WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/AB/15 
18 July 2011 
 (11-3554) 
  
  
 
     
 
    
 
  
APPELLATE BODY 
 
 
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010 
  
 
  
JULY 2011 
   
   
 
 
     
 
    
 
    
 
     
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/15 
Page i 
 
 
  CONTENTS 
  
I.  Introduction .................................................................................................................. ............... 1  
II.  Composition of the Appellate Body ............................................................................................ 4 
III.  Appeals........................................................................................................................ ................ 4  
IV.  Appellate Body  Reports ........................................................................................................ ...... 6 
V.  Participants and Third Participants in Appeals ......................................................................... 14  
VI.  Working Procedures for Appellate Review .............................................................................. 15  
VII. Arbitrations under Article  21.3(c) of the DSU .......................................................................... 18  
VIII. Technical Assistance .......................................................................................................... ....... 18 
IX.  Other Activities .............................................................................................................. ........... 18  
ANNEX 1 Members of the Appellate Body – 1 January to 31 December 2010:  
Biographical notes  ....................................................................................................... 21 
ANNEX 2 Former Appellate Body Me mbers and Chairpersons ................................................... 24 
ANNEX 3 Appeals file d: 1995–2010 ............................................................................................ 2 6 
ANNEX 4 Percentage of panel reports appealed  by year of adoption: 1995–2010 ....................... 27 
ANNEX 5 WTO agreements addressed in Appellate Body reports circulated 
through 2010 ................................................................................................................ 2 8 
ANNEX 6 Participants and third participants in appeals: 1995–2010 ........................................... 29 ANNEX 7 Appellate Body Secretariat participation in technical assistance, training, and 
other activities in 2010 ................................................................................................. 49 
ANNEX 8 WTO dispute settlement reports a nd arbitration awar ds: 1995–2010 .......................... 52 WT/AB/15 
Page ii  
 
  ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT 
 
Abbreviation Description 
Anti-Dumping Agreement Agreement on Implementati on of Article VI of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade 1994   
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  
Rules of Conduct  Rules of Conduct for the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes , adopted by the DSB on 
3 December 1996, WT/DSB/RC/1 
SCM Agreement  Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  
SPS  sanitary and phytosanitary  
SPS Agreement  Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
TBT Agreement Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade   
TRIMs Agreement Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures   
TRIPS Agreement Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights   
Vienna Convention Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties , done at Vienna, 23 May 
1969, 1155 UNTS 331; 8 International Legal Materials 679  
Working Procedures Working Procedures for Appellate Review , WT/AB/WP/5,  
4 January 2005 (the provisions of which apply to appeals initiated 
prior to 15 September 2010);  and Working Procedures for Appellate 
Review , WT/AB/WP/6, 16 August 2010 (the provisions of which apply 
to appeals initiated on or after 15 September 2010) 
WTO World Trade Organization 
WTO Agreement Marra kesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization  
 WT/AB/15 
Page 1 
 
 
  WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
APPELLATE BODY  
 
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010 
 
 
 
I. Introduction 
This Annual Report provides a summary of the activities undertaken in 2010 by the Appellate 
Body and its Secretariat. 
Dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO) is regulated by the 
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Go verning the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), which is one 
of the agreements annexed to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization  
(WTO Agreement ).  According to Article 3.2 of the DSU, "[t]he dispute settlement system of the 
WTO is a central element in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system."  
Article 3.2 further provides that the dispute settlement system " serves to preserve the rights and 
obligations of Members under the c overed agreements, and to clarify the existing provisions of those 
agreements in accordance with cu stomary rules of interpretation of public international law."  The 
dispute settlement system is administered by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), which is composed 
of all WTO Members. 
A WTO Member may have recourse to the rules and procedures established in the DSU if it 
"considers that any benefits accruing to it directly  or indirectly under the covered agreements are 
being impaired by measures taken by another Member".1  The DSU procedures apply to disputes 
arising under any of the covered agreements, which are listed in Appendix 1 to the DSU and include 
the WTO Agreement  and all the multilateral agreements annexe d to it relating to trade in goods, trade 
in services, and the protection of intellectual property rights, as well as the DSU itself.  Where the covered agreements contain special or additional rules and procedures in accordance with Article 1.2 
and Appendix 2 of the DSU, these rules or procedures pr evail to the extent that there is a difference.  
The application of the DSU to disputes under the plurilateral trade agreements annexed to the WTO 
Agreement  is subject to the adoption of decisions by the parties to these agreements setting out the 
terms for the application to the individual agreement.   
Proceedings under the DSU may be divided into se veral stages.  In the first stage, Members 
are required to hold consultations in an effort to  reach a mutually agreed solution to the matter in 
dispute.  If the consultations are not successful, th e dispute may advance to an adjudicative stage in 
which the complaining Member requests that the DSB establish a panel to examine the matter.  
Panelists are chosen by agreement of the parties; if  the parties cannot agree, either party may request 
that the composition of the panel be determined by the WTO Director-General.  Panels shall be 
composed of well-qualified governmental and/or non-governmental individuals with expertise in international trade law or policy.  The panel's f unction is to "make an objective assessment of the 
matter before it, including an objective assessment of  the facts of the case and the applicability of and 
conformity with the relevant c overed agreements, and make such other findings as will assist the DSB 
in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in the covered agreements."
2  
The panel process includes written submissions by the ma in parties and also by third parties that have 
notified their interest in the dispute to the DSB.  Panels usually hold two mee tings with the parties, 
one of which also includes a session with third parti es.  Panels set out their factual and legal findings 
                                                      
1Article 3.3 of the DSU. 
2Article 11 of the DSU. WT/AB/15 
Page 2  
 
  in an interim report that is subject to comments by the parties.  The final report is issued to the parties, 
and is then circulated to all WTO Members in the three official languages of the WTO (English, 
French, and Spanish) and posted on the WTO website. 
Article 17 of the DSU stipulates that a sta nding Appellate Body will be established by the 
DSB.  The Appellate Body is composed of seven Me mbers each appointed to a four-year term, with a 
possibility to be reappointed once.  The expiration da tes of terms are staggered, ensuring that not all 
Members begin and complete their terms at the same  time.  Members of the Appellate Body must be 
persons of recognized authority; with demonstrated  expertise in law, international trade, and the 
subject matter of the covered ag reements generally;  and not be affiliated with any government.  
Members of the Appellate Body should be broadly representative of the membership of the WTO.  
Appellate Body Members elect a Chairperson to serve a one-year term, which can be extended for an 
additional one-year period.  The Chairperson is responsible for the overall direction of Appellate 
Body business.  Each appeal is heard by a Division of three Appellate Body Members.  The process for the selection of Divisions is designed to ensu re randomness, unpredictability, and opportunity for 
all Members to serve, regardless of their national or igin.  To ensure consistency and coherence in 
decision-making, Divisions exchange views with the other four Members of the Appellate Body 
before finalizing Appellate Body  reports.  The Appellate Body receives legal and administrative 
support from its Secretariat.  The conduct of Members of the Appellate Body and its staff is regulated 
by the Rules of Conduct for the Understanding on Rul es and Procedures Governing the Settlement of 
Disputes  (Rules of Conduct ).
3  These Rules emphasize that Appellate Body Members shall be 
independent, impartial, and a void any direct or indirect conflict of interest.   
Any party to the dispute may appeal the pane l report to the Appellate Body.  WTO Members 
that were third parties at the panel stage may also  participate and make written and oral submissions 
in the appellate proceedings, but they may not appeal the panel report.  The appeal is limited to issues 
of law covered in the panel report and legal inte rpretations developed by the panel.  Appellate 
proceedings are conducted in accordance with th e procedures established in the DSU and the Working 
Procedures for Appellate Review4 (the " Working Procedures "), drawn up by the Appellate Body in 
consultation with the Chairman of the DSB and th e Director-General of the WTO, and communicated 
to WTO Members for their information.  Proceedings  include the filing of written submissions by the 
participants and the third participants, and an oral he aring.  The Appellate Body report is circulated to 
WTO Members in the three official languages with in 90 days of the date when the appeal was 
initiated, and is posted on the WTO website immediately upon circulation to Members.5  In its report, 
the Appellate Body may uphold, modify, or reverse th e legal findings and conclu sions of the panel.   
Panel and Appellate Body repor ts must be adopted by WTO Members acting collectively 
through the DSB.  Under the reverse consensus ru le, a report is adopted by the DSB unless all WTO 
Members formally object to its adoption.6  Upon adoption, Appellate B ody reports and panel reports 
(as modified by the Appellate Body) become binding upon the parties. 
The final stage follows the adoption by the DSB of a panel or Appellate Body report that 
includes a finding of inconsistency of a measure of  the responding Member with its WTO obligations.  
                                                      
3The Rules of Conduct , as adopted by the DSB on 3 December 1996 (WT/DSB/RC/1), are directly 
incorporated into the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  (WT/AB/WP/6), as Annex II thereto. (See 
WT/DSB/RC/2, WT/AB/WP/W/2)  
4Working Procedures for Appellate Review , WT/AB/WP/5, 4 January 2005 (the provisions of which 
apply to appeals initiated prior to 15 September 2010);  and Working Procedures for Appellate Review , 
WT/AB/WP/6, 16 August 2010 (the provisions of which apply to appeals initiated on or after 
15 September 2010). 
5Shorter timeframes apply in disputes involving prohibited subsidies. (See Rule 31 of the Working 
Procedures ) 
6Articles 16.4 and 17.14 of the DSU. WT/AB/15 
Page 3 
 
 
  Article 21.3 of the DSU provides that the responding Member should in principle comply 
immediately.  However, where immediate compliance is  "impracticable", the responding Member 
shall have a reasonable period of time to implem ent the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  The 
"reasonable period of time" may be determined by the DSB, by agreement between the parties, or 
through arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  In such arbitration, a guideline for the 
arbitrator is that the reasonable period of time to implement pane l or Appellate Body 
recommendations should not exceed 15 months from th e date of adoption of a panel or Appellate 
Body report.  However, that time may be shorter or longer, depe nding upon the particular 
circumstances.  Arbitrators have indicated that the reasonable period of time shall be the shortest time 
possible in the implementing Member's legal system.  To date, arbitrations pursuant to Article 21.3(c) 
of the DSU have been conducted by current or former Appellate Body Members acting in an 
individual capacity. 
Where the parties disagree "as to existence or consistency with a covered agreement of 
measures taken to comply", the matter may be referre d to the original panel in what is known as 
"Article 21.5 compliance proceedings".  The repor t of the panel in the Article 21.5 compliance 
proceedings may be appealed.  Upon their adoption by  the DSB, panel and Appellate Body reports in 
Article 21.5 compliance proceedings become binding on the parties. 
If the responding Member does not bring its WTO- inconsistent measure into compliance with 
its obligations under the covered agreements within  the reasonable period of time, the complaining 
Member may request negotiations with the respon ding Member with a view to finding mutually 
acceptable compensation as a temporary and voluntary alternative to full compliance.  Compensation 
is subject to acceptance by the complaining Me mber, and must be consistent with the WTO 
agreements.  If no satisfactory compensation is ag reed upon, the complaining Member may request 
authorization from the DSB, pursuant to Article 22 of the DSU, to suspend the application of 
concessions or other obligations under the WTO agr eements to the responding Member.  The level of 
the suspension of concessions or other obligations au thorized by the DSB shall be equivalent to the 
level of the nullification or impairment  resulting from non-compliance with the DSB 
recommendations and rulings.  The responding Member  may request arbitration if it objects to the 
level of suspension proposed or considers that th e principles and procedures concerning the sector or 
covered agreement to which the suspension may appl y have not been followed.  In principle, the 
suspension of concessions or other obligations must re late to the same trade sector or agreement as the 
measure found to be inconsistent.  Ho wever, if this is impracticable or ineffective for the complaining 
Member and if circumstances are serious enough, the complaining party may seek authorization to suspend concessions with respect to other sectors or agreements.  Such arbitration shall be carried out 
by the original panel, if its members are availa ble.  Compensation and the suspension of concessions 
or other obligations are temporary measures;  ne ither is to be preferred to full implementation.
7  
A party to a dispute may request good offices,  conciliation, or mediation as alternative 
methods of dispute resolution at any time.8  In addition, under Article 25 of the DSU, WTO Members 
may have recourse to arbitration as an alternative to the regular procedures set out in the DSU and 
described above.9  Recourse to arbitration and the procedur es to be followed are subject to mutual 
agreement of the parties.10 
                                                      
7Article 22.1 of the DSU. 
8Article 5 of the DSU. 
9There has been only one recourse to  Article 25 of the DSU and it was not in lieu of panel or Appellate 
Body proceedings.  Rather, the purpose of that arbitration was to set an amount of compensation pending full compliance by the responding Member. (See Award of the Arbitrators, US – Section 110(5) Copyright Act 
(Article 25) ) 
10Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU apply mutatis mutandis  to decisions by arbitrators. WT/AB/15 
Page 4  
 
  II. Composition of the Appellate Body 
The Appellate Body is a standing body composed of seven Members appointed by the DSB 
for a term of four years with the possibility of  being reappointed once for another four-year term. 
The composition of the Appellate Body in 2010 is set out in Table 1. 
TABLE 1: COMPOSITION OF THE APPELLATE BO DY 1 JANUARY TO 31 DECEMBER 2010 
 
Name Nationality Term(s) of office 
Lilia R. Bautista Philippines 2007–2011 
Jennifer Hillman United States 2007–2011 
Shotaro Oshima Japan 2008–2012 
Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández Mexico 2009–2013 
David Unterhalter South Africa 2006–2009 
2009–2013 
Peter Van den Bossche Belgium 2009–2013 
Yuejiao Zhang China 2008–2012 
 
Pursuant to Rule 5(1) of the Working Procedures , David Unterhalter served as Chairman of 
the Appellate Body from 11 December 2009 to 16 December 2010.11  Appellate Body Members 
elected Lilia Bautista to serve as Chair of th e Appellate Body commencing on 17 December 2010.12 
Biographical information about the Members of th e Appellate Body is provided in Annex 1.  
A list of former Appellate Body Members a nd Chairpersons is provided in Annex 2. 
The Appellate Body receives legal and administrative support from the Appellate Body 
Secretariat, in accordance with Article 17.7 of th e DSU.  The Secretariat currently comprises a 
Director and a team of ten lawyers, one admi nistrative assistant, and three support staff.  
Werner Zdouc has been the Director of the Appellate Body Secretariat since 2006. 
III. Appeals  
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.  Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures  allows a party to the dispute other than  the initial appellant to join the appeal, 
or appeal on the basis of other alleged errors, by f iling a Notice of Other Appeal within 5 days of the 
filing of the Notice of Appeal. 
Three appeals were filed in 2010.  Two of the appeals included an "other appeal".  All three 
appeals related to original proceedings.  Further in formation regarding the three appeals filed in 2010 
is provided in Table 2. 
                                                      
11WT/DSB/50. 
12WT/DSB/52. WT/AB/15 
Page 5 
 
 
  TABLE 2: APPEALS FILED IN 2010 
 
Panel reports 
appealed Date of 
appeal Appellant a Document 
number Other 
  appellant  b Document 
number 
Australia – Apples 31 Aug 2010 Australia WT/DS367/13 
and Corr.1 New Zealand WT/DS367/14 
EC and certain member 
States – Large Civil Aircraft   21 July 2010 European 
Union WT/DS316/12 United States WT/DS316/13 
US – Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Duties 
(China)  1 Dec 2010 China WT/DS379/6 --- --- 
a Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures. 
b Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures. 
 
Information on the number of appeals filed each  year since 1995 is provided in Annex 3.  
Figure 1 shows the ratio of appeals dealing with orig inal disputes to appeals dealing with complaints 
brought pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
 
Nine panel reports were circulated during 2010.  For three of these reports, the 60-day 
deadline for adoption or appeal does not expire until 2011.13  Three other panel reports were adopted 
by the DSB without there having been an appeal.14  The three remaining panel reports were appealed 
during 2010.  Thus, three out of the six panel re ports for which the 60-day deadline expired in 2010 
were appealed, yielding an app eal rate for the year of 50%. 
Figure 2 shows the percentage of panel reports appealed by year of adoption since 1996.  No 
panel reports were appealed in 1995.   The overall average of panel reports that have been appealed 
from 1995 to 2010 is 67 per cent.  A breakdown of the pe rcentage of panel reports appealed each year 
is provided in Annex 4. 
                                                      
13The panel reports in Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines) , EC – Fasteners (China) , and US – Tyres 
(China)  were circulated on 15 November, 3 Decembe r, and 13 December 2010, respectively.   
14The panel reports in US – Anti-Dumping Measures on PET Bags ,  EC – IT Products , and US – Poultry 
(China)  were adopted by the DSB on 18 February, 21 September, and 25 October 2010, respectively. Figure 1: Appeals in original proceedin gs and Article 21.5 proceedings 1995–2010 WT/AB/15 
Page 6  
 
  0%20%40%60%80%100%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
 
   * Figure 2 is based on year of adoption by the DSB, which may not necessarily coincide with the year in which a panel 
report was circulated or appealed. 
 
