WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/AB/13 
17 February 2010 
 (10-0885) 
  
  
 
     
 
    
 
  
APPELLATE BODY 
 
 
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2009 
  
 
  
FEBRUARY 2010 
   
 
   
 
     
 
    
 
    
 
     
 
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/13 
 Page i 
 
 
  CONTENTS 
  
Foreword....................................................................................................................... ..........................iii
 
I. Introduction................................................................................................................... ..............1  
II. Composition of the Appellate Body............................................................................................4  
III. Appeals........................................................................................................................ ................6  
IV. Appellate Bo dy Reports ......................................................................................................... .....8 
V. Participants and Third Participants in Appeals .........................................................................40  
VI. Working Procedures for Appellate Review ..............................................................................42  
VII. Arbitrations under Article  21.3(c) of the DSU..........................................................................42  
VIII. Technical As sistance........................................................................................................... ......45  
IX. Other Activities ............................................................................................................... ..........45  
ANNEX 1 Members of the Appellate Body – 1 January to 31 December 2009:  
Biographical notes .......................................................................................................47 
ANNEX 1B Farewell Speeches of A ppellate Body Members .........................................................51 
ANNEX 2 Former Appellate Body Members and Chairpersons ...................................................56 
ANNEX 3 Appeals filed: 1995–2009 ............................................................................................58 ANNEX 4 Percentage of panel reports appeal ed by year of adoption: 1995–2009.......................59 
ANNEX 5 WTO agreements addressed in Appellate Body reports circulated through 
2009........................................................................................................................... ...60 
ANNEX 6 Participants and third participants in appeals: 1995–2009...........................................61 
ANNEX 7 Appellate Body Secretariat participation in technical assistance, training, and 
other activities in 2009 .................................................................................................80 
ANNEX 8 WTO dispute settlement reports and arbitration aw ards: 1995–2009 ..........................84 WT/AB/13 
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   
USDOC United States Department of Commerce 
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 
WTO World Trade Organization 
WTO Agreement Marra kesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization  
  WT/AB/13 
 Page iii 
 
 
  Foreword 
 
2009 has been a year of great economic uncertain ty.  The financial crisis that commenced in 
2008 gave rise to conditions of pervasive recession  in 2009, with a significant contraction of 
international trade.  There was much foreboding that  a deep recession would th reaten the international 
institutional order, and, in partic ular, the underpinnings of the world trading system, as every nation 
sought to secure its own interests.  This has not happened.  Rather, the gravity of the crisis has 
brought with it a widespread recognition that more  ambitious collective action is required across a 
wider range of issues.  And much thought has been  given to the institutional arrangements that can 
achieve this, both regionally and globally. 
The WTO has remained, amidst the turbulence, at  the centre of the world trading system, and 
the centre has held.  The value of a rule-based system has never been greater and in times of great 
economic peril the system has proved its worth.  Significantly, the Members of the WTO have 
continued to adhere to their commitments to the WTO, and thereby provided much needed stability. 
The dispute settlement system is an integral part of the WTO.  A rule-based system cannot 
survive if its rules are not capable of being inte rpreted and adjudicated.  This is the institutional 
contribution of the Appellate Body, within the sch eme of the Dispute Settlement Understanding.  And 
here too, the system has continued to function smoothly, resolving disputes by recourse to the rule of law. 
2009 was a year of milestones for the WTO's dispute settlement system.  As noted by the 
Director-General, 2009 saw the initiation of the 400 th dispute since the WTO dispute settlement 
system was established in 1995.  The Appellate Body , for its part, circulated its 100th Report at the 
end of 2009.  WTO Members should feel justifiably proud of the system that they created and that they administer through the DSB.  The WTO dispute settlement system plays a key role in providing 
security and predictability and is a key feature of the WTO as a rule-based system. 
The appeals caseload has varied in recent years.  2009 was not as intense as previous years.  
Only three appeals were filed in 2009 and one add itional appeal was carried forward from 2008.  The 
majority of these appeals related to the Anti-Dumping Agreement , which is one of the agreements that 
is most frequently the subject of disputes.  Some of these appeals also raised complex issues relating 
to the implementation obligations of WTO Member s under the Dispute Settlement Understanding.  
The final appeal included issues relating to the GATS, which by contrast, has been raised infrequently 
in WTO dispute settlement.  Interestingly, the low number of appeals in 2009 does not reflect a lower 
appeal rate.  Only five panel repor ts could have been the subject of an appeal in 2009 and three of 
those were appealed.  The appeal rate of 60 per cen t in 2009 is not far off the historical average of 
68 per cent. 
The year ahead is likely to be more challenging.  Several panels are expected to circulate their 
reports by mid-year.  Some of these cases involve ve ry complex issues.  The appeal activity is likely 
to be intense in the upcoming years.  
2009 saw the departure from the Appellate Body of two esteemed colleagues.  Luiz Olavo 
Baptista's and Giorgio Sacerdoti's second terms of  office expired in Dece mber 2009, although Luiz 
Olavo resigned a few months earlier for health reasons.  Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández and Peter Van den Bossche were appointed and the Appellate Body is delighted to welcome these two fine lawyers. 
The regime of fixed-term appointments to the A ppellate Body has meant that in the last three 
years the membership of the Appellate Body has cha nged significantly.  It has been a great privilege 
for newer Members to serve with Luiz Olavo and Giorgio.  Both Luiz Olavo and Giorgio have WT/AB/13 
Page iv  
 
  contributed their considerable talents to the Appellate  Body and upheld its inst itutional values.  Others 
will now continue their work. 
Luiz Olavo joined the Appellate Body from private practice.  He also is a leading 
international arbitrator with experience both in pr ivate commercial litigation as well as in the State to 
State dispute settlement system of Mercosur.  He is  a Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration 
at The Hague since 1996, and of the International Chamber of Commerce Institute for International 
Trade Practices, since 1999.  Luiz Olavo also taught international trade law at the University of São 
Paulo and was the mentor to many of Brazil's ne w generation of international trade lawyers.  
Luiz Olavo brought to the Appellate Body his great fund of experience in commercial law and 
trade law, and the application of these disciplines in the context of arbitration.  Luiz Olavo was so 
often able, in debates on complex matters, to iden tify a solution, both practical and salient.  As 
important, Luiz Olavo had an adamantine belief in the institutional integrity of the Appellate Body.  
He considered its independence to be a sovereign value and always exemplified that value in the 
manner in which he heard and decided cases.  His beli ef in the principle of collegiality was not just a 
matter of respect, it was a habit of mind that ma de decision-making consensual and evolutionary, 
lending certainty to the system.  
Of Giorgio Sacerdoti, let me begin with the matters that are well known.  He came to the 
Appellate Body from Bocconi University, where he is Professor of International Law and European 
Law.  Giorgio is a leading international law scholar  and has participated in important international 
negotiations, including the Organisation for Ec onomic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 
Working Group on Bribery in International Busin ess Transactions, where he was one of the drafters 
of the "Anticorruption Convention of 1997". 
Giorgio is distinctive, and so too has been his contribution to the Appellate Body.  His rich 
knowledge of international economic law and public international law ha s been of great value to the 
work of the Appellate Body.  Robust in debate, his position so often defined th e terms of the problem.  
Yet no issue, however intractable, could not be be tter understood by taking time for a good espresso.  
His ebullience is infectious, and he has that unus ual quality among lawyers: to render enjoyable what 
ordinarily passes as the dry discourse of legal analysis.  He lent a certain brio to our proceedings that we will be hard pressed to emulate.  A great friend to the institution and to his colleagues, the WTO 
will seem more muted for his departure (audibly and otherwise). 
Giorgio was instrumental in helping us to e ducate the broader public about the WTO and its 
dispute settlement system.  He made outreach a key component of his term as Appellate Body 
Chairman.  The conference that Giorgio organized in Stresa (Italy), in 2005, commenced a series of 
events covering five continents where the operation of the WTO's dispute settlement system during its 
first 10 years was reviewed and analyzed among a broad array of stakeholders.   
It has been a privilege to have served on the A ppellate Body with Luiz Olavo and Giorgio.   
It is our great fortune that Luiz Olavo and Giorgio have been replaced by two new Members 
that are equally distinguished. 
Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández teaches interna tional trade law at the Mexican National 
University in Mexico City.  Ricardo served as De puty General Counsel for Trade Negotiations of the 
Ministry of Economy in Mexico for more than a deca de.  In that capacity, he provided advice on trade 
and competition policy matters related to a number of Free Trade Agreements signed by Mexico, as 
well as with respect to multilateral agreements, in cluding those related to the WTO, the Free Trade 
Area of the Americas, and the Latin American Integr ation Association.  In addition, he represented 
Mexico in several international trade litigation and investment arbitration proceedings and has served  WT/AB/13 
 Page v 
 
 
  on NAFTA panels.  Later, Ricardo went into privat e practice, where he advised clients on issues 
relating to NAFTA and internati onal trade dispute resolution. 
Peter Van den Bossche is Professor of Internati onal Economic Law at Maastricht University 
where he serves as Director of the Advanced Ma ster Programme in International and European 
Economic Law (IEEL).  Peter also te aches at several othe r prestigious universities worldwide and has 
provided technical assistance to several developing countries.  He is a distinguished academic and 
recognized authority in international trade law.  A nd he is the author of one of the leading textbooks 
about the WTO:  The Law and Policy of the WTO:  Text, Cases and Materials . 
The selection process to replace Luiz Olavo and Giorgio was carried out with the utmost 
efficiency and propriety by the Dispute Settlement Bo dy.  For this I wish to recognize the leadership 
of Ambassador John Gero as Chairman of the DSB, the contribution of the Director-General and the 
other members of the Selection Committee, and the support provided to the process by all WTO Members.  Indeed, the Appellate Body and the WT O dispute settlement system more generally have 
been able to function effectively thanks to the s upport of WTO Members and of many individuals in 
the WTO Secretariat.   
 
 David Unterhalter Chairman, Appellate Body  WT/AB/13 
 Page 1 
 
 
  WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
APPELLATE BODY  
 
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2009 
 
 
 
I. Introduction 
This Annual Report provides a summary of the activities undertaken in 2009 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/13 
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 Review 4 (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.  
Article 21.3 of the DSU provides that the responding Member should in principle comply immediately.  However, where immediate compliance is "imprac ticable", the responding Member 
                                                     
 
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/5), as Annex II thereto. (See 
WT/DSB/RC/2, WT/AB/WP/W/2)  
4WT/AB/WP/5. 
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/13 
 Page 3 
 
 
  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 authorized by the DSB shall be equivalent to 
the  level of the nullification or impairme nt 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/13 
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 terms of office of three Members of the Appellate Body were due to expire 
on 11 December 2009, when Luiz Olavo Baptista and Giorgio Sacerdoti would complete their second 
terms of office, and David Unterhalter would co mplete his first term of office.  However, 
on 12 November 2008, Mr. Baptista had informed the Chairman of the DSB that, owing to health reasons, he was compelled to resign from the office of Appellate Body Member.
11  Pursuant to 
Rule 14 of the Working Procedures , his resignation became effective 11 February 2009.   
As a result of Mr. Baptista's early resignati on, the DSB, on 22 December 2008, decided to 
initiate a single selection process to fill the positio ns of both Mr. Baptista and Mr. Sacerdoti.  The 
DSB also decided that, in the light of the excepti onal circumstances resulting from the resignation of 
Mr. Baptista, it would deem the term  of the position to which Mr. Bap tista was appointed to expire on 
30 June 2009, and that it would ag ree that the position previously held  by Mr. Baptista would be filled 
for a four-year term commencing on 1 July 2009.  The deadline to receive nominations of candidates 
for the two positions was set for 20 March 2009.  Th e DSB further agreed to follow the procedures set 
forth in document WT/DSB/1, and, in accordance wi th them, established a Selection Committee to be 
chaired by the 2009 DSB Chairperson and also consisting of the Director-General of the WTO and the 2009 Chairpersons of the General Council, the Goods  Council, the Services Council, and the TRIPS 
Council.  Six individuals were no minated.  Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica and Mexico each nominated 
one individual, while the European Communities
12 nominated two individuals, one from Belgium and 
the other from the Netherlands.   
Based on the recommendations of the Sele ction Committee, on 19 June 2009, the DSB 
decided to appoint Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández (Mex ico) with his term commencing on 1 July 2009, 
and Peter Van den Bossche (Belgium) with his term commencing on 12 December 2009.  At the same meeting, the DSB also decided to appoint Da vid Unterhalter to a second term beginning 
on 12 December 2009.
13  Mr. Ramírez was sworn-in on 20 July 2009.  Mr. Van den Bossche's 
swearing-in took place on 19 November 2009. 
The composition of the Appellate Body in 200 9 and the respective terms of office of its 
Members are set out in Tables 1A-C. 
                                                      
11WT/DSB/46. 
12On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community  (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) entered into force.  On 
29 November 2009, the World Trade Or ganization received a Verbal Note (W T/L/779) from the Council of the 
European Union and the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of 
Lisbon , as of 1 December 2009, the Eu ropean Union replaces and su cceeds the European Community. 
13WT/DSB/M/270.  WT/AB/13 
 Page 5 
 
 
  TABLE 1A: COMPOSITION OF THE APPELLATE BODY – 1 JANUARY TO 30 JUNE 2009 
 
Name Nationality Term(s) of office 
Luiz Olavo Baptista* Brazil 2001–2005 
2005–2009 
Lilia R. Bautista Philippines 2007–2011 
Jennifer Hillman United States 2007–2011 
Shotaro Oshima Japan 2008–2012 
Giorgio Sacerdoti  Italy 2001–2005 
2005–2009 
David Unterhalter South Africa 2006–2009 
Yuejiao Zhang China 2008–2012 
* His resignation became effec tive on 11 February 2009. 
 
TABLE 1B: COMPOSITION OF THE APPELLATE BO DY – 1 JULY TO 11 DECEMBER 2009 
 
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-Hernán dez Mexico 2009–2013 
Giorgio Sacerdoti  Italy 2001–2005 
2005–2009 
David Unterhalter South Africa 2006–2009 
2009–2013 
Yuejiao Zhang China 2008–2012 
 
TABLE 1C: COMPOSITION OF THE APPELLATE  BODY AS OF 12 DECEMBER 2009 
 
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-Hernán dez Mexico 2009–2013 
David Unterhalter South Africa 2006–2009 
2009–2013 
Peter Van den Bossche Belgium 2009–2013 
Yuejiao Zhang China 2008–2012 WT/AB/13 
Page 6  
 
  Pursuant to Rule 5(1) of the Working Procedures , Appellate Body Members elected 
David Unterhalter to serve as Chairman of  the Appellate Body from 18 December 2008 
to 11 December 2009.
14  In November 2009, Appellate Body Me mbers re-elected Mr. Unterhalter for 
a second term as Chairman commencing on 12 December 2009.15 
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 admi nistrative support from the Appellate Body 
Secretariat, in accordance with Article 17.7 of the DSU.  The Secretar iat currently comprises a 
Director and a team of ten lawyers, one admi nistrative assistant, and three support staff.  
Werner Zdouc is 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 12 days of the 
filing of the Notice of Appeal.   
Three appeals were filed in 2009, two of whic h included an "other appeal".  One appeal 
related to original proceedings and two appeals related to panel proceedi ngs brought pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU.  Further information regard ing the three appeals filed in 2009 is provided in 
Table 2. 
TABLE 2: APPEALS FILED IN 2009 
 
Panel reports 
appealed Date of 
appeal Appellant a Document 
number Other 
  appellant  b Document 
number 
US – Zeroing (EC) 
(Article 21.5 – EC) 13 Feb 2009 European 
Communities WT/DS294/28 United States WT/DS294/29 
US – Zeroing (Japan) 
(Article 21.5 – Japan) 20 May 2009 United States WT/DS322/32 - - - - - - 
China – Publications and 
Audiovisual Products 22 Sept 2009 China WT/DS363/10 United States WT/DS363/11 
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. 
                                                      
14WT/DSB/48. 
15WT/DSB/50.  WT/AB/13 
 Page 7 
 
 
  02468101214
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
20042005
2006
2007
2008
2009Total number of appeals 
Appeals in original proceedings Appeals in Article 21.5 proceedings
 
One panel report was circulated in 2008 for wh ich the 60-day deadline for adoption or appeal 
did not expire until 2009.16  This panel report was appealed in 2009.17  Four panel reports were 
circulated during 2009.  Two of the panel reports ci rculated in 2009 were adopted by the DSB without 
having been appealed.18  In total, three of the five panel re ports for which the 60-day deadline expired 
in 2009 were appealed.   
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 2009 is 68 per cent. 
0%20%40%60%80%100%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 
   * 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. 
 
                                                      
16The Panel Report in US – Zeroing (EC) (Article 21.5 – EC) was circulated on 17 December 2008. 
17The Panel Report in US – Zeroing (EC) (Article 21.5 – EC) was appealed on 13 February 2009. 
18The Panel Report in China – Intellectual Property Rights  was adopted by the DSB on 20 March 2009, 
while the Panel Report in Colombia – Ports of Entry  was adopted by the DSB on 20 May 2009. Figure 2: Percentage of panel reports appealed 1996–2009 * Figure 1: Appeals in original proceedin gs and Article 21.5 proceedings 1995–2009 WT/AB/13 
Page 8  
 
  IV. Appellate Body Reports 
Four Appellate Body reports were circulated  during 2009.  As of the end of 2009, the 
Appellate Body has circulated a total of 100 reports .  Table 3 provides further details on the Appellate 
Body reports circulated in 2009. 
TABLE 3: APPELLATE BODY REPO RTS CIRCULATED IN 2009 
 
Case Title Document number Date circulated Date adopted  
by the DSB 
US – Continued Zeroing  WT/DS350/AB/R 4 February 2009 19 February 2009 
US – Zeroing (EC) 
(Article 21.5 – EC) WT/DS294/AB/RW 
and Corr.1 14 May 2009 11 June 2009 
US – Zeroing (Japan) 
(Article 21.5 – Japan) WT/DS322/AB/RW 18 August 2009 31 August 2009 
China – Publications and 
Audiovisual Products WT/DS363/AB/R 21 Decembe r 2009 19 January 2010 
 
The following table shows which WTO agreemen ts were addressed in the four Appellate 
Body reports circulated in 2009. 
TABLE 4: WTO AGREEMENTS ADDRESSED IN APPELLATE BODY REPORTS  
CIRCULATED IN 2009 
 
Case Document number WTO agreements covered 
US – Continued Zeroing  WT/DS350/AB/R Anti-Dumping Agreement 
GATT 1994 
DSU  
US – Zeroing (EC) 
(Article 21.5 – EC) WT/DS294/AB/RW 
and Corr.1 Anti-Dumping Agreement 
GATT 1994 
DSU 
US – Zeroing (Japan) 
(Article 21.5 – Japan) WT/DS322/AB/RW Anti-Dumping Agreement 
GATT 1994 
DSU 
China – Publications and Audiovisual Products WT/DS363/AB/R GATS 
GATT 1994 
China's Accession Protocol 
and Working Party Report 
 
Figure 3 shows the number of times specific WTO agreements have been addressed in the 
100 Appellate Body reports circulated from 1996 through 2009.    WT/AB/13 
 Page 9 
 
 
   
77
62
2724
13107 6 533 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 2009. 
The Appellate Body's findings and conclusions in  the four Appellate Body reports circulated 
in 2009 are summarized below. 
A. Appellate Body Report, US – Continued Zeroing , WT/DS350/AB/R 
This dispute concerned a complaint brought by the European Communities in respect of the 
so-called "zeroing" methodology.  Under this meth odology, when calculating a margin of dumping 
for a product on the basis of comparisons of normal value and export prices, the United States 
Department of Commerce (the "USDOC") treats th e results of comparisons, for which the export 
price exceeds normal value, as zero. 
1. The Panel's Terms of Reference  
The European Communities appealed the Pane l's finding that the European Communities 
failed to identify the specific measure  at issue in its panel request, as required by Article 6.2 of the 
DSU, in connection with its claims against the continued application of the 18 anti-dumping duties, 
and the Panel's consequential finding that such claims fell outside the Panel's terms of reference.  The 
European Communities requested that the Appellate Body complete the analysis by finding that, 
because of the use of zeroing, "each of the 18 measures"  is inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of 
the GATT 1994, Articles 2.4, 2.4.2, 9.3, 11.1 and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and 
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement . 
At the outset, the Appellate Body recalled its fi nding in prior disputes that compliance with 
the specificity requirement under Article 6.2 must be demonstrated on the face of the panel request, 
read as a whole.  The Appellate Body noted that the European Communities' panel request linked the 
following three elements in seeking to identify the measures at issue:  (i) duties resulting from the 
anti-dumping duty orders in the 18 cases listed in the a nnex to the panel request;  (ii) the most recent Figure 3: WTO agreements add ressed in appeals 1996–2009 WT/AB/13 
Page 10  
 
  periodic or sunset review proceedings pertaining to these duties
19;  and (iii) the use of the zeroing 
methodology in calculating the level of these duti es in such proceedings.  Taken together, the 
Appellate Body found that the United States could r easonably have been expected to understand that 
the European Communities was challenging the use of the zeroing methodology in successive 
proceedings, in each of the 18 cases, by which the anti-dumping duties are maintained.  The Appellate 
Body further stated that the specificity requirement  in Article 6.2 means that the measures at issue 
must be identified with sufficient precision so that what is referred to adjudication by a panel may be 
discerned from the panel request.  Thus, contrary to the Panel's finding, an examination of the 
specificity requirement under Article 6.2 of the DS U need not involve a subs tantive inquiry into the 
existence and precise content of the measure.  Such  considerations may have to be explored by a 
panel and the parties during the pa nel proceedings, but are not prerequisites for the establishment of a 
panel.  To impose such prerequisites would be inc onsistent with the function of a panel request in 
commencing panel proceedings and setting the jurisdic tional boundaries of such proceedings.  On this 
basis, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that the European Communities failed to 
comply with Article 6.2 of the DSU, and found, in stead, that the panel requ est identifies the specific 
measures at issue with regard to the Europ ean Communities' claims concerning the continued 
application of the 18 anti-dumping duties. 
Turning to the second issue of whether the me asures identified by the European Communities 
were susceptible to challenge in WTO dispute settlement, the Appellate Body observed that the 
distinction between "as such" and "as applied" clai ms, which has been developed in the jurisprudence 
as an analytical tool to facilitate the understanding of  the nature of a measure at issue, does not define 
exhaustively the types of measures that may be su bject to challenge in WTO dispute settlement.  
Thus, the Appellate Body found that , in order to be susceptible to challenge, a measure need not fit 
squarely within one of these two categories, that is, either as a rule or norm of general and prospective 
application, or as an individual instance of the application of a rule or norm.  In this dispute, the Appellate Body found that the measures at issue consist of neither the zeroing methodology as a rule 
or norm of general and prospectiv e application, nor discrete applications of the zeroing methodology 
in particular determinations;  rather, they are the use of the zeroing methodology in a string of 
connected and sequential determinations, in each of  the 18 cases, by which th e duties are maintained 
over a period of time.  In the Appellate Body's vi ew, the ongoing conduct that consists of the use of 
the zeroing methodology is not precluded from being challenged in WTO dispute settlement.  It is 
with respect to this ongoing conduct that the Eur opean Communities brought its challenge, seeking its 
cessation. 
As regards the European Comm unities' request for completion of analysis, the Appellate 
Body further found that, with respect to four of the 18 anti-dumping cases challenged by the European 
Communities, the Panel's factual findings sufficien tly established the continued use of the zeroing 
methodology in successive proceedings whereby du ties in these cases are maintained.  More 
specifically, in each of the four cases, the Panel' s findings indicate that the zeroing methodology was 
repeatedly used in a string of determinations made  sequentially in periodic re views and sunset reviews 
over an extended period of time.  In  the Appellate Body's view, the de nsity of factual findings in these 
cases, regarding the continued use of the zeroing methodology in a string of successive proceedings 
                                                     
