Act 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 – 
Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS136/11, 
WT/DS162/14, 28 February 2001, DSR 2001:V, p. 2017 
US – 1916 Act (EC) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrators, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, 
Original Complaint by the European Communities – Recourse to 
Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , 
WT/DS136/ARB, 24 February 2004, DSR 2004:IX, p. 4269 
US – Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Duties (China) Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China , WT/DS379/AB/R, 
adopted 25 March 2011, DSR 2011:V, p. 2869 
US – Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Duties (China) Panel Report, United States – Definitive An ti-Dumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Certain Products from China , WT/DS379/R, adopted 25 March 
2011, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS379/AB/R, DSR 
2011:VI, p. 3143 
US – Anti-Dumping Measures 
on Oil Country Tubular Goods Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil 
Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) from Mexico , WT/DS282/AB/R, adopted 
28 November 2005, DSR 2005:XX, p. 10127 
US – Anti-Dumping Measures 
on Oil Country Tubular Goods Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country 
Tubular Goods (OCTG) from Mexico , WT/DS282/R, adopted 
28 November 2005, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS282/AB/R, DSR 2005:XXI, p. 10225 
US – Anti-Dumping Measures 
on PET Bags Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand , WT/DS383/R, adopted 18 February 
2010, DSR 2010:IV, p. 1841 
US – Carbon Steel Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany , 
WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 December 2002, DSR 2002:IX, 
p. 3779 WT/AB/20 
 
- 95 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
US – Carbon Steel Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany , 
WT/DS213/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 December 2002, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/D S213/AB/R, DSR 2002:IX, p. 3833 
US – Certain EC Products Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Measures on Certain 
Products from the European Communities , WT/DS165/AB/R, adopted 
10 January 2001, DSR 2001:I, p. 373 
US – Certain EC Products Panel Report, United States – Import Measur es on Certain Products from 
the European Communities , WT/DS165/R and Add.1, adopted 10 
January 2001, as modified by Appe llate Body Report WT/DS165/AB/R, 
DSR 2001:II, p. 413 
US – Clove Cigarettes Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the 
Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes , WT/DS406/AB/R, adopted 
24 April 2012 
US – Clove Cigarettes Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Production and 
Sale of Clove Cigarettes , WT/DS406/R, adopted 24 April 2012, as 
modified by Appellate Bo dy Report WT/DS406/AB/R 
US – Continued Suspension Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Suspension of 
Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute , WT/DS320/AB/R, adopted 
14 November 2008, DSR 2008:X, p. 3507 
US – Continued Suspension Panel Report, United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in 
the EC – Hormones Dispute , WT/DS320/R and Add.1 to Add.7, adopted 
14 November 2008, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS320/AB/R, DSR 2008:XI, p. 3891 
US – Continued Zeroing Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Existence and 
Application of Zeroing Methodology , WT/DS350/AB/R, adopted 
19 February 2009, DSR 2009:III, p. 1291 
US – Continued Zeroing Panel Report, United States – Continued Existence and Application of 
Zeroing Methodology , WT/DS350/R, adopted 19 February 2009, as 
modified as Appellate Body Report WT/DS350/AB/R, DSR 2009:III, p. 1481 
US – COOL Appellate Body Reports, United States – Certain Country of Origin 
Labelling (COOL) Requirements , WT/DS384/AB/R / WT/DS386/AB/R, 
adopted 23 July 2012 
US – COOL Panel Reports, United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) 
Requirements , WT/DS384/R / WT/DS386/R, adopted 23 July 2012, as 
modified by Appellate Body Repo rts WT/DS384/AB/R / WT/DS386/AB/R 
US – COOL 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Certain Country of Origin 
Labelling (COOL) Requirements  – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the 
DSU, WT/DS384/24, WT/DS386/23, 4 December 2012 
US – Corrosion-Resistant 
Steel Sunset Review Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping 
Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carb on Steel Flat Products from Japan , 
WT/DS244/AB/R, adopted 9 January 2004, DSR 2004:I, p. 3  
US – Corrosion-Resistant 
Steel Sunset Review Panel Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan , 