IV. Appellate Body Reports 
One Appellate Body report was circulated duri ng 2010, the details of which are summarized 
in Table 3.  As of the end of 2010, the Appellate Body has circulated a total of 101 reports.  There 
were two appeals in progress at the end of 2010. 
TABLE 3: APPELLATE BODY REPO RTS CIRCULATED IN 2010 
 
Case Title Document number Date circulated Date adopted  
by the DSB 
Australia – Apples  WT/DS367/AB/R 29 Nov 2010 17 Dec 2010 
 
The following table shows which WTO agreemen ts were addressed in the Appellate Body 
report circulated in 2010. 
 
TABLE 4: WTO AGREEMENTS ADDRESSED IN APPELLATE BODY REPORTS  
CIRCULATED IN 2010 
 
Case Document number WTO agreements covered 
Australia – Apples  WT/DS367/AB/R SPS Agreement  
DSU  
 
Figure 3 shows the number of times specific WTO agreements have been addressed in the 
101 Appellate Body reports circulated from 1996 through 2010. 
 Figure 2: Percentage of panel reports appealed 1996–2010 * WT/AB/15 
Page 7 
 
 
  
78
62
2724
131077533 22DSU
GATT
1994
Anti-
Dumping
SCM
Agriculture
WTO
Agreement
Safeguards
SPS
GATS
TRIPS
ATC
TBT
Import
Licensing
 
 
Annex 5 contains a breakdown by year of the frequency with which the specific WTO 
agreements have been addressed in  appeals from 1996 through 2010. 
The Appellate Body's findings and conclusions in the Appellate Body report circulated in 
2010 are summarized below. 
Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples , WT/DS367/AB/R 
This dispute arose from a complaint brought by New Zealand with respect to 17 conditions 
imposed upon the importation of New Zealand a pples into Australia.  These measures were among 
those recommended in the Final import risk analysis report for apples from New Zealand  (the 
"IRA")15 and subsequently adopted by Australia's Dir ector of Animal and Plant Quarantine pursuant 
to the Quarantine Act 1908 .16 
New Zealand challenged 17 of the measures specifi ed in the IRA in relation to three pests, 
namely, fire blight, European canker and apple leafcurling midge ("ALCM").17  Such measures 
include:  requirements that apples be sourced fro m fire blight- and European canker-free orchards, 
requirements for the inspection and/or treatment of apples (such as disinfection and/or fumigation), as 
well as various requirements relating to the inspection,  registration and operation of orchards and/or 
packing houses and verification of compliance with su ch requirements.  Eight of the measures relate 
to fire blight, four relate to European canker, one relates to ALCM, and th ree are "general" measures 
that relate to all three of these pests. 
Early in the proceedings, the parties to th e dispute agreed that one of the measures18 was no 
longer applied by Australia.  New Zealand notified the Panel that it would not pursue its claims in 
                                                      
15Biosecurity Australia,  Final Import Risk Analysis Report for Apples from New Zealand (Canberra, 
November 2006) (the "IRA"), Part B (Panel Exhibit AUS-2), p. 8. 
16Biosecurity Australia Policy Memorandum 2007/07, Biosecurity Policy Determination – Importation 
of Apples from New Zealand , 27 March 2007 (Panel Exhibit NZ-2) quoted, in relevant part, in Panel Report, 
para. 7.165. 
17Fire blight, European canker and ALCM are among the 16 quarantine pests analyzed in the IRA. 
(Panel Report, paras. 2.38 and 2.39 (quoting IRA, Part B, pp. 47 and 48)) 
18This measure consisted of the requ irement that an orchard/block be suspended for the season on the 
basis that any evidence of pruning or other activities carried out before the inspection could constitute an 
attempt to remove or hide symptoms of European canker. Figure 3: WTO agreements add ressed in appeals 1996–2010 WT/AB/15 
Page 8  
 
  relation to this measure.  The Panel, therefore, pro ceeded in its analysis of New Zealand's claims with 
respect to the remaining 16 measures (the "16 measures at issue").
19 
1. Annex A(1) to the SPS Agreement : "SPS Measures" 
Australia appealed the Panel's finding that each of the 16 measures at issue were SPS 
measures in the sense of Annex A(1) to the SPS Agreement .  Australia took issue with the Panel's 
finding that the 16 measures constitute SPS measures not only as a whole, but also individually.  
Australia suggested that there were four principa l measures, two for fire blight and one each for 
European canker and ALCM, and that several of the requirements identified by New Zealand were 
merely "ancillary".  According to Australia, such  ancillary measures or requirements are meaningless 
if taken individually, as they are dependent on, and merely serve to implement or maintain the 
principal measures.  Thus, Australia contended that these ancillary requirements could not be 
challenged individually under the SPS Agreement .   
The Appellate Body considered the defin ition of SPS measure in Annex A(1) to the 
SPS Agreement , and recalled that, for purposes of WTO dispute settlement, a measure may be, in 
principle, any act or omission attributable to the organs of the State.  The Appellate Body observed 
that for a measure to fall within the scope of the SPS Agreement , it must satisfy the definition set forth 
in Annex A(1).  A fundamental element of this de finition is that the measure must be "applied to 
protect" one of the interests listed in sub-paragraphs  (a) through (d).  The Appellate Body considered 
that the purpose of a measure and its relationship to  the interests listed in Annex A(1) must be 
ascertained on the basis of objective considerations.  The Appellate Body al so examined the last 
sentence of Annex A(1) and noted that the list of SPS measures detailed therein is illustrative.  The 
Appellate Body considered that this list sets out  a number of examples of the different types of 
measures that may—when they exhibit the appr opriate nexus to the purposes specified in 
Annex A(1)(a) through (d)—constitute SPS m easures subject to the disciplines of the SPS Agreement . 
The Appellate Body found that, contrary to Australia's assertions, the Panel had assessed 
whether the 16 measures at issue individually met the requirements of Annex A(1) to the 
SPS Agreement .  The Panel analyzed the purpose of each measure, in addition to the measures as a 
whole, and in each case found that the relevant purpose corresponded to the purposes set out in Annex A(1)(a) to the SPS Agreement .  Moreover, Australia did not object to the Panel's classification 
of the 16 measures as regulations, requirements, or procedures within the meaning of the last sentence 
of Annex A(1).   
The Appellate Body also rejected Australia's contention that many of the 16 measures were 
ancillary—that is, mere administrative or procedur al requirements with no operation other than to 
enhance the efficacy of a mechanism for protecting animal or plant life or health.  The Appellate 
Body agreed with the Panel that there is no support in the text of Annex A(1) to the SPS Agreement  
for the distinction between principal and an cillary measures suggested by Australia.   
2. The Panel's Assessment of the IRA unde r Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement 
In its appeal of the Panel's findings under Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement , 
Australia made three principal claims.  First, Aust ralia argued that the Panel misapplied the standard 
of review applicable to a Panel's evaluation of  claims raised under Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the 
SPS Agreement .  Second, Australia claimed that the Panel erred in its assessment of the IRA's use of 
"expert judgement" in situations of scientific uncerta inty.  Third, Australia contended that the Panel 
                                                      
19Panel Report, para. 1.20. WT/AB/15 
Page 9 
 
 
  erred because it failed to assess the materiality of the flaws it found with the individual steps and 
factors in the IRA. 
The Appellate Body clarified the standard of re view that applies to a panel reviewing a risk 
assessment under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement .  Referring to its reports in EC – Hormones , 
Japan – Agricultural Products II , Japan – Apples , and US/Canada – Continued Suspension , the 
Appellate Body stated that a panel reviewing a risk assessment should first establish whether the 
scientific basis of the risk assessment comes fr om a respected and qualified source and can 
accordingly be considered "legitimate science" in c onformity with the standards of the relevant 
scientific community;  and then determine whether the reasoning of the risk assessor is objective and 
coherent and that, therefore, its conclusions find sufficient support in the underlying science. 
The Appellate Body rejected Australia's claim th at the Panel should have limited its analysis 
to a simple review of whether the intermediate c onclusions reached by the IRA "fall within a range 
that could be considered legitimate by the scientif ic community".  The Appellate Body explained the 
distinction between the underlying scientific eviden ce and the conclusions of the risk assessment and 
found that the Panel did not err in reviewing whether the IRA's intermediate reasoning and 
conclusions were objective and cohe rent, that is, whether the conclusions found sufficient support in 
the scientific evidence relied upon. 
Regarding the IRA's use of "expert judgement" to address scientific uncertainty in the risk 
assessment, the Appellate Body st ated that what Australia refers to as "expert judgement"20 in its 
appeal forms an integral part of the reasoning of the risk assessor and should, therefore, have been 
subject to the same scrutiny by the Panel as other parts of the IRA.  The Appellate Body found that 
the Panel did not err in requiring that the IRA base its conclusions, including those that were reached 
through the exercise of expert judgement, on the ava ilable scientific evidence a nd that, therefore, the 
Panel correctly assessed whether the reasoning in the IRA revealed the existence of an objective and 
rational link between the conclusions reached and the scientific evidence. 
Moreover, the Appellate Body agreed with the Panel's view that the IRA did not sufficiently 
document its use of "expert judgement" and that th e IRA should have explained how it arrived at the 
expert judgements it made at intermediate steps.  In this respect the Appellate Body disagreed with 
Australia's argument that the International Sta ndards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) of the 
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) do no t suggest any need for an explanation of how a 
particular "expert judgement" was reached.  Instead , the Appellate Body found that the documentation 
of how "expert judgement" is reached is instrume ntal to establish compliance with the relevant 
provisions of the SPS Agreement  (such as, Articles 2.2, 5.1 and 5.2) and is also provided for in both 
ISPM No. 2 and ISPM No. 11, which call for documentation of the entire risk assessment process, not excluding the use of expert judgement. 
The Appellate Body also found that the Panel di d not err, because, as Australia argued, it 
failed to assess the materiality of the flaws it found in  the IRA's intermediate steps and factors.  The 
Appellate Body noted that the Panel reached its c onclusions based on a comprehensive analysis of all 
the steps and factors it reviewed and indicated that  the IRA failed to consider properly a number of 
factors that could have a "major" impact on the assessment of risk for fire blight and ALCM.  The Appellate Body observed that, although the Pane l did not in its reasoning explicitly analyze the 
relative gravity, or magnitude, of each flaw that it found at each relevant importation step or with each 
factor relating to the entry, establishment and spread of fire blight and ALCM, the Panel clearly 
                                                      
20"Expert judgement", or the collective judgement of  the six members of the IRA team, was exercised 
in order to reach intermediate conclusions at a number of steps in the risk analysis, in situations where there was 
limited scientific evidence available or where the underlying biological process was highly variable.  WT/AB/15 
Page 10  
 
  indicated that, taken together, these faults were enough to mean that the IRA did not constitute a 
proper risk assessment within the meaning of Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement . 
Having rejected the above three claims of erro r by Australia, the Appellate Body upheld the 
Panel's findings that the IRA was not a proper risk assessment according to Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement , and that the flaws in the IRA also c onstituted a failure, under Article 5.2 of the 
SPS Agreement , to take sufficiently into account factors su ch as the available scientific evidence, the 
relevant processes and production methods in New Zealand and Australia, and the actual prevalence 
of fire blight and viable ALCM.  Accordingly, th e Appellate Body also upheld the Panel's ultimate 
finding that Australia's SPS measures regarding fire blight, and ALCM, as well as the "general" measures linked to these pests are inconsistent with Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement , and 
that, by implication, these measures are also  inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement . 
3. Article 11 of the DSU 
Australia claimed on appeal that the Panel faile d to make an objective assessment of the 
matter, as required by Article 11 of the DSU, becau se it disregarded critical aspects of the appointed 
experts' testimony that were favourable to Australi a.  Australia also clai med that the Panel acted 
inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU becau se its conclusions were based upon a fundamental 
misunderstanding of a significant aspect of  Australia's risk assessment methodology. 
Regarding the Panel's use of the testimony of  its appointed experts, the Appellate Body 
observed that whether a panel reproduces and discusses  certain testimony in the report depends on 
factors such as the relevance of the testimony to  the panel's reasoning and objective assessment on a 
given issue, the context in which the statement wa s made, as well as the importance attached by the 
parties to the testimony. 
The Appellate Body found that the Panel did no t disregard or fail to engage with significant 
evidence that was favourable to Au stralia's case, in its treatment of the individual statements by 
experts identified by Australia on appeal.  Although the Panel did not reproduce or discuss certain of 
these statements, the Appellate Body was satisfied th at the Panel had addressed the significance of the 
statements in its analysis and/or that the statemen ts did not have the meaning or significance attributed 
to them by Australia.  The Appellate Body also noted that Australia had extracted some of the statements it argued were favourable to its case out  of the broader context in which the Panel had 
properly assessed them. 
Regarding the Panel's assessment of the IR A methodology, the Appellate Body rejected 
Australia's claim that the Panel had misunderstood the methodology used in the IRA and, thus, acted 
inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU.  Th e Panel disagreed with the IRA's assignment of a 
probability interval (0 to 10-6) to events that, based on the scientific evidence, would almost certainly 
not occur, because that probability interval, when co mbined with uniform distribution and applied in 
the context of projected imports of apples, predicte d events that would occur with relative frequency.  
The Appellate Body observed that assigning a probability value that does not objectively correspond 
to the IRA's own definition of "negligible", that is , an event that "would almost certainly not occur", 
has the effect of inflating the overall probability of importation and may result in the overestimation 
of the unrestricted annual risk.  The Appellate Body found that this also demonstrates that, insofar as 
the methodological flaws in the IRA, and notably the choice of the probability interval of 0 to 10-6 for 
events with a negligible likelihood of occurring, magnify the risk assessed, th e Panel correctly found 
that they constituted an independent basis for th e inconsistency of Australia's SPS measures with 
Articles 5.1, 5.2, and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement . WT/AB/15 
Page 11 
 
 
  Having rejected Australia's claims that the Pa nel disregarded evidence and misunderstood the 
IRA methodology, the Appellate Body found that Aust ralia had not established th at the Panel failed to 
make an objective assessment of the facts under Article 11 of the DSU. 
4. Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement  
Australia appealed the Panel's findings that the measures relating to fire blight and ALCM are 
inconsistent with Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement  because they are more trade restrictive than 
required to achieve Australia's appropr iate level of protection.  In par ticular, Australia alleged that the 
Panel misinterpreted the requirements of Article 5. 6 and misapplied the burden of proof by requiring 
New Zealand to establish only that the alternativ e measures "might" or "may" achieve Australia's 
appropriate level of protection, instead of requiring  New Zealand to demonstrate that such measures 
"would" do so.  Australia contended that the Pane l improperly relied on its findings under Article 5.1 
regarding flaws in the IRA to find that New Zeal and's Article 5.6 claim had been established.  
Australia further disagreed with the Panel's interp retation of "appropriate le vel of protection" under 
Article 5.6, arguing that the Panel wrongly focused entirely on the likelihood of entry, establishment and spread and disregarded the potential biolog ical and economic consequences of the pests. 
The Appellate Body began its analysis by noting that under Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement  
a complainant must demonstrate that three elements exist in order to succeed in its claim, namely:  
(i) that the alternative measure proposed by the complainant is reasonably available taking into 
account technical and economic feasibility;  (ii) th at it achieves the Member's appropriate level of 
sanitary or phytosanitary protection;  and (iii) that it  is significantly less restri ctive to trade than the 
SPS measure contested.  Only the second element of this three-pronged test was at issue in this 
appeal. 
The Appellate Body then turned to the Pa nel's analysis of this second element of 
New Zealand's Article 5.6 claim and noted that the Panel had adopted a two-step approach in which a 
complainant is required, first, to demonstrate that the importing Member has overestimated in its risk 
assessment the level of risk associated with the imported product;  and second , whether the alternative 
measure proposed by the complainant might reduce the le vel of risk to, or belo w, the appropriate level 
of protection.  The Appellate Body also noted that the Panel had repeatedly stated that it had to be careful not to "conduct a de novo review" in the course of its Article 5.6 analysis.   
The Appellate Body found that there was no basis in Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement  for the 
Panel's first step—that a complainant must "cast  doubt" upon the importing Member's risk assessment 
as a precondition to moving to the second step.  The Appellate Body emphasized that the obligations 
in Articles 5.1 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement are distinct and legally independent of each other.  An 
analysis under Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement  requires a panel to assess whether the alternative 
measure meets the importing Member's appropriate le vel of protection on the basis of affirmative 
findings that the complainant has made out its prima facie case.  In this dispute, the Panel was 
required to undertake its own analysis of whethe r the alternative measures proposed by New Zealand 
met Australia's appropriate level of protection.  Thus, the fundamental flaw in the Panel's analysis was 
that the Panel assumed that, because it could not conduct its own risk assessment, the only way in 
which it could evaluate New Zealand' s Article 5.6 claim was by relying upon its review of the IRA.  
Therefore, since the Panel failed to find affirmativ ely that New Zealand had made out its case, but 
instead relied on its previous findings under Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2, the Appellate Body reversed the 
Panel's findings that the measures relating to fire b light and ALCM were incons istent with Article 5.6 
of the SPS Agreement . 
Turning to whether it could complete the legal analysis, the Appellate Body noted that 
Australia had not challenged the Panel's findings on the first and third conditions under Article 5.6.  WT/AB/15 
Page 12  
 
