WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/AB/9 
30 January 2008 
 (08-0422) 
  
  
 
     
 
    
 
  
APPELLATE BODY 
 
 
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007 
  
 
  
JANUARY 2008 
   
  
 
     
 
    
 
    
 
    
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/9 
Page i 
 
 
CONTENTS 
 
I. Introduction................................................................................................................... ..............1  
II. Composition of the Appellate Body............................................................................................3  
III. Appeals........................................................................................................................ ................6  
IV. Appellate Bo dy Reports ......................................................................................................... .....8 
A. Agreements Covered ......................................................................................................8  
B. Findings and Conclusions .............................................................................................9  
V. Participants and Third Participants ...........................................................................................1 5 
VI. Working Procedures for Appellate Review ..............................................................................18  
VII. Arbitrations under Article  21.3(c) of the DSU..........................................................................19  
VIII. Technical As sistance........................................................................................................... ......20  
IX. Other Developments ............................................................................................................. ....20  
A. WTO Appellate Body Repertory of Reports and Awards 1995–2006 ..........................20  
B. Tenth Anniversary Publications ...................................................................................20  
C. Public Forum ...............................................................................................................21  
D. WTO Internship Programme ........................................................................................22  
E. Other Activities ............................................................................................................23  
 
ANNEX 1 Biographical notes on current Appellate Body Members ............................................24 
ANNEX 2 Former Appellate Body Members and Chairpersons ...................................................28 ANNEX 3 Appeals filed: 1995–2007 ............................................................................................30 ANNEX 4 Percentage of panel reports appeal ed by year of adoption: 1995–2007.......................31 
ANNEX 5 WTO agreements addressed in Appellate Body reports circulated through 
2007........................................................................................................................... ...32 
ANNEX 6 Participants and third participants in appeals: 1995–2007...........................................33 ANNEX 7 Appellate Body Secretariat participation in the WTO Technical Assistance 
and Training Plan 2007 ................................................................................................48 
ANNEX 8 Table of WTO dispute settlement re ports and arbitrati on awards: 1995–2007............52 WT/AB/9 
Page ii  
 
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT 
 
Abbreviation Description 
ADB Asian Development Bank 
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  
CRCICA Cairo Regional Centre for In ternational Commercial Arbitration 
DRAMs Dynamic random access memories DSB Dispute Settlement Body  
DSU Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of 
Disputes  
GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services   
GATT 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  
ICC International Criminal Court 
ICJ International Court of Justice ICSID International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes 
Import Licensing  Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures   
JIA Japanese investigating authorities 
MERCOSUR Mercado Común del Sur (Southern Common Market) OCTG Oil country tubular goods OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
Repertory WTO Appellate Body Repertory of Reports and Awards 1995–2006 
SCM Agreement  Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  
SPS  Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
TBT  Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade   
TRIMs  Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures   
TRIPS  Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights   
UNCTAD  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development  WT/AB/9 
Page iii 
 
 
Abbreviation Description 
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 
USDOC United States Department of Commerce 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/9 
Page 1 
 
 
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
APPELLATE BODY  
 
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007 
 
 
 
I. Introduction 
 This Annual Report provides a summary of the activities undertaken in 2007 by the Appellate 
Body and its Secretariat.    
 Dispute settlement in the WTO is regulated by the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), which is one of the agreements annexed to the 
Marrakesh Agreement Es tablishing the World Trade Organization  (WTO Agreement
 ).  According to 
Article 3.2 of the DSU, "[t]he dispute settlement sy stem of the WTO is a central element in providing 
security and predictability to the multilateral tradi ng system."  Article 3.2 further provides that the 
dispute settlement system "serves to preserve the rights and obligations of Members under the covered 
agreements, and to clarify the existing provisions of those agreements in accordance with customary 
rules of interpretation of public in ternational law."  The dispute settlement system is administered by 
the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), whic h is composed of all WTO Members. 
  A WTO Member may have recourse to the pro cedures established in the DSU if it "considers 
that any benefits accruing to it directly or indirect ly 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 annexed to it relating to trade in goods, trade in services, and the 
protection of intellectual property rights, as well as the DSU itself.  The application of the DSU to 
disputes under the plurilateral agreements annexed to the WTO Agreement  is subject to the terms of 
these agreements, or decisions by the parties to  these agreements setting out the terms for the 
application to the individual agreement.   
 
 In general terms, proceedings under the DSU may be divided into three stages.  In the first 
stage, Members are required to hold consultations in an effort to reach a mu tually agreeable solution 
to the matter in dispute.  If the consultations ar e not successful, the dispute may advance to a second, 
adjudicative stage.  The complaining Member may request the DSB to establish a panel to examine 
the matter.  The panel's function is to "make an objective assessment of the matter before it, including 
an objective assessment of the f acts of the case and the applicability of and conformity with the 
relevant covered agreements, a nd make such other findings as will assist the DSB in making the 
recommendations or in giving the rulings pr ovided for in the covered agreements."2  The panel 
process includes written and oral submissions by the ma in parties and also by third parties that have 
notified their interest in the dispute to the DSB.  At the end of the process, the panel sets out its legal 
findings in its report, which is circulated to all WTO Members in the three official languages of the 
WTO (English, French, Spanish).         Article 17 of the DSU stipulates that a standi ng 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 
                                                     
 
1Article 3.3 of the DSU. 
2Article 11 of the DSU. WT/AB/9 
Page 2  
 
be persons of recognized authority;  with demonstrat ed expertise in law, international trade, and the 
subject matter of the covered ag reements generally;  and not be affiliated with any government.  
Members of the Appellate Body should broadly re present 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 ensure ra ndomness, unpredictability, and opportunity for all 
Members to serve, regardless of their national orig in.  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 c onduct of Members of the Appellate Body and its 
staff is regulated by the Rules of Conduct for th e DSU.  These Rules emphasize that Appellate Body 
Members shall be independent, impar tial, and avoid any appearance of conflict of interest.  Any party 
to the dispute may appeal the panel report to th e Appellate Body.  WTO Members that were third 
parties at the panel stage may also participate in the appellate proceedings, but they may not appeal 
the panel report.  The appeal is limited to issu es of law covered in th e panel report and legal 
interpretations developed by the panel.  Appellate proceedings ar e conducted in accordance with the 
procedures established in the DSU and the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
 3, and include 
the filing of written submissions by the participants and the third participants and an oral hearing.  
The Appellate Body report is circulated to WTO Members in the three official languages within 90 
days of the date when the appeal was initiated, and becomes public immediately upon circulation to 
Members.4  In its report, the Appellate Body may uphol d, modify, or reverse the legal findings and 
conclusions 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.
5 
 
 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 in which to  do so.  The "reasonable period of time" may be 
determined by the DSB, by agreement between the pa rties, or through arbitration.  If the parties 
disagree "as to existence or consistency with a c overed agreement of measures taken to comply", the 
matter may be referred to the original panel in what is known as "Article 21.5 compliance 
proceedings".  The report of the panel in the Artic le 21.5 compliance proceedings may be appealed.  
Panel and Appellate Body re ports in Article 21.5 compliance proceedings must also be adopted by the 
DSB. 
If the responding Member does not bring its WT O-inconsistent measure into compliance 
within a reasonable period of time, the compla ining Member may request negotiations with the 
responding Member with a view to developing mu tually acceptable compensation.  Compensation is 
voluntary and subject to acceptance by the complaini ng Member, and must also be consistent with the 
WTO agreements.  If no satisfactory compensation is  agreed, the complaining Member may request 
authorization from the DSB to suspend the applicat ion of concessions or ot her obligations under the 
WTO agreements to the Member concerned.  The level of the suspension of concessions or other 
obligations authorized by the DSB shall be equivale nt to the level of the nullification or impairment 
resulting from the WTO-inconsistent measure.  The responding Member may request arbitration if it 
                                                     
 
3WT/AB/WP/5. 
4Shorter timeframes may apply in disputes involving prohibited subsidies. (See Rule 31 of the Working 
Procedures ) 
5Articles 16.4 and 17.14 of the DSU. WT/AB/9 
Page 3 
 
 
objects to the level of suspension proposed or considers there is non-compliance with other 
requirements in the DSU.  Compensation and the suspension of concessions or other obligations are temporary measures;  neither is to be preferred to full implementation.
6  
  A party to a dispute may request good offices, conciliation, or mediation at any time.
7  I n 
addition, under Article 25 of the DSU, WTO Memb ers may have recourse to arbitration as an 
alternative to the regular procedures se t out in the DSU and described above.8  Recourse to arbitration 
and the procedures to be followed are subject to mutual agreement of the parties.   
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 be ing reappointed once for another four-year term.  The 
composition of the Appellate Body in 2007 and the r espective terms of office of its Members are set 
out in Table 1.  
TABLE 1:  COMPOSITION OF TH E APPELLATE BODY IN 2007 
 
Name Nationality Term(s) of office 
Georges Michel Abi-Saab  Egypt 2000–2004 
2004–2008 
Luiz Olavo Baptista Brazil 2001–2005 
2005–2009 
Arumugamangalam Venkatachalam Ganesan  India 2000–2004 
2004–2008 
Merit E. Janow United States 2003–2007 
Giorgio Sacerdoti  Italy 2001–2005 
2005–2009 
Yasuhei Taniguchi Japan 2000–2003 
2003–2007 
David Unterhalter South Africa 2006–2009 
 
 Giorgio Sacerdoti served as Chairman of the Appellate Body from 17 December 2006 to 
16 December 2007.9  On 16 December 2007, Appellate Body Members elected, pursuant to Rule 5(1) 
of the Working Procedures , Luiz Olavo Baptista to serve as Chairman of the Appellate Body from 
18 December 2007 to 17 December 2008.10  
 
                                                      
6Article 22.1 of the DSU. 
7Article 5 of the DSU. 
8There has been only one recourse to Article 25 of the DSU and it was not in lieu of panel or Appellate 
Body proceedings but, rather, in the implementation stage of a dispute after it had been adjudicated by a panel.  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 25.3) ) 
9WT/DSB/41. 
10WT/DSB/45. WT/AB/9 
Page 4  
 
