WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS363/AB/R 
21 December 2009 
 (09-6642) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
  
   
 
   
 
 
  
 
  
CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND  
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND  
AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS 
 
  
AB-2009-3 
  
    
 
     
Report of the Appellate Body 
 WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page i 
 
 
 I.
 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..............1  
II. Arguments of the Participants and the Third Participants ..........................................................8  
A. Claims of Error by China – Appellant ...........................................................................8  
1. The Applicability of China's Trading Rights Commitments to 
Measures Pertaining to Films for Theatrical Release and Unfinished 
Audiovisual Products........................................................................................8  
(a) Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film 
Enterprise Rule ....................................................................................8  
(b) Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and 
Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule ...................12  
2. The "Necessity" Test under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 ......................12  
(a) The State-Ownership Requirement....................................................13  
(b) The Exclusion of Foreign-Invested Enterprises.................................14  
(c) The Restrictive Effect  of the Measures..............................................15  
(d) Reasonably Available Alternative Measures.....................................15  
(e) Completion of the Analysis ...............................................................17  
3. The Scope of China's GATS Schedule Entry on "Sound Recording 
Distribution Services".....................................................................................17  
(a) Article 31 of the Vienna Convention .................................................18  
(b) Article 32 of the Vienna Convention .................................................23  
(c) In Dubio Mitius ..................................................................................24  
B. Arguments of the United States – Appellee ..................................................................24  
1. The Applicability of China's Trading Rights Commitments to 
Measures Pertaining to Films for Theatrical Release and Unfinished Audiovisual Products......................................................................................24
 
(a) Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film 
Enterprise Rule ..................................................................................24  
(b) Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and 
Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule ...................27  
2. The "Necessity" Test under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 ......................28  
(a) The State-Ownership Requirement....................................................28  
(b) The Exclusion of Foreign-Invested Enterprises.................................30  
(c) The Restrictive Effect  of the Measures..............................................30  
(d) Reasonably Available Alternative Measures.....................................31  
(e) Completion of the Analysis ...............................................................33  
3. The Scope of China's GATS Schedule Entry on "Sound Recording 
Distribution Services".....................................................................................34  
(a) Article 31 of the Vienna Convention .................................................34  
(b) Article 32 of the Vienna Convention .................................................37  
(c) In Dubio Mitius ..................................................................................38  
C. Claims of Error by the United States – Other Appellant .............................................39  
1. The Necessity of the State Plan Requirement within the Meaning of 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 ...................................................................39  
D. Arguments of China – Appellee ...................................................................................42  
1. The Necessity of the State Plan Requirement within the Meaning of 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 ...................................................................42  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page ii  
 
E.
 Arguments of the Third Participants ............................................................................45  
1. Australia..........................................................................................................45  
2. European Communities...................................................................................46  
3. Japan ...............................................................................................................49  
4. Korea...............................................................................................................50  
III. Issues Raised in This Appeal ................................................................................................... .52 
IV. Overview of the Measures at I ssue and the Panel's Findings ...................................................54  
A. Introduction .................................................................................................................54  
B. China's Trading Rights Commitments .........................................................................58  
C. Aspects of China's Regulatory Regime for the Relevant Products ..............................62  
D. Measures Pertaining to All Goods  and Services in This Dispute ................................63  
E. Measures Pertaining to Reading Materials .................................................................64  
1. Measures Challenged as Inconsistent  with China's Trading Rights 
Commitments..................................................................................................65  
2. Measures Challenged under the GATS and the GATT 1994 .........................68  
F. Measures Pertaining to  Audiovisual Products ............................................................69  
1. Measures Challenged as Inconsistent  with China's Trading Rights 
Commitments..................................................................................................69  
2. Measures Challenged under the GATS...........................................................71  
G. Measures Pertaining to Films for Theatrical Release .................................................71  
H. Measures Pertaining to the Electronic Distribution of Sound Recordings ..................73  
I. Matters on Appeal ........................................................................................................73  
V. The Applicability of China's Trading Rights  Commitments to Measures Pertaining to 
Films for Theatrical Release and Un finished Audiovisual Products ........................................74  
A. The Applicability of China's Trading Righ ts Commitments to Article 30 of the 
Film Regulation and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule .......................................74  
1. The Panel's Acceptance of the Alleged "Shift" in the United States' 
Claim...............................................................................................................76  
2. The Panel's Assessment of China's Measures Pertaining to Films for Theatrical Release...........................................................................................79
 
(a) The Panel's Findings on Article 30 of the Film Regulation ...............80  
(b) The Meaning of the Chinese Term " Dian Ying " in Article 30 of 
the Film Regulation ...........................................................................82  
(c) The Alleged "Incidental and Practical" Effects on Goods of 
Article 30 of the Film Regulation and Their Relevance to the 
Applicability of China's Trading Rights Commitments.....................85  
(d) Conclusion .........................................................................................89  
B. The Applicability of China's Trading Righ ts Commitments to Article 5 of the 
2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation and Article 7 of the Audiovisual 
Products Importation Rule ...........................................................................................90  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page iii 
 
 
VI. China's Defence under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 ........................................................91  
A. The Availability of a Defence under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 ........................91  
B. The "Necessity" Test under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 ....................................104  
1. The Panel's Analytical Approach to the "Necessity" Test under 
Article XX(a) ................................................................................................105  
2. The Contribution of China's Measures to the Protection of Public Morals in China ............................................................................................111
 
(a) The State-Ownership Requirement..................................................112  
(b) The Exclusion of Foreign-Invested Enterprises ..............................117  
(c) The State Plan Requirement ............................................................120  
3. The Restrictive Effect  of the Measures.........................................................127  
4. Reasonably Available Al ternative Measure..................................................133  
C. Summary and Conclusion on Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 .................................141  
VII. Scope of China's GATS Schedule Entry "Sound Recording Distribution Services"..............142  
A. Introduction ...............................................................................................................142  
B. Article 31 of the Vienna Convention ..........................................................................145  
1. Ordinary Meaning and the Panel's Use of Dictionary Definitions................145  
2. Context..........................................................................................................149  
(a) China's GATS Schedule ..................................................................150  
(b) Provisions of the GATS...................................................................154  
(c) GATS Schedules of Other Members ...............................................157  
(d) Summary..........................................................................................158  
3. Object and Purpose .......................................................................................159  
4. Summary under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention ..................................162  
C. Article 32 of the Vienna Convention ..........................................................................163  
D. Conclusions ................................................................................................................166  
VIII. Findings and Conclusions....................................................................................................... 167 
 
 ANNEX I Notification of an Appeal by China, WT/DS363/10  ANNEX II Notification of an Other Appeal by the United States, WT/DS363/11  
ANNEX III Relevant Excerpts from China's Acc ession Protocol and Wo rking Party Report, 
China's GATS Schedule, and the Chinese Measures at Issue in This Appeal 
 WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page iv  
 
CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT 
 
Short title Full case title and citation 
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affec ting Imports of Retreaded 
Tyres , WT/DS332/AB/R, adopted 17 December 2007, DSR 2007:IV, 1527 
Canada – Aircraft  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian 
Aircraft , WT/DS70/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1377 
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 Report WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, DSR 2000:VII, 3043 
Canada – FIRA  GATT Panel Report, Canada – Administration of the Foreign Investment 
Review Act , L/5504, adopted 7 February 1984, BISD 30S/140 
Canada – Periodicals  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals , 
WT/DS31/AB/R, adopted 30 July 1997, DSR 1997:I, 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, 481 
Canada – Provincial Liquor Boards (EEC)  GATT Panel Report, Canada – Import, Distribution and Sale of Alcoholic 
Drinks by Canadian Provincial Marketing Agencies , L/6304, adopted 
22 March 1988, BISD 35S/37 
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, 
513 
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 
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, circulated to WTO Members 12 August 2009  
Colombia – Ports of Entry Panel Report, Colombia – Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of 
Entry , WT/DS366/R and Corr.1, adopted 20 May 2009 
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, 7367 
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, 3243 
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, 591 
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, 9157 
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, 1851 WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page v 
 
 
Short title Full case title and citation 
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, 135 
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, 2031 
India – Autos  Panel Report, India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector , WT/DS146/R, 
WT/DS175/R and Corr.1, adopted 5 April 2002, DSR 2002:V, 1827 
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, 9 
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, 97  
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, 5 
Turkey – Rice Panel Report, Turkey – Measures Affecting the Importation of Rice , 
WT/DS334/R, adopted 22 October 2007, DSR 2007:VI, 2151 
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, 3779 
US – Continued Zeroing Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Existence and Application 
of Zeroing Methodology , WT/DS350/AB/R, adopted 19 February 2009 
US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel 
Sunset Review  Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping 
Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan , 
WT/DS244/AB/R, adopted 9 January 2004, DSR 2004:I, 3  
US – FSC  
(Article 21.5 – EC)  Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" – Recourse to Articl e 21.5 of the DSU by the European 
Communities , WT/DS108/AB/RW, adopted 29 January 2002, DSR 2002:I, 55 
US – Gambling Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border 
Supply of Gambling and Betting Services , WT/DS285/AB/R, adopted 
20 April 2005, DSR 2005:XII, 5663 (Corr.1, DSR 2006:XII, 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 Appellate Body Report, WT/DS285/AB/R, DSR 2005:XII, 5797 
US – Gasoline  Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and 
Conventional Gasoline , WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, DSR 1996:I, 3 
US – Malt Beverages  GATT Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting Alcoholic and Malt 
Beverages , DS23/R, adopted 19 June 1992, BISD 39S/206 
US – Offset Act  
(Byrd Amendment ) Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000 , WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R, adopted 27 January 
2003, DSR 2003:I, 375 
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, 589 
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, 815 WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page vi  
 
Short title Full case title and citation 
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, 2755 
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 
US – Softwood Lumber IV  Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty 
Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada , 
WT/DS257/AB/R, adopted 17 February 2004, DSR 2004:II, 571 
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, 3117  
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, 717 
 
 WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page vii 
 
 
ABBREVIATIONS OF CHINA'S MEASURES USED IN THIS REPORT 
 
Short Title Full Title in United States  Exhibit Full Title in Chinese Exhibit 
1997 Electronic 
Publications 
Regulation People's Republic of China, General 
Administration of Press and Publication, 
Order, No. 11 (1997) – Regulations on the 
Management of Electronic Publications 
(Panel Exhibit US-15) Order of the General Administration of 
Press and Publication of the People's 
Republic of China (No. 11) (1997)  
– Provisions on the Administration of 
Electronic Publications  
(Panel Exhibit CN-39) 
2001 Audiovisual Products 
Regulation People's Republic of China State Council, 
Order No. 341 (2001) – Regulations on the 
Management of Audiovisual Products  
(Panel Exhibit US-16) Order of the State Council of the People's 
Republic of China (No. 341) (2001)  
– Regulations on the Administration of 
Audiovisual Products (Panel Exhibit CN-2) 
Audiovisual  (Sub-)Distribution 
Rule Order of the People's Republic of China 
Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Commerce, 
No. 28 (2004) – Rules for the Management 
of Chinese-Foreign Contractual Joint Ventures for the Sub-Distribution of 
Audiovisual Products (Panel Exhibit US-18) Ministry of Culture and Ministry of 
Commerce, Order No. 28 (2004)  
– Measures for Administration of Sino-
Foreign Distribution Contractual Joint Ventures of Audiovisual Products  
(Panel Exhibit CN-54) 
Audiovisual 
Products Importation Rule Order of The People's Republic of China 
Ministry of Culture and The People's Republic of China General Administration 
of Customs, No. 23 (2002) – Rules for the 
Management of the Import of Audiovisual Products (Panel Exhibit US-17) Order of the Ministry of Culture and the 
General Administration of Customs (No.23) (2002) – Measures on the Administration of 
Importation of Audiovisual Products  
(Panel Exhibit CN-15) 
Catalogue  
 
(includes the  List 
of Restricted 
Foreign Investment 
Industries and the  
List of Prohibited Foreign 
Investment 
Industries) Order of the National Development and 
Reform Commission and the Ministry of 
Commerce of the People's Republic of 
China, No. 57 (2007) – Catalogue of 
Industries for Guiding Foreign Investment (Panel Exhibit US-5)  
(includes the Catalogue of Industries With 
Restricted Foreign Investment and the Catalogue of Prohibited Foreign Investment 
Industries) Order of National Development and Reform 
Commission and the Ministry of Commerce 
(No. 57) (2007) – Catalogue of Industries for 
Guiding Foreign Investment  
(Panel Exhibit CN-41) 
(includes the  Catalog of Restricted Foreign 
Investment Industries and the  Catalog of 
Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries)  
Circular on Internet Culture Notice of the Ministry of Culture on Some 
Issues Relating to Implementation of the 
"Interim Rules on the Management of 
Internet Culture" (2003);  and Order of the Ministry of Culture of the People's Republic 
of China, No. 27 (2003) Interim Rules on 
the Management of Internet Culture  (Panel Exhibit US-33) Circular of the Ministry of Culture (No.27) 
(2003) – Relevant Issues of Implementation 
of the "Interim Provisions on the 
Administration of Internet Culture"  (Panel Exhibit CN-67) 
Film Distribution 
and Exhibition 
Rule  State Administration of Radio, Film and 
Television and the Ministry of Culture, 
No. 1519 (2001) – Implementing Rules for 
the  Reform of the Film Distribution And 
Projection Mechanisms (Trial Implementation) (Panel Exhibit US-21) State Administration of Radio, Film and 
Television and Ministry of Culture 
(No. 1519) (2001) – Interim Implementing 
Rules for Reforming Film Distribution and 
Exhibition (Panel Exhibit CN-12) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page viii  
 
Short Title Full Title in United States  Exhibit Full Title in Chinese Exhibit 
Film Enterprise 
Rule Order of the State Administration of Radio, 
Film and Television and the Ministry of Commerce, No. 43 (2004) – Provisional 
Rules on Entry Criteria For Operating Film 
Enterprises (Panel Exhibit US-22) State Administration of Radio, Film and 
Television and the Ministry of Commerce, Order No. 43 (2004) – Interim Provisions 
on the Qualification Access for Operating 
Film Enterprises (Panel Exhibit CN-13) 
Film Regulation State Council of the People's Republic of 
China, Order No. 342 (2001) – Regulations 
on the Management of Films  (Panel Exhibit US-20) Order of the State Council of the People's 
Republic of China (No. 342) (2001)  
– Regulations on the Administration of Film (Panel Exhibit CN-11) 
Foreign 
Investment 
Regulation Order of the State Coun cil of The People's 
Republic of China, No. 346 (2002)  
– Regulations Guiding the Orientation of Foreign Investment (Exhibit US-9) No exhibit 
Imported 
Publications 
Subscription Rule General Administration of Press and 
Publication, Order 27 (2004) – Rules for the 
Management of Subscribers Placing Subscriptions for Imported Publications 
(Panel Exhibit US-30) Order of the General Administration of 
Press and Publication (No. 27) (2004)  
– Measures for Administration of Subscription of Imported Publications by 
Subscribers (Panel Exhibit CN-99) 
Internet Culture 
Rule Ministry of Culture, Order No. 32 (2003)  
– Interim Rules on the Management of Internet Culture (Panel Exhibit US-32) Ministry of Culture, Order No. 27 (2003) 
(revised by Order No. 32 (2004)) – Interim Provisions on the Administration of Internet 
Culture (Panel Exhibit CN-55) 
Network Music 
Opinions Several Opinions of the Ministry of Culture 
on the Development and Management of Network Music (2006)  
(Panel Exhibit US-34) Several Opinions of the Ministry of Culture 
on Development and Administration of Network Music (No.32) (2006)  
(Panel Exhibit CN-68) 
Publications  
(Sub-)Distribution 
Rule General Administration for Press and 
Publication and the Ministry of Foreign 
Trade and Economic Cooperation, Order 
No. 18 (2003) – Rules for the Management of Foreign Invested Enterprises 
Sub-Distributing Books, Newspapers and 
Periodicals (Panel Exhibit US-28) Order of the General Administration of 
Press and Publication and the Ministry of 
Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation 
(No.18) (2003) – Measures for Administration of Foreign-Invested Book, 
Periodical and Newspaper Distribution 
Enterprises (Panel Exhibit CN-47) 
Publications Market Rule General Administration of Press and 
Publication (2004) – Administrative Rules 
for the Publications Market  
(Panel Exhibit US-27) General Administration of Press and 
Publication (2004) – Provisions on the 
Administration of the Publications Market 
(Panel Exhibit CN-38) 
Publications Regulation  State Council of The People's Republic of 
China, Order No. 343 (2001) – Regulations 
on the Management of Publications  
(Panel Exhibit US-7) Order of the State Council of the People's 
Republic of China (No. 343) (2001)  
– Regulations on the Administration of 
Publishing (Panel Exhibit CN-14) 
Several Opinions Notice Issued by the Ministry of Culture, 
State Administration of Radio, Film, and 
Television, General Administration of Press 
and Publication, National Development and Reform Commission, and Ministry of 
Commerce and Printing and Issuing, No. 19 
(2005) – "Several Opinions on the 
Introduction of Foreign Capital into the 
Cultural Sector" (Panel Exhibit US-6) No exhibit  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page ix 
 
 
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT 
 
Abbreviation Description 
1993 Scheduling Guidelines  Scheduling of Initial Commitments in  Trade in Services, Explanatory 
Note, MTN.GNS/W/164, 3 September 1993  
Anti-Dumping Agreement  Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade 1994   
AVHE audiovisual home entertainment 
CDs compact discs 
China's Accession Protocol Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China, 
WT/L/432 
China's Accession Working Party Report Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China, 
WT/ACC/CHN/49 and WT/ACC/CHN/49/Corr.1 
China's GATS Schedule  The People's Republic of  China, Schedule of Specific Commitments, 
GATS/SC/135  
CNPIEC  China National Publications Import and Export (Group) Corporation  
CPC 1991 United Nations Provisiona l Central Product Classification 
DSB Dispute Settlement Body 
DSU Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of 
Disputes 
DVDs  digital video discs  
GAPP China's General Administration of Press and Publication 
GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services 
GATT 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
Harmonized System Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System of the World 
Customs Organization 
Importation Procedure China's Examination and Approval for Establishing a Publication 
Import Business Unit (State Council Order No. 343) (2005)  (Panel Exhibit US-8) 
MOC China's Ministry of Culture 
Panel  Panel in China – Publications and Audiovisual Products  
Panel Report Panel Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products , 
WT/DS363/R and Corr.1 
SARFT China's State Administration on Radio, Film and Television 
Services Sectoral Classification List  Services Sectoral Classification List, Note by the Secretariat, 
MTN.GNS/W/120, 10 July 1991  
SPS sanitary and phytosanitary 
SPS Agreement  Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page x  
 
Abbreviation Description 
State plan requirement requirement in Article 42 of the Publications Regulation  that the 
approval of publication import entities conform to China's State plan for the total number, structure, and distribution of publication import entities  
State-ownership requirement require ment in Article 42(2) of the Publications Regulation  that 
publication import entities be wholly State-owned enterprises  
Sub-Distribution Procedure China's Examination and Approval for Establishing Chinese-Foreign 
Equity Joint Ventures, Contractual Joint Ventures and Wholly Foreign-Owned Enterprises for the Sub-Distribution of Publications 
(State Council Order No. 412) ( 2005) (Panel Exhibit US-29)  
suitable organization and 
qualified personnel 
requirement requirement in Article 42(4) of the Publications Regulation  that 
publication import entities have an organizational structure adapted to 
the needs of its business of importing publications and professionals who meet the qualification requirements prescribed by the State  
TBT technical barriers to trade 
TBT Agreement  Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade   
TRIMs Agreement  Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures   
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Sc ientific and Cultural Organization  
UNON United Nations Office at Nairobi 
Vienna Convention Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties , done at Vienna, 23 May 
1969, 1155 UNTS 331;  8 International Legal Materials 679 
Working Procedures Working Procedures for Appellate Review , WT/AB/WP/5, 
4 January 2005 
WTO World Trade Organization 
WTO Agreement Marra kesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization 
 
  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 1 
 
 
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
APPELLATE BODY 
  
China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights  
and Distribution Services for Certain 
Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products  
 
China, Appellant/Appellee  
United States, Other Appellant/Appellee  
 Australia, Third Participant  
European Communities
1, Third Participant  
Japan, Third Participant  
Korea, Third Participant  
Separate Customs Territo ry of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu, Third Participant  AB-2009-3  
 
Present:  Hillman, Presiding Member Oshima, Member 
Ramírez-Hernández, Member 
 
  
I. Introduction 
1. China and the United States each appeals certain  issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed in the Panel Report, China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services 
for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products  (the "Panel Report").
2  The Panel 
was established to consider a complaint by the United States concerning a series of Chinese measures 
regulating activities relating to the importation and di stribution of:  reading materials (for example, 
books, newspapers, periodicals, electronic publications );  audiovisual home entertainment ("AVHE") 
products (for example, videocassettes, video compact discs, digital video discs ("DVDs"));  sound 
recordings (for example, recorded audio tapes);  and films for theatrical release.3  Further details 
regarding the content and the operation of the me asures examined by the Panel are set out in 
section IV of this Report. 
2. Before the Panel, the United States claimed that certain of the challenged Chinese measures 
violate trading rights commitments undertaken by China in the Protocol on the Accession of the 
People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization (the "WTO") ("China's Accession 
Protocol")4 and the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China to the WTO ("China's 
                                                      
1We note that, on 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and 
the Treaty establishing the European Community (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) entered into force.  On 
29 November 2009, the World Trade Organization received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the 
European Union and the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of 
Lisbon , as of 1 December 2009, the Eu ropean Union replaces and su cceeds the European Community. 
2WT/DS363/R, 12 August 2009, and WT/DS363/R/Corr.1, 19 August 2009. 
3Panel Report, paras. 2.1 and 2.2. 
4WT/L/432. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 2  
 
Accession Working Party Report")
5 because, by limiting trading rights  to wholly Chinese State-owned 
enterprises, the measures restrict the right of ente rprises in China, foreign enterprises, and foreign 
individuals, to import the relevant products into China.6  The United States alleged violations of 
paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of China's Accession Protocol, and of  paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession 
Protocol to the extent that it incorporates commitme nts referred to in paragr aphs 83 and 84 of China's 
Accession Working Party Report.7 
3. Additionally, the United States claimed that certa in of China's measures are inconsistent with 
Article XVI and/or Article XVII of the General Agreement on Trade in Services  (the "GATS") 
because they: 
(a) prohibit foreign-invested enterprises in Ch ina from engaging in certain types of 
distribution of reading materials and electronic distribution of sound recordings; 
(b) limit the commercial presence for the distri bution of AVHE products within China to 
Chinese-foreign contractual joint ventures with majority Chinese ownership;  or 
(c) impose on those foreign-invested enterprises in  China that are permitted to engage in 
the distribution of AVHE products or certain reading materials requirements that are 
more burdensome than those applicable to domestic distributors.8 
4. Finally, the United States claimed that certain  of China's measures are inconsistent with 
Article III:4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  (the "GATT 1994") because they: 
(a) restrict the distribution of certain imported reading materials within China by 
requiring that, unlike the situation for like domestic products, distribution be 
conducted only by wholly Chinese State-owned enterprises, only through subscription, and only to subscriber s approved by the Chinese Government; 
(b) limit to wholly Chinese-owned enterprises the distribution of certain imported 
reading materials, while the distribution of like domestic products is not so limited; 
(c) discriminate against imported sound recordings intended for electronic distribution 
within China by subjecting them to more  burdensome content review requirements 
than like domestic products;  or 
                                                     
 
5WT/ACC/CHN/49 and WT/ACC/CHN/49/Corr.1. 
6Panel Report, para. 2.3(a). 
7Panel Report, para. 3.1(a).  
8Panel Report, paras. 2.3(b) and 3.1(b) and (c). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 3 
 
 
(d) discriminate against imported films for theatrical release by limiting the distribution 
of such imported films to two wholly Chinese State-owned enterprises, while the 
distribution of like domestic products is not so limited.9 
5. The Panel addressed each of the Chinese legal instruments challenged by the United States.10  
The Panel considered procedural objections raised  by China and found that claims in respect of 
several measures were not within the Panel's terms of reference in accordance with the requirements 
of Article 6.2 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes  
(the "DSU").11  The Panel also determined that two of the instruments challenged by the United States 
were not "measures" within the meaning of Article 3.3 of the DSU.12   
                                                      
9Panel Report, paras. 2.3(c) and 3.1(d).  The United States also requested the Panel to find that, 
regarding China's national treatment obligations in resp ect of goods, certain of China's measures are also 
inconsistent with paragraphs 1.2 an d 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol. ( Ibid., para. 3.1(e)) 
10The United States challenged, in particular:  the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  the Catalogue ;  the 
Several Opinions ;  the Publications Regulation ;  the Importation Procedure ;  the Imported Publications 
Subscription Rule ;  the Publications (Sub-)Distribution Rule ;  the Publications Market Rule ;  the Sub-
Distribution Procedure ;  the 1997 Electronic Publications Regulation ;  the 2001 Audiovisual Products 
Regulation ;  the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule ;  the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule ;  the Internet 
Culture Rule ;  the Circular on Internet Culture ;  the Network Music Opinions ;  the Film Regulation ;  the Film 
Enterprise Rule ;  and the Film Distribution and Exhibition Rule . (Panel Report, para. 3.1)  The full titles of these 
legal instruments are set out in the lists of abbreviations at pages vii and ix of this Report.   
The parties submitted translations of the measures, or of certain provisions of the measures, as part of 
the exhibits attached to their first written submissions.  The Panel identified several provisions for which the parties had provided different translations or disputed the meaning of particular terms, and requested that the 
parties attempt to agree on a single translation.  On 9 and 20 October 2008, the par ties communicated that they 
had reduced some of their translation differences but that they were unable to agree on others, and requested that the Panel seek translation of the relevant terms or pr ovisions from an independent source.  On 19 December 
2008, the Panel requested the United Nations Office at Nairobi (the "UNON") to provide the relevant 
translations.  The Panel and the pa rties received the translations from  the UNON on 10 February 2009.  
Annex A-1 to the Panel Report summarizes the translation issues that arose during th e Panel proceedings. (See 
Panel Report, paras. 2.4-2.9) 
11The Panel found that the following were not within its  terms of reference:  claims relating to China's 
trading rights commitmen ts in respect of the Film Distribution and Exhibition Rule ;  claims under Article III:4 
of the GATT 1994 in respect of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and the Audiovisual Products 
Importation Rule ;  and claims concerning certain requirements (pre-establishment legal compliance, approval 
process requirements, decision making criteria) contained in certain measures. (Panel Report, para. 8.1.1(a) 
and (b);  see also paras. 7.60, 7.82, and 7.104)  The Panel separately found that the lack of consultations on a 
specific claim under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 regard ing certain reading material s did not mean that the 
claim was outside the Panel's terms of reference;  however, it excluded from consideration claims under 
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 in respect of electronic publications and certain provisions of the Imported 
Publications Subscription Rule . (Ibid., para. 8.1.1(c);  see also paras. 7.131, 7.147, 7.156, and 7.161) 
12The Panel found that the Importation Procedure  and the Sub-Distribution Procedure  did not qualify 
as "measures" because they did not them selves establish rules or norms of general and prospective application. 
(Panel Report, para. 8.1.1(d)(ii);  see also paras. 7.214 and 7.225)  The Panel separately found that the Several 
Opinions  was a measure properly subject to dispute settlement proceedings. ( Ibid., para. 8.1.1(d)(i);  see also 
para. 7.198)  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 4  
 
6. The Panel then considered whether China's me asures are consistent with China's trading 
rights commitments in paragraphs 1.2, 5.1, and 5.2 of China's Accession Protocol and in 
paragraphs 83(d) and 84( a) and (b) of China's Accession Work ing Party Report.  China's trading 
rights commitments include an obligation to grant "a ll enterprises in China ... the right to trade", 
which means "the right to import a nd export goods".  This obligation is subject to certain conditions, 
including that it is "[w]ithout prejudice to China's ri ght to regulate trade in a manner consistent with 
the WTO Agreement".
13  The Panel found that provisions in China's measures that either limit 
importation rights to wholly State-owned enterp rises regarding, or prohibit foreign-invested 
enterprises in China from importing, reading materials, AVHE products, sound recordings, and films, are inconsistent with China's oblig ation to grant the right to trade.
14  The Panel also concluded that 
several provisions of the Chinese measures at issu e breach China's obligation to grant in a non-
discretionary manner the right to trade.15   
7. The Panel turned next to China's defence that certain provisions found to be inconsistent with 
its trading rights commitments are nevertheless justified under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 because they form part of measures governing China' s regime to review the content of the relevant 
products, thereby protecting public morals in China.   The Panel refrained from making a finding as to 
"whether Article XX can be directly invoked as a defence to a breach of China's trading rights 
                                                     
 
13See China's Accession Protocol, para. 5.1;  and China's Accession Working Party Report, paras. 83(d) 
and 84(a).  In addition, China assumed obligations to ensure that foreign enterprises and individuals would be granted treatment no less favourable than  that accorded to enterpri ses in China with respect  to the right to trade 
(see China's Accession Protocol, para. 5.2) and to ensure that trading rights for foreign enterprises and 
individuals are granted in a non-discriminatory and non-discretionary manner (see China's Accession Working Party Report, para. 84(b)).  The texts of these provisions are included as part of Annex III to this Report, and the 
Panel's analysis of them is summarized at infra , section IV.B. 
14These findings relate to Articles X:2 and X:3 of th e List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries 
in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the 
Several Opinions ;  Article 42, in conjunction with Article 41, of the Publications Regulation ;  Article 21 of the 
Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule ;  Article 30 of the Film Regulation ;  and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise 
Rule. (Panel Report, paras. 8.1.2(a)(i), (ii), and (v), 8.1.2( b)(ii), 8.1.2(c) (iii) and (vii), and 8.1.2(d)(x);  see also 
paras. 7.351, 7.352, 7.374, 7.401, 7.411, 7.576, 7.598, 7.599, and 7.703)  The Panel's findings of violation in 
respect of Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the  Film Enterprise Rule  also extend to the 
exclusion of foreign enterprises not registered in China and foreign individuals from engaging in the business of 
importing films. ( Ibid., paras. 7.576, 7.598, and 7.599) 
15These findings relate to Article 41 of the Publications Regulation ;  Articles 5 and 27 of the 2001 
Audiovisual Products Regulation ;  Articles 7 and 8 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule ;  Article 30 of 
the Film Regulation ;  and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule . (Panel Report, paras. 8.1.2(b)(viii), 8.1.2(c)(ii) 
and (vi), and 8.1.2(d)(i), (ii), (v), and (vi);  see also paras. 7.437, 7.571, 7.594, 7.633, 7.657, 7.680, and 7.690)  
The Panel exercised judicial economy with respect to the claims that Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of 
Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign 
Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  and Article 42 of the Publications Regulation , do not 
grant in a non-discriminatory manner the right to trade. ( Ibid., paras. 8.1.2(a)(iii) and (vi) and 8.1.2(b)(v);   
see also paras. 7.357, 7.378, and 7.417)  The Panel also  made findings that, in respect of certain claims, the 
United States had not established a violation of China's trading rights commitments. ( Ibid., paras. 8.1.2(a)(iv) 
and (vii), 8.1.2(b)(i), (iii), (iv), (vi), (vii), and (x)-(xvii), 8.1.2( c)(i), (iv), (v), and (viii), and 8.1.2(d)(iii), (iv), 
(vii)-(ix), and (xi)) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 5 
 
 
commitments under the Accession Protocol".16  Instead, the Panel "proceed[ed] on the assumption that 
Article XX(a) is available to China as a defen ce for the measures [the Panel had] found to be 
inconsistent with [China's] trading rights commi tments under the Accession Protocol" and examined, 
based on that assumption, "whether the relevant measures satisfy the requirements of Article XX(a)."
17  The Panel determined that none of the provisions of China's measures that it had 
found to be inconsistent with China's trading ri ghts commitments are "nece ssary to protect public 
morals" within the meaning of Article XX(a) of  the GATT 1994, and that China therefore had not 
established that the provisions are justified under that exception.18 
8. The Panel also considered claims of the Un ited States concerning China's market access and 
national treatment obligations in Articles XVI and XVII, respectively, of the GATS, as they relate to reading materials, AVHE products, and the electroni c distribution of sound recordings.  With respect 
to the distribution of reading materials, the Panel found that provisions prohibiting foreign-invested 
enterprises in China from engaging in:  the "master distribution"
19 of books, newspapers, and 
periodicals;  the "master wholesale"20 or wholesale of electronic publications;  and the wholesale of 
imported reading materials, are each inconsistent with Article XVII of the GATS.21  The Panel also 
concluded that provisions imposi ng different registered capital a nd operating term requirements on 
foreign-invested wholesalers than on wholly Chin ese-invested wholesalers are inconsistent with 
Article XVII of the GATS.22   
                                                      
16Panel Report, para. 7.743. 
17Panel Report, para. 7.745. 
18These findings relate to Articles X:2 and X:3 of th e List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries 
in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the 
Several Opinions :  Articles 41 and 42 of the Publications Regulation ;  Article 27 of the 2001 Audiovisual 
Products Regulation ;  Article 8 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule ;  and Article 21 of the 
Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule . (Panel Report, para. 7.726)  Because the Panel found that China had not 
established that the measures at issue satisfy the requi rements of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, the Panel did 
not determine whether Article XX(a) is available as  a defence for breaches of  China's trading rights 
commitments. ( Ibid., para. 8.2;  see also paras. 7.726 and 7.911-7.914) 
19The Panel concluded that "master distribution" involves  the sale of publications by an exclusive seller 
to other wholesalers or retailers, or to certain professional end-users. (Panel Report, paras. 7.1025-7.1027) 
20The Panel took note of China's statement that "master wholesale" is a term synonymous with "master 
distribution", but is used exclusively in the context of electronic publications. (Panel Report, para. 7.1068) 
21These findings relate to Article X:2 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the 
Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several 
Opinions ;  Article 42 of the Publications Regulation , in conjunction with Article 4 of the Imported Publications 
Subscription Rule ;  Article 62 of the 1997 Electronic Publications Regulation ;  and Article 2 of the Publications 
(Sub-)Distribution Rule , in conjunction with Article 16 of the Publications Market Rule . (Panel Report, 
para. 8.2.3(a)(i)-(v);  see also paras. 7.998, 7.999, 7.1048, 7.1058, 7.1074, and 7.1094)  
22These findings relate to paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 7 of the Publications (Sub-)Distribution Rule . 
(Panel Report, para. 8.2.3(a)(vii);  see also para. 7.1142)  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 6  
 
9. Regarding the distribution of AVHE products , the Panel found that several provisions 
permitting distribution by foreign-invested contr actual joint ventures only when the Chinese partner 
holds a majority share are inconsistent with Article XVI:2(f) of the GATS.
23  With respect to certain 
provisions for which a violation of Article XVI of  the GATS had not been found, the Panel concluded 
that these provisions nevertheless result in discrimination against foreign service providers in violation of Article XVII of the GATS.
24  Concerning the electronic distribution of sound recordings, 
the Panel concluded that provisions of China's me asures prohibiting foreign-i nvested enterprises from 
supplying this service are also inconsistent with Article XVII of the GATS.25 
10. Finally, the Panel considered the claims of the United States that China's measures are in 
breach of China's national treatment obligations in Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  The Panel found 
that certain provisions of China's measures relating to reading materials result in discrimination 
against like imported products, in violation of Ar ticle III:4 of the GATT 1994, either by prohibiting 
foreign-invested enterprises from distribu ting imported books, newspapers, and periodicals26, or by 
requiring that the distribution of imported ne wspapers and periodicals occur only through 
subscription.27  Regarding films for theatrical release and the electronic distribution of sound 
recordings, the Panel concluded that the United St ates had not demonstrated a violation of China's 
national treatment obligations un der Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.28 
                                                      
23These findings relate to Article VI:3 of the List of Restricted Foreign Investment Industries in the 
Catalogue , in conjunction with Article 8 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ,  and Article 8.4 of the 
Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule . (Panel Report, para. 8.2.3(c)(i);  see also paras. 7.1395 and 7.1396)  
Because the Panel found inconsistencies with Article XV I of the GATS in respect of these provisions, it 
exercised judicial economy with respect to claims under Article XVII of the GATS. ( Ibid., para. 8.2.3(c)(iv);  
see also para. 7.1427) 
24These findings relate to Article 1 of the Several Opinions  and Article 8.5 of the Audiovisual 
(Sub-)Distribution Rule . (Panel Report, para. 8.2.3(c)( iii);  see also para. 7.1426)   
25These findings relate to Article X:7 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the 
Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several 
Opinions ;  Article II of the Circular on Internet Culture ;  and Article 8 of the Network Music Opinions . (Panel 
Report, para. 8.2.3(b);  see also para. 7.1311)  The Panel also made findings that, in respect of certain claims, 
the United States had not established a violation of China's GATS commitments. ( Ibid., paras. 8.2.3(a)(vi), 
8.2.3(b)(ii), and 8.2.3(c)(ii)) 
26These findings relate to Article 2 of the Publications (Sub-)Distribution Rule , in conjunction with 
Article 16 of the Publications Market Rule . (Panel Report, para. 8.2.4(a)(iii);  see also para. 7.1545)  
27These findings relate to Articles 3 and 4 of the Imported Publications Subscription Rule . (Panel 
Report, para. 8.2.4(a)(i);  see also para. 7.1539)  
28Panel Report, para. 8.2.4(b) and (c);  see also paras. 7.1654 and 7.1693.  The United States also 
claimed that any violation of Article III:4 of the GATT 19 94 would also be inconsistent with China's obligations 
in paragraphs 1.2 and 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol to abide by the national treatment obligations in Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  The Panel exercised judicial economy in respect of the claims under the 
GATT 1994 relating to reading materials, and found that th e prerequisite of a violation of Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994 was not present in respect of the claims relating to films for theatrical release and the electronic 
distribution of sound recordings. ( Ibid., para. 8.2.5;  see also paras. 7.1707 and 7.1708)  The Panel also made 
findings that, in respect of certain claims, the United States had not established a violation of China's obligations 
under the GATT 1994. ( Ibid., paras. 8.2.4(a)(ii), 8.2.4(b)(i) and (ii), and 8.2.4(c)(i)) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 7 
 
 
11. On 22 September 2009, China notified the Dispute Settlement Body (the "DSB") of its 
intention to appeal certain issues of law covered in  the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel, pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the DSU, and filed a Notice of Appeal29 
pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (the " Working Procedures ").30  
On 29 September 2009, China filed an appellant's submission.31  On 5 October 2009, the United 
States notified the DSB of its intention to appeal cer tain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and 
certain legal interpretations devel oped by the Panel, pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the DSU, and 
filed a Notice of Other Appeal32 pursuant to Rule 23(1) and (2) of the Working Procedures .  
On 7 October 2009, the United States filed an other appellant's submission.33  On 19 October 2009, 
China and the United States each filed an appellee's submission.34  On the same day, Australia, the 
European Communities, Japan, and Korea each filed a third participant's submission35, and the 
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen  and Matsu notified its intention to appear at 
the oral hearing as a third participant.36 
12. The oral hearing in this appeal was held on 2 and 3 November 2009.  The participants and 
three of the third participants (the European Commu nities, Japan, and Korea) made oral statements.  
The participants and the third participants r esponded to questions posed by the Members of the 
Division hearing the appeal.  
13. Attached as Annex III to this Report are the provisions of the Chinese measures at issue in 
this appeal, together with relevant extracts from China's Accession Protocol, China's Accession 
Working Party Report, and China's Schedule of Specific Commitments for services ("China's GATS 
Schedule").37 
                                                      
29WT/DS363/10 (attached as Annex I to this Report). 
30WT/AB/WP/5, 4 January 2005. 
31Pursuant to Rule 21 of the Working Procedures . 
32WT/DS363/11 (attached as Annex II to this Report).   
33Pursuant to Rule 23(3) of the Working Procedures . 
34Pursuant to Rules 22 and 23(4) of the Working Procedures . 
35Pursuant to Rule 24(1) of the Working Procedures . 
36Pursuant to Rule 24(2) of the Working Procedures . 
37The People's Republic of China, Schedu le of Specific Commitments, GATS/SC/135. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 8  
 
II. Arguments of the Participants  and the Third Participants 
A. Claims of Error by China – Appellant 
14. China's appeal concerns three aspects of the Pa nel Report.  First, China appeals the Panel's 
finding that China's trading rights commitments unde r paragraphs 1.2 and 5.1 of China's Accession 
Protocol and paragraphs 83(d) a nd 84(a) and (b) of China's Accession Working Party Report, which 
apply only to trade in goods, a pply to China's measures concerning films for theatrical release and 
unfinished audiovisual products
38, which, according to China, regulat e services and content.  Because, 
in China's view, these measures are not  subject to the trading rights commitments at all, China also 
seeks reversal of the Panel's finding that such meas ures are inconsistent with China's trading rights 
commitments.  Secondly, China appeals various elem ents of the Panel's necessity analysis, as well as 
its ultimate finding that various measures at issue39 are not "necessary", within the meaning of 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, to protect public  morals in China.  Finally, China disputes the 
Panel's finding that the inscription "Sound record ing distribution services" in China's GATS Schedule 
encompasses the distribution of sound recordings th rough electronic means and, on that basis, seeks 
reversal of the Panel's consequent finding that various measures40 regulating such distribution are 
inconsistent with China's national treatment  obligation under Article XVII of the GATS. 
1. The Applicability of China's Tradi ng Rights Commitments to Measures 
Pertaining to Films for Theatrical Release and Unfinished Audiovisual 
Products  
(a) Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film 
Enterprise Rule    
15. China appeals the Panel's findings that Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the 
Film Enterprise Rule  are inconsistent with China's trading rights commitments in paragraphs 1.2 
and 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol and paragra phs 83(d) and 84(a) and (b) of China's Accession 
Working Party Report.  Specifically, China contends that the Panel erred in determining that China's 
trading rights commitments, which apply only with r espect to trade in goods, are applicable to the 
Film Regulation  and the Film Enterprise Rule  because, in China's view, these measures regulate the 
                                                      
38Article 30 of the Film Regulation ;  Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule ;  Article 5 of the 2001 
Audiovisual Products Regulation ;  and Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule . 
39Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in 
conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions :  
Articles 41 and 42 of the Publications Regulation ;  Article 27 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation ;  
Article 8 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule ;  and Article 21 of the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution 
Rule. 
40Article II of the  Circular on Internet Culture ;  Article 8 of the Network Music Opinions ;  Article 4 of 
the Several Opinions ;  and Article X:7 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , 
in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation . WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 9 
 
 
content of films and the services related to such cont ent.  China claims that, in so finding, the Panel 
committed errors of law and legal interpretation, and failed to conduct an obj ective assessment of the 
facts before it, in violation of Article 11 of th e DSU.  Because the Panel's findings of inconsistency 
regarding Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule  were based on 
its erroneous finding that China's trading right s commitments apply to these provisions, China 
contends that the findings of inconsistency "are e qually flawed and in error, and should be reversed".41 
16. China maintains that the United States shifte d the subject of its claim from "films for 
theatrical release" to "hard-copy cinematographic f ilms", and that the Panel erroneously accepted this 
shift as "a mere clarification of the [United States'] claim".42  In its request for the establishment of a 
panel and its first written submission to the Pane l, the United States alleged that China had acted 
inconsistently with its trading rights commitments  by failing to grant all foreign enterprises and 
individuals the right to import "films for theatrical release ".43  In its first oral statement before the 
Panel, however, the United States "suddenly" asserte d that it was "challenging measures that prohibit 
foreign-invested enterprises from impor ting hard-copy cinematographic films , which are tangible 
items ".44  Yet, the Panel accepted this shift and found that the United States had merely clarified the 
meaning of the expression "films for theatrical relea se" by confirming that this expression describes 
goods.  As a result, the Panel relieved the United Stat es of its burden of proof.  According to China, 
by not finding that the United States had deliberately shifted the subject of its claim, the Panel had to 
"supplement[] the United States' failure" to fill in "a  logical gap" as to why China's measures, which 
regulate content and services, could be inconsistent with China's tr ading rights commitments that 
apply to trade in goods.45 
17. In China's view, the Panel committed a legal e rror in its assessment of the measures at issue 
when it found that Article 30 of the Film Regulation 46 regulates who may engage in the import of 
hard-copy cinematographic films.  Having acknowle dged that the term "film" could be properly 
understood as referring to content, the Panel erred in not ruling out "hard-copy cinematographic 
films" as a possible meaning of the term "film" in the Film Regulation  and in deriving instead legal 
inferences based on such meaning.  According to China, the language of other provisions of the Film 
Regulation  demonstrates that they are about the regula tion of content and the services related to such 
                                                      
41China's appellant's submission, para. 255. 
42China's appellant's submission, para. 203 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.523).  
43China's appellant's submission, paras. 204 and 205 (quoting Request for the Establishment of a Panel 
by the United States, WT/DS363/5, p. 7 (underlining added by China);  and referring to United States' first written submission to the Panel, paras. 268 and 269). 
44China's appellant's submission, para. 207 (quoting United States' oral statement at the first Panel 
meeting, para. 11). (underlining added by China) 
45China's appellant's submission, para. 213. 
46China's arguments on the Film Regulation  apply mutatis mutandis  to the Film Enterprise Rule . 
(China's appellant's submission, footnote 155 to para. 219) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 10  
 
content, and are not about goods.  The plain wording of Articles 1, 2, 5, 24 through 29, and 31 of the 
Film Regulation  indicates that this measure focuses on cont ent that can be commercially exploited, 
rather than on "the material used for the[] exploitation".
47  In China's view, the Appellate Body has the 
authority to, and should, examine these other Articles in the Film Regulation  in order to determine the 
meaning and scope of Article 30.  The Appellate  Body has, in prior disputes, found that the 
assessment of the WTO-consistency of municipal law is a process of legal characterization, and thus 
an issue of law subject to appellate  review under Article 17.6 of the DSU.48  Moreover, China 
highlights that it has, in any event, claimed that the Panel failed to conduct an objective assessment of 
the facts, in violation of Article 11 of the DSU,  when it examined China's measures concerning films 
for theatrical release. 
18. China adds that additional evidence before th e Panel, in the form of an independent 
translator's opinion regarding the appropr iate translation of Article 30 of the Film Regulation , 
confirms that the term "film" (" Dian Ying " in Chinese) refers exclusively to the content of a film, 
rather than to the material on which the film is printed or the film stock.  Notwithstanding this evidence and its own acknowledgement  that the term "film" could re fer to content, the Panel wrongly 
decided not to make any clear finding as to the meaning of the term "film" (" Dian Ying ") in Article 30 
of the Film Regulation .  Instead, the Panel erroneously found that Article 30 "would necessarily 
affect"
49 who may import goods even if the term " Dian Ying " refers exclusively to the content of 
films. 
19. China takes issue with the Panel's finding that  Article 30 "would necessarily affect" who may 
import goods also because, according to China, the Pa nel failed to establish how the measures at issue 
affect the importation of hard-copy cinematogra phic films.  According to China, the import 
restrictions imposed by the measures at issue relate  only to the intangible content—the motion picture, 
as distinct from the cinematographic film that is the physical carrier of such motion picture.  
Consequently, the measures do not have any direct le gal effect of restricting the importation of hard-
copy cinematographic films.  The right to import granted under the measures refers exclusively to the 
right to import content in the form of licensing agre ements for the distribution of such content within 
China.  Thus, the fact that the measures "may ha ve an incidental, practical effect on hard-copy 
cinematographic film"50, which is the carrier of the content regulated by the measures, does not 
                                                      
47China's appellant's submission, para. 224. 
48China's appellant's submission, para. 234 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones , 
para. 132;  and Appellate Body Report, US – Section 211 Appropriations Act , para. 105).  In response to 
questioning at the oral hearing, China also referred to Appellate Body Reports, China – Auto Parts , para. 255, in 
support of its argument. 
49Panel Report, para. 7.543. 
50China's appellant's submission, para. 240.  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 11 
 
 
support the Panel's finding that Article 30 woul d necessarily affect who may engage in the 
importation of hard-copy cinematographic films.  In the present dispute, cinematographic films are 
imported "simultaneously, physically in conjunc tion with the right to provide the service in 
question".51  Therefore, there is "no restriction on the ca rrier independently from that applicable to the 
service"52, and the demand for the service is with respect to the content, not with respect to any good 
carrying such content. 
20. Finally, China alleges that the Panel's finding th at the measures at issue necessarily affect the 
importation of goods undermines China's legitimate right s.  China recalls that its legitimate right to 
conduct content review of imported cultural produc ts, including films for theatrical release, was 
neither challenged by the United States nor questioned by the Panel.  China provides the following example to illustrate that its right to conduct cont ent review would be undermined as a result of the 
Panel's finding.  If the content of a film fails to pass the content review and the film cannot be 
imported for release in China, the Panel's logic necess arily implies that China would be found to be in 
violation of its obligations con cerning trade in goods, because the hard-copy cinematographic film, in 
which the content is embedded, also cannot be impo rted.  In this way, China argues, its legitimate 
right to conduct content review would be "seriously undermined".
53  China adds that its right to 
conduct content review with respect to films is clea rly retained by virtue of its GATS Schedule, in 
which China has expressly reserved its right to regulate the importation of motion pictures for theatrical release.
54  China reiterates that its measures on f ilms for theatrical release regulate content 
and services, and any effects on goods are merely "incidental" and "practical".55  Thus, China 
maintains that the Panel's error lies in its failure  to recognize that applying WTO rules concerning 
goods to measures that regulate services, "on the basis of a mere practical [and] incidental effect" of 
the measures on goods, "would lead to absurd results".56 
21. For these reasons, China requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings that 
Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule  "are subject to China's 
trading rights commitments, in that they would eith er directly regulate w ho may engage in importing 
of 'hard-copy cinematographic films' or necessarily  affect who may engage in importing of such 
goods."57  China also requests the Appellate Body to re verse the Panel's consequent findings that these 
                                                      
51China's appellant's submission, para. 242. (footnote omitted) 
52China's appellant's submission, para. 242. 
53China's appellant's submission, para. 251. 
54China's response to questioni ng at the oral hearing. 
55China's appellant's submission, para. 252. 
56China's appellant's submission, para. 252. 
57Panel Report, para. 7.560;  see also para. 7.584.  China submits that its arguments concerning the 
Panel's reasoning with respect to Article 30 of the Film Regulation  also apply, mutatis mutandis , to Article 16 of 
the Film Enterprise Rule . WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 12  
 
provisions are inconsistent with China's trading rights commitments in paragraphs 1.2 and 5.1 of 
China's Accession Protocol and paragraphs 83(d) and 84(a) and (b) of China's Accession Working 
Party Report. 
(b) Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and Article 7 
of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule    
22. China asserts that the Panel erred in finding that Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products 
Regulation  and Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule , which concern unfinished 
audiovisual products
58 imported for publication, are inc onsistent with China's obligation under 
paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession Protocol and pa ragraph 84(b) of China' s Accession Working Party 
Report to grant in a non-discretionary manner the righ t to trade.  China seeks to have these findings 
reversed on the specific ground that the Panel erred in finding that China's obligation to grant in a 
non-discretionary manner the right to trade applies to such measures.  
23. China maintains that, like Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film 
Enterprise Rule , Article 5 of the Audiovisual Products Regulation  and Article 7 of the Audiovisual 
Products Importation Rule  do not regulate the importation of goods but, rather, regulate the service of 
copyright licensing for the publication of audiovisual c ontent.  China argues that, to the extent that the 
Panel's findings are based on the same reasoning as that on which the Panel based its findings 
concerning Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule , the Panel 
committed the same errors of law in its findings that Article 5 of the 2001  Audiovisual Products 
Regulation  and Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule  are inconsistent with 
paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession Protocol and pa ragraph 84(b) of China' s Accession Working Party 
Report. 
2. The "Necessity" Test under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994  
24. China requests the Appellate Body to reverse th e Panel's findings that several of the Chinese 
measures at issue in this dispute59 are not "necessary", within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the 
GATT 1994, to protect public morals, and that they th erefore cannot be justified under that provision.  
                                                      
58The United States explained that unfinished audiovisual products refer to master copies to be used to 
publish and manufacture copies for sale in China. (See Panel Report, para. 7.608)  The Panel referred to "unfinished audiovisual products" as master copies imported for publication. (See ibid., paras. 7.625 and 7.642) 
59Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in 
conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  
Articles 41 and 42 of the Publications Regulation ;  Article 27 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation ;  
Article 8 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule ;  and Article 21 of the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution 
Rule.   WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 13 
 
 
Should the Appellate Body do so, China further requ ests the Appellate Body to complete the analysis 
and find that China's measures are justifie d under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.   
25. China points out that cultural goods and services ha ve a very specific nature "[a]s vectors of 
identity, values and meaning"60, in that they do not merely satisfy  a commercial need, but also play a 
crucial role in influencing and defini ng the features of society.  Noting that this specificity of cultural 
goods has been affirmed by the UNESCO  Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity  and by the 
UNESCO  Convention on the Protection and Promoti on of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions , 
China requests the Appellate Body to be "mindful"61 in the present appeal of the specific nature of 
cultural goods.  
(a) The State-Ownership Requirement 
26. China requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding that the requirement in 
Article 42(2) of the Publications Regulation  that publication import entities be wholly State-owned 
(the "State-ownership requirement") is not "necessary  to protect public morals" in China within the 
meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.  Chin a alleges that the Panel misrepresented China's 
arguments relating to the State-ownership require ment, and that these misrepresentations result in 
errors of law and a failure by the Panel to make an objective assessment of the matter before it, in 
violation of Article 11 of the DSU.   
27. China alleges that the Panel mistakenly reduced an argument that China made to "a mere 'cost 
analysis'"62 and failed to recognize that China's argument  in fact related to the balance reached 
between the performance of a public policy function and the cost associated with performing this 
public policy function.  China asserts that it explaine d to the Panel that the Chinese Government could 
not require enterprises with private investment in Ch ina to bear the substantial cost of performing the 
public policy function of content re view, but could require only tho se enterprises in which the State 
owns all equity to bear the co st of conducting content review.63 
28. China asserts that the Panel also misrepresente d its argument that only wholly State-owned 
enterprises are capable of satisfying the requirement in Article 42(4) of the Publications Regulation  
that publication import entities have a suitable orga nization and qualified pers onnel.  China alleges 
that the Panel erred in evaluating this argument excl usively through the prism of "cost".  China claims 
                                                      
60China's appellant's submission, para. 9. 
61China's appellant's submission, para. 12. 
62China's appellant's submission, para. 18. 
63China's appellant's submission, paras. 17-20 (referring in footnotes to Panel Report, para. 7.853;  
China's responses to Panel Questions 46(a), 185, 188(b) , and 195;  China's first written submission to the Panel, 
paras. 153, 196, and 197;  and China's second written submission to the Panel, para. 104).   WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 14  
 
that its argument was not only about cost, but also about the capacity to perform content review in a 
manner that preserves China's intended level of prot ection of public morals.  China maintains that 
State-owned enterprises are the only entities curre ntly considered to fulfil the technical and 
organizational requirements set out in th e relevant Chinese laws and regulations.
64  China submits 
that, if the Panel had properly understood China' s arguments, it would have found that the State-
ownership requirement makes a material contribution and is therefore necessary to the protection of 
public morals in China. 
(b) The Exclusion of Foreign-Invested Enterprises 
29. China requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding that the provisions excluding 
foreign-invested enterprises from importing the relevant  products are not "necessary" to protect public 
morals in China within the meaning of Article XX( a) of the GATT 1994.  China alleges that the Panel 
erred in finding that the provisions  excluding foreign-invested enterprises from importing the relevant 
goods into China65 make no material contribution to the protection of public morals in China.  The 
Panel relied on its earlier finding with respect to the State-ownership requirement  to conclude that the 
provisions excluding foreign-invested enterprises from importing do not contribute to the protection 
of public morals in China.  According to Ch ina, because the Panel's finding concerning the 
State-ownership requirement is e rroneous, "[b]y necessary implication"66 the Panel's finding with 
respect to the provisions excluding foreign-invested  enterprises from importing is also in error.  In 
addition, China submits that foreign-invested enterprises may not have the requisite understanding 
and knowledge of the applicable standards of Chines e public morals to ensure the level of protection 
sought by China.  China maintains that the professi onals performing content review must be familiar 
with Chinese values and public morals and capa ble of efficiently communicating with and 
understanding the administrative authorities.  China submits that in its analysis the Panel made a 
finding that requiring qualified review personnel c ontributes materially to the protection of public 
morals in China, and that the Panel's finding on the exclusion of foreig n-invested enterprises 
contradicts this finding.67  China emphasizes that the Panel' s failure to address these arguments 
constitutes a failure to make an obj ective assessment of the matter befo re it, as required by Article 11 
of the DSU.   
                                                      
64China's appellant's submission, para. 29 (referring to China's second written submission to the Panel, 
para. 104). 
65Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in 
conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  and 
Article 21 of the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule . 
66China's appellant's submission, para. 33. 
67China's appellant's submission, para. 36 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.825). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 15 
 
 
(c) The Restrictive Effect of the Measures  
30. China alleges that the Panel erred in extending its assessment of the restrictive effect of the 
measures at issue, notably, to those wishing to engage in importing, in particular on their right to 
trade.  China contends that, in so doing, the Panel placed an "unsusta inable burden of proof"68 on 
China.  In China's view, the Panel's reasoning is ci rcular because it relied on the restrictive effect of 
the measures both in finding that the measures at i ssue constitute a violation of China's obligation to 
grant the right to trade and in finding that th e measures are not "necessary" within the meaning of 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.  China contends th at, by considering the restrictive effect of the 
measures on those wishing to engage in importing in the context of both the analysis of consistency 
with paragraph 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol and its anal ysis under Article XX(a) of the 
GATT 1994, the Panel committed a mistake similar to that of the panel in US – Gasoline .69  T h i s  
approach leads to the "absurd situation"70 that the challenged measures can never be justified because 
the reasons why they were found to be inconsistent are the same as the reasons given for why they are 
not "necessary".  China adds that the Panel made no finding that China's measures have a significant 
restrictive impact on imports.  To the contrary , in acknowledging that the statistical information 
submitted by China seemed to indicate that some of its measures were compatible with an increase in 
imports, the Panel found, in fact, that China's measures do not seem to have adversely affected 
imports.71 
(d) Reasonably Available Alternative Measures 
31. China requests the Appellate Body to reverse th e Panel's finding that at least one of the 
alternative measures referred to by the United Stat es was an alternative "reasonably available" to 
China.  In particular, China submits that the pr oposed alternative that the Chinese Government be 
given sole responsibility for conducting content revi ew is not "reasonably available" because it is 
merely theoretical in nature and would impo se an undue and excessive burden on China.  China 
alleges that the Panel erred in law and failed to properly address arguments presented by China 
demonstrating that the proposed alternative is not "reasonably available". 
32. China asserts that the Panel failed to properly take into account the contribution of the import 
entities, as first-level reviewers, in the overall cont ent review process.  In the current system, import 
entities carry most of the burden of reviewing impo rted reading materials, while the Government's 
                                                      
