WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/DS391/R 
3 July 2012 
 (12-3444) 
 Original:   English 
 
  
 
  
 
 
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF 
BOVINE MEAT AND MEAT PRODUCTS FROM CANADA 
 
 
Report of the Panel  
  WT/DS391/R 
 Page 1 
  
  A. R
EQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS  
1. In a communication dated 9 April 2009, Canada requested consultations with Korea pursuant 
to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Ru les and Procedures Governing the Settlement of 
Disputes (DSU), Article XXII of the General Ag reement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), 
and Article 11 of the Agreement on the Applica tion of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(SPS Agreement) with respect to  measures affecting the importation of bovine meat and meat 
products from Canada.1 
2. Canada stated in its request that since 2003, Korea has had in place measures that adversely 
affect the importation of bovine meat and meat  products from Canada.  These measures include, 
inter alia , Administrative Order No. 51584-476, which prohibits the importation into Korea of bovine 
meat and meat products from Ca nada allegedly to protect against risks arising from bovine 
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE); an d Korea Act No. 9130 amending the Act on the Prevention of 
Contagious Animal Diseases , which sets out a number of new conditions for lifting the import ban.  
Canada alleged that Korea's measures are inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, 
5.7, 6.1 and 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement and Articles I:1, III:4 a nd XI:1 of GATT 1994. 
3. On 7 May 2009, Canada and Korea held consulta tions in Geneva with a view to reaching a 
satisfactory resolution of the matter.  However, th e parties failed to reach a mutually satisfactory 
solution. 
B. ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPOSITION OF THE PANEL  
4. In a communication dated 9 July 2009, Canada requested that the Dispute Settlement Body 
(DSB) establish a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, with standard terms of reference as set out 
in Article 7.1 of the DSU.2  In its panel request, Canada clai med that Korea maintains a ban on the 
importation of bovine meat and meat  products from Canada allegedly to protect against risks arising 
from BSE.  In addition, Canada claimed that Korea had adopted measures that place unjustified 
restrictions on the resumption of imports of bovine meat and meat pr oducts from Canada.   
5. Canada alleged that Korea's measures di scriminate between Ca nada and other WTO 
Members.  Canada's claims of inconsistency in its request for the establishment of a panel (panel 
request) were identical to those set out in its re quest for consultations, except that Canada did not 
assert a claim under Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement in its panel request. 
6. The DSB established a panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU at its meeting of 
31 August 2009.3  In accordance with Article 7.1 of the DS U, the terms of reference of the Panel 
were:  
To examine, in the light of the relevant pr ovisions of the covered agreements cited by 
the parties to the dispute, the matter re ferred to the DSB by Canada in document 
WT/DS391/3 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the 
recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements. 
7. On 4 November 2009, pursuant to Article 8.7 of the DSU, Canada requested the Director-
General to determine the compositi on of the panel. Accordingly, on 13 November 2009, the Director-
General composed the Panel as follows:  
                                                      
1 Canada's Request for Consultations, WT/DS391/1. 
2 Canada's Request for the Establishment of a Panel, WT/DS391/3. 
3 Constitution of the Panel Established at the Re quest of Canada – Note by the Secretariat, 
WT/DS391/4. WT/DS391/R 
Page 2 
  
   Chairperson:  Ms Margaret Liang 
  Members:  Mr Mathias Francke 
   Mr Guðmundur Helgason 
 8. Argentina, Brazil, China,  the European Communities
4, India, Japan, the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinm en and Matsu (Chinese Taipei), and the United States reserved 
their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties. 
C. PANEL PROCEEDINGS  
1. Adoption of working procedures and timetables 
9. On 19 November 2009, the Panel invited the parties to an organizational meeting and 
circulated for discussion a draft of its proposed Working Procedures as well as two sets of draft 
timetables.5  One timetable was prepared assuming that th e Panel would consult scientific experts in 
the course of the proceedings, while the other w as prepared assuming no such consultation.  The 
organizational meeting was held on 23 November 2009.  
10. In response to an exchange of comments and proposals from the parties, the Panel made 
modifications to the draft timetable that contemplated the consultation of experts by the Panel.  The 
Panel adopted the Working Procedures and the modi fied timetable on 1 December 2009 and sent them 
to the parties on the same day,6  and to the third parties on 4 December 2009.7  
2. Korea's request for a preliminary ruling  
11. On 16 November 2009, Korea requested a prelimin ary ruling pursuant to Article 6.2 of the 
DSU.   
12. The Panel received comments on Korea's preliminary ruling request from Canada on 
7 December 2009 and from the third parties on 14 December 2009.  The Panel issued its preliminary 
ruling to the parties and third parties on 11 January 2010. 
3. Course of the proceedings 
13. On 1 February 2010, Canada s ubmitted its first written submissi on.  Korea submitted its first 
written submission on 5 March 2010.  The Panel also  received written submissions on 18 March 2010 
from the following third parties: Brazil, China, the European Union, Japan, and Chinese Taipei.  
14. The Panel held a first substantive meeting with  the parties on 13 April 2010.  A meeting with 
the third parties was held on 14 April 2010.  On  16 April 2010, the Panel provided written questions 
to both parties and to the third parties.8 On 5 May 2010, the parties and third parties submitted 
answers to the Panel's questions. 
15. To assist in carrying out its mandate, and in accordance with Article 11.2 of the 
SPS Agreement and Article 13 of the DSU, the Pa nel consulted with experts and international 
organizations. Pursuant to the Working Procedures a nd in light of the views of both parties in the 
dispute, on 27 April 2010, the Panel requested th e secretariats of the Codex Alimentarius Commission 
                                                      