WT/DS244/R, adopted 9 January 2004, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS244/AB/R, DSR 2004:I, p. 85  
US – Cotton Yarn Appellate Body Report, United States – Transiti onal Safegu ard Measure 
on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan , WT/DS192/AB/R, adopted 
5 November 2001, DSR 2001:XII, p. 6027 
US – Cotton Yarn Panel Report, United States – Transition al Safeguard Measure on 
Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan , WT/DS192/R, adopted 5 November 
2001, as modified by Appellat e Body Report WT/DS192/AB/R, 
DSR 2001:XII, p. 6067 WT/AB/20 
 
- 96 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
US – Countervailing Duty 
Investigation on DRAMS Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duty 
Investigation on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors 
(DRAMS) from Korea , WT/DS296/AB/R, adopted 20 July 2005, 
DSR 2005:XVI, p. 8131 
US – Countervailing Duty 
Investigation on DRAMS Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on 
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea , 
WT/DS296/R, adopted 20 July 2005, as  modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS296/AB/R, DSR 2005:XVII, p. 8243 
US – Countervailing 
Measures on Certain EC 
Products Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Measures 
Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities , 
WT/DS212/AB/R, adopted 8 January 2003, DSR 2003:I, p. 5 
US – Countervailing 
Measures on Certain EC 
Products Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning 
Certain Products from the European Communities , WT/DS212/R, 
adopted 8 January 2003, as modifi ed by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS212/AB/R, DSR 2003:I, p. 73 
US – Countervailing 
Measures on Certain EC Products  (Article 21.5 – EC) Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning 
Certain Products from the European Communities – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities , WT/DS212/RW, 
adopted 27 September 2005, DSR 2005:XVIII, p. 8950 
US – Customs Bond Directive Panel Report, United States – Customs Bond Directive for Merchandise 
Subject to Anti-Dumping/Countervailing Duties , WT/DS345/R, adopted 
1 August 2008, as modified by Appe llate Body Report WT/DS343/AB/R / 
WT/DS345/AB/R, DSR 2008:VIII, p. 2925 
US – DRAMS Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors (DRA MS) of One Megabit or Above from 
Korea , WT/DS99/R, adopted 19 March 1999, DSR 1999:II, p. 521 
US – DRAMS 
(Article 21.5 – Korea) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors (DRA MS) of One Megabit or Above from 
Korea – Recourse to Articl e 21.5 of the DSU by Korea , WT/DS99/RW, 
7 November 2000, unadopted 
US – Export Restraints Panel Report, United States – Measures Treating Exports Restraints as 
Subsidies , WT/DS194/R and Corr.2, adopted 23 August 2001, 
DSR 2001:XI, p. 5767 
US – FSC Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" , WT/DS108/AB/R, adopted 20 March 2000, DSR 2000:III, 
p. 1619 
US – FSC Panel Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" , WT/DS108/R, adopted 20 March 2000, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/D S108/AB/R, DSR 2000:IV, p. 1675 
US – FSC 
(Article 21.5 – EC) Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European 
Communities , WT/DS108/AB/RW, adopted 29 January 2002, 
DSR 2002:I, p. 55 
US – FSC 
(Article 21.5 – EC) Panel Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European 
Communities , WT/DS108/RW, adopted 29 January 2002, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS 108/AB/RW, DSR 2002:I, p. 119 
US – FSC 
(Article 21.5 – EC II) Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the 
European Communities , WT/DS108/AB/RW2, adopted 14 March 2006, 
DSR 2006:XI, p. 4721 WT/AB/20 
 
- 97 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
US – FSC 
(Article 21.5 – EC II) Panel Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities , WT/DS108/RW2, adopted 14 March 2006, 
upheld by Appellate Body Repo rt WT/DS108/AB/RW2, DSR 2006:XI, 
p. 4761 
US – FSC 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign 
Sales Corporations" – Recourse to Arbitration by the United States 
under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement , 
WT/DS108/ARB, 30 August 2002, DSR 2002:VI, p. 2517 
US – Gambling Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the 
Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services , 
WT/DS285/AB/R, adopted 20 Ap ril 2005, DSR 2005:XII, p. 5663 
(Corr.1, DSR 2006:XII, p. 5475) 
US – Gambling Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border 
Supply of Gambling and Betting Services , WT/DS285/R, adopted 
20 April 2005, as modified by Appe llate Body Report WT/DS285/AB/R, 
DSR 2005:XII, p. 5797 
US – Gambling 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Measures Affecting the 
Cross-Border Supply of Gambling an d Betting Services – Arbitration 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS285/13, 19 August 2005, 