68China's appellant's submission, para. 39. 
69China's appellant's submission, para. 44 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline , p. 16, 
DSR 1996:I, 3, at 15).  
70China's appellant's submission, para. 43. 
71China's appellant's submission, para. 45 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.846, 7.861, and 7.866).  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 16  
 
involvement is much more limited.  China takes i ssue with the Panel's stat ement that the cost of 
content review, if performed exclusively by th e Chinese Government, would not be substantially 
higher than what it already is.  To the contrary, the cost of the "tremendous restructuring" that would 
be required to implement the alternative proposed by the United States would result in an "undue 
financial burden" for China.
72  At present, the Chinese Government does not have the capacity and the 
resources required to perform on its own the entire range  of functions associated with content review.  
It would have to create a completely new structure re flecting the contribution of the different levels of 
review.  In addition, the proposed alternative woul d involve significant cost and impose a significant 
administrative burden because it would require the training and assignment of a large number of qualified content reviewers in numerous locations.  Furthermore, the Panel's judgement rests on the 
assumption that time-sensitive publications could be  submitted electronically to the Government for 
content review.  However, this would require the establishment of an electronic sampling system and 
upgrading of the current electronic transmission system, which would pose "substantial technical 
difficulties".
73  In addition, China stresses that, where elem ents of content are found to be contrary to 
public morals, these elements must  be removed from the products before they are imported.  It is 
unclear to what extent this could be achieved and by whom if content review were operated by means 
of electronic communication between private import entities and the Chinese Government.  Finally, China adds that the proposed alternativ e would make it impossible to "double check"
74 content at the 
customs level because it implies that content review  would be carried out in one single location.  
33. China submits that, in any event, the alte rnative proposed by the United States does not 
qualify as "reasonably available" because it is not clear  that it would be less trade restrictive than the 
measures at issue.  China refers to its argument th at, in assessing the trade-restrictive impact of the 
measure, the Panel erred in examining not only the restrictive impact on imports but also the 
restrictive impact on potential importers.  For China, therefore, the Panel's finding that the alternative 
proposed by the United States was less trade restri ctive was erroneous for the additional reason that 
the Panel's assessment of the restrictiveness was b ased on a flawed examination of the restrictive 
impact of the measure.  It follows, according to Ch ina, that, in the absence of a proper finding as to 
the extent of the restrictive impact on imports resulting from China's measures, the Panel could not 
have established that an alternative measure w ould have a less restrictive impact on trade. 
                                                      
72China's appellant's submission, para. 62. 
73China's appellant's submission, para. 67. (footnote omitted)  
74China's appellant's submission, para. 69. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 17 
 
 
(e) Completion of the Analysis 
34. Should the Appellate Body find that China's measures are "necessary" under Article XX(a) of 
the GATT 1994, China requests the Appellate Body to complete the analysis and find that the 
measures comply with the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX and that Article XX(a) is 
available as a defence to a violation of Chin a's trading rights commitments under its Accession 
Protocol.  China refers, in this regard, to the ar guments that it made before  the Panel demonstrating 
that:  the other "alternatives" proposed by the United States are not "genuine" and not "reasonably available";  China's measures comply with the re quirements of the chapeau and are thus justified 
under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994;  and Article XX( a) is available as a defe nce to the claim that 
China has acted inconsistently with its tradi ng rights commitments under its Accession Protocol. 
35. In response to questioning at the oral hearing in this appeal, China clarified that, if the 
Appellate Body were to uphold the Panel's findings that the measures at issue are not "necessary" 
within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GA TT 1994, then China does not seek a ruling by the 
Appellate Body on the issue of whether Article XX(a)  is available as a defence to a violation of 
China's trading rights commitments under its Accession Protocol. 
3. The Scope of China's GATS Schedule Entry on "Sound Recording 
Distribution Services"  
36. China requests the Appellate Body to reverse th e Panel's findings that a number of provisions 
of China's measures are inconsistent with Article XVII of the GATS.75  China appeals these findings 
particularly on the grounds that the Panel erred in interpreting the commitment on "Sound recording 
distribution services" inscribed in China's GATS Schedule as encompassing the distribution of sound 
recordings through electronic means. 
37. China claims that, in interpreting this entry in  China's GATS Schedule, the Panel erred in its 
application of both Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (the " Vienna 
Convention ").76  In China's view, "the only possible ou tcome which the Panel could have reasonably 
reached after applying the rules on treaty interp retation [was] that such analysis was largely 
inconclusive."77  China considers that, as a consequence, the Panel also erred and acted contrary to 
                                                      
75Article II of the Circular on Internet Culture ;  Article 8 of the Network Music Opinions ;  Article 4 of 
the Several Opinions ;  and Article X:7 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , 
in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation . 
76Done at Vienna, 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331;  8 International Legal Materials 679. 
77China's appellant's submission, para. 89. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 18  
 
Article 3.2 of the DSU in failing to apply the in dubio mitius principle and not adopting an 
interpretation that was less onerous to China.
78   
(a) Article 31 of the Vienna Convention  
38. China observes that, under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention , "ordinary meaning", 
"context", and "object and purpose" cannot be consid ered in isolation from one another.  Rather, 
Article 31 sets out a single rule and an integrated process of treaty interpretation requiring an analysis not only of each of these elements, but also of the inte raction of the various elements with each other.  
Thus, the ordinary meaning of a term cannot and sh ould not be finally determ ined before a panel has 
examined such meaning in the relevant context and in  the light of the object and purpose of the treaty.  
According to China, the Panel failed to  perform such a "holistic approach"
79 to treaty interpretation 
when it interpreted the phrase "sound recording di stribution services", because it wrongly disregarded 
evidence submitted by China demonstrating that the ordinary meaning of the terms "sound recording" 
and "distribution" related only to tangible/phy sical goods, and reached premature conclusions on the 
ordinary meaning of these terms before examining them  in their context and in the light of the object 
and purpose of the GATS. 
39. China alleges that the Panel's conclusion that  "sound recording" "cannot be limited to sound 
embedded or transferred on physical media"80 was based exclusively on the Panel's analysis of the 
definition of the term "recording" —"recorded material;  a recorded broadcast, performance".81  The 
Panel failed to consider an alternative definiti on submitted by China that defines "recording" as 
"something on which sound or visual images have been recorded".82  For China, this alternative 
definition unambiguously indicated that "recording" refe rs to the carrier that contains the result of a 
recording process.  Rather than relying solely on one dictionary definition, the Panel "should have 
found that the existence of two possible meanings sugg ested that the use of dictionary definitions was 
                                                      
78As a preliminary matter, China observes that it will, for purposes of this appeal, adopt the 
terminology used by the United States and the Panel and refer to the distribution of sound recordings by 
electronic means as "the services at issue".  China stresses,  however, that this is without prejudice to its view, as 
expressed throughout the Panel proceedings, that the se rvices at issue constitute new and distinct services, 
"network music services", ra ther than, as the United States argued, me rely a new technological means to deliver 
sound recording services. (China's appellant's submission, paras. 81 and 82)  
79China's appellant's submission, para. 97.  In its argument, China draws on the approach of panels in 
Canada – Autos  (at para. 10.12) and US – Section 301 Trade Act  (at para. 7.22) and the Appellate Body in EC – 
Chicken Cuts  (at para. 176).   
80China's appellant's submission, para. 105 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.1176).  
81Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , 5th edn., W.R. Trumble, A. Stevenson (eds.) (Oxford  
University Press, 2002), Vol. 2, p. 2493.  See China' s appellant's submission, para. 101 (quoting Panel Report, 
para. 7.1173). 
82China's appellant's submission, para. 102 (quoting The American Heritage Dictionary of the English 
Language , 4th edn. (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2000) (Panel Exhibit CN-71)). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 19 
 
 
in fact inconclusive."83  China maintains that the Panel shoul d therefore have proceeded to examine 
the two possible dictionary meanings in the light of  the relevant context and the object and purpose of 
the treaty. 
40. China claims that the Panel committed a similar er ror in respect of the term "distribution".  
The Panel interpreted "distribution" to m ean "the dispersal" of "things of value"84, including 
intangible  products, based on a dictionary definition supp lied by the parties, and supplemented by 
additional dictionary definitions that the Panel itself sought out.85  However, China had provided the 
Panel with another dictionary defi nition of "distribution" that defi nes this term as "the process of 
marketing and supplying goods , especially to retailers".86  China had also cited the Appellate Body's 
statement in US – Softwood Lumber  IV that "the ordinary meaning of the term 'goods' […] includes 
items that are tangible  and capable of being possessed"87, which China views as supporting its 
position that the ordinary meaning of "distribution" encompasses the distribution of only physical 
goods.  Although the Panel ac knowledged that other dictionary defi nitions were relevant, it failed to 
carry out an analysis of these definitions.  According to China, in the light of the various dictionary 
meanings, the Panel should have come to the conclu sion that the meaning of "distribution" was also 
inconclusive. 
41. China refers to the report of the Appellate Body in US – Gambling as support for its 
contention that the Panel failed to consider evid ence submitted by China and failed to include the 
meanings claimed by China in the range of  possible meanings of "sound recording" and 
"distribution".  The Panel therefore erred in reaching "premature conclusions" on the ordinary 
meaning of these two terms "and ultimately on that of 'sound recording distribution services'".88  For 
China, the Appellate Body report in US – Gambling suggests that, in cases where a panel commences 
its interpretation by consulting dictionary definitio ns, it must identify the range of possible meanings 
                                                      
83China's appellant's submission, para. 106. 
84China's appellant's submission, para. 112 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.1178). 
85The Panel observed that the term "commodity" is further defined as a "thing of use or value;  spec. 
a thing that is an  object of trade, esp. a raw material or agricultural crop'; or 'a thing one deals in or makes use 
of'." ( Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , 5th edn., W.R. Trumble, A. Stevenson (eds.) (Oxford University 
Press, 2002), Vol. 1, p. 461.  See Panel Report, para. 7. 1179)  The Panel also referred to dictionaries that define 
"distribution" as the "movement of goods and services  from the source through the distribution channel" ( ibid., 
para. 7.1180 (quoting Businessdictionary.com , available at: <www.businessdictionary.com> (emphasis added 
by the Panel)), and define "distribution channel" as "the path or route taken by goods and services  as they move 
from producer to final consumer" ( ibid., footnote 654 to para. 7.1180 (referring to The Monash Marketing 
Dictionary , available at: <www.buesco.monash.edu.au/mkt/dictionary/> (emphasis added by the Panel)).   
86China's appellant's submission, para. 113 (quoting The American Heritage Dictionary of the English 
Language , 4th edn. (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2000) (Panel Exhibit CN-72) (underlining added by China);  
and referring in footnote to China's first written submission to the Panel, para. 458). 
87China's appellant's submission, para. 113 (referring in footnote to China's first written submission to 
the Panel, para. 460;  and quoting Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber IV , para. 59 (underlining 
added by China)). 
88China's appellant's submission, para. 126 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.1181). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 20  
 
of the term it seeks to interpret.
89  It follows, in China's view, th at, because the various dictionary 
definitions were inconclusive, the Panel should have undertaken a careful examination of each 
possible meaning in the relevant context and in the light of the object and purpose of the treaty. 
42. Turning to the Panel's examination of the context  for "Sound recording distribution services", 
China claims that, in addition to its failure to enga ge in an analysis of context with respect to the 
relevant alternative dictionary meanings, the Pa nel further erred in concluding that the various 
elements that it examined as relevant context suppo rted its original understanding of the ordinary 
meaning of this phrase as encompassing the distribution of intangible sound recordings by electronic means.  Rather, argues China, a proper contextual an alysis would also have been inconclusive.  China 
makes a number of specific arguments relating to th e Panel's analysis of:  (i) the other elements 
inscribed under sector 2.D (Audiovisual Services)  in China's GATS Schedule;  (ii) sector 4 
(Distribution Services) of China's GATS Schedule, as well as the GATS Schedules of other WTO 
Members;  and (iii) the relevant GATS provisions themselves.  
43. China claims that the Panel's interpretati on of the context provided by the heading 
"Audiovisual Services" in China's GATS Schedule also appears inconclusive.  This is so because the 
Panel's finding that the relevant sector may exte nd to services relating to content not embedded in 
physical products "does not rule out the possibilit y that China could have scheduled commitments 
concerning services related only to physical products."
90  As for the Panel's interpretation of the entry 
"Videos (...) distribution services" in China's GATS  Schedule, China submits that the Panel should 
have relied on dictionary definitions  from the time of China's acc ession to the WTO and taken note of 
the use of the plural term "video tapes" in the en try in the 1991 Services Sectoral Classification List 
that corresponds to this part of China's Schedule.91  China maintains that, had the Panel done so, it 
would have understood that the word "videos" in China's entry on "Videos (...) distribution services" 
refers to countable, physical copies of content reco rded on video tapes.  Instead, the Panel erred in 
finding that this entry extends to the distribution of  intangibles.  China adds that, even admitting that 
the entry "Videos (...) distribution services" extends  to intangibles, does no t mean that all other 
distribution commitments under sector 2.D also extend to intangibles.  With respect to the sub-sector 
"Cinema Theatre Services" (relating to the construc tion and renovation of cinema theatres) within 
sector 2.D of China's GATS Schedule, China claims th at the Panel erred in failing to find that this 
element of context was also inconclusive as to  the meaning of "Sound recording distribution 
services".  China sees no "logical nexus"92 between, on the one hand, the Panel's statement that the 
                                                      
89China's appellant's submission, para. 124 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , 
para. 167). 
90China's appellant's submission, para. 134. 
91MTN.GNS/W/120, 10 July 1991, at sector 2.D. 
92China's appellant's submission, para. 144. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 21 
 
 
insertion under sector 2.D of services that would normally fall under other sectors has not had the 
effect of excluding services that would normally fall under sector 2.D and, on the other hand, the 
Panel's conclusion that "Sound recording distributio n services" includes the distribution of intangibles 
unless indicated otherwise. 
44. China also considers that the Panel's analys is of the respective coverage of sector 2.D 
(Audiovisual Services) and sector 4 (Distribution Services) of China's GATS Schedule was flawed 
and ignored the logic of China's Schedule.  The Pa nel appeared to take the view that, had China's 
relevant entries under "Audiovisual Services" been intended to cover exclusively audiovisual products 
in physical form, they would have been inserted under "Distribution Services", where the distribution 
of physical goods is generally covered.  Yet, as China explained to the Panel, China's GATS Schedule 
was structured so as to group subclasses of servi ces relating to audiovisual products under sector 2.D 
because of their audiovisual content, thereby enablin g China to include limitations relating to content 
review for all products under that sp ecific sector.  Indeed, in China's view, the Panel itself seems to 
have acknowledged this logic when it recognized, with  respect to the construction and renovation of 
cinema theatres, that China had scheduled service activities related to audiovisual services under the 
heading "Audiovisual Services", even if such activ ities are typically classified under other sectors in 
classification systems or in the GATS Schedules of other WTO Members.  As regards the GATS Schedules of other Members, the Panel itself seems to have acknowledged that such examination did 
not offer any positive evidence, or support any par ticular inference, as to whether China's entry on 
"Sound recording distribution services" in its GATS Schedule extends to the supply of intangibles.  
The Panel "merely held that this element of context does not contradict such conclusion."
93   
45. China "fails to see the logic behind"94 the Panel's analysis of the context provided by 
Article XXVIII(b) of the GATS.  In China's view, th ere is no link between the distribution of services, 
as referred to in Article XXVIII(b), and the definiti on of products in the context of a distribution 
activity, which was the issue concerning China's GA TS commitment on "Sound recording distribution 
services".  Even admitting that the term "distribution" could, in the abstract, relate to the distribution 
of both physical and intangible products, this does not indicate whether the sp ecific entry in China's 
GATS Schedule refers only to physical products or ex tends also to intangible products.  Thus, China 
contends that the Panel's examination of Article XXVIII(b), like its analysis  of all the contextual 
elements discussed above, is inconclusive as to whether China's GATS commitment on "Sound 
recording distribution services" is limited to physical  products, or extends also  to intangible products. 
                                                      
93China's appellant's submission, para. 156. 
94China's appellant's submission, para. 159. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 22  
 
46. China submits that the Panel's analysis of object and purpose was flawed because the Panel 
failed to take account of the existence of sever al alternative meanings of "Sound recording 
distribution services".  The Panel failed to iden tify properly the object and purpose of the treaty 
relevant to the ordinary meaning espoused by China.  The Panel failed, in particular, to take account 
of important principles that would have provided relevant guidance in its interpretation, namely, 
following the positive-list principle, the reaching of  a balance of concessions, and the principle of 
progressive liberalization.  According to China, th ese elements required the Panel to give careful 
consideration to:  (i) the sovereignty of WTO Me mbers to decide upon the pace and the extent of 
liberalization of their services markets;  (ii) th e fact that, absent a specific commitment explicitly 
inscribing it in a GATS Schedule, a particular service should not be considered as subject to any commitment;  and (iii) the fact that the preamb le of the GATS explicitly states that progressive 
liberalization should be achieved through "successiv e rounds of multilateral negotiations aimed at 
promoting the interests of all participants on a mutually advantageous basis ..., while giving due 
respect to national policy objectives".  According to China, these elements should have led the Panel 
to exercise more deference in its  interpretation of the terms in China's GATS Schedule "where there 
was no sufficiently conclusive evidence that Ch ina intended to schedule a commitment on this 
particular service."
95  
47. China asserts that a proper examination of th e object and purpose of the GATS suggests that 
the meaning to be ascribed to its entry on "Sound recording distribution services" should be based on 
definitions contemporaneous to the conclusion of the treaty.  The Panel, however, followed an 
"evolutionary"96 approach to treaty interpretation, insofar as it interpreted China's GATS 
commitments based on their contemporary meaning.  In China's view, the principle of progressive 
liberalization does not allow the scope of the comm itments of a WTO Member to be extended based 
on "temporal variations in language".97 
48. For all of the above reasons, China claims that the Panel failed to apply properly the 
customary rules of treaty interpretation codified in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention , acted 
inconsistently with the requirements of Article 3.2 of the DSU, and erred in failing to find that the 
results of its interpretation of the relevant entr y in China's GATS Schedule under Article 31 of the 
Vienna Convention were "at the least inconclusive".98 
                                                      
95China's appellant's submission, para. 168. 
96China's appellant's submission, para. 170. 
97China's appellant's submission, para. 173.  
98China's appellant's submission, para. 178;  see also para. 174. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 23 
 
 
(b) Article 32 of the Vienna Convention  
49. China contends that the Panel's approach to Article 32 of the Vienna Convention  was 
"fundamentally flawed from the outset".99  Because the Panel should have found that its analysis 
pursuant to Article 31 was inconclusive, the Pane l should have applied Article 32 to "determine"100 
the meaning of the terms in China's Schedule and not merely to confirm the erroneous preliminary 
conclusion it had reached under Article 31.   
50. China claims that the Panel's analysis of the Se rvices Sectoral Classification List and the 1993 
Explanatory Note on Scheduling of Initial Commitmen ts in Trade in Services (the "1993 Scheduling 
Guidelines")101, as preparatory work under Article 32 of the Vienna Convention , was largely based on 
the same premises as its analysis of the sector heading "Audiovisual Se rvices" in China's GATS 
Schedule.  Yet, the fact that audiovisual conten t is the fundamental characteristic of the products 
associated with the services scheduled under sector  2.D does not exclude that China may have 
intended to commit services relating to  audiovisual products in physical  form only under that heading.  
Thus, for the same reasons advanced by China in re spect of the Panel's analysis of the sector heading 
"Audiovisual Services", the Panel's analysis of the preparatory work under Article 32 of the Vienna 
Convention is "equally inconclusive".102 
51. Regarding the circumstances of the conclusion of  its Accession Protocol, China claims that, 
even assuming that the negotiators were aware of the technical feasibility an d commercial viability of 
the electronic distribution of sound recordings in  2001, this alone does not demonstrate that the 
negotiators intended to agree on a commitment on such services.  The Panel also failed to take proper 
account of the absence of a specific legal framework for the services at issue, both internationally and 
domestically, at that time.  Referring to the reasoning of the Appellate Body in EC – Chicken Cuts103, 
China submits that the facts that the supply of the services at issue was not allowed within China at 
the time of the negotiations on China's accession to the WTO and that Chinese measures regulating 
the services at issue were adopted only as fr om 2003, constitute relevant evidence of the 
circumstances of conclusion of the treaty.  China emphasizes that this evidence, which reveals that 
China did not intend to make a commitment on su ch services, "should not have been ignored by the 
Panel".104  In contrast, and contrary to the reasoning of the Panel, the fact that internal discussions on 
possible implementation of a legal framework concerning the services at issue were taking place 
                                                      
99China's appellant's submission, para. 177. 
100China's appellant's submission, para. 179. 
101MTN.GNS/W/164, 3 September 1993. 
102China's appellant's submission, para. 182. 
103China's appellant's submission, para. 189 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Chicken Cuts , 
para. 283).  
104China's appellant's submission, para. 190. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 24  
 
in  1999 does not, as such, suggest any intenti on on the part of China to undertake a specific 
commitment on these services. 
52. In the light of the above, China claims that th e Panel failed to apply properly the customary 
rules of treaty interpretation codified in Article 32 of the Vienna Convention , acted inconsistently with 
the requirements of Article 3.2 of the DSU, and e rred in failing to find that the results of its 
interpretation pursuant to Ar ticle 32 were "inconclusive".
105 
(c) In Dubio Mitius  
53. Finally, China claims that the Panel should have  found that the application of both Articles 31 
and 32 of the Vienna Convention  left the issue of whether China's GATS commitment on "Sound 
recording distribution services" includes the distri bution of sound recordings by electronic means 
"largely inconclusive".106  When confronted with such a high level of ambiguity, the Panel should 
have applied the in dubio mitius  principle and refrained from adopting the interpretation that was the 
least favourable to China.  According to this prin ciple, if the meaning of a term is ambiguous, the 
meaning to be preferred is the one that is less bur densome to the party assuming an obligation, or the 
one that interferes the least with a party's territori al supremacy, or involves less general restrictions 
upon the parties.107  In China's view, this case presented a clear ground for the Panel to apply the 
in dubio mitius principle and, in failing to do so, the Panel failed to apply properly the customary rules 
of treaty interpretation and acted inconsis tently with Article 3.2 of the DSU. 
B. Arguments of the United States – Appellee 
1. The Applicability of China's Tradi ng Rights Commitments to Measures 
Pertaining to Films for Theatrical Release and Unfinished Audiovisual 
Products  
(a) Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film 
Enterprise Rule    
54. The United States requests the Appellate Body to uphold the Panel's findings that Article 30 
of the Film Regulation and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule  are subject to China's trading rights 
commitments under paragraphs 1.2 and 5.1 of Ch ina's Accession Protocol and paragraphs 83(d) 
and 84(a) and (b) of China's Accession Working Pa rty Report.  According to the United States, the 
                                                      
105China's appellant's submission, para. 192. 
106China's appellant's submission, para. 193. 
107China recalls that, in EC – Hormones , the Appellate Body found that the "principle of 
in dubio mitius  applies in interpreting treaties, in deference to the sovereignty of States". (China's appellant's 
submission, para. 195 (quoting Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones , footnote 154 to para. 165))  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 25 
 
 
Panel properly found that these provisions of the Chinese measures relating to films for theatrical 
release "either directly regulate who may engage in importing of 'hard-copy cinematographic films' or 
necessarily affect who may engage in importing of such goods."108   
55. The United States maintains that China's argument s on appeal "are premised on an artificial 
dichotomy between film as mere content (which Ch ina contends is not a good) and the physical 
carrier on which content may be embedded (which China views as a good)."109  However, the United 
States emphasizes that its claim in this dispute concerns measures regulating the importation of an 
integrated product—a film for theatrical release—whi ch consists of a carrier medium containing 
content.  The United States argues that, contrary to  China's assertion that the United States shifted the 
focus of its claim from "films for theatrical relea se" to "hard-copy cinematographic films", the good 
subject to the United States' claim—hard-copy ci nematographic film used for projecting motion 
pictures—has always been a tangible good. 
56. The United States highlights that China stated before the Panel that "only entities designated 
by [China's State Administration on Radio, Film and Television] SARFT can import foreign films for 
public show".110  China further submitted that, "[i]f the importation of such foreign motion picture 
requires importation of exposed and developed cinema tographic film containing such motion picture, 
the importation entity will import such cinematographic film."111  In the United States' view, these 
statements prove that China's measures affect the im portation of a good and that they are inconsistent 
with China's trading rights commitments due to  their restrictions on who may import the good.  
Moreover, arguing that the measures are focused on content and not on the importation of hard-copy 
cinematographic films amounts to asserting that goods  containing content should not be treated as 
goods.  Such logic would imply that measures regul ating books, which also contain content, would 
similarly not be subject to China's trading right s commitments, which cannot be the case.  The United 
States adds that the expressive content of a good—su ch as the slogan of a T-shirt or the content of a 
film—is not separable from the rest of the good.   
57. The United States characterizes as "misplaced"112 China's reliance on the opinion of a 
translator at the United Nations Office at Nairobi (the "UNON") that the Chinese term " Dian Ying " in 
the Film Regulation could refer to the content of a film (tha t is, the artistic work), "and not to the 
                                                      
108United States' appellee's submission, para. 124 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.560). 
109United States' appellee's submission, para. 123 (referring to China's appellant's submission, 
paras. 221, 232, 238, 244, and 245). 
110United States' appellee's submission, para. 125 (quoting China's response to Panel Question 179). 
111United States' appellee's submission, para. 125 (quoting China's response to Panel Question 179). 
(emphasis added by the United States omitted) 
112United States' appellee's submission, para. 130. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 26  
 
material ( i.e., physical medium) on which the film is printed, or the film stock."
113  The United States 
contends that "[t]he distinction drawn by the UNON tr anslator between content in isolation on the one 
hand and the material in isolation on the ot her hand is not at issue in this dispute"114 because the 
United States has not asserted that Article 30 of the Film Regulation  affects only the material on 
which the film is printed (such as film stock).  Ra ther, the United States claims that Article 30 of the 
Film Regulation  affects a good containing content.  
58. In addition, the United States emphasizes that heading 3706 in both the Harmonized 
Commodity Description and Coding System of th e World Customs Organization (the "Harmonized 
System")115 and China's Schedule of Concessions for goods116 reads "Cinematographic film, exposed 
and developed, whether or not incorporating sou nd track or consisting only of sound track".  
Moreover, the Explanatory Notes117 accompanying the Harmonized System heading provide that "this 
heading covers ... cinematographic film for the pr ojection of motion pictures", which confirms that 
cinematographic films are considered goods even if  they are used to provide a service.  The United 
States also underlines that Article III:10 of th e GATT 1994 provides an exception to the national 
treatment obligation for films for theatrical release, which is elaborated upon in Article IV of the 
GATT 1994.  Noting that both provisions are unchanged from the GATT 1947, the United States 
contends that they "make clear that films for theat rical release have been considered goods since at 
least 1947."118   
59. The United States recalls that, as the Panel corr ectly found, the mere fact that the import 
transaction involving hard-copy cinematographic film s may not be the "'essential feature' of the 
exploitation of the relevant film"119 does not preclude the application of China's trading rights 
commitments to the Film Regulation .  A film for theatrical release is a good even if its commercial 
value resides primarily in its utility in the supply of  film projection services.  In any event, a measure 
restricting who may import a good would be subject to  China's trading rights commitments in respect 
of goods.  Furthermore, the United States hi ghlights China's statement that "hard-copy 
cinematographic film is imported ... simultaneously , physically in conjunction with the right to 
                                                      
113United States' appellee's submission, para. 130 (quotin g the UNON's translation,  p. 25;  and referring 
to China's appellant's submission, para. 231, in turn referring to Panel Report, para. 7.533). 
114United States' appellee's submission, para. 130 (referring to the United States' comments during the 
Panel proceedings on the UNON's translation, paras. 26 and 27). 
115Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Explanatory Notes, 4th edn. (WCO, 
2007),  p. VI-3706-1 (Panel Exhibit US-53). 
116WT/ACC/CHN/49/Add.1. 
117Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Explanatory Notes, 4th edn. (WCO, 
2007),  p. VI-3706-1 (Panel Exhibit US-53). 
118United States' appellee's submission, para. 132. 
119United States' appellee's submission, para. 134 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.555). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 27 
 
 
provide the service in question"120, and argues that China concedes in  this statement that films for 
theatrical release are goods. 
60. Finally, the United States submits that the Panel's finding on the applicability of China's 
trading rights commitments to the measures concerning films for theatrical release would not undermine China's right to conduct content review.  The United States stress es that China has not 
invoked Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 as a defence with  respect to the United  States' claims that 
the measures concerning films for theatrical releas e are inconsistent with China's trading rights 
commitments.  Moreover, even if China had invoked such a defence before the Panel, it would have 
failed because the restriction on who may import film s does not contribute to the protection of public 
morals in China.  The United St ates emphasizes that it has not challenged in this dispute China's right 
to prohibit the importation of specific goods that do not  pass the content review, and thus this right is 
not being undermined.  The United States argues that granting trading rights to all enterprises would 
not prevent China from barring the importation of specific products carrying prohibited content. 
(b) Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and Article 7 
of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule    
61. The United States requests the Appellate Body to uphold the Panel's findings that Article 5 of 
the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule  
are subject to, and inconsistent with, China's ob ligation to grant in a non-discretionary manner the 
right to trade under paragraph 1.2 of China's Ac cession Protocol and paragraph 84(b) of China's 
Accession Working Party Report.  
62. The United States recalls that the Panel rej ected China's argument that the measures 
concerning unfinished audiovisual products are not subject to China's obligation to grant in a non-discretionary manner the right to trade.  On ap peal, China dos not repeat the arguments that it 
made before the Panel—that the measures concer ning unfinished audiovisual  products do not regulate 
trade in goods, but rather regulate trade in services.   Rather, the United States notes, China merely 
asserts that the Panel's analysis of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and the Audiovisual 
Products Importation Rule  is in error to the extent it incorpor ates the analysis related to films for 
theatrical release.   
                                                     
 
120United States' appellee's submission, para. 135 (quoting China's appellant's submission, para. 242). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 28  
 
63. The United States underlines that, as the Panel also  noted, unfinished audiovisual products are 
classified under both the 2007 Harmonized System
121 and China's own Schedule of Concessions for 
goods.122  This supports the Panel's finding that unfin ished audiovisual products are goods.  The Panel 
rightly found that Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  "would necessarily affect 
who may engage in importing of hard-copy mast er copies, because only licensed importers could 
engage in importing of audiovisual content on master copies."123  The United States also supports the 
Panel's rejection of China's argument that measures restricting who may import unfinished 
audiovisual products should not be su bject to goods disciplines simply because such products are, in 
China's view, accessories to services.  
2. The "Necessity" Test under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994  
64. According to the United States, the Panel correc tly found that none of the measures that it had 
determined to be inconsistent with China's tr ading rights commitments are "necessary" to protect 
public morals within the meaning of Article XX( a) of the GATT 1994.  The United States observes 
that the Panel analyzed the neces sity of the measures at issue by assuming, without deciding, that 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 can be invoked as a defence to an inconsistency with China's 
obligation to grant the right to trade.  At the oral  hearing in this appeal, the United States urged the 
Appellate Body to review the Panel's fi ndings under Article XX(a) using the same arguendo  
approach, and likewise to refrain from deciding whet her Article XX(a) is available as a defence to a 
violation of China's obligation to grant the right to trade. 
(a) The State-Ownership Requirement 
65. The United States requests the Appellate Body to reject China's appeal of the Panel's finding 
that the State-ownership requirement does not make a material contribution to the protection of public 
morals in China.  The United St ates maintains that the Panel proper ly considered China's arguments 
with respect to the State-ownership requirement a nd correctly concluded that this requirement does 
not make a material contribution to the prot ection of public morals in China.     
66. Recalling that China bore the initial burden of proof with respect to any defence based on 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, the United States  observes that China's defence would fail if it 
could not prove that State ownership of the im porting entity was necessary to achieve its content 
review objectives.  In the United States' view, Chin a did not meet this burden and the Panel did not 
                                                      
121Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Explanatory Notes, 4th edn. (WCO, 
2007), p. XVI-8523-1 (Panel Exhibit US-55). 
122WT/ACC/CHN/49/Add.1. 
123United States' appellee's submission, para. 150 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.644). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 29 
 
 
misrepresent China's argument relating to the cost of content review.  By stating that, in China's view, 
privately owned enterprises cannot be expected to pay for performing a public interest function124, the 
Panel fully captured China's argument.  The Pane l further noted that non-State-owned publication 
import entities could be expected to face cost-based  incentives related to content review and respond 
to dissuasive sanctions just as State-owned en terprises do under the current Chinese measures, and 
that China had offered very limited information on the cost of content review.  The Panel also 
observed that non-State-owned enterprises are routinel y required to bear the costs associated with 
complying with laws and regulations that serve  a public policy function.  For these reasons, the 
United States submits that the Panel properly foun d that "the arguments and evidence put forward by 
China do not support the view that the state-owners hip requirement makes a material contribution to 
the protection of public morals in China."125  
67. The United States also asserts that the Pane l did not misrepresent China's argument 
concerning the requirement for a suitable organizati on and qualified personnel.  When asked by the 
Panel to explain why this requirement could not be met by non-State-owned enterprises, China's 
argumentation was "terse, at best"126, because China merely repeated that it could not impose the cost 
of content review on non-State-owned enterprises.  W ith regard to China's argument that State-owned 
enterprises are the only entiti es "currently considered"127 to fulfil the organization and technical 
requirements set out in the relevant Chinese law, th e United States contends that, as a logical matter, a 
description of what entities China cu rrently considers to fulfil a requirement cannot establish that only 
those entities could fulfil that requirement.  In any event, the Panel did not limit itself to considering 
the cost of compliance with the requirement of a su itable organization and qualified personnel.  This 
is evidenced by the Panel's statement that it was not convinced that privately owned enterprises would 
be unable to attract qualified personnel, or that they would be unable to obtain the organizational 
know-how needed to conduct content review properly.128  For these reasons, the United States 
contends that the Panel both understood a nd properly considered China's "very limited"129 argument 
on the suitable organization and qua lified personnel requirement, as it re lated to the State-ownership 
requirement, and rightly concluded that these require ments did not make a material contribution to 
China's objective. 
                                                      
124United States' appellee's submission, para. 14 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.854, in turn 
referring to China's second written su bmission to the Panel, para. 104). 
125United States' appellee's submission, para. 20 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.860). 
126United States' appellee's submissi on, para. 22 (referring to Chin a's response to Panel Question 
46(b)).   
127United States' appellee's submission, para. 23 (referring to China's appellant's submission, para. 29, 
in turn quoting China's second written submission to the Panel, para. 104). 
128United States' appellee's submission, para. 24 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.858). 
129United States' appellee's submission, para. 25. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 30  
 
(b) The Exclusion of Foreign-Invested Enterprises 
68. The United States requests the Appellate Body  to uphold the Panel's findings that the 
provisions
130 prohibiting foreign-invested enterprises from  engaging in the importation of the relevant 
products do not make a material contribution to the pr otection of public morals in China.  The United 
States disagrees with China that the Panel's finding s concerning the exclusion of foreign-invested 
enterprises from importing are "by necessary implication"131 in error because the Panel relied on its 
finding with respect to the State-ownership require ment to conclude that the provisions excluding 
foreign-invested enterprises from importing do not c ontribute to the protection of public morals in 
China.  Rather, according to the United States, be cause the Panel's analysis and finding set out in 
relation to the State-ownership requirement were correct, and since the Panel's reasoning was based 
on a necessary implication from that finding, the Panel's analysis of China's measures excluding foreign-invested enterprises was also correct. 
69. Regarding China's argument that foreign-inv ested enterprises "may not have" the required 
understanding and knowledge of the applicable standa rds of public morals to ensure the level of 
protection sought by China, the United States asserts  that it is not clear that China presented this 
argument to the Panel.  In addition, the United Stat es argues that China's conc ern that such enterprises 
"may not have" certain qualifications does not logica lly lead to the conclusion that these enterprises 
do not or could not have these qualifications.  Rega rding China's allegation that the Panel's finding on 
the exclusion of foreign-invested enterprises contradicts the finding made earlier by the Panel—that 
requiring qualified review personnel contributes materi ally to the protection of public morals in 
China—the United States contends that there is no contradiction because China provides no reason to 
believe that foreign-invested enterprises would be unable to hire such personnel.  The United States 
adds that the Panel found, instead, in its analysis  of the State-ownership requirement, that foreign-
invested enterprises could attract qualified personnel.
132 
(c) The Restrictive Effect of the Measures 
70. The United States submits that the Panel was correct, in assessing the trade restrictiveness of 
the measures at issue under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, to consider not only the restrictive impact of the measures on imports, but also their restrictive impact on "those wishing to engage in 
                                                     
 
130Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in 
conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  and 
Article 21 of the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule . 
131China's appellant's submission, para. 33. 
132United States' appellee's submission, para. 32 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.858).  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 31 
 
 
importing".133  In addition, according to the United States, the Panel's ultimate conclusion that the 
measures were not "necessary" within the meaning of Article XX(a) would stand irrespective of the 
Panel's assessment of the restrictiv e impact of the measures.  This is so because the Panel found that 
China's measures do not make a contribution to the ach ievement of China's content review objectives, 
and this conclusion alone supports th e Panel's ultimate conclusion.  Th e United States refers to the 
various Panel findings concerning th e contribution made by the measure s at issue to the protection of 
public morals.134  Each such finding suffices to sustain the Panel's ultimate conclusion that the 
relevant measure is not "necessary" to protect public morals within the meaning of Article XX(a).  The United States contends that these findings also show that China's argument on appeal—that "the 
reasons for which these measures were found to be in violation of China's trading rights commitments in the first place were also exactly the same r easons for which such measures cannot be justified"
135—
is incorrect. 
71. In addition, the United States argues that, in its consideration of restrictive effects, the Panel 
was simply adapting the weighing and balancing approach taken by the Appellate Body in  
US – Gambling  and Brazil – Retreaded Tyres  to the particular situation it confronted in this dispute.  
It was "logical" for the Panel to consider the restri ctive effect of the measures not only on imports but 
also on enterprises because, in the present case, the Panel was applying Article XX(a) on an arguendo  
basis to a situation where the Panel had found an in consistency with respect to China's obligations 
concerning the treatment of enterprises, rather than  an inconsistency regarding China's obligations 
concerning the treatment of goods.  
(d) Reasonably Available Alternative Measures 
72. The United States requests the Appellate Body to uphold the Panel's finding that giving the 
Chinese Government sole responsibility for con ducting content review is a WTO-consistent 
alternative that is reasonably available to China.136  The United States contends that China has failed 
to submit evidence in support of its position that  adopting the United States' proposal would impose 
                                                      
133United States' appellee's submission, para. 38 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.788). (emphasis added 
by the United States omitted) 
134United States' appellee's submission, paras. 36-39 (referring in footnotes to Panel Report, 
paras. 7.842, 7.844, 7.860, and 7.865). 
135United States' appellee's submission, para. 40 (quoting China's appellant's submission, para. 43). 
136As further alternative measures, in addition to the one examined by the Panel, the United States 
proposed:  in-house review by content experts, trained or hired by the importer, who would do content review before importation, during the process of importation, or  after importation but before release of the goods into 
China;  review by the Chinese Government of products imported by foreign-invested and privately held 
importers;  and review by Chinese domestic entities with the appropriate expertise, who importers would engage 
to conduct content review before, during, or after importation. (United States' appellee's submission, footnote 59 
to para. 47 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.873-7.875;  and United States' oral statement at the second Panel 
meeting, para. 25)) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 32  
 
an undue burden on China.  In stead, the evidence before the Pa nel established that the Chinese 
Government does have the capacity to carry out content review, because Ch inese authorities already 
carry out content review of films imported for theatrical release and content review of electronic 
publications and audiovisual products .  Moreover, with respect to reading materials, the General 
Administration of Press and Publication (the "GAPP" ) performs several content review functions even 
if, as China argues, its role may be limited.  In the United States' view, this establishes that, in 
principle, the Chinese Government and the GAPP are capable of conducting content review. 
73. The United States further argues that China has not provided any data or estimate that would 
suggest that the cost to the Ch inese Government of performing content review would be unreasonably 
high.  In addition, China has not responded to the Panel's observation that China could charge fees to 
defray any additional expense and that, in fact, Article 44 of the Publications Regulation  as it stands 
already provides for that option.
137  The United States also s ubmits that, because the Chinese 
Government owns 100 per cent of the equity in th e import entities, the Government is in effect 
already financing content review of imported publicat ions.  Therefore, the United States considers that 
the Panel was correct in stating that it was "not apparent"138 that the cost to the Chinese Government 
would be any higher if the United St ates' proposal were implemented. 
74. In response to China's argument that the pr oposed alternative would impose an undue burden 
because it would require the creation of a new stru cture within the Chinese Government, the United 
States argues that the mere fact that a proposed a lternative requires a change does not disqualify it as a 
reasonably available alternative.  In Korea – Various Measures on Beef , the Appellate Body was not 
persuaded that Korea could not achieve its desired level of protection if it were to devote more 
resources to its enforcement efforts.139  Furthermore, in response to China's argument that the 
proposed alternative would impose a significant bu rden because it would require the training and 
assignment of a large number of qualified content re viewers in numerous locations, the United States 
asserts that it is not apparent why the Chinese Gove rnment would have difficulty operating in multiple 
locations.  In any event, according to the United St ates, current content review may be, and the annual 
inspections are, in the first instance, conducted by authorities at the provincial level.  For the United 
States, this demonstrates that the capacity to c onduct content review is already present across China 
and is not limited to a single location within the Chinese Government.140   
                                                      
137The text of Article 44 of the Publications Regulation  is set out, infra , footnote 254. 
138United States' appellee's submission, para. 54 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.904). 
139United States' appellee's submission, para. 55 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various 
Measures on Beef , para. 180).  
140United States' appellee's submission, para. 56 (referring to GAPP, Notice on Approving and Issuing 
License for Importing Publications and Carrying Out Annual Inspection System (2006) No. 1238 (Panel Exhibit 
CN-22)). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 33 
 
 
75. In addition, the United States asserts that th e proposed alternative would be essentially the 
same as the one described by the wholly State- owned China National Publications Import and Export 
(Group) Corporation (the "CNPIEC") in its 2006 repo rt on operations.  The fact that the CNPIEC has 
implemented such a system serves to rebut China' s argument that implementing such a system would 
raise substantial technical diffi culties for the Chinese Government.141  The United States 
acknowledges that the number of publications to be reviewed by the Government would increase 
under the suggested alternative.  However, the Un ited States maintains th at import statistics for 
audiovisual products, for which the Chinese Gove rnment conducts content review pursuant to 
Article 28 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation , demonstrate that Chinese authorities are able 
to perform content review of a large number of publications.142 
(e) Completion of the Analysis 
76. The United States submits that the Appellate B ody should reject China's request to complete 
the analysis.  China's request is conditioned upon th e Appellate Body finding that China's measures 
are "necessary" within the meaning of Article XX (a) of the GATT 1994, which the United States has 
argued that the Appellate Body should not do.   
77. In addition, the United States emphasizes that Ch ina bears the burden of proof with respect to 
each of the three issues in respect of which it re quests completion of the analysis:  (i) whether the 
other alternative measures proposed by the Unite d States are "genuine" and "reasonably available"143;  
(ii) whether China's measures satisfy the require ments of the chapeau to Article XX of the 
GATT 1994;  and (iii) whether Article XX(a) is availa ble to China as a defence to an inconsistency 
with its obligation to grant the right to trade unde r its Accession Protocol.  Although China refers to 
its arguments before the Panel, it has not met this burden because it has not identified, for any of those 
three issues, factual findings by the Panel or undisput ed facts that would enable the Appellate Body to 
complete the analysis.  Rather, China has le ft to the Appellate Body "the entire burden"144 of 
identifying the means to complete  the analysis, and may have placed the United States in the position 
of having to respond for the first time to the asserted factual basis for completion of the analysis 
during the oral hearing in the appeal.  Thus, cont ends the United States, the Appellate Body should 
not complete the analysis on any of these issues.   
                                                      
141United States' appellee's submission, para. 58 (referring to CNPIEC, Report on Operation of 
Imported Publications of China National Publication Import & Export (Group) Corporation in 2006 
(26 February 2007) (Panel Exhibit CN-26), p. 5). 
142United States' appellee's submission, para. 59 (referring to China's response to Panel Question 191). 
143United States' appellee's submission, para. 62 (referring to China's appellant's submission, para. 77, 
in turn referring to China's second written submission to the Panel, paras. 107-132). 
144United States' appellee's submission, para. 64. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 34  
 
3. The Scope of China's GATS Schedule Entry on "Sound Recording 
Distribution Services"  
78. The United States requests the Appellate Body to uphold the Panel's finding that China's 
commitment on "Sound recording distribution services" in sector 2.D of its GATS Schedule includes the electronic distribution of sound recordings.  This  finding led the Panel to hold that the relevant 
measures
145 are inconsistent with Article XVII of th e GATS "as each prohibits foreign-invested 
enterprises, including service suppliers of other Memb ers, from engaging in the electronic distribution 
of sound recordings, while like domestic service  suppliers are not similarly prohibited."146  According 
to the United States, China has presented little argume ntation as to why the Panel's interpretation of 
China's GATS Schedule is inconsistent with the st andard of treaty interpretation set forth in the 
Vienna Convention , or why China's preferred interpretation should be accepted.  The United States 
disagrees with China that, at each step of the Pane l's interpretative analysis, the Panel should have 
found the relevant element of interpretation to be  "inconclusive".  For the United States, China's 
criticism of the Panel's analysis "misses the mark"147, insofar as it ignores that the Panel conducted a 
comprehensive examination of all relevant  elements under Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna 
Convention , rather than determining that any single element of its analysis in isolation was 
conclusive. 
(a) Article 31 of the Vienna Convention  
79. The United States argues that the Panel correctly found that the ordinary meaning of 
"recording" is "recorded material"148, which refers to the content that is recorded, rather than the 
medium containing the recorded sound, as argued by China.  This finding was consistent with a 
definition of "recording" that had been put forwar d by both the United States and China.  Given that 
the Panel explicitly took note of a ll of the definitions offered by th e parties and explained its reasons 
for concluding that "recording" is not limited to r ecorded content that is em bedded on physical media, 
the United States maintains that Chin a's claim that the Panel disregarde d one of the two definitions for 
"recording" that China had provided does not withstand scrutiny. 
80. The United States also contends that the Panel' s analysis of the ordinary meaning of "sound 
recording" and "distribution" in China's GATS Sc hedule is consistent with the approach of the 
Appellate Body in US – Gambling .  The Panel did not simply anal yze the meaning of the relevant 
                                                      
145Article II of the  Circular on Internet Culture ;  Article 8 of the Network Music Opinions ;  Article 4 of 
the Several Opinions ;  and Article X:7 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , 
in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation . 
146United States' appellee's submission, para. 71 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.1311).  
147United States' appellee's submission, para. 75. 
148Panel Report, para.7.1173. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 35 
 
 
terms in the abstract, but it examined which of the m eanings was to be attributed to the relevant term 
in China's GATS Schedule.  China's arguments do not establish that the Panel erred in its analysis of 
ordinary meaning.  To the contrary, asserts the United States, the Panel record fully supports the 
Panel's conclusion that the ordinary meaning of the term "Sound recording distribution services" in 
China's GATS Schedule encompasses the distributio n of sound recordings through both physical and 
non-physical media. 
81. The United States also argues that the Panel co rrectly concluded that the relevant context 
supported the Panel's interpretati on of the ordinary meaning of "Sound recording distribution 
services" as covering the distribution of sound r ecordings through both physical and non-physical 
media.  The United States emphasizes that, contrary  to China's assertions, the Panel did not rely on 
any element of the context as "conclusive", and the Panel did not "rule out"149 the possibility that 
China could have scheduled commitmen ts covering only physical products. 
82. Regarding the interpretation of the term "distr ibution", the United States argues that the Panel 
correctly found that this term encompasses the distri bution of intangible products.  As the GATS itself 
makes clear, the term "distribution" is not limited to the distribution of goods or tangible objects.  
Article XXVIII(b) of the GATS defines the supply of  a service as including its "distribution", and 
services are not tangible objects.  The United States adds  that, in this part of its analysis, the Panel 
specifically examined, and properly rejected, China' s argument that the meaning of "distribution" 
should be limited to the distribution of physical goods. 
83. The United States agrees with the Panel's an alysis of the sector heading "Audiovisual 
Services" in China's GATS Schedule, and in particul ar with its observation that this heading does not 
limit entries falling within its scope to services relati ng only to physical produc ts.  Regarding the entry 
"Videos (...) distribution services" in China GATS Sc hedule, the United States disagrees with China 
that the Panel should have relied upon the definition of the term "vid eo" offered by dictionaries edited 
at the time of the conclusion of China's accession ne gotiations.  Such an argument is untenable for the 
purpose of determining whether a particular technologi cal means for supplying a service is covered by 
a Member's GATS commitments.150  The United States recalls its argument before the Panel that the 
GATS is technologically neutral in the sense that it does not contain any provisions that distinguish 
                                                      
149United States' appellee's submission, footnote 119 to para. 87 (quoting China's appellant's 
submission, para. 134). 
150The United States adds that, following China's logi c, a commitment on "videos" undertaken in 2002 
would not encompass DVDs, even though DVDs had already overtaken videotapes as the primary medium for 
distributing films by then.  This example demonstrates that  dictionaries are not the sole  or even always the best 
source of the ordinary meaning of a term, particularly where the editing of a dictionary lags behind the evolution 
of the ordinary meaning of a term. (United States' appellee's submission, para. 91 (referring in footnote to 
Appellate Body Report, EC – Chicken Cuts , para. 175)) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 36  
 
between the different technological means through which a service may be supplied, as well as the 
observation by the panel in US – Gambling  that a market access commitment entails that other 
Members' service suppliers enjoy the right to s upply a service through all means of delivery unless 
otherwise specified in the relevant Member's Schedule.
151  The United States submits that, if China 
had wanted to exclude the distribution of sou nd recordings through electronic means from its 
commitment on "Sound recording distribution servi ces", it could have explicitly done so in its 
Schedule.  Regarding the use of the plural "videos"  instead of the singular "video" in China's GATS 
Schedule, the United States points out that China's analysis appears to flow from a flawed premise, 
because the relevant entry in the Services Sectoral Classification List is "video tape production and 
distribution services", and the word "video" in this entr y is used as an adjective rather than as a noun.  
The United States adds that many nouns, such as "id ea", can refer to intangible concepts that are 
countable, whether they are referred to in the singular or in the plural form. 
84. The United States claims that the Panel correctly  found that the relationship between sector 4 
(Distribution Services) and sector 2.D (Audiovisual  Services) in China's GATS Schedule supports the 
conclusion that sector 2.D includes the distribution of audiovisual products in non-physical form.  
According to the United States, this conclusion by th e Panel is consistent with the logic in China's 
Schedule, which groups audiovi sual products under sector 2.D because these products are of a 
different kind than the other products whose distri bution is covered in sector 4.  This uniqueness is 
due both to their audiovisual content and to the fact that they can be distributed in non-physical form.  
The United States also observes th at China has developed no alternative analysis of the context 
provided by sector 4 and that, in any event, the Panel did not rely solely on its analysis of sector 4 as 
conclusive of the scope of China's commitment on "Sound recording distribution services".  Rather, the Panel examined sector 4 of China's Schedule t ogether with other elements of the context, to 
determine whether, taken as a whole, they supported the Panel's analysis rega rding the meaning of the 
terms in China's GATS Schedule.  
85. In the view of the United States, Article XXVI II(b) of the GATS, which defines the "supply 
of a service" as including its "distribution", disproves China's assertion that the term "distribution" is 
limited to the distribution of physical goods.  To  the contrary, Article XXVIII(b) demonstrates that 
"distribution" can and does refer to distribution of non-physical items.  For the United States, this 
rebuts China's assertions that the meaning of "d istribution" effectively limits the term "sound 
recording" to physical objects.   
                                                     
 
151United States' appellee's submission, para. 92 (referring to Panel Report, US – Gambling , 
para. 6.285). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 37 
 
 
86. Regarding the object and purpose of the GATS, the United States claims that none of the 
arguments presented by China provides any guidan ce as to whether China undertook a commitment 
on the electronic distribution of sound recordings.  The preamble of the GATS cannot be read as 
requiring an interpreter to depart from the customar y rules of treaty interpretation codified in the 
Vienna Convention , as this would not be consistent with Article 3.2 of the DSU.  Moreover, the 
preamble of the GATS indicates that the Agreement is aimed at, inter alia , establishing "a multilateral 
framework of principles and rules for trade in servi ces with a view to the expansion of such trade 
under conditions of transparency and progressive lib eralization", and that commitments negotiated 
under the Agreement should aim at "securing an over all balance" of rights and obligations between 
the Members.  These statements mean that, while  WTO Members may decide on the pace and extent 
of liberalization of their services markets, they mu st also comply with the services commitments that 
they have undertaken.  The United States disag rees with China's conception of "progressive 
liberalization" because, while each Member exer cises its prerogatives by entering into specific 
commitments, compliance with current commitment s is essential to the credibility and success of 
progressive liberalization in the future.  As for the argument that the principle of progressive 
liberalization would have required the Panel to base it s analysis of the relevant terms in China's GATS 
Schedule on their meaning at the time of China's accession to the WTO, the United States observes 
that such an interpretative approach would place a limitation on a Member's commitment that does 
not exist in its Schedule, and would not conform to the requirements of the Vienna Convention .  The 
United States adds that resorting to a dictiona ry published in December 2001—when China's GATS 
Schedule was finalized—would not have led to a diffe rent interpretation.  Even in 2001, the term 
"distribution" referred to intangible products.  For the United States, the Panel's finding that "product" 
refers to goods and services does not depend on technological developments since 2001. 
87. For all of the above reasons, the United States submits that the Panel's analysis of the ordinary 
meaning of the relevant terms in China's GATS Schedule in their context and in the light of the object 
and purpose of the GATS was sound, and should be upheld. 
(b) Article 32 of the Vienna Convention  
88. The United States claims that the Panel did not err in resorting to supplementary means of 
interpretation under Article 32 of the Vienna Convention  only for the purpose of confirming the 
conclusions it reached when applying Article 31 of the Vienna Convention .  The United States 
cautions that China may not seek to have the A ppellate Body reopen the facts related to the 
circumstances of the conclusion of China's GATS Sche dule, in particular given that China's Notice of 
Appeal does not include a claim under Article 11 of the DSU on this issue. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 38  
 
89. The United States observes that, in relation to th e Panel's finding that Members were aware of 
the technical and commercial viability of the electronic distribution of sound recordings at the time of 
China's WTO accession, China has shifted its argument  to state that "this fact alone does not establish 
that they intended to make a commitment on such services."
152  China's assertions that the distribution 
of electronic sound recordings was not allowed in Ch ina at the time of its accession, and that China 
did not adopt measures regulating the electronic dist ribution of sound recordings until 2003, were not 
"ignored"153 by the Panel.  Rather, the United States argu es, they were considered and rejected by the 
Panel.  The United States agrees with the Pane l that a "Member's service commitments need not 
reflect its existing legal framework"154, particularly given that Members often undertake GATS 
specific commitments that guarantee a level of market access higher than that available under the regulatory regimes in force at the time the co mmitments are made.  The United States points to 
evidence that was before the Panel demonstrating that China and other WTO Members were aware of 
the commercial reality of the electronic distribution of sound recordings before 2001, and that the services at issue were being supplied in China at th e time of the conclusion of the negotiations of 
China's GATS Schedule.  In the view of the United States, the Panel could not have interpreted the 
common intentions of the parties based solely  on China's adoption of a law in 2003.  The 
United States adds that China's reference to EC – Chicken Cuts is unavailing because the Panel's 
approach to the circumstances of the conclusion of the treaty in this case was consistent with the 
guidance provided by the Appellate Body in that case.
155  The United States, therefore, concludes that 
the Panel's analysis of the supplementary mean s of interpretation was correct, and that the 
circumstances of the conclusion of China's accession to the WTO support the finding that China 
undertook a GATS specific commitment with respect to the electronic distribution of sound recordings. 
(c) In Dubio Mitius 
90. The United States characterizes China's claim that the Panel should have applied the principle 
of in dubio mitius as "without merit".
156  The Panel correctly interpreted the meaning of the entry 
"Sound recording distribution services" in Chin a's GATS Schedule as encompassing the electronic 
distribution of sound recordings on the basis of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention , and then 
confirmed this interpretation by resorting to supp lementary means of interpretation under Article 32 
                                                      
152United States' appellee's submission, para. 110 (quoting China's appellant's submission, para. 184). 
153United States' appellee's submission, para. 111 (referring to China's appellant's submission, 
para. 190). 
154United States' appellee's submission, para. 111 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.1245). 
155United States' appellee's submission, para. 114 (referring to China's appellant's submission, 
para. 189, in turn referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Chicken Cuts , para. 283). 
156United States' appellee's submission, para. 115.  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 39 
 
 
of the Vienna Convention .  For these reasons, the United States c onsiders that there was no basis for 
applying the in dubio mitius principle in this dispute. 
C. Claims of Error by the United States – Other Appellant 
1. The Necessity of the State Plan Requirement within the Meaning of 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994  
91. The United States requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's intermediate finding that 
the requirement, in Article 42 of the Publications Regulation , that the approval of publication import 
entities conform to China's State plan for the total number, structure, and distribution of publication 
import entities (the "State plan requirement") can be  characterized as "necess ary", in the absence of 
reasonably available alternatives, to protect publ ic morals in China within the meaning of 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.  Alternatively, if the Appellate Body upholds the Panel's findings 
on the proposed alternative measure that the Panel found to be reasonably available to China, then, 
rather than reversing the Panel, the United Stat es suggests that the Appellate Body could simply 
declare the Panel's intermediate findi ng moot and of no legal effect.  
92. The United States expresses "some concerns"157 about the analytical approach taken by the 
Panel in its analysis of the "necessity" of the State plan requirement.  The United States considers that 
the Panel took a "two-step"158 approach in its analysis under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, 
examining, first, whether China had made a prima facie  case that the measures at issue were 
"necessary" within the meaning of Article XX(a ), and examining only subsequently whether 
reasonably available and WTO-consis tent alternatives had been identified.  In taking this approach, 
the Panel drew on a statement made by the Appellate Body in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres .159  However, 
the United States submits that other Appellate Body reports, in particular US – Gambling  and Korea – 
Various Measures on Beef , described a single process consisting of a number of "possible lines of 
inquiry"160 that are to be weighed and balanced.  A ccording to the United States, the "single, 
integrated, yet multifaceted inquiry"161 set out by the Appellate Body is moreover in line with the text 
of Article XX(a), which sets out a single criterion:   "necessary".  The United States contends that 
intermediate findings of a multi-step analysis, such  as the preliminary conclusion of the Panel in the 
present case that the State plan requirement is "nece ssary" to protect public morals "in the absence of 
                                                      
