WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/AB/5 
25 January 2006 
 (06-0324) 
  
  
 
     
 
    
 
  
APPELLATE BODY 
 
 
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2005 
 
    
JANUARY 2006 
   
  
 
     
 
    
 
    
 
    
The Appellate Body welcomes comments and inquiries  
regarding this report at the  
following address: 
 
 
Appellate Body Secretariat 
World Trade Organization 
rue de Lausanne 154 
1211 Geneva, Switzerland 
email:  appellatebody.registry@wto.org 
<www.wto.org/appellatebody> 
 
 
 
 
 WT/AB/5 
Page i 
 
CONTENTS 
   Dispute Settlement Cases Cited in this Report .................................................................... ii  
 Abbreviations Used in this Report ...................................................................................... ix  
 
I. Composition of the Appellate Body.................................................................................... 1 
II. Appeals Filed .............................................................................................................. ........ 2 
III. Appellate Body Reports .................................................................................................... .. 3 
IV. Participants and Third Participants ..................................................................................... 4 V. Subject Matter of Appeals...................................................................................................  7 
VI. Working Procedures fo r Appellate Review ........................................................................ 10 
VII. Arbitrations under Artic le 21.3(c) of the DSU.................................................................... 10 
VIII. Arbitrations in  EC – The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement ............................................... 11 
IX. Technical Assistance....................................................................................................... .... 11 
X. Other De velopments .......................................................................................................... . 12  
 
Annex 1 Former Appellate Body Members and Chairpersons................................... 15 
Annex 2 Appeals Filed: 1995–2005 ........................................................................... 16 Annex 3 Percentage of Pane l Reports Appealed:  1996–2005 ..................................... 17 
Annex 4 Participants and Third Participants  in Appeals Circulated through 2005 .... 18 
Annex 5 Summaries of Appellate Body Re ports and Article 21.3(c) Arbitration 
Awards Circulated in 2005 .......................................................................... 30 
Annex 6 WTO Agreements Covered in Appellate Body Reports Circulated 
through 2005 ................................................................................................ 38 
Annex 7 Tenth Anniversary Conferences:   Programmes for 2005 and 2006............. 39 
 
 
 WT/AB/5 
Page ii  
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT 
 
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Argentina – Footwear (EC)  Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of 
Footwear , WT/DS121/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, 515 
Argentina – Textiles and 
Apparel  Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, 
Textiles, Apparel and Other Items , WT/DS56/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted  
22 April 1998, DSR 1998:III, 1003 
Australia – Salmon  Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon , 
WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, 3327 
Brazil – Aircraft  Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft , 
WT/DS46/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1161 
Brazil – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Canada)  Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Export Financing Pr ogramme for Aircraft  
– Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS46/AB/RW, adopted  
4 August 2000, DSR 2000:VIII, 4067 
Brazil – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Canada)  Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme  for Aircraft – Recourse by 
Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS46/RW, adopted 4 August 2000, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS46/AB/RW, DSR 2000:IX, 4093 
Brazil – Desiccated Coconut  Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affe cting Desiccated Coconut , 
WT/DS22/AB/R, adopted 20 March 1997, DSR 1997:I, 167 
Canada – Aircraft  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian 
Aircraft , WT/DS70/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1377 
Canada – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Brazil)  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian 
Aircraft – Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS70/AB/RW, 
adopted 4 August 2000, DSR 2000:IX, 4299 
Canada – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Brazil)  Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft – 
Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS70/RW, adopted  
4 August 2000, as modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS70/AB/RW,  
DSR 2000:IX, 4315 
Canada – Autos  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive 
Industry , WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, adopted 19 June 2000,  
DSR 2000:VI, 2985 
Canada – Dairy  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk 
and the Exportation of Dairy Products , WT/DS103/AB/R, WT/DS113/AB/R and 
Corr.1, adopted 27 October 1999, DSR 1999:V, 2057 
Canada – Dairy  (Article 21.5 – New Zealand 
and US)
  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk 
and the Exportation of Dairy Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by 
New Zealand and the United States , WT/DS103/AB/RW, WT/DS113/AB/RW, 
adopted 18 December 2001, DSR 2001:XIII, 6829 
Canada – Dairy  
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand 
and US)  Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the 
Exportation of Dairy Products – Recourse  to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New 
Zealand and the United States , WT/DS103/RW, WT/DS113/RW, adopted  
18 December 2001, as reversed by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS103/AB/RW, 
WT/DS113/AB/RW, DSR 2001:XIII, 6865 
Canada – Dairy  
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US II)
  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk 
and the Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of  the DSU by New Zealand and the United States , WT/DS103/AB/RW2, 
WT/DS113/AB/RW2, adopted 17 January 2003, DSR 2003:I, 213 WT/AB/5 
Page iii 
 
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Canada – Dairy  
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US II)
  Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the 
Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States , WT/DS103/RW2, WT/DS113/RW2, adopted 
17 January 2003, as modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS103/AB/RW2, 
WT/DS113/AB/RW2, DSR 2003:I, 255 
Canada – Patent Term  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Term of Patent Protection , WT/DS170/AB/R, 
adopted 12 October 2000, DSR 2000:X, 5093 
Canada – Periodicals  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals , 
WT/DS31/AB/R, adopted 30 July 1997, DSR 1997:I, 449 
Canada – Wheat Exports and 
Grain Imports Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and 
Treatment of Imported Grain , WT/DS276/AB/R, adopted 27 September 2004 
Chile – Alcoholic Beverages  Appellate Body Report, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS87/AB/R, 
WT/DS110/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, 281 
Chile – Price Band System  Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures 
Relating to Certain Agricultural Products , WT/DS207/AB/R, adopted 23 October 
2002, DSR 2002:VIII, 3045 
Dominican Republic – Import 
and Sale of Cigarettes Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the 
Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes , WT/DS302/AB/R, adopted  
19 May 2005 
Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes Panel Report, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and 
Internal Sale of Cigarettes , WT/DS302/R, adopted 19 May 2005, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS302/AB/R 
EC – The ACP-EC 
Partnership Agreement Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – The ACP-EC Partnership 
Agreement – Recourse to Arbitration Purs uant to the Decision of 14 November 
2001 , WT/L/616, 1 August 2005 
EC – The ACP-EC 
Partnership Agreement II Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – The ACP-EC Partnership 
Agreement – Second Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of  
14 November 2001 , WT/L/625, 27 October 2005 
EC – Asbestos  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos 
and Asbestos-Containing Products , WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001, 
DSR 2001:VII, 3243 
EC – Bananas III  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, 
Sale and Distribution of Bananas , WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September 1997, 
DSR 1997:II, 591 
EC – Bed Linen  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India , WT/DS141/AB/R, adopted  
12 March 2001, DSR 2001:V, 2049 
EC – Bed Linen  
(Article 21.5 – India)  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from I ndia – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the 
DSU  by India , WT/DS141/AB/RW, adopted 24 April 2003, DSR 2003:III, 965  
EC – Bed Linen  
(Article 21.5 – India)  Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of 
Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU  by 
India , WT/DS141/RW, adopted 24 April 2003, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report, WT/DS141/AB/RW, DSR 2003:IV, 1269  
EC – Chicken Cuts Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Customs Classification of 
Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts , WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB/R, adopted 
27 September 2005 WT/AB/5 
Page iv  
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
EC – Chicken Cuts (Brazil) Panel Report, European Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen 
Boneless Chicken Cuts, Complaint by Brazil , WT/DS269/R, adopted 27 
September 2005, as modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS269/AB/R, 
WT/DS286/AB/R 
EC – Chicken Cuts (Thailand) Panel Report, European Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen 
Boneless Chicken Cuts, Complaint by Thailand , WT/DS286/R, adopted  
27 September 2005, as modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS269/AB/R, 
WT/DS286/AB/R 
EC – Commercial Vessels Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Trade in 
Commercial Vessels , WT/DS301/R, adopted 20 June 2005 
EC – Computer Equipment  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Customs Classification of 
Certain Computer Equipment , WT/DS62/AB/R, WT/DS67/AB/R, 
WT/DS68/AB/R, adopted 22 June 1998, DSR 1998:V, 1851 
EC – Countervailing 
Measures on DRAM Chips Panel Report, European Communities – Countervailing Measures on Dynamic 
Random Access Memory Chips from Korea , WT/DS299/R, adopted  
3 August 2005 
EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar , 
WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R, adopted 19 May 2005 
EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar (Australia) Panel Report, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar, Complaint by 
Australia , WT/DS265/R, adopted 19 May 2005, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report, WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R 
EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar (Brazil) Panel Report, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar, Complaint by 
Brazil , WT/DS266/R, adopted 19 May 2005, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report, WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R 
EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar (Thailand) Panel Report, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar, Complaint by 
Thailand , WT/DS283/R, adopted 19 May 2005, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report, WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R 
EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar – 
Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS265/33, WT/DS266/33, 
WT/DS283/14, 28 October 2005 
EC – Hormones  Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products 
(Hormones) , WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998,  
DSR 1998:I, 135 
EC – Poultry  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting the 
Importation of Certain Poultry Products , WT/DS69/AB/R, adopted 23 July 1998, 
DSR 1998:V, 2031 
EC – Sardines  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines , 
WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 23 October 2002, DSR 2002:VIII, 3359 
EC – Tariff Preferences Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Conditions for the Granting 
of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries , WT/DS246/AB/R, adopted  
20 April 2004 
EC – Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications 
(Australia) Panel Report,  European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, Complaint 
by Australia , WT/DS290/R, adopted 20 April 2005 
EC – Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications 
(US) Panel Report,  European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, Complaint 
by the United States , WT/DS174/R, adopted 20 April 2005 WT/AB/5 
Page v 
 
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil , WT/DS219/AB/R, 
adopted 18 August 2003, DSR 2003:VI, 2613 
Guatemala – Cement I  Appellate Body Report, Guatemala – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding 
Portland Cement from Mexico , WT/DS60/AB/R, adopted 25 November 1998, 
DSR 1998:IX, 3767 
India – Autos  Appellate Body Report, India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector , 
WT/DS146/AB/R, WT/DS175/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2002, DSR 2002:V, 1821 
India – Patents (US)  Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products , WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998, 
DSR 1998:I, 9 
India – Quantitative Restrictions
  Appellate Body Report, India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of 
Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products , WT/DS90/AB/R, adopted  
22 September 1999, DSR 1999:IV, 1763 
Japan – Agricultural 
 Products II  Appellate Body Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products , 
WT/DS76/AB/R, adopted 19 March 1999, DSR 1999:I, 277 
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II  Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS8/AB/R, 
WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, DSR 1996:I, 97  
Japan – Apples  Appellate Body Report, Japan - Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples , 
WT/DS245/AB/R, adopted 10 December 2003 
Japan – Apples  (Article 21.5 – US)
  Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples – Recourse 
to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States , WT/DS245/RW, adopted  
20 July 2005 
Korea – Alcoholic Beverages  Appellate Body Report, Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS75/AB/R, 
WT/DS84/AB/R, adopted 17 February 1999, DSR 1999:I, 3 
Korea – Certain Paper Panel Report, Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from 
Indonesia , WT/DS312/R, adopted 28 November 2005 
Korea – Commercial Vessels Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels , 
WT/DS273/R, adopted 11 April 2005 
Korea – Dairy  Appellate Body Report, Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of 
Certain Dairy Products , WT/DS98/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000,  
DSR 2000:I, 3 
Korea – Various Measures on 
Beef  Appellate Body Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled 
and Frozen Beef , WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, adopted 10 January 2001, 
DSR 2001:I, 5 
Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dump ing Measures on Beef 
and Rice, Complaint with Respect to Rice , WT/DS295/AB/R, adopted 
20 December 2005 
Mexico – Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Rice Panel Report, Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Me asures on Beef and Rice, 
Complaint with Respect to Rice , WT/DS295/R, adopted 20 December 2005, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS295/AB/R WT/AB/5 
Page vi  
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Mexico – Corn Syrup  
(Article 21.5 – US)  Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose 
Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the  DSU  by the United States , WT/DS132/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001,  
DSR 2001:XIII, 6675 
Mexico – Corn Syrup  
(Article 21.5 – US)  Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU  by the 
United States , WT/DS132/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, as upheld by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS132/AB/RW, DSR 2001:XIII, 6717 
Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks Panel Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages , 
WT/DS308/R, circulated 7 October 2005 
Thailand – H-Beams  Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes  
and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland , 
WT/DS122/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001, DSR 2001:VII, 2701 
Turkey – Textiles  Appellate Body Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing 
Products , WT/DS34/AB/R, adopted 19 November 1999, DSR 1999:VI, 2345 
US – 1916 Act  Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 , 
WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, adopted 26 September 2000,  
DSR 2000:X, 4793 
US – Anti-Dumping Measures 
on Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil  
Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) from Mexico , WT/DS282/R, adopted  
28 November 2005  
US – Anti-Dumping Measures 
on Oil Country Tubular Goods Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular 
Goods (OCTG) from Mexico , WT/DS282/R, adopted 28 November 2005, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS282/AB/R 
US – Carbon Steel  Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany , 
WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 December 2002, DSR 2002:IX, 3779 
US – Certain EC Products  Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Measures on Certain Products 
from the European Communities , WT/DS165/AB/R, adopted 10 January 2001, 
DSR 2001:I, 373 
US – Corrosion-Resistant 
Steel Sunset Review  Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping  
Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan , 
WT/DS244/AB/R, adopted 9 January 2004  
US – Cotton Yarn  Appellate Body Report, United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on 
Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan , WT/DS192/AB/R, adopted 5 November 
2001, DSR 2001:XII, 6027 
US – Countervailing Duty 
Investigation on DRAMS Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on 
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea , 
WT/DS296/AB/R, adopted 20 July 2005 
US – Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAMS Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea , WT/DS296/R, 
adopted 20 July 2005, as modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS296/AB/R 
US – Countervailing Measures on Certain EC Products  Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning 
Certain Products from the European Communities , WT/DS212/AB/R, adopted  
8 January 2003, DSR 2003:I, 5 
US – Countervailing Measures 
on Certain EC Products (Article 21.5 – EC) Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain 
Products from the European Communities – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities , WT/DS212/RW, adopted 27 September 2005 WT/AB/5 
Page vii 
 
