WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/AB/11 
9 February 2009 
 (09-0571) 
  
  
 
     
 
    
 
  
APPELLATE BODY 
 
 
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008 
  
 
  
FEBRUARY 2009 
   
  
 
     
 
    
 
    
 
    
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/11 
Page i 
 
 
CONTENTS 
  
I.
 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..............1  
 
II. Composition of the Appellate Body............................................................................................4  
 III.
 Appeals........................................................................................................................ ................5  
 
IV. Appellate Bo dy Reports ......................................................................................................... .....8 
 
A. Agreements Covered......................................................................................................9  
 
B. Findings and Conclusions............................................................................................10  
 
V. Participants and Third Participants in Appeals .........................................................................37  
 VI.
 Working Procedures for Appellate Review ..............................................................................41  
 
VII. Arbitrations under Article  21.3(c) of the DSU..........................................................................44  
 VIII.
 Technical As sistance........................................................................................................... ......49  
 
IX. Other Activities ............................................................................................................... ..........49  
 
ANNEX 1 Members of the Appellate Body – 1 January to 31 December 2008: 
Biographical notes .......................................................................................................51 
ANNEX 2 Former Appellate Body Members and Chairpersons ...................................................56 
ANNEX 3 Appeals filed: 1995–2008 ............................................................................................58 
ANNEX 4 Percentage of panel reports appeal ed by year of adoption: 1995–2008.......................59 
ANNEX 5 WTO agreements addressed in Appellate Body reports circulated through 
2008........................................................................................................................... ...60 
ANNEX 6 Participants and third participants in appeals: 1995–2008...........................................61 ANNEX 7 Procedural Ruling concerning the op ening of the oral hearing to public 
observation in US – Continued Suspension  and Canada – Continued 
Suspension ....................................................................................................................79 
ANNEX 8 Appellate Body Secretariat participation in technical assistance, training, and 
other activities in 2008 .................................................................................................83 
ANNEX 9 WTO dispute settlement reports and arbitration aw ards: 1995–2008 ..........................86 WT/AB/11 
Page ii  
 
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT 
 
Abbreviation Description 
ACP African, Caribbean, and Pacific 
ADB Asian Development Bank 
Ad Note Ad Note to Articles VI:2 and 3 of the GATT 1994 
Amended CBD  Amended Customs Bond Directive  
Anti-Dumping Agreement Agreement on Implementati on of Article VI of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade 1994   
ATC Agreement on Textiles and Clothing  
CCC Commodity Credit Corporation 
CKD completely knocked down  
CRCICA Cairo Regional Centre for In ternational Commercial Arbitration 
Decree 125 Administrative Rules on Importation of Automobile Parts 
Characterized as Complete Vehicles (Decree of the People's Republic of China, No. 125)  
Doha Article I Waiver Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference held in Doha, European 
Communities – The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, Decision of 
14 November 2001, WT/MIN(01)/15; WT/L/436  
DRAMs dynamic random access memories DSB Dispute Settlement Body  
DSU Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of 
Disputes  
EC Bananas Import Regime Bananas import regime the European Communities had in place 
between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2007, enacted through Council Regulation (EC) No. 1964/2005 of 29 November 2005 on the tariff rates for bananas 
EBR enhanced continuous bond requirement  
GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services   
GATT 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  
GIR General Rules for the Interpretation of the Harmonized System 
GSM General Sales Manager ICC International Chamber of Commerce WT/AB/11 
Page iii 
 
 
Abbreviation Description 
ICJ International Court of Justice 
ICSID International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes 
Import Licensing  Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures   
JECFA Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 
MERCOSUR Mercado Común del Sur (Southern Common Market) 
MFN most-favoured nation 
MGA melengestrol acetate  mt metric tonnes OCDs ordinary customs duties ODCs other duties or charges OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
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 
SCGP Supplier Credit Guarantee Program  
SCM Agreement  Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  
SKD semi-knocked down  
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   
UNCTAD  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development  
UNCTC United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations 
UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Sc ientific and Cultural Organization 
UNIDO United Nations Industria l Development Organization WT/AB/11 
Page iv  
 
Abbreviation Description 
US Customs United States Customs and Border Protection 
URAA Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
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/11 
Page 1 
 
 
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
APPELLATE BODY  
 
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008 
 
 
 I. Introduction 
 This Annual Report provides a summary of the activities undertaken in 2008 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 several 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 
in an interim report that is subject to comments by the parties.  The final report is issued to the parties, 
                                                      
1Article 3.3 of the DSU. 
2Article 11 of the DSU. WT/AB/11 
Page 2  
 
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 dates 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 agreements 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 Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement  
of Disputes
 3 (Rules of Conduct ).  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 the Director-General, 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 re ports 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 
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 
                                                      
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/11 
Page 3 
 
 
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 repo rt 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 suspen sion may apply have not been followed.
7  Such arbitration 
shall be carried out by the original panel, if its members are available.  Compensation and the 
suspension of concessions or other obligations are te mporary measures; neither is to be preferred to 
full implementation.8  
 A party to a dispute may request good offi ces, conciliation, or mediation as alternative 
methods of dispute resolution at any time.9  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.10  Recourse to arbitration and the procedur es to be followed are subject to mutual 
agreement of the parties.11  
 
                                                      
7In principle, the suspension of concessions or other obligations must relate to the same trade sector or 
agreement as the measure found to be inconsistent.  Howe ver, if this is impracticable or ineffective for the 
complaining Member and if circumstances are serious en ough, the complaining party may seek authorization to 
suspend concessions with respect to other sectors or agreements. 
8Article 22.1 of the DSU. 
9Article 5 of the DSU. 
10There 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) ) 
11Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU apply mutatis mutandis  to decisions by arbitrators. WT/AB/11 
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.   
 On 27 November 2007, the DSB appointed four new Members of the Appellate Body.  Lilia 
R. Bautista (Philippines) and Jennifer Hillman (U nited States) were sworn in on 17 December 2007, 
and replaced Merit E. Janow (United States) and Ya suhei Taniguchi (Japan), whose terms expired on 
13 December 2007.  Shotaro Oshima (Japan) and Yue jiao Zhang (China) began their terms of office 
on 1 June 2008, replacing Georges Abi- Saab (Egypt) and A.V. Ganesan (India).
12  Mr. Oshima and 
Ms. Zhang had been sworn in on 20 May 2008. 
 The composition of the Appellate Body in 2008 and the respective terms of office of its 
Members are set out in Tables 1A and 1B. 
TABLE 1A: COMPOSITION OF THE APPELLATE BODY – 1 JANUARY TO 31 MAY 2008 
 
Name Nationality Term(s) of office 
Georges Michel Abi-Saab  Egypt 2000–2004 
2004–2008 
Luiz Olavo Baptista Brazil 2001–2005 
2005–2009 
Lilia R. Bautista Philippines 2007–2011 
Arumugamangalam Venkatachalam Ganesan  India 2000–2004 
2004–2008 
Jennifer Hillman United States 2007–2011 
Giorgio Sacerdoti  Italy 2001–2005 
2005–2009 
David Unterhalter South Africa 2006–2009 
 
TABLE 1B: COMPOSITION OF THE APPELLATE BODY – 1 JUNE TO 31 DECEMBER 2008 
 
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 
 
                                                      
12WT/DSB/M/242. WT/AB/11 
Page 5 
 
 
 In accordance with Rule 15 of the Working Procedures , Mr. Ganesan was authorized by the 
Appellate Body to complete the disposition of the appeals in US – Shrimp (Thailand) and US –  
Customs Bond Directive , even though his second term as Appellate Body Member was to expire 
before the completion of the appellate proceedings .  Likewise, Mr. Abi-Saab was authorized to 
complete the disposition of the appeals in US – Continued Suspension  and Canada – Continued 
Suspension , which also would not be completed before the expiration of his second term as Appellate 
Body Member. 
 On 12 November 2008, Mr. Baptista informed the Chairman of the DSB that, owing to health 
reasons, he was compelled to resign from the office of Appellate Body Member.13  Pursuant to 
Rule 14 of the Working Procedures , his resignation becomes effective in 90 days, that is, 13 February 
2009. 
 Mr. Baptista served as Chairman of th e Appellate Body from 18 December 2007 to 
17 December 2008.14  Pursuant to Rule 5(1) of the Working Procedures , Appellate Body Members 
elected Mr. David Unterhalter to serve as Chairm an of the Appellate Body from 18 December 2008 to 
11 December 2009.15  
 Biographical information about the Members of the 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 administrative assistant, and three support staff.  Werner Zdouc is the Director of the Appellate Body Secretariat. 
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.   
 Thirteen appeals were filed in 2008, eight of which included an "other appeal".  Ten appeals 
related to original proceedings and three appeals related to panel proceedi ngs brought pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU.  Further information regard ing the thirteen appeals filed in 2008 is provided 
in Table 2. 
                                                     
 
13WT/DSB/46. 
14WT/DSB/45. 
15WT/DSB/48. WT/AB/11 
Page 6  
 
TABLE 2: APPEALS FILED IN 2008 
 
Panel reports 
appealed Date of 
appeal Appellant a Document 
number Other 
  appellant b Document 
number 
US – Stainless Steel 
(Mexico) 31 Jan 2008 Mexico WT/DS344/7 - - - - - - 
US – Upland Cotton 
(Article 21-5 – Brazil) 12 Feb 2008 United States WT/DS267/33 Brazil WT/DS267/34 
US – Shrimp (Thailand)  17 Apr 2008 Thailand WT/DS343/10 United States WT/DS343/11 
US – Customs Bond 
Directive 17 Apr 2008 India WT/DS345/9 United States WT/DS345/10 
US – Continued Suspension 29 May 2008 European 
Communities WT/DS320/12 United States WT/DS320/13 
Canada – Continued 
Suspension 29 May 2008 European 
Communities WT/DS321/12 Canada WT/DS321/13 
India – Additional Import 
Duties 1 Aug 2008 United States WT/DS360/8 India WT/DS360/9 
EC – Bananas III  
(Article 21.5 – Ecuador II) 28 Aug 2008 European 
Communities WT/DS27/89 Ecuador WT/DS27/91 
EC – Bananas III  
(Article 21.5 – US) 28 Aug 2008 European 
Communities WT/DS27/90 - - - - - - 
China – Auto Parts (EC) 15 Sept 2008 China WT/DS339/12 - - - - - - 
China – Auto Parts (US) 15 Sept 2008 China WT/DS340/12 - - - - - - 
China – Auto Parts 
(Canada) 15 Sept 2008 China WT/DS342/12 - - - - - - 
US – Continued Zeroing 6 Nov 2008 European 
Communities WT/DS350/11 United States WT/DS350/12 
a Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures. 
b Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures. 
 
 
 Appellate proceedings were consolidated in US – Shrimp (Thailand)  and US – Customs Bond 
Directive ; US – Continued Suspension  and Canada – Continued Suspension ; EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – Ecuador II)  and EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – US) ; and China – Auto Parts (EC) , 
China – Auto Parts (US) , and China – Auto Parts (Canada) .  Further information about the 
consolidation of these appeals is provided in section VI below. 
 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. WT/AB/11 
Page 7 
 
 
02468101214
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008Total number of appeals 
Appeals in original proceedings Appeals in Article 21.5 proceedings
 
 There were three panel reports circulated in  2007 for which the 60-day deadline for adoption 
or appeal did not expire until 2008.16  Two of these panel reports were appealed.17  Thirteen panel 
reports were circulated in 2008; for one, the 60-da y deadline for adoption or appeal does not expire 
until February 2009.18  One panel report circulated in 2008 was adopted by the DSB without having 
been appealed.19  In total, 13 of the 15 panel reports for which the 60-day deadline expired in 2008 
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 2008 is 68 per cent. 
0%20%40%60%80%100%
 
   * 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 Reports in EC – Salmon (Norway) , US – Upland Cotton (Article 21.5 – Brazil) , and US – 
Stainless Steel (Mexico)  were circulated to WTO Members on 16 November and  18 and 20 December 2007, 
respectively. 
17The Panel Reports in US – Stainless Steel (Mexico)  and US – Upland Cotton (Article 21.5 – Brazil)  
were appealed on 31 January and 12 February 2008, respectively.  The Panel Report in EC – Salmon (Norway) 
was adopted by the DSB on 15 January 2008, without appeal. 
18The Panel Report in US – Zeroing (EC) (Article 21.5 – EC)  was circulated to WTO Members on 
17 December 2008. 
19The Panel Report in Mexico – Olive Oil  was adopted by the DSB on 21 October 2008. Figure 2: Percentage of panel reports appealed 1996–2008 * Figure 1: Appeals in original proceedin gs and Article 21.5 proceedings 1996–2008 
        1996      1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008 WT/AB/11 
Page 8  
 
IV. Appellate Body Reports 
 Twelve Appellate Body reports were circulat ed during 2008.  As of the end of 2008, the 
Appellate Body has circulated a total of 96 reports .  Table 3 provides further details on the Appellate 
Body reports circulated in 2008.   
TABLE 3: APPELLATE BODY REPO RTS CIRCULATED IN 2008 
 
Case Title Document number Date circulated Date adopted  
by the DSB 
US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) WT/DS344/AB/R 30 April 2008 20 May 2008 
US – Upland Cotton  
(Article 21.5 – Brazil) WT/DS267/AB/RW 2 June 2008 20 June 2008 
US – Shrimp (Thailand) WT/DS343/AB/R 16 July 2008 1 August 2008 
US – Customs Bond Directive WT/DS345/AB/R 16 July 2008 1 August 2008 
US – Continued Suspension WT/DS320/AB/R 16 October 2008 14 November 2008 
Canada – Continued Suspension WT/DS321/AB/R 16 October 2008 14 November 2008 
India – Additional Import Duties WT/DS360/AB/R 30 October 2008 17 November 2008 
EC – Bananas III  
(Article 21.5 – Ecuador II) WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU
and Corr.1 26 November 2008 11 December 2008 
EC – Bananas III  
(Article 21.5 – US) WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA
and Corr.1 26 November 2008 22 December 2008 
China – Auto Parts (EC) WT/DS339/AB/R 15 Decembe r 2008 12 January 2009 
China – Auto Parts (US) WT/DS340/AB/R 15 Decembe r 2008 12 January 2009 
China – Auto Parts (Canada) WT/DS342/AB/R 15 Decembe r 2008 12 January 2009 
 WT/AB/11 
Page 9 
 
 
A. Agreements Covered 
 The following table shows which WTO agreemen ts were addressed in the twelve Appellate 
Body reports circulated in 2008. 
TABLE 4: WTO AGREEMENTS ADDRESSED IN APPELLATE BODY REPORTS  
CIRCULATED IN 2008 
 
Case Document number WTO agreements covered 
US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) WT/DS344/AB/R Anti-Dumping Agreement 
GATT 1994 
DSU 
US – Upland Cotton  
(Article 21.5 – Brazil) WT/DS267/AB/RW SCM Agreement 
Agreement on Agriculture 
DSU 
US – Shrimp (Thailand)  WT/DS343/AB/R Anti-Dumping Agreement 
SCM Agreement 
GATT 1994 
DSU 
US – Customs Bond Directive WT/DS345/AB/R Anti-Dumping Agreement 
SCM Agreement 
GATT 1994 
DSU 
US – Continued Suspension WT/DS320/AB/R DSU 
SPS Agreement 
Canada – Continued Suspension WT/DS321/AB/R DSU 
SPS Agreement 
India – Additional Import Duties WT/DS360/AB/R GATT 1994 
EC – Bananas III  
(Article 21.5 – Ecuador II) WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU 
and Corr.1 GATT 1994 
DSU 
WTO Agreement  
EC – Bananas III  
(Article 21.5 – US) WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA 
and Corr.1 GATT 1994 
DSU 
China – Auto Parts (EC) WT/DS339/AB/R GATT 1994 
China – Auto Parts (US) WT/DS340/AB/R GATT 1994 
China – Auto Parts (Canada) WT/DS342/AB/R GATT 1994 
 WT/AB/11 
Page 10  
 
 Figure 3 shows the number of times specific WTO agreements have been addressed in the 96 Appellate Body reports circulated from 1996 through 2008.   
74
1058
13
63 224
224
74 3DSU
WTO
Agreement
GATT
1994
Agriculture
SPS
ATC
TBT
Anti-
Dumping
Import
Licensing
SCM
Safeguards
GATS
TRIPS
 
 
 Annex 5 contains a breakdown by year of the frequency with which the specific WTO agreements have been addressed in  appeals from 1996 through 2008.  
B. Findings and Conclusions 
 The Appellate Body's findings and conclusi ons in the twelve Appellate Body reports 
circulated in 2008 are summarized below.  
 Appellate Body Report, US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) , WT/DS344/AB/R 
 This dispute concerned the calculation of margins of dumping by the United States 
Department of Commerce (USDOC) based on a methodol ogy that does not fully reflect export prices 
that are above normal value (zeroing). 
 Mexico appealed the panel's finding that simple zeroing in assessment reviews is not, as such, 
inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of th e GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 2.4, and 9.3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement .20  According to Mexico's description, si mple zeroing in periodic reviews occurs 
when an investigating authority compares the pri ces of individual export transactions against monthly 
weighted average normal values and treats as zero th e results of comparisons where the export price 
exceeds the monthly weighted average normal value, when aggregating comparison results in order to 
calculate a margin of dumping for the product under consideration.  Mexico argued that, in any anti-
dumping proceedings—including assessment reviews under Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement —the margin of dumping must be calculated in  respect of individual exporters or foreign 
producers for the product under consideration as a w hole and that dumping cannot exist in relation to 
a specific type, model, or category of the product under consideration or in relation to individual 
transactions. 
                                                      
20The term "assessment review" describes the periodic review of the amount of anti-dumping duty by 
the USDOC, which is requir ed under United States law at least once during each 12-month period beginning on 
the anniversary of the date of publication of an anti-dumpi ng duty order, if a request for such a review has been 
received.  In the case of the first assessment proceedin gs following the issuance of the Notice of Antidumping 
Duty Order, the period of time may extend to a period of up to 18 months in order to cover all entries that may have been subject to provisional measures. Figure 3: WTO agreements add ressed in appeals 1996–2008 WT/AB/11 
Page 11 
 
 
 The Appellate Body reversed the panel's finding and found instead that simple zeroing in assessment reviews is, as such, inconsistent with Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 9.3 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement , because it results in the levying of anti-dumping duties that exceed the 
exporter's or foreign producer's margin of dum ping—which operates as a ceiling for the amount of 
anti-dumping duties that can be levied in resp ect of the sales made by an exporter.   
Based on an analysis of the relevant provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement
 21, the Appellate Body found that: (a) "dumpi ng" and "margin of dumping" are exporter-
specific concepts; (b) "dumping" and "margin of dumping" have the same meaning throughout the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement ; and (c) an individual margin of dumping is to be established for each 
investigated exporter or foreign producer, and the amount of anti-dumping duty levied in respect of an 
exporter or foreign producer shall not exceed its margin of dumping.  The Appellate Body further 
emphasized that the concepts of "dumping", "injur y", and "margin of dumping" are interlinked and 
that, therefore, these terms should be considered an d interpreted in a cohere nt and consistent manner 
for all parts of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  Based on this reasoning, the Appellate Body disagreed 
with the proposition that importers "dump" and can have "margins of dumping".  As it had done in 
previous cases, the Appellate Body also rejected the notion that dumping and margins of dumping can 
be found to exist at the level of individual transac tions.  The Appellate Body explained that such an 
interpretation cannot be reconciled w ith a proper interpretation and application of Articles 3, 5.8, 6.10, 
8, 9.4, 9.5, 11.2, and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement . 
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 th e "exporter" of the "product" under consideration 
and not to individual "importers" or "import transa ctions", and that the concepts 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 s ubject merchandise from that exporter.  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 marg in of dumping for an exporter or foreign 
producer.     
 Mexico also appealed the panel's finding that simple zeroing, as applied  by the USDOC in the 
five assessment reviews at issue in this dispute, is not inconsistent with Artic les VI:1 and VI:2 of the 
GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  The Appellate Body reversed 
this finding for the same reasons it reversed the panel's finding that simple zeroing in assessment reviews is, as such, inconsistent with Article  VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 9.3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement .  The Appellate Body found that the Un ited States acted inconsistently with its 
obligations under Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  by 
using simple zeroing in the five assessment reviews at issue in this dispute.   
 In relation to Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , 
Mexico requested the Appellate Body not only to reve rse the panel's findings, but also to find that the 
United States acted inconsistently with these provi sions.  However, having reversed all the panel 
findings that had been appealed, the Appellate Body did not consider it necessary to make an 
                                                     
 
21Including Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 3.1, 3.5, 5.2, 5.8, 6.10, 6.11, 6.7, 8.1, 8.2, 
8.5, 9.1, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 11.1, and 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  WT/AB/11 
Page 12  
 
additional finding on Mexico's claims under Article  VI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement . 
Mexico additionally appealed the panel's finding  that zeroing in assessment reviews is not, as 
such, inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  Mexico contended that simple 
zeroing violates the requirement in Article 2.4 to ma ke a fair comparison of normal value and export 
price, because it distorts the prices of certain expor t transactions and artificially inflates the magnitude 
of dumping given that export prices that exceed the normal value are systematically ignored.  The Appellate Body reversed the panel's finding because it was based on the panel's reasoning and 
findings relating to Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of  the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1 and 9.3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement , which had been reversed.  The Appellate  Body noted that the panel offered no 
additional reasoning that could independently support its finding under Article 2.4.  Having reversed 
all the panel findings that had been appealed, and recalling that it had found zeroing to be inconsistent 
with Article 2.4 in previous disputes, the Appe llate Body found it unnecessary to make a further 
finding in addition to the reversal of the panel's finding under Article 2.4. 
 Finally, Mexico alleged that the panel acted  inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU by 
making findings that "directly contradict" those in previous Appellate Body reports adopted by the 
DSB that address identical issues w ith respect to the same party.  More specifically, Mexico asserted 
that, by making findings and reaching conclusions that  are identical to those that have already been 
reversed by previous Appe llate Body reports adopted by the DSB,  the panel had failed to comply with 
its function under Article 11 to assist the DSB in discharging its responsibilities under the DSU.  
 The Appellate Body recalled that Appellate B ody reports are not binding except with respect 
to resolving the particular dispute between the pa rties.  The Appellate Body emphasized, however, 
that this does not mean that subsequent panels are free to disregard the legal interpretations and 
reasoning contained in previous A ppellate Body reports that have been adopted by the DSB.  The 
legal interpretations embodied in a dopted panel and Appellate  Body reports become part and parcel of 
the acquis  of the WTO dispute settlement system.  The Appellate Body added that ensuring 
"predictability" in the dispute settlement system, as c ontemplated in Article 3.2 of the DSU, implies 
that, absent cogent reasons, an adjudicatory body w ill resolve the same legal question in the same way 
in a subsequent case. 
 Moreover, the Appellate Body noted that, in th e hierarchical structure contemplated in the 
DSU, panels and the Appellate Body have distinct roles to play.  It also emphasized that the creation 
of the Appellate Body by WTO Members to review legal interpretations deve loped by panels shows 
that Members recognized the importance of consiste ncy and stability in the interpretation of their 
rights and obligations under the covered agreements .  The Appellate Body observed that this is 
essential to promote "security and predictability" in the dispute settlement system, and to ensure the 
"prompt settlement" of disputes.  The Appellate Body  further underscored that the panel's failure to 
follow previously adopted Appellate Body Re ports addressing the same issues undermines the 
development of a coherent and pr edictable body of jurisprudence clarifying Members' rights and 
obligations under the covered agreem ents as contemplated under the DSU.  Clarification, as envisaged 
in Article 3.2 of the DSU, elucidates the scope  and meaning of the provisions of the covered 
agreements in accordance with custom ary rules of interpretation of pu blic international law.  While 
the application of a provision may be regarded as c onfined to the context in which it takes place, the 
relevance of clarification contained in an adopt ed Appellate Body report is not limited to the 
application of a particular provision in a specific case. 
 Against this background, the Appellate Body emphasized that it was deeply concerned about 
the panel's decision to depart from well-establishe d Appellate Body jurisprudence clarifying the 
interpretation of the same legal issues and explained that the panel's approach had serious implications 
for the proper functioning of the WTO dispute settleme nt system.  Nevertheless, considering that the 
panel's failure flowed, in essence, from the panel's misguided understanding of the legal provisions at WT/AB/11 
Page 13 
 
 
issue, and having corrected the panel's erroneous le gal interpretation and reve rsed all of the panel's 
findings that had been appealed, the Appellate Body  did not make an additional finding that the panel 
also failed to discharge its duties under Article 11 of the DSU. 
 Appellate Body Report, US – Upland Cotton (Article 21.5 – Brazil) , WT/DS267/AB/RW 
This dispute concerned a challenge brought by  Brazil against the measures taken by the 
United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in US – Upland Cotton .  In the 
original proceedings, the panel and the Appellate Body found that the United  States provided domestic 
support, export subsidies, and im port substitution subsidies to upland cotton, as well as export credit 
guarantees to upland cotton and certain other products,  in contravention of certain provisions of the 
Agreement on Agriculture  and the SCM Agreement . 
 The United States appealed two of the panel' s preliminary conclusions.  First, the United 
States appealed the panel's conclusion that Brazil' s claims regarding export credit guarantees issued 
under the revised General Sales Manager (GSM) 102 programme for pig meat and poultry meat were 
within the scope of the compliance proceedings.  The Appellate Body stated that it would first identify 
the "measure taken to comply" by the United States,  and would then determine whether there were 
any limitations on the claims that could be raised by Brazil with respect to that measure in the 
compliance proceedings.  The Appellate Body no ted that, following the adoption of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings, the United States revised  the fee structure in relation to the GSM 102 
programme in its totality, and the new fee structure a pplied to export credit guarantees for all eligible 
commodities without distinction.  Therefore, the A ppellate Body considered that the revised GSM 102 
programme should be treated in an integrated manne r as the "measure taken to comply".  Turning to 
the question of whether there was a limitation on the claims that could be raised by Brazil, the Appellate Body emphasized that the scope of claims that may be raised in Article 21.5 proceedings is not unbounded.  The Appellate Body found that , because Brazil's claims against export credit 
guarantees provided under the original GSM 102 progr amme to pig meat and poultry meat had not 
been resolved on the merits in th e original proceedings, allowing Brazil's claims in the Article 21.5 
proceedings would not give Brazil an unfair "second ch ance" to make a case that it had failed to make 
out in the original proceedings.  On this basis, the Appellate Body upheld th e panel's conclusion that 
Brazil's claims relating to pig meat and poultr y meat were properly within the scope of the 
Article 21.5 proceedings.  As a result, the Appe llate Body found it unneces sary to address Brazil's 
conditional other appeal that the panel erred in finding that the revised GSM 102 programme itself 
was not the measure that was the subject of Brazil's claims.  
 Secondly, the United States appealed the pane l's finding that marketing loan and counter-
cyclical payments made after 21 September 2005
22 were properly within the scope of the Article 21.5 
proceedings.23  The Appellate Body explained that Article 7.8 of the SCM Agreement  specifies the 
actions that the implementing Member must take when a subsidy granted or maintained by that 
Member has been found to have resu lted in adverse effects to the in terests of another Member.  It 
noted that the use of the terms "shall take" a nd "shall withdraw" indicate that compliance with 
Article 7.8 of the SCM Agreement  will usually involve some action by the respondent Member.   
                                                      