157United States' other appellant's submission, para. 26.  
158United States' other appellant's submission, para. 26. 
159United States' other appellant's submission, para. 26 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.786, in turn 
quoting Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , para. 178).   
160United States' other appellant's submission, para. 26 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – 
Gambling , paras. 306 and 307;  and referring in footnote to Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures 
on Beef , para. 166). 
161United States' other appellant's submission, para. 27. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 40  
 
reasonably available alternatives", introduce "confusion".
162  For the United States, this is because the 
term "necessary" appears to have b een used in a different sense in th e intermediate finding than in the 
ultimate finding that the State plan requirement wa s not "necessary" given that a reasonably available 
alternative measure had been identified.  
93. As for the substance of the intermediate finding made by the Panel, the United States is of the 
view that the Panel erred in finding that, in the ab sence of reasonably available alternatives, the State 
plan requirement can be characterized as "necessary" to protect public morals in China.  The United 
States disputes, in particular, that the State plan  requirement makes a material contribution to the 
protection of public morals in China.  Re ferring to the Appellate Body reports in US – Gambling  and 
Korea – Various Measures on Beef , the United States maintains that  the State plan requirement is not 
significantly closer to the pole of "indispensable " than to the opposite pole of "simply making a 
contribution".163   
94. The United States highlights multiple problems with  the Panel's analysis of the State plan 
requirement.  First, the Panel did not actually ex amine the State plan, because China did not submit 
the State plan, nor did it provide any information about the content of the State plan, or any past or 
future plan.  Instead, China simply stated that th e State plan "concern[s] the quantity, geographical 
and product coverage of publication import entities".164  The absence of information about the content 
of the State plan meant that the Panel was precluded from assessing the actual State plan and its impact, and was reduced to speaking in generaliti es.  The United States emphasizes that the Panel 
could not have properly weighed th e contribution—if any—that the State plan made to achieving 
China's objectives on the basis of the general assertions made by China.   
95. Secondly, the United States contends that, because China did not pr ovide the requested 
information, the Panel could not know what Chin a meant when it asserted that there was a "limited 
number"
165 of publication import entities, nor what rationale was used to justify such limit.  The 
United States also points to evidence that was before the Panel showing that, in 2006, there were 806 
publishers of domestic books and el ectronic publications, almost 20 times more than the 42 approved 
State-owned import entities in China.166  Given that these domestic publishers perform in-house 
                                                      
162United States' other appellant's submission, para. 27 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.836). 
163United States' other appellant's submission, paras. 28 and 29 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.785;  
Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 310;  and Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on 
Beef, para. 161).  
164United States' other appellant's submission, para. 31 (quoting China's response to Panel 
Question 44).   
165United States' other appellant's submission, para. 34. 
166United States' other appellant's submission, para. 34 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.812;  United 
States' oral statement at the second Panel meeting, para . 30;  and GAPP, "Bulletin of Statistics", Excerpt (Panel 
Exhibit US-98)). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 41 
 
 
content review, it was unclear how China could argu e that a large number of content reviewers would 
undermine the consistency or quality of content revi ew or affect whether th e performance of that 
review met the standard set by China.   
96. Thirdly, the United States submits that the Pane l failed to recognize the contradiction between 
the requirement that publication import entities have branches in a large number of customs areas and 
the rationale given for limiting the number of impo rting entities.  Other evidence before the Panel 
demonstrates that, while China appears to limit  the number of publication import entities, it 
simultaneously expands the number and location of  actual content reviewers beyond such limited 
numbers by requiring import entities to have branches that can cover many locations.  This, according 
to the United States, undermines the alleged benefits  that the Panel presumed to flow from any limit 
the State plan may place on the number of im port entities, such as easier interaction between 
Government authorities and the approved import entiti es to enhance consistency, and providing more 
time to conduct annual inspections.     
97.  Fourthly, the United States contends that the Panel did not properly take into account the role 
of the GAPP in content review.  The Panel stated that a limitation on the number of publication import 
entities would allow the GAPP to devot e more time to conduct its annual ex post  controls of 
publication import entities' compliance with conten t review requirements.  In the absence of 
information regarding the nature of these annual in spections, however, it is, according to the United 
States, impossible to assess how much of an a dditional burden—if any—w ould be caused by an 
increase in the number of importing entities.  For example, if the annual review involved actual 
review of the imported publications, the workload for the GAPP would be a function of the number of 
titles imported rather than of the number of publica tion import entities.  The United States adds that, 
because each branch of a publication import entity subm its a report to the GAPP, the workload is at 
least as much a function of the number of branches as it is a function of the number of entities 
approved as publication import entities. 
98. Finally, the United States takes issue with certa in Panel statements regarding the restrictive 
impact of the State plan requirement.  In addition to the fact that the Panel could not have assessed such restrictive impact in the ab sence of specific information on the State plan, the Panel's statement 
that this requirement does not a priori exclude particular types of enterprises in China from 
establishing an import entity is unclear.  The State plan requirement might not exclude particular 
types of enterprises from establishing an import entit y, but it nevertheless is intended to limit the 
number of publication import entities and thereby constitutes a restriction. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 42  
 
99. For these reasons, the United States consid ers that there are "significant flaws"
167 in the 
Panel's analysis of the State plan requirement, and that the Panel misinterpreted and misapplied 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 in reaching it s findings regarding the "necessity" of this 
requirement.  The United States claims, in the alternativ e, that, if the Appellate Body were to find that 
the Panel's analysis concerning the State plan requi rement does not constitute a misinterpretation and 
misapplication of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, th en the Panel's disregard of significant facts 
relating to this requirement, including the fact that it did not know the content of the State plan, 
constitutes an error in the appreciation of the ev idence because the Panel made a finding that has no 
evidentiary basis in the record, and is theref ore inconsistent with Article 11 of the DSU. 
D. Arguments of China – Appellee 
1. The Necessity of the State Plan Requirement within the Meaning of 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994  
100. China contends that the Appellate Body shoul d dismiss the United States' "concerns" about 
the analytical approach taken by the Panel in its  Article XX(a) analysis.  China also requests the 
Appellate Body to dismiss the United States' other appeal and to uphold the Panel's finding that the 
State plan requirement makes a material contributi on to the protection of public morals in China. 
101. With respect to the "two-step" analytical a pproach allegedly adopted by the Panel in its 
"necessity" analysis under Article XX(a) of the GA TT 1994, China submits that the United States' 
contention appears to be based on an inaccurate re presentation of previous Appellate Body findings.  
China points out that the United States' reference to a statement in the Appellate Body report in  
US – Gambling 168 was incomplete.  When read in its  entirety, it is clear that in US – Gambling  the 
Appellate Body set out an approach of logical se quencing between the various tests to be performed 
as part of the "necessity" test.  This sequencing is also reflected in the Appellate Body report in  
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres .169  China adds that the United States has not identified any specific legal 
error affecting the Panel's reasoning.  Instead , the United States expresses "some concerns" and 
suggests that the Panel's approach generated c onfusion with respect to the term "necessary".  
According to China, this does not constitute an allega tion of an error of law that would fall within the 
scope of appellate review.  In any event, Chin a submits that the Panel has followed precisely the 
multifaceted approach to weighing and balancing th at the United States argues the Panel should have 
adopted.   
                                                      
167United States' other appellant's submission, para. 38. 
168China's appellee's submission, para. 6 (referring to United States' other appellant's submission, 
para. 26). 
169China's appellee's submission, para. 7 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , 
para. 178). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 43 
 
 
102. On substance, China submits that the Panel w as correct in finding that, in the absence of 
reasonably available alternatives, the State plan re quirement can be characterized as "necessary" to 
protect public morals in China.  According to Chin a, the United States' argument that China failed to 
put forward evidence about the State plan requirement is "misplaced and incorrect".170  C h i n a  d i d  
respond to the pertinent Panel question explaining th at the State plan was not available in written 
form, and that the State plan is concerned with the quantity, geographical and product coverage of 
publication import entities.  The Panel was entitled to c onsider that this response, together with other 
evidence on the record, provided a suffic ient basis for the Panel's analysis.171  China points to, in 
particular, certain exhibits that, in its  view, constituted "circumstantial evidence"172 confirming that 
the selection of publication import entities is concerne d with their quantity, and their geographical and 
product coverage.  China argues that the Panel's eval uation of this evidence fell within its discretion 
as the trier of facts and that the United States has failed to establish that the Panel erred in the 
inferences that it drew from the facts before it.173   
103. China characterizes as "irrelevant"174 and "wrong"175 the United States' comparison of the 
respective numbers of domestic publication entities and approved publication import entities, and its 
related efforts to explain that content review for imported publications c ould be performed in a 
manner similar to that for domestic publications.  The United States fails to take into account 
significant differences between the content review  of domestic publications and that of imported 
publications.  In particular, China maintains that  the market demand for domestic publications is 
much higher, and content review of importe d publications requires greater resources and 
sophistication, including specific language skills and an appreciation of the differences between 
Chinese culture and that of the countries of origin of foreign publications.  China asserts that the fact 
that there is a lower number of entities in charge of  content review for imported publications is only a 
reflection of the different requirements for the two types of work and that, therefore, no meaningful 
comparison can be drawn from the number of entities involved in the content review of the two 
different categories of publications.   
                                                      
170China's appellee's submission, para. 14 (referring to United States' other appellant's submission, 
para. 33). 
171China's appellee's submission, paras. 13 (referring to China's response to Panel Question 44) and 14. 
172China's appellee's submission, footnote 12 to para. 15 (referring to W. Yumei, "Fourteen (Foreign 
Publications) Retailers Enter Chinese Mainland Mark et and Increasing Number of Book, Newspaper and 
Magazine Retailers", China News Publishing Newspaper , 22 January 2008 (Panel Exhibit US-13);  Panel 
Exhibit CN-26, supra , footnote 141;  and "China Statistical Data Collection of Press and Publication", in China 
Labor and Social Security Publication (2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002) (Panel Exhibits CN-33 through CN-37, 
respectively)). 
173China's appellee's submission, para. 17 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Wheat Gluten , 
paras. 175 and 176). 
174China's appellee's submission, subheading 3.2, p. 4. 
175China's appellee's submission, para. 23. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 44  
 
104. With respect to the United States' argument concerning the relationship between the 
numerical limitation on publication import entities a nd the requirement for an extensive geographical 
presence, China submits that this argument is prem ised on a misrepresentation of the way in which 
inspections are carried out by the GAPP.  Accordin g to China, it is the import entities themselves, 
rather than the branches of the import entities, that  are subject to annual review by the GAPP.  The 
various branches of import entities are obliged to s ubmit inspection materials to the administration of 
press and publication in their locality on an annual b asis, and this local authority then issues an 
examination opinion.  Each branch must then  submit its annual summary report and the local 
authority's examination opinion to its parent comp any, which in turn submits them to the GAPP for 
annual inspection.  China also points to evidence it submitted demonstrating that, in cases of non-
compliance, it is the import entity itself, rather than  any of its branches, that is subject to sanction 
under applicable law.
176  
105. Regarding the United States' argument that the total workload for the GAPP may be a 
function of the number of titles imported rather th an the number of publication import entities, China 
contends that this argument is based on a misr epresentation of the character of the GAPP's annual 
inspections.  China points to the evidence it submitted demonstrating that these GAPP annual 
inspections focus on the functioning and mode of ope ration of the import entities, in particular, with 
respect to their implementation of the content review system.177  Thus, according to China, limiting 
the number of such entities does make a contribution to the protection of public morals in China.  
106. Finally, as to the United States' allegation that  the Panel erred in its consideration of the 
restrictive effect of the State plan requirement, Chin a recalls that it has appealed the Panel's inclusion 
of the impact of the measures at issue on potential importers in its assessment of the restrictive impact.  In any event, China contends that the St ate plan requirement does not set any form of quota 
on the number of import entities, but rather sets an  additional condition in order for a publication 
import entity to be approved.  Furthermore, China observes that, even if the State plan requirement 
could be viewed as setting a restriction on the num ber of import entities, this alone would not suffice 
to conclude that the State plan requirement does no t make a material contribution to the protection of 
public morals in China. 
                                                     
 
176China's appellee's submission, para. 25 (referring to Panel Exhibit CN-22, supra , footnote 140, 
para. VI(1)). 
177China's appellee's submission, paras. 29-31 (referring to Panel Exhibit CN-22, supra , footnote 140, 
para. IV(2)).  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 45 
 
 
E. Arguments of the Third Participants 
1. Australia  
107. Australia submits that the Appellate Body shou ld reverse or modify the Panel's finding that 
China's Accession Protocol commitments relating to trade in goods are appli cable to the measures 
concerning films for theatrical release and unfinis hed audiovisual products.  With regard to the 
"necessity" of China's measures, Australia submits th at the Appellate Body should uphold the Panel's 
finding that China failed to demonstrate that the measures found to be inconsistent with China's 
trading rights commitments are "necessary" to protect public morals within the meaning of 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.178  Finally, Australia submits th at the Appellate Body should 
uphold the Panel's findings that the entry "Sound recording distribution services" in China's GATS 
Schedule includes the distribution of sound recordings by electronic means.  
108. Australia considers that the Panel erred in fi nding that China's trading rights commitments 
apply to the measures concerning films for theatri cal release and unfinished audiovisual products.179  
Drawing an analogy with the Appellate Body's approach in EC – Bananas III , Australia maintains that 
the Panel should have examined whether those meas ures "affect" trading rights in goods in a manner 
inconsistent with the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the " WTO 
Agreement ")180, in particular by scrutinizing the structure and design of the measures in order to 
determine whether they regulate films for theatri cal release and unfinished audiovisual products on 
the basis of their characteristics as goods, or on the b asis of their content.  In Australia's view, the 
content of audiovisual products is a service.  Aust ralia argues that China submitted sufficient evidence 
to "raise doubt"181 as to whether the measures regulate fi lms for theatrical release based on their 
characteristics as goods.  Given that the United States failed to counter this evidence, China's trading 
rights commitments should not have been found to apply to the measures at issue.  
109. Referring to the Panel's analysis and intermed iate finding of "necessity" of the State plan 
requirement, Australia emphasizes that China bore th e burden of demonstrating that the measures at 
issue contribute to the achievement of China's objec tives, "having regard in particular to the trade-
                                                      
178In this regard, Australia refers to the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the  
Catalogue , the Foreign Investment Regulation , the Several Opinions , the Publications Regulation , the 2001 
Audiovisual Products Regulation , and the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule , insofar as the latter two 
concern finished audiovisual products, and the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule . 
179These measures are, with rega rd to films for theatrical release, Articles 5 and 30 of the Film 
Regulation  and Articles 3 and 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule , and with regard to unfinished audiovisual 
products, Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products 
Importation Rule . 
180Australia's third participant's submission, pa ra. 8 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC –
Bananas III , para. 221). 
181Australia's third participant's submission, para. 12. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 46  
 
restrictiveness of that measure".
182  Observing that WTO Members rely heavily on previous panel and 
Appellate Body reports in relati on to Article XX of the GATT 1994 in  order to defend their measures 
on the basis of public policy, Australia states that it "would welcome"183 clarification from the 
Appellate Body regarding the Panel's interpretation of the relationship between the assessment of the 
"necessity" of a measure and the assessment of the existence of "reasonably available alternatives" 
under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.   
2. European Communities184 
110. The European Communities submits that Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 may be indirectly 
applicable to China's obligation under paragraph 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol to grant the right 
to trade, and contends that the Panel erred in la w by examining China's Article XX(a) defence on an 
arguendo  basis.  With regard to the Panel's substa ntive analysis under Article XX(a), the European 
Communities disagrees with China's claims of erro r on appeal.  Instead, the European Communities 
supports the Panel's finding that the State-owners hip requirement is not "necessary" for the protection 
of public morals in China;  submits that the Panel was correct to weigh the restrictive impact that the 
measures at issue may have on those wishing to engage  in importing;  and cons iders that the Panel did 
not err in its evaluation of whether the alterna tives proposed by the United States were "reasonably 
available" to China.  The Eu ropean Communities does not, however, accept that the Panel had a 
sufficient basis on which to conclude that the Stat e plan requirement was "necessary" and, therefore, 
agrees with the United States' appeal of this fi nding.  The European Communities agrees with the 
Panel's legal interpretations a nd conclusions regarding the scope  of China's GATS commitments. 
111. The European Communities submits that Artic le XX(a) of the GATT 1994 does not directly 
apply to China's Accession Protocol because excep tions may be invoked only within the specific 
agreement in which they are contained, and accession protocol commitments are not part of the GATT 1994.  However, Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 is indirectly relevant for the interpretation 
of China's obligation under paragraph 5.1 of Ch ina's Accession Protocol due to the introductory 
clause to that paragraph, which reads:  "Without pr ejudice to China's right to regulate trade".  In the 
European Communities' view, the Panel correctly de termined that China's right to regulate trade 
encompasses a "core"
185 right—to regulate imports and exports—a nd a consequent right to regulate 
                                                      
182Australia's third participant's submission, para. 21. 
183Australia's third participant's submission, paras. 3 and 22. 
184We note that, on 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union 
and the Treaty establishing the European Community (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) entered in to force.  
On 29 November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note  (WT/L/779) from the Council  of the European Union 
and the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon , as of 
1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community. 
185European Communities' third participant's submission, para. 6. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 47 
 
 
who may import or export goods "where  this is incidental (or necessary) to the regulation of the 
relevant goods".186  The Panel in effect found that none of the measures at issue correspond to "core" 
measures regulating trade, but left open the ques tion of whether the measures are consequential, 
incidental, and/or necessary to measures regulating tr ade in the relevant goods, that is, to measures 
prohibiting certain content or requiring content review  prior to importation.  Because the availability 
of Article XX(a) depends on the answer to this question, the European Communities considers that 
the Panel erred in law by examining China's Article XX(a) defence on an arguendo  basis.  A detailed 
substantive analysis under Article XX(a) should follow, and depend upon, a positive finding that 
Article XX(a) applies—yet the Panel made no such  finding.  Before undertaking its Article XX(a) 
analysis, therefore, the Panel should first have show n that "the measures found to be inconsistent with 
[China's] trading rights commitments are incidental (in the sense of 'necessary') to the regulation of 
the relevant goods".187  Moreover, the Panel's arguendo  approach was not helpful for effectively 
resolving the dispute between the parties because  China does not know whether it can adopt "less 
GATT-inconsistent (less restrictive) alternative m easures, such as those pointed out by the United 
States"188 without running the risk of a renewed and successful WTO challenge of such measures.  
112. With respect to the analysis of the "necessity " of the State-ownership requirement, the 
European Communities does not believe that the Pa nel misrepresented China's arguments, erred in 
law, or failed to make an objective assessment of th e matter before it, in violation of Article 11 of the 
DSU.  The European Communities does not share Chin a's position that the costs relating to a "public 
policy function"189 cannot be imposed on privately owned enterprises, and points to the example of 
marketing approval procedures for pharmaceutical pr oducts or other highly regulated goods, the costs 
of which are borne by private enterprises and th en passed on to consumers.  Privately owned 
enterprises could also perform the task of content re view if properly trained staff were employed.  
Even if the activity of content review must be ca rried out by State entities, it does not follow that 
prohibiting the importation of such products by pr ivately owned enterprises is necessary for the 
protection of public morals.  Rather, explains the European Communities, priv ately owned enterprises 
could, before importing or marketing the products, submit the products to be imported to the State 
entity responsible for carrying out the content review, and pay that entity a fee. 
113. Concerning China's argument that the Panel erred in interpreting Article XX(a) of the 
GATT 1994 as requiring the Panel to also weigh the rest rictive impact that the measures at issue may 
have "on those wishing to engage in importing", in particular on their right to trade, the European 
                                                      
186European Communities' third participant's subm ission, para. 8 (referring to Panel Report, 
para. 7.276). 
187European Communities' third participant's submission, para. 11. 
188European Communities' third participant's submission, para. 12. 
189European Communities' third participant's submission, para. 16. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 48  
 
Communities submits that the Panel was correct in  its analysis and that there was no "circular 
reasoning"
190 as alleged by China.  In analyzing whet her the measures were "necessary" within the 
meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, the Pa nel had to weigh and balance several factors, 
including the restrictive impact of the measures on international commerce.  This element must be 
taken into account even when the restrictive im pact is the reason why the measure was found to 
violate WTO obligations in the first place.  A failure  to take account of such restrictive impact would 
deprive the examination of "necessity" of its sense a nd impede a panel's assessment of whether a less 
restrictive alternative exists.  The European Communities disagr ees with China that the Panel's 
approach was analogous to that erroneously adopted by the panel in US – Gasoline191, and points out 
that, in any event, the panel in that dispute was interpreting paragraph (g) of Article XX, which does 
not contain a "necessity" requirement.  The European  Communities emphasizes that the effect of the 
measures at issue "is tantamount to a total ban on those entities who will never qualify to enter the 
Chinese market".192 
114. The European Communities considers that the Panel did not err in finding that at least one of 
the alternatives proposed by the United States was "reasonably available" to China even though the 
United States did not provide any details on how that alternative could be implemented.  The task of 
WTO panels is to determine, on the basis of the argu ments of the parties, whether there are other less 
trade-restrictive alternatives that could be impl emented, not to provide a solution as to how any 
proposed alternatives would be impl emented;  it is up to China to deal with the details of how 
implementation could take place.  The European Co mmunities also recalls that, before the Panel, it 
argued that China could implement a content revi ew system without such severe restrictions on 
trading rights because it is the content of the material  itself that is subject to review, not the entity or 
individual who is actually importing it into China.  This is further supported by reference to content 
review for domestic products, which can be effi ciently performed without similar curtailments. 
115. The European Communities "largely agree[s]"193 with the United States' appeal regarding the 
Panel's analysis of the "necessity" of the State plan requirement.  The European Communities does not fully understand on what specific grounds the Pane l could have made its in termediate finding that 
the State plan requirement is "necessary" to protect public morals, especially as it had never been 
given the opportunity to examine the actual measu re.  The European Communities adds that it is 
important that parties to WTO disputes abide by the DSU, including the requirement in Article 13.1 
                                                     
 
190European Communities' third participant's submission, para. 25 (quoting China's appellant's 
submission, para. 43). 
191European Communities' third participant's submissi on, para. 26 (referring to and quoting Appellate 
Body Report, US – Gasoline , p. 16, DSR 1996:I, 3, at 15). 
192European Communities' third participant's submission, para. 34. 
193European Communities' third participant's submission, para. 40. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 49 
 
 
that "[a] Member should respond promptly and fully to any request by a panel for such information as 
the panel considers necessary and appropriate." 
116. With respect to the appeal of the Panel's interpretation of the entry "Sound recording 
distribution services" in China's GATS Schedule, th e European Communities di sagrees with China's 
view that changes in digital technologies and comm unication networks have resulted in the emergence 
of an entirely new type of services sector—"network music services".194  The European Communities 
further submits that the Panel decided not to invoke  the principle of "technological neutrality" because 
there was no need for it to do so given that it had found that China's commitment includes the 
distribution of audio content by non-physical means a nd not because, as China suggests, this principle 
was irrelevant because network music services is a new and distinct service.  
3. Japan  
117. With regard to China's trading rights commitm ents, Japan submits that the Appellate Body 
should uphold the Panel's findings with regard to th e measures relating to films for theatrical release 
and unfinished audiovisual products.  Japan urges th e Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding 
that, in the absence of reasonably av ailable alternatives, the State plan requirement is "necessary" to 
protect public morals in China, but to otherw ise uphold the Panel's conclusions in respect of 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.  Finally, Japan urges the Appellate Body to uphold the Panel's 
interpretation of China's GATS Schedule entry "S ound recording distribution services" as including 
the distribution of sound recordings in electronic form. 
118. Japan asserts that, in appealing the Panel's finding that the measures regulating films for 
theatrical release are subject to its trading rights commitments, China simply repeats the arguments 
that it made before the Panel, changing the focus from the regulation of servi ces to the regulation of 
content.  In Japan's view, the content and use of  tangible media are not relevant to the issue of 
whether China's trading rights commitments apply to  hard-copy cinematographic films.  For Japan, 
the Panel's findings in this regard are both correct and consistent with the A ppellate Body's finding in 
Canada – Periodicals that content does not preclude a conclu sion that the object in which such 
content is contained is a good.195 
119. Regarding the Panel's findings under Article  XX(a) of the GATT 1994, Japan views the 
Panel's approach as "proper and legally correct", ex cept that the Panel's inte rmediate finding regarding 
the "necessity" of the State plan requirement is, in Japan's view, "mere conjecture, made without any 
                                                      
194European Communities' third participant's submission, para. 44. 
195Japan's third participant's submission, para. 37 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Canada – 
Periodicals , p. 17, DSR 1997:I, 449, at 463). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 50  
 
evidence or information".
196  China did not sustain its burden of demonstrating why it is necessary for 
the protection of public morals that all entities—ot her than those that are wholly State-owned—be 
excluded from importing publications;  nor did China demonstrate why private traders would not and 
could not meet the importation requirements of th e Chinese Government.  With respect to China's 
argument that it is "necessary" for importers of publ ications to be wholly State-owned, because only 
wholly State-owned enterprises can understand the criteria for content review and applicable 
standards of public morals in China, Japan point s to Article X:1 of the GATT 1994, which requires 
not only that measures be published, but that th ey be published "in such a manner as to enable 
governments and traders to become acquainted with th em."  This requirement of transparency shows 
that China may not fail to publish or disclose regul atory criteria for a product and then channel all 
imports of that product through wholly State-ow ned enterprises that the Government has fully 
informed regarding the actual detailed criteria applied to the product.  Furthermore, Japan argues that 
China failed to explain why alternative measures are not reasonably available, and that China does not 
raise new arguments on appeal that would justify a re versal of the Panel's finding in this regard.   
120. Japan supports the Panel's reading of China's GATS Schedule commitments, and 
characterizes as "troubling"197 the notion that new services are necessarily unbound.  Given that 
China's Schedule refers to the 1991 United Nati ons Provisional Central Product Classification (the 
"CPC"), which is exhaustive, the only relevant ques tions are:  (i) where in the CPC a service is 
covered;  and (ii) whether a new service falls with in the scope of an existing commitment.  Japan 
emphasizes that China's GATS Schedule entry on "Sound recording distribution services" does not 
specify any limitation on the means by which distri bution may be carried out.  The Panel correctly 
found that this commitment includes the electroni c distribution of sound recordings, and properly 
interpreted the meaning of this entry through recourse to Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention .  
Japan adds that use of the in dubio mitius  principle would be "wholly inappropriate in interpreting an 
individually bargained commitment".198  Instead, the content of a Member's Schedule should be 
interpreted on the basis of the maxim pacta sunt servanda .   
4. Korea  
121. Korea submits that the Panel's an alysis of China's defence of the State plan requirement under 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 may constitute legal error, but that  the Panel's interpretation of 
China's GATS Schedule entry "Sound recording distribution services" should be upheld by the 
Appellate Body.  Korea also notes that some of the issues raised in this appeal appear to be a re-
                                                      
196Japan's third participant's submission, para. 17.  
197Japan's third participant's submission, para. 27. 
198Japan's third participant's submission, para. 33. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 51 
 
 
discussion of factual, rather than legal, issues.  Korea cautions that the parties should not be given a 
second chance to discuss the facts, but adds that the Appellate Body should closely scrutinize the 
Panel's findings so as to determine whether the Pane l complied with its duties under Article 11 of the 
DSU. 
122. As regards China's defence under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 and the Panel's  
intermediate finding concerning the necessity of the State plan requirement, Korea recalls that China 
bore the burden of demonstrating that the co ntested measure satisfies the requirements of 
Article XX(a).  Even if the State plan was not av ailable in written form during the Panel proceedings, 
non-written evidence, such as a Government official's  explanation of the content and implementation 
of the plan, could have been used to establish a prima facie  case.  Korea finds it difficult to understand 
how the Panel could have evaluate d the effect of the State plan without actually reviewing it.  
According to Korea, to the extent th at the Panel erroneously applied the prima facie  threshold with 
respect to the State plan requirement, the Panel ma y have failed to properly discharge its duties under 
Article 11 of the DSU. 
123. In Korea's view, the Panel's analysis of China's GATS Schedule entry "Sound recording 
distribution services" was done in an extensive and comprehensive manner in accordance with the 
interpretative principles of the Vienna Convention  and relevant Appellate  Body jurisprudence, 
notably, the "holistic approach"199 set out in EC – Chicken Cuts .  In Korea's view, Article 11 of the 
DSU requires a panel to interpret a particular term to  the extent that the interpretation of the term is 
essential to resolve the dispute.  In  this case, the Panel extensively e xplained its step-by-step approach 
to the interpretation of the term "Sound recordi ng distribution services".  The Panel was certainly 
aware of the existence of different definitions, but it appears to have made a specific choice that it 
believed was the most appropriate to resolve the disp ute.  The Panel also reviewed the context and the 
object and purpose of the GATS so as to confirm the dictionary meaning of the term and checked the 
relevant preparatory work including the circumstance s of the conclusion of the treaty.  For all of these 
reasons, Korea believes that the Panel correctly cons idered all relevant elements of interpretation 
separately and collectively before reaching its conc lusion and did not, as China portrays it, engage in 
a "cherry-picking"200 exercise.   
                                                      
199Korea's third participant's submi ssion, paras. 21 and 22 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – 
Chicken Cuts , para. 176). 
200Korea's third participant's submission, para. 22 (referring to China's appellant's submission, 
paras. 105, 106, 114, and 117).  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 52  
 
III. Issues Raised in This Appeal 
124. The following issues are ra ised in this appeal: 
(a) Whether the Panel erred in finding that China's measures pertaining to films for 
theatrical release and unfinished audiovisual products are subject to China's trading 
rights commitments and, more specifically: 
(i) whether the Panel erred in finding that Article 30 of the Film Regulation   
and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule  are subject to China's trading 
rights commitments as set out in paragraphs 1.2 and 5.1 of China's Accession 
Protocol and paragraphs 83(d) and 84(a) and (b) of China's Accession 
Working Party Report, and whether, in  making this finding, the Panel failed 
to make an objective assessment of the facts, in violation of Article 11 of the DSU; 
(ii) whether the Panel erred in finding that Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual 
Products Regulation  and Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products Importation 
Rule are subject to China's obligation to grant in a non-discretionary manner 
the right to trade, as set out in para graph 1.2 of China's Accession Protocol 
and paragraph 84(b) of China's Ac cession Working Party Report, and 
whether, in making this finding, th e Panel failed to make an objective 
assessment of the facts, in violation of Article 11 of the DSU; 
(b) Whether, by virtue of the introductory clause of paragraph 5.1 of China's Accession 
Protocol, Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 may be invoked by China in this dispute 
as a defence to the violations of its trading rights commitments;  and whether, in 
finding that China had not demonstrated that the provisions
201 that China sought to 
justify under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 are "necessary" to protect public morals: 
                                                     
 
201Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in 
conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  
Article 41, and Article 42 in co njunction with Article 41, of the Publications Regulation ;  Article 27 of the 2001 
Audiovisual Products Regulation ;  Article 8 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule ;  and Article 21 of 
the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule . WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 53 
 
 
(i) the Panel erred in law, or failed to make an objective assessment of the matter 
before it, in violation of Article 11 of the DSU, in its analysis of the 
contribution to the protection of public morals in China made by: 
− the requirement in Article 42 of the Publications Regulation  that publication 
import entities be wholly State-owned enterprises; 
− the provisions excluding foreign-inv ested enterprises from engaging in the 
importation of the relevant products202;  and 
− the State plan requirement in Article 42 of the Publications Regulation ; 
(ii) the Panel erred in taking into account the restrictive effect that the relevant 
provisions and requirements have on tho se wishing to engage in importing;  
and 
(iii) the Panel erred in finding that there is  a less-restrictive alternative measure 
"reasonably available" to China, and whether, in making this finding, the 
Panel failed to make an objective assess ment of the matter before it, in 
violation of Article 11 of the DSU;   
(c) Whether the Appellate Body can complete the analysis under Article XX(a) and the 
chapeau of Article XX should it find that the Panel erred in its analysis of the "necessity" of China's measures to protect public morals, within the meaning of 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994;  and 
(d) Whether the Panel erred in finding that the entry "Sound recording distribution 
services" in sector 2.D of China's GATS Schedule extends to the distribution of sound recordings in non-physical form, notably through electronic means, and in finding, as 
a consequence, that the provisions
203 prohibiting foreign-invested entities from 
engaging in the distribution of sound recordi ngs in electronic form are inconsistent 
with Article XVII of the GATS. 
                                                      
202Such exclusion is set out in the following provisions :  Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited 
Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment 
Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  and Article 21 of the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule . 
203Article II of the  Circular on Internet Culture ;  Article 8 of the Network Music Opinions ;  Article 4 of 
the Several Opinions ;  and Article X:7 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , 
in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation . WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 54  
 
IV. Overview of the Measures at Issue and the Panel's Findings  
A. Introduction 
125. This dispute concerns measures of China relating to the importation  into China, and/or 
distribution  within China, of certain products consisti ng of reading materials, audiovisual products, 
sound recordings, and films for theatrical release.   
126. The United States alleged before the Panel that the measures at issue:  (i) fail to grant the right 
to trade
204 to enterprises in China and foreign enterprises and individuals205, in violation of China's 
obligations under the Protocol on the Accession of  the People's Republic of China to the WTO 
("China's Accession Protocol")206 and the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China to 
the WTO ("China's Accessi on Working Party Report")207;  (ii) deny market access to, or discriminate 
against, foreign service suppliers in breach of China's scheduled commitments under Articles XVI 
and XVII, respectively, of the GATS;  and/or (iii) discriminate against imported products, as 
compared to like domestic products, in viol ation of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.   
127. China asked the Panel to reject  the claims of the United States on several grounds, including 
that some of China's measures are not subject to th e obligations invoked by the United States, and that 
certain other measures are justified under Article XX (a) of the GATT 1994 because they form part of 
a content review system that prohibits the importation of cultural goods with content that could have a 
negative impact on public morals in China.208 
                                                      
204The Panel's treatment of China's co mmitments in respect of the right to trade—that is, the right to 
import and export goods—is further discussed infra , in subsection IV.B.  
205The Panel determined that each of  the measures it found to be in consistent with China's trading 
rights commitments applies in respect of foreign-invest ed enterprises in China.  The term "foreign-invested 
enterprise" refers to one of several forms of investment projects regulated in China. (See infra , para. 142 and 
footnote 245 thereto)  With the exception of its findings in respect of Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and 
Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule (see infra , footnote 298), the Panel found that the United States had not 
established a claim that the challenged measures apply in respect of foreign enterprises not invested or 
registered in China, or foreign individuals.  
206WT/L/432. 
207WT/ACC/CHN/49 and WT/ACC/CHN/49/Corr.1. 
208China also raised several preliminary objections, asse rting that claims in resp ect of certain of China's 
measures were not within the Panel's terms of referenc e, and that certain instruments challenged by the United 
States are not measures that could be examined in WTO dispute settlement.  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 55 
 
 
128. This dispute is characterized by a large numbe r of claims made, and measures challenged, by 
the United States.  In consequence, the Panel made  many findings relating to the various measures 
and claims, including findings that a number of provi sions of China's measures are inconsistent with 
China's WTO obligations.  The Panel's findings that ar e challenged in this appeal are limited to those 
identified in section III above.  Becaus e the measures at issue in this appeal fo rm part of a larger 
regulatory scheme, and in order to provide some cont ext for our findings, we consider it useful to set 
out an overview of the Panel's findings of inconsiste ncy before turning to the substance of the specific 
issues raised on appeal by China and the United St ates.  We note that the following overview places 
certain emphasis on those findings of the Panel that ar e relevant to this appeal.  For a more complete 
account of the Panel's consideration of the operati on of China's measures and the Panel's reasoning 
and findings, direct reference shoul d be had to the Panel Report.  
129. The Panel reviewed 17 measures209 issued at different levels of the Chinese Government.  Six 
of the challenged measures are administrative regulati ons or documents that were enacted or approved 
by the State Council, China's highest executive body.210  The remaining Chinese measures challenged 
by the United States are departmental rules or admi nistrative circulars or opinions enacted by one or 
more ministries or agencies under the State Council.211   
                                                      
209The United States challenged 19 legal instruments of China. (See supra , footnote 10)  The Panel 
ruled that two of these instruments did not constitute "mea sures" within the meaning of Article 3.3 of the DSU, 
and that certain measures challenged by the United States fell outside the Panel's terms of reference. (See supra , 
footnotes 11 and 12)  The Panel also found that the United States had not established a number of the claims raised, and exercised judicial economy in respect of certain other claims. (See supra , footnotes 15, 23, 25,  
and 28)  
210There are four such administ rative regulations at issue in this dispute:  (i) the Foreign Investment 
Regulation ;  (ii) the Publications Regulation ;  (iii) the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation ;  and (iv) the Film 
Regulation .  The Catalogue and the Several Opinions  are administrative documents that were issued by one or 
more Chinese ministries or agencies after ob taining the approval of the State Council.  
China explained to the Panel that the hierarchy of Chinese laws and regulations issued by the central 
Government is composed of three levels:  (i) laws en acted by the National People's Congress or its Standing 
Committee;  (ii) administrative regulati ons enacted by the State Council;  and (iii) departmental rules enacted by 
ministries or agencies under the State Council. (Panel Report, para. 7.182 (referring to China's response to Panel 
Question 37(a));  see also Law of the People's Republic of China on Legislation (Panel Exhibit US-72))  None 
of the measures at issue in this dispute are laws enacted by the National People's Congress or its Standing 
Committee. 
211There are 11 such departmental rule s or administrative circulars or opin ions at issue in this dispute:  
(i) the Imported Publications Subscription Rule ;  (ii) the Publications (Sub-)Distribution Rule ;  (iii) the 
Publications Market Rule ;  (iv) the 1997 Electronic Publications Regulation  (although entitled a "regulation", 
this measure was enacted by China's General Administration of Press and Publication (the "GAPP"));  (v) the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule ;  (vi) the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule ;  (vii) the Internet Culture 
Rule;  (viii) the Circular on Internet Culture ;  (ix) the Network Music Opinions ;  (x) the Film Enterprise Rule ;  
and (xi) the Film Distribution and Exhibition Rule . WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 56  
 
130. We note that each good or service at issue in this dispute and its related importation and 
distribution activities are regulated by several of Chin a's measures.  The relevant provisions of three 
measures examined by the Panel—that is, China's foreign investment regulations (the Foreign 
Investment Regulation , the Catalogue , and the Several Opinions )—apply to all of the goods and 
services at issue in this dispute, whereas the rema ining measures contain provi sions that a pply to only 
one such category of goods and services.  We also  note that, in respect of 15 of the challenged 
measures, the Panel found one or several violatio ns of China's WTO obligations in respect of:  
(i) trading rights under China's Accession Protoc ol and Working Party Report;  (ii) services under 
Articles XVI and XVII of the GATS;  and/or (iii)  goods under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.
212 
131. The following chart illustrates the extent to which the challenged measures, the goods and 
services they regulate, and the relevant WTO obligati ons overlap.  The chart:  (i) lists each of the 
measures for which the Panel found a violation of Ch ina's WTO obligations;   (ii) identifies the goods 
and services to which each measure applies (insofar as the goods and/or services relate to a finding of violation by the Panel);  and (iii) indicates whether the Panel's findings of violation relate to China's 
trading rights commitments, GATS obligations, and/or  GATT 1994 obligations.  In addition, the chart 
highlights that the appeal by China and the other appeal by the United States implicate 11 of the 
measures for which the Panel found an inc onsistency with China's WTO obligations.
213 
                                                      
212The Panel found that the Film Distribution and Exhibition Rule  was outside the Panel's terms of 
reference in respect of claims concerning China's trading rights commitments, and that the United States had not 
otherwise established a violation of China's WTO obligations in respect of the Film Distribution and Exhibition 
Rule and the Internet Culture Rule . (Panel Report, paras. 8.1.1(a)(i), 8.2.3(b)(ii), 8.2.4(b)(i), and 8.2.4(c)(i);  see 
also paras. 7.60, 7.1305, 7.1654, and 7.1692)  
213For each of the 11 measures at issue in this appeal , the specific provisions found by the Panel to be 
inconsistent with China's obligations under the covered agreements are set out in Annex III to this Report. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 57 
 
 
Measures found by the Panel to be 
inconsistent with China's WTO 
obligations 
(bold indicates at issue in this appeal) Reading 
materials Audiovisual 
products214 Films for 
theatrical 
release215 Electronic 
distribution 
of sound 
recordings216
Foreign Investment Regulation     
Catalogue     
Several Opinions     
Publications Regulation217     
Imported Publications Subscription Rule     
Publications (Sub-)Distribution Rule     
Publications Market Rule     
1997 Electronic Publications Regulation     
2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation     
Audiovisual Products Importation Rule     
Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule     
Circular on Internet Culture     
Network Music Opinions     
Film Regulation     
Film Enterprise Rule     
 
 Panel Findings of Violation Concerning : 
 
 Trading rights and GATS  
 Trading rights only 
 GATS only 
 GATS and GATT 1994 
                                                      
214The Panel determined the specifi c scope of "audiovisual produc ts" for each of the challenged 
measures.  For purpos es of its findings in respect of specific provisions of the Foreign Investment Regulation  
and the Catalogue , for example, the Panel determined that the term "audiovisual products" covers products such 
as video discs, as well as physical sound recordings and films for theatrical release. (Panel Report, paras. 7.340-
7.352 (concerning Article X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in 
conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ))   
215As noted supra , footnote 214, the Panel determined that the term "audiovisual products" for purposes 
of a provision of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in conjunction with 
provisions of the Foreign Investment Regulation , includes films for theatrical release.  
216The Panel determined that, for purposes of China's foreign investment regulations (the Foreign 
Investment Regulation , the Catalogue , and the Several Opinions ), the electronic distribution of sound recordings 
was covered by provisions governing "Internet cultural activities". (Panel Report, paras. 7.1308-7.1310)  
217The Publications Regulation  also applies to audiovisual products, but the Panel concluded that 
relevant provisions in the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation take precedence over the corresponding 
provisions in the Publications Regulation  concerning the regulation of audiovisual products. (Panel Report, 
para. 7.390) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 58  
 
132. Before summarizing relevant aspects of the me asures at issue and the Panel's findings in 
respect of specific provisions of these measures, we recall the Panel's interpretation of China's 
obligations in respect of trading rights, and outli ne certain elements of China's regulatory regime 
applicable to the products at issue. 
B. China's Trading Rights Commitments 
133. China acceded to the WTO on 11 December 2001.  China's Accession Protocol provides that 
it shall, together with certain commitments referr ed to in China's Accession Working Party Report, 
"be an integral part of the WTO Agreement".
218  For purposes of this Report, we use the term "trading 
rights commitments" to refer to the obligations of China in respect of the right to trade that are 
contained in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of China's Accession Protocol, and para graphs 83(d) and 84(a) 
and (b) of China's Accession Working Party Report.219  The Panel observed that paragraphs 83(d) and 
84(a) and (b) of China's Accession Working Party Report are incorporated into China's Accession 
Protocol and, hence, the WTO Agreement .220 
134. Before turning to the specific claims of the Unite d States, the Panel set out its interpretation of 
these commitments.  The Panel explained at the outset  of its legal findings that it would apply the 
"principles" contained in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention  "in interpreting the relevant 
provisions of the covered agreements".221  
                                                      
218Paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession Protocol provides: 
The WTO Agreement to which China accedes shall be the WTO Agreement 
as rectified, amended or otherwise modified by such legal instruments as 
may have entered into force before the date of accession.  This Protocol, 
which shall include the commitments referred to in paragraph 342 of the Working Party Report, shall be an integral part of the WTO Agreement. 
Paragraph 342 of China's Accession Working Party Report, provides: 
The Working Party took note of the explanations and statements of China concerning its foreign trade regime, as reflected in this Report.  The 
Working Party took note of the commitments given by China in relation to 
certain specific matters which are reproduc ed in paragraphs ... 83 [and] 84 ... 
of this Report and noted that thes e commitments are incorporated in 
paragraph 1.2 of the Draft Protocol.  
219We note that the Panel made findings of violation in respect of China's trading rights commitments 
as they relate to the obligation to grant the right to trad e pursuant to paragraph 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol 
and paragraphs 83(d) and 84(a) of China's Accession Working Party Report, and the obligation to grant in a 
non-discretionary manner the right to trade pursuant to paragraph 84(b) of China's Accession Working Party 
Report.  The Panel considered that paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession Protocol incorporates the relevant 
paragraphs of China's Accession Working Party Report such  that any inconsistency with paragraph 83(d), 84(a), 
or 84(b) "leads to a consequential inconsistency" with paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession Protocol. (Panel 
Report, para. 7.332)  The Panel did not find any violations in respect of China's obligation to grant in a non-
discriminatory manner  the right to trade under paragraph 5.2 of China's Accession Protocol and paragraph 84(b) 
of China's Accession Working Party Report. 
220Panel Report, para. 7.232.  
221Panel Report, paras. 7.8 and 7.9.  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 59 
 
 
135. First, the Panel considered that China's trad ing rights commitments encompass the obligation 
to grant the right to trade as set out in paragraph 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol and 
paragraphs 83(d) and 84(a) of Ch ina's Accession Working Party Repor t.  Paragraph 5.1 of China's 
Accession Protocol imposes on China the obligation to  ensure that, with the exception of certain 
goods set out in an annex (and which are not at issu e in this dispute), "all enterprises in China shall 
have the right to trade in all goods throughout the customs territory of China."222  According to 
paragraph 5.1, the right to trade means the right to import and export goods.  The Panel determined 
that all of the products at issue in this  dispute are goods covered by this obligation.223  The Panel also 
considered that the phrase "all enterprises in Chin a" covers wholly Chin ese-invested enterprises, 
regardless of whether they are privately or Stat e-owned, and foreign-invested enterprises, which 
include wholly foreign-owned enterprises, as well as Chinese-foreign joint ventures, whether in equity 
or contractual form.224   
136. The introductory clause of paragraph 5.1 stipulates that China's obligation to grant the right to 
trade is "[w]ithout prejudice to China's right to re gulate trade in a manner consistent with the WTO 
Agreement".  The Panel determined that China coul d maintain a measure which does not ensure that 
all enterprises in China have the right to trade, provided that th e measure also regulates trade in a 
WTO-consistent manner, because in such cases Chin a's right to regulate trade takes precedence over 
China's obligation to ensure that all ente rprises in China have the right to trade.225  The Panel also 
considered that the introductory clause of paragra ph 5.1 permits China to regulate not only the goods 
that are imported or exported, but also who can import or export these goods.226  Recalling that the 
right to regulate may mean the right to restrict, th e Panel concluded that the right to regulate trade 
                                                      
222 Paragraph 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol provides: 
Without prejudice to China's right to regulate trade in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreement, China shall progressively liberalize the 
availability and scope of the right to tr ade, so that, within three years after 
accession, all enterprises in  China shall have the ri ght to trade in all goods 
throughout the customs territory of China, except for those goods listed in 
Annex 2A which continue to be subject  to state trading in accordance with 
this Protocol. Such right to trade shall be the right to import and export goods. All such goods sh all be accorded national treatment under Article III 
of the GATT 1994, especially paragrap h 4 thereof, in respect of their 
internal sale, offering for sale, purcha se, transportation, distribution or use, 
including their direct access to end- users. For those goods listed in 
Annex 2B, China shall phase out limitation on the grant of trading rights 
pursuant to the schedule in that Annex. China shall complete all necessary 
legislative procedures to implement these provisions during the transition 
period. 
223Panel Report, para. 7.248.  
224Panel Report, paras. 7.249, 7.251, and 7.252.  The Panel noted that both parties agreed that the 
phrase "all enterprises in China" do es not include foreign en terprises that are not registered in China. ( Ibid., 
footnote 201 to para. 7.249) 
225Panel Report, paras. 7.254 and 7.255. 
226Panel Report, paras. 7.275 and 7.276. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 60  
 
would, "in appropriate cases, permit China to restrict  or limit, in a WTO-consistent manner, the class 
of entities or individuals who may engage in importing or exporting the good in question."
227  The 
Panel also addressed the specific language in para graph 84(b) of China's Accession Working Party 
Report and considered that China's right to impose "WTO-consistent requirements related to 
importing and exporting, such as those concerni ng import licensing, TBT and SPS" contains, by 
implication, a right to impose incidental WTO- consistent requirements relating to importing and 
exporting.228   
137. Turning to paragraphs 83(d) and 84(a) of Ch ina's Accession Working Pa rty Report, the Panel 
considered that the function of these paragraphs is to  confirm the obligation to grant the right to trade 
to all enterprises in China.229  The Panel therefore took the view that the obligation set out in these 
paragraphs should also be underst ood as being without prejudice to China's right to regulate trade in a 
WTO-consistent manner.230   
                                                      
227Panel Report, para. 7.277. 
228Panel Report, para. 7.319.  Paragraph 84(b) of China's Accession Working Party Report provides: 
With respect to the grant of trading rights to foreign enterprises and 
individuals, including sole proprietorships of other WTO members, the 
representative of China confirmed that such rights would be granted in a 
non-discriminatory and non-discretionary way. He further confirmed that 
any requirements for obtaining trading rights would be for customs and fiscal purposes only and would not constitute a barrier to trade. The 
representative of China emphasized that  foreign enterprises and individuals 
with trading rights had to comply w ith all WTO-consistent requirements 
related to importing and exporting, such as those concerning import 
licensing, TBT and SPS, but confirme d that requirements relating to 
minimum capital and prior ex perience would not apply. 
229Paragraph 83(d) of China's Accession Working Party Report provides: 
The representative of China also conf irmed that within three years after 
accession, all enterprises in China woul d be granted the right to trade. 
Foreign-invested enterprises would not be required to establish in a 
particular form or as a separate en tity to engage in importing and exporting 
nor would new business licence encompassing distribution be required to engage in importing and exporting. 
Paragraph 84(a) of China's Accession Working Party Report provides: 
The representative of China reconfirmed that China would eliminate its system of examination and approval of trading rights within three years after 
accession. At that time, China would permit all enterpri ses in China and 
foreign enterprises and individuals, including sole proprietorships of other 
WTO Members, to export and import a ll goods (except for the share of 
products listed in Annex 2A to the Dr aft Protocol reserved for importation 
and exportation by state trading enterprises) throughout the customs 
territory of China. Such right, however, did not permit importers to 
distribute goods within China. Providing distribution services would be done in accordance with China's Sche dule of Specific Commitments under 
the GATS. 
230Panel Report, paras. 7.310 and 7.315. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 61 
 
 
138. Secondly, the Panel considered that China' s trading rights commitments encompass the 
obligation to grant in a non-discriminatory manner  the right to trade to foreign enterprises and 
individuals.  Paragraph 5.2 of China's Accession Prot ocol provides that, with respect to the right to 
trade, "all foreign individuals and enterprises, incl uding those not invested or registered in China", 
shall be accorded treatment no less favourable  than that given to enterprises in China.231  The Panel 
considered that the term "foreign enterprises" include s enterprises registered outside China wishing to 
engage in importing or exporting, regardless of wh ether or not they have a commercial presence in 
China, as well as foreign-invested enterprises registered in China.232  The Panel also concluded that 
this obligation should be understood, like that in paragraph 5. 1 of China's Accession Protocol, as 
being without prejudice to China's right to regulate trade in a WTO-consistent manner.233  In addition, 
the Panel noted that paragraph 84(b) of Chin a's Accession Working Party Report confirms the 
obligation to grant in a non-discriminatory manner the right to trade to foreign enterprises and 
individuals.234  The Panel considered that the obligation not to discriminate in granting trading rights 
would be breached if there were discrimination between foreign enterprises and individuals, on the 
one hand, and wholly Chinese-owned enterprises in China, on the other hand.235 
139. Thirdly, the Panel noted that paragraph 84(b)  of China's Accession Working Party Report 
encompasses the obligation to grant in a non-discretionary manner  the right to trade to foreign 
enterprises and individuals.  The Panel concluded th at this obligation prohibits Chinese authorities 
responsible for granting trading rights from choosin g on the basis of their own preference whether or 
not such rights should be granted, although th e Panel acknowledged that the mere imposition of 
requirements or conditions for obtaining trading ri ghts would not necessarily constitute a breach of 
this obligation.236 
140. These interpretations by the Panel are not specifi cally appealed by the participants in their 
respective Notices of Appeal and Other Appeal.     
                                                      
231Paragraph 5.2 of China's Accession Protocol provides: 
Except as otherwise provided for in this Protocol, all foreign individuals and 
enterprises, including those not invested or registered in China, shall be accorded treatment no less favourable th an that accorded to  enterprises in 
China with respect to the right to trade. 
232Panel Report, paras. 7.292 and 7.299.  The Panel made the same finding in respect of the term 
"foreign enterprises" that appears in paragraph 84(a) and (b) of China's Accession Working Party Report. ( Ibid., 
para. 7.314 and 7.318) 
233Panel Report, para. 7.305. 
234Panel Report, para. 7.322. 
235Panel Report, para. 7.320.  The Panel did no t consider it necessary to determine whether 
discrimination between foreign enterprises of different Members is also covered by paragraph 84(b). ( Ibid., 
para. 7.323) 
236Panel Report, para. 7.324. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 62  
 
C. Aspects of China's Regulatory Regime for the Relevant Products 
141. China explained before the Panel that the Un ited States challenged a series of measures that 
establish a content review mechanism and a system  for the selection of import entities for specific 
types of goods that China cons iders to be "cultural goods".
237  China emphasized particular 
characteristics of cultural goods, including the imp act they can have on societal and individual 
morals.238  It is for this reason, according to China, that it has adopted a regulatory regime under 
which the importation of reading materials, audiovi sual products, and films for theatrical release 
containing specific types of prohibited content is not permitted.239  To this end, China explained, its 
existing regulatory regime defines the content that  China considers to have a negative impact on 
public morals and, in order to ensure that such  content is not imported into China, establishes a 
mechanism for content review of relevant pr oducts that is based upon the selection of import 
entities.240  China submitted that, because these import en tities play an essential role in the content 
review process241, and because, in the case of imported products , it is critical that content review be 
carried out at the border242, only "approved" and/or "designated" import entities are authorized to 
import the relevant products.  Both the extent of th e participation of an import entity in the content 
review process and the means by which an entit y is "approved" or "designated" to engage in 
importation vary depending upon the particular product involved.  China further explained that its 
prohibition on the dissemination of certain types of content is enforced through dissuasive sanctions, 
including fines, the revocation of operating licences, and criminal sanctions243;  and that domestic 
                                                      
237Panel Report, paras. 7.711 and 7.712. 
238China referred, in this regard, to Article 8 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural 
Diversity , which states that cultural goods are "vectors of identity, values and meaning" and that they "must not 
be treated as mere commodities or co nsumer goods". (Panel Report, para. 7.751)  China also referred to the 
UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions . (Ibid., 
para. 4.207) 
239China explained that content that is prohibited ranges "from the depiction or condoning of violence 
or pornography, to other important values, including th e protection of Chinese cultu re and traditional values". 
(Panel Report, para. 7.714)  The Panel set out the list of content that may not be included in publications and 
noted that the United States did not specifically contest that the dissemination of materials containing the types of content listed as prohibited by China could have a negative impact on public morals in China. ( Ibid., 
paras. 7.760-7.762) 
240Panel Report, paras. 7.753-7.755.  
241Panel Report, para. 7.713.  China further explained that, due to the limited resources of its 
administrative authorities and the risk of delay, import entities must be given a substantial role in the content review process in order to ensure eff ective and efficient content review.  On this basis, China argued that "the 
importance of the input by the import entities in the content review process justifies the appropriate selection of 
those entities by the competent Chinese authorities, even if it may result in restrictions of the right to import."  
(Ibid., para. 7.754) 
242Panel Report, para. 7.754. 
243Panel Report, para. 7.752. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 63 
 
 
publishers of cultural goods also face limitations on the publication of prohibited content, and content 
review requirements.244 
D. Measures Pertaining to All Goods and Services in This Dispute 
142. We now turn to summarize the relevant aspects of the measures at issue, beginning with the 
three measures enacted or approved by the State Counc il that regulate foreign investment in China.  
As noted, these measures apply to all of the goods and services at issue in this dispute.  The Foreign 
Investment Regulation  was enacted by the State Council in 2002 , and specifies that foreign investment 
in China may take the form of a foreign-invested enterprise or project, a Chinese-foreign equity joint 
venture, or a Chinese-foreign contractual joint ventur e.  Article 3 provides the authority for a separate 
measure, the Catalogue , which is to serve as "the basis for the examination and approval of foreign-
invested projects".  Article 4 establishes that there are four categories of foreign-invested projects:  
"encouraged", "permitted", "restricted", and "prohibited".  Under Article 4, the Catalogue  is to list 
"encouraged, restricted and prohibited categories of foreign-invested projects", and foreign investment 
in any industry not listed in the Catalogue  is permitted.  The Panel determined that, read together, 
Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation  mean that, if a foreign-invested project falls 
within the prohibited category in the Catalogue , that investment may not be approved.245   
143. The Catalogue  was most recently updated and approved by the State Council in 2007.  In the 
List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue 246, there are three provisions of 
particular relevance in this dis pute and on appeal:  Article X:2 list s "master distribution, and import 
operations of books, newspapers a nd periodicals";  Article X:3 identifies "import operations of 
audiovisual products and electronic publications";  and Article X:7 references "[n]ews websites, 
network audiovisual program services, internet on- line service operation site, and internet culture 
operation".  The Panel found that the effect of Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign 
Investment Regulation , is to prohibit any foreign-invested en terprise in China from lawfully importing 
books, newspapers, periodicals, electronic publicati ons, or audiovisual prod ucts (including sound 
                                                     