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – FSC  Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" , WT/DS108/AB/R, adopted 20 March 2000, DSR 2000:III, 1619 
US – FSC  
(Article 21.5 – EC)  Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" – Recourse to Articl e 21.5 of the DSU by the European 
Communities , WT/DS108/AB/RW, adopted 29 January 2002, DSR 2002:I, 55 
US – FSC  
(Article 21.5 – EC)  Panel Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"  
– Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities , 
WT/DS108/RW, adopted 29 January 2002, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report, WT/DS108/AB/RW, DSR 2002:I, 119 
US – FSC  
(Article 21.5 – EC II) Panel Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"  
– Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities , 
WT/DS108/RW2, circulated 30 September 2005 
US – Gambling Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border 
Supply of Gambling and Betting Services , WT/DS285/AB/R, adopted  
20 April 2005 
US – Gambling Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of 
Gambling and Betting Services , WT/DS285/R, adopted 20 April 2005, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS285/AB/R 
US – Gambling Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border 
Supply of Gambling and Betting Services – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of 
the DSU , WT/DS285/13, 19 August 2005 
US – Gasoline  Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and 
Conventional Gasoline , WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, DSR 1996:I, 3 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel  Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-
Rolled Steel Products from Japan , WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 23 August 2001, 
DSR 2001:X, 4697 
US – Lamb  Appellate Body Report, United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of  
Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia , 
WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, adopted 16 May 2001, DSR 2001:IX, 4051 
US – Lead and Bismuth II  Appellate Body Report, United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on 
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the 
United Kingdom , WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted 7 June 2000, DSR 2000:V, 2595 
US – Line Pipe  Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Circular Welded Car bon Quality Line Pipe from Korea , 
WT/DS202/AB/R, adopted 8 March 2002, DSR 2002:IV, 1403 
US – Offset Act  
(Byrd Amendment ) Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act of 2000 , WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R, adopted 27 January 2003, 
DSR 2003:I, 375 
US – Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Sunset Reviews Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina , WT/DS268/AB/R, 
adopted 17 December 2004 
US – Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Sunset Reviews Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods  from Argentina – Arbitration under 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS268/12, 7 June 2005 
US – Section 211 
Appropriations Act  Appellate Body Report, United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations 
Act of 1998 , WT/DS176/AB/R, adopted 1 February 2002, DSR 2002:II, 589 WT/AB/5 
Page viii  
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Shrimp  Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp  
and Shrimp Products , WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998,  
DSR 1998:VII, 2755 
US – Shrimp  
(Article 21.5 – Malaysia)  Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp  
and Shrimp Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia , 
WT/DS58/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, DSR 2001:XIII, 6481 
US – Shrimp  (Article 21.5 – Malaysia)  Panel Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp 
Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia , WT/DS58/RW, 
adopted 21 November 2001, as upheld by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS58/AB/RW, DSR 2001:XIII, 6529 
US – Softwood Lumber IV  Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination 
with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS257/AB/R, 
adopted 17 February 2004 
US – Softwood Lumber IV 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination 
with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS257/RW, adopted 20 December 2005 
US – Softwood Lumber IV 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Panel Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with 
Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse by Canada to 
Article 21.5 , WT/DS257/RW, adopted 20 December 2005, as upheld by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS257/AB/RW 
US – Softwood Lumber V  Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on 
Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS264/AB/R, adopted 31 August 2004 
US – Softwood Lumber VI 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Panel Report, United States – Investigation of the International Trade 
Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada, Recourse to Article 21.5 of the 
DSU by Canada , WT/DS277/RW, 15 November 2005 
US – Steel Safeguards Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Certain Steel Products , WT/DS248/AB/R, WT/DS249/AB/R, 
WT/DS251/AB/R, WT/DS252/AB/R, WT /DS253/AB/R, WT/DS254/AB/R, 
WT/DS258/AB/R, WT/DS259/AB/R, adopted 10 December 2003,  
DSR 2003:VII, 3117  
US – Underwear  Appellate Body Report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and 
Man-made Fibre Underwear , WT/DS24/AB/R, adopted 25 February 1997,  
DSR 1997:I, 11 
US – Upland Cotton Appellate Body Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton , 
WT/DS267/AB/R, adopted 21 March 2005 
US – Wheat Gluten  Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities , WT/DS166/AB/R, 
adopted 19 January 2001, DSR 2001:II, 717 
US – Wool Shirts and Blouses  Appellate Body Report, United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven 
Wool Shirts and Blouses from India , WT/DS33/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted  
23 May 1997, DSR 1997:I, 323 
US – Zeroing (EC) Panel Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for 
Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") , WT/DS294/R, 31 October 2005 
 
 
  
 WT/AB/5 
Page ix 
 
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT 
 
Abbreviation Description 
2005 TA Plan WTO Technical Assistance and Training Plan 2005 
ACP countries African–Caribbean–Pacific countries 
Anti-Dumping Agreement Agreement on Implementati on of Article VI of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade 1994   
ATC Agreement on Textiles and Clothing  
DSB Dispute Settlement Body  
DSU Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of 
Disputes  
GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services   
GATT 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  
Import Licensing  Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures   
LSDD WTO Language Services and Documentation Division  
MFN most-favoured nation Repertory WTO Appellate Body Repertory of Reports and Awards 1995–2004 
SCM Agreement  Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  
SPS  Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
TBT  Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade   
TRIMs  Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures   
TRIPS  Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights   
USDOC United States Department of Commerce 
Working Procedures Working Procedures for Appellate Review , WT/AB/WP/5,  
4 January 2005 
WTO World Trade Organization 
 
 
 WT/AB/5 
Page 1 
 
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
APPELLATE BODY 
 
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2005 
 
  
 The following report provides a summary of the activities undertaken in 2005 by the 
Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (the "WTO") and its Secretariat.  
 
 
I. Composition of the Appellate Body 
 The Appellate Body is composed of seven Members appointed to four-year terms by the 
WTO Dispute Settlement Body (the "DSB").  Table 1 shows the current composition of the Appellate 
Body and the Members' respective terms of office. 
 
 
TABLE 1:  COMPOSITION OF  THE APPELLATE BODY IN 2005 
 
Name Nationality Term(s) of office 
Georges Michel Abi-Saab  Egypt 2000-2004 
2004-2008 
Luiz Olavo Baptista Brazil 2001-2005 
2005-2009 
Arumugamangalam Venkatachalam 
Ganesan (current Chairman) India 2000-2004 
2004-2008 
Merit E. Janow United States 2003-2007 
John Lockhart Australia 2001-2005 
2005-2009 
Giorgio Sacerdoti Italy 2001-2005 
2005-2009 
Yasuhei Taniguchi Japan 2000-2003 
2003-2007 
 
  On 12 December 2005, Messrs. Luiz Olavo Ba ptista, John Lockhart, and Giorgio Sacerdoti 
each commenced a new term of o ffice, having been appointed on 27 September 2005 by the DSB to  
a second four-year term that will expire on 11 December 2009.
1  The Appellate Body regrets that  
Mr. John Lockhart untimely passed away in  Sydney, Australia, on 13 January 2006. 
  Mr. Yasuhei Taniguchi served as Chairman of  the Appellate Body from 17 December 2004 to 
16 December 2005.
2  On 19 December 2005, Appellate Body Members elected Mr. A.V. Ganesan, 
pursuant to Rule 5(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  (the " Working Procedures "), 
to serve as Chairman of the Appellate Body from 17 December 2005 to 16 December 2006.3 
 
 A list of former Appellate Body Members a nd chairpersons is provided in Annex 1. 
                                                      
1WT/DSB/M/198, paras. 85-88. 
2WT/DSB/38. 
3WT/DSB/40. WT/AB/5 
Page 2  
 
The Appellate Body receives legal and admi nistrative support from the Appellate Body 
Secretariat, in accordance with Article 17.7 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes  (the "DSU").  The Secretariat comprises a Director and a team of ten 
lawyers, one administrative assistant, and three support  staff.  Ms. Valerie Hughes was Director of the 
Appellate Body Secretariat from 29 August 2001 until her resignation effective 31 December 2005.  
Mr. Werner Zdouc was appointed Director commencing on 1 January 2006. 
  
II. Appeals Filed 
 Ten appeals were filed during 20 05.  Under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures , an appeal 
is commenced by giving notice in writing to the DSB and filing a Notice of Appeal with the Appellate 
Body Secretariat.  Table 2 provides informa tion on the Panel Reports appealed in 2005. 
  
TABLE 2:  NOTICES OF APPEAL FILED IN 2005 
 
Panel Reports appealed Notice of Appeal 
document number Date of  
Notice of Appeal Appellant4 Other Appellant5 
US – Gambling  WT/DS285/6 7 January 2005 United States Antigua & Barbuda 
EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar 
(Australia; Brazil; Thailand) WT/DS265/25 
WT/DS266/25 
WT/DS283/6 13 January 2005 European 
Communities Australia 
Brazil 
Thailand 
Dominican Republic – Import 
and Sale of Cigarettes WT/DS302/8 24 January 2005 Dominican Republic Honduras 
US – Countervailing Duty 
Investigation on DRAMS WT/DS296/5 29 March 2005 United States Korea 
EC – Chicken Cuts 
(Brazil; Thailand) WT/DS269/6 
WT/DS286/8 13 June 2005 European 
Communities Brazil 
Thailand 
Mexico – Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Rice WT/DS295/6 20 July 2005 Mexico – 
US – Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Oil Country Tubular Goods WT/DS282/6 4 August 2005 Mexico United States 
US – Softwood Lumber IV  
(Article 21.5 – Canada) WT/DS257/22 6 September 2005 United States Canada 
US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC II) WT/DS108/32 14 November 2005 United States European 
Communities 
Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks WT/DS308/10 6 December 2005 Mexico – 
 
 
 Information on the number of appeals filed each year since 1995 is contained in Annex 2.   
 
                                                      
4Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures . 
5Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures . WT/AB/5 
Page 3 
 
 
 Under Article 21.5 of the DSU, a panel may be  established to hear a "disagreement as to the 
existence or consistency with a covered agre ement of measures taken to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings" of the DSB upon the a doption of a previous Panel or Appellate Body 
Report.  Four Panels established pursuant to Article  21.5 circulated a Report in 2005, two of which 
were appealed.6 
 
 Twenty-two Panel Reports were circulated in  2005.  The deadlines for adoption for two of 
these Panel Reports do not expire until 2006.7  Of the other 20 Panel Reports issued in 2005, 12 were 
appealed 8—that is, 60 per cent.  Table 3 lists the Pane l Reports that were adopted by the DSB during 
2005 without an appeal having been filed.  
 
 
TABLE 3:  PANEL REPORTS ADOPT ED IN 2005 WITHOUT APPEAL 
 
Case Panel Report 
document number Date Panel Report 
circulated Date DSB adopted 
Panel Report 
Korea – Commercial Vessels WT/DS273/R 7 March 2005 11 April 2005 
EC – Trademarks and Geographical 
Indications  WT/DS290/R (Australia) 
WT/DS174/R (US) 15 March 2005 20 April 2005 
EC – Commercial Vessels  WT/DS301/R 22 April 2005 20 June 2005 
EC – Countervailing Measures on DRAM 
Chips  WT/DS299/R 17 June 2005 3 August 2005 
Japan – Apples (Article 21.5 – US) WT/DS245/RW 15 July 2005 20 July 2005 
US – Countervailing Measures on Certain EC 
Products (Article 21.5 – EC) WT/DS212/RW 17 August 2005 27 September 2005 
Korea – Certain Paper WT/DS312/R 28 October 2005 28 November 2005 
 
 
 Annex 3 summarizes the percentage of Pane l Reports adopted from 1996 through 2005 that 
were appealed.  The overall average of adopted Pane l Reports that were appealed is 67 per cent.   
 
 
III. Appellate Body Reports 
 The Appellate Body circulated nine Reports during 2005.  One of the Reports related to a 
Notice of Appeal filed in 2004.9  The other eight Reports related to Notices of Appeal filed during 
2005.   At the end of 2005, the Appellate Body  had circulated a total of 73 Reports.   
 
                                                      
6US – Softwood Lumber IV (Article 21.5 – Canada) ;  US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC II) . 
7The Panel Report in US – Softwood Lumber VI (Article 21.5 – Canada)  was circulated to WTO 
Members on 15 November 2005 and, therefore, the deadli ne for adoption will expire on 13 January 2006.  The 
Panel Report in US – Zeroing (EC)  was circulated to WTO Members on 31 October 2005.  However, on 
6 December 2005, the DSB agreed, upon a request by the European Communities and the United States, to 
extend the deadline for adoption of the Report to no later than 31 January 2006, unless either party appeals the 
Report prior to that date.  
8The number of Panel Reports appealed may differ from the number of Appellate Body Reports 
because some Appellate Body Reports address more  than one Panel Report  (for example, in  EC – Export 
Subsidies on Sugar , and  EC – Chicken Cuts ). 
9The Notice of Appeal in US – Upland Cotton  was filed on 18 October 2004. WT/AB/5 
Page 4  
 
TABLE 4:  APPELLATE BODY REPORTS CIRCULATED IN 2005 
 
Case Appellate Body Report 
document number Date Appellate Body 
Report circulated Date DSB adopted 
Appellate Body Report 
US – Upland Cotton WT/DS267/AB/R 3 March 2005 21 March 2005 
US – Gambling  WT/DS285/AB/R 7 April 2005 20 April 2005 
Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of 
Cigarettes WT/DS302/AB/R 25 April 2005 19 May 2005 
EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar WT/DS265/AB/R 
WT/DS266/AB/R 
WT/DS283/AB/R 28 April 2005 19 May 2005 
US – Countervailing Duty Investigation on 
DRAMS WT/DS296/AB/R 27 June 2005 20 July 2005 
EC – Chicken Cuts WT/DS269/AB/R 
WT/DS286/AB/R 12 September 2005 27 September 2005 
US – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country 
Tubular Goods WT/DS282/AB/R 2 November 2005 28 November 2005 
Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice WT/DS295/AB/R 29 November 2005 20 December 2005 
US – Softwood Lumber IV (Article 21.5 – 
Canada) WT/DS257/AB/RW 5 December 2005 20 December 2005 
 
 
 
IV. Participants and Third Participants 
 Table 5 lists the WTO Members that participat ed in appeals in which an Appellate Body 
Report was circulated during 2005.  Table 5 distin guishes between a Member that filed a Notice of 
Appeal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures and a Member that filed an appeal pursuant to 
Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures (commonly known as the "other appellant").  Rule 23(1) 
provides that "a party to the dispute other than the or iginal appellant may join in that appeal or appeal 
on the basis of other alleged errors in the issu es of law covered in th e panel report and legal 
interpretations developed by  the panel".  Under the Working Procedures , parties wishing to appeal 
pursuant to Rule 23(1) are required to file a Notice of Other Appeal within 12 days after the filing of 
the Notice of Appeal. 
  Table 5 also specifies whether other Members pa rticipated in appeals as third participants 
under paragraph (1), (2), or (4) of Rule 24 of the Working Procedures .  Under Rule 24(1), a WTO 
Member that was a third party to the panel pr oceedings may file a written submission as a third 
participant within 25 days of the filing of the Notic e of Appeal.  Pursuant to Rule 24(2), a Member 
that was a third party to the panel proceedings th at has not filed a written submission may, within 
25 days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal, notify its intention to appear at the oral hearing and whether it intends to make an oral statement at the hearing.  Rule 24(4) provides that a Member that 
was party to the panel proceedings and that has ne ither filed a written submission in accordance with 
Rule 24(1) nor given notice in accordance with Rule  24(2) may notify its intention to appear at the 
oral hearing and request to make an oral statement. 
 WT/AB/5 
Page 5 
 
TABLE 5:  PARTICIPANTS AND THIRD PARTICIPANTS IN APPEALS – 2005 
 
Third Participant 
Case Appellant10 Other 
Appellant11 Appellee12 
Rule 24(1) Rule 24(2) Rule 24(4) 
US – Upland 
Cotton United States Brazil Brazil 
United States Argentina 
Australia 
Benin 
Canada 
Chad  
China 
European 
Communities 
New Zealand India Pakistan 
Paraguay 
Chinese Taipei 
Venezuela  
 