 
19The USDOC issues an anti-dumping duty order at the conclusion of an original anti-dumping 
investigation if the USDOC finds that dumping existed during the period of investigation, and the United States 
International Trade Commission (the "USITC") finds that domestic industry was materially injured, or 
threatened with material injury, by reason of dumped imports.  Generally, this order imposes an estimated anti-
dumping duty deposit rate for each exporter individually examined.  Subsequently, if a request for a "periodic 
review" is made, the USDOC will determine the final amou nt of anti-dumping duties owed on sales made by the 
exporter during the previous period.  In addition, th e USDOC will calculate a going-forward cash deposit rate 
that will apply to all future entries of the subject mercha ndise from that exporter.  In a "sunset review" of an 
order, the authorities determine whether revocation of the anti-dumping duty order would likely lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.  WT/AB/13 
 Page 11 
 
 
  pertaining to the same anti-dumping duty order, provided a sufficient basis for it to conclude that the 
zeroing methodology would likely continue to be applied in successive proceedings whereby the 
duties in these four cases are maintained.  By contr ast, for the remaining 14 cases, the Appellate Body 
found that there were insufficient factual findings for it to complete the analysis and to find that the 
zeroing methodology would likely continue to be applied in successive proceedings whereby the 
duties are maintained in these 14 cases. 
On this basis, the Appellate Body concluded th at the application and continued application of 
anti-dumping duties in the four cases is inconsistent with Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  
and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 to the extent that  the duties are maintained at a level calculated 
through the use of the zeroing methodology in pe riodic reviews; and with Article 11.3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement  to the extent that reliance is placed upon a margin of dumping calculated through 
the use of the zeroing methodology in making sunset review determinations.  With respect to the other 14 of the 18 cases challenged by the European  Communities, the Appellate Body was unable to 
complete the analysis. 
Next, the European Communities challenged the Panel's finding that the European 
Communities' claims regarding four preliminary dete rminations (three relating to sunset reviews and 
one relating to a periodic review) did not fall with in the Panel's terms of  reference because the 
European Communities had not raised specific clai ms challenging these dete rminations as provisional 
measures within the meaning of Articles 7.1 and 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  The European 
Communities requested the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding and to complete the analysis 
by finding that the preliminary determination in the periodic review was inconsistent with 
Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, Articles 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 9.3 and 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement , and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement , and that the preliminary determinations in the 
sunset reviews were inconsistent with Artic les 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 11.1 and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement  and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement . 
The Appellate Body noted that, in this dispute, the European Communities was not 
challenging provisional measures within the meaning of Articles 7.1 and 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement .  Rather, as it argued before the Panel, the European Communities was challenging the 
preliminary results in one periodic review and three sunset reviews that were  conducted subsequent to 
the imposition of the anti-dumping duty orders.  Thus, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel's 
finding that, because the European Communities did not bring any claims under Article 7.1 
concerning the conditions for imposing provisional measu res, the four preliminary determinations fell 
outside its terms of reference.  Having reversed  the Panel's finding, however, the Appellate Body 
found that the European Communities' challenge to the preliminary result of the periodic review and 
the preliminary result of one sunset review were premature because, at the time of the panel request, 
the USDOC had not issued the final results in  these two proceedings.  With regard to the 
determinations in the other two sunset reviews, the Appellate Body noted that, although the USDOC 
had issued the final result, the two sunset revi ew proceedings were still pending before the United 
States International Trade Commission (the "USITC")  at the time of the panel request.  Thus, the 
USITC had not yet determined, for either case, wh ether expiry of the anti-dumping duty order would 
be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of injury.  Under these circumstances, the Appellate 
Body did not consider that completion of the anal ysis as to whether these measures were inconsistent 
with the covered agreements woul d be appropriate and declined th e European Communities' request 
for completion with regard to these four preliminary determinations.   
In its other appeal, the United States alleged th at the Panel erred in finding that 14 periodic 
and sunset reviews identified in the European Co mmunities' panel request were within the Panel's 
terms of reference even though they were not listed in the European Communities' request for 
consultations, and requested the A ppellate Body to reverse this fi nding of the Panel.  The United 
States further requested the Appellate Body to fi nd that the continued application of the 18 anti-WT/AB/13 
Page 12  
 
  dumping duties were also outside the Panel's terms of reference because they were not identified in 
the European Communities' consultations request. 
The Appellate Body recalled its finding in pr ior disputes that, as long as the complaining 
party does not expand the scope of the dispute, the Appellate Body would not impose too rigid a 
standard for the precise and exact id entity between the scope of consultations and the request for the 
establishment of a panel, as this would substitute the consultations request for the panel request.  
Examining the European Communities' consultations  request, the Appellate Body noted that the 
measures referred to therein encompass the an ti-dumping duties resulting from the proceedings 
identified in the consultations request in whic h the zeroing methodology was allegedly used.  The 
Appellate Body further found that, although 14 periodi c and sunset reviews identified in the panel 
request were not listed in the consultations requ est, these 14 additional measures relate to the same 
duties identified in the consultations request, whic h were imposed pursuant to the same anti-dumping 
duty orders on the same products from the same count ries.  Moreover, the Appellate Body recalled the 
Panel's finding that the legal nature of the European Communities' claims regarding the 
additional 14 measures does not in any way differ from that of the 38 measures identified in the 
consultations request.  On this basis, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that 
the 14 additional measures not listed in the consul tations request fell within the Panel's terms of 
reference. 
With respect to the United States' submission that the continued application of the 18 anti-
dumping duties were outside the Panel's terms of re ference because they were not identified in the 
consultations request, the Appellate Body recalled its finding that the 18 anti-dumping duties listed in 
the European Communities' panel request are the same duties as those resulting from the proceedings 
listed in the consultations request.  Moreover, with respect to these 18 anti-dumping duties, the 
consultations request and the panel request concern the same matter, that is, the challenge under the 
GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement  of the 18 anti-dumping duties due to the use of the 
zeroing methodology in the determination of the dumping margins or the cash deposit rates.  On this 
basis, the Appellate Body concluded that the continued application of the anti-dumping duties in each 
of the 18 cases had been identified in the European Communities' consultations request. 
2. "Zeroing" As Applied in Periodic Reviews
 
The Appellate Body turned next to examine th e United States' other appeal of the Panel's 
finding that the United States acted inc onsistently with Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 by usi ng simple zeroing in 29 periodic reviews. 
(a) Standard of Review under Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement  
Regarding the standard of review a pplicable to claims brought under the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement , the Appellate Body noted that Article 17.6(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  
contemplates a sequential analysis.  The first step  requires a panel to apply the customary rules of 
interpretation to the treaty to see what is yielded by a conscientious application of such rules, 
including those codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (the " Vienna Convention ").  
Only after  engaging in this exercise will a panel be able to determine whether the second sentence of 
Article 17.6(ii) referring to "permissi ble" interpretations applies.  
The Appellate Body further explained that a proper interpretation of the second sentence of 
Article 17.6(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  must itself be consistent with the rules and principles 
set out in the Vienna Convention .  This means that it cannot be interpreted in a way that would render 
it redundant, or that derogates from the customary rules of interpretation of public international law.  
However, the second sentence allows for the possib ility that the application of the rules of the Vienna  WT/AB/13 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Convention  may give rise to an interpretative range and, if it does, an interpretation falling within that 
range is permissible and must be given effect by holding the measure to be in conformity with the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement .  The function of the second sentence is thus to give effect to the 
interpretative range, rather than to  require the interpreter to pursue further the interpretative exercise 
to the point where only one interpretation within that range may prevail. 
The Appellate Body added that the rules and principles of the Vienna Convention cannot 
contemplate interpretations with mutually cont radictory results.  Instead, the enterprise of 
interpretation is intended to ascertain the proper mean ing of a provision;  one that fits harmoniously 
with the terms, context, and object and purpose of the treaty.  The purpose of such an exercise is 
therefore to narrow the range of interpretations, not to generate conflicting, co mpeting interpretations.  
Interpretative tools cannot be applied selectively or in isolation from one another.  For the Appellate 
Body, it would be a subversion of the interpretative disciplines of the Vienna Convention  if 
application of those disciplines yielded contradic tion instead of coherence and harmony among, and 
effect to, all relevant treaty provisions.  Moreove r, a permissible interpretation for purposes of the 
second sentence of Article 17.6(ii) is not the result of an inquiry that asks whether a provision of 
domestic law is "necessarily exclude d" by the application of the Vienna Convention .  Such an 
approach, the Appellate Body explained, subve rts the hierarchy between the treaty and a WTO 
Member's municipal law. 
(b) The Concept of "Margin of Dumping" and Zeroing in Periodic 
Reviews 
The Appellate Body then turned to examine the United States' arguments relating to the 
interpretation and operation of the terms "dumping" and "margin of dumping" as they appear in the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article VI of the GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body noted that the 
disagreement between the participants flows from their respective interpretations of the terms 
"dumping" and "margin of dumping" in Articles 2.1 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and 
Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and whet her these terms apply at the level of the product 
under consideration or at the level of an individual export transaction. 
The Appellate Body noted, first, that mere sc rutiny of particular terms—such as "product" 
and "export price"—in Article 2.1 does not resolve the issue of whether the concept of dumping is concerned with individual transactions  or whether it is necessarily an aggregative concept attributable 
to an exporter.  The Appellate Body recalled that the interpretative exercise that is mandated under the 
Vienna Convention  is a holistic and integrated one that cannot result in interpretations that are 
mutually contradictory.  With this in mind, the A ppellate Body turned to examine the context found in 
various other provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  in order to better elucidate what the concept 
of "dumping" means.   
The Appellate Body observed that a number of provisions in the Anti-Dumping Agreement  
require a determination of dumping by reference to an exporter and to a product under consideration.  
More specifically, Article 5.8 requires that an anti-dumping investigation be terminated if the 
investigating authority determines that the margin of dumping is de minimis , which is defined as less 
than two per cent, expressed as a percentage of th e export price.  A plain reading of Article 5.8 
indicates that the term "margin of dumping" as used  in that provision refers to a single margin.  
Moreover, the first sentence of Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  stipulates that authorities 
"shall, as a rule, determine an individual marg in of dumping for each known exporter or producer 
concerned of the product under investigation".  Li kewise, Article 9.5, dealing with new shipper 
reviews, requires the authorities to determine an individual margin of dumping  for any exporter that 
had not exported the product during the period of inv estigation.  The Appellate Body explained that 
these provisions suggest that a single margin of dumping is to be established for each individual 
exporter or producer investigated as they do not re fer to multiple margins occurring at the level of WT/AB/13 
Page 14  
 
  individual transactions.  The Appellate Body further noted that, under the Anti-Dumping Agreement , 
the concepts of "dumping", "injury", and "mar gin of dumping" are interlinked and should be 
considered and interpreted in a coherent and consistent manner for all parts of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement . 
Based on this reasoning, the Appellate Body w as unable to agree with the proposition that 
"dumping" may be determined at the level of i ndividual transactions, and th at multiple comparison 
results are "margins of dumping" in themselves.   Instead, the Appellate Body found that a proper 
determination as to whether an exporter is engage d in injurious dumping can only be made on the 
basis of an examination of the exporter's pricing be haviour as reflected in all of its transactions over a 
period of time. 
As regards the question of whether it is permissible—in duty assessment proceedings under 
Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement —to disregard the amount by which the export price 
exceeds the normal value, the Appe llate Body recalled the requirement in Article 9.3 that the amount 
of anti-dumping duty "shall not exceed the margin of  dumping as established under Article 2" of that 
Agreement.  The Appellate Body observed that its ex amination of the context of Article VI:2 of the 
GATT 1994 and Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  had confirmed that the term "margin of 
dumping", as used in those provisions, relates to  the "product" under consideration and not to 
individual "export transactions", and that the defin itions of "dumping" and "dumping margin" apply in 
the same manner throughout the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  The Appellate Body concluded that, 
under Article VI:2 and Article 9.3, the margin of  dumping established for an exporter in accordance 
with Article 2 operates as a ceiling  for the total amount of anti-dumping duties that can be levied on 
the entries of the subject merchandise from that e xporter.  The Appellate Body added that it saw no 
basis in Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 or in Articles 2 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement  for disregarding the results of comparisons where the export price exceeds the normal 
value when calculating the margin of dumping for an exporter. 
On this basis, the Appellate Body upheld th e Panel's finding that the United States acted 
inconsistently with Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 by 
applying simple zeroing in 29 periodic reviews. 
3. The Seven Periodic Reviews
 
The Appellate Body then turned to the Eur opean Communities' claim that the Panel acted 
inconsistently with its duty to make an objective assessment of the facts of the case, as required under 
Article 11 of the DSU, in concluding that the European Communities did not make a prima facie  case 
that simple zeroing was used in seven periodic reviews.  
The Appellate Body examined the Panel's appr oach to the evidence in respect of seven 
periodic reviews.  Observing that the Panel's r easoning indicated that it had evaluated individual 
pieces of evidence in order to determine whether any of the pieces, by itself, proved that zeroing had 
been applied, the Appellate Body considered that  the Panel had disregarded the significance of the 
submitted evidence by failing to give consideration to  that evidence in its totality.  The Appellate 
Body added that, while authenticated USDOC docum ents may have offered greater certainty as to 
their content, this did not render non-authenticated  documents not probative of the fact asserted, 
particularly if such evidence was produced or re plicated from documents or data supplied by the 
USDOC.  The Appellate Body therefore considered  that the Panel failed to make an objective 
assessment by allowing a challenge to the authenticity  of evidence originating from the USDOC, but 
later reproduced by interested parties, to skew its consideration of the probative value of that 
evidence.  Due to these errors, the Appellate Body remarked that the Panel could not properly have 
reached a conclusion as to whether the European Communities had established a prima facie  case.  
The Appellate Body therefore found that the Panel had acted inconsistently with its obligation under  WT/AB/13 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Article 11 of the DSU when it found that the Eu ropean Communities had not shown that simple 
zeroing was used in the seven periodic reviews and, c onsequently, reversed this finding of the Panel. 
Having reversed the Panel's finding in respect of  the seven periodic reviews, the Appellate 
Body turned to consider the Eu ropean Communities' request that the Appellate Body complete the 
analysis and find that zeroing was used in these periodi c reviews.  On the basis of the factual findings 
and uncontested facts in the Panel record in conne ction with five reviews, the Appellate Body was 
able to complete the analysis, and found that the European Communities had shown that simple 
zeroing was used and that the United States acted in consistently with Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 
and Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  by applying simple zeroing in these reviews.  The 
Appellate Body was unable to complete the analys is with respect to the two remaining reviews. 
4. Conditional Appeals  
The European Communities submitted what it ch aracterized as two "conditional appeals".  
First, the European Communities argued that, if th e Panel Report is construed as finding that a panel 
can invoke "cogent reasons" for departing from previ ous Appellate Body rulings on the same issue of 
legal interpretation, then the European Commun ities requests the Appellate Body to "modify or 
reverse" that finding by the Panel.   
The Appellate Body found that it was not clear whether the Panel in fact found that it could 
invoke "cogent reasons" to depart from previous A ppellate Body rulings on the same legal issue and 
that, ultimately, the Panel did follow previous Appellate Body reports adopted by the DSB.  
Consequently, and since it had ruled on the merits of  the United States' claims under Article 9.3 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, th e Appellate Body found that there 
was no need for it to address this aspect of the European Communities' conditional appeal. 
The second conditional appeal by the Eur opean Communities was premised on the 
assumption that the Appellate Body would "modify or reverse" the Panel's finding that simple zeroing is inconsistent with Ar ticle VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  as 
a result of the other appeal by the United States.  Noting that it had upheld the Panel's finding that the 
United States acted inconsistently with Article  VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 9.3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement  by applying simple zeroing in 29 periodic reviews, the Appellate Body found 
that it was not required to rule on this aspect of the European Communities' conditional appeal. 
5. The Eight Sunset Reviews
 
The Appellate Body then turned to the United States' claim that the Panel failed to undertake 
an objective assessment of the matter before it, as re quired by Article 11 of the DSU, in finding that 
the United States acted inconsistently with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  in eight 
sunset reviews by allegedly using dumping margin s obtained through model zeroing in prior original 
investigations.   
The Appellate Body recalled that in the eight  sunset reviews at issue, the USDOC used 
margins obtained in the underlying original investigati ons, and that, to the extent that a sunset review 
determination is based on previous margins obtained  through a methodology that is inconsistent with 
the covered agreements (such as th e model zeroing in original investigations), the resulting sunset 
review determinations would also be inconsistent with the covered agreements.  The Appellate Body 
also recalled that, when reaching its finding that the dumping margins from the original investigations 
were calculated on the basis of the model zeroi ng methodology, the Panel relied on the following 
evidence:  (i) an announcement in a Notice issued by the USDOC in December 2006 stating that the 
USDOC would no longer apply the model zeroing methodolog y in original investigations;  and (ii) the 
fact that the original investigations underlying the eight sunset reviews were all completed before this WT/AB/13 
Page 16  
 
  announced change became effective on 22 February 2007.  The Appellate Body noted that, in the 
same document relied upon by the Panel, the USDOC al so made clear that it consistently applied the 
model zeroing methodology in original investigati ons prior to this change in its methodology.  
Finally, the Appellate Body recalled that the Unite d States did not submit any evidence in rebuttal to 
show that the model zeroing methodology was not used in the original investigations at issue.  The 
Appellate Body concluded, therefore, that the Pane l had before it a sufficient evidentiary basis for its 
finding that the margins relied upon by the USDOC in these eight sunset reviews were calculated 
using the model zeroing methodology.   
Thus, the Appellate Body considered that the Panel's finding in this dispute was supported by 
the evidence before it and, on that basis, dismi ssed the United States' appeal that the Panel acted 
inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in r eaching its finding that the model zeroing methodology 
was used in the investigations underlyi ng the eight sunset reviews at issue. 
6. Article 19 of the DSU
 
Finally, the European Communities argued that the Panel erred in rejecting the European 
Communities' request that it make a suggestio n for implementation under the second sentence of 
Article 19.1 of the DSU, particularly with regard to the issue of zeroing.  The European Communities 
further requested that the Appellate  Body make such a suggestion.  
The Appellate Body noted that it had upheld th e Panel's findings that simple zeroing, as 
applied by the United States in 29 periodic review s, is inconsistent with Article 9.3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement  and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994; that it had also found that the United States 
acted inconsistently with Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article VI:2 of the 
GATT 1994 in respect of five additional periodic revi ews; and that it had upheld the Panel's findings 
that the United States acted inconsistently with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  in eight 
sunset reviews by relying on margins of dumping calculated through the use of zeroing.  In the light of these findings, and other findings  that it had made regarding the European Communities' claims 
against the continued application of the zeroing me thodology in 18 cases, the Appellate Body did not 
consider it necessary to further consider the Eu ropean Communities' request for a suggestion under 
Article 19.1 of the DSU.  
B. Appellate Body Report, US – Zeroing (EC) (Article 21.5 – EC) , WT/DS294/AB/RW and 
Corr.1 
This dispute concerned the implementation by the United States of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in US – Zeroing (EC) .  In that dispute, the original panel and the 
Appellate Body found that the application of the so-called "zeroing" methodology in original anti-
dumping investigations was inconsis tent with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti Dumping Agreement .  The 
Appellate Body also found that the application of  "zeroing" in the periodic reviews at issue was 
inconsistent with Article 9.3 of the Anti Dumping Agreement  and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.  
The panel and Appellate Body reports in the or iginal proceedings were adopted by the DSB 
on 9 May 2006.  Pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, the United States and the European 
Communities agreed that the reasonable period of  time to implement the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB would be 11 months, expiring on 9 April 2007. 
1. The Panel Composition
 