 Yasuhei Taniguchi's second te rm of office expired on 10 December 2007.  Merit E. Janow, 
whose first term of office expired on the same day, informed the DSB that she would not seek 
reappointment to a second term.  The second terms of  office of A.V. Ganesan and Georges Abi-Saab 
will expire on 31 May 2008.  
 On 20 June 2007, the DSB agreed to unde rtake a single selection process for appointing 
Appellate Body Members to the two positions for which the terms of office would expire 
in December 2007 and the two positions for whic h the terms of office will expire in May 2008
11, 
following a similar approach agreed by the DSB in the 2003 selection process and based on standard 
procedures for selection of Appellate Body Members.12  The DSB established a Selection Committee, 
which, in accordance with the procedures contai ned in document WT/DSB/1, consisted of the 
Director-General and the 2007 Chairs of the DSB, General Council, Goods C ouncil, Services Council, 
and TRIPS Council.  The DSB set 31 August 2007 as the deadline for WTO Members to nominate 
candidates.  Nine nominations were received:  Benin, Japan, Korea, Pakistan, and the Philippines 
nominated one candidate each, and China and the Un ited States each nominated two candidates.  The 
Selection Committee held interviews with the nominated candidates and received the views of 
delegations.  On 27 November 2007, upon the reco mmendation of the Selection Committee, the DSB 
appointed Lilia R. Bautista (Philippines) and Jennife r Hillman (United States) to begin their terms of 
office on 11 December 2007, and appointed Shotaro Oshima (Japan) and Yuejiao Zhang (China) to 
begin their terms of office on 1 June 2008.13  Ms Bautista and Ms Hillman were sworn in on 
17 December 2007. 
 
 Lilia R. Bautista  was born in the Philippines on 16 August 1935 and was recently consultant 
to the Philippine Judicial Academy, which is the training school for Philippine justices, judges, and 
lawyers.  She is also a member of several corporate boards.  
Ms Bautista was the Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the 
Philippines from 2000 to 2004.  Between 1999 and 2000 , she served as Senior Undersecretary and 
Special Trade Negotiator at the Department of Trad e and Industry in Manila.  From 1992 to 1999, she 
was the Philippine Permanent Representative in Ge neva to the United Nations, the WTO, the World 
Health Organization, the International Labour Orga nization, and other intern ational organizations.  
During her assignment in Geneva, she chaired several bodies, including the WTO Council for Trade 
in Services.  Her long career in the Philippine Gove rnment also included posts as Legal Officer in the 
Office of the President, Chief Legal Officer of the Board of Investments, and acting Trade Minister from February to June 1992.  Ms Bautista earned her Bachelor of Laws Degree and a Masters Degree 
in Business Administration from the University of the Philippines.  She was conferred the degree of 
Master of Laws by the University of Michigan as a Dewitt Fellow.  
 
 Jennifer Hillman
 was born in the United States on 29 January 1957 and serves as a Fellow 
and Adjunct Professor of Law at the Georgetown Univ ersity Law Center's Institute of International 
Economic Law.  Her work focuses on the WTO di spute settlement system, the WTO agreements 
related to trade remedies, and WTO juri sprudence related to trade remedies. 
 
From 1998 to 2007, she served as a member of the United States International Trade 
Commission—an independent, quasi-judicial agency responsible for making determinations in anti-
dumping and countervailing proceedi ngs, and conducting safeguard i nvestigations.  From 1995 to 
1997, she served as Chief Legal Counsel to the Un ited States Trade Representative, overseeing the 
legal developments necessary to complete the implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement.  
From 1993 to 1995, she was responsible for negotiati ng all United States bilateral textile agreements 
                                                      
11WT/DSB/M/234. 
12WT/DSB/1. 
13PRESS/501. WT/AB/9 
Page 5 
 
 
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  was born in Japan on 20 September 1943 and is a law graduate from the 
University of Tokyo, with almost 40 years experien ce as a diplomat in Japan's Foreign Service, most 
recently as 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.  
 
 Yuejiao Zhang
 was born in China on 25 October 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 and practices law as a private attorney .  She also serves 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 such as the Foreign Trade Law, the Anti-Dumping Regulation, and the Anti-Subsidy Regulation.  From 1987 to 1996, she was one of China's chief 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 accession.  Between 1982 and 1985, Ms Zhang worked as legal 
counsel at the World Bank.  She was a Memb er 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 Organizati on) 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.  
 
 Biographical notes on current Appellate Body Me mbers are provided in Annex 1.  A list of 
former Appellate Body Members and Ch airpersons 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 th e DSU.  The Secretariat currently comprises a 
Director and a team of nine lawyers, one administrative assistant, and three support staff.  Werner 
Zdouc is the Director of the Appellate Body Secretariat.   WT/AB/9 
Page 6  
 
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 filing a Notice of Other Appeal.    
 Four appeals were filed in 2007, three of wh ich included an "other appeal".  Two appeals 
related to original proceedings and two appeals related to panel proceedi ngs brought pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU.  Information about these appeals is provided in Table 2. 
 
TABLE 2:  APPEALS FILED IN 2007 
 
Panel reports 
appealed Date of 
appeal Appellant 14 Document 
number Other 
appellant 15 Document 
number 
US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset 
Reviews (Article 21.5 – 
Argentina) 12 January 
2007 United States WT/DS268/19 Argentina WT/DS268/20 
Chile – Price Band 
System (Article 21.5 – 
Argentina) 5 February 
2007 Chile WT/DS207/22 Argentina WT/DS207/23 
Japan – DRAMs (Korea) 30 August 
2007 Japan WT/DS336/8 Korea WT/DS336/9 
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres 3 September 
2007 European 
Communities WT/DS332/9 - - - - - - 
 
 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. 
 
03691215Number of appeals
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
20052006
2007
Appeals in original proceedings Appeals in Article 21.5 proceedings
 
                                                      
14Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures . 
15Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures . Figure 1: Appeals in original proceedings and appeals in Article 21.5 proceedings 1996–2007 WT/AB/9 
Page 7 
 
 
 Two of the appeals filed in 2007 concerned panel reports circulated to WTO Members in 
2006.16  Ten panel reports were circulated in 2007.  The 60-day deadlines for adoption of three of the 
ten panel reports circulated in  2007 do not expire until 2008.17  In total, four of a possible nine panel 
reports were appealed in 2007.18   
 
 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 2007 is 67 per cent.  
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
 
   * Figure 2 is based on year of adoption, which may not n ecessarily coincide with the year in which a panel report was 
circulated or appealed. 
 
 
                                                      
16The Panel Reports in  US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews (Article 21.5 – Argentina)  
and  Chile – Price Band System (Article 21.5 – Argentina)  were circulated to WTO Members on 30 November 
2006 and 8 December 2006 and appealed on 12 January 2007 and 5 February 2007, respectively. 
17The 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 2007 and  18 and 20 December 
2007, respectively. 
18The Panel Reports in  US – Shrimp (Ecuador) , US – Gambling (Article 21.5 – Antigua and Barbuda) ,  
Mexico – Steel Pipes and Tubes , Korea – Certain Paper (Article 21.5 – Indonesia) , and  Turkey – Rice  were 
circulated and adopted by the DSB during th e course of 2007, and were not appealed. 100% 
  80% 
  60% 
  40% 
  20% Figure 2: Percentage of panel reports appealed 1996–2007 * WT/AB/9 
Page 8  
 
IV. Appellate Body Reports 
 Five Appellate Body reports were  circulated during 2007, one of which related to a Notice of 
Appeal filed in 2006.19  As of the end of 2007, the Appellate B ody had circulated a total of 84 reports.  
Table 3 provides further information on the Appe llate Body reports circulated in 2007.   
 
TABLE 3:  APPELLATE BODY REPO RTS CIRCULATED IN 2007 
 
Case Document number Date circulated Date adopted by DSB 
US – Zeroing (Japan) WT/DS322/AB/R 9 January 2007 23 January 2007 
US – Oil Country Tubular Goods 
Sunset Reviews  
(Article 21.5 – Argentina) WT/DS268/AB/RW 12 April 2007 11 May 2007 
Chile – Price Band System 
(Article 21.5 – Argentina) WT/DS207/AB/RW 7 May 2007 22 May 2007 
Japan – DRAMs (Korea) WT/DS336/AB/R 28 November  2007 17 December 2007 
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres WT/DS332/AB/R 3 December 2007 17 December 2007 
 
A. Agreements Covered 
 The following table shows which WTO agreemen ts were addressed in the five Appellate 
Body reports circulated in 2007. 
 
TABLE 4:  WTO AGREEMENTS ADDRESSED IN APPELLATE BODY REPORTS  
CIRCULATED IN 2007 
 
Case Document number WTO agreements covered 
US – Zeroing (Japan) WT/DS322/AB/R Anti-Dumping Agreement 
GATT 1994 
DSU 
US – Oil Country Tubular Goods 
Sunset Reviews  (Article 21.5 – Argentina) WT/DS268/AB/RW Anti-Dumping Agreement 
DSU 
Chile – Price Band System  
(Article 21.5 – Argentina) WT/DS207/AB/RW Agreement on Agriculture 
DSU 
Japan – DRAMs (Korea) WT/DS336/AB/R SCM Agreement 
DSU 
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres WT/DS332/AB/R GATT 1994 
DSU  
 
                                                      
19The Notice of Appeal in  US – Zeroing (Japan)  was filed on 11 October 2006. WT/AB/9 
Page 9 
 
 
 Figure 3 shows the number of times specific WTO agreements have been addressed in the 84 Appellate Body reports circulated from 1996 through 2007.    
66
949
12
4 3 221
221
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 2007.  
 
B. Findings and Conclusions 
 The Appellate Body's findings and conclusions in  the five Appellate Body reports circulated 
in 2007 are summarized below.  
 