DSR 2005:XXIII, p. 11639 
US – Gambling 
(Article 21.5 – Antigua and 
Barbuda) Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border 
Supply of Gambling and Betting Services  – Recourse to Article 21.5 of 
the DSU by Antigua and Barbuda , WT/DS285/RW, adopted 22 May 
2007, DSR 2007:VIII, p. 3105 
US – Gambling 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Measures Affecting the 
Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services – Recourse to 
Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , 
WT/DS285/ARB, 21 December 2007, DSR 2007:X, p. 4163 
US – Gasoline Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and 
Conventional Gasoline , WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, 
DSR 1996:I, p. 3 
US – Gasoline Panel Report, United States – Standard s for Reformulated and 
Conventional Gasoline , WT/DS2/R, adopted 20 May 1996, as modified 
by Appellate Body Report WT /DS2/AB/R, DSR 1996:I, p. 29 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan , WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 
23 August 2001, DSR 2001:X, p. 4697 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain 
Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan , WT/DS184/R, adopted 23 August 
2001 modified by Appellate Body Re port WT/DS184/AB/R, DSR 2001:X, 
p. 4769 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan – Arbitration under 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS184/13, 19 February 2002, 
DSR 2002:IV, p. 1389 
US – Lamb Appellate Body Report, United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports 
of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia , 
WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, adopted 16 May 2001, DSR 2001:IX, p. 4051 
US – Lamb Panel Report, United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, 
Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia , 
WT/DS177/R, WT/DS178/R, adopte d 16 May 2001, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, DSR 2001:IX, 
p. 4107 WT/AB/20 
 
- 98 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
US – Large Civil Aircraft 
(2nd complaint) Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting Trade in 
Large Civil Aircraft (Second Complaint) , WT/DS353/AB/R, adopted 
23 March 2012 
US – Large Civil Aircraft 
(2nd complaint) Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil 
Aircraft (Second Complaint) , WT/DS353/R, adopted 23 March 2012, as 
modified by Appellate Bo dy Report WT/DS353/AB/R 
US – Lead and Bismuth II Appellate Body Report, United States – Imposition of Countervailing 
Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products 
Originating in the United Kingdom , WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted 7 June 
2000, DSR 2000:V, p. 2595 
US – Lead and Bismuth II Panel Report, United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on 
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating 
in the United Kingdom , WT/DS138/R and Corr.2, adopted 7 June 2000, 
upheld by Appellate Body Report WT/DS138/AB/R, DSR 2000:VI, 
p. 2623 
US – Line Pipe Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures 
on Imports of Circular Welded Ca rbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea , 
WT/DS202/AB/R, adopted 8 March 2002, DSR 2002:IV, p. 1403 
US – Line Pipe Panel Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports 
of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea , WT/DS202/R, 
adopted 8 March 2002, as modified  by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS202/AB/, DSR 2002:IV, p. 1473 
US – Line Pipe 
(Article 21.3(c)) Report of the Arbitrator, United States – Definiti ve Safeguar d Measures 
on Imports of Circular Welded Carb on Quality Line Pipe from Korea  
– Arbitration under Arti cle 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS202/17, 26 July 
2002, DSR 2002:V, p. 2061 
US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment) Appellate Body Report, United States – Contin ued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000 , WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R, adopted 
27 January 2003, DSR 2003:I, p. 375 
US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment) Panel Report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act of 2000 , WT/DS217/R, WT/DS234/R, adopted 27 January 2003, as 
modified by Appellate Body Repo rt WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R, 
DSR 2003:II, p. 489 
US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment) 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 – Arbitrat ion under Article 21.3(c) of the 
DSU, WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22, 13 June 2003, DSR 2003:III, 
p. 1163 
US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment) (Brazil) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by Brazil – Recourse to 
Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , 
WT/DS217/ARB/BRA, 31 August 2004, DSR 2004:IX, p. 4341 
US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment) (Canada)  
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by Canada – Recourse to 
Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , 
WT/DS234/ARB/CAN, 31 August 2004, DSR 2004:IX, p. 4425 
US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment) (Chile) (Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by Chile – Recourse to 
Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , 
WT/DS217/ARB/CHL, 31 August 2004, DSR 2004:IX, p. 4511 
US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment) (EC) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, Origin al Complaint by the European 
Communities – Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under 
Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS217/ARB/EEC, 31 August 2004, 
DSR 2004:IX, p. 4591 WT/AB/20 
 
- 99 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment) (India) (Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by India – Recourse to 
Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , 
WT/DS217/ARB/IND, 31 August 2004, DSR 2004:X, p. 4691 
US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment) (Japan) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by Japan – Recourse to 
Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , 
WT/DS217/ARB/JPN, 31 August 2004, DSR 2004:X, p. 4771 
US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment) (Korea) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by Korea – Recourse to 
Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , 
WT/DS217/ARB/KOR, 31 August 2004, DSR 2004:X, p. 4851 
US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment) (Mexico) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by Mexico – Recourse to 
Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , 
WT/DS234/ARB/MEX, 31 August 2004, DSR 2004:X, p. 4931 
US – Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Sunset Reviews Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina , 
WT/DS268/AB/R, adopted 17 Decemb er 2004, DSR 2004:VII, p. 3257 
US – Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Sunset Reviews Panel Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina , WT/DS268/R 
and Corr.1, adopted 17 December 2004, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS268/AB/R, DSR 2004:VIII, p. 3421 
US – Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Sunset Reviews (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Sunset Reviews of 
Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina  – Arbitration under Arti cle 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS268/12, 7 June 
2005, DSR 2005:XXIII, p. 11619 
US – Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Sunset Reviews 
(Article 21.5 – Argentina) Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Oil Country Tubular G oods from Argentina – Recourse to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina , WT/DS268/AB/RW, adopted 11 
May 2007, DSR 2007:IX, p. 3523 
US – Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Sunset Reviews 
(Article 21.5 – Argentina) Panel Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Oil Country Tubular G oods from Argentina – Recourse to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina , WT/DS268/RW, adopted 11 May 
2007, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS268/AB/RW, 
DSR 2007:IX, p. 3609 
US – Orange Juice (Brazil) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Reviews and 
Other Measures Related to Imports of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil , 
WT/DS382/R, adopted 17 June 2011, DSR 2011:VII, p. 3753 
US – Poultry (China) Panel Report, United States – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of 
Poultry from China , WT/DS392/R, adopted 25 October 2010, 
DSR 2010:V, p. 1909 
US – Section 110(5) 
Copyright Act Panel Report, United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act , 
WT/DS160/R, adopted 27 July 2000, DSR 2000:VIII, p. 3769 
US – Section 110(5) 
Copyright Act (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Section 110(5) of the US 
Copyright Act – Arbitration under  Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , 
WT/DS160/12, 15 January 2001, DSR 2001:II, p. 657 
US – Section 110(5) 
Copyright Act  
(Article 25) Award of the Arbitrators, United States – Section 110(5) of the US 
Copyright Act – Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU , 
WT/DS160/ARB25/1, 9 Novemb er 2001, DSR 2001:II, p. 667 
US – Section 129(c)(1) URAA Panel Report, United States – Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act , WT/DS221/R, adopted 30 August 2002, DSR 2002:VII, 
p. 2581 WT/AB/20 
 
- 100 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
US – Section 211 
Appropriations Act Appellate Body Report, United States – Section 211 Omnibus 