22Article 7.9 of the SCM Agreement  provides that "[i]n the event the Member has not taken appropriate 
steps to remove the adverse effects of the subsidy or withdraw the subsidy within six months from the date when 
the DSB adopts the panel report or the Appellate Body report, and in the absence of agreement on 
compensation, the DSB shall grant authorization to the complaining Member to take countermeasures ...".   
The panel and Appellate Body reports in the original proceedings were adopted on 21 March 2005.  Thus, the 
six-month period referred to in Article 7.9 expired on 21 September 2005. 
23Before the panel, the United States submitted that th e subsidies subject to the obligation in Article 7.8 
of the SCM Agreement  to "take appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects or ... withdraw the subsidy" were 
the subsidies provided during marketing years 1999-2002 which the original panel had found to cause "present" 
serious prejudice.  Thus, the United States argued that ma rketing loan and counter-cyc lical payments made after 
21 September 2005 were not properly within the scope of the Article 21.5 proceedings. WT/AB/11 
Page 14  
 
A Member would normally not be able to abstain from taking any action on the assumption that the subsidy will expire or that the adverse effects of the subsidy will dissipate on their own.  The 
Appellate Body further reasoned that, in the case of recurring annual payments, the obligation in 
Article 7.8 would extend to payments "maintaine d" by the respondent Member beyond the time 
period examined by the panel for purposes of determ ining the existence of serious prejudice, as long 
as those payments continue to have adverse effects.   Otherwise, the advers e effects of subsequent 
payments would simply replace the adverse effects that the implementing Member was under an obligation to remove.  Thus, the Appellate Body agr eed with the panel that, "to the extent marketing 
loan payments and counter-cyclical payments made  by the United States after 21 September 2005 are 
provided under the same conditions and criteria as the marketing loan payments and counter-cyclical 
payments subject to the original panel's finding of 'present' serious prejudice, they are subject to the 
obligation of the United States under Article 7.8 of the SCM Agreement  to take appropriate steps to 
remove the adverse effects of the subsidy".  For these reasons, the Appellate Body upheld the panel's 
finding that Brazil's claims against marketing loan  and counter-cyclical payments made by the United 
States after 21 September 2005 were properly within  the scope of the Article 21.5 proceedings.  
Because the Appellate Body upheld this finding of the panel, it did not find it necessary to address 
Brazil's conditional other appeal that the panel erred in concluding that the original panel's findings 
did not cover the marketing loan and counter-cyclical payments programmes  per se . 
 Another issue appealed by the United States w as the panel's finding that the effect of the 
marketing loan and counter-cyclical payments pr ovided after 21 September 2005 is significant price 
suppression within the meaning of Article 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement .
24  The United States alleged 
that the panel's finding was legally erroneous and that the panel failed to make an objective 
assessment of the matter as required by Article 11 of  the DSU.  The Appellate Body began by setting 
out its understanding of the type of analysis a pa nel is expected to conduct when determining whether 
the effect of subsidies is significant price suppr ession.  The Appellate Body distinguished between 
price suppression and price depression25 and noted that, in contrast to price depression, price 
suppression is not a directly observable phenome non.  Therefore, the examination of price 
suppression necessarily involves a counterfactual analys is of whether prices would have been higher 
or would have increased more in the absence of the subsidies.   
 The Appellate Body noted that the analysis  of price suppression would usually focus on the 
effects of the subsidies on production levels by examining whether there was more production than 
there otherwise would have been as a result of th e marketing loan and counter-cyclical payments.  
This marginal production attributable to the subsi dy would be expected to have an effect on world 
prices, particularly if the subsidy is provided in a country with a meaningful share of world output, 
such as the United States.  The Appellate B ody further observed that one way of doing the 
counterfactual analysis is by using economic mo delling and other quantitative techniques.  The 
Appellate Body added that in this case the pane l could have gone further in its evaluation and 
comparative analysis of the economic simulations presented by the parties and the particular 
parameters used. 
                                                      
24Article 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement  provides: 
Serious prejudice in the sense of paragr aph (c) of Article 5 may arise in any 
case where one or several of the following apply: 
... 
(c) the effect of the subsidy is a significant price undercutting by the 
subsidized product as comp ared with the price of a like product of another 
Member in the same market or significant price suppression, price depression or lost sales in the same market[.] 
25Price depression concerns a situation where prices de crease; by contrast, price suppression refers to a 
scenario where prices would have been higher, or would have risen more, in the absence of the challenged subsidy. WT/AB/11 
Page 15 
 
 
 Regarding the claim by the United States that the panel failed to determine what degree of 
price suppression it considered "significant", the Appe llate Body stated that the panel could have 
provided a clearer explanation of how the factors that it examined supported the finding that the price suppression was "significant".  Nevertheless, it u ltimately upheld the panel's finding, noting that 
several of the factors evaluated by the panel supported the proposition that the effect of marketing 
loan and counter-cyclical payments is "significan t" price suppression in the world market for upland 
cotton.  On the issue of causation and non-attribut ion, the United States claimed that the panel had 
failed to conduct a proper non-attribution analysis under Article 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement  and 
upheld the panel's overall causation analysis.  The Appellate Body accepted the panel's choice of a 
"but for" approach for the assessment of  causation under Article 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement , noting 
that the standard chosen by the panel reflected the counterfactual nature of the price suppression 
analysis, whereby the panel had to determine whether the world price of upland cotton would have been higher in the absence of the subsidies (that is, but for the subsidies).  The Appellate Body 
understood the panel's "but for" standard as requi ring that price suppression be the effect of the 
subsidies at issue and that there be a "genuine  and substantial relationship of cause and effect" 
between the subsidies and price suppression.  The A ppellate Body then turned to the United States' 
allegation that the panel had failed to make a proper non-attribution analysis of price suppression 
caused by factors other than the subsidies.  The A ppellate Body found that the panel was not required 
to conduct a more thorough analysis of the role of  China in world upland cotton trade (the only other 
factor raised by the United States), b ecause the United States had not demonstrated prima facie  that 
Chinese consumption of cotton and changes in China' s trade policies have a suppressing effect on the 
price of upland cotton in the world market.   
 The Appellate Body also rejected the claims by  the United States against the panel's analysis 
of a number of factors which supported the findings of significant price suppression, namely: (i) that the revenue-stabilizing effect of marketing loan a nd counter-cyclical payments insulated United States 
producers of upland cotton from market signals; ( ii) the panel's choice of the parameters for 
determining the cost of production of upland cotton in the United States which the panel used in its 
analysis of the gap between the total costs of production of United States upland cotton producers and 
their market revenues; (iii)  the panel's treatment  of economic simulation mo dels; (iv) the panel's 
analysis of the impact of the elimination of Step  2 payments; (v) the inferences drawn by the panel 
from the magnitude of marketing loan and counte r-cyclical payments; and (vi) the United States' 
substantial proportionate influence in the world upl and cotton market.  The Appellate Body explained 
that many of the claims raised by the United States against the panel's reasoning were primarily 
directed at the panel's appreciation and weighing of  the evidence, and the inferences that the panel 
drew from the evidence, both of which generally fall within the panel's authority as trier of fact.  The 
Appellate Body reviewed those allegations by the United States under the objective assessment 
standard of Article 11 of the DSU.  The Appellate Body found that, in the analysis of these various 
factors, the panel neither disregarded, distor ted, nor misrepresented evidence and arguments 
submitted by the parties, and that the panel did not  rely excessively on the findings from the original 
proceedings or fail to provide reas oned and adequate explanations for its conclusions in the light of 
plausible alternative explanations.  For these reasons , the Appellate Body found that the panel did not 
fail to carry out an objective assessment of the fact s, as required by Article 11 of the DSU and upheld 
the panel's conclusion that the effect of marketi ng loan and counter-cyclical payments is significant 
price suppression. 
 The United States further claimed that the pane l erred in its application of item (j) of the 
Illustrative List of Export Subsidies to the facts of the case in finding that the revised GSM 102 export 
credit guarantee programme constitutes an "export subs idy".  In addition, the United States alleged 
that, in making this finding, th e panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter, as 
required by Article 11 of the DSU.   
 Under item (j) of the Illustrative List of Expor t Subsidies, the "provision by governments ... of 
export credit guarantee ... programmes ... at premium rates which are inadequate to cover the long-WT/AB/11 
Page 16  
 
term operating costs and losses of the programmes" constitutes an "export subsidy".  The Appellate 
Body recalled its findings in the original proceedings  that the test set out in item (j) is essentially 
financial and that the focus of item (j) is on the inadequacy of the premiums.  The Appellate Body 
further explained that, to the extent relevant data is available, an analysis under item (j) will primarily 
involve a quantitative evaluation of the financial performance of a programme, and may include both 
historical data and projections.  Qualitative eviden ce concerning a programme's structure, design, and 
operation may serve as a supplementary means for assessing the adequacy of premiums.  Thus, as a 
general matter, the Appellate Body considered it appr opriate for the panel to have first examined the 
evidence of a quantitative nature, before evaluati ng evidence concerning the structure, design, and 
operation of the programme as add itional elements for appraisal. 
 The United States argued that the panel err oneously relied on evidence submitted by Brazil 
regarding initial estimates reported in the 2007  and 2008 United States budgets, which projected 
losses for the guarantees issued under the revised GSM 102 programme between 2006 and 2008 (namely, the 2006-2008 cohorts).  A cohort is comprised  of all guarantees issued in a given year.  In 
so doing, the United States argued, the panel imprope rly failed to take into account re-estimates data 
submitted by the United States, which projected profits for the GSM 102, GSM 103, and Supplier 
Credit Guarantee Program (SCGP) export credit guarantee programmes from 1992 to 2006 (the data relating to 2006 concerned the operation of the revised GSM 102 programme).   
 As regards the panel's reliance on the original  panel's reasoning that the re-estimates would 
not necessarily turn all initially estimated costs into  profits, the Appellate Body noted the different 
factual circumstances in the original and the co mpliance proceedings.  More specifically, while the 
re-estimates data submitted to the original pane l showed overall losses, the re-estimates data 
submitted to the panel indicated overall profits fo r the period 1992-2006, as well as profits for two 
cohorts closed after the original proceedings.  Moreover, the Appellate Body expressed serious 
concern with regard to the panel's statemen t that "because [the re-estimates] are revised estimates , 
they do not establish that the programmes were provided at no net cost to the United States 
Government".  The Appellate Body observed that  even though both the initial estimates and the 
re-estimates (except for the closed cohorts) are projections and subject to uncertainty, the panel 
marginalized the re-estimates data on the basis of  this uncertainty; at the same time, the panel 
considered the initial estimates important even t hough they too are estimates.  The Appellate Body 
further noted that the panel next examined th e Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)'s Financial 
Statements for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 submitted by Brazil, which reported an estimated loss 
relating to the CCC's export credit guarantees outsta nding as of September 2006.  Thus, the Appellate 
Body found that the panel dismissed the import of the re-estimates, which was the central piece of evidence relied upon by the United St ates for its defence, on the basis of internally inconsistent 
reasoning, and compounded the matter by relying on evidence that suffered fro m the same limitation 
and uncertainty as the re-estimates.  Therefore, the Appellate Body found that in dismissing the 
import of the re-estimates data, the panel acted inc onsistently with Article 11 of the DSU by failing to 
make an objective assessment of the matter before it.  On this basis, the Appellate Body reversed the 
panel's intermediate finding that "the initial s ubsidy estimates provide a strong indication that 
GSM 102 export credit guarantees are provided against premia which are inadequate to cover the 
long-term operating costs and losses of the GSM 102 programme." 
 Turning to examine whether it could complete the analysis, the Appellate Body noted that 
both the re-estimates data and the CCC's Financia l Statements were relevant for the quantitative 
appraisal of the long-term financial performan ce of the revised GSM 102 programme, because both 
were routinely produced by the United States Gove rnment and neither was produced specifically for 
this dispute.  Yet, the Appellate Body recalled th at the former projected overall profits whereas the 
latter estimated loss.  Therefore, the Appellate Body found that the quantitative evidence submitted by 
Brazil and the United States gave rise to equal probab ilities that point to opposite conclusions as to the 
binary outcome in item (j), that is, whether an  export credit guarantee programme is making losses or 
profits.  The Appellate Body went on to review the panel's examination of the additional evidence WT/AB/11 
Page 17 
 
 
submitted by Brazil concerning the structure, design, and operation of the revised GSM 102 
programme, "which further convince[d]" the pane l that export credit guarantees issued under the 
revised GSM 102 programme were provided at prem iums inadequate to cover its long-term operating 
costs and losses, and found no reversible errors.  Su ch evidence included various factors relating to 
the structure, design, and operation of the revised GSM 102 programme, and a comparison of 
GSM 102 fees with minimum premium rates provided in the OECD Arrangement on Officially 
Supported Export Credits.  The Appellate Body uphe ld the panel's finding that the revised GSM 102 
programme is not designed to cover its long-term ope rating costs and losses.  It concluded that, in the 
light of the two plausible outcomes with simila r probabilities that emerged from the quantitative 
evidence, the panel's finding on the non-quantitati ve evidence provided a sufficient evidentiary 
foundation for the conclusion that the revised GSM 102 programme operates at a loss.   On this basis, 
the Appellate Body upheld the panel's overall c onclusion that the revised GSM 102 export credit 
guarantee programme constitutes an export subsidy b ecause it is provided against premiums which are 
inadequate to cover its long-term operating costs and losses within the meaning of item (j) of the 
Illustrative List of Export Subsidies. 
 As a consequence of upholding the panel's fi nding that that export credit guarantees issued 
under the revised GSM 102 programme are export subs idies, the Appellate Body noted that the 
following additional findings of the panel also sta nd: the United States acted inconsistently with 
Articles 10.1 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture , and Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM 
Agreement , by providing export credit guarantees for unscheduled products (including upland cotton) 
and three scheduled products (rice, poultry meat, and pig meat) in a manner that resulted in the 
circumvention of United States' export subsidy re duction commitments; and the United States failed 
to bring itself into conformity with the DSB' s recommendations and rulings stemming from the 
original proceedings. 
 Appellate Body Reports, US – Shrimp (Thailand) , WT/DS343/AB/R / US – Customs Bond 
Directive , WT/DS345/AB/R 
 These appeals concerned the enhanced con tinuous bond requirement (EBR) which was 
imposed by United States Customs and Border Protection (US Customs), with effect from 1 February 2005, pursuant to four instruments constituting the Amended Customs Bond Directive (Amended 
CBD) on imports of frozen warmwater shrimp subject to anti-dumping duties (subject shrimp).  The 
EBR sought to secure payments of anti-dumping and countervailing duties owed at the rates 
reassessed in periodic reviews under the United St ates retrospective duty assessment system.  As a 
result of the EBR, importers of shrimp from cert ain countries are required to post (i) cash deposits 
equal to the margin of dumping found to exist in  the original investigation or the most recent 
assessment review; (ii) a basic bond amount (required of all importers of merchandise into the United 
States); as well as (iii) an enhanced continuous bond (equivalent to 100 per cent of the anti-dumping 
or countervailing duty rate established in the orig inal anti-dumping or countervailing duty order, or 
the most recent administrative review, multiplied by  the value of imports made by the importer during 
the previous 12 months).   
 Before the panel, the complainants argued that the EBR is not consistent with Article 18.1 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement , which prohibits WTO Members from  taking "specific action against 
dumping ... except in accordance with the provisions of GATT 1994", as interpreted by the Anti-
Dumping Agreement .
26  The United States responded that the EBR, as applied to subject shrimp, did 
not constitute "specific action against dumping" an d that, in any event, it was "in accordance" with 
                                                      
26It was undisputed that the GATT provisions referre d to in Article 18.1 are Article VI and the Ad Note.  WT/AB/11 
Page 18  
 
Article VI of the GATT 1994, in particular, the Ad Note to Article VI:2 and 3 ( Ad Note), because the 
EBR constituted "reasonable security".
27 
 As none of the participants appealed the pa nel's finding that the EBR constitutes "specific 
action against dumping", the Appellate Body stated that it was not expressing a view on this finding of the panel.  The Appellate Body began its anal ysis by considering the panel's finding that the 
temporal scope of the Ad Note authorizes security requirements after the imposition of an anti-
dumping duty order.  In particular, the Appellate Body  turned to the interpreta tion of the phrase in the 
Ad Note "pending final determination of the facts in  any case of suspected dumping", which Thailand 
and India contended limited the temporal scope of application of the Ad Note to security taken as 
provisional measures during an original anti-dumping duty investigation.  Th e Appellate Body found 
useful contextual guidance in the wording precedi ng the phrase: "security ... for the payment of anti-
dumping or countervailing ... duty".  For the Appellate  Body, the reference to "payment" reveals the 
nature of the obligation whose performance the secu rity seeks to guarantee, that is, the payment of 
anti-dumping or countervailing duties.  The risk of non-payment of such duties exists both during an original investigation (for which provisional measures can be taken under Article 7 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement ) as well as subsequently.  Under the United States retrospective duty assessment 
system, a risk of non-payment arises in respect of  the difference between the amount collected at the 
time of importation and the liability that may finall y be determined in an assessment review.  The 
Appellate Body noted that in retrospective systems,  the "final determination of the facts" is not 
complete until an assessment re view has been conducted.  As  regards the phrase "suspected 
dumping", the Appellate Body agreed with Thailand a nd India that the existence of "dumping" is no 
longer "suspected" after the imposition of an anti-du mping duty order.  However, "dumping" in the 
Ad Note also covers the related concept of the magn itude of dumping, which, in the United States 
retrospective system, is determined only in an assess ment review.  Thus, until an assessment review is 
conducted, and the import entries are liquidated, th ere is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of 
dumping, so that in that respect dumping remains "suspected".   
 The Appellate Body next addressed Thailand' s and India's appeals of the panel's legal 
interpretation that cash deposits required under Unit ed States law are not anti-dumping duties subject 
to the disciplines of Article 9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .
28  The panel had developed this 
contextual reasoning to support its finding regarding the temporal scope of the Ad Note.  Given that a 
claim had not been raised before the panel by In dia or Thailand against the cash deposits required 
under United States law, and because a ruling on this  issue was not necessary to determine the WTO-
consistency of the EBR, the Appellate Body declar ed the panel's finding that cash deposits are not 
subject to the disciplines of Article 9.3 to be of no legal effect.  Having said this, the Appellate Body noted that, whilst nomenclature under domestic law is not determinative, United States law itself 
states that importers may not post bonds as secu rity following the issuance of an anti-dumping duty 
order, but must instead make cash deposits of est imated anti-dumping duties at levels not exceeding 
the dumping margins established in the anti-dumpi ng duty order or assessed in the most recent 
review.   
 The Appellate Body addressed tw o additional considerations raised by Thailand and India.  
First, in response to the concern that previous A ppellate Body Reports limited the permissible actions 
                                                     
 
27The Ad Note states, in relevant part, that "a Memb er may require reasonable security (bond or cash 
deposit) for the payment of anti-dumping or countervailing duty pending final determination of the facts in any 
case of suspected dumping  or subsidization."  
28Under the United States' retrospective anti-dumping duty assessment system, the USDOC collects 
"cash deposits" at the time of each entry of the subject merchandise at the "estimated anti-dumping duty deposit 
rate of the relevant exporter".  Subsequently, once a year, during the anniversary month of the anti-dumping duty order, interested parties may request the USDOC to  conduct an assessment review to determine the final 
liability for payment of anti-dumping duties owed on entries that occurred during the previous year.  If no 
assessment review is requested, the cash deposits made on entries during the previous year are automatically 
assessed as the final duties. WT/AB/11 
Page 19 
 
 
against dumping to definitive anti-dumping duties,  provisional measures and price undertakings, the 
Appellate Body explained that whether security constitutes "specific action against dumping" should 
be evaluated in the light of the particular circumst ances in which it is applied.  Security, as accessory 
to a principal obligation to pay anti-dumping duties, should be viewed as a component of the imposition and collection of such duties, and does not necessarily, in and of itself, constitute a fourth 
autonomous category of response to dumping.  Se condly, the Appellate Body disagreed with the 
argument of Thailand and India that Article  7 on provisional measures subsumed the Ad Note, 
although there is some overlap in the scope  of application of Article 7 and the Ad Note.  Thus security 
could also be taken after the issuance of the definitive anti-dumping order. 
 For these reasons, the Appellate Body uphe ld the finding of the panel that the Ad Note 
authorizes the taking of reasonable security af ter the imposition of an anti-dumping duty order, 
pending the determination of the final liability for the payment of the anti-dumping duty. 
 Before considering whether the EBR, as app lied, constitutes "reasonable security" within the 
meaning of the Ad Note, the Appellate Body developed a two-step test for determining the 
reasonableness of security.  First, there should be  a determination that the margins of dumping of 
exporters are likely to increase, such that there will be a significant additional liability to be secured.  
This determination must have a ra tional and sufficient evidentiary basis.  The second step of the test 
requires a determination of whether the security is commensurate with the magnitude of the non-payment risk.  The Appellate Body was of the view th at such an analysis must include a determination 
of the "likelihood of default" by individual importers  and reversed the panel's finding to the contrary.  
 Turning to the EBR, as applied, the Appellate Body noted that US Customs had applied the 
EBR because: (i) in the agriculture and aquaculture  sectors, the margins of dumping increased in one 
third of the cases and this increase was significant; (ii)  these sectors represented the source of the bulk 
of defaults; and (iii) the potential additional lia bility was significant due to the large volumes of 
shipments subject to anti-dumping duty orders.  In reviewing the panel findings, the Appellate Body 
did not consider that the likelihood of an increase in the margins and the n eed to secure significant 
additional liability had been demonstrated.  Th e United States' reliance on margins of dumping 
increasing in 38 per cent of the cases in the agricu lture and aquaculture sector, as whole, did not 
constitute sufficient evidence to demonstrate that an increase in margins of dumping for subject 
shrimp was likely, because inter alia  this evidence did not includ e cases of increases in margins 
concerning subject shrimp.  The Appellate Body ther efore upheld the conclusion of the panel that the 
EBR, as applied, was not a "reasonable" security under the Ad Note.   
 The United States appealed the panel's finding th at the EBR, as applied to subject shrimp, is 
not "necessary" to secure compliance with certain United States "laws and regulations" governing the 
final collection of anti-dumping duties, within the meaning of Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.  In examining this claim, the Appellate Body consider ed a "threshold" question raised by India as to 
whether the United States can justify the EBR under Article XX(d), following a finding that the EBR 
constitutes "specific action against dumping", and that the EBR is inconsistent with Article 18.1 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement , as well as the Ad Note to Articles VI:2 and 3 of the GATT 1994.  
Assuming arguendo  that such a defence was available, the Appellate Body upheld the panel's finding 
that the EBR is not "necessary" to secure comp liance with certain United States "laws and 
regulations" governing the final collection of an ti-dumping duties because the United States had not 
demonstrated that the margins of dumping were lik ely to increase resulting in significant additional 
unsecured liability.  For the Appellate Body, in the absence of such a demonstration, it could not be 
said that taking security, such as the EBR, is "n ecessary" in the sense that it contributed to the 
realization of the objective of ensuring the fina l collection of anti-dumping duties in the event of 
default by importers.  In the light of this conclu sion, the Appellate Body did not express a view on the 
threshold question of whether a defence under Artic le XX(d) was available to the United States in 
respect of a measure that had been found to be inconsistent with Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement  because it was inconsistent with the Ad Note to Articles VI:2 and 3 of the GATT 1994. WT/AB/11 
Page 20  
 
