WT/DS384/31  
WT/DS386/30  
 
27 January 2015  
(15-0575)  Page: 1/2  
   
 
 UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) REQUIREMENTS 
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY MEXICO 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY 
The following notification, dated 26 January 2015, from the Chair of the Appellate Body addressed 
to the Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated to Members in accordance with Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. 
 
_______________ 
  
I am writing to you pursuant to Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), wh ich stipulates that, as a general rule, the 
Appellate Body will circulate its report no later than 60 days after the appellant has formally 
notified the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of its decision to appeal. Article 17.5 states, 
furthermore, that, when the Appellate Body considers that it cannot provide its report within 60 days, it shall inform the DSB in writing of the reasons for the delay together with an estimate of 
the period within which it will submit its report. 
 The United States notified the DSB on 28 November 2014 of its decision to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel Reports WT/DS384/RW and WT/DS386/RW and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel in these disputes, with the result that the 60-day period expires on 
Tuesday, 27 January 2015. For the reasons expressed below, the Appellate Body will not be able to circulate its reports by this date, or within the 90-day timeframe provided for in the last sentence of 
Article 17.5 of the DSU.  
 On 28 November 2014, the Appellate Body also received a joint request by the participants 
requesting extensions of the time-periods for filing written submissions pursuant to Rule 16(2) of 
the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (Working Procedures). The participants submitted that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the time-periods set out in the Working Procedures would not afford the United States as appellant sufficient time to present its 
arguments. In their joint request, the participants  also requested consequential extensions of the 
time-periods for filing other appellants' and appell ees' submissions. In support of their request, the 
participants pointed to serious resource constraints due to concurrent work on other pending 
proceedings, as well as the constraints imposed by the contemporaneous holiday period, the 
multiple complex issues at stake in these disp utes, and the present workload of the Appellate 
Body. After hearing the views of the third particip ants, the Appellate Body Division hearing this 
appeal issued a Procedural Ruling dated 2 Dece mber 2014 in which it extended, pursuant to 
Rule 16(2) of the Working Procedures, the time-p eriods foreseen in Rules 21(1), 22(1), and 23(3) 
and (4) for filing written submissions.   
On 11 December 2014, the Appellate Body Division hearing this appeal received a letter from 
Australia requesting an extension of the deadli ne for the filing of the third participants' 
submissions. Australia noted that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the time-period of 
three days between the filing of the appellees' subm issions and the filing of the third participants' 
submissions would run over a weekend, providing th ird participants with only one working day to 
incorporate reactions to the appellees' submissions into their third participants' submissions. 
Furthermore, Australia explained that these cha llenges would be exacerbated by the decreased 
staffing capacity during the peak summer holi day period in the Southern hemisphere. After WT/DS384/31 • WT/DS386/30 
 
- 2 - 
 
  hearing the views of the participants and other third participants, the Appellate Body Division 
hearing this appeal issued, pursuant to Rule 16(2)  of the Working Procedures, a Procedural Ruling 
dated 17 December 2014 in which it extended the time-periods for filing third participants' submissions. 
 
Moreover, on the date this appeal was filed, a ppeals in three other disputes were ongoing, and 
appeals in two further disputes were subsequently filed during the course of the present 
proceedings, resulting in substantial workload for the Appellate Body. In addition, overlap in the 
composition of the Divisions hearing the different appeals during this time-period led to difficulties in scheduling meetings in these proceedings.   
In sum, there are several factors rendering it im possible for the Appellate Body to circulate its 
reports within the 90-day timeframe provided for in Article 17.5 of the DSU. These include the current workload of the Appellate Body, the number and complexity of the issues raised in these 
appeal proceedings, and the demands that this places on the WTO Secretariat's translation services. 
These also include extensions of the deadlines for filing written submissions in this appeal granted at the request of the participants and third part icipants, the intervening year-end closure of the 
WTO Secretariat, as well as scheduling difficulties arising from overlap in the composition of the 
Divisions hearing appeals pending before the Appellate Body at the same time.   The circulation date of the Appellate Body reports in this appeal will be communicated to the 
participants and third participants shortly after the oral hearing, at which time the scheduling in 
other appeals concurrently pending before the Appellate Body will have been decided.  
 
__________