Appropriations Act of 1998 , WT/DS176/AB/R, adopted 1 February 2002, 
DSR 2002:II, p. 589 
US – Section 211 
Appropriations Act Panel Report, United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act 
of 1998 , WT/DS176/R, adopted 1 Febr uary 2002, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/D S176/AB/R, DSR 2002:II, p. 683 
US – Section 301 Trade Act Panel Report, United States – Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 
1974, WT/DS152/R, adopted 27 January 2000, DSR 2000:II, p. 815 
US – Shrimp Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain 
Shrimp and Shrimp Products , WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 
1998, DSR 1998:VII, p. 2755 
US – Shrimp Panel Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and 
Shrimp Products , WT/DS58/R and Corr.1, adopted 6 November 1998, as 
modified by Appellate Body Re port WT/DS58/AB/R, DSR 1998:VII, 
p. 2821 
US – Shrimp 
(Article 21.5 – Malaysia) Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain 
Shrimp and Shrimp Products – Recour se to Article 21.5 of the DSU by 
Malaysia , WT/DS58/AB/RW, adop ted 21 November 2001, 
DSR 2001:XIII, p. 6481 
US – Shrimp 
(Article 21.5 – Malaysia) Panel Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and 
Shrimp Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia , 
WT/DS58/RW, adopted 21 November 20 01, upheld by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS58/AB/RW, DSR 2001:XIII, p. 6529 
US – Shrimp (Ecuador) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from 
Ecuador , WT/DS335/R, adopted on 20 February 2007, DSR 2007:II, 
p. 425 
US – Shrimp (Thailand) / 
US – Customs Bond Directive Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Relating to Shrimp 
from Thailand / United States – Customs Bond Directive for Merchandise 
Subject to Anti-Dumping/Countervailing Duties , WT/DS343/AB/R / 
WT/DS345/AB/R, adopted 1 August  2008, DSR 2008:VII, p. 2385 / 
DSR 2008:VIII, p. 2773 
US – Shrimp (Thailand) Panel Report, United States – Measures Relating to Shrimp from 
Thailand , WT/DS343/R, adopted 1 Augu st 2008, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/D S343/AB/R / WT/DS345/AB/R, 
DSR 2008:VII, p. 2539 
US – Shrimp (Viet Nam) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp 
from Viet Nam , WT/DS404/R, adopted 2 September 2011, DSR 2011:X, 
p. 5301 
US – Shrimp and Sawblades Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain 
Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades from China , WT/DS422/R and Add.1, 
adopted 23 July 2012 
US – Softwood Lumber III Panel Report, United States – Preliminary Determinations with Respect 
to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS236/R, adopted 1 
November 2002, DSR 2002:IX, p. 3597 
US – Softwood Lumber IV Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty 
Determination with Respect to Ce rtain Softwood Lumber from Canada , 
WT/DS257/AB/R, adopted 17 Februa ry 2004, DSR 2004:II, p. 571 
US – Softwood Lumber IV Panel Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination 
with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS257/R 
and Corr.1, adopted 17 February 2004, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS257/AB/R, DSR 2004:II, p. 641  
US – Softwood Lumber IV 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty 
Determination with Respect to Cert ain Softwood Lumber from Canada  
– Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS257/AB/RW, 
adopted 20 December 2005, DSR 2005:XXIII, p. 11357 WT/AB/20 
 
- 101 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
US – Softwood Lumber IV 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Panel Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination 
with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse by 
Canada to Article 21.5 [of the DSU] , WT/DS257/RW, adopted 20 
December 2005, upheld by Appellate  Body Report WT/DS257/AB/RW, 
DSR 2005:XXIII, p. 11401 
US – Softwood Lumber V Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on 
Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS264/AB/R, adopted 31 August 
2004, DSR 2004:V, p. 1875 
US – Softwood Lumber V Panel Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood 
Lumber from Canada , WT/DS264/R, adopted 31 August 2004, as 
modified by Appellate Body Re port WT/DS264/AB/R, DSR 2004:V, 
p. 1937 
US – Softwood Lumber V  
(Article 21.3(c))  Report of the Arbitrator, United States – Final Dumping Determination 
on Softwood Lumber from Canada – Arbitration under Ar ticle 21.3(c) of 
the DSU , WT/DS264/13, 13 December 2004, DSR 2004:X, p. 5011 
US – Softwood Lumber V 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on 
Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by 
Canada , WT/DS264/AB/RW, adopted 1 September 2006, DSR 2006:XII, 
p. 5087 
US – Softwood Lumber V 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Panel Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood 