 India claimed on appeal that the panel erred in not including, in its terms of reference, two United States provisions—one statutory and one regu latory—which had been mentioned in India's 
panel request, but not in its request for consultati ons.  The Appellate Body upheld the panel's finding 
because the inclusion of these instruments would ha ve "expanded the scope of the dispute" between 
the parties.  In assessing the United States' defe nce under Article XX(d), the Appellate Body also 
found that the panel had not breached Article 11 of the DSU when it included among the "laws and 
regulations" with which the EBR was designed to s ecure compliance, not only laws and regulations 
cited by the United States, but also those cited by Thailand and India.  
 India made additional "as such" claims under Articles 1, 9, 18.1, and 18.4 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement  and Articles 10, 19, 32.1, and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement ; and "as applied" 
claims under Article 9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  regarding the Amended CBD.  These claims 
were consequential to the Appellate  Body reversing certain related " as applied" findings by the panel 
in respect of the EBR.  As India's "as such" claims  were largely predicated on legal interpretations of 
the Ad Note that the Appellate Body had rejected in its discussion of the "as applied" claims, the 
Appellate Body upheld the panel's rejection of the "as such" claims  raised by India regarding the 
Amended CBD. 
 Appellate Body Reports, US – Continued Suspension , WT/DS320/AB/R / Canada – 
Continued Suspension , WT/DS321/AB/R 
These disputes concerned complaints brought by the European Communities against the 
continued application of suspension of concessi ons by Canada and by the United States.   
The suspension of concessions was authorized by th e DSB, pursuant to Article 22 of the DSU, as a 
result of the European Communities' failure to implement the recommendations and rulings in the 
EC – Hormones  dispute.  In that dispute, Canada a nd the United States had challenged European 
Communities' Directive 96/22/EC, which imposed an import ban on meat from cattle treated with six 
hormones—oestradiol-17 β, progesterone, testosterone, trenbolone acetate, zeranol, and melengestrol 
acetate (MGA).  In EC – Hormones , the import ban imposed under Directive 96/22/EC was found to 
be inconsistent with Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement  because it was not based on a risk assessment.  
The European Communities replaced Directive 96/22/EC with Directive 2003/74/EC, which maintained a definitive import ban on meat from cattle treated with oestradiol-17 β, and applied a 
provisional ban on meat treated with progesterone, testosterone, trenbolone acetate, zeranol and 
MGA, on the basis of scientific opinions issued by the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures 
relating to Public Health of the European Communities between 1999 and 2 002.  The European 
Communities argued that, as a result of its notification to the DSB of Directive 2003/74/EC, a measure that it considers implemented th e DSB's recommendations and rulings in EC – Hormones , 
Canada and the United States should have ceased suspending concessions.  The European 
Communities also claimed that, if Canada and the United States did not consider that Directive 
2003/74/EC brought about compliance, they sh ould have initiated panel proceedings under 
Article 21.5 of the DSU.   
The Appellate Body began by analyzing the provi sions of the DSU that are applicable in the 
post-suspension stage of a dispute, that is, after a WTO Member has applied suspension of 
concessions upon obtaining authorization from the DS B, because another WTO Member has failed to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings st emming from a WTO dispute.  In particular, the 
Appellate Body focused its analysis on the first r esolutive condition in Article 22.8 of the DSU, which 
the Appellate Body considered must be underst ood as requiring substantive removal of the measure 
found to be inconsistent in the original proceedi ngs.  According to the Appellate Body, this means 
that the application of the suspension of concessi ons may continue until the removal of the measure 
found by the DSB to be inconsistent results in s ubstantive compliance.  The Appellate Body cautioned 
that this does not mean that Members can rema in passive once concessions have been suspended 
pursuant to the DSB's authorization.  It explai ned that the requirement that the suspension of 
concessions must be temporary indicates that the su spension of concessions is an abnormal state of WT/AB/11 
Page 21 
 
 
affairs that is not meant to continue indefinitely .  WTO Members must act in a cooperative manner so 
that the normal state of affairs, that is, complian ce with the covered agreements and absence of the 
suspension of concessions, may be restored as quickly as possible.  Thus, both the suspending Member and the implementing Member share the res ponsibility to ensure that the application of the 
suspension of concessions is temporary.  The Appellate  Body added that, where, as in this dispute, an 
implementing measure is taken that replaces the measure found to be inconsistent and Members 
disagree as to whether the new measure achieves s ubstantive compliance, both Members have a duty 
to engage in WTO dispute settlement in order to establish whether the resolutive conditions in 
Article 22.8 have been met and whether, as a con sequence, the suspension of concessions must be 
terminated.  The Appellate Body noted that once substantive compliance has been confirmed in WTO 
dispute settlement, the authorization to susp end concessions lapses by operation of law ( ipso jure ), 
because it has been determined that  one of the resolutive conditions set forth in Article 22.8 is 
fulfilled. 
The European Communities argued that the adop tion of an implementing measure must be 
presumed to bring about compliance in the light of the general international law principle of good 
faith.  The Appellate Body rejected this argum ent explaining that the presumption of good faith 
attaches to the actor, but not to the action itself.   Thus, even if the European Communities were 
presumed to have acted in good faith when adopting the implementing measure, that does not mean the measure has achieved substantive compliance.  Consequently, the Appellate Body disagreed with 
the European Communities' argument that the mere existence  of an implementing measure adopted in 
good faith and its subsequent notification to the DSB required Canada and the United States to cease 
the application of the suspension of concessions.   
In addition, the European Communities argue d that the panel exceeded its mandate by 
examining the consistency of Directive 2003/74/EC with the SPS Agreement .  This argument was also 
rejected by the Appellate Body.  In its analysis, the Appellate Body recalled its conclusion that the 
original measure found to be WTO-inconsistent w ill not be considered removed within the meaning 
of Article 22.8 unless substantive compliance is ach ieved.  This meant that whether Directive 
2003/74/EC brings the European Communities into compliance with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in EC – Hormones  was an issue the panel had to resolve in order to determine whether Canada 
and the United States were required to termin ate the suspension of concessions pursuant to 
Article 22.8 and whether failing to do so constituted a violation of Article 23.1, read together with 
Articles 22.8 and 3.7 of the DSU.  For this reason, the Appellate Body upheld the panel's finding that 
"it has jurisdiction to consider the compatib ility of the [European Communities'] implementing 
measure with the SPS Agreement  as part of its review of the claim raised by the European 
Communities with respect to Article 22.8 of the DSU." 
The Appellate Body next turned to the Eur opean Communities' argument that, where a WTO 
Member continues to suspend concessions because it considers that the implementing measure does 
not achieve compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings or is otherwise inconsistent with 
the covered agreements, the suspending Member  has an obligation to initiate Article 21.5 
proceedings.  The Appellate Body observed that Article 21.5 provides for specific procedures for 
adjudicating a disagreement as to the consistency with  the covered agreements of measures taken by a 
Member to implement the DSB's recommendations a nd rulings.  Thus, the A ppellate Body concluded 
that panel proceedings under Article 21.5 are the proper procedure for resolving the disagreement as 
to whether Directive 2003/74/EC has achieved subs tantive compliance and wh ether, as a result, the 
resolutive condition in Article 22.8 that requires termination of the suspension of concessions has 
been met.  Next, the Appellate Body addressed the panel's finding that good offices, consultations, 
and arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU were  other procedures available to the European 
Communities for obtaining the termination of the suspension of concessions.  The Appellate Body 
distinguished these alternative and voluntary m eans of dispute settlement from compulsory 
adjudication.  It noted that such alternative and voluntary means of dispute settlement are not 
available where, as in this case, the dispute mu st proceed to the adjudication phase.  Having WT/AB/11 
Page 22  
 
determined that Article 21.5 proceedings are the proper proceedings, the Appellate Body found that 
the language of Article 21.5 is neutral as to wh ich party may initiate the proceedings and thus 
determined that such proceedings c ould be initiated by either the original complainants (in this case, 
Canada and the United States) or by the original respondent (the European Communities).  It then 
rejected the various reasons put forward by the European Communities in support of its view that 
Article 21.5 proceedings can only be initiated by th e original complainants, such as the adversarial 
nature of WTO dispute settlement, the possibility that an original complainant would fail to appear in 
proceedings initiated by the original respondent, an d potential problems relating to the scope of the 
terms of reference.  The Appellate Body also explained how the burden of proof would apply in 
Article 21.5 proceedings initiated by the original respondent claiming that it has brought itself into 
compliance. 
In their other appeals, Canada and the United Stat es alleged that the panel erred in finding that 
they breached Articles 23.2(a) and 23.1 of the DSU
 by continuing the suspension of concessions after 
the notification of Directive 2003/74/EC, and requested  the Appellate Body to reverse these findings.  
The Appellate Body found that the maintenance of  the suspension of concessions that has been duly 
authorized by the DSB will not constitute a violation of Article 23.1, as long as it is consistent with 
other rules of the DSU, including paragraphs 2 throug h 8 of Article 22.  In the Appellate Body's view, 
the legality of the continued suspension of con cessions in this case depends on whether the measure 
found to be inconsistent in EC – Hormones has been substantively removed within the meaning of 
Article 22.8 of the DSU.  Accordingly, the Appellate  Body found that the panel erred in considering 
that the European Communities' claims under Articles 23.2(a), 23.1, and 21.5 could be examined 
separately from whether the Eur opean Communities implemented the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in EC – Hormones .  Consequently, the Appellate Body  found that the panel erred in 
concluding that, "by maintaining the suspension of concessions even after the notification of 
[Directive 2003/74/EC]", Canada and the United St ates are "seeking redress of a violation with 
respect to [this Directive], within the meaning of Article 23.1 of the DSU".  The Appellate Body, 
furthermore, agreed with the panel in US – Section 301 Trade Act  that a "determination" within the 
meaning of Article 23.2(a) "implies a high degree of fi rmness or immutability, i.e. a more or less final 
decision by a Member in respect of the WTO consis tency of a measure taken by another Member".  
Hence, the Appellate Body rejected the panel's fi nding that statements made by Canada and the 
United States at DSB meetings constituted a "determina tion" within the meaning of Article 23.2(a).  It 
also rejected the panel's finding that the fact that Canada and the United States maintained the 
suspension of concessions confirmed that they had made  a "determination" contrary to Article 23.2(a).  
In addition, the Appellate Body reversed the pane l's finding that Canada and the United States had 
"failed to make any such determ ination consistent with the findi ngs contained in the panel or 
Appellate Body report adopted by the DSB or an  arbitration award rendered under the DSU", in 
breach of Article 23.2(a).   
The European Communities' claimed on appeal that  the panel failed to respect the principle of 
due process and, consequently, also failed to ma ke an objective assessment of the matter under 
Article 11 of the DSU, in selecting and relying upon  two of the scientific experts consulted by the 
panel.  The Appellate Body agreed with the European Communities that  the standard for self-
disclosure set out in section VI.2 of the Rules of Conduct  is relevant for purposes of determining 
whether it is appropriate for a panel to appoint a person as a scientific expert.  It explained that 
whether the disclosed information is likely to affect or give rise to justifiable doubts as to the person's 
independence or impartiality must be objectively determined and properly s ubstantiated.  Where a 
panel determines on the correct facts that there is  a likelihood that the expert's independence and 
impartiality may be affected, or that justifiabl e doubts arise as to the expert's independence or 
impartiality, the panel must not appoint such person as an expert.   
After addressing the applicable standard, the Appellate Body examined the European 
Communities' claim that the panel should not have appointed two scientific experts because of their 
previous affiliation with the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA).  The WT/AB/11 
Page 23 
 
 
Appellate Body considered that there was an obj ective basis to conclude that the institutional 
affiliation with JECFA of the two experts, and their participation in JECFA's evaluations of six of the 
hormones at issue, was likely to affect or give rise to justifiable doubts as to their independence or 
impartiality given that the evaluations conducted by JECFA lie at the heart of the controversy between 
the parties.  For the Appellate Body, the appoi ntment and consultations with the two experts 
compromised the panel's adjudicative independence a nd impartiality.  Therefore, the Appellate Body 
found that the panel infringed the European Communities' due process rights.  Because the appointment and consultations with the two experts compromised the panel's adjudicative 
independence and impartiality, the A ppellate Body also found that the panel failed to comply with its 
duties under Article 11 of the DSU. 
 In its appeal of the panel's interpre tations and conclusions relating to the SPS Agreement , the 
European Communities raised sev eral claims concerning the panel's findings under Articles 5.1 
and 5.7 of the SPS Agreement.   The Appellate Body began its analysis by providing guidance on the 
interpretation and applicat ion of these provisions.  The particular aspects covered in the analysis 
include: the general disciplines applicable to the taking of SPS measures, including the concepts of 
risk assessment and appropriate level of protecti on, as well as the possibility of taking measures on 
the basis of minority scientific views;  the scope of factors that may be considered in a risk assessment 
(in particular, the misuse or abuse and difficulties of  control in the administration of a substance); the 
requirement to analyze the specific risks at issue; wh ether quantification of risk is required; the burden 
of proof; the standard of review applicable to a pa nel's examination of a risk assessment performed by 
a WTO Member; the relationship between Articles 5.1 and 5.7; the general requirements for the 
taking of a provisional SPS measure under Article 5.7;  the particular requirement that the relevant 
scientific evidence be insufficient to perform a risk assessment; the relevance of the level of 
protection chosen by a WTO Member for the dete rmination of whether the relevant scientific 
evidence is insufficient to perfo rm a risk assessment; the relationship between the existence of 
international standards and the ability of a WTO Me mber to take a provisional SPS measure; and, 
finally, under what conditions scientific evidence that was sufficient to perform a risk assessment at a 
point in time can subsequently become insufficien t in the light of new scientific developments. 
 The Appellate Body examined the distincti on drawn by the panel between "risk assessment" 
and "risk management" and concluded that it w as not consistent with the Appellate Body's 
interpretation in EC – Hormones .  The Appellate Body then turn ed to the European Communities' 
argument that the distinction that the panel drew  between "risk assessment" and "risk management" 
resulted in the exclusion of certain factors fro m the panel's analysis under Article 5.1 of the SPS 
Agreement , in particular evidence concerning misuse or abuse and difficulties of control in the 
administration of hormones to cattle for growth pr omotion.  The Appellate Body found that, by 
summarily dismissing the evidence on misuse or abu se in the administration of the hormones in the 
manner that it did, the panel incorrectly interprete d and applied Article 5.1 a nd the definition of "risk 
assessment" in Annex A of the SPS Agreement .  
 The European Communities also argued that th e panel had incorrectly required demonstration 
of actual adverse effects arising from the hormones at issue and a demonstration of a direct causal relationship between the hormones in question and th e adverse health effects.  The Appellate Body 
observed that the European Communities was correct in arguing that it was not required to demonstrate that the adverse health effects would actually arise.  Instead, the European Communities 
was required to demonstrate the possibility that th ese adverse effects could arise from the presence of 
residues of oestradiol-17 β in meat from treated cattle.  The Appe llate Body, however, considered that 
this is what the panel required when it examined  the European Communities' risk assessment.  The 
Appellate Body also explained that the Europ ean Communities had to evaluate whether a causal 
connection exists between the consumption of meat from cattle treated with oestradiol-17 β and the 
possibility of adverse health effects.  Nevertheless,  this did not mean that  the European Communities 
was required to establish a direct causal relationship between the possibility of adverse health effects 
and the residues of oestradiol-17 β in bovine meat.  In order to meet the requirements of Article 5.1 WT/AB/11 
Page 24  
 
and Annex A of the SPS Agreement , it was sufficient for the Europ ean Communities to demonstrate 
that the additional human exposure to residues of oestradiol-17 β in meat from treated cattle is one of 
the factors contributing to the possible adverse h ealth effects.  The European Communities was not 
required to isolate the contribution made by residues of oestradiol-17 β in meat from cattle treated with 
the hormone for growth promotion from the contri butions made by other sources.  The Appellate 
Body explained that where multiple factors may cont ribute to a particular risk, a risk assessor is not 
required to differentiate the individual contributio n made by each factor.  The Appellate Body found, 
in this regard, that the panel did not err in requiri ng a specific evaluation of the risks arising from the 
presence of residues of oestradiol-17 β in meat or meat products from cattle treated with the hormone 
for growth-promoting purposes. 
 Another claim made on appeal by the Europ ean Communities was that the panel improperly 
required quantification of the alleged risks.  The A ppellate Body recalled that the definition of a risk 
assessment does not require WTO Members to establish a minimum magnitude of risk, or express it in numerical terms, but observed that it is neverthele ss difficult to understand the concept of risk as 
being devoid of any indication of potentiality.  The A ppellate Body explained that a risk assessment is 
intended to identify adverse effects and evaluate the possibility that such adverse effects might arise.  
This distinguishes an ascertainable risk from theo retical uncertainty.  After reviewing the panel's 
analysis, the Appellate Body concluded that the pa nel did not incorrectly interpret Article 5.1 and 
paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement as requiring quantification of risk. 
 The European Communities challenged the panel' s articulation and app lication of the burden 
of proof.  The Appellate Body identified several flaws in the panel's description of how it would 
allocate the burden of proof.  In the section a ddressing the DSU, the Appellate Body provided 
guidance as to how the burden of proof should be al located in a dispute such as this one, in which 
there is a disagreement as to whether the susp ension of concessions must be terminated under 
Article 22.8 of the DSU. 
 Finally, the European Communities argued that the panel applied an improper standard of 
review and thereby failed to make an objective asse ssment of the matter. The Appellate Body recalled 
that it is the WTO Member's task to perform the risk  assessment, while a panel's task is to review that 
risk assessment.  Where a panel goes beyond this limited mandate and acts as a risk assessor, it would 
be substituting its own scientific judgement for that  of the risk assessor and, consequently, would 
exceed its functions under Article 11 of the DSU.  Th erefore, the review mandate of a panel is not to 
determine whether the risk assessme nt undertaken by a WTO Member is correct or based on the best 
science, but rather to determine whether that ri sk assessment is supported by coherent reasoning and 
scientific evidence and its conclusions are objectiv ely justifiable. Moreover, the Appellate Body 
recalled that a WTO Member may properly base an SPS measure on divergent or minority views, as 
long as these views are from qualified and respected sources.  Although the scientific basis need not 
represent the majority view within the scientific co mmunity, it must nevertheless have the necessary 
scientific and methodological rigour to be considered  reputable science.  The Appellate Body found 
that the panel approached its task without proper re gard to the standard of review and the limitations 
this places upon the appraisal of expert testimony.  The Appellate Body also found that the panel 
effectively disregarded evidence th at was potentially relevant for th e European Communities' case, in 
contravention of its duty to make an "objectiv e assessment of the facts of the case" pursuant to 
Article 11 of the DSU.     
 Thus, the Appellate Body reversed the panel' s finding that the Europ ean Communities has not 
satisfied the requirements of Article 5. 1 and Annex A, paragraph 4, of the SPS Agreement .  As a 
consequence, it also reversed the panel's findings that Directive 2003/74/EC was not based on a risk 
assessment within the meaning of Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement  and that the European 
Communities' "implementing measure on oestradiol-17 β is not compatible with Article 5.1 of the SPS 
Agreement ."  The Appellate Body, however, was unable to complete the analysis and thus made no WT/AB/11 
Page 25 
 
 
findings on the consistency or in consistency of the European Co mmunities' import ban relating to 
oestradiol-17 β. 
 The Appellate Body then turned to the Eur opean Communities appeal of the panel's findings 
concerning Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement .  The Appellate Body disagreed with the panel's finding 
that the determination of whether scientific ev idence is sufficient to assess the existence and 
magnitude of a risk must be disconnected from the intended level of protection.  The Appellate Body 
explained that the fact that a WTO Member has cho sen to set a higher level of protection may require 
it to perform certain research as part of its risk  assessment that is different from the parameters 
considered and the research carried out in the risk  assessment underlying an international standard.  
Nonetheless, the Appellate Body emphasized that  whatever level of protection a WTO Member 
chooses does not pre-determine the outcome of its de termination of the sufficiency of the relevant 
scientific evidence.  The determination as to whet her available scientific ev idence is sufficient to 
perform a risk assessment must remain, in  essence, a rigorous and objective process. 
 The European Communities also argued that  the panel considered the existence of 
international standards as establishing an "irrebu ttable presumption" that the relevant scientific 
evidence in this case is not "insufficient" for the purposes of Article 5.7.  The Appellate Body 
explained that the presumption of consistency of SPS measures conforming to international standards 
established under Article 3.2 does not apply where a Member has chosen a higher level of protection 
and does not adopt a measure that conforms to an in ternational standard.  According to the Appellate 
Body, the existence of a risk assessment performed  by JECFA does not mean that scientific evidence 
underlying it must be considered to be sufficient su ch that provisional measures within the meaning of 
Article 5.7 cannot be taken.  Moreover, scientific  evidence that may have been relied upon by an 
international body when performing the risk assessment  that led to the adopti on of an international 
standard at a certain point in time may no longer be valid, or may become insufficient in the light of subsequent scientific developments.  However, th e Appellate Body added that it is nevertheless 
reasonable for a WTO Member challenging the co nsistency with Article 5.7 of a provisional SPS 
measure adopted by another Member to submit JECFA's risk assessments and supporting studies as 
evidence that the scientific eviden ce is not insufficient to perform a risk assessment.  Yet, such 
evidence is not dispositive and may be rebutted by the Member taking the provisional SPS measure.  
Having examined the panel's analysis, the Appella te Body rejected the European Communities' 
contention that the panel had understood the existen ce of an international standard as establishing an 
irrebuttable presumption.  
 In addition, the European Communities took i ssue with the panel's finding that where an 
international standard exists "there must be a critical mass  of new evidence and/or information that 
calls into question the fundamental precepts of previous knowledge and evidence so as to make 
relevant, previously sufficient, evidence now insuffi cient."  The Appellate Body considered that the 
panel's "critical mass" test could be understood as requiring that the new scientific evidence lead to a 
paradigm shift, which is too inflexible.  Such a t est imposed an excessively high threshold in terms of 
the change in the scientific evidence that would ma ke previously sufficient evidence insufficient.  
This erroneous threshold led the pa nel to fail to attribute significance to evidence that could cast doubt 
on whether the relevant scientific evidence still permit s of a sufficiently objec tive assessment of risk. 
 Moreover, the Appellate Body disagreed with the panel's use of JECFA's risk assessments as 
"benchmarks" for determining "insufficiency" under Article 5.7.  The Appellate Body explained that 
in circumstances where a Member adopts a higher le vel of protection than that reflected in the 
international standard, the legal test that app lies to the "insufficiency" of the evidence under 
Article 5.7 is not made stricter.  Consequently, th e Appellate Body reversed  the panel's finding setting 
out "a "critical mass" test. 
 The Appellate Body also addressed the panel' s allocation of the burden of proof under 
Article 5.7, which was challenged by the European  Communities, and found that the panel erred in WT/AB/11 
Page 26  
 
this respect for reasons similar to those that it ha d explained in connection w ith the panel's assessment 
under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement .  However, the Appellate Body found that the panel did not 
err by limiting its review to the insufficiencies in  the relevant scientific evidence identified by the 
European Communities. 
 The Appellate Body concluded that the panel erred in its interpreta tion and application of 
Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement  by adopting an incorrect legal test to assess the European 
Communities' explanations concerning the insufficien cies in the relevant scientific evidence.  Having 
determined that the panel incorrectly in terpreted and applied Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement , the 
Appellate Body did not find it necessary to address the European Communities' claim that the panel 
acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU. 
 Accordingly, the Appellate Body reversed the panel's finding that "it has not been 
demonstrated that relevant scientific evidence was in sufficient, within the meaning of Article 5.7 of 
the SPS Agreement , in relation to any of the five hormon es with respect to which the European 
Communities applies a provisional ban."  The Appella te Body observed that the panel's finding that 
"the [European Communities'] compliance measure do es not meet the requirements of Article 5.7 of 
the SPS Agreement  as far as the provisional ban on progest erone, testosterone, zeranol, trenbolone 
acetate and melengestrol acetate is concerned" was premised on the panel's earlier finding concerning 
the "insufficiency" of the relevant scientific info rmation and, therefore, it too could not stand.  
However, the Appellate Body was unable to complete  the analysis and, hence, made no findings on 
the consistency or inconsistency of the European  Communities' provisional SPS measure relating to 
progesterone, testosterone, zeranol, trenbolone acetate, and MGA. 
 The Appellate Body stated that, because it was unable to complete the analysis as to whether 
Directive 2003/74/EC has brought the European Comm unities into substantive compliance within the 
meaning of Article 22.8 of the DSU, the recommendations and rulings adopted by the DSB in  EC – Hormones  remain operative.  In the light of the ob ligations arising under Article 22.8 of the 
DSU, the Appellate Body recommended that the DS B request the United States, Canada, and the 
European Communities to initiate Article 21.5 proceed ings without delay in order to resolve their 
disagreement as to whether the European Communities has removed the measure found to be 
inconsistent in EC – Hormones  and whether the application of the suspension of concessions by 
Canada and the United States remains legally valid. 
 Appellate Body Report, India – Additional Import Duties , WT/DS360/AB/R 
This dispute concerned a complaint brought by the United States against two specific border 
measures imposed by India on imports of certain products entering its cu stoms territory.  In particular, 
the United States challenged: the "Additional Duty" imposed by India on imports of alcoholic liquor 
for human consumption (beer, wine, and distilled spir its, collectively "alcoholic beverages"); and the 
"Extra-Additional Duty" imposed by India on imports of a wider range of products, including certain 
agricultural and industrial products, as well as alcoho lic beverages.  Before the panel, the United 
States claimed that the Additional Duty, when im posed in conjunction with India's basic customs 
duty, is inconsistent with Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 because it results in the 
imposition of duties that exceed the "o rdinary customs duties" or "other duties or charges" set forth in 
India's Schedule of Concessions.  The United States brought a similar claim against the Extra-
Additional Duty.  In response, India contended th at the Additional Duty and the Extra-Additional 
Duty are charges equivalent to internal tax es imposed consistently with Article III:2 and, 
consequently, are justified under Article II:2(a) of the GATT 1994.  At the time of the establishment of the panel, India levied both the Additional Duty  and the Extra-Additional Duty in addition to its 
"basic customs duty".  After the establishment of th e panel, India issued new Customs Notifications 
that exempted the products listed therein from th e imposition of the Additional Duty and provided, 
under certain conditions, for a refund of the Extra-A dditional Duty paid upon a product's importation.  WT/AB/11 
Page 27 
 