 
244Panel Report, paras. 7.716 and 7.752. 
245Panel Report, para. 7.347.  The Panel considered that Article 8 of the Foreign Investment Regulation  
provides guidance on the interpretation of provisions in the restricted category in the Catalogue . (Ibid., 
paras. 7.1386-7.1388) 
246In this Report, we refer to the List of Restrict ed Foreign Investment Industries and the List of 
Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries to distinguish between two parts of the Catalogue  that separately list 
restricted and prohibited categories of foreign-invested pr ojects, and to make clear that these Lists are parts of 
the Catalogue  itself.  The Panel referred to these two Lists as the Catalogue  of Industries With Restricted 
Foreign Investment, and the Catalogue  of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries. (Panel Report, paras. 7.340 
and 7.342) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 64  
 
recordings and films for theatrical release).
247  Explaining that it understood "internet culture 
operation" as including the electronic distribution of sound recordings, the Panel found that the effect 
of Article X:7, in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation , is to 
prohibit foreign-invested enterprises from supplying such services.248   
144. A third measure, the Several Opinions , was jointly issued in  2005 by several Chinese 
ministries and agencies with the approval of the State Council, and offers guidance to the issuing 
authorities in regulating foreign investment in their respective sectors.249  Article 4 of the Several 
Opinions  directs Chinese Government agencies to prohibi t foreign-invested en terprises in China from 
engaging in the business of importing and/or distri buting certain products, including all of the goods 
and services at issue in this dispute.250 
E. Measures Pertaining to Reading Materials 
145. The importation and distribution of reading mate rials in China is regulated by the General 
Administration of Press and Publication (the "GA PP").  For books, newspapers, and periodicals, 
day-to-day content review is performed by the publication import entities approved by the GAPP.251  
Publication import entities conduct content review when they provide to the GAPP, prior to 
importation, a list of materials intended for importation.252  The content is then double-checked at the 
time of customs clearance.253  With respect to these produc ts, the GAPP mainly exercises a 
supervisory role by conducting a nnual inspections of the content review performed by importation 
entities.  The GAPP may intervene in day-to-day cont ent review, but only upon its review of the list 
of publications provided by publi cation import entities, or when it is requested to do so by such 
                                                      
247Panel Report, para. 7.348. 
248Panel Report, paras. 7.1309 and 7.1310.  As note d below, the Panel also made a finding regarding 
certain audiovisual distribution activities set out in the List of Restricted Foreign Investment Industries in the 
Catalogue .  This finding is not appealed. (See infra , footnote 292) 
249Panel Report, paras. 7.187 and 7.198. 
250Panel Report, paras. 7.374, 7.1041, and 7.1308.  
251Panel Report, paras. 7.730 and 7.903.  Article 44 of the Publications Regulation  provides that 
publication import entities are "responsible for examining the content of the publications" that are imported.  An 
exhibit in the Panel record indicates that, as of 2008, there were 42 wholly State-owned enterprises approved to 
import reading materials into China. (Panel Exhibit US-13)  
252Panel Report, para. 7.730.  Article 45 of the Publications Regulation  provides, in part:  
A publication import entity shall, before importing publications, submit a 
catalogue of the publications it plans to import to the publication 
administration under the people's government at the provincial level or above. 
If the publication administration under the people's government at the provincial level or above finds any publications that are prohibited or deferred 
from being imported, it shall immediately notify the publication import entity 
and inform Customs.  A publication import entity shall not import any publication for which there has been a notice of prohibition or deferral, and 
Customs shall not release such a publication. 
253Panel Report, para. 7.891 (referring to China's response to Panel Question 191).  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 65 
 
 
entities.254  For electronic publications, samples are brought into China through temporary importation 
procedures and submitted to the GAPP for final content review.  Once an electronic publication 
passes content review, importation approval is grante d and the publication import entity presents the 
approval documents to customs at the time of importation.255 
1. Measures Challenged as Inconsistent with China's Trading Rights 
Commitments  
146. The Panel examined whether various measures  challenged by the United States prohibit or 
otherwise affect the ability of foreign-invested en terprises to import reading materials into China.  
Having concluded that certain provisions of Ch ina's foreign investment regulations (the Foreign 
Investment Regulation , the Catalogue , and the Several Opinions )256 prohibit foreign-invested 
enterprises from engaging in the importation of re ading materials, the Panel found the provisions 
inconsistent with China's obliga tion, in China's Accession Protocol and Working Party Report, to 
grant the right to trade to  all enterprises in China.257   
147. A separate administrative regulation enacted by the GAPP—the Publications Regulation —
also regulates the importation of reading materials into China.  Article 41 of the Publications 
Regulation  prohibits the importation of reading materials by any individual or entity other than 
"approved" publication import entities.258  With respect to newspapers and periodicals, Article 41 
imposes an additional requirement that approved publication import entities must be further "designated" by the GAPP in order to engage in the business of importing newspapers or 
                                                     
 
254Panel Report, paras. 7.730 and 7.901.  Article 44 of the Publications Regulation  provides, in part: 
The publication administration under the people's government at the provincial level or above may directly examine the content of the publications 
imported by a publication import entity.  When a publication import entity is 
unable to identify whether the imported publications include any content prohibited by Articles 26 and 27 of these Regulations, it may request the 
publication administration under the people's government at the provincial 
level or above [to] examine the contents.  The publication administration under the people's government at the provincial level or above may, when 
examining the contents of imported publications upon the request of a 
publication import entity, charge fees in accordance with the standards approved by the State Council's department in charge of pricing.  
255Panel Report, paras. 7.892 and 7.901 (referring to China's responses to Panel Questions 191 
and 196).   
256These findings relate to Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries 
contained in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  and 
Article 4 of the Several Opinions .  
257Panel Report, para. 8.1.2(a)(i), (ii), and (v);  see also paras. 7.351, 7.352, and 7.374.  Wherever the 
Panel found that a provision was inconsistent with China' s obligation to grant the right to trade, it was referring 
to the obligation contained in paragraph 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol, and paragraphs 83(d) and 84(a) of 
China's Accession Working Party Report and, hence,  paragraph 1.2 of China' s Accession Protocol.  
258Panel Report, para. 7.392.   WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 66  
 
periodicals.
259  Article 42 of the Publications Regulation  sets out that, in order to be approved as a 
publication import entity, the applicant is required to satisfy eight requirements, including that it must:  
(i) be a wholly State-owned enterprise (the "State-o wnership requirement");  (ii) have an organization 
suited to the needs of its business of importing p ublications and specialized personnel who meet the 
qualification requirements determined by the State (the "suitable organiza tion and qualified personnel 
requirement");  and (iii) conform to China's State pl an for the total number, structure, and distribution 
of publications import entities (the "State plan requirement").260  The Panel found that each of these 
three requirements in Article 42, in conjunction with Article 41, of the Publications Regulation  results 
in a violation of the obligation to grant the right to trade in China's Accession Protocol and Working 
Party Report.261  The Panel moreover concluded that the re quirement under Article 41 that publication 
import entities must be designated in order to engage  in the importation of newspapers and periodicals 
violates China's obligation, under its Accession Prot ocol and Working Party Report, to grant in a 
non-discretionary manner the right to trade.262  China does not appeal the above Panel findings of 
violation concerning China's regulations as they apply to the importation of reading materials. 
148. China argued that, if the Panel were to find th e above provisions inconsistent with China's 
trading rights commitments, then the Panel should also find that the provisions are "necessary to 
protect public morals" under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, consistent with the chapeau to 
Article XX, and therefore justified.263  The Panel did not determine whether Article XX(a) of the 
GATT 1994 is available to China as a defence to vi olations of China's trading rights commitments, 
but instead proceeded on the assumption that the defe nce was available, and analyzed the relevant 
provisions of the Chinese measures.264  In assessing whether they were  "necessary to protect public 
morals" within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, the Panel also proceeded on the 
                                                      
259Panel Report, para. 7.434.   
260The Panel found that the United States had not demonstrated that the five other requirements in 
Article 42—(i) name and articles of association;  (ii) we ll-defined scope of business;  (iii) adequate funding;  
(iv) fixed business site;  and (v) conditions set out in laws or other regulations—are inconsistent with China's 
trading rights commitments. (Panel Report, para. 7.409) 
261Panel Report, para. 8.1.2(b)(ii);  see also paras. 7.401 and 7.411.   
262Panel Report, para. 8.1.2(b)(viii);  see also para. 7.437.  Wherever the Panel found that a provision 
was inconsistent with China's obligation to grant in a non-discretionary manner the right to trade, it was 
referring to the obligation contained in paragraph 84(b) of China's Accession Working Party Report and, hence, paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession Protocol. 
263China invoked its defence under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 in respect of the following 
provisions as they relate to the importation of reading materials:  Article X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited 
Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment 
Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  and Article 41, and Article 42 in  conjunction with Article 41, of 
the Publications Regulation .  China also invoked Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 in respect of provisions of 
China's measures as they relate to audiovisual products. (See infra , footnote 287) 
264In its analysis of China's defen ce under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, the Panel considered that 
provisions contained in measures that did not, themselv es, provide for content review should still be considered 
in the light of, and together with, other applicable rules and regulations that do establish or refer to content 
review mechanisms. (Panel Report, paras. 7.772-7.780) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 67 
 
 
assumption that the importation of a product contai ning the prohibited content listed in China's 
measures could have a negative impact on public mora ls in China.  The Panel noted that the United 
States did not contest this point.265  The Panel therefore focused its  assessment on the contribution of 
the provisions to the protection of public morals in Ch ina, and the restrictive effect of the provisions 
on imports and on those wishing to import.266  The Panel also sought to confirm its assessment by 
comparing China's measures with less trade r estrictive, reasonably available alternatives.267   
149. The Panel determined that the "suitable or ganization and qualified personnel requirement" 
and the "State plan requirement", in the absence of reasonably available alternatives, could be 
characterized as "necessary" to pr otect public morals in China268, but that China had not demonstrated 
that an alternative advanced by the United States was not reasonably available.269  The Panel also 
found that China had not demonstrated that prov isions prohibiting foreign-invested enterprises from 
engaging in the importation of re ading materials (either in the form of a "State-ownership 
requirement" or a requirement excluding foreign- invested enterprises from being approved as 
importers), or provisions relating to the designation of import entities, are "necessary" to protect public morals in China.
270  The Panel thus concluded that none of the provisions of China's measures 
that it found to be inconsistent with China' s trading rights commitments are justified under 
Article XX(a).271   
150. On appeal, China challenges various elements of  the Panel's analysis under Article XX(a), as 
well as its ultimate finding that China had not demons trated that the provisions of the measures set out 
above are "necessary" to protect public morals within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the 
GATT 1994.  In its other appeal, the United States ch allenges the Panel's intermediate finding that the 
State plan requirement in Article 42 of the Publications Regulation  could be characterized as 
"necessary", in the absence of reasonably available alternatives, to protect public morals in China 
within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.272 
                                                      
265Panel Report, para. 7.763.  
266Panel Report, paras. 7.787 and 7.788. 
267Panel Report, para. 7.869.  
268Panel Report, paras. 7.828 and 7.836.  
269Panel Report, para. 7.911. 
270Panel Report, paras. 7.848, 7.863, and 7.868. 
271Panel Report, para. 8.2;  see also para. 7.913.  In the light of these findings, the Panel did not proceed 
to decide whether Article XX is applicable to China's trading rights commitments under its Accession Protocol 
and Working Party Report. ( Ibid., para. 8.2(a)(ii);  see also para. 7.914) 
272Panel Report, para. 7.836. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 68  
 
2. Measures Challenged under the GATS and the GATT 1994
 
151. The Panel also made findings on various United States' claims that provisions of China's 
measures regulating reading materials are inconsiste nt with China's national treatment obligations 
under the GATS and the GATT 1994.  None of these findings is appealed.  The Panel found that 
certain provisions of China's measures  regulating foreign investment (the Foreign Investment 
Regulation , the Catalogue , and the Several Opinions ), as well as the 1997 Electronic Publications 
Regulation , violate China's national treatment commitments under Article XVII of the GATS because 
they prohibit foreign-invested enterprises, but no t like domestic enterprises, from engaging in certain 
types of distribution of reading materials in  China (for example, the "master distribution"273 of books, 
newspapers, and periodicals;  and the "master wholesale"274 of electronic publications).275  The Panel 
also found that provisions of the Publications Regulation and several departmental rules issued by the 
GAPP—the Imported Publications Subscription Rule , the Publications (Sub)-Distribution Rule , and 
the Publications Market Rule —violate Article XVII of the GATS because they either prohibit 
foreign-invested enterprises from engaging in the wholesale distribution of imported  reading 
materials276, or impose registered capital and operating term requirements that discriminate against 
foreign-invested wholesale suppliers.277   
152. The United States presented claims under Ar ticle III:4 of the GATT 1994 in respect of 
China's measures pertaining to all of th e products at issue in this dispute.278  However, the Panel's only 
findings of violation under Article III:4 were made  in respect of reading materials.  The Panel 
concluded that provisions of the GAPP rules iden tified above discriminate against imported products 
because they either prohibit foreign-invested  enterprises from distributing imported books, 
newspapers, and periodicals279, or require that the distribution of  imported newspapers and periodicals 
occur only through subscription.280 
                                                      
273See supra , footnote 19. 
274See supra , footnote 20.  
275Panel Report, para. 8.2.3(a)(iii) and (iv);  see also paras. 7.1048, 7.1058, and 7.1074.  
276Panel Report, para. 8.2.3(a)(i), (ii), and (v);  see also paras. 7.998, 7.999, and 7.1094.   
277Panel Report, para. 8.2.3(a)(vii);  see also para. 7.1142.  
278The Panel made findings under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 in respect of measures affecting 
reading materials, films for theatrical release, and the electroni c distribution of sound recordings. (Panel Report, 
para. 8.2.4)  The Panel separately found that claims under Article III:4 in respect of the 2001 Audiovisual 
Products Regulation  and the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule  were not within its terms of reference. 
(Ibid., para. 8.1.1(a)(ii);  see also para. 7.82)   
279Panel Report, para. 8.2.4(a)(iii);  see also para. 7.1545.  
280Panel Report, para. 8.2.4(a)(i);  see also para. 7.1539.  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 69 
 
 
F. Measures Pertaining to Audiovisual Products  
153. The importation and distribution of audiovisual pr oducts in China is regulated by the Ministry 
of Culture (the "MOC").  Similar to the cont ent review conducted in respect of electronic 
publications, samples of audiovisual products are brought into China through temporary importation 
procedures, and an application that includes a re port reviewing the content of the products to be 
imported is submitted to the MOC for final conten t review.  Once a product passes content review, 
importation approval is granted a nd the import entity presents the approval documents to customs at 
the time of importation.281 
1. Measures Challenged as Inconsistent with China's Trading Rights 
Commitments  
154. The Panel examined whether several measures challenged by the United States prohibit or 
otherwise affect the ability of foreign-invested ente rprises to import audiovisual products into China.  
Having concluded that provisions of China' s foreign investment regulations (the Foreign Investment 
Regulation , the Catalogue , and the Several Opinions )282 prohibit foreign-invested enterprises from 
engaging in the importation of audi ovisual products, the Panel found th e provisions inconsistent with 
China's obligation to grant the right to trade under China's Accession Protocol and Working Party 
Report.283  The Panel separately concluded that Article 21 of the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule , 
a departmental rule issued by the MOC, denies qua lifying Chinese-foreign contractual joint ventures, 
otherwise permitted to distribute a udiovisual products, the right to im port such products.  As a result, 
the Panel found that this provision is also inconsiste nt with China's obligation to grant the right to 
trade.284   
155. In addition, the Panel analyzed certain provisi ons contained in an administrative regulation 
(the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation ) and a departmental rule (the Audiovisual Products 
Importation Rule ) that prohibit entities from engaging in the importation of audiovisual products 
unless they have been designated by the MOC.  Th e Panel concluded that, in not establishing an 
                                                      
281Panel Report, paras. 7.731, 7.732, 7.892, and 7.901 (referring to China's responses to Panel 
Questions 191 and 196).  There is only one wholly St ate-owned enterprise—the China National Publications 
Import and Export (Group) Corporation—that has been approved to import finished audiovisual products. ( Ibid., 
para. 7.779)  The Panel record does not indicate how many entities are approved to import unfinished audiovisual products. 
282These findings relate to Article X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries contained 
in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation , and Article 4 of the 
Several Opinions .  
283Panel Report, para. 8.1.2(a)(ii) and (v);  see also paras. 7.351, 7.352, and 7.374.  
284Panel Report, para. 8.1.2(d)(x);  see also para. 7.703. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 70  
 
application process or criteria for the MOC to designate entities that may import "finished"
285 
audiovisual products, Article 27 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and Article 8 of the 
Audiovisual Products Importation Rule  violate China's obligation, un der its Accession Protocol and 
Working Party Report, to grant in a non-discretionary manner the right to trade.286   
156. China does not appeal the above Panel findings of violation concerning China's regulations 
and rules as they apply to the importation of au diovisual products.  China does appeal, however, 
various elements of the Panel's analysis of Chin a's defence of these measures under Article XX(a) of 
the GATT 1994, as well as its ultimate finding, that the measures are not "necessary" to protect public 
morals within the meaning of Article XX(a).287  As explained above, the Panel analyzed certain 
provisions found to be inconsiste nt with China's trading rights commitments on the assumption that 
Article XX(a) is available to China as a defence.  As it did in respect of various measures concerning 
reading materials, the Panel likewise found that Chin a had not demonstrated that provisions excluding 
foreign-invested enterprises from being approve d as importers, or provisions relating to the 
designation of import entities, are "necessar y" to protect public morals in China.288 
157. The United States also challenged as inconsistent  with China's trading rights commitments 
Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products 
Importation Rule  as they relate to the designation of entities allowed to import "unfinished" 
audiovisual products—that is, master copies to be used to publish and manufacture copies for sale in 
China.289  The Panel found that these provisions vi olate China's obligation to grant in a 
non-discretionary manner the right to trade.290  China appeals the Panel's finding that China's trading 
rights commitments apply to China's measures con cerning "unfinished" audiovisual products.  China 
considers that these measures relate to content and associated services, and not to physical goods, and 
thus are not subject to China's trading rights commit ments.  Accordingly, China seeks reversal of the 
                                                      
285The Panel took note of the United States' claims concerning finished and unfinished audiovisual 
products. (Panel Report, paras. 7.608 and 7.625;  see also infra , footnote 289)  The Unite d States asserted that 
"finished" audiovisual products are produced and replicated outside of China and require no additional 
production or replication in China before being made available to consumers. ( Ibid., para. 7.608)  
286Panel Report, para. 8.1.2(d)(ii) and (vi);  see also paras. 7.633 and 7.690.   
287China invoked Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 in re spect of the following provisions as they relate 
to the importation of audiovisual products:  Article X:3 of  the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries 
in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the 
Several Opinions ;  Article 27 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation ;  Article 8 of the Audiovisual 
Products Importation Rule ;  and Article 21 of the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule . 
288Panel Report, paras. 7.849 and 7.868.  
289Panel Report, paras. 7.625 and 7.642.  See also supra , footnote 285.  Article 5 of the 2001 
Audiovisual Products Regulation  and Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule  may apply to both 
finished and unfinished audiovisual products, but the Panel determined that the United States' claim concerned 
only unfinished audiovisual products. (Panel Report, paras. 7.637 and 7.669) 
290Panel Report, para. 8.1.2(d)(i) and (v);  see also paras. 7.657 and 7.680.  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 71 
 
 
Panel's findings that the provisions in these measur es are inconsistent with China's trading rights 
commitments.291 
2. Measures Challenged under the GATS  
158. The Panel also made findings on various United States' claims that provisions of China's 
measures regulating audiovisual pr oducts are inconsistent with Ch ina's market access and national 
treatment commitments under Articles XVI and XVII,  respectively, of the GATS.  None of these 
findings are appealed.  Provisions in the List of Restricted Foreign Investment Industries in the 
Catalogue , in conjunction with the Foreign Investment Regulation , as well as of the Audiovisual 
(Sub-)Distribution Rule , limit foreign participation in Chinese-fo reign contractual joint ventures to no 
more than 49 per cent.  The Panel found that these provisions result in China acting inconsistently 
with its market access commitment under Article XVI:2(f) of the GATS, not to impose, unless 
otherwise scheduled, limitations on the participa tion of foreign capital in terms of a maximum 
percentage shareholding limit.292  The Panel also found that provisions of the Several Opinions  and 
the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule  violate Article XVII of the GATS because the former 
prohibits joint ventures where the foreign partner holds "the dominant position" from engaging in the 
distribution of audiovisual products (whereas like domestic service suppliers are permitted to supply 
such services), and the latter imposes operating te rm requirements that discriminate against Chinese-
foreign contractual joint ventures.293 
G. Measures Pertaining to Films for Theatrical Release 
159. The importation and distribution of films for theat rical release is regulated by China's State 
Administration on Radio, Film and Television (the  "SARFT").  Samples of films are brought into 
China through temporary importation procedures a nd submitted to the SARFT for final content 
review.  Once a film passes content review, impor tation approval is granted and the import entity 
presents the approval documents to customs at the time of importation.294   
160. The Panel considered China's measures prohib iting foreign-invested enterprises, foreign 
entities not registered in China, and foreign indi viduals from engaging in the importation into China 
of films for theatrical release.  Having conclude d that provisions in China's foreign investment 
                                                      
291China did not invoke Article XX(a) as a defen ce to the inconsistency of Article 5 of the 2001 
Audiovisual Products Regulation  and Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule  with China's 
trading rights commitments in respect of unfinished audiovisual products. 
292Panel Report, para. 8.2.3(c)(i);  see also paras. 7.1395 and 7.1396.  
293Panel Report, para. 8.2.3(c)(iii);  see also paras. 7.1421 and 7.1425.  
294Panel Report, paras. 7.500, 7.892, and 7.901 (refe rring to China's responses to Panel Questions 191 
and 196).  There is only one wholly State-owned entity —the China Film Import and Export Corporation—that 
is approved to import films for theatrical release. ( Ibid., para. 7.575) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 72  
 
regulations (the Foreign Investment Regulation , the Catalogue , and the Several Opinions )
295 prohibit 
foreign-invested enterprises from engaging in the im portation of films for theatrical release, the Panel 
found the provisions inconsistent with China's obligation to grant the right to trade under China's 
Accession Protocol and Working Party Report.296  These findings are not appealed. 
161. The Panel also examined Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film 
Enterprise Rule , which require that the business of importi ng films shall be conducted by film import 
enterprises that are designated or approved by the SARFT.297  The Panel determined that these 
provisions prohibit all enterprises in China, includi ng foreign-invested enterprises, as well as foreign 
entities not registered in China and foreign individuals, from engaging in the importation of films into China.  The Panel therefore found that Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film 
Enterprise Rule  violate China's obligation to grant the right to trade under China's Accession Protocol 
and Working Party Report.
298  Having considered that these provisions do not establish an application 
process or criteria for the SARFT to designate film import entities299, the Panel also found that these 
provisions violate China's obligation, under its Accession Protocol and Working Party Report, to 
grant in a non-discretionary manner the right to trade.300 
162. China appeals the Panel's finding that China's trading rights commitments apply to Article 30 
of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule .  China considers that these 
measures concerning films for theatrical release relate to the content of films, and associated services, 
and not to a physical good, and thus are not subject to China's trading rights commitments.  
Accordingly, China seeks reversal of the Panel's findings that Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and 
Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule  are inconsistent with China' s trading rights commitments.301 
                                                      
295These findings relate to Article X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries contained 
in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation , and Article 4 of the 
Several Opinions .  
296Panel Report, para. 8.1.2(a)(ii) and (v);  see also paras. 7.351, 7.352, and 7.374. 
297Article 30 of the Film Regulation  states that film import entities must be "designated", whereas 
Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule  states that such entities must be "approved".  China explained that the 
term "designated" should be followed b ecause, under China's legal system, the Film Regulation  prevails over the 
Film Enterprise Rule .  The Panel stated that the evidence on the record did not demonstrate that the approval 
requirement in the Film Enterprise Rule  was not applied by China when determining who may conduct the 
business of importing films. (Panel Report, paras. 7.587-7.590)  
298Panel Report, para. 8.1.2(c)(iii) and (vii);  see also paras. 7.576, 7.598, and 7.599.   
299Panel Report, paras. 7.569 and 7.593.  
300Panel Report, para. 8.1.2(c)(ii) and (vi);  see also paras. 7.571 and 7.594.    
301China did not invoke Article XX(a) as a defence to the inconsistency of Article 30 of the Film 
Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule  with its trading rights commitments. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 73 
 
 
H. Measures Pertaining to the Electronic Distribution of Sound Recordings 
163. The Panel examined whether the measures of China challenged by the United States prohibit 
foreign-invested enterprises from distributing sound recordings through electronic means, such as the 
Internet.  The Panel reviewed Article X:7 of the Li st of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in 
the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation , Article 4 of 
the Several Opinions , as well as provisions in two admini strative documents—Article II of the 
Circular on Internet Culture  and Article 8 of the Network Music Opinions .  The Panel determined that 
these provisions prohibit foreign-invested enterpri ses from engaging in the electronic distribution of 
sound recordings, while like domestic service supp liers are not similarly prohibited.  Having also 
concluded that China's scheduled national treatme nt commitments cover the distribution of sound 
recordings in electronic form, the Panel found that these provisions are inconsistent with Article XVII 
of the GATS.302 
164. China challenges these findings on appeal.  Chin a disputes the Panel's conclusion that the 
entry "Sound recording distribution services" in China's Schedule of Specific Commitments for 
services ("China's GATS Schedule")303 covers the electronic distribution of sound recordings.  
Accordingly, China seeks reversal of the Panel's fi nding that the relevant measures are inconsistent 
with Article XVII of the GATS. 
I. Matters on Appeal  
165. The appeal of China and the other appeal of  the United States thus concern three sets of 
findings in the Panel Report.  First, China appeal s the Panel's findings that China's trading rights 
commitments apply to its measures concerning films for theatrical release and unfinished audiovisual 
products, and, as a consequence, seeks reversal of the Panel's findings that certain provisions of those 
measures are inconsistent with China's trading rights commitments.  According to China, the 
measures at issue regulate services and content, a nd are therefore not covered by China's trading 
rights commitments, which relate only to goods.  S econdly, China challenges several elements of the 
Panel's analysis under Article XX(a) of the GA TT 1994, as well as the Panel's ultimate finding that 
various provisions of China's measures are not "n ecessary to protect public morals" in China within 
the meaning of Article XX(a).  In respect of the Panel's necessity analysis, the United States appeals, 
and requests reversal of, the Panel's intermediate  finding that the "State plan requirement" in 
Article 42 of the Publications Regulation  can be characterized as "nec essary", in the absence of 
reasonably available alternatives, to protect publ ic morals in China within the meaning of 
                                                      
302Panel Report, para. 8.2.3(b);  see also para. 7.1311. 
303The People's Republic of China, Schedu le of Specific Commitments, GATS/SC/135. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 74  
 
Article XX(a).  Finally, China appeals the Panel's finding that the entry "Sound recording distribution 
services" in China's GATS Schedule covers the electronic distribution of sound recordings, and 
therefore seeks reversal of the Panel's finding that certain provisions of the measures regulating such 
distribution are inconsistent with China's scheduled national treatment commitments under 
Article XVII of the GATS.   
V. The Applicability of China's Trading Rights Commitments to Measures Pertaining to 
Films for Theatrical Release and Unfinished Audiovisual Products 
A. The Applicability of China's Trading Rights Commitments to Article 30 of the Film 
Regulation and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule 
166. With respect to China's measures pertaining to  films for theatrical release, the Panel found 
that Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule
304: 
(a) result in China acting inconsistently w ith paragraph 84(b) of China's Accession 
Working Party Report and, hence, paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession Protocol;  and  
(b) result in China acting inconsistently with paragraph 5.1 of its Accession Protocol as 
well as paragraphs 83(d) a nd 84(a) of China's Accession Working Party Report and, 
hence, paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession Protocol.305   
167. Paragraph 5.1 of China's Acce ssion Protocol imposes on China th e obligation to ensure that, 
with the exception of certain goods set out in Annex 2A (which are not at issue in this dispute), "all 
enterprises in China shall have the right" to im port and export all goods "throughout the customs 
territory of China".306  Paragraphs 83(d) and 84(a) of China's Accession Working Party Report 
confirm China's obligation to grant the right to trade.307  In addition, paragraph 84(b) of China's 
Accession Working Party Report contains an obligation to grant in a non-discretionary manner  the 
right to trade to foreign enterprises and individuals.308 
                                                      
304The texts of these provisions are set out in Annex III to this Report. 
305Panel Report, para. 8.1.2(c)(ii), (iii), (vi), and (vii);  see also  paras. 7.571, 7.576, 7.594, 7.598, 
and 7.599. 
306See supra , para. 136 and Annex III to this Report.  China's obligation to grant the right to trade does 
not apply to the goods listed in Annex 2A to China's A ccession Protocol, which are reserved for importation and 
exportation by State trading enterprises.  In addition, for those goods listed in Annex 2B to China's Accession 
Protocol, any limitations on the grant of trading rights were to be phased out pursuant to the schedule in that 
Annex within three years after accession, that is, by 11 D ecember 2004.  None of the products at issue in this 
dispute falls within the scope of the products listed in Annex 2A or 2B. 
307See supra , para. 137. 
308See supra , para. 139. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 75 
 
 
168. It is not disputed that, pursuant to the releva nt provisions of China's measures pertaining to 
films for theatrical release, namely, Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film 
Enterprise Rule , only enterprises "designated" or "approved"309 by the SARFT may engage in the 
business of importing films into China.  The Panel considered that China's measures pertaining to 
films for theatrical re lease "necessarily affect" the import of goods.310  Thus, the Panel found that 
China had acted inconsistently with paragraphs  1.2 and 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol and 
paragraphs 83(d) and 84(a) of China's Accession Work ing Party Report by failing to ensure that all 
enterprises in China (including foreign-invested  enterprises), foreign individuals, and foreign 
enterprises not registered in China have the right to import cinematographic films.311  Furthermore, 
the Panel found that, because the SARFT enjoys discretion under these measures when designating or 
approving enterprises for purposes of film importa tion, China also acted inconsistently with 
paragraph 1.2 of its Accession Pr otocol and paragraph 84(b) of China's Accession Working Party 
Report by failing to grant trading rights to forei gn-invested enterprises in China in a non-discretionary 
manner.312 
169. China appeals the above findings of inconsiste ncy on the grounds that the Panel erred in 
finding that China's trading rights commitments appl y to these provisions at all.   According to China, 
its measures pertaining to films for theatrical re lease do not regulate the importation of goods but, 
rather, regulate the content of films and the services a ssociated with the importation of such content.  
Yet, China's trading rights commitments in its Ac cession Protocol and Working Party Report apply 
solely in respect of trade in goods.  In other words,  in claiming that the trading rights commitments do 
not apply to the measures, China does not  contest that these measures restrict who may import films, 
but rather contends that what  is imported by the enterprises designated/approved by the SARFT under 
these measures is not a good .  It follows, according to China, that the Panel's findings that Article 30 
of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule are subject to China's trading rights 
commitments, along with its findings that these pr ovisions are inconsistent with such commitments, 
must be reversed.  
                                                      
309Unlike Article 30 of the Film Regulation , which imposes a "designation" requirement, Article 16 of 
the Film Enterprise Rule  refers to the need to be "approved" by the SARFT. (See supra , footnote 209;  see also 
Panel Report, paras. 7.590-7.599) 
310Panel Report, para. 7.560;  see also para. 7.584. 
311See Panel Report, paras. 7.576, 7.598, and 7.599.  With respect to Chinese branches of foreign 
enterprises not registered in China, the Panel made no finding of inconsistency because it noted that the United 
States' claims and arguments did not include any assertions with respect to such branches. (See ibid., 
paras. 7.574 and 7.600) 
312See Panel Report, paras. 7.571 and 7.594.  According to the Panel, however, the United States had 
neither asserted nor established that the discretion en joyed by the Chinese Government authority under these 
provisions would affect foreign individuals, foreign enterprises not registered in China, or Chinese branches of foreign enterprises not registered in China.  Thus, the Panel did not make any finding of inconsistency under 
paragraph 84(b) of China's Accession Working Party Report with respect to such individuals and enterprises. 
(See ibid., paras. 7.570, 7.572 , 7.595, and 7.596) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 76  
 
170. In this section, we address the following allega tions of error raised by China concerning the 
Panel's findings.  First, we examine China's cont ention that the Panel erroneously accepted a shift in 
the subject matter of the United States' claim and, as  a result, relieved the United States of the burden 
of proving that China's measures concerning films for theatrical release could be scrutinized under 
China's trading rights commitments.  Secondly, we re view China's allegations of error regarding the 
Panel's review of the measures pertaining to films for theatrical release.   
1. The Panel's Acceptance of the Alleged "Shift" in the United States' Claim
 
171. Before addressing the substance of China's app eal, we consider China's contention that the 
Panel wrongly allowed the United States to shift the subject of its claim and "manipulate the 
ambiguity of the term 'film'"313 in China's measures so as to le ad the Panel to scrutinize those 
measures under China's trading rights commitments.  More specifically, China maintains that the 
United States shifted the subject of its claim during the course of the Panel proceedings from "films 
for theatrical release" to "hard-copy cinematographi c films", thus transforming the subject of its claim 
from intangible content to tangible goods.314  China notes that, in its request for the establishment of a 
panel and first written submission to the Panel,  the United States alleged that China acted 
inconsistently with its trading rights commitments  by failing to grant to all foreign enterprises and 
individuals the right to import "films for theatrical release".315  In its first oral statement before the 
Panel, however, the United States "suddenly"316 asserted that it was "challenging measures that 
prohibit foreign-invested enterprises from importi ng hard-copy cinematographic films, which are 
tangible items".317  China further alleges that, by not findi ng that the United States had deliberately 
shifted the subject of its claim, the Panel had to "s upplement[]" the United States' failure to fill in "a 
logical gap" as to why China's measures, which re gulate content and services, could be inconsistent 
with China's trading rights commitments, which apply only to trade in goods.318  In response, the 
United States argues that, contrary to China's asser tion that the United States shifted the focus of its 
claim from "films for theatrical re lease" to "hard-copy cinematographic films", the goods subject to 
the United States' claim have al ways been tangible goods—that is, hard-copy cinematographic films 
used for projecting motion pictures. 
                                                      
313China's appellant's submission, para. 211. 
314China's appellant's submission, paras. 201-203. 
315China's appellant's submission, paras.  204 and 2 05 (referring to Request for the Establishment of a 
Panel by the United States, WT/DS363/5, p. 7;  and United States' first written submission to the Panel, 
paras. 268 and 269). 
316China's appellant's submission, para. 207. 
317China's appellant's submission, para. 207 (quoting United States' oral statement at the first Panel 
meeting, para. 11). 
318China's appellant's submission, para. 213. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 77 
 
 
172. In order to assess whether, as argued by China, the United States "shifted" the subject matter 
of its claim and, thereby, persuaded the Panel to apply China's trading rights commitments to 
measures that—according to China—do not regul ate goods, we examine how the United States 
formulated and developed its clai m before the Panel.  In the United States' panel request, both the 
Film Regulation  and the Film Enterprise Rule  are listed among the measures subject to the United 
States' claim that China acted inc onsistently with its trading rights commitments.  In its first written 
submission to the Panel, the United States described both Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and 
Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule  as "[s]pecific measures addressing the importation of films for 
theatrical release", and alleged that these provisions  are inconsistent with China's trading rights 
commitments because they prohibit foreign-invested enterprises from engaging in the importation of 
films and because the SARFT exercises discretion to decide who may import films.319  In response, 
China contended that the United States' claim was based on the false assu mption that films for 
theatrical release are goods, and provided various reas ons as to why films for theatrical release should 
not be regarded as goods.320  Subsequently, in both its first oral statement and second written 
submission, the United States countered each of th e reasons provided by China, including China's 
assertion that films for theatrical release were "intangibl e" and therefore not "goods".  In this context, 
the United States emphasized that the subject of its  claim—films for theatrical release—encompassed 
not only the "intangible" content of films, but also the hard-copy cinematographic films carrying such content, which are tangible.
321  Thus, we understand that, in refe rring to hard-copy cinematographic 
films, the United States was not changing the subject of its claim but, rather, was responding to China' 
arguments that films for theatrical release are not "goods".   
173. Moreover, the Panel record shows that the United States provided relevant arguments and 
evidence in support of its contention that films fo r theatrical release—which are regulated by China's 
measures—are goods.  For example, the United States explained why, in its view, the reasons invoked 
by China as justifying the position that films are not goods were flawed.322  China argued that films 
for theatrical release are not goods  because they are exploited thr ough a series of services;  because 
the commercial value of films for theatrical release lies in the revenue generated by these services;  
                                                      
319United States' first written submission to the Panel, paras. 61-68 and 268-270.  See also Panel 
Report, paras. 4.13, 4.14, 4.48, 7.488, 7.492, and 7.578-7.580. 
320China's first written submission to the Panel, paras. 38-107.  See also Panel Report, paras. 4.95-4.104 
and 7.493-7.502. 
321See United States' oral statement at the first Pane l meeting, para. 11;  and United States' second 
written submission to the Panel, para. 13.  See also Pane l Report, paras. 4.199, 4.200, 4.301-4.303, and 7.503.  
Furthermore, the United States confirmed before the Pane l that its claims should be  understood as concerning 
goods, stating that the subject of its claim is hard-cop y cinematographic film, in any tangible form, that can be 
used to project motion pictures in a theatre. ( Ibid., paras. 7.518 and 7.521) 
322See United States' oral statement at the first Panel meeting, paras. 10-22;  and United States' second 
written submission to the Panel, paras. 13-29.  See al so Panel Report, paras. 4.200-4.202, 4.302-4.308, and 
7.503-7.510. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 78  
 
and because the delivery materials containing the content of films are mere accessories of such 
services and have no commercial value of their own.
323  In response, the United States contended that 
all of the relevant products subject to its claims  concerning trading rights consist of a hard-copy 
carrier medium containing content, and that China had not argued that reading materials, finished 
audiovisual home entertainment ("AVHE") products , or finished sound recordings are not goods.324  
The United States further argued that the vast major ity of goods are commercially exploited through a 
series of associated services and that China's ar gument would transform virtually all goods into 
services.325  The United States added that Articles III:10  and IV of the GATT 1994, which deal with 
cinematographic films, confirm that films for theatrical  release are goods.326  The United States also 
referred to the international classification of products under the Harmonized Commodity Description 
and Coding System of the World Customs Organization (the "Harmonized System")327 and China's 
WTO Schedule of Concession for goods, both of whic h contain a heading for "cinematographic film" 
with embedded content.328  Moreover, before the Panel, the United States reiterated that its claim 
related to an integrated product, that is, the conten t of motion pictures integrated in the hard-copy film 
reel, and that the existence of a good could not be negated by the fact that the film reel carried 
"intangible" content.329   
174. The above review of the record before the Pane l leads us to the view that, as the United States 
submits on appeal, "[i]n response to China's contenti on that a film for theatrical release is not a good 
because it is not tangible, the United States made clear  that the good subject to the [United States'] 
claim is in fact a tangible good i.e., hard-copy cinematographic film."330  We, therefore, see no error 
in the Panel's observation that the United States ' reference to hard-cop y cinematographic films 
"merely clarified the meaning of the expression 'films for theatrical release', by confirming that this expression is intended to describe goods ... that can be used for projecting motion pictures in 
                                                     
 
323See China's first written submission to the Panel, paras. 49-82.  See also Panel Report, 
paras. 4.96-4.101, 7.494-7.499,  7.515, and 7.516.  
324See United States' oral statement at the first Pane l meeting, para. 11;  and United States' second 
written submission to the Panel, para. 14 .  See also Panel Report, para. 7.503. 
325See United States' oral statement at the first Pane l meeting, para. 13;  and United States' second 
written submission to the Panel, paras. 15 and 16.  S ee also Panel Report, paras. 4.304, 4.305, and 7.504. 
326United States' second written submission to the Panel, paras. 26 and 27.  See also Panel Report, 
paras. 4.307, 7.506, and 7.519.   
327Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Explanatory Notes, 4th edn. (WCO, 
2007),  p. VI-3706-1 (Panel Exhibit US-53). 
328Heading 3706 of China's Schedule of Concessions for goods reads as follows: "cinematographic 
film, exposed and developed, whether or not incorporating sound track or consisting only of sound track". (United States' oral statement at the first Panel meeti ng, para. 12;  United States' second written submission to 
the Panel, paras. 17 and 28)  See also Panel Report, paras. 4.201, 4.308, and 7.507. 
329See United States' oral statement at the first Pane l meeting, para. 11;  and United States' second 
written submission to the Panel, para. 14 .  See also Panel Report, para. 7.518. 
330United States' appellee's submission, para. 133 (referring to United States' oral statement at the first 
Panel meeting, para. 11). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 79 
 
 
theatres".331  We are also not persuaded that the Pa nel somehow relieved the United States of its 
burden of showing that China's measures are s ubject to China's trading rights commitments. 
2. The Panel's Assessment of China's Measures Pertaining to Films for 
Theatrical Release  
175. We turn now to China's specific allegations of  errors regarding the Panel's assessment of 
Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule .  To recall, these 
provisions prohibit any entities other than those designated/approved332 by the SARFT from 
conducting the business of importing films.  Neither the Film Regulation  nor the Film Enterprise Rule  
specifies any criteria to be satisfied in order to obtain designation/approval to import.  Moreover, the 
only designated/approved importer is the China F ilm Import and Export Corporation, which is a 
Chinese wholly State-owned enterprise.333 
176. In the light of the similarity of the two provisi ons at issue and of China's arguments regarding 
the applicability of its trading rights commitments to  them, the Panel found that  the reasons that led it 
to conclude that Article 30 of the Film Regulation  is subject to China's trading rights commitments 
also applied, mutatis mutandis , to Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule .334  On appeal, China 
presents arguments with respect to the Pa nel's finding regarding Article 30 of the Film Regulation , 
stating that the same arguments apply, mutatis mutandis , to the Panel's findings concerning Article 16 
of the Film Enterprise Rule .335  In the following analysis, therefore, we will focus on the Panel's 
analysis, and China's arguments on appeal, concerning Article 30 of the Film Regulation . 
177. We recall that a panel's assessment of the meaning and content of a Member's municipal law 
is subject to appellate review in order to determine whether the panel erred in its finding regarding the 
consistency of the Member's municipal law with the WTO agreements.336  For example, in China – 
Auto Parts , the Appellate Body examined one provision of a Chinese Decree, focusing on the text and 
context of the relevant provision in the Decree and the overall "structure and logic" of the Decree, so 
as to determine whether the legal characterization by the panel was in error.337  At the same time, 
                                                      
331Panel Report, para. 7.523. 
332See supra , footnotes 297 and 309. 
333Panel Report, para. 7.575. 
334Panel Report, para. 7.584. 
335See China's appellant's submission, footnote 155 to para. 219.  
336The Appellate Body stated that the municipal law of WTO Members may serve not only as evidence 
of facts, but also as evidence of compliance or non-compliance with international obligations. (Appellate Body 
Report, India – Patents (US) , paras. 65, 66, and 68)  See also Appellate Body Report,  US – Section 211 
Appropriations Act , para. 106;  Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel , paras. 156 and 157;  Appellate Body 
Report, US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review , para. 168;  and Appellate Body Reports, China – Auto 
Parts , para. 225. 
337Appellate Body Reports, China – Auto Parts , paras. 225-245.  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 80  
 
Article 17.6 of the DSU places some constraints on the Appellate Body's review of some elements of 
a panel's analysis of municipal law.  Where, fo r instance, a panel resorts to evidence of how a 
municipal law has been applied, the opinions of experts, administrative practice, or pronouncements 
of domestic courts, the panel's findings on such el ements are more likely to be factual in nature
338, and 
the Appellate Body will not lightly interfere with such findings.339   
178. In this dispute, the issue of whether the Pa nel correctly characterized Article 30 of the Film 
Regulation  as subject to China's trading rights commitments  is a legal issue within the scope of these 
appellate proceedings.  With this in mind, we ex amine the Panel's assessment of Article 30 of the 
Film Regulation  and the errors alleged by China with rega rd to such assessment in the following three 
subsections.  We begin with a brief review of th e parties' arguments during the Panel proceedings 
with regard to Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and the Panel's analysis and findings on that 
provision.  We then turn to China's specific alle gations of error, beginning with China's contention 
that the Panel erred in assessing the meaning of the Chinese term " Dian Ying " in Article 30 of the 
Film Regulation .  Finally, we examine China's assertion that the Panel failed to establish how 
Article 30 of the Film Regulation , which, according to China, regulates content and services 
associated with such cont ent, "necessarily affect[s]"340 who may import goods. 
(a) The Panel's Findings on Article 30 of the Film Regulation  
179. Before the Panel, China and the United States each submitted English translations of the 
measures at issue.  In the translations of the Film Regulation  submitted by both parties, the term 
"film" is used in Article 30.  China maintained th at the term "film" was translated from the Chinese 
term " Dian Ying " which, in China's view, refers to "motion pictures" or, in other words, the content of 
"film as an artistic work" to be projected in theatres.341  China therefore argued that Article 30 
regulates who may import the content of films, ra ther than who may import physical goods.  The 
United States responded that the Chinese term " Dian Ying " could be translated as either "film" or 
"motion picture", and that, in any event, "the good at issue is film for theatrical release, i.e., a physical 
carrier medium that has content embedded on it".342   
180. The Panel sought the advice of the independent translator at the United Nations Office  
at Nairobi (the "UNON").  Specifically, the Panel asked the independent translator to provide  a translation to English of the Chinese term " Dian Ying " in, inter alia , Article 30 of the 
                                                     
 
338Appellate Body Report, US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review , para. 168. 
339Appellate Body Reports, China – Auto Parts , para. 225.  
340Panel Report, para. 7.543. 
341Panel Report, para. 7.530. 
342Panel Report, para. 7.534. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 81 
 
 
Film Regulation .  In order to assist the translator, the Pa nel provided the Chinese text of the provision 
and the arguments by China and the United States rega rding the English translation of the term.  In 
response to the Panel's request, the independent tr anslator of the UNON confirmed that the term 
"film" was a "satisfactor[y]"343 English translation.  Noting that th e meaning of this term has a "broad 
scope"344, however, the translator went on to state that  "there is considerable merit in China's 
contention that ... the term ' Dian Ying ' on its own is intended exclusively to refer to the content of a 
film (i.e., the artistic work) and not to the material (i.e., the physical medium) on which the film is 
printed, or the film stock."345 
181. The Panel did not expressly adopt the independe nt translator's advice or make its own 
determination of the meaning of the term "film" (" Dian Ying ") in Article 30 of the Film Regulation .  
The Panel found it "not implausible"346 that, as China contended, Article 30 regulates who may 
conduct the business of bringing into China the cont ent that can be commercially exploited, and 
considered it "somewhat less plausible"347 that Article 30 regulates only who may import hard-copy 
cinematographic films, which, as both parties agreed, are goods.348  Nonetheless, the Panel found that 
resolving the difference between Ch ina and the United States with resp ect to the meaning of the term 
"Dian Ying " was not critical to its analysis in the light of China's explanation regarding the practice of 
importing films.  China explained to the Panel the practice of importing films to China as follows.  A 
designated film importing entity enters into a licen sing/distribution agreement with a foreign film 
producer/licensor.  After the content of the film  is reviewed and approved by the SARFT, the 
designated entity "proceeds with the customs clearan ce of the delivery materials", and such delivery 
materials include hard-copy cinematographic films.349  The Panel took specific note of China's 
explanation that: 
[i]f the importation of such foreign motion picture requires 
importation of exposed and deve loped cinematographic film 
containing such motion picture, the importation entity will import such cinematographic film.
350   
                                                      
343Panel Report, para. 7.533. 
344Panel Report, para. 7.533.   
345Panel Report, para. 7.533. 
346Panel Report, para. 7.535. 
347Panel Report, para. 7.535.  The Panel used the term "hard-copy cinematographic films" to refer to 
either "internegative" films or "interpositive" films, both of which are exposed and developed.  Internegative 
and interpositive films are reproductions of the orig inal copy produced by the producer/licensor.  An 
internegative contains the visual part of the film wit hout sound track, whereas an in terpositive contains both the 
visual part and the sound track. ( Ibid., paras. 7.522 and 7.537) 
348Panel Report, para. 7.524. 
349Panel Report, para. 7.537. 
350China's response to Panel Question 179 (referred to in Panel Report, footnote 415 to para. 7.538).  
See also United States' appell ee's submission, para. 130. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 82  
 
182. On this basis, the Panel found that, "if the te rm 'films' were understood as meaning 'contents 
that can be commercially exploited by projection in  theatres', ... in those cases where relevant content 
is to be imported on hard-copy cinematographic f ilm, [Article] 30 would necessarily affect who may 
engage in importing of hard-copy cinematographic films".
351  The Panel added that "[t]his is because 
only licensed and designated film import entities are a llowed to be engaged in the business or activity 
of importing relevant contents, including in cases wher e the carrier to be used to bring the contents 
into China is" hard-copy cinematographic film.352  Thus, having found that Article 30 would 
necessarily affect the importation of hard-copy cine matographic films, and given that China did not 
dispute that this provision restricts who may impor t films, the Panel found that Article 30 of the Film 
Regulation  is subject to China's trading rights commitments.353   
(b) The Meaning of the Chinese Term " Dian Ying " in Article 30 of the  
Film Regulation  
183. On appeal, China contends that the Panel's finding that Article 30 would "necessarily affect" 
who may engage in the importation of a good was in  error, because the Panel should have "clearly 
rule[d] out"354 "hard-copy cinematographic film" as a possible meaning of the term "film" (" Dian 
Ying") in the light of the evidence provided by the independent translator and the "plain language"355 
of the Film Regulation .  China highlights the transl ator's statement that "there is considerable merit in 
China's contention that ... the term ' Dian Ying ' on its own is intended exclusively to refer to the 
content of a film (i.e., the artistic work) and not to  the material (i.e., the physical medium) on which 
the film is printed, or the film stock."356  Given this opinion, China argues, the Panel's failure to make 
a clear finding as to the meaning of the term " Dian Ying " "seems difficult to justify".357  In response, 
the United States maintains that the distinction drawn by the translator between the content of a film 
and the content-free material on which a film could be printed (such as film stock) did not assist the 
Panel in analyzing the United States' claim, becau se the United States did not assert that unexposed, 
content-free film stock was the good at issue.  Rath er, the United States claimed that the good at issue 
is an integrated product, namely, cinematographi c film with content embedded on it.  Thus, in the 
United States' view, China's reliance on the translator's opinion is "misplaced".358 
                                                      
351Panel Report, para. 7.543;  see also paras. 7.538 and 7.539.  The Panel also found that, if the term 
"films" were understood as meaning "hard-copy cinematographic films", Article 30 would directly regulate who 
may engage in importing such goods. ( Ibid., para. 7.543) 
352Panel Report, para. 7.538. 
353Panel Report, para. 7.560. 
354China's appellant's submission, para. 233. 
355China's appellant's submission, para. 220. 
356Panel Report, para. 7.533. 
357China's appellant's submission, para. 232. 
358United States' appellee's submission, para. 130. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 83 
 
 
184. As shown in our above revi ew of the Panel's analysis of Article 30 of the Film Regulation , the 
Panel's finding that this provision affects who may engage in the import of goods did not hinge on the 
issue of whether the term "film" (" Dian Ying ") refers to hard-copy cinematographic film or to content 
alone.  Rather, the Panel found it unnecessary to de termine the meaning of the term because it found 
that, even assuming, as contended by China, that the term " Dian Ying " in Article 30 refers exclusively 
to content, this provision "would necessarily affect"359 the import of a good whenever the content was 
brought into China via a physical delivery material .  Thus, the Panel's finding was made irrespective 
of the precise meaning of the term " Dian Ying ", because it found that Article 30 restricts who may 
import films, and necessarily affects who may import a good when the content of films is carried by 
physical, hard-copy cinematographic films.  The Panel explicitly stated that it would have reached the 
same conclusion – that China's trading rights comm itments apply to Article 30—even assuming that 
the term " Dian Ying " had the meaning put forward by Chin a.  Consequently, the independent 
translator's opinion concerning the meaning of the term " Dian Ying " did not serve as a basis for the 
Panel's ultimate finding.   
185. China further contends that the plain language of the Film Regulation  supports China's 
position that the measure is about "the  regulation of content, not goods".360  In support of its 
argument, China refers to Articles 1, 2, 5, 24 to 29, and 31 of the Film Regulation , which, according 
to China, show that the measure is focused on the content that can be commercially exploited, rather 
than the material used for the exploitation of films.  China maintains, in this regard, that the Appellate 
Body has the authority to examine the plain language of the Film Regulation , in the light of the 
Appellate Body's findings in prior disputes that the assessment of a WTO Member's municipal law as to its consistency with WTO obligations is a process of legal characterization and thus an issue of law 
subject to appellate review.
361  China adds that, in any event, it has invoked Article 11 of the DSU and 
claimed that the Panel failed to conduct an obj ective assessment of the facts in examining the Film 
Regulation . 
186. In response, the United States maintains that a panel's construction of a Member's municipal 
law is a factual determination and, therefore, ma y be reviewed by the Appellate Body only to the 
extent that the panel's assessment of the municipa l law is inconsistent with Article 11 of the DSU.362  
The United States further argues that the Appellate Bo dy is not in a position to examine China's laws 
by looking beyond the facts examined by the Panel.   
                                                      
359Panel Report, paras. 7.539 and 7.543. 
360China's appellant's submission, para. 221. 
361China's appellant's submission, para. 234 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones , 
para. 132;  and Appellate Body Report, US – Section 211 Appropriations Act , para. 105);  China's response to 
questioning at the oral hearing (referring to Appellate Body Reports, China – Auto Parts , para. 225). 
362United States' response to questi oning at the oral hearing. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 84  
 
187. In addressing a claim that a panel mischaracterized a Member's municipal law, the Appellate 
Body is not limited to reviewing only those provision s of the law explicitly examined by the panel.  
The Appellate Body has, in prior disputes, exam ined specific provisions, in the light of other 
provisions and the overall structure of the relevant municipal law, so as to determine whether a panel 
properly construed that law.
363  In this dispute, the provision examined by the Panel, and found to be 
inconsistent with China's oblig ations, is Article 30 of the Film Regulation .  In addition, Articles 2, 5, 
and 31 of that Regulation were also discussed by th e parties before the Panel or reviewed by the 
Panel.364  Article 2 defines the activities subject to  the regulation, namely, the "production, 
importation, exportation, distribution and projection of  films" in China, as well as the types of films 
concerned, "including feature films, documentary  films, science and educational films, cartoon and 
puppet films, and special subject films".365  According to China, Article 2 describes films according to 
their content, and not in relation to the physical materials used.  Article 5, in turn, establishes a 
licensing system for conducting the activities listed in Article 2.  China emphasizes that, in the context 
of the licensing system under Article 5, the word "film"  also relates to content.  Finally, China argues 
that Articles 24 to 29, and 31 of the Film Regulation  confirm that the term "film" in the Film 
Regulation  relates to content, as only the content is s ubject to review and a pproval before importation 
into China.  Pointing to these provisions366, China submits that the term "film" in Article 30 of the 
Film Regulation  has the same meaning, that is, content alone  and not hard-copy cinematographic film.   
188. In our view, none of these provisions contradicts the view that, where the content of a film is 
carried by physical delivery materials, Article 30 of the Film Regulation  will inevitably  regulate who 
may import goods for the plain reason that the conten t of a film is expressed through, and embedded 
in, a physical good.  Indeed, Article 31 of the Film Regulation  reflects this reality.  This provision 
requires that the designated importing entity "undertake temporary film import procedures at Customs" for a film submitted to the SARFT for c ontent review and that, once the film passes content 
review, the designated entity finalize the import procedures at customs by submitting the approval 
documents issued by the SARFT.  This seems to indicate that, even if the Film Regulation  is, as China 
argues, "focused on" the content of films, Article 31 of the Regulation treats films as goods for purposes of importation procedures at customs.   
                                                     
 
363See, for example, Appellate Body Reports, China – Auto Parts , paras. 225-245. 
364See Panel Report, paras. 7.488, 7.512, 7.531, footnote 409 to para. 7.535, and footnote 413 to 
para. 7.537. 
365China's appellant's submission, para. 223. 
366China also quoted Article 1 of the Film Regulation , which states: 
These Regulations are formulated for the purposes of strengthening the 
administration of the film industry, developing and promoting the film undertakings, and satisfying the needs of people for cultural life, promoting 
the construction of socialist material and spiritual civilization. 
(China's appellant's submission, para. 222) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 85 
 
 
189. Finally, China argues that, "considering the nume rous elements on the record, and the Panel's 
own acceptance that 'film' was most evidently to be interpreted as 'content'", the Panel also failed to 
make an objective assessment of the facts, in violation of Article 11 of the DSU.367  As noted above,  
although the Panel acknowledged that Article 30 of the Film Regulation  may be concerned with the 
content of films, it did not pronounce upon the meaning of the term "film" (" Dian Ying ") or, in 
particular, on the issue of whether the term referred exclusively to content independent of its physical 
carrier.  Thus, contrary to China's assertion, we do not consider that the Pa nel "accept[ed]" that the 
term "film" should be interpreted as relating only to "content".  We have addressed above China's 
arguments regarding the Panel's alleged failure to  rule out "hard-copy cinematographic film" as a 
possible meaning of the term " Dian Ying " in the Film Regulation .  China's claim under Article 11 of 
the DSU is not supported by arguments additi onal to or different from those addressed above.368   
190. In sum, we consider that the Panel did not  err in refraining from making a finding on the 
precise meaning of the term "film" (" Dian Ying ") in Article 30 of the Film Regulation .  Nor did the 
Panel err in accepting "hard-copy cinematographic film" as a possible meaning of the term "film" ("Dian Ying ").  
(c) The Alleged "Incidental and Practical" Effects on Goods of 
Article 30 of the Film Regulation and Their Relevance to the 
Applicability of China's Trading Rights Commitments 
191.  China submits that the Panel failed to establish how the Film Regulation , which regulates the 
content of films and associated services, could aff ect the importation of hard-copy cinematographic 
films.  More specifically, China maintains that hard-copy cinematographic film is imported 
"simultaneously, physically in conjunction with the right to provide" a service, namely, the commercial licensing, distribution and projection of the intangible content of the film.
369  C h i n a  
further submits that, unlike the importation of numerous  goods that "are traded to meet the demand of 
services suppliers who use these goods to provide a service"370, in the case of imported hard-copy 
cinematographic films, "the demand of services supp liers is with respect to the content ... not with 
respect to any good".371  Thus, in China's view, "there can be no restriction on the [good] 
independently from that applicable to the service".372  Any effects that Article 30 of the Film 
                                                      
