WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/DS/W/90 
16 July 2007 
 
 (07-2996) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
Special Session Original:   English 
 
 
DIAGNOSIS OF THE PROBLEMS AFFECTING 
THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM 
 
Some Ideas by Mexico  
 
 
 The following communication is circulated at th e request of the delegation of Mexico.  This 
document was originally circulated as JOB(03)/208 on 10 November 2003.  
_______________ 
 
 
INTRODUCTION
 
 
The DSU review so far  
 
The process to amend the DSU started in 1998 and has gone through a number of phases without 
yielding concrete results. The latest attempt stems fr om the mandate at Doha, which stated that "the 
negotiations should be based on the work done thus far as well as any additional proposals by 
Members, and aim to agree on improvements and clarif ications not later than May 2003". More than 
40 new proposals were submitted and again,  we have failed to meet our goal. 
 
In spite of the fact that the Ch airman has submitted his own text, there is no agreement in sight, and 
the May 2004 deadline (already pushed back from Ma y 2003) may again prove to be inadequate. 
There are still many conceptual difficulties among delegations; technical divergences prevail all over 
the text and there is still substantial disagreem ent as to which issues need to be included. 
 
Mexico believes that the lack of focus  has been the prevalent element in our failure to reach 
consensus. There is not a clear id ea of the goal of the exercise, there has been no prioritisation of 
issues, and Members have repeatedly found them selves stranded in technical discussions without 
strategic guidance.  
Our inability to get results is especially problem atic since the pressures on the system are bound to 
rise as disputes increase: in the past, every new roun d has led to a jump in disputes, as the number of 
issues covered by multilateral disciplines have incr eased (e.g. TRIPS), commitments have deepened 
(e.g. deeper tariff cuts) and new Members have acceded to the organization (e.g. China). TN/DS/W/90 
Page 2  
 
   
 
Alternative approach:  diagnosis-based work
 
 This document is based on the premise that we need  to start our work by detecting the major problems 
facing the DSU today. Once we are clear on what  we are trying to solve, it should be much easier to 
define how to solve it. 
 
In other words, we propose to undertake a diagnostic exercise to identify the fundamental 
problems, before considering the specific proposals aimed at solving them . This diagnostic 
exercise should be based on the analysis of the empirical evidence accumulated during the first 8½ 
years of the DSU's operation; this would help us stay objective and avoid subjective appreciations 
colouring the diagnosis. 
 
To help guide the diagnostic exercise, the present document proposes a classification of what 
Members seem to consider major problems, based on the proposals they have submitted: From each 
existing proposal, the underlying problem was distille d and classified with related problems, yielding 
ten fairly general categories.
1  
 
For easier reference, we have grouped problem cate gories into three broad baskets: access to the 
system (comprising integration of developing count ries and LDCs, internal tr ansparency and external 
transparency), compliance (which includes enhanc ing compliance and limiting the application of 
remedies) and procedural issues (covering the need to ensure professionalism, modification of timeframes, alternative means for dispute resolution and others).  
 
While we have worked from the proposals to detect the problems, we take no position on the 
proposals themselves. Specifically, it is not the ai m of this paper to discuss whether the proposals 
effectively solve the problems. Such a discussion be longs to a later phase of the exercise, once we 
have finished the diagnosis. 
 
It should also be said from the outset that this is a first approach to the dia gnosis, intended to spark the 
discussion among Members. We have included, for ea ch category, some (clearly marked) remarks 
reflecting our reaction to the data, but we certainl y don't see these remarks as the ultimate answer. In 
fact, we welcome discussion and different interpre tations of the evidence we have laid out (and 
additions to it). That is exactly the kind of exercise we believe is needed at this stage. 
                                                     
 
1 We used the latest Chairman's compilation (JOB(03)/69/Rev.2) as the universe of proposals. Some 
proposals could address more than one single problem. However, for practical purposes, all proposals were 
introduced in the single category of problems wh ich they more likely intended to solve. Disputes by year 
Average for the period 
following the round
1.26.210.5
Geneva-Kennedy
48-79Tokyo   80-94 Uruguay 95-01 Doha TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 3 
 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 I. Access to the system ............................................................................................................. 4 
 
 I.1 Developing country Members and LDCs are not integrated into the 
  dispute settlement system ......................................................................................... 4  1.2 Need to increase in ternal transparency ..................................................................... 6 
 1.3 Need to modify rules on external transparency ........................................................ 8  II. Compliance ................................................................................................................. .......... 9  
 
 II.1 Need to enhance compliance .................................................................................. 10  II.2 Need to limit the application of remedies ............................................................... 12  III. Procedur al issues......................................................................................................... ....... 13  
 
 III.1 Need to ensure professionalism in examining disputes .......................................... 13  III.2 Need to modify timeframes .................................................................................... 15  III.3 Need to explore alternative means for dispute resolution....................................... 16  III.4 Need for parties to regain control of disputes......................................................... 17 
 III.5 Miscellaneous ......................................................................................................... 18  
 TN/DS/W/90 
Page 4  
 
   
I. ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM 
I.1 DEVELOPING COUNTRY MEMBERS AND LDCS ARE NOT INTEGRATED INTO 
THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM 
 
Basic facts 
 
⇒ Of a total of 295 disputes (DS numbers):
 2,3 
• 197 (61%) have been initiated by  developed country Members; 
• 125 (39%) have been initiated by developing country Members; and 
• 0% has been initiated by LDCs.4 
 
⇒ Furthermore, of 131 WTO Members:5 
• 29 are developed countries (11 of which have initiated a dispute); 
• 72 are developing countries (28 of wh ich have initiated a dispute); and  
• 30 are LDCs (0 of which have initiated a dispute). 
 
⇒ Developing countries and LDCs with a high relian ce of trade (as measured in relation to the 
size of their economy) are not recurring to the dispute settlement mechanism.6 
 
 
 
                                                      
2 The cases were addressed until 29 June 2003.  Each dispute is identified by a DS number. If a panel 
or Appellate Body report contains more than one DS number, it will be considered as a number of disputes 
equal to the number of DS numbers contained. To the date mentioned, 295 requests for consultations had been 
submitted; 89 Panel/AB reports had been  adopted, 77 of which had found at least one violation of the WTO 
Agreements; 13 cases had been referred to a 21.5 panel and 7 awards on the level of nullification or impairment 
had been issued. Arbitrations on RPT, on the level of  nullification or impairment and second recourses to 
Article 21.5 have not been considered except where it is expressly stated. 
3 Annex 1 and 2.  
4 322 Members have requested consultations. This figu re considers the joint requests for consultations 
issued as a single DS number (e.g. shrimp-turtle). 
5 The original number of WTO Members is 145 at the time of this work; but for this exercise we are 
counting the European Community as one Me mber instead of 15 separate Members. 
6 Source for Trade/GDP – Heston, Summers and Aten, Penn World Table Version 6.1, Center for 
International Comparisons at the University of Pennsylvania (CICUP), October 2002. 
   Weight of trade in economy  
vs. com plains filed  
72   
63   
29 
18 25   
0   0   75 
22 15   
African Group  LDCs    US Brazil  India    Trade/GDP (%)    
Compl ai nts    TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Specific Problems 
 
i. The DSU does not prov ide for litigation costs. 
ii. Consultations are not held in the capitals of LDCs. iii. The particular problems of developing count ries and LDCs are not effectively taken into 
account. 
iv. The system does not ensure the presence of  panelists from developing countries or LDCs. 
v. Panel timeframes do not provide fo r special and differential treatment. 
 
What the experience tells us 
 
i. Do litigation costs amount to a major determinant in the access of developing countries
? 
  The legal fees of the Advisory Centre on WTO Law for handling a whole case (consultations, 
panel and Appellate Body proceedings): 
 
• From 6,000 US dollars, for a minimum of 240 hours at a rate of 25 US dollars (for 
LDCs); 
• To 222,250 US dollars, for a maximum of 635 hours at 350 US dollars (the highest 
rate for non-Member developing countries).
7 This equals half-a-day  of Ecuador's 
losses in the banana case.8 
 ii. Is holding consultations in the capitals of LDCs a problem
? 
 
• There have been no cases brought by or against LDCs. 
• However, the provisions of the DSU do not preclude the possibility of carrying out 
consultations in an LDC capital.9 In fact, it is common practise among Members to 
agree on the place for consultations, which of ten take place in the capital of one of 
them. 
 
iii. How many times have panels been required to  take into account the particular problems of 
developing countries and LDCs ? 
 
• Of 174 reports adopted10, Members (complainants or defendants) have invoked 
provisions on special and differe ntial treatment 24 times (13.8%).11 
 
iv. Are nationals from developing countri es and LDCs being selected as panelists ? 
 
• To date, 273 panel positio ns have been filled; 
• Of which 113 have been assigned to nationals of developing country 
Members (41%); 
                                                      
7 See http://www.acwl.ch/ 
8 The Ecuador-bananas example is used throughout the whole document, where the level of 
nullification or impairment needs to be estimated. Based on the arbitrator's award regarding the annual level of 
nullification or impairment suffered by Ecuador in th at case, we estimated that its daily losses amount to 
$552,328 US dollars. 
9 Art. 4. DSU 
10 89 panel reports, 64 Appellate Body reports, 13 panel reports under Article 21.5 and 8 Appellate 
Body reports under Article 21.5. 
11 Annex 4  TN/DS/W/90 
Page 6  
 
   
• No national of a LDC has been appointed panelist to date (0%).
12 
 v. Is it necessary that panel timeframes pr ovide for special and differential treatment
? 
 
• The average time for a panel to issue its report is 9.2 months.13 
• There is no substantial difference in the ti meframes of panels involving developed 
countries vis-à-vis  those involving developing country Members.14 
• Of a total of 89 panel and 64 Appellate Body  reports adopted, none has ruled against 
a developing country Member for not meeting a particular deadline.  
 
Remarks : 
• Disputes by developed countries are much more frequent than by developing countries.  
• LDCs have never been engaged in  the dispute settlement system. 
• This disparity is even more striking since trade represents a high proportion of GDP in 
many non-using developing countries and LDCs. 
• Financial aspects of engaging in a WTO dispute do not seem to be at the core of the 
problem. 
• Neither is the panel's attention to matters involving development issues. 
• Or the impossibility of meeting deadlines. 
• There is a fair amount of panelists from deve loping country Members, but not a single one 
from LDCs.  
 
 
I.2 NEED TO INCREASE INTERNAL TRANSPARENCY 
 
Basic facts 
 
⇒ Out of 89 cases in which a panel report has been adopted, Members have participated as third 
parties in 81 (90%).15 
 
⇒ Out of 64 cases in which an Appellate Body  report has been adopted, Members have 
participated as third par ticipants in 54 (84.4%).16 
 
⇒ Public submissions may be obtained from many ac tive players, e.g. the EC, the United States, 
the Advisory Centre on WTO Law, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.17 
 
⇒ The average delay between issuance of a final pa nel report to parties and its circulation to 
other Members is 28 days.18 
 
                                                      
12 http://www.world tradelaw.net/dsc/database/panelistcountrycount.asp. The figures refer to the 
positions as panelists, regardless of the amount of DS numbers involved. Compliance panels are also 
considered. 
13 Annex 3. 
14 Annex 3. See also WT/DSB/OV/14. 
15 http://www.worldtradelaw.net/dsc/database/partiespanel.asp . The cases where no third party has been 
involved are: DS8, DS10, DS11, DS31, DS90, DS99, DS126 and DS170.  
16 http://www.worldtradelaw.net/d sc/database/partiesab.asp . The cases where no third participant has 
been involved are: DS8, DS10, DS11, DS31, DS33, DS90, DS103, DS113, DS170, and DS176. 
17 http://www.acwl.ch/ . There are other Members which make their submissions public, but do not 
upload them in a webpage, such as Norway 
18 Annex 3.  TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 7 
 
 
  ⇒ Appellate Body reports are made available to  parties and other Members on the same day. 19 
 
⇒ All WTO Members have access to the meetings of the DSB where panels are established and 
reports are adopted. 
 
Specific Problems 
 i. Rules for joining consu ltations are not adequate; 
ii. There is no adequate protection for "strictly confidential information"; 
iii. Third parties do not have enough rights; iv. DSB rules for surveillance on compliance are insufficient. 
 What the experience tells us  
i. Are rules for joining consultations adequate
? 
 
• Of a total of 295 consultation requests, in 153 cases there has been at least one 
request of a Member wishing to join the consultations. 
• On average, 3.2 Members request to join the consultations per case.20 
• The current rules allow the Member being consulted to establish its own standard as 
to whether the request to join is well founded, and do not provide for deadlines.21 
 ii. Is there adequate protection for "strictly confidential information"
? 
 
• Of 174 reports adopted,22 16 have dealt with business confidential 
information (9.2%). 
• In 6 of those cases, the parties agreed on procedures for the treatment of confidential 
information. 
• In another 5 cases, either the Appellate Body or the panel refused a request for 
procedures for the treatment of confidential information. 23 
 iii. Do third parties have enough rights
? 
 
• Shortcomings of third party rights can  be divided in three categories: 
– Documents they cannot access:  submissions made afte r the first substantive 
meeting; oral statements of the parties and replies to questions from the panel; interim and final panel report in advance. 
– Meetings they cannot attend:  part of the first substantive meeting and all of 
the second substantive meeting, as we ll as any meeting during the interim 
review process. 
– Examination of their arguments:  while  panels or the Appellate Body are 
required to hear the arguments of third parties, they are not required to address them.
24 
 
                                                      
19 Rules for circulation and derestriction of documents: WT/GC/W/464/Rev.1 
20 Annex 5. 
21 Art. 4.11 of the DSU. 
22 89 panel reports, 64 Appellate Body reports, 13 panel reports under Article 21.5 and 8 Appellate 
Body reports under Article 21.5. 
23 Annex 6. 
24 Annex 7. TN/DS/W/90 
Page 8  
 
  iv. Are rules for surveillan ce on compliance insufficient
?25 
 
• In 57 of 72 cases where an RPT has been required (79%),26 the RTP has exceeded 
6 months, which means Members have have b een required to inform as to the status 
of implementation under the current rules. 
• At each DSB meeting in which surveillance of implementation has been an issue, 
Members have had the opportunity to comment on the implementation and have used it widely. 
 
Remarks : 
• Most internal transparency issues can be so lved by becoming a third party in a dispute 
settlement case. Furthermore, non-third parti es have access to submissions by many key 
players. 
• Third parties have access to the essential documen ts in dispute settlement proceedings, but 
their views are not necessarily considered by panels and the Appellate Body. 
• The issue regarding the rules for joining consultations has come up frequently, and practice 
on acceptance or refusal is not transparent. 
• The issue of strictly confidential informa tion has come up in a limited number of cases. 
• The timelines for surveillance of complian ce of DSB rulings and recommendations seem 
adequate, given the length of time to comply in most cases. There are no standards, 
however, as to the level of detail which communications may contain. 
 