  Thus, the Appellate Body sought to evaluate whethe r there were sufficient factual findings by the 
Panel and uncontested facts on the record to allow it to complete the analysis with respect to the 
second condition in Article 5.6, that is, whether th e alternative measures proposed by New Zealand 
achieve Australia's appropriate  level of protection.   
Australia argued that whether an alternativ e measure satisfied the appropriate level of 
protection is an issue that must be analyzed in  a "proper" risk assessment.  The Appellate Body 
disagreed with Australia noting that, unlike Article 5. 1, Article 5.6 does not require that the alternative 
measure be tested through a risk assessment and that Article 5.6 required an assessment, through a 
comparison with a hypothetical alternative measure, of whether the SPS measures in place are more trade restrictive than required to achieve the appr opriate level of protecti on.  The Appellate Body 
further observed that the fact that  a complainant is not required to undertake a risk assessment under 
Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement  does not imply that, in putting forth an alternative measure, the 
complainant is not required to adduce a scientific basis on which to support its assertion that such a 
measure meets the importing Member's  appropriate level of protection.   A complainant could, but is 
not required to, rely on a risk assessment as a source of evidence relevant to its proposed alternative 
measure.  The Appellate Body concluded that whether the complainant has discharged its burden 
under Article 5.6 is a matter of legal characterization.   
With these considerations in mind, the Appellate  Body proceeded to analyze, for both fire 
blight
21 and ALCM22, whether there were sufficient factual findings by the Panel or undisputed facts 
on the record to determine:  (i) the level of prot ection that Australia has set;  (ii) what level of 
protection would be achieved by New Zealand's altern ative measure;  and (iii) whether that level of 
protection would achieve Australia's appropriate le vel of protection.  As an initial matter, the 
Appellate Body noted that the Panel had made a findi ng that Australia's appropriate level of protection 
was aimed at reducing risk to a very low level, "but not to zero".   
Turning to the second issue, namely, determini ng what level of protection would be achieved 
by New Zealand's alternat ive measure, the Panel reviewed a fair amount of evidence relevant to this 
issue in respect of both pests.  However, the Pa nel discussed but did not make findings on much of 
this evidence, nor on the specific propositions put fo rward by New Zealand.  Nor did the Panel make 
affirmative findings on the overall  risk associated with the proposed  alternative measures for fire 
blight and ALCM, that is, the risk of entry, establishment and spread, as well as potential biological 
and economic consequences.  The Appellate Body, thus, found itself unable to complete the legal 
analysis as to what level of protection would be achieved by New Zealand's proposed alternative 
measures for fire blight and ALCM. 
5. New Zealand's Other Appeal – Anne x C(1)(a) and Article 8 of the SPS Agreement  
New Zealand appealed the Panel's finding that the claims under Annex C(1)(a) and Article 8 
of the SPS Agreement  were outside the Panel's terms of refere nce.  In particular, New Zealand argued 
on appeal that there is no obligation to identify the measure that directly  causes the violation of an 
obligation and that, by so requiri ng, the Panel blurred the distinction between measures and claims 
under Article 6.2 of the DSU.  New Zealand alleged that, while the "IRA  process" could have been an 
appropriate measure for its "undue delay" claims, this does not preclude that other measures could 
equally be the target of a claim unde r Annex C(1)(a) and Article 8 of the SPS Agreement .  
                                                      
21New Zealand's proposed alternative measure in regard to fire blight was "the restriction of imports to 
apple fruit that are mature and symptomless".  (Panel Report, para. 7.1109, quoting New Zealand's first written 
submission to the Panel, para. 4.4489) 
22New Zealand's proposed alternative measure in rega rd to ALCM was "a 600-unit inspection of each 
import lot" along with remedial action (fumigation or rejection for export) if ALCM are detected.  (Panel 
Report, para. 7.1267) WT/AB/15 
Page 13 
 
 
  Consequently, New Zealand submitted, the 16 measur es were an appropriate target of a challenge 
under such provisions since they were not developed "without undue delay". 
The Appellate Body began its analysis by referri ng to the text of Article 6.2 of the DSU and 
noted that this provision lays down two main require ments, namely, the identification of the measure 
at issue, and a summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly 
(the claim). 
The Appellate Body expressed concern with th e way in which the Panel reached its finding 
that New Zealand's claims were outside its terms of reference.  First, the Appellate Body found that 
the Panel appeared to have conflated the require ment to identify the measure at issue with the 
requirement to identify the legal basis of the co mplaint (the claim).  The Panel analyzed the measures 
that were or should have been id entified by New Zealand, but then went on to find that New Zealand's 
claims were outside its terms of  reference.  Second, the Appellate Body disagreed with the analysis 
the Panel conducted in respect of whether New Zeal and had identified the specific measure at issue, 
as provided for in Article 6.2 of the DSU.  In the Panel's opinion, New Zealand was required to identify the "IRA process" itself as the measure at issue, because this is the measure that causes  or can 
cause  a violation of Annex C(1)(a) and Article 8.  In so ruling, the Panel effectively required 
New Zealand not only to identify the measure at issu e and the claims, as required in Article 6.2 of the 
DSU, but also to ensure that the iden tified measure at issue be one that can violate the obligation 
invoked.  The latter requirement, however, is not contai ned in Article 6.2 of the DSU.  Thus, the Panel 
confused a jurisdictional issue with a substantive one. 
Since the Appellate Body considered that the issue of whether a measure causes or can cause 
the violation of an obligation is not a jurisdictiona l question but a substantive issue to be addressed 
and resolved on the merits, the Appe llate Body reversed the Panel's finding that New Zealand's claims 
under Annex C(1)(a) and Article  8 were outside the Pane l's terms of reference. 
The Appellate Body then turned to complete th e legal analysis.  The Appellate Body analyzed 
the text of Annex C(1)(a) and Article 8 of the SPS Agreement —which require that the procedures that 
check and ensure fulfilment of SPS measures be unde rtaken and completed w ithout undue delay—and 
found that the focus of the obligations in these provisions is on procedures  and, in particular, on 
control, inspection and approval procedures.  The Appellate Body added that, while procedures may 
constitute measures that violate the obligations in  Annex C and Article 8, other measures may also 
breach those obligations, such as a failure to act "w ithout undue delay" or measures that prohibit or 
otherwise impede the undertaking or comple tion of a procedure "without undue delay". 
The Appellate Body then examined whether the 16 measures at issue are inconsistent with the 
obligation to complete relevant procedures "without  undue delay" as provided for in Annex C(1)(a).  
In this regard, the Appellate Body  found that the 16 measures specif y a number of substantive actions 
that the New Zealand Government, as well as Ne w Zealand apple exporters and producers, must 
undertake in order to be able to export apples to Australia.  In its claims under Annex C(1)(a) and 
Article 8, however, New Zealand did not challenge  the substantive content of these measures, but, 
rather, the time taken in the development of these measures.  Since the 16 measures do not refer to 
their development, the Appellate Body disagreed with  New Zealand that the mere reference to the 16 
measures at issue could, by implication, be read as a reference to the development of such measures. 
Finally, the Appellate Body recognized that, in ordinary circumstances, eight years is a very 
long time to complete a risk assessment, and that, as also stated by the panel in EC – Approval and 
Marketing of Biotech Products
, "a lengthy delay for which no ade quate explanation is provided might 
in some circumstances permit th e inference that the delay is 'undue'".  Although New Zealand had 
pointed to evidence relating to the question of whether the IRA process was unduly delayed, such IRA 
process was not a measure at issue.  Thus, the Appellate Body found that New Zealand had not WT/AB/15 
Page 14  
 
  established that the 16 measures at issue are incons istent with Annex C(1)(a) and Article 8 of the 
SPS Agreement . 
V. Participants and Third Participants in Appeals 
Table 5 lists the WTO Members that participat ed in appeals for which an Appellate Body 
report was circulated in 2010.  It distinguishes between a Member that f iled a Notice of Appeal 
pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures and a Member that filed a Notice of Other Appeal 
pursuant to Rule 23(1) (known as the "other appellant").  Rule 23(1) provides that "a party to the dispute other than the original appellant may join in that appeal, or appeal on the basis of other alleged 
errors in the issues of law covered in the panel report and legal interpreta tions developed by the 
panel".  Under the Working Procedures , parties wishing to appeal a panel report pursuant to 
Rule 23(1) are required to file a Notice of Other App eal within 5 days after the filing of the Notice of 
Appeal. 
Table 5 also identifies those Members that par ticipated 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 proceedings ma y file a written submission as a third participant 
within 21 days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal.  Pursuant to Rule 24(2), a Member that was a 
third party to the panel proceedings that has not f iled a written submission may, within 21 days of the 
filing of the Notice of Appeal, notify its intention to appear at the oral hearing and whether it intends 
to make a statement at the hearing.  Rule 24(4) pr ovides that a Member that was a third party to the 
panel proceedings and has neither filed a written s ubmission in accordance with Rule 24(1), nor given 
notice in accordance with Rule 24(2), may notify its inte ntion to appear at the oral hearing and request 
to make a statement. 
TABLE 5: PARTICIPANTS AND TH IRD PARTICIPANTS IN APPEALS 
FOR WHICH AN APPELLATE BODY REPORT WAS CIRCULATED IN 2010 
 
Case Appellant  a Other 
  appellant b Appellee(s) cThird participants 
Rule 24(1) Rule 24(2) Rule 24(4) 
Australia – Apples Australia New Zeal and New Zealand 
Australia European 
Union 
Japan 
United States Chinese 
Taipei Chile 
Pakistan 
a Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures . 
b Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures . 
c Pursuant to Rule 22 or 23(3) of the Working Procedures . 
 
A total of 8 WTO Members appeared at least once as appellant, other appellant, appellee, or 
third participant in appeals for wh ich an Appellate Body report was circulated in 2010.  Of these 8 
WTO Members, 5 were developed country Member s and 3 were developing country Members. 
Figure 4 shows the ratio of developed country  Members to developing country Members in 
terms of appearances made as appe llant, other appellant, appellee, a nd third participant in appellate 
proceedings from 1996 through 2010. WT/AB/15 
Page 15 
 
 
  
66
46137177
45
1857291
050100150200250300
Appellants Other Appellants Appellees Third ParticipantsAppearances before the Appellate Body
Developed Countries Developing Countries
 
Annex 6 provides a statistical summary and details on WTO Members' participation as 
appellant, other appellant, appellee,  and third participant in appeal s for which an Appellate Body 
report was circulated from 1996 through 2010. 
VI. Working Procedures for Appellate Review 
A. Amendments to the Working Procedures  
The Working Procedures for Appellate Review  were adopted on 16 Fe bruary 1996 pursuant to 
Article 17.9 of the DSU, which provides for the Appe llate Body to draw up its working procedures in 
consultation with the Chairman of the DSB a nd the Director-General.  Rule 32(2) of the Working 
Procedures  specifies that the same procedures apply in the event of amendments to those working 
procedures.  In 2010, the Appellate Body amended the Working Procedures  for the fifth time23 since 
their adoption in 1996.  The latest amendmen ts came into effect on 15 September 2010 and are 
applicable to appeals initiated on or after th at date.  A consolidated version of the Working 
Procedures incorporating these amendments was circ ulated on 16 August 2010 as WTO document 
WT/AB/WP/6. 
In the context of the latest amendments, th e Appellate Body had initially proposed three 
amendments, which were communicated to the Chairm an of the Dispute Settlement Body by letter of 
16 December 2009 and were subsequently ci rculated to all WTO Members as document 
WT/AB/WP/W/10.  The first proposed amendment pr ovided that an appellant's written submission 
would be filed when an appeal is commenced, na mely, on the same day as the filing of a Notice of 
Appeal, rather than seven days after an a ppeal is commenced, as was provided under the Working 
Procedures  effective at the time of the proposal.  The deadlines for the Notice of Other Appeal, 
written submissions, and third-party notifications  would be advanced accordingly, and third 
participants' submissions would be due three days  after, instead of on the same day as, appellees' 
submissions.  The purpose of this amendment w as to allow the Appellate Body and the WTO 
Members to focus on the substance of the issues ra ised in an appeal as ear ly as possible, thereby 
facilitating a more efficient use of time during the 90-day period. 
                                                      
23The first two amendments, adopted in 1997 and 2002, respectively, related to the term of office of the 
Chairman of the Appellate Body.  The third, adopted in 2003, concerned enhancement of third party participation at the oral hearing.  Finally, in 2005, the Appellate Body adopted changes to certain defined terms, 
appellant submission deadlines, multiple appeal deadlines, as  well as rules regarding notices of appeals, clerical 
errors, and oral hearings. Figure 4: WTO Member partici pation in a ppeals 1996–2010 WT/AB/15 
Page 16  
 
  The second proposed amendment explicitly authoriz ed, subject to certain conditions, parties 
and third parties to file documents with the Appella te Body, and serve documents on other parties and 
third parties, by electronic mail.  The Appellate  Body considered that the proposed amendment 
reflected the practice developed in recent years and would assist participants and third participants in 
the filing process and better accord with their actua l working practices.  This proposal would also 
have allowed parties and third parties to file pape r copies of their submissions the day after, rather 
than on the same day as, the filing of the electronic version.  The third proposed amendment would have introduced a procedure for consolidating ap pellate proceedings where two or more disputes 
share a high degree of commonality and are closely related in time. This proposed amendment was 
intended to maximize the efficient use of limite d time and resources by codifying the practice of 
consolidating appellate proceedings before a single Division when appeals of separate, but similar, 
panel reports are filed at or around the same time. 
Upon receiving the Appellate Body's letter intr oducing these proposed amendments, the then 
Chairman of the DSB, Ambassador John Gero , initiated a process of consultation with WTO 
Members regarding the proposed amendments , in accordance with the DSB Decision of 
19 December 2002.
24  The process of consultation was completed by Ambassador Gero's successor as 
Chairman of the DSB, Ambassador Yonov Frederick Agah.  During the consultation process, an informal and a formal DSB meeting were held, resp ectively, in April and May, 2011.  WTO Members 
made oral statements at these meetings, and some Members also submitted written comments 
concerning the proposed amendments after the sec ond meeting.  Having benefited from the comments 
of WTO Members, and having consulted the Direct or-General and the Chairman of the DSB in 
accordance with Article 17.9 of the DSU, the A ppellate Body adopted a final version of the 
amendments on 27 July 2010.  The text of the amended Working Procedures , as well as 
accompanying explanations by the Appellate Body , was communicated to the Chairman of the DSB 
by letter on the same day.
25  With one exception, the Appellate Body decided to proceed with the 
proposed amendments, albeit in modified form.   
With regard to the deadlines for filing documen ts and for the oral hearing, the following 
amendments were adopted.  First, Rules 21(1), 23( 1), and 23(3) were amended to provide that the 
appellant's submission will be due on the same day as  the filing of the Notice of Appeal, and that the 
Notice of Other Appeal and the other appellant's su bmission will be due 5 days after the filing of the 
Notice of Appeal.  The Appellate Body thus adopted, without modification, its proposal to eliminate the seven-day period between the filing of the Notice of  Appeal and the appellant's submission.  In its 
letter of 27 July, the Appellate Body noted that, whereas some WTO Members did not share the view 
that the time between the release of a panel report to  the parties and the initiation of an appeal makes 
it appropriate to advance certain deadlines with in the 90-day appeal period, many WTO Members 
recognized that doing so will allow for a more effici ent allocation of the limited time available during 
an appeal. 
Second, Rules 22(1) and 23(4) were amended to provide that an appellee's submission will be 
due 18 days after the filing of the Notice of App eal, thus maintaining the time-period between the 
appellant's submission and the appellees' su bmissions that had been provided under the 
Working Procedures .  This represented a modification of th e initial proposal that the appellees' 
submissions be due 15 days after the filing of the No tice of Appeal.  In making this modification, the 
Appellate Body took into account certain WTO Members' expressed preference that there be no 
reduction in the time period between the filing of the appellant's submission and the filing of the 
appellee's submission, as well as the overall objective of enhancing the efficient use of the limited time available in appellate pro ceedings for all participants. 
                                                      
24See WT/DSB/31. 
25See WT/AB/WP/W/11. WT/AB/15 
Page 17 
 
 
  Third, Rules 24(1) and 24(2) were  amended to provide that thir d participants' submissions and 
notifications will be due 21 days after the filing of  the Notice of Appeal, that is, 3 days after the 
deadline for the filing of the appellee's submission.  This amendment thus maintained the staggered 
deadlines initially proposed by the Appellate Body between the filing of the appellees' submissions 
and the third participants' submissions.  The Appella te Body explained that the staggered deadlines 
would enable third participants that file writte n submissions to comment on the positions of all 
participants, rather than only on those of appellant s and other appellants.  The Appellate Body also 
agreed with the observation made by several Member s that such a staggered deadline could contribute 
to a more efficient oral hearing.  The Appella te Body emphasized, however, that the amendment 
would not result in any reduced opportunity for third pa rticipants to make oral statements and respond 
to questions at the oral hearing.  Fourth, Rule 27(1)  was amended to provide that oral hearings will, as 
a general rule, be held between 30 and 45 days after the filing of the Notice of Appeal.  The Appellate 
Body adopted this range of dates to accommoda te the amended deadlines for written submissions.  
Finally, Annex I of the Working Procedures  was also amended to reflect the new timetable for the 
filing of written documents and for the holding of oral hearings in both general and prohibited 
subsidies appeals.   
With regard to the filing and service of docum ents, the following amendments were adopted.  
First, paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 of Rule 18 were amended to provide that  official versions of documents 
in paper form are to be submitted to the Appellate Body Secretariat by 17:00 Geneva time on the day 
that the document is due.  In addition, paragra ph 4 of Rule 18 was amended to provide that an 
electronic copy of each such document should also be submitted to the Appellate Body by the same 
deadline.  By adopting these amendments, the Appe llate Body modified its initial proposal that 
documents sent by e-mail could be followed by paper copies thereof the next day, and that, in case of discrepancy between the electronic copy and the pape r copies, only the electronic copy be taken into 
account by the Appellate Body.  In so doing, the Appellate Body took account of the WTO Members' concerns, notably with respect to such issues as pot ential technical glitches, the confidentiality of 
e-mails, and difficulties in verifying the timing of  e-mails and the identity of their senders.  The 
Appellate Body further explained that, given th at a preference was expressed for maintaining the 
status quo pending implementation of a secure digital di spute settlement registry that could be used to 
upload and download documents, it had decided to proceed with amendments that reflect current 
practice and are less extensive than those originally proposed.   
The Appellate Body decided not to introduce th e amendment regarding the consolidation of 
appellate proceedings.  The Appellate Body reiterate d its view that a more systematic approach to 
consolidation, including identification of the criteria to be taken into account in the determination of 
when consolidation would be appr opriate, would benefit all potential participants in an appeal.  
Nonetheless, the Appellate Body noted that many WTO Members expressed a preference for 
maintaining the status quo.  Thus, the Appellate Body  stated that it would continue to take decisions 
on consolidation in appropriate cases on the basis of Ru le 16(1), after consulting with the participants.   
Finally, the above amendments necessitated that certain conse quential amendments be made 
to the Working Procedures , including:  (i) a row added to the Ta ble set out in Annex III indicating the 
latest amendments to the Working Procedures and the relevant explan atory documents and DSB 
meeting minutes;  (ii) an express reference, in the te xt of paragraphs 1 and 2, to the fact that there 
have been amendments to the Working Procedures . 
 