US – Gambling United States Antigua & 
Barbuda Antigua & 
Barbuda 
United States European 
Communities 
Japan 
Chinese Taipei Mexico 
Canada  
Dominican 
Republic – Import and Sale 
of Cigarettes Dominican 
Republic Honduras Dominican 
Republic 
Honduras China 
European 
Communities 
United States Guatemala 
 El Salvador 
EC – Export 
Subsidies on Sugar European 
Communities Australia 
Brazil 
Thailand Australia 
Brazil 
European 
Communities 
 Thailand 
 Barbados 
Belize 
Canada 
China 
Côte d'Ivoire 
Fiji 
Guyana 
Jamaica 
Kenya 
Madagascar 
Malawi 
Mauritius 
New Zealand 
 St. Kitts & 
Nevis 
Swaziland 
Tanzania 
Trinidad & 
Tobago 
United States Colombia 
Cuba 
India 
Paraguay  
US – 
Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAMS United States Korea Korea 
United States China 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Chinese Taipei   
                                                      
10Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures . 
11Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures . 
12Pursuant to Rule 22 or Rule 23(3) of the Working Procedures . WT/AB/5 
Page 6  
Third Participant 
Case Appellant10 Other 
Appellant11 Appellee12 
Rule 24(1) Rule 24(2) Rule 24(4) 
EC – Chicken 
Cuts European 
Communities Brazil 
Thailand Brazil 
European 
Communities  
Thailand China 
United States   
US – Anti-
Dumping Measures on 
Oil Country 
Tubular Goods Mexico United States Mexico 
United States Argentina 
China 
European 
Communities 
Japan Canada 
Chinese Taipei  
Mexico –  
Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice Mexico  United States China 
European 
Communities   
US – Softwood 
Lumber IV (Article 21.5 – Canada) United States Canada  China 
European 
Communities   
 
  A total of 42 WTO Members appeared at least once as appellant, other appellant, appellee, or 
third participant in appeals in which an A ppellate Body Report was circulated during 2005.
13  Of these 
42 WTO Members, 6 were developed country Members and 36 were developing country Members.    
  Of the 99 total appearances by WTO Members before the Appellate Body during 2005, 37 were by developed country Members and 62 by developing country Members.  Developed country 
Members made 6 appearances as appellants, 3 as ot her appellants, 8 as appellees, and 20 as third 
participants.  Developing country Members made 3 appearances as appellants, 8 as other appellants, 
10 as appellees, and 41 as third participants.   The number of third participants in appeals increased following the introduction of certain 
amendments to the Working Procedures  in May 2003 to  facilitate the involvement of third 
participants.
14  In 2005, appeals averaged 6.7 third participants15; in 2004 it was 6.616; and, in 2003, 
the average was 5.0 third participants per appeal.  For the period 1996 to 2003, the average number of 
third participants in appeals was only 2.8.     Annex 4 lists the appellants, ot her appellants, appellees, and thir d participants in appeals for 
which an Appellate Body Report w as circulated between 1996 and 2005. 
 
                                                     
 
13This represents a 55 per cent increase in Memb er participation from 2004, when 27 WTO Members 
appeared at least once in the five appeals in which an Appellate Body report was circulated. (See Appellate Body 
Annual Report for 2004 , WT/AB/3 (January 2005), pp. 6-7) 
14See the Appellate Body Annual Report for 2003 , WT/AB/1 (May 2004), pp. 9-12;  and Appellate 
Body Annual Report for 2004 , WT/AB/3 (January 2005), pp. 5-7 and 11-14. 
15US – Upland Cotton  (circulated in 2005) had 13 third participants;  EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar  
had 22 third participants. 
16EC – Tariff Preferences  (circulated in 2004) had 17 third participants. WT/AB/5 
Page 7 
 V. Subject Matter of Appeals 
A. Appellate Body Findings and Conclusions 
 Annex 5 contains summaries of the Appellate Body's findings and conclusions in the nine 
Appellate Body Reports circulated in 2005.    
B. Agreements Covered 
 The following table provides information about  the WTO agreements covered in the nine 
Appellate Body Reports circulated in 2005.   
TABLE 6:  AGREEMENTS COVERED IN APPELLATE BODY REPORTS 
CIRCULATED IN 2005 
 
Case Appellate Body Report 
document number WTO agreements covered 
US – Upland Cotton WT/DS267/AB/R Agreement on Agriculture 
SCM Agreement   
GATT 1994 
DSU 
US – Gambling  WT/DS285/AB/R GATS 
DSU 
Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes WT/DS302/AB/R GATT 1994 
DSU 
EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar WT/DS265/AB/R 
WT/DS266/AB/R 
WT/DS283/AB/R Agreement on Agriculture  
SCM Agreement   
GATT 1994 
DSU 
US – Countervailing Duty 
Investigation on DRAMS WT/DS296/AB/R SCM Agreement  
DSU 
EC – Chicken Cuts WT/DS269/AB/R 
WT/DS286/AB/R GATT 1994 
DSU 
US – Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Oil Country Tubular Goods WT/DS282/AB/R Anti-Dumping Agreement  
GATT 1994 
DSU 
Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice WT/DS295/AB/R Anti-Dumping Agreement 
SCM Agreement  
DSU 
US – Softwood Lumber IV  (Article 21.5 – Canada) WT/DS257/AB/RW SCM Agreement  
GATT 1994 
DSU  
 
 
 Two of these appeals dealt primarily with issues related to the Agreement on Implementation 
of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  (the " Anti-Dumping Agreement ") 17, 
and two related mainly to the Agreement on Agriculture  and the Agreement on Subsidies and 
                                                      
17Appellate Body Report, US – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods ;  Appellate 
Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice . WT/AB/5 
Page 8  
Countervailing Measures (the " SCM Agreement ").
18  One appeal focused on the SCM Agreement 19, 
one on  the General Agreement on Trade in Services  (the "GATS") 20, and two on the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  (the "GATT 1994").21  The final appeal was the first appeal 
since 2003 of a panel established pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  Annex 6 provides a statistical 
summary of the WTO agreements covered in Appe llate Body Reports circulated through 2005.  
 
C. Procedural Issues 
Several appeals for which an Appellate Body  Report was circulated during 2005 involved 
procedural issues, which are summarized in the following paragraphs.   
 In  US – Upland Cotton , Brazil and the United States noted in writing—after consultation 
with the Appellate Body via the Appellate Body Secretariat—that it would not be possible for the 
Appellate Body to circulate its Report within the 90 -day time limit referred to in Article 17.5 of the 
DSU.  Brazil and the United Stat es agreed that additional time was needed for several reasons:  the 
issues arising in this appeal were particularly numerous and complex compared to prior appeals, 
which increased the burden on the Appellate Body and the WTO translation services (the Language 
Services and Documentation Division (the "LSDD");  the LSDD were unavailable during the WTO 
holiday period;  and the Appellate Body was likely to  be considering two or three other appeals during 
the same period.  Brazil and the United States ac cordingly confirmed that they would deem the 
Appellate Body Report in this proceeding, issued no later than 3 March 2005, to be an Appellate Body 
Report circulated pursuant to Article 17.5 of th e DSU. On 16 December 2004, the Appellate Body 
notified the Chair of the DSB that the expected da te of circulation of its Report was 3 March 2005.
22 
 
 In EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar , Australia, Brazil, the European Communities, and 
Thailand informed the Chair of the DSB of a "pro cedural agreement" concluded between these four 
parties regarding the 60-day period provided for in Article 16.4 of the DSU for the adoption or appeal 
of the Panel Reports in that dispute.  The parti es requested the DSB to postpone consideration of the 
Panel Reports and to agree to an extension of the time period in Artic le 16.4 of the DSU to 31 January 
2005.  The DSB agreed to adopt the Panel Reports  on or before 31 January 2005, unless decided by 
consensus not to do so, or unless a party notified th e DSB of its decision to appeal.  The European 
Communities filed a Notice of Appeal on 13 January 2005.  After consultati on with the Appellate 
Body via the Appellate Body Secretariat, the four  parties understood that it would not be possible for 
the Appellate Body to circulate its Report in this appeal within the 90-day time limit referred to in 
Article 17.5 of the DSU.  The parties accordingly confirmed that they would deem the Appellate 
Body Report in this proceeding, issued no later th an 28 April 2005, to be an Appellate Body Report 
circulated pursuant to Article 17.5 of the DSU.23 
  In the same appeal, the Appellate Body received an amicus curiae  brief from an association 
of sugar producers.  The Appellate Body did not fi nd it necessary to take the brief into account in 
coming to its decision regarding the appeal.  In add ition, Canada requested, pursuant to Rule 18(5) of 
the Working Procedures , authorization from the Appellate Body Division hearing the appeal to 
correct a "typographical error" in its third participan t's submission.  The Division invited, pursuant to 
                                                     
 
18Appellate Body Report, US – Upland Cotton ;  Appellate Body Report, EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar . 
19Appellate Body Report, US – Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAMS . 
20Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling . 
21Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes ;  Appellate Body 
Report, EC – Chicken Cuts . 
22Appellate Body Report,  US – Upland Cotton , para. 8. 
23Appellate Body Report,  EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar , paras. 5-7. WT/AB/5 
Page 9 
 
Rule 18(5) of the Working Procedures , all participants and third par ticipants to comment on Canada's 
request.  None of the participants objected to Cana da's request, and the Division authorized Canada to 
correct the error. Finally, Mauritius, another thir d participant, informed the Appellate Body that 
certain African–Caribbean–Pacific countries ("ACP countries")24 were proposing to retain for the oral 
hearing the services of a legal counsel that had also  been retained by two associations for European 
sugar and beet producers.  Following receipt of written comments from Australia, Mauritius 
confirmed that the legal counsel appearing at the oral hearing would be doing so solely as 
representative of the WTO Members of the ACP count ries that were third participants in this 
dispute.25 
 
In  EC – Chicken Cuts , Thailand requested, pursuant to Rule 18(5) of the Working 
Procedures , authorization from the Appellate Body Division hearing the appeal to correct three 
"clerical errors" in its other appellant's submission.  The Division invited, pursuant to Rule 18(5) of 
the Working Procedures , all participants and third participan ts to comment on Thailand's request.  
None of the participants objected to Thailand's requ est and the Division authorized Thailand to correct 
the errors.26  In the same appeal, the Division received an amicus curiae  brief from an association of 
poultry processors.  The Division did not find it n ecessary to take the brief into account in resolving 
the issues raised in this appeal.27 
  In  Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice , the participants asked at the outset to have all 
written submissions made available to all partic ipants in English and in Spanish.  Following 
consultations with the participants via the Appellate  Body Secretariat, the Appellate Body Division 
hearing the appeal issued a Working Schedule fo r the appeal, taking into account time periods for 
translation of submissions estimated by the LSDD.  Given the time required for the translation of 
submissions, it was not possible to circulate this Re port within 90 days from the date the Notice of 
Appeal was filed.  The participan ts confirmed in writing their agreem ent to deem the Appellate Body 
Report in this proceeding, issued no later than 29 November 2005, to be an Appellate Body Report 
circulated pursuant to Article 17.5 of the DSU.
28 
  After the submissions of all the participan ts had been filed with the Appellate Body 
Secretariat, Mexico requested the Division to modi fy the Working Schedule pursuant to Rule 16(2) of 
the Working Procedures .  Mexico stated that the Working Schedule provided for "five calendar days" 
between the date Mexico would receive the translat ed appellee's and third participants' submissions, 
and the first day of the oral hearing, whereas the Working Procedures  provide for 10 to 15 days for 
that period.  The Division invited the United States and the third participants to comment on Mexico's 
request.  The United States responded that it would not object to a "slight, further modification" of the Schedule.  In its reply, the Division noted that the LSDD would provide a translation of the United States' appellee's submission two days earlier than scheduled, that is, eight days before the oral 
hearing.  The Division concluded that, in these ci rcumstances, maintaining the original Working 
Schedule "would not prejudice the ability of Mexico to defend its interests" and, therefore, declined 
Mexico's request.
29 
 
                                                      
24Barbados, Belize, Côte d'Ivoire, Fiji, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, 
St. Kitts & Nevis, Swaziland, Ta nzania, and Trinidad & Tobago. 
25Appellate Body Report,  EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar , paras. 9-11. 
26Appellate Body Report, EC – Chicken Cuts , para. 11. 
27Ibid., para. 12.   
28Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice , para. 7. 
29Ibid., paras. 9-10.   WT/AB/5 
Page 10  
In US – Softwood Lumber IV (Article 21.5 – Canada) , the Appellate Body Division hearing 
the appeal requested, pursuant to Rule 28(1) of the Working Procedures , an additional written 
memorandum from the United States explaining certa in aspects of relevant United States laws and 
procedures.  Canada submitted, pursuant to Rule 28(2) of the Working Procedures , a written response 
to the United States' additional written memorandum and the Division allowed the third participants, 
pursuant to Rule 28(3) of the Working Procedures , additional time during the presentation of their 
oral statements at the hearing to comment on both additional memoranda.
30 
  
VI. Working Procedures for Appellate Review 
 Amendments to the Working Procedures came into effect on 1 January 2005 and apply to all 
appeals initiated after that date.
31  The revised, consolidated Working Procedures were circulated to 
WTO Members on 4 January 2005 as document WT/AB/WP/5.32 
  
VII. Arbitrations under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU 
 Appellate Body Members are called upon from  time to time to determine the "reasonable 
period of time" for the implementation by a WTO Member of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, through binding arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  The parties to the arbitration select the arbitrator or, if they cannot agree on an arbitrator, the Director-General of the WTO 
appoints the arbitrator.  In carrying out arbitra tions under Article 21.3(c), Appellate Body Members 
act in an individual capacity. 
 
Three Awards in Article 21.3(c) arbitrations we re issued in 2005.  Mr. A.V. Ganesan issued 
awards in US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews on 7 June 2005 and in EC – Export 
Subsides on Sugar  on 29 October 2005.  Former Appellate Body Member Mr. Claus-Dieter 
Ehlermann issued an award in US – Gambling on 19 August 2005.  Summaries of these awards are 
included in Annex 5.   
 On 14 December 2005, former Appellate Body  Member Mr. James Bacchus accepted the 
appointment by the parties to serve as Arbitrator to determine the "reasonable period of time" for the implementation by the European Communities of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in  EC – Chicken Cuts .
33  This arbitration is proceeding at the time of writing.   
 