 
I.3 NEED TO MODIFY RULES ON EXTERNAL TRANSPARENCY 
 
Basic Facts  
⇒ The access of the general public to disputes is the same as that of WTO Members, with the 
following exceptions: 
 
• They cannot access DSB meetings where pane ls are established and panel reports are 
adopted; 
• Their access to the minutes of such meetings is subject to the timelines established in 
the rules on derestriction.
27 
 
⇒ The general public has been able to communi cate with panels and the Appellate Body: 
 
• Through their governments' submissions; 
• Upon request of the panel;28 or 
• In some cases, through amicus curiae  briefs. 29 
 
Specific Problems 
 i. Need to establish procedures for amicus curiae  briefs; 
ii. Need to prohibit amicus curiae  briefs; 
                                                     
 
25 Surveillance by the DSB on implementation begins 6 months after the date of adoption. 
26 Annex 10. Violations have been found in 77 cases so far, but immediate compliance (30 days or less) 
has been ensured 5 times. 
27 WT/GC/W/464/Rev.1. 45 days after the date of circulation. 
28 Art. 13 of the DSU. 
29 Annex 8.  TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 9 
 
 
  iii. Procedures should be open to the public. 
 
What the experience tells us  
 
i. Is there a need for establishing procedures for amicus curiae briefs ? 
ii. Is there a need for prohibiting amicus curiae  briefs ? 
 
• Of 174 reports adopted,30 amicus curiae  briefs have been submitted 
15 times (8.6%).31 
• In 13 of these 15 cases, Members have expressed concern at DSB meetings.32 
 iii. Should proceedings be open to the public
? 
 
• Hearings before panels, the Appellate Body and arbitrators have never been open to 
the public. 
• Public access to the discussions held dur ing those meetings has two types of 
limitations: – The extent to which Members make public their own submissions and replies 
to panels (at the discretion of the Member); and 
– Temporal: positions are made pub lic at the panel/Appellate Body 
proceedings, in the descriptive part of  the Reports (in case submissions have 
not been made public). 
 
Remarks : 
• The issue of amicus curiae  briefs has come up a limited number of times. 
• The issue of lack of openness to the public is  temporary and ends at the moment when 
documents become public. 
 
 
II. COMPLIANCE 
The duty of Members to comply with their WTO commitments can be seen from two different angles: 
 
⇒ Ensuring the conformity of their laws, regulations and administrative procedures with their 
obligations as provided in the WTO Agreements.33 (Compliance a priori ) 
 
⇒ Securing the withdrawal of the measures concerned if these are found to be inconsistent with 
the provisions of any of the covered agreements.34 (Compliance a posteriori ) 
 
⇒ It is impossible to estimate the number of illegal measures taken by Members which go 
unchallenged.35 We propose to measure compliance a priori  in two ways: 
                                                      
30 89 panel reports, 64 Appellate Body reports, 13 panel reports under Article 21.5 and 8 Appellate 
Body reports under Article 21.5. 
31 DS18 (Panel); DS58 (Panel, AB, 21.5 Panel and 21.5 AB); DS122 (AB); DS135 (Panel and AB), 
DS138 (Panel and AB) DS141 (Panel); DS160 (Panel); DS212 (AB); DS236 (Panel) and DS231 (AB). 
32 WT/DSB/M/50, WT/DSB/M/103, WT/DSB/M/83, WT/DSB/M/86, WT/DSB/M/140, 
WT/DSB/M/134. 
33 Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. If a Memb er considers that a measure is nullifying or 
impairing its benefits (mainly because of lack of conf ormity), it may initiate a dispute settlement procedure. 
34 Article 3.7 of the DSU. In the case the panel/A ppellate Body concludes that the Measure is 
inconsistent, it shall recommend that the Member bring its measure into conformity. TN/DS/W/90 
Page 10  
 
  • The number of times that at least one Member has considered that another Member 
has not fulfilled its duty of compliance a priori ;
 36 and 
• The number of times in which the DSB has recommended that a Member brings its 
measure(s) into conformity. 
 
⇒ The estimation of compliance a posteriori  is easier, since it only requires an examination of 
what Members have done to comply with th e recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 
 
Basic Facts 
 
Compliance a priori  
 
⇒ During 8½ years of existence of the WTO, 295 requests for consultations have been 
circulated (34.7 per year).37 
⇒ Furthermore, 89 panel reports have been circulated (10.5 per year).38 
⇒ Of which, 77 (85.6%) have declared that at least one measure is illegal (9.1 per year). 39 
⇒ During 47 years of existence of the GATT, 131 panel reports were circulated (2.8 per year).40 
 Compliance a posteriori
 
 Of the 77 cases where a violation has been found:  
⇒ Immediate compliance has been secured 5 times. 
⇒ Compliance has been secured within the RPT 28 times (there are 11 additional cases in which 
the RPT is ongoing). The average RPT is of 292 days. 
⇒ There have been 16 cases pursuant to Article 21. 5 (of which 13 were referred to a panel). 
⇒ 12 cases remain in limbo or ongoing non-compliance. 
⇒ A mutually agreed solution has been reached during the RPT in five cases.
41 
 
II.1 NEED TO ENHANCE COMPLIANCE 
 
Specific Problems  
i. Need to introduce the possib ility of taking provisional measures 
ii. Need to address injury even if measures are withdrawn before consultations iii. Need to have monetary compensation iv. Retaliation is not a viable option for many Members 
v. Need to ensure the DSU provides in centives to comply as soon as possible. 
 (a) Need to allow to obtain compensation or to exercise retaliation at an early stage;  (b) Need to have an earlier arbitr ation on nullification or impairment; 
 (c) Need to determine nullification or impairment retroactively; 
                                                                                                                                                                    
 
35 See US – Shirts and Blouses (AB). Not even an estimate of the nu mber of notifications would be 
appropriate, since legislation may potentially contain an  unlimited number of "measures". Arguably, lack of 
action by a Member can also constitute a "measure". 
36 There are two inefficiencies in th is measurement: a) the cases are not res judicata ; and b) other cases 
not distinguished by Members are not covered—i.e., extern al agreements, measures no t challenged, or measures 
not analyzed. 
37 Annex 12. 
38 Annex 11. 
39 Annex 10.  
40 Annex 11. 
41 Annex 10.  TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 11 
 
 
   (d) Need to eliminate burdens for cross-retaliation; 
 (e) Need to allow parties to have negotiable remedies;  (f) Need to have collective retaliation.  
What the experience tells us  
 
i. Do Members need provisional measures
? 
 
• There are no data available to estimate this problem. 
 ii. Do Members need to address injury even if measures are withdrawn before consultations
? 
 
• There are no data available to estimate this problem. 
 iii. Is monetary compensation necessary
? 
 
• Article 22.1 of the DSU already provides for monetary compensation. In fact, it has 
already been used.42 
 
iv. Is it true that retaliation is not a viable option for many Members ? 
 
• In all cases in which the Member concerned has not secured compliance, retaliation 
has eventually been author ized in 7 cases (58%); in these 7 cases, compensation was 
not agreed.43 
• Of these cases, two have been authorized  in favour of developing country Members 
(Ecuador and Brazil) and five in favour  of developed country Members (United 
States and Canada twice, the EC once).44 
 v. Is action needed to ensure that the DSU provides incentives to comply as soon as possible
? 
 
• Out of 89 panel reports adopted, a violation has been found in 77 cases (86%).45 
 
• The average period of time between the establishment of a panel and the expiry of the 
RPT is 775 days, or over two years. If one  counts from the request for consultations, 
the average period grows to 1,507 days, or over 4 years .46 
 
• Once a panel has established a violation (77 times), immediate compliance has been 
achieved five times (6%); 6 months have b een exceeded 57 times (79%). The average 
time to comply has been 292 days. 28 cases have gone beyond the RPT (36%).47 
 
• In the case of "Ecuador-Bananas", this tr anslates into losses for 161 million dollars 
during the reasonable period of time only.  The average loss from the establishment of 
a panel to the expiry of the RPT would have amounted to 428 million USD, or 832 million since the request for consultations. 
                                                     
 
42 In the case "US – Copyright Act" (WT/DS160/23), the US agreed to  make a lump-sum payment of 
$3.3 million to a fund to be set up by performing rights societies in the EC for the provision of general 
assistance to their members and th e promotion of authors' rights. 
43 Annex 10. 
44 Idem. 
45 Annex 10 
46 Annex 3 
47 Annex 10 TN/DS/W/90 
Page 12  
 
   
• Collective retaliation, as such, has never b een authorized. Nevertheless, there have 
been 4 cases, out of 7 (57.1%) in which mo re than one Member has been authorized 
to suspend concessions or obligations (" Bananas" – for Ecuador and US – and 
"Hormones" – for Canada and US). 
 
Remarks : 
• Non-compliance (both a priori  and a posteriori ) is the most important problem of the 
dispute settlement mechanism. 
• The amount of disputes (non-compliance a priori ) has increased significantly since the 
creation of the WTO, and tends to grow with every round. 
• Non-compliance a posteriori  has been remedied in a fair number of cases within the RPT, 
but has taken an average of 292 days.  
• Losses caused by delays and non-compliance amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. 
• Retaliation is a last resort and has only been used by few Members. However, it has been 
used more than compensation. 
 
 
II.2 NEED TO LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF REMEDIES 
 
Specific Problems  
 
i. Need to address "sequencing" ii. Need to regulate "carrousel" 
iii. Need to clarify obligations regarding product en route 
 
What the experience tells us  
 
i Is "sequencing" a problem
? 
 
• There have been 16 cases brought to 21.5 procedures;48 of which 8 have been 
preceded by an agreement on sequencing between the parties (53.3%);49 
• There has only been one case in which the proper application of "sequencing" has 
been disputed. 
• There has not been any case in which susp ension of concessions has been denied 
because of lateness in the consideration of the request.  
 ii. Do we need to regulate "carrousel"
? 
 
• Of the 7 authorizations to suspend concessions, there has been no notice that a 
Member has changed the list of concessions suspended. 
 iii. Do we need to clarify obliga tions regarding product en route
? 
 
• There are no data available to estimate this problem. 
                                                      
48 Annex 10 
49 WT/DSB/OV/14. There have been two further agreements on sequencing, in respect of which no 
proceedings have been followed. See Annex of "Cases with violation".  TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 13 
 
 
   
Remarks : 
• An important number of Article 21.5 cases has not needed an agreement on "sequencing". 
• There has only been one dispute in which the c oncept of "sequencing" has not been put into 
question. 
• There is no evidence that carrousel is a da nger to the dispute settlement mechanism. 
 
 
III. PROCEDURAL ISSUES 
III.1 NEED TO ENSURE PROFESSIONALISM IN EXAMINING DISPUTES 
 
Specific Problems  
 
i. Panels are often overturned by the Appellate Body; ii. Difficulty to find available panelists; iii. Panels take long time to issue their reports; 
iv. There are not enough Appellate Body Members; 
v. It is inappropriate to reappoint Appellate Body Members.  
What the experience tells us  
 
i. Are panel findings being often overturned by the Appellate Body
? 
 
 The Appellate Body has:  
• upheld 58% of panel findings; 
• modified 2% of them; 
• reversed 28% of them; and 
• declined to rule on or rejected 12% of claims.
50 
  In sum, the Appellate Body has expressly disagreed with 30% of panels' findings. 
 
Appelate body treatment  of panel findings
Upheld, declined or rejected 
Reversed or modified
 
 
                                                      
50 Annex 14 TN/DS/W/90 
Page 14  
 
  ii. How long has the dispute settlement mech anism taken to make panelists available
?51 
 
• Average time of 59 days (i.e. 29 days over schedule). 
• Panels have been composed within the le gal timeframe 17 out of 102 times (16.7%). 
• Using the "EC – Bananas" case as an example, the average time taken over schedule 
in composing a panel can cause losses for 16 million US dollars. 
 
iii How much time have panels taken to issue their report ?52 
 
• Average time of 3.3 months over schedule. 
• The average time over schedule taken in the panel proceeding can cause losses for 
54.5 million US dollars. 
 iv. How long do the seven Appellate Body Members take to issue their reports
? 
 
• Average time of 86.3 days. 
• The Appellate Body has issued its report with in the timeframe of 60 days 5 out of 64 
times (7.8%). 
• In 46 of 64 times (71.9%) the report has b een issued within the timeframe of 90 
days.53 
• Using the "EC – Bananas" case as an example, Ecuador could have lost 14.7 million 
US dollars for the average time over sche dule in an Appellate Body proceeding.54 
 
v. Is it appropriate to rea ppoint Appellate Body Members ? 
 
• 5 of 7 original Appellate Body Members (71.4%) were reappointed without further 
discussion. 
• The remaining two Members had expressed their wish not to be reappointed. 
 
Remarks : 
• The major shortcoming for panels is the ex cess of time needed for their composition and 
their work. 
• The Appellate Body does not seem to be in gr eat disagreement with the findings of panels. 
• There is a problem of Appellate Body reports  not being issued in the lower end of the 
timeframes. However, they have normally b een issued within the higher end of the 
timeframes. 
• The issue of re-appointment of Appellate Body members is not a major problem. 
 
 
                                                      
51 Annex 3. Legal timeframe 20+10 days. 
52 Idem. Legal timeframe 6 months, or 3 for cases of subsidies or emergency cases. 
53 Idem. Legal timeframe 60 days, and in no case more than 90 days. 
54 Idem. On a basis of 60 day- Appellate Body proceeding.  TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 15 
 
 
  III.2 NEED TO MODIFY TIMEFRAMES 
 Basic Facts 
 
Timeframes
55 
 De jure De facto 
Average Difference between 
the two 
Consultations 60 days 147.65 days 87.6 days 
Panel establishment 10 days 41.2 days 31.2 days 
Panel procedure 
(establishment to 
circulation) 9 months 
(12.9 DSU) 12.0 months 
 3.0 months 
AB procedure (Notice of 
appeal to circulation) 60 days 
(17.5 DSU) 86.3 days 
 26.3 days 
From adoption/ 
to circulation of 21.3(c) 
award 90 days 
(21.3(c) DSU) 135.2 days 
  45.2 days 
Matter referred and final 
report circulated in 21.5 
panels56 90 days 
(21.3(c) DSU) 159.1 days 
  69.1 days 
 
Other figures:57 
⇒ Average time from panel establishm ent to panel composition: 58 days. 
⇒ Average time from issuance of final panel report to the date of circulation to Members: 28 
days. 
⇒ Average time RPT for compliance: 292 days. 
⇒ Average time for a 21.5 panel proceeding: 159 days. 
 Specific Problems 
 
i. Need to have expedited pro cedures for safeguards/antidumping 
ii. Provide additional flexibility to extend deadlines under the DSU 
iii. Accelerate proceedings: 
 (a) Reduce number of meetings in which a panel is established. 
 (b) Require panels to circulate their reports in a timely manner.  (c) Merge both component of interim reports and limit the scenarios in which the interim 
review may be held. 
 (d) Need to have an earlier arbitration on RPT.  What the experience tells us 
 
i. Do we require expedited procedures for safeguards/antidumping
? 
 