Lumber from Canada – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada , 
WT/DS264/RW, adopted 1 September 2006, as reversed by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS264/AB/R W, DSR 2006:XII, p. 5147 
US – Softwood Lumber VI Panel Report, United States – Investigation of the International Trade 
Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS277/R, adopted 
26 April 2004, DSR 2004:VI, p. 2485 
US – Softwood Lumber VI 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Appellate Body Report, United States – Investigation of the International 
Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada , WT/DS277/AB/RW, adopted 9 May 
2006, and Corr.1, DSR 2006:XI, p. 4865 
US – Softwood Lumber VI 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Panel Report, United States – Investigation of the International Trade 
Commission in Softwood Lumber  from Canada – Recourse to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada , WT/DS277/RW, adopted 9 May 
2006, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS277/AB/RW, 
DSR 2006:XI, p. 4935 
US – Stainless Steel (Korea) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel 
Plate in Coils and Stainless St eel Sheet and Strip from Korea , 
WT/DS179/R, adopted 1 February 2001, DSR 2001:IV, p. 1295 
US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Stainless Steel from Mexico , WT/DS344/AB/R, adopted 20 May 2008, 
DSR 2008:II, p. 513 
US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) Panel Report, United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless 
Steel from Mexico , WT/DS344/R, adopted 20 May 2008, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/D S344/AB/R, DSR 2008:II, p. 599 
US – Stainless Steel (Mexico)  
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures 
on Stainless Steel from Mexico – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the 
DSU, WT/DS344/15, 31 October 2008, DSR 2008:XX, p. 8619 
US – Stainless Steel (Mexico)  
(Article 21.5 – Mexico) Panel Report, United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless 
Steel From Mexico – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Mexico , 
WT/DS344/RW, 6 May 2013, unadopted 
US – Steel Plate Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing 
Measures on Steel Plate from India , WT/DS206/R and Corr.1, adopted 
29 July 2002, DSR 2002:VI, p. 2073 WT/AB/20 
 
- 102 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
US – Steel Safeguards Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures 
on Imports of Certain Steel Products , WT/DS248/AB/R, 
WT/DS249/AB/R, WT/DS251/AB/R, WT/DS252/AB/R, WT/DS253/AB/R, 
WT/DS254/AB/R, WT/DS258/AB/R, WT/DS259/AB/R, adopted 
10 December 2003, DSR 2003:VII, p. 3117  
US – Steel Safeguards Panel Reports, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Certain Steel Products , WT/DS248/R / WT/DS249/R / 
WT/DS251/R / WT/DS252/R / WT/DS253/R / WT/DS254/R / 
WT/DS258/R / WT/DS259/R / and Co rr.1, adopted 10 December 2003, 
as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS248/AB/R, 
WT/DS249/AB/R, WT/DS251/AB/R, WT/DS252/AB/R, WT/DS253/AB/R, 
WT/DS254/AB/R, WT/DS258/AB/R, WT/DS259/AB/R, DSR 2003:VIII, 
p. 3273  
US – Textiles Rules of Origin Panel Report, United States – Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel 
Products , WT/DS243/R and Corr.1, adopted 23 July 2003, DSR 2003:VI, 
p. 2309 
US – Tuna II (Mexico) Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Concerning the 
Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products , 
WT/DS381/AB/R, adopted 13 June 2012 
US – Tuna II (Mexico) Panel Report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, 
Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products , WT/DS381/R, adopted 
13 June 2012, as modified by Appe llate Body Report WT/DS381/AB/R 
US – Tyres (China) Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting Imports of 
Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tyres from China , 
WT/DS399/AB/R, adopted 5 October 2011, DSR 2011:IX, p. 4811 
US – Tyres (China) Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Certain 
Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tyres from China , WT/DS399/R, 
adopted 5 October 2011, upheld by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS399/AB/R , DSR 2011:IX, p. 4945 
US – Underwear Appellate Body Report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of 
Cotton and Man-made Fibre Underwear , WT/DS24/AB/R, adopted 
25 February 1997, DSR 1997:I, p. 11 
US – Underwear Panel Report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and 
Man-made Fibre Underwear , WT/DS24/R, adopted 25 February 1997, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report  WT/DS24/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, p. 31 
US – Upland Cotton Appellate Body Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton , 