As at the end of 2005, serving and former Appe llate Body Members have been appointed as 
Arbitrators in a total of 24 arbitrations under Article 21.3(c).34  The Arbitrators are assisted in their 
work by the Appellate Body Secretariat. 
                                                      
30Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber IV (Article 21.5 Canada) , para. 12. 
31These amendments were set out and explained in a communication from the Chairman of the 
Appellate Body to the Chair of the DSB on 7 October 2004, circulated to WTO Members as document 
WT/AB/WP/W/9.   
32Certain previously issued documents were re-iss ued with new document numbers, as explained in 
Annex III to WT/AB/WP/5. 
33WT/DS269/12;  WT/DS286/14. 
34In three of thes e arbitrations ( US – Line Pipe ;  US – Softwood Lumber V ;  and Dominican Republic – 
Import and Sale of Cigarettes ), the parties reached an agreement on the reasonable period of time before the 
arbitrator had issued an award, so  it was not necessary for the arbitrat or to issue an award.  In these 
circumstances, the arbitrators issued short reports setting out the procedural history of the arbitration and noting 
that the matter was resolved by the parties.  WT/AB/5 
Page 11 
 VIII.  Arbitrations in EC – The ACP-EC Partnership Agreeme nt – Recourse to Arbitration 
Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001  
 Following the request for arbitration by nine Latin American WTO Members
35—that were 
exporting bananas to the European Communities on most-favoured nation ("MFN") terms—the Director-General appointed two Appellate Body Members, Mr. John Lockhart and Mr. Yasuhei 
Taniguchi, to serve as Arbitrators in  EC – The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement .
36  The arbitration 
was chaired by Mr. John Weekes, a trade policy expe rt and former Ambassador of Canada to the 
WTO and Chairman of the General Council.  The arb itration was carried out pursuant to an annex to 
the Doha Ministerial decision37 that granted the European Communities a waiver from the provisions 
of Article I of the GATT 1994 (the "Waiver Decision" ), so as to allow it to provide preferential 
treatment to imports from certain ACP countries.  The purpose of the arbitration was to determine 
whether certain envisaged changes to the Europ ean Communities' import regime for bananas "would 
result in at least maintaining total market access for MFN banana suppliers".   The Arbitrators determined that the Eur opean Communities' proposed tariff of €230 per 
metric ton of bananas would not maintain the re quisite level of market access for MFN suppliers.
38  
After a series of consultations between the nine  WTO Members and the European Communities, and 
as foreseen by the annex to the Waiver Decision, the European Communities revised its tariff rate 
proposal and requested, on 26 September 2005, that the same Arbitrators determine whether a tariff 
rate of €187 per metric ton, together with a tari ff rate quota of 775,000 metric tons for bananas of 
ACP origin, would maintain market  access for MFN suppliers.  On  27 October 2005, the Arbitrators 
determined that the European Communities had not rectified the matter.39  
 
 The Arbitrators were assisted in their work by a team comprising lawyers and economists of 
both the WTO and Appellate Body Secretariats.   IX. Technical Assistance 
 The Appellate Body Secretariat participated  in the implementation of the WTO Technical 
Assistance and Training Plan 2005 (the "2005 TA Plan")
 40, particularly in activities relating to 
training in dispute settlement procedures.  Appella te Body Secretariat staff conducted the dispute 
settlement modules for the Regional Trade Policy C ourses held in Chile, Jamaica, Namibia, and 
Hong Kong, China;  the basic principles module for the Regional Trade Policy Course held in 
Morocco;  and the dispute settlement modules for th ree Trade Policy Courses held in Geneva.  In 
addition, Appellate Body Secretariat staff partic ipated in three Specialized Dispute Settlement 
Courses also held in Geneva;  delivered one Re gional Advanced Dispute Settlement Seminar in 
Uruguay;  and presented four National Dispute Settle ment Seminars in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, 
                                                      
35The nine WTO Members that requested arbitratio n are Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, 
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicara gua, Panama, and Venezuela. 
36At the request of certain African, Caribbean, and Pacific ("ACP") banana exporting countries, the 
Arbitrators, after consultations with the parties, i nvited Saint Lucia, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, 
Dominican Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Jamaica, Keny a, Madagascar, Suriname, Tanzania, Belize and Saint 
Vincent and the Grenadines (the "relevant ACP Member s") to participate, in a limited manner, in this 
arbitration. (Award of the Arbitrator, The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement , WT/L/616, para. 9) 
37Ministerial Conference, Fourth Session, "Eur opean Communities – The ACP-EC Partnership 
Agreement, Decision of 14 November 2001", WT/MIN(01)/15, WT/L/436. 
38Award of the Arbitrator, The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement , WT/L/616. 
39Award of the Arbitrator, The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement II , WT/L/625. 
40WT/COMTD/W/133/Rev.2.  WT/AB/5 
Page 12  
and Peru and one in Geneva for Bolivian official s.  Moreover, Appellate Body Secretariat staff 
participated as tutors in the e-training courses on "Introduction to the WTO and Basic Principles" 
offered by the WTO in English, French, and Spanish.   Lastly, the Appellate Body Secretariat provided 
resource persons for six other activities falling under the 2005 TA Plan that took place in Geneva, as 
well as in Australia, the Philippines, South Africa,  Thailand, and Hong Kong, China.  Overall, the 
Appellate Body Secretariat participated in more  than 26 Technical Assistance activities during the 
course of 2005, in the three official languages of the WTO.  
  
X. Other Developments 
A. WTO Appellate Body Repertory of Reports and Awards 1995–2004 
 In 2005, the Appellate Body Secret ariat released a new publication entitled WTO Appellate 
Body Repertory of Reports and Awards 1995–2004  (the "Repertory"), which compiles excerpts from 
Appellate Body Reports indexed by the provision of the WTO covered agreement examined, and by 
subject matter.  In addition, the Repertory includ es excerpts from awards issued in arbitrations under 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU relating to the period of time granted to WTO Members to implement 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  The Re pertory also includes several tables and charts 
compiling facts and statistics on WTO dispute settlement.    
The first edition of the Repertory in Englis h was co-published by the WTO and Cambridge 
University Press in the spring of 2005.  The Spanis h and French versions were published by the WTO 
in the summer of 2005.  The first edition contai ns Appellate Body Reports and Article 21.3(c) 
Arbitration Awards circulated through 7 April 2004. 
  A second edition of the Repertory will be re leased in 2006.  The English version will be 
published by Cambridge University Press in the spri ng, and the Spanish and French versions will be 
published by the WTO later in the year.  The second edition will contain excerpts from Appellate 
Body Reports and Article 21.3(c) Arbitra tion Awards circulated through 7 June 2005. 
  Copies of the Repertory can be ordered online at:  
<https://secure.vtx.ch/shop/bouti ques/wto_index_boutique.html> 
 
 The Repertory may also be consulted online at: <www.wto.org/appellatebody>. 
 
B. Tenth Anniversary Conferences 
 In 2005, the Appellate Body launched a series of conferences to celebrate the Tenth 
Anniversary of the WTO Dispute Settlement System and the Appellate Body.  The conferences have 
been hosted by academic institutions with which some  Members of the Appellate Body are affiliated  
and have focused on current dispute settlement issu es and the Appellate Body's contribution to the 
settlement of disputes.  Participants have include d current and former Appellate Body Members, high-
ranking government representatives, WTO officials, academics, journalists, students, and civil society 
representatives.  The first three conferences in the series were held in 2005.   
 
 The first conference took place in Stresa, Italy, from 11 to 13 March 2005.  It was  
organized by the Research Centre on Internationa l Economic Organisations of the Universities of 
Piemonte Orientale, Turin, Genoa, Milan, and Bocconi.  Mr. Giorgio Sacerdoti, Appellate Body Member and Professor at Bocconi University, w as a member of the steering committee for this 
conference.  A book containing the papers presented at Stresa will be co-published by the WTO and 
Cambridge University Press in the spring of 2006.  The publication is entitled, The WTO at Ten:  WT/AB/5 
Page 13 
 
The Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System , and will be available for purchase online at:  
<https://secure.vtx.ch/shop/bouti ques/wto_index_boutique.html>. 
  The second conference in the series was held in São Paulo, Brazil, from 15 to 17 May 2005.  It was organized by the Brazilian Institute of In ternational Trade Law and Development (IDCID)  
in cooperation with  the University of São Paulo (Law Schoo l/International Law Department – USP) 
and the Administrative Institute Foundation (FIA).  Mr. Luiz Olavo Baptista, Appellate Body Member 
and Professor at the University of São Paulo Law School, was a member of the steering committee for this conference.  A book compiling the papers presen ted at the São Paulo conference will be published 
in 2006 by Aduaneiras Press.  The book is entitled, OMC aos 10 – O Órgão de Apelação em 
Perspectiva , and will be available for purchase online at: <www.aduaneiras.com.br>. 
  
The third conference was held at the United Nations University in Tokyo, Japan, from  
25 to 27 October 2005.  It was organized by the Fair  Trade Center and Tokyo Keizai University, in 
collaboration with Aoyama Gakuin University, the Un ited Nations University Institute of Advanced 
Studies, and the Institute for International Studies and Training.  Mr. Yas uhei Taniguchi, Appellate 
Body Member and Professor at Tokyo Keizai Univer sity, was a member of the conference steering 
committee, which was coordinated by the Fair Tr ade Center.  The papers presented at the Tokyo 
conference will also be published.  Publica tion is scheduled for the winter of 2006.  
  The final programmes for the first three conferences are included in Annex 7.  
 Three more conferences in the Tenth Anniversary series are scheduled for 2006.  The next 
conference will take place in Cairo, Egypt from 11 to  13 February 2006.  It will be organized by the 
Cairo Regional Centre for International Commerc ial Arbitration.  Professor Georges Abi-Saab, 
Appellate Body Member, is on the conference stee ring committee.  The Cairo conference will focus 
on issues relating to development.  A tentative programme is included in  Annex 7.  Additional 
information about the conference, including regi stration procedures, is available online at: 
<www.crcica.org.eg>.  Columbia University will host the final conference in the series in New York 
on 5 to 7 April 2006.  Ms. Merit E. Janow, Member of the Appellate Body and Professor at Columbia 
University, is on the conference steering committ ee.  Further information about the New York 
conference is available at: <www.sipa.columbia.edu/wt o/>.  It is also possible that a conference will 
take place in Sydney, Australia. 
 
 General information on the Tenth Anniver sary conferences may be obtained online at: 
<www.wto.org/appellatebody>.  
C. WTO Internship Programme 
 The Appellate Body Secretariat participates in  the WTO internship programme, which allows 
post-graduate university students to gain prac tical experience and a deeper knowledge of the 
multilateral trading system.  Interns in the Appellate  Body Secretariat obtain first-hand experience of 
the substantive and procedural aspects of WTO di spute settlement and, in particular, appellate 
proceedings.  The internship programme is open to nationals of WTO Members and also to nationals 
of countries and customs territori es engaged in accession negotiations. 
 
 The Appellate Body Secretariat generally hosts  two interns concurrently, and each internship 
is for a three-month period.  Efforts are made to  ensure that at least half the interns are from 
developing countries or economies in transition.  During 2005, the Appellate Body Secretariat 
welcomed interns from Argentina, Australia, Colo mbia, Germany, Lithuania, Mexico, Peru, and 
Zimbabwe.  A total of 42 students, of 31 nationalitie s, have completed internships with the Appellate 
Body Secretariat since 2001.
41 
                                                      
41Data on internships for pre-2001 are not available.   WT/AB/5 
Page 14  
 
 Further information about the WTO inte rnship programme, including eligibility  
requirements and application instructions, may be obtained online at:  
<www.wto.org/english/thew to_e/vacan_e/intern_e.htm> 
 
D. In-House Briefings and Other Activities 
 Appellate Body Secretariat staff often partic ipates in briefings organized for groups visiting 
the WTO, including students.  In these briefings, A ppellate Body Secretariat staff speaks to visitors 
about the WTO dispute settlement system in general, and appellate proceedings in particular.  During 
2005, Appellate Body Secretariat sta ff gave briefings to 11 groups.  Appellate Body Secretariat staff 
also participated as judges in the moot court comp etitions organized by the European Law Students' 
Association and by Sidley Austin Brown & Wood an d the Institute of International Economic Law. 
  WT/AB/5 
Page 15 
 
 
ANNEX 1 
 
 
FORMER APPELLATE BODY MEMBERS 
 
Name Nationality Term(s) of Office 
James Bacchus United States 1995-1999 
1999-2003 
Christopher Beeby New Zealand 1995-1999 
1999-2000 
Claus-Dieter Ehlermann Germany 1995-1997 
1997-2001 
Said El-Naggar Egypt 1995-1999 
1999-2000 
Florentino Feliciano Philippines 1995-1997 
1997-2001 
Julio Lacarte-Muró Uruguay 1995-1997 
1997-2001 
Mitsuo Matsushita Japan 1995-1999 
1999-2000 
 
 
FORMER CHAIRPERSONS OF THE APPELLATE BODY 
 
Name Nationality Term(s) as chairperson 
Julio Lacarte-Muró Uruguay 7 February 1996 – 
6 February 1997 
7 February  1997 – 
6 February 1998 
Christopher Beeby New Zealand 7 February 1998 – 
6 February 1999 
Said El-Naggar Egypt 7 February 1999 – 
6 February 2000 
Florentino Feliciano Philippines 7 February 2000 – 
6 February 2001 
Claus-Dieter Ehlermann Germany 7 February 2001 – 
10 December 2001 
James Bacchus United States 15 December 2001 – 
14 December 2002 
15 December 2002 – 
10 December 2003 
Georges Abi-Saab Egypt 13 December 2003 – 
12 December  2004 
Yasuhei Taniguchi Japan 17 December 2004 –  
16 December 2005 
 WT/AB/5 
Page 16  
 
ANNEX 2 
 
 
APPEALS FILED: 1995–2005 
 
Year Number of Notices of Appeal filed 
1995 0 
1996 4 
1997 6a 
1998 8 
1999 9b 
2000 13c 
2001 9d 
2002 7e 
2003 6f 
2004 5 
2005 10 
Total 77 
 
aThis number includes two Notices of Appeal that were  circulated at the same time in related matters, 
counted separately: EC – Hormones (Canada) ; EC – Hormones (US).   A single Appellate Body Report was 
subsequently circulated in relation to these appeals. 
bThis number excludes one Notice of Appeal that  was withdrawn by the United States, which 
subsequently filed another Notice of Appe al in relation to th e same Panel Report: US – FSC . 
cThis number includes two Notices of Appeal that were  circulated at the same time in related matters, 
counted separately: US – 1916 Act (EC) ; US – 1916 Act (Japan).   A single Appellate Body Report was 
subsequently circulated in relation to these appeals. 
dThis number excludes one Notice of Appeal that  was withdrawn by the United States, which 
subsequently filed another Notice of Appe al in relation to th e same Panel Report: US – Line Pipe . 
eThis number includes one Notice of App eal that was subsequently withdrawn:  India – Autos , and 
excludes one Notice of Appeal that was withdrawn by the European Communities, which subsequently filed 
another Notice of Appeal in relation to the same Panel Report:  EC – Sardines . 
fThis number excludes one Notice of Appeal that  was withdrawn by the United States, which 
subsequently filed a new Notice of Appeal in relation to the same Panel Report: US – Softwood Lumber IV . 
 WT/AB/5 
Page 17 
 
 
ANNEX 3 
 
 
PERCENTAGE OF PANEL REPORTS APPEALED:  1996–2005a 
 
 All Panel Reports Panel Reports other than  
Article 21.5 Reportsb Article 21.5 Panel Reports 
Year of 
adoption Panel 
Reports 
adopted c Panel 
Reports 
appealed d Percentage 
appealed e Panel 
Reports 
adopted Panel 
Reports 
appealed Percentage 
appealed Panel 
Reports 
adopted Panel 
Reports 
appealed Percentage 
appealed 
1996 2 2 100% 2 2 100% 0 0 – 
1997 5 5 100% 5 5 100% 0 0 – 
1998 12 9 75% 12 9 75% 0 0 – 
1999 10 7 70% 9 7 78% 1 0 0% 
2000 19 11 58% 15 9 60% 4 2 50% 
2001 17 12 71% 13 9 69% 4 3 75% 
2002 12 6 50% 11 5 45% 1 1 100% 
2003 10 7 70% 8 5 63% 2 2 100% 
2004 8 6 75% 8 6 75% 0 0 – 
2005 20 12 60% 17 11 65% 3 1 33% 
Total 115 77 67% 100 68 68% 15 9 60% 
 
aNo Panel Reports were adopted in 1995. 
bUnder Article 21.5 of the DSU, a panel may be established to hear a "d isagreement as to the existence 
or consistency with a covered agreement of measures ta ken to comply with the recommendations and rulings" of 
the DSB upon the adoption of a previ ous Panel or Appellate Body Report. 
cThe Panel Reports in EC – Bananas III (Ecuador) , EC – Bananas III (Guat emala and Honduras) ,  
EC – Bananas III (Mexico) , and EC – Bananas III (US)  are counted as a single Panel Report.  The Panel Reports 
in US – Steel Safeguards  are also counted as a single Panel Report. 
dPanel Reports are counted as having been appealed w here they are adopted as upheld, modified, or 
reversed by an Appellate Body Report.  The number of Panel Reports appealed may differ from the number of 
Appellate Body Reports because some Appellate Body Reports address more than one Panel Report. 
ePercentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. 
 WT/AB/5 
Page 18  
 
ANNEX 4 
 
 
PARTICIPANTS AND THIRD PARTICIPANTS IN APPEALS 
CIRCULATED THROUGH 2005 
 
 As of the end of 2005, there were 149 WTO Members1, of which 66 (44 per cent) have 
participated in appeals in which Appellate Body  Reports were circulated between 1996 and 2005.2      
 
 The rules pursuant to which Members particip ate in appeals as appellant, other appellant, 
appellee, or third participant are described above in Section IV.   
 