 Appellate Body Report, US – Zeroing (Japan) , WT/DS322/AB/R  
 
 This dispute concerned a methodology commonly referred to as "zeroing" used in the context 
of calculating a dumping margin for a product on the basis of a series or multiple groups of 
transactions.  When the methodology is applied, the results of comparisons for which the export price 
exceeds the normal value are treated as zero in the process of aggregating comparison results. 
 
The Appellate Body upheld the panel's findi ng that the United States' zeroing procedures 
constituted a measure that can be challenged as su ch in WTO dispute settlement proceedings.  The 
Appellate Body rejected the claim that the pane l did not assess objectively the issue of whether a 
single rule or norm exists by virtue of which the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) 
applies zeroing regardless of the basis upon which export price and normal value are compared, and 
regardless of the type of proceeding in which margins of dumping are calculated. 
The Appellate Body reversed the panel's finding that the United States did not act 
inconsistently with Articles 2.1, 2.4, and 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Articles VI:1 and 
VI:2 of the GATT 1994 by maintaining zeroing proce dures when calculating margins of dumping on 
the basis of transaction-to-transaction comparisons in  original investigations.  The Appellate Body 
explained that dumping and margins of dumping can onl y be found to exist in relation to the product 
under investigation.  This means that neither dum ping nor margins of dumping can be found to exist 
at the level of an individual transaction and that an investigating authority must consider the results of 
all of the comparisons of normal value and export price, including those in which export price exceeds 
normal value.  Based on these considerations, the Appellate Body found that the United States had Figure 3: WTO agreements add ressed in appeals 1996–2007 WT/AB/9 
Page 10  
 
acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 by maintain ing procedures by virtue of which it disregards 
comparison results in which export prices exceed normal value when calculating margins of dumping 
on the basis of the transaction-to-transaction methodol ogy in original investig ations.  The Appellate 
Body also found that zeroing is inconsistent with th e "fair comparison" requirement of Article 2.4 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement , because disregarding results of comparisons in which export price is 
above normal value artificially inflates the magnitude of dumping, resulting in higher margins of 
dumping, and making positive determina tions of dumping more likely.   
In addition, the Appellate Body reversed the panel's finding that the United States did not act 
inconsistently with Articles 2.1, 2.4, 9.1-9.3, and 9.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and 
Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 by maintaining zeroing procedures in periodic reviews (in 
which the USDOC determines an importer's final du ty liability for the period reviewed, as well as a 
cash deposit rate to be applied to future entries of the product)
20 and new shipper reviews (in which 
the USDOC determines an individual dumping margin  for an exporter or producer that did not export 
the product during the original period of investigation).21  The Appellate Body found, instead, that the 
United States had acted inconsistently with Articles 9.3 and 9.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , 
Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and with the "fair comparison" requirement of Article 2.4 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement , because zeroing in periodic reviews and new shipper reviews results in anti-
dumping duties being collected from importers in excess of the exporter's or foreign producer's margin of dumping.  For the same reasons, the A ppellate Body also reversed the panel's finding that 
the United States did not act inconsistently with Articles 2.1, 2.4, 9.1-9.3, and 9.5 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement  and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 by applying zeroing in the 
11 periodic review determinations at issue in the appeal.  The Appellate Body found, instead, that the 
United States had acted inconsistently with Articles 2.4 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and 
with Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 by applying zeroing in the periodic reviews at issue.
 
The Appellate Body also reversed the panel' s finding that the United States did not act 
inconsistently with Articles 2 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  in two specific sunset reviews at 
issue (in which the USDOC determined whether termination of the anti-dumping duty was likely to 
lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury).22  The Appellate Body noted the panel's 
factual finding that, in making its likelihood-of- dumping determinations, the USDOC had relied on 
margins of dumping calculated in previous periodic reviews with the use of zeroing.  In the light of its previous finding that zeroing procedures in periodic reviews are inconsistent with Articles 2.4 and 9.3 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and with Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, the Appellate Body found 
that the United States had acted incons istently with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement when 
it relied, in the underlying sunset review dete rminations, on margins of dumping calculated in 
previous proceedings with the use of zeroing.     
                                                     
 
20Article 9.3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  provides that, "[w]hen the amount of the anti-dumping 
duty is assessed on a retrospective basis, the determin ation of the final liability for payment of anti-dumping 
duties shall take place as soon as possi ble, normally within 12  months, and in no case more than 18 months, 
after the date on which a request for a final assessment of the amount of the anti-dumping duty has been made."  
Reviews conducted pursuant to Article 9.3.1 are sometimes referred to as "periodic reviews". 
21Article 9.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  makes it clear that, upon request, investigating authorities 
"shall promptly carry out a review for the purpose of determining individual margins of dumping" for exporters or foreign producers that did not ship the subject product during the period of investigation.  Reviews conducted 
pursuant to Article 9.5 are sometimes referred to as "new shipper reviews". 
22Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  provides that "any definitive anti-dumping duty shall be 
terminated on a date not later than five years from its imposition ... unless the authorities determine, in a review 
initiated before that date ... that the expiry of the duty would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of 
dumping and injury".  Reviews conducted pursuant to Article 11.3 are sometimes referred to as "sunset reviews". WT/AB/9 
Page 11 
 
 
 Appellate Body Report, US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews (Article 21.5 
– Argentina) , WT/DS268/AB/RW  
 
 This appeal concerned two measures taken by the United States to  comply with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB resulting from the original proceedings in US – Oil Country 
Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews .  The first measure consisted of amendments made to the United 
States' regulatory provisions regarding waivers by exporte rs of their right to participate in the part of a 
sunset review23 conducted by the USDOC.  Under Section 751(c)(4)(B) of the United States Tariff 
Act of 1930, the USDOC must make an affirmative finding of likelihood of dumping for any 
exporters that waive their right to participate.  This company-specific finding is then taken into 
account when the USDOC makes its order-wide determ ination of likelihood of dumping with respect 
to all exporters from a country that is the subject  of an anti-dumping duty order.  The second measure 
consisted of a re-determination, pursuant to Sec tion 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, of 
the likelihood that imports of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Argentina would be dumped if 
the anti-dumping duty order were revoked or the investigation were terminated.   
 In considering the WTO-consistency of the United States' "amended" waiver provisions, the 
Appellate Body found that a company-specific finding is no longer based on a mere assumption but, rather, on "positive evidence" in the form of a statem ent by the waiving exporter indicating that it is 
likely to dump if the order were revoked or the inve stigation were terminated.  The Appellate Body 
noted that the amended waiver provisions do not  preclude the USDOC from considering other 
evidence on the record of the sun set review before making an order-wide determination.  For these 
reasons, the Appellate Body reversed the panel's fi nding that the amended waiver provisions were as 
such inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  In the light of this finding, the 
Appellate Body did not consider it necessary to examine whether the panel failed to make an 
objective assessment of the matter before it, as required by Article 11 of the DSU.   
  Regarding the Section 129 Determination, the Appellate Body upheld the panel's conclusion 
that it could properly examine, in the complia nce proceedings under Article 21.5, the USDOC's 
finding that imports of OCTG declined after imposition of the anti-dumping duty order, which was 
one of the two factual bases of the Section 129 Determination.  The USDOC's finding on import 
volumes had been made in the original sunset revi ew and was incorporated into the re-determination 
under Section 129.  Consequently, the Appellate Bo dy let stand the panel's conclusion that the 
USDOC's finding of a decline in import volumes lacked  a sufficient factual basis, contrary to the 
requirements of Article 11.3 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement .  The United States did not appeal the 
panel's finding that the other basis for the USDO C's likelihood-of-dumping de termination—that there 
was "likely past dumping"—also failed to meet the requirements of Article 11.3 of the  Anti-Dumping 
Agreement . 
  In addition, the Appellate Body upheld th e panel's finding that the USDOC did not act 
inconsistently with the United States' oblig ations under Articles 11.3 and 11.4 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement  by developing a new evidentiary basis pertai ning to the initial sunset review period for 
purposes of its Section 129 Determination.  The Appella te Body also found that the panel did not fail 
to make an objective assessment of the matter befo re it, as required by Article 11 of the DSU, by 
considering certain provisions of the DSU as appropriate context.   Finally, the Appellate Body rejected Argentina' s claim that the panel did not properly fulfil its 
duties under Articles 11 and 12.7 of the DSU when it declined to suggest, pursuant to Article 19.1 of 
the DSU, that the United States implement its r ecommendations by terminating the anti-dumping duty 
order on Argentine OCTG.  The Appellate Body itsel f also declined to make such a suggestion.  
 