The Appellate Body first examined the Europ ean Communities allegation that the Panel acted 
inconsistently with the basic requirements of due pr ocess and the full exercise of the judicial function 
by failing to address properly its claim that the Pa nel was composed in a manner inconsistent with 
Articles 8.3 and 21.5 of the DSU.  Noting that th e Director-General was requested to determine the  WT/AB/13 
 Page 17 
 
 
  composition of the compliance panel under Article 8. 7 of the DSU, the Appellate Body underscored 
that this provision confers on the Director-General  the discretion to compose panels, and that this 
discretion was properly exercised in this case.  A ccordingly, the Appellate Body found that the Panel 
did not err in refraining from making a findi ng on whether it was improperly composed. 
2. Panel's Terms of Reference  
Turning to the European Communities' and the United States' appeals of the Panel's 
jurisdictional findings, the Appellate Body rej ected the European Communities' allegation that 
periodic reviews, changed circumstances reviews, a nd sunset reviews issued subsequently to the 15 
original investigations and 16 periodic reviews at issue in the original proceedings fell within the 
Panel's terms of reference as "amendments" to those measures.  For the Appellate Body, successive 
periodic, changed circumstances, and sunset review  determinations issued in connection to the 
measures at issue in the original proceedings constit ute separate and distinct measures.  The Appellate 
Body also noted that the Europ ean Communities identified in its or iginal panel request successive 
periodic reviews as separate "Cases".  On this basis, the Appellate Body upheld  the Panel's finding 
that the subsequent reviews identified in the Euro pean Communities' panel request did not fall within 
the Panel's terms of reference under Article 21.5 of the DSU as "amendments" to the measures at 
issue in the original proceedings. 
The Appellate Body next examined the Eu ropean Communities' and the United States' 
appeals of the Panel's findings that certain peri odic and sunset reviews issued subsequent to 
the 15 original investigations and 16 periodic re views listed in the European Communities' panel 
request fell within the Panel's terms of reference under Article 21.5 of the DSU by virtue of their 
"close nexus" with the measures at issue in the original proceedings and the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB.  Addressing first the European Communities' appeal of the Panel's finding that the 
measures that were issued before the adoption of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB did not 
fall within the Panel's terms of referen ce, the Appellate Body reasoned that the timing  of a measure 
cannot be determinative of whether it bears a sufficiently close nexus with a Member's 
implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, because compliance can be achieved 
before the DSB adopts recommendations and rulings.  The relevant inquiry, for the Appellate Body, 
was not whether these subsequent reviews were ta ken with the intention to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB;  rather, the relevant inquiry was whether the subsequent 
reviews, despite the fact that they were issued before the adoption of the recommendations and rulings 
of the DSB, still bore a sufficiently close nexus, in terms of nature, effects and timing, with those 
recommendations and rulings, and with the declared me asures "taken to comply", so as to fall within 
the scope of the Article 21.5 proceedings.  On this  basis, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel's 
finding that the periodic and sunset reviews subse quent to the original measures that pre-dated the 
adoption of the recommendations and rulings by th e DSB did not fall within the Panel's terms of 
reference under Article 21.5 of the DSU.  
Having reversed this finding of the Panel, the A ppellate Body sought to complete the analysis 
and determine which of the subsequent reviews th at the Panel excluded from its terms of reference 
had a sufficiently close nexus with  the declared measures "taken to  comply" and the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB, so as to fall within the scope of the compliance proceedings.  The Appellate 
Body found that the use of zeroing in subsequent  reviews provided the necessary link, in terms of 
nature , between such measures, the declared measure s "taken to comply", and the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB.  The Appellate Body reasone d that all the subsequent reviews excluded by the 
Panel were issued under the same anti-dumping duty or ders as the measures challenged in the original 
proceedings.  The Appellate Body also noted that the issue of zeroing was the precise subject of the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, the only aspect of the original measures that was modified by the United States in its Section 129 determinati ons, and the only aspect of the excluded subsequent 
reviews challenged in the Article 21.5 proceedings. WT/AB/13 
Page 18  
 
  Turning to the effects element of the close-nexus test, the Appellate Body observed that many 
of the reviews excluded by the Panel from its terms of  reference generated asse ssment rates calculated 
with zeroing, and replaced cash deposits that were found to be WTO-inconsistent in the original 
proceedings with cash deposits similarly calculated w ith zeroing.  For the Appellate Body, this would 
provide the necessary link, in terms of effects , between those periodic reviews and the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, insofar as the requirement to cease using zeroing was 
concerned.  However, the Appellate Body found that , with respect to the 15 original investigations 
subject to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, the United States issued Section 129 
determinations in which it recalculated, without zeroing, the going-forward cash deposit rates for the 
relevant anti-dumping duty orders (w here the orders had not been revoked entirely or with respect to 
specific exporters).  Consequently, to the extent that the effects of periodic and sunset reviews 
excluded from the Panel's terms of reference were  replaced with those of subsequent Section 129 
determinations in which zeroing was not applied, those subsequent re views generally did not have the 
necessary link, in terms of effects, with the decl ared measures "taken to comply", and with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, so as to fall within the Panel's terms of reference.  
With respect to reviews subsequent to the 16  periodic reviews at issue in the original 
proceedings, the Appellate Body found that peri odic reviews could have an effect on the United 
States' implementation of the recommendations and ru lings of the DSB after the end of the reasonable 
period of time.  Accordingly, to the extent th at the respective anti-dumping duty orders had been 
continued as a result of a sunset review in each of  those Cases, the Appellate Body found that they 
had a sufficiently close nexus, in terms of effects , with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  
Finally, the Appellate Body found that the fact th at the likelihood-of-dumping determinations in these 
sunset reviews pre-date the adoption of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB was not 
sufficient to sever the pervasive links, in terms of na ture and effects, between such sunset reviews, the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, and the d eclared measures "taken to comply".  On this 
basis, the Appellate Body found that the sunset reviews in specific cases, namely, Cases 24, 28, 29, 
30, and 31 had a sufficiently close nexus with the d eclared measures "taken to comply", and with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, so as to fall within the Panel's terms of reference under 
Article 21.5 of the DSU.  
Next, the Appellate Body addressed the United Stat es' other appeal of the Panel's finding that 
the 2004-2005 periodic reviews in Cases 1 and 6 (both issued after the end of the reasonable period of 
time) fell within the Panel's terms of reference.  The Appellate Body reiterated that the use of zeroing 
in those two periodic reviews provided the necessary link, in terms of nature , between those reviews, 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, and th e declared measures "tak en to comply" by the 
United States.  The Appellate Body reasoned that bo th the original investigations and the 2004-2005 
periodic reviews in these two Cases involved the same products from the same countries;  they 
occurred under the same anti-dumping duty orders;  and involved the use of the zeroing methodology 
in the context of calculating estimated margins of dumping for particular exporters, or assessment 
rates for particular importers.  The Appellate Body al so found significant that the use of zeroing was 
the only aspect of the original measures at issue that was corrected by the United States in the 
Section 129 determinations.  The Appe llate Body considered that the distinctions between comparison 
methodologies in original investigations and periodi c reviews were not decisive as to the links, in 
terms of nature or subject matter, between those re views, the declared measures "taken to comply", 
and the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 
The Appellate Body also observed that th e 2004-2005 periodic reviews involved the 
calculation of assessment rates based on zeroing afte r the end of the reasonable period of time, and 
therefore such assessment rates calculated with zeroing provided the necessary link, in terms of 
effects , between the 2004-2005 periodic reviews, the decl ared measures "taken to comply", and the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  Accord ing to the Appellate Body, subsequent periodic 
reviews using zeroing would be relevant for assessing, in an Article 21.5 proceeding, whether an  WT/AB/13 
 Page 19 
 
 
  original investigation found to be  inconsistent due to zeroing has been brought into conformity.  The 
Appellate Body reasoned that the use of zeroing to  calculate assessment rates in periodic reviews 
issued after the end of the reasonable period of time indicates that these reviews could undermine the 
compliance allegedly achieved by the United States. 
On this basis, the Appellate Body considered  that the 2004-2005 periodic reviews in Cases 1 
and 6 had a sufficiently close nexus, in terms of nature, effects, and timing, with the declared 
measures "taken to comply" and with the recommendati ons and rulings of the DSB.  Accordingly, the 
Appellate Body upheld  the Panel's finding that these periodic reviews fell within the Panel's terms of 
reference under Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
3. The Scope of the United St ates' Compliance Obligation  
As regards the scope of the United States' co mpliance obligations, th e Appellate Body began 
its analysis with the relevant recommendations a nd rulings adopted by the DSB in the original 
proceedings.  The Appellate Body observed that, in  this case, these recommendations and rulings of 
the DSB concerned the use of zeroing "as such" and " as applied" in 15 original investigations and "as 
applied" in 16 periodic reviews.  In response to  the WTO-inconsistencies found in relation to the 15 
original investigations (Cases 1 through 15), the Un ited States recalculated, in 12 Cases, the margins 
of dumping without zeroing in Section 129 determina tions, with the consequent revocation—full or 
partial—of the anti-dumping duty orders with resp ect to entries occurring after 23 April/31 August 
2007.  In the three remaining Cases, the anti-dumping duty orders were revoked for reasons other than 
zeroing.  The Appellate Body recalled, however, th at the examination under Article 21.5 of the DSU 
extends beyond the analysis of the consistency of the declared measures "tak en to comply", because 
the compliance panel may have to determine whethe r other closely connected measures taken by the 
responding WTO Member undermine or negate the compliance achieved by the declared measures 
"taken to comply" and demonstrate omissions or pa rtial compliance.  The Appellate Body observed in 
this respect that the Section 129 determinations did not relate to periodic reviews completed after the 
end of the reasonable period of time but covering entries occurring prior to that date. 
In the original proceedings, the DSB also adopt ed the Appellate Body's "as applied" findings 
that the determinations in 16 specific periodic revi ews (Cases 16 through 31) were inconsistent with 
Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body 
noted that these recommendations and rulings of the DSB concern the use of zeroing in the assessment of final duty liability as well as the settin g of cash deposit rates with respect to specific 
products from specific countries that have been subject to anti-dumping duty orders.  The Appellate 
Body rejected the United States' ar gument that, because the 16 periodic reviews at issue in the original 
proceedings have been superseded by subsequent periodic reviews, no further action was required in 
order to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in relation to those periodic reviews.  
According to the Appellate Body, due to its prospe ctive nature, compliance is not confined by the 
limited duration of the original measures at issue,  especially when a subsequent measure replaces or 
supersedes the measure at issue in  the original proceedings.   
The Appellate Body explained that, in order to  achieve compliance in relation to the measures 
at issue in the original proceedings, the United States  had to cease using zeroing in the assessment of 
duties by the end of the reasonable period of time.  Thus, the Appellate Body agreed with the Panel's 
statement that "[t]o implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings, the United States was at least obligated, after 9 April 2007, to cease using the ' zeroing' methodology in the calculation of anti-
dumping duties, not only with respect to imports en tered after the end of the reasonable period of 
time, but also in the context of decisions involving the calculation of dumping margins made after the end of the reasonable period of time with resp ect to imports entered before that date."
20  Accordingly, 
                                                      
20Panel Report, para. 8.175. WT/AB/13 
Page 20  
 
  in relation to the Cases at issue in the original proceedings, the Appellate Body considered that a 
subsequent periodic review determination issued af ter the end of the reasonable period of time in 
which zeroing is used, or if no such review is re quested, a determination issued after the end of the 
reasonable period of time by which anti-dumping liability is assessed on the basis of cash deposit 
rates calculated with zeroing, would establish a failure by the United States to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.   
The Appellate Body, however, disagreed with the Panel's view regarding measures that are 
consequent to assessment reviews.  For the Appellate  Body, consequent measures that, in the ordinary 
course of the imposition of anti-dumping duties, derive mechanically  from the assessment of duties 
would establish a failure to comply with the recomme ndations and rulings of the DSB, to the extent 
that they are based on zeroing and that  they are applied after the end of the reasonable period of time.  
On this basis, the Appellate Body reversed the Pa nel's interpretation that the United States' obligation 
to implement does not extend to the actual collection and liquidation of duties, and to the issuance of 
assessment or liquidation instructions, when these ac tions result from periodic review determinations 
made before the end of the reasonable period of tim e.  The Appellate Body did not, however, express 
any opinion on the question of whet her actions to liquidate duties th at are based on periodic review 
determinations issued before the end of the reasona ble period of time, and that have been delayed as a 
result of judicial proceedings, fall within the scope  of the implementation obligations of the United 
States, as it considered it did not need to do so in the context of its analysis of this issue in this case. 
4. The Specific Cases Covered by the Appeal and Other Appeal
 
Next, the Appellate Body addressed the claims raised in the European  Communities' appeal 
and the United States' other appeal with respect to specific Cases.  
In relation to Case 1, the Appellate Body observe d that final duty liability for entries in the 
period 2004-2005 was assessed with zeroing in a periodic review that was concluded on 22 June 2007, which is after the expiration of  the reasonable period of time on 9 April 2007.  
Whereas original investigations and periodic revi ews are distinct proceedings and serve distinct 
purposes, they form part of a continuum of events under a single anti-dumping duty order; permitting 
simple zeroing in periodic reviews would allow WTO Members to circumvent the prohibition of 
zeroing in original investigations.  The fact that  no going-forward cash deposit rate was set pursuant 
to the 2004-2005 periodic review, and that  the anti-dumping duty order was revoked as 
of 23 April 2007, do not change the fact that the final duty liability was assessed with zeroing after the 
end of the reasonable period of time.  Accordingly, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that 
the United States acted inconsistently with Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and 
Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 in its determinati on in the 2004-2005 periodic review and in issuing 
the consequent assessment instructions.  As a resu lt, the United States failed to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB to bring the original investigation in this Case into 
conformity.
21 
In relation to Case 6, the Appellate Body observe d that final duty liability for entries in the 
period 2004-2005 was assessed with zeroing in a peri odic review concluded on 9 May 2007, that is, 
after the end of the reasonable period of time a nd the revocation of the anti-dumping duty order 
                                                      
21In addition, the Appellate Body noted that the assessment instructions and liquidation instructions 
consequent to the rescission of the 2005-2006 periodic re view were issued after the end of the reasonable period 
of time, and that they related to anti-dumping duties assessed on the basis of cash deposits previously calculated 
with zeroing.  Such assessment and liquidation instructions  are measures "mechanically derived" from the final 
assessment of anti-dumping duties and applied in the or dinary course of the im position of such duties.  
Accordingly, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that those assessment and liquidation instructions 
do not establish that the United States has failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB to 
bring the original investigation in this Case into conf ormity with its obligations under the covered agreements.  WT/AB/13 
 Page 21 
 
 
  pursuant to the Section 129 determination.  Accordingly, the Appellate Body upheld  the Panel's 
finding that the United States acted inc onsistently with Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  
and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 in issuing th e results of the 2004-2005 periodic review 
on 9 May 2007, as well as the consequential assessm ent and liquidation instructions.  The Appellate 
Body also upheld  the Panel's finding that the United States failed to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB to bri ng the original investigation in this Case  into 
conformity with its WTO obligations. 
In relation to Case 31, the cash deposit rates app lied after the end of the reasonable period of 
time were derived from the latest determination in  which duties were assessed on the basis of the 
collected cash deposits, reflecting the margin of  dumping calculated with zeroing in the 2000-2001 
periodic review.  The Appellate Body found that th e Panel erred in refraining from making a specific 
finding with respect to this Case, and that th e United States had failed to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 
The Appellate Body turned to the European Communities' appeal relating to the Panel's 
decision not to make additional substantive findings in relation to Cases 18 through 24, 
and 27 through 30.  The Appellate Body observed that , with respect to those Cases, the results of the 
subsequent reviews listed in the Annex to the Panel request that fell within the Panel's terms of 
reference were issued before the expiry of th e reasonable period of time.  The Appellate Body 
considered that, given insufficient undisputed facts on  record, it was not in a position to complete the 
analysis.  However, the Appellate Body agreed with the Panel that the United States fails to comply if 
it continues to apply cash deposits on the basis of zeroing after the end of the reasonable period of 
time in respect of those Cases. 
5. The Subsequent Sunset Reviews  
Turning to the sunset reviews, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that that the 
European Communities had not demonstrated that the United States failed to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in respect of  the sunset review in Case 3.  The Appellate 
Body reasoned that, in the sunset review in Case 3, the USDOC had made only a preliminary 
affirmative likelihood-of-dumping determination by the time the Panel was established.  
Regarding the sunset review determinations in Cases 2, 4, and 5, the Appellate Body upheld 
the Panel's decision not to make findings on whether in these sunset reviews the United States failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  The Appellate Body noted that the anti-
dumping duty orders in these Cases were revoked fo llowing negative injury determinations by the 
USITC effective prior to the end of the reasonable pe riod of time.  On this basis, the Appellate Body 
concluded that the USDOC's affirmative final lik elihood-of-dumping determinations in these sunset 
reviews did not ultimately undermine compliance by the United States with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, considering that the anti-dum ping duty orders were revoked as a result of the 
sunset reviews with an effective da te of 7 March 2007, that is, prior to the expiration of the reasonable 
period of time of 9 April 2007.  The Appellate Body, therefore, declined to make a finding on whether 
the Panel erred in not ruling on the European Co mmunities' claim that the United States failed to 
comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in the sunset reviews in Cases 2, 4, and 5. 
Regarding the sunset review determination in Case 19, the Appellate Body reversed the 
Panel's finding that any failure by the United States in this sunset review had not yet materialized as of the date of establishment of the Panel and th at, as a consequence, the European Communities had 
not demonstrated that the United States failed to co mply with the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB.  The Appellate Body further noted that, even if  a formal continuation order was issued after the 
Panel's establishment, at the time the Panel was established, both dete rminations required by 
Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  in a sunset review had been made and, therefore, WT/AB/13 
Page 22  
 
  considering that both determina tions were affirmative, the sunset review would result in a 
continuation order by operation of law in the United States' anti-dumping system. 
Having reversed the Panel's finding on the sun set review in Case 19 and the Panel's findings 
that the sunset reviews in Cases 24, 28, 29, 30, and 31 did not fall within its terms of reference, the 
Appellate Body considered whether it could comple te the legal analysis.  The Appellate Body found 
that it could not complete the analysis with respect to the sunset review in Case 24, as there were not 
sufficient undisputed facts in the Panel record for it to do so.  However, the Appellate Body 
completed the legal analysis in respect of Cases 19, 28, 29, 30, and 31 on the basis of the USDOC's 
Decision and Issues Memoranda submitted by the European Communities to the Panel, and found 
that, in all these sunset reviews, the USDOC ha d based its likelihood-of-dumping determination on 
margins of dumping calculated using zeroing.  Theref ore, the Appellate Body found that, in the sunset 
reviews in Cases 19, 28, 29, 30, and 31, the United St ates had acted inconsistently with Article 11.3 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and had failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB.  Finally, the Appellate Body rejected the cl aim that the Panel had acted inconsistently with 
Article 11 of the DSU in its assessment of the subsequent sunset reviews by the United States. 
6. The Non-Existence of Measures Betw een 9 April and 23 April/31 August 
2007  
As regards the European Co mmunities claim concerning the non-existence of compliance 
measures between 9 April, when the reasonable period of time expired, and 23 April/31 August 
200722, respectively, the Appellate Body noted that, in its assessment under Article 21.5 of the DSU, 
the Panel took into account events that occurred betw een the end of the reasonable period of time and 
the establishment of the Panel on 25 September 2007.  These events include the entry into force of 11 
Section 129 determinations (issued by the USDOC on 9 April 2007) on 23 April 2007, the issuance of another Section 129 determinati on on 20 August 2007, and its entry into force on 31 August 2007.  
For the Appellate Body, in its analysis of wh ether the United States had complied with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, the Panel took into account implementation actions taken 
subsequent to the expiry of the reasonable period of time but before that Panel was established.  
Accordingly, the Appellate Body found that the Pane l did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the 
DSU in declining to make findings on the European  Communities' claim that, by not taking measures 
to comply in this period, the United States violat ed Article 21.3 of the DSU.  The Appellate Body 
underscored, however, that the responding Member is expected to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB within, or at the latest by, the end of the reasonable period of time. 
7. The Alleged Mathematical Error
 
The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's fi nding that the European Communities could not 
properly raise, in the compliance proceedings, a claim with respect to an alleged arithmetical error in 
the calculation of an exporter's dumping margin in the Section 129 determina tion relating to Case 11, 
because it could have raised it in the original pr oceedings, but failed to do so.  The Appellate Body 
disagreed with the Panel's reasoning that the scope of Article 21.5 of the DSU is not so broad as to 
allow a complaining party to make claims that it could have made, but did not make, in the original 
proceedings, with respect to aspects of the original  measure at issue that were incorporated, but 
remained unchanged, in the measure taken to comply .  The Appellate Body disagreed with the Panel, 
insofar as it precluded new claims against inseparab le aspects of a measure taken to comply, which 
are unchanged from the original measure.  Accordi ng to the Appellate Body, the critical question 
before the Panel was whether the alleged arithmetical error was an integral part of the measure taken 
to comply.  If it was, then the Panel should have  addressed the claim against the alleged arithmetical 
                                                      
