RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/227 
19 April 2007 
 (07-1615) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
8 March 2007  
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 8 March 2007  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Bruce Gosper (Australia) 
 
 
1. European Communities – Regime for the impo rtation, sale and distribution of bananas 
(a) Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador :  Request for the establishment of a panel 
(WT/DS27/80) 
1. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Ecuador contained in document 
WT/DS27/80, and invited the repr esentative of Ecuador to speak. 
2. The representative of Ecuador  said that his country wished  to thank the Chairman for 
accepting Ecuador's request to convene the present mee ting.  Ecuador regretted that the first meeting 
chaired by Mr. Gosper had to address the longest-running dispute in the history of the GATT and the 
WTO.  Ecuador would not repeat either the b ackground of its case or legal arguments since those 
were adequately explained in its panel request. He underlined that it was Ecuador's desire to seek a 
negotiated solution to its concerns with regard to the discriminati on and illegalities that existed under 
the EC banana import regime.  He recalled that over a year ago, his country had agreed to take part in 
the Good Offices process initiated at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, which had been presided 
over by the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs.  It was Ecuador's hope that a prompt solution to 
this long-standing impasse could be secured.  In spite of the extended time-period, Ecuador had 
continued to seek further steps down the negotiating path, and had requested consultations with the 
EC, even though such consultations were not require d under Article 21.5 of the DSU, with a view to 
providing a fresh opportunity for a negotiated soluti on.  However, no immediate concrete proposal 
had been forthcoming from the EC in response to Ecuador's action. 
3. Ecuador was seriously affected by the new EC  banana import regime, which had been in 
place since 1 January 2006.  According to EURO STAT data; i.e. figures released by the EC,  
Ecuador's share of the EC market had contracted by  4 per cent in 2006 and its exports had declined by 
almost 3 per cent.  At the same time, the ACP c ountries' exports had increased by more than 20 per 
cent and they had even exported more than 200, 000 tonnes over and above the tariff-free quota of 
775,000 tonnes from which they benefited.  The EC re presented a large market.  That market needed 
clear rules, and it was necessary to remove discrim inatory and distortionary measures in force under 
the EC regime. Ecuador's banana sector, on which more than one million people;  i.e. 10 per cent of 
the population, depended was suffocated by the curren t situation as well as by the grim prospects that 
the situation could continue.  This  was understandable given the fact that since the implementation of 
the new EC banana import regime, and as a result of the new €176/tonne tariff, Ecuadorian producers 
and exporters had had to pay an additional US$131 million.  Although this figure represented slightly 
less than half of the EC aid granted to Canary Is land banana producers, such an amount had a huge 
impact on Ecuador's small economy.  In light of th e foregoing, Ecuador had been forced to request a WT/DSB/M/227 
Page 2  
 
  ruling by the DSB in respect of this situation, sin ce it considered that its claims were fair and must, 
once again, be endorsed by the WTO, as had been done on countless previous occasions through 
Appellate Body rulings and arbitr ation proceedings.  Ecuador had fu ll faith in WTO institutions and 
urged the DSB to establish a panel at the present meeting. Ecuador, once again, reaffirmed its 
willingness to continue to seek, at all stages of the proceedings, a negotiated solution which, by means 
of real, concrete proposals for immediate implemen tation, would promptly settle this long-standing 
dispute once and for all.  A definitive settlement w ould allow Ecuador to allocate its resources to the 
benefit of the banana sector and other national objectives. 
4. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the EC wished to express its 
surprise and disappointment at Ecuador's action.  Without prejudice to Ecuador's rights under the 
DSU, the constructive climate at the WTO cons ultations held in December 2006 as well as the 
statements made by Ecuador before the DSB had seemed to indicate the willingness of Ecuador and 
other WTO Members to pursue a negotiated solution in  2007 to the benefit of all. Instead, Ecuador 
had opted for bringing a case mostly focused on the pref erential treatment offered to some of the most 
vulnerable WTO Members, which, in addition, had received multilateral consent.  The EC was also 
obliged to strongly object to the invocation of Article 21.5 of DSU as the basis for Ecuador's request. 