                                                     
 
23Footnote 22 above explains what are "sunset reviews".  WT/AB/9 
Page 12  
 
 Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System (Article 21.5 – Argentina) , 
WT/DS207/AB/RW  
 
 These proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU concerned amendments made to Chile's 
price band system in 2003 as they relate to imports of wheat and wheat flour to Chile.  The price band system consisted of upper and lower price band thre sholds, on the one hand, and reference prices (set 
in relation to certain international prices), on the ot her.  When the reference price is below the lower 
band threshold, a specific duty is imposed in addition to the applied tariff.  When the reference price 
is between the lower and upper band thresholds , only the applied tariff is imposed.  When the 
reference price is above the upper band threshold, a rebate is deducted from the amount of the applied 
tariff.  The operation of the measure at issue a nd the composition of its constituent elements differed 
from the original price band system in several respects.   
 Argentina challenged the amended pric e band system under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture .  This provision requires Members to convert  certain non-tariff market access barriers 
(including variable import levies, minimum import prices, and similar border measures) into ordinary 
customs duties. 
  The Appellate Body upheld the panel's findings  and conclusions that Chile's amended price 
band system, as applied to imports of wheat and whea t flour, was inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture .  The Appellate Body found that the panel correctly identified the meaning 
of footnote 1 and Article 4.2, and properly applie d these provisions to the measure at issue, taking 
account of its design and structure as well as of ev idence relating to its operation.  Consequently, the 
Appellate Body held that the panel did not err in finding that the measure at issue shares sufficient 
characteristics with "variable import levies" and "minimum import prices" to constitute a border 
measure "similar to" these two categories of measures within the scope of footnote 1.  The Appellate 
Body further upheld the panel's finding that, by main taining a measure required to be converted into 
ordinary customs duties, Chile was acting inconsistently with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture  and had not implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in the original 
proceedings.   
  In addition, the Appellate Body rejected Chile's  claim that the panel erred in its allocation of 
the burden of proof, allegedly by  proceeding on the assumption that the amended price band system 
was inconsistent and requiring Chile to prove its consistency with the Agreement on Agriculture .  The 
Appellate Body noted that the panel's analysis in  the proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU was 
conducted against the background provided by the or iginal proceedings and the resulting DSB rulings, 
and that, in this context, it was appropriate for the panel to make comparisons between the original 
and the amended price band systems.  The Appellate Body found that the panel had properly analyzed 
the arguments and evidence put forwar d by Argentina in establishing its prima face  case that the 
measure at issue was WTO-inconsistent, and ha d assessed Chile's arguments and evidence submitted 
to rebut that case.  Finally, the Appellate Body rej ected Chile's claim that the panel failed to comply 
with its duties under Article 11 of the DSU to conduc t an objective assessment of the matter before it, 
and under Article 12.7 of the DSU to set out a basic rationale for its findings.  
 Appellate Body Report, Japan – DRAMs (Korea) , WT/DS336/AB/R  
 
 This dispute concerned the WTO-consistenc y of the imposition of countervailing duties  
by Japan on imports of dynamic random a ccess memories (DRAMs) from a Korean DRAMs 
manufacturer, Hynix Semiconductor, Inc.    
 
 On the issue of whether the Japanese investigating authorities (JIA) properly found that the 
Government of Korea "entrusted or directed" cer tain of Hynix's creditors to provide financial 
contributions to Hynix in the December 2002 debt restructuring programme, within the meaning of WT/AB/9 
Page 13 
 
 
Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM Agreement , the Appellate Body found that the panel acted 
inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU and reve rsed the panel's finding because, unlike the JIA, the 
panel failed to consider whether the evidence in its  totality supported a finding of "entrustment or 
direction".  
 On the issue of "benefit", the Appellate upheld , albeit for different reasons, the panel's finding 
that the JIA calculated the amount of benefit c onferred on Hynix by the October 2001 and December 
2002 debt restructuring programmes inconsiste ntly with Articles 1.1(b) and 14 of the SCM 
Agreement .  The Appellate Body found that the panel did not identify the proper benchmark for 
calculating the amount of benefit.  Nonetheless, the Appellate Body found that the panel did not err in 
finding that the JIA's approach to calculating the amount of benefit erroneous ly overstated it.  The 
Appellate Body reversed the panel's finding that  the "methods used" by the JIA to calculate the 
amount of benefit were not "provided for" in Japan 's national legislation or  implementing regulations, 
as required under Article 14 of the SCM Agreement , since the panel had erred in treating two 
mathematical formulae as the "methods used" by the JIA to calculate the amount of the subsidy in 
terms of benefit to the recipient.  
  The Appellate Body upheld the panel's finding that the JIA did not act inconsistently with 
Articles 12.7 and 12.9 of the  SCM Agreement   by designating certain fina ncial institutions that were 
creditors of Hynix as "interested parties".  The Appellate Body found that investigating authorities 
have certain discretion as to which entities to designat e as interested parties in an investigation and 
that, in the circumstances of the present case, the JIA did not overstep these bounds.   
  The Appellate Body upheld the panel's finding th at the modification of loan repayment terms 
(including extensions of the matur ities of existing loans, reductions of the interest rates on existing 
loans, and conversion of interest to  principal) and debt-to-equity swaps constituted "direct transfers of 
funds" within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1)(i). 
  As regards the issue of causation of injury, the Appellate Body agreed with the panel that 
there is no additional requirement to examine the "e ffects of the subsidies" as distinguished from the 
"effects of the subsidized imports".  The Appellate  Body upheld the panel's finding that the JIA did 
not act inconsistently with Articles 15.5 and 19.1 of the SCM Agreement  by not establishing 
separately that the allegedly subsidized imports were, "through the effects of subsidies", causing 
injury within the meaning of the SCM Agreement .  The Appellate Body also upheld the panel's 
finding that Japan acted inconsistently with Article 19.4 of the SCM Agreement  by levying 
countervailing duties on imports that the JIA itself had found were not subsidized at the time of duty 
imposition.  The Appellate Body stated that a countervailing duty cannot be imposed if the 
investigating authority has made a finding in the course of its investigation as to the duration of the 
subsidy and, according to that find ing, the subsidy is no longer in existence at the time that the 
Member makes a final determination to impose a countervailing duty.     As a separate matter, regarding the treatment of business confidential information by panels, 
the Appellate Body stated that, while a panel must  not disclose information which is by its nature 
confidential, a panel, in deciding to redact such information from its report at the request of one or 
both of the parties, should bear in mind the rights of third parties and other WTO Members under various provisions of the DSU, such as Articles 12.7 and 16, and must make efforts to ensure that the 
public version of its repor t is understandable.   
   
 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , WT/DS332/AB/R  
 
 This dispute concerns certain measures taken by Brazil restricting the importation and 
marketing of retreaded tyres (the import ban on retr eaded tyres).  The panel found that the import ban 
was inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.   The Appellate Body upheld the panel's finding WT/AB/9 
Page 14  
 
that Brazil's import ban on retreaded tyres was a measure "necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health" provisionally justified under paragra ph (b) of Article XX.  The import ban on retreaded 
tyres is apt to produce a material contribution to  the objective of reducing risks arising from the 
accumulation of waste tyres in Brazil.  These risks include the transmission of dengue, yellow fever, and malaria, through mosquitoes for which waste ty res filled with rainwater serve as a breeding 
ground, as well as toxic emissions caused by tyre fires.  As a result of the ban, imported retreaded 
tyres would be substituted by new tyres that have a longer lifespan, or by tyres retreaded in Brazil 
from local casings, and thus the number of waste tyr es in Brazil would be reduced.  Therefore, it was 
also likely to bring a material contribution to the achievement of Brazil's objective to reduce the 
exposure to risks arising from the accumulation of w aste tyres, as a key element in its comprehensive 
strategy to deal with waste tyres.  
  The Appellate Body also found that the panel did not err in rejecting the alternatives to the 
import ban on retreaded tyres identified by the European Communities.  Measures to reduce the 
number of waste tyres accumulating in Brazil, such as a better enforcement of Brazil's collection and 
disposal schemes and of its import ban on used tyres, already figure as elements of Brazil's 
comprehensive strategy to deal with waste tyres.  The panel did not err in rejecting as alternatives to 
the import ban on retreaded tyres, measures that are complementary to it.  Disposal methods identified 
by the European Communities, such as landfilling,  stockpiling, co-incineration, and material 
recycling, are not as effective as preventive action avoiding the generation of additional waste tyres 
because they are only remedial in character, carry risk s of their own, and are capable of disposing of 
only a limited number of waste tyres. 
  The Appellate Body further ruled that the panel did not err in conducting the process of 
"weighing and balancing" the relevant factors a nd alternatives that wa s required to support its 
conclusion that the import ban on retreaded tyres w as necessary under paragra ph (b) of Article XX.  
The panel properly weighed the contribution of the import ban on retreaded tyres to the achievement 
of the legitimate health objective against its trade r estrictiveness, in the light of the importance of the 
interests at stake, and properly compared it with the possible alternatives id entified by the European 
Communities.   The Appellate Body also found that the pane l did not fail to conduct an objective assessment 
of the facts, as required by Article 11 of the DSU in assessing whether the import ban on retreaded 
tyres contributed to the achievement of the leg itimate objective pursued, and in its analysis of 
alternatives.  The Appellate Body reasoned that the panel's findings in these respects were supported 
by the evidence properly before it, and that the European Communities did not demonstrate that the 
panel exceeded the bounds of its discretion as the trie r of facts in its assessment of that evidence. 
 
 The Appellate Body reversed the panel's finding that the exemption from the import ban 
provided by Brazil to retreaded tyres originating in MERCOSUR countries did not result in the import 
ban being applied inconsistently with the chapeau of Article XX.  The Appellate Body found instead 
that the MERCOSUR exemption resulted in the impo rt ban on retreaded tyres being applied by Brazil 
in a manner that constituted "arbitrary or unjustifia ble discrimination" prohibited by the chapeau of 
Article XX.  The Appellate Body considered that the rationale articulated by Brazil to explain the 
discrimination arising from the exemption of ME RCOSUR countries from the application of the 
import ban—a ruling by a MERCOSUR tribunal that  the import ban was inconsistent with the 
prohibition of new trade restrictions under MERCOSUR law—bore no relationship to the 
accomplishment of the legitimate objective pursued by  the import ban under Article XX(b), and even 
goes against this objective.            
  The Appellate Body also reversed the panel' s finding that imports of used tyres under court 
injunctions did not result in "arbitrary discriminati on", and resulted in "unjustifiable discrimination" 
and a "disguised restriction on inte rnational trade" within the mean ing of the chapeau of Article XX 
only to the extent that imports of used tyres o ccurred in volumes that "significantly undermined" the WT/AB/9 
Page 15 
 
 
objectives of the import ban.  The Appellate Body fo und instead that the imports of used tyres under 
court injunctions resulted in the import ban on retr eaded tyres being applied by Brazil inconsistently 
with the requirements of the chapeau of Article  XX.  The Appellate Body rejected the quantitative 
approach applied by the panel to conclude that  imports of used tyres resulted in unjustifiable 
discrimination, because it focused exclusively on th e effects of discrimination, when the analysis 
under the chapeau should focus instead on the cause or  rationale of the discrimination.  Because 
imports of used tyres under court injunctions b ear no relationship with the accomplishment of the 
legitimate objectives pursued by the im port ban, and even go against this  objective, they result in the 
import ban on retreaded tyres being applied in a manner that constitutes "arbitrary or unjustifiable 
discrimination" prohibited by the chapeau of Article XX.  
 