22Eleven Section 129 determinations came into force on 23 April 2007;  and one Section 129 
determination entered into force on 31 August 2007.  WT/AB/13 
 Page 23 
 
 
  error in the measure taken to comply;  if it was not, then the Panel was correct in declining to rule on 
this claim in the Article 21.5 proceedings. 
Having reversed the Panel's findings that the European Communities could not raise claims 
against the alleged arithmetical error, the Appella te Body examined whether it could complete the 
analysis and concluded that there were insufficien t undisputed facts in the Panel record that would 
allow it to reach a conclusion as to whether the alleged error is separable from the compliance 
measure or is an integral part thereof.  Therefor e, it was unable to rule on whether the United States 
failed to comply with the recommendations and ru lings of the DSB by not correcting the alleged 
arithmetical error in the relevant Section 129 determination. 
8. The "All Others" Rate  
In cases where the number of exporters, producers or importers or products involved is so 
large that the determination of individual margin s of dumping for each known exporter or producer of 
the product under investigation is  impracticable, the authorities may limit their examination pursuant 
to Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  In cases where the authority have limited their 
examination, an "all others" anti-dumping rate is applied to imports from exporters or producers not 
individually investigated.  With respect to the "all others" rate, the Appellate Body noted that 
Article 9.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  requires, in calculating the ceiling for that rate, to 
disregard de minimis,  zero, and margins based on "facts available".  The Appellate Body disagreed 
with the Panel's interpretation that in situati ons where all margins of dumping are either zero, de 
minimis , or based on facts available, Article 9.4 imposes no obligation.  The Appellate Body 
emphasized that Article 9.4, first, imposes a ceiling that the "all others" rate "shall not exceed".  
Secondly, investigated authorities are required to di sregard, for the purposes of that calculation, any 
zero, de minimis , and "facts available" margins.  The f act that all margins of dumping for the 
investigated exporters fall within one of the categor ies that Article 9.4 directs investigating authorities 
to disregard, does not imply that the investigating authorities' discretion to apply duties on non-investigated exporters is unbounded.   
However, the Appellate Body did not consider it necessary to make findings in relation to the 
claim that the United States acted inc onsistently with Article 9.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  in 
the establishment of the "all others" rates in the Secti on 129 determinations in Cases 2, 4, and 5.  In 
this respect, the Appellate Body observed that, on 7 February 2008, the USDOC revoked the anti-
dumping duty orders in Cases 2, 4, and 5, foll owing negative likelihood-of-injury determinations 
made by the USITC in the context of sunset re views.  These revocation orders took effect as 
of 7 March 2007 (that is, prior to the expiry of th e reasonable period of time on 9 April 2007).  As a 
result, any cash deposits imposed on imports of non-i nvestigated exporters in this period, including 
those resulting from the recalculated "all others" rate, have been refunded.   
The Appellate Body also found that the Panel di d not err in making no findings in respect of 
the European Communities'  claims under Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  
The Appellate Body noted that, by its express terms, Article 6.8 permits the application of "facts 
available" to an "interested party" who "refuses access to, or otherwise does not provide, necessary 
information within a reasonable period, or significan tly impedes the investigation".  According to the 
Appellate Body, this confirms that Article 6.8 app lies exclusively to those "interested parties" from 
which information was required, rather than to those pa rties from which information was not 
requested.  Thus, the disciplines regarding the app lication of "facts available" under Article 6.8 and 
Annex II do not apply to non-investigated exporters that  eventually are subject to the "all others" rate.  
The Appellate Body further observed that the invest igating authorities' discretion to impose duties on 
non-investigated exporters is subject to the disciplin es provided in Article 9.4, including the exclusion 
of any "facts available" margins of dumping in the calculation of the maximum permissible duty applied to those exporters. WT/AB/13 
Page 24  
 
  9. Suggestion on Implementation under Article 19.1 of the DSU
 
Finally, the Appellate Body declined a requ est by the European Communities to make a 
suggestion, pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DS U, on how the United States should implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.  The Appellate Body found that the requested suggestion would 
not provide useful guidance or facilitate the impl ementation beyond its specific findings that the use 
of zeroing in subsequent reviews after the end of th e reasonable period of time establishes a failure to 
comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings in respect of the Cases at issue in the original 
proceedings;  if no such review is requested, a dete rmination after the end of  the reasonable period of 
time by which anti-dumping liability is assessed on th e basis of cash deposits calculated with zeroing 
also establishes such a failure.  The Appellate Body  also expressed its agreement with the Panel's 
view that the United States fails to comply with  the DSB recommendations and ruling if it continues 
to apply cash deposit rates established on the basis of  zeroing after the end of the reasonable period of 
time in respect of the Cases at issue here.  With r espect to measures that derive mechanically from the 
assessment of duties, such measures would est ablish a failure to comply with the DSB 
recommendations or rulings to the extent that they reflect zeroing and that they are applied after the 
end of the reasonable period of time, even if such a measure is consequent to a periodic review issued 
before the end of that period.  Subsequent sunset  reviews in which zeroing was used and that provide 
the legal basis for the continued imposition of an ti-dumping duties after the end of the reasonable 
period of time also establish are failure to comp ly with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
C. Appellate Body Report, US – Zeroing (Japan) (Article 21.5 – Japan) , WT/DS322/AB/RW 
This appeal concerned the implementation by the United States of the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB in the dispute in US – Zeroing (Japan) .  In the original proceedings, the Appellate 
Body found, inter alia , that the use of zeroing procedures in periodic reviews is inconsistent "as such" 
with Articles 2.4 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.  The 
Appellate Body also found that the use of zeroing in  certain periodic reviews, namely, Reviews 1, 2, 
3, 7 and 8, was inconsistent with Articles 2.4 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and 
Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.  The panel and Appe llate Body reports in the original proceedings 
were adopted by the DSB on 23 January 2007.  Purs uant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, the United 
States and Japan agreed that the reasonable period of time to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB would be 11 months, expiring on 24 December 2007. 
On 7 April 2008, Japan requested that the matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU, because it did not consider  that the United States had brought itself into 
compliance with the DSB's recommendations and ru lings.  Japan argued that the United States had 
failed to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings regarding the importer-specific 
assessment rates determined in Reviews 1, 2, 3, 7,  and 8, contrary to Articles 2.4 and 9.3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement  and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.
23  In addition, Japan asserted that four 
subsequent periodic reviews—Reviews 4, 5, 6, and 9—were "measures taken to comply" that are 
inconsistent with Articles 2.4 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article VI:2 of the 
GATT 1994.  Finally, Japan submitted that the United States acted in violation of Articles II:1(a) 
and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 when it took certain actions to liquidate the entries covered by 
Reviews 1, 2, 7, and 8 after the expiry of the reasonable period of time. 
Reviews 1-6 and 9 were consecutive sunset re views of the same anti-dumping duty order on 
imports of ball bearings from Japan.  They followed  one another consecutively.  Review 7 related to 
an anti-dumping duty order on imports of cylindrical ro ller bearings from Japan.  Review 8 related to 
an anti-dumping duty order on imports of spherical pl ain bearings from Japan.  The Panel explained 
                                                      
23Japan also argued that the United States' failure to  implement is inconsistent with Articles 17.14, 
21.1, and 21.3 of the DSU.  WT/AB/13 
 Page 25 
 
 
  that, under the United States' retrospective anti-dumping system, periodic reviews involve the 
determination of "importer-specific assessment rat es for previous entries imported during the review 
period" and "exporter-specific cash deposit rates th at will apply prospectively to future import 
entries".24  After the conclusion of the periodic review, the United States Customs and Border 
Protection ("Customs") collects anti-dumping duties in  accordance with the rates determined in the 
periodic review.  For this purpose, the USDOC sends liquidation instructions to Customs.  The 
liquidation instructions will usually be sent to Cust oms within 15 days of publication of the final 
results of the periodic review.  Private parties may challenge the final results of the periodic review 
before the United States Court of International Tr ade (the "USCIT").  The United States explained 
that the USCIT has jurisdiction provided that  the anti-dumping duties remain uncollected.  
Consequently, private parties must request that the USCIT issue an injunction ordering the temporary 
suspension of the collection of anti-dumping dutie s while the judicial proceedings are pending.  
Collection resumes upon the conclusion of domestic  litigation and the consequent lifting of any 
applicable injunctions, at which point the USDO C will send instructions to Customs ordering 
liquidation of the entries in accordance with the court's decision and Customs will collect duties 
accordingly.  All nine reviews at issue in the Ar ticle 21.5 proceedings were  challenged by private 
parties before the USCIT, which ordered the susp ension of liquidation with respect to all nine 
reviews.  In some cases, domestic litigation ended and the injunctions had been lifted.25  In other 
cases, domestic litigation was ongoing and the injunctions remained in force.26 
1. Panel's Terms of Reference  
The United States appealed the Panel's finding th at Review 9 was within the Panel's terms of 
reference, relying on the two arguments that it had made before the Panel: (i) that the phrase 
"subsequent closely connected measures" in the panel request does not meet the requirement of 
Article 6.2 of the DSU to "identify the specific measur es at issue"; and (ii) that Review 9 had not been 
completed when Japan submitted its panel request.27   
The Appellate Body began with an analysis of  Japan's panel request, and in particular the 
phrase "subsequent closely connected measures".  It  observed that the phrase "subsequent closely 
connected measures" indicates that the measures woul d have to be enacted af ter (that is, "subsequent" 
to) the eight periodic reviews identified by Japan in its panel request and rela ted (that is, be "closely 
connected") to these eight reviews.  Thus, the A ppellate Body rejected the United States' argument 
that the phrase was too "broad" and "vague" to meet the requirement of Article 6.2 of the DSU.  The 
Appellate Body agreed with the Panel that th e use of the term "closely connected" earlier in 
paragraph 12 of the panel request to describe Revi ews 4, 5, and 6 provided further support for this 
conclusion.  Next, the Appellate Body recalled that in previous reports it had stated that Article 6.2 
must be adapted to a panel request under Article 21.5, and that, in compliance proceedings, the "specific measures at issue" are measures "that have a bearing on compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB".  The Appe llate Body observed that, if zeroing were used 
in Review 9, it would mean that the United Stat es had not ceased using zeroing procedures in periodic 
reviews, contrary to the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Thus, the Ap pellate Body concluded 
that Review 9 is a measure that has "a beari ng on compliance with the recommendations and rulings 
of the DSB" and this must be taken into account in assessing whether Japan's panel request meets the 
requirements of Article 6.2, read in the light of Article 21.5.   
                                                     
 
24Under Section 751(a) of the United States Tariff Ac t of 1930, the USDOC must review and determine 
the amount of any anti-dumping duty at  least once during each 12-month peri od, beginning on the anniversary 
of the date of publication of an an ti-dumping duty order, if a request fo r such a review has been received. 
25Domestic litigation had ended in respect of Reviews 1-3, 7, and 8.  
26Domestic litigation was pending in respect of Reviews 4-6 and 9.  
27The United States did not appeal the Panel's finding that Review 9 is a "measure taken to comply".  WT/AB/13 
Page 26  
 
  In addition, the Appellate Body disagreed with  the United States' argument that the "separate 
and distinct" nature of each periodic review require d identification of each periodic review in Japan's 
panel request.  The Appellate Body clarified that  subsequent reviews under the same anti-dumping 
duty order constitute "connected stages" involving the same products, from the same countries, and 
formed part of a continuum of events.  As regards the United States' argument that the Panel erred by 
considering whether Japan's challenge to "subsequent  closely connected measures" would "violate any 
due process objective of the DSU", the Appellate Body  recalled that the request for the establishment 
of a panel serves the due process objective of notifying respondents and potential third parties of the nature of the dispute and of the parameters of th e case.  Thus, the Appellate Body found no error in 
the Panel's approach and could not identify it self any due process concerns in this case.  
The Appellate Body then turned to the United States' argument that Review 9 was a "future 
measure" that had not yet come into existence at the time Japan submitted its panel request, and 
therefore could not have been included within the Pa nel's terms of reference.   First, the Appellate 
Body observed that Article 6.2 does not set out an express temporal cond ition or limitation on the 
measures that can be identified in a panel request.  Secondly, it explained that a measure initiated 
before recourse to an Article 21.5 panel, which is completed during those compliance proceedings, 
may have a bearing on whether compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings is achieved.  
The Appellate Body added that to  exclude such a measure would m ean that the disagreement between 
the parties would not be fully resolved by that Article 21.5 panel, and w ould thus frustrate the 
function of compliance proceedings a nd be inconsistent with the objectives of the DSU.  In this case, 
Review 9 related to the same antidumping duty order as Reviews 1, 2, and 3, found to be inconsistent 
in the original proceedings, and to Reviews 4, 5, and 6 which Japan had challenged as "measures 
taken to comply".  Furthermore, Review 9 had been initiated at the time the matter was referred to the 
Panel and was due to be completed during the co mpliance proceedings.  The Panel's inclusion of 
Review 9 therefore enabled the Article 21.5 Panel to  fulfil its mandate and determine, in a prompt 
manner, whether the United States had achieved compliance with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.
28 
The Appellate Body disagreed that the referenc e in Article 3.3 of the DSU to "any measures 
taken  by another Member", as interpreted by the panel in US – Upland Cotton , supported the United 
States' arguments.  It recalled that Article 3.3 focuses on the perception or understanding of an 
aggrieved Member and stated that, given the u se of zeroing in the preceding periodic reviews under 
the same anti-dumping duty order, Japan could have cons idered that its benefits would be impaired if 
zeroing was used in Review 9.  It was then for th e Panel to decide whether Review 9 fell within its 
terms of reference.  
The United States argued that certain "systemic"  considerations would arise if compliance 
panels were allowed to examin e new measures or modifications made during the course of 
proceedings.  As examples of these concerns, it re ferred to possible delays in the proceedings or 
parties having to respond on short notice to argument s relating to new measures.  While the Appellate 
Body recognized that, in certain circumstances, these  concerns may be releva nt, it did not consider 
that any such concerns arose in  this case, because the United States and the third parties were given 
adequate notice and opportunities to respond to  Japan's allegations concerning Review 9. 
                                                      
28In support of its position, the United States relied on a statement of the Appellate Body in EC – 
Chicken Cuts  that "[t]he term 'specific measures at issue' in Article 6.2 suggests that, as a general rule, the 
measures included in a panel's terms of reference must be measures that are in ex istence at the time of the 
establishment of the panel".  The Appellate Body observed, however, that, in that case, it did not rule that Article 6.2 categorically prohibits the inclusion of measur es that are completed after a panel is requested.  It 
noted, moreover, that EC – Chicken Cuts  was an original WTO proceedin g, whereas this case involved 
Article 21.5 proceedings and Review 9 was a meas ure that would have a bearing on compliance.  WT/AB/13 
 Page 27 
 
 
  Finally, the Appellate Body examined the Unite d States' argument that the Panel's approach 
resulted in "asymmetrical" treatme nt between complainants and respondents regarding requests to 
include measures that are completed during the panel proceedings.  The United States referred to previous panels that had rejected requests from respondents to examine measures enacted during the 
panel proceedings.  The Appellate Body stated that it did not detect such asymmetrical treatment of 
complainants and respondents, noting that, in  some cases, developments occurring during the 
proceedings have been taken into account to the bene fit of respondents.  In particular, it referred to 
US – Zeroing (EC) (Article 21.5 – EC) , where developments subsequent to the establishment of the 
panel were taken into account by the Appellate Body in finding that  the United States had "ultimately" 
not failed to comply with the DSB's recommendati ons and rulings in relation to certain sunset 
reviews.
29  For these reasons, the Appellate Body upheld  the Panel's findings that Review 9 was 
properly within its terms of reference. 
2. The Scope of the United States' Compliance Obligations  
Before addressing the specific findings made  by the Panel with respect to Reviews 1 
through 9, the Appellate Body set out its genera l understanding of the scope of a WTO Member's 
obligation to comply with the DSB's recommendations  and rulings and of the timeframe within which 
compliance must be achieved.  The Appellate Body examined Articles 3.7, 19.1, 21.1, 21.3, and 21.5 of the DSU.  Based on its analysis of these provisi ons, the Appellate Body explained that the mandate 
of an Article 21.5 panel is to determine wh ether a WTO Member has implemented the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings fully and in a timely manne r;  it is not within its mandate to modify the 
reasonable period of time agreed or determined under Article 21.3.  A WTO Member will not have 
met its obligation to implement the DSB's recommenda tions and rulings if measures taken to comply 
are inconsistent with the covere d agreements or if there is an omission in implementation.  
Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21.3 of the DSU, implementation of the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB must be done "immediately", unless it is "impracticable" to do so, in which case Article 21.3 foresees the possibility of the implementing Member being given a reasonable 
period of time to comply.  However, the reasonabl e period of time is a limited exemption from the 
obligation to comply immediately.  Thus, Article 21.3 requires that full implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings be achieved by th e end of the reasonable period of time and, 
consequently, the WTO-inconsistent conduct must cease at the latest by that time. 
(a) The Collection of Duties After Expiration of the Reasonable Period 
of Time 
Having discussed a WTO Member's obligation to comply with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings, the Appellate Body turned to the issue of  whether the obligation to comply applies also in 
respect of imports that entered the territory of the implementing WTO Member prior to the expiration 
of the reasonable period of time, when matters conc erning those imports have not been fully settled by 
the end of that period.  The Appe llate Body reiterated its finding in US – Zeroing (EC) (Article 21.5 – 
EC) that, irrespective of the date on which the im ports entered the territory of the implementing 
Member, any conduct of the implementing Member th at was found to be WTO-inconsistent by the 
DSB must cease by the end of the reasonable period of time.  It explained that full compliance is not achieved where the implementing Member fails to ta ke action to rectify the WTO-inconsistent aspects 
of a measure that remains in force after the end of  the reasonable period of time.  Likewise, actions 
taken by the implementing Member after the end of the reasonable period of time must be WTO-
consistent, even if those actions concern imports that  entered the Member's territory before the end of 
the reasonable period of time.  Where the importer-specific assessment rates or cash deposit rates determined in a periodic review are found to be WTO-inconsistent, the implementing Member is 
under an obligation to rectify these inconsistencies by the end of the reasonable period of time.  
                                                     
 
29See Appellate Body Report, US – Zeroing (EC) (Article 21.5 – EC) , paras. 372, 375, and 376-381. WT/AB/13 
Page 28  
 
  Where periodic reviews cover imports that entered the implementing Member's territory prior to the 
expiration of the reasonable period of time, the WTO-inconsistencies may not persist after the 
reasonable period of time has expired.  In other words, full compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings cannot be said to have  occurred if WTO-inconsistent conduct does not 
cease completely by the end of the reasonable period of  time, even if it relates to imports that entered 
the implementing Member's territory before that period expired. 
The Appellate Body addressed various arguments raised by the United States in support of its 
position that the date of entry of the imports is th e relevant parameter for determining compliance.  
First, the Appellate Body examined whether Artic le VI of the GATT 1994, the Interpretive Note to 
paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article VI, and Ar ticles 8.6, 10.1, 10.6, and 10.8 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement  provided relevant context for the United Stat es' argument.  The Appellate Body observed 
that an analysis of the text of these provisions re veals that they do not address a Member's compliance 
obligations after the DSB has adopted recommendations  and rulings and the reasonable period of time 
for implementation has expired.  Secondly, the A ppellate Body examined the United States' argument 
that disregarding the date of entry would di sadvantage WTO Members with retrospective anti-
dumping systems and would create "inequality" betw een retrospective and prospective anti-dumping 
systems.  The Appellate Body explained that this argument could not be reconciled with the text of 
Article 9.3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , which requires that WTO Members with prospective 
anti-dumping systems provide a mechanism allowing impor ters to request refunds of any duty paid in 
excess of the margin of dumping.  If the refund procedures are challenged both domestically and in 
WTO dispute settlement, and the refund procedur es are not completed before the end of the 
reasonable period of time, a WTO Member with a pr ospective anti-dumping system would also have 
compliance obligations in respect of those refund procedures even if they concern past imports.  
Thirdly, the Appellate Body examined the Un ited States' assertion that failing to determine 
compliance by reference to the date of entry of imports would amount to "retroactive relief".  The 
Appellate Body recalled that the DSU requires ces sation of all WTO-inconsistent conduct either 
immediately upon adoption of the DSB's recommendations and rulings or no later than upon 
expiration of the reasonable period of time, regardless of the date of im portation.  It added that there is 
no "retroactive relief" involved when a WTO Me mber's conduct is examined from the proper 
reference point, which is the end of the reasonable pe riod of time.  Finally, the Appellate Body noted 
that the obligation in Article 9.3 that "[t]he amount of the anti-dumping duty shall not exceed the 
margin of dumping as established under Article 2" would not be respected if a Member fails to 
comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings  and collects anti-dumping duties after the end of 
the reasonable period of time based on rates that were  determined in periodic reviews using zeroing.  
For these reasons, the Appellate Body found that, in  the case of periodic reviews of anti-dumping duty 
measures, the obligation to comply covers actions or omissions subse quent to the reasonable period of 
time, even if they relate to imports that entere d the territory of a WTO Member at an earlier date. 
(b) Liquidation After the End of the Reasonable Period of Time of Prior 
Imports Due to Delays Resulting from Domestic Litigation 
Next, the Appellate Body examined the United St ates' argument that, even if the date of 
collection were relevant for assessing compliance, liquidation actions that were delayed beyond the 
end of the reasonable period of time as a result of domestic litigation cannot provide a basis for a 
finding of non-compliance.  The United States relied primarily on Articles 13 and footnote 20 to 
Article 9.3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .
30  The Appellate Body noted that the obligation in 
Article 13 is general in nature, requiring the mainte nance of tribunals or procedures for the prompt 
review of administrative anti-dumping actions.  It  further observed that Article 13 does not speak 
directly to the issue raised in this appeal, as it c ontains no mention that judicial review procedures 
may excuse non-compliance with the DSB's recomme ndations and rulings after the end of the 
                                                      