 
The panel found, however, that its terms of reference did not extend to these new Customs 
Notifications.     
 On appeal, the United States challenged the pane l's interpretation of Articles II:1(b), II:2(a), 
and III:2 of the GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body di sagreed with the panel that ordinary customs 
duties (OCDs) and other duties or charges (ODCs) within the meaning of Article II:1(b) must always 
be considered to "inherently discriminate against im ports".  The Appellate Body explained that it did 
not see a basis for the panel's conclusion that "inhe rent discrimination" is a relevant or necessary 
feature of duties and charges covered by Article II: 1(b).  In particular, the Appellate Body observed 
that Article II:1(b) does not set out a specific rationa le for imposing duties or charges, and there exist 
rationales other than "inherent discrimination" for applying such duties or charges.  The Appellate 
Body considered that the second sentence of Article II:1(b) could be read to suggest that, even if 
OCDs inherently discriminate against imports, ODCs  cover all duties or charges of any kind imposed 
on or in connection with importation other than  OCDs, including duties or charges that do not 
inherently discriminate against imports.  The Appe llate Body also disagreed with the panel that 
Articles II:2(b) and II:2(c) provide contextual support for the proposition that duties and charges 
falling under Article II:2 do not "inherently discrim inate against imports".  The Appellate Body 
explained that, for anti-dumping and countervailing du ties under Article II:2(b), there is nominally no 
domestic charge that would serve as the counter part to which such duties would correspond.  
Likewise, charges under Article II:2(c) are imposed exclusively on imports, and also do not have an 
obvious domestic counterpart. 
 The Appellate Body further found that the panel e rred in its interpretation of two elements of 
Article II:2(a), that is, "equivalen ce" and "consistency with Article III: 2".  In particular, the Appellate 
Body disagreed with the panel's conclusions th at the term "equivalent" does not require any 
quantitative comparison of the charge and the in ternal tax, and that understanding the term 
"equivalent" as requiring a quantitative comparis on would make redundant  the reference to 
consistency with Article III:2.  Instead, the Appellate  Body considered that th e term "equivalent" calls 
for a comparative assessment that is both qualitative and quantitative in nature.  According to the 
Appellate Body, such an assessment is not limited to the relative function of a charge and an internal 
tax, but must also include quantitative consider ations relating to their effect and amount.   
 In addition, the Appellate Body found that the panel erred in its interpretation that the element 
of "consistency with Article III:2" is not a necessar y condition in the application of Article II:2(a).  
The Appellate Body considered that Article II:2(a)  should not be interpreted in a manner that reads 
out the significance, for purposes of an Article II:2( a) inquiry, of the element of "consistency with 
Article III:2", or at most ascribes to it the purpose of acknowledging, or calling attention to, relevant 
requirements stipulated elsewhere in the GATT 1994.  Rather, the requirement  of "consistency with 
Article III:2" must be read together with, and impa rts meaning to, the requirement that a charge and 
internal tax be "equivalent".  The Appellate Body  explained that whether a charge is imposed "in 
excess of" a corresponding internal tax is part of an  Article II:2(a) analysis, and thus found that the 
element of "consistency with Article III:2" fo rms an integral part of the assessment under 
Article II:2(a) of whether a charge a nd an internal tax are "equivalent". 
 Having found several errors in the panel's in terpretation of Articles II:1(b) and II:2(a), the 
Appellate Body reversed the panel's finding that  the United States failed to establish that the 
Additional Duty and the Extra-Additional Duty are inc onsistent with Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the 
GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body ex plained that, having based its analysis of the United States' 
claims on an erroneous interpretation of Articles II: 1(b) and II:2(a), the pane l could not have arrived 
at a proper conclusion regarding whether the A dditional Duty and the Extra-Additional Duty are 
consistent with Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994. 
 The United States also claimed that the panel erred in requiring the United States to establish 
a prima facie  case that the Additional Duty and Extra- Additional Duty "inherently discriminate WT/AB/11 
Page 28  
 
against imports".  The Appellate Body recalled the general rules concerning the burden of proof, 
whereby a complainant must put forward argum ents and evidence sufficient to establish a  prima facie  
case of WTO-inconsistency regardin g a respondent's measure, and observed that what is required to 
satisfy this burden will necessarily  vary from case to case.  The Appellate Body explained that, 
although the complainant must establish the prima facie  case in support of its complaint, the 
respondent bears the burden of proving the facts that  it asserts in its defenc e.  The Appellate Body 
further emphasized that not every challenge under Article II:1(b) will require a showing with respect to Article II:2(a).  However, the Appellate Body found that, in the circumstances of this dispute, 
where the potential for application of Article II:2(a) was clear from the face of the challenged measures, the United States was required to present ar guments and evidence that  the Additional Duty 
and the Extra-Additional Duty were not justified under Article II:2(a).  The Appellate Body added 
that India, in asserting that the challenged measur es were justified under Article II:2(a), was required 
to adduce arguments and evidence in support of its  assertion.  The Appellate Body further cautioned 
that failure of a party to prove the facts it asserts leaves that party at risk of losing the case.   
 Having reversed the panel's interpretation and findings under Articles II:1(a), II:1(b),  
and II:2(a), the Appellate Body declined to make an additional finding on the United States' claim 
under Article 11 of the DSU that the panel failed to  carry out an objective assessment of the matter 
before it. 
 The Appellate Body turned to consider the Unite d States' request that it complete the analysis 
and rule on whether the Additional Duty on alcoho lic beverages and the Extra-Additional Duty are 
inconsistent with these provisions.  The Appellate Body noted that India had not contested the United 
States' assertion that the Additional Duty and the Extra-Additional Duty, when applied in conjunction 
with the basic customs duty, may subject imports of certain products to an aggregate amount of duties that is in excess of the rates specified in Indi a's Schedule of Concessions.  Instead, India had argued 
that the Additional Duty and the Extra-Additional Duty are charges equivalent to internal taxes 
imposed consistently with Article  III:2 and, consequently, are jus tified under Article II:2(a) of the 
GATT 1994.  India explained that the Additional Du ty was intended to counterbalance state-level 
excise taxes, while the Extra-A dditional Duty was intended to counterbalance three categories of 
internal taxes: (i) state value-adde d or sales taxes; (ii) India's Cent ral Sales Tax; and (iii) other local 
taxes and charges imposed by state or local governments. 
 Regarding the issue of whether the Additiona l Duty was justified under Article II:2(a), the 
Appellate Body observed that there was no specific in formation before the panel regarding the excise 
duties actually levied by different states on alcoho lic beverages, or evidence regarding the form and 
structure of the rates of such duties.  Although the Appellate Body noted India' s statement to the panel 
that the rates of Additional Duty were the resu lt of a "process of averaging", and the panel's 
observation that this "could have meant that th e rate of [Additional Duty] for alcoholic liquor 
exceeded the rate of excise duty applicable to like domestic alcoholic liquor in some States and in 
some price bands", the Appellate Body also pointed  out the panel's statement that it had not been 
provided "further particulars" regarding the averaging process or the fiscal burden imposed in different states on low and high-priced alcoholic be verages.  In these circumstances, the Appellate 
Body considered that the Additional Duty would not be ju stified under Article II:2(a) of the GATT 
1994 insofar as it results in the imposition of charges on imports of alcoholic beverages in excess of 
the excise duties applied on like domestic products, and consequently, that this would render the 
Additional Duty inconsistent with Article II:1(b) to the extent that it results in the imposition of duties 
on alcoholic beverages in excess of those set forth in India's Schedule of Concessions.  
 As to whether the Extra-Additional Duty w as justified under Article II:2(a), the Appellate 
Body noted the panel's observation that there was " no evidence" in the record to demonstrate that, on 
the date of establishment of the panel, there were st ates that did not levy internal taxes or charges on 
products subject to the Extra-Additional Duty; or that relevant internal taxes or charges were, in fact, 
imposed on products subject to the Extra-Additional Duty in the course of their import into India's WT/AB/11 
Page 29 
 
 
customs territory.  At the same time, the Appellate Body recalled the panel's finding that, at the time 
of the establishment of the panel, there was no ref und or credit of the Extra-Additional Duty against 
certain internal taxes paid in respect of a domestic  re-sale transaction.  The Appellate Body also 
recalled the panel's observation th at "there could conceivably be" circumstances where the Extra-
Additional Duty was levied at a rate that was hi gher than the rate resulting from imposition of the 
relevant internal taxes on li ke domestic goods.  On this basis, the Appellate Body considered  that the 
Extra-Additional Duty would not be justified under Article II:2(a)  of the GATT 1994 insofar as it 
results in the imposition of charges on imports in ex cess of the sales tax, value-added tax, and other 
local taxes and charges that India alleges are equivalent to the Extra-Additional Duty, and 
consequently, that this would render the Extra-Additio nal Duty inconsistent with Article II:1(b) to the 
extent that it results in the imposition of duties in excess of those set forth in India's Schedule of 
Concessions.   
 As regards India's other appeal, the Appellate B ody disagreed that the panel acted contrary to 
Articles 3.2, 11, and 19 of the DSU in providing "concluding remarks" relating to the entry into force of new Customs Notifications issued by India that  provided certain exemptions from payment of the 
Additional Duty and the Extra-Additional Duty.  The Appellate Body explained that the panel's 
"concluding remarks" did not amount to legal findi ngs or recommendations within the meaning of the 
first sentence of Article 19.1 of the DSU.  In stead, the Appellate Body said they were simply 
explanations of the panel's conclusi ons, which are permissible.     
 In the light of these considerations, the A ppellate Body made no recommendation, in this 
case, to the DSB pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU. 
 Appellate Body Reports, EC – Bananas III (Article  21.5 – Ecuador  II) , 
WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU and Corr.1 / EC – Bananas III (Article  21.5 – US) , 
WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA and Corr.1 
 These disputes concerned the European Commun ities' regime for the importation of bananas 
established by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1964/200529 and associated implementing regulations  
(EC Bananas Import Regime), specifically a tariff q uota of 775,000 metric tonnes (mt) for duty-free 
imports of bananas originating in African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries and a most-favoured nation (MFN) tariff of  €176/mt app licable to imports from non-ACP countries.   
The European Communities' Schedule of Concessi ons sets out the following commitments on 
bananas: under tariff heading 0803. 00.12, a bound rate of €680/mt a nd a tariff quota of 2.2 million mt, 
with an in-quota tariff rate bound at €75/mt.  Th e tariff quota is subject to the terms and conditions 
indicated in the Bananas Framework Agreement att ached to the European Communities' Schedule.  
Before the panel in the compliance proceedings, both Ecuador and the United States claimed that 
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1964/200 5 and associated implementing regulations failed to implement 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the or iginal proceedings, an d that the European 
Communities' revised import regime for bana nas was inconsistent with the GATT 1994. 
 In its appeal, the European Communities allege d that the panel acted inconsistently with 
Article 9.3 of the DSU by maintaining different timetables for the Article 21.5 proceedings between 
the European Communities and Ecuador and betw een the European Communities and the United 
States.  The Appellate Body found that the pane l did not exceed the bounds of its discretion in 
maintaining different timetables for the two Article 21.5 proceedings at issue.  The Appellate Body 
considered that Article 9.3 requires panels, to the extent possible, to harmonize timetables, but does 
not require the adoption of identical timetables in multiple proceedings and leaves a margin of 
discretion to panels.  The Appellate Body also found that the European Communities' due process 
rights had not been infringed. 
                                                     
 
29Council Regulation (EC) No. 1964/2005 of 29 November 2005 on the tariff rates for bananas. WT/AB/11 
Page 30  
 
 Another claim raised by the European Communities on appeal was that the panel erred in finding that the United States and Ecuador were not ba rred by the Understandings on Bananas they had 
concluded with the European Communities in  2001 from initiating the present compliance 
proceedings.  The European Communities contended that the Understandings constituted a "mutually 
agreed solution" that precluded recourse to Article 21.5.  The panel had found that the Understandings 
on Bananas could "legally bar" Ecuador and th e United States from bringing compliance challenges 
only if they "constituted a positive solution and eff ective settlement to the dispute".  However, 
according to the panel, this was not the case he re because: (i) the Understandings on Bananas 
provided only for a means, that is, a series of futu re steps, for resolving and settling the dispute; 
(ii) the adoption of the Understandings on Bananas was subsequent to the adoption of 
recommendations, rulings, and suggestions by the DS B; and (iii) the parties had made conflicting 
communications to the DSB concerning the Understandings on Bananas.   
 The Appellate Body disagreed with the panel's reasoning that the Understandings must constitute 
a "positive solution and effective settlement" to the dispute to preclude recourse to Article 21.5 
proceedings.  The Appellate Body found that the mere agreement to a "solution" does not necessarily 
imply that parties waive their right to have recourse  to the dispute settlement system in the event of a 
disagreement as to the existence or consistency with  the covered agreements of a measure taken to 
comply.  Rather, the Appellate Body considered that  there must be a clear indication in the agreement 
between the parties of a relinquishment of the right to  have recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  The 
Appellate Body found no such relinquishment in  the Understandings on Bananas and therefore 
concluded that the complainants were not precl uded from initiating these Article 21.5 proceedings.  
Thus, the Appellate Body upheld the pane l's finding, albeit for different reasons. 
 The Appellate Body, moreover, disagreed with the panel on the relevance of the timing of the 
Understandings.  The Appellate Body found that noth ing in the DSU prevented parties to a dispute 
from reaching a settlement that would preclude recour se to Article 21.5 proceedings after the adoption 
of recommendations and rulings by the DSB and that  Article 22.8 of the DSU clearly envisaged the 
possibility of entering into mutually agreed soluti ons after recommendations and rulings are made by 
the DSB.  The Appellate Body also found that, where the text of the Understandings was clear, the communications to the DSB by the parties had li mited relevance, if any, for the purpose of 
interpreting the Understandings. 
 In the United States case, the European Commun ities further claimed on appeal that the panel 
erred in finding that the EC Bananas Import Regime  constituted a "measure taken to comply" within 
the meaning of Article 21.5 of the DSU and was ther efore properly before the panel.  The European 
Communities argued that, in the Understanding on Bananas, the United States and the European 
Communities had agreed to consider the adoption of  a tariff quota-based import regime, as provided 
in subparagraph C.2 of the Understandings, as the fi nal "measure taken to comply", and that the 
dispute was resolved with the introduction of that re gime.  The Appellate Body rejected this argument 
and found instead that it was clear from the language  of the Understanding that the tariff quota-based 
import regime was intended to be of an interim natu re rather than the final measure that would bring 
the European Communities into compliance.  Th erefore, the Appellate Body found that the 
EC Bananas Import Regime was in itself a "measure ta ken to comply" and thus could be challenged in 
Article 21.5 compliance proceedings.
30 
 The European Communities additionally alleged th at the panel in the United States case erred in 
making findings with respect to a measure that had ceased to exist subsequent to the establishment of 
                                                      
30Because it had already foun d that the EC Bananas Import Regime, established by Council Regulation 
(EC) No. 1964/2005, was itself a "measure taken to comply" and could be challenged in compliance 
proceedings, the Appellate Body clarified that it was no t necessary to establish whether a "particularly close 
relationship" existed between that Regime and the 2002-2005 bananas import regime that the European Communities contended was the measure taken to comply. WT/AB/11 
Page 31 
 
 
the panel, but before the panel issued its report.  The Appellate Body held that once a panel has been 
established and the terms of reference for the panel have been set, the panel has the competence to 
make findings with respect to the measures covered by its terms of reference.  The Appellate Body 
therefore considered that is was within the discretion of the panel to decide how it took into account 
subsequent modifications or a repeal of the measure at issue.   
 The European Communities appealed the panel's finding that the panel was not precluded from 
conducting, under Article 21.5 of the DSU, the assessmen t requested by Ecuador in this dispute.  The 
European Communities argued that in bringing itsel f into compliance it had implemented a suggestion 
made by the first Ecuador compliance panel pursuan t to Article 19.1 of the DSU.  Moreover, the 
European Communities claimed that the panel erre d by not assessing in the Article 21.5 proceedings 
whether the European Communities had effectively im plemented any of the suggestions of the first 
Ecuador compliance panel.  The Appellate Body f ound that the measures actually taken by a Member 
to comply with DSB recommendations and rulings, whether or not they follow the suggestions for 
implementation made in previous proceedings, are the subject matter of Article 21.5 proceedings.  
Therefore, Ecuador had the right to challenge befo re a compliance panel the measure actually taken to 
comply by the European Communities, whether or not such measure implemented a suggestion made 
pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU.  The Appella te Body also found that means of implementation 
suggested by panels or the Appellate Body in pr evious proceedings may provide useful guidance and 
assistance to Members and facilitate implementation especially in complex cases; however, the fact 
that a Member has chosen to follow a suggestion does not create a presumption of compliance in Article 21.5 proceedings because the guidance provide d by suggestions is necessarily prospective in 
nature and cannot, therefore, take account of all ci rcumstances in which implementation may occur.  
The Appellate Body, therefore, upheld the panel' s decision to assess whether the EC Bananas Import 
Regime was consistent with the covered agreements, rather than to examine whether the European 
Communities had complied with one of the suggestions  for implementation made by the first Ecuador 
Article 21.5 panel. 
 The European Communities also appealed the panel's findings in both the Ecuador and United 
States disputes that the EC Bananas Import Regime, and in particular the duty-free tariff quota of 
775,000 mt reserved for imports from ACP countries,  was inconsistent with Article XIII:1, the 
chapeau of Article XIII:2, and Article XIII:2(d) of the GATT 1994.
31  According to the European 
Communities, the ACP duty-free tariff quota of 775,000 mt was not a restriction within the meaning of Article XIII, but a preference subject only to th e requirements of Article I:1; it simply limited the 
tariff preference granted to ACP countries, while  imposing no quantitative limitation on "aggrieved 
Members", that is to say MFN suppliers such as Ec uador.  The Appellate Body observed that tariff 
quotas are in principle lawful under the GATT 1994, but their application is, under the terms of Article XIII:5, made subject to the disciplines of Article XIII.  The Appellate Body found that 
Article XIII:1 should be read as requiring that no tariff quota be applied by a Member on the 
importation of any product of the territory of any other Member, unless the importation of the like 
product of all third countries is similarly made s ubject to the tariff quota.  Consequently, the term 
"similarly restricted" requires, in the case of tari ff quotas, that imports of like products from all third 
countries be given access to, and an opportunity of pa rticipation in, the tariff quota.  Therefore, the 
Appellate Body found that the ACP tariff quota, wh ich was reserved for imports from ACP countries 
and denied access to non-ACP countries, did not appl y to, or "similarly restrict", imports of like 
products from non-ACP countries in contravention of Article XIII:1.  The Appellate Body also found 
that the ACP tariff quota failed to meet the requi rements regarding distribution and allocation in 
Article XIII:2, insofar as the exclusion of non-AC P suppliers from the tariff quota was not aimed "at a 
distribution of trade ... approaching as closely as possible the shares which the various Members 
might be expected to obtain in the absence of [the] restrictions", as re quired by Article XIII:2.  Finally 
                                                     
 
31The panel had also found that the zero tariff pr eference for ACP imports was inconsistent with 
Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and could not be justified by invoking the Doha Article I Waiver because the Waiver had expired on 1 January 2006.  The European Communities did not appeal that finding. WT/AB/11 
Page 32  
 
the Appellate Body found that the exclusion of non-ACP suppliers from the quota allocation did not 
respect the allocation requirements in Article X III:2(d), based upon the representative proportions of 
Members having a substantial interest in the banana market of the European Communities.  This is so 
because allocating the entire tariff quota exclusively to ACP countries, and reserving no shares to non-ACP suppliers, cannot be considered to be b ased on the respective shares that ACP and non-ACP 
supplier countries might be expected to obtain in the European Communities' banana market in the 
absence of the tariff quota. 
 In addition, the European Communities appealed  the panel's finding that the Doha waiver 
from Article I:1 of the GATT 1994
32 (Doha Article I Waiver) constitu ted a "subsequent agreement" 
within the meaning of Article 31(3)(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 33 (Vienna 
Convention ), by virtue of which WTO Members had agreed to extend the tariff quota concession (at a 
level of 2.2  million mt with an in-quota rate of  €75/mt) in the European Communities' Schedule of 
Concessions beyond 31 December 2002, when the Ba nanas Framework Agreem ent annexed to that 
Schedule was to expire.  The European Communities also appealed the panel's consequential finding 
that the tariff of €176/mt applied by the European  Communities to MFN imports is inconsistent with 
Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 because it is in excess of its tariff bindings on bananas.  The 
European Communities argued that the Doha Article I Waiver did not constitute an agreement on the 
interpretation or the application of its market acc ess commitments, nor an amendment to its Schedule; 
therefore, it could not have extended the durati on of the tariff quota concession beyond 31 December 
2002.  The Appellate Body reversed the panel's findi ng that, by virtue of the Doha Article I Waiver, 
WTO Members had agreed to extend the tariff quota concession beyond 31 December 2002.  The 
Appellate Body reasoned that the function of a wa iver is not to modify the interpretation or 
application of existing provisions in the covered ag reements, let alone to add to or amend the rights 
and obligations under an agreement or Schedule.  Th erefore, the Doha Article I Waiver could not be 
regarded as an agreement on the application of the European Communities' market access 
commitments within the meaning of Article 31(3)(a) of the Vienna Convention , which extended the 
tariff quota concession in the European Communities' Schedule.  The Appellate  Body found that the 
Doha Article I Waiver does not constitute an am endment of the European Communities' Schedule 
because it was not adopted in acco rdance with the requirements and procedures of Article X of the 
WTO Agreement .  The Appellate Body analyzed the terms and conditions of the Doha Article I 
Waiver and found that it did not interpret or modify the tariff quota concession, as bound in the European Communities' Schedule, or the Ba nanas Framework Agreement.  The Waiver was 
concerned with the zero-duty preference for ACP suppliers, not with the ta riff quota concession for 
MFN suppliers specified in the European Communities' Schedule. 
 Ecuador raised an other appeal that was conditioned upon the Appellate  Body reversing the 
panel's finding that the Doha Article I Waiver  extended the European Communities' tariff quota 
concession (in an amount of 2.2 million mt bound at the in-quota rate of €75/mt) beyond 
31 December 2002.  Ecuador challenged the panel' s finding that the European Communities' tariff 
quota concession for bananas was "unequivocally in tended to expire on 31 December 2002", on 
account of paragraph 9 of the Bananas Framework Agreement.  The Appellate Body reversed the 
panel's finding and found that the tariff quota con cession of 2.2 million mt bound at the in-quota rate 
of €75/mt in the European Communities' Schedule of Concessions did not expire on 31 December 
2002.  Instead it found that the tariff quota concessi on remains in force until the rebinding process and 
the negotiations pursuant to Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 have been completed, and the 
resulting tariff rate has been c onsolidated in the Eur opean Communities' Schedule.  The Appellate 
Body found that the expiration date in paragr aph 9 of the Bananas Framework Agreement only 
concerned the agreement among its signatories on the allocation of shares within the overall tariff 
                                                     