• Out of 89 panel reports circulated, 18 referred to the Anti-dumping 
Agreement (20%).58 
• Out of 89 panel reports circulated, 8 re ferred to the Safeguards Agreement (9%).59 
                                                      
55 http://www.worldtradel aw.net/dsc/stats.htm  and Annex 3. 
56 For this exercise, we are not ta king into account 21.5 appeals. 
57 Annex 3. 
58 http://www.worldtradelaw.n et/dsc/database/ad.asp 
59 http://www.worldtradelaw.net/d sc/database/safeguards.asp TN/DS/W/90 
Page 16  
 
  • There is no evidence that procedures regarding antidumping or safeguards can be 
completed in a shorter timeframe.
60 
 ii. Do we need to provide additional flex ibility to extend deadlines under the DSU
? 
 
• We have not been able to find any disput e settlement case in which a party or third 
party has been ruled against for not meeting a particular deadline. 
 iii. Do we need to accelerate proceedings
? 
 
• Out of 89 panel reports circulated, 81 ha ve exceeded the 9-month period provided for 
in Art. 12.9 of the DSU (89%)61 
• Out of 64 Appellate Body reports circul ated, 58 have exceeded the 60-day period 
provided for in Art. 17.5 of the DSU (91%).62 
• Out of 77 cases where an RPT has been established or the Member concerned has 
otherwise complied, 57 have exceeded 6 m onths (79%), and 38 have exceeded 9 
months (49%).63  
• Of 89 which have adopted a report, 17 ha ve been established at the first meeting 
(17%),64 the average being 44.7 days.65 
• Arbitrators' awards are issued in 64.3 days (135.2 days after adoption).66 
 
Remarks : 
• Deadlines are not being met. Rather than shor tening the timeframes on paper, consideration 
should be given to shortening the timeframes in practice. 
• The need for expedited procedures for a partic ular set of agreements does not warrant a 
special treatment, since timeframes have not  been respected for all WTO agreements. 
 
 
III.3 NEED TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE MEANS FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION 
 Specific Problems  
 i. Need to enhance and make mandatory the use of good offices, conciliation and mediation 
ii. Need to address conflict between provisions by the GC  
What the experience tells us  
 
i. Do we need to enhance and require Memb ers to resort to good offices, conciliation and 
mediation ? 
 
• The concept of good offices has been availa ble to Members since 1979. Apparently, it 
was used three times in the GATT days, one of them unsuccessfully. 67 
                                                      
60 Annex 3. 
61 Annex 3. 
62 Idem. 
63 Idem. 
64 Idem. 
65 Idem. 
66 http://www.worldtradelaw.net/dsc/database/rpttiming.asp 
67 WT/DSB/25  TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 17 
 
 
  • The immediate precedent to the current rul es is in Paragraph D of the Decision of 
12 April 1989 on Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures (36S/61). There is no reco rd that this decision was used.
 68 
• On 17 July 2001, the Director General ci rculated a document expressing his readiness 
to assist Members in the use of good offices, conciliation or mediation.69 
• To the cut-off date of this exercise ( 29 June 2003) no single public document exists 
suggesting Members' use of the current provisions. 
 
ii. Is it appropriate to address conflic t between provisions by the General Council ? 
 
• The General Council has never adopted an authoritative interpretation under 
Article IX of the WTO Agreement. 70 
• The DSB has adopted 89 panel reports, 64 A ppellate Body reports, 13 panel reports 
under Article 21.5 and 8 Appellate Bo dy reports under Article 21.5.71 All of them 
contain certain interpretations to the provisions of WTO Agreements. 
 
Remarks : 
• Good offices, conciliation and mediation have  been resorted to very seldom. Panel 
proceedings are preferred by Members. 
• Members do not view the General Council as an efficient decision-taker regarding 
interpretations of or amendments to, WTO provi sions.  They have resorted to the DSB to 
sort out their differences of interpretation. 
 
 
III.4 NEED FOR PARTIES TO REGAIN CONTROL OF DISPUTES 
 
Specific Problems  
 
i Need to create the possibility for Memb ers to have partial adoption of reports; 
ii. Allow for suspension of the Appellate Body proceedings; iii. Need to introduce an interim proceeding for the Appellate Body. 
 
What the experience tells us  
 
i Do Members need to have the option to adopt the reports partially
? 
 
• Of 174 reports,72 we were only able to find two cases in which the parties disagreed 
with the same finding or conclusion (1.2%).73  
 ii. Do Members need the option to suspend Appellate Body proceedings
? 
 
• Of 89 panel reports and 13 pa nel reports under Article 21.5,  we have found that 12 
cases have been suspended (11.8%).74 
                                                      
68 Idem. 
69 Idem. 
70 In fact, the only formal request for an authoritative interpretation has been on "sequencing". 
WT/GC/W/133 and WT/GC/W/143. Furthermore, the only fo rmal request to amend an Agreement has also been 
on "sequencing" (WT/GC/W/489). 
71 See Annex 3. This does not count arbitration awards or 21.5 proceedings. 
72 89 panel reports, 64 Appellate Body reports, 13 panel reports under Article 21.5 and 8 Appelate 
Body reports under Article 25 
73 Australia – Automotive leather  (DS 126) and India – Automotive sector  (DS 146). TN/DS/W/90 
Page 18  
 
  • 7 of which have been followed by a mutually agreed solution (6.9%).
75 
 iii. Do Members require an interim proceeding for the Appellate Body
? 
 
• We have only been able to find one panel re port in which a particular ruling has been 
overturned as the result of the interim proceeding.76 
 
Remarks : 
• In a large majority of cases, parties have not disagreed with regard to the same finding by a 
panel or the Appellate Body. 
• The concept of suspension of proceedings h as not been used often. However, Members 
might find some use in this possibility. 
• Experience does not show a substantial use for the interim proceedings. In general, changes 
appear to be marginal. 
 
 
III.5 MISCELLANEOUS 
 
A. Housekeeping issues  
 Specific Problems 
 
i. Need to create the possibility  to withdraw a panel request 
ii. Need to establish sunset procedures for consultation and panel requests and panels 
iii. Notification of mutually agreed solutions should be specific iv. Need to clarify obligations regarding the notices of appeal.  
What the experience tells us 
 i. Is there a need to create the possibility to withdraw a panel request
? 
 
• There have been 10 cases in which the pane l request has been formally withdrawn.77 
 ii. Is there a need to establish sunset pr ocedures for consultations requests and panels
? 
 
• There have been 151 requests for consultati ons which have not been followed by a 
panel request within one year.78 
• There have been 7 cases in which a panel request was made, but the Panel was not 
established.79 
• There have been 14 panels established whic h have not been composed within one 
year.80 
 
                                                                                                                                                                     
74 WT/DS/OV/14 
75 WT/DS/OV/14 
76 DS213 
77 WT/DSB/OV/14. These cases are: DS1, DS13, DS89 and  DS181 (withdrawal before the 
establishment of the Panel). DS35, DS106, DS227, DS240, DS255 and DS257 were withdrawn after the establishment of the Panel. 
78 Annex 3  
79 See WT/DSB/OV/14 and WT/DSB/29/Add.1. These cases are: DS36, DS39, DS82, DS115, DS120, 
DS123 and  DS143. 
80 Annex 3   TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 19 
 
 
  iii. Need notifications of mutually agreed solutions be more specific ? 
 
• There have been 59 notifications of mutually agreed solutions either orally or in 
writing. 
• Of which 11 do not specify the content of su ch solution (19%); 20 have a low level of 
specificity regarding their content (34%) a nd 28 are exhaustive as to the explanation 
of their content (47%).81 
•  
iv. Is there a need for clarify oblig ations regarding the notices of appeal ? 
 
• Of 64 Appellate Body reports adopted, there ha ve been 8 cases in which the clarity of 
the notice of appeal has been challenged (13%).82 
 
Remarks : 
• It is possible to withdraw a panel request under the current rules. This has happened 10 
times. 
• There is an important amount of consultations  which lay in limbo. The number of panels 
which are currently in limbo is smaller. A sun set procedure could help clarify the status of 
many of them. 
• Notifications on mutually agreed solu tions have a good level of detail. 
• The issue of clarity regarding the notices of appeal seems to be a small one. 
 
 
B. New procedures  
 Specific Problems  
 
i Need to give special treatment to  measures already held inconsistent. 
ii. Need to introduce a remand procedure from the Appellate Body. iii. Need to allow panels to examine mutually agreed solutions.  What the experience tells us  
 
i Do we need to give special treatment  to measures already held inconsistent
? 
 
• Given the broad interpretation of the term "measure", it is not possible to ascertain 
where has been a case in which a measure already held inconsistent has been 
challenged anew. 
 
ii. Do we need to introduce a re mand procedure from the Appellate Body ? 
 
• There has been only one case in which the A ppellate Body has been unable to make 
any finding because of lack of factua l findings on the part of the panel.83 
• There have been 20 cases in which there have been two or more requests for the 
establishment of a panel.84 
• There have been 18 groups of disputes including more than one complainant.85 
                                                      
81 Annex 15 
82 http://www.worldtradelaw.net/d sc/wtoindex.htm#abrule202d 
83 WT/DS103/AB/RW, WT/DS113/AB/RW. 
84 Annex 17. 
85 Annex 18. TN/DS/W/90 
Page 20  
 
   
iii. Is there a need to allow panels to examine mutually agreed solutions
? 
 
• There have been 59 mutually agreed solutions. 
• We do not have sufficient information as to  what cases have been reintroduced to the 
dispute settlement mechanism as a result of lack of conformity with a mutually 
agreed solutions. 
 
Remarks : 
• There is an important number of cases whic h have been the subject of more than one 
challenge. 
• The issue of remand has not been a major problem in practise. 
• The need to have panels rule on mutu ally agreed solutions is not evident . 
 
 
C. Others 
 Specific Problems  
 
i Need to clarify that the expression "RPT" also refers to arts. 4.7 and 7.9 of the SCM 
Agreement 
ii Need to facilitate procedures for multiple complaints iii. Need to know opinions of individual panelists or Appellate Body members. 
 
What the experience tells us  
 
i Do we need to clarify that the expression "RPT"  also refers to arts. 4.7 and 7.9 of the SCM 
Agreement ? 
 
• Of 77 cases in which a violation has been found, there have been 5 cases in which 
any of these two provisions of the SCM agreement were dealt with (7%).86  
 ii Do we need to facilitate procedures for multiple complaints
?87 
 
• There have been 20 cases in which there have been two or more requests for the 
establishment of a panel.88 
• There have been 18 groups of disputes including more than one complainant.89 
 iii. Do we need to know opinions of indivi dual panelists or Appellate Body members
? 
 
• We have found only one case in which th e Appellate Body included a separate 
opinion90 and three cases in which the panel has done so.91 
 
                                                      
86 Brazil – Aircraft  Australia –Leather, Canada – Aircrafts, US –FSC, and Canada – Autos.  
87 Annex 16. 
88 Annex 17. 
89 Annex 18. 
90 EC – Asbestos.  
91 US – German Steel CVDs, US –Certain EC products (Panel) , and EC – Poultry.   TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 21 
 
 
  Remarks : 
• The issue of clarifying that RPT includes Articles 4.7 and 7.9 of the SCM Agreement has 
come up in a limited number of occasions. 
• There is an important number of cases which could be the subject of multiple complaints. 
• Knowing the opinion of individual panelists or Appellate Body members does not seem to 
be very important.  
 TN/DS/W/90 
Page 22  
 
  Annex 1 
 
Times that a developing Members has initiated 
the DSU mechanism (consultations)
92 
 
 
The following chart shows the times a Member ha s requested consultations.  Some DS numbers 
contain more than one consultation request.  It includes 295 DS numbers.  
Member Consultations requested Panels requested Panels adopted 
Brazil 22 11 5 
India 15 9 6 
Mexico 13 4 4 
Thailand  10 3 2 
Chile  8 6 3 
Argentina 8 3 1 
Korea 7 6 4 
Philippines  4 1 1 
Colombia 4 1 1 
Guatemala  4 1 1 
Honduras  4 1 1 
Peru 3 2 2 
Costa Rica 3 1 1 
Turkey 2 1 1 
Ecuador 2 2 1 
Indonesia 2 2 1 
Pakistan 2 2 2 
Panama  2 0 0 
Antigua and Barbuda 1 1 0 
Nicaragua 1 0 0 
Chinese Taipei 1 0 0 
China 1 1 0 
Malaysia 1 1 1 
Sri Lanka 1 0 0 
Hong Kong 1 0 0 
Uruguay 1 0 0 
Venezuela 1 1 1 
Singapore 1 1 0 
  Number of times developing Members ha ve requested consultations: 125 (39%) 
Number of times developed Members ha ve requested consultations: 197 (61%) 
Total number of times there has been a Member requesting consultations: 322. 
  
                                                     
 
92 Based on worldtradelaw.net data form the 29 June 2003.  TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 23 
 
 
  Percentage of participation 
 
Member Requests for consultations Panels requested Adoptions 
Percentage of developing 
Members participating 27% 21% 18% 
Percentage of LDCs 
participating 0% 0% 0% 
 TN/DS/W/90 
Page 24  
 
  Annex 2  
 
Times that a developed Members was a complaining party
93 
  
The following chart shows the times a Members has requested consultations. Some DS numbers 
contain more than one consultation request. It includes 295 DS numbers. 
 