30The footnote also applies to Article 9.3.2.  WT/AB/13 
 Page 29 
 
 
  reasonable period of time.  The fact that WTO Memb ers are required to maintain independent review 
procedures for administrative anti-dumping actions do es not exonerate them from the requirement to 
comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings w ithin the reasonable period of time.  Therefore, 
the Appellate Body did not consider that Article  13 provides support for the proposition that a WTO 
Member is excused from complying with the DSB' s recommendations and rulings by the end of the 
reasonable period of time, where a periodic review has been challenged in that Member's domestic 
courts and this has resulted in the collection of duties being delayed. 
As regards footnote 20 to Article 9.3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , the Appellate Body 
explained that this provision expressly recognizes th at domestic judicial proceedings may result in 
delays and that this may excuse exceeding the time- limits imposed under Articles 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 for 
the conduct of periodic reviews and for refund procedures under retrospective and prospective 
systems.  However, the Appellate Body noted that footnote 20 does not address compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Further, the A ppellate Body reasoned that the fact that the text 
of footnote 20 expressly limits its application to  Articles 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 weighs against invoking 
footnote 20 to excuse delays in complying with oblig ations set out in other provisions of the covered 
agreements.  The Appellate Body also recalled that  Article 21.3 indicates that the "reasonable period 
of time" is an exception to immediate compliance, thus implying that further delays would not be justified.   
The Appellate Body then addressed the United States' argument, based on US – Zeroing (EC) 
(Article 21.5 – EC) , that, where liquidation is delayed because of domestic judicial proceedings, it can 
no longer be said to "derive mech anically" from the periodic reviews challenged by Japan.  The 
Appellate Body noted that the statement in US – Zeroing (EC)(Article 21.5 – EC)  does not stand for 
the proposition that, if the liquidation actions do not "mechanically derive" from the challenged 
reviews, then such actions would be outside th e scope of the implementing Member's compliance 
obligations.  Even if liquidation occurring after the reasonable period of time due to court proceedings 
did not derive mechanically from the periodic revi ew, but was "somehow autonomous", it would still 
be inconsistent if the use of zeroing had not been rectified.  The Appellate Body concluded that it 
could not see why such actions—be they "mechanically  derived" or not from  the challenged periodic 
reviews—would be exempted from the United St ates' obligation to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings by the end of the reasonable period of time. 
The United States also pointed out that the timing of liquidation is controlled by an 
independent judiciary and that litiga tion is initiated by private parties.  The Appellate Body recalled 
that a WTO Member "bears responsibility for acts of  all its departments of government, including its 
judiciary".
31  It further observed that the periodic revi ews, and the collection of duties after the 
reasonable period of time by the USDOC and Customs, are not judicial acts, and that Japan had not attributed the failure to comply to the United Stat es courts.  As for the initiation of domestic litigation 
by private parties, the Appellate Body noted that it is the court that decides whether or not to grant an 
injunction and private parties do not control the timing or content of the court's decisions.  
An additional argument made by the United Stat es was that the precise action to be taken 
once domestic litigation is completed would depend on th e outcome of judicial review.  In particular, 
the United States asserted that, as a result of the decision of the domestic court, there could be circumstances where the USDOC would have to r ecalculate the importer-specific assessment rates 
without using zeroing, such as where all releva nt export prices are below normal value.  The 
Appellate Body did not consider that this exampl e was to the point because zeroing does not manifest 
itself in such a case in which all export prices are below normal value.  Moreover, the Appellate Body 
observed that domestic litigation had been completed in relation to Reviews 1, 2,  3, 7, and 8 and there 
was no indication on the Panel record that the use of zeroing was subsequently corrected in any of 
                                                     
 
31Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp , para. 173.   WT/AB/13 
Page 30  
 
  these Reviews.  The Appellate Body also noted that  judicial review was also required under other 
covered agreements (for example, Article X:3(b) of the GATT 1994, Article 23 of the SCM 
Agreement , and Article VI:2(a) of the GATS).  Thus , the Appellate Body was concerned that 
exempting measures subject to domestic judicial review procedures from the obligation to comply by the end of the reasonable period of time could have implications for the effectiveness of WTO dispute 
settlement in areas beyond anti-dumping. 
For these reasons, the Appellate Body found th at the fact that collection of anti-dumping 
duties is delayed as a result of domestic judicial pr oceedings does not provide a valid justification for 
the failure to comply with the DSB's recommendations  and rulings by the end of the reasonable period 
of time. 
The Appellate Body next turned to the findings of  the Panel with respect to Reviews 1, 2, 3, 
7, and 8.  As the United States' appeal was premi sed entirely on the arguments concerning the date of 
entry and the delay in liquidation resulting from j udicial review, which had been rejected, the 
Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the United States had failed to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB regarding the importer-specific assessment rates determined 
in Reviews 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 that apply to entri es covered by those Reviews and that were, or will be, 
liquidated after the expiry of the reasonable period of time.
32  For the same reasons, the Appellate 
Body upheld the Panel finding that the United States remains in violation of Articles 2.4 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, in respect of those importer-
specific assessment rates. 
The United States also appealed the Panel's fi ndings with respect to Reviews 4, 5, and 6 
and 9, for which liquidation of duties remained susp ended as a result of pending judicial proceedings.  
In addition to the arguments mentioned earlier, th e United States argued that Reviews 4, 5, and 6 
could not have provided a basis for a finding of inconsistency with the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and 
Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 at the time Japan submitted its panel request.  The United States 
explained that, because the collection of duties determ ined in these Reviews w as enjoined prior to the 
conclusion of the reasonable period of time and continued to be en joined, these Reviews had not had 
effects after the end of the reasonable period of time of the kind that could give rise to a finding of inconsistency.   
The Appellate Body recalled that the United St ates did not appeal the Panel's finding that 
Reviews 4, 5, and 6 are "measures taken to comply".  It also recalled the Panel's findings that the exporter-specific margins of dumping and importer-sp ecific assessment rates in Reviews 4, 5, and 6 
were affected (in the sense of being inflated) by zer oing, that "Reviews 4, 5 and 6 continued to have 
legal effect long after the adoption of the DSB's re commendations and rulings", and that some of the 
import entries covered by Reviews 4, 5, and 6 had not been liquidated when the reasonable period of 
time expired.  Moreover, the Appellate Body stated  that, under Article 3.8 of the DSU, there is a 
presumption that a breach of the WTO agreements nullifies or impairs benefits of other Members.  
Therefore, the Appellate Body disagreed that there was no basis to find the application of zeroing in 
Reviews 4, 5, and 6 to be inconsistent with the United States' obligations under the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement  and the GATT 1994.  For these reasons, the Appe llate Body upheld the Panel's finding that 
the application of zeroing in the context of Review s 4, 5, and 6 is inconsistent with Articles 2.4 
and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping  and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.   
The Appellate Body noted that Review 9 was c oncluded after the expiration of the reasonable 
period of time.  The argument of the United States, that Review 9 covered imports that entered the 
                                                     
 
32The Appellate Body referred in this respect to the Panel's finding that the status of the importer-
assessment rates determined in Reviews 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 had not changed since the original proceeding, in which 
they were found to be WTO-inconsistent.  WT/AB/13 
 Page 31 
 
 
  United States prior to the expiration of the reas onable period of time, had been rejected by the 
Appellate Body in its earlier analysis.  Consequent ly, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding 
that the application of zeroing in the context of Revi ew 9 is inconsistent with Articles 2.4 and 9.3 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994. 
3. Article II of the GATT 1994  
Finally, the Appellate Body considered whet her the Panel erred in finding that certain 
liquidation instructions and notices ta ken by the United States relating to Reviews 1, 2, 7, and 8, are 
inconsistent with Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, because they resulted in the 
imposition of duties in excess of bound rates set fort h in the United States' Schedule of Concessions.  
The Panel found that the duties in excess of bound rates were not justified under Article II:2(b) 
because the anti-dumping duties were not applied cons istently with Article VI.  Because the United 
States had not challenged the Panel's interpretation of Article II, the Appellate Body explained that it 
did not need to engage in an extensive analysis of this provision.33   
The United States argued that the Appellate Body's  reversal of the Panel's findings relating to 
Reviews 1, 2, 7, and 8 would necessarily require a re versal of the Panel's findings under Article II of 
the GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body observed that, si nce it had upheld the findings of the Panel with 
respect to these Reviews, the condition on which the United States' appeal was premised had not been 
met.34  Accordingly, the Appellate Body upheld th e Panel's finding that the United States was in 
violation of Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GA TT 1994 with respect to certain liquidation actions 
relating to Reviews 1, 2, 7, and 8 taken afte r the expiry of the reasonable period of time. 
The Appellate Body concluded that, to the extent  that the United States had failed to comply 
with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in the original proceedings, the recommendations 
and rulings remain operative.  The Appellate B ody also recommended that the DSB request the 
United States to bring into conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the 
GATT 1994 the measures found in its Report and in the Panel Report to be inc onsistent with those 
Agreements. 
D. Appellate Body Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products , WT/DS363/AB/R 
This dispute concerned a complaint brought by  the United States with respect to various 
measures relating to the importation into and dist ribution within China of reading materials, 
audiovisual home entertainment products, sound record ings, and films for release in movie theatres.  
China explained before the Panel that a series of measures challenged by the United States establish a 
content review mechanism and a system for the selection of import entities for specific types of goods 
that China considers to be "cultural goods".  Chin a explained that its regulatory regime defines the 
content that China considers to have a negative imp act on public morals and, in order to ensure that 
such content is not imported into China, establis hes a mechanism for content review of relevant 
products that is based upon the selection of im port entities.  China submitted that, because these 
import entities play an essential role in the cont ent review process, and because, in the case of 
                                                      
33It did note that the Panel's interpretative approach was "coherent with" the Appellate Body's 
interpretation in India – Additional Import Duties  of the relationship between Articles II:1(b) and II:2(a).  The 
Appellate Body noted, in that case, that "the participan ts agree that, if a charge satisfies the conditions of 
Article II:2(a), it would not result in a violation of Article  II:1(b).  Thus, ... in the context of this case involving 
the application of duties that are claimed to correlate to ce rtain internal taxes, Article II:1(b) and Article II:2(a) 
are closely related and must be interpre ted together." (Appellate Body Report, India – Additional Import Duties , 
para. 153) 
34The Appellate Body further noted that it had already rejected the other arguments on which the 
United States' appeal was based, namely, the "date of entry" argument, and the argument that liquidation would 
have occurred before the expiration of the reasonable period of time but for the domestic judicial proceedings. WT/AB/13 
Page 32  
 
  imported products, it is critical that content revi ew be carried out at the border, only "approved" 
and/or "designated" import entities are authorized to import the relevant products.  China further 
explained that domestic publishers of cultural goo ds also face limitations on the publication of 
prohibited content, and content review requirements. 
Although the Panel made a large number of findi ngs, only the following were the subject of 
China's appeal and the United States' other appeal:  (i) the Panel's finding that specific provisions in 
China's measures pertaining to films for theatrical  release and audiovisual products imported for 
publication ("unfinished audiovisual products") are s ubject to, and inconsistent with, China's trading 
rights commitments
35;  (ii) the Panel's finding that China has not demonstrated that relevant provisions 
in China's measures are "n ecessary" to protect public morals within the meaning of Article XX(a) of 
the GATT 1994;  and (iii) the Panel's finding that th e entry "Sound recording distribution services" in 
China's GATS Schedule covers the electronic distri bution of sound recordings, and, consequently, 
that the provisions regulating such distribution are inconsistent with China's scheduled national 
treatment obligations under Article XVII of the GATS. 
1. Applicability of China's Trading Rights Commitments to Measures 
Pertaining to Films for Theatrical Release and Unfinished Audiovisual 
Products  
China appealed the Panel's findings that specifi c provisions in its measures pertaining to films 
for theatrical release and unfinished audiovisual products are subject to its trading rights commitments, and, as a consequence, sought reversal  of the Panel's findings that these provisions are 
inconsistent with China's trading rights commitments .  According to China, these provisions regulate 
services and content, and are therefore not covere d by China's trading rights commitments, which 
apply only to goods.  Thus, China did not dispute that these provisions restrict who may import films 
and unfinished audiovisual products , but rather contended that what  are imported are not goods. 
China's appeal concerned four specific provisions, including  Article 30 of the Film 
Regulation .
36  Under these provisions, only entities designa ted or approved by the relevant Chinese 
authority may engage in the importation of films for theatrical release or  unfinished audiovisual 
products.  Noting that China presented arguments  specifically concerning Article 30 of the Film 
Regulation  and explained that the same arguments apply, mutatis mutandis , to the other provisions, 
the Appellate Body focused its analysis on th e Panel's finding concerning Article 30 of the Film 
Regulation . 
China maintained to the Panel that the term "film" in the English translations of the Film 
Regulation  submitted by both parties is translated from the Chinese term " Dian Ying ", which, 
according to China, refers exclusively to conten t and not to any physical good—such as a hard-copy 
cinematographic film.  China submitted that its vi ew was confirmed by the independent translator37 
consulted by the Panel.  The Panel f ound, however, that even if the term " Dian Ying " refers 
exclusively to the content of a film, in those cases where relevant content is  to be imported on hard-
copy cinematographic films, Article 30 would n ecessarily affect who may import such goods.  Thus, 
because the Panel's finding—that Article 30 of the Film Regulation  necessarily affects the right to 
                                                      
35Pursuant to the trading rights co mmitments, within thr ee years of China's accession to the WTO, all 
enterprises in China, as well as foreig n enterprises and foreign individuals, are to be granted the right to import 
and export all goods (except for certain goods not at issue in this dispute).  With respect to foreign enterprises and individuals, these commitments also  require that the right to import and export all goods be granted in a 
non-discretionary manner. 
36The other relevant provisions are Article 16 of the Film Enterprise Rule , Article 5 of the 2001 
Audiovisual Products Regulation , and Article 7 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule . 
37The Panel requested the United Nations Office at  Nairobi (the "UNON")  to provide English 
translations of relevant terms or provisions of China's measures.  WT/AB/13 
 Page 33 
 
 
  import a good—was made irrespective of the precise meaning of the term " Dian Ying ", the Appellate 
Body rejected the contention that the Panel erred in not specifically excluding "hard-copy 
cinematographic film" as a possible meaning of the term " Dian Ying " in Article 30 of the Film 
Regulation .  The Appellate Body also disagreed with China's argument that other provisions of the 
Film Regulation  show that the measure is concerned with  content, not goods.  The Appellate Body 
found, instead, that none of the provisions referred to by China contradicts the Panel's finding that, 
where content is embedded in hard-copy cinemato graphic films, Article 30 necessarily affects the 
importation of goods.   
The Appellate Body was not persuaded by Ch ina's argument that, because Article 30 
regulates the content of films and the services associ ated with the importation of such content, any 
effect this provision has on the importation of goods  is merely incidental  and practical, and is 
therefore not subject to China's trading rights commitments.  The Appellate Body reasoned that 
measures regulating content and services may also be  subject to China's trading rights commitments 
in respect of goods, and that China's arguments were based on an artificial distinction between 
content, on the one hand, and the goods in whic h the content is embedded, on the other hand.  
Moreover, in the Appellate Body's view, where phy sical goods are used for purposes of importing the 
content of films, Article 30 has an inevitable, ra ther than an incidental, effect on who may import 
goods, and is therefore subject to China's trading rights commitments.   
On this basis, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the relevant provisions of 
China's measures pertaining to films for theatrical release and unfinished audiovisual products are 
subject to, and inconsistent with, China's trading rights commitments. 
2. China's  Defence under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994  
(a) The Availability of a Defence under Article XX(a) of the 
GATT 1994 
The Appellate Body recalled that, before the Panel, China asserted that the introductory 
clause of paragraph 5.1 of its Accession Protoc ol allowed it to justify measures found to be 
inconsistent with its trading rights commitments as measures "necessary" to protect public morals, 
within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.  The Panel did not decide whether 
paragraph 5.1 gave China access to a defence unde r Article XX(a), but proceeded on the assumption 
that such a defence was available.  In the Appellate Body's view, assuming arguendo that China can 
invoke Article XX(a) may not provide a solid founda tion upon which to rest legal conclusions.  
Assuming arguendo  could be at odds with the objective of  promoting security and predictability 
through dispute settlement, and may not assist the DSB in making recommendations and rulings so as 
to resolve the dispute.  In particular, such an approach risks creating uncertainty with respect to 
China's implementation obligations.  The Appellate Body also noted that whether the introductory 
clause of paragraph 5.1 allows China to assert a de fence under Article XX(a) is an issue of legal 
interpretation falling within the scope of Article  17.6 of the DSU.  Thus, the Appellate Body 
proceeded to examine this issue. 
The introductory clause of paragraph 5.1 of Ch ina's Accession Protocol provides that China's 
obligation to grant the right to trade in goods to all enterprises in China is "[w]ithout prejudice to 
China's right to regulate trade in a manner consis tent with the WTO Agreement".  The Appellate 
Body reasoned that the phrase "right to regulat e trade in a manner consistent with the WTO 
Agreement" encompasses rights that the covered agreements affirmatively recognize as accruing to 
WTO Members, such as WTO-consistent requireme nts "concerning import licensing, TBT, and SPS".  
The Appellate Body found that the introductory clause also encompasses certain rights to take 
regulatory action that derogates from obligations under the WTO Agreement —that is, to relevant 
exceptions, such as Article XX of the GATT 1994.  In this respect, the Appellate Body observed that WT/AB/13 
Page 34  
 
  the obligations assumed by China in respect of tr ading rights, which relate to traders, and the 
obligations imposed on all WTO Members in respect of their regulation of trade in goods (such as 
those under Articles III and XI of the GATT 1994), ar e closely intertwined.  The Appellate Body 
further noted that the close relationship between restrictions on entities engaged in trade and GATT 
obligations relating to trade in goods had also been recognized in previous GATT panel and WTO 
panel and Appellate Body reports, where measures that did not directly regulate goods, or the 
importation of goods, were nonetheless found  to contravene GATT obligations. 
The Appellate Body thus considered that whet her a measure regulating those engaged in the 
import and export of goods falls within the scope of China's right to regulate trade may depend on 
whether the measure has a clearly discernable, objectiv e link to the regulation of trade in the goods at 
issue.  Whether the necessary objec tive link exists in a specific case  needs to be established through 
careful scrutiny of the nature, design, structure, a nd function of the measure, often in conjunction with 
an examination of the regulatory context within wh ich it is situated.  When such a link exists, then 
China may seek to show that, b ecause its measure complies with the conditions of a GATT exception, 
the measure represents an exercise of China's right to  regulate trade in a manner consistent with the 
WTO Agreement  and, as such, may not be impaired by China's trading rights commitments. 
Turning to the measures in this dispute, the Appellate Body noted that the requirements and 
provisions found to be inconsistent with China' s trading rights commitments under its Accession 
Protocol and Working Party Report all form part of  a broader regime regulating trade in the specific 
goods at issue and designed to prevent the disseminati on of specific types of prohibited content within 
China.  As the Panel found, certain of the inconsis tent provisions are contained in a legal instrument 
that, itself, sets out a content review mechanism.  With respect to other provisions contained in 
instruments that do not themselves incorporate a content review mechanism, the Panel accepted 
China's argument that these are not isolated measur es but are the result of its system of selecting 
import entities with the content review mechanism in  mind.  The Appellate Body further noted that 
the United States had not contested that the provisions restricting trading rights are  part of China's 
system for reviewing the content of the relevant good s.  Thus, the Appellate Body considered that the 
provisions that China sought to justify under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 have a clearly 
discernable, objective link to China's regulation of trad e in the relevant products.  On this basis, the 
Appellate Body found that China could rely upon th e introductory clause of paragraph 5.1 of China's 
Accession Protocol and seek to justify the releva nt provisions and requirements as "necessary" to 
protect public morals in China, within the me aning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.   
(b) The "Necessity" Test under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 
China challenged four elements of the Pa nel's analysis under Article XX(a) of the 
GATT 1994, as well as the Panel's ulti mate finding that various provisions
38 of China's measures are 
not "necessary" to protect public morals in China with in the meaning of Article XX(a).  Specifically, 
China appealed the Panel's findings:  (i)  relati ng to the contribution made by the requirement in 
Article 42(2) of the Publications Regulation  that only wholly State-owned enterprises may be 
approved as publications import entities (the "State-o wnership requirement") to the protection of 
public morals in China;  (ii)  relating to the contribution made by the provisions excluding foreign-
                                                      
38Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in 
conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  
Article 41, and Article 42 in co njunction with Article 41, of the Publications Regulation ;  Article 27 of the 2001 
Audiovisual Products Regulation ;  Article 8 of the Audiovisual Products Importation Rule ;  and Article 21 of 
the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule .   WT/AB/13 
 Page 35 
 
 
  invested enterprises from engaging in the importation of the relevant products39 to the protection of 
public morals in China;  (iii)  that the restrictive effect of the provisions on "those wishing to engage 
in importing" is, in addition to the restrictive e ffect on imports, relevant for assessing the necessity of 
such provisions under Article XX(a);  and (iv) that at least one of the alternative measures proposed 
by the United States (that is, giving the Chinese Government sole responsibility for conducting 
content review) was an alternative "reasonably avai lable" to China.  China requested the Appellate 
Body to reverse the Panel's ultimate finding on "necess ity", and to complete the analysis and find that 
the relevant provisions in China's me asures are justified under Article XX(a). 
The United States appealed the Panel's intermed iate finding that the requirement that the 
approval of publications import entities conform w ith China's State plan for the total number, 
structure, and distribution of publications im port entities contained in Article 42 of the Publications 
Regulation  (the "State plan requirement") can be characterized as "necessar y", in the absence of 
reasonably available alternatives, to protect publ ic morals in China within the meaning of 
Article XX(a).  The United States requested the Ap pellate Body to reverse this intermediate finding 
or, should the Appellate Body uphol d the Panel's ultimate finding, to declare the intermediate finding 
moot and of no legal effect. 
At the outset of its examination of the Pa nel's analysis under Article XX(a) of the 
GATT 1994, the Appellate Body addressed certai n "concerns" expressed by the United States 
regarding the Panel's approach to analyzing the "necessity" of China's measures.  The United States 
maintained that even th ough the "necessity" test under Article XX( a) involves a single, integrated, yet 
multifaceted inquiry, the Panel appeared to have ta ken a two-step analysis by examining, first, 
whether China demonstrated that the measures were  "necessary" within the meaning of Article XX(a), 
before examining whether reasonably available altern atives had been identified.  The Appellate Body 
observed that, in several prior reports, including Korea – Various Measures on Beef , US – Gambling , 
and Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , it has set out a sequential process of weighing and balancing a series of 
factors to be used when analyz ing a measure's "necessity" under Article XX.  The factors to be 
weighed and balanced include:  (i) the relative im portance of the values pursued by the challenged 
measure;  (ii) the contribution to the realizati on of such values by the challenged measure;  and 
(iii) the restrictive effect of the measure.  A comparison of the challenged measure and possible 
alternative measures should also be undertaken in the light of these factors to ascertain whether the 
alternative measures are reasonably available to the Member concerned.  The Appellate Body did not 
consider that the Panel's approach to the "necessity" t est in this dispute was erroneous or contradicted 
the approach set out in previous Appellate Body reports. 
The Appellate Body then turned to review the Panel's analysis of whether relevant provisions 
or requirements of China's measures make a contributi on to the protection of public morals in China.  
With respect to the State-ownership requirement in Article 42(2) of the Publications Regulation , 
China argued that the Panel committed an error of law and failed to make an objective assessment of 
the matter before it, as required by Article 11 of the DSU, by misrepresenting China's argument that 
the Chinese Government could require only those enterp rises in which the State owns all of the equity 
to bear the cost of carrying out the public polic y function of content review.  The Appellate Body 
disagreed that the Panel reduced this argument to a mere "cost analysis".  The Appellate Body found, 
instead, that the Panel did not consider the cost elem ent of China's argument in isolation, but rather in 
relation to the public policy function of content revi ew.  The Appellate Body added that, in any event, 
China had not established a connection between the excl usive ownership of the State in the equity of 
an import entity and that entity's contribution to th e protection of public morals in China.  The 
Appellate Body also upheld the Panel's finding that the provisions excluding foreign-invested 
                                                      
