. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/DS386/16 
3 July 2012 
 (12-3549) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) 
REQUIREMENTS 
 
Joint Communication from Mexico and the United States 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 28 June 2012, from the delegation of Mexico and the 
delegation of the United States to the Presiding Memb er of the Appellate Body Division in this 
dispute, is circulated at the request of those delegations.  
_______________ 
 
 
Mexico and the United States ("the parties to the dispute") are in receipt of the 
communication dated 21 May 2012, from the Appellat e Body to the Chair of the Dispute Settlement 
Body.
1   In that communication, the Appellate Body stat es that it would not be able to issue its report 
in the above-referenced appeal within 60 days.  The communication also indicates that the Appellate 
Body expects that it will not be able to circulat e its report within the 90-day time limit set out in 
Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes  
("DSU") and sets out certain reasons why this is  the case.  The communication states that the 
Appellate Body instead expects to circulate its report by Friday, 29 June.   
 
The parties note that the Division hearing this a ppeal did not consult with them on its need to 
exceed the 90-day time limit.  We consider that, consistent with the practice of Members and the Appellate Body until 2011, the Appellate Body sh ould consult with the parties and obtain their 
agreement to receive reports that are to be circ ulated after the deadline provided for in the DSU.
2  
                                                      
1 WT/DS384/14 (23 May 2012); WT/DS386/13 (23 May 2012). 
2 See, e.g. , United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute (AB) 
(WT/DS320/AB/R) and Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute (AB) 
(WT/DS321/AB/R), para. 29 (adopted 14 November 2008) (" After consultation  with the Appellate Body 
Secretariat, Canada, the European Communities, and the United States each agreed  that it would not be 
possible for the Appellate Body to circulate its Reports in these appeals within the 90-day time-limit referred to 
in Article 17.5 of the DSU.  Canada, the European Communities, and the United States agreed  that additional 
time was needed ... . ") (italics added; footnote omitted); United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton: Recourse 
to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil  (AB) (WT/DS267/AB/RW), para. 14 (adopted 20 June 2008) (" After 
consultation  with the Appellate Body Secretariat, Brazil and the United States agreed , in a joint letter dated 
19 March 2008, 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 Artic le 17.5 of the DSU. ") (italics added); European Communities − Export 
Subsidies on Sugar  (AB)
 (WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R), para. 7 (adopted 19 May 
2005) (" After consultation  with the Appellate Body Secretariat, the European Communities and Australia, 
Brazil, and Thailand agreed , in letters filed on 19 January 2005, 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.") 
(italics added); United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton  (AB) (WT/DS267/AB/R), para. 8 (adopted 21 March 
2005) (" After consultation  with the Appellate Body Secretariat, Brazil and the United States noted , in letters 
filed on 10 December 2004, that it would not be possible for the Appellate Body to circulate its Report in this WT/DS386/16 
Page 2  
 
  We particularly regret the lack of consultation with the Division hearing this appeal given that 
the parties would have been willing to positively co nsider a communication from the Division of its 
need for additional time.
 3  While we note our understanding that fu rther delays will not be required in 
upcoming disputes given the anticipated workload of  the Appellate Body in the immediate future, 
should delays in the circulation of reports beyond  the 90-day deadline be again considered necessary, 
we would expect a return to the Appellate Body's pre-2011 practice. 
 Without prejudice to our positions on how the conc erns set out above should be addressed by 
Members, the Appellate Body and the DSB, in the interests of restoring predictability for the disputing parties and in the current circumstances Mexico and the United States hereby confirm that 
they will each consider an Appellate Body Repo rt circulated in this proceeding no later than 
29 June 2012, to be an Appellate Body Report ci rculated pursuant to Article 17.5 of the DSU. 
 
__________  
                                                                                                                                                                     
appeal within the 90-day time limit referred to in Article 17.5 of the DSU.  Brazil and the United States agreed  
that additional time was needed ... .") (italics added). 
3  In this regard, we note that Members continue to demonstrate their willingness to cooperate with the 
Appellate Body in relation to any need for additional time.  See, e.g. , Joint Communication from the United 
States and Mexico, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and 
Tuna Products  (WT/DS381/13) (19 April 2012); Joint Communi cation from the United States and China, China 
– Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials  (WT/DS394/14) (13 January 2012); 
Communication from the Unit ed States and China, United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Certain Products from China  (WT/DS379/7) (8 February 2011).