 Having found that the exemption provided by  Brazil to retreaded tyres originating in 
MERCOSUR countries and the imports of used tyres under court injunctions resulted in the import ban on retreaded tyres being applie d inconsistently with the chapeau  of Article XX, the Appellate 
Body did not find it necessary to address the European  Communities' conditional appeal of the panel's 
exercise of judicial economy in relation to the European Communities' claims under Articles I  
and XIII against the MERCOSUR exemption and Br azil's related defences under Articles XX(d)  
and XXIV of the GATT 1994.   
V. Participants and Third Participants 
 Table 5 lists the WTO Members that participat ed in appeals for which an Appellate Body 
report was circulated during 2007.  It distinguishes between a Member that filed a Notice of Appeal 
pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures and a Member that filed an 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 in terpretations developed by the panel".  Under the 
Working Procedures , parties wishing to appeal a panel report pursuant to Rule 23(1) are required to 
file a Notice of Other Appeal within 12  days after the filing of the Notice of Appeal.   Table 5 also identifies those Members who partic ipated 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 App eal.  Pursuant to Rule 24(2), a Member who 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 who 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. WT/AB/9 
Page 16  
 
TABLE 5:  PARTICIPANTS AND TH IRD PARTICIPANTS IN APPEALS 
FOR WHICH AN APPELLATE BODY REPORT WAS CIRCULATED IN 2007 
 
Third participants 
Case Appellant 24 Other 
appellant 25 Appellee(s) 26
Rule 24(1) Rule 24(2) Rule 24(4) 
US – Zeroing (Japan) 
WT/DS322/AB/R  Japan United States United States 
Japan China 
European 
Communities 
Korea 
Mexico 
Norway 
Thailand Argentina 
Hong Kong, 
China 
India 
New Zealand - - - 
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 
European 
Communities 
United States China 
Colombia 
Peru 
Thailand - - - 
Japan – DRAMs (Korea) 
WT/DS336/AB/R Japan Korea Korea 
Japan European 
Communities 
United States - - - - - - 
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres 
WT/DS332/AB/R European 
Communities - - - Brazil 
 Argentina 
Australia 
Japan 
Korea 
Chinese 
Taipei 
United States China 
Cuba 
Guatemala 
Mexico 
Thailand Paraguay 
 
 
                                                      
24Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures . 
25Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures . 
26Pursuant to Rule 22 or Rule 23(3) of the Working Procedures . WT/AB/9 
Page 17 
 
 
 A total of 22 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 2007.  Of these 
22 WTO Members, 7 were developed country Members,  and 15 were developing country Members.    
  Of the 56 total appearances by WTO Members before the Appellate Body during 2007, 
23 were by developed country Members and 33 by developing country Members.  Developed country 
Members made 4 appearances as appellant, 1 as ot her appellant, 4 as appellee, and 14 as third 
participant.  Developing country Members made 1 appearance as appellant, 3 as other appellant, 5 as 
appellee, and 24 appearances 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 2007.  
020406080100120140160180200
Appellants Other Appellants Appellees Third ParticipantsAppearances before the Appellate Body
Developed Countries Developing Countries
 
 
 Annex 6 provides a statistical summary and de tails on Members' participation as appellant, 
other appellant, appellee, and third participant in  appeals for which an Appellate Body report was 
circulated from 1996 through 2007.  
 Figure 4:  Member particip ation in appeals 1996–2007 WT/AB/9 
Page 18  
 
VI. Working Procedures for Appellate Review 
 No amendments were made to the Working Procedures during 2007.  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.     Procedural issues were raised in four of the five appeals for which an Appellate Body report 
was circulated during 2007.  These procedural issues  are summarized in the following paragraphs.   
 
 US – Zeroing (Japan) 
 
 Japan requested authorization from the Appellate  Body Division hearing the appeal to correct 
a clerical error in its appellant's subm ission, pursuant to Rule 18(5) of the Working Procedures .  The 
Division invited all participants and third participan ts to comment on Japan's request.  No objection to 
Japan's request was received and the Division authori zed Japan to correct the clerical error in its 
appellant's submission.27  
 
 Chile – Price Bands (Article 21.5 – Argentina) 
 
 Argentina requested the Appellate Body to gran t six additional days for the filing of its other 
appellant's submission because the original deadline was the day after the scheduled date of the oral 
hearing in another appellate proceeding in which Ar gentina was a participant.  The Division hearing 
the appeal invited all participants and third par ticipants to comment on Argentina's request.  No 
objections were received, but Chile and the United States requested extensions of the deadlines for 
filing their submissions in the event that the Di vision granted Argentina's request.  The Appellate 
Body granted Argentina an additional three days for the filing of its other appellant's submission, and 
also extended the deadlines for the filing of Chile's  appellee's submission and the third participants' 
submissions.28 
 
 Argentina further requested the Appellate Body to reject certain exhibits submitted by Chile 
on appeal, which Argentina claimed contained "new" evidence that had not been before the panel.  
The Appellate Body expressed a preliminary view on the legal principles that should govern the 
admissibility of exhibits on appeal, but ultimately made no specific ruling on this issue because the Appellate Body found it unnecessary to rely in its  decision on the information contained in the 
challenged exhibits.
29 
 
 Japan – DRAMs (Korea) 
  
 Japan requested authorization from the Appellate  Body Division hearing the appeal to correct 
certain clerical errors in its appellant's submission, pursuant to Rule 18(5) of the Working Procedures .  
The Division provided all participants and third part icipants an opportunity to comment in writing on 
Japan's request.  No objections to Japan's request we re received.  The Division authorized Japan to 
correct the clerical errors in its appellant's submission.30 
 
 In its appellee's submission, Korea argued that  Japan's appellant's submission did not satisfy 
the requirements of Rule 21(2) of the  Working Procedures   and the requirements of due process with 
respect to the claim challenging the panel's findi ng that Japan's investigating authorities (JIA) 
                                                      
27Appellate Body Report, US – Zeroing (Japan) , para. 5. 
28Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System (Article 21.5 – Argentina) , para. 11. 
29Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System (Article 21.5 – Argentina) , paras. 12-15. 
30Appellate Body Report, Japan – DRAMs (Korea) , para. 12. WT/AB/9 
Page 19 
 
 
improperly determined the existence of be nefit for the December 2002 Restructuring.31  The Appellate 
Body rejected Korea's argument, observing that   Japan provided extensive arguments in its appellant's 
submission to support its assertion that the panel's revi ew of the JIA's determination of entrustment or 
direction is erroneous.  According to the Appellate  Body, "a careful reading of Japan's appellant's 
submission should have indicated to Korea that these arguments are also relevant with respect to the 
Panel's review of the JIA' s benefit determination".32  Accordingly, the Appellate Body found that 
Japan's appellant's submission satisfied  the requirements of Rule 21(2) of the Working Procedures   
and of due process.33 
 
 Brazil – Retreaded Tyres 
 
 On 28 September and 11 October 2007 , the Appellate Body received  amicus curiae  briefs 
from several non-governmental organizations.  The Division hearing the appeal did not find it 
necessary to take these  amicus curiae  briefs into account in rendering its decision.34 
  
VII. Arbitrations under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU 
 Individual Appellate Body Members have, from ti me to time, been asked to act as arbitrators 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU to determine the "reasonable period of time" for the implementation 
by a WTO Member of the recommendations and ru lings adopted by the DSB.  The DSU does not 
specify who shall serve as arbitrator.  The parties to  the arbitration select the arbitrator by consensus 
or, if they cannot agree on an arbitrator, the Direct or-General of the WTO appoints the arbitrator.   
To date, all those who have served as arbitrators pu rsuant to Article 21.3(c) have been current or 
former Appellate Body Members.  In carrying out ar bitrations under Article 21.3(c), Appellate Body 
Members act in an individual capacity. 
 
 One Article 21.3(c) arbitration proceeding was initiated in 2007.  Former Appellate Body 
Member Mr. Florentino P. Feliciano was appointed by the Director-General to serve as the arbitrator 
in  US – Zeroing (Japan) .35  However, during the course of the arbitration, the parties reached 
agreement on the reasonable period of time for im plementation.  Therefore, it was not necessary for 
the arbitrator to issue an award.36  
  
                                                     
 
31Appellate Body Report, Japan – DRAMs (Korea) , para. 145.  
32Appellate Body Report, Japan – DRAMs (Korea) , para. 146. 
33Appellate Body Report, Japan – DRAMs (Korea) , para. 146. 
34Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , para. 7. 
35WT/DS322/19. 
 36WT/DS322/21. WT/AB/9 
Page 20  
 
VIII.  Technical Assistance 
 The Appellate Body Secretariat participated in  the WTO Technical Assistance and Training 
Plan 200737, particularly in activities relating to training in dispute settlement proc edures.  Overall, the 
Appellate Body Secretariat participated in 28 tec hnical assistance activities during the course of 2007, 
in the three official languages of the WTO.   
 Annex 7 provides further information about the activities carried out by Appellate Body 
Secretariat staff falling under the Technical Assistance and Training Plan 2007.   
IX. Other Developments 
A. WTO Appellate Body Repertory of Reports and Awards 1995–2006 
 The third edition of the WTO Appellate Body Repert ory of Reports and Awards was published 
in August 2007.  The Repertory compiles excerpts from Appellate Body reports and is organized 
according to the provision of the WTO covered ag reement examined, and by subject matter.  The 
Repertory also includes excerpts from awards issued in arbitrations under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU relating to the period of time granted to WTO Memb ers to implement recommendations and rulings of 
the DSB.  The third edition contains excerpts from Appellate Body reports and Article 21.3(c) 
arbitration awards circulated from 1996 through 11 December 2006.
38 
  The Repertory can be ordered online at: <h ttp://onlinebookshop.wto.org>.  The Repertory 
may also be consulted online at: <www.wto.org/appellatebody>. 
 