39This exclusion is set out in the following provisions:  Articles X:2 and X:3 of the List of Prohibited 
Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment 
Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  and Article 21 of the Audiovisual (Sub-)Distribution Rule . WT/AB/13 
Page 36  
 
  enterprises from engaging in the importation of the relevant products do not make a contribution to 
the protection of public morals.  The Appellate Body  found, in this respect, that China's appeal relied 
on the same reasons as those advanced, and rejected by  the Appellate Body, with regard to the Panel's 
finding on the contribution made by the State-ow nership requirement to the protection of public 
morals.   
As regards the contribution made by the State plan requirement to the protection of public 
morals, the Appellate Body stated that the burde n of demonstrating that this requirement is 
"necessary" to protect public morals within the me aning of Article XX(a) resided with China.  The 
Appellate Body noted, however, that China had not pointed the Panel to any evidence about the operation of the State plan or the nature of the limitation contained in that plan.  Moreover, in 
reaching its finding regarding the State plan requireme nt, the Panel failed to explain how or to what 
extent the State plan requirement can or does make a contribution to the protec tion of public morals.  
Therefore, the Appellate Body found that the Panel had erroneously determined  that China had met its 
burden of proof under Article XX(a).  On this basis, the Appellate Body found that the Panel erred in 
finding that the State plan requirement in Article 42 of the Publications Regulation  is apt to make a 
material contribution to the protection of public morals and that, in the absence of a reasonably 
available alternative, it can be characterized as "necessary" to protect public morals in China. 
Next, the Appellate Body examined the Panel's analysis of the restrictive effect of the 
provisions of China's measures as part of the "necessity " test under Article XX(a).  The Panel found it 
appropriate, in its weighing and ba lancing of various factors, to take into account two different types 
of restrictive effect, namely, the restrictive effe ct of the provisions on imports of the relevant 
products, as well as the restrictive effect of those provisions on those wishing to engage in importing, 
in particular on their right to trade.  China alleged that the Panel erred in taking into account the effect 
of China's measures on those wishing to engage in  importing the relevant goods.  China argued that 
the Panel's approach was circular because it relied on such restrictive effect both in finding that the 
measures are inconsistent with China's trading ri ghts commitments and in finding that the measures 
are not "necessary" to protect public morals in China. 
In the Appellate Body's view, a panel's assessment of the restrictive effect of a measure on 
international commerce must be conducted in the ligh t of the measure at issue, the specific obligation 
of the covered agreements that the measure infringes, and the defence being invoked.  In this dispute, 
given that China's provisions impose a restriction on who may engage in importing the relevant 
products, and the fact that China's trading rights commitments stipulate who China must permit to 
engage in importing, the Appellate Body saw no erro r in the Panel's tailoring of its assessment to take 
into account the restrictive effect of the provisions  of China's measures on the beneficiaries of the 
right to trade.  The Appellate Body also found that, contrary to China's assertion, the Panel's approach 
was not circular, because the restrictive effect of th e provisions was relevant in two distinct contexts 
of the Panel's analysis.  More specifically, the restric tive effect was relevant for the Panel's analysis of 
whether  the provisions restrict who may engage in im porting and are thus inconsistent with China's 
trading rights commitments.  The restrictive effect of the provisions was relevant also for the Panel's analysis regarding the extent to which  the provisions restrict those who wish to engage in importing, 
as well as how such restrictive effect comports with th e degree of contribution to the protection of 
public morals in China and the soci etal importance and value of the legitimate objective concerned.   
The last element in the Appellate Body's revi ew under Article XX(a) of the Panel's findings 
concerned the Panel's analysis of whether one of the less trade-restrictive alternative measures 
proposed by the United States is an alternative reas onably available to China.  The Appellate Body 
recalled that the Panel had reached preliminary fi ndings that the State plan requirement, and the  WT/AB/13 
 Page 37 
 
 
  requirement that publications import entities have  suitable organizati on and qualified personnel40, are 
"necessary" to protect public morals "in the absence of reasonably available alternatives".  The Panel 
then examined one of the alternative measures proposed by the United States, namely, that the 
Chinese Government be given sole responsibilit y for conducting content review and that the 
restrictions on who may import be eliminated.41  The Panel found that China failed to demonstrate that 
this alternative is not reasonably available.  On appeal, China challenged this finding, claiming that 
the Panel had erred in law and failed to address Chin a's arguments that the proposed alternative would 
require China to engage in tremendous restru cturing within the Government and would pose 
substantial technical difficulties, including the burde n on the Government to implement a completely 
upgraded electronic communications system, and would thus impose an undue burden on China. 
The Appellate Body found, however, that the Panel had not ignored China's arguments.  
Instead, the Panel had recognized that the propos ed alternative might require China to allocate 
additional human and financial resources to the cont ent review authorities.  Yet, the Panel also 
observed, rightly, that the Chinese Government al ready conducts final content review for products 
other than reading materials, and that China ha d not provided evidence demonstrating that the 
estimated cost of the alternative would be unreasona bly high.  The Appellate Body recalled, in this 
regard, that at present all approve d publication import entities are wholly owned by the State and that 
Chinese law expressly authorizes the Government to charge fees for providing content review 
services.  The Appellate Body also noted that Chin a had not established that substantial technical 
difficulties would be incurred or an undue burden im posed if the alternative of giving the Chinese 
Government sole responsibility for conducting conten t review were implemented.  China also argued 
that the Panel failed to conduct an objective assessmen t of the matter, as required by Article 11 of the 
DSU, in finding that China had not asserted that its Government would lack the capacity to conduct 
content review for reading materials.  The Appellate Body did not see that the Panel had made such a finding.  Rather, the Panel recognized that the c ontent review authorities may not currently have 
sufficient human and financial resources, but held that the additional resources implicated by the 
alternative had not been shown to amount to an un due burden.  On this basis, the Appellate Body 
upheld the Panel's finding that China had not demonstr ated that the alternative of giving the Chinese 
Government sole responsibility to conduct review was not reasonably available.  The Appellate Body 
emphasized that its finding does not mean that th e proposed alternative is the only alternative 
available to China.  Rather, China retains th e prerogative to select its preferred method of 
implementing the recommendations and rulings of th e DSB in this dispute, consistently with the 
covered agreements. 
For the reasons described above, the Appellate Bo dy upheld the Panel's conclusion that China 
had not demonstrated that the rele vant provisions are "necessary" to protect public morals, within the 
meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 and that, as a result, China had not demonstrated that 
these provisions are justified under Article XX(a). 
                                                     
 
40Article 42(4) of the Publications Regulations  requires that publication import entities have a suitable 
organization and personnel that satisfies qualification requirements determined by the Chinese Government.  
The Panel characterized this as "necessary", "in the abse nce of reasonably available alternatives", to protect 
public morals in China, although this intermediate finding was not subject to appeal. 
41As further alternatives, the United States proposed that a foreign-invested enterprise could develop 
the expertise to conduct content review for a particular type of product.  The foreign-invested enterprise could 
complete the review and then import the publication into  China, or it could perform the content review either 
while importation is underway and/or once the importation was complete, but before the good is released into commerce in China.  Alternatively, the foreign-invested  enterprise importing the good into China could hire 
specialized domestic entities with the ap propriate expertise to conduct the content review process before, during, 
or after importation. WT/AB/13 
Page 38  
 
  3. The Scope of China's GATS Schedule Entry "Sound Recording Distribution 
Services"  
China appealed the Panel's finding that  the provisions of China's measures42 prohibiting 
foreign-invested entities from engaging in the dist ribution of sound recordings in electronic form 
(such as through the Internet) are inconsistent with Article XVII of the GATS.43  According to China, 
the Panel erred in interpreting the entry "Sound  recording distribution services" in China's GATS 
Schedule as encompassing distribution by electronic mean s.  China maintained th at this entry covers 
only the distribution of sound recordings in physical form.  In China's view, the application of Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (the " Vienna Convention ") to the 
interpretation of this entry yields an inconclusive result and, therefore, the Panel should have applied 
the in dubio mitius  principle and refrained from adopting the interpretation less favourable to China. 
The Appellate Body began by addressing China's arguments regarding several elements of the 
Panel's interpretation of the entry "Sound recording distribution services" pursuant to Article 31(1) of 
the Vienna Convention .  China argued that, in interpreting the ordinary meaning of "Sound recording 
distribution services", the Panel disregarded rele vant dictionary defin itions submitted by China 
showing that "sound recording" means the physi cal carrier on which sound is recorded.  The 
Appellate Body considered that the Panel did not disregard the dictionary definitions submitted by 
China but, rather, examined several definitions in order to assess whether the meaning of the term 
"sound recording" includes  only the physical medium on which the content is embedded or also  the 
recorded content.  Ultimately, the Panel was not  persuaded that the meaning of the term "sound 
recording" excluded recorded content stored or di stributed in electronic form.  The Appellate Body 
further noted that the Panel was not required to quote each dictionary definition submitted by the 
parties expressing similar meanings in different fo rm.  Moreover, in the Appellate Body's view, the 
definitions of "distribution" submitted by China did not  compel the Panel to conclude that this term 
referred only to the distribution of physical goods.  Ra ther, dictionary definitions of the term included 
the dispersal of intangible products. 
With respect to the context of the entry "Soun d recording distribution services", the Appellate 
Body noted that the Panel had analyzed the cont extual relevance of othe r parts of China's GATS 
Schedule, provisions of the GATS, and the GATS Schedules of other WTO Members.  China argued 
that the Panel's analysis of each element of contex t was inconclusive as to whether the entry "Sound 
recording distribution services" extends to electro nic distribution.  The Appellate Body found, 
however, that several contextual elements support th e Panel's interpretation.  For example, the Panel 
properly found that, in sector 2.D (Audiovisual Services) of China' s GATS Schedule, under which the 
entry "Sound recording distribution services" is insc ribed, the reference to audiovisual "products" in 
the limitation in the market access column encompasses both tangibles and intangibles.  Moreover, in the same sector, China made commitments that c over distribution services for both physical and non-
physical products, such as "entertainment softwa re" and motion pictures for theatrical release.  The 
Appellate Body also agreed with the Panel regarding the contextual relevance of the fact that the entry 
"Sound recording distribution services" has been  inscribed under the sector concerned with 
audiovisual content, "Audiovisual Services", as opposed  to the sector "Distribution Services", which 
covers the distribution of physical goods in China's GATS Schedule.   
                                                     
 
42Article X:7 of the List of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue , in conjunction 
with Articles 3 and 4 of the Foreign Investment Regulation ;  Article 4 of the Several Opinions ;  Article II of the  
Circular on Internet Culture ;  and Article 8 of the Network Music Opinions . 
43The Panel found that the United States' claims we re not, as alleged by China, limited to claims 
relating to the digital distribution of  sound recordings over the Internet.  Instead, the Panel accepted that the 
claims in respect of digital distribution also referred to other forms of digital communication, "which might 
include, for example, mobile telephone networks".  WT/AB/13 
 Page 39 
 
 
  The Appellate Body also found relevant context in provisions of the GATS.  It observed that 
provisions of the GATS concerning the scheduling of specific commitments allow Members to undertake specific commitments and to circumscri be the scope of these commitments by qualifying 
the scope of sectors or subsectors inscribed in th e Schedule, by including or excluding modes of 
supply, and by listing limitations, qualificati ons, or conditions on market access and national 
treatment.  The Appellate Body considered that, in  the absence of specific limitations, conditions, or 
qualifications, the meaning of the entry "Sound  recording distribution services" would seem to 
encompass distribution in electronic form.  The Appe llate Body also noted that the definition of 
"supply of a service" in Article XXVIII(b) of th e GATS includes "the production, distribution, 
marketing, sale and delivery of a service".  The A ppellate Body agreed with the Panel that this 
definition supports the view that the term "distr ibution" covers the distribution of something 
intangible—services.  Moreover, the Appellate Body found no error in the Panel's analysis of the 
context provided by other Members' GATS Schedules, which the Panel in any event considered to be 
of limited relevance. 
As regards the object and purpose of the treaty , China maintained that the principle of 
progressive liberalization set out in the preamble of  the GATS does not allow for the expansion of the 
scope of a WTO Member's commitments by interp reting the terms in its Schedule based on their 
meaning at the time of interpretation.  Thus, Chin a argued that the Panel wrongly interpreted the entry 
"Sound recording distribution services" according to  its contemporary meaning, rather than the 
meaning at the time China's accession negotiations we re concluded.  The Appellate Body disagreed 
with China that the objectives listed in the GATS pr eamble contradict the Panel's interpretation of 
"Sound recording distribution services" as extending to electronic distribution of sound recordings.  In 
the Appellate Body's view, the principle of progressi ve liberalization, which contemplates liberalizing 
services sectors and modes of supply incrementally , does not lend support to an interpretation that 
would constrain the scope and cove rage of specific commitments already undertaken by Members.  
The Appellate Body recalled the Panel's finding that the term "sound recording" encompasses 
recorded content, and that the term "distribution" covers distribution of intangibles, and opined that 
the same meanings would equally have prevailed when the WTO entered into force as well as at the 
time China acceded to the WTO in 2001.  The Appella te Body added that the terms "sound recording" 
and "distribution" are sufficiently generic that what  they apply to may change over time.  Finally, the 
Appellate Body observed that interpreting the te rms of GATS commitments on the basis of their 
meaning at the time relevant negotiations were concluded would mean that similarly worded 
commitments could be given different meaning, content and coverage, de pending on the date the 
negotiations were concluded, whic h would undermine the predictability, security, and clarity of 
GATS commitments.  On the basis of the above reasons , the Appellate Body considered that the Panel 
did not err under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention  in concluding that this commitment extends to 
sound recordings distributed in non-physical form, through technologies such as the Internet. 
Turning to Article 32 of the Vienna Convention , China argued that the Panel erred in resorting 
to supplementary means of interpretation under Article 32 for purposes of confirming  the meaning of 
the entry "Sound recording distribution services" th at it had found by applying Article 31 of the 
Vienna Convention .  In China's view, because the interpretation under Article 31 should have been 
inconclusive, the Panel ought to ha ve applied Article 32 to "determi ne", rather than "confirm", the 
meaning of this entry.  The Appellate Body rej ected the assumption that the Panel's analysis under 
Article 32 would necessarily have been different ha d the Panel followed the approach suggested by 
China.  In any event, the Appellate Body found no error in the Panel's analysis under Article 32.  The 
Appellate Body noted that the Panel did not err in finding that certain circumstances of the conclusion 
of the treaty did not contradict its interpretation under Article 31.  Specifically, the Appellate Body 
was not persuaded that the Panel relied on the fact that it had found the electronic distribution of 
sound recordings to be technically feasible and a commercial reality when China acceded to the 
WTO.  Finally, having rejected the contention that the meaning of the entry "Sound recording 
distribution services" remained inconclusive afte r the application of Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna WT/AB/13 
Page 40  
 
  Convention , the Appellate Body added that , even if the principle of in dubio mitius  were relevant in 
WTO dispute settlement, there was no scope for its application in this dispute. 
Because the Appellate Body found that the Pa nel had not erred in interpreting the entry 
"Sound recording distribution services" as encompassing the distribution of sound recordings in electronic form, it upheld the Panel's findings that  the provisions of China's measures prohibiting 
foreign-invested enterprises from engaging in the supp ly of such services are inconsistent with China's 
scheduled national treatment obligati ons under Article XVII of the GATS. 
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 2009.  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 12 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 25 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 25 days of the 
filing of the Notice of Appeal, notify its intention to appear at the oral hearing and whether it intends 
to make 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 2009 
 
Third participants Case Appellant  a Other 
  appellant b Appellee(s) c
Rule 24(1) Rule 24(2) Rule 24(4) 
US – Continued Zeroing  European 
Communities United States European 
Communities 
United States Brazil 
Japan 
Korea China 
India 
Mexico 
Norway 
Chinese 
Taipei 
Thailand Egypt 
US – Zeroing (EC) 
(Article 21.5 – EC) European 
Communities United States European 
Communities 
United States Japan 
Korea 
Norway India 
Mexico 
Chinese 
Taipei 
Thailand   WT/AB/13 
 Page 41 
 
 
  Third participants Case Appellant  a Other 
  appellant b Appellee(s) c
Rule 24(1) Rule 24(2) Rule 24(4) 
US – Zeroing (Japan)  
(Article 21.5 – Japan) United States - - - Japan European 
Communities 
Korea 
Mexico 
Norway China 
Hong Kong, 
China 
Chinese 
Taipei 
Thailand  
China – Publications 
and Audiovisual 
Products China United States China 
United States Australia 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Korea Chinese 
Taipei  
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 14 WTO Members appeared at least once as appellant, other appellant, appellee, or 
third participant in appeals for which an Appellate  Body report was circulated in 2009.  Of these 14 
WTO Members, 5 were developed country Member s and 9 were developing country Members. 
Of the 44 total appearances by WTO Members before the Appellate Body during 2009, 
21 were by developed country Members and 23 by developing country Members.  Developed country 
Members made 3 appearances as appellant, 3 as othe r appellant, 6 as appellee, and 9 appearances as 
third participant.  Developing country Member s made 1 appearance as appellant, none as other 
appellant, 1 as appellee, and 21 as third participant. 
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 2009. 
65
45135173
45
1857289
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 2009. Figure 4: WTO Member partici pation in a ppeals 1996–2009 WT/AB/13 
Page 42  
 
  VI. Working Procedures for Appellate Review 
No amendments were made to the Working Procedures during 2009.  The current version of 
the Working Procedures  is contained in document WT/AB/WP /5, which was circulated to WTO 
Members on 4 January 2005.   
A procedural issue that arose in appeals for which an Appellate Body report was circulated 
in 2009 concerned the public observation of the oral hearing.  Public observation of the oral hearing 
was requested by the participants in three appeals:  US – Continued Zeroing , US – Zeroing (EC) 
(Article 21.5 – EC) , and US – Zeroing (Japan) (Article 21.5 – Japan) .  In each case, third participants 
were given an opportunity to comment in writing on the request.  Having considered the views of the 
participants and third participants, the Divisions hearing the three appeals decided to authorize the 
public observation of the oral hearings.  The reasons underlying the Divisions' decisions and the 
additional procedures adopted for that purpose were  set out in Procedural Rulings, which may be 
found as an annex to the corresponding Appellate Body report.  In the three appeals, observation of 
the oral hearing by the public was made possible vi a closed-circuit television broadcast to a separate 
room.  Notice concerning the authorization of publi c observation and registration instructions were 
posted on the WTO website.  The number of individuals who registered to observe the oral hearing 
was 33 in US – Continued Zeroing , 37 in US – Zeroing (EC) (Article 21.5 – EC) ,  and 36 in US – 
Zeroing  (Japan) (Article 21.5 – Japan) . 
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. 
One Article 21.3(c) arbitration proceeding was ca rried out in 2009.  Further information about 
the arbitration is provided below.   
 Colombia – Ports of Entry , WT/DS366/13 
On 20 May 2009, the DSB adopted the panel report in Colombia – Ports of Entry .  On 
24 July 2009, Panama requested the Director-General to appoint an Ar bitrator pursuant to footnote 12 
to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  The Director-General requested that Giorgio Sacerdoti act as Arbitrator 
in these proceedings.  Mr. Sacerdoti ac cepted the appointment on 3 August 2009.
44  The Arbitrator 
issued his award on 2 October 2009. 
Colombia proposed that the reasonable peri od of time for implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings should be 15 months from the date of adoption of the Panel Report, that 
is, until 20 August 2010.  Colombia argued that the modification of the indicative prices mechanism 
and of the ports of entry measure so as to rectif y the particular inconsistencies found by the Panel 
would entail the following steps under Colombian Law:   First, preliminary evaluation stages that 
would determine whether and to what extent va rious provisions of Colombia's laws would be 
impacted by the recommendations and rulings of the DSB and by the modification of both the indicative prices mechanism and the ports of entry measure.  Secondly, the drafting of specific 
                                                     