B. Procedural Issues Arising from Australia – Apples  
By joint letter, Australia and New Zealand requ ested the Appellate Body to authorize public 
observation of the oral hearing.  Third participants  were invited to comment in writing on the request 
and on the proposed logistical arrangements.  In a Procedural Ruling dated 14 September 2010, the 
Division hearing the appeal authorized public observation of the oral hearing by means of WT/AB/15 
Page 18  
 
  simultaneous closed-circuit television broadcast, shown in a separate room.
26  The oral hearing was 
held on 11 and 12 October 2010.  
VII. Arbitrations under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU 
Individual Appellate Body Members have been asked to act as arbitrators under 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU to determine the "reas onable period of time" for the implementation by a 
WTO Member of the recommendations and rulings a dopted by the DSB in dispute settlement cases.  
The DSU does not specify who shall serve as arbitrator.  The parties to the arbitration select the arbitrator by agreement or, if they cannot agree on  an arbitrator, the Director-General of the WTO 
appoints the arbitrator.  To date, all those who have served as arbitrators pursuant to Article 21.3(c) 
have been current or former Appellate Body Members.  In carrying out arbitrations under 
Article 21.3(c), Appellate Body Members act in an individual capacity. 
No Article 21.3(c) arbitration proceedings were carried out in 2010. 
VIII.  Technical Assistance 
Appellate Body Secretariat staff participated in the WTO Biennial Technical Assistance and 
Training Plan:  2010-2011
27, particularly in activities relating to training in dispute settlement 
procedures.  Overall, Appellate Body Secretariat st aff participated in 21 technical assistance activities 
during the course of 2010. 
Annex 7 provides further information about th e activities carried out by Appellate Body 
Secretariat staff in 2010 falling under the WTO Technical Assistance and Training Plan. 
IX. Other Activities 
The Appellate Body Secretariat participates in  the WTO internship programme, which allows 
post-graduate university students to gain practical  experience and a deeper knowledge of the global 
multilateral trading system.  Interns in the Appellate  Body Secretariat obtain first-hand experience of 
the procedural and substantive aspects of WTO di spute settlement and, in particular, appellate 
proceedings.  The internship programme is open to  nationals of WTO Members and to nationals of 
countries and customs territories engaged in accession negotiations.  The Appellate Body Secretariat 
routinely hosts two interns concurrently;  each inte rnship is generally for a three-month period.  
During 2010, the Appellate Body Secretariat welcom ed interns from Brazil, Cape Verde, Colombia, 
Germany, Greece, Japan, St. Lucia, Sweden, Uganda , Ukraine, and the United States.  A total of 
90 post-graduate students, of 44 nationalities, have  completed internships with the Appellate Body 
Secretariat since 1998.  Further information about the WTO internship programme, including 
eligibility requirements and application in structions, may be obtained online at:  
<http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/vacan_e/intern_e.htm>. 
Appellate Body Secretariat staff participate in  briefings organized for groups visiting the 
WTO, including students.  In these briefings, Appell ate Body Secretariat staff speak to visitors about 
the WTO dispute settlement system in general, and appellate proceedings in particular.  Appellate 
Body Secretariat staff also participate as judges in moot court competitions.  A summary of these 
activities carried out by Appellate Body Secretariat staff during the course of 2010 can be found in Annex 7. 
                                                      
26The Procedural Ruling is attached as Annex III the Appellate Body Report in Australia – Apples . 
27WT/COMTD/W/170/Rev.1. WT/AB/15 
Page 19 
 
 
  The Appellate Body Secretariat also hosts a Speakers Series , in which it invites scholars and 
practitioners with expertise in law, economics, and trade policy to speak on topical issues relating to 
international trade, public international la w, and international dispute settlement.  
Dr. Jorge Huerta-Goldman, Professor Don McRae, and Dr. Rohan Perera participated in the 
Speakers Series  in 2010. 
 WT/AB/15 
Page 21 
 
 
  ANNEX 1 
 
 
MEMBERS OF THE APPELLATE BODY 
(1 JANUARY TO 31 DECEMBER 2010) 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 
  
Lilia R. Bautista   (Philippines) (2007–2011) 
 Born in the Philippines on 16 August 1935, Lilia Bautista was consultant to the Philippine 
Judicial Academy, which is the training school for Philippine justices, judges, and lawyers.  She is also a member of several corporate boards. 
Ms. Bautista was the Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the 
Philippines from 2000 to 2004.  Between 1999 and 2000 , she served as Senior Undersecretary and 
Special Trade Negotiator at the Department of Trad e and Industry in Manila.  From 1992 to 1999, she 
was the Philippine Permanent Representative in Ge neva to the United Nations, the WTO, the World 
Health Organization, the International Labour Orga nization, and other intern ational organizations.  
During her assignment in Geneva, she chaired several bodies, including the WTO Council for Trade in Services.  Her long career in the Philippine Gove rnment also included posts as Legal Officer in the 
Office of the President, Chief Legal Officer of the Board of Investments, and acting Trade Minister 
from February to June 1992.  Ms. Bautista earned her Bachelor of Laws Degree and a Masters Degree 
in Business Administration from the University of the Philippines.  She was conferred the degree of 
Master of Laws by the University of Michigan as a Dewitt Fellow.  
Jennifer Hillman   (United States) (2007–2011) 
 Born in the United States on 29 January 1957,  Jennifer Hillman is a Senior Transatlantic 
Fellow at the German Marshall Fund for the United States.  She served as a Distinguished Visiting 
Fellow and Adjunct Professor of Law at the George town University Law Center's Institute of 
International Economic Law. 
From 1998 to 2007, she served as a member of the United States International Trade 
Commission—an independent agency responsible fo r making injury determinations in anti-dumping 
and countervailing proceedings, an d conducting safeguard investiga tions.  From 1995 to 1997, she 
served as Chief Legal Counsel to the United States Trade Representative, overseeing the legal 
developments necessary to complete the implemen tation of the Uruguay Round Agreement.  From 
1993 to 1995, she was responsible for negotiating Unite d States bilateral textil e agreements prior to 
the adoption of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing .  Ms Hillman has a Bachelor of Arts and 
Master of Education from Duke University, North Carolina, and a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard 
Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  
Shotaro Oshima   (Japan) (2008–2012) 
 Born in Japan on 20 September 1943, Shotaro Os hima is a law graduate from the University 
of Tokyo.  Since April 2008, he is Visiting Professo r at the Graduate School of Public Policy, the 
University of Tokyo.  He was a diplomat in the Japanese Foreign Service until March 2008, when he 
retired after 40 years of service, his last overseas posting being Ambassador to the Republic of Korea. 
From 2002 to 2005, Mr. Oshima was Japan's Pe rmanent Representative to the WTO, during 
which time he served as Chair of the General C ouncil and of the Dispute Settlement Body.  Prior to WT/AB/15 
Page 22  
 
  his time in Geneva, he served as Deputy Foreign Mi nister responsible for economic matters and was 
designated as Prime Minister Koizumi's Personal Representative to the G-8 Summit in Canada in June 2002.  In the same year he served as the Pr ime Minister's Personal Representative to the United 
Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development in  South Africa.  From 1997 to 2000, he served 
as Director-General for Economic Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, responsible for 
formulating and implementing major policy initiativ es in Japan's external economic relations.  
Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández   (Mexico) (2009–2013) 
Born in Mexico on 17 October 1968, Ricardo Ramírez holds the Chair of International Trade 
Law at the Mexican National University (UNAM) in Me xico City.  He was Head of the International 
Trade Practice for Latin America at the law firm of  Chadbourne & Parke in Mexico City.  His practice 
has focused on issues related to NAFTA and trade acr oss Latin America, including international trade 
dispute resolution. 
Prior to practicing with a law firm, Mr. Ra mírez was Deputy General Counsel for Trade 
Negotiations of the Ministry of Economy in Mexico for more than a decade.  In this capacity, he 
provided advice on trade and competition policy matt ers related to 11 Free Trade Agreements signed 
by Mexico, as well as with respect to multilateral agreements, including those related to the WTO, the 
Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and the Latin American Integration Association (ALADI). 
Mr. Ramírez also represented Mexico in comple x international trade litigation and investment 
arbitration proceedings.  He acted as lead coun sel to the Mexican government in several WTO 
disputes.  He has also served on NAFTA panels. 
Mr. Ramírez holds an LL.M. degree in International Business Law from the Washington 
College of Law of the American University, and a law degree from the Universidad Autónoma 
Metropolitana. 
David Unterhalter   (South Africa) (2006–2013) 
 Born in South Africa on 18 November 1958, David Unterhalter holds degrees from Trinity 
College, Cambridge, the University of the Witw atersrand, and University College, Oxford.  
Mr. Unterhalter has been a Professor of Law at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa 
since 1998, and from 2000 to 2006, he was the Direct or of the Mandela Institute, University of the 
Witwatersrand, an institute focusing on global law.   He was Visiting Professor of Law at Columbia 
Law School in 2008. 
 Mr. Unterhalter is a member of the Johannes burg Bar.  As a practising advocate, he has 
appeared in a large number of cases in the fields of  trade law, competition law, constitutional law, and 
commercial law.  His experience includes repr esenting different parties in anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty cases.  He has acted as an advisor to the South African Department of Trade and 
Industry.  In addition, he has served on a number of WTO dispute settlement panels.  Mr. Unterhalter 
has published widely in the fields of  public law and competition law.  
Peter Van den Bossche  (European Communities:  Belgium) (2009–2013) 
 Born in Belgium on 31 March 1959, Peter Va n den Bossche is Professor of International 
Economic Law at Maastricht Univer sity where he serves as Director of the Advanced Master 
Programme in International and European Economic Law (IEEL).  He also serves on the faculty of 
the World Trade Institute in Berne, the China EU School of Law (CESL) in Beijing, the IELPO 
programme of the University of Barcelona, the Tr ade Policy Training Centre in Africa (trapca) in WT/AB/15 
Page 23 
 
 
  Arusha and the IEEM Academy of International Tr ade and Investment Law in Macau.  Mr. Van den 
Bossche is a Member of the Board of Editors of the Journal of International Economic Law . 
  Mr. Van den Bossche holds a Doctorate in Law from the European University Institute in 
Florence, an LL.M. from the University of Michigan Law School, and a Licence en Droit magna cum 
laude  from the University of Antwerp.  From 1990 to  1992, he served as a Référendaire of Advocate 
General W. van Gerven at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.  From 1997 to 2001, 
Mr. Van den Bossche was Counsellor and subsequently  Acting Director of the WTO Appellate Body 
Secretariat.  In 2001 he returned to academia and from 2002 to 2009 frequently acted as a consultant 
to international organisations and developing co untries on issues of international economic law. 
 
 Mr. Van den Bossche has published extensively in the field of international economic law.  
The second edition of his textbook The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization  was 
published by Cambridge University Press in 2008.  
Yuejiao Zhang   (China) (2008–2012) 
 Yuejiao Zhang was born in China on 25 Oct ober 1944 and is Professor of Law at Shantou 
University in China.  She is an arbitrator on China's International Trad e and Economic Arbitration 
Commission.  She also served as Vice-President of China's International Economic Law Society. 
 Ms. Zhang served as a Board Director to the West African Development Bank from 2005 
to 2007.  Between 1998 and 2004, she held various  senior positions at the Asian Development Bank 
(ADB), including as Assistant General Counsel, Co-Chair of the Appeal Committee, and Director-
General of the ADB.  Prior to this, she held sever al positions in government and academia in China, 
including as Director-General of Law and Treaties at the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic 
Cooperation (1984–1997).  From 1987 to 1996, sh e was one of China's chief negotiators on 
intellectual property and was involved in the prepara tion of China's patent law, trademark law, and 
copyright law.  She also served as the chief lega l counsel for China's WT O accession.  Between 1982 
and 1985, Ms. Zhang worked as legal counsel at the World Bank.  She was a Member of the 
Governing Council of UNIDROIT (In ternational Institute for the Unification of Private Law) from 
1987 to 1999 and a Board Member of IDLO (Inte rnational Development Law Organization) from 
1988 to 1999.  Ms. Zhang has a Bachelor of Arts from China High Education College, a Bachelor of 
Arts from Rennes University of France, and a M aster of Laws from Georgetown University Law 
Center.  
*** 
Director of the Appellate Body Secretariat 
Werner Zdouc 
  Director of the WTO Appellate Body Secretariat since 2006, Werner Zdouc obtained a law 
degree from the University of Graz in Austria.  He  then went on to earn an LL.M. from Michigan Law 
School and a Ph.D. from the University of St. Ga llen in Switzerland.  Dr. Zdouc joined the WTO 
Legal Affairs Division in 1995, advised many di spute settlement panels, and conducted technical 
cooperation missions in many developing country c ountries.  He became legal counsellor at the 
Appellate Body Secretariat in 2001.  He has been  a lecturer and Visiting Professor for international 
trade law at Vienna Economic University, the Univ ersities of Zurich, St. Gallen and Barcelona, and 
the European Inter-University Centre for Human Ri ghts and Democratization in Venice.  From 1987 
to 1989, he worked for governmental and non-govern mental development aid organizations in Austria 
and Latin America.  Dr. Zdouc has authored various  publications on international economic law and is 
a member of the Trade Law Committee of  the International Law Association. WT/AB/15 
Page 24  
 
  ANNEX 2 
 
 
I.  FORMER APPELLATE BODY MEMBERS 
 
Name Nationality Term(s) of office 
Said El-Naggar Egypt    1995–2000 * 
Mitsuo Matsushita Japan    1995–2000 * 
Christopher Beeby New Zealand 1995–1999 
1999–2000 
Claus-Dieter Ehlermann Germany 1995–1997 
1997–2001 
Florentino Feliciano Philippines 1995–1997 
1997–2001 
Julio Lacarte-Muró Uruguay 1995–1997 
1997–2001 
James Bacchus United States 1995–1999 
1999–2003 
John Lockhart Australia 2001–2005 
2005–2006 
Yasuhei Taniguchi Japan 2000–2003 
2003–2007 
Merit E. Janow United States       2003–2007 ** 
Arumugamangalam 
Venkatatchalam Ganesan India 2000–2004 
2004–2008 
Georges Michel Abi-Saab Egypt 2000–2004 
2004–2008 
Luiz Olavo Baptista Brazil 2001–2005 
2005–2009 
Giorgio Sacerdoti Italy 2001–2005 
2005–2009 
 
* Messrs El-Naggar and Matsushita decided not to seek a second term of office.  Howe ver, the DSB extended their 
terms until the end of March 2000 in order to allow th e Selection Committee and the DSB the time necessary to 
complete the selection process of re placing the outgoing Appe llate Body Members. (S ee WT/DSB/M70, pp. 32-35) 
** Ms. Janow decided not to seek a second term of office.  Her term ended on 11 December 2007. 
 