Member Requests for consultations Panels requested Adoptions 
US 75 35 21 
EC 62 35 24 
Canada  24 14 10 
Japan 11 9 6 
Australia 7 4 2 
New Zealand 6 5 3 
Hungary 4 2 0 
Switzerland 4 1 0 
Poland 3 1 1 
Norway 1 1 0 
Czech Republic 1 0 0 
  
Number of times developing Members have  requested consultations:  125 (39%) 
Number of times developed Members have  requested consultations:  197 (61%) 
Total number of times there has been a Member requesting consultations:  322. 
  Percentage of participation 
 
Member Requests for consultations Panels requested Adoptions 
Percentage of 
developed Members 
participating 38% 35% 24% 
 
                                                      
93 Based on worldtradelaw.net data form the 29 June 2003.  
   TN/DS/W/90
 Page 25Annex 3 
 
Case Consultations 
Request Panel 
Request Days from 
Consult. 
to Panel 
Request Days from 
Consult 
Est. Panel Panel 
Established Days from 
Est. Panel 
and Comp. Panel 
Composed Days from 
Comp. To 
Interim 
Report Interim 
Report 
Issued Days from 
Comp. To 
Final 
Report 
to Parties 
US – Gasoline (Venezuela) (DS2) 24/01/1995 25/03/1995 60 76 10/04/1995 16 26/04/1995 229 11/12/1995 266 
Japan – Alcohol (EC) (DS8) 21/06/1995 15/09/1995 86 98 27/09/1995 33 30/10/1995 203 20/05/1996  
Japan – Alcohol (United States) (DS11) 07/07/1995 15/09/1995 70 82 27/09/1995 33 30/10/1995 203 20/05/1996  
Japan – Alcohol (Canada) (DS10) 07/07/1995 15/09/1995 70 82 27/09/1995 33 30/10/1995 203 20/05/1996  
Australia – Salmon (DS18) 05/10/1995 10/03/1997 522 553 10/04/1997 48 28/05/1997 302 26/03/1998 342 
Brazil – Coconut (DS22) 27/11/1995 08/02/1996 73 99 05/03/1996 42 16/04/1996    
US – Underwear (DS24) 22/12/1995 27/02/1996 67 74 05/03/1996 30 04/04/1996 169 20/09/1996 204 
EC – Hormones (US) (DS26) 26/01/1996 25/04/1996 90 115 20/05/1996 43 02/07/1996 309 07/05/1997 363 
EC – Bananas (Guatemala/Honduras) (DS27) 05/02/1996 12/04/1996 67 93 08/05/1996 30 07/06/1996 284 18/03/1997 326 
EC – Bananas (Mexico) (DS27) 05/02/1996 12/04/1996 67 93 08/05/1996 30 07/06/1996 284 18/03/1997 326 
EC – Bananas (US) (DS27) 05/02/1996 12/04/1996 67 93 08/05/1996 30 07/06/1996 284 18/03/1997 326 
EC – Bananas (Ecuador) (DS27) 05/02/1996 12/04/1996 67 93 08/05/1996 30 07/06/1996 284 18/03/1997 326 
EC – Bananas (EC against itself) (DS27)           
Canada – Periodicals (DS31) 11/03/1996 24/05/1996 74 100 19/06/1996 36 25/07/1996 175 16/01/1997 211 
US – Shirts and Blouses (DS33)  15/03/1996   17/04/1996 68 24/06/1996 141 12/11/1996  
Turkey – Textiles (DS34) 21/03/1996 02/02/1998 683 722 13/03/1998 90 11/06/1998 265 03/03/1999 288 
Japan – Film (DS44) 13/06/1996 20/09/1996 99 125 16/10/1996 62 17/12/1996 353 05/12/1997 409 
Brazil – Aircraft (DS46) 19/06/1996 17/09/1996 90 764 23/07/1998 91 22/10/1998 118 17/02/1999 141 
EC – Hormones (Canada) (DS48) 28/06/1996 17/09/1996 81 110 16/10/1996 19 04/11/1996 184 07/05/1997 238 
India – Patents (US) (DS50) 02/07/1996 08/11/1996 129 141 20/11/1996 70 29/01/1997 149 27/06/1997  
Indonesia – Autos (EC) (DS54) 03/10/1996 12/05/1997 221 252 12/06/1997 47 29/07/1997 238 24/03/1998  
Indonesia – Autos (Japan) (DS55) 04/10/1996 18/04/1997 196 251 12/06/1997 47 29/07/1997 238 24/03/1998  
Argentina – Textiles (DS56) 04/10/1996 10/01/1997 98 144 25/02/1997 38 04/04/1997 179 30/09/1997  
Indonesia – Autos (United States) (DS59) 08/10/1996 13/06/1997 248 295 30/07/1997 -1 29/07/1997 238 24/03/1998  
US – Shrimp (DS58) 08/10/1996 10/01/1997 94 140 25/02/1997 49 15/04/1997 321 02/03/1998 356 
Guatemala – Cement I (DS60) 15/10/1996 13/02/1997 121 156 20/03/1997 42 01/05/1997 326 23/03/1998 382 
EC – Computer Equipment (against EC) (DS62)  08/11/1996 13/02/1997 97 109 25/02/1997 52 18/04/1997 172 07/10/1997  
Indonesia – Autos (Japan) (DS64) 29/11/1996 18/04/1997 140 195 12/06/1997 47 29/07/1997 238 24/03/1998  
EC – Computer Equipment (against UK) (DS67)  14/02/1997 10/03/1997 24 34 20/03/1997 29 18/04/1997 172 07/10/1997  
EC – Computer Equipment (against Ireland) (DS 68) 14/02/1997 10/03/1997 24 34 20/03/1997 29 18/04/1997 172 07/10/1997  
EC – Poultry (DS69) 24/02/1997 12/06/1997 108 156 30/07/1997 12 11/08/1997 165 23/01/1998 185 
Canada – Aircraft (DS70) 10/03/1997 13/07/1998 490 500 23/07/1998 91 22/10/1998 118 17/02/1999 141 
Korea – Alcohol (EC) (DS75) 02/04/1997 15/09/1997 166 197 16/10/1997 50 05/12/1997 203 26/06/1998  
Japan – Agricultural Products (DS76) 07/ 04/1997 06/10/1997 182 225 18/11/1997 30 18/12/1997 231 06/08/1998 292  
  TN/DS/W/90 
Page 26 
Case Consultations 
Request Panel 
Request Days from 
Consult. 
to Panel 
Request Days from 
Consult 
Est. Panel Panel 
Established Days from 
Est. Panel 
and Comp. Panel 
Composed Days from 
Comp. To 
Interim 
Report Interim 
Report 
Issued Days from 
Comp. To 
Final 
Report 
to Parties 
India – Patents (EC) (DS79) 28/04/1997 15/09/1997 140 171 16/10/1997 42 27/11/1997 204 19/06/1998  
Korea – Alcohol (United States) (DS84) 23/05/1997 15/09/1997 115 146 16/10/1997 50 05/12/1997 203 26/06/1998  
Chile – Alcohol (EC) (DS87) 04/06/1997 06/10/1997 124 167 18/11/1997 225 01/07/1998 229 15/02/1999  
India – QRs (DS90) 15/07/1997 06/10/1997 83 126 18/11/1997 94 20/02/1998 294 11/12/1998  
Korea – Dairy Safeguards (DS98) 12/08/1997 12/01/1998 153 345 23/07/1998 28 20/08/1998 195 03/03/1999 231 
US – DRAMS (DS99) 14/08/1997 07/11/1997 85 155 16/01/1998 62 19/03/1998 218 23/10/1998 260 
Canada – Milk/Dairy (United States) (DS103)  08/10/1997 03/02/1998 118 168 25/03/1998 140 12/08/1998 177 05/02/1999  
US – FSC (DS108) 18/11/1997 09/07/1998 233 308 22/09/1998 48 09/11/1998 256 23/07/1999  
Chile – Alcohol (DS110) (EC on new regime) 15/12/1997 13/03/1998 88 100 25/03/1998 98 01/07/1998 229 15/02/1999  
Canada – Pharmaceuticals (DS114) 19/12/1997 12/11/1998 328 409 01/02/1999 52 25/03/1999 302 21/01/2000  
Canada – Milk/Dairy (New Zealand) (DS113)  29/12/1997 12/03/1998 73 86 25/03/1998 140 12/08/1998 177 05/02/1999  
Argentina – Footwear Safeguards (DS121) 03/ 04/1998 11/06/1998 69 111 23/07/1998 54 15/09/1998 218 21/04/1999 262 
Thailand – Steel (DS122) 06/04/1998 15/10/1999 557 592 19/11/1999 31 20/12/1999 163 31/05/2000  
Australia – Leather (DS126) 04/05/1998 11/04/1998 -23 49 22/06/1998 133 02/11/1998 126 08/03/1999 141 
Mexico – HFCS (DS132) 08/05/1998 14/10/1998 159 201 25/11/1998 49 13/01/1999 266 06/10/1999 373 
EC – Asbestos (DS135) 28/05/1998 09/10/1998 134 181 25/11/1998 124 29/03/1999 442 13/06/2000 484 
US – 1916 Act (EC) (DS136) 04/06/1998 12/11/1998 161 242 01/02/1999 59 01/04/1999 263 20/12/1999 319 
US – Lead Bars (DS138) 12/06/1998 14/01/1999 216 250 17/02/1999 27 16/03/1999 204 06/10/1999 251 
Canada – Autos (Japan) (DS139) 03/07/1998 13/11/1998 133 213 01/02/1999 52 25/03/1999 202 13/10/1999  
EC – Bed Linen (DS141) 03/08/1998 08/09/1999 401 450 27/10/1999 89 24/01/2000 189 31/07/2000  
Canada – Autos (EC) (DS142) 17/08/1998 14/01/1999 150 168 01/02/1999 52 25/03/1999 202 13/10/1999  
India – Autos (EC) (DS146) 06/10/1998 13/10/2000 738 773 17/11/2000 7 24/11/2000 322 12/10/2001  
US – Section 301 (DS152) 25/11/1998 02/02/1999 69 97 02/03/1999 29 31/03/1999 195 12/10/1999  
Argentina – Bovine Hides (DS155) 23/12/1998 04/06/1999 163 215 26/07/1999 189 31/01/2000 256 13/10/2000 291 
Guatemala – Cement II (DS156) 05/01/1999 15/07/1999 191 260 22/09/1999 41 02/11/1999 297 25/08/2000 336 
US – Copyright (DS160) 26/01/1999 16/04/1999 80 120 26/05/1999 72 06/08/1999 252 14/04/2000 273 
Korea – Beef (US) (DS161) 01/02/1999 16/04/1999 74 114 26/05/1999 70 04/08/1999 280 10/05/2000 316 
US – 1916 Act (Japan) (DS162) 10/02/1999 04/06/1999 114 166 26/07/1999 16 11/08/1999 201 28/02/2000 233 
Korea – Government Procurement (DS163) 16/02/1999 11/05/1999 84 120 16/06/1999 75 30/08/1999 186 03/03/2000  
US – Certain EC Products (DS165) 04/03/1999 11/05/1999 68 104 16/06/1999 114 08/10/1999 157 13/03/2000  
US – Wheat Gluten Safeguards (DS166) 17/03/1999 04/06/1999 79 131 26/07/1999 77 11/10/1999 252 19/06/2000  
Korea – Beef (Australia) (DS169) 13/04/1999 15/07/1999 93 104 26/07/1999 9 04/08/1999 280 10/05/2000 316 
Canada – Patent Term (DS170) 06/05/1999 15/07/1999 70 139 22/09/1999 30 22/10/1999 133 03/03/2000 161 
India – Autos (US) (DS175) 02/06/1999 18/05/2000 351 421 27/07/2000 120 24/11/2000 322 12/10/2001  
US – Section 211 ("Havana Club") (DS176) 07/07/1999 07/07/2000 366 447 26/09/2000 30 26/10/2000 228 11/06/2001 250 
US – Lamb Safeguards (New Zealand) (DS177) 16/07/1999 15/10/1999 91 126 19/11/1999 123 21/03/2000 217 24/10/2000   
   TN/DS/W/90
 Page 27Case Consultations 
Request Panel 
Request Days from 
Consult. 
to Panel 
Request Days from 
Consult 
Est. Panel Panel 
Established Days from 
Est. Panel 
and Comp. Panel 
Composed Days from 
Comp. To 
Interim 
Report Interim 
Report 
Issued Days from 
Comp. To 
Final 
Report 
to Parties 
US – Lamb Safeguards (Australia) (DS178) 23/07/1999 15/10/1999 84 119 19/11/1999 123 21/03/2000 217 24/10/2000  
US – Sheet/Plate from Korea (DS179) 30/07/1999 15/10/1999 77 112 19/11/1999 126 24/03/2000 230 09/11/2000 265 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel from Japan (DS184) 18/11/1999 11/02/2000 85 123 20/03/2000 65 24/05/2000 243 22/01/2001  
Argentina – Floor Tiles (D S189) 26/01/2000 15/09/2000 233 296 17/11/2000 56 12/01/2001 194 25/07/2001 245 
US – Cotton Yarn (DS192)  03/04/2000   19/06/2000 72 30/08/2000 205 23/03/2001  
US – Export Restraints (DS194) 19/05/2000 24/07/2000 66 115 11/09/2000 42 23/10/2000 186 27/04/2001  
US – Line Pipe Safeguards (DS202) 13/06/2000 15/09/2000 94 132 23/10/2000 91 22/01/2001 221 31/08/2001  
US – India Steel Plate (DS206) 04/10/2000 07/06/2001 246 293 24/07/2001 94 26/10/2001 189 03/05/2002  
Chile – Agricultural Products (Price Band) (DS207) 05/10/2000 19/01/2001 106 158 12/03/2001 66 17/05/2001 280 21/02/2002 322 
Egypt – Rebar (DS211) 06/11/2000 04/05/2001 179 226 20/06/2001 28 18/07/2001 307 21/05/2002  
US – CVDs on EC Products (DS212) 10/11/2000 10/08/2001 273 304 10/09/2001 56 05/11/2001 189 13/05/2002 226 
US – German Steel CVDs (DS213) 10/11/2000 10/08/2001 273 304 10/09/2001 46 26/10/2001 200 14/05/2002 231 
EC – Pipe Fittings (DS219) 21/12/2000 08/06/2001 169 215 24/07/2001 43 05/09/2001 397 07/10/2002 461 
US – Offset Act ("Byrd Amendment") (EC et al) (DS217) 21/12/2000 13/07/2001 204 245 23/08/2001 63 25/10/2001 265 17/07/2002 312  
US – Section 129 (DS221) 17/01/2001 13/07/2001 177 218 23/08/2001 68 30/10/2001 204 22/05/2002 225 
Canada – Aircraft II (DS222) 22/01/2001 01/03/2001 38 49 12/03/2001 60 11/05/2001 161 19/10/2001 182 
EC – Sardines (DS231) 20/03/2001 07/06/2001 79 126 24/07/2001 49 11/09/2001 198 28/03/2002 253 
US – Offset Act ("Byrd Amendment") (Canada and Mexico) (DS234) 21/05/2001 10/08/2001 81 94 23/08/2001 63 25/10/2001 265 17/07/2 002 312 
US – Lumber CVDs Prelim (DS236) 21/08/2001 26/10/2001 66 106 05/12/2001 58 01/02/2002 175 26/07/2002  
Argentina – Peach Safeguards (DS238) 14/09/2001 06/12/2002 448 126 18/01/2002 88 16/04/2002 219 21/11/2002 244 
Argentina – Poultry AD Duties (DS241) 07/11/2001 26/02/2002 111 161 17/04/2002 71 27/06/2002 243 25/02/2003 285 
US – Textiles Rules of Origin (DS243) 11/01/2002 08/05/2002 117 164 24/06/2002 108 10/10/2002 183 11/04/2003 197 
US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review (D S244) 30/01/2002 05/04/2002 65 112 22/05/2002 56 17/07/2002 257 31/03/2003 309 
Japan – Apples (DS245) 01/03/2002 08/05/2002 68 94 03/06/2002 43 16/07/2002 247 20/03/2003 344 
US – Steel Safeguards (EC) (DS248) 07/03/2002 08/05/2002 62 88 03/06/2002 52 25/07/2002 244 26/03/2003 281 
US – Steel Safeguards (Korea) (DS251) 20/03/2002 24/05/2002 65 86 14/06/2002 41 25/07/2002 244 26/03/2003 281 
US – Steel Safeguards (Japan) (DS249) 20/03/2002 24/05/2002 65 86 14/06/2002 41 25/07/2002 244 26/03/2003 281 
US – Steel Safeguards (China) (DS252) 26/03/2002 27/05/2002 62 90 24/06/2002 31 25/07/2002 244 26/03/2003 281 
US – Steel Safeguards (Switzerland) (DS253)  03/04/2002 04/06/2002 62 82 24/06/2002 31 25/07/2002 244 26/03/2003 281 
US – Steel Safeguards (Norway) (DS254) 04/04/2002 04/06/2002 61 81 24/06/2002 31 25/07/2002 244 26/03/2003 281 
US – Steel Safeguards (New Zealand) (DS258) 14/05/2002 28/06/2002 45 55 08/07/2002 17 25/07/2002 244 26/03/2003 281 
US – Steel Safeguards (Brazil) (DS259) 21/05/2002 22/07/2002 62 69 29/07/2002 -4 25/07/2002 244 26/03/2003 281 
US – Lumber CVDs Final (DS264) 13/09/2002 06/12/2002 84 117 08/01/2003 48 25/02/2003 91 27/05/2003  
           