 
44WT/DS366/11.  WT/AB/13 
 Page 43 
 
 
  proposals for a revised customs control mechanism a nd a ports of entry measure would be subject to 
the decision-making process of the Directorate of Taxes and National Customs ( Dirección de 
Impuestos y Aduanas Nacionales ) ("DIAN").  Thirdly, the revised measures would be subject to 
review and approval by the Department of Public  Administration, the Ministry of Finance, the 
Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism, and by the Comité de Asuntos Aduaneros, Arancelarios y de 
Comercio Exterior (the "Triple A Committee").  Fourthly, review of the revised measures by the 
Legal Office of the President, signature by the Pr esident, and publication in the Official Gazette.  
Finally, Colombia would amend the specific Resolu tions establishing indicative prices to reflect the 
modified mechanism, implement such modified me chanism in its computerized system of customs 
administration, and train customs administration offi cials in the revised indicative prices mechanism.  
In addition to the particular step s outlined above, Colombia said it intended to reform the provisions 
of its Commercial Code dealing with customs secur ities, in order to ensure that bank or insurance 
guarantees are effectively available to importers in  the context of its revised indicative prices 
mechanism.  According to Colombia, the ame ndment of its Commercial Code would require a 
legislative process consisting of four successive  stages before the Colombian Parliament.  
Colombia also claimed that the following "partic ular circumstances" justified the assessment 
of a reasonable period of time of at least 15 mont hs following the adoption of the Panel Report by the 
DSB:  (i) the need for both regulatory and legislativ e action;  (ii) the complexity of the implementing 
measures;  (iii) the importance of the measures in its domestic legal system;  and (iv) Colombia's developing country status. 
Panama contested that implementation of the r ecommendations and rulings of the DSB in this 
dispute would require 15 months.  Instead, Panama re quested that the Arbitrator grant an additional 
week following the circulation of the arbitral award—that is, until 9 October 2009, or 4 months 
and 19 days following the adoption of the Panel Report by the DSB—for Colombia to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Referring to Ar ticle 3.7 of the DSU, Panama claimed that any 
action other than the withdrawal of the WTO-inc onsistent measures was not within the permissible 
range of actions for implementation by Colombia, a nd suggested that Colombia's previous repeal of 
similar measures following a mutually agreed soluti on reached by the parties in 2006 illustrated that 
Colombia could implement the DSB's recommendations  and rulings almost immediately.  Panama 
also stressed that Colombia re tained the discretion to amend or  withdraw the WTO-inconsistent 
measures exclusively through administrative means, a nd considered that a wider reform of Colombia's 
Commercial Code was not relevant to the Arbitrator 's determination, because such reforms were not 
required to implement the recommendations and rulings  of the DSB.  Panama requested further that 
the Arbitrator disregard "non-legal factors" such as  changes to Colombia's computerized system of 
customs control and the training of DIAN's official s in making his determination.  Finally, Panama 
dismissed the relevance of any of the "particular  circumstances" which, according to Colombia, 
justified a longer period of time for implementation.  
Like previous arbitrators, the Arbitrator found that Colombia, as the implementing Member, 
has a measure of discretion in choosing the means of  implementation that it deems most appropriate.  
Therefore, the Arbitrator considered that modifica tion of both the indicative prices mechanism and the 
ports of entry measure is within the range of perm issible actions available to Colombia to implement 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute.  Accordingly, the Arbitrator made his 
determination on the basis of the shortest period of  time possible within Colombia's domestic legal 
system to modify the indicative prices mechanism a nd the ports of entry measure so as to bring them 
into conformity with Colombia's WTO obligations.  
The Arbitrator observed that, since the adoptio n of the Panel Report by the DSB, Colombia 
had established an "Inter-Institutional Working Group" to evaluate how to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  The Arbitr ator considered that the work of such Inter-
Institutional Working Group was relevant to his dete rmination, insofar as it establishes an institutional WT/AB/13 
Page 44  
 
  framework responsible for proposing and coordi nating an administrative plan of action for 
implementation.  At the same time, the Arbitrat or noted Colombia's indication that such Inter-
Institutional Working Group had concl uded its work, and said that Colombia is therefore expected to 
speedily proceed with the lega l process necessary to bring the measures into conformity. 
Turning to the legal process necessary to m odify the WTO-inconsistent measures, the 
Arbitrator agreed with Colombia that the foll owing steps were administratively mandated under 
Colombian law:  (i) an internal decision-making process within DIAN;  (ii) review of any new customs procedures by the Department of Public Ad ministration;  (iii) review of the new measures by 
the Triple A Committee, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism, and the Ministry of Finance;  and (iv) signature by the President of Colombia a nd publication in the Official Gazette.  At the same 
time, the Arbitrator considered that Colombia 's decision-making process is characterized by a 
considerable degree of flexibility, insofar as it does not prescribe minimum mandatory timeframes.  
Therefore, the Arbitrator expected Colombia to ma ke use of such flexibility in order to promptly 
implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.   The Arbitrator also considered that some of 
the implementing steps outlined by Colombia, such as successive reviews by different Ministries, or 
drafting of Resolutions establishing new indicative pri ces, were either duplicative or could be pursued 
in parallel, to the extent that they were not necessarily sequential. 
Further, the Arbitrator considered that a wide r reform of the customs securities provisions of 
Colombia's Commercial Code did not justify a longer period of time for implementation.  The 
Arbitrator reasoned that the measures that had to be  brought into conformity were the indicative prices 
mechanism and the ports of entry measure, and that  in any event Colombia had confirmed that such 
reforms could be accomplished in the same timeframe estimated for the completion of the remainder 
of its implementing measures.  Similarly, the Arbitrator did not attribute significance to steps such as the implementation of revised measures in Colombia 's computerized customs administration system, 
and the training of DIAN officials, because such step s were merely consequential to the enactment of 
the implementing measures. 
The Arbitrator further found that the "particul ar circumstances" identified by Colombia did 
not warrant the assessment of a longer period of time for implementation.  In particular, he disagreed 
with Colombia that implementation required both le gislative and regulatory action.  The Arbitrator 
acknowledged that implementation in this dispute requ ired a certain degree of regulatory rule-making, 
which could be more time-consumin g than simple administrative action.  However, he was not 
persuaded that legislative action was required.  Instead, the Arbitrator was of the view that 
implementation could be accomplished exclusiv ely by the executive branch of Colombia's 
Government.  
The Arbitrator was also not persuaded that circumstances such as the complexity of the 
implementing measures, or the importance of the meas ures in Colombia's domestic system, justified a 
longer period of time for implementation.  He reas oned that Colombia had not demonstrated that 
implementation would impact many interconnected and overlapping laws concerning customs control 
and enforcement.  Nor, in the Arbitrator's vi ew, had Colombia demonstrated how the relative 
importance of the challenged measures in Colomb ia's overall customs c ontrol and enforcement 
framework impacted the implementing process in a ma nner that justified a longer period of time for 
implementation. 
Finally, the developing country status of Colombia and Panama did not sway the Arbitrator 
either to a longer, or shorter, reasonable period of  time for implementation.  The Arbitrator reasoned 
that Article 21.2 of the DSU directs arbitrators to pay particular attention to matters affecting the 
interests of both implementing and complaining deve loping country Members.  Thus, in situations 
where both parties are developing countries, Article  21.2 is of little relevance except if one party  WT/AB/13 
 Page 45 
 
 
  succeeds in demonstrating that it is more severely affect ed by relevant challenges than the other party.  
The Arbitrator considered that neither party had made the requisite showing.  
On this basis, the Arbitrator determined a "reasonable period of time" for implementation of 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute of 8 months and 15 days, expiring on 
4 February 2010. 
VIII.  Technical Assistance 
Appellate Body Secretariat staff participated in the WTO Biennial Technical Assistance and 
Training Plan:  2008-200945, particularly in activities relating to training in dispute settlement 
procedures.  Overall, Appellate Body Secretariat st aff participated in 25 technical assistance activities 
during the course of 2009.  
Annex 8 provides further information about th e activities carried out by Appellate Body 
Secretariat staff in 2009 falling under the WTO Technical Assistance and Training Plan. 
IX. Other Activities 
The WTO Public Forum was held on 28-30 September 2009 and its theme was "Global 
Problems, Global Solutions:  Towards Better Globa l Governance".  The 2009 Public Forum included 
a session hosted by the Appellate Body, which took place on 29 September.  The title of the session 
was "Promoting Global Governance By Strengthening the Rule of Law".  The speakers on the panel 
were:  Gary Hufbauer, Reginald Jones Senior Fellow at the Peter G. Peterson Institute for 
International Economics;  Jennifer Hillman, Memb er of the WTO Appellate Body;  Luiz Felipe 
Lampreia, Vice-President of the Centro Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais and former Foreign 
Minister of Brazil;  and David Unterhalter, Ch airman of the Appellate Body.  The panel was 
moderated by Paul Blustein, Journalist in Residence at the Brookings Institution. 
The session examined the concept of the rule of la w, the WTO's role in promoting the rule of 
law at the international level, and the potential ap plicability of the WTO model to other fields of 
international cooperation.  David Unterhalter described the main characteristics of a system based on 
the rule of law and how the rule of law operated in  the WTO.  He submitted that the WTO, as a rules-
based system, provides a useful model for other ar eas of international cooperation, such as climate 
change and international financial regulation.  Je nnifer Hillman provided an overview of the operation 
of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.  She furt her noted that, in addition to rule-making and 
adjudication, the WTO plays an important role  supervising the proper implementation of the 
obligations contained in the WTO agreements.  This  function, which is performed by the relevant 
WTO Committees, should not be overlooked and coul d be strengthened.  Luiz Felipe Lampreia 
expressed concern about the slow progress of the Doha Round of negotia tions and the potential 
impact a failure could have on the other functions of the WTO.  He was sceptical about the applicability of a WTO-type dispute settlement mechan ism in other areas of international cooperation. 
Gary Hufbauer praised the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, but also made several proposals for 
improvement.  He said that the WTO system could benefit from more dispute settlement activity in 
certain areas that Members have so far avoided (in particular, Article XXIV of the GATT 1994), 
proposed the creation of a WTO ombudsman who could bring disputes that are of systemic interest, and suggested that retroactive remedies be intro duced.  A detailed report of the session is included in 
a book about the 2009 Public Forum to be published by the WTO Secretariat. 
                                                     
 
45WT/COMTD/W/160. WT/AB/13 
Page 46  
 
  David Unterhalter, Jennifer Hillman and Gior gio Sacerdoti participated in an event to 
commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the Cour t of First Instance of the European Communities, 
which took place on 25 September 2009, in Luxembourg. 
The Appellate Body Secretariat participates in the WTO internship programme, which 
allows post-graduate university students to gain practical expe rience and a deeper knowledge of 
the global multilateral trading system.  Interns in the Appellate Body Secretariat obtain first-hand 
experience of the procedural and substantiv e aspects of WTO dispute settlement and, in 
particular, appellate proceedings.  The intern ship programme is open to nationals of WTO 
Members and to nationals of countries and custom s territories engaged in accession negotiations.  The 
Appellate Body Secretariat routinely hosts two intern s concurrently;  each internship is generally for 
a three-month period.  During 2009, the Appellate Body Secretariat welcomed interns from 
Spain, the Netherlands, Australia, South Africa,  Germany, and the United Kingdom.  A total of 
80 post-graduate students, of 40 na tionalities, have completed intern ships 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 2009 can be found in 
Annex 8. 
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 law, and international dispute settlement.  Nathalie Ferraud-
Ciandet,  David Heaton, Jorge Miranda, Andrew Mitchell, and Tania Voon participated in the 
Speakers Series  in 2009.  In addition to the Speakers Series , the Appellate Body Secretariat runs a 
Research Series , aimed at doctoral students and young academ ics.  The objective of the programme is 
to provide an opportunity for doctoral students wo rking on their theses, and young academics working 
on research papers, to present and discuss their research  in an informal setting with the Geneva-based 
trade community. 
 
  WT/AB/13 
 Page 47 
 
 
  ANNEX 1 
 
 
MEMBERS OF THE APPELLATE BODY 
(1 JANUARY TO 31 DECEMBER 2009) 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 
  
Luiz Olavo Baptista   (Brazil) (2001–2009)  
 Born in Brazil on 24 July 1938, Luiz Olavo Ba ptista taught International Trade Law at the 
University of São Paulo Law School for many years.   He has been a Member of the Permanent Court 
of Arbitration at The Hague since 1996, and of th e International Chamber of Commerce Institute for 
International Trade Practices and of its Commission on Trade and Investment Policy, since 1999.  In 
addition, he has been one of the arbitrators designated under MERCOSUR's Protocol of Brasilia 
since 1993.  Professor Baptista was senior partner at th e L.O. Baptista Law Firm, in São Paulo, Brazil, 
where he focused his practice on corporate law, arbitr ation, and international litigation.  He has been 
practicing law for almost 40 years, advising gove rnments, international organizations, and large 
corporations in Brazil and in othe r jurisdictions.  Professor Baptista has been an arbitrator at the 
United Nations Compensation Commission, in several private commercial disputes and State-investor proceedings, as well as in disputes under MERCOSUR's Protocol of Brasilia.  In addition, he has 
participated as a legal advisor in diverse projects sponsored by the World Bank, UNCTAD, UNCTC, 
and UNDP.  He obtained his law degree from the Ca tholic University of São Paulo, pursued post-
graduate studies at Columbia University Law Schoo l and The Hague Academy of International Law, 
and received a Ph.D. in International Law from the Un iversity of Paris II.  He was Visiting Professor 
at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) from 1978 to  1979, and at the University of Paris I and the 
University of Paris X between 1996 and 2000.  Professor Baptista has published extensively on 
various issues in Brazil and abroad.  
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 WT/AB/13 
Page 48  
 
  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 
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.  WT/AB/13 
 Page 49 
 
 
  Giorgio Sacerdoti   (European Communities:  Italy) (2001–2009)   
 Born on 2 March 1943, Giorgio Sacerdoti h as been Professor of International Law and 
European Law at Bocconi University, Milan, Italy, since 1986. 
 Professor Sacerdoti has held various posts in  international bodies, including Vice-Chairman 
of the Organisation for Economic Co-operati on and Development (OECD) Working Group on 
Bribery in International Business Transactions un til 2001, where he was one of the drafters of the 
"Anticorruption Convention of 1997".  He has acted as consultant to the Council of Europe, 
UNCTAD, and the World Bank in matters related to fo reign investments, trade, bribery, development, 
and good governance.  He has been on the list of arbitrators at the World Bank International Centre 
for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) sinc e 1981, where he has served as arbitrator and as 
chairman of various arbitral tribunals in investment  disputes between States and foreign investors.  In 
the private sector, he has often served as arbitrator  in international commercial disputes and has acted 
as counsel in connection with inte rnational business transactions.   
 Professor Sacerdoti has published extensively,  especially on international trade law, 
investments, international contracts, arbitra tion, and various areas of European Union law.1 
 After graduating from the University of Milan with a law degree  cum laude  in 1965, 
Professor Sacerdoti gained a Master in Comparativ e Law from Columbia University Law School as a 
Fulbright Fellow in 1967.  He was admitted to th e Milan Bar in 1969 and to the Supreme Court of 
Italy in 1979.  He is a Member of the Committee on  International Trade Law of the International Law 
Association and an editor of the Italian Yearbook of International Law. 
David Unterhalter   (South Africa) (2006–2009) 
 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 
                                                      
1His publications include: "Bilateral Treaties and Multilateral Instruments on Investment Protection", 
Recueil des cours  (Hague Academy Courses), vol. 269 (1997), pp. 255-460;  Illicit Payments , UNCTAD Series 
on issues in international investment agreements (United Nations 2001);  The WTO at Ten: The Contribution of 
the Dispute Settlement System (Cambridge University Press/WTO, 20 06) (co-editor with A. Yanovich and 
J. Bohanes);  "Structure et fonction du système de rè glement des différends de l'OMC: les enseignements des 
dix premières années",  in Rev. gen. droit int. Public  (2006), pp. 769-800.  His lecture on the WTO dispute 
settlement system is available at the  UN Audiovisual Library of International Law , <www.un.org/law/avl>. WT/AB/13 
Page 50  
 
  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 
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  WT/AB/13 
 Page 51 
 
 
  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. 
 
 
ANNEX 1B 
 
 
FAREWELL SPEECHES OF APPELLATE BODY MEMBERS 
 
Farewell remarks of Giorgio Sacerdoti to the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO 
Geneva, 19 November 2009  
Ambassador John Gero, Chairman of the DSB, Director-General Pascal  Lamy, WTO Members, 
friends and colleagues,  
 I am very grateful for this opportunity to address the DSB and the wider WTO community on 
the occasion of the swearing in of Mr. Peter Van den Bossche as a new Member of the Appellate Body and the conclusion of my second term of offi ce.  This "passage de c onsignes" has become a 
regular event at each transition.  That it is so  well attended—and I thank all of you for coming 
today—is an indicator of the vitality of the WTO 15 years after it was established and the ongoing interest in the Appellate Body and its work. 
 
 Looking back to when I was appointed in th e summer of 2001, the world was very different 
then.  Not all of the changes that have taken pl ace have been improvements:  my appointment was 
before 9/11 and the momentous developments that followed.  Many developments have also taken 
place within the WTO during this period.  These de velopments, by contrast, are on balance quite 
positive.  Let me recall that, in 2001, the WTO wa s still suffering from the failure of Seattle and the 
widespread criticism from civil society, which accused the WTO of putting trade and mercantilist 
interests above fundamental issues on the global ag enda, such as poverty reduction, human rights, 
workers' rights, public health, and the protection of the environment.   By the time I took office at the end of 2001, the Doha Development Round had been launched 
showing that the multilateral trading system was capable of facing new challenges and 
accommodating the needs of the poor, and is attentive to the wider implications of trade commitments 
and the ultimate goal of increasing welfare for a ll through multilateral c ooperation.  Although the 
Round has yet to be concluded (and I hope that the renewed high-level commitments expressed in 
recent months and weeks and the relentless efforts of the Director-General will deliver results in 
2010) the multilateral trading system has made signifi cant progress.  It has been able to accommodate 
special needs, such as in the field of TRIPS and pu blic health, has maintained its preeminent position 
notwithstanding the proliferation of regional trade agreements, which are not necessarily competing 
with it, but should be viewed as complementary, and has expanded in membership both in terms of 
the number of Members and in terms of the share of world trade covered by its rules.  
 The dispute settlement system, within which th e Appellate Body exercises a key function, is 
an integral part of the multilateral trading system.  A few days ago, the Director-General announced 
that the milestone of 400 disputes brought to the syst em had been reached.  Most of the disputes have 
been resolved through negotiations and consultations  held within and outside this building.  About 
170 disputes have been brought to panels.  The Ap pellate Body has issued 98 reports since it was 
established in 1995.  Eighty-two WTO Members have appeared before a WTO panel or the Appellate 
Body at least once as main parties or as third parties.  One could ask whether the number of disputes is a positive reflection of the effectiveness of the system.  I would venture to say that the answer isWT/AB/13 
Page 52  
 
  that indeed it is.  I think we can all agree that th e fact that a WTO Member can invoke the rules of the 
WTO where it has a disagreement with another Me mber, has a forum where the matter may be settled 
to the satisfaction of the parties, or be impa rtially and speedily adjudicated, and finally obtain 
compliance, is fundamental.  The dispute settleme nt system not only benefits WTO Members, but 
more generally provides security and predictability to thousands of people engaged in trade.  The 
number of disputes is relatively low when one considers that WTO rules are applied on a daily basis 
around the world.   The contribution of the dispute settlement system  to the success of th e WTO has been widely 
recognized even beyond the trade community.  In its "Review of the Year for 2008", the Economist  
magazine said: 
 
The WTO is the single most succe ssful example of international 
cooperation.  It is an interna tional organisation with binding 
procedures for settling disputes.  Even superpowers like America and 
China are prepared to accept its rulings.  
 Some of the features of the Appellate Body ar e fundamental in this context.  I wish to 
highlight some of them from the perspective of my own experience, in particular, those which are 
innovative—as compared to other international cour ts and similar adjudicating bodies—and that have 
been instrumental to enhancing the legitimacy and effi ciency of the system.  First of all, the Appellate 
Body has been set up in a manner that guarantees its independence.  Those appointed have been 
qualified persons, experts in the re levant fields, with broad experi ence, and geographic and cultural 
diversity as required by the DSU.  The successive DSB Chairmen and the members of the various 
selection committees deserve praise for having stuck to their mandate focusing consistently on the 
competence of the candidates and their commitment to  the difficult task foreseen for the Appellate 
Body in the DSU, and for not having allowed geopoliti cal considerations to prevail.  In turn, WTO 
Members, and their Geneva and capital-based offici als, have to be commended for having abstained 
from any improper interference and having respected the independence and the role of the Appellate 
Body and of its Members.  This is especially important  in view of the fact that the Appellate Body is 
composed of only seven individuals and that Appella te Body Members hear a ppeals even where they 
are nationals of one of the Members involved in the dispute depending on the random selection of the 
Members of specific Divisions. 
 