B. Tenth Anniversary Publications  
 In 2005, the Appellate Body launched a series of conferences to celebrate the Tenth 
Anniversary of the WTO Dispute Settlement System and the Appellate Body.  The conferences  were hosted by academic institutions with which some  Members of the Appellate Body are affiliated, 
and focused on current dispute settlement issues and the Appellate Body's contribution to the 
settlement of disputes.  Participants included current and former Appellate Body Members, 
academics, high-ranking government representatives, WTO officials, journalists, students, and civil 
society representatives.  During the course of 2005 and 2006, a total of five conferences were held in 
Stresa (Italy),  São Paulo (Brazil),  Tokyo (Japan), Cairo (Egypt), and New York (United States).
39   
 Three books arising from these conferences were released in 2007.  The book of the 
conference held in Tokyo is entitled  The WTO in the Twenty-first Century: Dispute Settlement, 
Negotiations, and Regionalism in Asia .  It was launched at the WTO in January 2007 and presented 
by:  Ichiro Fujisaki, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Japan to the WTO;  Muhamad 
Noor Yacob, then Chairman of the DSB and Amba ssador and Permanent Representative of Malaysia 
to the WTO;  Merit E. Janow, Member of the A ppellate Body;  and Yasuhei Taniguchi, Member of 
the Appellate Body. 
 
                                                     
 
37WT/COMTD/W/151.  
38There were no Appellate Body reports or Article 21.3(c) arbitration awards circulated in 1995. 
 39Information on the first three conferences was set out in the Appellate Body Annual Report for 2005 , 
and on the last two in the Appellate Body Annual Report for 2006 .  WT/AB/9 
Page 21 
 
 
The publication compiling the papers presented at  the São Paulo conference was released in 
Brazil mid-year.  The book is entitled Dez Anos de OMC – Uma Aná lise do Sistema de Solução de 
Controvérsias e Perspectivas . 
 The title of the book arising from the conference held in New York is The WTO: Governance, 
Dispute Settlement, and Developing Countries .  It was launched at the WTO on 18 December 2007.  
The book was presented by: Rufus Yerxa, Deputy Di rector-General of the WTO; Bruce Gosper, 
Chairman of the DSB and Ambassador and Permanen t Representative of Australia to the WTO; Peter 
Allgeier, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of  the United States to the WTO; Luiz Olavo 
Baptista, Member and Chairman of the Appellate Body; David Unterhalter, Giorgio Sacerdoti, and 
Merit E. Janow, Members of the Appellate Body. 
 Details on the publications arising from the Te nth Anniversary conferences organized by the 
Appellate Body are provided below.   
G. Sacerdoti, A. Yanovich, and J. Bohanes (eds), The WTO at Ten: The Contribution of the Dispute 
Settlement System  (Cambridge University Press, 2006) 
- available for purchase online at: <http://onlinebookshop.wto.org>  Y. Taniguchi, A. Yanovich, and J. Bohanes (eds), The WTO in the Twenty-first Century: Dispute 
Settlement, Negotiations, a nd Regionalism in Asia  (Cambridge University Press, 2007) 
- available for purchase online at: <http://onlinebookshop.wto.org> 
 L.O. Baptista, U. Celli Jr, and A. Yanovich (eds), Dez Anos de OMC – Uma Análise do Sistema de 
Solução de Controvérsias e Perspectivas  (Aduaneiras Press, 2007) 
- available for purchase online at: <www.aduaneiras.com.br> 
 
M.E. Janow, V. Donaldson, and A. Yanovich (eds), The WTO: Governance, Dispute Settlement, and 
Developing Countries  (Juris Publishing, 2008) 
- available for purchase online at: <http://www.jurispub.com>  
C. Public Forum 
 The WTO Public Forum is an important plat form for dialogue amongst the stakeholders of 
the multilateral trading system.  This year's Fo rum was held on 4-5 October 2007.  It was entitled 
"How Can the WTO Help Harness Globalization?" and was intended to provide civil society, 
academics, and the public at large with a unique opportunity to debate with WTO Members how the 
WTO can best contribute to the management of globalization.    
 The 2007 Forum included a session hosted by  the Appellate Body, which took place on 
4 October.  The title of the session was "WTO Di spute Settlement – Its Impact on the Multilateral 
Trading System and Its Role in a Globalized Wo rld".  The session was chaired by Giorgio Sacerdoti, 
Chairman of the Appellate Body.  The panelists were:  Bruce Gosper, Chairman of the DSB and 
Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Austra lia to the WTO;  Merit E. Janow and Georges 
Abi-Saab, Members of the Appellate Body; and Jo el Trachtman, Professor of International Law at 
Tufts University.      The session examined three main themes:  (i) th e role of the dispute settlement system within 
the WTO;  (ii) the relationship between dispute se ttlement and negotiations;  and (iii) the relationship 
between the WTO and its dispute settlement syst em and other areas of international law and 
adjudication mechanisms. 
 WT/AB/9 
Page 22  
 
 Giorgio Sacerdoti opened the session by intro ducing the other speakers and described the 
main features of the WTO dispute settlement sy stem.  Bruce Gosper focused on the relationship 
between negotiations and dispute settlement in th e WTO.  He pointed out that, because of the 
effectiveness of the dispute settlement system, WTO Members today review negotiated texts more 
carefully and are less willing to opt for construc tive ambiguity.  Neverthe less, although Members 
aspire to have a precise text, realistically there will always be some ambiguity.  Merit E. Janow 
discussed different benchmarks that could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the WTO dispute 
settlement system and discussed some of the chal lenges that lie ahead.  She concluded with a 
discussion of different approaches to defining the con cept of sovereignty and how this is reflected in 
the structure and operation of the WTO dispute settle ment system.  Georges Abi-Saab described the 
evolution of GATT/WTO dispute settlement from a mechanism that was clo ser to the mediation 
model to a system that is more judicial in natu re.  He then examined the relationship of WTO law 
with other areas of international law, explaining th at the WTO dispute settlement system is not a self-
contained regime because it is expressly required to  rely on international customary rules of treaty 
interpretation, and sometimes must rely on interna tional law to resolve procedural issues not expressly 
regulated in the DSU, for instance, on evidentiary  matters.  Reliance on othe r substantive rules of 
international law, however, is less frequent and may be more controversial.  Joel Trachtman submitted 
that, if the WTO treaty is seen as an incomplete contract in the sense that it does not specify each 
detail, panels and the Appellate B ody could be viewed as agents or trustees acting for the collective 
membership.  In his view, the incoherence between norms of international law is the result of the 
failure of treaty negotiators to specify how different international law rules relate to each other and the 
fact that only some treaties provide for mandatory dispute settlement and remedies.  He concluded by 
saying that it is important to recognize that th e WTO dispute settlement system has been left to 
resolve these incoherencies and that the Appellate  Body has done a "heroic" job despite having 
inadequate tools.  
 More than 300 persons attended the session,  including representatives from non-governmental 
organizations, delegates, government officials, and academics.  A recording is available at: 
<http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/public_for um2007_e/session2_e.htm>  The WTO Secretariat 
will publish a book with summaries of all of the Publ ic Forum's sessions.  Further information about 
the 2007 Public Forum is available at: 
<http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/pub lic_forum2007_e/public _forum07_e.htm>. 
 
D. WTO Internship Programme 
 The Appellate Body Secretariat participates in  the WTO internship programme, which allows 
post-graduate university students to gain prac tical experience and a deeper knowledge of the 
multilateral trading system.  Interns in the Appellate  Body Secretariat obtain first-hand experience of 
the substantive and procedural aspects of WTO di spute settlement and, in particular, appellate 
proceedings.  The internship programme is open to  nationals of WTO Members and to nationals of 
countries and customs territories engaged in accession negotiations.   The Appellate Body Secretariat generally host s two interns concurrently; each internship is 
for a three-month period.  During 2007, the Ap pellate Body Secretariat welcomed interns from 
Australia, Canada, Greece, Peru, Thailand, Turkey , United States, and Zimbabwe.  A total of 65 
students, of 37 nationalities, have completed intern ships with the Appellate Body Secretariat since 
1998.  
Further information about the WTO internship programme, including eligibility requirements 
and application instructions, may be obtained online at: 
<www.wto.org/english/thewt o_e/vacan_e /intern_e.htm>. 
 WT/AB/9 
Page 23 
 
 
E. Other Activities 
On 9 July 2007, Judge Rosalyn Higgins, Preside nt of the International Court of Justice, 
visited the WTO in Geneva.  During her visit, she met with Giorgio Sacerdoti, Chairman of the 
Appellate Body, and with Werner Zdouc, Director of the Appellate Body Secretariat. 
 Several Members of the Appellate Body vis ited the Court of Justice of the European 
Communities in Luxembourg on 11 and 12 December  2007.  They met with its President, Judge 
Vassilios Skouris, and with several other Members of the Court.  A meeting was also held with Members of the Court of First Instance. 
 The Appellate Body Secretariat continued its Speakers Series , in which it regularly invites 
scholars and practitioners with exper tise in law, economics, and trade policy to speak on topical issues 
relating to international trade, public international law, and international dispute settlement.  The list 
of speakers in 2007 included Roderick Abbott, Ic hiro Araki, Jane Bradley, Mireille Cossy, William 
Davey, Lothar Ehring, Florentino Feliciano, R obert Howse, Eduardo Perez Motta, Ernst-Ulrich 
Petersmann, Cesare Romano
40, and Gregory Shaffer.  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 opport unity for doctoral students working on their theses, 
and young academics working on research papers, to present and discuss their research in an informal 
setting with the Geneva-based trade community.       Appellate Body Secretariat staff also particip ated in briefings organized for groups visiting 
the WTO, including students.  In these briefings, A ppellate Body Secretariat staff speak to visitors 
about the WTO dispute settlement system in genera l, and appellate procee dings 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 issues. 
 