Mr. Christopher Beeby passed  away on 19 March 2000. 
Mr. Said El-Naggar passed away on 11 April 2004. Mr. John Lockhart passed away on 13 January 2006. WT/AB/15 
Page 25 
 
 
   
II.  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 
Arumugamangalam 
Venkatachalam Ganesan India 17 December 2005 –  
16 December 2006 
Giorgio Sacerdoti Italy 17 December 2006 –  
16 December 2007 
Luiz Olavo Baptista Brazil 17 December 2007 –  
16 December 2008 
David Unterhalter South Africa 18 December 2008 – 
11 December 2009 
12 December 2009 – 
16 December 2010 WT/AB/15 
Page 26  
 
  ANNEX 3 
 
 
APPEALS FILED: 1995–2010 
 
Year Notices of Appeal 
filed Appeals in original 
proceedings Appeals in 
Article 21.5 
proceedings 
1995   0 0 0 
1996   4 4 0 
1997   6 a 6 0 
1998   8 8 0 
1999   9 b 9 0 
2000  13 c 11 2 
2001   9 d 5 4 
2002   7 e 6 1 
2003   6 f 5 1 
2004   5 5 0 
2005  10 8 2 
2006   5 3 2 
2007   4 2 2 
2008 13 10 3 
2009 3 1 2 
2010 3 3 0 
Total  105 86 19 
 
a This number includes two Notices of A ppeal that were filed at the same time in related matters, counted 
separately: EC – Hormones (Canada)  and EC – Hormones (US).   A single Appellate Body repor t was circulated in relation 
to those appeals. 
b This number excludes one Notice of Appeal that was wit hdrawn by the United States, which subsequently filed 
another Notice of Appeal in re lation to the same panel report: US – FSC . 
c This number includes two Notices of A ppeal that were filed at the same time in related matters, counted 
separately: US – 1916 Act (EC)  and US – 1916 Act (Japan).   A single Appellate Body report was circulated in relation to 
those appeals. 
d This number excludes one Notice of Appeal that was wit hdrawn by the United States, which subsequently filed 
another Notice of Appeal in re lation to the same panel report: US – Line Pipe . 
e This number includes one Notice of Appe al that was subsequently withdrawn: India – Autos ; and excludes one 
Notice of Appeal that was withdrawn by the European Commun ities, which subsequently filed another Notice of Appeal in 
relation to the same panel report: EC – Sardines . 
f This number excludes one Notice of Appeal that was wit hdrawn by the United States , which subsequently filed 
another Notice of Appeal in re lation to the same panel report: US – Softwood Lumber IV . 
 
 WT/AB/15 
Page 27 
 
 
  ANNEX 4 
 
 
PERCENTAGE OF PANEL REPORTS APPEALED 
BY YEAR OF ADOPTION: 1995–2010  a 
 
 All panel reports Panel reports other than  
Article 21.5 reports b Article 21.5 panel reports 
Year of 
adoption Panel 
reports 
adopted c Panel 
reports 
appealed d Percentage 
appealed ePanel 
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% 
2006 7 6 86% 4 3 75% 3 3 100% 
2007 10 5 50% 6 3 50% 4 2 50% 
2008 11 9 82% 8 6 75% 3 3 100% 
2009 8 6 75% 6 4 67% 2 2 100% 
2010 5 2 40% 5 2 40% 0 0 – 
Total 156 105 67% 129 86 67% 27 19 70% 
 
a No panel reports were adopted in 1995. 
b 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 agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and 
rulings" of the DSB upon the adoption of a previous panel or Appellate Body report. 
c The Panel Reports in EC – Bananas III (Ecuador) , EC – Bananas III (Guatemala and Honduras) ,  
EC – Bananas III (Mexico) , and EC – Bananas III (US)  are counted as a single pane l report.  The Panel Reports 
in US – Steel Safeguards , in EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar , and in EC – Chicken Cuts , are also counted as 
single panel reports in each  of those disputes.  
d Panel reports are counted as having been appealed where 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. 
e Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.  
  WT/AB/15 
Page 28 ANNEX 5 
 
WTO AGREEMENTS ADDRESSED IN APPELLATE BODY REPORT S CIRCULATED THROUGH 2010 a 
 
Year of 
circulation DSU WTO 
Agmt GATT 
1994 Agriculture SPS ATC TBT TRIMs Anti- 
Dumping Import 
Licensing SCM Safe- 
guards GATS TRIPS 
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 0 1 1 
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 1 0 0 
2000 8 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 2 1 1 
2001 7 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 4 0 1 2 0 0 
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 1 0 0 
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 
2006 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 
2007 5 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 
2008 8 1 9 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 
2009 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 
2010 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Total 78 10 62 13 7 3 2 0 27 2 24 7 5 3 
a No appeals were filed in 1995.  
  WT/AB/15 
 Page 29 
 
 
  ANNEX 6 
 
 
PARTICIPANTS AND THIRD PARTIC IPANTS IN APPEALS:  1995–2010 
 
 As of the end of 2010, there were 153 WTO Members, of which 67 have participated in 
appeals in which Appellate Body reports  were circulated between 1996 and 2010.1  
 
 The rules pursuant to which Members particip ate in appeals as appellant, other appellant, 
appellee, and third participant are describ ed in section V of this Annual Report.   
 
  I.  STATISTICAL SUMMARY 
 
WTO Member Appellant Other 
appellant Appellee Third 
participant Total 
Antigua & Barbuda 1 0 1 0 2 
Argentina 2 3 5 12 22 
Australia 3 1 6 23 33 
Barbados 0 0 0 1 1 
Belize 0 0 0 4 4 
Benin 0 0 0 1 1 
Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela 0 0 1 6 7 
Bolivia, Plurinational 
State of 0 0 0 1 1 
Brazil 8 4 12 23 47 
Cameroon 0 0 0 3 3 
Canada 10 7 16 15 48 
Chad 0 0 0 2 2 
Chile 3 0 2 8 13 
China 4 1 2 26 33 
Colombia 0 0 0 7 7 
Costa Rica 1 0 0 3 4 
Côte d'Ivoire 0 0 0 4 4 
Cuba 0 0 0 4 4 
Dominica 0 0 0 4 4 
Dominican Republic 1 0 1 3 5 
Ecuador 0 2 2 6 10 
Egypt 0 0 0 2 2 
                                                      
1No appeals were filed and no Appellate Body Reports were circulated in 1995, the year the Appellate 
Body was established. WT/AB/15 
Page 30  
 
  WTO Member Appellant Other 
appellant Appellee Third 
participant Total 
El Salvador 0 0 0 2 2 
European Union 18 13 35 48 114 
Fiji 0 0 0 1 1 
Ghana 0 0 0 2 2 
Grenada 0 0 0 1 1 
Guatemala 1 1 1 4 7 
Guyana 0 0 0 1 1 
Honduras 1 1 2 1 5 
Hong Kong, China 0 0 0 8 8 
India 6 2 7 23 38 
Indonesia 0 0 1 1 2 
Israel 0 0 0 1 1 
Jamaica 0 0 0 5 5 
Japan 6 4 11 39 60 
Kenya 0 0 0 1 1 
Korea 4 3 6 16 29 
Madagascar 0 0 0 1 1 
Malaysia 1 0 1 0 2 
Malawi 0 0 0 1 1 
Mauritius 0 0 0 2 2 
Mexico 5 1 4 27 37 
New Zealand 0 3 6 11 20 
Nicaragua 0 0 0 4 4 
Nigeria 0 0 0 1 1 
Norway 0 1 1 13 15 
Pakistan 0 0 2 3 5 
Panama 0 0 0 3 3 
Paraguay 0 0 0 5 5 
Peru 0 0 1 2 3 
Philippines 1 0 1 1 3 
Poland 0 0 1 0 1 
Senegal 0 0 0 1 1 
St Lucia 0 0 0 4 4 
St Kitts & Nevis 0 0 0 1 1  WT/AB/15 
 Page 31 
 
 
  WTO Member Appellant Other 
appellant Appellee Third 
participant Total 
St Vincent &  
the Grenadines 0 0 0 3 3 
Suriname 0 0 0 3 3 
Swaziland 0 0 0 1 1 
Switzerland 0 1 1 0 2 
Chinese Taipei 0 0 0 20 20 
Tanzania 0 0 0 1 1 
Thailand 4 0 5 16 25 
Trinidad &Tobago  0 0 0 1 1 
Turkey 1 0 0 1 2 
United States 29 16 60 28 133 
Viet Nam 0 0 0 2 2 
Total  110 64 194 468 836 
 
 
 
  
II.  DETAILS BY YEAR OF CIRCULATION 
 
1996  
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Gasoline 
WT/DS2/AB/R  United States - - - 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 - - - 
 WT/AB/15 
Page 32  
 
  1997  
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Underwear 
WT/DS24/AB/R Costa Rica - - - 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 and Corr.1  India - - - United States - - - 
Canada – Periodicals 
WT/DS31/AB/R  Canada United States Canada 
United States - - - 
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 
St Lucia 
St Vincent & 
the Grenadines 
Senegal 
Suriname 
Venezuela 
India – Patents (US) 
WT/DS50/AB/R  India - - - United States European 
Communities  WT/AB/15 
 Page 33 
 
 
  1998  
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
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 and Corr.1  Argentina - - - United States European 
Communities 
EC – Computer Equipment 
WT/DS62/AB/R, WT/DS67/AB/R 
WT/DS68/AB/R  European 
Communities - - - 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 - - - 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 - - - Mexico United States 
 WT/AB/15 
Page 34  
 
  1999  
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
Korea – Alcoholic Beverages 
WT/DS75/AB/R, WT/DS84/AB/R  Korea - - - 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 - - - United States - - - 
Canada – Dairy  
WT/DS103/AB/R, WT/DS113/AB/R and 
Corr.1  Canada - - - New Zealand 
United States - - - 
Turkey –Textiles 
WT/DS34/AB/R  Turkey - - - India Hong Kong, 
China 
Japan 
Philippines 
Chile – Alcoholic Beverages 
WT/DS87/AB/R, WT/DS110/AB/R  Chile - - - 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/15 
 Page 35 
 
 
  2000  
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
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 - - - 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 - - - Canada European 
Communities 
United States 
Canada – Aircraft 
(Article 21.5 – Brazil) 
WT/DS70/AB/RW  Brazil - - - 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
 a 
India 
Japan b 
Mexico 
Canada – Term of Patent Protection 
WT/DS170/AB/R  Canada - - - United States - - - 
Korea – Various Measures on Beef 
WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R  Korea - - - 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 
a In complaint brought by Japan. 
b In complaint brought by the European Communities. WT/AB/15 
Page 36  
 
  2001  
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
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 - - - 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 - - - Pakistan European 
Communities 
India 
US – Shrimp 
(Article 21.5 – Malaysia) 
WT/DS58/AB/RW  Malaysia - - - United States Australia 
European 
Communities 
Hong Kong, 
China 
India 
Japan 
Mexico 
Thailand 
Mexico – Corn Syrup 
(Article 21.5 – US) 
WT/DS132/AB/RW  Mexico - - - United States European 
Communities 
Canada – Dairy (Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US) 
WT/DS103/AB/RW, WT/DS113/AB/RW  Canada - - - New Zealand 
United States European 
Communities 
  WT/AB/15 
 Page 37 
 
 
  2002  
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Section 211 Appropriations Act  
WT/DS176/AB/R  European 
Communities United States European 
Communities 
United States - - - 
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  c 
WT/DS146/AB/R, WT/DS175/AB/R India - - - European 
Communities 
United States Korea 
Chile – Price Band System  
WT/DS207/AB/R and Corr.1 Chile - - - Argentina Australia 
Brazil 
Colombia 
Ecuador 
European 
Communities 
Paraguay 
United States 
Venezuela 
EC – Sardines  WT/DS231/AB/R  European 
Communities - - - Peru Canada 
Chile 
Ecuador 
United States 
Venezuela 
US – Carbon Steel 
WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1  United States European 
Communities European 
Communities 
United States Japan 
Norway 
US – Countervailing Measures on Certain  
EC Products 
WT/DS212/AB/R  United States - - - European 
Communities Brazil 
India 
Mexico 
Canada – Dairy 
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US II) 
WT/DS103/AB/RW2, WT/DS113/AB/RW2  Canada - - - New Zealand 
United States Argentina 
Australia 
European 
Communities 
c India withdrew its appeal the day before the oral hearing was scheduled to proceed. WT/AB/15 
Page 38  
 
  2003 
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Offset Act (Byrd Amendment ) 
WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R United States - - - 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 - - - European 
Communities Japan 
Korea 
United States 
EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings 
WT/DS219/AB/R Brazil - - - 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 - - - United States Brazil 
Chile 
European 
Communities 
India 
Korea 
Norway 
  WT/AB/15 
 Page 39 
 
 
  2004 
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
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 - - - 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/15 
Page 40  
 
  2005 
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
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 and Corr.1  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/15 
 Page 41 
 
 
  2005 (cont'd) 
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
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  
and Corr.1  European 
Communities Brazil 
Thailand Brazil 
European 
Communities 
Thailand China 
United States 
Mexico – Anti-Dumpi ng Measures on Rice 
WT/DS295/AB/R  Mexico - - - 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/15 
Page 42  
 
  2006 
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – FSC 
(Article 21.5 – EC II) 
WT/DS108/AB/RW2 United States European 
Communities European 
Communities 
United States Australia 
Brazil 
China 
Mexico ‒ Taxes on Soft Drinks 
WT/DS308/AB/R Mexico - - - United States Canada 
China 
European 
Communities 
Guatemala 
Japan 
US – Softwood Lumber VI 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) 
WT/DS277/AB/RW and Corr.1 Canada - - - United States China 
European 
Communities 
US – Zeroing (EC) 
WT/DS294/AB/R and Corr.1 European 
Communities United States United States 
European 
Communities Argentina 
Brazil 
China 
Hong Kong, 
China 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
Mexico 
Norway 
Chinese Taipei 
US – Softwood Lumber V 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) 
WT/DS264/AB/RW Canada - - - United States China 
European 
Communities 
India 
Japan 
New Zealand 
Thailand 
EC – Selected Customs Matters 
WT/DS315/AB/R United States European 
Communities European 
Communities 
United States Argentina 
Australia 
Brazil 
China 
Hong Kong, 
China 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
Chinese Taipei 
  WT/AB/15 
 Page 43 
 
 
  2007 
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Zeroing (Japan) 
WT/DS322/AB/R Japan United States United States 
Japan Argentina 
China 
European 
Communities 
Hong Kong, 
China 
India 
Korea 
Mexico 
New Zealand 
Norway 
Thailand 
US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset 
Reviews 
(Article 21.5 – Argentina) 
WT/DS268/AB/RW United States Argentina Argentina 
United States China 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Korea 
Mexico 
Chile – Price Band System 
(Article 21.5 – Argentina)  
WT/DS207/AB/RW  Chile Argentina Argentina 
Chile Australia 
Brazil 
Canada 
China 
Colombia 
European 
Communities 
Peru 
Thailand 
United States 
Japan – DRAMs (Korea) 
WT/DS336/AB/R and Corr.1 Japan Korea Korea 
Japan European 
Communities 
United States 
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres WT/DS332/AB/R European 
Communities - - - Brazil Argentina 
Australia 
China 
Cuba 
Guatemala 
Japan 
Korea 
Mexico 
Paraguay 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
United States 
 WT/AB/15 
Page 44  
 
  2008 
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) 
WT/DS344/AB/R Mexico - - - United States Chile 
China 
European 
Communities 
Japan  
Thailand 
US – Upland Cotton 
(Article 21.5 – Brazil) 
WT/DS267/AB/RW  United States Brazil Brazil 
United States Argentina 
Australia 
Canada 
Chad 
China 
European 
Communities 
India 
Japan 
New Zealand 
Thailand 
US – Shrimp (Thailand)  WT/DS343/AB/R  
 Thailand 
 United States 
 United States 
Thailand 
 Brazil 
Chile 
China 
European 
Communities 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
Mexico 
Viet Nam 
US – Customs Bond Directive 
WT/DS345/AB/R  
 India United States United States 
India Brazil 
China 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Thailand 
  WT/AB/15 
 Page 45 
 
 
  2008 (cont'd) 
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Continued Suspension 
WT/DS320/AB/R 
 European 
Communities 
 United States 
 United States 
European 
Communities 
 Australia 
Brazil 
China 
India 
Mexico 
New Zealand 
Norway 
Chinese Taipei 
Canada – Continued Suspension 
WT/DS321/AB/R 
 
 European 
Communities Canada Canada 
European 
Communities Australia 
Brazil 
China 
India 
Mexico 
New Zealand 
Norway 
Chinese Taipei 
India – Additional Import Duties WT/DS360/AB/R United States India India 
United States Australia 
Chile 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Viet Nam 
EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – Ecuador II) 
WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU and Corr.1  
 European 
Communities 
 Ecuador 
 
 Ecuador 
European 
Communities 
 Belize 
Brazil 
Cameroon 
Colombia 
Côte d'Ivoire 
Dominica 
Dominican 
Republic 
Ghana 
Jamaica 
Japan 
Nicaragua 
Panama 
St Lucia 
St Vincent & 
the Grenadines 
Suriname 
United States WT/AB/15 
Page 46  
 