 100 102         
Averages for all Panel reports   147.06 188.22  58.53  227.77  280.69  
  TN/DS/W/90 
Page 28  
Case Final 
Report 
Issued to 
Parties Days from 
Comp. To 
Final 
Report 
Public Final 
Report 
Circulated Days from 
Est. Panel 
to Final 
Report 
to Parties Days from 
Est. Panel 
to Final 
Report 
Public Notice of 
Appeal AB Report 
Circulated Adoption Days from 
Notice to 
circulation 
of AB report Days from 
Est. Panel 
to Adoption 
US – Gasoline (Venezuela) (DS2) 17/01/1996 278 29/01/1996 282 294 21/02/1996 29/04/1996 20/05/1996 68 406 
Japan – Alcohol  (EC) (DS8)  255 11/07/1996  288 08/08/1996 04/10/1996 01/11/1996 57 401 
Japan – Alcohol  (United States) (DS11)  255 11/07/1996  288 08/08/1996 04/10/1996 01/11/1996 57 401 
Japan – Alcohol (Canada) (DS10)  255 11/07/1996  288 08/08/1996 04/10/1996 01/11/1996 57 401 
Australia – Salmon (DS18) 05/05/1998 380 12/06/1998 390 428 22/07/1998 20/10/1998 06/11/1998 90 575 
Brazil – Coconut (DS22)  184 17/10/1996  226 16/12/1996 21/02/1997 20/03/1997 67 380 
US – Underwear (DS24) 25/10/1996 218 08/11/1996 234 248 11/11/1996 10/02/1997 25/02/1997 91 357 
EC – Hormones (US) (DS26) 30/06/1997 412 18/08/1997 406 455 24/09/1997 16/01/1998 13/02/1998 114 634 
EC – Bananas (Guatemala/Honduras) (DS27) 29/04/1997 349 22/05/1997 356 379 11/06/1997 09/09/1997 25/09/1997 90 505 
EC – Bananas (Mexico) (DS27) 29/04/1997 349 22/05/1997 356 379 11/06/1997 09/09/1997 25/09/1997 90 505 
EC – Bananas (US) (DS27) 29/04/1997 349 22/05/1997 356 379 11/06/1997 09/09/1997 25/09/1997 90 505 
EC – Bananas (Ecuador) (DS27) 29/04/1997 349 22/05/1997 356 379 11/06/1997 09/09/1997 25/09/1997 90 505 
EC – Bananas (EC against itself) (DS27)           
Canada – Periodicals (DS31) 21/02/1997 232 14/03/1997 247 268 29/04/1997 30/06/1997 30/07/1997 62 406 
US – Shirts and Blouses (DS33)  196 06/01/1997  264 24/02/1997 25/04/1997 23/05/1997 60 401 
Turkey – Textiles (DS34) 26/03/1999 354 31/05/1999 378 444 26/07/1999 22/10/1999 19/11/1999 88 616 
Japan – Film (DS44) 30/01/1998 469 31/03/1998 471 531   22/04/1998  553 
Brazil – Aircraft (DS46) 12/03/1999 174 14/04/1999 232 265 03/05/1999 02/08/1999 20/08/1999 91 393 
EC – Hormones (Canada) (DS48) 30/06/1997 287 18/08/1997 257 306 24/09/1997 16/01/1998 13/02/1998 114 485 
India – Patents (US) (DS50)  219 05/09/1997  289 15/10/1997 19/12/1997 16/01/1998 65 422 
Indonesia – Autos (EC) (DS54)  338 02/07/1998  385   23/07/1998  406 
Indonesia – Autos (Japan) (DS55)  338 02/07/1998  385   23/07/1998  406 
Argentina – Textiles (DS56)  235 25/11/1997  273 21/01/1998 27/03/1998 22/04/1998 65 421 
Indonesia – Autos (United States) (DS59)  338 02/07/1998  337   23/07/1998  358 
US – Shrimp (DS58) 06/04/1998 395 15/05/1998 405 444 13/07/1998 12/10/1998 06/11/1998 91 619 
Guatemala – Cement I (DS60) 18/05/1998 414 19/06/1998 424 456 04/08/1998 02/11/1998 25/11/1998 90 615 
EC – Computer Equipment (against EC) (DS 62)  293 05/02/1998  345 24/03/1998 05/06/1998 22/06/1998 73 482 
Indonesia – Autos (Japan) (DS64)  338 02/07/1998  385   23/07/1998  406 
EC – Computer Equipment (against UK) (DS 67)  293 05/02/1998  322 24/03/1998 05/06/1998 22/06/1998 73 459 
EC – Computer Equipment (against Iteland) (D S68)  293 05/02/1998  322 24/03/1998 05/06/1998 22/06/1998 73 459 
EC – Poultry (DS69) 12/02/1998 213 12/03/1998 197 225 29/04/1998 13/07/1998 23/07/1998 75 358 
Canada – Aircraft (DS70) 12/03/1999 174 14/04/1999 232 265 03/05/1999 02/08/1999 20/08/1999 91 393 
Korea – Alcohol (EC) (DS75)  286 17/09/1998  336 20/10/1998 18/01/1999 17/02/1999 90 489 
Japan – Agricultural Products (DS76) 06/ 10/1998 313 27/10/1998 322 343 24/11/1998 22/02/1999 19/03/1999 90 486 
India – Patents (EC) (DS79)  270 24/08/1998  312   22/09/1998  341  
   TN/DS/W/90
 Page 29Case Final 
Report 
Issued to 
Parties Days from 
Comp. To 
Final 
Report 
Public Final 
Report 
Circulated Days from 
Est. Panel 
to Final 
Report 
to Parties Days from 
Est. Panel 
to Final 
Report 
Public Notice of 
Appeal AB Report 
Circulated Adoption Days from 
Notice to 
circulation 
of AB report Days from 
Est. Panel 
to Adoption 
Korea – Alcohol (United States) (DS84)  286 17/09/1998  336 20/10/1998 18/01/1999 17/02/1999 90 489 
Chile – Alcohol (EC) (DS87)  349 15/06/1999  574 13/09/1999 13/12/1999 12/01/2000 91 785 
India – QRs (DS90)  410 06/04/1999  504 25/05/1999 23/08/1999 22/09/1999 90 673 
Korea – Dairy Safeguards (DS98) 08/04/1999 305 21/06/1999 259 333 15/09/1999 14/12/1999 12/01/2000 90 538 
US – DRAMS (DS99) 04/12/1998 316 29/01/1999 322 378   19/03/1999  427 
Canada – Milk/Dairy (United States) (DS103)   278 17/05/1999  418 15/07/1999 13/10/1999 27/10/1999 90 581 
US – FSC (DS108)  333 08/10/1999  381 26/11/1999 24/02/2000 20/03/2000 90 545 
Chile – Alcohol (DS110) (EC on new regime)  349 15/06/1999  447 13/09/1999 13/12/1999 12/01/2000 91 658 
Canada – Pharmaceuticals (DS114)  358 17/03/2000  410   07/04/2000  431 
Canada – Milk/Dairy (New Zealand) (DS113)   278 17/05/1999  418 15/07/1999 13/10/1999 27/10/1999 90 581 
Argentina – Footwear Safeguards (DS121) 04/ 06/1999 283 25/06/1999 316 337 15/09/1999 14/12/1999 12/01/2000 90 538 
Thailand – Steel (DS122)  283 28/09/2000  314 23/10/2000 12/03/2001 05/04/2001 140 503 
Australia – Leather (DS126) 23/03/1999 204 25/05/1999 274 337   16/06/1999  359 
Mexico – HFCS (DS132) 21/01/2000 380 28/01/2000 422 429   24/02/2000  456 
EC – Asbestos (DS135) 25/07/2000 539 18/09/2000 608 663 23/10/2000 12/03/2001 05/04/2001 140 862 
US – 1916 Act (EC) (DS136) 14/02/2000 365 31/03/2000 378 424 29/05/2000 28/08/2000 26/09/2000 91 603 
US – Lead Bars (DS138) 22/11/1999 282 23/12/1999 278 309 27/01/2000 10/05/2000 07/06/2000 104 476 
Canada – Autos (Japan) (DS139)  323 11/02/2000  375 02/03/2000 31/05/2000 19/06/2000 90 504 
EC – Bed Linen (DS141)  280 30/10/2000  369 01/12/2000 01/03/2001 12/03/2001 90 502 
Canada – Autos (EC) (DS142)  323 11/02/2000  375 02/03/2000 31/05/2000 19/06/2000 90 504 
India – Autos (EC) (DS146)  392 21/12/2001  399 31/01/2002 19/03/2002 05/04/2002 47 504 
US – Section 301 (DS152)  266 22/12/1999  295   27/01/2000  331 
Argentina – Bovine Hides (DS155) 17/ 11/2000 323 19/12/2000 480 512   16/02/2001  571 
Guatemala – Cement II (DS156) 03/10/2000 357 24/10/2000 377 398   17/11/2000  422 
US – Copyright (DS160) 05/05/2000 314 15/06/2000 345 386   27/07/2000  428 
Korea – Beef (US) (DS161) 15/06/2000 362 31/07/2000 386 432 11/09/2000 11/12/2000 10/01/2001 91 595 
US – 1916 Act (Japan) (DS162) 31/03/2000 292 29/05/2000 249 308 29/05/2000 28/08/2000 26/09/2000 91 428 
Korea – Government Procurement (DS163)  245 01/05/2000  320   19/06/2000  369 
US – Certain EC Products (DS165)  283 17/07/2000  397 12/09/2000 11/12/2000 10/01/2001 90 574 
US – Wheat Gluten Safeguards (DS166)  294 31/07/2000  371 26/09/2000 22/12/2000 19/01/2001 87 543 
Korea – Beef (Australia) (DS169) 15/06/2000 362 31/07/2000 325 371 11/09/2000 11/12/2000 10/01/2001 91 534 
Canada – Patent Term (DS170) 31/03/2000 196 05/05/2000 191 226 19/06/2000 18/09/2000 12/10/2000 91 386 
India – Autos (US) (DS175)  392 21/12/2001  512 31/01/2002 19/03/2002 05/04/2002 47 617 
US – Section 211 ("Havana Club") (DS176) 03/07/2001 284 06/08/2001 280 314 04/10/2001 02/01/2002 01/02/2002 90 493 
US – Lamb Safeguards (New Zealand) (DS177)  275 21/12/2000  398 31/01/2001 01/05/2001 16/05/2001 90 544 
US – Lamb Safeguards (Australia) (DS178)  275 21/12/2000  398 31/01/2001 01/05/2001 16/05/2001 90 544  
  TN/DS/W/90 
Page 30 
Case Final 
Report 
Issued to 
Parties Days from 
Comp. To 
Final 
Report 
Public Final 
Report 
Circulated Days from 
Est. Panel 
to Final 
Report 
to Parties Days from 
Est. Panel 
to Final 
Report 
Public Notice of 
Appeal AB Report 
Circulated Adoption Days from 
Notice to 
circulation 
of AB report Days from 
Est. Panel 
to Adoption 
US – Sheet/Plate from Korea (DS179) 14/12/2000 273 22/12/2000 391 399   01/02/2001  440 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel from Japan (DS184)  280 28/02/2001  345 25/04/2001 24/07/2001 23/08/2001 90 521 
Argentina – Floor Tiles (DS189) 14/09/2001 47 28/02/2001 301 103   05/11/2001  353 
US – Cotton Yarn (DS192)  274 31/05/2001  346 09/07/2001 08/10/2001 05/11/2001 91 504 
US – Export Restraints (DS194)  249 29/06/2001  291   23/08/2001  346 
US – Line Pipe Safeguards (DS202)  280 29/10/2001  371 19/11/2001 15/02/2002 08/03/2002 88 501 
US – India Steel Plate (DS206)  245 28/06/2002  339   29/07/2002  370 
Chile – Agricultural Products (Price Band) (DS207) 04/04/2002 351 03/05/2002 388 417 24/06/2002 23/09/2002 23/10/2002 91 590 
Egypt – Rebar (DS211)  386 08/08/2002  414   01/10/2002  468 
US – CVDs on EC Products (DS212) 19/06/2002 268 31/07/2002 282 324 09/09/2002 09/12/2002 08/01/2003 91 485 
US – German Steel CVDs (DS213) 14/06/2002 250 03/07/2002 277 296 30/08/2002 28/11/2002 19/12/2002 90 465 
EC – Pipe Fittings (DS219) 10/12/2002 548 07/03/2003 504 591 23/04/2003     
US – Offset Act ("Byrd Amendment") (EC et al) (DS217) 02/09/2002 326 16/09/2002 375 389 18/10/2002 16/01/2003 27/01/2003 90 522  
US – Section 129 (DS221) 12/06/2002 258 15/07/2002 293 326   30/08/2002  372 
Canada – Aircraft II (DS222) 09/11/2001 262 28/01/2002 242 322   19/02/2002  344 
EC – Sardines (DS231) 22/05/2002 260 29/05/2002 302 309 28/06/2002 26/09/2002 23/10/2002 90 456 
US – Offset Act ("Byrd Amendment") (Canada and Mexico) (DS234) 02/09/2002 326 16/09/2002 375 389 18/10/2002 16/01/2003 27/01/20 03 90 522 
US – Lumber CVDs Prelim (DS236)  238 27/09/2002  296   01/01/2002  27 
Argentina – Peach Safeguards (DS238) 16/12/2002 304 14/02/2003 332 392   15/04/2003  452 
Argentina – Poultry AD Duties (DS241) 08/04/2003 299 22/04/2003 356 370   19/05/2003  397 
US – Textiles Rules of Origin (DS243) 25/04/2003 253 20/06/2003 305 361      
US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Re view (DS244) 22/05/2003          
Japan – Apples (DS245) 25/06/2003          
US – Steel Safeguards (EC) (DS248) 02/05/2003          
US – Steel Safeguards (Korea) (DS251) 02/05/2003          
US – Steel Safeguards (Japan) (DS249) 02/05/2003          
US – Steel Safeguards (China) (DS252) 02/05/2003          
US – Steel Safeguards (Switzerland)  (DS253) 02/05/2003          
US – Steel Safeguards (Norway) (DS254) 02/05/2003          
US – Steel Safeguards (New Zealand) (DS258) 02/05/2003          
US – Steel Safeguards (Brazil) (DS259) 02/05/2003          
US – Lumber CVDs Final (DS264)           
           