 A summary of the other activities carried out by Appellate Body Secretariat staff during the course of 2007 can be found in Annex 7. 
 
                                                      
40The presentation by Professor Romano was held in  conjunction with the Graduate Institute of 
International and Development Studies (IUHEI) in Geneva. WT/AB/9 
Page 24  
 
ANNEX 1 
 
 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON CURRENT APPELLATE BODY MEMBERS  
 
 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 University’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 int ernationale:  Étude des notions fondamentales de 
procédure et des moyens de leur mise en oeuvre  (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 in 1938, Luiz Olavo Baptista is  currently Professor of International Trade Law 
at the University of São Paulo Law School.  He has been a Member of the Permanent Court of 
Arbitration at The Hague since 1996, and of the International Chamber of Commerce Institute for 
International Trade Practices 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 is also senior partner at th e L.O. Baptista Law Firm, in São Paulo, Brazil, 
where he concentrates his practice on corporate law, arbitration, and interna tional litigation.  He has 
been practicing law for almost 40 years, advising g overnments, international organizations, and large WT/AB/9 
Page 25 
 
 
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. 
 
 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 Industria l Development, Government of India (1986–1989); 
 Chief Negotiator of India for the Uruguay Roun d 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 Secretary 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 
Permanent Group of Experts under the SCM Agreement , and a Member of a dispute settlement panel 
of the WTO 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.   
Merit E. Janow   (United States) (2003–2007) 
   Born in the United States on 13 May 1958, Ms . Merit E. Janow has been Professor in the 
Practice of International Economic Law and International Affairs at the School of International and 
Public Affairs of Columbia University since 1994.  She teaches advanced law courses in international 
trade and comparative antitrust law along with cour ses on international trade policy.  From 1997 to WT/AB/9 
Page 26  
 
2000, while at Columbia University, Professor Ja now served as Executive Director of the first 
international competition policy advisory committ ee to the Attorney General and the Assistant 
Attorney General for Antitrust of the United States De partment of Justice.  Before joining Columbia's 
faculty in 1994, she was Deputy Assistant Unite d States Trade Representative for Japan and China 
(1990–1993), and worked as a corporate lawyer specia lizing in mergers and acquisitions with the law 
firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in  New York (1988–1990).  Professor Janow is the 
author of several books and has contributed chapters to more than a dozen books.  She grew up in Tokyo, Japan, and speaks Japan ese.  She served as a WTO panelist from September 2001 to 
May 2002 in the dispute EC – Sardines . 
 
 
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.  In the private sector, he has often served as arbitrator in 
international commercial disputes and at the ICSID.   
  Professor Sacerdoti has published extensively on international trade law, investments, 
international contracts, and arbitration.  
 After graduating from the Univers ity of Milan with a law degree summa 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.  
 
Yasuhei Taniguchi   (Japan) (2000–2007)   
  Born in Japan on 26 December 1934, Yasuhei Taniguchi is currently Professor of Law at 
Senshu University Law School, and Attorney at Law in Tokyo.  He obtained a law degree from Kyoto 
University in 1957 and was fully qualified as a jurist in 1959.  His graduate degrees include LLM, 
University of California at Berkeley (1963) and JS D, Cornell University (1964).  He taught at Kyoto 
University for 39 years and has been Professor Emer itus since 1998.  He also has taught as Visiting 
Professor of Law in the United States (University of Michigan, University of California at Berkeley, 
Duke University, Stanford University, Georgeto wn University, Harvard University, New York 
University, and University of Richmond), in Aust ralia (Murdoch University and University of 
Melbourne), at the University of Hong Kong,  and at the University of Paris XII.  
  Professor Taniguchi is former president of the Japanese Association of Civil Procedure and 
currently vice-president of the International Associa tion of Procedural Law.  He is affiliated with 
various academic societies and arb itral organizations as arbitrator, including the International Council 
for Commercial Arbitration; the International Law Association;  the American Law Institute; the 
Japan Commercial Arbitration Asso ciation; the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators; the American 
Arbitration Association; the Hong Kong Internatio nal Arbitration Center;  the Chinese International 
Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission;  the Ko rean Commercial Arbitration Board;  and the 
CRCICA.  He has also been an active arbitrator in  the International Chamber of Commerce Court of 
International Arbitration.  WT/AB/9 
Page 27 
 
 
  Professor Taniguchi has written numerous books and articles in the fields of civil procedure, arbitration, insolvency, the judicial system  and legal profession, as well as comparative and 
international law related to these fields.  His pub lications have been published in Japanese, Chinese, 
English, French, Italian, German, and Portuguese.  
 
 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.   
 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.  
  
*** 
 
 
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 Gallen 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 developing countr y countries.  He became legal counsellor at  
the Appellate Body Secretariat in 2001.  Currently, he is also a lecturer and Visiting Professor for 
international trade law at Vienna Economic Univers ity and the University of Zurich.  From 1987 to 
1989, he worked for governmental and non-government al development aid organizations in Austria 
and Latin America.  Dr. Zdouc has authored vari ous publications on international economic law. 
  
 
 
 
 WT/AB/9 
Page 28  
 
ANNEX 2 
 
 
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 
 
* 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) WT/AB/9 
Page 29 
 
 
 
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 
A.V. Ganesan India 17 December 2005 –  
16 December 2006 
Giorgio Sacerdoti Italy 17 December 2006 –  
16 December 2007 WT/AB/9 
Page 30  
 
ANNEX 3 
 
 
APPEALS FILED: 1995–2007 
 
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 
Total   86 72 14 
 
aThis number includes two Notices of App eal that were circulated at the sa me time in related matters, counted 
separately: EC – Hormones (Canada) ; EC – Hormones (US).   A single Appellate Body report was subsequently circulated in 
relation to these appeals. 
bThis number excludes one Notice of A ppeal that was withdrawn by the Unit ed States, which subsequently filed 
another Notice of Appeal in re lation to the same panel report: US – FSC . 
cThis number includes two Notices of Appeal that were circulated at the same time in related matters, counted 
separately: US – 1916 Act (EC) ; US – 1916 Act (Japan).   A single Appellate Body report was subsequently circulated in 
relation to these appeals. 
dThis number excludes one Notice of A ppeal that was withdrawn by the Unit ed States, which subsequently filed 
another Notice of Appeal in re lation to the same panel report: US – Line Pipe . 
eThis number includes one Notice of App eal 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 . 
fThis number excludes one Notice of Appeal that was w ithdrawn by the United States, which subsequently filed 
a new Notice of Appeal in relation to the same panel report: US – Softwood Lumber IV . 
 
 WT/AB/9 
Page 31 
 
 
ANNEX 4 
 
 
PERCENTAGE OF PANEL REPORTS APPEALED 
BY YEAR OF ADOPTION:  1995–2007 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% 
Total 132 88 67% 110 74 67% 22 14 64% 
 
 
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 a single panel report 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. 
  
 
ANNEX 5 
 
 
WTO AGREEMENTS ADDRESSED IN APPELLATE BODY REPORT S CIRCULATED THROUGH 2007 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 
Total 66 9 49 12 4 3 2 0 21 2 21 7 4 3 
 
a No appeals were filed in 1995. 
 WT/AB/9 
Page 32 WT/AB/9 
Page 33 
 
 
ANNEX 6 
 
 
PARTICIPANTS AND THIRD PARTICIPANTS IN APPEALS: 
1995–2007 
 
 As of the end of 2007, there were 151 WTO Members, of which 66 (44 per cent) have 
participated in appeals in which Appellate Body  reports were circulated between 1996 and 2007.1  
 
 The rules pursuant to which Members particip ate in appeals as appellant, other appellant, 
appellee, and third participant are described  in Section V of this Annual Report.   
 
  I.  STATISTICAL SUMMARY  
 
WTO Member Appellant Other 
appellant Appellee Third 
participant Total 
Antigua & Barbuda 1 – 1 – 2 
Argentina 2 3 5 8 18 
Australia 2 1 5 15 23 
Barbados – – – 1 1 
Belize – – – 2 2 
Benin – – – 1 1 
Bolivia – – – 1 1 
Brazil 8 3 11 13 35 
Cameroon – – – 1 1 
Canada 10 6 14 14 44 
Chad – – – 1 1 
Chile 3 – 2 4 9 
China – 1 1 18 20 
Colombia – – – 5 5 
Costa Rica 1 – – 3 4 
Côte d'Ivoire – – – 2 2 
Cuba – – – 4 4 
Dominica – – – 2 2 
Dominican Republic 1 – 1 1 3 
Ecuador – 1 1 5 7 
Egypt – – – 1 1 
El Salvador – – – 2 2 
European Communities 12 13 29 40 94 
Fiji – – – 1 1 
                                                      
1No appeals were filed and no Appellate Body Reports were circulated in 1995, the year the Appellate 
Body was established. WT/AB/9 
Page 34  
 
WTO Member Appellant Other 
appellant Appellee Third 
participant Total 
Ghana – – – 1 1 
Grenada – – – 1 1 
Guatemala 1 1 1 4 7 
Guyana – – – 1 1 
Honduras 1 1 2 1 5 
Hong Kong, China – – – 7 7 
India 5 1 5 17 28 
Indonesia – – 1 1 2 
Israel – – – 1 1 
Jamaica – – – 3 3 
Japan 6 4 10 25 45 
Kenya – – – 1 1 
Korea 4 3 6 11 24 
Madagascar – – – 1 1 
Malaysia 1 – 1 – 2 
Mauritius – – – 2 2 
Malawi – – – 1 1 
Mexico 4 1 4 17 26 
New Zealand – 2 5 8 15 
Nicaragua – – – 2 2 
Nigeria – – – 1 1 
Norway – 1 1 8 10 
Pakistan – – 2 2 4 
Panama – – – 1 1 
Paraguay – – – 5 5 
Peru – – 1 2 3 
Philippines 1 – 1 1 3 
Poland – – 1 – 1 
Senegal – – – 1 1 
St Lucia – – – 2 2 
St Kitts & Nevis – – – 1 1 
St Vincent &  
the Grenadines – – – 1 1 
Suriname – – – 1 1 
Swaziland – – – 1 1 
Switzerland – 1 1 – 2 WT/AB/9 
Page 35 
 