  2008 (cont'd) 
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – US) 
WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA and Corr.1 
 European 
Communities - - - United States Belize 
Brazil 
Cameroon 
Colombia 
Côte d'Ivoire 
Dominica 
Dominican 
Republic 
Ecuador 
Jamaica 
Japan 
Mexico 
Nicaragua 
Panama 
St Lucia 
St Vincent & 
the Grenadines 
Suriname 
China – Auto Parts (EC) 
WT/DS339/AB/R  China - - - European 
Communities 
 Argentina 
Australia 
Brazil 
Japan 
Mexico 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
China – Auto Parts (US) WT/DS340/AB/R  China - - - United States 
 Argentina 
Australia 
Brazil 
Japan 
Mexico 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
China – Auto Parts (Canada) WT/DS342/AB/R  China - - - Canada Argentina 
Australia 
Brazil 
Japan 
Mexico 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
 
  WT/AB/15 
 Page 47 
 
 
 2009 
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
US – Continued Zeroing 
WT/DS350/AB/R  European 
Communities United States European 
Communities 
United States Brazil 
China 
Egypt 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
Mexico 
Norway 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
US – Zeroing (EC) 
(Article 21.5 – EC) 
WT/DS294/AB/RW and Corr.1 European 
Communities United States European 
Communities 
United States India 
Japan 
Korea 
Mexico 
Norway 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
US – Zeroing (Japan)  
(Article 21.5 – Japan) 
WT/DS322/AB/RW United States - - - Japan China 
European 
Communities 
Hong Kong, 
China 
Korea 
Mexico 
Norway 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand 
China – Publications and Audiovisual Products 
WT/DS363/AB/R China United States China 
United States Australia 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Korea 
Chinese Taipei 
 
 WT/AB/15 
Page 48  
 
 2010 
 
Case Appellant Other 
appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third 
participant(s) 
Australia – Apples Australia New Zeal and New Zealand 
Australia Chile 
European 
Union 
Japan 
Pakistan 
Chinese Taipei 
United States  WT/AB/15 
 Page 49 
 
 
 ANNEX 7 
 
 
APPELLATE BODY SECRETARIAT PARTICIPATION IN  
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, TRAINING , AND OTHER ACTIVITIES IN 2010 
 
I.  WTO BIENNIAL TE CHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING PLAN: 2010–2011 
 
Course / Seminar Location Dates 
National Seminar on Competition Policy and Trade 
Remedies Libreville, Gabon 
(French) 23 February 2010 
Regional Trade Policy Cour se for Latin America – 
Basic Principles Bogotá, Colombia 
(Spanish) 25–26 February 2010 
International Trade Law Po st-Graduate Course ("The 
WTO and its Dispute Settlement System") Turin, Italy 
(English) 29 March–1 April 2010 
National Dispute Settlement Understanding Course Port Louis, Mauritius 
(English) 12–16 April 2010 
Regional DSU Course for Arabia and Middle East Abu Dhabi 
(English) 26–30 April 2010 
Regional Trade Policy Cour se for Latin America – 
Dispute Settlement Bogotá, Colombia 
(Spanish) 28–30 April 2010 
Regional Dispute Settlement Understanding for Africa Cape Town, 
South Africa (English) 10–14 May 2010 
Regional Trade Policy Course for Asia/Pacific – 
Basic Principles Singapore 
(English) 20–21 May 2010 
National Seminar on Trade Remedies Antananarivo, 
Madagascar (French) 1–4 June 2010 
National Seminar on WTO Dispute Settlement Havana, Cuba 
(Spanish) 28 June–2 July 2010 
Regional Trade Policy Course for Asia/Pacific – 
Dispute Settlement Singapore 
(English) 19–22 July 2010 
Regional Trade Policy Course for Asia/Pacific – 
Dispute Settlement Singapore 
(English) 26–29 July 2010 
Regional Trade Policy Cour se for French-Speaking 
Africa – Dispute Settlement Cotonou, Benin 
(French) 5–6 October 2010 
WTO Short Regional Trade Policy Course for 
CEECAC Region Istanbul, Turkey 
(English) 26–29 October 2010 
Regional Trade Policy Course for English-Speaking 
Africa – Dispute Settlement Manzini, Swaziland 
(English) 24–26 November 2010 WT/AB/15 
Page 50  
 
 II.  OTHER ACTIVITIES – 2010 
 
Activity Location Dates 
ELSA Moot Court Competition (Regional Round) São Paulo, Brazil 2–6 March 2010 
ELSA Moot Court Competition (Regional Round) Helsinki, Finland 10–14 March 2010 
ELSA Moot Court Competition (Regional Round) Chinese Taipei 17–20 March 2010 
ELSA Moot Court Competition (Finals) Santo Domingo, 
Dominican Republic 24–29 May 2010 
IELPO Moot Court Competition Barcelona, Spain 11–12 June 2010 
Dispute Settlement Course, LL.M. Program, 
University of Western Cape, South Africa Cape Town, 
South Africa (English) 20–23 September 2010 
 
 
III.  BRIEFINGS TO GROUPS VISITING THE WTO – 2010 
 
Activity Location Dates 
The Interaction Times, São Paulo – "Introduction to 
the WTO" Geneva, Switzerland January 2010 
Handelsakademie Wien – "Introduction to the WTO" Geneva, Switzerland February 2010 
Australian National University College of Law – 
"WTO Dispute Settlement" Geneva, Switzerland February 2010 
University of Reading School of Law – "WTO 
Dispute Settlement" Geneva, Switzerland March 2010 
Université de Genève – "Le mécanisme de réglement 
des différends de l'OMC:  Quel rôle dans la 
gouvernance globale?" Geneva, Switzerland March 2010 
John Marshall Law School, Chicago – "WTO Dispute 
Settlement" Geneva, Switzerland March 2010 
University of Michigan Law School Geneva, Switzerland March 2010 
Graduate School of International Policy Management 
at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, 
California (via Skype) Geneva, Switzerland March 2010 
Universities of Moscow and St. Petersburg Geneva, Switzerland April 2010 
Lawyers from assorted Swedish trade departments Geneva, Switzerland April 2010 
Antwerp University – "WTO Dispute Se ttlement" Geneva, Switzerland April 2010  WT/AB/15 
 Page 51 
 
 
 Activity Location Dates 
Santa Clara University, Californi a Geneva, Switzerland April 2010 
Amsterdam Law School – "WTO Dispute Settlement" Geneva, Switzerland May 2010 
Vietnamese Officials – "WTO Dispute Settlement 
Procedures" Geneva, Switzerland May 2010 
Lipscomb University, Tennessee – "WTO Dispute 
Settlement" Geneva, Switzerland May 2010 
Bern University, Switzer land – "WTO Dispute 
Settlement" Geneva, Switzerland May 2010 
Neuchatel University, Switzerland – "Rules of 
Interpretation" Geneva, Switzerland May 2010 
Graduate Institute, Geneva – "Appellate Review" Geneva, Switzerland May 2010 
Queen's University, Ontario, Canada Geneva, Switzerland June 2010 
Cologne University – "WTO Dispute Se ttlement" Geneva, Switzerland June 2010 
Washington College of Law, Washington, D.C. Geneva, Switzerland June 2010 
Santa Clara University School of Law, California –  
"WTO Dispute Settlement" Geneva, Switzerland June 2010 
ELSA Lviv, Ukraine –  "WTO Dispute Se ttlement" Geneva, Switzerland July 2010 
EAFIT University of Medellín, Colombia 
(at UNCTAD) Geneva, Switzerland October 2010 
 
   WT/AB/15 
Page 52  
 
 ANNEX 8 
 
 
WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORT S AND ARBITRATION AWARDS: 1995–2010 
 
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Argentina – Ceramic Tiles Panel Report, Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of 
Ceramic Floor Tiles from Italy , WT/DS189/R, adopted 5 November 2001, 
DSR 2001:XII, 6241 
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 – Footwear (EC) Panel Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear , 
WT/DS121/R, adopted 12 January 2000, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS121/AB/R, DSR 2000:II, 575 
Argentina – Hides and 
Leather Panel Report, Argentina – Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and 
Import of Finished Leather , WT/DS155/R and Corr.1, adopted 16 February 
2001, DSR 2001:V, 1779 
Argentina – Hides and Leather (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Argentina – Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine 
Hides and Import of Finished Leather – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of 
the DSU , WT/DS155/10, 31 August 2001, DSR 2001:XII, 6013 
Argentina – Poultry 
Anti-Dumping Duties Panel Report, Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Poultry from 
Brazil , WT/DS241/R, adopted 19 May 2003, DSR 2003:V, 1727 
Argentina – Preserved 
Peaches Panel Report, Argentina – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of 
Preserved Peaches , WT/DS238/R, adopted 15 April 2003, DSR 2003:III, 
1037 
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 
Argentina – Textiles and Apparel Panel Report, Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, 
Apparel and Other Items , WT/DS56/R, adopted 22 April 1998, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS56/AB/R, DSR 1998:III, 1033 
Australia – Apples Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of 
Apples from New Zealand , WT/DS367/AB/R, adopted 17 December 2010 
Australia – Apples Panel Report, Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from 
New Zealand , WT/DS367/R, adopted 17 December 2010, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS367/AB/R 
Australia – Automotive Leather II Panel Report, Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of 
Automotive Leather , WT/DS126/R, adopted 16 June 1999, DSR 1999:III, 951 
Australia – Automotive 
Leather II (Article 21.5 – US) Panel Report, Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of 
Automotive Leather – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United 
States , WT/DS126/RW and Corr.1, adopted 11 February 2000, DSR 2000:III, 
1189 
Australia – Salmon Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of 
Salmon , WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, 3327 
Australia – Salmon Panel Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon , 
WT/DS18/R and Corr.1, adopted 6 November 1998, as modified by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS18/AB/R, DSR 1998:VIII, 3407  WT/AB/15 
 Page 53 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Australia – Salmon  
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of 
Salmon – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS18/9,  
23 February 1999, DSR 1999:I, 267 
Australia – Salmon 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Panel Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon – 
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada , WT/DS18/RW, adopted  
20 March 2000, DSR 2000:IV, 2031 
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 Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft , 
WT/DS46/R, adopted 20 August 1999, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS46/AB/R, DSR 1999:III, 1221 
Brazil – Aircraft (Article 21.5 – Canada) Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme 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 – Aircraft (Article 21.5 – Canada II) Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft – Second 
Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS46/RW/2, adopted  
23 August 2001, DSR 2001:X, 5481 
Brazil – Aircraft (Article 22.6 – Brazil) Decision by th e Arbitrators, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for 
Aircraft – Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and 
Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement , WT/DS46/ARB, 28 August 2000, DSR 
2002:I, 19 
Brazil – Desiccated Coconut Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut , 
WT/DS22/AB/R, adopted 20 March 1997, DSR 1997:I, 167 
Brazil – Desiccated Coconut Panel Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut , WT/DS22/R, 
adopted 20 March 1997, as upheld by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS22/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, 189 
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded 
Tyres , WT/DS332/AB/R, adopted 17 D ecember 2007, DSR 2007:IV, 1527 
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres Panel Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres , 
WT/DS332/R, adopted 17 December 2007, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS332/AB/R, DSR 2007:V, 1649 
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded 
Tyres – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS332/16,  
29 August 2008 
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 Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft , 
WT/DS70/R, adopted 20 August 1999, as upheld by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS70/AB/R, DSR 1999:IV, 1443 
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 WT/AB/15 
Page 54  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 – Aircraft Credits and Guarantees Panel Report, Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional 
Aircraft , WT/DS222/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 February 2002, DSR 2002:III, 
849 
Canada – Aircraft Credits and 
Guarantees (Article 22.6 – Canada) Decision by th e Arbitrator, Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for 
Regional Aircraft – Recourse to Arbitration by Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement , WT/DS222/ARB, 17 
February 2003, DSR 2003:III, 1187 
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 – Autos Panel Report, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry , 
WT/DS139/R, WT/DS142/R, adopted 19 June 2000, as modified by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, DSR 2000:VII, 3043 
Canada – Autos  
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive 
Industry – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS139/12, 
WT/DS142/12, 4 October 2000, DSR 2000:X, 5079 
Canada – Continued Suspension Appellate Body Report, Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the 
EC – Hormones Dispute , WT/DS321/AB/R, adopted 14 November 2008 
Canada – Continued 
Suspension Panel Report, Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – 
Hormones Dispute , WT/DS321/R, adopted 14 November 2008, as modified 
by Appellate Body Report WT/DS321/AB/R 
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 Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the 
Exportation of Dairy Products , WT/DS103/R, WT/DS113/R, adopted 27 
October 1999, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS103/AB/R, WT/DS113/AB/R, DSR 1999:VI, 2097 
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 D ecember 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/15 
 Page 55 
 