The EC reiterated its position that the current EC  banana import regime was not a "measure to 
comply" with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in the Bananas III dispute, which had 
been adopted almost a decade ago. Those r ecommendations and rulings had already been 
implemented in 2001.  The EC was committed to maintaining MFN access to its market.  According 
to the statistics available thus far, such access had increased as compared to access in previous years 
(by almost 11 per cent  as compared to 2005 and by 7 per cent as compared to the average 2002-
2005).  The EC commitments did not include a commitment to "guarantee specific market shares", but only equivalent market access.  The EC must, th erefore, object to Ecuador's request for the 
establishment of a panel. 
5. The representative of Colombia
 said that her country had always advocated a negotiated 
solution to the bananas dispute and, therefore, welcomed Ecuador's insistence on seeking such a 
solution to this issue.  During the consultations re quested by Ecuador under Article 21.5 of the DSU,  
Colombia, as an interested third party, had st ated that Council Regulation (EC) No. 1964/2005 
regarding the importation of bananas into the EC was inconsistent with the following WTO 
provisions:  (i) Article II:2 of the GATT 1994, given th at the application of the €176/mt tariff to MFN 
banana imports was in excess of the rate undertak en by the EC in its Schedule of Concessions;  
(ii) Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, given that only bananas of ACP origin were eligible for the zero-
tariff rate;  and (iii) Articles XIII:1, XIII:2 a nd XIII:5 of the GATT 1994, given that the waiver 
granted to the EC with regard to preferen tial tariff-rate quota allocation had expired on 
31 December 2005, and had not been extended.  Unfortunately, almost three months had gone by 
since the initiation of the consultations in whic h Colombia had participated, but no further 
consultations had been scheduled.  Given the impor tance of bananas to its economy, Colombia would 
seek third-party status in the proceedings. 
6. The representative of Honduras  said that, as a country that struggled against poverty and 
employed thousands of workers in the bananas s ector, Honduras maintained a strong interest in 
securing full and fair access to the EC market.  In Honduras' view, the current EC arrangement 
unfairly restricted access for Honduras' banana sector,  which was an important sector of its economy.  
In 2006, Honduras' banana sector had sustained a 5 per cent decline in volume to the EC market, a 
16 per cent reduction in its share of the EC market a nd a 37 per cent decline in imports value into the 
EC.  Thus it was clear that it was necessary to improve market access.  In order to help safeguard this vital sector of its economy, Honduras must, once agai n, make clear – as it had done in 2002 – that it 
reserved all its substantive and procedural rights to  seek redress EC's non-compliance in this dispute.  WT/DSB/M/227 
 Page 3 
 
 
  7. The representative of Panama  said that his country supported Ecuador's request for the 
establishment of a panel.  Panama, like Ecuador, c onsidered that the measures taken by the EC to 
comply with the recommendations in the Bananas III  dispute and other related proceedings had failed 
to meet the EC's obligations. The EC was applying:  (i) an ACP tariff quota, which violated Article XIII of the GATT 1994 and was not covered by  a waiver;  (ii) a huge ACP tariff preference, 
which violated Article I of the GATT 1994 and wa s not covered by a waiver;  and (iii) an 
"autonomous" customs duty, which was in violation of the most basic rights in this area.  Given that these illegal measures threatened one of the most important agricultural crops for Panama and its 
8,000 banana workers, Panama intended to partic ipate in these proceedings  to the fullest extent 
possible in order to protect its best trade interests. 
8. The representative of Jamaica
 said that the issue of bananas had had a long and difficult 
history.  It was not until recently that there had been a glimmer of hope as there had seemed to be a 
strong commitment by the parties concerned to seek  a negotiated solution.  Jamaica had welcomed 
this and regretted that the consid eration of this matter had evolved in such a manner that there was 
now a request before the DSB for the establishment of  a panel. The likely impact of such a move on 
the banana industry in Jamaica, and indeed in th e countries of the wider ACP Group, could not be 
overemphasized.  In that regard, Jamaica continue d to underscore the vital importance of preferences 
and the banana industry to the very survival of AC P economies, which also contributed to the fight of 
poverty.  The objective was to ensure that the long- term interests of Jamaica and other ACP banana 
suppliers were preserved in this process.  That was why Jamaica supported a constructive consultation 
process leading to a solution that would meet the inte rests of all parties.  However, should a panel be 
established, Jamaica wished to signal its intentio n to participate as a third party in the panel's 
proceedings. 