367China's appellant's submission, para. 234. 
368We recall that a claim that a panel has failed to comply with its duties under Article 11 of the DSU 
must stand by itself and should not be made merely as a subsidiary argument or claim in support of a claim that 
a panel failed to construe or apply correctly a particular provision of a covered agreement. (See Appellate Body Report, US – Steel Safeguards , para. 498;  and Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System 
(Article 21.5 – Argentina) , para. 238) 
369China's appellant's submission, para. 242.   
370China's appellant's submission, para. 243 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.549). 
371China's appellant's submission, para. 243. 
372China's appellant's submission, para. 242. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 86  
 
Regulation  might have on trade in goods, therefore, are merely "incidental [and] practical"
373 and are 
not subject to China's trading rights commitments.   
192. In response, the United States contends that, as th e Panel correctly found, the mere fact that 
the import transaction involving hard-copy cinematogr aphic films may not be the "'essential feature' 
of the exploitation of the relevant film"374 does not preclude the application of China's trading rights 
commitments to the Film Regulation .  The United States further submits that a film for theatrical 
release is a good even if its commercial value resides primarily in its utility in the supply of film 
projection services, and a measure restricting who may import a good is subj ect to China's trading 
rights commitments.   
193. We understand China to ar gue that, because the Film Regulation  regulates trade in services, it 
should be excluded from scrutiny under China's tr ading rights commitments, which are applicable 
only to trade in goods.  We note, in this regard , that the Appellate Body has found that a measure 
could be simultaneously subject to obligations relating to trade in goods under the GATT 1994 and to 
obligations relating to trade in services under the GATS.  As the Appellate Body noted in Canada – 
Periodicals , "[t]he entry into force of the GATS, as Annex 1B of the WTO Agreement , does not 
diminish the scope of appl ication of the GATT 1994."375  In EC – Bananas III , the Appellate Body 
observed that, although the subject matter of th e GATT 1994 and that of the GATS are different, 
particular measures "could be found to fall with in the scope of both the GATT 1994 and the GATS", 
and that such measures include those "that involve a service relating to a particular good or a service 
supplied in conjunction with a particular good."376  These findings specifically concern the 
relationship between the GA TS and the GATT 1994, and thus do no t directly address the relationship 
between China's trading rights comm itments and its commitments on trade in services.  Yet, these 
findings provide assistance in analyzing the issue of whether a measure can be simultaneously subject to obligations relating to trade in goods and those relating to trade in serv ices.  Given that China's trading 
rights commitments apply to trade in goods, the Appe llate Body findings in th ese earlier disputes are 
also relevant to resolving the issue of whether meas ures regulating services ma y be subject to China's 
trading rights commitments. 
194. The Appellate Body's a pproach in the above two disputes implies that a m easure can regulate 
both goods and services and that, as a result, the same  measure can be subject to obligations affecting 
trade in goods and obligations affecting trade in servic es.  This does not necessar ily mean that the same 
measure would also be subject to China's tradi ng rights commitments, beca use a measure regulating 
                                                     
 
373China's appellant's submission, para. 240;  see also para. 252. 
374United States' appellee's submission, para. 134 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.555). 
375Appellate Body Report, Canada – Periodicals , p. 19, DSR 1997:I, 449, at 465.   
376Appellate Body Report, EC – Bananas III , para. 221.  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 87 
 
 
goods may not affect who has the right to trade those goods.  In th is dispute, however, it is uncontested 
that Article 30 of the Film Regulation  restricts who may engage in the importa tion of films.  The issue 
raised by China's appeal is whether what  is imported by the entity designated under Article 30 is a good .  
In other words, in this dispute, the applicability of China's trading rights commitments to Article 30 of the Film Regulation  depends on the issue of whether that provision regulates goods.  In this regard, 
China maintains that "the import restri ctions imposed" by Article 30 of the Film Regulation  relate only 
to the right to import "intangible c ontent" of films through licensing se rvices, and do not relate to "the 
physical carrier" of such content.
377   
195. We do not see the clear distinction drawn by China between "content" and "goods".  Neither do 
we consider that content and goods, and the regulati on thereof, are mutually exclusive.  Content can 
be embodied in a physical carrier, and the content a nd carrier together can form a good.  For example, 
in Canada – Periodicals , the Appellate Body found that "a periodical is a good comprised of two 
components:  editorial content an d advertising content.  Both co mponents can be viewed as having 
services attributes, but they combine to fo rm a physical product—the periodical itself."378  Moreover, the 
United States points out that China's Schedule of Concessions on goods, whic h contains the Harmonized 
System heading 3706, defines as a good "cinematographic film, exposed and developed, whether or not 
incorporating sound track or consis ting only of sound track".  This c onfirms that a physical film reel 
containing content is treated as a good under China's own tariff regime.379  We therefore share the view 
that China's arguments "are premised on an artific ial dichotomy between film as mere content (which 
China contends is not a good) and the physical carrier on which content may be embedded (which 
China views as a good)".380   
196. Moreover, as the Panel properly found, China's tr ading rights commitments refer to the right 
to trade in "all goods".381  The applicability of China's trading rights commitments to a measure is 
triggered when that measure concerns who may im port a good.  Thus, even if cinematographic films 
are imported "simultaneously, phys ically in conjunction with the right to provide the service in 
question"382, this does not imply that the effects of the Film Regulation  on goods, and on the importers 
                                                      
377China's appellant's submission, para. 238. 
378Appellate Body Report, Canada – Periodicals , p. 17, DSR 1997:I, 449, at 463. (footnote omitted)  
See also United States' appellee's submission, para. 136 and footnote 217 thereto.   
379See United States' appellee's submission, para. 131. 
380United States' appellee's submission, para. 123 (referring to China's appellant's submission, 
paras. 221, 232, 238, 244, and 245). 
381Panel Report, para. 7.551 (quoting China's Accession Protocol, para. 5.1;  and China's Accession 
Working Party Report, para. 84(a)).  We recall that China's obligation to grant the right to trade does not apply 
to the goods listed in Annex 2A and,  prior to 11 December 2004, Annex 2B  to China's Accession Protocol, and 
that none of the products at issue in this dispute falls within the scope of the products listed in Annex 2A or 
Annex 2B. (See supra , footnote 306)   
382China's appellant's submission, para. 242.   WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 88  
 
of those goods, are somehow removed from the sc ope of applicability of China's trading rights 
commitments.  Rather, the fact that cinematographi c films are imported "simultaneously, physically in 
conjunction with the right to provide the service in question" shows that, where physical carriers are 
used for purposes of importing and licensing the content of films, Article 30 of the Film Regulation  
has an inevitable , rather than " incidental "
383, effect on who may import goods.  The inevitable effect 
of Article 30 on the importation of goods confir ms the Panel's finding that Article 30 "would 
necessarily affect"384 who may engage in the importation of goods where relevant content is to be 
imported on hard-copy cinematographic films.385  In our view, therefore, the Panel correctly found 
that the mere fact that the import transaction invo lving hard-copy cinematographic films may not be 
the "'essential feature' of the exploitation of the relevant film"386 does not preclude the application of 
China's trading rights commitments to the Film Regulation .387   
197. Finally, China asserts that the Panel's finding that Article 30 of the Film Regulation  
necessarily affects who may import goods would unde rmine China's right to conduct content review 
with respect to imported films.  For example, Chin a argues, where a film fails to pass content review 
and cannot be imported for release in China, the Pa nel's logic necessarily implies that China acted 
inconsistently with its obligati ons regarding trade in goods, becau se the hard-copy cinematographic 
film, in which the content is embodied, cannot be imported.388  The United States maintains that, 
according to China's example, the "right" being undermined by the Panel's finding appears to be 
China's right to prevent importation of goods that vi olate China's standards of content.  Yet, the 
United States points out that it has challenged neith er China's right to conduct content review nor 
China's right to bar the importation of goods containing prohibited content.389  In our view, the Panel's 
finding, which concerns China's restriction on w ho may import goods, has no implications for China's 
ability to justify a prohibition on the imports of goods under the WTO Agreement .  Thus, we are not 
                                                      
383China's appellant's submission, para. 240. (emphasis added) 
384Panel Report, para. 7.543. 
385China also maintains that the measur es at issue "do not have any direct legal effect to restrict the 
importation of hard-copy cinematographic film." (China's a ppellant's submission, para. 238)  In this respect, we 
note that, in Canada – Periodicals , Canada submitted that the measure at issue "is a measure regulating trade in 
services 'in their own right'" and therefore not subject to the GATT 1994, despite Canada's acknowledgement 
that the measure had "effects on the physical good—the magazine as it crossed the border". (Appellate Body 
Report, Canada – Periodicals , p. 17, DSR 1997:I, 449, at 463)  Despite these arguments, both the panel and the 
Appellate Body found that the measure at issue was subject to Article III:2 of the GATT 1994. (Panel Report, 
Canada – Periodicals , para. 5.19;  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Periodicals , p. 20, DSR 1997:I, 449, 
at 465) 
386Panel Report, para. 7.555. 
387We note that sector 4.B of China's GATS Schedu le, which relates to wholesale trade services, 
contains a footnote stating that "[t]he restrictions on mode 1 shall not undermine the rights of WTO Members to 
the right to trade as stipulated in Chapter 5 of Ch ina's Protocol of accession to the WTO." (GATS/SC/135, 
footnote 6)  In our view, this footnote also sugges ts that China's commitments on trade in services cannot 
diminish the scope of China's obligation to grant the right to trade. 
388China's appellant's submission, para. 250. 
389United States' appellee's submission, para. 139. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 89 
 
 
persuaded that the Panel's finding leads to any "abs urd results which in turn  may seriously undermine 
the rights of WTO Members".390   
198. In sum, we see no error in the Panel's finding that Article 30 of the Film Regulation  is subject 
to China's trading rights commitments, in that it "necessarily affect[s] who may engage in importing 
of hard-copy cinematographic films" and, therefore, goods.391   
(d) Conclusion 
199. On the basis of our analysis in this section, we find that the Panel did not commit the errors 
alleged by China in concluding that Article 30 of the Film Regulation , which allows "only ... 
designated film import entities ... to  be engaged in the business or  activity of importing relevant 
contents"392, is subject to China's trading rights comm itments because it necessarily affects who may 
engage in importing hard-copy cinematographic film  carrying relevant content (a good).  Because the 
reasons that led the Panel to c onclude that Article 30 of the Film Regulation  was subject to China's 
trading rights commitments also applied, mutatis mutandis , to Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule , 
we also find that the Panel did not commit any error in finding that Article 16 of the Film Enterprise 
Rule is subject to China's trading rights commitm ents under paragraphs 1.2 and 5.1 of China's 
Accession Protocol and paragraphs  83(d) and 84(a) and (b) of China's Accession Working Party 
Report.393 
200. Consequently, we find that the Panel did not err, in para graphs 7.560 and 7.584 of the Panel 
Report, in finding that Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule  
are subject to China's trading rights commitments in paragraphs 1.2 and 5.1 of China's Accession 
Protocol and paragraphs 83(d) a nd 84(a) and (b) of China's Acc ession Working Party Report.  We 
therefore uphold  the Panel's conclusions, in paragraph 8.1.2(c)(ii), (iii), (vi), and (vii) of the Panel 
Report394, that these provisions are inconsistent with  China's trading rights commitments in 
paragraphs 1.2 and 5.1 of China' s Accession Protocol and paragra phs 83(d) and 84(a) and (b) of 
China's Accession Working Party Report. 
                                                      
390China's appellant's submission, para. 252. 
391Panel Report, para. 7.543. 
392Panel Report, para. 7.538. 
393Panel Report, para. 7.584. 
394See also Panel Report, paras. 7.571, 7.576, 7.594, 7.598, and 7.599. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 90  
 
B. The Applicability of China's Trading Right s Commitments to Article 5 of the 2001 
Audiovisual Products Regulation and Ar ticle 7 of the Audiovisual Products 
Importation Rule 
201. China appeals the Panel's finding that Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  
and Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule
395 are inconsistent with China's obligation 
under paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession Protocol  and paragraph 84(b) of China's Accession 
Working Party Report to grant in a non-discretionary manner the right to trade.396  The Panel noted 
that these provisions, which require that the impor tation of audiovisual pr oducts be conducted under a 
licensing system, apply to both finished audiovisua l products and unfinishe d audiovisual products.  
Unfinished audiovisual products are master copies to be used to publish and manufacture copies for 
sale in China.397 The Panel further noted that the United St ates' claims in respect of these measures 
concerned only unfinishe d audiovisual products.398  Although China "[did] not appear to dispute"399 
before the Panel that unfinished audiovisual pro ducts are goods, China maintained that its trading 
rights commitments do not apply to Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and 
Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule  because these provisions regulate "the 
licensing of copyrights for the publication of copies of audiovisual content".400  The Panel noted that it 
had examined, and rejected, similar arguments by China with respect to Article 30 of the Film 
Regulation .401  The Panel thus applied the same reasoning, mutatis mutandis , to Article 5 of the 2001 
Audiovisual Products Regulation  and Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule , and 
found them to be subject to China's trading rights commitments.402  The Panel also concluded that 
these provisions are inconsistent with paragr aph 1.2 of China's Accession Protocol and 
paragraph 84(b) of China's Accession Working Party Report because, under these provisions, China does not grant trading rights to foreign-inv ested enterprises in a "non-discretionary" manner.
403 
                                                      
395The text of these provisions is set out in Annex III to this Report. 
396Panel Report, para. 8.1.2(d)(i) and (v).   
397Panel Report, paras. 7.608, 7.625, and 7.642.  See also supra , para. 157 and footnote 289 thereto. 
398Panel Report, paras. 7.637, 7.639, and 7.672. 
399Panel Report, para. 7.640. 
400Panel Report, para. 7.646;  see also para. 7.674.   
401Panel Report, para. 7.651. 
402Panel Report, paras. 7.652 and 7.674. 
403Panel Report, paras. 7.657 and 7.680. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 91 
 
 
202. China asserts that the Panel erred in reaching the above findings because, with respect to 
unfinished audiovisual products, Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and Article 7 
of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule  do not regulate the importation of goods but, rather, 
regulate the service of the licensing of copyrights fo r the publication of copies of audiovisual content.  
In this regard, China's arguments rest entirely on the assertion that, to the extent that the Panel's 
findings were based on the same reasoning as the Panel employed in reaching its findings on 
Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule , the Panel committed the 
same errors of law in reaching its findings on Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  
and Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule .404   
203. In subsection A above, we found that the Panel did not err in reaching its findings regarding 
Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule .  Therefore, we also find 
that the Panel did not err in finding that Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and 
Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule  are subject to China's obligation, under 
paragraph 1.2 of its Accession Prot ocol and paragraph 84(b) of its  Accession Working Party Report, 
to grant the right to trade to foreign-invest ed enterprises in a non-discretionary manner.  
204. On this basis, we find that the Panel did not err, in pa ragraphs 7.652 and 7.674 of the Panel 
Report, in finding that Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and Article 7 of the 
Audiovisual Products Importation Rule  are subject to China's obligation, in paragraph 1.2 of China's 
Accession Protocol and paragraph 84(b) of China' s Accession Working Party Report, to grant in a 
non-discretionary manner the right to trade.  We therefore uphold  the Panel's conclusions, in 
paragraph 8.1.2(d)(i) and (v) of the Panel Report405, that these provisions are inconsistent with China's 
obligation, in paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession Protocol and paragraph 84(b) of China's Accession 
Working Party Report, to grant in a non-discretionary manner the right to trade. 
VI. China's Defence under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 
A. The Availability of a Defence und er Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 
205. We now turn to the Panel's analysis of China's defence under Article XX(a) of the 
GATT 1994.  Relying upon the introductory clause of  paragraph 5.1 of its Accession Protocol,  
which reads:  "Without prejudice to China's right to  regulate trade in a manner consistent with the 
WTO Agreement", China invoked Article XX as a defence.  More specifically, China invoked 
                                                      
404China's appellant's submission, paras. 260 and 261. 
405See also Panel Report, paras. 7.657 and 7.680. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 92  
 
Article XX(a) in order to justify the following provisions of China's measures that the Panel found to 
be inconsistent with China's trading rights commitments
406: 
(a) Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the 
Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment 
Regulation ; 
(b) Article 4 of the Several Opinions ; 
(c) Article 41, and Article 42 in conj unction with Article 41, of the Publications 
Regulation ; 
(d) Article 27 of the 2001  Audiovisual Products Regulation ; 
(e) Article 8 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule ;  and 
(f) Article 21 of the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule .407 
206. Before the Panel, China argued that the introduc tory clause of paragraph 5.1 is an exception 
to China's obligation to grant the right to trad e.  China argued that this clause constitutes the 
expression of a general right of WTO Members to adopt or maintain certain measures that pursue 
legitimate policy objectives.  Accordi ng to China, the "right to regulate  trade" means the right to take 
measures for the purpose of regulating trade, and the right to import and export goods is one element 
of such trade.  China submitted that reference to the "WTO Agreement" is a reference to the WTO 
Agreement  and all its Annexes.  Since China's obligation in paragraph 5.1 concer ns the right to import 
and export goods, China's right to regulate trad e must be interpreted in conjunction with WTO 
                                                      
406China did not invoke Article XX(a) to the extent that these measures and provisions concern the 
import of films for theatrical release and unfinished audiovisual products. (Panel Report, para. 7.726)  China 
also did not invoke Article XX(a) as a defence to  the United States' clai ms with respect to the Film Regulation  
and the Film Enterprise Rule , or the claims regarding unfinished audiovisual products under Article 5 of the 
2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule .  As 
discussed above, China argued that its  trading rights commitments did not apply, at all, to these measures, 
because the measures regulate services and not goods. (See  supra , section V of this Report;  see also Panel 
Report, paras. 7.540, 7.584, 7.649, and 7.674)  China also did not invoke Article XX(a) to justify the measures 
that the Panel found to be inconsistent with Article I II:4 of the GATT 1994.  Nor did China seek to justify, 
under Article XIV(a) of the GATS, the measures that the Panel had found to be inconsistent with Articles XVI 
and XVII of the GATS. 
407The text of these provisions is set out in Annex III to this Report.  The Panel found that these 
provisions, and certain specific requirements contained within them, restrict the right to import goods into 
China.  The Panel found each of the relevant requirements to be inconsistent with either:  (i) China's obligation 
to grant the right to trade (paragraph 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol, as well as paragraphs 83(d) and 84(a)  of China's Accession Working Party Report and, hence, paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession Protocol);  or 
(ii) China's obligation to grant in a non-discretionary manner the right to trade (paragraph 84(b) of China's 
Accession Working Party Report and, hence, paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession Protocol).   WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 93 
 
 
agreements applicable to trade in goods, incl uding the GATT 1994 and Article XX thereof.  
Accordingly, China argued that it has the right under paragraph 5.1 to impose restrictions and 
conditions on the right to import and export, pr ovided that these measures are consistent with 
Article XX of the GATT 1994.  China asserted that such right to regulate trade does not amount to a right to exclude products from the scope of China's trading rights commitments, but rather to adopt or maintain measures that are consistent with the WTO Agreement .  To interpret the "without prejudice" 
clause differently would, in China's view, fail to gi ve meaning to all of the words in paragraph 5.1.
408 
207. The United States, on the other hand, emphasized  that paragraph 5.1 of China's Accession 
Protocol provides a specific, self-contained, comp lete, and agreed set of products excepted from 
China's obligation to grant the right to trade, name ly, those listed in Annexes 2A and 2B.  The United 
States argued that the "right to regulate trade" does not permit China to reserve certain products to 
State trading because this would render these Annexes superfluous and amount not simply to 
regulating trade, but to eliminating China's tradi ng rights commitments altogether.  The United States 
also argued that the right to regulate trade in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreement  applies to 
measures addressing the goods being traded rather than  the traders of those goods.  The United States 
considered that the introductory clause of paragr aph 5.1 allows China to require that goods being 
imported into China satisfy othe r requirements allowed under the WTO Agreement , such as import 
licensing, TBT, and SPS requirements, but cannot detract from China's commitments to allow all foreign enterprises, all foreign individuals, and a ll enterprises in China to trade in the goods being 
regulated.
409 
208. At the outset of its analysis, the Panel stated that: 
... China's invocation of Article XX(a) presents complex legal issues.  
We observe in this respect that Article XX contains the phrase "nothing in this Agreement", with the term "Agreement" referring to 
the GATT 1994, not other agreements like the Accession Protocol.  
The issue therefore arises whether Article XX can be directly invoked 
as a defence to a breach of China's trading rights commitments under the Accession Protocol, which appears to be China's position, or whether Article XX could be invoked on ly as a defence to  a breach of 
a GATT 1994 obligation.
410 
                                                      
408China's arguments are summarized in paragraphs 7.239-7.241, 7.244, and 7.245 of the Panel Report. 
409The United States' arguments are summarized in paragraphs 7.242 and 7.243 of the Panel Report. 
410Panel Report, para. 7.743. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 94  
 
209. The Panel did not resolve this issue.  Instead, th e Panel decided first to analyze the merits of 
China's defence under Article XX(a) before deciding whether Article XX(a) is available as a defence 
to a breach of China's trading rights commitments under its Accession Protocol.
411  The Panel 
explained that it would: 
... proceed on the assumption that Article XX(a) is available to China 
as a defence for the measures we have found to be inconsistent with its 
trading rights commitments under the Accession Protocol.  Based on that assumption, we will examine whether the relevant measures 
satisfy the requirements of Article XX(a).
412   
210. Ultimately, the Panel determined that China ha d not demonstrated the "necessity", within the 
meaning of Article XX(a), of its measures, and did not, therefore, return to the issue of whether 
Article XX(a) is a defence available to China in th is case.  The Panel included the following statement 
in the final section of its Report, setti ng out its conclusions and recommendations: 
Because China has in any event not  established that the measures at 
issue satisfy the requirements of Article XX(a), the Panel did not determine whether Article XX(a) is available as a direct defence for breaches of China's trading rights commitments as set out in the 
Accession Protocol.
413  
211. China has appealed the substance of the Pa nel's findings under Article XX(a) of the 
GATT 1994.  China requests us to:  (i) reverse the Panel's finding that China has not demonstrated 
that the measures that China sought to justify un der Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 are "necessary" 
to protect public morals within the meaning of that provision;  (ii) complete the analysis with regard 
to the chapeau  of Article XX of the GATT 1994 and find that China's measures comply with the 
requirements of the chapeau;  and (iii) find that Ar ticle XX(a) of the GATT 1994 is available to China 
to justify measures found to be inconsistent with  the trading rights commitments in its Accession 
Protocol.     
                                                      
411The Panel noted that the United States had, referring to the arguendo approach adopted by the 
Appellate Body in US – Shrimp (Thailand) / US – Customs Bond Directive , invited the Panel to take the same 
approach in this dispute.  In that case, the United States invoked Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 to defend the 
measure at issue (a bond requirement) that had been found to be inconsistent with the Ad Note to Article VI:2 
and 3 of the GATT 1994 and Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  The Appellate Body found that the 
bond requirement was not "necessary" within the meaning of Article XX(d) and did not return to the issue of 
whether Article XX(d) was available to justify a measur e that is inconsistent with the requirements of the 
Ad Note and the Anti-Dumping Agreement . 
412Panel Report, para. 7.745. 
413Panel Report, para. 8.2(a)(ii). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 95 
 
 
212. On appeal, the United States notes the approach  taken by the Panel, and states that its 
response to China's appeal of the Panel's analysis  under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 is "without 
prejudice to the question of whether Article XX(a) is  applicable or provides a defense for China in 
this dispute."414   
213. We observe that reliance upon an assumption arguendo is a legal technique that an 
adjudicator may use in order to enhance simplicit y and efficiency in decision-making.  Although 
panels and the Appellate Body may choose to employ  this technique in particular circumstances, it 
may not always provide a solid foundation upon which to rest legal conclusions .  Use of the technique 
may detract from a clear enunciation of the relevant WTO law and create difficulties for 
implementation.  Recourse to this technique may also  be problematic for certai n types of legal issues, 
for example, issues that go to the jurisdiction of  a panel or preliminary questions on which the 
substance of a subsequent analysis depends.  The purpose of WTO dispute settlement is to resolve 
disputes in a manner that preserves the rights and obligations of WTO Members and clarifies existing provisions of the covered agreements in accordance with the customary rules of interpretation of 
public international law.
415  In doing so, panels and the Appella te Body are not bound to favour the 
most expedient approach or that suggested by one or more of the parties to the dispute.  Rather, panels 
and the Appellate Body must adopt an analytical methodology or structure appropriate for resolution 
of the matters before them, and which enables them  to make an objective assessment of the relevant 
matters and make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving 
the rulings provided for in the covered agreements.416 
214. In this case, China asserted th at the introductory clause of paragraph 5.1 of its Accession 
Protocol allowed it to justify the pr ovisions of its measures found to be inconsistent with its trading 
rights commitments as necessary to protect public  morals in China within the meaning of 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.  The Panel did no t decide whether paragraph 5.1 gave China access 
to this defence.  Instead , the Panel proceeded on the assumption  that such a defence was available.  
Yet, if China cannot rely on Article XX(a) to defe nd its measures as ones that protect public morals in 
China, the findings of inconsistency with China's trading rights commitments would be the end of the 
matter, and any analysis of the measures under Article XX(a) would be unnecessary.  Moreover, 
certain elements of the Panel's reasoning under Article XX(a), notably its analysis of the appropriate 
restrictive effect to be taken into account, depended , at least to some extent, on the availability of 
                                                      
414United States' appellee's submission, footnote 14 to paragraph 10.  At the oral hearing in this appeal, 
the United States requested us to adopt the same arguendo approach as the Panel, that is, to review the Panel's 
findings under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 base d on the assumption that Article XX(a) is a defence 
available to China in this dispute. 
415Article 3.2 of the DSU. 
416Article 11 of the DSU. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 96  
 
Article XX(a) as a defence to a violation of China's trading rights commitments.
417  Thus, these parts 
of the Panel's analysis rest upon an uncertain foundation as a result of the absence of a ruling on the 
applicability of Article XX(a) in this case.  In a ddition, the absence of clarity on the issue of whether 
China may rely on Article XX(a) as a defence to a vi olation of paragraph 5.1 of its Accession Protocol 
may leave the participants uncertain  as to the regulatory scope that China enjoys in implementation 
and as to whether any implementing measure is, in f act, consistent with China's WTO obligations or 
susceptible to further challenge in proc eedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU.418 
215. In our view, assuming arguendo that China can invoke Article XX(a) could be at odds with 
the objective of promoting security and predictab ility through dispute settlement, and may not assist 
in the resolution of this dispute, in particular b ecause such an approach risk s creating uncertainty with 
respect to China's implementation obligations.  We no te that the question of whether the introductory 
clause of paragraph 5.1 allows China to assert a de fence under Article XX(a) is an issue of legal 
interpretation falling within the scope of Article 17. 6 of the DSU.  For these reasons, we have decided 
to examine this issue ourselves.   
216. The first two sentences of paragraph 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol provide: 
Without prejudice to China's right to regulate trade in a manner 
consistent with the WTO Agreement, China shall progressively 
liberalize the availability and scope of the right to trade, so that, within three years after accession, all enterpri ses in China shall have the right 
to trade in all goods throughout the customs territory of China, except for those goods listed in Annex 2A which continue to be subject to 
state trading in accordance with this Protocol.  Such right to trade shall 
be the right to import and export goods. 
217. We recall that China argued that the introductory clause of paragraph 5.1 of its Accession 
Protocol enables it to justify, under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, measures found to be 
inconsistent with its trading rights commitments.  In  examining whether this is so, we must seek to 
                                                     
 
417In its analysis of the "restrictive impact" of  the inconsistent measures, the Panel found it 
"appropriate", in this case, "to consider two different types of restrictive impact": 
... not only the restrictive impact the m easures at issue have on imports of 
relevant products, but also the restrictive effect they have on those wishing 
to engage in importing, in particular on  their right to trade.  In our view, if 
Article XX is assumed to be a direct defence for measures in breach of 
trading rights commitments, it makes sense to consider how much these 
measures restrict the right to import .  
(Panel Report, para. 7.788 (emphasis added))  We address China's appeal of this finding in section VI.B.3 of this 
Report. 
418The European Communities expresses similar concer ns regarding the uncertainty that may result 
absent a ruling on the applicability of Article XX(a) in the circumstances of this case. (European Communities' 
third participant's submission, para. 12) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 97 
 
 
understand the meaning of that introductory clause, as well as its relationship to the remainder of the 
sentence within which it is situated. 
218. Looking first to the overall structure of the firs t sentence of paragraph 5.1, we note that the 
sentence contains a commitment, or obligation, undertaken by China, namely, to progressively 
liberalize the right to trade and ensure that, within  three years of accession, all enterprises in China 
have the right to import and export all goods.419  This obligation is, however, qualified by the 
introductory clause of the first sentence:  "Without prejudice to China's right to regulate trade in a 
manner consistent with the WTO Agreement".    
219. An obligation that is "without prejudice to" a right may not detrimentally affect, encroach 
upon, or impair such right.420  In the introductory clause of paragraph 5.1, the "right" that may not be 
impaired is "China's right to regulate trade".  Th is right is itself further qualified by the phrase "in a 
manner consistent with the WTO Agreement".  We  examine the content of each of these phrases in 
turn.   
220. In the abstract, "rights" may encompass both entitlements or powers, and immunities or 
protected interests.421  Within the first sentence of paragraph 5. 1, the word "right" is used twice.  In 
the introductory clause, China is identified as enjoying a "right" to regulate trade.  Subsequently, 
China is identified as being subject to  an obligation to grant the "right"  to trade.  The first time the 
word "right" is used, it seems to us to refer to an authority , or power  that China enjoys, whereas the 
second time the word is used, it refers to a legal entitlement that China is under an obligation to grant  
                                                      
419Paragraph 5.1 provides that China's obligation to grant the right to import and export all goods does 
not apply to the specific goods liste d in Annex 2A to China's Accession Protocol, the import and export of 
which may be reserved to State trading enterprises in accordance with that Annex.  Thus, Annex 2A carves out certain goods from the scope of China's obligation to grant the right to trade.  For all goods not listed in 
Annex 2A, including all of the goods at issue in this dispute, China is subject to an obligation to grant all 
enterprises in China the right to import and export such goods, irrespective of the meaning and scope of "China's right to regulate trade in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreement".  The qu estion of the meaning and 
operation of the introductory clause to paragraph 5.1—"Without prejudice to China's right to regulate trade in a 
manner consistent with the WTO Agreement"—is distin ct from the question of whether China has acted 
inconsistently with the obligation set out in the first sent ence of paragraph 5.1.  Thus, we do not agree with the 
argument made by the United States to  the Panel that accepting that China's "right to regulate trade" may justify 
certain restrictions on trading rights would, in eff ect, permit China to add new goods to the Annex 2A list. 
420The Panel referred to the following dictionary definitions of "without prejudice to":  "without 
detriment to any existing right or claim;  spec. in LAW, without damage to one's own rights or claims" ( Shorter 
Oxford English Dictionary , 5th edn., W.R. Trumble, A. Stevenson (eds.) (Oxford University Press, 2002), 
Vol. 2, p. 2324);  and "[w]ithout loss of any rights;  in a way that does not harm or cancel the legal rights or 
privileges of a party" ( Black's Law Dictionary , 7th edn., B.A. Garner (ed.) (West Group, 1999), p. 1596). (Panel 
Report, footnotes 207 and 208 to para. 7.253) 
421Among the definitions of "right" are:   "[e]ntitlement or justifiable cl aim ... to act in a certain way", 
and "[a] legal, equitable, or moral title or claim to the possession of ... authority, the enjoyment of privileges or immunities, etc." ( Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , 5th edn., W.R. Trumble, A. Stevenson (eds.) (Oxford 
University Press, 2002), Vol. 2, p. 2583.);  as well as "a  recognized and protected inte rest the violation of which 
is a wrong" ( Black's Law Dictionary , 7th edn., B.A. Garner (ed.) (West Group, 1999), p. 1322). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 98  
 
to all enterprises in China.
422  The next component of the phrase "China's right to regulate trade" is the 
verb "regulate".  As noted by the Panel, to "regulat e" means to "[c]ontrol, govern, or direct by rule or 
regulations;  subject to guidance or restrictions".423  As for the word "trade", it is used as a noun in the 
phrase "China's right to regulate trade"424, and seems to refer, generally, to commerce between 
nations.425   
221. Thus, our analysis so far suggests that the phrase "China's right to regulate trade" is a 
reference to China's power to subject international commerce to regulation.  As explained above, this 
power may not be impaired by China's ob ligation to grant the right to trade, provided that  China 
regulates trade "in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreement". 
222. We read the phrase "in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreement" as referring to the 
WTO Agreement  as a whole, including its Annexes.  We note,  in this respect, that we see the "right to 
regulate", in the abstract, as an inherent power en joyed by a Member's government, rather than a right 
bestowed by international treaties such as the WTO Agreement .  With respect to trade, the WTO 
Agreement  and its Annexes instead operate to, among ot her things, discipline the exercise of each 
Member's inherent power to regulate by requiring WTO Members to comply with the obligations that 
they have assumed thereunder.  When what is bei ng regulated is trade, then the reference in the 
introductory clause to "consistent with the WTO Agre ement" constrains the exercise of that regulatory 
power such that China's regulatory measures mu st be shown to conform to WTO disciplines. 
223. We observe, in this regard, that WTO Me mbers' regulatory requirements may be WTO-
consistent in one of two ways.  First, they may si mply not contravene any WTO obligation.  Secondly, 
even if they contravene a WTO obligation, they ma y be justified under an applicable exception.  The 
reference to "a manner consistent with the WTO Ag reement" seems to us to encompass both types of 
WTO-consistency.  Thus, we read the phrase "right to regulate trade in a manner consistent with the 
WTO Agreement" as a reference to:  (i) rights that the covered agreements affirmatively recognize as 
                                                      
422Thus, the direct beneficiaries of China's obligation to grant the "right to trade" in paragraph 5.1 are 
not other WTO Members, as such, but rather, enterprises in China. 
423Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , 5th edn., W.R. Trumble, A. Stevenson (eds.) (Oxford University 
Press, 2002), Vol. 2, p. 2516.  See Panel Report, para. 7.256. 
424As a noun, trade is defined as:  "[b]uying a nd selling or exchange of commodities for profit, spec. 
between nations;  commerce, trading …". ( Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , 5th edn., W.R. Trumble, 
A. Stevenson (eds.) (Oxford University Press, 2002), Vol. 2, p 3316) 
425We note that the word "trade" is used three times in the first sentence of paragraph 5.1.  The first 
time is as a noun in "China's right to regulate trade".  Th e second and third times, it is used as a verb in the 
phrase "right to trade".  Paragraph 5.1 expressly defines "the right to trade" as "the right to import and export 
goods", which in turn suggests that, in the phrase "the right to trade", the verb "trade" means "import and export".  Such meaning is consistent with, but narrower in scope than, the dictionary definition of the verb trade:  
"[e]ngage in trade or co mmerce, pursue trade". ( Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , 5th edn., W.R. Trumble, 
A. Stevenson (eds.) (Oxford University Press, 2002), Vol. 2, p. 3316)   WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 99 
 
 
accruing to WTO Members, namely, the power of Members to take specific types of regulatory 
measures in respect of trade in goods when t hose measures satisfy prescribed WTO disciplines and 
meet specified criteria;  and (ii) certain rights to take regulatory action that derogates from obligations 
under the WTO Agreement —that is, to relevant exceptions.   
224. Certain paragraphs of China's Accession Work ing Party Report, which elaborate China's 
trading rights commitments, also provide context for and inform the scope of the WTO-consistent 
governmental regulation that may not be impaired by China's obligation to grant the right to trade.  
Paragraph 84(b), in particular, seems to us to identify a subset of governmental regulation that 
constitutes an exercise of regulatory powers that the covered agreements a ffirmatively recognize as 
accruing to WTO Members.  This paragraph specifi es that "foreign enterprises and individuals with 
trading rights ha[ve] to comply with all WTO- consistent requirements related to importing and 
exporting, such as those concerni ng import licensing, TBT and SPS."426  We read this as a 
confirmation that China's obligation to grant the right  to trade cannot impair China's power to impose 
WTO-consistent import licensing, TBT, and SPS measures.427 
225. As stated, we see the language of  paragraph 84(b) as shedding light  on the types of regulatory 
measures in respect of trade in goods that the c overed agreements affirmatively recognize that China 
may take, provided that such regulatory measures satisfy prescribed disciplines and meet specified 
conditions.  We note, in this regard, that the t ypes of WTO-consistent requirements that may, under 
paragraph 84(b), be imposed by China are not limite d to requirements that apply directly to goods 
themselves428, nor to requirements that apply to the activity of importing or exporting.429  We a l s o  
                                                      
426The Panel explained that it viewed this sentence as providing that: 
... even though they are foreign ente rprises and individuals "with trading 
rights" (in that the Accession Protocol pr escribes that they must be granted 
such rights), such enterprises and individuals must still comply with "all 
WTO-consistent requirements related to importing and exporting, such as 
those concerning import licensing, TBT and SPS". 
(Panel Report, para. 7.262) 
427The disciplines that the WTO Agreement , including its Annexes, imposes upon a Member's use of 
SPS, TBT, and import licensing measures seek to ensure that  such measures may be employed only in particular 
circumstances and subject to specific conditions.  These disciplines preser ve the power of Members to adopt 
certain measures in the exercise of thei r right to regulate trade in goods, while at the same time ensuring that the 
use of such measures is carefully circumscribed so as  to comport with specific objectives recognized as 
legitimate and so as to minimize the extent to which the exercise of such rights may constitute a barrier to trade 
in goods or discriminate against the goods of other Members.  The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures  (the " SPS Agreement "), the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade  (the " TBT 
Agreement "), the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures , and the GATT 1994 all recognize and embody 
this balance. 
428Import licensing requirements, for example, are re quirements relating to the activity of importing 
goods.  Typically, licensing requirements and their attendant procedures apply to and are satisfied by those who 
wish to import the goods, rather than by the goods themselves. 
429SPS and TBT measures may be applied to goods th at are imported, and may also be applied to 
domestic goods.  They may be applied at the border, or internally.  In essence, th ey are measures regulating 
goods.  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 100  
 
note that the words "such as" in paragraph 84(b) of China's Accession Working Party Report ("WTO-
consistent requirements relate d to importing and exporting, such as  those concerning import licensing, 
TBT and SPS") indicate that import licensing, TB T, and SPS requirements illustrate, but do not 
exhaust, the type of WTO-consistent requirements relating to trade that may be imposed by China 
even if  their imposition entails some limitation on th e right of enterprises in China to import and 
export all goods. 
226. We recall, in this respect,  our understanding of the relati onship between the introductory 
clause and the remainder of the first sentence of  paragraph 5.1.  Under paragraph 5.1, China 
undertakes a commitment in respect of traders , in the form of a commitment to grant to all enterprises 
in China the right to import and export goods.  At th e same time, this commit ment, or obligation, is 
made subject to, and may not detrimenta lly affect, China's right to regulate trade  in a manner 
consistent with the WTO Agreement .  We see the obligations assumed by China in respect of trading 
rights, which relate to traders, and the obligati ons imposed on all WTO Members in respect of their 
regulation of trade in goods, as closely intertwined.  This is particularly true of China's trading rights 
commitments, on the one hand, and the obligati ons imposed on all WTO Members under Articles III 
and XI of the GATT 1994, on the other hand, as ce rtain WTO Members expressly recognized during 
the negotiations on China's accession to the WTO.
430  Such interlinkage is also reflected in 
paragraph 5.1 itself.  Read as a whole, this provision is clearly concerned with trade in goods .  The 
first two sentences relate to the entitlements that Chin a must give to potential importers and exporters 
of goods .  The next, or third sentence of paragraph 5.1, provides that: 
All such goods shall be accorded national treatment under Article III 
of the GATT 1994, especially paragraph 4 thereof, in respect of their 
internal sale, offering for sale, purch ase, transportation, distribution or 
use, including their direct access to end-users.431   
227. The close relationship between restrictions on entities engaged in trade and GATT obligations 
relating to trade in goods has also been recognized in previous GATT panel and WTO panel and Appellate Body reports, where measures that did not directly regulate goods, or the importation of 
goods, have nonetheless been found to  contravene GATT obligations.  T hus, for example, restrictions 
imposed on investors, wholesalers, and manufacturers, as well as on points of sale and ports of entry, 
                                                     
 
430This is reflected in paragraph 80 of China's Accession Working Party Report.  That paragraph 
describes the restrictions on the right to trade that China maintained at the time, and adds that some members of the Working Party "stated their view that such restricti ons were inconsistent with WTO requirements, including 
Articles XI and III of GATT 1994". 
431We note that the wording of this commitment closely follows, but is not identical to, the language of 
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  More specifically, the above commitment in paragraph 5.1 refers to "including 
their direct access to end-users", which is a phrase not used in Article III:4 itself.  In addition, not all of the 
language of the first sentence, and none of the second sentence, of Article III:4 is reproduced in paragraph 5.1. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 101 
 
 
have been found to be inconsistent with Article  III:4 or Article XI:1 of the GATT 1947 or 1994.432  In 
addition, the Illustrative List in Annex 1 to the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures  (the 
"TRIMs Agreement ") sets out a number of requirements imposed on enterprises  that are deemed to be 
inconsistent with either Article III:4 or Article  XI:1 of the GATT 1994, and Article 3 of the TRIMs 
Agreement  states that all exceptions under the GATT 1994 apply, as appropriate, to the provisions of 
the TRIMs Agreement .  These considerations suggest that measures that restrict the rights of traders 
may violate GATT obligations with respect to trade in goods. 
228. Returning to the introductory clause of paragr aph 5.1, we recall our observation above that 
the reference to China's power to regulate trade "in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreement" 
seems to us to encompass both China's power to take regulatory action provi ded that its measures 
satisfy prescribed WTO disciplines and meet specif ied conditions (for example, an SPS measure that 
conforms to the SPS Agreement ) and China's power to take regulatory action that derogates from 
WTO obligations that would otherwise constrain Chin a's exercise of such power—that is, to relevant 
exceptions. 
229. China's power to regulate trade in goods is disciplined by the obligations set out in Annex 1A 
of the WTO Agreement .  In our view, the introductory clause of  paragraph 5.1 cannot be interpreted in 
a way that would allow a complainant to deny Ch ina access to a defence merely by asserting a claim 
under paragraph 5.1 and by refraining from asserting a claim under other provisions of the covered 
agreements relating to trade in goods that apply to the same or closely linked measures, and which set 
                                                      
432With respect to Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, the panel in India – Autos  found that "indigenization 
requirements" (requirements to use a minimum amount of domestically produced parts) and "trade balancing 
requirements" (requirements to export products of an equivalent value to the imported products) imposed on 
automobile manufacturers were in consistent with Article III:4 of  the GATT 1994. (Panel Report, India – Autos , 
paras. 7.195-7.198 and 7.307-7.309)  Similarly, in China – Auto Parts , the Appellate Body found that measures 
that applied to automobile manufacturers cr eated incentives for those manufacturers to limit their use of 
imported parts relative to domestic parts, or to avoid entir ely the use of imported auto parts, and were, therefore, 
inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. (Appellate Body Reports, China – Auto Parts , paras. 195 
and 196;  see also Appellate Body Report,  US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC) , para. 212)  Requirements that 
imported products be sold or distributed only through specific points of sale or specific channels have also been 
found to violate Article III:4 (see the Panel and Appellate Body Reports in Korea – Various Measures on Beef ;  
and GATT Panel Report, US – Malt Beverages , para. 5.38), as have purchase undertakings that conditioned 
investment approval upon the acceptance by investors of undertakings to purchase goods of domestic origin 
(GATT Panel Report, Canada – FIRA , para. 6.1).  As for Article XI:1, the GATT panel in Canada – Provincial 
Liquor Boards (EEC) found that restrictions on points of sale were a restriction on importation (GATT Panel 
Report, Canada – Provincial Liquor Boards (EEC ), para. 4.25), and, in Colombia – Ports of Entry , the panel 
found that a restriction on the ports through which rele vant goods could enter Colombia constituted a restriction 
on importation within the meaning of Article XI:1 (Panel Report, Colombia – Ports of Entry , para. 7.275). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 102  
 
out obligations that are closely linked to China's trading rights commitments.
433  Rather, whether 
China may, in the absence of a specific claim of inconsistency with the GATT 1994, justify its 
measure under Article XX of the GATT 1994 must  in each case depend on the relationship between 
the measure found to be inconsis tent with China's trading rights commitments, on the one hand, and 
China's regulation of trade in goods, on the other hand. 
230. All of the above suggests to us that the in troductory clause of paragraph 5.1 should be 
interpreted as follows.  Any exercise of China's ri ght to regulate trade will be protected under the 
introductory clause of paragraph 5.1 only if it is consistent with the WTO Agreement .  This will be the 
case when China's measures regulating trade are of a type that the WTO Agreement recognizes that 
Members may take when they satisfy prescribed disci plines and meet specified conditions.  Yet, these 
are not the only types of WTO-consistent measure s that may be protected under the introductory 
clause of paragraph 5.1.  Whether a measure re gulating those who may engage in the import and 
export of goods falls within the scope of China's right to regulate trade may also depend on whether 
the measure has a clearly discernable, objective link to the regulation of trade in the goods at issue.  In 
considering whether such a link is discernable, it may be relevant whether the measure regulating who 
may engage in trade is clearly and intrinsica lly related to the objective of regulating the goods  that are 
traded.  In addition, such a link may often be di scerned from the fact that the measure in question 
regulates the right to import and export particular goods .  This is because the regulation of who may 
import and export specific goods will normally be objec tively related to, and w ill often form part of, 
the regulation of trade in those goods.  Whether the necessary objective link exis ts in a specific case 
needs to be established through careful scrutiny of th e nature, design, structure, and function of the 
measure, often in conjunction with an examina tion of the regulatory context within which it is 
situated.  When such a link exis ts, then China may seek to show that, because its measure complies 
with the conditions of a GATT 1994 exception, the me asure represents an exercise of China's power 
                                                      
433In this dispute, the United States challenged a variety of provisions within various Chinese measures 
as inconsistent with paragraph 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol.  All of the provisions challenged by the 
United States regulate the right to import the products at issue into China.  The United States did not raise claims under any other provisions of the covered agreements, notably under Article III:4 or Article XI:1 of the 
GATT 1994, with respect to these provisions.  As explained, supra , in paragraphs 151 and 152, the United 
States did, however, raise a number of claims under Article III:4 in respect of the distribution of the relevant 
products.  With respect to one provision—Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule —the United States raised 
claims that China had act ed inconsistently with both Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 and its trading rights 
commitments.  That provision relates to both the importation  of films for theatrical rel ease, in its first sentence, 
and the distribution of films for theatrical release, in its second se ntence.  Ultimately, the Panel found that the 
United States had not made out its claim under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 regarding films for theatrical release. (Panel Report, para. 7.1699)  The United States  further claimed that the provisions relating to the 
distribution of the relevant products that it alleged to be incons istent with Article III:4 were also inconsistent 
with China's obligations under the third sentence of paragraph 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol, which refers 
to China's obligation to accord to imported goods national treatment under Article III of the GATT 1994, 
especially paragraph 4 thereof.  In respect of such claims, the Panel either exercised judicial economy or found 
that the United States had not made out its claim. ( Ibid., paras. 7.1709 and 7.1710)  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 103 
 
 
to regulate trade in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreement  and, as such, may not be impaired 
by China's trading rights commitments. 
231. Turning to the specific measures that China seeks to justify in this case, we note that China 
asserted, before the Panel, that its measures form part of a broader regulatory scheme covering the goods at issue.  According to China, it regulates th ese goods through a content review mechanism, for 
both imported and domestic goods, that operates to prev ent the dissemination of cultural goods with a 
content that has a negative impact on public morals in China.  In other word s, China emphasized that 
the requirements and provisions found to be incons istent with China's trading rights commitments 
under its Accession Protocol and Working Party Report all form part of a broader regime regulating 
trade in the specific goods at issue.   
232. The Panel examined the relationship between  each of the provisions it found to be 
inconsistent with China's trading rights commitment s, as well as China's content review mechanism 
for the relevant products.  The Panel found that  certain of the inconsistent provisions, notably 
Articles 41 and 42 of the Publications Regulation , are contained in a legal instrument that, itself, sets 
out such a content review mechanism.
434  With respect to other provisions contained in instruments 
that do not themselves incorporate a content review  mechanism, the Panel accepted China's argument 
that these "are not isolated measures [but] are the re sult of its system of selecting importers with the 
content review mechanism in mind".435  We also note that there was much evidence before the Panel 
concerning the extensive nature of China's c ontent review system for the relevant goods436, and that 
the United States did not contest that the provisions restricting trading rights are  part of China's 
system for reviewing the content of the relevant goods.437  Moreover, the United States challenged, as 
inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, va rious provisions regulating the distribution of the 
relevant goods within China, several of which ar e contained in the same Chinese measures as other 
provisions regulating importation of those goods that the Panel found to be inconsistent with China's 
trading rights commitments.438   
233. For all these reasons, we consider that the provisi ons that China seeks to justify have a clearly 
discernable, objective link to China's regulation of trad e in the relevant products.  In the light of this 
relationship between provisions of China's measures that are inconsistent with China's trading rights 
commitments, and China's regulation of trade in th e relevant products, we find that China may rely 
                                                      
434Panel Report, para. 7.767. 
435Panel Report, para. 7.779;  see also paras. 7.773 and 7.774.   
436See, in particular, Panel Report, section VII.C.2. 
437As discussed further below, the United States did contend that the provisions restricting trading 
rights are not "necessary" to protect public morals. 
438See supra , footnote 433. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 104  
 
upon the introductory clause of paragraph 5.1 of it s Accession Protocol and seek to justify these 
provisions as necessary to protect public morals in Ch ina, within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the 
GATT 1994.  Successful justification of these pr ovisions, however, requires China to have 
demonstrated that they comply with the requireme nts of Article XX of the GATT 1994 and, therefore, 
constitute the exercise of its right to regulate trade in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreement .  
The Panel found that China had not successfully made out such a defence, and we now turn to review 
that finding. 
B. The "Necessity" Test under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 
234. The Panel found that China had not demonstrated that any of the provisions
439 that China 
sought to justify are "necessary to protect public mora ls" within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the 
GATT 1994.440  On appeal, China challenges this conclusi on.  More specifically, China contends that 
the Panel erred in finding:  (i) that the State- ownership requirement in  Article 42(2) of the 
Publications Regulation  makes no material contribution to the protection of public morals in China;  
(ii) that the provisions excluding foreign-invested  enterprises from engaging in the importation of the 
relevant products441 make no material contribution to the protection of public morals in China;  
(iii) that the restrictive effect of the provisions on "those wishing to engage in importing" is relevant 
for assessing the necessity of such provisions under Artic le XX(a);  and (iv) that at least one of the 
alternative measures proposed by the United Stat es (that is, giving the Chinese Government sole 
responsibility for conducting content review) was an a lternative "reasonably available" to China.  In 
addition, China requests the Appellate Body to co mplete the analysis and find its measures to be 
"necessary" to protect public morals within the m eaning of Article XX(a) and consistent with the 
chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994. 
235. The United States requests the Appellate Body to  uphold these four elements of the Panel's 
analysis appealed by China and the Panel's ultimate  conclusion that China had not demonstrated that 
any of the relevant measures are "necessary to protect public morals" within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.  In its other a ppeal, the United States requests us to reverse or 
declare "moot and of no legal effect" an "intermedi ate finding" by the Panel that the requirement of 
                                                     
 
439Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in 
conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  
Article 41, and Article 42 in co njunction with Article 41, of the Publications Regulation ;  Article 27 of the 2001 
Audiovisual Products Regulation ;  Article 8 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule ;  and Article 21 of 
the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule . 
440Panel Report, para. 8.2(a)(i).  S ee also paras. 7.911 and 7.913. 
441This exclusion is set out in the following provisions:  Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited 
Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment 
Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  and Article 21 of the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule . WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 105 
 
 
conformity with China's State plan requirement can be characterized as "necessary", in the absence of 
reasonably available alternatives, to  protect public morals in China.442 
236. We begin by addressing "some concerns"443 raised by the United States about the analytical 
approach taken by the Panel in its analysis of  "necessity" under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.  
Thereafter, we address, in turn, specific aspects of  the Panel's analysis of:  (i) the contribution of 
China's measures to the protection of public morals in  China;  (ii) the restrictive effect of China's 
measures;  and (iii) whether an appropriate alterna tive measure is reasonably available to China.  If 
necessary, we will thereafter addr ess China's request to complete the analysis with respect to 
Article XX(a) and the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994.   
1. The Panel's Analytical Approach to the "Necessity" Test under Article XX(a)  
237. The United States expresses "some concerns" rega rding the Panel's approach to analyzing the 
"necessity" of China's measures.444  The United States' concerns relate to a "two step"445 approach, 
allegedly taken by the Panel in examin ing, first, whether China had made a prima facie  case that the 
measures at issue were "necessary" within the meaning of Article XX(a), and examining only subsequently whether reasonably available WTO-cons istent alternatives had been identified.  The 
Panel drew on a statement made  by the Appellate Body in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres .
446  However, the 
United States submits, other Appella te Body reports, in particular US – Gambling  and Korea – 
Various Measures on Beef , described a single process.447  Moreover, according to the United States, 
the text of Article XX(a) sets out a single crite rion, "necessary", which also suggests a "single, 
integrated, yet multifaceted inquiry".448  The United States adds that the preliminary conclusion of the 
Panel that the State plan requirement is "necessar y" to protect public morals "in the absence of 
                                                      
442See Panel Report, para. 7.836.  We note that the Panel stated that the St ate plan requirement in 
Article 42 of the Publications Regulation  could be characterized as "necessary " in the sense of Article XX(a) of 
the GATT 1994 "in the absence of reasonably available alte rnatives".  Ultimately, however, the Panel found that 
this requirement could not be justified, because Chin a had not demonstrated that a less trade-restrictive 
alternative proposed by the United States was not reasonably available to it. ( Ibid., paras. 7.906 and 7.907) 
443United States' other appellant's submission, para. 26. 
444The United States expresses these concerns in its other appellant's submission in the context of its 
claim relating to the St ate plan requirement. 
445United States' other appellant's submission, para. 26. 
446United States' other appellant's submission, para. 26 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.786, in turn 
quoting Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , para. 178).  The Appellate Body stated that a panel 
must consider the importance of the interests or values at stake, the extent of the contribution made by the 
measure to the achievement of the releva nt objective, and the measure's trade restrictiveness, and that "[i]f this 
analysis yields a preliminary conclu sion that the measure is necessary, this result must be confirmed by 
comparing the measure with possible alternatives, whic h may be less trade restrictive while providing an 
equivalent contribution to the achievement of the objective."   
447United States' other appellant's submission, para. 26 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – 
Gambling , para. 307;  and Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef , para. 166). 
448United States' other appellant's submission, para. 27. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 106  
 
reasonably available alternatives"
449 introduces confusion, because the term "necessary" is used in a 
different sense in this intermediate finding, on the one hand, and in its ultimate finding—that the State 
plan requirement is not "necessary" in view of  a reasonably available alternative—on the other 
hand.450 
238. In response to questioning at the oral hearing in  this appeal, the United States clarified that it 
is not raising a claim of error with respect to  the way in which the Panel applied the "necessity" 
test.451  Instead, the United States stated that it woul d welcome clarification from the Appellate Body 
that an Article XX analysis should be approached in an integrated fashion.  The United States 
acknowledged that, in analyzing the "necessity" of a measure, a panel cannot simultaneously assess all 
relevant factors and undertake the necessary "weighi ng and balancing" with respect to the contested 
measure and proposed alternative measures.   
239. The Appellate Body has previously considered the proper approach to take in analyzing the 
"necessity" of a measure in several appeals, in particular:  Korea – Various Measures on Beef  (in the 
context of Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994);  US – Gambling  (in the context of Article XIV(a) of the 
GATS452);  and in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres (in the context of Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994).  In 
each of these cases, the Appella te Body explained that an asse ssment of "necessity" involves 
"weighing and balancing" a number of distinct f actors relating both to the measure sought to be 
justified as "necessary" and to possible alternative measures that may be reasonably available to the 
responding Member to achieve its desired objective.  
240. In US – Gambling , for example, the Appellate Bo dy addressed, in the context of 
Article XIV(a) of the GATS, the proper means of assessing "necessity" through a process of "weighing and balancing" a number of factors.  Th e Appellate Body explained that the process begins 
with an assessment of the relative importance of th e interests or values furthered by the challenged 
measure.  A panel should then turn to the other f actors that are to be weighed and balanced, which 
will in most cases include:  (i) the contribution of th e measure to the realization of the ends pursued 
by it;  and (ii) the restrictive effect of the meas ure on international commerce.  Additional factors may 
be relevant in specific cases.  Once a panel has id entified the factors to be weighed and balanced, a 
                                                     
 
449Panel Report, para. 7.836. 
450United States' other appellant's submission, para. 27. 
451We note that the United States did not specifically identify this concern in its Notice of Other 
Appeal. 
452In US – Gambling , the Appellate Body stated that, due to the similar language used in both 
provisions—in particular the term "necessary" and the requirements set out in their respective chapeaux—
previous decisions under Article XX of the GATT 1994 we re relevant to its analysis under Article XIV of the 
GATS. (Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 291)  For the same reasons, the decision of the Appellate 
Body in US – Gambling  dealing with the interpretation of Article XIV of the GATS is relevant to the analysis of 
Article XX called for in this dispute. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 107 
 
 
comparison of the challenged measure and possible alternatives should be undertaken, and the results 
considered in the light of the importance of the objective pursued.453   
241. In Brazil – Retreaded Tyres  the Appellate Body described the process in the context of an 
analysis of "necessity" under Article XX(b) of th e GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body observed that a 
panel must consider the relevant factors, particularly  the importance of the interests or values at stake, 
the extent of the contribution made by the measure to the achievement of the relevant objective, and 
the measure's trade restrictiveness.  The Appellate Bo dy stated that, if such an analysis "yields a 
preliminary conclusion" that a measure is neces sary, then the necessity of the measure must be 
"confirmed" by comparing the measure with possible a lternatives, in the light of the importance of the 
interests or values at stake.454  
242. We do not see that the Appellate Body's approach to the "necessity" analysis in Brazil – 
Retreaded Tyres  differs from that in US – Gambling , which in turn referred to Korea – Various 
Measures on Beef .455  In each case, a sequential process of weighing and balancing a series of factors 
was involved.  US – Gambling  sets out a sequence by using the phrases:  "The process begins with  an 
assessment of the 'relative importance' of the interests or values furthered by the challenged 
measure"456;  "Having ascertained  the importance of the particular interests at stake, a panel should 
then turn to the other factors that are to be 'weighed and balanced'"457;  and "A comparison between 
the challenged measure and possible alternatives should then be undertaken".458  The description of 
this sequence in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres mentions, first, the relevant factors to be weighed and 
balanced for the measure sought to be justified, and continues that the result of this analysis "must be 
confirmed by comparing the measure with possible alternatives, which may be less trade restrictive while providing an equivalent contributi on to the achievement of the objective".
459  Although the 
language used is not identical, both reports articulat e the same approach and, like the Appellate Body 
report in Korea – Various Measures on Beef , emphasize the need to identify relevant factors and 
undertake a weighing and balancing process includi ng, where relevant, with respect to proposed 
                                                      
453Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , paras. 306-308.  In paragraph 305, the Appellate Body 
quoted from paragraph 166 of Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef . 
454Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , para. 178;  see also para. 156. 
455In articulating the pr oper approach in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , the Appellate Body referred to its 
report in US – Gambling  without distinguishing that case or suggesting any intention to depart from the 
approach articulated in US – Gambling  (or, for that matter, Korea – Various Measures on Beef ). (Appellate 
Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , footnote 319 to para. 178 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – 
Gambling , para. 307)) 
456Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 306. (footnote omitted;  emphasis added)  See also 
Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , para. 143;  and Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos , 
para. 172. 
457Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 306.   
458Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 307. (emphasis added) 
459Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , para. 178;  see also para. 156. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 108  
 
alternative measures that may be less trade restric tive while making an equivalent contribution to the 
relevant objective.  These three reports also a ll recognize that a comprehensive analysis of the 
"necessity" of a measure is a sequential process.  As such, the process must logically begin with a first 
step, proceed through a number of additi onal steps, and yield a final conclusion. 
243. In the present case, the Panel was required to  assess the "necessity" within the meaning of 
Article XX(a) of multiple provisions that it had found to be inconsiste nt with China's trading rights 
commitments.  The Panel did so in a number of step s.  First, the Panel considered the relationship 
between the provisions and China's stated objective (to protect public morals by avoiding the dissemination of goods containing prohibited content within China).
460  The Panel assumed that each 
of the types of prohibited content in China's meas ures could, if it were brought into China, have a 
negative impact on "public morals" in China w ithin the meaning of Article XX(a) of the 
GATT 1994.461  Next, the Panel identified the importance of the objective pursued ("the protection of 
public morals ranks among the most important values or interests pursued by Members as a matter of 
public policy"462) and the level of protection sought by China ("a high level of protection of public 
morals").463  Up to this point in its analysis, the Pane l's analysis dealt collectively with all of the 
provisions that China sought to justify.   
244. In the next stage of its analysis, the Panel addressed separately each provision that it had 
found to be inconsistent with China's trading rights commitments.464  For each, the Panel:  
(i) identified the contribution made to the realiza tion of the objective pursued;  (ii) identified the 
restrictive impact on trade and on those wishing to  import;  and (iii) "weighed and balanced" three 
factors, namely, the extent of the contribution, the restrictive impact, and the "fact that the protection 
                                                      
460Panel Report, paras. 7.751-7.793. 
461The Panel set out the list of the types of content that may not be included in publications and noted 
that the United States did not specifi cally contest that the dissemination of materials containing the types of 
content listed as prohibited by China could have a negative impact on public morals in China. (Panel Report, paras. 7.760-7.763) 
462Panel Report, para. 7.817. 
463Panel Report, para. 7.819. 
464For the purposes of its analysis, the Panel grouped certain similar provisions together.  The "criteria 
provisions" comprise:  (i) the requirement in Article 42 of the Publications Regulation  that approval of a 
publications import entity must conform to the State pl an, and (ii) the requiremen t in Article 42(4) of the 
Publications Regulation  that publication import entities have a suitable organization and qualified personnel.  
The "discretion provisions" consis t of:  (i) Article 41 of the Publications Regulation ;  (ii) Article 27 of the 2001 
Audiovisual Products Regulation ;  and (iii) Article 8 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule .  The 
"exclusion provisions" consist of:  (i) the requirement in Article 42(2) of the Publications Regulation  that 
publication import entities be wholly State-owned;  (ii)  Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign 
Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment 
Regulation ;  (iii) Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  and (iv) Article 21 of the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution 
Rule. (Panel Report, para. 7.814)  We do not use the same nomenclature in this Report. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 109 
 
 
of public morals is a highly important governmental  interest and that China has adopted a high level 
of protection of public mora ls within its territory."465   
245. Having weighed and balanced these factor s for each provision, the Panel reached a 
"conclusion" for each such provision.  The Panel ch aracterized the suitable organization and qualified 
personnel requirement and the State plan requireme nt as "necessary", "in the absence of reasonably 
available alternatives", to protect public morals in China.466  For each of the other provisions, the 
Panel "concluded" that China had no t demonstrated that the requirement in question is "necessary" to 
protect public morals within the meaning of Article XX(a).467 
246. Once it had completed this exercise with respect to  all of the provisions, the Panel turned to 
consider whether, in respect of the two require ments that it had characterized as "necessary", a less 
restrictive alternative measure was reasonably availabl e.  In analyzing the United States' proposal that 
the Chinese Government be given sole responsib ility for conducting content review, the Panel 
examined the restrictive effect that such alte rnative would have ("significantly less restrictive"468), the 
contribution that the alternative w ould make to the objective of protecting public morals ("at least 
equivalent to"469), and weighed these factors together with the importance of the interest at stake and 
China's desired high level of protection.470  Finally, the Panel found that China had not demonstrated 
that the proposed alternative is not a genuine  alternative or is not reasonably available.471  Having 
done so, the Panel then reached its overall conclusion,  namely, that "none of the provisions of China's 
measures which we have determined to be incons istent with China's trading rights commitments 
under the Accession Protocol is 'necessary' within the meaning of Article XX(a)."472 
247. As the above summary reveals, the Panel, c onfronted with the task of analyzing the 
"necessity" of multiple provisions and requirements,  undertook an analysis that was, in part, 
aggregated and relevant to all such provisions and requirements and, in part, disaggregated and 
specific to each provision or requirement.  The Panel's analysis also involved distinct steps 
                                                      
465Panel Report, para. 7.828. 
466Panel Report, paras. 7.828 and 7.836. 
467Panel Report, para. 7.848 (the designation requirement in Article 41 of the Publications Regulation );  
para. 7.849 (the designation requirements in Article 27 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and 
Article 8 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule );  para. 7.863 (the State-ownership requirement in 
Article 42 of the Publications Regulation );  and para. 7.868 (the provisions excluding foreign-invested 
enterprises from engaging in the importation of the relevant products in Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of 
Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign 
Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  and Article 21 of the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution 
Rule). 
468Panel Report, para. 7.897. 
469Panel Report, para. 7.898. 
470Panel Report, para. 7.899. 
471Panel Report, para. 7.908. 
472Panel Report, para. 7.911. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 110  
 
contemplated under the "weighing and balancing" test.  The Panel did not, however, complete all of 
the analytical steps relevant to each  provision in consecutive paragraphs  of its Report.  With respect to 
the State plan requirement, for example, the Panel completed the first part of its "weighing and 
balancing" exercise, and expressed a "conclusion" on the "necessity" of that requirement.
473  Having 
done so, however, it did not turn to the next step in its analysis—the assess ment of the alternatives 
proposed by the United States—until seven pages later.474 
248. In separating parts of its overall analysis of specific provisions in this way, the Panel may 
have created some confusion.  In particular, the Panel's use of the word "conclude" in setting out its 
intermediate findings risks misleading a reader, as do es its characterization of certain requirements as 
"necessary" before it had considered the availability of a less restrictive alternative measure.  Yet, a 
careful reading of the Panel's analysis of the necess ity of the State plan requirement, in its entirety, 
makes clear that the Panel included all relevant factors in its weighing and balancing exercise, 
including with respect to the alternative measures pr oposed by the United States.  Read in this broader 
context, it is clear that the "conclusion" reached by  the Panel after having completed one part of the 
overall weighing and balancing process did not constitu te a "finding" that the State plan requirement 
is "necessary" in the sense of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.  Rather, this conclusion was in the 
nature of a preliminary result, an indication that th e Panel had completed certain steps of its analysis.  
Moreover, the Panel was careful to add the qualifica tion that its "conclusion" was reached only "in the 
absence of reasonably available alternatives".  Ha d there not been a less restrictive alternative 
measure reasonably available to China, the Panel' s intermediate finding would have stood as part of 
an ultimate finding of necessity.  Given the outcome of  the Panel's analysis of the alternative measure 
proposed by the United States, however, it did not. 
249. The challenge faced by the Panel in deciding how to tackle the series of factors to be weighed 
and balanced in its analysis of the "necessity " of the multiple provisions it had found to be 
inconsistent with China's trading rights commitm ents was heightened by the large number of 
measures challenged by the United States in this disput e.  The Panel chose to group together all of the 
relevant provisions for purposes of certain steps of its analysis but to analyze these provisions individually for purposes of other steps in its anal ysis.  While this was not necessarily the only way 
that the Panel could have approached its task, we do not see that, in the circumstances of this case, the 
Panel's approach amounted to error or contradicted  the approach set out in previous Appellate Body 
reports. 
                                                     
 
473Panel Report, para. 7.836. 
474Panel Report, para. 7.869.  In the intervening seven pages the Panel weighed and balanced relevant 
factors for several other provisions and "concluded", for each, that it could not be characterized as "necessary" 
to protect public morals within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994. ( Ibid., paras. 7.837-7.868) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 111 
 
 
2. The Contribution of China's Measures to the Protection of Public Morals in 
China  
250. In this subsection, we address claims by China that the Panel erred in finding that the State-
ownership requirement and the provisions excl uding foreign-invested enterprises from being 
approved or designated import entities475 are not "necessary" to protect public morals in China;  as 
well as the claim by the United States that the Panel erred in finding that the State plan requirement 
can be characterized as "necessary" , in the absence of reasonably ava ilable alternatives, to protect 
public morals in China.  All these claims of error relate to the Panel's analysis of the contribution  
made by China's measures to the protection of public morals in China. 
251. We recall the Appellate Body's finding, in Korea – Various Measures on Beef , that the term 
"necessary", in the abstract, refers to a range of degrees of necessity.476  The Appellate Body 
explained that determining whether a measure is "necessary" involves a process of weighing and balancing a series of factors that prominently in clude the contribution made by the measure to secure 
compliance with the law or regulation at issue, the importance of the common interests or values 
protected by that law or regulation, and the accompanying impact of the law or regulation on imports 
or exports.
477  The greater the contribution a measure mak es to the objective pursued, the more likely 
it is to be characterized as "necessary".478   
252. In Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , the Appellate Body clarified how the analysis of the contribution 
made by a challenged measure to the achievement of  the objective pursued is to be undertaken.  The 
Appellate Body noted that a party seeking to de monstrate that its measures are "necessary" should 
seek to establish such necessity thro ugh "evidence or data, pertaining to the past or the present", 
establishing that the measures at issue contribut e to the achievement of the objectives pursued.479  In 
examining the evidence put forward, a panel must always assess the actual contribution made by the 
measure to the objective pursued. 
253. However, this is not the only type of demonstr ation that could establish such a contribution.  
The Appellate Body explained that  a panel is not bound to find that a measure does not make a 
contribution to the objective pursued merely because such contribution is not "immediately 
observable" or because, "[i]n the short-term, it may prove difficult to isolate the contribution [made 
                                                      
475These exclusions are set out in the following provisions:  Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of 
Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign 
Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  and Article 21 of the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution 
Rule. 
476Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef , para. 161. 
477Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef , para. 164. 
478Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef , para. 163. 
479Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , para. 151. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 112  
 
by] one specific measure from those attributable to  the other measures that are part of the same 
comprehensive policy".
480  Accordingly, the Appellate Body stated in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , that: 
... a panel might conclude that [a measure] is necessary on the basis 
of a demonstration that [it] is apt to produce a material contribution 
to the achievement of its objective.  This demonstration could consist 
of quantitative projections in th e future, or qualitative reasoning 
based on a set of hypotheses that are tested and supported by sufficient evidence.
481 
254. With these considerations in mind, we turn to ou r analysis of the participants' claims relating 
to the contribution of the State-ownership requirement, the provisions excluding foreign-invested enterprises from engaging in the importation of the relevant products, and the State plan requirement 
to the protection of public morals in China. 
(a) The State-Ownership Requirement 
255. China appeals the Panel's finding regardi ng the "necessity" of the State-ownership 
requirement.  We recall that this requirement, set out in Article 42(2), in conjunction with Article 41, 
of the Publications Regulation , requires that an enterprise be w holly State-owned in order to be 
eligible for approval as a publications import entity.  After having identified va rious factors relevant 
to its analysis of the necessity of this requirement , the Panel weighed and balanced them as follows: 
[W]e note, first of all, that the pr otection of public morals is a highly 
important governmental interest and that China has adopted a high level of protection of public morals wi thin its territory.  This said, ... 
we have not been persuaded that the requirement in question makes a material contribution to the protection of public morals.  Also, while it is unclear from the evidence on record  to what extent, if any, the 
requirement in question limits imports  of relevant products, it is clear 
that it completely excludes particular  types of enterprise in China from 
the right to engage in importing.  Weighing these factors, we reach the conclusion that China has not demonstrated that the requirement in question is "necessary" to protect public morals in China.
482 
256. China requests the Appellate Body to reverse this  finding.  China alleges that in reaching this 
finding the Panel misrepresented two arguments made  by China in relation to the State-ownership 
requirement and that this resulted in a failure to  assess objectively the material contribution of this 
requirement to the protection of public morals.  According to China, these misrepresentations resulted 
                                                      
480This is so, for instance, where a measure is part  of a comprehensive policy comprising a multiplicity 
of interacting measures or where th e results of a measure can only be evaluated with the benefit of time. 
(Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , para. 151) 
481Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , para. 151. 
482Panel Report, para. 7.863;  see also para. 7.860. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 113 
 
 
in errors of law and a failure by the Panel to ma ke an objective assessment of the matter before it, in 
violation of Article 11 of the DSU.483 
257. First, China asserts that it explained to the Panel that the Chinese Government could not 
require enterprises with private investment in Chin a to bear the substantial cost of performing the 
policy function of content review, but could require only those enterprises in which the State owns all 
of the equity to bear the cost  of carrying out content review.484  China alleges that the Panel 
mistakenly reduced this argument to a mere "cos t analysis" and failed to recognize that China's 
argument in fact related to the balance between th e performance of a public policy function (content 
review) and the cost associated with  performing this public policy function.485  Secondly, China 
alleges that the Panel misrepresented China's argum ent that only wholly State-owned enterprises are 
capable of satisfying the requirement in Article 42(4) of the Publications Regulation that publication 
import entities must have a suitable organization and qualifie d personnel.  China a lleges that the Panel 
erred in evaluating this argument exclusively under the prism of "cost", when its argument was not 
only about cost but also about the capacity to pe rform content review in a manner that preserves 
China's desired level of protection.486 
258. The United States contends that by stating that, "[i]n China's view, privately-owned 
enterprises cannot be expected to pay fo r performing a public interest function"487, the Panel fully 
captured China's argument.  The United States furthe r argues that the Panel was correct in pointing 
out that non-State-owned publication import entities could be expected to face incentives and respond 
to dissuasive sanctions just as State-owned ente rprises do under the current  Chinese measures.  The 
United States adds that China had offered very limite d information on the cost of content review.  The 
United States also asserts that the Panel did not  misrepresent China's argument concerning the 
requirement for a suitable organization and qualifie d personnel.  The United States argues that the 
Panel's statement that it was not convinced that pr ivately owned enterprises would be unable to attract 
qualified personnel, or that they would be unable to obtain the organizational know-how needed to 
                                                      
483China's appellant's submission, paras. 15-30 and 37.  In response to questioning at the oral hearing in 
this appeal, China clarified that it was not making a claim with respect to the way the Panel applied the 
"necessity" test to the State-ownership requirement.  Instead, China takes issue with the Panel's representation of 
China's arguments in the Panel Report and the Panel's assessment of those arguments .  China stated that the 
alleged misrepresentations led to a failure to  make an objective assessment of the matter. 
484China's appellant's submission, paras. 17-20 (referring in footnotes to Panel Report, para. 7.853;  
China's responses to Panel Questions 46(a), 185, 188(b) , and 195;  China's first written submission to the Panel, 
paras. 153, 196, and 197;  and China's second written submission to the Panel, para. 104). 
485China's appellant's submission, paras. 18-20. 
486China's appellant's submission, paras. 27-29. 
487United States' appellee's submission, para. 14 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.854, in turn referring to 
China's second written submission to the Panel, para. 104). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 114  
 
properly conduct content review, make clear that th e Panel did not limit itself to considering the cost 
of compliance with the requirement of a suitable organization and qualified personnel.
488 
259. At the outset of our analysis, we note that China argued before the Panel that: 
State-owned enterprises are entrusted with the content review because 
China considers that only State-ow ned enterprises should be called on 
to bear the cost of the review, wh ich relates solely to the public 
interest.489 (footnote omitted) 
260. We also note that, in response to a question by  the Panel as to the reasons for permitting only 
wholly State-owned enterprises to import the relevant products, China stated: 
The reason behind this requirement is  that the cost incurred in the 
course of the content review is subs tantial and relates solely to the 
public interest.  The government be lieves that it can only require 
wholly state-owned enterprises, in which the state owns all equity, to bear the burden and it is not in a pos ition to require private investors to 
bear this burden.
490 
261. The Panel reflected this argument as follows: 
China does not contend that publication import entities need to be 
wholly state-owned because they perform a public policy function.  
Rather, China contends that they need to be wholly state-owned 
because content review is costly.  In China's view, privately-owned enterprises cannot be expected to pa y for performing a public interest 
function.
491 (footnote omitted) 
262. In our view, the Panel's statement that "C hina does not contend that publication import 
entities need to be wholly state-owned b ecause they perform a public policy function"492 is somewhat 
imprecise.  While it is true that China did not argue  that the public policy function was the sole reason 
for the State-ownership requirement, China did rely  on the balance reached between the performance 
of a public policy function and the cost associated w ith performing this public policy function.  Thus, 
the public policy function was one of two component s of China's argument as to why publication 
import entities need to be wholly State-owned. 
                                                      
488United States' appellee's submission, para. 24 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.858). 
489China's second written submission to the Panel, para. 104. 
490China's response to Panel Question 46(a).  See also Panel Report, para. 7.853 and footnote 581 
thereto. 
491Panel Report, para. 7.854. 
492Panel Report, para. 7.854. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 115 
 
 
263. Overall, however, we do not see that the Panel failed to consider the public policy component 
of China's argument.  While the Panel's analysis493 focuses on the cost component, this alone does not 
establish that the Panel ignored the public policy co mponent of China's argument.  As we see it, in 
assessing China's argument, the Panel decided to cons ider first whether content review was indeed 
costly, as China asserted.  The Panel requested Chin a to provide an estimate of such costs to import 
entities.  China replied that it was unable to do so.  China explained, however, that the cost of content 
review consists of:  (i) human resources cost;  (ii) cost of equipment, facilities, and premises used for 
content review;  and (iii) losses incurred from co mpensation for customers in case of failure of 
ordered publications to pass content review.494  Having noted that it had been presented with only very 
limited evidence in this regard, the Panel found th at China had not demonstrated that the cost 
associated with content review would be so high that it would be unreasonable to impose it on private 
enterprises495, or that only wholly State-owned enterprises "a re able, or should be expected, to bear the 
cost associated with content review".496  The Panel also observed that "it is not apparent that wholly 
state-owned enterprises would be inherently more car eful in conducting content review than privately 
owned ones."497  Moreover, the two-pronged nature of China's argument is properly reflected in the 
Panel's statement that, "[i]n China's view, privatel y-owned enterprises cannot be expected to pay for 
performing a public interest function."498  This demonstrates that the Panel did not consider the cost 
element of China's argument in isolation, but rath er in relation to the public policy function.  Thus, 
while the Panel could have analyzed the public polic y component of China's argument in more depth, 
we acknowledge that the Panel was constrained by  the fact that only limited evidence had been 
submitted by China in relation to that argument. 
264. China further alleges that the Panel misrepresen ted its argument that only wholly State-owned 
enterprises are capable of satisfying the requirement in Article 42(4) of the Publications Regulation  
that publication import entities must have a suitabl e organization and qualified personnel, by reducing 
China's submission to an argument relating only to cost. 
265. We note that the Panel asked China to expl ain whether the requirement that publication 
import entities have a suitable organization and qualif ied personnel could be met by enterprises other 
than wholly State-owned enterprises.  China responde d that it could not, and stated that "a specific 
organizational structure is required which, for the reasons stated above , can only be met by wholly 
                                                      
493See Panel Report, paras. 7.854-7.856. 
494China's response to Panel Question 185. 
495Panel Report, para. 7.856. 
496Panel Report, para. 7.857. 
497Panel Report, para. 7.854. 
498Panel Report, para. 7.854. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 116  
 
state-owned enterprises."
499  This reference to what was "stated above" seems to relate to China's 
response to the Panel's previous question relating to the State-ownership requirement:  "The reason 
behind this requirement is that the cost incurred in the course of the content re view is substantial and 
relates solely to the public interest."500 
266. The Panel reflected this argument as follows: 
... China advances an additional argument in support of the state 
ownership condition—that only whol ly state-owned enterprises are 
currently capable of satisfying the condition that publication import entities need to have a suitable or ganization and qua lified personnel.  
China appears to suggest that this is because of the cost involved in 
satisfying the condition.
501 (footnote omitted) 
267. It is not clear to us that this statement can be  characterized as a "misrepresentation" of China's 
argument.  China itself responded in a very brief ma nner to the Panel's question, referring simply to 
"the reasons stated above".  China did not argue before the Panel that the public policy function of 
content review was the sole reason or the main reason why only State-owned enterprises could have a 
suitable organization and qualified personnel.  Nor did China explain how, in its view, the policy 
function of content review leads to the conseque nce that only wholly State-owned enterprises would 
be capable of satisfying the requirement that pub lication import entities have a suitable organization 
and qualified personnel.  In any even t, the Panel stated that it was not convinced that enterprises with 
private investment would be unable to attract qualif ied personnel, or that they would be unable to 
obtain the organizational know-how needed  to conduct content review properly.502  This demonstrates 
that the Panel did not reduce China's argument solely  to a cost component, but also considered the 
public policy function of content review. 
268. China further alleges that, by misrepresenting Ch ina's arguments, the Panel failed to make an 
objective assessment of the matter before it as required by Article 11 of the DSU.  We have found above that the Panel did not misrepresent China's argu ments.  However, even if we were to accept that 
the Panel did misrepresent China's arguments, we do not think that this led to a failure by the Panel in 
assessing whether the State-ownership requirement ma de a contribution to the protection of public 
morals in China or that it follows  that China has demonstrated that  the requirement is "necessary" to 
protect public morals in China within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.  China neither 
                                                     
 
499China's response to Panel Question 46(b). (footnote omitted;  emphasis added) 
500China's response to Panel Question 46(a).  In response to questioning at the oral hearing, China did 
not point to other arguments or evidence on record. 
501Panel Report, para. 7.858. 
502Panel Report, para. 7.858. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 117 
 
 
explains why the Panel would have found that the State-ownership requirement is necessary to the 
protection of public morals in China if the Pa nel had properly understood China's arguments, nor 
identifies evidence in the Panel reco rd demonstrating that some amount of private investment in an 
import entity would preclude the hiring of qualif ied personnel or the establishment of a suitable 
organizational structure.  We do not agree that the Panel would have come to the conclusion that the 
State-ownership requirement makes a contribution to th e protection of public morals in China if it had 
considered China's argument in a different way.   China did not establish a connection between the 
exclusive ownership of the State in the equity of an import entity and that entity's contribution to the 
protection of public morals in China. 
269. We therefore find that the Panel did not err, in para graphs 7.860 and 7.863 of the Panel 
Report, in its finding regarding the contribution to the protection of public morals in China made by 
the State-ownership requirement in Article 42(2) of the Publications Regulation  and we reject  China's 
claim that the Panel failed to make an objective assess ment of the matter before  it, in violation of 
Article 11 of the DSU. 
(b) The Exclusion of Foreign-Invested Enterprises 
270. China appeals the Panel's finding that Chin a has not demonstrated that the provisions503 
prohibiting foreign-invested enterprises from engaging in the importation of the products at issue are 
"necessary" to protect public morals in China.504   
271. The Panel found that the effect of Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign 
Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign 
Investment Regulation , is to prohibit any foreign-invested enterprise in China from engaging in the 
importation of books, news papers, periodicals, electronic publi cations, or audiovisual products 
(including sound recordings and films for theatrical release).505  The Panel also found that Article 4 of 
the Several Opinions directs relevant agencies to ensure, through promulgation of appropriate rules, 
that no foreign-invested enterprise in China can la wfully import books, newspa pers, periodicals, films 
for theatrical release, other audiovisual produc ts (including sound recordings), or electronic 
publications.506  Furthermore, the Panel found that the legal effect of Article 21 of the Audiovisual 
                                                      
503Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in 
conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  or  
Article 21 of the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule . 
504Panel Report, para. 7.868. 
505Panel Report, para. 7.348. 
506Panel Report, para. 7.372.  The Panel noted that th e United States' claims in respect of these products 
related only to physical products. ( Ibid., para. 7.371) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 118  
 
(Sub-)Distribution Rule is that Chinese-foreign contractual joint ventures for the sub-distribution of 
audiovisual products do not have, and cannot obta in, the right to import audiovisual products.
507  The 
Panel considered that these provisions excluding  foreign-invested enterprises from engaging in 
importing are intended to reflect the fact that other measures stipulate that only wholly State-owned enterprises are permitted to import the relevant products.
508   
272. China contends that the Panel relied on its finding concerning the State-ownership 
requirement to conclude that the provisions excl uding foreign-invested enterprises from engaging in 
importing do not contribute to the protection of public  morals in China.  China argues that, because 
the Panel's finding concerning the State-owne rship requirement is erroneous, "by necessary 
implication"509, the Panel's finding in respect of the provi sions excluding foreign-invested enterprises 
from importing is also in error. 
273. In addition, China submits that foreign-inv ested enterprises may not have the requisite 
understanding and knowledge of the applicable standa rds of Chinese public morals and would not be 
capable of efficiently communicating with the admini strative authorities, and that the Panel's finding 
on the exclusion of foreign-invested enterprises cont radicts the finding made elsewhere by the Panel  
that requiring qualified review personnel contributes ma terially to the protection of public morals in 
China.510  According to China, the Panel's failure to address certa in arguments relating to the 
contribution of the provisions excluding foreign-invested enterprises to the protection of public morals in China constitutes a failure to make an  objective assessment of the matter before it as 
required by Article 11 of the DSU. 
274. The United States asserts that it is not clear that China presented to the Panel its argument 
concerning the foreign-invested enterprises' a lleged lack of understandi ng and knowledge of the 
applicable standards of public morals.
511  In addition, the United Stat es argues that China's concern 
that enterprises with private investment "may not have"512 certain qualifications does not logically 
lead to the conclusion that these enterprises do not or could not have these qualifications.  Regarding 
China's allegation that the Panel's finding on the excl usion of foreign-invested enterprises contradicts 
                                                      
507Panel Report, para. 7.703.  The Panel expl ained that according to Article 2 of the Audiovisual 
(Sub-)Distribution Rule  the term "audiovisual products" applies to sound recordings and other audiovisual 
products, as it specifically states that the term refers to  audio tapes, video tapes, records, and audio and video 
CDs with audiovisual recorded contents. ( Ibid., para. 7.701) 
508Panel Report, paras. 7.773, 7.776, 7.779, and 7.865. 
509China's appellant's submission, paras. 32 and 33 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.865). 
510China's appellant's submission, para. 36 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.825). 
511United States' appellee's submission, para. 31. 
512United States' appellee's submission, para. 31. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 119 
 
 
the finding made earlier by the Panel, that requiri ng qualified review personne l contributes materially 
to the protection of public morals in China, the Un ited States contends that there is no contradiction 
because China provides no reason to believe that fore ign-invested enterprises would be unable to hire 
qualified personnel. 
275. At the outset, we note that the Panel's finding concerning the exclusion of foreign-invested 
enterprises was based on the same reasoning as its  finding relating to the State-ownership 
requirement.  The Panel referred back to its previous  finding that it was not persuaded that requiring 
publication import entities to be wholly State-owned contributes to the protection of public morals in 
China because they are the only ente rprises in China that are able, or should be expected, to bear the 
cost associated with content review.513  Having considered that the provisions prohibiting foreign-
invested enterprises from engaging in the importati on of the products at issue reflect the same 
prohibition as the State-ownership requirement, "by necessary implication"514, the Panel was also not 
persuaded that the provisions prohibiting foreig n-invested enterprises from being approved or 
designated import entities of the relevant products c ontribute to the protection of public morals in 
China. 
276. We also observe that China's appeal of the Pa nel's finding relating to the provisions excluding 
foreign-invested enterprises from engaging in the importation of the relevant products relies upon the 
same reasons as those advanced by China with r espect to the Panel's finding on the State-ownership 
requirement.  We consider that the exclusion of fo reign-invested enterprises and the requirement that 
import entities be wholly State-owned overlap to a la rge degree, in that both preclude foreign-invested 
enterprises from engaging in importing.515  Because we have found above that the Panel committed no 
error in its finding regarding the contribution to th e protection of public morals in China made by the 
State-ownership requirement, we also reject, for th e same reasons, China's claim that the Panel erred 
in finding that China has not demonstrated that th e provisions contribute to the protection of public 
morals in China.516 
                                                      
513Panel Report, para. 7.865.  The finding that the Pa nel refers to is contained in paragraphs 7.860 
and 7.863 of the Panel Report. 
514Panel Report, para. 7.865. 
515The State-ownership requirement al so excludes Chinese-owned enterpri ses that are not wholly State-
owned from engaging in importing. 
516Panel Report, paras. 7.865 and 7.868. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 120  
 
277. We now turn to China's allegation that the Pane l failed to make an objective assessment of the 
matter before it as required by Article 11 of the DSU because it failed to address China's argument 
that professionals performing content review must be familiar with Chinese values and public morals, 
and capable of efficiently communicating with an d understanding the authorities.  We note that 
China's argument is reflected in the Panel's summary of China's arguments
517, as well as in the Panel's 
analysis of the "necessity" of the State-ow nership requirement.  As explained above518, in analyzing 
China's defence of the State-ownership requirement, the Panel was not convinced that enterprises with 
private investment would be unable to attract qua lified personnel or unable to obtain the expertise 
needed to conduct content review properly.  In  our view, such reasoning—with which we agree—
applies equally to the arguments made by China in defence of its provisions excluding foreign-invested enterprises from engaging in importation.  Th e mere fact that an entity involves some foreign 
investment does not necessarily imply that content review would be carried out by professionals who 
are not familiar with Chinese values and public mo rals, or incapable of efficiently communicating 
with and understanding the authorities.  In fact, tho se carrying out these functions could be the same 
individuals, with the same qualifications and capabiliti es, irrespective of the ownership of the equity 
of the import entity.  Thus, China did not establish th at the exclusion of foreign-invested enterprises 
from engaging in the importation of the relevant  products contributes to the protection of public 
morals in China.  We see no indication that the Pa nel did not reasonably consider China's claim or 
otherwise failed to make an objective assessment of the matter.   
278. We therefore find that the Panel did not err, in para graphs 7.865 and 7.868 of the Panel 
Report, in its finding regarding the contribution made by the provisions excluding foreign-invested enterprises from engaging in the importa tion of the relevant products and we reject  China's claim that 
the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter before it in violation of Article 11 of 
the DSU. 
(c) The State Plan Requirement 
279. The United States requests the Appellate Body to re verse, or to "declare moot and of no legal 
effect"
519 the Panel's intermediate finding regardin g the "necessity" within the meaning of 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 of the requirement of conformity with China's State plan for the total number, structure, and distribution of publi cation import entities contained in Article 42 of the 
Publications Regulation  (the "State plan requirement").  The Panel found that this requirement can 
                                                     
 
517Panel Report, para. 7.801. 
518Supra , para. 267. 
519United States' other appellant's submission, para. 43. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 121 
 
 
make a material contribution to the protection of public morals.520  Weighing this contribution 
together with the other relevant factors, the Panel took account: 
… first of all, of the fact that the protection of public morals is a highly 
important governmental interest and that China has adopted a high 
level of protection of public morals within its territory.  We must take 
account, in addition, of the fact that the requirement of conformity with the State plan is apt to make a material contribution to the protection of public morals;  that it is unclear to what extent, if any, it limits overall imports of relevant products, but that it is nonetheless 
likely to minimize unnecessary delays in importing;  and that it does 
not a priori  exclude particular types of enterprise in China from 
establishing an import entity.  Weighing these factors, we conclude that, in the absence of reasonably ava ilable alternatives, the State plan 
requirement in Article 42 of the Publications Regulation  can be 
characterized as "necessary" to protect public morals in China.
521 
280. In a subsequent part of its analysis, the Pane l found that the United States had proposed an 
alternative measure that would have a significantly less restrictive impact, would make an equivalent 
or better contribution to the objective of protecting public morals in China522, and was reasonably 
available to China.523  We address China's appeal of this finding of the Panel in subsection B.3 below.  
Overall, the Panel found that China had not succeeded  in justifying the State plan requirement under 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.524   
281. Article 42 of the Publications Regulation sets out eight requirements for the approval of 
publication import entities.  The last of these is th at publication import entities may only be approved 
if they are in conformity with the State plan for the number, structure, and geographical coverage of publication import entities.
525   
                                                      
520The Panel found: 
[S]ince in the case of the Publications Regulation  the publication import 
entities are responsible for content review, we can see that limiting the 
number of import entities can make a material contribution.  It would appear 
that with a limited number of publication import entities, it is easier for the GAPP to interact with these entities with a view to ensuring, and enhancing, 
the consistency of the review work of these entities.  Similarly, a limited 
number of entities allows the GAPP to devote more time to conduct careful 
ex post controls of compliance with ap plicable content review requirements, 
e.g., through the annual inspections. 
(Panel Report, para. 7.832) 
521Panel Report, para. 7.836. 
522Panel Report, para. 7.899. 
523Panel Report, para. 7.908. 
524Panel Report, para. 7.911. 
525Article 42 of the Publications Regulation  is reproduced in Annex III to this Report. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 122  
 
282. China did not provide the State plan or specific in formation about its content to the Panel.  In 
response to a request by the Panel to provide the "Sta te's plans", China stated that "[t]he plans concern 
the quantity, geographical and pro duct coverage of publication import entities.  However, such plans 
are not available in written form."
526  China did, however, refer to the "State's plans" as prescribing 
development consistent with the selection of a limited number of import entities with extensive 
geographic coverage.527  China explained to the Panel that the requirement to have a small number of 
companies with extensive geographic coverage en sures that import entities, through branches, have 
premises in a large number of customs areas, so  that no entry gate into the Chinese market is 
overlooked.  In the same section of its first wr itten submission—although w ithout referring explicitly 
to the State plan—China explained that, "for the content review to be efficient and smooth"528, it is 
necessary that only a limited number of entities be au thorized to engage in the importation of the 
relevant products.  China further asserted that limiting the number of importation entities "enables the 
administrative authorities to have efficient control over whether those entities comply with the rules 
and procedures on inappropriate content."529   
283. The Panel understood China to contend that the St ate plan requirement is designed to ensure, 
first, that only a limited number of import entities are approved, and, secondly, that each approved 
import entity has an extensive geographical presence, through branches, in a large number of customs 
areas.530  The Panel found that limiting the number of import entities can make a material contribution 
to the protection of public morals in China.  The Panel based this finding on two considerations:  (i) a 
limitation on the number of publication import entities would make it easier for the GAPP to interact 
with these entities and to ensure the consistency of their content review;  and (ii) a limitation on the 
number of import entities would allow the GAPP to devote more time to conduct annual inspections 
of compliance with the content review requirements.531  Although the Panel was not persuaded that, in 
itself, a wide geographical distribution of the branches of import entities makes a significant 
contribution to the protection of pub lic morals, the Panel noted that there appeared to be a close link 
between the desired wide geographical distribution of the branches and the desired limitation on the 
number of import entities, and viewed both elements as "forming a single whole".532 
                                                      
526China's response to Panel Question 44. 
527China's first written submission  to the Panel, para. 214. 
528China's first written submission  to the Panel, para. 216. 
529China's first written submission  to the Panel, para. 218. 
530Panel Report, para. 7.831. 
531Panel Report, para. 7.832.  See also supra , footnote 520. 
532Panel Report, para. 7.833. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 123 
 
 
284. In its other appeal, the United States contends th at the Panel erred in reaching an intermediate 
finding that the State plan requirement makes a material contribution to the protection of public 
morals in China.  Referring to the Appellate Body reports in US – Gambling  and Korea – Various 
Measures on Beef , the United States maintains that the State plan requirement is not significantly 
closer to the pole of "indispensable" than to the opposite pole of "simply making a contribution".533   
285. The United States alleges that, because China di d not submit the State plan, nor provide any 
information about the content of the plan, the Panel did not actually examine the State plan.  Thus, the 
Panel could not have known what China meant wh en it asserted that there was a "limited number"534 
of publication import entities.  In addition, the United States submits that the requirement that 
publication import entities have branches in a larg e number of customs areas undermines the alleged 
benefits that the Panel presumed to flow from an y limit the State plan may place on the number of 
import entities.  Furthermore, the United States takes issue with the Panel's assumption that a 
limitation on the number of publication import entities would allow the GAPP to devote more time to conduct its annual inspections of the entities' comp liance with content review requirements, in 
particular because China's failure to provide information regarding the nature of the GAPP's annual 
inspections makes it impossible to assess what add itional burden would be caused by an increase in 
the number of import entities.   
286. The United States claims, in the alternative, that , if the Appellate Body were to find that the 
Panel's analysis concerning the State plan requi rement does not constitute a "misinterpretation and 
misapplication" of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, then the Panel's disregard of significant facts 
relating to this requirement, including the fact that it did not know the content of the State plan, constitutes an error in the appreciation of the eviden ce.  This, asserts the United States, is because the 
Panel made a finding that has no evidentiary basis in  the record, and is therefore inconsistent with 
Article 11 of the DSU. 
287. China requests the Appellate Body to dismiss the United States' other appeal and to uphold 
the Panel's intermediate finding that the State plan requirement is apt to make a material contribution 
to the protection of public morals in China.  Ch ina disputes the United Stat es' contention that China 
failed to put forward evidence about the operation of the State plan requirement.  China contends that 
it explained to the Panel that the State plan is not  available in written form, and that the plan is 
concerned with the quantity, geographical and pro duct coverage of publication import entities.  China 
                                                     
 
533United States' other appellant's submission, paras. 28 and 29 (referring to Panel Report, para 7.785;  
Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 310;  and Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on 
Beef, para. 161). 
534United States' other appellant's submission, para. 34. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 124  
 
maintains that this response, toge ther with "circumstantial evidence"
535 contained in several exhibits 
submitted to the Panel, provided a sufficient basi s for the Panel's finding that the State plan 
requirement makes a material contribution to the prot ection of public morals in  China.  In addition, 
China submits that the Panel correctly inferred th at imposing a limit on the number of publication 
import entities allows the GAPP to devote more time to conduct its annual inspections of such entities' 
compliance with content review requirements.536 
288. We recall that, in US – Gambling , the Appellate Body stated that a panel must independently 
and objectively assess the "necessity" of the measure be fore it, based on the ev idence in the record.537  
The Appellate Body also affirmed that it is for the responding party to make a  prima facie case that 
its measure is "necessary" by putting forward eviden ce and arguments that enable the panel to assess 
the challenged measure in the light of the re levant factors to be "weighed and balanced".538   
289. In the present case, the burden of demonstrating that its measures are "necessary" to protect 
public morals within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 resided with China.  In order to 
meet this burden, China was required to presen t arguments and adduce evidence relating to the 
contribution of the State plan requirement to the pr otection of public morals in China, thus enabling 
the Panel to determine the "necessity" of that requirement. 
290. Before turning to the substance of the Unite d States' other appeal, we wish to address a 
preliminary matter.  The Panel stated at the outset of  its analysis that it would "consider whether [the 
State plan requirement] makes a contribution  to the realization of ... the protection of public morals in 
China".539  This language suggests that the Panel intended to assess the actual  contribution of the 
State plan requirement to the protection of public mora ls in China.  The Panel then stated that it could 
"see that limiting the number of import entities can make a material contribution ".540  Finally, in its 
conclusion, the Panel stated that "the require ment of conformity with the State plan is apt to make a 
material contribution  to the protection of public morals".541  This statement does not appear to relate 
to the actual  contribution of the State plan requirement to the protection of public morals in China.  In 
fact, the language used at the outset of, and during, its analysis does not match the language in the Panel's conclusion that the State plan is "apt to make a material contribution to the protection of 
                                                     
 
535China's appellee's submission, footnote 12 to para. 15 (referring to Panel Exhibit US-13, supra , 
footnote 172;  Panel Exhibit CN-26, supra , footnote 141;  and Panel Exhibits CN-33 through CN-37, supra , 
footnote  172). 
536China's appellee's submission, para. 30 (referring to Panel Exhibit CN-22, supra , footnote 140). 
537Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 304. 
538Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 310. 
539Panel Report, para. 7.830. (emphasis added) 
540Panel Report, para. 7.832. (emphasis added) 
541Panel Report, para. 7.836. (emphasis added) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 125 
 
 
public morals in China".  It is, therefore, unclear  to us whether the Panel was assessing the actual 
contribution of the State plan requirement to the prot ection of public morals in China, or the extent to 
which the requirement was apt to make such a contribution. 
291. We understand the Panel to have reached its finding regarding the contribution to the 
protection of public morals made by the State plan requirement on the basis of an assumption that the State plan requirement imposed a limitation on the number of import entities and on the basis of two 
inferences it drew from this assumption, namely:  (i ) that a limitation on the number of publication 
import entities would make it easier for the GAPP to  interact with these entities and to ensure 
consistency of the review work;  and (ii) that  a limitation on the number of import entities would 
allow the GAPP to devote more time to conduct a nnual inspections of compliance with the content 
review requirements.
542 
292. We note that the Panel did not cite any eviden ce in support of its assumption that the State 
plan requirement imposed a limitation on the number of import entities.  We also note that the Panel did not explain why the contribution made by the presumed limitation in the State plan requirement would be a "material" one.  We further note that, wh ile China asserted before the Panel that the State 
plan requirement constitutes a limitation on the number of import entities, China did not point the 
Panel to evidence supporting that assertion or eviden ce providing information about the operation of 
the State plan, or the nature of the limitation contained in the State plan. 
293. In its appellee's submission, China maintains th at the State plan requirement "does [not] set 
any quantitative threshold to the number of ... enterprises which can be approved."
543  Yet elsewhere 
in its appellee's submission, China contends that the State plan contributes to limiting the number of 
approved import entities.544  China points to certain exhibits contained in the Panel record that, 
according to China, support the Pa nel's finding that the State plan requirement is apt to make a 
material contribution to the protection of public morals  in China.  China points to an exhibit that was 
submitted by the United States to the Panel containing a newspaper article.  China submits that this 
article makes reference to the number of entiti es authorized to engage in the importation of 
publications.545  This newspaper article states that, in January 2008, there were 42 approved 
publications import entities in China.  However, the newspaper article does not explicitly refer to the 
                                                      
542Panel Report, para. 7.832. 
543China's appellee's submission, para. 34. 
544China's appellee's submission, footnote 12 to para. 15.  In response to questioning at the oral hearing 
in this appeal, China explained that the State plan does not contain a fixed number for publication import 
entities, but rather a statement dealing with the number of publication import entities in a flexible manner.   
545China's appellee's submission, footnote 12 to para. 15 (referring to Exhibit US-13, supra , 
footnote 172).  The United States refers to the same number of approved publication import entities in 
paragraph 10 of its other appellant's submission. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 126  
 
State plan.  It does not establish th e existence of the State plan, nor does it provide information about 
any restrictions or limitations provided for in such  a plan.  Moreover, this article does not indicate 
whether the number of entities approved corresponds to  the number of entities foreseen in the State 
plan.  China also points to a number of exhibits consisting of statistical reports published by the 
GAPP showing the general categories of publications  and audiovisual products that are imported each 
year.
546  While these exhibits provide some information about past trade flows, they do not provide 
information about the content of the State plan  or any limitation on the number of import entities 
contained therein.  Furthermore, China makes re ference to the 2006 annual report of the CNPIEC.547  
According to China, this report demonstrates that the State plan, although contributing to limiting the 
number of approved import entities, does not result in limiting growth in the number of imported publications.  Again, however, this report contains  no information on the limitation of the number of 
import entities set out in the State plan.  Furthermor e, we do not see that th e evidence referred to by 
China contains any information about the geographical or product coverage of the State plan.    
294. In reaching its finding regarding the contribution made by the State plan requirement to the 
protection of public morals in China, the Panel simply stated that limiting the number of import 
entities "can make a material contribution"
548 to the protection of public morals in China.  Yet, the 
Panel neither addressed quantitative projections nor  provided qualitative reasoning based on evidence 
before it to support that finding.  The Panel Report contains no discussion of how or to what extent 
the State plan requirement can or does make a cont ribution.  For these reasons, we disagree with the 
Panel's finding that China had met its burden of pr oof regarding the contribution of the State plan 
requirement to the protection of public morals in China.   
295. We nonetheless address China's additional argument that the Panel correctly inferred that the 
assumed limitation on the number of publication import entities would allow the GAPP to devote more time to conduct its annual inspections of the entities' compliance with the content review 
requirements.  China asserts that, contrary to what the United States alleges, it did provide evidence in 
support of this argument.
549 
296. In our view, the evidence in the Panel record do es not establish that any State plan contains a 
limitation on the number of publication import entiti es, or that any such limitation would allow the 
GAPP to devote more time to c onduct its annual inspections of the entities' compliance with content 
                                                      
546China's appellee's submission, footnote 12 to para. 15 (referring to Panel Exhibits CN-33 through 
CN-37, supra , footnote 172). 
547China's appellee's submission, footnote 12 to para. 15 (referring to Panel Exhibit CN-26, supra , 
footnote 141). 
548Panel Report, para. 7.832. 
549China's appellee's submission, para. 30 (referring to Panel Exhibit CN-22, supra , footnote 140). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 127 
 
 
review requirements.  The Panel exhibit that  China relies upon as supporting the latter argument550 
does not explain the scope of annual inspections carri ed out by the GAPP, or specify the parameters 
of the verification carried out by the GAPP.  Rath er, it simply stipulates what kind of documentation 
an import entity must submit to the authorities in the context of the annual inspection of compliance 
with the content review requirements.551  In any event, because we have found that the Panel wrongly 
assumed that the State plan requirement imposes a limitation on the number of import entities, the 
inferences that the Panel drew from this assumption have no basis. 
297. For all these reasons, we find that the Panel erred, in paragr aph 7.836 of the Panel Report, in 
finding that the State plan requirement in Article 42 of the Publications Regulation  is apt to make a 
material contribution to the protection of public morals and that, in the absence of a reasonably 
available alternative, it can be characterized as "necessary" to protect public morals in China. 
298. The United States claims in the alternative that, if the Appellate Body finds that the Panel's 
analysis concerning the State plan requirement does not constitute a misinterpretation and misapplication of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, th en the Panel's disregard of significant facts 
relating to this requirement, including the fact that it did not know the content of the State plan, 
constitutes an error in the appreciation of the ev idence because the Panel made a finding that has no 
evidentiary basis in the record, and is theref ore inconsistent with Article 11 of the DSU. 
299. We have found that the Panel erred in finding that  the State plan requirement is apt to make a 
material contribution to the protection of public morals in China and can be characterized as 
"necessary", in the absence of reasonably available alte rnatives, to protect public morals in China.  
Consequently, the condition upon which the United St ates' alternative claim under Article 11 of the 
DSU rests is not fulfilled and we do not address this claim. 
3. The Restrictive Effect of the Measures
 
300. As part of the "weighing and balancing" test for assessing whether the measures at issue are 
"necessary" to the protection of public morals in China,  the Panel analyzed the restrictive effect of the 
measures on international trade.  The Panel found it "appropriate", in this case, "to consider two 
different types of restrictive impact".552  More specifically, the Panel explained that: 
                                                      
550Paragraph IV of the Notice on Approving and Issuing License for Importing Publications and 
Carrying Out Annual Inspection System (Panel Exhibit CN-22, supra , footnote 140). 
551We note that paragraph V.2 of this Notice stipul ates that the GAPP will undertake an "examination 
and verification" on the basis of the material described in paragraph IV.  The Notice, however, does not set out 
any criteria for that exam ination and verification. 
552Panel Report, para. 7.788. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 128  
 
... we think that in the case before us, an additional factor should be taken into account.  Specifically, we think that we should weigh not only the restrictive impact the measures at issue have on imports of relevant products, but also the restrictive effect they have on those wishing to engage in importing, in particular on their right to trade.  
In our view, if Article XX is assumed to be a direct defence for 
measures in breach of trading rights commitments, it makes sense to consider how much these measures restrict the right to import.
553   
In its subsequent analysis, the Panel assessed for ea ch of the relevant provisions both the restrictive 
effect of the provisions on imports and the restric tive effect of the provisions on "those wishing to 
engage in importing".554  The Panel noted that evidence subm itted by China showed that the number 
of titles of newspapers and pub lications imported into China had increased from 2002 to 2006.  
However, the Panel found that this increase did not necessarily indicate that China's measures had not 
had any trade-restrictive effects, because the statis tics did not indicate what import levels might have 
been if the measures had not been imposed.555 
301. On appeal, China alleges that the Panel erred in including an assessment of the effect on those 
wishing to engage in importing in its assessment of the restrictive effect of the measures at issue.  
China contends that, in so doing, the Pane l placed an "unsustainable burden of proof"556 on China.  
Moreover, China alleges that the Panel's reasoning is circular because it relied on the restrictive effect 
of the measures both in finding that the measures at issue constitute a violation of China's obligation 
to grant the right to trade under paragraph 5.1 of Ch ina's Accession Protocol and in finding that the 
measures are not "necessary" within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.   
China contends that the Panel mistakenly adopted an approach similar to that of the panel in  
US – Gasoline .557  This approach, according to Chin a, leads to the "absurd situation"558 that the 
challenged measures can never be justified, becau se the reasons why the measures were found to be 
inconsistent with paragraph 5.1 of China's Accessi on Protocol are the same as the reasons given for 
why they are not "necessary" in the context of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994. 
                                                      
553Panel Report, para. 7.788. 
554See Panel Report, paras. 7.826 and 7.827, for the suitable organization and qualified personnel 
requirement;  paras. 7.834 and 7.835, for the State plan requirement;  paras. 7.845-7.847, for Article 41 of the 
Publications Regulation , Article 27 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation , and Article 8 of the 
Audiovisual Products Importation Rule ;  paras.  7.861 and 7.862, for the State-ownership requirement;  and 
paras. 7.866 and 7.867, for the provisions excluding foreign-invested enterprises from engaging in the importation of the relevant products. 
555See Panel Report, paras. 7.826, 7.834, 7.846, 7.861, and 7.866. 
556China's appellant's submission, para. 39. 
557China's appellant's submission, para. 44 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline , p. 16, 
DSR 1996:I, 3, at 15).  
558China's appellant's submission, para. 43. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 129 
 
 
302. The United States contends that the Panel did not err in taking into account the restrictive 
effect on those wishing to engage in  importing but was simply "adapting"559 the weighing and 
balancing approach taken by the Appellate Body in US – Gambling  and Brazil – Retreaded Tyres  to 
the particular situation it confronted in this dispute.  For the United States, it was "logical"560 for the 
Panel to consider the restrictive effect of the measures not only on imports but also on enterprises 
because, in the present case, the Panel was, on an arguendo  basis, applying Article XX(a) to a 
situation where the Panel had found an inconsistenc y with respect to China's obligations concerning 
the treatment of enterprises, rather than an incons istency regarding China's obligations concerning the 
treatment of goods. 
303. At the outset of our analysis, we recall that the assessment of the restrictive effect of a 
measure on international trade is part of the "weighing and balancing" approach for assessing 
"necessity"—including within the meaning of Ar ticle XX(a) of the GATT 1994—employed by WTO 
panels and the Appellate Body.561  The text of Article XX(a), however, refers only to measures 
"necessary to protect public morals".  It does not, therefore, provide explicit guidance on the question of whether, in assessing "necessity", a panel may take  into account only the restrictive effect the 
measures have on imports of releva nt products, or whether a panel may also consider the restrictive 
effect of the measures on importers or potential importers.  The text of Article XX(a) does not 
specifically refer to "imports" or "importers" or, in different terms, "products" or "traders".  However, 
the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994 refers in a somewhat different context to "restrictions 
on international trade ". 
304. In Korea – Various Measures on Beef , the Appellate Body referred to the preamble of the 
GATT 1994 and stated that the extent to which a measure produces restrictive effects "on international commerce" should be taken into account in assessing "necessity".
562  In the same way as 
the preamble of the GATT 1994 includes the objectiv es of reducing barriers to trade and eliminating 
discriminatory treatment in international commerce563, paragraph 84(b) of China's Accession Working 
Party Report, concerning the grant of trading rights to "foreign enterprises a nd individuals", includes a 
commitment that "any requirements for obtaining trading rights … would not constitute a barrier to 
trade".   
                                                      
559United States' appellee's submission, para. 41. 
560United States' appellee's submission, para. 42. 
561See supra , subsection VI.B. 
562Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef ,  para. 163 and footnote 105 thereto. 
563Preamble to the GATT 1994, third recital. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 130  
 
305. The Appellate Body's "necessity" analysis in Korea – Various Measures on Beef  was 
undertaken in respect of a measure inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  This provision 
requires that no less favourable treatment be accorded  not only in respect of laws, regulations and 
requirements directly regulating like products, but also  in relation to measures affecting their internal 
sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribu tion or use.  This suggests that effects on those 
who sell, purchase, transport, distribute, or  use the products are not beyond scrutiny under 
Article III:4.
564  This is also consistent with the purpose of Article III:4, which seeks to preserve 
equality of competitive opportunities for imported pr oducts as compared to like domestic products.565  
Such competitive opportunities can be affected in a variety of ways, not only by measures directly 
regulating products and restricting imports.   
306. In our view, therefore, while in principle a panel must assess the restrictive effect of a 
measure on international commerce, this test must be  applied in the light of the specific obligation of 
the covered agreements that the respective measure in fringes.  The assessment of the restrictive effect 
to be taken into account in a particular dis pute may, in appropriate cases, extend beyond an 
assessment of the restrictive effect on imported product s, as this assessment must be undertaken in the 
light of the measure at issue, the specific oblig ation of the covered agreements that the measure 
infringes, and the defence being invoked. 
307. In the present case, the Panel found China' s measures to be inconsistent with, inter alia , 
China's obligation in paragraph 5.1 of its Accessi on Protocol to grant the right to trade to all 
enterprises with respect to goods.  This obligatio n is not only concerned with the question of what  can 
be traded, but more directly with the question of who is entitled to engage in trading.  In view of, on 
the one hand, China's measures, which impose a restriction on who can engage in importing the 
relevant products, and, on the other hand, the nature of the specific obligation in paragraph 5.1, which 
stipulates who China must permit to engage in importing, we see no error in the Panel's tailoring its 
assessment of the restrictive effect of the provisi ons of China's measures to take into account the 
restrictive effect on beneficiaries of the right to trade.  Indeed, this approach seems all the more 
appropriate in the light of our finding above that, by  virtue of the introductory clause of paragraph 5.1 
of China's Accession Protocol, China may, in th is case, invoke Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 to 
justify the provisions found to be inconsistent w ith its trading rights commitments under its Accession 
Protocol and Working Party Report. 
                                                      
564According to Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, "all matters referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of 
Article III" are also subject to the re quirement that any advantag e, favour, privilege, or immunity be accorded to 
the like product.  This also suggests a broad coverage and consideration of trade effects. 
565Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef , paras. 135 and 136.  See also Appellate 
Body Report, Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II , p. 16, DSR 1996:I, 97, at 109-110. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 131 
 
 
308. We turn next to China's allegation that the Pa nel committed a "logical error" in finding that 
the provisions of its measures are not "necessary" for essentially the same reasons as the ones for 
which the Panel found those provisions to be in violation of China's trading rights commitments.  
China suggests that the restrictive effect of a meas ure could be relevant to a panel's analysis of 
whether a measure is consistent with an obligation,  or its analysis of whether that measure can be 
justified under an exception, but that it could not be  relevant for both questions.  We disagree.  The 
fact that the restrictive effect of a measure is rele vant in one context does not preclude that it may also 
be relevant in the other.  In analyzing whether the provisions of China's measures are inconsistent 
with Article 5.1 of China's Acce ssion Protocol, the Panel assessed whether  the provisions restrict the 
enterprises that may engage in importing.  Thereafte r, in analyzing whether the provisions could be 
justified as "necessary" under Article XX (a) of the GATT 1994, the Panel assessed to what extent  the 
provisions restrict those wishing to engage in importing, as well as how the restrictive effect comports 
with the degree of contribution to the achievement of the objective, and the societal importance and 
value of the legitimate objective concerned.566  The restrictive effect of the provision was relevant to 
each of these distinct analytical inquiries.  Theref ore, we do not believe that the Panel's approach 
constitutes circular reasoning.  On the contrary, it is the result of a proper sequential analysis.567 
309. We also do not consider that, as China alleges,  the Panel committed a mistake similar to that 
of the panel in US – Gasoline .568  In that case, the panel assessed the United States' Article XX(g) 
defence to a finding of violation of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body faulted the 
panel for having assessed whether the less favourable treatment of imported products  was related to 
the conservation of natural resources, rather than whether the measure at issue  was related to the 
conservation of natural resources.  In the present case, the Panel did examine whether the Chinese 
measures at issue  were necessary to protect public morals, and, for each relevant provision or 
                                                      