 
32Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference held in Doha, European Communities – The ACP-EC 
Partnership Agreement , Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/MIN(01)/15; WT/L/436.  The Doha Article I 
Waiver expired on 31 December 2007 in resp ect of ACP products other than bananas. 
33Done at Vienna, 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331; 8 International Legal Materials 679. WT/AB/11 
Page 33 
 
 
quota.  Therefore, the Appellate Body disagreed w ith the panel that "the expiration of the Bananas 
Framework Agreement on 31 December 2002 would auto matically imply expiration of the European 
Communities' tariff quota concession under the terms of  its Schedule".  Having concluded that the 
tariff quota concession in the European Communities'  Schedule had not expired on 31 December 2002 
and remains in force, the Appellate Body upheld , albeit for different reasons, the panel's ultimate 
conclusion that that the tariff applied by the Eu ropean Communities at a rate of €176/mt to MFN 
imports of bananas, without consideration of th e tariff quota of 2.2 million mt bound at an in-quota 
tariff rate of €75/mt, is inconsistent with the first sentence of Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, 
insofar as it constitutes "an ordinary customs duty in excess of that set forth and provided for in Part I 
of the European Communities' Schedule, and results  in a treatment for the commerce of bananas from 
MFN countries (i.e., non-ACP WTO Members) that is le ss favourable than that provided for in Part I 
[of the] European Communities' Schedule." 
 Finally, the European Communities appealed th e panel's finding that to the extent that the 
EC Bananas Import Regime contained measures inc onsistent with certain provisions of the GATT 
1994, it nullified or impaired benefits accruing to  the United States under that Agreement.  The 
European Communities claimed that, considering th at the United States was a net importer and did 
not export bananas, the preference for ACP bana nas did not deprive the United States of any 
competitive opportunity to export bananas towards th e market of the European Communities, nor did 
it change the United States' competitive relationship w ith any banana exporting country in the world.  
The Appellate Body upheld the panel's finding of nullification or impairment with respect to the 
United States.  The Appellate Body noted that Article 3.8 of the DSU places the burden on the 
respondent of rebutting the presumption that a GATT- inconsistent measure nullifies or impairs the 
benefits accruing to the complainant.  The Appe llate Body found that the European Communities' 
argument that the United States did not have an interest in exporting bananas to the European 
Communities was not sufficient to rebut the pres umption of nullification or impairment under 
Article 3.8 resulting from a breach of the GATT 1994.  It observed that the United States could at any 
time start exporting the few bananas it produces to  the European Communities; while this was 
unlikely, it did not disprove that the United States was a potential exporter.  Moreover, the 
inconsistent measures could have an impact upon the domestic banana market of the United States.  
The Appellate Body agreed with the panel that the arguments of the European Communities on the 
alleged lack of nullification or im pairment have not rendered irreleva nt the considerations made by 
the panel and by the Appellate Body in the course of the original proceedings, regarding the actual 
and potential trade interests of the United States in this dispute. 
 Appellate Body Reports, China – Auto Parts (EC) , WT/DS339/AB/R / China – Auto Parts 
(US) , WT/DS340/AB/R / China – Auto Parts (Canada) , WT/DS342/AB/R  
 This was the first appeal filed by China since its accession to the WTO in 2001.  China 
appealed findings made by the panel regarding th e consistency of certain Chinese measures affecting 
imported auto parts with several GATT 1994 provisi ons, and with paragraph 93 of China's Accession 
Working Party Report.  Before the panel, Canada , the European Communities and the United States 
had challenged three instruments enacted by the Ch inese Government that affect auto parts imported 
into China, namely: Policy on Development of the Automotive Industry (Order of the National 
Development and Reform Commission (No. 8)); Ad ministrative Rules on Importation of Automobile 
Parts Characterized as Complete Vehicles (Decree of the People's Republic of China, No. 125) 
(Decree 125); and Rules on Verification of Imported Automobile Parts Characterized as Complete 
Vehicles (Public Announcement of the Customs Gene ral Administration of the People's Republic of 
China, No. 4 of 2005).  The measures impose a 25 per cent charge on imported auto parts used in the 
production of motor vehicles in China, if, based on criteria specified under th e measures, the imported 
auto parts are deemed to have the "essential char acter" of complete motor vehicles.  The amount of 
the charge is equivalent to the average tariff rate  applicable to complete motor vehicles under China's WT/AB/11 
Page 34  
 
Schedule of Concessions and is higher than the aver age 10 per cent tariff rate that applies to auto 
parts.   
 The charge is imposed following assembly of th e relevant vehicle model(s), and the measures 
set out a number of procedural and administrative steps designed to determine whether the charge 
applies
34, and ensure tracking and reporting of the impor ted auto parts, along with payment of the 
charge, in respect of the relevant auto parts.  It is immaterial whether the auto parts that are 
"characterized as complete vehicles" are imported in  multiple shipments—that is at various times, in 
various shipments, from various suppliers and/or fro m various countries—or in a single shipment.  It 
is also immaterial whether the automobile manufactur er imported the parts itself or purchased them in 
the Chinese market through a third-party supplier.35 
 The panel found, as a preliminary matter, that the charge imposed on auto parts under the 
measures is an internal charge, under Article III:2, and not as argued by China, an ordinary customs 
duty under Article II:1(b).  The panel also found that  China's measures violate Articles III:2 and III:4.  
In the alternative , the panel held that, even if the charge we re to be considered an ordinary customs 
duty, it is inconsistent with Article II:1(a) and (b).36   
 China appealed the panel's resolution of the pr eliminary question as to whether the charge at 
issue is an internal charge falling under Article III:2 of the GATT 1994, or an ordinary customs duty 
falling under Article II:1(b), and, consequently, th e panel's characterization of the charge as an 
internal charge.  In particular, China argued that the panel erred in separating the threshold question of 
whether the charge is an ordinary customs duty from the question of whether the Harmonized System 
allows China to apply Rule 2(a) of the General Ru les for the Interpretation of the Harmonized System 
(GIR 2(a)) to the import, in multiple entries, of auto parts that are related through their subsequent 
assembly into a motor vehicle.37  China submitted that, if the pane l had properly taken account of the 
rules of the Harmonized System, it would have determin ed that the charge is an ordinary customs duty 
falling under Article II:1(b) and that GIR 2(a) permits  auto parts to be classified as complete motor 
vehicles.   
 The Appellate Body examined the analytical a pproach to the threshold issue employed by the 
panel and found that the panel did not err in decidi ng to initially, and separately, determine whether 
the charge imposed under the measures at issue fell w ithin the scope of Article II:1(b) or Article III:2, 
especially in the light of the panel's statement that a charge cannot be, at the same time, an ordinary 
customs duty and an internal charge.  The Appellate  Body then proceeded to consider the panel's 
interpretation of the term "ordinary customs duties"  and in so doing addressed China's argument that 
the panel was required to determine whether the ch arge is an ordinary customs duty by evaluating 
                                                      
34These procedural steps comprise prior self-eva luation by the automobile manufacturers that use 
imported parts, as well as: verification by customs authorities; registration; provision of bonds prior to the importation of auto parts; cust oms clearance; and  payment and collection of the charge.  
35However, if the automobile manufacturer purchases imported parts from such an independent third-
party supplier, the automobile manufacturer may deduct from the 25 per cent charge that is due the value of any customs duties that the third-party supplier paid on the importation of those parts, provided that the automobile 
manufacturer can furnish proof of the payment of such import duties.  
36For both findings, under Articles II and III, the panel rejected a defence raised by China under 
Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 that the measures we re "necessary to secure compliance" with China's 
Schedule. 
37GIR 2(a) provides: 
Any reference in a heading to an article  shall be taken to include a reference 
to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has th e essential character of the complete 
or finished article.  It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article 
complete or finished (or falling to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this Rule), presented unassembled or disassembled. WT/AB/11 
Page 35 
 
 
whether it relates to a valid classification of the product under the Harmonized System.  The Appellate Body explained that, although the Harm onized System may be relevant context for the 
interpretation of Members' Schedules of Concessions, a nd, in particular, classification issues related to 
products listed therein, it was not clear how the Ha rmonized System was relevant to the examination 
of the meaning and scope of application of Artic le II:1(b) as opposed to Article III:2 of the GATT 
1994.  The Appellate Body agreed with the panel that the right of a Member to impose a duty and the 
obligation of an importer to pay such duty accrue at the moment, and by virtue, of importation; 
classification rules, which determine under which ta riff heading a product falls are not relevant to 
assessing the nature of that charge; nor, as the pane l found, is the moment at which the charge is 
collected or paid relevant.  The Appellate Body al so agreed with the panel that a key indicator of 
whether a charge constitutes an internal charge w ithin the meaning of Article III:2 is whether the 
obligation to pay the charge accrues because of an internal factor which occurs after the importation 
of the product into an importing Member.  Based on these considerations, the Appellate Body found 
that the Harmonized System does not provide context that is relevant to the threshold question or to the assessment of the respective scope of applicati on of ordinary customs duties in the first sentence 
of Article II:1(b) and internal charges in Article  III:2 of the GATT 1994 that  must be undertaken in 
answering that question.  In other words, the Harm onized System is not context that is relevant to 
resolving the question of whether  a charge is an ordinary customs duty or an internal charge; rather, it 
is relevant to the issue of which  ordinary customs duty applies to a particular product  according to its 
proper classification once the preliminary threshol d question is resolved.  The Appellate Body 
therefore found that the panel did not err in inte rpreting the terms "ordinary customs duties" and 
"internal charges" without relying on the rules of the Harmonized System, including GIR 2(a).  
 In the light of these interpretations, the A ppellate Body turned to review the panel's 
assessment of the charge imposed under the challenge d measures.  The Appellate Body explained that 
a panel's determination of whether a specific charge falls under Article II:1(b) or Article III:2 must be 
made in the light of the characteristics of the measure and the circumstances of the case.  Such a 
determination requires a panel to identify all  relevant characteristics of  the measure, and recognize 
which features are most central to that measure, and which are to be accorded the most significance 
for purposes of characterizing the relevant charge and,  thereby, properly determining the discipline(s) 
to which it is subject under the cove red agreements.  In this case, the Appellate Body agreed with the 
legal significance placed by the panel on the specific characteristics of the measures that it considered 
decisive of its characterization as an internal charge .  These characteristics included: the fact that the 
obligation to pay the charge accrues internally afte r entry of the auto part s into China and their 
assembly into motor vehicles; that the charge is imposed on automobile manufacturers, and not 
importers in general; that the charge is imposed based on how imported parts are used and not based 
on parts as they enter; and that identical auto parts imported at the same time and in the same 
container can be subject to different charges.   The Appellate Body also noted additional 
characteristics of the measures that support the panel's characterization (including the fact that it is the 
declaration of duty payment made subsequent to th e assembly of auto parts into a complete motor 
vehicle that determines whether the charge will be applied).  Likewise, the Appellate Body agreed 
with the panel that other characteristics of the char ge that appeared to be typical of an ordinary 
customs duty were not decisive.  These characteristi cs included the fact that the language used to 
describe it in the measures at issue is language that is typically reserved for border charges; China's 
explanation that the charge relates to the admini stration and enforcement of China's tariff provisions 
for motor vehicles; China's view that parts importe d directly by an automobile manufacturer remain 
subject to customs control until after assembly and production of the relevant vehicle model; and the 
fact that the charge is administered primarily by  China's customs authorities.  The Appellate Body 
noted in particular that the way in which a Me mber's domestic law characterizes its own measures, 
although useful, cannot be dispositive of the ch aracterization of such measures under WTO law. 
 Based on the above, the Appellate Body found th at the panel did not err in its analytical 
approach to the threshold issue;  in its interpretation of the te rms "ordinary customs duties" in 
Article II:1(b) and "internal charge" in Article III:2 of the GATT 1994; or in its application of these WT/AB/11 
Page 36  
 
interpretations to the measures before it.  The A ppellate Body therefore upheld the panel's resolution 
of the threshold issue and characterization of the char ge under the measures as an internal charge.   As 
China's appeal of the panel's finding that the charge under the measures is inconsistent with 
Article III:2 was based solely on its argument that the panel erred in its resolution of the threshold 
issue, the Appellate Body consequently upheld th e panel's finding that the measures at issue are 
inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, in th at they subject imported auto parts to an internal 
charge that is not applied to like domestic auto parts. 
 China also appealed the panel's finding that th e measures are inconsistent with Article III:4, 
partly on the basis that the panel erred in its resolu tion of the threshold issue.  As the Appellate Body 
had upheld the panel's finding on the threshold issue, th e Appellate Body similarly rejected this part of 
China's appeal.  The second part of China's appeal in respect of the panel's finding under Article III:4 
was, however, based on the panel's finding that the measures at issue influence an automobile 
manufacturer's choice between domestic and imported au to parts and thus affect the internal use of 
imported auto parts.  In dismissing this aspect of China's appeal, the Appellate Body expressed its 
agreement with the panel that th e measures "affect" the conditions of competition for imported auto 
parts as compared to like domestic auto parts.  Th e Appellate Body observed that the measures create 
incentives for automobile manufacturer s to limit their use of imported auto parts relative to domestic 
parts so as to avoid meeting the criteria under the measures and thus avoid attracting the 25 per cent 
charge.  The measures at issue also impose admi nistrative procedures and delays on automobile 
manufacturers using imported parts whic h would be avoided if exclusively  domestic auto parts were 
used.  The Appellate Body therefore upheld the pa nel's conclusion that th e measures at issue are 
inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994,  since they accord imported auto parts less 
favourable treatment than like domestic auto parts. 
 In addition, China appealed th e panel's alternative finding that the term "motor vehicles" in 
China's Schedule of Concessions could not encompass auto parts imported in multiple shipments, and 
that the charge under the measures was therefore inconsistent with Article II:1(a) and (b).  In the event 
that the Appellate Body were to reverse the pane l on the threshold issue, China did not appeal the 
other finding on which the panel based its conclusion,  namely, that the "essential character" test under 
Article 21(2) and (3) and Article 22 of Decree 125 n ecessarily leads to a violation of Article II:1(a) 
and (b) of the GATT 1994.  China argued however th at, if the Appellate Body were to uphold the 
panel's finding that the charge under the measures at issue is an internal charge, then the Appellate 
Body should declare both of the panel's alternative findings under Article II:1( a) and (b) to be "moot 
and of no legal effect".  In considering whether to  examine the alternative findings of the panel, the 
Appellate Body noted that none of the participants  had appealed the panel's decision to make these 
alternative findings, and suggested that, in certain ci rcumstances, it may be appropriate for panels to 
do so.  Nonetheless, the Appellate Body found  it unnecessary to review the panel's alternative findings 
as the assumption on which they had been made—that is, that the Appellate Body would find that the 
panel had erred in its resolution of the threshold issue and that the charge imposed under the measures 
is an ordinary customs duty rather than an intern al charge—had not been fulfilled.  The Appellate 
Body also declined China's request  to declare the alternative findings "moot and of no legal effect". 
 Lastly, the Appellate Body considered Ch ina's appeal of the panel's findings under 
paragraph 93 of China's Accession Wo rking Party Report in respect of a claim raised by Canada and 
the United States.  The panel had found that the measures apply to imports of CKD (completely 
knocked down) and SKD (s emi-knocked down) kits
38 and violate China's commitment under 
paragraph 93 of China's Accession Working Party Repor t, which provides that if China created tariff 
lines for such kits, the tariff rates would be no more than 10 per cent.  China made two allegations of a 
preliminary nature regarding the panel's finding: firs t, that the panel erred in construing the measures 
                                                      
38CKD and SKD kits refer to all, or nearly all, of the auto parts and components necessary to assemble 
a complete vehicle, which must be packaged and shipped in a single shipment, and which must go through the assembly process to become a complete vehicle after they have been imported into the importing country.  WT/AB/11 
Page 37 
 
 
at issue as imposing a charge on automobile manufacturers that import CKD and SKD kits and declare and pay duties at the border; and, secondly, that the panel erred in ruling on a claim for which a prima facie case had not been established by either the Unite d States or Canada.  In the event that its 
preliminary arguments did not succeed, China also cl aimed that the panel erred in finding that, by 
creating separate tariff lines at the ten-digit level fo r CKD and SKD kits in its national tariff, and by 
enacting the measures, China fulfilled the condition, a nd violated its commitment, in paragraph 93.   
 The Appellate Body began its analysis of Ch ina's arguments by examining Articles 2(2) 
and 21(1) of Decree 125 on their face.  Contrary to  the panel's finding, the Appellate Body could not 
find any indication in Article 2(2) that importe rs of CKD and SKD kits are exempted under the 
measures from only the administrative procedures, wh ile remaining subject to the charge.  In the 
Appellate Body's view, the statement "these Rules shall not apply" in Article 2(2)  referred to all of the 
Rules of Decree 125, comprising the procedural steps that precede and/or accompany the imposition 
of the "charge" under the measures, and the charge itself.  Nor did the Appellate Body find support for 
the panel's reading of Article 21(1) as providing th e legal basis for the imposition of the "charge", as 
this provision was merely a definitional provision .  For these reasons, the Appellate Body did not see 
how the charge imposed under the measures could be separated from the procedures that facilitate and 
give rise to its imposition.   
 Next, the Appellate Body turned to China's a dditional argument that the panel's finding that 
the charge imposed on CKD and SKD kits is a bor der charge was irreconcilable with its earlier 
finding that the charge under the measures is an in ternal charge.  The Appellate Body was concerned 
that the panel provided no explanation of the factor s that led it to characterize the charge imposed on 
imports under Article 2(2) as an ordinary customs du ty, when elsewhere in its analysis, it treated the 
charge imposed under the measures at issue as an internal charge.  Bearing in mind its earlier 
observations as to the proper approach to be adopt ed by panels in characterizing a charge falling 
under Article II:1(b) or Article III:2 of the GA TT 1994, the Appellate Body did not consider the 
panel's approach to the characterization of the char ge as an ordinary customs duty to be proper.   
 For these reasons, the Appellate Body found  that the panel erred in construing Decree 125 to 
mean that Articles 2(2) and 21(1) exempt CKD a nd SKD kits imported under Article 2(2) from the 
administrative procedures but not from the charge under the measures.  The Appellate Body also 
noted that, although the panel considered that there were distinct  charges imposed under Decree 125, 
and that it could characterize the "charge" imposed on imports of CKD and SKD kits under 
Article 2(2) of Decree 125 differently—that is, as an  ordinary customs duty—it did not explain why 
this was so.  The Appellate Body consequently reve rsed the panel's finding that the measures at issue 
are inconsistent with China's commitment under pa ragraph 93 of its Accession Working Party Report.  
In the light of these findings, the Appellate Body did not find it necessary to rule on China's other 
preliminary claim that the United States and Canada had not made out a prima facie  case of 
inconsistency; nor did the Appella te Body, given the way in which China had framed its appeal, go on 
to review the substance of the panel's findings th at the adoption of the measures should be deemed to 
have created tariff lines, and that China had created  tariff lines for CKD and SKD kits at a ten-digit 
level in its national customs tariff. 
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 during 2008.  It distinguishes between a Member that filed 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 WT/AB/11 
Page 38  
 
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 a third participant 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 an oral statement at the hearing.  Rule 24( 4) provides that a Member that was a third party to 
the panel proceedings and has neither filed a writte n submission in accordance with Rule 24(1), nor 
given notice in accordance with Rule 24(2), may notify its intention to appear at the oral hearing and 
request to make an oral statement. 
TABLE 5: PARTICIPANTS AND TH IRD PARTICIPANTS IN APPEALS 
FOR WHICH AN APPELLATE BODY REPORT WAS CIRCULATED IN 2008 
 
Third participants 
Case Appellant a Other 
  appellant b Appellee(s) c 
Rule 24(1) Rule 24(2) Rule 24(4) 
US – Stainless Steel 
(Mexico) Mexico - - - United States Chile 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Thailand China - - - 
US – Upland Cotton  
(Article 21.5 – Brazil) United States Brazil Brazil 
United States Argentina 
Australia 
Canada 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
New Zealand Chad 
China 
India Thailand - - - 
US – Shrimp (Thailand) Thailand United States United States 
Thailand Brazil 
Chile 
European 
Communities 
India 
Japan 
Korea 
Viet Nam China 
Mexico 
 - - - 
US – Customs Bond 
Directive 
 India United States United States 
India Brazil 
European 
Communities 
Japan 
Thailand China 
 - - - 
US – Continued 
Suspension  European 
Communities 
 United States 
 United States 
European 
Communities Australia 
Brazil 
New Zealand 
Norway China 
India 
Mexico 
Chinese 
Taipei - - - WT/AB/11 
Page 39 
 
 
Third participants Case Appellant a Other 
  appellant b Appellee(s) c 
Rule 24(1) Rule 24(2) Rule 24(4) 
Canada – Continued 
Suspension 
 European 
Communities Canada Canada 
European 
Communities Australia 
Brazil 
New Zealand 
Norway China 
India 
Mexico 
Chinese 
Taipei - - - 
India – Additional 
Import Duties United States India India 
United States Australia  
European 
Communities 
Japan Chile  
Viet Nam - - - 
EC – Bananas III  
(Article 21.5 – 
Ecuador II)  European 
Communities 
 Ecuador Ecuador 
European 
Communities Belize 
Cameroon 
Colombia 
Côte d'Ivoire 
Dominica 
Dominican 
Republic 
Ghana 
Jamaica 
Japan 
Nicaragua 
Panama 
Saint Lucia 
Saint Vincent 
& the 
Grenadines 
Suriname 
United States Brazil - - - 
EC – Bananas III  
(Article 21.5 – US)  European 
Communities 
 - - - United States Belize 
Cameroon 
Colombia 
Côte d'Ivoire 
Dominica 
Dominican 
Republic 
Ecuador 
Jamaica 
Japan 
Nicaragua 
Panama 
Saint Lucia 
Saint Vincent 
& the 
Grenadines 
Suriname Brazil 
Mexico - - - 
China – Auto Parts (EC)  China - - - European 
Communities 
 Argentina 
Australia 
Japan Brazil 
Mexico 
Chinese 
Taipei 
Thailand - - - WT/AB/11 
Page 40  
 