9. The representative of Cameroon  said that his country shared the strong disappointment 
expressed by the EC and endorsed the statement that  had just been made by Jamaica. In Cameroon's 
view, the objective of Ecuador was aimed at attacking the preferential treatment that had been granted 
to  ACP countries.  As stated by the EC, the door was open to negotiations.  In Cameroon's view, only 
negotiations could bring about the best solution.  He  noted that Ecuador had referred to statistics and 
had stated that, in 2006, the ACP countries had increa sed their exports by 20 per cent and had referred 
to the figure of 200,000 tonnes. Ecuador had also stated that its bananas industry employed one million people. He believed that quoting statistics did not serve th e right objective. Cameroon had 
suffered a decline in exports to the EC market , and its farmers questioned why Ecuador, which 
exported to the United States and to other North American countries as well as to Japan, sought the 
EC market so strongly and why it attacked the ACP preferential treatment.  He said that Cameroon 
believed that the objective of the establishment of  a panel was to attack the ACP preferential 
treatment and that the EC market was their mark et.  However, it was not possible to force other 
countries to open markets since rules and regulations had to be respected. 
10. The representative of the Dominican Republic
 said that her country wished to express its 
disappointment and deep concern about Ecuador's decision to request the establishment of a panel 
under Article 21.5 of the DSU instead of trying to secure a negotiated solution,  as had been the stated 
intention at the consultations held on 14 December 2006.  Her country wished to reiterate that both 
the banana industry and the preferences granted to the ACP countries by the EC were vital to the 
survival of thousands of resource-poor producers.  Her country hoped that there was still a possibility 
of reaching a satisfactory settlement of the matter without the need to have recourse to a dispute 
settlement panel and without jeopardizing the ACP banana industry.  Her country, nevertheless, 
wished to reserve its rights in the proceedings, shoul d Ecuador decide to continue to proceed with its 
panel request. 
11. The representative of the United States  said that, as his delegation had previously stated many 
times, the United States had looked forward to this di spute finally being resolved at the beginning of WT/DSB/M/227 
Page 4  
 
  2006, and to the EC shifting to a tariff-only regime  as it had committed to do in 2001.  Ecuador's 
request at the present meeting underscored the concer ns of Members with the current EC regime, and 
only affirmed the need for the EC to work with interested Members to reach a resolution to this 
matter. 
12. The representative of Côte d'Ivoire
 said that his country fully supported the statement made 
by the EC and believed that, at this stage, Ecua dor's request should be rejected.  He noted that 
Ecuador had not mentioned that bad weather conditions had preven ted some countries from achieving 
high levels of production and, hen ce, high levels of exports.  He did not wish to go into details 
regarding this matter at the present meeting.  He onl y wished to reiterate that Ecuador's request should 
be rejected.  In the context of its consultations, Ec uador had assured the parties that there would be no 
recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU, but now Ecua dor had recourse to WTO proceedings.  This had 
caused dismay to his country and had obliged his au thorities to send experts from capital.  That meant 
expenses for a developing country such as Côte d'I voire.  Therefore, his country was surprised and 
astonished at Ecuador's action.  He noted that Côte d'Ivoire would maintain its interest to participate 
in all discussions to be carried out in the course of the proceedings. 
13. The representative of Nicaragua  said that her country supported Ecuador's request.  The 
banana dispute had gone on for too long without any settlement.  For Nicaragua, the continued 
absence of a solution meant that its banana industr y was without any prospect of entering the EC 
banana market.  As Ecuador's requ est made clear, this matter fell pr operly under Article 21.5 of the 
DSU.  Consistent with the deve loping-country provisions under Artic le 21 of the DSU, Ecuador was 
entitled to a prompt and expeditious review of its request. 
14. The representative of Costa Rica  said that his country was one of  the substantial suppliers to 
the EC banana market and had a strong interest in  any discussions on this matter.  According to the 
statistics for the first year during which the new re gime had been in place;  i.e. 2006, MFN exports 
had increased in overall terms.  However, there were differences within  MFN exporting countries. 