 
 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 – Patent Term Panel Report, Canada – Term of Patent Protection , WT/DS170/R, adopted  
12 October 2000, as upheld by Appellate Body Report WT/DS170/AB/R, DSR 2000:XI, 5121 
Canada – Patent Term (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Canada – Term of Patent Protection – Arbitration 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS170/10, 28 February 2001, DSR 
2001:V, 2031 
Canada – Periodicals Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals , 
WT/DS31/AB/R, adopted 30 July 1997, DSR 1997:I, 449 
Canada – Periodicals Panel Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals , 
WT/DS31/R and Corr.1, adopted 30 July 1997, as modified by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS31/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, 481 
Canada – Pharmaceutical Patents Panel Report, Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products , 
WT/DS114/R, adopted 7 April 2000, DSR 2000:V, 2289 
Canada – Pharmaceutical 
Patents (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical 
Products – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS114/13,  
18 August 2000, DSR 2002:I, 3 
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, 
DSR 2004:VI, 2739 
Canada – Wheat Exports and 
Grain Imports Panel Report, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and 
Treatment of Imported Grain , WT/DS276/R, adopted 27 September 2004, as 
upheld by Appellate Body Report WT/DS276/AB/R, DSR 2004:VI, 2817 
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 – Alcoholic Beverages Panel Report, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS87/R, 
WT/DS110/R, adopted 12 January 2000, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS87/AB/R, WT/DS1 10/AB/R, DSR 2000:I, 303 
Chile – Alcoholic Beverages 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages – Arbitration 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS87/15, WT/DS110/14, 23 May 2000, 
DSR 2000:V, 2583 
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 (Corr.1, DSR 2006:XII, 5473) 
Chile – Price Band System Panel Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to 
Certain Agricultural Products , WT/DS207/R, adopted 23 October 2002, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS207AB/R, DSR 2002:VIII, 3127 
Chile – Price Band System (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures 
Relating to Certain Agricultural Products – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) 
of the DSU , WT/DS207/13, 17 March 2003, DSR 2003:III, 1237 WT/AB/15 
Page 56  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Chile – Price Band System 
(Article 21.5 – Argentina) Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures 
Relating to Certain Agricultural Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the 
DSU by Argentina , WT/DS207/AB/RW, adopted 22 May 2007, DSR 2007:II, 
513 
Chile – Price Band System (Article 21.5 – Argentina) Panel Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to 
Certain Agricultural Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by 
Argentina , WT/DS207/RW and Corr.1, adopted 22 May 2007, as upheld by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS207/AB/RW, DSR 2007:II-III, 613 
China – Auto Parts Appellate Body Reports, China – Measures Affecting Imports of Automobile 
Parts , WT/DS339/AB/R, WT /DS340/AB/R, WT/DS342/AB/R, adopted  
12 January 2009 
China – Auto Parts Panel Reports, China – Measures Affecting Imports of Automobile Parts , 
WT/DS339/R, WT/DS340/R, WT/DS342/R and Add.1 and Add.2, adopted  
12 January 2009, as upheld (WT/DS339/R) and as modified (WT/DS340/R, WT/DS342/R) by Appellate Body Reports WT/DS339/AB/R, 
WT/DS340/AB/R, WT/DS342/AB/R 
China – Intellectual Property 
Rights Panel Report, China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of 
Intellectual Property Rights , WT/DS362/R, adopted 20 March 2009 
China – Publications and 
Audiovisual Products Appellate Body Report, China –  Measures Affecting Trading Rights and 
Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment 
Products , WT/DS363/AB/R, adopted 19 January 2010 
China – Publications and 
Audiovisual Products Panel Report, China –  Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution 
Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products , 
WT/DS363/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 January 2010, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS363/AB/R 
China – Raw Materials 
Exports Panel Reports, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw 
Materials , WT/DS394/R, WT/DS395/R, WT/D S398/R, circulated to WTO 
Members 5 July 2011 [adoption/appeal pending] 
Colombia – Ports of Entry Panel Report, Colombia – Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of 
Entry , WT/DS366/R and Corr.1, adopted 20 May 2009 
Colombia – Ports of Entry 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia – Indicative Prices and Restrictions on 
Ports of Entry – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS366/13, 
2 October 2009 
Dominican Republic – Import 
and Sale of Cigarettes Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the 
Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes , WT/DS302/AB/R, adopted  
19 May 2005, DSR 2005:XV, 7367 
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, DSR 2005:XV, 7425 
Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes  (Article 21.3(c)) Report of the Arbitrator, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the 
Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes  – Arbitration under Article 
21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS302/17, 29 August 2005, DSR 2005:XXIII, 11665 
EC – The ACP-EC 
Partnership Agreement Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – The ACP-EC Partnership 
Agreement – Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 
November 2001 , WT/L/616, 1 August 2005, DSR 2005:XXIII, 11669  WT/AB/15 
 Page 57 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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, DSR 2005:XXIII, 11703 
EC – Approval and Marketing 
of Biotech Products Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and 
Marketing of Biotech Products , WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R, 
Add.1 to Add.9, and Corr.1, adopted 21 November 2006, DSR 2006:III-VIII, 
847 
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 – Asbestos Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and 
Asbestos-Containing Products , WT/DS135/R and Add.1, adopted 5 April 
2001, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS135/AB/R, DSR 
2001:VIII, 3305 
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 – Bananas III (Ecuador) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas, Complaint by Ecuador , WT/DS27/R/ECU, adopted 
25 September 1997, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS27/AB/R, 
DSR 1997:III, 1085 
EC – Bananas III (Guatemala and Honduras) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas, Complaint by Guatemala and Honduras , 
WT/DS27/R/GTM, WT/DS27/R/HND, adopted 25 September 1997, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:II, 695 
EC – Bananas III (Mexico) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Banana s, Complaint by Mexico , WT/DS27/R/MEX, adopted 
25 September 1997, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:II, 803 
EC – Bananas III (US) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas, Complaint by the United States , WT/DS27/R/USA, 
adopted 25 September 1997, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:II, 943 
EC – Bananas III  (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – Regime for the 
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Arbitration under Article 
21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS27/15, 7 January 1998, DSR 1998:I, 3 
EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – EC) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities , WT/DS27/RW/EEC, 12 April 1999, and Corr.1, 
unadopted, DSR 1999:II, 783 
EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – Ecuador) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador , 
WT/DS27/RW/ECU, adopted 6 May 1999, DSR 1999:II, 803 WT/AB/15 
Page 58  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – Ecuador II) / 
EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – US) Appellate Body Reports, European Communities – Regime for the 
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Second Recourse to Article 
21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador , WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU, adopted 11 December 
2008, and Corr.1 / European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale 
and Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the 
United States , WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA and Co rr.1, adopted 22 December 
2008 
EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – Ecuador II) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by 
Ecuador , WT/DS27/RW2/ECU, adopted 11 December 2008, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU 
EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – US) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United 
States , WT/DS27/RW/USA and Corr.1, adop ted 22 December 2008, as upheld 
by Appellate Body Report WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA 
EC – Bananas III (Ecuador) (Article 22.6 – EC) Decision by th e Arbitrators, European Communities – Regime for the 
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Arbitration by 
the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU , 
WT/DS27/ARB/ECU, 24 March 2000, DSR 2000:V, 2237 
EC – Bananas III (US) (Article 22.6 – EC) Decision by th e Arbitrators, European Communities – Regime for the 
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS27/ARB,  
9 April 1999, DSR 1999:II, 725 
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 Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of 
Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India , WT/DS141/R, adopted 12 March 2001, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS141/AB/R, DSR 2001:VI, 2077 
EC – Bed Linen (Article 21.5 – India) Appellate Body 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/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 – Butter Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Butter Products , 
WT/DS72/R, 24 November 1999, unadopted 
EC – Chicken Cuts Appellate Body Report, European  Communities – Customs Classification of 
Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts , WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB/R, adopted 
27 September 2005, and Corr.1, DSR 2005:XIX, 9157 
EC – 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, DSR 2005:XIX, 9295  WT/AB/15 
 Page 59 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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, DSR 2005:XX, 9721 
EC – Chicken Cuts  (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – Customs Classification of 
Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , 
WT/DS269/13, WT/DS286/15, 20 February 2006 
EC – Commercial Vessels Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Trade in 
Commercial Vessels , WT/DS301/R, adopted 20 June 2005, DSR 2005:XV, 
7713 
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 – Computer Equipment Panel Report, European Communities – Customs Classification of Certain 
Computer Equipment , WT/DS62/R, WT/DS67/R, WT/DS68/R, adopted  
22 June 1998, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS62/AB/R, 
WT/DS67/AB/R, WT/DS68/AB/R, DSR 1998:V, 1891 
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, DSR 2005:XVIII, 8671 
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, DSR 2005:XIII, 6365 
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, DSR 
2005:XIII, 6499 
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, DSR 
2005:XIV, 6793 
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, DSR 
2005:XIV, 7071 
EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar (Article 21.3(c)) 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, DSR 2005:XXIII, 11581 
EC – Fasteners (China) Panel Report, European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China , WT/DS397/R, circulated to WTO 
Members 3 December 2010 [appeal in progress] 
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 – Hormones (Canada) Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products 
(Hormones), Complaint by Canada , WT/DS48/R/CAN, adopted 13 February 
1998, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS26/AB/R, 
WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:II, 235 WT/AB/15 
Page 60  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
EC – Hormones (US) Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products 
(Hormones), Complaint by the United States , WT/DS26/R/USA, adopted  
13 February 1998, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS26/AB/R, 
WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:III, 699 
EC – Hormones  (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products 
(Hormones) – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS26/15, 
WT/DS48/13, 29 May 1998, DSR 1998:V, 1833 
EC – Hormones (Canada) 
(Article 22.6 – EC) Decision by th e Arbitrators, European Communities – Measures Concerning 
Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Original Complaint by Canada – Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of 
the DSU , WT/DS48/ARB, 12 July 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1135 
EC – Hormones (US) 
(Article 22.6 – EC) Decision by th e Arbitrators, European Communities – Measures Concerning 
Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Original Complaint by the United 
States – Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS26/ARB, 12 July 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1105 
EC – IT Products Panel Report, European Communities and its member States – Tariff 
Treatment of Certain Information Technology Products , WT/DS375/R, 
WT/DS376/R, WT/DS377/R, adopted 21 September 2010 
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 – Poultry Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting the Importation of 
Certain Poultry Products , WT/DS69/R, adopted 23 July 1998, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS69/AB/R, DSR 1998:V, 2089 
EC – Salmon (Norway) Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Measure on Farmed 
Salmon from Norway , WT/DS337/R, adopted 15 January 2008, and Corr.1, 
DSR 2008:I, 3 
EC – Sardines Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Trade Description of 
Sardines , WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 23 October 2002, DSR 2002:VIII, 3359 
EC – Sardines Panel Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines , 
WT/DS231/R and Corr.1, adopted 23 October 2002, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS231/AB/R, DSR 2002:VIII, 3451 
EC – Scallops (Canada) Panel Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Scallops – 
Request by Canada , WT/DS7/R, 5 August 1996, unadopted, DSR 1996:I, 89 
EC – Scallops (Peru and 
Chile) Panel Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Scallops – 
Requests by Peru  and Chile , WT/DS12/R, WT/DS14/R, 5 August 1996, 
unadopted, DSR 1996:I, 93 
EC – Selected Customs Matters Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Selected Customs Matters , 
WT/DS315/AB/R, adop ted 11 December 2006,  DSR 2006:IX, 3791 
EC – Selected Customs 
Matters Panel Report, European Communities – Selected Customs Matters , 
WT/DS315/R, adopted 11 December 2006, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS315/AB/R, DSR 2006:IX-X, 3915 
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, DSR 2004:III, 925  WT/AB/15 
 Page 61 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
EC – Tariff Preferences Panel Report, European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff 
Preferences to Developing Countries , WT/DS246/R, adopted 20 April 2004, 
as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS/246/AB/R, DSR 2004:III, 
1009 
EC – Tariff Preferences (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – Conditions for the 
Granting of Tariff Preference s to Developing Countries  – Arbitration under 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS246/14, 20 September 2004, DSR 2004:IX, 
4313 
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, DSR 2005:X, 
4603 
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, DSR 
2005:VIII, 3499 
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 
EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable 
Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil , WT/DS219/R, adopted 18 
August 2003, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS219/AB/R, DSR 2003:VII, 2701 
EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft Appellate Body Report, European Communities and Certain Member States – 
Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft , WT/DS316/AB/R, adopted 
1 June 2011 
EC and certain member States 
– Large Civil Aircraft Panel Report, European Communities and Certain Member States – Measures 
Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft , WT/DS316/R, adopted 1 June 2011, 
as modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS316/AB/R 
Egypt – Steel Rebar Panel Report, Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from 
Turkey , WT/DS211/R, adopted 1 October 2002, DSR 2002:VII, 2667 
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 
Guatemala – Cement I Panel Report, Guatemala – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Portland 
Cement from Mexico , WT/DS60/R, adopted 25 November 1998, as reversed 
by Appellate Body Report WT/DS60/AB/R, DSR 1998:IX, 3797 
Guatemala – Cement II Panel Report, Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Grey 
Portland Cement from Mexico , WT/DS156/R, adopted 17 November 2000, 
DSR 2000:XI, 5295 
India – Additional Import Duties Appellate Body Report, India – Additional and Extra-Additional Duties on 
Imports from the United States , WT/DS360/AB/R, adopted 17 November 
2008 
India – Additional Import 
Duties Panel Report, India – Additional and Extra-Add itional Duties on Imports from 
the United States , WT/DS360/R, adopted 17 November 2008, as reversed by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS360/AB/R WT/AB/15 
Page 62  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 – Autos Panel Report, India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector , 
WT/DS146/R, WT/DS175/R and Corr.1, adopted 5 April 2002, DSR 2002:V, 1827 
India – Patents (EC) Panel Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural 
Chemical Products, Complaint by the European Communities and their 
member States , WT/DS79/R, adopted 22 September 1998, DSR 1998:VI, 2661
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 – Patents (US) Panel Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural 
Chemical Products, Complaint by the United States , WT/DS50/R, adopted  
16 January 1998, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS50/AB/R, DSR 1998:I, 41 
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 
India – Quantitative Restrictions Panel Report, India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, 
Textile and Industrial Products , WT/DS90/R, adopted 22 September 1999, as 
upheld by Appellate Body Report WT/DS90/AB/R, DSR 1999:V, 1799 
Indonesia – Autos Panel Report, Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile 
Industry , WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R and Corr.1 
and 2, adopted 23 July 1998, and Corr. 3 and 4, DSR 1998:VI, 2201 
Indonesia – Autos  (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the 
Automobile Industry – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , 
WT/DS54/15, WT/DS55/14, WT/DS59/ 13, WT/DS64/12, 7 December 1998, 
DSR 1998:IX, 4029 
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 – Agricultural  Products II Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products , 
WT/DS76/R, adopted 19 March 1999, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS76/AB/R, DSR 1999:I, 315 
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 – Alcoholic  Beverages II Panel Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS8/R, 
WT/DS10/R, WT/DS11/R, adopted 1 November 1996, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, 
DSR 1996:I, 125 
Japan – Alcoholic  Beverages II  
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages – Arbitration 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS8/15, WT/DS10/15, WT/DS11/13, 
14 February 1997, DSR 1997:I, 3 
Japan – Apples Appellate Body Report, Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of 
Apples , WT/DS245/AB/R, adopted 10 December 2003, DSR 2003:IX, 4391  WT/AB/15 
 Page 63 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Japan – Apples Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples , 
WT/DS245/R, adopted 10 December 2003, as upheld by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS245/AB/R, DSR 2003:IX, 4481  
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, DSR 2005:XVI, 7911 
Japan – DRAMs (Korea) Appellate Body Report, Japan – Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random 
Access Memories from Korea , WT/DS336/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted  
17 December 2007, DSR 2007:VII, 2703 
Japan – DRAMs (Korea) Panel Report, Japan – Countervailing Dutie s on Dynamic Random Access 
Memories from Korea , WT/DS336/R, adopted 17 December 2007, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS336/AB/R, DSR 2007:VII, 2805 
Japan – DRAMs (Korea) 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Japan – Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random 
Access Memories from Korea – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , 
WT/DS336/16, 5 May 2008 
Japan – Film Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and 
Paper , WT/DS44/R, adopted 22 April 1998, DSR 1998:IV, 1179 
Japan – Quotas on Laver Panel Report, Japan – Import Quotas on Dried Laver and Seasoned Laver , 
WT/DS323/R, 1 February 2006, unadopted 
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 – Alcoholic Beverages Panel Report, Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS75/R, 
WT/DS84/R, adopted 17 February 1999, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS75/AB/R, WT/DS84/AB/R, DSR 1999:I, 44 
Korea – Alcoholic Beverages (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages – Arbitration 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS75/16, WT/DS84/14, 4 June 1999, 
DSR 1999:II, 937 
Korea – Certain Paper Panel Report, Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from 
Indonesia , WT/DS312/R, adopted 28 November 2005, DSR 2005:XXII, 
10637 
Korea – Certain Paper (Article 21.5 – Indonesia) Panel Report, Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from 
Indonesia – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Indonesia , 
WT/DS312/RW, adopted 22 October 2007, DSR 2007:VIII, 3369 
Korea – Commercial Vessels Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels , 
WT/DS273/R, adopted 11 April 2005, DSR 2005:VII, 2749 
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 – Dairy Panel Report, Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain 
Dairy Products , WT/DS98/R and Corr.1, adopted 12 January 2000, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS98/AB/R, DSR 2000:I, 49 
Korea – Procurement Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Government Procurement , 
WT/DS163/R, adopted 19 June 2000, DSR 2000:VIII, 3541 
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 WT/AB/15 
Page 64  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Korea – Various Measures on 
Beef Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and 
Frozen Beef , WT/DS161/R, WT/DS169/R, adopted 10 January 2001, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report  WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, 
DSR 2001:I, 59 
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, DSR 2005:XXII, 10853 
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, DSR 2005:XXIII, 
11007 
Mexico – Corn Syrup Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigatio n of High Fructose Corn 
Syrup (HFCS) from the United States , WT/DS132/R, adopted 24 February 
2000, and Corr.1, DSR 2000:III, 1345 
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 Investigatio n 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 – Olive Oil Panel Report, Mexico – Definitive Countervailing Measures on Olive Oil from 
the European Communities , WT/DS341/R, adopted 21 October 2008, DSR 
2008:IX, 3179 
Mexico – Steel Pipes and 
Tubes Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Duties on  Steel Pipes and Tubes from 
Guatemala , WT/DS331/R, adopted 24 July 2007, DSR 2007:IV, 1207 
Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other 
Beverages , WT/DS308/AB/R, adopted 24 March 2006, DSR 2006:I, 3 
Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks Panel Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages , 
WT/DS308/R, adopted 24 March 2006, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS308/AB/R, DSR 2006:I, 43 
Mexico – Telecoms Panel Report, Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services , 
WT/DS204/R, adopted 1 June 2004, DSR 2004:IV, 1537 
Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines) Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on 
Cigarettes from the Philippines , WT/DS371/AB/R, circulated to WTO 
Members 17 June 2011 
Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines) Panel Report, Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the 
Philippines , WT/DS371/R [appealed/adoption pending] 
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 
Thailand – H-Beams Panel Report, Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and 
Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland , WT/DS122/R, 
adopted 5 April 2001, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS122/AB/R, DSR 2001:VII, 2741  WT/AB/15 
 Page 65 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Turkey – Rice Panel Report, Turkey – Measures Affecting the Importation of Rice , 
WT/DS334/R, adopted 22 October 2007, DSR 2007:VI, 2151 
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 