4 On 1 December 2009, the European Union su cceeded the European Community (WT/Let/679). 
5 Communication from the Panel to the parties, 19 November 2009. 
6 Communication from the Panel to  the parties, 1 December 2009. 
7 Communication from the Panel to the third parties, 4 December 2009. The Working Procedures and 
timetable were subsequently revised during the course of the proceedings. 
8 Communication from the Panel to the part ies and third parties, 16 April 2010.  WT/DS391/R 
 Page 3 
  
  (Codex), the Food and Agriculture Organization (F AO), the World Organisation for Animal Health 
(OIE), and the World Health Organization (WHO), to identify possible experts in areas the Panel 
deemed relevant to the dispute.
9 The Panel forwarded to the parties the names of experts provided by 
the international organizations. In addition, the Panel provided the parties with curricula vitae, 
publication lists, and statements disclosing potential conflicts of interest as provided to the Panel by 
each expert who had expressed willingness to assist the Panel and was available to assist.10  The Panel 
selected seven experts to provide advice with respect  to the scientific issues in the dispute and 
communicated its selection to the parties on 16 June 2010.11 The Panel also sought information and 
technical advice from three international organizati ons: Codex; the OIE, and the WHO.  The Panel 
sent written questions to the experts and in ternational organizati ons on 25 June 2010.12   
16. The Panel notified the DSB on 25 June 2010 that it would not be possible to complete its 
work within six months from the date of the Panel's composition due to Korea's request for a 
preliminary ruling and the fact that expert consultation would be involved.13 
17. Both parties submitted their second writte n submissions on 20 September 2010.  
18. The Panel met with the parties, the e xperts and representatives from international 
organizations on 26 and 27 October 2010, and held  a second substantive meeting with the parties on 
28 and 29 October 2010. 
19. The Panel forwarded written questions to th e parties on 2 November 2010.  The parties 
submitted their answers on 17 November 2010.  On  24 November 2010, the parties submitted their 
comments on the other party's responses. 
20. The descriptive (factual and arguments) part of  the draft interim report was issued to the 
parties on 10 December 2010. On the same date, the Pa nel sent to the third parties excerpts of the 
descriptive part of the report containing the summ ary of their respective arguments. Canada and 
Korea provided their respective comments on th e descriptive part on 17 December 2010.  
21. On 28 June 2011, the Panel received a letter fro m Canada requesting the Panel to suspend its 
proceedings in accordance with Article 12.12 of the DSU until further notice. Upon invitation from 
the Panel, Korea informed the Panel on 1 July 2 011 that it agreed with Canada's request.  On 
4 July 2011, the Panel decided to grant Canada's request and suspend its work and informed the DSB 
of this decision.14 
22. By a letter dated 19 June 2012, pursuant to Artic le 3.6 of the DSU, the parties notified the 
DSB that they had reached a mutually agreed  solution, which was circulated as document 
WT/DS391/9 on 21 June 2012.  
23. The Panel takes note of the mutually agreed solu tion between the parties to the dispute and of 
Article 3.7 of the DSU, which provides that "[t]he  aim of the dispute settlement mechanism is to 
secure a positive solution to a disput e.  A solution mutually  acceptable to the parties to a dispute and 
consistent with the covered agreemen ts is clearly to be preferred". 
                                                      
9 Letters from the Panel to Codex, th e OIE, and the WHO, 27 April 2010. 
10 Communication from the Panel to the parties, 11, 12, 14, and 17 May 2010. 
11 One of the originally se lected experts became unavailable and was replaced.  Letter from the Panel to 
the parties, 22 June 2010.    
12 The Panel provided the parties with an opportun ity to comment on the proposed questions before 
they were sent to the experts and international organi zations.  Communication from the Panel to the parties, 
19 May 2010. 
13 Communication from the Chair of the Panel to the DSB, WT/DS391/5, 30 June 2010. 
14 Communication from the Chair of the Pane l to the DSB, WT/DS391/7, 6 July 2011. WT/DS391/R 
Page 4 
  
  24. The Panel also takes note of Article 12.7 of the DSU, which provides that "[w]here a 
settlement of the matter among the parties to the dis pute has been found, the report of the panel shall 
be confined to a brief description of the case a nd to reporting that a solution has been reached". 
Accordingly, the Panel concludes its work by reporting  that a mutually agreed solution to this dispute 
has been reached between the parties. 
 
__________