   91    64 89   
Averages for all Panel reports  302.29  335.71 363.64    86.33 478.45 
  
   TN/DS/W/90
 Page 31 
Case Days from 
Consult. 
to Adoption Expiry of 
Reasonable 
Period of 
Time RPT Days from 
Est. Panel 
to Expiry 
RPT Days from 
Consult to 
Expiry RPT 21.5 Panel 
Establishment 21.5 Panel 
Circulated 21.5 Panel 
Establishment 
to 
Circulation 
US – Gasoline (Venezuela) (DS2) 482 20/08/1997 457 863 939    
Japan – Alcohol  (EC) (DS8) 499 14/05/1998 559 960 1058    
Japan – Alcohol  (United States) (DS11) 483 14/05/1998 559 960 1042    
Japan – Alcohol (Canada) (DS10) 483 14/05/1998 559 960 1042    
Australia – Salmon (DS18) 1128 06/07/1999 242 817 1370 28/07/1999 18/02/2000 205 
Brazil – Coconut (DS22) 479 No violation       
US – Underwear (DS24) 431 27/03/1997 30 387 461    
EC – Hormones (US) (DS26) 749 13/05/1999 454 1088 1203    
EC – Bananas (Guatemala/Honduras) (DS27) 598 01/01/1999 463 968 1061    
EC – Bananas (Mexico) (DS27) 598 01/01/1999 463 968 1061    
EC – Bananas (US) (DS27) 598 01/01/1999 463 968 1061    
EC – Bananas (Ecuador) (DS27) 598 01/01/1999 463 968 1061 12/01/1999 12/04/1999 90 
EC – Bananas (EC against itself) (DS27)      12/01/1999 12/04/1999 90 
Canada – Periodicals (DS31) 506 30/10/1998 457 863 963    
US – Shirts and Blouses (DS33)  22/11/1996 -182 219     
Turkey – Textiles (DS34) 1338 19/02/2001 458 1074 1796    
Japan – Film (DS44) 678 No violation       
Brazil – Aircraft (DS46) 1157 19/11/1999 91 484 1248 09/12/1999 09/05/2000 152 
EC – Hormones (Canada) (DS48) 595 13/05/1999 454 939 1049    
India – Patents (US) (DS50) 563 19/04/1999 458 880 1021    
Indonesia – Autos (EC) (DS54) 658 23/07/1999 365 771 1023    
Indonesia – Autos (Japan) (DS55) 657 23/07/1999 365 771 1022    
Argentina – Textiles (DS56) 565 01/01/1999 254 675 819    
Indonesia – Autos (United States) (DS59) 653 23/07/1999 365 723 1018    
US – Shrimp (DS58) 759 06/12/1999 395 1014 1154 23/10/2000 16/05/2001 205 
Guatemala – Cement I (DS60) 771 No violation       
EC – Computer Equipment (against EC) (DS62) 591 No violation       
Indonesia – Autos (Japan) (DS64) 601 23/07/1999 365 771 966    
EC – Computer Equipment (against UK) (DS67) 493 No violation       
EC – Computer Equipment (against Iteland)  (DS68) 493 No violation       
EC – Poultry (DS69) 514 31/03/1999 251 609 765    
Canada – Aircraft (DS70) 893 19/11/1999 91 484 984 09/12/1999 09/05/2000 152 
Korea – Alcohol (EC) (DS75) 686 31/01/2000 348 837 1034    
Japan – Agricultural Products (DS76) 711 31/12/1999 287 773 998    
India – Patents (EC) (DS79) 512 19/04/1999 209 550 721     
  TN/DS/W/90 
Page 32 
Case Days from 
Consult. 
to Adoption Expiry of 
Reasonable 
Period of 
Time RPT Days from 
Est. Panel 
to Expiry 
RPT Days from 
Consult to 
Expiry RPT 21.5 Panel 
Establishment 21.5 Panel 
Circulated 21.5 Panel 
Establishment 
to 
Circulation 
Korea – Alcohol (United States) (DS84) 635 31/01/2000 348 837 983    
Chile – Alcohol (EC) (DS87) 952 21/03/2001  1219 1386    
India – QRs (DS90) 799 01/04/2000 192 865 991    
Korea – Dairy Safeguards (DS98) 883 20/05/2000 129 667 1012    
US – DRAMS (DS99) 582 19/11/1999 245 672 827 25/04/2000 07/09/2000 135 
Canada – Milk/Dairy (United States) (DS103)  749 31/01/2001 462 1043 1211 01/03/2001 11/07/2001 132 
US – FSC (DS108) 853 01/11/2000 226 771 1079 20/12/2000 20/08/2001 243 
Chile – Alcohol (DS110) (EC on new regime) 758 21/03/2001 434 1092 1192    
Canada – Pharmaceuticals (DS114) 840 07/10/2000 183 614 1023    
Canada – Milk/Dairy (New Zealand) (DS113)  667 31/01/2001 462 1043 1129 01/03/2001 11/07/2001 132 
Argentina – Footwear Safeguards (DS121) 649 25/02/2000 44 582 693    
Thailand – Steel (DS122) 1095 20/10/2001 198 701 1293    
Australia – Leather (DS126) 408 17/09/1999 93 452 501 14/10/1999 21/01/2000 99 
Mexico – HFCS (DS132) 657 22/09/2000 211 667 868 23/10/2000 22/06/2001 242 
EC – Asbestos (DS135) 1043 No violation       
US – 1916 Act (EC) (DS136) 845 31/12/2001 461 1064 1306    
US – Lead Bars (DS138) 726 05/07/2000 28 504 754    
Canada – Autos (Japan) (DS139) 717 19/02/2001 245 749 962    
EC – Bed Linen (DS141) 952 14/08/2001 155 657 1107 22/05/2002 29/11/2002 191 
Canada – Autos (EC) (DS142) 672 19/02/2001 245 749 917    
India – Autos (EC) (DS146) 1277 05/09/2002 153 657 1430    
US – Section 301 (DS152) 428 No violation       
Argentina – Bovine Hides (DS 155) 786 28/02/2002 377 948 1163    
Guatemala – Cement II (DS156) 682 31/10/2000 -17 405 665    
US – Copyright (DS160) 548 31/12/2001 522 950 1070    
Korea – Beef (US) (DS161) 709 10/09/2001 243 838 952    
US – 1916 Act (Japan) (DS162) 594 31/12/2001 461 889 1055    
Korea – Government Procurement (D S163) 489 No violation       
US – Certain EC Products (DS165) 678 No violation       
US – Wheat Gluten Safeguards (DS166) 674 02/06/2001 134 677 808    
Korea – Beef (Australia) (DS169) 638 10/09/2001 243 777 881    
Canada – Patent Term (DS170) 525 12/08/2001 304 690 829    
India – Autos (US) (DS175) 1038 05/09/2002 153 770 1191    
US – Section 211 ("Havana Club") (DS176) 940 03/01/2003 336 829 1276    
US – Lamb Safeguards (New Zealand) (DS177) 670 15/11/2001 183 727 853    
US – Lamb Safeguards (Australia) (DS178) 663 15/11/2001 183 727 846     
   TN/DS/W/90
 Page 33Case Days from 
Consult. 
to Adoption Expiry of 
Reasonable 
Period of 
Time RPT Days from 
Est. Panel 
to Expiry 
RPT Days from 
Consult to 
Expiry RPT 21.5 Panel 
Establishment 21.5 Panel 
Circulated 21.5 Panel 
Establishment 
to 
Circulation 
US – Sheet/Plate from Korea (DS179) 552 01/09/2001 212 652 764    
US – Hot-Rolled Steel from Japan (DS184) 644 23/11/2002 457 978 1101    
Argentina – Floor Tiles (DS 189) 649 05/04/2002 151 504 800    
US – Cotton Yarn (DS192)  09/11/2001 4 508 37204    
US – Export Restraints (DS194) 461 No violation       
US – Line Pipe Safeguards (DS202) 633 01/03/2003 358 859 991    
US – India Steel Plate (DS206) 663 31/01/2003 186 556 849    
Chile – Agricultural Products (Price Band) (DS207) 748 23/12/2003 426 1016 1174    
Egypt – Rebar (DS211) 694 31/07/2003 303 771 997    
US – CVDs on EC Products (DS212) 789 08/11/2003 304 789 1093    
US – German Steel CVDs (DS213) 769        
EC – Pipe Fittings (DS219)         
US – Offset Act ("Byrd Amendment") (EC et al) (DS217) 767 27/12/2003 334 856 1101    
US – Section 129 (DS221) 590 No violation       
Canada – Aircraft II (DS222) 393        
EC – Sardines (DS231) 582 01/07/2003 251 707 833    
US – Offset Act ("Byrd Amendment") (Canada and Mexico) (DS234) 616 27/12/2003 334 856 950    
US – Lumber CVDs Prelim (DS236) 133 28/11/2002 331 358 464    
Argentina – Peach Safeguards (DS238) 578        
Argentina – Poultry AD Duties (DS241) 558        
US – Textiles Rules of Origin (DS243)         
US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset  Review (DS244)         
Japan – Apples (DS245)         
US – Steel Safeguards (EC) (DS248)         
US – Steel Safeguards (Korea) (DS251)         
US – Steel Safeguards (Japan) (DS249)         
US – Steel Safeguards (China) (DS252)         
US – Steel Safeguards (Switzer land) (DS253)         
US – Steel Safeguards (Norway) (DS254)         
US – Steel Safeguards (New Zealand) (DS258)         
US – Steel Safeguards (Brazil) (DS259)         
US – Lumber CVDs Final (DS264)         
         
      13   
Averages for all Panel reports 680.00  292.08 775.15 1,507.14   159.08 TN/DS/W/90 
Page 34  
 
  Annex 4 
Panel and Appellate Body procedures  
with findings on provisions regarding development 
 
 
Dispute Name   DS NumberAdoption 
Date/Status   Development provision 
examined   
EC – Bed Linen (21.5) 
Panel   141 April 24, 2003  Art. 15 AD 
US – Dumping/Subsidy Offset 
Act 
("Byrd Amendment")  
Panel   217,234 January 27, 2003  Art 15 AD, and Art 12.11 DSU
US – India Steel Plate  
Panel   206 July 29, 2002  Art. 15 AD  
US – Line Pipe Safeguards  
Panel  / Appellate Body   202 March 8, 2002  Art 9 Safeguards  
EC – Bed Linen  
Panel   141 March 12, 2001   Art. 15 AD  
Korea – Beef  
Panel  / Appellate Body  161,169 January 10, 2001  Art. 6.4 Agriculture  
India – QRs  
Panel  / Appellate Body  90 September 22, 1999 Art 12.10 DSU and Art. XVIII 
GATT  
Brazil – Aircraft  
Panel  / Appellate Body  46 August 20, 1999  Art. 27 SCM  
Indonesia – Automobiles  
Panel  54,55,59,64 July 23, 1998  Art. 27 SCM and Art 65 TRIPS 
EC – Poultry  
Panel  / Appellate Body   69 July 23, 1998  Art. 1.2, 3.5(j) and 3.5(a) 
Licensing   
India – Patents (US)  
Panel   50 January 16, 1998 56 TRIPS 
EC – Bananas  
Panel   27 September 25, 1997 1.2 Licensing   
Brazil – Desiccated Coconut  
Panel   22 March 20, 1997  Art 6 Agriculture  
  TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 35 
 
 
  Annex 5 
Number of Members that have requested to join consultations 
 
DS number Requests DS number Requests DS number Requests DS number Requests 
DS3 1 DS91  6 DS174  1 DS261  2 
DS5  2 DS92  6 DS175  2 DS262  2 
DS6  2 DS93  6 DS177  2 DS265  18 
DS7 4 DS94  6 DS178  4 DS266  18 
DS8 2 DS95 1 DS183  1 DS267  3 
DS10 2 DS96  6 DS186  2 DS269   1 
DS12 3 DS98  1 DS196  2 DS270 2 
DS14  3 DS102  2 DS197  1 DS271 2 
DS15  1 DS103  2 DS199  1 DS274 1 
DS16  6 DS104  3 DS200  10 DS275 3 
DS20  2 DS105  11 DS201  1 DS276 4 
DS21  1 DS109  2 DS202  2 DS279 1 
DS26  3 DS110  2 DS209  1 DS283 1 
DS27  14 DS111  2 DS212  3 DS284 2 
DS28  1 DS113  2 DS213  1 DS286 2 
DS29  6 DS114  3 DS214  2 DS287 4 
DS35  1 DS116  5 DS216  2 DS290 15 
DS36  1 DS118  3 DS217  3 DS291 10 
DS42  1 DS119  2 DS218  1 DS292 7 
DS48 3 DS121  1 DS221  2 DS293 7 
DS50  2 DS123 1 DS224  1 DS294 3 
DS51 4 DS133  1 DS225  1 TOTAL 493 
DS52  4 DS135  1 DS228  5 AVG (%) 3,22 
DS53  2 DS138  1 DS230  4 
DS54  4 DS140  1 DS231  4 
DS55  4 DS141  1 DS232  1 
DS56  2 DS146  2 DS234  10 
DS58  4 DS149  4 DS237  1 
DS59  4 DS150  5 DS239  2 
DS61  2 DS151  8 DS241  1 
DS62  2 DS152  9 DS242  5 
DS64  2 DS153  3 DS243  2 
DS66  1 DS154  4 DS244  2 
DS67  1 DS158  2 DS246  2 
DS73  1 DS160  3 DS248  9 
DS74  2 DS161  3 DS249  3 
DS75  2 DS162  1 DS251  4 
DS77  1 DS163  2 DS252  2 
DS84  2 DS164  1 DS253  2 
DS85  7 DS165  6 DS254  2 
DS87  3 DS166  1 DS255  1 
DS88  1 DS167  1 DS258  6 
DS89  5 DS169  3 DS259  6 
DS90  6 DS171  1 DS260  1  
  TN/DS/W/90 
Page 36 Annex 6 
 