Costa Rica was one of those countries that had incr eased its exports while exports of other Latin 
American countries had declined.  The increas e for MFN countries was modest, while the ACP 
exports had increased enormously.  Costa Rica wa s concerned about the excessively high rate of 
growth of those that benefited from the preferential regime.  The WTO was about trade liberalization.  
Countries were engaged in multilatera l trade negotiations aimed at elim inating or reducing distortions, 
including discrimination caused by preferences.  Th erefore, his country was extremely concerned that 
the new EC regime was generating ACP exports to the EC market at unprecedented levels.  The new 
regime promoted a huge increase in preferential expo rts.  That was the first conclusion to be drawn 
from the statistics for 2006 compared with previous y ears.  Costa Rica's export growth in 2006 and in 
relation to the statistics for 2002 – 2005 was modest , and could never be compared with the annual 
growth rates of 22.5 per cent in case of the Dominican Republic and 24 per cent in case of Côte d'Ivoire.  The Dominican Republic had stated that it wished to maintain the situation since it enjoyed 
22.5 per cent growth under the preferences.  Thus, th ese were not  the weakest countries, as was stated 
a moment ago.  Those countries had weather cond itions as well as the potential for development of 
economies of scale similar to those in Latin American  countries.  The ACP countries paid a zero-tariff 
rate, while Latin American countries paid a tariff rate of €176.  Costa Rica believed that the new 
regime had led to an abuse of preferences.  This had not been foreseen by the EC.  He recalled that 
when the EC had decided to establish a quota of 775,000 metric tonnes for the ACP countries, it had 
stated that if Latin American exporte rs had to pay a tariff rate of €176/mt and if that were to lead to an 
increase of ACP exports, the quota would guarantee that ACP exports did not create greater distortions.  However, that had not worked.  The quota was not sufficient because the tariff was too 
high for Latin American countries.  The ACP coun tries had been able to  experience unprecedented 
growth in one year under the preferential regime.  WT/DSB/M/227 
 Page 5 
 
 
  15. At the present meeting, he did not wish to go into the reasons why Ecuador had taken a 
decision to request a panel after it had announced  in December 2006 that it would engage in 
negotiations.  A review of the figures, which had on ly recently become available to Ecuador when the 
EC's full-year import figures for 2006 had been publishe d, must have made Ecuador realize that the 
disproportionate growth of the ACP countries was a trend that was just beginning to manifest itself 
and that the trend would be maintained and w ould cause serious injury to MFN countries and EC 
producers.  Costa Rica believed that  the parties should engage in di alogue and negotiations.  In light 
of 2006 statistics, Costa Rica believed that MFN ba nana exporters, the EC and any other interested 
party should seek a negotiated settlement.  Costa Rica favoured negotiations and had welcomed the 
Good Offices carried out by Norway in 2006, an d the goodwill of the EC and Ecuador as well as 
others who had participated in that process, whic h had been open to all Latin American MFN banana 
exporters.  Costa Rica believed that, at some point, the parties would have to return to negotiations, 
and reiterated its strong interest in pa rticipating in any such negotiations. 
16. The representative of Suriname  said that trade liberalization was not an "open gate" for 
crushing small and vulnerable economies, especially small producers and exporters of bananas in the 
Caribbean and Africa.  Suriname was very disappoint ed by Ecuador's action for three reasons.  First, 
Ecuador and other Latin American countries ha d a monopoly position in exporting to the United 
States.  They exported a great deal of bananas to the United States.  The ACP countries were not exporting to the United States.  Second, Suriname had signed the ILO treaties on labour standards.  
However, Ecuador and some Latin American countries were not part of the ILO treaties.  Suriname 
could not compete with Latin American exports  and their way of production.  Those countries 
produced at low cost.  However, because of the ILO standards, Suriname could not produce at such 
low cost and this was why its exports to the EC  amounted to only 45,000 tonnes.  He asked why 
Ecuador was attacking small countries which produ ced small quantities, while Ecuador had a large 
market share in the United States.  This was not fair .  This was not the meaning of free trade and trade 
liberalization.  Third, all figures and statistics in the EC showed clearly and undoubtedly that exports 
from Ecuador and other Latin American countri es had increased in 2005 and 2006, and would 
continue to increase in 2007.  It was not true that  exports were decreasing.  Suriname supported the 
statements made by the EC, Jamaica, Cameroon, the Dominican Republic, Côte d'Ivoire and other 
producing and exporting countries of the Caribbean and Africa. 