I.  STATISTICAL SUMMARY 
 
WTO Member Appellant Other Appellan t Appellee Third Participant Total 
Antigua & Barbuda 1 – 1 – 1 
Argentina 2 1 3 4 10 
Australia 2 1 5 11 19 
Barbados – – – 1 1 
Belize – – – 2 2 
Benin – – – 1 1 
Bolivia – – – 1 1 
Brazil 8 3 10 9 30 
Cameroon – – – 1 1 
Canada 8 6 14 12 40 
Chad – – – 1 1 
Chile 2 – 1 4 7 
China – 1 1 8 10 
Colombia – – – 4 4 
Costa Rica 1 – – 3 4 
Côte d'Ivoire – – – 2 2 
Cuba – – – 3 3 
Dominica – – – 2 2 
Dominican Republic 1 – 1 1 3 
Ecuador – 1 1 5 7 
Egypt – – – 1 1 
El Salvador – – – 2 2 
European Communities 10 11 26 33 80 
Fiji – – – 1 1 
Ghana – – – 1 1 
Grenada – – – 1 1 
Guatemala 1 1 1 2 5 
                                                      
1On 11 December 2005, the Kingdom of Saudi Ar abia became the 149th Member of the WTO.  
2No appeals were filed and no Appellate Body report s were circulated in 1995, the year the Appellate 
Body was established. WT/AB/5 
Page 19 
 
WTO Member Appellant Other Appellan t Appellee Third Participant Total 
Guyana – – – 1 1 
Honduras 1 1 2 1 5 
Hong Kong, China – – – 4 4 
India 5 1 5 13 24 
Indonesia – – 1 1 2 
Israel – – – 1 1 
Jamaica – – – 3 3 
Japan 4 4 8 19 35 
Kenya – – – 1 1 
Korea 4 2 5 6 17 
Madagascar – – – 1 1 
Malaysia 1 – 1 – 2 
Mauritius – – – 2 2 
Malawi – – – 1 1 
Mexico 3 1 4 13 21 
New Zealand – 2 5 6 13 
Nicaragua – – – 2 2 
Nigeria – – – 1 1 
Norway – 1 1 6 8 
Pakistan – – 2 2 4 
Panama – – – 1 1 
Paraguay – – – 4 4 
Peru – – 1 1 2 
Philippines 1 – 1 1 3 
Poland – – 1 – 1 
Senegal – – – 1 1 
St Lucia – – – 2 2 
St Kitts & Nevis – – – 1 1 
St Vincent & the Grenadines – – – 1 1 
Suriname – – – 1 1 
Swaziland – – – 1 1 
Switzerland – 1 1 – 2 
Chinese Taipei – – – 7 7 
Tanzania – – – 1 1 
Thailand 3 – 4 3 10 
Trinidad &Tobago  – – – 1 1 
Turkey 1 – – 1 2 
United States 23 8 41 23 95 
Venezuela – – 1 6 7 
Total 82 46 148 255 531 WT/AB/5 
Page 20  
II.  DETAILS BY YEAR OF CIRCULATION 
 
1996
 
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
US – Gasoline 
WT/DS2/AB/R  United States None Brazil 
Venezuela  European Communities 
Norway 
Japan – Alcoholic 
Beverages II 
WT/DS8/AB/R 
WT/DS10/AB/R WT/DS11/AB/R Japan 
 United States Canada  
European Communities Japan United States None 
 
1997  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
US – Underwear 
WT/DS24/AB/R Costa Rica None United States India 
Brazil –  Desiccated 
Coconut 
WT/DS22/AB/R  Philippines Brazil Brazil 
Philippines European Communities 
United States 
US – Wool Shirts and 
Blouses  
WT/DS33/AB/R  India None United States None 
Canada – Periodicals 
WT/DS31/AB/R  Canada 
 United States Canada  
United States None 
EC – Bananas III 
WT/DS27/AB/R  European Communities  Ecuador 
Guatemala Honduras Mexico United States Ecuador 
European Communities  Guatemala Honduras Mexico United States Belize 
Cameroon Colombia Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire  Dominica Dominican Republic  Ghana  
Grenada 
Jamaica  Japan Nicaragua Saint Lucia St Vincent & the 
Grenadines 
Senegal 
Suriname 
Venezuela 
India – Patents (US) WT/DS50/AB/R  India None United States European Communities WT/AB/5 
Page 21 
 
1998  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
EC – Hormones 
WT/DS26/AB/R 
WT/DS48/AB/R  European Communities  Canada 
United States Canada 
European Communities United States  Australia 
New Zealand Norway 
Argentina – Textiles and 
Apparel  
WT/DS56/AB/R  Argentina None United States European Communities 
EC – Computer 
Equipment 
WT/DS62/AB/R 
WT/DS67/AB/R WT/DS68/AB/R  European Communities None United States Japan 
EC – Poultry  
WT/DS69/AB/R  Brazil European Communities Brazil 
European Communities Thailand 
United States 
US – Shrimp  
WT/DS58/AB/R  United States None India  
Malaysia 
Pakistan Thailand Australia 
Ecuador  
European Communities Hong Kong, China Mexico Nigeria 
Australia – Salmon 
WT/DS18/AB/R  Australia Canada Australia 
Canada European Communities 
India 
Norway United States 
Guatemala – Cement I  WT/DS60/AB/R  Guatemala None Mexico United States 
 WT/AB/5 
Page 22  
1999
 
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
Korea – Alcoholic 
Beverages 
WT/DS75/AB/R 
WT/DS84/AB/R  Korea None European Communities 
United States Mexico 
Japan – Agricultural 
Products II 
WT/DS76/AB/R  Japan  
 United States Japan 
United States Brazil 
European Communities 
Brazil – Aircraft WT/DS46/AB/R  Brazil 
 Canada Brazil 
Canada European Communities  
United States 
Canada – Aircraft WT/DS70/AB/R  Canada Brazil 
 Brazil 
Canada European Communities  
United States 
India – Quantitative 
Restrictions  
WT/DS90/AB/R  India None United States None 
Canada – Dairy  
WT/DS103/AB/R 
WT/DS113/AB/R  Canada None New Zealand 
United States None 
Turkey –Textiles 
WT/DS34/AB/R  Turkey None India Hong Kong, China 
Japan Philippines 
Chile – Alcoholic 
Beverages 
WT/DS87/AB/R 
WT/DS110/AB/R  Chile None European Communities Mexico 
United States 
Argentina – Footwear 
(EC) 
WT/DS121/AB/R  Argentina European Communities Argentina 
European Communities Indonesia 
United States 
Korea –Dairy  WT/DS98/AB/R  Korea European Communities Korea 
European Communities United States 
 WT/AB/5 
Page 23 
 
2000  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
US – FSC  
WT/DS108/AB/R  United States European Communities European Communities 
United States Canada 
Japan 
US – Lead and 
Bismuth II 
WT/DS138/AB/R  United States None European Communities Brazil 
Mexico 
Canada –  Autos 
WT/DS139/AB/R  Canada 
 European Communities 
Japan Canada 
European Communities Japan Korea 
United States 
Brazil – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Canada) 
WT/DS46/AB/RW  Brazil None Canada European Communities 
United States 
Canada – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Brazil) 
WT/DS70/AB/RW  Brazil None Canada European Communities 
United States 
US – 1916 Act WT/DS136/AB/R 
WT/DS162/AB/R  United States  European Communities 
Japan  European Communities 
Japan United States European Communities
3 
India  Japan 
4 
Mexico 
Canada – Term of 
Patent Protection 
WT/DS170/AB/R  Canada None United States None 
Korea – Various 
Measures on Beef 
WT/DS161/AB/R 
WT/DS169/AB/R  Korea None Australia 
United States Canada 
New Zealand 
US – Certain EC 
Products  
WT/DS165/AB/R  European Communities United States European Communities 
United States Dominica 
Ecuador India Jamaica Japan St. Lucia 
US – Wheat Gluten WT/DS166/AB/R  United States European Communities European Communities 
United States Australia 
Canada New Zealand 
 
                                                      
3In complaint brought by Japan. 
4In complaint brought by the European Communities. WT/AB/5 
Page 24  
2001
 
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
EC – Bed Linen 
WT/DS141/AB/R  European Communities India European Communities 
India Egypt 
Japan United States 
EC – Asbestos  WT/DS135/AB/R  Canada European Communities Canada 
European Communities Brazil 
United States  
Thailand – H-Beams WT/DS122/AB/R  Thailand None Poland European Communities 
Japan United States 
US – Lamb  
WT/DS177/AB/R 
WT/DS178/AB/R  United States Australia 
New Zealand Australia 
New Zealand 
United States European Communities 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel 
WT/DS184/AB/R  United States  Japan Japan 
United States Brazil 
Canada Chile 
European Communities 
Korea 
US – Cotton Yarn WT/DS192/AB/R  United States None Pakistan European Communities 
India 
US – Shrimp  
(Article 21.5 – Malaysia) 
WT/DS58/AB/RW  Malaysia None United States Australia 
European Communities Hong Kong, China India Japan Mexico Thailand 
Mexico – Corn Syrup 
(Article 21.5 – US) 
WT/DS132/AB/RW  Mexico None United States European Communities 
Canada – Dairy  
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US) 
WT/DS103/AB/RW 
WT/DS113/AB/RW  Canada None New Zealand 
United States European Communities 
 WT/AB/5 
Page 25 
 
2002  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
US – Section 211 
Appropriations Act  
WT/DS176/AB/R  European Communities United States European Communities 
United States None 
US – FSC  
(Article 21.5 – EC) 
WT/DS108/AB/RW  United States European Communities European Communities 
United States Australia 
Canada India 
Japan 
US – Line Pipe 
WT/DS202/AB/R  United States  Korea Korea  
United States Australia 
Canada European Communities Japan 
Mexico 
India – Autos  5 
WT/DS146/AB/R 
WT/DS175/AB/R India None European Communities 
United States Korea 
Chile – Price Band 
System  
WT/DS207/AB/R  Chile None Argentina Australia 
Brazil Colombia Ecuador European Communities Paraguay United States  Venezuela 
EC – Sardines  WT/DS231/AB/R  European Communities None Peru Canada 
Chile Ecuador United States  Venezuela 
US – Carbon Steel WT/DS213/AB/R  United States European Communities European Communities  
United States Japan 
Norway 
US – Countervailing 
Measures on Certain  
EC Products 
WT/DS212/AB/R  United States None European Communities Brazil 
India 
Mexico 
Canada – Dairy  
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US II) 
WT/DS103/AB/RW2 
WT/DS113/AB/RW2  Canada None New Zealand 
United States Argentina 
Australia European Communities  
 
                                                      
5India withdrew its appeal the day before th e oral hearing was scheduled to proceed. WT/AB/5 
Page 26  
2003
 
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
US – Offset Act  
(Byrd Amendment ) 
WT/DS217/AB/R  
WT/DS234/AB/R United States None Australia 
Brazil Canada Chile European Communities India Indonesia Japan Korea 
Mexico 
Thailand Argentina 
Costa Rica Hong Kong, China Israel Norway 
EC – Bed Linen  
(Article 21.5 – India ) 
WT/DS141/AB/RW India None European Communities Japan 
Korea United States 
EC – Tube or Pipe 
Fittings 
WT/DS219/AB/R Brazil None European Communities Chile 
Japan Mexico United States 
US – Steel Safeguards WT/DS248/AB/R 
WT/DS249/AB/R  WT/DS251/AB/R  WT/DS252/AB/R  WT/DS253/AB/R  WT/DS254/AB/R  
WT/DS258/AB/R  
WT/DS259/AB/R  United States Brazil 
China European Communities Japan Korea New Zealand Norway 
Switzerland Brazil 
China European Communities Japan Korea New Zealand Norway 
Switzerland 
United States Canada 
Cuba Mexico Chinese Taipei Thailand Turkey  Venezuela 
Japan – Apples WT/DS245/AB/R Japan United States Japan 
United States Australia 
Brazil European Communities New Zealand  
Chinese Taipei  
US – Corrosion-
Resistant Steel Sunset Review 
WT/DS244/AB/R Japan None United States Brazil 
Chile European Communities India Korea 
Norway 
 WT/AB/5 
Page 27 
 
2004  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
US – Softwood 
Lumber IV 
WT/DS257/AB/R  United States Canada Canada 
United States European Communities 
India  Japan  
EC – Tariff Preferences WT/DS246/AB/R  European Communities None India Bolivia 
Brazil Colombia 
Costa Rica 
Cuba  Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Mauritius Nicaragua 
Pakistan 
Panama Paraguay Peru  United States Venezuela 
US – Softwood 
Lumber V 
WT/DS264/AB/R  United States Canada Canada 
United States European Communities 
India  Japan 
Canada – Wheat 
Exports and Grain 
Imports 
WT/DS276/AB/R  United States Canada Canada 
United States Australia 
China 
European Communities 
Mexico  Chinese Taipei  
US – Oil Country 
Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews 
WT/DS268/AB/R  United States Argentina Argentina 
United States European Communities 
Japan Korea 
Mexico  
Chinese Taipei  
 WT/AB/5 
Page 28  
2005
 