566We note that in analyzing a defe nce of a measure found to be in consistent with the GATT 1994, a 
panel may also have to assess the consistency of the measure with the chapeau of Article XX, which would 
require the panel to analyze whether the measure is applied in a manner that constitutes "a disguised restriction  
on international trade" or "arbitrary or un justifiable discrimination". (emphasis added) 
567The approach of the panel in US – Gambling also illustrates this logical sequence.  The panel 
assessed restrictions on market access in its analysis  of Articles XVI:2(a) and XVI:2(c) of the GATS.  
Subsequently, in its analysis of necessity in the cont ext of Article XIV of the GATS, the panel assessed the 
restrictive effect of the measures at issue in that di spute and agreed with Antigua and Barbuda that the United 
States' measures had the effect of a "total prohibition, which is the most trade-restrictive approach possible." 
(Panel Report, US – Gambling , para. 6.495) 
568Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline , p. 16, DSR 1996:I, 3, at 15. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 132  
 
requirement, assessed its restrictive effect on imports and on potential importers.
569  In our view, this 
demonstrates that the Panel correctly assessed the restric tive effect of the specific measures at issue.   
310. Furthermore, the Panel did not, as China alleg es, place an "unsustainable burden of proof"570 
on China merely by deciding to take account of the restrictive effect of the measures at issue on those 
wishing to engage in importing.  The less restrictive the effects of the measure, the more likely it is to 
be characterized as "necessary".571  Consequently, if a Member chooses to adopt a very restrictive 
measure, it will have to ensure that the measure is car efully designed so that the other elements to be 
taken into account in weighing and balancing the factors relevant to an assessment of the "necessity" 
of the measure will "outweigh" such restrictive effect.  In the present case, the Panel identified 
differences in the restrictive effect on potential impo rters of the different measures at issue in this 
dispute.  The Panel found that the State-ownershi p requirement and the provisions excluding foreign-
invested enterprises from engaging in the importation of  the relevant products are the most restrictive 
provisions, because they a priori exclude certain enterprises from the right to engage in importing the 
relevant products.572  However, the Panel found a lesser restrictive effect in China's State plan 
requirement and in the suitable organization and pe rsonnel requirement.  With respect to both, the 
Panel found that the requirements did not a priori exclude particular enterprises in China from the 
right to engage in importing.573  In addition, the Panel characteri zed both of these latter requirements 
as "necessary", in the absence of a reasonably available alternative, to protect public morals in China.  
This demonstrates, in our view, that the Panel's assessment of the restrictive effect of China's 
measures did not impose an "unsustainable" burden on China.  Instead the Panel's analysis shows that 
the burden was surmountable. 
311. For all these reasons, we find that the Panel did not err574 in taking into account the restrictive 
effect that the relevant provisions and requirement s have on those wishing to engage in importing as 
part of its assessment of the restrictive effect of the measures found to be in consistent with China's 
trading rights commitments. 
                                                      
569The Panel assessed the restrictive effect of the requirement that import entities have a suitable 
organization and qualified personnel (Panel Report, paras. 7.826 and 7.827);  it considered the restrictive effect 
of the requirement that import entities conform to China's State plan (para. 7.835);  it examined the restrictive 
effects of "the designation requirements" contained in Article 41 of the Publications Regulation , Article 27 of 
the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation , and Article 8 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule  (see 
paras. 7.845-7.847);  and it evaluated the restrictiv e effects of the State-ownership requirement and the 
exclusions relating to foreign-invested enterprises (paras. 7.861, 7.862, 7.866, and 7.867, respectively). 
570China's appellant's submission, para. 39. 
571Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef , para. 163.  See also Appellate Body 
Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , para. 150. 
572Panel Report, paras. 7.862 and 7.867. 
573Panel Report, paras. 7.827 and 7.835. 
574In paragraphs 7.826, 7.827, 7.834, 7.835, 7.846, 7.847, 7.861, 7.862, 7.866, and 7.867 of the Panel 
Report.  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 133 
 
 
4. Reasonably Available Alternative Measure  
312. We turn next to China's appeal with respect to the Panel's analys is of whether a less restrictive 
measure is reasonably available to China as an alternative means of re alizing its objective of 
protecting public morals.  To recall, the Panel fo und that the suitable organization and qualified 
personnel requirement and the State plan requirement  are "necessary" to protect public morals in 
China, in the absence of reas onably available alternatives.575  In order to reach a final determination as 
to whether or not China had demonstrated the "n ecessity" of these two requirements, the Panel turned 
to consider alternative measures propo sed by the United States and, in particular, the proposal that the 
Chinese Government be given sole responsibilit y for conducting content review.  The Panel 
considered that this proposal is an alternative th at would be significantly less restrictive and would 
make a contribution to the protection of public morals  in China that is at least equivalent to the 
contribution made by the suitable organization and qualified personnel requirement and the State plan 
requirement.576  The Panel then examined whether the propo sed alternative is reasonably available to 
China and concluded that China had not demonstr ated that this alternative is not "reasonably 
available".577  
313. China appeals this finding and submits that  the proposed alterna tive—that the Chinese 
Government be given sole responsibility fo r conducting content review—is not "reasonably 
available", because it is merely theoretical in na ture and would impose an undue and excessive burden 
on China.  China alleges that the Panel erred in law and failed to pr operly address arguments it 
presented for purposes of demonstrating that the pro posed alternative is not "reasonably available". 
314. The United States contends that China failed to  submit evidence in support of its position that 
adopting the United States' proposal would impose an undue burden on China.  Instead, the evidence 
before the Panel established that the Chinese Govern ment does have the capacity  to carry out content 
review, because Chinese authorities already carry out content review of films imported for theatrical 
release, electronic publications, and audiovisual products. 
315. In its analysis of reasonably available alterna tives, the Panel indicated that it would examine 
whether at least one of the alternatives propo sed by the United States "constitutes a genuine 
alternative and is reasonably available, taking in to account the interest being pursued and China's 
desired level of protection".578  The Panel chose to focus on the United States' proposal that the 
Chinese Government be given sole responsibility fo r conducting content revi ew of all relevant 
                                                      
575Panel Report, paras. 7.828 and 7.836. 
576Panel Report, para. 7.898. 
577Panel Report, para. 7.908;  see also paras. 7.911 and 8.2(a)(i). 
578Panel Report, para. 7.886. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 134  
 
products imported into China.
579  Under this proposed alternative, there would be no restriction on 
who could import the relevant products , and import entities would have no role in the content review 
process.  Rather, the Chinese Government would c onduct content review and take a final decision 
before any imported products could clear customs.580   
316. In the first part of its analysis of this pr oposed alternative measure, the Panel assessed the 
contribution the alternative measure would make to the protection of public morals, and its restrictive 
impact, and then compared these to the Panel's previ ous analysis of those same factors with respect to 
the suitable organization and qualif ied personnel requirement and the State plan requirement.  The 
Panel found that:  
... implementing the [United States'] proposal would make a 
contribution that is at least equiva lent to that of the relevant two 
[requirements].  At the same ti me, the [United States'] proposal 
would have a significantly less restrictive impact on importers—in fact, it would have no such impact—without there being any 
indication that it would necessarily have a more restrictive impact on 
imports of relevant products than [these requirements].
581 
317. In the second part of its analysis, the Panel considered whether the United States' proposal 
was an alternative that is "reasonably available" to  China and found that China had not demonstrated 
that the alternative proposed by the United States would impose an undue burden on China.582  
China's appeal focuses on th is finding by the Panel. 
318. Before examining China's appeal, we set out pe rtinent interpretations from previous Appellate 
Body reports concerning the question of what constitu tes a "reasonably available alternative", as well 
as the appropriate allocation of the burden of proof in relation to such alternatives.  In Korea – 
Various Measures on Beef  and EC – Asbestos , the Appellate Body clarified that, as part of an overall 
evaluation of "necessity" using the "weighing and balancing" process,  a panel must examine whether 
the responding party could reasonably be expected to  employ an alternative measure, consistent (or 
less inconsistent) with the covered agreements, that would achieve the objectives pursued by the 
measure at issue.  An alternative measure may be  found not to be "reasonably available" where it is 
                                                      
579As further alternatives, the United States proposed that a foreign-invested enterprise could develop 
the expertise to conduct content review for a particular type of product.  The foreign-invested enterprise could 
complete the review and then import the publication into  China, or it could perform the content review either 
while importation is underway and/or once the importation was complete, but before the good is released into 
commerce in China.  Alternatively, the foreign-invested  enterprise importing the good into China could hire 
specialized domestic entities with the ap propriate expertise to conduct the content review process before, during, 
or after importation. (See Panel Report, paras. 7.873 and 7.874.  See also United States' oral statement at the 
first Panel meeting, para. 35;  and United States' response to Panel Question 21) 
580Panel Report, para. 7.887. 
581See Panel Report, para. 7.898.  
582Panel Report, para. 7.906. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 135 
 
 
merely theoretical in nature, for instance, where the responding party is not capable of taking it, or 
where the measure imposes an undue burden on that Me mber, such as "prohibitive costs or substantial 
technical difficulties".583  Moreover, a "reasonably available" alternative measure must be a measure 
that would preserve the responding party's right to ach ieve its desired level of protection with respect 
to the objective pursued under Article XX of the GATT 1994.584   
319. As regards the burden of proof with respect to "reasonably available alternatives", the 
Appellate Body explained in US – Gambling that a responding party invoking Article XIV(a) of the 
GATS bears the burden of demonstrating that its GATS-inconsistent measure  is "necessary" to 
achieve the objective of protecting public morals.  This burden does not imply that the responding 
party must take the initiative to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available alternatives that 
would achieve its objectives.  When, however, the co mplaining party identifies an alternative measure 
that, in its view, the responding party should have  taken, the responding party will be required to 
demonstrate why its challenged measure nevertheless remains "necessary" in the light of that alternative or, in other words, why the proposed a lternative is not a genuine alternative or is not 
"reasonably available".  If a responding party demons trates that the alternative is not "reasonably 
available", in the light of the interests or valu es being pursued and the party's desired level of 
protection, it follows that the challenged measure must be "necessary".
585 
320. Turning to China's appeal, we first recall that  China submits that the Panel erred in its 
analysis of the restrictive effect of the proposed alternative measure because it made the same "error" 
as China alleges it to have made in analyzing the rest rictive effect of China's measures, namely, taking 
account of the restrictive effect of the measures on those wishing to engage in importing.586  F o r  
China, because the Panel's assessment was based on a flawed interpretation of the scope of the 
restrictive effect of the measure to be consider ed, the Panel could not have established that the 
proposed alternative measure would have a less restrictive impact on trade. 
321. We have rejected above China's claim on appeal  that the Panel erred in examining not only 
the restrictive effect on imports but also th e restrictive effect on potential importers.587  It follows that, 
for the same reasons, we do not accept that, in its an alysis of the alternative measure proposed by the 
United States—which the Panel found to have "significantly less restrictive impact, specifically on 
                                                      
583Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 308. 
584Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos , paras. 172-174.  See also Appellate Body Report, Korea – 
Various Measures on Beef , para. 180;  and Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , para. 156. 
585Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , paras. 309-311.   
586We note that China refers to its appeal regarding the Panel's analysis of restrictive effect in this 
regards. (See supra , subsection VI.B.3) 
587See supra , para. 309. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 136  
 
those who wish to engage in importing"
588—the Panel erred merely because it took account of the 
impact the alternative measure woul d have on potential importers.   
322. China's main arguments on appeal allege that the Panel erred in law and failed to properly 
address arguments presented by China in finding th at the proposed altern ative—that the Chinese 
Government be given sole res ponsibility for conducting content revi ew—is reasonably available to 
China.  China contends that this proposed alternative would impose an undue financial and 
administrative burden on China.  China emphasize s that, in the current system, importation entities 
participate in the content review process, and that, in particular with respect to reading materials, 
these importation entities carry most of the burden of content review.  The alternative considered by 
the Panel would require China to engage in "tremendous restructuring"589 and create a new, multi-
level structure for content review within the Government.590  China points, in addition, to the large 
quantities of imported reading materials and to ti me constraints, especially for newspapers and 
periodicals, which mean that the content review mechanism must have a wi de geographic coverage, 
sufficient manpower, and a capacity to respond quickly.  To expect the Chinese Government to assume sole responsibility for the conduct of content review would require the training and 
assignment of a large number of qualified content reviewers to numerous locations.
591  China adds 
that the Panel erred in failing to find that "substantial technical difficulties"592 demonstrate that the 
proposed alternative is not reasonably available to  China.  The Panel simply assumed that time-
sensitive publications could be submitted electr onically to the Chinese Government for content 
review, when in fact the Government would have  to implement a completely upgraded electronic 
communications system to perform efficiently such an electronic review.593  China also contends that, 
if content review were performed at a single centr al location, according to the proposed alternative, 
this would make it impossible to "double check" c ontent at the customs level, as is done under the 
current system.594 
323. The United States responds that, because China failed to submit evidence substantiating its 
position that adopting the United States' proposal wo uld impose an undue burden on China, the Panel 
rightly found that China had failed to establish that content review under the sole responsibility of the 
Chinese Government is not reasonably available to  it.  Instead, the evidence before the Panel 
suggested that the Chinese Government does have the capacity to carry out content review, because 
                                                      
588Panel Report, para. 7.899. 
589China's appellant's submission, para. 62. 
590China's appellant's submission, paras. 56 and 57. 
591China's appellant's submission, paras. 62-65.  
592China's appellant's submission, para. 67 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , 
para. 308). 
593China's appellant's submission, para. 66. 
594China's appellant's submission, para. 69. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 137 
 
 
Chinese authorities already carry out content review of  films imported for theatrical release, electronic 
publications, and audiovisual pr oducts.  In addition, the United States asserts, China has not 
responded to the Panel's observation that China could charge fees to defray additional expense 
involved in its performance of content revi ew and that, in fact, Article 44 of the Publications 
Regulation  already provides for that option.  The United States adds that, because the Chinese 
Government owns 100 per cent of the equity in the importation entities, the Government is in effect 
already financing content review  of imported publications.  
324. In reviewing the Panel's analysis of whether content review under the sole responsibility of 
the Chinese Government is an alternative measure reas onably available to China, we note first that the 
Panel articulated the proper approach to its analysis.595  The Panel first scrutinized the alternative 
measure proposed by the United States and compar ed it to the existing measures in terms of 
contribution to the protection of public morals in  China and restrictive impact.  The Panel then 
assessed whether China had demonstrated that the proposed alternative measure is not reasonably 
available because it would impose an undue financ ial and administrative burden on China.  The 
Panel's analysis makes clear that the Panel cons idered that the burden of establishing that the 
alternative is not reasonably available rested on Ch ina and, indeed, China does not contend otherwise 
on appeal.   
325. In our view, the Panel did not ignore the fact that the proposal put forward by the United 
States would require changes to the current system , and that these could entail additional costs for 
China.  To the contrary, the Panel noted Chin a's argument that implementing the United States' 
proposal "would impose an undue burden", create the risk of "undue delays", and demand "substantial 
resources" given the large quantities of imports invol ved and the time-sensitive nature of newspapers 
and periodicals.596  The Panel expressly recognized that the alternative might require China to allocate 
additional human and financial resources to content review authorities, in particular for content 
review of reading materials.597  This recognition was, however, te mpered by additional observations 
that the Panel considered pertinent.  Thus, the Panel observed that, for products other than reading 
materials (electronic publications, audiovisual produc ts and films for theatrical release), the Chinese 
Government already makes the final content review decision under its current system.598  In addition, 
the Panel was not convinced that the cost to the Chinese Government would necessarily be higher 
under the alternative proposed by the United States.  Given that, at present, all import entities are 
wholly owned by the State, it was "not apparent" to  the Panel that the cost to the Chinese Government 
                                                      
595We note that the Panel referred, in pa ragraph 7.870, to Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , 
para. 311;  and, in paragraph 7.871, to Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , para. 156. 
596Panel Report, para. 7.902 (referring to China's response to Panel Question 185). 
597Panel Report, para. 7.903.  
598Panel Report, para. 7.901. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 138  
 
of having non-incorporated offices of the Gove rnment of China conduct content review would 
necessarily be higher than the cost of having in corporated State-owned enterprises conduct such 
review.
599  The Panel observed that, in any event, Chin a had not provided any data or estimate that 
would suggest that the cost to  the Chinese Government would be unreasonably high or even 
prohibitive, and that Article 44 of the Publication Regulation already authorizes the Government to 
charge fees for providing a content review service , which could lessen any financial burden associated 
with the proposed alternative measure.600   
326. After having set out the above reasoning, th e Panel determined that China had not 
"demonstrated that the alternative proposed by the United States would impose on China an undue 
burden, whether financial or otherwise"601 and that, accordingly, China had not "demonstrated that the 
alternative proposed by the United States is not 'reasonably available' to it."602   
327. We are not persuaded that the Pa nel erred in the above analysis.  The Panel did not find that 
the proposed alternative measure involves no cost or burden to China.  As the Appellate Body report 
in US – Gambling makes clear, an alternative measure s hould not be found not to be reasonably 
available merely because it involves some  change or administrative cost.603  Changing an existing 
measure may involve cost and a Member cannot dem onstrate that no reasonably available alternative 
exists merely by showing that no cheaper alternativ e exists.  Rather, in order to establish that an 
alternative measure is not "reasonably available", th e respondent must establish that the alternative 
measure would impose an undue  burden on it, and it must support such an assertion with sufficient 
evidence.604   
328. In the present case, China did not provide eviden ce to the Panel substantiating the likely 
nature or magnitude of the costs that would be asso ciated with the proposed alternative, as compared 
to the current system.  Nor has Ch ina, in its appeal, pointed to sp ecific evidence in the Panel record 
                                                      
599Panel Report, para. 7.904. 
600Panel Report, para. 7.905.  Indeed, in response to  the Panel's question whether the Government could 
charge fees for the review of content in respect of the products relevant to this dispute, China answered that 
content review conducted by the Government was "not only a matter of money". (China's response to Panel 
Question 195) 
601Panel Report, para. 7.906.   
602Panel Report, para. 7.907.  The Panel also noted that China had not argued that the proposed 
alternative would be WTO-inconsistent, and that the Pane l saw "no reason to believe that the alternative in 
question would be inherently WTO-inconsistent or that it could not be implemented by China in a WTO-
consistent manner". ( Ibid.) 
603We observe, in this regard, that a Member's right to secure a high level of protection with respect to 
one of the objectives listed in Article XX of the GATT  1994 has been recognized by the Appellate Body in 
Korea – Various Measures on Beef .  However, the Appellate Body also noted that implementing such choice 
through a WTO-consistent measure may entail higher costs for its national budget. (See Appellate Body Report, 
Korea – Various Measures on Beef , para. 181) 
604Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 308. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 139 
 
 
that would allow us to conclude that the Panel erre d in failing to attribute sufficient significance to the 
evidence of financial and administrative burden that may attach to the proposed alternative measure.  
Instead, China simply argues that the proposal would involve "tremendous restructuring" and would 
"obviously put on China an excessively heavy financial and administrative burden".605  However, as 
we see it, adopting any alternative measure will, by  definition, involve some  change, and this alone 
does not suffice to demonstrate that the alternative would impose an undue burden.  
329. We are also not convinced that China establis hed that the proposed alternative measure  
involves substantial technical difficulties.  On appeal , China contends that the alternative proposed by 
the United States would require the establishment of an electronic sampling system and the upgrading of the current electronic transmission system, and that it is unclear how, under such a system, elements of content found to be contrary to pub lic morals could be rem oved from relevant products 
before they are imported. 
330. In response to a request at the oral hearing in this appeal to point to evidence in the Panel 
record establishing such substantial technical di fficulty, China referred us to its first written 
submission
606 and to an exhibit containing the report on operations of the CNPIEC, an approved, 
wholly State-owned publication import entity.607  Neither of these documents addresses directly the 
current technology systems within the Chinese Gove rnment, or the technical difficulties that might 
arise in the implementation of the proposed alte rnative measure.  The report on operations explains 
that the CNPIEC makes full use of Internet technology to improve the efficiency of its content review.  
China, however, has not explained why the Chinese Government could not use this same technology 
if it were to be entrusted with so le responsibility for content review. 
331. Lastly, we are not persuaded by China's argume nt on appeal that the proposed alternative 
would make it impossible to "double check"608 content at customs.  China's argument in this regard 
assumes that the alternative put forward by the Un ited States necessarily implies that content review 
would be carried out in a single, central location.   We do not see any such necessary implication.  
Indeed, China itself seems to acknowledge as much in arguing that the costs of implementing the proposed alternative would be high because, inter alia , the alternative would require the training and 
assignment of a large number of qualified content reviewers to numerous locations .
609 
                                                      
605China's appellant's submission, para. 65. 
606China's first written submission  to the Panel, para. 225. 
607Panel Exhibit CN-26, supra , footnote 141. 
608China's appellant's submission, para. 69. 
609China's appellant's submission, para. 64. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 140  
 
332. Accordingly, having reviewed the Panel's analysis  of the limited evidence before it, as well as 
the additional arguments made by China on appeal, we find that the Panel did not err, in 
paragraph 7.908 of the Panel Report,  in finding that at least one of the alternative measures proposed 
by the United States is an alternativ e "reasonably available" to China. 
333. In addition, China claims that the Panel faile d to make an objective assessment of the matter 
before it, as required by Article 11 of the DSU.  China asserts that, in response to a question by the 
Panel, it explained that importers carry most of  the burden of reviewing the content of imported 
reading materials, while the Government's involveme nt is rather limited.  China contends that the 
Panel misrepresented this position when it stated th at "China has not asserted that its Government 
would lack the capacity to make content review decisions with regard to books, newspapers or 
periodicals"
610, and thereby failed to make an objective assess ment of the facts before it, in violation 
of Article 11 of the DSU.611   
334. We note that, in the course of its analysis, the Panel stated: 
We recognize that implementing the [United States'] proposal might 
make it necessary for China to allocate additional human and 
financial resources to the authorities tasked with performing content review.
612  
In our view, this statement by the Panel demonstr ates that the Panel correct ly understood China's 
argument.  In recognizing that additional resources may be necessary, the Panel implicitly recognized 
that China's content review authorities may not cu rrently have the human and financial resources for 
reviewing the content of all imported reading materi als.  In its appellant's submission, China itself 
recognizes that, in making the above statemen t, the Panel acknowledged China's argument.613  Thus, 
in our view, it cannot be said that the Panel faile d to consider China's argument and we are not 
persuaded that the Panel misrepresented China's po sition.  Rather, the Panel considered that the 
additional resources that may be required to adopt an  alternative approach to content review had not 
been shown to amount to an undue burden.  We are th erefore of the view that the Panel did not fail to 
make an objective assessment of the matter in conclu ding that an alternative measure is "reasonably 
available" to China.  
335. Finally, it may be useful to indicate what we are not saying in reaching the above conclusion.  
We are not holding that China is under an obligation to ensure that  the Chinese Government assumes 
sole responsibility for conducting content review.  Rather, we are agreeing with the Panel that the 
                                                      
610China's appellant's submission, para. 58 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.901).  
611China's appellant's submission, para. 58. 
612Panel Report, para. 7.903. 
613China's appellant's submission, para. 61. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 141 
 
 
United States has demonstrated that the proposed alte rnative would be less restrictive and would make 
a contribution that is at least equivalent to the contribution made by the measures at issue to securing 
China's desired level of protection of public morals.  China, in turn, has not demonstrated that this 
alternative is not reasonably available.  This does not mean that having the Chinese Government 
assume sole responsibility for cond ucting content review is the only alternative available to China, nor 
that China must  adopt such a scheme.  It does mean that  China has not successfully justified under 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 the provisions an d requirements found to be inconsistent with 
China's trading rights commitments under its Acc ession Protocol and Working Party Report.  It 
follows, therefore, that China is under an obligation to bring those measures into conformity with its 
obligations under the covered agre ements, including its trading rights commitments.  Like all WTO 
Members, China retains the prerogative to select its  preferred method of implementing the rulings and 
recommendations of the DSB for measures found to be  inconsistent with its obligations under the 
covered agreements. 
C. Summary and Conclusion on Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 
336. We have found above that:  (i) by virtue of th e introductory clause of paragraph 5.1 of China's 
Accession Protocol, China may, in this case, invoke  Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 to justify the 
provisions and requirements found to be inconsiste nt with its trading rights commitments under its 
Accession Protocol and Accession Working Party Repor t;  (ii) the Panel did not err in its finding 
regarding the contribution to the protection of public  morals in China made by the State-ownership 
requirement in Article 42(2) of the Publications Regulation ;  (iii) the Panel did not err in its finding 
regarding the contribution to the protection of public morals made by the provisions excluding 
foreign-invested enterprises from engaging in the impo rtation of the relevant products;  (iv) the Panel 
erred in finding that the State plan requirement in Article 42 of the Publications Regulation  is apt to 
make a material contribution to the protection of  public morals and that, in the absence of a 
reasonably available alternative, it can be charact erized as "necessary" to protect public morals in 
China;  (v) the Panel did not err in taking account of  the restrictive effect that the measures at issue 
have on those wishing to engage in importing as part of its assessment of the restrictive effect of the 
provisions of China's measures found to be inconsis tent with its trading rights commitments;  and 
(vi) the Panel did not err in finding that at least one of the alternative measures proposed by the United States is an alternative "reasonably available" to China.
614 
                                                      
614In the light of these findings, we need not address China's request that we co mplete the analysis and 
find its measures to be "necessary" to protect public mo rals within the meaning of Article XX(a) and consistent 
with the chapeau of Article  XX of the GATT 1994. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 142  
 
337. For all these reasons, we uphold  the Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 8.2(a)(i) of the Panel 
Report, that China has not demonstrated that the re levant provisions are "necessary" to protect public 
morals, within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 and that, as a result, China has not 
demonstrated that these provisions are justified under Article XX(a).
615  
VII. Scope of China's GATS Schedule Entry "Sound Recording Distribution Services" 
A. Introduction 
338. We now turn to the Panel's analysis of the scope of China's GATS Schedule entry on "Sound 
recording distribution services".  The Panel inte rpreted China's GATS Schedule and reached the 
conclusion that the entry "Sound recording distribution services", under the heading of "Audiovisual Services" in sector 2.D of that Schedule, "extends  to the distribution of sound recordings in non-
physical form, notably through electronic means".
616  On this basis, the Panel proceeded to find that: 
[t]he Circular on Internet Culture  (Article II), the Network Music 
Opinions  (Article 8), and the Several Opinions  (Article 4), each is 
inconsistent with China's nati onal treatment commitments under 
Article XVII of the GATS.  Article X:7 of the [List] of Prohibited 
Foreign Investment Industries  of the  Catalogue , in conjunction with 
Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation , is also 
inconsistent with Article XVII of the GATS.617 
339. Each of the provisions found by the Panel to be  inconsistent with China's obligations under 
Article XVII of the GATS prohibits foreign-inv ested enterprises from engaging in the electronic 
distribution of sound recordings in China, while like domestic service suppliers are not similarly prohibited.
618 
340. China appeals the Panel's finding that th e above provisions in China's measures are 
inconsistent with Article XVII of the GATS.  More specifically, China contends that the Panel erred 
in interpreting the entry "Sound recording dist ribution services" in China's GATS Schedule as 
encompassing distribution by electronic means. 
341. According to China, the Panel erred in its analys is of the ordinary meaning to be given to the 
entry "Sound recording distribution services", taken in  its context and in the light of the object and 
purpose of the treaty, and in concluding that an an alysis of this entry based on supplementary means 
of interpretation under Article 32 of the Vienna Convention  confirmed its earlier analysis under 
                                                      
615See also Panel Report, para. 7.911. 
616Panel Report, para. 7.1265. 
617Panel Report, para. 8.2.3(b)(i). 
618Panel Report, paras. 7.1300-7.1311.  The texts of these provisions along with an excerpt from 
China's GATS Schedule are set out in Annex III to this Report. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 143 
 
 
Article 31 of the Vienna Convention .619  Moreover, China contends that, since the application of 
Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention  yields an "inconclusive"620 result, the Panel should have, 
in the face of "such a high le vel of ambiguity", applied the in dubio mitius  principle and "refrained 
from adopting the interpretation which was the least favourable to China."621 
342. The United States responds that the Panel did not err in its analysis under Articles 31 and 32 
of the Vienna Convention  and correctly found that China's GATS commitment on "Sound recording 
distribution services" in sector 2.D of its Schedule includes the electronic distribution of sound 
recordings.  Thus, the United States contends that th e Panel correctly found that the relevant measures 
are inconsistent with Article XVII of the GATS "as each prohibits foreign-invested enterprises, 
including service suppliers of other Members, from engaging in the electronic distribution of sound recordings, while like domestic service suppliers are not similarly prohibited."
622 
343. Below, we review discrete elements of the Pa nel's analysis of China's GATS Schedule entry 
in the light of the specific claims of error raised by China on appeal.  Before doing so, we outline the 
overall approach employed by the Panel. 
344. In seeking to ascertain the meaning of the en try "Sound recording distribution services", the 
Panel began by consulting dictiona ry definitions of the terms "sound recording" and "distribution 
services".  According to the Panel, dictionary defi nitions suggested that China's commitment covers 
the distribution of sound recordings in electronic form.623  The Panel then tu rned to analyze the 
context in which the relevant entry is situated.  Specifically, the Panel examined:  (i) the immediate 
context provided by the heading of, as well as va rious other entries within, sector 2.D (Audiovisual 
Services) of China's GATS Schedule;  (ii) th e context provided by China's commitment on 
distribution services in sector 4 (Distribution Services ) of its GATS Schedule;  (iii) certain provisions 
of the GATS itself;  and (iv) certain GATS Schedules of other Members.  The Panel found that several of these contextual elements suggested th at "Sound recording distribution services" covers the 
distribution of sound recordings in electronic fo rm.  The Panel considered that the remaining 
contextual elements are "consistent with"
624, do not "address"625, or do not "contradict"626, such a 
view.  Overall, the Panel consider ed that its analysis of context supported the view that the entry 
"Sound recording distribution services" in China's GATS Schedule covers the distribution of content 
                                                      
619China's appellant's submission, para. 79. 
620China's appellant's submission, para. 197. 
621China's appellant's submission, para. 194. 
622United States' appellee's submission, para. 71 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.1311).  
623Panel Report, para. 7.1181. 
624Panel Report, para. 7.1202. 
625Panel Report, para. 7.1201. 
626Panel Report, para. 7.1194. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 144  
 
in non-physical form.
627  Next, the Panel reviewed the object and purpose of the GATS, as reflected in 
the preamble of that Agreement, and found that its interpretation of China's commitment on "Sound 
recording distribution services" was "consistent with" this object and purpose.628  Having thus 
interpreted the entry "Sound reco rding distribution services"  in China's GATS Schedule in the light of 
the various elements prescribed under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention , the Panel "reached the 
preliminary conclusion that [China's] commitment extends to sound recordings distributed in non-
physical form, through technologies such as the Internet."629   
345. The Panel considered it useful to have rec ourse to supplementary means of interpretation 
under Article 32 of the Vienna Convention  to confirm this preliminary conclusion.630  Under 
Article 32 of the Vienna Convention , the Panel reviewed the Services Sectoral Classification List631 
and the 1993 Explanatory Note on Scheduling of Initi al Commitments in Trade in Services (the "1993 
Scheduling Guidelines")632, as preparatory work, and certain  circumstances surrounding the 
conclusion of China's Accession Protocol and GATS Schedule.  The Panel found that the relevant 
preparatory work "confirmed" its  view, under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention , of the scope of the 
entry in China's GATS Schedule.633  As for the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the 
treaty, the Panel was not persuaded that these ci rcumstances supported China's position that "Sound 
recording distribution services" cannot extend to the electronic distribution of sound recordings.  Accordingly, the Panel deemed these ci rcumstances to be "consistent with"
634 its analysis under 
Article 31 of the Vienna Convention . 
346. On the basis of all of the above reasoning, the Panel found that: 
... the inscription of "sound recording distribution services" under the 
heading of Audiovisual Services (S ector 2.D) of China's Services 
Schedule extends to the distribution of sound recordings in non-
physical form, notably through electronic means.635 
                                                      
627Panel Report, para. 7.1203. 
628Panel Report, para. 7.1219. 
629Panel Report, para. 7.1220.  The Panel found that the United States' claims were not, as alleged by 
China, limited to claims relating to the digital distribution of sound recordings over the Internet.  Instead, the 
Panel accepted that the claims in respect of "digital distribution" also referred to other forms of digital 
communication, "which might include, for example, mobile telephone networks". ( Ibid., para. 7.1152) 
630Panel Report, para. 7.1221. 
631MTN.GNS/W/120, 10 July 1991. 
632MTN.GNS/W/164, 3 September 1993. 
633Panel Report, para. 7.1234. 
634Panel Report, para. 7.1247. 
635Panel Report, para. 7.1265. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 145 
 
 
B. Article 31 of the Vienna Convention 
347. China challenges several elements of the Panel's analysis and findings under Article 31(1) of 
the Vienna Convention .  According to that provision: 
A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the 
ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context 
and in the light of its object and purpose. 
1. Ordinary Meaning and the Panel's Use of Dictionary Definitions  
348. The Appellate Body has previously held that, while a panel may start with the dictionary 
definitions of the terms to be interpreted, in  the process of discerning the ordinary meaning, 
dictionaries alone are not necessarily capable of resolving complex questions of interpretation because they typically catalogue all meanings of words.
636  Dictionaries are important guides to, but not 
dispositive of, the meaning of words appearing in treaties.637  For these reasons, the Appellate Body 
has cautioned panels against equating the "ordinary meaning" of a term with the definition provided 
by dictionaries.  Under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention , the "ordinary meaning" of treaty terms 
may be ascertained only in their context and in th e light of the object and purpose of the treaty.638  In 
this respect, the Appellate Body has explained th at interpretation pursuant to the customary rule 
codified in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention is ultimately a holistic exercise that should not be 
mechanically subdivided into rigid components.639 
349. The relevant entry in China's GATS Schedule reads "Sound recording distribution services".  
This entry is inscribed under sector 2.D "Audiovisual Services".640  According to China, this entry 
covers only the distribution of sound recordings in  physical form, for example, music embedded on 
compact discs ("CDs").  The United States, in c ontrast, maintains that the entry encompasses the 
distribution of sound recordings in both physical and electronic form, for example, through the Internet or by other electronic means.  
                                                     
 
636Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 164.  See also Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood 
Lumber IV , para. 59;  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Aircraft , para. 153;  and Appellate Body Report, EC – 
Asbestos , para. 92. 
637Appellate Body Report, US – Offset Act (Byrd Amendment) , para. 248. 
638See also Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , paras. 166 and 167. 
639Appellate Body Report, EC – Chicken Cuts , para. 176. 
640This entry is not based on the Services Sectoral Classification List that would correspond to this part 
of China's Schedule (MTN.GNS/W/120, 10 July 1991, at sector 2.D), nor does it refer to the 1991 United 
Nations Provisional Central Product Classification (the "CPC"). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 146  
 
350. The Panel began its interpretation of this entry by reviewing several dictionary meanings of 
the terms "recording" and "distribution".  The Panel found that the definition of "recording"—
"Recorded material;  a recorded broadcast, performance"
641—was the most relevant for the purpose of 
interpreting the term "recording" in the entry "S ound recording distributio n services" in China's 
GATS Schedule.642  The Panel then considered that the term  "recorded material" in this dictionary 
definition meant the "material that is recorded" and not the "recording material".643  Based on this 
definition, the Panel reasoned that the term "r ecording" cannot be limited to sound embedded on 
physical media, but refers to the content, regardless  of the technology of storage or distribution of the 
sound.644 
351. Regarding the term "distribution", the Pane l analyzed one dictionary definition—"the 
dispersal of commodities among cons umers affected by commerce."645  The Panel observed that the 
term "commodity" in this definition is further defined as a "thing of use or value;  spec. a thing that is 
an object of trade, esp. a raw material or agricultural crop";  or a "thing one deals in or makes use 
of"646, and considered that this definition referred to a nything of value, whether tangible or intangible.  
On this basis, the Panel concluded that the term "d istribution" can be understood as "the dispersal of 
things of value"647, and that this can involve tangible or intangible products. 
352. China argues that, in interpreting the ordinary meaning of "Sound recording distribution 
services", the Panel failed to perform a holistic exercise under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention , 
which requires reaching a definitive conclusion on the meaning of a treaty term only after an 
examination of its context and the relevant object and purpose.648  According to China, the Panel 
prematurely concluded that "Sound recording distri bution services" extends to the distribution of 
content in non-physical products649, and, in so doing, disregarded relevant dictionary definitions 
submitted by China.  In particular, the Panel did not consider alternative dictionary definitions of the 
terms "recording" ("something on which sound or visual images have been recorded"650) and 
                                                      
641Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , 5th edn., W.R. Trumble, A. Stevenson (eds.) (Oxford University 
Press, 2002), Vol. 2, p. 2493.  See Panel Report, para. 7.1173. 
642Panel Report, para. 7.1173. 
643Panel Report, para. 7.1175.  
644Panel Report, para. 7.1176. 
645Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , 5th edn., W.R. Trumble, A. Stevenson (eds.) (Oxford University 
Press, 2002), Vol. 1, p. 717.  See Panel Report, para. 7.1178. 
646Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , 5th edn., W.R. Trumble, A. Stevenson (eds.) (Oxford University 
Press, 2002), Vol. 1, p. 461.  See Panel Report, para. 7.1179. 
647Panel Report, para. 7.1181. 
648China's appellant's submission, para. 97. 
649China's appellant's submission, para. 119. 
650China's appellant's submission, paras. 102 (quoting The American Heritage Dictionary of the English 
Language , 4th edn. (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2000) (Panel Exhibit CN-71)), and 105. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 147 
 
 
"distribution" ("the process of marketing and supplying goods, especi ally to retailers"651), which, 
according to China, would limit the scope of the en try "Sound recording distribution services" to the 
distribution of such recordings on physical carriers.   China adds that the "only conclusion" that the 
Panel could properly have reached at  this stage of its analysis was that "dictionary definitions were 
inconclusive".652 
353. The United States responds that the Panel cons idered all the definitions submitted by the 
parties and properly examined which meaning was to be attributed to the relevant terms in China's 
GATS Schedule.653  The United States contends that the Panel correctly found that "sound recording" 
means "recorded material"654, and that "distribution" can be understood as referring to the dispersal 
among consumers of anything of value, tangible or intangible.655 
354. We observe that the dictionary definitions su bmitted by China to the Panel included a range 
of meanings for the terms "recording" and "dis tribution".  China itself referred to "recorded 
material"656, which was the definition that the Panel considered "most relevant".657  Although China 
contends that the Panel disregar ded alternative definitions from The American Heritage Dictionary of 
the English Language , in particular the definition of "recording" as "[s]omething on which sound or 
visual images have been recorded", we note that this same dictionary also provides a definition of 
"recording" as "[a] recorded sound or picture".658  Whilst the Panel did not quote the latter two 
definitions from the dictionary in question, it did assess whether the term "sound recording" encompasses only the "particular medium on which the content is embedded or transferred", or also 
"material that is recorded" and "content".
659  The Panel was not required in doing so to quote each 
dictionary definition submitted by the parties expressing these meanings in similar form.  We, 
therefore, do not believe that the Panel failed to c onsider whether "sound recording" could be read as 
"something on which sound or visual images have been recorded."  Rather, the Panel explored 
whether the entry at issue covered only distribution of  sound recordings in physical form, or extended 
to their distribution in electronic form.  Ultimately, the Panel was not persuaded that the meaning of 
the term "sound recording" excluded recorded conten t stored or distributed in electronic form.   
                                                      
651China's appellant's submission, para. 113 (quoting The American Heritage Dictionary of the English 
Language , 4th edn. (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2000) (Panel Exhibit CN-72)). 
652China's appellant's submission, para. 127. 
653United States' appellee's submission, para. 79. 
654United States' appellee's submission, para. 77. 
655United States' appellee's submission, para. 82. 
656Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , 5th edn., W.R. Trumble, A. Stevenson (eds.) (Oxford University 
Press, 2002), Vol. 2, p. 2493.  See China's appella nt's submission, para 100;  and China's first written 
submission to the Panel, para. 456. 
657Panel Report, para. 7.1173. 
658The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language , 4th edn. (Houghton Mifflin 
Harcourt, 2000) (Panel Exhibit CN-71). 
659Panel Report, paras. 7.1175 and 7.1176. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 148  
 
355. Moreover, the definitions of "distribution"
660 submitted by China do not necessarily support 
the meaning ascribed to this term by Chin a.  While each of these dictionaries—the Shorter Oxford 
English Dictionary  and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language —offers a 
definition of "distribution" that refers to "goods " or "commodities", both also refer to alternative 
meanings for the term as encompassing the dispersal  of tangible as well as intangible products, as the 
Panel observed.661 
356. In its analysis of dictionary definitions for purposes of discerning the ordinary meaning of the 
term "Sound recording distribution services", the Panel identified some meanings as more relevant to 
its analysis, but did not clearly explain why certain  definitions were more relevant than others.  
However, we do not believe that the absence of a cl ear explanation amounts to an error in the Panel's 
analysis of dictionary definitions, because its anal ysis makes clear that it took into consideration the 
meaning advocated by China, regardless of the di ctionary sources of the various definitions before 
it.662 
                                                      
660See China's appellant's submission, para. 111.  The  Shorter Oxford English Dictionary  defines 
"distribution" as, inter alia : 
1 The action of dealing out in portions or shares among a number of 
recipients;  apportionment, allotment;  ECONOMICS  the dispersal of 
commodities among consumers effected by commerce. >b ECONOMICS . 
The way in which individuals or classes share in the aggregate products of a 
community.  
... 2 The action of spreading or dispersing  throughout a region:  the state or 
manner of being located in different places all over a region.  
... 3 The division of a whole or collective body into parts, esp. with distinctive 
characters or functions;  division and arrangement;  classification.  
... 
(Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , 5th edn., W.R. Trumble, A. Stevenson (eds.) (Oxford University Press, 
2002), Vol. 1, p. 717) 
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines "distribution" as, inter alia : 
1. The act of distributing or the condition of being distributed;  
apportionment.  2. Something distributed;  an allotment.  3. The act of 
dispersing or the condition of being dispersed; diffusion. … 5. Division  into categories;  classification.  6. The process of marketing and supplying 
goods, especially to retailers.  … 
(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language , 4th edn. (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2000)) 
661Panel Report, para. 7.1180. 
662The Appellate Body has noted that  "information placed before a pane l is often voluminous in nature 
and that the probative value of speci fic pieces of evidence varies considerably.  A panel must examine and 
consider all of the evidence placed be fore it, must identify the evidence upon  which it has relied in reaching its 
findings, and must not make findings that are unsupported by evidence.  Yet, a panel is also afforded a considerable margin of discretion in its appreciation of the evidence.  This means, among other things, that a 
panel is not required, in its report, to  explain precisely how it dealt with ea ch and every piece of evidence on the 
panel record." (Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System (Article 21.5 – Argentina) , para. 240) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 149 
 
 
357. We recognize, as China argues, that certain language used by the Panel suggests that it may 
have reached conclusions on the ordinary meani ng based on only certain dictionary definitions.663  
The Panel also did not quote in its reasoning the a lternative dictionary definitions submitted by China 
and contained in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language .664  However, the Panel 
did consider whether the meaning of the entry "Sou nd recording distribution services" was limited to 
the distribution of physical goods or whether it extended to electronic distribution, and it continued to 
do so in its subsequent analysis of relevant cont ext, and object and purpose, as explained below.  We, 
therefore, do not consider that, in its analysis of the ordinary meaning of "Sound recording distribution services", the Panel disregarded the defi nitions put forward by China.  Neither are we 
persuaded that the Panel prematurely reached conclusions on the ordinary meaning of "Sound 
recording distribution services" based only on dicti onary meanings before analyzing the relevant 
context and the object and purpose of the GATS.  In sum, based on our review of the Panel's 
reasoning, we believe that the Panel did not err in its consideration of dictionary definitions of the 
terms "sound recording" and "distribution". 
2. Context
 
358. In its analysis of context, the Panel review ed relevant parts of China's GATS Schedule, 
provisions of the GATS, and the GATS Schedules of other Members.  In China's GATS Schedule, the 
Panel assessed the contextual relevance of the sector heading "Audiovisual Services", the specific 
commitments undertaken for "Sound recording distribution services", the other two subsectors scheduled under "Audiovisual Services"—namely, "V ideos, including entertainment software and 
(CPC 83202), distribution services" and "Cinema Theatre Services"—and the entries under sector 4, 
"Distribution Services".  The Panel found that, overa ll, the context provided by China's inscriptions in 
the "Audiovisual Services" sector of its GATS Sche dule supported the interpretation that the entry 
"Sound recording distribution services" extends to the distribution of content through electronic 
means.
665  Based on the context given by the sector "Distribution Services" in China's GATS 
Schedule, the Panel considered that it was "reasonabl e to presume that the coverage of the entries in 
China's Schedule under 'Audiovisual Services' should extend to the distribution in non-physical  form 
of audiovisual products".666  The Panel found that relevant cont ext in Article XXVIII:(b) of the GATS 
                                                      
663For instance, in paragraph 7.1177 of the Panel Report, the Panel appears to have used the notion of 
"ordinary meaning" as a synonym for "dictionary meaning".  In paragraph 7.1181, the Panel appears to have drawn preliminary conclusions on the ordinary meaning, based only on dictionary meanings. 
664The Panel, however, makes express reference to China's reliance on the definitions of "recording" 
and "distribution" contained in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language  when describing 
China's arguments in paragraph 7.1162 of its Report. 
665Panel Report, para. 7.1203. 
666Panel Report, para. 7.1205. (original emphasis) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 150  
 
also supported an interpretation of "Sound reco rding distribution services" as encompassing the 
electronic distribution of sound recordings.
667 
359. China argues that the Panel's analysis of each element of context was "inconclusive" as to 
whether "Sound recording distribution services" extends to electronic distribution and that the Panel erred in concluding that its contextual analysis  supported its initial understanding of the ordinary 
meaning.
668  The United States responds that the Panel co rrectly concluded that the relevant context 
supported the Panel's interpretati on of the ordinary meaning of "Sound recording distribution 
services" as covering the distribution of sound r ecordings through both physical and non-physical 
media.  The United States further argues that, contra ry to China's assertions, the Panel did not rely on 
any single element of the context as "conclusive",  but conducted a comprehensive examination of 
relevant contextual and other elements under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention .669 
360. In its examination, the Panel came to the conc lusion that some of the contextual elements 
supported the view that "Sound recording distributio n services" extended to the electronic distribution 
of non-physical products.  The Panel also found that othe r contextual elements we re consistent with or 
did not contradict such an interpretation of "S ound recording distribution services".  The Panel, 
however, did not consider that any of the elements of context it reviewed supported an interpretation 
of the entry in China's GATS Schedule as being limited to the distribution of physical sound 
recordings.  With this in mind, we review belo w elements of context relevant to discerning the 
ordinary meaning of the entry "Sound recording distribution services" in China's GATS Schedule, 
bearing in mind China's assertion that the Pane l's analysis of each element of context was 
inconclusive. 
(a) China's GATS Schedule 
361. We start by reviewing the contextual relevance of the heading to sector 2.D, "Audiovisual 
Services", under which the "Sound recording distribution services" entry is inscribed, followed by the actual commitments scheduled for this entry and th e other subsectors scheduled under "Audiovisual 
Services". 
                                                     
 
667Panel Report, para. 7.1209. 
668China's appellant's submission, paras. 129 and 162. 
669United States' appellee's submission, paras. 75 and 87. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 151 
 
 
362. The Panel considered the sector heading itsel f and found that the meaning of the term 
"audiovisual" ("pertaining to both hearing and vision"670) suggested that services scheduled under this 
heading (such as "Sound recording distribution services" ), unless otherwise specified, relate to the 
production, distribution, projection, or broadcasting of  content that is "sensed by the user through the 
faculties of hearing or vision."671  Such context does not, in itself, rule out the possibility that China 
could have scheduled commitments concerning servi ces related only to physic al products under such 
a heading.672 
363. Regarding the commitments scheduled by China for its entry "Sound recording distribution 
services", we observe that the market access and national treatment limitations listed for this subsector in the four modes of supply also apply to "V ideos, including entertainment software and 
(CPC 83202), distribution services".
673  In these two subsectors, Chin a has made full market access 
and national treatment commitments in modes 1, 2, a nd 3, except for certain limitations to mode 3 in 
the market access column.  Specifically, China limits th e type of legal entity or joint venture through 
which foreign service suppliers may engage in th e distribution of audiovisual products, by requiring 
that they form contractual joint ventures with Chin ese partners and subject to China's right to examine 
the content of audio and video products.  In add ition, motion pictures are explicitly referred to, and 
excluded from, the scope of the commitments under "Audiovisual Services".  Notwithstanding this 
exclusion, China scheduled an additional commitm ent, allowing the annual importation of 20 motion 
pictures for theatrical release on a revenue-sharing basis. 
364. We observe that the reference to audiovisual  "products" in the scheduled market access 
limitation can encompass both physical and non-phy sical sound recordings, because, as the Panel 
found, the term "product" is used to refer to  both tangible and intangible goods, as well as services.674  
Thus, China's commitment on "Sound recording distribution services" does not specify whether it is limited to the distribution of physical goods, bu t it does include a market access limitation on the 
distribution of audiovisual "products" that refers to both tangibles and intangibles.  Such commitment 
might have expressly indicated that it relates only to  the distribution of tapes, videocassettes, CDs, 
digital video discs ("DVDs"), and/or other physical media, but it does not. 
                                                     
 
670Panel Report, para. 7.1186. 
671Panel Report, para. 7.1186. 
672China's appellant's submission, para. 134. 
673Separate market access and national treatment li mitations have been sc heduled for the other 
subsector included under "Audiovisual Serv ices", that is, "Cinema Theatre Services".  
674The Panel noted that the CPC, on the basis of wh ich the WTO Services Sect oral Classification List 
was prepared, "is about 'products' that include both goods and services." (Panel Report, para. 7.1188) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 152  
 
365. Regarding the reference to "motion pictures", we ob serve that it is not disputed that this term 
refers to non-physical content that can be embedded in physical products.
675  China's mode 3 market 
access commitment covers "audiovisual products", ex cluding "motion pictures", thus implying that 
motion pictures would otherwise be included within the category of audiovisual products.  Moreover, 
China undertakes an additional commitment on the importation of motion pictures for theatrical 
release under the heading "Audiovisual Services".  Th erefore, we consider that the reference to 
motion pictures under "Audiovisual Services" in China's GATS Schedule supports the view that the 
term "audiovisual products" is used to refer to both tangible and intangible products and that the term 
"Sound recording distribution services" also refers to  both tangible and intangible products.  This also 
supports the view that this entry covers th e electronic distribution of sound recordings. 
366. The Panel also considered the other two s ubsectors scheduled by China under "Audiovisual 
Services", that is, "Videos, including entertainment software and (CPC 83202) distribution services" 
and "Cinema Theatre Services". 
367. China argues that the Panel erred in finding th at the term "videos" refers primarily to 
intangible content676 and that it failed to give meaning to the fact that the entry in China's GATS 
Schedule refers to "videos" in the plural form.  Th e use of the plural form, in China's view, suggests 
that the noun "videos" must refer to something c ountable, such as the "physical copies of content 
recorded on video tape".677  In our view, the plural word "v ideos" in China's Schedule does not 
suggest a limitation to something tangible, becau se non-physical products are no less countable than 
physical ones.  Videos contained in electronic fil es are just as countable as those that are embedded in 
video tapes, CDs, and DVDs.  Accordingly, we do not see how the use of the plural term by itself 
excludes videos in electronic form. 
368. We note that the entry "Videos, including entertainment software and (CPC 83202) 
distribution services"678 is scheduled under "Audiovisual Se rvices" adjacent to "Sound recording 
distribution services".  The Panel observed that the entry "Videos, (...) distribution services" extended 
to the distribution of both physical and non-physical products679 and reasoned that "the concept of 
                                                      
675In replying to a question posed by the Panel, China indicated that the distribution of motion pictures 
is not considered to be the distribution of physical goods. (See China's response to Panel Question 86) 
676Panel Report, para. 7.1333. 
677China's appellant's submission, para. 139. 
678The reference to the CPC in this entry is a refe rence to a specific category of leasing and rental 
services concerning video tapes, which is reproduced in paragraph 7.1331 of the Panel Report. 
679Panel Report, paras. 7.1320-7.1349. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 153 
 
 
'distribution services' in China's entries relating to  videos and to sound reco rding must have similar 
meaning"680, that is, they both include physical and non-physical products. 
369. We agree with this reasoning of the Panel.  The fact that the entry "Videos, (...) distribution 
services" applies to intangible products681 represents relevant context s uggesting that the entry "Sound 
recording distribution services", which is subject to the same market access and national treatment 
limitations in the four modes of supply, should also  be interpreted as applyi ng to intangible products.  
We note that the entry "Videos, (...) distribution ser vices" includes "entertainment software", which is 
also a reference to content that  can be incorporated into physical products or transmitted 
electronically.  In our view, this provides further contextual support for interpreting "Sound recording 
distribution services" as referring to content in bo th physical and non-physical form, and thus 
extending to the electronic distribution of sound recordings. 
370. The other entry scheduled under the heading "Audiovisual Services" is "Cinema Theatre 
Services", which is limited to the construction and re novation of cinema theatres.  We do not consider 
that the inclusion of an entry on the constr uction and renovation of cinema theatres under 
"Audiovisual Services" provides contextual guida nce for the interpretation of "Sound recording 
distribution services".  As we see it, the Panel attached little contextual  significance to China's 
commitment covering the constructi on and renovation of cinema theatres,  stating only that the context 
of this entry "is consistent with the view"682 that "Sound recording distribution services" refers to the 
distribution of sound recordings as content.683 
371. We next turn to the Panel's interpretation of  the context represented by China's commitments 
under sector 4 (Distribution Services) of its GATS Sc hedule.  Like the Panel, we note that China's 
commitments on "Distribution Services" cover all physical products, except certain products 
explicitly excluded in the sector column of the Schedule.684  Absent the commitment on "Sound 
recording distribution services" under sector 2.D (Audiovisual Services), the physical distribution of 
                                                      
680Panel Report, para. 7.1194. 
681China also claims that the Panel should have relied only on dictionary meanings of the term "videos" 
that were contemporaneous with China's accession to th e WTO, which define "video" as referring to physical 
items only.  We are not persuaded that, in examining the ordinary meaning of the term "videos", the Panel should have relied upon dictionaries th at were published at the time of th e conclusion of China's accession to the 
WTO.  In any event, we observe that it is not clear that the meaning of the term "videos" is different today than 
it was in 2001.  We consider below, in paragraphs 395 to 397, similar arguments made by China in respect of 
the terms "sound recording" and "distribution". 
682Panel Report, para. 7.1202. 
683We recall that the Panel did not rely on this element alone to support its finding on ordinary 
meaning, but on the entire context provided by China's entr ies in the "Audiovisual Services" sector of its GATS 
Schedule, as indicated in paragraph 7.1203 of the Panel Report. 
684The following products are exempted from China' s commitments on distribution services:  salt and 
tobacco for commission agents and wholesale services, and tobacco only for retailing services. (Panel Report, 
para. 7.1204) WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 154  
 
sound recording embedded in physical media would, in principle, have been covered by China's 
commitments on "Distribution Services".
685   
372. We therefore agree with the Panel's observati on that, had China's relevant entry "Sound 
recording distribution services" under "Audiovisual Se rvices" been intended to cover exclusively the 
distribution of audiovisual products in physical form, "there would have been no need to insert [this entry and the entry "Video (...) distribution servi ces"] under a sector other than Distribution Services, 
where the distribution of physical goods are generally covered in China's Schedule."
686  This alone 
does not demonstrate that this entry also covers  the electronic distribution of sound recordings.  
However, we recognize the contextual relevance of the fact that the entry "Sound recording 
distribution services" has been inscribed under the sector concerned with audiovisual content, 
"Audiovisual Services", as opposed to the sector "Distribution Services", which covers the 
distribution of physical goods in China's GATS Schedule.687  This, in our view, provides contextual 
support for an interpretation of the entry "Sound recording distribution services" as extending also to the distribution of non-physical products. 
(b) Provisions of the GATS 
373. We examine next whether relevant context for the interpretation of the phrase "Sound 
recording distribution services" can be found in the provisions of the GATS.  We start by considering 
the rules in the GATS itself that govern the sch eduling of specific commitments and Articles I 
and XXVIII(b) of the GATS.  We then turn to th e Panel's analysis of the meaning imparted by 
Article XXVIII(b) of the GATS to the notion of  "distribution" in China's GATS Schedule. 
374. We observe that the meaning of terms used in  specific commitments inscribed in Members' 
Schedules is also informed by the rules in th e GATS itself that govern the scheduling of such 
commitments.  Thus, in US – Gambling , the Appellate Body examined "the context provided by the 
                                                     
 
685We recall that, in US – Gambling , the Appellate Body found that: 
... because a Member's obligations regarding a particular service depend on 
the specific commitments that it has made with respect to the sector or 
subsector within which that service falls, a specific service cannot fall within two different sectors or subsectors.  In other words, the sectors and subsectors 
in a Member's Schedule must be mutually exclusive. 
(Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 180) 
Before the Panel, both China and the United States agreed that the physical distribution of sound 
recordings embedded in physical media is covered by  the more specific entry "S ound recording distribution 
services" under the "Audiovisual Serv ices" sector and not by the commitmen t on "Distribution Services". (See 
China's and the United States' responses to Panel Question 119) 
686Panel Report, para. 7.1205. 
687We further note that the CPC describes "Distrib utive Trade Services" as  consisting of "selling 
merchandise".  The CPC classifies wholesale trade servi ces and retail trade services according to th e goods that 
are distributed. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 155 
 
 
structure of the GATS itself" in interpreting the relevant entry in the United States' GATS Schedule 
under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention .688 
375. As we have explained, the entry "Sound r ecording distribution services" in China's GATS 
Schedule is not further qualified except for a mode  3 market access limitation regarding contractual 
joint ventures to distribute audiovisual products (e xcluding motion pictures) and without prejudice to 
China's right to examine the content of audiovisual products.  China does not limit the subsectoral 
scope of this commitment to specific segments of  sound recordings (for example, songs, instrumental 
works, ring tones, speeches), but commits to s ound recording distribution generally.  Moreover, 
China's GATS Schedule does not expressly exclude or include any particular form of delivery, for 
example, by indicating that the commitment is limite d to the physical distribution of sound recordings 
embedded in physical media, or that it also covers electronic distribution.  It merely specifies that 
supply of the relevant services through mode 3 (commercial presence) is permitted only for 
contractual joint ventures with Chinese partners (exc ept for motion pictures) and restates China's right 
to examine audiovisual content. 
376. The provisions of the GATS itself, insofar as  they concern the scheduling of specific 
commitments, also provide relevant context for th e interpretation of specific commitments.  Article I 
defines "trade in services" as the supply of a service through the four modes of supply.689  The GATS 
distinguishes four modes of supply, but does not pr ovide for further distinctions between forms of 
delivery.  Article XXVIII(b) of the GATS defi nes the "supply of a service" as including "the 
production, distribution, marketing, sale and deliver y of a service".  Article XX of the GATS requires 
each Member to set out in a Schedule the specific commitments it undertakes and to specify by sector 
any limitations, conditions, or qualifications on market access and national treatment, and any 
additional commitments.690  Members undertake specific commitmen ts in sectors or subsectors and 
according to the four modes of supply.  The GATS al so allows Members to circumscribe the scope of 
                                                      
688Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 180. 
689Article I of the GATS defines trade in services as the supply of a service: 
(a) from the territory of one Member into the territory of any other 
Member; 
(b) in the territory of one Member to  the service consumer of any other 
Member; 
(c) by a service supplier of one Me mber, through commercial presence in 
the territory of any other Member; 
(d) by a service supplier of one Me mber, through presence of natural 
persons of a Member in the territory of any other Member. 
690Pursuant to Article XX:1 of the GATS, each Member shall set out in a Schedule the specific 
commitments it undertakes under Part III of the Ag reement on market access, national treatment, and any 
additional commitments.  With respect to sectors wher e such commitments are undertaken, each Schedule shall 
specify terms, limitations, and conditi ons on market access, conditions and qu alifications on national treatment, 
and undertakings relating to additional commitments. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 156  
 
their commitments by qualifying the scope of sector s or subsectors inscribed in the Schedule, by 
including or excluding modes of supply, and by listing limitations, qualifications, or conditions on 
market access and national treatment. 
377. We observe that, unless a sector is included in a Schedule, it is not subject to specific 
commitments.  However, having included a sector or subsector and having specified commitments for 
one or more modes of supply in its Schedule, a Member undertakes to lib eralize "the production, 
distribution, marketing, sale and delivery" of the service(s) falling within that sector or subsector and 
mode(s) of supply, unless it has specified ot herwise by inserting conditions, limitations, or 
qualifications in the Schedule.  This implies that, in the absence of specific limitations, conditions, or 
qualifications, the meaning of "Sound recording dist ribution services" is not limited to the physical 
delivery of sound recordings.  Rather, this entr y would encompass distribution in electronic form. 
378. In interpreting the term "distribution" as it appears in China's commitment on "Sound 
recording distribution services", the Panel also consider ed the contextual relevance of the definition of 
"supply of a service" in Article XXVIII(b), which includes "the production, distribution , marketing, 
sale and delivery of a service ".
691  China contends that, even if the term "distribution" could, in the 
abstract, relate to the distribution of both physi cal and intangible products, this does not resolve the 
question of whether the specific en try in China's GATS Schedule covers distribution of audiovisual 
products only on physical carriers or extends also to such products stored in intangible form.692 
379. The definition of "supply of a service" in Ar ticle XXVIII(b) of the GATS would not in itself 
exclude the possibility of drafting a Schedule entry in a way that covers only the distribution of 
physical goods.  However, the interpretative question in this dispute is whether China's entry has been 
formulated in such a way.  It is clear that the te rm "distribution" as used in Article XXVIII(b) of the 
GATS refers to the distribution of something intangibl e—services.  We agree with the Panel that this 
is relevant context in interpreting the meaning of  the term "distribution" in China's entry "Sound 
recording distribution services" in its GATS Schedule,  and that Article XXVIII(b) of the GATS lends 
support to an interpretation of the term "distributi on" in the relevant entry in China's Schedule as 
covering the distribution of both ta ngible and intangible products. 
                                                      
691Emphasis added. 
692China's appellant's submission, para. 161. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 157 
 
 
380. In sum, the context provided by the entry under the releva nt heading in China's GATS 
Schedule, taking into account relevant  qualifications or conditions, and read in the light of the GATS 
definitions of "trade in services" and "supply of  a service" and of the provisions relevant for 
scheduling commitments and inscribing limitations , qualifications, and conditions, does not support 
an interpretation of the entry "Sound recording distri bution services" as limited to the distribution of 
sound recordings in physical form. 
(c) GATS Schedules of Other Members 
381. The Panel also reviewed the GATS Schedules of several other Members—in particular, their 
commitments on audiovisual and distribution services—as relevant context for its interpretation of the 
entry "Sound recording distribution services" in China's GATS Schedule.  The Panel found that the context provided by these other GATS Schedules did not point to an interpretation in any way 
different from that suggested by the other contextual  elements it had examined, that is, that China's 
entry "Sound recording distribution services" extends to sound recordings distributed in non-physical 
form.
693 
382. We recall that, according to the Appellate Body in US – Gambling , the fact that "Members' 
Schedules constitute relevant context for the interp retation of subsector 10.D of the United States' 
Schedule" was "the logical consequence of Article XX:3 of the GATS, which provides that Members' 
Schedules are 'an integral part' of the GATS."694  The Appellate Body, however, cautioned that the 
"use of other Members' Schedules as context must be  tempered by the recognition that 'each Schedule 
has its own intrinsic logic'"695, which will be different from the Schedule being interpreted. 
383. The Panel considered the GATS Schedules of othe r Members together with other elements of 
context.  Yet, in so doing, the Panel expressly stated that it was mindful of the fact that, although the 
GATS Schedules of Members are treaty text reflec ting the common intentions of all WTO Members, 
each Schedule has "its own logic"696 and thereby acknowledged that recourse to other Members' 
Schedules may be of limited utility in elucidating the meaning of the entry to be interpreted. 
                                                      
693Panel Report, para. 7.1218. 
694Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 182. 
695Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 182 (quoting Panel Report, US – Gambling , 
para. 6.98). 
696Panel Report, para. 7.1210 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 182;  and 
Panel Report, US – Gambling , para. 6.98). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 158  
 
384. Moreover, the examination of the Schedules of other Members was not a central element of 
the Panel's contextual analysis.  The Panel did not find that the GATS commitments of other 
Members confirmed its interpretation of the inscr iption "Sound recording distribution services" in 
China's GATS Schedule, but simply stated that "the context provided by the Schedules of other Members, does not point to an interpretation in any way different from that suggested by the other contextual elements [it] examined".
697  In other words, whilst the Panel viewed the Schedules of other 
Members to be of limited contextual relevance to th e interpretation of the particular entry in China's 
Schedule, it concluded that the Schedules of ot her Members did not suggest that electronic 
distribution should be excluded. 
385. Therefore, we do not see merit in China's argu ment that the Panel could not derive any 
inferences from the GATS Schedules of other Memb ers for the interpretation of "Sound recording 
distribution services" in China's GATS Schedule.698  As we consider below, the Panel did not rely on 
any particular element of context as conclusive, but found instead that its overall analysis of context 
supported an interpretation that Ch ina's entry "Sound recording distribution services" extends also to 
electronic distribution.  Under these circumstances, we do not consider that the Panel erred in its 
consideration of the GATS Schedules of other Members as context. 
(d) Summary 
386. China argues that the Panel's analysis of each element of context was "inconclusive" as to 
whether "Sound recording distribution services" extends to electronic distribution and that the Panel erred in concluding that its contextual analysis supported its original unders tanding of the ordinary 
meaning of this entry.
699 
387. As we have considered above, while certain el ements of context clearly support the Panel's 
interpretation of "Sound recording distribution services" as extending to the electronic distribution of sound recordings, other elements considered by the Pa nel are consistent with or  do not contradict such 
an interpretation of the scope of this commitment.  On  balance, we are persuaded that the analysis of a 
number of contextual elements supports the interpretation of China's commitment on "Sound 
recording distribution services" as including the electronic distribution of sound recordings. 
388. We further note that the Panel did not regard any of the specific elements it reviewed under 
Article 31 of the Vienna Convention  as in and of itself "conclusive" as to the question of whether 
"Sound recording distribution services" should be inte rpreted as encompassing electronic distribution.  
                                                     
 
697Panel Report, para. 7.1218. 
698China's appellant's submission, para. 157. 
699China's appellant's submission, paras. 129 and 162. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 159 
 
 
Rather, the Panel was careful to distinguish among:  elements that support such an interpretation;  
elements that are consistent with the interpretation;   and elements that offer no guidance.  In this 
regard, we consider that China's claim, that each of  the interpretative elements reviewed by the Panel 
is "inconclusive" with respect to the interpre tation of "Sound recording distribution services", 
overlooks the nature of the interpretative exer cise to be undertaken under Article 31 of the Vienna 
Convention .   
3. Object and Purpose  
389. We now turn to the object and purpose of the treaty.  The Panel reviewed the object and 
purpose of the GATS, as formulated in the GATS preamble, and found that its interpretation of 
China's commitment on "Sound recording distribution services" is consistent with this object and 
purpose.700 
390. On appeal, China argues that the Panel's in terpretation of "Sound recording distribution 
services" is inconsistent with the object and purpose of  the GATS and, in particular, with the principle 
of progressive liberalization.  China claims that  the Panel interpreted th e entry "Sound recording 
distribution services" according to the contemporary meaning of the words it contains, but that the principle of progressive liberalization does not allow for the expansion of the scope of the 
commitments of a WTO Member by interpreting the terms used in the Schedule based on the meaning 
of those terms at the time of interpretation.
701   
391. The United States responds that compliance with  current commitments is essential to the 
credibility and success of "progressive liberalization" in the future.  The Un ited States disagrees that 
the principle of progressive liberalization required the Panel to base its analysis of the relevant terms 
in China's GATS Schedule on their meaning at the time of China's accession to the WTO.  According 
to the United States, construing the objective of pr ogressive liberalization in this way would place a 
limitation on China's commitments that does not exis t in its Schedule, and would not conform to the 
requirements of the Vienna Convention .702 
392. We observe that the GATS preamble lists vari ous objectives, including the "establish[ment] 
of a multilateral framework of principles and rules for trade in services with a view to the expansion 
of such trade under conditions of transparency and progressive liberalization", and the "early 
achievement of progressively higher levels of lib eralization of trade in services through successive 
                                                      
700Panel Report, para. 7.1219. 
701China's appellant's submission, para. 173. 
702United States' appellee's submission, paras. 104 and 106. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 160  
 
rounds of multilateral negotiations".
703  The Panel found that its in terpretation of "Sound recording 
distribution services" is consistent with the objectives listed in the GATS preamble.704 
393. We do not disagree with the Panel that nothing in the GATS preamble appears to contradict 
an interpretation of "Sound recording distribution services" as extending to electronic distribution of sound recordings.  At the same time, we observe  that none of the objectives listed in the GATS 
preamble provides specific guidance as to the correct  interpretation to be given to China's GATS 
Schedule entry "Sound recording distribution services". 
394. The principle of progressive liberalization is re flected in the structure of the GATS, which 
contemplates that WTO Members undertake speci fic commitments through successive rounds of 
multilateral negotiations with a view to liberalizing their services markets incrementally, rather than 
immediately and completely at the time of the accep tance of the GATS.  The scheduling of specific 
commitments by service sectors and modes of supply represents another manifestation of progressive 
liberalization.  In making specific commitments, Members are not required to liberalize fully the 
chosen sector, but may limit the coverage to par ticular subsectors and mode s of supply and maintain 
limitations, conditions, or qualifica tions on market access and national treatment, provided that they 
are inscribed in their Schedules.  We do not cons ider, however, that the principle of progressive 
liberalization lends support to an interpretation th at would constrain the scope and coverage of 
specific commitments that have already been unde rtaken by Members and by which they are bound. 
395. Neither are we persuaded that, if the Panel had based its analysis on the meanings of the terms 
"sound recording" and "distribution" at the time  of China's accession to the WTO—that is, 2001—it 
would have reached a different conclusion on th e interpretation of the entry "Sound recording 
distribution services" in China's GATS Schedule.  The term "sound recording" can be used to refer to 
"recorded content", irrespective of how it is distribu ted.  We have already considered above that the 
GATS, which entered into force in 1995, contem plates in Article XXVIII(b) the distribution of 
                                                     
 
703The second and third recital of the preamble of the GATS read: 
Members , 
 ... 
 Wishing  to establish a multilateral framework of principles and rules 
for trade in services with a view to  the expansion of such trade under 
conditions of transparency and progressive liberalization  and as a means of 
promoting the economic growth of all trading partners and the development 
of developing countries;  (underlining added) 
 Desiring  the early achievement of progressively  higher levels of 
liberalization  of trade in services through successive rounds of multilateral 
negotiations aimed at promoting the interests of all participants on a mutually 
advantageous basis and at securing an overall balance of rights and obligations, while giving due respect to national policy objectives;  
(underlining added) 
704Panel Report, para. 7.1219. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 161 
 
 
services—that is, of intangibles.  This lends support to interpreting the meaning of "distribution" as 
applying to both tangible and intangible products, a nd would equally have done so in 2001, and at the 
time the Panel interpreted the entry "Sound record ing distribution services" in China's GATS 
Schedule. 
396. More generally, we consider that the te rms used in China's GATS Schedule ("sound 
recording" and "distribution") are sufficiently generic that what they  apply to may change over time.  
In this respect, we note that GATS Schedules,  like the GATS itself and all WTO agreements, 
constitute multilateral treaties with continuing oblig ations that WTO Members entered into for an 
indefinite period of time, regardless of whether th ey were original Members or acceded after 1995.705 
397. We further note that interpreting the term s of GATS specific commitments based on the 
notion that the ordinary meaning to be attributed to  those terms can only be the meaning that they had 
at the time the Schedule was concluded would mean  that very similar or identically worded 
commitments could be given different meanings, conten t, and coverage depending on the date of their 
adoption or the date of a Member's accession to th e treaty.  Such interpretation would undermine the 
predictability, security, and clarity of GATS spec ific commitments, which are undertaken through 
successive rounds of negotiations706, and which must be interpreted in accordance with customary 
rules of interpretation of public international law.707 
                                                      
 705We consider such reading of the terms in China's GA TS Schedule to be consistent with the approach 
taken in US – Shrimp , where the Appellate Body interpreted the term "exhaustible natural resources" in 
Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994. (Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp , paras. 129 and 130) 
 We observe that the International Court of Justice, in Costa Rica v. Nicaragua , found that the term 
"comercio " ("commerce"), contained in an 1858 "Treaty of  Limits" between Costa Ri ca and Nicaragua, should 
be interpreted as referring to both trade in goods and trade in services, even if, at the time of the conclusion of 
the treaty, such term was used to refer only to trade in goods. (International Court of Justice, Judgment, Case 
concerning the Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) , 13 July 2009)   
706The GATS Uruguay Round specific commitments entered into force on 1 January 1995.  The 
specific commitments on the movement of natural persons, attached to the Third Protocol to the GATS, entered into force on 30 January 1996;  the specific commitments on financial services, attached to the Second Protocol 
to the GATS, entered into force on 1 September 1996;   the specific commitments on basic telecommunications 
services, attached to the Fourth Prot ocol to the GATS, entered into for ce on 5 February 1998;  the specific 
commitments on financial services, attached to the Fifth Protocol to the GATS, entered into force 
on 1 March 1999.  The specific commitm ents of individual acceding countries en tered into force at the time of 
each accession. 
707We further observe that the fact that parts of a service sector included in a GATS Schedule can be 
described by terms other than those used to inscribe the commitment in a Schedule, does not change the meaning of the treaty terms used in the Schedule, which must be interpreted in accordance with the rules of the 
Vienna Convention .  Thus, even if a certain type of electronic distribution of sound recordings can be referred to 
as "network music services",  the terms of the entry "S ound recording distribution services" as embodied in the 
Schedule would still have to be interpreted in accordance with the rules of the Vienna Convention .  In our view, 
this is so even if the distinction between physical and electronic distribution is reflected in international 
classification but has not been used in the scheduling of the commitments at issue. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 162  
 
4. Summary under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention
 
398. Having examined the ordinary meaning of th e entry "Sound recording distribution services" 
in China's GATS Schedule, in its context and in th e light of the object and purpose of the GATS, we 
reach the conclusion that China's commitment c overs both physical distribution as well as the 
electronic distribution of sound recordings.  We, ther efore, do not consider that the Panel erred under 
Article 31 of the Vienna Convention  in reaching "the preliminary conclusion that this commitment 
extends to sound recordings distributed in non-physical form, through technologies such as the Internet".
708 
399. We are also persuaded that the application of th e interpretative rule set out in Article 31 of the 
Vienna Convention  to the entry "Sound recording distribution services" does not result in 
"inconclusiveness" or ambiguity as to the ordinary meaning of China's commitment.  In this respect, 
we note that the purpose of the interpretative exercise  is to narrow the range of possible meanings of 
the treaty term to be interpreted, not to generate  multiple meanings or to confirm the ambiguity and 
inconclusiveness of treaty obligations.  Rather, a tr eaty interpreter is required to have recourse to 
context and object and purpose to elucidate the releva nt meaning of the word or term.  This logical 
progression provides a framework for proper interpre tative analysis, bearing in mind that treaty 
interpretation is an integrated operation, where in terpretative rules and principles must be understood 
and applied as connected and mutually re inforcing components of a holistic exercise.709 
400. Having reached a conclusion on the interp retation of China's commitment on "Sound 
recording distribution services" under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention , we observe that we would 
not need to proceed to an examination of supplemen tary means of interpretation pursuant to Article 32 
of the Vienna Convention  to decide this appeal.  The Panel, however, considered that recourse to 
supplementary means of interpretation was useful to confirm its preliminary conclusion based on the 
application of Article 31 and proceeded to exam ine the preparatory work of the treaty and the 
circumstances of the conclusion of the GATS pursuant to Article 32 of the Vienna Convention .  China 
has appealed the Panel's application of Article 32.  We therefore address the issues raised by China in 
respect of the Panel's analysis of supplementary m eans of interpretation pursuant to Article 32 of the 
Vienna Convention . 
                                                      
708Panel Report, para. 7.1220. 
709Appellate Body Report, US – Continued Zeroing , para. 268;  see also para. 273. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 163 
 
 
C. Article 32 of the Vienna Convention  
401. China claims that the Panel's approach to Article 32 of the Vienna Convention710 was 
"fundamentally flawed from the outset".711  In China's view, because the Panel should have found that 
its analysis pursuant to Article 31 was inconclusi ve, the Panel should have applied Article 32 to 
"determine"712 the meaning of the terms in China's Schedule and not merely to "confirm" the 
erroneous preliminary conclusion that it had reached under Article 31.  China contends that the 
Panel's analysis of the preparatory work, that is, the Services Sectoral Classification List and the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines, was largely based on the same  premises as its analysis of the sector 2.D, 
"Audiovisual Services", in China's GATS Schedule, as context, and, for the same reasons advanced 
by China with respect to that elem ent of context, should have been found by the Panel to be equally 
inconclusive.
713  China also argues that the Panel failed to  consider whether the circumstances of the 
conclusion of the treaty revealed China's inten tion not to undertake specific commitments on the 
electronic distribution of sound recordings.714 
402. The United States responds that the Panel did not err in resorting to supplementary means of 
interpretation under Article 32 of the Vienna Convention  only for the purpose of confirming the 
conclusions it had reached under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention .  According to the United 
States, the Panel's analysis of the supplementa ry means of interpretation was correct, and the 
circumstances of the conclusion of China's accession to the WTO supported the finding that China 
undertook a GATS specific commitment with respect to the electronic distribution of sound recordings.
715 
403. Although the Panel's application of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention  to "Sound recording 
distribution services" led it to a "preliminary conclusion" as to the meaning of that entry, the Panel 
nonetheless decided to have recourse to s upplementary means of interpretation to confirm  that 
meaning.  We note, in this regard, that China's argument on appeal appears to assume that the Panel's 
analysis under Article 32 of the Vienna Convention  would necessarily  have been different if the Panel 
had found that the application of Article 31 le ft the meaning of "Sound recording distribution 
                                                      
710Article 32 of the Vienna Convention  states: 
Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the 
preparatory work of the treaty and th e circumstances of its conclusion, in 
order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to 
determine the meaning when the inte rpretation according to article 31: 
(a)  leaves the meaning am biguous or obscure;  or 
(b)  leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.  
711China's appellant's submission, para. 177. 
712China's appellant's submission, para. 179. 
713China's appellant's submission, para. 182. 
714China's appellant's submission, para. 188. 
715United States' appellee's submission, paras. 108 and 114. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 164  
 
services" ambiguous or obscure, and if the Panel had, therefore, resorted to Article 32 to determine , 
rather than to confirm , the meaning of that term.  We do not share this view.  The elements to be 
examined under Article 32 are distinct from those to  be analyzed under Article 31, but it is the same 
elements that are examined under Article 32 irrespec tive of the outcome of the Article 31 analysis.  
Instead, what may differ, depending on the results of the application of Article 31, is the weight that 
will be attributed to the elements analyzed under Article 32. 
404. In the present case, we do not consider that, under Article 32 of the Vienna Convention , the 
Panel was required, as China seems to argue, to establish whether the preparatory work and the 
circumstances of the treaty's conclusion were conclusive  as to whether or not China's commitment on 
"Sound recording distribution services" was limited to the distribution of sound recordings in physical 
form.  The Panel had come to the "prelimi nary conclusion" under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention  
that the ordinary meaning of "Sound recording distribution services" extended to the distribution of 
both physical and non-physical sound recordings.  We do not think that the Panel committed any error 
by seeking confirmation of this finding under Article 32 of the Vienna Convention .  
405. We further note that the purpose of treaty interpretation under Articles 31 and 32 of the 
Vienna Convention  is to ascertain the "common intention" of the parties, not China's intention alone.  
We recall that, in this respect, in US – Gambling , the Appellate Body found that "the task of 
ascertaining the meaning of a concession in a Schedu le, like the task of interpreting any other treaty 
text, involves identifying the common intention of Members".
716  The circumstances of the conclusion 
of the treaty may thus be relevant to this "common intention".   
406. Regarding the preparatory work, China has not persuaded us that the Panel erred.  China 
simply argues that the Panel's analysis of the Services Sectoral Classification List and the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines was largely based on the same  flawed premises as its analysis of the sector 
heading "Audiovisual Services", and that the Pane l should have found the preparatory work to be 
equally inconclusive.  China does not identify a sp ecific legal error committed by the Panel in its 
consideration of the preparatory work.  Moreover, we recall that, in our review of the Panel's analysis 
of context, we agreed with the Panel's findings th at China's sector heading and scheduled entries in 
sector 2.D (Audiovisual Services) suggest that th e entry "Sound recording distribution services" 
includes the electronic distribution of such recordings. 
                                                     
 
716Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling , para. 159. (original emphasis)  See also Appellate Body 
Report, EC – Computer Equipment , para. 84. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 165 
 
 
407. Regarding the circumstances of the conclusion of the treaty, we observe that China appears to 
be asking us to draw inferences from the facts that the Panel did not draw.  The Panel found that "the 
electronic distribution of [sound recordings] had become a technical possibility and commercial 
reality ... before the entry into force of China's GATS Schedule."717  The Panel also seems to have 
accepted that, at the time of China's accession to th e WTO, there was not yet an international or a 
domestic legal framework in place for the electr onic distribution of sound recordings, although both 
were under discussion.718  Based on these findings, the Panel rej ected China's argument that the entry 
"Sound recording distribution services" could not ha ve included the electronic distribution of sound 
recordings because such business, or any legal fra mework for such business, emerged only after 
China's accession to the WTO.719 
408. We are not persuaded that the Panel relied on th e fact that it found the electronic distribution 
of sound recordings to be technically feasible a nd a commercial reality when China acceded to the 
WTO.720  We do not see that the Panel erred in its assessment that the absence of a regulatory 
framework within China and intern ationally at the time of China's WTO accession would not have 
prevented China from making a commitment on the elect ronic distribution of sound recordings in its 
GATS Schedule.721  More importantly, it is not clear to us that the Panel found, as China's appeal 
suggests, that the circumstances of the conclusion of the treaty supported  the Panel's interpretation 
under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention .  To the contrary, various statements by the Panel indicate 
that the Panel simply found that this element did not establish that China could not have undertaken a 
commitment on the electronic distribution of sound recordings in 2001.722  The Panel rejected China's 
argument about the factual situation and about the significance of the circumstances of the conclusion 
of the treaty, but it did not itself draw interpretative conclusions on the basis of the evidence of such 
circumstances. 
409. Thus, in its analysis under Article 32 of the Vienna Convention , the Panel simply concluded 
that certain circumstances of the conclusion of th e treaty did not exclude the possibility that China's 
GATS commitment also extends to the electronic dist ribution of sound recordings, and that this was 
                                                      
717Panel Report, para. 7.1242. 
718Panel Report, paras. 7.1243-7.1246. 
719Panel Report, paras. 7.1235 and 7.1245-7.1247. 
720Panel Report, para. 7.1242.  In so finding, the Pane l was merely rejecting China's argument that this 
business was neither technically feasible nor commercially viable at the time of the conclusion of the treaty. 
721Panel Report, paras. 7.1243 and 7.1245. 
722In paragraph 7.1245 of the Panel Report, the Panel stated that the alleged lack of a domestic legal 
framework "would not in itself have prevented China from making a valid commitment on these services in its 
Schedule".  Moreover, in paragraph 7.1247, the Panel stated that it was not persuaded that "the meaning of the phrase 'sound recording distribution services' cannot extend to the distribution of sound recordings in non-
physical form, for the reason that negotiators of Ch ina's GATS Schedule and, more broadly, WTO Members, 
had at the time no conception of the technical or co mmercial viability of this form of distribution." WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 166  
 
consistent with its earlier anal ysis under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention .  We see no error in such 
reasoning.   
410. Finally, China claims that the Panel should have  found that the application of both Articles 31 
and 32 of the Vienna Convention  left the issue of whether China's GATS commitment on "Sound 
recording distribution services" included the distri bution of sound recordings by electronic means 
largely "inconclusive".
723  In China's view, when confronted w ith such a high level of ambiguity, the 
Panel should have applied the in dubio mitius  principle and refrained from adopting the interpretation 
that was the least favourable to China.  The United States responds that there was no basis for 
applying the in dubio mitius principle in this dispute because th e Panel correctly interpreted China's 
GATS specific commitment based on Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention .724 
411. We have found above that the Panel did not err in its interpretation of "Sound recording 
distribution services" in accordance with Article 31 of the Vienna Convention .  We have expressed the 
view that the Panel's recourse to Article 32 of the Vienna Convention  was not in error, but that it was 
also not necessary, given that the application of Article 31 yielded a conclusion on the proper 
interpretation of this entry in Ch ina's GATS Schedule.  We have also  observed that we see no error in 
the Panel's analysis under Article 32.  We ther efore do not accept China's contention that the Panel 
should have found that the meaning of the entry "Sound recording distribution services" remains inconclusive or ambiguous after its analysis under Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention .  
Consequently, even if the principle of in dubio mitius  were relevant in WTO dispute settlement, there 
is no scope for its application in this dispute. 
D. Conclusions 
412. We therefore find that the Panel did not err, in paragraph 7.1265 of the Panel Report, in 
finding that the entry "Sound recording distribution services" under the heading "Audiovisual Services" (sector 2.D) in China's GATS Schedule ex tends to the distribution of sound recordings in 
non-physical form, notably through electronic means. 
413. In the light of the above, we uphold  the Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 8.2.3(b)(i) of the 
Panel Report, that, as regards the electronic distribution of sound recordings, "[t]he Circular on 
Internet Culture  (Article II), the Network Music Opinions  (Article 8), and the Several Opinions  
(Article 4), each is inconsistent with China's national treatment commitments under Article XVII of 
the GATS.  Article X:7 of the [List] of Pr ohibited Foreign Investment Industries of the Catalogue , in 
                                                     
 
723China's appellant's submission, para. 193. 
724United States' appellee's submission, para. 115. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 167 
 
 
conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation , is also inconsistent with 
Article XVII of the GATS."725 
VIII.  Findings and Conclusions 
414. For the reasons set forth in section V of this  Report, with respect to China's measures 
pertaining to films for theatrical release and unf inished audiovisual products, the Appellate Body: 
(a) finds  that the Panel did not err, in paragra phs 7.560 and 7.584 of the Panel Report, in 
finding that Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise 
Rule are subject to China's trading rights co mmitments in paragraphs 1.2 and 5.1 of 
China's Accession Protocol and paragraphs  83(d) and 84(a) and (b) of China's 
Accession Working Party Report;  and therefore 
(b) upholds  the Panel's conclusions, in paragraph 8. 1.2(c)(ii), (iii), (vi), and (vii) of the 
Panel Report726, that Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film 
Enterprise Rule  are inconsistent with China's trading rights commitments in 
paragraphs 1.2 and 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol and paragra phs 83(d) and 84(a) 
and (b) of China's Accession Working Party Report;   
(c) finds  that the Panel did not err, in paragra phs 7.652 and 7.674 of the Panel Report, in 
finding that Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and Article 7 of 
the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule  are subject to China's obligation, in 
paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession Prot ocol and paragraph 84(b) of China's 
Accession Working Party Report, to grant in a non-discretionary manner the right to trade;  and therefore 
(d) upholds
 the Panel's conclusions, in paragra ph 8.1.2(d)(i) and (v) of the Panel 
Report727, that Article 5 of the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  and Article 7 of 
the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule  are inconsistent with China's obligation, 
in paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession Pr otocol and paragraph 84(b) of China's 
Accession Working Party Report, to grant in a non-discretionary manner the right to 
trade. 
                                                      
725See also Panel Report, para. 7.1311. 
726See also Panel Report, paras. 7.571, 7.576, 7.594, 7.598, and 7.599. 
727See also Panel Report, paras. 7.657 and 7.680. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 168  
 
415. For the reasons set forth in section VI of this Report, the Appellate Body: 
(a) finds
 that, by virtue of the introductory clause of paragraph 5.1 of China's Accession 
Protocol, China may, in this dispute, invoke Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 to 
justify provisions found to be inconsiste nt with China's trading rights commitments 
under its Accession Protocol and Working Party Report; 
(b) with respect to the Panel's analysis of  the contribution made by the relevant 
provisions of China's measures728 to the protection of public morals within the 
meaning of Article XX(a): 
(i) finds  that the Panel did not err, in para graphs 7.860 and 7.863 of the Panel 
Report, in its finding regarding the cont ribution made by the State-ownership 
requirement in Article 42 of the Publications Regulation ; 
(ii) finds  that the Panel did not err, in para graphs 7.865 and 7.868 of the Panel 
Report, in its finding regarding the contribution made by the provisions 
excluding foreign-invested enterprises from engaging in the importation of the relevant products
729;  and 
(iii) finds  that the Panel erred, in paragraph 7.836 of the Panel Report, in finding 
that the State plan requirement in Article 42 of the Publications Regulation  is 
apt to make a material contribution to  the protection of public morals and 
that, in the absence of a reasonably available alternative, it can be 
characterized as "necessary" to protect public morals in China;  
(c) finds  that the Panel did not err in taking into account the restrictive effect that the 
relevant provisions and requirements ha ve on those wishing to engage in 
importing730;   
                                                      
728Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in 
conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  
Article 41, and Article 42 in co njunction with Article 41, of the Publications Regulation ;  Article 27 of the 2001 
Audiovisual Products Regulation ;  Article 8 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule ;  and Article 21 of 
the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule . 
729Such exclusion is set out in the following provisions :  Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited 
Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment 
Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  and Article 21 of the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule . 
730See Panel Report, paras. 7.788, 7.82 7, 7.835, 7.847, 7.862, and 7.867. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 169 
 
 
(d) finds  that the Panel did not err in finding, in paragraph 7.908 of the Panel Report, that 
at least one of the alternative measures proposed by the United States is an alternative 
"reasonably available" to China;  and, therefore 
(e) upholds  the Panel's conclusion, in paragr aph 8.2.(a)(i) of the Panel Report731, that 
China has not demonstrated that the relevant provisions are "necessary" to protect public morals, within the meaning of Artic le XX(a) of the GATT 1994 and that, as a 
result, China has not established that these provisions are justified under 
Article XX(a). 
416. For the reasons set forth in section VII of this Report, the Appellate Body: 
(a) finds
 that the Panel did not err, in paragra ph 7.1265 of the Panel Report, in finding 
that the entry "Sound recording distribution services" in sector 2.D of China's GATS 
Schedule extends to the distribution of sound recordings in non-physical form, 
notably through electronic means;  and, therefore 
(b) upholds  the Panel's conclusion, in paragr aph 8.2.3(b)(i) of the Panel Report732, that 
the provisions of China's measures733 prohibiting foreign-invested entities from 
engaging in the distribution of sound recordi ngs in electronic form are inconsistent 
with Article XVII of the GATS. 
417. The Appellate Body recommends  that the DSB request China to bring its measures, found in 
this Report and in the Panel Report as modified by this Report, to be inco nsistent with China's 
Accession Protocol, China's Accession Working Party Report, the GATS, and the GATT 1994 into 
conformity with China's obligations thereunder.   
 
                                                      
731See also, Panel Report, para. 7.913. 
732See also, Panel Report, para. 7.1311. 
733Article II of the  Circular on Internet Culture ;  Article 8 of the Network Music Opinions ;  Article 4 of 
the Several Opinions ;  and Article X:7 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , 
in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation . WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 170  
 
Signed in the original in Geneva this 6th day of December 2009 by:  
 
   
_________________________ 
Jennifer Hillman 
Presiding Member 
     
 _________________________ _________________________ 
 Shotaro Oshima Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández 
 Member Member 
 
 WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 171 
 
 
ANNEX I  
  
 
WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS363/10 
23 September 2009 
 
 (09-4455) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS  
AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS  
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS 
 
Notification of an Appeal by China
 
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules  
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),  
and under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
  
 The following notification, dated 22 Septembe r 2009, from the Delegation of the People's 
Republic of China, is being circulated to Members.  
_______________ 
  
 Pursuant to Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate 
Review , China hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel Report in China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services 
for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products  (WT/DS363/R, as amended by 
WT/DS363/R/Corr.1), and certain legal interpreta tions developed by the Panel in this Report.
1 
 1. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's legal c onclusions set out in 
paragraphs 7.913 and 8.2(a)(i) and (ii)
2 of the Panel Report that China's measures3 are not justified 
under Article XX(a) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  ("GATT 1994"). The Panel 
committed errors of law and legal interpretation in concluding that none of the relevant measures are 
"necessary" to protect public morals, within th e meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994. In 
particular:  
                                                      
1For ease of reference, China hereafter refers to this Report as the "Panel Report". 
2China makes reference to sub-section (a) under paragraph 8.2 on page 466 of the Panel Report. 
3The Catalogue  and the Foreign Investment Regulation  (Articles X.2 and X.3 as well as Articles 3 
and 4); the Several Opinions  (Article 4); the Publications Regulation  (Article 42 in conjunction with Article 41, 
and Article 41); the 2001 Audiovisual Products Regulation  (Article 27); the Audiovisual Products Importation 
Rule (Article 8); and the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule  (Article 21). WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 172  
 
1) The Panel erred in law  and failed to make an objective assessment of the 
matter before it, in violation of Article 11 of the DSU, in considering that the 
state-ownership requirement in Article 42 of the Publications Regulation  
makes no material contribution to the protection of public morals in China.
4 
2) To the extent that it based its findings on its reasoning concerning Article 42 
of the Publications Regulation , the Panel also erred in law in considering that 
the exclusions relating to foreign-invest ed enterprises in Articles X.2 and X.3 
of the Catalogue , Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation , 
Article 4 of the Several Opinions  and Article 21 of the Audiovisual 
(Sub-)Distribution Rule  make no material contribution to the protection of 
public morals in China.5 
3) The Panel erred in interpreting Artic le XX(a) of the GATT 1994 as requiring 
the Panel to also weigh the restrictive impact that the measures at issue may 
have on those wishing to engage in impor ting, in particular on their right to 
trade.6 
4) The Panel committed errors of law and legal interpretation, and failed to 
make an objective assessment of the fact s, in violation of Article 11 of the 
DSU, in considering that at least one of the alternative measures referred to 
by the United States was an alterna tive "reasonably available" to China.7 
Should the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's findi ngs that China's measures are not "necessary" to 
protect public morals, within the meaning of Artic le XX(a) of the GATT 1994, China requests that the 
Appellate Body complete the Panel's analysis and fi nd that China's measures are fully justified under 
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994. 
2. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of  the Panel's legal conclusions set out in sub-
section 3.(b)(i) of section VIII of the Panel Report8 that the Circular on Internet Culture  (Article II), 
the Network Music Opinions (Article 8), the Several Opinions  (Article 4) and Article X:7 of the 
Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation , are 
inconsistent with Article XVII of the GATS. The Pa nel's legal conclusions ar e based on errors of law 
and legal interpretation in applying the customary rul es of interpretation of public international law as 
codified in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ("the Vienna 
Convention"), to China's GATS schedule. Such errors led, inter alia , to the erroneous finding that 
China's schedule to the GATS includes specific co mmitments on the electronic distribution of sound 
recordings in non-physical form under Sector 2.D "sound recording distribution services", contrary to 
Articles 3.2 and 19.2 of the DSU.9 In particular: 
1) The Panel erred in its analysis of the ordinary meaning to be given to the 
terms "sound recording distribution services", taken in their context and in 
light of the object and purpose of the Treaty.10 
                                                      
4See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.850, 7.852–7.863. 
5See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.851, 7.864–7.868. 
6See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.787–7.788, 7.847–7.849, 7.862–7.863, 7.867–7.868. 
7See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.886–7.909. 
8Panel Report, page 467. 
9See, e.g., Panel Report, para. 7.1265. 
10See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.1173–7.1220. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 173 
 
 
2) The Panel erred in concluding that an analysis of China's GATS schedule 
based on supplementary means of in terpretation under Article 32 of the 
Vienna Convention confirmed its ear lier analysis, under Article 31 of the 
Vienna Convention, of China's commitment on sound recording distribution 
services.11  
3) Consequently, the Panel erred in la w in finding that China's measures12 are 
inconsistent with China's national tr eatment commitments under Article XVII 
of the GATS. 
3. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's legal conclusions, set out in 
paragraphs 7.576, 7.598, 7.599, 7.7 06 and sub-section 2.(c)(ii), (iii), (vi) and (vii) of Section VIII of 
the Panel Report,13 that Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule  
are inconsistent with China's trading rights commitments under China's Accession Protocol. The 
Panel's conclusions are based on errors of law and le gal interpretation, and on a failure to make an 
objective assessment of the facts before it, contrary to Article 11 of the DSU. Such errors led, inter 
alia, to the erroneous finding that the challenged meas ures are inconsistent with certain provisions of 
China's Accession Protocol, contrary to Articles 3.2 and 19.2 of the DSU. In particular, the Panel 
erred in concluding that China's trading rights commi tments are applicable to  the Chinese measures at 
issue, despite the fact that these measures do not re gulate hard-copy cinematographic film, which is 
the subject of the US claim.14 
4. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's legal c onclusions set out in 
paragraphs 7.706 and sub-section 2.(d)(i), (ii), (v), (v i) and (x) of section VIII of the Panel Report that 
Article 5 of the Audiovisual Products Regulation  and Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products 
Importation Rule  are inconsistent with China's trading rights commitments under China's Accession 
Protocol. The Panel's findings concerning these m easures are based on the same reasoning as the one 
on which the Panel based its findings concerning Article 30 of the Film Regulation  and Article 16 of 
the Film Enterprise Rule .15 
 
 
                                                      
11See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.1221–7.1247. 
12The Circular on Internet Culture  (Article II); the Network Music Opinions  (Article 8); the Several 
Opinions  (Article 4); and the Catalogue  (Article X:7, in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign 
Investment Regulation ). 
13Panel Report, pages 464–465. 
14See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.528–7.560, 7.584. 
15See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.649–7.651, 7.674.  WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 174  
 
ANNEX II
 
  
 
WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS363/11 
6 October 2009 
 
 (09-4781) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS  
AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS  
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS 
 
Notification of an Other Appeal by the United States
 
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules  
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),  
and under Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
  
 The following notification, dated 5 October 2009 , from the Delegation of the United States, is 
being circulated to Members.  
_______________ 
  
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the  Working Procedures for Appellate Review , the United States 
hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate  Body certain issues of law covered in the Report 
of the Panel in China – Measures Affecting Trading Right s and Distribution Services for Certain 
Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products  (WT/DS363/R & Corr.1) ("Panel Report") and 
certain legal interpretations  developed by the Panel. 
 
 The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's legal conclusion that the 
State plan requirement in Article 42 of the Publications Regulation  can be characterized as 
"necessary" to protect public morals in China within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 .
1  This conclusion is in error and is based on erroneous findings 
on issues of law and legal interpretations, and on the Panel's failure to carry out its obligations under 
Article 11 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes  to 
make an objective assessment of the matter before it.  
 
 
                                                     
 
1See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.829-7.836. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 175 
 
 
ANNEX III  
  
RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM 
CHINA'S ACCESSION PROTOCOL AND WORKING PARTY REPORT,   
CHINA'S GATS SCHEDULE, AND  
THE CHINESE MEASURES AT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL 
  
 
 
China's Trading Rights Commitments Relevant to This Appeal 
 
China's Accession 
Protocol Panel Exhibits US-1 and CN-1 
Paragraph 1.2 The WTO Agreement to which China acce des shall be the WTO Agreement as rectified, 
amended or otherwise modified by such legal instruments as may have entered into force before the date of accession. This Protocol, which shall include the commitments referred 
to in paragraph 342 of the Working Party Report, shall be an integral part of the WTO 
Agreement. 
Paragraphs 5.1  and 5.2 5.1     Without prejudice to China's right to regulate trade in a manner consistent with the 
WTO Agreement, China shall progressively liberalize the availability and scope of the 
right to trade, so that, with in three years after accession, all enterprises in China shall 
have the right to trade in all goods throughout the customs territory of China, except for those goods listed in Annex 2A which continue to be subject to state trading in 
accordance with this Protocol. Su ch right to trade shall be the right to import and export 
goods. All such good s shall be accorded national treatment under Article III of the 
GATT 1994, especially paragraph 4 thereof, in respect of their internal sale, offering for 
sale, purchase, transportation,  distribution or use, includ ing their direct access to end-
users. For those goods listed in Annex 2B, China shall phase out limitation on the grant of trading rights pursuant to the schedule in that Annex. China shall complete all 
necessary legislative procedures to implement these provisions during the transition 
period. 
5.2     Except as otherwise provided for in this Protocol, all foreign individuals and 
enterprises, including those not invested or  registered in China, shall be accorded 
treatment no less favourable than that accorded to enterprises in China with respect to the 
right to trade. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 176  
 
 
China's Accession 
Working Party 
Report Panel Exhibit US-2 
Paragraphs 83(d)  
and 84(a) and (b) 83.    The representative of China confirme d that during the three years of transition, 
China would progressively liberalize the sc ope and availability of trading rights.  
          ... 
          (d)  The representative of Chin a also confirmed that w ithin three years after 
accession, all enterprises in China would be gr anted the right to trade. Foreign invested 
enterprises would not be required to establish in a particular form or as a separate entity 
to engage in importing and exporting nor would new business licence encompassing 
distribution be required to engage in importing and exporting. 
84.    (a)  The representative of China reco nfirmed that China would eliminate its system 
of examination and approval of trading rights within three years after accession. At that 
time, China would permit all enterprises in China and foreign enterprises and individuals, including sole proprietorships of other WTO Members, to export and import all goods 
(except for the share of products listed in An nex 2A to the Draft Protocol reserved for 
importation and exportation by state trading ente rprises) throughout the customs territory 
of China. Such right, however, did not permit importers to distribute goods within China. 
Providing distribution services would be done in accordance with China's Schedule of Specific Commitments under the GATS. 
        (b)  With respect to the grant of trading rights to foreign enterprises and individuals, 
including sole proprietorships of other WTO members, the representative of China confirmed that such rights would be granted in a non-discriminatory and non-
discretionary way. He further confirmed th at any requirements for obtaining trading 
rights would be for customs and fiscal purposes only and would not constitute a barrier to trade. The representative of China emphasized that foreign enterprises and individuals 
with trading rights had to comply with a ll WTO-consistent requirements related to 
importing and exporting, such as those concerning import licensing, TBT and SPS, but confirmed that requirements relating to minimum capital and prior experience would not 
apply. 
Paragraph 342 The Working Party took note of the explanations and statements of China concerning its 
foreign trade regime, as reflected in this Report.  The Working Party took note of the commitments given by China in relation to certain specific matters which are reproduced 
in paragraphs ... 83 [and] 84 ... of this Report and noted that these commitments are 
incorporated in paragraph 1.2 of the Draft Protocol.  
 Sector 2.D of China's GATS Schedule* 
 
Modes of supply: (1) Cross-border supply (2) Consumption abroad (3) Commercial presence (4) Presence of natural persons 
Sector or sub-sector Limitations on market access Limitation on nationa l treatment Additional commitments 
2.  COMMUNICATION SERVICES 
D.  Audiovisual Services 
 
-   Videos, including entertainment 
software and  
(CPC 83202), distribution services 
-    Sound recording distribution 
services  
(1) None 
(2) None 
(3) Upon accession, foreign services 
suppliers will be permitted to 
establish contractual joint ventures 
with Chinese partners to engage  
in the distribution of audiovisual 
products, excluding motion pictures, without prejudice to 
China's right to examine the 
content of audio and video products (see footnote 1). 
(4) Unbound, except as indicated in 
horizontal commitments.  
(1) None 
(2) None 
(3) None 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
(4) Unbound, except as indicated in  
horizontal commitments.  
Without prejudice to compliance  
with China's regulations on the 
administration of films, upon accession, China will allow the 
importation of motion pictures for 
theatrical release on a revenue-sharing 
basis and the number of such imports 
shall be 20 on an annual basis. 
-   Cinema Theatre Services (1) None 
(2) None 
(3) Upon accession, foreign services 
suppliers will be permitted to construct and/or renovate cinema 
theatres, with foreign investment 
no more than 49 per cent. 
(4) Unbound, except as indicated in  
horizontal commitments. (1) None 
(2) None 
(3) None 
  
 
 
(4) Unbound, except as indicated in  
horizontal commitments.  
[Footnote 1 to section I. HORIZONTAL COMMI TMENTS under "Limitations on market access", mode 3.]  The terms of the contract, con cluded in accordance with 
China's laws, regulations and other measures, establishing a "contractual joint venture" govern matters such as the manner of o peration and management of the joint 
venture as well as the investment or other contributions of the joint venture parties.  Equity participation by all parties to the contractual joint venture is not required, but 
is determined pursuant to the joint venture contract. 
 
_________________________ *The cover note to China's GATS Schedule, GATS/SC/135, st ates that the Schedule is authentic in English only. 
 WT/DS363/AB/R
Page 177WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 178  
 
 Provisions of the Chinese Measures Relevant to This Appeal** 
 
 United States' Translation China's Translation 
Foreign Investment 
Regulation Panel Exhibit US-9 None provided 
Article 3 The Catalogue of Industries for Guiding 
Foreign Investment and the Catalog of 
Priority Industries Available for Foreign 
Investment in the Mid-West Region, drawn 
up by the National Development and Reform Commission, the State Economic 
and Trade Commission, and the Ministry 
of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation in conjunction with relevant 
departments of the State Council, have 
been promulgated after approval by the State Council.  When partial adjustments 
are necessary in regard to the two 
Catalogs, the State Economic and Trade Commission, the National Development 
and Reform Commission, and the Ministry 
of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation, in conjunction with relevant 
departments of the State Council, shall 
make timely revisions and promulgate them. 
The Catalogue of Industries for Guiding 
Foreign Investment and the Catalog of 
Priority Industries Available for Foreign 
Investment in the Mid-West Region are the basis for the examination and approval of 
foreign-invested projects and FIE 
applicable policies. None provided 
Article 4 Foreign-invested projects are divided into 
four categories: Those encouraged, 
permitted, restricted, and prohibited. 
The encouraged, restri cted and prohibited 
categories of foreign- invested projects are 
listed in the Catalog of Industries for 
Guiding Foreign Investment.  Those not included in the encouraged, restricted, and 
prohibited categories fall into the permitted 
category of foreign-invested projects.  The permitted category is not listed in the 
Catalogue of Industries for Guiding 
Foreign Investment. None provided 
 
**The Panel explained that it would, when referring to a provision of a Chinese measure, use the translation 
provided by the United States, unless the parties agreed to use the translation provided by China, or if based on 
the advice of the independent translat or the Panel found that the translation provided by the United States was 
inappropriate. (Panel Report, footnote 84 to para. 7.34)  It appears that, for the following listed provisions, the 
Panel used the translation provided by the United States, except that, for Article 8 of the Audiovisual Products 
Importation Rule , Article II of the Circular on Internet Culture , and Article 8 of the Network Music Opinions , 
the Panel used the translation provided by China.  WT/DS363/AB/R 
 Page 179 
 
 
  United States' Translation China's Translation 
Catalogue Panel Exhibit US-5 Panel Exhibit CN-41 
Articles X:2,  
X:3, and X:7 in the List of 
Prohibited Foreign 
Investment 
Industries 2.  Publication, master distribution, and 
import operations of books, newspapers and periodicals 
3.  Publication, production, and import 
operations of audiovisual products and 
electronic publications 
... 7.  News websites, network audio-visual 
program services, internet on-line service 
operation site, and internet culture 
operation 2. Publishing, Zong Fa Xing and 
importation of books, newspapers and periodicals 
3.  Publishing, producing and importation 
of audiovisual products and electronic 
publications 
... 7.  News websites, service of network 
audio-visual programs, business sites of 
internet access services, internet culture operating 
Several Opinions Panel Exhibit US-6 None provided 
Article 4 Foreign investors are prohibited from 
setting up and operating news agencies, 
radio broadcasting stations, television stations, radio-TV transmission networks, 
companies producing and broadcasting 
radio and television programs, companies making motion pictures, business dealing 
in internet culture and sites for Internet 
services (Hong Kong and Macao are exceptions), cultural and art performance 
groups, motion picture import and 
distribution companies, and video projection companies.  Foreign investors 
are prohibited from engaging in the 
publication, master distribution and import 
of books, newspapers and periodicals, and 
publishing, production, master distribution, and import of audiovisual products and 
electronic publications, as well as using the 
information network to provide audiovisual program services, news 
websites, and internet publication 
businesses.  Foreign investors may not covertly enter into sectors of propaganda 
such as channels, frequencies, layouts, 
editing, and publishing through such business operations as sub-distribution, 
printing, advertising, and reconstruction of 
cultural facilities. None provided WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 180  
 
  United States' Translation China's Translation 
Publications 
Regulation Panel Exhibit US-7 Panel Exhibit CN-14 
Article 41 The business of importing publications 
shall be operated by publication import 
entities established in compliance with 
these Regulations, among which those that 
engage in the business of importing 
newspapers or periodicals shall be designated by the publication 
administration under the State Council. 
No entity or individual shall engage in the 
business of importing publications without 
approval; and no entity or individual shall 
engage in the business of importing newspapers or periodicals without being 
designated. The business of importing publications 
shall be operated by the publication 
importation entities established in 
accordance with these Regulations. Among 
others, those publication importation 
entities engaged in importing newspapers or periodicals shall be designated by the 
administrative department of publishings 
under the State Council. 
No entity or individual may be engaged in 
importing publications without approval; 
and, without being designated, no entity or individual may be engaged in importing 
newspapers or periodicals. 
Article 42 In order to establish a publication import 
entity, the applicant shall meet the following conditions:  
(1)  have a name and articles of association 
for the publication import entity;  
(2)  be a wholly State-owned enterprise 
and have a sponsoring entity under a 
superior agency recognized by the publication administration under the State 
Council;  
(3)  have a well-defined scope of business;  
(4)  have an organization suited to the 
needs of its business of importing publications and specialized personnel who 
meet the qualification requirements 
determined by the State; 
(5)  have funding suited to its business of 
importing publications;  
(6)  have a fixed work site;  and (7)  other conditions stipulated in laws and 
administrative regulations or by the State. 
Approval to establish a publication import 
entity shall not only be in compliance with 
the conditions listed in the preceding 
paragraphs, but also conform to the State plan for the total number, structure, and 
distribution of publication import entities. The following conditions shall be met for 
the establishment of a publication importation entity: 
(1)  having name and articles of 
association of the publication importation entity; 
(2)  being a wholly state-owned enterprise 
and having a sponsoring entity and the supervising entity  which are recognized by 
the administrative department of 
publishing under the State Council; 
(3)  having a defined scope of business; 
(4)  having an organizational structure 
adapted to the needs of its business of 
importing publications and professionals 
who meet the qualification requirements prescribed by the State; 
(5)  having funds adequate for its business 
of importing publications; 
(6)  having fixed business premises; 
(7)  other conditions provided for in laws 
and administrative regulations or by the State. 
In addition to the conditions prescribed in 
the preceding paragraph, the approval of the establishment of a publication 
importation entity shall also be consistent 
with the plans of the State on the total number, structure and layout of the 
publication importation entities.  WT/DS363/AB/R 
 Page 181 
 
 
  United States' Translation China's Translation 
2001 Audiovisual 
Products 
Regulation Panel Exhibit US-16 Panel Exhibit CN-2 
Article 5 The state institutes a system of licensing in 
regard to the publishing, production, 
reproduction, import, wholesale, retail and 
rental of audiovisual products.  No entity 
or individual may engage in the publishing, production, reproduction, 
import, wholesale, retail and rental of 
audiovisual products without necessary permit. 
Permits and approval documents issued in 
compliance with these Regulations may not be rented out or lent out, sold or 
assigned in any other form. The State shall apply a licensing system in 
respect of the publication, production, 
reproduction, importation, wholesale, retail 
and leasing of audiovisual products. No 
entity or individual shall, without the license, be engaged in the publication, 
production, reproduction, importation, 
wholesale, retail and leasing, etc. of audiovisual products. 
The certificates of license or approval 
documents issued in accordance with the Regulations shall not be leased, lent, sold 
or transferred in any way. 
Article 27 The import of finished audiovisual 
products shall be handled by finished audiovisual product import entities 
designated by the cultural administration 
under the State Council.  Any entity or individual which have not been designated 
may not engage in the import of finished 
audiovisual products. The importation of finished audiovisual 
products shall be operated by the importation entity of finished audiovisual 
products designated by the administrative 
department of cultural affairs under the State Council; no entity or individual may 
operate the importation of finished  
audiovisual products without being designated. 
Audiovisual 
Products 
Importation Rule  Panel Exhibit US-17 Panel Exhibit CN-15 
Article 7 The State shall implement a system of 
licensing in regard to the import of 
audiovisual products. The State shall apply a license system to 
the importation of audiovisual products. 
Article 8 The business of importing finished 
audiovisual products shall be entrusted to 
audiovisual units designated by the 
Ministry of Culture.  Without the designation of the Ministry of Culture, no 
unit or individual may engage in the 
importing of finished audiovisual products. The import business of audiovisual 
finished products shall be operated by the 
audiovisual product operating entities 
designated by the Ministry of Culture; no entity or individual shall be engaged in the 
importation of finished audiovisual 
products without the designation of the Ministry of Culture. 
Audiovisual  
(Sub-)Distribution 
Rule Panel Exhibit US-18 Panel Exhibit CN-54 
Article 21 A Chinese-foreign contractual joint 
venture for sub-distribution of audiovisual 
products may not engage in the import of 
audiovisual products. No Sino-foreign distribution contractual 
joint venture of audiovisual products may 
engage in the importation of audiovisual 
products. WT/DS363/AB/R 
Page 182  
 
  United States' Translation China's Translation 
Film Regulation Panel Exhibit US-20 Panel Exhibit CN-11 
Article 30 The business of importing films shall be 
conducted by film importing entities designated by the radio, film, and 
television administration under the State 
Council; without being designated, no 
entity or individual shall engage in the 
business of importing films. The business of importing films shall be 
operated by the film importation entities designated by the administrative 
department of radio, films and television 
under the State Council. No entity or 
individual shall conduct the business of 
importing films without being designated. 
Film Enterprise 
Rule Panel Exhibit US-22 Panel Exhibit CN-13 
Article 16 The business of importing films shall be 
exclusively conducted by film import 
enterprises that are approved by SARFT.  The distribution of imported films 
nationwide shall be carried out by 
distribution companies that are approved by SARFT and have the right to distribute 
imported films nationwide. Importation of films shall be exclusively 
operated by film importation enterprises 
approved by the SARFT.  Nationwide distribution of imported films shall be 
conducted by those di stribution companies 
which are approved by SARFT to have rights to distribute imported films in 
China. 
Circular on Internet 
Culture Panel Exhibit US-33 Panel Exhibit CN-67 
Article II To apply for the establishment of an 
Internet cultural unit, the applicant shall 
meet the application requirements listed in 
the Rules and the plans for the total number, structure, and deployment for 
Internet cultural units, and shall also have 
sources for Internet cultural products or the 
ability to produce Internet cultural 
products. To apply to be established as a commercial Internet cultural unit, the 
applicant shall have ¥1 million RMB or 
more in registered capital, eight or more professional techni cal staff such as 
network administrators and editors, and 
apply as an enterprise.  An applicant to set up a non-commercial Internet cultural unit 
is not required to go through relevant 
procedures in the form of an enterprise.  Presently, all areas shall not accept 
applications to engage in Internet cultural 
activities from Internet information service providers with foreign investment. Whoever applies to establish an Internet 
cultural entity shall comply with relevant 
conditions in the Provisions, and plan of 
the total number, structure and layout of Internet cultural entities, and have lawful 
supply channel of Internet cultural works 
or capacity of producing internet cultural 
works; whoever applies to establish a 
commercial Internet cultural entity shall have a registered capital of more than 
RMB 1 million and at least eight 
professional technological personnel, such as internet management personnel or 
editors, and apply and process relevant 
formalities in the form of an enterprise. 
Whoever applies to establish a non-
commercial internet cultural entity shall 
not go through the relevant formalities in the form of enterprise.  Provisionally, 
application submitted by internet 
information service providers with foreign investment for engaging in internet cultural 
activities shall not be accepted.  WT/DS363/AB/R 
 Page 183 
 
 
  United States' Translation China's Translation 
Network Music 
Opinions Panel Exhibit US-34 Panel Exhibit CN-68 
Article 8 Establishing strict market entry rules and 
strengthening regulation over content.  
Internet culture business units which apply 
to set up network music operations should 
comply with the "Rules."  To engage in 
network music product operations, a unit must get a Network Cultural Business 
License issued by the Ministry of Culture.  
Foreign-invested network cultural business units are prohibited. To regulate market access, and to enhance 
supervision over contents; the application 
for establishing an Internet cultural entity 
to engage in network music business shall 
meet the requirements of the Provisions; 
whoever engages in the network music works operation shall obtain the 
"Certificate of License for Network 
Cultural Operation" issued by the Ministry of Culture. It is prohibited to establish 
network cultural entities with foreign 
investment. 
 
__________