Third participants Case Appellant a Other 
  appellant b Appellee(s) c 
Rule 24(1) Rule 24(2) Rule 24(4) 
China – Auto Parts (US) China - - - United States 
 Argentina 
Australia 
Japan Brazil 
Mexico 
Chinese 
Taipei 
Thailand - - - 
China – Auto Parts 
(Canada) China - - - Canada Argentina 
Australia 
Japan Brazil 
Mexico 
Chinese 
Taipei 
Thailand - - - 
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 32 WTO Members appeared at least once as appellant, other appellant, appellee, or 
third participant in appeals for which an Appellate Body report was circulated during 2008.  Of these 
32 WTO Members, 7 were developed country Members and 25 were developing country Members.    
 Of the 141 total appearances by WTO Memb ers before the Appellate Body during 2008, 
89 were by developing country Members and 52  by developed country Members.  Developing 
country Members made 6 appearances as appell ant, 3 as other appellant, 5 as appellee, and 
75 appearances as third participant.  Developed c ountry Members made 6 appearances as appellant, 
4 as other appellant, 14 as appellee, and 28 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 2008. 
0255075100125150175200225250275300
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 2008. 
 Figure 4: WTO Member participation in appeals 1996–2008 WT/AB/11 
Page 41 
 
 
VI. Working Procedures for Appellate Review 
 No amendments were made to the Working Procedures during 2008.  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.   
 The following procedural issues were raised in appeals for which an Appellate Body report 
was circulated in 2008.     
Public observation of the oral hearing  
 Public observation of the oral hearing was authorized for the first time in the US – Continued 
Suspension and Canada – Continued Suspension appeals.  The request to open the hearing to public 
observation was made by all of the participants.  Third participants were given an opportunity to 
comment in writing on the request.  Some third pa rticipants supported the request, while others 
objected to it.  A hearing was held with the partic ipants and third participants, exclusively dedicated 
to exploring the issues raised by the request to authorize public ob servation.  Having considered the 
views of the participants and third participan ts, the Division decided to authorize the public 
observation of the oral hearing.  The Division issued  a Procedural Ruling explaining the basis of its 
decision and setting out the additional procedures a dopted for purposes of those appeals, pursuant to 
Rule 16(1) of the Working Procedures .  This Procedural Ruling may be found in Annex 7. 
 Public observation was also requested by the pa rticipants and authorized by the Division in 
the EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – Ecuador II) and EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – US) appeals.39  
The Division invited comments from the third participants before deciding on the request.  The reasons underlying the Division's decision and the additional procedures adopted for that purpose 
were set out in a Procedural Ruling, which may be  found as an annex to the Appellate Body reports. 
 Observation of the oral hearing by the public was made possible via closed-circuit television 
broadcast to a separate room.  Notice concerni ng the authorization of public observation and 
registration instructions were posted on the WTO webs ite.  Eighty individuals registered to view the 
oral hearing in US – Continued Suspension and Canada – Continued Suspension , and 75 individuals 
registered for the oral hearing in EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – Ecuador II) and EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – US) . 
Consolidation of appellate proceedings
 
 Four appellate proceedings involved a ppeals of more than one panel report: US – Shrimp 
(Thailand)  and US – Customs Bond Directive ; US – Continued Suspension  and Canada – Continued 
Suspension ; EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – Ecuador II)  and EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – US) ; 
and China – Auto Parts (EC) , China – Auto Parts (US) , and China – Auto Parts (Canada) .  The 
appellate proceedings in the first three cases were co nsolidated in the interests of "fairness and orderly 
procedure", as referred to in Rule 16(1) of the Working Procedure s, and in agreement with the 
participants.  A single Division was selected to hear  and decide each consolidated proceedings, and a 
single oral hearing was held for each consolidated proceedings.  The appeal of the panel reports in 
China – Auto Parts was also conducted as a single appeal. 
 Some of the third parties in US – Shrimp (Thailand)  and US – Customs Bonds Directive , and 
in EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – Ecuador II)  and EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – US) , were not 
the same.  Nevertheless, the respective Divisions inv ited all third parties in each of the consolidated 
                                                      
39Public observation of the oral hearing was likewise requested and authorized in US – Continued 
Zeroing .  The oral hearing was held on 11-12 December 2 008.  The 90-day period for circulation of the 
Appellate Body report in that case expires on 4 February 2009. WT/AB/11 
Page 42  
 
proceedings to attend the single oral hearing, noti ng, however, the understanding that, in their written 
submissions and oral statements, the third particip ants would address only the issues appealed in the 
dispute(s) to which they were third parties in the panel proceedings.
40   
 At the request of two of the participants, tw o separate Appellate Body reports were issued in  
US – Continued Suspension  and Canada – Continued Suspension .41  In EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 
– Ecuador II)  and EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – US) , the Appellate Body issued separate reports in 
the form of a single document.  Each documen t contains identical sections summarizing the 
participants' submissions and setting forth the reas oning of the Appellate Body, but contains separate 
findings and conclusions for each panel report appealed.  The same procedure was followed in the 
appeal of the panel reports in China – Auto Parts . 
Sufficiency of the Notice of Appeal  
 In EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – US) , the appellee claimed that the Notice of Appeal 
did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 20(2)(d) of the Working Procedures and requested that 
the Appellate Body dismiss the appeal on th ese grounds.  Although the Appellate Body found 
deficiencies in the Notice of Appeal, it held that th e formal defects in the Notice of Appeal did not 
give rise to procedural detriment of the kind that would warrant the dismissal of the appeal.42  The 
Appellate Body, however, clarified that it woul d not make findings under Article 11 of the DSU 
because "no separate claim under Article 11 of the DS U [had] been raised in the Notice of Appeal".43 
Extension of terms of Mr. A.V. Ganesan and Mr. Georges Abi-Saab  
 Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Working Procedures , Mr. A.V. Ganesan was authorized by the 
Appellate Body to complete the disposition of the appeals in US – Shrimp (Thailand) and US –  
Customs Bond Directive , even though his second term as Appellate Body Member was to expire 
before the completion of the appellate proceedings.44  Mr. Georges Abi-Saab was authorized to 
complete the disposition of the appeals in US – Continued Suspension  and Canada – Continued 
Suspension , which also would not be completed before the expiration of his second term as Appellate 
Body Member.45 
Extension of time period for circula tion of the Appellate Body report  
 The 90-day time period for circulation of the Appellate Body report was extended in US – 
Upland Cotton (Article 21.5 – Brazil)  and in US – Continued Suspension  and Canada – Continued 
Suspension .46  In each case, the participants agreed that, due  to the size and complexity of the appeals, 
additional time was required to co mplete the appellate proceedings.  Additional time was allocated for 
                                                      
40Appellate Body Reports, US – Shrimp (Thailand) / US –  Customs Bond Directive , para. 16; Appellate 
Body Reports, EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – Ecuador II) / EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – US) , para. 23. 
41Appellate Body Reports, US – Continued Suspension  / Canada – Continued Suspension , footnote 62 
to para. 27. 
42Appellate Body Reports, EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – Ecuador II) / EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – US) , para. 283. 
43Appellate Body Reports, EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – Ecuador II) / EC – Bananas III 
(Article 21.5 – US) , para. 285. 
44Appellate Body Reports, US – Shrimp (Thailand) / US –  Customs Bond Directive , para. 16.  
Mr. Ganesan's term of office was due to expire on 31 May 2008.  The Notice of Appeal was filed on 17 April 
2008.  The Appellate Body report was circulated on 16 July 2008. 
45Appellate Body Reports, US – Continued Suspension  / Canada – Continued Suspension , para. 27.  
Mr. Abi-Saab's term of office was due to expire on 31 May 2008.  The Notice of Appeal was filed on  29 May 
2008.  The Appellate Body report was circulated on 16 October 2008. 
46Appellate Body Report, US – Upland Cotton (Article 21.5 – Brazil) , para. 14; Appellate Body 
Reports, US – Continued Suspension  / Canada – Continued Suspension , para. 29. WT/AB/11 
Page 43 
 
 
filing the appellees' submissions and the third partic ipants' submissions and notifications, pursuant to 
Rules 16, 22, 23, 24, and 26 of the  Working Procedures .  The time period was extended to 111 days in 
US – Upland Cotton (Article 21.5 – Brazil)  and to 140 days in US – Continued Suspension  and 
Canada – Continued Suspension . 
Correction of clerical errors  
 Requests to correct clerical errors in the par ticipants' submissions, pursuant to Rule 18(5) of 
the Working Procedures , were made in US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) , US – Customs Bond Directive , 
and India – Additional Import Duties .47  A request to correct clerical errors in the Notice of Appeal, 
pursuant to Rule 18(5), was made in China – Auto Parts .48  After inviting comments from the other 
participants and third participants, the respective Divisions granted authorization to correct these 
clerical errors.   
Extension of time peri od to file submissions  
In the  US – Shrimp (Thailand) and US –  Customs Bond Directive  proceedings, a request to 
extend the deadline for filing submissions was made  in connection with the consolidation of the 
proceedings.  Pursuant to Rule 16(2) of the Working Procedures  and after consultations with the 
participants, the Division extended the time periods for the filing of the other appellants' submissions, 
as well as the for the filing of the appell ees' and third participants' submissions.49  In the  US –  Customs 
Bond Directive  case, one appellant requested that the time  period for filing its appellant's submission 
be extended by one working day, pursuant to Rule 16(2) of the Working Procedures , due to certain 
unforeseen developments.  After hearing the views of  the other participants, the Division gave that 
appellant an extension until 1 p.m. of the day fo llowing the original deadline, and also granted a 
similar extension for the filing of the appe llees' and third participants' submissions.50   
Change of date of the oral hearing  
 Pursuant to Rule 16(2) of the  Working Procedures , a request was made in China – Auto 
Parts  to change the dates scheduled for the oral hearing by one day.  None of the participants or third 
participants objected to the request.  The Division decided to change the starting time of the oral 
hearing from the morning to the afternoon of the day on which it was originally scheduled to begin.51 
Requests concerning submissions filed after the deadline  
 Requests were made in US – Stainless Steel (Mexico)  and in US – Continued Suspension and 
Canada – Continued Suspension  concerning the status of submissions  filed on the day they were due, 
but after the 5 p.m. deadline set forth in the Wo rking Schedules of these appeals.  These requests were 
made pursuant to Rule 18(1) of the Working Procedures .  In US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) , the 
Division emphasized that "[c]ompliance with established time periods by all participants regarding the 
filing of submissions is an important element of due  process of law" and "is a matter of fairness and 
orderly procedure, which are referred to in Rule 16(1) of the Working Procedures ".52  However, in the 
circumstances of that appeal, the Division considered the submission as filed.  In US – Continued 
Suspension and Canada – Continued Suspension , the Division reiterated "the importance of all 
                                                      
47Appellate Body Report, US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) , para. 5; Appellate Body Report, US – Customs 
Bond Directive , para. 20; Appellate Body Report, India – Additional Import Duties , para. 11. 
48Appellate Body Reports, China – Auto Parts (EC) , China – Auto Parts (US) , and China – Auto Parts 
(Canada) , para. 9. 
49Appellate Body Reports, US – Shrimp (Thailand) / US – Customs Bond Directive , para. 16. 
50Appellate Body Reports, US – Shrimp (Thailand) / US –  Customs Bond Directive , paras. 17 and 18. 
51Appellate Body Reports, China – Auto Parts (EC) , China – Auto Parts (US) , and China – Auto Parts 
(Canada) , para. 10. 
52Appellate Body Report, US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) , para. 164. WT/AB/11 
Page 44  
 
participants adhering strictly to the time-limits set out in the Working Schedule, given the time 
constraints imposed upon both the participants  and the Appellate Body Members in these 
proceedings" and "also noted that the failure to stri ctly observe such time-limits can have an impact 
upon the fairness and the orderly conduct of the proceedings".
53  At the oral hearing, the Division 
ruled that, "in the light of the particular time-l imits concerned and potential prejudice that might be 
involved", it would consider the submissions as filed.54 
Unsolicited amicus curiae  briefs  
 An unsolicited amicus curiae brief was received in the China – Auto Parts  appellate 
proceedings.  Having given the participants and the third participants an opportunity to express their 
views, the Division hearing the appeal did not find it necessary to rely on this amicus curiae brief in 
rendering its decision.55  
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. 
 Three Article 21.3(c) arbitration proceedings were  carried out in 2008.  One of the arbitrators 
was appointed by agreement of the parties.  The other two arbitrators were appointed by the Director-
General because the parties were unable to agree on an arbitrator.   
 Japan – DRAMs (Korea) , WT/DS336/16 
 On 17 December 2007, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body and panel reports in Japan – 
DRAMs (Korea) .56  Korea and Japan requested that David Unterhalter act as arbitrator in these 
proceedings pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.57  Mr. Unterhalter accepted the appointment on 
5 March 2008. 
 As the implementing Member, Japan proposed  that the reasonable period of time for 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and ru lings should be 15 months from the date of 
adoption of the panel and Appellate  Body reports.  Japan claimed th at implementation would require 
modification of the original countervailing duty th rough a new Cabinet Order replacing the Cabinet 
Order authorizing the original countervailing duty . It explained that the procedure necessary under 
Japanese laws and regulations to modify a Ca binet Order includes a new countervailing duty 
investigation.  Following the conduct of an inves tigation (comprising an initial preparatory and then 
actual investigatory stage) the Cabinet can decide  to replace the original countervailing duty order 
only after separate reviews are conducted by two independent entities.   
                                                      
53Appellate Body Reports, US – Continued Suspension  / Canada – Continued Suspension , para. 30. 
54Appellate Body Reports, US – Continued Suspension  / Canada – Continued Suspension , para. 30. 
55Appellate Body Reports, China – Auto Parts (EC) , China – Auto Parts (US) , and China – Auto Parts 
(Canada) , para. 11. 
56A summary of the Appellate Body Report in Japan – DRAMs (Korea)  may be found in the Appellate 
Body Annual Report for 2007. 
57WT/DS336/15. WT/AB/11 
Page 45 
 
 
 Korea contested the need for 15 months, and proposed instead five months, or failing that, two weeks from the date of the issuance of the arbitra tion award.  In view of the nature of the findings 
by the Appellate Body, Korea considered that i mmediate revocation of the countervailing duty order 
was required.  In the event that the arbitrator disagreed, Korea be lieved the time proposed by Japan 
for an investigation was unjustified and should be reduced. 
The arbitrator recognized that his task was to determine by when  an implementing Member 
must comply, but considered that, in doing so, he was required to consider how a Member proposes to 
implement.  This entails a consideration of wh ether the means for implementation chosen by the 
Member are consistent with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, and specifically whether 
the proposed implementing action falls within the ra nge of permissible actions that can be taken in 
order to implement these recommendations and ruli ngs consistently with the WTO agreements.  
Turning to the arguments of Japan and Korea as to the permissible means of implementation in this 
case, the arbitrator noted that, in general, implem enting Members can choose either to withdraw the 
measure found to be WTO-inconsistent , or modify that measure through remedial action.  In this case, 
Japan could choose to modify the aspects of its de termination found to be  inconsistent through 
reconsideration of facts on the original investigat ory record, as well as by gathering additional facts.  
The arbitrator cautioned, however, that, as conceded by Japan at the oral hearing, Japan could not 
conduct a de novo  investigation, and any new evidence collect ed would have to be confined to the 
period examined in the original countervailing duty investigation.   
The arbitrator then considered what, in the light of the specific steps proposed by Japan, 
constituted a reasonable period of time.  The ar bitrator accepted Japan's submission that the 
procedures foreseen in Japan's Customs Tariff La w is the only way to modify an original 
countervailing duty order found to be WTO-inconsistent by the DSB.  However, the arbitrator did not 
believe that the full 15 months requested by Jap an was reasonable for a number of reasons.  The 
arbitrator noted that not all of th e investigatory steps, or the timefr ames for these steps referred to by 
Japan, were mandatory under Japan's laws and re gulations, which suggested that Japan had some 
flexibility in shortening the time for making a re-d etermination.  Moreover, the arbitrator was not 
convinced that Japan had proven that there is a "sta ndard practice" in respecting due process rights of 
interested parties, since Japan had never before  been called upon to implement DSB recommendations 
and rulings in trade remedy cases.  In any event, a balance had to be struck between respecting due 
process rights of interested parties (who had had an  opportunity to participate in the original 
investigation) and the exigencies of promptness  in conducting a re-determination for purposes of 
implementation.  Finally, the arbitrator was of the view that the review by the investigating 
authorities, as well as the decision by the Japanese Ca binet, could be expedited, in the absence of 
minimum time-limits mandated in Japan's laws a nd regulations governing th ese procedures, and in 
view of a Japanese precedent for shorteni ng this process referred to by Korea. 
 Taking all of the above-mentioned factors into account, the arbitrator determined that the 
"reasonable period of time" for implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
case was eight months and two week s, expiring on 1 September 2008. 
 Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , WT/DS332/16 
On 17 December 2007, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body and panel reports in  Brazil – 
Retreaded Tyres .  The principal issue in this dispute w as whether Brazil's import ban on retreaded 
tyres, which was found to be inconsistent with Ar ticle XI of the GATT 1994, could be justified as a 
measure necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health.  The Appellate Body found that imports of used tyres under court injunctions and the exemption of imports of retreaded tyres from 
MERCOSUR countries from the general ban resulted in  the import ban on imports of retreaded tyres WT/AB/11 
Page 46  
 
into Brazil being applied in a manner that constitut es arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination within 
the meaning of the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994.
58 
Because the parties were unable to agree on an  arbitrator, the Director-General appointed 
former Appellate Body Member Yasuhei Taniguchi to  act as the arbitrator in the Article 21.3(c) 
proceedings to determine the reasonable period of time.59  Mr. Taniguchi accepted the appointment on 
30 June 2008. 
Brazil proposed that the reasonable period of  time for implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings shoul d be 21 months from the date of adoption of the panel and 
Appellate Body reports.  Brazil claimed that implemen tation would require the following steps.  First, 
imports of used tyres under court injunctions would be halted by ob taining a decision of the Federal 
Supreme Court confirming the constitutionality of the import ban on used tyres.  Secondly, Brazil 
would engage in negotiations with its MERCOSUR partners in order to establish new regulatory 
disciplines for the importation of used and retreaded  tyres within MERCOSUR.  Thirdly, Brazil was 
seeking a ruling from the Federal Supreme Court declaring the unconstitutionality of measures 
adopted by the State of Rio Grande do Sul that purpo rt to regulate imports of retreaded tyres.  Brazil 
did not request a particular period of time concer ning the fines imposed through certain Presidential 
Decrees, since such fines were, according to Brazil,  accessory measures that stand or fall with the 
import ban. 
The European Communities contested that im plementation of the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB in this dispute would require  21 months.  Instead, the European Communities 
argued that the reasonable period of time for impl ementation should be 10 m onths from the date of 
adoption of the panel and Appellate  Body Reports.  The European Communities suggested that Brazil 
repeal or modify through legislative or regulatory action the measures found to be WTO-inconsistent.  
In the European Communities' view, the proceedings  before the Federal Supreme Court proposed by 
Brazil were not a suitable basis for the calculation of the reasonable period of time, because the 
government has no control over the outcome of these judicial proceedings.   
 In keeping with previous arbitration awar ds, the arbitrator found that Brazil, as the 
implementing Member, has a measure of discretion in choosing the means of implementation.  Therefore, the arbitrator considered that Brazil c ould, in principle, remain within the range of 
permissible action to comply with the DSB's recomm endations and rulings by either lifting the import 
ban on retreaded tyres, and thus removing the inco nsistency with Article XI of the GATT 1994, or 
modifying the existing import ban in a way that woul d rectify the inconsistencies with the chapeau of 
Article XX so that it would be justified under that provision.  The arbitrator considered that, while it 
was for Brazil to identify a particular method of im plementation, it was nece ssary to consider aspects 
of the envisaged means of implementation in determ ining what would be a reasonable period of time 
for Brazil to comply with the recommendations and ruli ngs of the DSB.  This is because, in order to 
determine by when  Brazil must comply, it was relevant to consider how it proposed to do so. 
 The arbitrator then considered what, in the light of the specific steps proposed by Brazil, 
constituted a reasonable period of time.  First, with respect to the inconsistency stemming from 
imports of used tyres on the basis of preliminar y court injunctions, the arbitrator rejected the 
European Communities' argument that the judicial  proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court 
proposed by Brazil were not a suitable basis for the calculation of the reasonable period of time.  The 
arbitrator accepted Brazil's argument that legislative or regulatory action would not prevent lower 
courts from issuing further injunctions based on ch allenges to the constitutionality of the used tyres 
ban.  Therefore, the arbitrator found that impl ementation through judiciary action could not be 
                                                     
 
58A full summary of the Appellate Body Report in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres  may be found in the 
Appellate Body Annual Report for 2007. 
59WT/DS332/15. WT/AB/11 
Page 47 
 
 
a priori  excluded from the range of permissible action.  However, the arbitrator considered that the 
reasonable period of time to conclude such proceed ings before the Federal Supreme Court should not 
be calculated on the basis of the average duration of a sample of a somewhat different type of proceedings from a past five-year period as request ed by Brazil, but, rather, on the basis of an 
assessment of the state of affairs of the particul ar proceedings pending before the Federal Supreme 
Court aimed at confirming the constitutionality of the used tyres ban. 
Secondly, with respect to the inconsiste ncy stemming from the MERCOSUR exemption from 
the ban on imports of retreaded tyres, the arbitrat or rejected Brazil's request to factor into his 
calculation additional time for negotiations with  MERCOSUR countries on a new regional tyre trade 
regime.  Referring to the arbitration in EC – Chicken Cuts , the arbitrator found that a Member seeking 
to take steps outside its domestic decision-making process bears the burden of establishing that these 
external elements of its proposed means of impl ementation are a requirement under the law of the 
external system.  The arbitrator found that, in  the present case, Brazil had not established that 
negotiating new disciplines on trade in tyres w ithin the ambit of MERCOSUR was required under 
MERCOSUR law.  In making this finding, the arbitr ator also took into account the fact that, twice 
since the circulation of the panel report in th is dispute, Brazil had unilaterally introduced 
modifications to the MERCOSUR exemption through domestic measures. 
 Finally, with respect to the inconsistency stemming from measures adopted by the State of 
Rio Grande do Sul, the arbitrator found that judiciary action proposed by Brazil to remedy that inconsistency could not be a priori  excluded from the range of permissible action.  However, the 
arbitrator considered that such proceedings could be concluded more expeditiously than suggested by 
Brazil. 
 On this basis, the arbitrator determined a "reasonable period of time" for implementation of 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this di spute of 12 months, expiring on 17 December 2008. 
 US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) , WT/DS344/15 
 On 20 May 2008, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body and panel reports in US – Stainless 
Steel (Mexico) .60  The Director-General appointed form er Appellate Body Member Florentino 
Feliciano to act as arbitrator in the proceedings to  determine the reasonable period of time, after the 
parties had failed to agree on an arbitrator.61  Mr. Feliciano accepted the appointment on 1 September 
2008. 
  The United States requested 15 months to bring itself into compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB and stres sed that the termination of the methodology of 
simple zeroing in assessment reviews would require complex changes to its duty assessment methodology.  In particular, the United States asser ted that changes would be needed to address the 
issue of how anti-dumping duties are allocated among importers for assessment purposes, especially 
in the case where, for some importers, importing from the same exporter or foreign producer subject 
to an anti-dumping order, the aggregation of the r esults of multiple comparisons of monthly weighted-
average normal value and individual export prices, yi elds a negative result.  The United States pointed 
out that two means of implementation were u nder consideration—(i) legislative action; and 
(ii) administrative action. The United States argue d that should implementation by administrative 
means be chosen, the procedure set out in Section 123 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
(URAA) would be followed.  Furthermore, the United States submitted that the impending Presidential and Congressional elections would lengthe n the period needed for the implementation of 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  Acco rding to the United States, irrespective of the 
                                                     