17. The representative of Côte d'Ivoire
 said that he wished to respond to the statement made by 
Costa Rica regarding some statistics.  He said that statistics could be construed in different ways;  
percentages were one thing and abso lute values were another.  In 2006, in terms of absolute values, 
Côte d'Ivoire had exported 227,000 tonnes while Costa Rica had exported 820,000 tonnes.  Costa Rica's market share had increased by 31 per cent wh ile Côte d'Ivoire's share had increased by 24 per 
cent.  He said that those figures related to market  shares, but the WTO did not deal with market 
shares. The objective was to remove tariff and non-ta riff barriers to market access.  According to the 
statistics available, MFN exporters had increased their exports by more than 10 million tonnes in total, 
while ACP countries had increased their exports by less than 1 million tonnes.  The discussion at the 
present meeting had been taken out the context a nd should stop.  The issue before the DSB was 
whether or Ecuador's request should be accepted. The banana exporting countries needed to meet 
outside of this forum.  The ACP and Latin Americ an countries must meet to see how to solve this 
issue.  If not, statistics would be presented and inte rpreted in different ways and there would be no 
solution.  Finally, Côte d'Ivoire wished to reite rate that it would like to see progress regarding this 
matter. 
18. The representative of Costa Rica
 said that first he wished to clarify one issue with regard to 
the statement made by Côte d'Ivoire.  If the 2006 figures for bananas imported by the EC from Costa 
Rica were compared to those in 2005, one could s ee that there had been a very large increase in 
exports.  However, the reason for this was that  there had been a drop in exports from Central 
American countries in 2005 as a result of natural disasters in the region at that time.  In 2006, Costa WT/DSB/M/227 
Page 6  
 
  Rica had not managed to export as much as it had done in 2004.  Therefore, there had been no 
increase in 2006 as compared to 2004.  There had been an increase relative to 2005 because Costa 
Rica's production had been affected by natural disasters.  There was no 30 per cent increase as 
referred to by Côte d'Ivoire.  From a broader pers pective, he wished to clarify a couple of points 
regarding the statement made by Suriname.  Firs t, Costa Rica did not attack small countries.  
Suriname with its surface of 163,000 km
2 was three times bigger than Costa Rica.  It was bigger than 
Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras or Panama. These we re very small countries with progressive labour 
legislations.  It was, therefore, a serious matter to criticize labour legislations of other countries.  
Suriname should examine Costa Rica's legislation a nd its history regarding labour issues.  Costa Rica 
had never tried to save on social costs in order to be  able to become more competitive on international 
markets.  The ACP countries questioned why some co untries wanted to enter the EC market which the 
ACP countries tended to consider as their market.  He wished to make it clear that the EC market was 
not exclusively reserved for ACP countries just as the US market was not only reserved for Latin American countries.  Markets were open to any count ry that wished to compete and had the ability to 
compete.  This was what the WTO stood for and not for preferential arrangements that resulted in 
situations like the one under discussi on.  This showed that 50 or 60 y ears of preferential treatment had 
led some countries to believe that no other country should attempt to penetrate the markets that they 
considered to be their market.  These markets were not theirs.  Although the issue before the DSB was 
whether or not a panel should be established, the discussion at the present meeting was related to the 
debate carried out in the context of the negotiations  on preferences.  It seemed that these negotiations 
would be complicated and there would be no simple solution. 
19. The representative of Nicaragua
 said that her delegation did not wish to enter into an 
argument.  It believed that the DSB was not the right place to do so.  The only issue at the present 
meeting was whether or not Ecuador was entitled to the establishment of a compliance panel.  Nicaragua believed that Ecuador was entitled to su ch a panel and the necessary authorization should 
be granted to it.  With reference to the statement made by Suriname, her dele gation wished to indicate 
that Nicaragua supported the signing of ILO Conven tions.  It had signed all conventions and only 
Convention 169 was still under discu ssion. Nicaragua had not only signe d the core conventions, but it 
had also fully complied with them. 