CONFIDENTIALITY  
 
Cases Principle 
US – Line Pipe Safeguards (Panel)   Panel denied Korea's request that the Pane l ask the US to submit the entire confidenti al record from the US safeguard investiga tion at issue; the Panel did 
request that the US turn over certain specific pieces of information identified by Korea; the US turned over some of the reques ted information; the Panel 
rejected a second request by Korea for the remaining information, finding that the information already on the record was suffic ient for an objective 
assessment; Panel also rejected Korea's claim that the failure to include relevant confidential information in a published dete rmination is per se a violation of 
Safeguards Agreement Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c). 
Canada – Milk/Dairy, Article 21.5 
(Panel)   Panel rejected Canada's request for special procedures for confidential information, ho lding that Canada failed to describe pro perly the nature of the 
information and the need for added procedures, and further stati ng that the confidentiality requirements of DSU Article 18.2 an d Working Procedures 
paragraph 3 were sufficient. 
US – Lamb Safeguards (Panel)   The US initially refused to submit certain confidential informati on, and the Panel later requested that information; the US res ponded by submitting the 
information in indexed form; the other parties did not object to the submissi on of the information in this form. 
Thailand – Steel (AB)   Breach of confidentiality occurred with regard to Thailand's s ubmission; in addition, reversed the Panel's interpretation of AD  Agreement Articles 3.1 and 
17.6(i), holding that investigating authorities  may rely on confidential information not  shared with the parties in reaching th eir determinations. 
Thailand – Steel (Panel)   Despite the parties' agreement on procedures for the treatment of confidential information, Poland did not receive access to mu ch of this information during 
the proceeding and the information it did receive did not come unt il just prior to the first panel meeting; the Panel stated th at this played an "important role" 
in its consideration of the substantive clai ms; also discussed in the context of the St andard of Review and in the injury conte xt in conjunction with AD 
Agreement Article 3.1; held that Article 3.1, read together with  the standard of review establis hed in Article 17.6(i), dictate s that "the reasoning supporting 
the determination be 'formally or explicit ly stated' in documents in the record of  the anti-dumping investigation to which inte rested parties (and/or their legal 
counsel) have access at least fro m the time of the final determination," and sim ilarly the factual basis relied upon by the aut hority "must also be discernible 
from those documents" -- reversed on appeal. 
US – Wheat Gluten Safeguards (Panel)   Special working procedures for confidential information adopted whereby only "approved" persons obtained access to certain conf idential information; no 
agreement reached on additional rules requested by U.S. 
Australia – Salmon, Article 21.5 (Panel)  Panel refused to adopt the special procedur es requested by Australia on the basis that  the information at issue was not sensiti ve business information and 
because regular procedures already require confidential treatment of designated information; Panel did agree that, in its repor t, it would not quote from the 
confidential information, or refer to the author of that inform ation; also, to prevent the leak of information after the comple tion of proceedings, all 
confidential information was required to be returned to the submitting party at the end of the proceeding, unless that party ag reed otherwise. 
Australia – Leather, Article 21.5 (Panel)  Special working procedures for confidenti al information adopted whereby only "approve d" persons obtained access to certain con fidential information. 
Canada – Aircraft (AB)   Appellate Body refused to adopt procedures that had been used by  the Panel; said that procedures used by the Panel would still apply to information 
submitted to the Panel and that Appellate Body rules required confidentiality anyway. 
Canada – Aircraft (Panel)   Special working procedures for confidential information adopted. 
Brazil – Aircraft (AB)   Appellate Body refused to adopt procedures that had been used by  the Panel; said that procedures used by the Panel would still apply to information 
submitted to the Panel and that Appellate Body rules required confidentiality anyway. 
Brazil – Aircraft (Panel)   Special working procedures for confidential information adopted. 
Australia – Leather (Panel)   Special procedures adopted whereby only "approved" persons obtained access to certain confidential information. 
Indonesia – Autos (Panel)   No special procedures taken; Pane l said that it would ensure that all parties had time to respond fully to data in the event th at the US submitted certain 
information that it deemed "confidential" at a later date. 
  
   TN/DS/W/90
 Page 37Annex 7 
INTERNAL TRANSPARENCY 
 
I. INCOMING INFORMATION TO THE MEMBER  
MEETINGS WTO Member 
(Non-Third Party 
nor a Party) Third Party to 
a dispute Party to a 
dispute  
DOCUMENTS WTO Member 
(Non-Third Party 
nor a Party) Third Party 
to a dispute Party to a 
dispute 
 
 
 
 A. DSB Meetings 
 
B. Consultations´ meetings 
 
 
C. Hearings with the 
Panel, the Appellate 
Body or Arbitrator 
 D. Oral hearings before 
the Appellate Body
94 
 
E. Preparatory meetings 
with the Panel, the 
Appellate Body or 
Arbitrator95 9 9 
 
9 
(If accepted)96 
 
9 
(Session of the 
first substantive 
meeting)97 
 
9 9 
 
9 
 
 
9 
 
 
 
 
9 
 
 
9  
 
 
     
 A. Public WTO documents98 
 
B. Press 
 C. 
Submissions and statements 
made public99 
 
D. Submissions to the Panel100 
 
 
E. Descriptive interim report101 
 
F.  Submissions to Arbitrator102 
 
G. Submissions to the 
Appellate Body103 
 
H. Questions and replies of 
Parties in Consultations 
 
I. Confidential information  9 
 
9 
 
9 9 
 
9 
 
9 
 
 
9 
(Parties' first 
submission)104 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
9
 
 
9 
(If accepted)105 9 
 
9 
 
9 
 
 
9 
 
 
 
9 
 
9 
 
9 
 
 
9 
 
9 
(With 
limitations)  
                                                      
94 Rule 27 of the Working Procedures of the Appellate Body.  
95 Article 12.3 of the DSU. 
96 Article 4.11 of DSU. 
97 Appendix 3.3 of DSU. 
98 Circulation and Derestriction of the WTO documents (WT/L/452) 
99 The USA, the EC and the Advisory Center publish their submissions in their web sites. Australia, Canada and New Zealand may pr ovide them upon request. 
100 Article 12.6 and Appendix 3.6 of the DSU. 
101 Articles 12.7, 15 and Appendix 3 of the DSU. 
102 Articles 21.3 (c), 22.6, 25 of the DSU. 
103 Rules 21, 22 and 28 of the Working Procedures of the Appellate Body. 
104 Article 10.3 of DSU. 
105 Article 4.11 of the DSU.  
  TN/DS/W/90 
Page 38 II. OUT-COMING INFORMATION FROM THE MEMBER 
 
INFORMATION  WTO Member 
(Non-Third Party)  Third Party to a 
dispute  Party to a dispute  
The Panel, Appellate Body or 
Arbitrator may take into account information from: Not taken into account Not taken into account 
 
 Taken into account 
 
 
  
  TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 39 
 
 
  Annex 8 
 
EXTERNAL TRANSPARENCY 
 
 
IN WTO, PARTIES OR THIRD PARTIES TO A DISPUTE AND OTHER WTO MEMBERS 
 
INFORMATION WTO Party or Third Party
to a dispute Other WTO Member 
(Not Parties nor Third 
Parties) 
Information from an external 
 Amicus Curiae  Member discretion  Member discretion  
Information to an external Public WTO 
documents106 
Press Submissions 
made public
107.  National Transparency laws
 National Transparency laws
 
 
                                                      
106 Circulation and Derestriction of the WTO documents (WT/L/452). 
107 The USA, the EC and the Advisory Center publish their submissions in their web sites. Australia, 
Canada and New Zealand may provide them upon request.  
107 Article 12.6 and Appendix 3.6 of the DSU TN/DS/W/90 
Page 40  
 
  Annex 9 
EXTERNAL TRANSPARENCY 
 
COMPARISON BETWEEN A WTO MEMBER (NON PARTY NOR THIRD PARTY) AND A WTO EXTERNAL PERSON OR ENTITY 
 
DOCUMENTS AND 
MEETINGS WTO Member 
(Non-Third Party 
nor a Party) External 
 
A. DSB Meetings 
 
B. Public WTO documents108 
 
C. Press 
 
D. Submissions and 
statements made public109 
 
E. Submissions to Panel110 
 
F. Descriptive interim 
report111 
 
G. Submissions to 
Arbitrator112 
 
H. Submissions to the 
Appellate Body113 
 
I. Questions and replies of 
Parties in Consultations 
 
J. Confidential information  
9  
 
9  
 
9  
 
9  
 
 
9 
 
9 
 
 
9 
 
 
9 
 
 
9 
  
9  
9  
 
9 
114 
 
9  
 
9  
 
 
9  
 
9  
 
 
9  
 
 
9  
 
 
9  
  
9  
 
 
                                                      
108 Circulation and Derestriction of the WTO documents (WT/L/452) 
109 The USA, the EC and the Advisory Center publish their submissions in their web sites. Australia, 
Canada and New Zealand may provide them upon request.  
110 Article 12.6 and Appendix 3.6 of the DSU. 
111 Articles 12.7, 15 and Appendix 3 of the DSU. 
112 Articles 21.3 (c), 22.6, 25 of the DSU. 
113 Rules 21, 22 and 28 of the Working Procedures of the Appellate Body. 
114 An external may access to the minutes of the mee ting 45 days after their circulation (See 2 (b) of 
WT/L/452).  
   TN/DS/W/90
 Page 41Annex 10 
 
Doc nr. Violation? Immediate 
compliance Compliance 
within RPT 21.5 
Panel Suspension Current status 
DS135 No     Finished 
DS152 No     Finished 
DS163 No     Finished 
DS165 No     Finished 
DS194 No     Finished 
DS22 No     Finished 
DS221 No     Finished 
DS44 No     Finished 
DS60 No     Finished 
DS62 No     Finished 
DS67 No     Finished 
DS68 No     Finished 
DS10 Yes     Agreement on compensation 
DS103 Yes   Yes  MAS after second 21.5 
DS108 Yes   Yes Yes Ongoing non-compliance 
DS11 Yes     Agreement on compensation 
DS110 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS113 Yes   Yes  MAS after second 21.5 
DS114 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS121 Yes     Limbo. No document after adoption. 
DS122 Yes     MAS after agreement on sequencing. 
DS126 Yes   Yes  MAS after 21.5 
DS132 Yes   Yes  No document after adoption of 21.5 report 
DS136 Yes     Ongoing non-compliance 
DS138 Yes Yes    Finished 
DS139 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS141 Yes   Yes  No document after adoption of 21.5 AB report 
DS142 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS146 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS155 Yes     Agreement on "sequencing" 
DS156 Yes Yes    Finished 
DS160 Yes     Temporary agreement on compensation 
DS161 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS162 Yes     Ongoing non-compliance 
DS166 Yes     No document after 21.3 agreement  
  TN/DS/W/90 
Page 42 Doc nr. Violation? Immediate 
compliance Compliance 
within RPT 21.5 
Panel Suspension Current status 
DS169 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS170 Yes     No document after 21.3 agreement 
DS175 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS176 Yes     Ongoing RPT 
DS177 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS178 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS179 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS18 Yes   Yes  No document after 21.5 report adopted 
DS184 Yes     Ongoing RPT 
DS189 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS192 Yes Yes    Finished 
DS2 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS202 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS206 Yes     No document after agreement on "sequencing". 
DS207 Yes     Ongoing RPT 
DS211 Yes     Ongoing RPT 
DS212 Yes     Ongoing RPT 
DS213 Yes     Ongoing RPT 
DS217 Yes     Ongoing RPT 
DS222 Yes    Yes Limbo. 
DS231 Yes     Ongoing RPT 
DS234 Yes     Ongoing RPT 
DS236 Yes     Limbo. No document after adoption. 
DS238 Yes     Ongoing RPT 
DS24 Yes Yes    Finished 
DS241 Yes     Ongoing RPT 
DS26 Yes    Yes Ongoing non-compliance 
DS27ECU Yes   Yes Yes MAS after 21.5 and 22.6 
DS27GUA Yes     Consultations under 21.5 were held. 
DS27MEX Yes     Consultations under 21.5 were held. 
DS27USA Yes    Yes Consultations under 21.5 were held. MAS after 22.6. 
DS31 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS33 Yes Yes    Finished 
DS34 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS46 Yes   Yes Yes 21.5 panel (second recourse) found no violation. 
DS48 Yes    Yes Ongoing non-compliance 
DS50 Yes  Yes   Finished  
   TN/DS/W/90
 Page 43Doc nr. Violation? Immediate 
compliance Compliance 
within RPT 21.5 
Panel Suspension Current status 
DS54 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS55 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS56 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS58 Yes   Yes  21.5 AB found no violation. 
DS59 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS64 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS69 Yes     No document after 21.3 agreement 
DS70 Yes   Yes  No document after adoption of 21.5 AB report 
DS75 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS76 Yes     MAS during RPT 
DS79 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS8 Yes     Agreement on compensation 
DS84 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS87 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS90 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS98 Yes  Yes   Finished 
DS99 Yes   Yes  MAS after 21.5 
DS27EC    Yes  Never adopted. 
       