 Another related feature of the Appellate Body  that I wish to highlight is that, despite 
operating independently from the rest of the WTO, it is housed in the same building and is an integral 
part of the Organization.  Thus, the judicial bran ch is not located far away from the seat of the 
organization to which it belongs, on  its own "Olympus" as is the case of international courts in The 
Hague, Luxembourg and Costa Rica.  This relationship is also reflected by the fact that the Appellate 
Body, like panels, does not issue judgments that are per se binding, but reports that are adopted by the 
membership, in the DSB, through the device of th e reverse consensus.  Once adopted by the DSB, 
what is initially less than a judgment transforms itsel f into a binding decision of the Organization that 
commands even more authority.  Multilateral surve illance of compliance ensure s respect for the rules 
through effective implementation, given that findings of violation are backed both by rule-based 
adjudication and political will.  The process involves the entire Membership in what may be initially 
just a bilateral dispute, reinforcing the general f unction of dispute settlement in the interest of all 
Members.  We at the Appellate Body are mindful of  being a key element of this wider, innovative 
framework.  
  WT/AB/13 
 Page 53 
 
 
   The respect that the dispute settlement system commands, both in terms of the high rate of 
compliance and of its reputation in the trade and lega l communities, is also the result, I submit, of the 
procedures and practices adopted by the Appellate Body in accordance with the DSU and as set out in 
the Working Procedures for Appellate Review .  I recall that the Working Procedures  are adopted by 
the Appellate Body in consultation with the Director -General and the DSB Chair, who in turn consults 
with all WTO Members.  This is another example of  cooperation in the general interest of efficiency 
and legitimacy.   I pay tribute to the "founding fathers", the fi rst generation of Appella te Body Members who 
instituted the practice of rigorous application of the rules of the DSU.  Appellate Body Members—
myself and my dear colleagues with whom I have b een fortunate to work during all these years—have 
greatly benefited from their guidance from time to tim e in the internal seminars or retreats that the 
Appellate Body organizes when new Members are a ppointed, continuing the tradition of collegiality 
that has always inspired the Appellate Body.  
 Collegiality implies more than just sharing view s in each case on the legal issues.  It is a way 
of conducting ourselves as members of a "college", establishing close personal ties and solidarity.  This helps overcome issues that naturally ari se when operating under strict rules and transform 
potential challenges to continuity and consistency into elements of strength and richness.  I am 
referring to: the tight 90-day deadline for deciding an  appeal;  our part-time employment arrangement 
(which is, however, justified by the variable numb er of cases that may be filed each year); the 
diversity of Members in terms of professional backgrounds, countries of origin, and maternal 
languages;  and, finally the short term of the appoin tment that brings about, at times, a rapid turnover, 
as in the last two years.     I have often been amazed on how our lega l education, despite our diverse backgrounds, 
constitutes a common basis for working together fruitfully .  It is thanks to this strength and cohesion 
that the Appellate Body has been able to rule on certain difficult issues that parties have raised in 
some appeals, and which some believe should have  been resolved by WTO Members themselves.  I 
am referring to transparency issues—such as accepting amicus curiae  briefs and opening the 
Appellate Body hearings to public viewing upon request of the parties—and to certain issues of 
procedure, such as the right of responding parties to initiate compliance proceedings under 
Article 21.5.  I believe that, since WTO Memb ers were unable to find common ground on how to 
resolve these "hot potatoes" on a general basis, th e Appellate Body's ability to find solutions in 
particular cases, always based on the principles of in ternational law, may have helped relieve some of 
the pressure and has, at the end of the day, enhanced the reputation of the system beyond the 
Members of the Organization in the general interest.  In some cases, the Appellate Body's decisions 
on procedural issues may facilitate the ultimate solution of the dispute (such as in the US/Canada – 
Continued Suspension  and, hopefully, the EC – Bananas III  disputes). 
  It seems to me that the role of the Appella te Body is now well settled, performing a key 
adjudicative function within the overall dispute settlement system, as a permanent body established 
and operating under the highest standards of internati onal justice, based on the impartial application of 
the rules, in accordance w ith international law, and seeking to pr omote security and predictability to 
the benefit of all Members, and also as a founda tion for further development through negotiations. 
  WT/AB/13 
Page 54  
 
   The functioning of the system naturally brings about reflection and initiatives for 
improvements:  
- some pertain to the Members themselves, such as the ongoing DSU review; 
- some are the responsibility of the Appellate Body itself, such as updating its 
Working Procedures  in the light of practice; 
- and some involve the administrative branch of the WTO.  Disputes are 
growing in complexity making it more challenging to adjudicate them within the prescribed timeframes both at the pane l and at the Appellate Body level.  
Options to maintain the system's effici ency should be continuously explored.  
Thank you.  
  
Farewell remarks of Luiz Olavo Baptista to the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO 
Geneva, 20 July 2009  
 
Monsieur l’ambassadeur John Gero, Señor director adjunto, Embajador Alejandro Jara, caro amigo, WTO Members, Secretariat, interpreters, Ladies and gentlemen,  
 I greeted you in the three official languages of  this institution to recall on this occasion that I 
came here to serve all of you  without distinction—which I did until my last day in office with the 
same enthusiasm and gratitude as when I was first chosen as an Appellate Body Member.     It was a big challenge to step in the shoes of  my dear friend, Julio Lacarte, who was the first 
South American Appellate Body Member.  I tried my  best to rise to the challenge that being an 
Appellate Body Member represents, and I did it thro ugh a very difficult period in my personal life. 
  During these years, I had the opportunity of meeting people who are extraordinary because of 
their intelligence, their dedication, their idealism, and their capacity to work for the good of mankind.  
 
 The modesty of most is such that they never ta lk about what they have helped to build here.  
However, the WTO is something never before seen  in the history of our species:  a forum for 
negotiating trade rules;  a unique, efficient and peacefu l system of dispute resolution with an effective 
enforcement mechanism where th e 153 Members can solve their problems without creating political 
turmoil.  In this same forum you meet and wo rk reviewing peacefully and constantly the trade 
practices of the Members, assuring to all transparency and fairness.  
  All of this has been achieved through a car eful and well-negotiated balance of concessions 
which respects the identity and sovereignty of each  Member and its needs.  The traditional use of 
consensus in the decision-making process has ensu red a fair and democratic process that gives 
stability to the agreements and the institution.  
 
 In a few words, the WTO is the best and most  modern international organization set up in our 
days.  For this, the WTO Members and their representatives should be proud.   My colleagues and predecessors at the Appellate Body have given the best of themselves to 
create and maintain the highest standards in our mod est function of helping you to interpret and apply 
the rules you established through negotiation.  WT/AB/13 
 Page 55 
 
 
   I have participated in almost 60 cases during the last seven years and sat in 20 or more 
Divisions.  I was happy to help all of you build this cathedral!   But today, we are living through difficult times.   Governments, intern ational organizations, 
and many good people are working hard, trying to mini mize the effects of a huge economic crisis that 
affects everyone.  This crisis arrived when the Doha Round negotiations we re still facing obstacles 
and difficulties.  One cannot ignore Pascal Lamy's role  in pushing to bring this negotiation toward a 
successful conclusion, and that is why you re-appoint ed him as Director-General.  He is one of the 
most intelligent, hardworking, idealistic and lucid men I have known in more than seven decades of 
life.  I regret he cannot be here to hear  how much I admire his efforts and work. 
 
 The WTO is more important and more th reatened than ever.  Although WTO Members 
remain fully committed to the multilateral tradi ng system, there are those who see the WTO as an 
obstacle to protectionist measures that they believe w ill alleviate the effects of the crisis.  Some would 
like to dismantle the dispute settlement system, hopi ng to return to the Hobbesian past where rules 
existed to be applied only when convenient.  Bu t panelists and Appellate Body Members do not react 
when attacked, and thus are an easy target.  WTO Members continue to demonstrate their commitment to the system by pledging to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings, even in those cases when they disagree with the results.  Pa nels and the Appellate B ody have sometimes been 
accused of "creating rules" or, on the contrary, of being excessively conservative and restrictive in their interpretation.  However, the dispute settlemen t system has survived and must continue to do so 
in order for the WTO to keep existing. 
  Upon taking office, Appellate Body Member s swear solemnly to perform their duties 
honourably, independently, impartially, conscientiously , and in accordance with the law of the WTO.  
They have done so since the beginning and, becau se of this, they are respected by the Membership.  
 
 During all the years I sat on the Appellate Body, I was never approached by a delegate or anyone related to a case trying to lobby, and was ne ver told how the case should be decided.  We 
certainly know the repercussions of our decisi ons—the DSB meetings being the right place to 
comment on them, the Members of the WTO have ne ver restrained themselves from doing so, as it is 
their undeniable right.  I always read their comments and mulled over them, reviewing what I had 
thought and written to confirm to myself if I had made  the right decision.  Con science is a hard judge, 
one which accuses, decides and execute s the penalties with full knowledge of the subject, and that is 
why any honest person must always keep one's conscience at peace.   Thus, I always decided appeals fully inform ed, and performed my duties with absolute 
independence, as I firmly believe my colleagues also di d.  The consequence is that I come here to say 
goodbye to you and that I have accomplished the promi se I made to you in this same room on a cold 
December night in 2001.    Today, I pass the torch over to Ricardo Ramírez- Hernández.  I wish him all the best in his 
new position, and am sure that his professional co mpetence, independence, and integrity will be 
invaluable to the Appellate Body. 
  I thank you all for the help, friendship, a nd lessons given to me while I served this 
Organization. 
 WT/AB/13 
Page 56  
 
  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/13 
 Page 57 
 
 
   
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 WT/AB/13 
Page 58  
 
  ANNEX 3 
 
 
APPEALS FILED: 1995–2009 
 
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 
Total  102 83 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/13 
 Page 59 
 
 
  ANNEX 4 
 
 
PERCENTAGE OF PANEL REPORTS APPEALED 
BY YEAR OF ADOPTION: 1995–2009  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% 
Total 151 103 68% 124 84 68% 27 19 70% 
 
a No panel reports were adopted in 1995. 
b Under Article 21.5 of the DSU, a panel may be esta blished to hear a "disagr eement as to the existence 
or consistency with a covered agreement of measures ta ken to comply with the recommendations and rulings" of 
the DSB upon the adoption of a 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/13 
Page 60 
ANNEX 5 
 
 
WTO AGREEMENTS ADDRESSED IN APPELLATE BODY REPORT S CIRCULATED THROUGH 2009 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 
Total 77 10 62 13 6 3 2 0 27 2 24 7 5 3 
a No appeals were filed in 1995.  WT/AB/13 
 Page 61 
 
 
  ANNEX 6 
 
 
PARTICIPANTS AND THIRD PARTIC IPANTS IN APPEALS:  1995–2009 
 
 As of the end of 2009, there were 153 WTO Members1, of which 67 have participated in 
appeals in which Appellate Body reports  were circulated between 1996 and 2009.2  
 
 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 2 1 5 23 31 
Barbados 0 0 0 1 1 
Belize 0 0 0 4 4 
Benin 0 0 0 1 1 
Bolivia 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 7 12 
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 
                                                      
1The Government of Ukraine submitted, on 16 Apr il 2008, its acceptance of the terms and conditions 
of membership set out in the Accessi on Protocol (see WT/L/718).  Ukra ine became the 152nd Member of the 
WTO on 16 May 2008. 
The Government of the Republic of Cap Verde subm itted, on 23 June 2008, its acceptance of the terms 
and conditions of membership set out in the Accession Protocol (see WT/L/715).  The Republic of Cap Verde became the 153rd Member of the WTO on 23 July 2008. 
2No appeals were filed and no Appellate Body Reports were circulated in 1995, the year the Appellate 
Body was established. WT/AB/13 
Page 62  
 
  WTO Member Appellant Other 
appellant Appellee Third 
participant Total 
Egypt 0 0 0 2 2 
El Salvador 0 0 0 2 2 
European Communities 18 13 35 47 113 
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 38 59 
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 2 5 11 18 
Nicaragua 0 0 0 4 4 
Nigeria 0 0 0 1 1 
Norway 0 1 1 13 15 
Pakistan 0 0 2 2 4 
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/13 
 Page 63 
 
 
  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 19 19 
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 27 132 
Venezuela 0 0 1 6 7 
Viet Nam 0 0 0 2 2 
Total  109 63 192 462 826 
 
 
 
  
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/13 
Page 64  
 
  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/13 
 Page 65 
 
 
  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/13 
Page 66  
 
  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/13 
 Page 67 
 
 
  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/13 
Page 68  
 
  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/13 
 Page 69 
 
 
  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/13 
Page 70  
 
  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/13 
 Page 71 
 
 
  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/13 
Page 72  
 
  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/13 
 Page 73 
 
 
  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/13 
Page 74  
 
  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/13 
 Page 75 
 
 
  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/13 
Page 76  
 
  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/13 
 Page 77 
 
 
  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/13 
Page 78  
 
  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/13 
 Page 79 
 
 
 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/13 
Page 80  
 
 ANNEX 7 
 
 
APPELLATE BODY SECRETARIAT PARTICIPATION IN  
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, TRAINING , AND OTHER ACTIVITIES IN 2009 
 
 
I.  WTO BIENNIAL TE CHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING PLAN: 2009–2010 
 
Course / Seminar Location Dates 
Sessions on Trade Remedies and Dispute Settlement 
in a three-week regional Trade Policy Course jointly 
organized by Banque Islamique de Développement (BID) and WTO. Burkino Faso 
(French) 9–11 February 2009 
Doha Round Honduras 
(Spanish) 25–27 February 2009 
Regional Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement 
Module Tanzania 
(English) 23–27 March 2009 
Regional Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement 
Module (Spanish) Colombia 
(Spanish) 17–20 March 2009 
Regional Seminar on Dispute Settlement  Turkey 
(English) 4–8 May 2009 
Regional Seminar on Dispute Settlement St. Kitts and Nevis 
(English) 11–15 May 2009 
Advanced Course on WTO Dispute Settlement to 
Legal Scholars Shanton University, 
Beijing and Guangzhou, 
China (English/Chinese) 25–29 May 2009 
National Seminar on GATS and Domestic Regulation Guatemala 
(Spanish) 28–29 May 2009 
Dispute Settlement with a Focus on Trade Remedies 
and Services Singapore 
(English) 15–17 June 
Regional Trade Policy Course – Basic Principles Swaziland 
(English) 17–18 June 2009 
2nd Summer Program on WTO by Shanghai WTO 
Affairs Consulting Center and Shanghai Institute of 
Foreign Trade Shanghai, China 
(English / Chinese) 5–10 July 2009 
Advanced Course for Gove rnment Officials:  A 
Commercial Agenda for the Americas – The Doha 
Agenda for Development and Services Agreements in 
the Hemisphere Washington D.C. 
(English) 16–17 July 2009 
National Seminar on WTO Dispute Settlement Luanda, Angola 
(Portuguese) 20–22 July 2009  WT/AB/13 
 Page 81 
 
 
 Course / Seminar Location Dates 
Regional Trade Policy Course for Asia/Pacific – WTO 
Dispute Settlement Singapore 
(English) 28–31 July 2009 
Regional Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement  Swaziland 
(English) 10–14 August 2009 
National Activity on Dispute Settlement Bangkok 
(English) 18–21 August 2009 
Regional Seminar on Dispute Settlement Beijing, China 
(English) 31 August– 
4 September 2009 
National Dispute Settlement Workshop Papua New Guinea 
(English) 23–24 September 2009 
Ninth Short Trade Policy Course (Spanish) Montevideo, Uruguay 
(Spanish) 8–9 October 2009 
Regional Trade Policy Course – Basic Principles 
(French) Bénin 
(French) 13–14 October 2009 
Advanced Workshop on Dispute Settlement with 
Focus on Non-discrimination and General Exceptions Singapore 
(English) 19–21 October 2009 
Regional Seminar on Dispute Settlement (Spanish) Buenos Aires, 
Argentina (Spanish) 9–13 November 2009 
Asia Pacific Regional Public International Trade Law 
Course – Dispute Settlement Sydney, Australia 
(English) 25–26 November 2009 
Regional Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement 
(French) Bénin 
(French) 7–11 December 2009 
National Seminar/Workshop – Dispute Settlement 
(Spanish) El Salvador 
(Spanish) 14–16 December 2009 
 
 
II.  OTHER ACTIVITIES – 2009 
 
Activity Location Dates 
ELSA Moot Court Competition Barcelona, Spain 12–14 March 2009 
ELSA Moot Court Competition Bogota, Colombia 16–21 March 2009 
ELSA Moot Court Competition Frankf urt, Germany 19–21 March 2009 
ELSA Moot Court Competition Chinese Taipei 19–24 May 2009 WT/AB/13 
Page 82  
 
 Activity Location Dates 
47th Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement 
presentation and simulation Geneva, Switzerland 23–27 March 2009 
48th Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement  Geneva, Switzerland 
(French) 29 June– 
3 July 2009 
Talk on basic legal principles of GATT/WTO at the 
23rd WTO Introduction Day Geneva, Switzerland 15 July 2009 
23rd Thematic Course on WTO Dispute Settlement  Geneva, Switzerland 
(Spanish) 19–23 October 2009 
1st Advanced Thematic Course on WTO Dispute 
Settlement  Geneva, Switzerland 
(English) 4–6 November 2009 
 
 
III.  BRIEFINGS TO GROUPS VISITING THE WTO – 2009 
 
Activity Location Dates 
Talk on appellate review and WTO dispute settlement 
to law students from Amsterdam University of 
Applied Sciences Geneva, Switzerland 14 January 2009 
Talk on recent cases in the WTO dispute settlement 
system to law students from Zurich University  Geneva, Switzerland 16 January 2009 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement and agriculture 
disputes to German farmers Geneva, Switzerland 12 February 2009 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students from 
Australia National University, Canberra Geneva, Switzerland 12 February 2009 
Talk on the activities of the WTO to students from the 
Institute for the International Education of Students of 
the University of Freiburg, Germany Geneva, Switzerland 12 February 2009 
Talk on WTO appellate review to students from 
University of Geneva Geneva, Switzerland 11 March 2009 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement settlement to law 
students from University of Nijmegen, Netherlands Geneva, Switzerland 18 March 2009 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement system to students on 
Study Tour for Russian Member Universities of the Vi 
Network Geneva, Switzerland 25 March 2009 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement system to students 
from the University of the West of England Geneva, Switzerland 2 April 2009 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement system to students 
from Leuven/ELSA Geneva, Switzerland 6 April 2009   WT/AB/13 
 Page 83 
 
 
 Activity Location Dates 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement system to MBA 
students on the Pori Executive MBA programme Geneva, Switzerland 22 April 2009 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement system to the 
European Law Students' Association, Bonn e.V. 
(ELSA) Geneva, Switzerland 27 April 2009 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement system to students 
from the University of the West Indies Geneva, Switzerland 14 May 2009 
Talk on appellate review in the WTO to students from 
the Straus Institute, Pepperdine University Geneva, Switzerland 25 May 2009 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement system to students 
from University of Buckingham Geneva, Switzerland 11 June 2009 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement system to students 
from St. Gallen Geneva, Switzerland 8 July 2009 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement system to students 
from University of Melbourne's Institutions in 
International Law programme Geneva, Switzerland 9 July 2009 
Talk on panel proceedings and appellate review in the 
WTO UNOG International Law Seminar Geneva, Switzerland 22 July 2009 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement system to students 
from Universidad Adolfo Ibañez, Chile Geneva, Switzerland 15 September 2009 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement system and appellate 
review to students from University of Lausanne's European and Commercial Law Program Geneva, Switzerland 16 October 2009 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement system to students 
from EAFIT University, Medellin, Colombia Geneva, Switzerland 21 October 2009 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement system to lawyers 
from Sidley Austin LLP Geneva, Switzerland 27 October 2009 
 
   WT/AB/13 
Page 84  
 
 ANNEX 8 
 
 
WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORT S AND ARBITRATION AWARDS: 1995–2009 
 
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 Measur es 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 – 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 
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  WT/AB/13 
 Page 85 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 Progr amme 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 the 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 Affe cting 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, 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 December 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, 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 
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 the Arbitrator, Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for 
Regional Aircraft – Recourse to Arbitrati on 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 WT/AB/13 
Page 86  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 December 2001, DSR 2001:XIII, 6829 
Canada – Dairy  
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand 
and US)  Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the 
Exportation of Dairy Products – Recourse  to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New 
Zealand and the United States , WT/DS103/RW, WT/DS113/RW, adopted 
18 December 2001, 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 
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, 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  WT/AB/13 
 Page 87 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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, 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/DS110/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 
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, 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, 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 WT/AB/13 
Page 88  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 
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 Purs uant to the Decision of 14 November 
2001 , WT/L/616, 1 August 2005, DSR 2005:XXIII, 11669 
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 – Measur es 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  WT/AB/13 
 Page 89 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 Bananas, 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 
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 Corr.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, adopted 22 December 2008, upheld by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA 
EC – Bananas III (Ecuador) 
(Article 22.6 – EC)  Decision by the 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 the 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 WT/AB/13 
Page 90  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 I ndia – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the 
DSU  by India , WT/DS141/AB/RW, adopted 24 April 2003, DSR 2003:III, 965  
EC – Bed Linen  
(Article 21.5 – India)  Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of 
Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU  by 
India , WT/DS141/RW, adopted 24 April 2003, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS141/AB/RW, DSR 2003:IV, 1269  
EC – 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 
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  WT/AB/13 
 Page 91 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 – 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 
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 the 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 the Arbitrators, European Communities – Measures Concerning 
Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Original Complaint by the United States 
 – Recourse to Arbitration by the Eur opean Communities under Article 22.6 of the 
DSU , WT/DS26/ARB, 12 July 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1105 
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 
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  WT/AB/13 
Page 92  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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, adopted 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 
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 Preferences 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 
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 modified 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-Additi onal Duties on Imports from the 
United States , WT/DS360/R, adopted 17 November 2008, reversed by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS360/AB/R  WT/AB/13 
 Page 93 
 
 
 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 , 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, 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 
Japan – Apples  Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples , 
WT/DS245/R, adopted 10 December 2003, upheld by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS245/AB/R, DSR 2003:IX, 4481  WT/AB/13 
Page 94  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 – Counterva iling Duties on Dynam ic Random Access 
Memories from Korea , WT/DS336/R, adopted 17 D ecember 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 
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  WT/AB/13 
 Page 95 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 Investigation 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 Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU  by the 
United States , WT/DS132/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, 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 
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 – 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 
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 WT/AB/13 
Page 96  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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, 
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, 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 the 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 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 – Carbon Steel  Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany , 
WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 December 2002, DSR 2002:IX, 3779 
US – 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 
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 
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   WT/AB/13 
 Page 97 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 
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 
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 Articl e 21.5 of the DSU by the European 
Communities , WT/DS108/AB/RW, adopted 29 January 2002, DSR 2002:I, 55 WT/AB/13 
Page 98  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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, upheld by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS108/AB/RW2, DSR 2006:XI, 4761 
US – FSC  (Article 22.6 – US)
  Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" – Recourse to Arbitrati on 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 
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 the 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 December 
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  WT/AB/13 
 Page 99 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 – Lead and Bismuth II  Appellate Body Report, United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on 
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom , WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted 7 June 2000, DSR 2000:V, 2595 
US – 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, 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 Car bon 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 WT/AB/13 
Page 100  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Offset Act  
(Byrd Amendment) (EC) (Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the 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 the 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 the 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 
US – Offset Act  (Byrd Amendment) (Korea) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the 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 the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original 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 fr om 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 – Re course 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 – 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  WT/AB/13 
 Page 101 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 
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, 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 
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 
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 , upheld 
by Appellate Body Report WT/DS257/AB/RW, DSR 2005:XXIII, 11401 WT/AB/13 
Page 102  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 
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, revers ed 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 
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 
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/13 
 Page 103 
 
 
 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/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, 
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 – 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 
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 
US – Upland Cotton 
(Article 22.6 – US I) Decision by the 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 the 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  
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, 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 WT/AB/13 
Page 104  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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, upheld by Appellate Body Report WT/DS322/AB/RW 
 
__________