WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/DS384/15 
WT/DS386/14 
29 June 2012 
 
 (12-3517) 
 Original: English 
   
UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) 
REQUIREMENTS 
 
Joint Request by Canada, Mexico and the United States 
for a Decision by the DSB 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 28 June 2012, from the delegations of Canada, Mexico 
and the United States to the Chairperson of the Dis pute Settlement Body (DSB), is circulated at the 
request of those delegations.  
_______________ 
 
 
On 5 January 2012, the Dispute Settlement Body  (DSB) adopted decisions in the disputes 
United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements  (DS384) and 
United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements  (DS386) to extend the 
time period to adopt or appeal the re ports of the panel to 23 March 2012.
1  The United States appealed 
the panel reports on 23 March.  As a result, the 60-day time period for circulation of the Appellate 
Body report set out in Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes  (DSU) expired on 22 May 2012, and the 90-day time limit set out in 
Article 17.5 expired on 21 June 2012.   
 
By a communication dated 21 May 2012, the Appella te Body stated that it would not be able 
to issue its reports within 60 days of the initiation of the appeals.  The communication also indicated that the Appellate Body expected that it would not be able to circulate its reports within the 90-day 
time limit set out in Article 17.5.  The communication states that the Appellate Body instead expects 
to circulate its reports by Friday, 29 June 2012.
2   
 For the reasons set out below, Canada, Mexico , and the United States (the "parties to the 
disputes") request that the DSB adopt the draft decision attached to this letter.  Through this decision, 
the DSB would deem the reports, issued no later than  Friday, 29 June, to be  Appellate Body reports 
pursuant to Article 17.5 of the DSU.  
 
The parties to the disputes recall that the language  in Article 17.5 sets a 90-day time limit ("In 
no case shall the proceedings exceed 90 days.").
3 However, as in several recent appeals, the Appellate 
Body has indicated that for these appeals it woul d be necessary to go beyond that 90-day period in 
order to complete its work.  In the circumstances of these appeals, the parties to the disputes would 
agree and consider that it would be desirable for th e DSB to confirm its agreement that the reports in 
                                                      
1 WT/DSB/M/310 (14 March 2012). 
2 WT/DS384/14 (23 May 2012); WT/DS386/13 (23 May 2012). 
3 DSU Article 17.5 ("When the Appellate Body co nsiders that it cannot provide its report within 
60 days, it shall inform the DSB in writing of the reasons for the delay together with an estimate of the period 
within which it will submit its report.  In no case shall the proceedings exceed 90 days."). WT/DS384/15 
WT/DS386/14 Page 2 
 
 
  these appeals, issued by Friday, 29 June, would be deemed to be Appellate Body reports pursuant to 
Article 17.5 of the DSU. 
 The parties consider that consideration by the DSB of the draft decision and adoption of that 
decision would serve several useful purposes. 
 First, through circulation of the draft decision and consideration at a DSB meeting, the issue 
is given full transparency.  Members of the DSB can give due consideration to the reasons cited by the 
Appellate Body in its communication for circul ation outside the 90-day time limit as well as the 
reasons cited by the parties to the disputes for pu tting forward the draft decision.  Through circulation 
of the draft decision, the parties to the disputes ar e informing other Members of their agreement to the 
circulation of the appellate  reports outside the 90-day time limit.  The parties consider that it would be 
desirable that the Appellate Body consult with the parties and have their agreement, and this draft 
decision informs other Members of the parties' agre ement.  Through the process of consideration of 
the draft decision, Members will therefore be fu lly apprised of the circumstances under which the 
reports may come before the DSB for adoption.  
 Second, the parties consider it desirable that  the DSB provide greater certainty on the 
adoption procedure that will apply to the reports. Th e reports will be put before the DSB for adoption 
by all Members. Any Member may observe that th e 90-day deadline in Article 17.5 of the DSU has 
not been met. The parties to the disputes consider  that in these circumstances it would be appropriate 
also for the DSB to agree to deem the reports to be  Appellate Body reports pursuant to Article 17.5 of 
the DSU. Without prejudice to any Member's syst emic views on the proper adoption procedure, the 
draft decision, if adopted by the DSB, would incr ease certainty with respect to the adoption process. 
 
Finally, the parties note that the language of th e draft decision has been drawn from the letters 
filed by a number of Members in numerous past a ppeals, through which the parties to those disputes 
have expressed their willingness to deem the reports in those appeals to be Appellate Body reports 
pursuant to Article 17.5 of the DSU.
4 
 For the foregoing reasons, the parties to the dis pute consider that the draft DSB decision, if 
adopted, would provide greater transparency to Members of the DSB of the circumstances under 
which the reports in the above-mentioned appeals may come before the DSB for adoption, enhance 
administration by the DSB of DSU procedures in relation to these appeals, and provide greater certainty for Members of the DSB with respect to the adoption process for these appellate reports 
circulated beyond the 90-day time limit in Article 17.5 of the DSU.   
 
                                                      
4 See, e.g. , Joint Communication from the United States and Mexico, United States – Measures 
Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products  (WT/DS381/13) (19 April 2012); 
Joint Communication from the United States and China, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of 
Various Raw Materials  (WT/DS394/14) (13 January 2012); Communication from the United States and China, 
United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China  
(WT/DS379/7) (8 February 2011); United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones 
Dispute (AB) (WT/DS320/AB/R) & Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones 
Dispute (AB) (WT/DS321/AB/R), para. 29 (adopted 14 November 2008) (letters by the European Communities, 
the United States, and Canada); United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton: Recourse to Article 21.5 of the 
DSU by Brazil  (AB) (WT/DS267/AB/RW), para. 14 (adopted 20 June 2008) (letters by Brazil and the 
United States); European Communities − Export Subsidies on Sugar  (AB) (WT/DS265/AB/R, 
WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R), para. 7 (adopted 19 May 2005) (letters by the European Communities, 
Australia, Brazil, and Thailand); United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton  (AB) (WT/DS267/AB/R), para. 8 
(adopted 21 March 2005) (letters by Brazil and the United States).  WT/DS384/15 
 WT/DS386/14 
 Page 3 
 
 
  The parties to these disputes look forward to the support of Members for the draft decision 
and would be pleased to discuss the draft decision with any interested Members.  
We respectfully request that you circulate this request and the annexed draft decision to 
Members of the DSB. 
    
 
(signed) 
Robert McDougall 
Counsellor 
Permanent Mission of Canada 
to the WTO (signed) 
Hugo Romero 
Counsellor 
Permanent Mission of Mexico 
to the WTO (signed) 
Juan A. Millán 
Senior Legal Advisor 
Permanent Mission of the 
United States to the WTO 
 WT/DS384/15 
WT/DS386/14 Page 4 
 
 
  Draft Decision of the DSB: 
 
 
The DSB agrees that it deems a report in the appeal in United States – Certain Country of 
Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements  (DS384), circulated by the Appellate Body no later than 
29 June 2012, to be an Appella te Body report circulated pur suant to Article 17.5 of the Understanding 
on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes .  The DSB further agrees that it deems 
a report in the appeal in United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements  
(DS386), circulated by the Appellate Body no later th an 29 June 2012, to be an Appellate Body report 
circulated pursuant to Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes . 
  
__________