WT/DS267/AB/R, adopted 21 March 2005, DSR 2005:I, p. 3 
US – Upland Cotton Panel Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton , WT/DS267/R, 
Add.1 to Add.3, and Corr.1, adop ted 21 March 2005, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/D S267/AB/R, DSR 2005:II, p. 299 
US – Upland Cotton 
(Article 21.5 – Brazil) Appellate Body Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton  
– Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil , WT/DS267/AB/RW, 
adopted 20 June 2008, DSR 2008:III, p. 809 
US – Upland Cotton 
(Article 21.5 – Brazil) Panel Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton – Recourse to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil , WT/DS267/RW and Corr.1, adopted 
20 June 2008, as modified by Appella te Body Report WT/DS267/AB/RW, 
DSR 2008:III, p. 997 
US – Upland Cotton 
(Article 22.6 – US I) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton  
– Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the 
DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement , WT/DS267/ARB/1, 
31 August 2009, DSR 2009:IX, p. 3871 
US – Upland Cotton 
(Article 22.6 – US II) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton  
– Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement , WT/DS267/ARB/2 and 
Corr.1, 31 August 2009, DSR 2009:IX, p. 4083 WT/AB/20 
 
- 103 - 
 
  Short title Full case title and citation 
US – Wheat Gluten Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures 
on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities , 
WT/DS166/AB/R, adopted 19 January 2001, DSR 2001:II, p. 717 
US – Wheat Gluten Panel Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports 
of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities , WT/DS166/R, 
adopted 19 January 2001, as modifi ed by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS166/AB/R, DSR 2001:III, p. 779 
US – Wool Shirts and Blouses Appellate Body Report, United States – Measure Affecting Imports of 
Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India , WT/DS33/AB/R, adopted 
23 May 1997, and Corr.1, DSR 1997:I, p. 323 
US – Wool Shirts and Blouses Panel Report, United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool 
Shirts and Blouses from India , WT/DS33/R, adopted 23 May 1997, 
upheld by Appellate Body Report  WT/DS33/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, p. 343 
US – Zeroing (EC) Appellate Body Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and 
Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") , 
WT/DS294/AB/R, adopted 9 May 2006,  and Corr.1, DSR 2006:II, p. 417 
US – Zeroing (EC) Panel Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for 
Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") , WT/DS294/R, adopted 9 May 
2006, as modified by Appellat e Body Report WT/DS294/AB/R, 
DSR 2006:II, p. 521 
US – Zeroing (EC) 
(Article 21.5 – EC) Appellate Body Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and 
Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing")  
– Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities , 
WT/DS294/AB/RW and Corr.1, adop ted 11 June 2009, DSR 2009:VII, 
p. 2911 
US – Zeroing (EC) 
(Article 21.5 – EC) Panel Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for 
Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing" ) – Recourse to Article 21.5 of 
the DSU by the European Communities , WT/DS294/RW, adopted 
11 June 2009, as modified by Appella te Body Report WT/DS294/AB/RW, 
DSR 2009:VII, p. 3117 
US – Zeroing (Japan) Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing 
and Sunset Reviews , WT/DS322/AB/R, adopted 23 January 2007, 
DSR 2007:I, p. 3 
US – Zeroing (Japan) Panel Report, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset 
Reviews , WT/DS322/R, adopted 23 January 2007, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/D S322/AB/R, DSR 2007:I, p. 97 
US – Zeroing (Japan) 
(Article 21.3(c)) Report of the Arbitrator, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing 
and Sunset Reviews – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , 
WT/DS322/21, 11 May 2007, DSR 2007:X, p. 4160 
US – Zeroing (Japan) 
(Article 21.5 – Japan) Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing 
and Sunset Reviews – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Japan , 
WT/DS322/AB/RW, adopted 31 August  2009, DSR 2009:VIII, p. 3441 
US – Zeroing (Japan) 
(Article 21.5 – Japan) Panel Report, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset 
Reviews – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Japan , 
WT/DS322/RW, adopted 31 August 200 9, upheld by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS322/AB/RW,  DSR 2009:VIII, p. 3553 
US – Zeroing (Korea) Panel Report, United States – Use of Zeroing in Anti-Dumping Measures 
Involving Products from Korea , WT/DS402/R, adopted 24 February 
2011, DSR 2011:X, p. 5239 
 
__________