Turkey – Textiles Panel Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing 
Products , WT/DS34/R, adopted 19 November 1999, as modified by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS34/AB/R, DSR 1999:VI, 2363 
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 – 1916 Act (EC) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, Complaint by the 
European Communities , WT/DS136/R and Corr.1, adopted 26 September 
2000, as upheld by Appellate Body Report WT/DS136/AB/R, 
WT/DS162/AB/R, DSR 2000:X, 4593 
US – 1916 Act (Japan) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, Complaint by Japan , 
WT/DS162/R and Add.1, adopted 26 September 2000, as upheld by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, DSR 2000:X, 4831 
US – 1916 Act  (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 – 
Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS136/11, WT/DS162/14, 
28 February 2001, DSR 2001:V, 2017 
US – 1916 Act (EC) (Article 22.6 – US) Decision by th e Arbitrators, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, 
Original Complaint by the European Communities – Recourse to Arbitration 
by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS136/ARB,  
24 February 2004, DSR 2004:IX, 4269 
US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China) Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China , WT/DS379/AB/R, 
adopted 25 March 2011 
US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China) Panel Report, United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Certain Products from China , WT/DS379/R, adopted 25 March 2011, 
as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS379/AB/R 
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/AB/R, adopted  
28 November 2005, DSR 2005:XX, 10127 
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, DSR 
2005:XXI, 10225 
US – Anti-Dumping Measures on PET Bags Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Polyethylene Retail 
Carrier Bags from Thailand , WT/DS383/R, adopted 18 February 2010 
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 WT/AB/15 
Page 66  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Carbon Steel Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany , WT/DS213/R 
and Corr.1, adopted 19 December 2002, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS213/AB/R, DSR 2002:IX, 3833 
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 – Certain EC Products Panel Report, United States – Import Measures on Certain Products from the 
European Communities , WT/DS165/R and Add.1, adopted 10 January 2001, 
as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS165/AB/R, DSR 2001:II, 413 
US – Continued Suspension Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations 
in the EC – Hormones Dispute , WT/DS320/AB/R, adopted 14 November 
2008, DSR 2008:X, 3507 
US – Continued Suspension Panel Report, United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC 
– Hormones Dispute , WT/DS320/R, adopted 14 November 2008, as modified 
by Appellate Body Report WT/DS320/AB/R, DSR 2008:XI, 3891 
US – Continued Zeroing Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Existence and Application 
of Zeroing Methodology , WT/DS350/AB/R, adopted 19 February 2009 
US – Continued Zeroing Panel Report, United States – Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing 
Methodology , WT/DS350/R, adopted 19 February 2009, as modified as 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS350/AB/R 
US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping 
Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan , 
WT/DS244/AB/R, adopted 9 January 2004, DSR 2004:I, 3  
US – Corrosion-Resistant 
Steel Sunset Review Panel Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan , WT/DS244/R, 
adopted 9 January 2004, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WTDS244/AB/R, DSR 2004:I, 85  
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 – Cotton Yarn Panel Report, United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed 
Cotton Yarn from Pakistan , WT/DS192/R, adopted 5 November 2001, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS192/AB/R, DSR 2001:XII, 6067 
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, DSR 2005:XVI, 8131 
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, DSR 2005:XVII, 8243 
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  WT/AB/15 
 Page 67 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Countervailing Measures 
on Certain EC Products Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain 
Products from the European Communities , WT/DS212/R, adopted 8 January 
2003, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS212/AB/R, DSR 2003:I, 
73 
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, DSR 2005:XVIII, 8950 
US – Customs Bond Directive Panel Report, United States – Customs Bond Directive for Merchandise 
Subject to Anti-Dumping/Countervailing Duties , WT/DS345/R, adopted  
1 August 2008, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS343/AB/R / 
WT/DS345/AB/R, DSR 2008:VIII, 2925 
US – DRAMS Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea , WT/DS99/R, adopted 19 March 1999, DSR 1999:II, 521 
US – DRAMS 
(Article 21.5 – Korea) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from 
Korea – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Korea , WT/DS99/RW,  
7 November 2000, unadopted 
US – Export Restraints Panel Report, United States – Measures Treating Exports Restraints as 
Subsidies , WT/DS194/R and Corr.2, adopted 23 August 2001, DSR 2001:XI, 
5767 
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 Panel Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" , WT/DS108/R, adopted 20 March 2000, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS108/AB/R, DSR 2000:IV, 1675 
US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC) Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" – Recourse to Article 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) Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European 
Communities , WT/DS108/AB/RW2, adopted 14 March 2006, DSR 2006:XI, 
4721 
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, adopted 14 March 2006, as upheld by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS108/AB/RW2, DSR 2006:XI, 4761 
US – FSC (Article 22.6 – US) Decision by th e Arbitrator, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" – Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 
22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement , WT/DS108/ARB,  
30 August 2002, DSR 2002:VI, 2517 WT/AB/15 
Page 68  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Gambling Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border 
Supply of Gambling and Betting Services , WT/DS285/AB/R, adopted 20 April 
2005, DSR 2005:XII, 5663 (Corr.1, DSR 2006:XII, 5475) 
US – Gambling Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of 
Gambling and Betting Services , WT/DS285/R, adopted 20 April 2005, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS285/AB/R, DSR 2005:XII, 5797 
US – Gambling  
(Article 21.3(c)) 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, DSR 2005:XXIII, 11639 
US – Gambling 
(Article 21.5 – Antigua and Barbuda) Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of 
Gambling and Betting Services – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Antigua and Barbuda , WT/DS285/RW, adopted 22 May 2007, DSR 
2007:VIII, 3105 
US – Gambling 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by th e Arbitrator, United States – Measures Affecting the 
Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services – Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , 
WT/DS285/ARB, 21 Decembe r 2007, DSR 2007:X, 4163 
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 – Gasoline Panel Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional 
Gasoline , WT/DS2/R, adopted 20 May 1996, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS2/AB/ R, DSR 1996:I, 29 
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 – Hot-Rolled Steel Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled 
Steel Products from Japan , WT/DS184/R, adopted 23 August 2001 modified 
by Appellate Body Report WT/DS184/AB/R, DSR 2001:X, 4769 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel  (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain 
Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of 
the DSU , WT/DS184/13, 19 February 2002, DSR 2002:IV, 1389 
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 – Lamb Panel Report, United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, 
Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia , 
WT/DS177/R, WT/DS178/R, adopted 16 May 2001, as modified by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, DSR 2001:IX, 4107 
US – Large Civil Aircraft  (2
nd complaint) Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil 
Aircraft (Second Complaint) , WT/DS353/R, circulated to WTO Members  
31 March 2011 [appeal in progress] 
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  WT/AB/15 
 Page 69 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Lead and Bismuth II Panel Report, United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain 
Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the 
United Kingdom , WT/DS138/R and Corr.2, adopted 7 June 2000, as upheld by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS138/AB/R, DSR 2000:VI, 2623 
US – Line Pipe Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea , 
WT/DS202/AB/R, adopted 8 March 2002, DSR 2002:IV, 1403 
US – Line Pipe Panel Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of 
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea , WT/DS202/R, 
adopted 8 March 2002, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS202/AB/, DSR 2002:IV, 1473 
US – Line Pipe  (Article 21.3(c)) Report of the Arbitrator, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea – 
Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS202/17, 26 July 2002, 
DSR 2002:V, 2061 
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 – Offset Act (Byrd Amendment) Panel Report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 
2000 , WT/DS217/R, WT/DS234/R, adopted 27 January 2003, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R, DSR 2003:II, 
489 
US – Offset Act (Byrd Amendment)  (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000 – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , 
WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22, 13 June 2003, DSR 2003:III, 1163 
US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment) (Brazil) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by th e Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by Brazil – Recourse to Arbitration by 
the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS217/ARB/BRA,  
31 August 2004, DSR 2004:IX, 4341 
US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment) (Canada) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by th e Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by Canada – Recourse to Arbitration 
by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS234/ARB/CAN, 
31 August 2004, DSR 2004:IX, 4425 
US – Offset Act (Byrd Amendment) (Chile) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by th e Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by Chile – Recourse to Arbitration by 
the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS217/ARB/CHL,  
31 August 2004, DSR 2004:IX, 4511 
US – Offset Act (Byrd Amendment) (EC) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by th e Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by the European Communities – 
Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , 
WT/DS217/ARB/EEC, 31 August 2004, DSR 2004:IX, 4591 
US – Offset Act (Byrd Amendment) (India) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by th e Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by India – Recourse to Arbitration by 
the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS217/ARB/IND,  
31 August 2004, DSR 2004:X, 4691 
US – Offset Act (Byrd Amendment) (Japan) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by th e Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by Japan – Recourse to Arbitration by 
the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS217/ARB/JPN,  
31 August 2004, DSR 2004:X, 4771 WT/AB/15 
Page 70  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment) (Korea) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by th e Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by Korea – Recourse to Arbitration by 
the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS217/ARB/KOR,  
31 August 2004, DSR 2004:X, 4851 
US – Offset Act (Byrd Amendment) (Mexico) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by th e Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Origin al Complaint by Mexico – Recourse to Arbitration 
by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS234/ARB/MEX, 
31 August 2004, DSR 2004:X, 4931 
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, DSR 2004:VII, 3257 
US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews Panel Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina , WT/DS268/R and Corr.1, 
adopted 17 December 2004, as modified by Appellate Body Report W/DS/268/AB/R, DSR 2004:VIII, 3421 
US – Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Sunset Reviews  
(Article 21.3(c)) 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, DSR 2005:XXIII, 
11619 
US – Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Sunset Reviews 
(Article 21.5 – Argentina) Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina – Recourse to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina , WT/DS268/AB/RW, adopted 11 May 
2007, DSR 2007:IX, 3523 
US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews 
(Article 21.5 – Argentina) Panel Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the 
DSU by Argentina , WT/DS268/RW, adopted 11 May 2007, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS268/AB/RW, DSR 2007:IX-X, 3609 
US – Orange Juice (Brazil) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Reviews and 
Other Measures Related to Imports of  Certain Orange Juice from Brazil , 
WT/DS382/R, adopted 17 June 2011 
US – Poultry (China) Panel Report, United States – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry 
from China , WT/DS392/R, adopted 25 October 2010 
US – Section 110(5) Copyright 
Act Panel Report, United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act , 
WT/DS160/R, adopted 27 July 2000, DSR 2000:VIII, 3769 
US – Section 110(5) Copyright Act  
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright 
Act – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS160/12, 15 January 
2001, DSR 2001:II, 657 
US – Section 110(5) Copyright 
Act  (Article 25) Award of the Arbitrators, United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright 
Act – Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU , 
WT/DS160/ARB25/1, 9 November 2001, DSR 2001:II, 667 
US – Section 129(c)(1) URAA Panel Report, United States – Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act , WT/DS221/R, adopted 30 August 2002, DSR 2002:VII, 2581
US – Section 211 
Appropriations Act Appellate Body Report, United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations 
Act of 1998 , WT/DS176/AB/R, adopted 1 February 2002, DSR 2002:II, 589 
US – Section 211 
Appropriations Act Panel Report, United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 
1998 , WT/DS176/R, adopted 1 February 2002, as modified by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS176/AB/R, DSR 2002:II, 683  WT/AB/15 
 Page 71 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Section 301 Trade Act Panel Report, United States – Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974 , 
WT/DS152/R, adopted 27 January 2000, DSR 2000:II, 815 
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 Panel Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and 
Shrimp Products , WT/DS58/R and Corr.1, adopted 6 November 1998, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS58/AB/R, DSR 1998:VII, 2821 
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 – Shrimp (Ecuador) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from 
Ecuador , WT/DS335/R, adopted on 20 February 2007, DSR 2007:II, 425 
US – Shrimp (Thailand) / 
US – Customs Bond Directive Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Relating to Shrimp from 
Thailand / United States – Customs Bond Directive for Merchandise Subject 
to Anti-Dumping/Countervailing Duties , WT/DS343/AB/R / 
WT/DS345/AB/R, adopted 1 August 2008, DSR 2008:VII, 2385 / DSR 2008:VIII, 2773 
US – Shrimp (Thailand) Panel Report, United States – Measures Relating to Shrimp from Thailand , 
WT/DS343/R, adopted 1 August 2008, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS343/AB/R / WT/DS345/AB/R, DSR 2008:VII, 2539 
US – Softwood Lumber III Panel Report, United States – Preliminary Determinations with Respect to 
Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS236/R, adopted 1 November 
2002, DSR 2002:IX, 3597 
US – Softwood Lumber IV Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty 
Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada , 
WT/DS257/AB/R, adopted 17 February 2004, DSR 2004:II, 571 
US – Softwood Lumber IV Panel Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with 
Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS257/R and Corr.1, 
adopted 17 February 2004, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS257/AB/R, DSR 2004:II, 641  
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/AB/RW, adopted 
20 December 2005, DSR 2005:XXIII, 11357 
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 [of the DSU] , WT/DS257/RW, adopted 20 December 2005, as 
upheld by Appellate Body Report WT/DS257/AB/RW, DSR 2005:XXIII, 
11401 
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, 
DSR 2004:V, 1875 WT/AB/15 
Page 72  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Softwood Lumber V Panel Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood 
Lumber from Canada , WT/DS264/R, adopted 31 August 2004, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS264/AB/R, DSR 2004:V, 1937 
US – Softwood Lumber V  
(Article 21.3(c))  Report of the Arbitrator, United States – Final Dumping Determination on 
Softwood Lumber from Canada – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS264/13, 13 December 2004, DSR 2004:X, 5011 
US – Softwood Lumber V 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on 
Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by 
Canada , WT/DS264/AB/RW, adopted 1 September 2006, DSR 2006:XII, 
5087 
US – Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 – Canada) Panel Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood 
Lumber from Canada – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada , 
WT/DS264/RW, adopted 1 September 2006, as reversed by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS264/AB/RW, DSR 2006:XII, 5147 
US – Softwood Lumber VI Panel Report, United States – Investigation of the International Trade 
Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS277/R, adopted  
26 April 2004, DSR 2004:VI, 2485 
US – Softwood Lumber VI 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Appellate Body 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/AB/RW, adopted 9 May 2006, and 
Corr.1, DSR 2006:XI, 4865 
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, adopted 9 May 2006, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS277/AB/RW, DSR 2006:XI, 4935 
US – Stainless Steel (Korea) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate 
in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea , WT/DS179/R, 
adopted 1 February 2001, DSR 2001:IV, 1295 
US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Stainless Steel from Mexico , WT/DS344/AB/R, adopted 20 May 2008, DSR 
2008:II, 513 
US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) Panel Report, United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless 
Steel from Mexico , WT/DS344/R, adopted 20 May 2008, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS344/AB/R, DSR 2008:II, 599 
US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) (Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Stainless Steel from Mexico – Arbitra tion under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , 
WT/DS344/15, 31 October 2008 
US – Steel Plate Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on 
Steel Plate from India , WT/DS206/R and Corr.1, adopted 29 July 2002, DSR 
2002:VI, 2073 
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   WT/AB/15 
 Page 73 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Steel Safeguards Panel Reports, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of 
Certain Steel Products , WT/DS248/R / WT/DS249/R / WT/DS251/R / 
WT/DS252/R / WT/DS253/R / WT/DS254/R / WT/DS258/R / WT/DS259/R, 
and Corr.1, adopted 10 December 2003, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS248/AB/R, WT/D S249/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, DSR 2003:VIII, 3273  
US – Textiles Rules of Origin Panel Report, United States – Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel 
Products , WT/DS243/R and Corr.1, adopted 23 July 2003, DSR 2003:VI, 
2309 
US – Tyres (China) Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Certain 
Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tyres from China , WT/DS399/R, 
circulated to WTO Members 13 D ecember 2010 [appeal in progress] 
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 – Underwear Panel Report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and 
Man-made Fibre Underwear , WT/DS24/R, adopted 25 February 1997, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS24/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, 31 
US – Upland Cotton Appellate Body Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton , 
WT/DS267/AB/R, adopted 21 March 2005, DSR 2005:I, 3 
US – Upland Cotton Panel Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton , WT/DS267/R, 
Corr.1, and Add.1 to Add.3, adopted 21 March 2005, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS267/AB/R, DSR 2005:II, 299 
US – Upland Cotton  (Article 21.5 – Brazil) Appellate Body Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton – 
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil , WT/DS267/AB/RW, adopted 
20 June 2008, DSR 2008:III, 809 
US – Upland Cotton  
(Article 21.5 – Brazil) Panel Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton – Recourse to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil , WT/DS267/RW and Corr.1, adopted 20 
June 2008, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS267/AB/RW, DSR 
2008:III, 997 to DSR 2008:VI, 2013 
US – Upland Cotton  (Article 22.6 – US I) Decision by th e Arbitrator, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton – 
Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU 
and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement , WT/DS267/ARB/1, 31 August 2009 
US – Upland Cotton  
(Article 22.6 – US II) Decision by th e Arbitrator, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton – 
Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU 
and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement , WT/DS267/ARB/2 and Corr.1,  
31 August 2009 
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 – Wheat Gluten Panel Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of 
Wheat Gluten from the European Communities , WT/DS166/R, adopted  
19 January 2001, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS166/AB/R, DSR 2001:III, 779 
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, adopted 23 May 1997, 
and Corr.1, DSR 1997:I, 323 WT/AB/15 
Page 74  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Wool Shirts and Blouses Panel Report, United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool 
Shirts and Blouses from India , WT/DS33/R, adopted 23 May 1997, as upheld 
by Appellate Body Report WT/DS33/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, 343 
US – Zeroing (EC) Appellate Body Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology 
for Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") , WT/DS294/AB/R, adopted  
9 May 2006, and Corr.1, DSR 2006:II, 417 
US – Zeroing (EC) Panel Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for 
Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") , WT/DS294/R, adopted 9 May 
2006, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS294/AB/R, DSR 2006:II, 521 
US – Zeroing (EC)  (Article 21.5 – EC) Appellate Body Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology 
for Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") – Recourse to Article 21.5 of 
the DSU by the European Communities , WT/DS294/AB/RW and Corr.1, 
adopted 11 June 2009 
US – Zeroing (EC)  (Article 21.5 – EC) Panel Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for 
Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the 
DSU by the European Communities , WT/DS294/RW, adopted 11 June 2009, 
as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS294/AB/RW 
US – Zeroing (Japan) Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and 
Sunset Reviews , WT/DS322/AB/R, adopted 23 January 2007, DSR 2007:I, 3 
US – Zeroing (Japan) Panel Report, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset 
Reviews , WT/DS322/R, adopted 23 January 2007, as modified by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS322/AB/R, DSR 2007:I, 97 
US – Zeroing (Japan) 
(Article 21.3(c)) Report of the Arbitrator, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and 
Sunset Reviews – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , 
WT/DS322/21, 11 May 2007, DSR 2007:X, 4160 
US – Zeroing (Japan)  
(Article 21.5 – Japan) Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and 
Sunset Reviews – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Japan , 
WT/DS322/AB/RW, adopted 31 August 2009 
US – Zeroing (Japan)  (Article 21.5 – Japan) Panel Report, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset 
Reviews – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Japan , WT/DS322/RW, 
adopted 31 August 2009, as upheld by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS322/AB/RW 
US – Zeroing (Korea) Panel Report, United States – Use of Zeroing in Anti-Dumping Measures 
Involving Products from Korea , WT/DS402/R, adopted 24 February 2011 
 
__________