      Records:                                           89 cases 
      Violation found:                                  77 cases 
      No violation:                                       12 cases 
      Immediate compliance:                        5 cases 
      Compliance within RPT:                      28 cases 
      21.5  cases (panels or consultations):  16 cases       Ongoing RPT:                                    11 cases 
      MAS or compensation agreement:        5 cases 
      Limbo or ongoing non-compliance:      12 cases TN/DS/W/90 
Page 44  
 
  Annex 11 
 
INCREASE FROM GATT TO THE WTO  
 
 
Number of WTO dispute settlement cases: 
 
Request for 
consultations Panel reports adopted Number of Panels 
that have not
 
found a violation Appellate Body reports 
adopted 
295 89 12 64 
 Comparison of GATT and WTO Panel reports:  
 Total of Panel (or Appellate 
Body) reports Number of cases per year 
(average) 
GATT (47 years) 131 2.8 
WTO (8.5 years) 89 (64) 10.5 (7.53) 
  TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 45 
 
 
  Annex 12 
 
A priori and a posteriori  
 
Member imposing the measure Times that a Member believed a 
measure was not in conformity 
US 80 
EC 60115 
Argentina 15 
India 14 
Japan 13 
Canada, Korea and Brazil (each) 12 
Chile  10 
Australia and Mexico (each) 9 
Turkey 7 
Philippines, Peru and Indonesia (each) 4 
Slovak Republic 3 
Hungary, Czech Republic, Rumania, Ecuador, Pakistan, 
Trinidad &Tobago, Nicaragua, Venezuela, South Africa, Guatemala and Egypt (each) 2 
Thailand, Malaysia, Uruguay, Poland and Colombia (each) 1 
Total 295 
 
 
b) Figures on non-compliance a posteriori : 
 During 47 years of existence of the GATT, 131 pa nel reports were circulated (2.8 per year). 
During 8.5 years of existence of the WTO, 89 panel reports have been circulated (10.5 per year). 
 
Member imposing the measure Disputes with a determination of 
violation 
US 24 
EC 12116  
Canada  9 
Argentina 6 
India and Korea (each) 5 
Indonesia and Japan (each) 4 
Australia and Chile (each) 2 
Brazil, Egypt, Guatemala, Mexico, Thailand and Turkey (each) 1 
Total 77 
 
                                                      
115 We have added the cases against a Memb er State from the European Community.  
116 The case on “Bananas” is counted on the basis of the number of panel reports (4). TN/DS/W/90 
Page 46  
 
  Annex 13 (Level of nullification or impairment)  
 
 
Case Level of nullification or 
impairment Level of N or I in USD 
1.  Brazil – Export financing programme 
for aircraft (Brought by Canada ) (DS46) C$ 344.2 million per year.  220,774,944 
2.  US – Section 110(5) of the US 
Copyright Act (Brought by EC ): (DS160) E$1,219,900 per year  1,180,822 
3.  EC-Banana for Ecuador (DS27) US$ 201.6 million per year.  201,600,000 
4.  EC-Bananas for the US  (DS27) US$191.4 million per year.  191,400,000 
5.  EC-Hormones for Canada  (DS48) C$ 11.3 million per year  7,249,738 
6.  EC-Hormones for the US (DS26) US$ 116.8 million per year  116,800,000 
7.  United States -Foreign Sales 
Corporations (Brought by EC ) (DS108) US$ $4,043 million 
(the subsidy of 2000)  4,043,000,000 
8.  Canada – Export credits and loan 
guarantees for regional aircraft (DS222) US$ 247,797,000  247,797,000 
 Total amounts determined  5,029,802,504 
 Average amounts determined  628,725,313 
  TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 47 
 
 
  Annex 14 
QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF APPEALED ISSUES 
 
DS Number no. of issues 
appealed upheld reversed declined rejected modified 
141 5 2 1 2 0 0 
217,234 6 3 1 0 2 0 
212 4 2 2 0 0 0 
213 5 4 1 0 0 0 
231 8 4 1 1 2 0 
207 6 3 2 1 0 0 
146,175 - - - - - - 
202 9 5 3 0 0 1 
176 10 5 5 0 0 0 
108 7 6 1 0 0 0 
103,113 3 0 2 1 0 0 
58 2 2 0 0 0 0 
132 5 5 0 0 0 0 
192 4 2 1 1 0 0 
184 10 5 2 3 0 0 
177,178 7 4 2 1 0 0 
122 6 4 2 0 0 0 
135 7 2 5 0 0 0 
141 2 1 1 0 0 0 
166 11 8 3 0 0 0 
161,169 11 4 3 4 0 0 
165 5 1 4 0 0 0 
114 2 2 0 0 0 0 
136,162 7 6 0 1 0 0 
70 1 0 1 0 0 0 
46 2 2 0 0 0 0 
139,142 5 3 1 1 0 0 
138 3 3 0 0 0 0 
108 7 2 1 4 0 0 
121 7 4 2 1 0 0 
98 9 3 3 3 0 0 
87,110 4 4 0 0 0 0 
34 2 1 1 0 0 0 
103,113 4 1 2 1 0 0 
90 5 5 0 0 0 0 
70 5 5 0 0 0 0 
46 9 7 1 1 0 0 
 TN/DS/W/90 
Page 48  
 
  QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF APPEALED ISSUES 
 
DS Number issues appealed upheld reversed declined rejected modified 
75,84 5 5 0 0 0 0 
60 3 0 3 0 0 0 
18 13 5 4 3 1 0 
58 2 0 2 0 0 0 
69 8 7 1 0 0 0 
62,67,68 3 1 2 0 0 0 
56 4 3 0 0 0 1 
26,48 14 8 4 0 0 2 
50 3 2 1 0 0 0 
27 22 19 3 0 0 0 
31 4 1 2 0 0 1 
33 1 1 0 0 0 0 
22 1 1 0 0 0 0 
24 1 0 1 0 0 0 
8,10,11 4 0 4 0 0 0 
2 3 0 3 0 0 0 
 296 173 84 29 5 5 
 100.00% 58.45% 28.38% 9.80% 1.69% 1.69%
  TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 49 
 
 
  Annex 15 
Specificity of Mutually Agreed Solutions 
(59 MAS obtained)117 
  
 No specificity Low specificity High specificity 
Num. of Cases 11 20 28 
Percentages  16% 34% 50% 
 
  
WT/DS num. DS1, DS6, DS23, 
DS32, DS40, DS72, 
DS73, DS99, DS126, 
DS160, DS122 DS13, DS35, DS99, 
DS210, DS28, DS37, 
DS42, DS43, DS82, DS83, DS86, DS89, DS94, DS115, DS119, DS125, DS190, DS199, 
DS210, DS237 DS5, DS7, DS12, 
DS14, DS19, DS20, 
DS21, DS27, DS34, DS36, DS74, DS76, DS85, DS91, DS92, 
DS93, DS96, DS102, 
DS103, DS113,  DS124, 
DS126, DS151, DS160, DS171, DS196, DS198, 
DS235 
 
                                                      
117 Based on WT/DS/OV/14 and WT/DSB/29/Add.1. TN/DS/W/90 
Page 50  
 
  Annex 16 
Requests to join consultations118 
 
Num. of Cases Requests to join consultations 
 
  
138  
DS3, DS5, DS6, DS7, DS8, DS10, DS12, DS14, DS15, DS16, DS20, 
DS21, DS26, DS27, DS28, DS29, DS35, DS36, DS42, DS48, DS50, 
DS51,DS52, DS53, DS54, DS55, DS56, DS58, DS59, DS61, DS62, 
DS64, DS66, DS67, DS73, DS74, DS75, DS77, DS84, DS85, DS87, 
DS88, DS89, DS90, DS91, DS92, DS93, DS94, DS95, DS96, DS98, 
DS102, DS103, DS104, DS105, DS109, DS110, DS111, DS113, DS114, 
DS116, DS118, DS119, DS121, DS123,DS133, DS135, DS138, DS140, 
DS141, DS146, DS149, DS150, DS151, DS152, DS153, DS154, DS158, DS160, DS161, DS162, DS163, DS164, DS165, DS166, DS167, DS169, DS171, DS174, DS175, DS177, DS178, DS183, DS186, DS196, DS197, 
DS199, DS200, DS201, DS202, DS209, DS212, DS213, DS214, DS216, 
DS217, DS218, DS221, DS224, DS225, DS228, DS230, DS231, DS232, 
DS234, DS237, DS239, DS241, DS242, DS 243, DS244, DS246, DS248, 
DS249, DS251, DS252, DS253, DS254, DS255, DS258, DS259, DS260, 
DS261, DS262, DS265, DS266, DS267, DS269,   
 
 
                                                      
118 Based on WT/DSB/29/Add.1. Updated to June 29th 2003.  TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 51 
 
 
  Annex 17 
 
Cases with two or more requests for establishment119 
 
Dispute Request for Establishment 
of a Panel Panel Established 
1. European Communities – Trade 
Description of Scallops 
 15.09.95  
Peru 
WT/DS12/6  
Annex 
22.09.95 
Peru 
WT/DS12/7 11.10.95 
WT/DSB/M/8  
 
2. European Communities – Duties 
on Imports of Grains 
 29.09.95 
US 
WT/DS13/2  
22.11.96 
WT/DS13/2/  
Add.1  
13.02.97 
WT/DS13/5  
27.03.97 
WT/DS13/6  
 
3. European Communities – Trade 
Description of Scallops 
 15.09.95 
Chile 
WT/DS14/5  
Annex 
27.09.95 
Chile 
WT/DS14/6  
Annex 11.10.95 
WT/DSB/M/8  
 
4. Hungary – Export Subsidies in 
Respect of Agricultural Products 
 10.01.97 
Australia 
WT/DS35/4  
10.01.97 
New Zealand 
WT/DS/35/5  
10.01.97 
US 
WT/DS35/6  
10.01.97 
Argentina 
WT/DS35/7 25.02.97 
WT/DSB/M/29  
 
5. Brazil – Export Financing 
Programme for Aircraft 
 17.09.96 
Canada 
WT/DS46/2  
04.10.96 
WT/DS46/4 
13.07.98 
WT/DS46/5 23.07.98 
WT/DSB/M/47 
                                                      
119 Based on WT/DSB/29/Add.1. TN/DS/W/90 
Page 52  
 
  Dispute Request for Establishment 
of a Panel Panel Established 
6. United States – Import 
Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products 10.01.97 
Malaysia 
Thailand 
WT/DS58/6  
07.02.97 
Pakistan 
WT/DS58/7  
04.03.97 
India 
WT/DS58/8 25.02.97 
WT/DSB/M/29  
(Malaysia, Thailand, 
Pakistan) 
10.04.97 
WT/DSB/M/31  
India 
7. United States – Imposition of 
Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Imports of Colour Television 
Receivers from Korea 07.11.97 
Korea 
WT/DS89/7  
28.11.97 
WT/DS89/7/  
Corr.1  
  
8. India – Quantitative Restrictions 
on Imports of Agricultural, 
Textile and Industrial Products 06.10.97 
US 
WT/DS90/8  
07.11.97 
WT/DS90/8/  
Corr.1 18.11.97 
WT/DSB/M/39 
9. Argentina – Safeguard Measures 
on Imports of Footwear 16.04.99 
WT/DS123/3  
On 10.05.99, Indonesia requested the 
withdrawal of the panel request from 
the DSB agenda and reserved its 
rights to include that request at a 
future DSB meeting (WT/DS123/4) 
10. United States – Imposition of 
Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and 
Bismuth Carbon Steel Products 
Originating in the United Kingdom 14.01.99 
WT/DS138/3  
25.01.99 
WT/DS138/3 and Corr.1 17.02.99 
WT/DSB/M/55 and Corr.1
11. Guatemala – Definitive Anti-
Dumping Measure on Grey Portland Cement from Mexico  15.07.99 
Mexico 
WT/DS156/2  
05.08.99 
WT/DS156/2 and Corr.1 22.09.99 
WT/DSB/M/68 
12. Argentina – Measures Affecting 
Imports of Footwear 20.05.99 
US 
WT/DS164/3 
15.07.99 
WT/DS164/4 26.07.99 
WT/DSB/M/65  TN/DS/W/90 
 Page 53 
 
 
  Dispute Request for Establishment 
of a Panel Panel Established 
13. Argentina – Definitive Anti-
Dumping Measures on Carton-Board Imports from Germany and Definitive Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Imports of Ceramic 
Floor Tiles from Italy 15.09.00 
EC 
WT/DS189/2 
07.11.00 
WT/DS189/3 17.11.00 
WT/DSB/M/92 
14. Belgium – Administration of 
Measures Establishing Customs Duties for Rice 19.01.01 
United States 
WT/DS210/2  
01.03.01 
WT/DS201/2/ 
Rev.1 12.03.01 
WT/DSB/M/101 
15. Egypt – Definitive Anti-
Dumping Measures on Steel 
Rebar from Turkey 
 04.05.01 
Turkey 
WT/DS211/2 
11.05.01 
WT/DS/211/2/ Corr. 1 20.06.01 
WT/DSB/M/106  
 
16. United States – Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 10.08.01 
Canada 
WT/DS234/12  
10.08.01 
Mexico 
WT/DS234/13 10.09.01 
DSB decided that the Panel 
established on 23.08.01 at 
the request of Australia, 
Brazil, Chile, EC, India, 
Indonesia, Japan, Korea and 
Thailand in relation to the 
same matter would also 
examine the complaints by 
Canada and Mexico 
WT/DSB/M/109 
17. Romania – Import Prohibition 
on Wheat and Wheat Flour 28.11.01 
Hungary 
WT/DS240/2  
20.12.01 
Withdrawal of the panel request 
WT/DS240/3  
18. United States – Rules of Origin 
for Textiles and Apparel 
Products 08.05.02 
India 
WT/DS243/5  
07.06.02 
WT/DS243/5/ 
Rev.1 24.06.02 
WT/DSB/M/128 
19. Peru – Tax Treatment on Certain 
Imported Products 14.06.02 
Chile 
WT/DS255/3 
25.09.02 
WT/DS255/5  
(withdrawal of the matter)  
20. Final Countervailing Duty 
Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada 19.07.02 
Canada 
WT/DS257/2 
19.08.02 
WT/DS257/3 01.10.02 
WT/DSB/M/133 TN/DS/W/90 
Page 54  
 
  Annex 18 
Panels and Appellate Body reports 
with more than one DS number 
 
Dispute Name  DS Number  
US – Dumping/Subsidy Offset Act 
("Byrd Amendment")  217,234  
India – Autos  146,175  
Canada – Milk/Dairy (21.5)   103,113  
Korea – Beef  161,169  
US – 1916 Act  136,162  
Canada – Automotive Industry  139,142  
Chile – Alcoholic Beverages  87,110  
Canada – Milk/Dairy   103,113  
Korea – Alcoholic Beverages  75,84  
Indonesia – Automobiles   54,55,59,64  
EC – Computer Equipment   62,67,68  
EC – Hormones   26,48  
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages   8,10,11  
EC  – Scallops  7,12,14  
US – Lamb Safeguards  177, 178  
EC – Bananas  27 
US – Shrimp  58 
 
__________