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
US – Upland Cotton 
WT/DS267/AB/R  United States Brazil Brazil 
United States Argentina 
Australia Benin Canada Chad China European Communities India New Zealand 
Pakistan 
Paraguay Chinese Taipei  Venezuela 
US – Gambling 
WT/DS285/AB/R  United States Antigua & Barbuda Antigua & Barbuda 
United States Canada 
European Communities 
Japan Mexico  Chinese Taipei  
EC – Export Subsidies 
on Sugar 
WT/DS265/AB/R 
WT/DS266/AB/R WT/DS283/AB/R  European Communities Australia 
Brazil 
Thailand Australia 
Brazil 
European Communities 
Thailand  Barbados 
Belize 
Canada 
China 
Colombia 
Côte d'Ivoire 
Cuba 
Fiji 
Guyana 
India 
Jamaica 
Kenya Madagascar 
Malawi 
Mauritius 
New Zealand 
Paraguay  
St. Kitts & Nevis 
Swaziland 
Tanzania 
Trinidad & Tobago 
United States WT/AB/5 
Page 29 
 
Dominican Republic – 
Import and Sale of 
Cigarettes 
WT/DS302/AB/R  Dominican Republic Honduras Dominican Republic 
Honduras China 
El Salvador 
European Communities Guatemala United States 
US – Countervailing 
Duty Investigation on 
DRAMS 
WT/DS296/AB/R  United States Korea Korea 
United States China 
European Communities 
Japan  
Chinese Taipei  
EC – Chicken Cuts WT/DS269/AB/R 
WT/DS286/AB/R  European Communities Brazil 
Thailand Brazil 
European Communities Thailand China 
United States 
Mexico – Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Rice 
WT/DS295/AB/R  Mexico None United States China 
European Communities 
US – Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods 
WT/DS282/AB/R  Mexico United States Mexico 
United States Argentina 
Canada China European Communities Japan  Chinese Taipei  
US – Softwood 
Lumber IV  (Article 21.5 – Canada) 
WT/DS257/AB/RW  United States Canada Canada 
United States China 
European Communities 
 WT/AB/5 
Page 30  
 
ANNEX 5 
 
 
SUMMARIES OF APPELLATE BODY REPORTS AND 
ARTICLE 21.3(c) ARBITRATION AWARDS CIRCULATED IN 20051 
 
 
I.  APPELLATE BODY REPORTS 
 
 Appellate Body Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton , WT/DS267/AB/R, adopted  
21 March 2005 
 
This case involved a series of claims by Brazil against a number of United States subsidy 
measures paid in favour of producers of upland co tton and certain other agricultural products.  The 
measures included marketing loan program payments , user marketing (step 2) payments, production 
flexibility contract payments, market loss assistan ce payments, direct payments, counter-cyclical 
payments, crop insurance payments, cottonseed payments, and export credit guarantees.   
 The first substantive issue concerned the Panel's finding that Article 13 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture (the "peace clause") did not shelter the United States' domestic support measures from 
challenge at the time the Panel's terms of reference were set.  The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's 
finding that none of the United States measures at  issue were "green box" measures in terms of 
paragraph 6 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture .  It also upheld the Panel's finding that the 
United States support measures provided "support to a specific commodity" in excess of that decided 
during the 1992 marketing year.  On the basis of th ese findings, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's 
conclusion that the United States measures at issu e were not entitled to the exemption from actions 
provided by the peace clause.   
 In relation to Brazil's claims of "serious prejudice" under Part III of the SCM Agreement , the 
Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the ef fect of marketing loan program payments, Step 2 
payments, market loss assistance payments, and counter-cyclical payments is significant price 
suppression within the meaning of Article 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement .  In reaching this conclusion, 
the Appellate Body agreed with the Panel that a "world market" may be the "same market" for 
purposes of a claim of significant price suppression under Article 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement , and it 
refused to disturb the Panel's factual findings that  a world market for upland cotton exits;  a world 
price in that market also exists;  and Brazilia n and United States upland cotton competed in that 
market.  As for the amount of the subsidy, the Appe llate Body held that the magnitude of a challenged 
subsidy and its relationship to prices is releva nt in assessing the effect of the subsidy, but 
Article 6.3(c) does not require a precise definitive qu alification.  In the present case, the Panel did not 
err in its assessment of the amount of the subsidi es.  The Appellate Body disagreed with the United 
states that the effect of annually paid subsidies must be allocated solely to th e year in which they are 
paid.  Accordingly, the Appellate Body declined to reverse the Panel's finding of significant price 
suppression in the marketing years 1999 to 2002.  The Appellate Body found that interpreting the 
words "world market share" in Article 6.3(d) of the SCM Agreement  was unnecessary to resolve the 
dispute, so it neither upheld nor reversed the Panel's findings in this regard.   
 
                                                     
 
1These summaries are intended solely for information and do not constitute an authoritative 
interpretation of the relevant decisions. WT/AB/5 
Page 31 
 
 Concerning user marketing (Step 2) payments, th e Appellate Body upheld  the Panel's findings 
that Step 2 payments to domestic users of United States upland cotton, under Section 1207(a) of the 
United States FSRI Act of 2002 2, are subsidies contingent on the use of domestic over imported 
goods that are inconsistent with Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement .  In addition, the 
Appellate Body upheld the Panel's findings that Step  2 payments to exporters of United States upland 
cotton, pursuant to Section 1207(a) of the FSRI Ac t of 2002, are subsidies contingent upon export 
performance within the meaning of Article 9.1(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture  that are 
inconsistent with Articles 3.3 a nd 8 of that Agreement and with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM 
Agreement . 
 Moreover, the Appellate Body upheld (with one  separate opinion) the Panel's finding that 
Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture  does not exempt export credit guarantees from the 
export subsidy disciplines in Article 10.1 of that Ag reement.  Consequently, it also upheld the Panel's 
finding that the United States export credit guarantee programmes at issue constitute a per se  export 
subsidy within the meaning of item (j) of the Illust rative List of Export Subsidies in Annex I of the 
SCM Agreement ", and are export subsidies for purposes of Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement  and 
are inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of  that Agreement.  The Appellate Body held, 
furthermore, that the Panel did not err in exercisi ng judicial economy in respect of Brazil's allegation 
that the United States' export credit guarantee pr ograms are prohibited export subsidies, under 
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement , because they confer a "benefit" within the meaning of 
Article 1.1 of that Agreement. 
 
With respect to the circumvention of expor t subsidy commitments, the Appellate Body 
reversed the Panel's finding that Brazil did not establish actual  circumvention in respect of poultry 
meat and pig meat, but was unable to complete the legal analysis to determine itself whether the United States' export credit guarantees to poultry meat and pig meat have been applied in a manner 
that "results in" circumvention of the United States'  export subsidy commitment s, within the meaning 
of Article 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture , because of insufficient uncontested facts in the 
record.  The Appellate Body modified the Panel's interpretation of the phrase "threatens to lead to ... 
circumvention" in Article 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture  to the extent that the Panel's 
interpretation requires "an unconditiona l legal entitlement" to receive th e relevant export subsidies as 
a condition for a finding of threat of circumventi on.  However, the Appellate Body upheld, for 
different reasons, the Panel's finding that Brazil ha d not established that "the export credit guarantee 
programmes at issue are generally applied to schedul ed agricultural products other than rice and other 
unscheduled agricultural products (not supported u nder the programmes) in a manner which threatens 
to lead to circumvention of United States expor t subsidy commitments within the meaning of  
Article 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture ".  The Appellate Body additionally found that the Panel 
did not err in confining its examination of Brazil's threat  of circumvention claim to scheduled 
products other than rice and unsche duled products not supported under the United States' export credit 
guarantee programs. 
 Finally, the Appellate Body declined Brazil's request to reverse the Panel's conclusion that 
Brazil did not make a prima facie  case that the ETI Act of 2000
3 is inconsistent with the United States' 
WTO obligations.    
                                                     
 
2Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171. 
3FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000, Public Law 106-519. WT/AB/5 
Page 32  Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling 
and Betting Services , WT/DS285/AB/R, adopted 20 April 2005 
 
The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that a "total prohibition" on the cross-border 
supply of gambling and betting services cannot constitu te, in and of itself, a "measure" subject to 
challenge in dispute settlement proceedings.  The Appellate Body also found  that Antigua had not 
made a  prima facie  case with respect to certain United States state laws.  As the Panel therefore erred 
in examining the consistency of those laws with  the United States' obligations under the GATS, the 
Appellate Body reversed the Panel's findings with respect to such state laws.  With respect to 
Antigua's challenge to three United States federa l laws, the Appellate B ody upheld the Panel's 
findings that sub-sector 10.D of the United States ' GATS Schedule includes a commitment to grant 
market access in gambling and bettin g services, and that the United St ates acts inconsistently with 
Article XVI:1 and sub-paragraphs  (a) and (c) of Article XVI: 2 of the GATS by maintaining 
limitations on market access not specified in its Sc hedule.  The Appellate Body agreed with the Panel 
that the challenged federal laws fa ll within the scope of the interest s protected under Article XIV(a) of 
the GATS, namely measures "to protect public mora ls and to maintain pub lic order", but found, 
contrary to the Panel, that the challenged laws are "necessary" to protect those interests.  Ultimately, 
however, the Appellate Body determined that the United States had not established that its federal 
laws were justified by upholding the Panel's findi ng that the United States had not demonstrated that 
these laws are applied in a non-discriminatory manne r, as required by the chapeau of Article XIV. 
  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar , WT/DS265/AB/R, 
WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/ AB/R, adopted 19 May 2005 
 
The Appellate Body agreed with the Panel that  Footnote 1 to Section II, Part IV of the 
European Communities' Schedule CXL is inconsiste nt with the European Communities' obligations 
under the Agreement on Agriculture  and does not enlarge or otherwise modify the European 
Communities' commitment levels as specified in its Schedule.  Footnote 1 refers to the European 
Communities' commitment levels and states: "Does not include exports of sugar of ACP and Indian 
origin on which the Community is not making any reduction commitments.  The average of export in the period 1986 to 1990 amounted to 1,6 mio t."  The Appellate Body found, inter alia , that            
Footnote 1 does not contain a commitment to "limit " subsidized exports of ACP/India sugar and that 
the footnote is inconsistent with Article 3.3 of the  Agreement on Agriculture   because it does not 
contain a budgetary outlay commitment in respect  of export subsidies provided to ACP/India 
equivalent sugar. 
 The Appellate Body also upheld the Panel's findi ng that certain payments resulted in export 
subsidies within the meaning of Article 9.1(c) of the  Agreement on Agriculture .  On the basis of these 
findings, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's c onclusion that the European Communities had acted 
inconsistently with Ar ticles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture  by providing export subsidies 
in excess of its commitment levels as specified in its Schedule.  The Appellate Body also upheld the 
Panel's findings that the Complaining Parties acted  in good faith, under Article 3.10 of the DSU, in 
the initiation and conduct of these dispute settlement proceedings and, assuming  arguendo  that the 
principle of estoppel applies, that they were not estopped, through their actions or silence, from 
alleging that the European Communities' exports of sugar are in excess of its export subsidy reduction 
commitments.   
 The Appellate Body, however, found that the Pa nel erred in exercising judicial economy with 
respect to the Complaining Parti es' claims under Article 3 of the 
SCM Agreement , after finding 
violations under the Agreement on Agriculture .  The Appellate Body held, inter alia , that, in declining 
to rule on these claims of the Complaining Parties,  the Panel precluded the possibility of a remedy 
being made available to the Complaining Parties, pursuant to Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement , in 
the event of the Panel finding in favour of the Complaining Parties with respect to their claims under 
Article 3 of the  SCM Agreement .  Nevertheless, the Appellate Body  found that it was not in a position WT/AB/5 
Page 33 
 
 to complete the legal analysis and to exam ine the Complaining Parties' claims under the SCM 
Agreement  that were left unaddressed by the Panel, because it lacked the requisite factual findings to 
do so, and because the claims in question were not closely related to those that the Panel and the 
Complaining Parties fully addressed.   Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal 
Sale of Cigarettes , WT/DS302/AB/R, adopted 19 May 2005 
 
The Panel had addressed six measures that affected the importation and internal sale of 
cigarettes in the Dominican Republic.  Two of these  were relevant on app eal:  the imposition of a 
requirement to affix tax stamps on imported cigare ttes at the time of importation (and not during the 
manufacturing process of the cigarettes);  and the requirement that all manufacturers and importers of cigarettes post a bond to secure payment of certain tax obligations.  The Ap pellate Body upheld the 
Panel's findings on these issues and ruled against th e appellant and other appellant in respect of 
certain procedural claims under Article 11 of the DSU and with respect to the terms of reference.  In 
particular, the Appellate Body found that the ta x stamp requirement found by the Panel to be in 
breach of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 did not benefit from the general exception in  Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994, which refers to  "measures necessary to secure compliance with 
laws or regulations that are not inconsistent with  the provisions of this Agreement".  The Appellate 
Body also ruled that the bond requirement did not accord less favourable treatment to imports, and 
therefore was not inconsistent w ith Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 
 
 
Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea , WT/DS296/AB/R, adopted 20 July 2005 
 
The Appellate Body modified the Panel's interpre tation of the terms "entrusts" and "directs" in 
Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM Agreement  so as to clarify that the scope of actions covered by 
"entrustment" and "direction" could extend beyond wh at is covered by the terms "delegation" and 
"command" (used by the Panel).  The Appellate Body also found that a private body may be "entrusted" or "directed" to take an action even where the private body does not ultimately carry out 
that action, although there would be no "financial contribution" in the absence of such an action.  
With respect to the Panel's revi ew of the evidence underlying the finding by the United States 
Department of Commerce's (the "USD OC") of entrustment or direction of private Korean firms by the 
Government of Korea, the Appellate Body uphe ld the Panel's requirement that evidence of 
entrustment or direction be "probative and compellin g" to the extent the Panel understood these terms 
to require only that the evidence demonstrate entrus tment or direction.  Nevertheless, the Appellate 
Body identified multiple errors in the Panel's evid entiary analysis, including the Panel's failure to 
examine properly the evidence in its totality and to apply the correct standard of review, including a 
failure to comply with its obligations under Article  11 of the DSU.  The Appellate Body concluded 
that these errors undermined the Panel's conclusi on that the evidence could not support the USDOC's 
finding of entrustment or direction and, therefore,  reversed this conclusi on, as well as the Panel's 
consequent finding of inconsiste ncy with Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) .  The Appellate Body further 
determined that, in the light of the facts on the reco rd, it could not arrive at a conclusion on its own as 
to whether the USDOC's subsidy de termination was consistent with Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv).  Finally, 
with respect to the USDOC's conclusions as to bene fit and specificity—two elements of an inquiry 
into the existence of a subsidy against which c ountervailing duties are to be imposed—the Appellate 
Body reversed the Panel's findings of inconsiste ncy with Articles 1.1(b) and Article 2 of the SCM 
Agreement  because they were premised on the finding of inconsistency with Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv), 
which the Appellate Body had already overturned.  The Appellate Body determined that there were 
neither sufficient factual findings by the Panel nor  undisputed facts in the record to allow it to 
complete the analysis under these two provisions. 
 