20. The representative of Guatemala
 said that her country had noted the request submitted by 
Ecuador for the establishment of a panel.  As an original complainant in the EC – Bananas III case, 
Guatemala had a trade interest and a significant systemic interest in the bananas dispute and 
accordingly reserved its rights unde r the WTO Agreement.  Guatemala was a constructive participant 
in the 2006 Good Offices process conducted by Norway.  The Good Offices process had made 
considerable headway with regard to the nego tiation of a "banana package".  Guatemala was 
concerned that recourse to legal action would undermine the progress which had already been made 
during the discussions under the good offices process, in  particular because her country was, and had 
always been, an advocate of a negotiated solution to this issue.  Guatemala, therefore, called upon the 
EC to re-establish as soon as possible a negotiating process with all interested parties, aimed at 
addressing and resolving once and for all the concerns  voiced by Latin American countries.  A clear 
and effective signal from the EC was now required to  prevent further rekindling of the banana saga. 
21. The representative of Colombia  said that her delegation wished to make two points.  First, 
Colombia statement was a legal statement because it  believed that the DSB was a forum to discuss 
legal matters and not to exchange accusations.  Colombia did not think that the DSB was an 
appropriate forum to deal with statistics or to discuss market shares.  Second, Colombia urged 
Members to maintain a minimum of respect and cordia lity in the context of the banana dispute.  The 
DSB should not deal with violations or accusations and urged all to be as calm as possible in dealing 
with the banana issue.  WT/DSB/M/227 
 Page 7 
 
 
  22. The representative of Panama  said that, in its first statement, his country had raised points of 
law concerning what it understood to be the functio n of the DSB. Ecuador had proposed legal action.  
Panama had set forth the reasons why it supporte d Ecuador's legal action taken pursuant to the 
provisions of the WTO Agreements.  This legal re medy must be pursued and Panama would take the 
necessary steps in that regard.  With regard to th e statement made by Suriname, he said that Panama 
subscribed to and respected all international obl igations concerning labour rights.  Banana trade 
unions in Panama were particularly  vigilant and had one of the high est levels of membership of any 
industry in Panama.  His delegation invited the repr esentative of Suriname to familiarize himself, in 
the relevant Organization, with the fact that Pa nama accorded importance to labour rights as well as 
other Latin American countries that Suriname had referred to.  Panama echoed Colombia's call for 
calm, and that this matter to be ha ndled appropriately, within the rules which all must all abide by in 
the WTO. 
23. The representative of Cameroon  said that the statement that he had made previously was an 
executive summary, and that he had a document set ting forth legal arguments which his delegation 
would submit to the Secretariat.1  He noted that, as in the past, his country would not accept third-
party status in the banana panel,  but would be formally seeking the right to full-party status in the 
proceedings. 
24. The representative of Ecuador  said that it was not his country's intention to engage, before the 
DSB, in a legal debate, or to discuss facts or any statistics that should be brought before the Panel for 
consideration.  The agenda item was clear and una mbiguous.  Accordingly, Ecuador insisted that a 
decision be made concerning its request for the es tablishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the 
DSU.  Ecuador strongly disagreed with the comments made by Suriname, who had accused some 
countries, including Ecuador of not complying with labour standards.  Ecuador noted that, on the Swiss market, Ecuadorian bananas ha d the Max Havelaar Fair Trade la bel, which demonstrated that 
Ecuador complied with all labour and environmental legislations. 
25. The representative of St. Kitts and Nevis
, speaking also on behalf of St. Lucia, said that Saint 
Lucia and the other Windward Island producers of bananas had been encouraged by the expressions 
of conciliation made by Ecua dor during the consultation which had taken place on 
15 December 2006.  It was their view then that an alternative route would be pursued in resolution of 
this issue.  It was therefore against this backdrop th at the countries in question regretted that this route 
had been chosen. They hoped that an alternative and a more amicable solution could be sought in 
resolution of this very important issue and that dele gations would work in a cooperative way to ensure 
that the interests of all producers were taken into acc ount.  Finally, they also asked to be granted third-
party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
26. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
__________ 
                                                      
1 Subsequently circulated in WT/DS27/81.