 
60A summary of the Appellate Body Report in  US – Stainless Steel (Mexico)  may be found in 
section IV.B supra . 
61WT/DS344/14. WT/AB/11 
Page 48  
 
means of implementation chosen, the process would require the participation of the new Congress and 
the new Administration, so that the process c ould not begin before late January 2009.   
 Mexico requested that the reasonable period of time should not exceed seven months.  It 
argued that the arbitrator should take into account, as a particular circumstance, the fact that the United States has been under an obligation to elim inate simple zeroing since at least 9 May 2006, 
when the DSB adopted the recommendations and rulings in US – Zeroing (EC) , and that the United 
States has also been under an obligation to elimin ate simple zeroing "as such" since the DSB adopted 
the recommendations and rulings in US – Zeroing (Japan)  on 24 January 2007.  Mexico noted that the 
reasonable period of time should be the shortest peri od of time possible within the legal system of the 
implementing Member, and submitted that administ rative implementation is the fastest path and 
should be the basis for the arbitrator's determinati on.  Mexico disagreed that elimination of simple 
zeroing required legislative action, pointing out that  the USDOC has the legal authority to address the 
issue of the allocation of anti-dumping duties among importers for assessment purposes.  Mexico further contended that the United States might resort  to administrative action under the Administrative 
Procedure Act, and that such an action would allo w implementation within a shorter period of time 
than that required for action under Section 123 of the URAA.  In any event, Mexico expressed the 
view that the process of implementation under Sec tion 123 could be completed in seven months from 
the date of adoption of the DSB's recommendations and rulings, and that such a period of time would 
allow for compliance to be completed before a new Administration takes office. 
 As to the question of whether implementation should be through legislative or administrative 
action, the arbitrator first noted that both methods we re within the range of permissible means that are 
capable of achieving the elimination of simple zeroing in assessment reviews.  He recalled that 
although his task is not to decide which method or type of measure should be chosen by an 
implementing Member to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, it did fall within his mandate to assess what would be the shortest period possible within the legal system of the 
implementing Member for effective implementation.   Since implementation through administrative 
action usually takes a shorter period of time than implementation through legislative action, and given 
that the United States had not established that le gislative implementation would be more effective 
than administrative implementation, the arbitrator ma de his determination on the basis of the period of 
time within which administrative action eliminati ng the methodology of simple zeroing in assessment 
reviews could be completed. 
 Because Section 123 of the URAA addresses specifically the implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, the arb itrator considered the timing and sequence of 
procedural steps provided for in Section 123 of the URAA as particularly relevant in his 
determination.  The arbitrator noted that the r ecommendations and rulings of the DSB concern the 
elimination of simple zeroing in assessment reviews, a nd that this issue is distinct from the issue of 
the "allocation of antidumping duties among the impor ters for assessment purposes".  He pointed out, 
however, that both issues are closely related and thus  the complexity associated with the resolution of 
the latter issue might be considered as a particular  circumstance to be taken into account in the 
determination of a reasonable period of time for el iminating of the methodology of simple zeroing in 
assessment reviews.  At the same time, the arbitrator  indicated that this particular circumstance could 
not justify a delay in implementation as provisiona l administrative allocation rules might be devised 
and put into effect while the long-term administra tive or legislative allo cation standards are being 
developed.  In addition, the arbitrator rejected  the United States' argument that the impending 
Presidential and Congressional elections constituted a factor that should be given weight in his 
determination, observing that the administrativ e process under Section 123 of the URAA could be 
initiated and moved forward under the current Admi nistration and then completed after the new 
Administration and Congress took office. WT/AB/11 
Page 49 
 
 
 Finally, the arbitrator addressed Mexico's ar gument that he should consider as a particular 
circumstance the DSB recommendations and rulings  in previous disputes concerning the simple 
zeroing methodology used by the United States in assessme nt reviews.  The arbitrator noted that those 
disputes involved different complainants and were at different procedural stages of WTO dispute 
settlement, including proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU.  Therefore, the arbitrator considered 
that those disputes should be attributed limited relevance in his determination. 
 Based on the above considerations, the arbitrat or determined a "reasonable period of time" for 
implementation of the recommendations  and rulings of the DSB of 11 months plus 10 days, expiring 
on 30 April 2009. 
VIII.  Technical Assistance 
 Appellate Body Secretariat staff participated  in the WTO Biennial Technical Assistance and 
Training Plan: 2008-200962, particularly in activities relating to training in dispute settlement 
procedures.  Overall, Appellate Body Secretariat st aff participated in 13 technical assistance activities 
during the course of 2008.  
 Annex 8 provides further information about the activities carried out by Appellate Body 
Secretariat staff in 2008 falling under the WTO Technical Assistance and Training Plan. 
IX. Other Activities 
 On 27 May 2008, Appellate Body Members held  a joint meeting with the Members of the 
International Law Commission of the United Nations.  At the meeting, they discussed several topics 
of common interest, including various approaches  to treaty interpretation, the MFN treatment 
principle, the relationship between municipal and international law, and the standard of review 
applied by international tribunals a nd other dispute settlement mechanisms. 
 A roundtable discussion with former and current Members of the Appellate Body was held at 
the Graduate Institute of Intern ational and Development Studies in Geneva on 27 May 2008.  Former 
Appellate Body Members Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, Florentino Feliciano, Julio Lacarte-Muró, Mitsuo 
Matsushita, and Yasuhei Taniguchi were joined by Luiz Ola vo Baptista, Georges Abi-Saab, Lilia 
Bautista, A.V. Ganesan, Jennifer Hillman, Shotaro Oshima, Giorgio Sacerdoti, David Unterhalter, and 
Yuejiao Zhang.  The event was open to the public. 
 Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum, President of the Inte rnational Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and 
Mr. Philippe Gautier, Registrar of the Tribunal,  visited the Appellate Body on 1 August 2008. 
 The WTO Public Forum was held on 24-25 Sept ember 2008.  The Forum's theme this year 
was "How Can the Trading System be Taken into th e Future?"  Mr. Giorgio Sacerdoti participated as 
a speaker in a panel on "Settling Disputes among Members".   
 Mr. Luiz Olavo Baptista participated as Chai rman of the Appellate Body in a conference 
entitled "International Courts and Tribunals – The Challenges Ahead", which was organized by the 
Council of Europe, on 6-7 October 200 8, at Lancaster House, London.  
The Appellate Body Secretariat participates in  the WTO internship programme, which allows 
post-graduate university students to gain practical  experience and a deeper knowledge of the global 
multilateral trading system.  Interns in the Appellate  Body Secretariat obtain first-hand experience of 
the procedural and substantive aspects of WTO di spute settlement and, in particular, appellate 
proceedings.  The internship programme is open to  nationals of WTO Members and to nationals of 
                                                      
62WT/COMTD/W/160. WT/AB/11 
Page 50  
 
countries and customs territories engaged in accession negotiations.  The Appellate Body Secretariat 
generally hosts two interns concurrently; each inte rnship is generally for a three-month period.  
During 2008, the Appellate Body Secretariat we lcomed interns from Australia, Brazil/Germany, 
India, Italy, Japan/Iran, Mexico, South Africa/Canada, and Spain.  A total of 73 students, of 40 nationalities, have completed internships with the Appellate Body Secretar iat since 1998.  Further 
information about the WTO internship programme, including eligibility requirements and application 
instructions, may be obtained online at:  <www. wto.org/english/thewto_e/vacan_e/intern_e.htm>. 
The Appellate Body Secretariat 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 in ternational dispute settlement.  Professors David A. 
Gantz and Francisco Orrego Vicuña participated in the Speakers Series  in 2008.  In addition to the 
Speakers Series , the Appellate Body Secretariat runs a Research Series , aimed at doctoral students 
and young academics.  The objective of the programme  is to provide an opportunity for doctoral 
students working on their theses, and young academ ics working on research papers, to present and 
discuss their research in an informal setting w ith the Geneva-based trade community.     
 Appellate Body Secretariat staff participated 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 participated as judges in  moot court competitions.  In addition, Appellate 
Body Members and Secretariat staff occasionally give lectures and participate in conferences and seminars dealing with international trade issu es.  A summary of these activities carried out by 
Appellate Body Secretariat staff during the course of 2008 can be found in Annex 8. 
 WT/AB/11 
Page 51 
 
 
ANNEX 1 
 
 
MEMBERS OF THE APPELLATE BODY 
(1 JANUARY TO 31 DECEMBER 2008) 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 
  
Georges Michel Abi-Saab   (Egypt) (2000–2008) 
 Born in Egypt on 9 June 1933, Georges Michel Abi-Saab is Honorary Professor of 
International Law at the Graduate Institute of International Studi es in Geneva (having taught there 
from 1963 to 2000); Honorary Professor at Cairo Univer sity's Faculty of Law; and a Member of the 
Institute of International Law. 
 Professor Abi-Saab served as consultant to th e Secretary-General of the United Nations for 
the preparation of two reports on "Respect of Human Rights in Armed Conflicts" (1969 and 1970), 
and for the report on "Progressive  Development of Principles a nd Norms of International Law 
Relating to the New International Economic Order" (1984).  He represented Egypt in the Diplomatic 
Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law (1974 to 
1977), and acted as Counsel and advocate for several  governments in cases before the International 
Court of Justice (ICJ) as well as in international arb itrations.  He has also served twice as judge ad hoc 
on the ICJ, as Judge on the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunals for the  
Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, and as a Co mmissioner of the United Nations Compensation 
Commission.  He is a Member of the Administrativ e Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund and 
of various international arbitral tribunals (ICSID, ICC, CRCICA, etc.). 
 Professor Abi-Saab graduated in law from Cairo University and pursued his studies in law, 
economics, and politics at the Univ ersities of Paris, Michigan (MA in Economics), Harvard Law 
School (LLM and SJD), Cambridge, and Geneva ( Docteur en Sciences Politiques ).  He also held 
numerous visiting professorships, inter alia , at Harvard Law School, the Universities of Tunis, 
Jordan, the West Indies (Trinidad), as well as the Rennert Distinguished Professorship at NYU School 
of Law and the Henri Rolin Chair in Belgian Universities. 
 Professor Abi-Saab is the author of numerous books and articles, including: Les exceptions 
préliminaires dans la procédure de la Cour in ternationale: Étude des notions fondamentales de 
procédure et des moyens de leur mise en œuvre  (Paris, Pedone, 1967); International Crises and the 
Role of Law: The United Nations Operation in Congo 1960–1964 (Oxford University Press, 1978); 
The Concept of International Organization  (as editor) (Paris, UNESCO, 1981; French edition, 1980); 
and of two courses at the Hague Academy of Intern ational Law: "Wars of National Liberation in  
the Geneva Conventions and Protocols" ( Recueil des cours , vol. 165 (1979–IV)); and the "General 
Course of Public International Law" (in French) ( Recueil des cours , vol. 207 (1987–VII)). 
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 d esignated under MERCOSUR's Prot ocol of Brasilia since 
1993.  Professor Baptista was senior partner at the 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 WT/AB/11 
Page 52  
 
corporations in Brazil and in othe r jurisdictions.  Professor Baptista has been an arbitrator at the 
United Nations Compensation Commission (E4A Panel), in several private commercial disputes and State-investor proceedings, as well as in disput es 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 Catholic University of São 
Paulo, pursued post-graduate studies at Columbia University Law School and The Hague Academy of 
International Law, and received a Ph.D. in Interna tional Law from the University of Paris II.  He was 
Visiting Professor at the University of Michig an (Ann Arbor) from 1978 to 1979, and at the 
University of Paris I and the University of Pa ris 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.  
Arumugamangalam Venkatachalam Ganesan   (India) (2000–2008) 
 Born in Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India on 7 June 1935, Arumugamangalam Venkatachalam 
Ganesan has been a distinguished civil servant of India.  He was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service, a premier civil service of India, in May 1959, and served in that service until June 1993.  In a career spanning over 34 years, he has held a number of high level assignments, including Joint Secretary (Investment), Department  of Economic Affairs, G overnment of India (1977–
1980); Inter-Regional Adviser, UNCTC, United Na tions Headquarters, New York (1980–1985); 
Additional Secretary, Department of Industrial Development, Government of India (1986–1989); 
Chief Negotiator of India for the Uruguay Round  of Multilateral Trade Negotiations and Special 
Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India (1989–1990); Civil Aviation Secretary of the Government of India (1990–1991); and Commerce S ecretary of the Government of India (1991–
1993).  He represented India on numerous occasi ons in bilateral, regional, and multilateral 
negotiations in the areas of international trade, i nvestment, and intellectual property rights.  Between 
1989 and 1993, he represented India at the various  stages of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade 
Negotiations. 
 After his retirement from civil service, Mr. Ga nesan served as an expert  and consultant to 
various agencies of the United Nations system, including UNIDO and UNDP, in the field of international trade, investment, and intellectual prope rty rights.  He has also spoken extensively to the 
business, managerial, scientific, and academic commun ities in India on the scope and substance of the 
Uruguay Round negotiations and Agr eements and their implications.  Until his appointment to the 
Appellate Body of the WTO in 2000, he was a Me mber of the Government of India's High Level 
Trade Advisory Committee on Multilateral Trade Ne gotiations.  He was also a Member of the WT/AB/11 
Page 53 
 
 
Permanent Group of Experts under the SCM Agreement , and a Member of a WTO dispute settlement 
panel in 1999–2000 in the US – Section 110(5) Copyright Act case. 
 Mr. Ganesan has written numerous newspaper ar ticles and monographs dealing with various 
aspects of the Uruguay Round Agreements and their im plications.  He is also the author of many 
papers on trade, investment, and intellectual property issues for UNCTAD and UNIDO, and has 
contributed to books published in India on matters concerning the Uruguay Round, including 
intellectual property rights issues. 
 Mr. Ganesan holds M.A. and M.Sc. degrees from the University of Madras, India. Jennifer Hillman   (United States) (2007–2011) 
 Born in the United States on 29 January 1957,  Jennifer Hillman serves as a Distinguished 
Visiting Fellow and Adjunct Professor of Law at the Ge orgetown University Law Center's Institute of 
International Economic Law.  Her work focuses on the WTO dispute settlement system, the WTO 
agreements related to trade remedies, and WTO jurisp rudence related to trade remedies.  She is also a 
Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the Germ an Marshall Fund for the United States. 
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 all United States bilateral te xtile 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.  He was a diplomat in the Japanese Fore ign Service until March 2008, when he retired after 
40 years of service, his last overseas posting be ing 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 Re presentative to the G-8 Summit in Canada in June 
2002.  In the same year he served as the Prime 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.  
Since April 2008, he is Visiting Professor at the Graduate School of  Public Policy, the 
University of Tokyo. WT/AB/11 
Page 54  
 
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 the public sector, including Vice-Chairman of 
the OECD Working Group on Bribery in Internati onal Business Transactions until 2001, where he 
was one of the drafters of the "Anticorruption Conven tion of 1997".  He has acted as consultant to the 
Council of Europe, UNCTAD, and the World Bank in matters related to foreign 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) since 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 of ten served as arbitrator in international commercial 
disputes and has acted as counsel in connection with international business transactions.   
 Professor Sacerdoti has published extensively,  especially on international trade law, 
investments, international contracts, and arbitrati on.  His 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, 2006) (co- editor with A. Yanovich and J. Bohanes); 
"Structure et fonction du système de règlement 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>.  
 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.  WT/AB/11 
Page 55 
 
 
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 he ld 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), where she was involved in drafting many of China's trade laws.   
From 1987 to 1996, she was one of China's chie f negotiators on intellectual property and was 
involved in the preparation of China's patent law, trademark law, and copyright law.  She also served 
as the chief legal counsel for China's WTO accessi on.  Between 1982 and 1985, Ms. Zhang worked as 
legal counsel at the World Bank.  She was a Member of the Governing Council of UNIDROIT 
(International Institute for the Unification of Pr ivate Law) from 1987 to 1999 and a Board Member of 
IDLO (International Development Law Organization)  from 1988 to 1999.  Ms. Zhang has a Bachelor 
of Arts from China High Education College, a Bachel or of Arts from Rennes University of France, 
and a Master 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 LLM 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 numerous de veloping country countries.  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 and th e University of Zurich.  From 1987 to 1989, he 
worked for governmental and non-governmental deve lopment aid organizations in Austria and Latin 
America.  Dr. Zdouc has authored various publications on international economic law. WT/AB/11 
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 ** 
 
* 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/11 
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/11 
Page 58  
 
ANNEX 3 
 
 
APPEALS FILED: 1995–2008 
 
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 
Total   97 80 17 
 
a This number includes two Notices of Appeal 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/11 
Page 59 
 
 
ANNEX 4 
 
 
PERCENTAGE OF PANEL REPORTS APPEALED 
BY YEAR OF ADOPTION: 1995–2008 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% 
Total 143 97 68% 118 80 68% 25 17 68% 
 
a No panel reports were adopted in 1995. 
b Under Article 21.5 of the DSU, a pane l may be established to hear a "disagreement as to the existence or 
consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the re commendations 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 panel 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 appe aled may differ from the numbe r 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/11 
Page 60 
ANNEX 5 
 
 
WTO AGREEMENTS ADDRESSED IN APPELLATE BODY REPORT S CIRCULATED THROUGH 2008 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 
Total 74 10 58 13 6 3 2 0 24 2 24 7 4 3 
 
a No appeals were filed in 1995. WT/AB/11 
Page 61 
 
 
ANNEX 6 
 
 
PARTICIPANTS AND THIRD PARTIC IPANTS IN APPEALS:  1995–2008 
 
 
 As of the end of 2008, there were 153 WTO Members1, of which 67 (44 per cent) have 
participated in appeals in which Appellate Body  reports were circulated between 1996 and 2008.2  
 
 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 22 30 
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 22 46 
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 3 1 1 24 29 
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 submitte d, on 16 April 2008, its acceptance of the terms and conditions of 
membership set out in the Accession  Protocol (see WT/L/718).  Ukrain e became the 152nd Member of the 
WTO on 16 May 2008. 
The Government of the Republic of Cap Verde submi tted, 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/11 
Page 62  
 
WTO Member Appellant Other 
appellant Appellee Third 
participant Total 
Egypt 0 0 0 1 1 
El Salvador 0 0 0 2 2 
European Communities 16 13 33 45 107 
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 7 7 
India 6 2 7 21 36 
Indonesia 0 0 1 1 2 
Israel 0 0 0 1 1 
Jamaica 0 0 0 5 5 
Japan 6 4 10 35 55 
Kenya 0 0 0 1 1 
Korea 4 3 6 12 25 
Madagascar 0 0 0 1 1 
Malaysia 1 0 1 0 2 
Mauritius 0 0 0 2 2 
Malawi 0 0 0 1 1 
Mexico 5 1 4 24 34 
New Zealand 0 2 5 11 18 
Nicaragua 0 0 0 4 4 
Nigeria 0 0 0 1 1 
Norway 0 1 1 10 12 
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/11 
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 15 15 
Tanzania 0 0 0 1 1 
Thailand 4 0 5 13 22 
Trinidad &Tobago  0 0 0 1 1 
Turkey 1 0 0 1 2 
United States 28 13 57 27 125 
Venezuela 0 0 1 6 7 
Viet Nam 0 0 0 2 2 
Total 105 60 185 432 782 
 
 
   
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/11 
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 
Saint Lucia 
St Vincent & 
the Grenadines 
Senegal 
Suriname 
Venezuela 
India – Patents (US) WT/DS50/AB/R  India - - - United States European 
Communities WT/AB/11 
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/11 
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/11 
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/11 
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/11 
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/11 
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/11 
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/11 
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/11 
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/11 
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/11 
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/11 
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/11 
Page 77 
 
 
2008  (con't) 
 
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 
Saint Lucia 
Saint Vincent & 
the Grenadines 
Suriname 
United States WT/AB/11 
Page 78  
 
2008
 (con't) 
 
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 
Saint Lucia Saint 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/11 
Page 79 
 
 
 ANNEX 7 
 
 
PROCEDURAL RULING CONCERNING THE OPENING 
OF THE ORAL HEARING TO PUBLIC OBSERVATION IN  
US – CONTINUED SUSPENSION  AND CANADA – CONTINUED SUSPENSION  
 
 
United States – Continued Suspension of Ob ligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute 
AB-2008-5 
Canada – Continued Suspension of Obliga tions in the EC – Hormones Dispute 
AB-2008-6 
 
Procedural Ruling  
 
1. On 3 June 2008, Canada, the European Comm unities, and the United States each filed a 
request to allow public observation of the oral hearing in these proceedings.1  The participants argued 
that nothing in the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes  (the 
"DSU") or the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  (the " Working Procedures ") precludes the 
Appellate Body from authorizing public observation of  the oral hearing.  On 4 June 2008, we invited 
the third participants to comment in writing on the requests of Canada, th e European Communities, 
and the United States.  In particular, we asked thir d parties to provide their views on the permissibility 
of opening the hearing under the DSU and the Working Procedures , and, if they so wished, on the 
specific logistical arrangements proposed in the requests.  We received comments on 12 June 2008 
from Australia, Brazil, China, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, and the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.  Australia, New Zealand, Norway, and the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu expressed their support for the request of 
the participants.  Brazil, China, India, and Me xico requested the Appellate Body to deny the 
participants' request.  According to these third participants, the oral hearing forms part of the 
proceedings of the Appellate Body and, therefore, is  subject to the requirement of Article 17.10 of the 
DSU that "[t]he proceedings of the Appellate Body shall be conf idential."  On 16 June 2008, we 
invited Canada, the European Communities, and the United States to comment on the submissions 
made by the third participants.  We also invited third participants who wi shed to do so to submit 
comments on the submissions made by the other third participants.  Additional comments from 
Canada, the European Communities, and the United States were received on 23 June 2008.  We held 
an oral hearing with the participants and third pa rticipants on 7 July 2008 exclusively dedicated to 
exploring the issues raised by the request of the par ticipants.  The participants and third participants 
were invited to submit by close of business, 8 July  2008, additional comments relating specifically to 
the technical modalities proposed by the particip ants for public observation.  Comments were 
received from Brazil, China, India, and Mexico, as well as Canada, the European Communities, and 
the United States. 
2. We consider it necessary that a ruling is made by us on the request of the participants without 
delay.  Accordingly, we give a ruling with concise reasons.  These reasons may be further elaborated 
in the Appellate Body report.  
                                                      
1The participants expressed a prefer ence for simultaneous, closed-circu it television broadcast to another 
room.  As alternatives, they mentioned delayed television broadcast and having a separate session for the third 
participants who elect not to participate in the open hearing. WT/AB/11 
Page 80  
 
 3. The participants have different views on the sc ope of the term "proceedings" in Article 17.10 
of the DSU.  The European Comm unities argues that the term "proceedings" in Article 17.10 should 
be interpreted narrowly as referring to  the Appellate Body's internal work and does not include its oral 
hearing.
2  The United States refers to the Recommend ations by the Preparatory Committee for the 
WTO.  The United States contends that the Pr eparatory Committee viewed Article 17.10 as focused 
on the deliberations of the Appellate Body.3  Canada concedes that the term "proceedings" covers the 
oral hearing.  A similar view has been put forward by Brazil, China, India, and Mexico.  We consider 
the term "proceedings" to mean the entire proces s by which an appeal is prosecuted, from the 
initiation of an appeal to the circulation of the Appell ate Body report, including the oral hearing.  This 
is also how the Appellate Body understood the term in Canada – Aircraft .4  Having agreed with this 
broad interpretation of the term "p roceedings", we now consider the precise meaning and scope of the 
confidentiality requirement in Article 17.10. 
4. The third participants that object to the requ est to allow public observation argue that the 
confidentiality requirement in Article 17.10 is abso lute and permits of no de rogation.  We disagree 
with this interpretation because Article 17.10 must be  read in context, particularly in relation to 
Article 18.2 of the DSU.  The second sentence of Article 18.2 expressly provides that "[n]othing in 
this Understanding shall preclude a party to a dis pute from disclosing statements of its own positions 
to the public".  Thus, under Article 18.2, the parti es may decide to forego confidentiality protection in 
respect of their statements of position.  With th e exception of India, the participants and third 
participants agreed that the te rm "statements of its own positions " in Article 18.2 extends beyond the 
written submissions referred to in the first sentence of Article 18.2, and includes oral statements and 
responses to questions posed by the Appellate Body  at the oral hearing.  The third sentence of 
Article 18.2 states that "Members shall treat as c onfidential information submitted by another Member 
to the panel or the Appellate Body which that  Member has designated as confidential."  This 
provision would be redundant if Article 17.10 were in terpreted to require absolute confidentiality in 
respect of all elements of appellate proceedings.  There would be no need to require, pursuant to 
Article 18.2, that a Member designate certain in formation as confidential.  The last sentence of 
Article 18.2 ensures that even such designation by  a Member does not put an end to the right of 
another Member to make disclosure to the public.  Upon request, a Member must provide a non-confidential summary of the information contained in its written submissions that it designated as 
confidential, which can then be disclosed to th e public.  Thus, Article 18.2 provides contextual 
support for the view that the confidentiality rule in Article 17.10 is not absolute.  Otherwise, no 
disclosure of written submissions or other statem ents would be permitted during any stage of the 
proceedings. 
5. In practice, the confidentiality requirement in Article 17.10 has its limits.  Notices of Appeal 
and Appellate Body reports are disclosed to the publ ic.  Appellate Body reports contain summaries of 
the participants' and third particip ants' written and oral submissions and frequently quote directly from 
them.  Public disclosure of Appellate Body reports is an inherent and necessary feature of our rules-
based system of adjudication.  Consequently, un der the DSU, confidentiality is relative and time-
bound.   
                                                     