 WT/AB/5 
Page 34  Appellate Body Report, European  Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless 
Chicken Cuts , WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB/R, adopted 27 September 2005 
 
 The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's findings that the products at issue, that is, frozen boneless chicken cuts that have been impregnated w ith salt with a salt content of 1.2 to 3 per cent, 
were covered by the tariff commitment under head ing 02.10 of the European Communities' Schedule 
LXXX, which refers, inter alia , to "salted meat", and that th e European Communities had imposed 
customs duties on these products in excess of that co mmitment.  The Appellate Body therefore upheld 
the Panel's finding that the European Communities ha d acted inconsistently with the requirements of 
Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.  In making these findings, the Appellate Body interpreted the term "salted" in heading 02.10 of the European Communities' Schedule in the light of 
Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties  (the " Vienna Convention ")
4;  in 
its reasoning, the Appellate Body found that th ere had been a broad consensus among the GATT 
Contracting Parties to  use  the Harmonized Syst em as the basis for their WTO Schedules, and that 
this consensus represented an "agreement" between WTO Members "relating to" the  WTO Agreement 
 that was "made in connection with the conclusi on of" that Agreement, within the meaning of 
Article 31(2)(a) of the Vienna Convention .  The Appellate Body furthermore discussed the notions of 
"subsequent practice" within the meaning of Ar ticle 31(3)(b) and "circumstances of conclusions" 
within the meaning of Article 32 of the Vienna Convention .  The Appellate Body also upheld the 
Panel's finding that the Panel's terms of refere nce included two European Communities regulations 
but did not include two other measures claimed by the Complaining Parties to have had the same 
effect as those measures within the Panel's terms of reference. 
 
 
Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods 
(OCTG) from Mexico , WT/DS282/AB/R, adopted 28 November 2005 
 
The Appellate Body held that it is not necess ary to establish the existence of a causal link 
between likely dumping and likely injury in a sunset review of anti-dumping duties pursuant to Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  Accordingly, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's 
finding that the United States International Trade Commission did not act inconsistently with  Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  in the sunset review of anti-dumping duties on oil 
country tubular goods from Mexico.  However, the A ppellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that 
the "Sunset Policy Bulletin" of the United States Department of Commerce is inconsistent with 
Article 11.3, ruling that the Panel failed to make  an objective assessment of the matter, including an 
objective assessment of the facts of the case, as required by Article 11 of the  DSU.  Essentially, the 
Appellate Body found that the Panel did not ade quately assess the evidence in order to come to its 
conclusion that the Sunset Policy Bulletin establish es an irrebuttable presumption regarding likelihood 
of continuation or recurrence of dumping.   
  
Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice, Complaint 
with Respect to Rice , WT/DS295/AB/R, adopted 20 December 2005 
 
Mexico challenged on appeal the Panel's findi ngs of inconsistency relating to the United 
States' "as applied" and "as such" cl aims.  As for the "as applied" cl aims, the Appellate Body rejected 
the Panel's understanding that an investigating authority must give notice of the information it 
requires to all interested parties known to it as we ll as to interested parties of which "it could 
reasonably have obtained knowledge".  The A ppellate Body found, instead, that the  Anti-Dumping 
Agreement  requires that such notice be provided only to those interested parties actually known to the 
investigating authority.  As a result, the Appellate  Body determined that e xporters had received proper 
notice of both the initiation of the underlying inv estigation and the information required by the 
                                                     
 
4Done at Vienna, 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331;  8 International Legal Materials 679. WT/AB/5 
Page 35 
 
 agency, and that an individual margin had been calculated for each individual "known" exporter, 
consistent with Mexico's obligations under Articles 6.1, 6.10, and 12.1 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement .  The Appellate Body upheld all the other findings  of the Panel that were appealed, that is, 
the remaining findings of inconsistency on the "a s applied" claims and the findings that certain 
provisions of the Mexican Foreign Trade Act are inc onsistent, as such, with various provisions of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement  and the SCM Agreement .  In the course of arriving at these conclusions, the 
Appellate Body also rejected Mexico's allegati ons that the United States had failed to make a prima 
facie  case of inconsistency with respect to the Fore ign Trade Act provisions, and that the Panel had 
not fulfilled its obligations under Article 11 of th e DSU to "make an objective assessment of the 
matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of the case".  
 
 
Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Respect to 
Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada, Recour se by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU , 
WT/DS257/AB/RW, adopted 20 December 2005 
 
In the original US – Softwood Lumber IV  proceedings, the DSB made rulings and 
recommendations in respect of, inter alia , the United States' failure to complete a "pass-through" 
analysis in its original Final Countervailing Du ty Determination regarding softwood lumber from 
Canada.  The United States subsequently informed the DSB that it had brought its original measure 
into compliance through a Section 129 Determination.  The results of the first administrative review 
of the countervailing duties on imports of softwood lumber from Canada (the "First Assessment 
Review") were published a few days after the Section 129 Determination. 
 Canada initiated proceedings unde r Article 21.5 of the DSU and made claims against the pass 
through analyses in both the First Assessment Re view and the Section 129 Determination.  The 
United States requested the Panel to  rule that the First Assessment Review was not a "measure taken 
to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB" and, for that reason, not within its 
mandate.  The Panel found that the pass-through an alyses in both the Section 129 Determination and 
the First Assessment Review failed properly to  implement the relevant DSB rulings and 
recommendations.  The United States appealed the Pa nel's finding that the First Assessment Review 
fell within the scope of the Article 21.5 proceedings , as well as the findings made by the Panel in 
respect of this measure.  The Appellate Body upheld  the Panel's finding that it had jurisdiction to 
consider the pass-through analysis in the First As sessment Review because this analysis was so 
closely related, in terms of subject matter, timing, and effects, to both the measure at issue in the original proceedings (the Final Countervailing Duty  Determination) and to the measure that the 
United States had notified to the DSB as its measure "taken to comply" (the Section 129 Determination), that it properly fell within the scope of the proceedings under Article 21.5 of the 
DSU.  Thus, the Appellate Body found no basis for disturbing the findings of inconsistency made by 
the Panel with respect to the First Assessment Review.  
 WT/AB/5 
Page 36  
II.  ARTICLE 21.3(c) ARBITRATIONS
 5 
  
Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Sunset Reviews of An ti-Dumping Me asures on Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from Argentina  – Arbitration under Arti cle 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS268/12,  
7 June 2005 
 
Mr. A.V. Ganesan, Member, A ppellate Body, was appointed by  the parties to serve as 
Arbitrator in US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews .  He determined that the "reasonable 
period of time" for the United States to implemen t the recommendations and rulings of the DSB was 
12  months from the adoption of the Panel and Appe llate Body Reports, and that this period would 
expire on 17 December 2005.  The Arbitrator pointed out that the parties agreed that it is for the 
implementing Member to choose the most appropr iate method of implementation, but that the 
Member must take advantage of the flexibility  within its system to complete implementation as 
quickly as possible.  The United States needed to bring into conformity with its WTO obligations 
certain regulations as well as a determination made  by the United States Department of Commerce 
under those regulations.  The Arbitrator noted the Un ited States' position that the waiver provisions of 
the regulations would have to be brought into co nformity before they could be applied to a new 
determination, although some of the steps in  these two phases could be taken concurrently. 
 
 Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of 
Gambling and Betting Services – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS285/13,  
19 August 2005 
 
Mr. Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, a former Appe llate Body Member, was appointed by the 
Director-General to serve as Arbitrator.  He dete rmined that the "reasonable period of time" for the 
United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in US – Gambling  was 
11 months and 2 weeks from the adoption of the Pa nel and Appellate Body Reports, that is, until 
3 April 2006.  The Arbitrator did not accept Antigua  and Barbuda's ("Antigua") argument that, with 
respect to the three federal statutes that had been f ound to be inconsistent, the United States could, and 
should, implement in part through executive action, and in part through legislative action.  As a result, 
the Arbitrator determined the reasonable period of  time required for the United States to implement by 
 legislative  means.   
 The Arbitrator observed that implementation w ould bear on questions of public morals and 
public order, but in the absence of further info rmation from the United States on these issues, the 
Arbitrator did not consider this a "particular circumstance".  The Arbitrator took account of the fact 
that the United States Congress had previously passed  legislative amendments relating to the same 
subject matter in only five months.  The Arbitrator , however, declined Antigua's request to conclude 
that because the United States had adopted some legisl ation in the first six months of 2005, it could 
implement equally rapidly in this case, as well as Anti gua's request to pay particular attention to the 
interests of Antigua as a developing country Memb er pursuant to Article 21.2 of the DSU, on the 
grounds that Antigua had not adduced sufficient ev idence in support of either of these requests. 
  
                                                     
 
5On 22 July 2005, Mr. John Lockhart accepted the parties' request to act as arbitrator under  
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU in Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes .  On 29 August 2005, he 
issued a report noting that the pa rties had reached agreement on the r easonable period of time and that, 
therefore, it would not be necessary for him to issue an award determining that time period. (Report of the 
Arbitrator, Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes , para. 6) WT/AB/5 
Page 37 
 
 Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar , WT/DS265/33, 
WT/DS266/33, WT/DS283/14, 28 October 2005  
Mr. A.V. Ganesan, Member, A ppellate Body, was appointed by  the parties to serve as 
Arbitrator in EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar .  He determined that the "reasonable period of time" for 
the European Communities to implement the recomm endations and rulings of the DSB was 12 months 
and 3 days from the adoption of the Panel and Appe llate Body Reports , and that this period would 
expire on 22 May 2006.  The Arbitrator stated that  it is for the implemen ting Member to choose the 
method of implementation, provided that this method is consistent with the Member's WTO 
obligations and may be implemented within a reas onable period of time.  In addition, the Member 
must act in good faith in selecting the implementa tion method.  The Arbitrator disagreed with the 
Complaining Parties (Australia, Brazil, and Thailand ) that the only option available to the European 
Communities for implementation in this dispute was to  limit or prohibit exports of sugar produced in 
excess of annual sugar quotas allocated to indivi dual European Communities Member States (so-
called "C sugar").  The Arbitrator also found that  Brazil and Thailand had demonstrated their interests 
as developing-country Members for purposes of Article 21.2 of the DSU and that these interests were 
relevant for the determination of the reas onable period of time in this arbitration. 
  
 
  
ANNEX 6 
 
 
WTO AGREEMENTS COVERED IN APPELLATE BODY REPORTS CIRCUL ATED THROUGH 2005 a 
 
Year of 
Circulation DSU WTO 
 Agmt GATT 
1994 Agriculture SPS ATC TBT TRIMs Anti- 
Dumping Import 
Licensing SCM TRIPS GATS Safe- 
guards 
1996 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
1997 4 1 5 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 
1998 7 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 
1999 7 1 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 
2000 8 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 1 1 2 
2001 7 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 2 
2002 8 2 4 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 1 1 1 
2003 4 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 
2004 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 
2005 9 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 
Total 56 9 44 11 4 3 2 0 16 2 18 3 4 7 
 
a No appeals were filed in 1995. 
 WT/AB/5 
Page 38 WT/AB/5 
Page 39 
 
 ANNEX 7 
 
 
TENTH ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCES 
 
 
PROGRAMMES FOR 2005 
  
The WTO at Ten 
The Role of the Dispute Settlement System 
 
11 to 13 March 2005 
Stresa, Italy 
 
 
Inter-University "Research Centre on International Economic Organisations" 
of the Universities of Piemonte Orientale, Turin, Genoa, Milan, Bocconi 
 
 
 The conference addressed basic i ssues confronted by the current "r ule oriented" multilateral trading 
system and its innovative dispute settle ment system, on the occasion of the te nth anniversary of the WTO and of 
its Appellate Body.  The conference featured discussions between legal experts, diplomats, and officials from 
the WTO community in Geneva, government officials from Member governments, NGOs, and other international experts.  
 
 
Friday, 11 March 2005 (8 p.m.)
 
 
Inaugural Dinner and Opening Address: 
"Ten Years after the Conclusion of the Uruguay Round: Bilateralism, Regionalism and the Multilateral 
Trading System" 
Speaker:   H.E. Mr. Renato Ruggiero , Ambassador and Former Director-General of the WTO 
 
Saturday, 12 March 2005 (Morning)  
 
The Challenges to the WTO from Within and Without 
 
1st Session: "The Doha Round and the Future of the WTO" 
Moderator:   Mr. Danilo Taino , Special Economics Correspond ent, Corriere della Sera 
Discussants: 
Mr. E. Barón Crespo , Chair, European Parliament Committee on International Trade 
Mr. Patrick Low , Director, Economic Research and Statistics Division, WTO 
H.E. Ms. Amina Mohamed , Ambassador, Permanent Mission of Keny a to the WTO, Chair of the Dispute 
Settlement Body WT/AB/5 
Page 40  
  
2nd Session: "The Limits of the WTO: Facing Non-Trade Issues" 
Moderator:   Prof. Fabrizio Onida , Bocconi University  
Reporter:   Prof. Friedl Weiss , University of Amsterdam 
Discussants: 
Mr. Guy Ryder , General Secretary, International Confederation of Free Trade Unions 
Prof. Francesco Francioni , European University Institute, Florence 
Mr. Jeremy Hobbs , Executive Director, Oxfam International 
 
Saturday, 12 March 2005 (Afternoon)  
 
The Dispute Settlement System in Action 
 
3rd Session: "Trade Negotiations and Dispute Sett lement: What Balance Betw een Political Governance 
and Judicialization?" 
Chair:   Prof. Claus-Dieter Ehlermann , Counsel, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr; and former Chairman 
of the Appellate Body 
Reporter:   Prof. Robert Howse , University of Michigan (with Susan Esserman) 
Discussants: 
Prof. Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann , European University, Florence 
Prof. Hélène Ruiz-Fabri , University of Paris 
H.E. Mr. Alejandro Jara , Ambassador of Chile to the WTO 
Mr. Tim Reif , Chief Democratic Trade Counsel, Committee on Wa ys and Means, US House of Representatives  
 
4th Session: "From Initiating Pr oceedings to Ensuring Implementa tion: What Needs Improvement?" 
Chair:   H.E. Mr. David Spencer , Ambassador, Permanent Mission of Australia to the WTO and Chairman of 
the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body 
Reporter:   Ms. Valerie Hughes , Director, Appellate Body Secretariat, WTO 
Discussants: 
Prof. Thomas Cottier , University of Bern 
Mr. Pieter-Jan Kuijper , Principal Legal Advisor, External Relations, European Commission 
Prof. Jacques Bourgeois , Collége Europe, Bruges ; Partner, Akin Gump LLP, Brussels 
Mr. Daniel Brinza , Assistant US Trade Representa tive for Monitoring and Enforcem ent, Office of the US Trade 
Representative 
 
Saturday, 12 March 2005 (Evening Dinner)  
 
Key Note Address 
Speaker:   Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi , Director-General, WTO 
Dinner chaired by  H.E. Mr. Paolo Bruni , Ambassador and Permanent Repres entative of Italy to the WTO 
 WT/AB/5 
Page 41 
 
 Sunday, 13 March 2005 (Morning)  
 
The Dispute Settlement System in Perspective 
 
5th Session:  "1995-2004, Ten Years and 64 Cases Later: The Contribution of the Appellate Body to the 
Development of International Trade Law" 
Chairman:   Judge John Lockhart , Member of the Appellate Body 
Reporter:   Prof. Peter Van den Bossche , University of Maastricht 
Discussants: 
Prof. Brigitte Stern , Directrice du CEDIN, Centre de droit international de l'Université de Paris I 
Prof. Donald McRae , University of Ottawa 
Prof. Petros Mavroidis , Columbia University and University of Neuchâtel 
Ms. Gabrielle Marceau , Counsellor, Legal Affairs Division, WTO 
 
Final Round Table:  "Treaty Interp retation in International Law: Co mparing the Appellate Body with 
the Courts in the Hague,  Hamburg and Luxembourg" 
Chair:   Prof. Georges Abi-Saab , Member and former Chairman of the Appellate Body 
Participants: 
H.E. Judge Gilbert Guillaume , Member and former Chairman of the International Court of Justice 
H.E. Judge Paolo Mengozzi , European Court of Justi ce, Court of First Instance 
H.E. Judge Allan Rosas, European  Court of Justice, Luxembourg  
H.E. Judge Tullio Treves , International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea 
 
Closing Remarks:   Prof. Giorgio Sacerdoti , Bocconi University and Member of the Appellate Body 
_______________ WT/AB/5 
Page 42  
 The WTO at Ten 
A Look at the Appellate Body 
 
15 to 17 May 2005 
São Paulo, Brazil 
 
 
Brazilian Institute of In ternational Trade Law and Development (IDCID 
 in cooperation with  
University of São Paulo (Law School/International Law Department - USP) 
 Administrative Institute Foundation (FIA) 
 
 
Monday, 16 May 2005 (Morning)  
 
Credentials 
Opening Address:   Luiz Olavo Baptista , Maristela Basso , Eduardo Silveira Marchi , Rubens Barbosa  
 
1st Session:  "The First Years of the Appellate  Body and the WTO Dispute Settlement System: A 
Historical Perspective" 
Chair:   Luiz Felipe Seixas Corrêa  
Discussants:   
Julio Lacarte-Muró  (Session opening speech) 
Luiz Felipe Lampreia  
Luiz Felipe Seixas Corrêa  
 
2nd Session:  "The WTO Appellate Body’s Role : A View From the Academic and Diplomatic 
Communities" 
Chair:   Umberto Celli Junior  
Discussants: 
Hélène Ruiz-Fabri   (Session opening speech) 
Valerie Hughes  
Vera Thorstensen  
 
Monday, 16 May 2005 (Afternoon)  
 
3rd Session:  "The Panel Process and the Appellate Body: Locus for Legal and Cultural Convergence" 
Chair:   Yasuhei Taniguchi  
Discussants: 
Luiz Olavo Baptista   (Session opening speech) 
Umberto Celli Júnior  
Alan Yanovich  WT/AB/5 
Page 43 
 
  
4th Session:  "Jurisdiction and Interpretation: WTO di spute settlement in the in ternational law context" 
Chair:   José Carlos de Magalhães  
Discussants: 
Georges Abi-Saab   (Session opening speech) 
Debra Steger  
Werner Meng  
 
Tuesday, 17 May 2005 (Morning)  
 
5th Session:  "Agriculture Related Disputes in the WTO System" 
Chair:   Luiz Olavo Baptista  
Discussants: 
Marcos Jank   (Session opening speech) 
Mario Mugnaini  
Pedro Camargo Neto  
Roberto Azevedo  
 
6th Session:  "Regional and Multilateral Dispute Se ttlement Systems:  A Comparative Perspective" 
Chair:   Alberto do Amaral Junior  
Discussants: 
Felix Peña   (Session opening speech) 
Richard Chriss  
Victor Luiz do Prado  
 
Tuesday, 17 May 2005 (Afternoon)  
 
7th Session:  "The WTO Dispute Settlement System in  the Next Ten Years:  Proposals for Systemic and 
Procedural Reforms" 
Chair:   Georges Michel Abi-Saab  
Discussants: 
Celso Lafer   (Session opening speech) 
Antonio Garbelini Junior  
James Bacchus  
Renato Flores  
 
8th Session:  "Weaknesses and Proposed Improveme nts to the WTO Dispute Settlement System:  An 
Economic and Market View" 
Chair:  Vera Thostensen  
Gregory Shaffer  (Session opening speech) 
Tito Amaral de Andrade  
Celso Grisi  WT/AB/5 
Page 44  
  
9th Session:  "Participation of Civil Soci ety and the WTO Dispute Settlement System" 
Chair:   Francisco Rezek  
Discussants: 
Alice Palmer   (Session opening speech) 
Rubens Barbosa  
Mauro Berenholc  
Rafael Benke  
 
Closing Remarks:   Alberto do Amaral Júnior  
_______________WT/AB/5 
Page 45 
 
 The WTO at Ten: 
Dispute Settlement, Multilateral Negotiation, Regional Integration 
 
25 to 27 October 2005 
Tokyo, Japan 
 
Fair Trade Center and Tokyo Keizai University  
in collaboration with  
Aoyama Gakuin University 
United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies 
Institute for International Studies and Training 
 
Tuesday, 25 October 2005 (Morning)  
 
The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism 
 
Opening Address:   Mr. Takashi Iwamoto , Executive Director, Fair Trade Center 
Welcome Remarks:   Prof. Hans J.A. van Ginkel , Rector, United Nations University 
Opening Speech:   Prof. Yasuhei Taniguchi , Chairman of the Appellate Body, WTO; Faculty of Contemporary 
Law, Tokyo Keizai University; Prof essor Emeritus of Kyoto University 
Keynote Speeches:   
Chair:  Prof. Yasuhei Taniguchi  
Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi , Secretary-General, UNCTAD; former Director-General, WTO 
Prof. John H. Jackson , University Professor of Geor getown University Law Center 
Dr. Chulsu Kim , Senior Advisor, Lee International IP & Law Group; former Deputy Director-General, WTO 
 
Tuesday, 25 October 2005 (Afternoon)  
 
1st Session Panel Discussion:  "Accomplishmen ts of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism" 
Coordinator:   Mr. A.V. Ganesan , Member of the Appellate Body, WTO 
Panelists: 
Ms. Valerie Hughes , Director of the Appellate Body Secretariat, WTO 
Prof. Mitsuo Matsushita , Professor Emeritus of the University of T okyo; former Member of the Appellate Body, 
WTO 
Prof. William J. Davey , University of Illinois College of Law; former Director of Legal Affairs Division, WTO 
 
2nd Session Panel Discussion:  "Future Challeng es for the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism" 
Coordinator:   Judge John Lockhart , Member of the Appellate Body, WTO 
Panelists: 
Prof. Akio Shimizu , Waseda Law School, Waseda University 
Prof. Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann , European University Institute, Florence 
Mr. Alan Yanovich , Counsellor, Appellate Body Secretariat, WTO 
Mr. Manabu Miyagawa , Director, Economic Security Division (former Director, WTO Dispute Settlement 
Division), Economic Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs WT/AB/5 
Page 46  
 3rd Session Panel Discussion:  "Business and the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism" 
Coordinator:   Prof. Seung Wha Chang , College of Law, Seoul National University 
Panelists: 
Prof. Gregory Shaffer , University of Wisconsin Law School 
Mr. Andrew W. Shoyer , Partner, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Washington DC 
Mr. Soichiro Sakuma , General Manager of Legal Affairs Division, Nippon Steel Corporation 
Mr. Shigehiro Tanaka , Director, Multilateral Trade System Department, Trade Policy Bureau, Ministry of 
Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) 
 
Wednesday, 26 October 2005 (Morning)  
 
The Way Forward to a Successf ul Doha Development Agenda 
 
4th Session Panel Discussion:  "Maj or Issues of the DDA Negotiation" 
Coordinator:   Prof. Merit E. Janow , Member of the Appellate Body, WTO; School of International and Public 
Affairs, Columbia University 
Panelists: 
Prof. Henry S. Gao , Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong 
Prof. Masayoshi Honma , Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tokyo 
Prof. Akira Kotera , Department of Advanced Social and International Studies, University of Tokyo 
Commentator:   Mr. Jeremy Hobbs , Executive Director of Oxfam International 
 
Wednesday, 26 October 2005 (Afternoon)  
 
5th Session Panel Discussion :  "Beyond the Doha Round" 
Coordinator:   P r o f .  I c h i r o  A r a k i , Department of International and Business Law, Yokohama National 
University 
Panelists: 
Prof. John H. Jackson , University Professor of Geor getown University Law Center 
Dr. Frieder Roessler , Executive Director, Advisory Centre on WTO Law (ACWL); former Director of Legal 
Affairs Division, WTO 
Ambassador Datuk M. Supperamaniam , former Permanent Representative of Malaysia to WTO 
Mr. James P. Durling , Partner, Willkie Farr & Galagher, Washington DC 
 
6th Session Panel Discussion:  "WTO a nd Issues of Sustainable Development" 
Coordinator:   Prof. Shujiro Urata , Graduate School of Asia-Pacifi c Studies, Waseda University 
Panelists: 
Prof. Gary P. Sampson , Institute of Advanced Studies, United Nations University; former Senior Counsellor, 
WTO 
Mr. Mark Halle , Director and European Representative, International Institute for Sustainable Development 
(IISD) 
Dr. Chotiras Chavanich , President of Eastern Asia University, Thailand WT/AB/5 
Page 47 
 
 Thursday, 27 October 2005 (Morning)  
 
Free Trade Agreements and Business Activities in Asia 
 
7th Session Panel Discussion:  "Major Issues of Free Trade Agreements in Asia" 
Coordinator:   Prof. Junji Nakagawa , Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo 
Panelists:  
Prof. Dukgeun Ahn , Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University 
Prof. Guiguo Wang , School of Law, City University of Hong Kong 
Prof. Chin Leng Lim , Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore 
Prof. Chang-fa Lo , Dean, College of Law,  Taiwan University 
Prof. Lawan Thanadsillapakul , Institute for International Economic & Business Law Studies, Thailand 
 
Thursday, 27 October 2005 (Afternoon)  
 
8th Session Panel Discussion:  "Prospects of the Regional Economic Cooperation in APEC" 
Coordinator:   Dr. Charles A. Barrett , Senior Executive Advisor, The Conference Board of Canada 
Panelists: 
Prof. Zhang Yuqing , Advisor, Shanghai WTO Affairs Consultation Center 
Ms. Margaret Liang , Consultant, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore 
Prof. Gabrielle Marceau , Counsellor, Cabinet of Director-General Pascal Lamy, WTO; University of Geneva 
Prof. Nohyoung Park , Director, International Economic Law Institute of Korea, Korea University 
 
Closing Remarks:   
Mr. Kaoru Ishikawa , Director-General, Economic Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
Prof. Yasuhei Taniguchi , Chairman of the Appellate Body, WTO; Faculty of Contemporary Law, Tokyo Keizai 
University 
Professor Emeritus , Kyoto University 
_______________WT/AB/5 
Page 48  
 TENTATIVE PROG RAMMES FOR 2006 
 
 
 
The WTO at 10 
The Role of Developing Countries in  Negotiations and Dispute Settlement 
 
11 to 13 February 2006 
Cairo, Egypt 
 
DRAFT PROGRAM 
 
Saturday, 11 February 2006 (Morning)  
 
Opening Session: 
• Overall introduction to conference 
• Tribute to Said El-Naggar, Former Appellate Body Member 
 
1st Session:  "The WTO at Ten:  From Marrakesh to Hong Kong and Beyond" 
• Objective: Stock-taking after the Hong Kong Minist erial held in December, providing, at the same 
time, an introduction to the main areas covered by the ongoing Doha Development Agenda 
negotiations.  The initial speaker  would trace the history of the GATT/WTO, looking at how 
negotiations initially focused on tariffs, followed by rules relating to trade in goods and then expanding 
into new sectors, such as services, and intellect ual property.  The other speakers would focus on 
particular sectors, namely, non-agricultural goo ds, including textiles (referred to as "NAMA");  
agriculture; services; and, intellectual pr operty, including access to medicines. 
 
Saturday, 11 February 2006 (Afternoon)  
 
2nd Session:  "Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO Agreements and its Relationship to the 
Basic Principles Underlying th e Multilateral Trading System" 
• Objective: Present a survey of the provisions in the covered agre ements relating to special and 
differential treatment ("S&D") for developing and least-developed countries and of how these 
provisions have been applied in practice.  Examine the relationship between the S&D provisions and 
the basic principles underlying the multilateral trading system, such as national treatment and most-
favoured nation treatment.  Assess the effectivene ss of current S&D provis ions and discuss S&D 
proposals made in the context of the Doha Development Agenda. 
 
3rd Session:  "How Can Developing Countries Part icipate More Effectively in  Trade Negotiations?" 
• Objective: Discuss developing country participation in GATT/WTO negotiations.  The discussion 
could include a comparison of the experiences of diff erent developing countries (such as Egypt, Brazil, 
and India) in the negotiations.  Capacity-building efforts in the area of trade negotiations could also be 
assessed.  Linkages between negotiations and dispute settlement could also be explored. 
 WT/AB/5 
Page 49 
 
 Sunday, 12 February 2006 (Morning)  
 
4th Session:  "Developing Country Participation in Dispute Settlement Proceedings:  Who, What, Why 
and How?" 
• Objective: Provide an overview of WTO dispute se ttlement procedures.  Assess the participation of 
developing countries in WTO dispute settlement.  The discussion could include looking at the 
experience that particular developing countries have had as participants in the system.  It could also 
examine proposals for building capacity in the area of dispute settlement. 
 
5th Session:  "The Rules of the Game:  Can the DSU Be Clarified and Improved to Assist Developing 
Countries?" 
• Objective: Review the stat e-of-play of the DSU review negotiations , focusing on the participation of 
developing countries in the negotiations and on the proposals relating to developing country 
participation in dispute settlement.  
 
Sunday, 12 February 2006 (Afternoon)  
 
6th Session:  "Dispute Settlement in Practice – Mult ilateral Rules on Trade Remedies: Case Study 1 – 
The US – Steel Safeguards dispute" 
• Objective: The case study will be conducted as a workshop.  The dispute will be used to review the 
procedural stages that are followed in a WTO disput e.  Relevant substantive issues relating to the 
Agreement on Safeguards and trade in industrial g oods will also be discussed.  The participation of 
developing countries in this dispute will also be examined. 
 
7th Session:  "Dispute Settlement in Practice – Multila teral Rules on Trade Remedies:  Case study 2 – 
The EC – Bed Linen  dispute" 
• Objective:  This case study also will be conducted as a workshop.  The review of WTO dispute 
settlement procedures will include proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU.  Relevant substantive 
issues relating to the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and trade in textiles will also be discussed.  The 
participation of developing countries in this dispute will also be examined. 
 
Monday, 13 February 2006 (Morning)  
 
8th Session:  "The Role of the Appellate Body and its Contribution to the Development of the Law" 
• Objective: Examine the role of the Appellate Body in the WTO dispute settlement system and asses its 
jurisprudence.  Also, examine the Appellate Body's broader contribution to the international dispute 
settlement, including a comparison with other international dispute settlement institutions. 
 
Closing Session:   "The Relationship Be tween Negotiations and Dispute Settlement" 
• Objective: Discuss possible conclusions that could be drawn from the previous sessions, particularly 
looking at the links between trade negotiations and dispute settlement.  
 
__________