 
2European Communities' request for an open hearing, para. 9.  Norway also argued for a narrower 
understanding of the term "proceedings". 
3United States' comments on the third participants' submissions regarding open hearings, paras. 5 and 6 
(referring to Establishment of the Appellate Body: Recommendations by the Preparatory Committee for the 
WTO approved by the Dispute Settlement Body on 10 February 1995 (WT/DSB/1), para. 9). 
4Appellate Body Report, Canada – Aircraft , para. 143.  However, we note that that case did not involve 
a request to lift confidentiality; rather, that dispute co ncerned a request for additional confidentiality protection 
for business confidential information. WT/AB/11 
Page 81 
 
 
 6. In our view, the confidentiality requirement in Article 17.10 is more properly understood as 
operating in a relational manner.5  There are different sets of relationships that are implicated in 
appellate proceedings.  Among them are the following relationships.  First, a relationship between the 
participants and the Appellate Body.  Secondly, a relationship between the third participants and the 
Appellate Body.  The requirement that the proceedi ngs of the Appellate Body are confidential affords 
protection to these separate relationships and is intend ed to safeguard the inter ests of the participants 
and third participants and the adj udicative function of the Appellate Body, so as to foster the system 
of dispute settlement under conditions of fairness, im partiality, independence and integrity.  In this 
case, the participants have jointly requested author ization to forego confiden tiality protection for their 
communications with the Appellate Body at the oral hearing.  The request of the participants does not 
extend to any communications, nor touches upon the re lationship, between the third participants and 
the Appellate Body.  The right to confidentiality of third participants vis-à-vis the Appellate Body is 
not implicated by the joint request.  The question is  thus whether the request of the participants to 
forego confidentiality protection sa tisfies the requirements of fairness and integrity that are the 
essential attributes of the appellate process and defi ne the relationship between the Appellate Body 
and the participants.  If the request meets these st andards, then the Appellate Body would incline 
towards authorizing such a joint request. 
7. We note that the DSU does not specifically provide for an oral hearing at the appellate stage.  
The oral hearing was instituted by the Appellate Body in its Working Procedures , which were drawn 
up pursuant to Article 17.9 of the DSU.  The conduct and organization of the oral hearing falls within 
the authority of the Appellate Body ( compétence de la compétence ) pursuant to Rule 27 of the 
Working Procedures .  Thus, the Appellate Body has the power to exercise control over the conduct of 
the oral hearing, including authorizing the lifting  of confidentiality at the joint request of the 
participants as long as this does not adversely affect the rights and interests of the third participants or 
the integrity of the appellate process.  As we observed earlier, Article 17.10 also applies to the 
relationship between third participan ts and the Appellate Body.  Nevertheless, in our view, the third 
participants cannot invoke Article 17.10, as it applies to their relationship with the Appellate Body, so 
as to bar the lifting of confidentiality protection in the relationship between th e participants and the 
Appellate Body.  Likewise, authorizing the partic ipants' request to forego confidentiality, does not 
affect the rights of third participants to preserve the confidentiality of their communications with the 
Appellate Body. 
8. Some of the third participants argued that the Appellate Body is itself constrained by 
Article 17.10 in its power to authorize the lifting of  confidentiality.  We agree that the powers of the 
Appellate Body are themselves circumscribed in that  certain aspects of confidentiality are incapable 
of derogation—even by the Appellate Body—w here derogation may undermine the exercise and 
integrity of the Appellate Body's adjudicative functi on.  This includes the situation contemplated in 
the second sentence of Article 17.10, which provides that  "[t]he reports of the Appellate Body shall be 
drafted without the presence of the parties to the dispute and in the light of the information provided 
and the statements made."  As noted by the partic ipants, the confidentiality of the deliberations is 
necessary to protect the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the appella te process.  In our 
view, such concerns do not arise in a situation wher e, following a joint request of the participants, the 
Appellate Body authorizes the lifting of the confidentiality of the partic ipants' statements at the oral 
hearing.   
9. The Appellate Body has fostered the active par ticipation of third parties in the appellate 
process in drawing up the Working Procedures and in appeal practice.  Ar ticle 17.4 provides that third 
participants "may make written submissions to, an d be given an opportunity to be heard by, the 
Appellate Body."  In its Working Procedures , the Appellate Body has given full effect to this right by 
                                                      
5This relational view of rights and obligations of  confidentiality is consistent with the approach 
followed in domestic jurisdictions with respect to similar issues, such as privilege. WT/AB/11 
Page 82  
 
 providing for participation of third participants during the entirety of the oral hearing, while third 
parties meet with panels only in a separate session at the first substantive meeting.  Third participants, 
however, are not the main parties to a dispute.  Rather, they have a systemic interest in the 
interpretation of the provisions of the covered agreem ents that may be at issue in an appeal.  Although 
their views on the questions of legal interpretation that come before the Appellate Body are always 
valuable and thoroughly considered, these issues of le gal interpretation are not i nherently confidential.  
Nor is it a matter for the third participants to de termine how the protection of confidentiality in the 
relationship between the participants and the Appellate  Body is best dealt with.  In order to sustain 
their objections to public observation of the oral hear ing, third participants would have to identify a 
specific interest in their relationship with the Appe llate Body that would be adversely affected if we 
were to authorize the participants' request—in this case, we can discern no such interests. 
10. The request for public observation of the oral hearing has been made jointly by the three 
participants, Canada, the European Communities, and the United States.  As we explained earlier, the 
Appellate Body has the power to authorize a joint request by the participants to lift confidentiality, 
provided that this does not affect the confidentiality of the relationship between the third participants 
and the Appellate Body, or impair the integrity of  the appellate process.  The participants have 
suggested alternative modalities that allow for public observation of the oral hearing, while 
safeguarding the confidentiality protection enjoyed by the third participants.  The modalities include 
simultaneous or delayed closed-circuit television br oadcasting in a room separate from the room used 
for the oral hearing.  Finally, we do not see the public observation of the oral hearing, using the means described above, as having an adverse impact on the integrity of the adjudicative functions performed 
by the Appellate Body. 
11. For these reasons, the Division authorizes the public  observation of the oral hearing in these 
proceedings on the terms set out below.  A ccordingly, pursuant to Rule 16(1) of the Working 
Procedures , we adopt the following additional proced ures for the purposes of these appeals: 
(a) The oral hearing will be open to public observation by means of simultaneous closed-
circuit television.  The closed-circuit tele vision signal will be shown in a separate 
room to which duly-registered delegates of WTO Members and members of the general public will have access.   
(b) Oral statements and responses to questions by  third participants wishing to maintain 
the confidentiality of their submissions w ill not be subject to public observation.   
(c) Any third participant that has not already done so may request authorization to 
disclose its oral statements and responses to  questions on the basis of paragraph (a), 
set out above.  Such requests must be recei ved by the Appellate Body Secretariat no 
later than 5:30 p.m. on 18 July 2008 . 
(d) An appropriate number of seats will be reserved for delegates of WTO Members in 
the room where the closed-circuit broadcast will be shown. 
(e) Notice of the oral hearing will be provid ed to the general public through the WTO 
website.  WTO delegates and members of th e general public wishing to observe the 
oral hearing will be required to register in advance with the WTO Secretariat. 
(f) Should practical considerations not allow simultaneous broadcast of the oral hearing, 
deferred showing of the video recordin g will be used in the alternative. 
 WT/AB/11 
Page 83 
 
 
 ANNEX 8 
 
 
APPELLATE BODY SECRETARIAT PARTICIPATION IN  
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, TRAINING , AND OTHER ACTIVITIES IN 2008 
 
 
I.  WTO BIENNIAL TE CHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING PLAN: 2008–2009 
 
Course / Seminar Location Dates 
Regional Trade Policy Course – Basic Principles Jamaica 
(English) 4–5 February 2008 
44th Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement  Geneva, Switzerland 
(English) 17–20 March 2008 
43rd Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement  Geneva, Switzerland 
(English) 25–28 March 2008 
Regional Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement  Jamaica 
(English) 7–11 April 2008 
20th Thematic Course on Dispute Settlement Geneva, Switzerland 
(English) 5–9 May 2008 
Regional Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement  Singapore 
(English) 12–16 May 2008 
National Dispute Settlement Seminar  Burkina Faso 
(French) 28–31 July 2008 
Regional Dispute Settlement Seminar Madagascar 
(French) 4–7 August 2008 
21st Thematic Course on Dispute Settlement Geneva, Switzerland 
(French) 6–10 October 2008 
National Seminar and other activities on  
WTO Dispute Settlement and Trade Remedies Indonesia 
(English) 10–14 November 2008 
National Dispute Settlement Seminar  Niger 
(French) 26–27 November 2008 
Regional Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement  Benin 
(French) 1–5 December 2008 
22nd Thematic Course on Dispute Settlement Geneva, Switzerland 
(English) 1–5 December 2008 
 WT/AB/11 
Page 84  
 
 II.  OTHER ACTIVITIES – 2008 
 
Activity Location Dates 
Workshop on dispute settlement with the ASEAN 
Secretariat  Geneva, Switzerland 4–5 February 2008 
ELSA Moot Court Competition Geneva, Sw itzerland 29 April – 4 May 2008 
Presentation on disputes on agricultural subsidies to 
the Vietnamese mission Geneva, Switzerland 19 May 2008 
Presentation on world trade regime to students at 
Europainstitut Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien Vienna, Austria 6 June 2008 
World Trade Institute MILE Moot Court Competition Berne, Switzerland 3–4 July 2008 
 
 
III.  BRIEFINGS TO GROUPS VISITING THE WTO – 2008 
 
Activity Location Dates 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students from 
University of St Gallen, Switzerland  Geneva, Switzerland 15 January 2008 
Overview of appellate review to members of the 
International Judicial Academy, Washington DC, USA Geneva, Switzerland 24 January 2008 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students from 
University of Berlin, Germany Geneva, Switzerland 31 January 2008 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students from 
University of Utrecht, Netherlands Geneva, Switzerland 7 February 2008 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students from 
Australian National University Geneva, Switzerland 7 February 2008 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students from 
Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland Geneva, Switzerland 28 February 2008 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students in the 
Masters in International Legal Studies programme, 
University of Vienna, Austria Geneva, Switzerland 11 March 2008 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students from 
University of Chile Geneva, Switzerland 14 March 2008 
Talk on WTO negotiations and dispute settlement to 
students from University of Rotterdam, Netherlands Geneva, Switzerland 14 March 2008 
Presentation on WTO dispute settlement to students 
from Roger Williams University, USA Geneva, Switzerland 2 June 2008 WT/AB/11 
Page 85 
 
 
 Activity Location Dates 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students from 
Queen's University School of Law, Canada Geneva, Switzerland 6 June 2008 
Talk on appellate review and WTO dispute settlement 
to students from Washington College of Law, USA Geneva, Switzerland 16 June 2008 
Talk on appellate review to students from World 
Trade Institute and Univer sity of Bocconi, Italy Geneva, Switzerland 19 June 2008 
Presentation on the DSU to students from St Gallen 
University, Switzerland  Geneva, Switzerland 9 July 2008 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students from 
Duke University, USA Geneva, Switzerland 23 July 2008 
Talk on appellate review and WTO dispute settlement 
to students from Universidad Adolfo Ibañez, Chile Geneva, Switzerland 15 September 2008 
Talk on the role and functions of the WTO system to 
students from Cercle d'études sur l'Europe et les 
européens  (ACEE), Versailles, France  Geneva, Switzerland 24 October 2008  
Presentation on the WTO and the multilateral trading 
system to students from University of St Gallen, 
Switzerland  Geneva, Switzerland 4 November 2008  
Talk on appellate review to LLM students from 
University of Geneva, Switzerland Geneva, Switzerland 21 November 2008 
 
   WT/AB/11 
Page 86  
 
 ANNEX 9 
 
 
WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORT S AND ARBITRATION AWARDS: 1995–2008 
 
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 WT/AB/11 
Page 87 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Brazil – Aircraft  Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft , 
WT/DS46/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1161 
Brazil – Aircraft  Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft , WT/DS46/R, 
adopted 20 August 1999, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS46/AB/R, DSR 1999:III, 1221 
Brazil – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Canada)  Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft 
 – Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS46/AB/RW, adopted 
4 August 2000, DSR 2000:VIII, 4067 
Brazil – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Canada)  Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme  for Aircraft – Recourse by 
Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS46/RW, adopted 4 August 2000, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS46/AB/RW, DSR 2000:IX, 4093 
Brazil – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Canada II )  Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing 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, as upheld by Appellate Body Report WT/DS22/AB/R, 
DSR 1997:I, 189 
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres , 
WT/DS332/AB/R, adopted 17 December 2007 
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 
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres 
(Article 21.3(c)) Award of the Arbitrator, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded 
Tyres – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS332/16, 29 August 
2008 
Canada – Aircraft  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian 
Aircraft , WT/DS70/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1377 
Canada – Aircraft  Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft , 
WT/DS70/R, adopted 20 August 1999, as upheld by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS70/AB/R, DSR 1999:IV, 1443 
Canada – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Brazil)  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian 
Aircraft – Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS70/AB/RW, 
adopted 4 August 2000, DSR 2000:IX, 4299 
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 WT/AB/11 
Page 88  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 
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, as upheld by Appellate Body Report WT/DS170/AB/R, 
DSR 2000:XI, 5121 WT/AB/11 
Page 89 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Canada – Patent Term 
(Article 21.3(c))  Award of the Arbitrator, Canada – Term of Patent Protection – Arbitration under 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS170/10, 28 February 2001, DSR 2001:V, 2031 
Canada – Periodicals  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals , 
WT/DS31/AB/R, adopted 30 July 1997, DSR 1997:I, 449 
Canada – Periodicals  Panel Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals , WT/DS31/R 
and Corr.1, adopted 30 July 1997, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS31/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, 481 
Canada – Pharmaceutical 
Patents  Panel Report, Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products , 
WT/DS114/R, adopted 7 April 2000, DSR 2000:V, 2289 
Canada – Pharmaceutical 
Patents (Article 21.3(c))  Award of the Arbitrator, Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products 
– Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS114/13, 18 August 2000, 
DSR 2002:I, 3 
Canada – Wheat Exports and 
Grain Imports Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and 
Treatment of Imported Grain , WT/DS276/AB/R, adopted 27 September 2004, 
DSR 2004:VI, 2739 
Canada – Wheat Exports and Grain Imports Panel Report, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of 
Imported Grain , WT/DS276/R, adopted 27 September 2004, as upheld by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS276/AB/R, DSR 2004:VI, 2817 
Chile – Alcoholic Beverages  Appellate Body Report, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS87/AB/R, 
WT/DS110/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, 281 
Chile – Alcoholic Beverages  Panel Report, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS87/R, WT/DS110/R, 
adopted 12 January 2000, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS87/AB/R, WT/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 
Chile – Price Band System 
(Article 21.5 – Argentina) Panel Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to 
Certain Agricultural Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by 
Argentina , WT/DS207/RW and Corr.1, adopted 22 May 2007, as upheld by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS207/AB/RW 
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 WT/AB/11 
Page 90  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
China – Auto Parts  Panel Reports, China – Measures Affecting Imports of Automobile Parts , 
WT/DS339/R, WT/DS340/R, WT/DS342/R and Add.1 and Add.2, adopted 12 January 2009, as upheld (WT/DS339/R), and as modified (WT/DS340/R, 
WT/DS342/R) by Appellate Body Reports WT/DS339/AB/R, WT/DS340/AB/R, 
WT/DS342/AB/R 
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 
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 
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 WT/AB/11 
Page 91 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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, as 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 
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  WT/AB/11 
Page 92  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 
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 WT/AB/11 
Page 93 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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  
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 WT/AB/11 
Page 94  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 
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 WT/AB/11 
Page 95 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
India – Patents (US)  Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products , WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998, 
DSR 1998:I, 9 
India – Patents (US)  Panel Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural 
Chemical Products, Complaint by the United States , WT/DS50/R, adopted 
16 January 1998, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS50/AB/R, 
DSR 1998:I, 41 
India – Quantitative 
Restrictions  Appellate Body Report, India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of 
Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products , WT/DS90/AB/R, adopted 
22 September 1999, DSR 1999:IV, 1763 
India – Quantitative 
Restrictions  Panel Report, India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile 
and Industrial Products , WT/DS90/R, adopted 22 September 1999, as upheld by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS90/AB/R, DSR 1999:V, 1799 
Indonesia – Autos  Panel Report, Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry , 
WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R and Corr.1 and 2, adopted 
23 July 1998, and Corr. 3 and 4, DSR 1998:VI, 2201 
Indonesia – Autos 
(Article 21.3(c))  Award of the Arbitrator, Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile 
Industry – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS54/15, 
WT/DS55/14, WT/DS59/13, WT/DS64/12, 7 December 1998, DSR 1998:IX, 
4029 
Japan – Agricultural 
Products II  Appellate Body Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products , 
WT/DS76/AB/R, adopted 19 March 1999, DSR 1999:I, 277 
Japan – Agricultural Products II  Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products , WT/DS76/R, 
adopted 19 March 1999, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS76/AB/R, 
DSR 1999:I, 315 
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II  Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS8/AB/R, 
WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, DSR 1996:I, 97  
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II  Panel Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS8/R, WT/DS10/R, 
WT/DS11/R, adopted 1 November 1996, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, DSR 1996:I, 125 
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II  
(Article 21.3(c))  Award of the Arbitrator, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages – Arbitration 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS8/15, WT/DS10/15, WT/DS11/13, 
14 February 1997, DSR 1997:I, 3 
Japan – Apples  Appellate Body Report, Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples , 
WT/DS245/AB/R, adopted 10 December 2003, DSR 2003:IX, 4391 
Japan – Apples  Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples , 
WT/DS245/R, adopted 10 December 2003, as upheld by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS245/AB/R, DSR 2003:IX, 4481  
Japan – Apples  
(Article 21.5 – US)  Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples – Recourse 
to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States , WT/DS245/RW, adopted 20 July 
2005, DSR 2005:XVI, 7911 
Japan – DRAMs (Korea) Appellate Body Report, Japan – Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random 
Access Memories from Korea , WT/DS336/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 
17 December 2007 
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 WT/AB/11 
Page 96  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 
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 
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 WT/AB/11 
Page 97 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Mexico – Corn Syrup  
(Article 21.5 – US)  Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose 
Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU  
by the United States , WT/DS132/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, 
DSR 2001:XIII, 6675 
Mexico – Corn Syrup  
(Article 21.5 – US)  Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU  by the 
United States , WT/DS132/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, as upheld by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS132/AB/RW, DSR 2001:XIII, 6717 
Mexico – 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 
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 
Turkey – Textiles  Appellate Body Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing 
Products , WT/DS34/AB/R, adopted 19 November 1999, DSR 1999:VI, 2345 
Turkey – Textiles  Panel Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports  of Textile and Clothing Products , 
WT/DS34/R, adopted 19 November 1999, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS34/AB/R, DSR 1999:VI, 2363 
US – 1916 Act  Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 , 
WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, adopted 26 September 2000, DSR 2000:X, 
4793 
US – 1916 Act (EC)  Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, Complaint by the 
European Communities , WT/DS136/R and Corr.1, adopted 26 September 2000, 
as upheld by Appellate Body Report WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, 
DSR 2000:X, 4593 
US – 1916 Act (Japan)  Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, Complaint by Japan , 
WT/DS162/R and Add.1, adopted 26 September 2000, as upheld by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, DSR 2000:X, 4831 
US – 1916 Act  (Article 21.3(c))  Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 – Arbitration 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS136/11, WT/DS162/14, 28 February 
2001, DSR 2001:V, 2017 WT/AB/11 
Page 98  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 Panel Report, United States – Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing 
Methodology , WT/DS350/R, circulated to WTO Members 1 October 2008 
[appealed on 6 November 2008] 
US – Corrosion-Resistant 
Steel Sunset Review  Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties 
on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan , 
WT/DS244/AB/R, adopted 9 January 2004, DSR 2004:I, 3  
US – Corrosion-Resistant 
Steel Sunset Review  Panel Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan , WT/DS244/R, 
adopted 9 January 2004, as modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WTDS244/AB/R, DSR 2004:I, 85  
US – Cotton Yarn  Appellate Body Report, United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on 
Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan , WT/DS192/AB/R, adopted 5 November 
2001, DSR 2001:XII, 6027 
US – Cotton Yarn  Panel Report, United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton 
Yarn from Pakistan , WT/DS192/R, adopted 5 November 2001, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS192/AB/R, DSR 2001:XII, 6067 WT/AB/11 
Page 99 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 
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 WT/AB/11 
Page 100  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – FSC  
(Article 21.5 – EC II) Panel Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" 
 – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities , 
WT/DS108/RW2, adopted 14 March 2006, as upheld by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS108/AB/RW2, DSR 2006:XI, 4761 
US – FSC  
(Article 22.6 – US)  Decision by 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 
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 
US – Gasoline  Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and 
Conventional Gasoline , WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, DSR 1996:I, 3 
US – Gasoline  Panel Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional 
Gasoline , WT/DS2/R, adopted 20 May 1996, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS2/AB/R, DSR 1996:I, 29 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel  Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain  
Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan , WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 23 August 
2001, DSR 2001:X, 4697 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel  Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled 
Steel Products from Japan , WT/DS184/R, adopted 23 August 2001 modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS184/AB/R, DSR 2001:X, 4769 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel 
(Article 21.3(c))  Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain  
Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the 
DSU , WT/DS184/13, 19 February 2002, DSR 2002:IV, 1389 
US – Lamb  Appellate Body Report, United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, 
Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia , 
WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, adopted 16 May 2001, DSR 2001:IX, 4051 
US – Lamb  Panel Report, United States – Safeguard Measures  on Imports of Fresh, Chilled 
or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia , WT/DS177/R, 
WT/DS178/R, adopted 16 May 2001, as modified by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, DSR 2001:IX, 4107 WT/AB/11 
Page 101 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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, as upheld by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS138/AB/R, DSR 2000:VI, 2623 
US – Line Pipe  Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Circular Welded 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 
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 WT/AB/11 
Page 102  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 
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 
US – Section 110(5) Copyright 
Act Panel Report, United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act , 
WT/DS160/R, adopted 27 July 2000, DSR 2000:VIII, 3769 
US – Section 110(5) Copyright 
Act (Article 21.3(c))  Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act  
– Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS160/12, 15 January 2001, 
DSR 2001:II, 657 
US – Section 110(5) Copyright 
Act (Article 25)  Award of the Arbitrators, United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act 
– Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU , WT/DS160/ARB25/1, 
9 November 2001, DSR 2001:II, 667 
US – Section 129(c)(1) URAA  Panel Report, United States – Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act , WT/DS221/R, adopted 30 August 2002, DSR 2002:VII, 2581 
US – Section 211 
Appropriations Act  Appellate Body Report, United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations 
Act of 1998 , WT/DS176/AB/R, adopted 1 February 2002, DSR 2002:II, 589 
US – Section 211 
Appropriations Act  Panel Report, United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 , 
WT/DS176/R, adopted 1 February 2002, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS176/AB/R, DSR 2002:II, 683 
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 WT/AB/11 
Page 103 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Shrimp  Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and 
Shrimp Products , WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VII, 
2755 
US – Shrimp  Panel Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp 
Products , WT/DS58/R and Corr.1, adopted 6 November 1998, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS58/AB/R, DSR 1998:VII, 2821 
US – Shrimp  
(Article 21.5 – Malaysia)  Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp 
 and Shrimp Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia , 
WT/DS58/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, DSR 2001:XIII, 6481 
US – Shrimp  (Article 21.5 – Malaysia)  Panel Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp 
Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia , WT/DS58/RW, 
adopted 21 November 2001, as upheld by Appellate Body Report 
WT/DS58/AB/RW, DSR 2001:XIII, 6529 
US – Shrimp (Ecuador) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador , 
WT/DS335/R, adopted on 20 February 2007 
US – Shrimp (Thailand) / 
US – Customs 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 , as 
upheld by Appellate Body Report WT/DS257/AB/RW, DSR 2005:XXIII, 11401 
US – Softwood Lumber V  Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on 
Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS264/AB/R, adopted 31 August 2004, 
DSR 2004:V, 1875 
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 WT/AB/11 
Page 104  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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, 4761 
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  
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  WT/AB/11 
Page 105 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 – 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, as upheld by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS33/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, 343 
US – Zeroing (EC) Appellate Body Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for 
Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") , WT/DS294/AB/R, adopted 9 May 
2006, and Corr.1, DSR 2006:II, 417 
US – Zeroing (EC) Panel Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for 
Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") , WT/DS294/R, adopted 9 May 
2006, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS294/AB/R, DSR 2006:II, 521 
US – Zeroing (EC) 
(Article 21.5 – EC) 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, circulated to WTO 
Members 17 December 2008 WT/AB/11 
Page 106  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Zeroing (Japan) Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and 
Sunset Reviews , WT/DS322/AB/R, adopted 23 January 2007 
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 
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 
 
__________