 
WTO Member Appellant Other 
appellant Appellee Third 
participant Total 
Chinese Taipei – – – 10 10 
Tanzania – – – 1 1 
Thailand 3 – 4 7 14 
Trinidad &Tobago  – – – 1 1 
Turkey 1 – – 1 2 
United States 26 10 49 26 111 
Venezuela – – 1 6 7 
Total 93 53 166 329 641 
 
   
 
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/9 
Page 36  
 
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  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/9 
Page 37 
 
 
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  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/9 
Page 38  
 
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  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/9 
Page 39 
 
 
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
 2 
India  
Japan 3 
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 
 
                                                      
2In complaint brought by Japan. 
3In complaint brought by the European Communities. WT/AB/9 
Page 40  
 
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/9 
Page 41 
 
 
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  4 
WT/DS146/AB/R, WT/DS175/AB/R India - - - European 
Communities 
United States Korea 
Chile – Price Band System  
WT/DS207/AB/R  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  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  
 
                                                      
4India withdrew its appeal the day before th e oral hearing was scheduled to proceed. WT/AB/9 
Page 42  
 
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/9 
Page 43 
 
 
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/9 
Page 44  
 
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  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/9 
Page 45 
 
 
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  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/9 
Page 46  
 
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 Canada - - - United States China  
European 
Communities 
US – Zeroing (EC) 
WT/DS294/AB/R 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/9 
Page 47 
 
 
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 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/9 
Page 48  
 
 ANNEX 7 
 
 
APPELLATE BODY SECRETARI AT PARTICIPATION IN  
THE WTO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING PLAN 2007 
 
 
Course / Seminar Location Dates 
Tutor for e-training course – Introduction to the WTO 
and Basic Principles Geneva, Switzerland 12 February– 
30 March 2007 
National Dispute Settlement Course Jakarta, Indonesia 5–9 March 2007 
39th Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement Presentation and Simulation Geneva, Switzerland 19–23 March 2007 
40th Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement 
Presentation and Simulation Geneva, Switzerland 26–30 March 2007 
Regional Advanced Dispute Settlement Seminar Vienna, Austria 2–5 April 2007 
17th Dispute Settlement Course Geneva, Switzerland 16–20 April 2007 
National Seminar on Dispute Settlement  Rabat, Morocco 
(French) 23–27 April 2007 
Participation via video-conference for the "Trade 
Remedy Measures and Dispute Settlement: Theory 
and Practice" conference held in Lima, Peru Geneva, Switzerland 
(Spanish) 8 May 2007 
Inter-American Development Bank/INTAL seminar 
on DSU Negotiations Buenos Aires, 
Argentina 
(Spanish) 21–23 May 2007 
18th Dispute Settlement Course Geneva, Switzerland 21–25 May 2007 
UN Economic and Social Commission for Latin 
America and the Caribbean "Sustainable Development in the Framework of WTO Disputes" San José, Costa Rica 
(Spanish) 23–25 May 2007 
Regional Dispute Settlement Seminar Singapore 4–8 June 2007 
Regional Trade Policy Course – Introduction and 
Basic Principles Windhoek, Namibia 11–13 June 2007 
Regional Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement Libreville, Gabon 
(French) 18–19 June 2007 
41st Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement 
Presentation and Simulation Geneva, Switzerland 
(French) 2–6 July 2007 
Dispute settlement module via video-conference for 
the "Long Distance Capacity Building Programme" of 
the Mission of Guatemala Geneva, Switzerland 
(Spanish) 19 and 26 July 2007 
Regional Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement Windhoek, Namibia 13–17 August 2007 WT/AB/9 
Page 49 
 
 
 Course / Seminar Location Dates 
Regional Dispute Settlement Seminar Trinidad and Tobago 17–21 September 2007 
Regional Trade Policy Course – Introduction to the 
WTO and Basic Principles Santiago, Chile 
(Spanish) 28 September– 
2 October 2007 
19th Dispute Settlement Course Geneva, Switzerland 
(Spanish) 1–5 October 2007 
Seminar on Curriculum Development for University 
Professors Shanghai, China 15–19 October 2007 
5th WTO–ADB/ECA Trade Policy Course – Dispute 
Settlement Dar Es Salaam, 
Tanzania 2 November 2007 
Presentation on Basic Legal Principles of the 
GATT/WTO at the WTO Introduction Day Geneva, Switzerland 13 November 2007 
Regional Dispute Settlement Seminar Santo Domingo, 
Dominican Republic 
(Spanish) 19–23 November 2007 
42nd Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement 
Presentation and Simulation Geneva, Switzerland 26–30 November 2007 
WTO–IDLO Public International Trade Law Course  
(Asia-Pacific Region) – Dispute Settlement Sydney, Australia 27–28 November 2007 
Regional Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement Santiago, Chile 
(Spanish) 3–6 December 2007 
National Seminar on Rules for French-speaking Africa 
(Anti-Dumping, Safeguards, Subsidies) Atananarivo, 
Madagascar 
(French) 10–12 December 2007 
 WT/AB/9 
Page 50  
 
 APPELLATE BODY SECRETARI AT PARTICIPATION IN  
OTHER ACTIVITIES – 2007 
 
 
Activity Location Dates 
ELSA Moot Court Geneva, Switzerland 2–4 May 2007 
WTO Trade Course at Vienna Economic University Vienna, Austria 10–11 May 2007 
Training program on WTO agreements  Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 14–15 May 2007 
Presentation at the 7th Annual WTO Conference of the British Institute of International and Comparative 
Law London, UK 22–23 May 2007 
World Trade Institute Moot Court Berne, Switzerland 5–6 July 2007 
Talk to members of the International Trade Law 
Committee of the ILA Geneva, Switzerland 29 June 2007 
Presentation at the 10th Annual Cameron May 
Conference – Dispute Resolution in the WTO Brussels, Belgium 29 June 2007 
 
 
BRIEFINGS TO GROUPS VISITING THE WTO – 2007 
 
Activity Location Dates 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to law students from Australian National University  Geneva, Switzerland 8 February 2007 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students from 
American University's "E uropean Union Program"  Geneva, Switzerland 23 February 2007 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students from 
Maastricht University Geneva, Switzerland 2 March 2007 
Talk on the WTO to law students from Erasmus 
University  Geneva, Switzerland 26 March 2007 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students from 
University of London  Geneva, Switzerland 30 March 2007 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students from 
West Bristol University  Geneva, Switzerland 5 April 2007 
Talk on the WTO and the Appellate Body to students 
from University of West Indies  Geneva, Switzerland 21 May 2007 
Talk on the DSU to law students from World Trade 
Institute (Berne) and Bocconi University (Milan)  Geneva, Switzerland 29 June 2007 
Talk on the WTO to students from American 
University, Washington College of Law – summer 
programme Geneva, Switzerland 2 July 2007 WT/AB/9 
Page 51 
 
 
 Activity Location Dates 
Talk on the WTO to students from Melbourne 
University Faculty of Law – Institutions in 
International Law Programme  Geneva, Switzerland 5 July 2007 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students from 
University of Frankfurt  Geneva, Switzerland 10 July 2007 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students from 
Duke University – Su mmer Law Programme  Geneva, Switzerland 12 July 2007 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to international trade 
law society students from the Judicial Research and 
Training Institute (Korea) Summer Program  Geneva, Switzerland 12 July 2007 
Presentation on the appellate process to the UN 
International Law Commission's Summer Seminar   Geneva, Switzerland 16 July 2007 
Talk on WTO dispute settlement to students from 
University Adolfo Ibañez (Chile)  Geneva, Switzerland 18 September 2007 
 WT/AB/9 
Page 52  
 
 ANNEX 8 
 
 
WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORTS AND ARBITRATION AWARDS:  1995–2007 
 
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  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  Award of the Arbitrator, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon  
– Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS18/9, 23 February 1999, 
DSR 1999:I, 267 
Australia – Salmon  (Article 21.5 – Canada)
  Panel Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon – Recourse 
to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada , WT/DS18/RW, adopted 20 March 2000, 
DSR 2000:IV, 2031 
Brazil – Aircraft  Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft , 
WT/DS46/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1161 WT/AB/9 
Page 53 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Brazil – Aircraft  Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft , WT/DS46/R, 
adopted 20 August 1999, as modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS46/AB/R, DSR 1999:III, 1221 
Brazil – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Canada)  Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft 
 – Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS46/AB/RW, adopted 
4 August 2000, DSR 2000:VIII, 4067 
Brazil – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Canada)  Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme  for Aircraft – Recourse by 
Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS46/RW, adopted 4 August 2000, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS46/AB/RW, DSR 2000:IX, 4093 
Brazil – Aircraft  (Article 21.5 – Canada II
 )  Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing Progr amme for Aircraft – Second 
Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS46/RW/2, adopted 
23 August 2001, DSR 2001:X, 5481 
Brazil – Aircraft  
(Article 22.6 – Brazil)  Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft  
– Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement , WT/DS46/ARB, 28 August 2000, DSR 2002:I, 19 
Brazil – Desiccated Coconut  Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affe cting Desiccated Coconut , 
WT/DS22/AB/R, adopted 20 March 1997, DSR 1997:I, 167 
Brazil – Desiccated Coconut  Panel Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut , WT/DS22/R, 
adopted 20 March 1997, upheld by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS22/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, 189 
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres , 
WT/DS332/AB/R, adopted 17 December 2007 
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 
Canada – Aircraft  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian 
Aircraft , WT/DS70/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1377 
Canada – Aircraft  Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft , 
WT/DS70/R, adopted 20 August 1999, upheld by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS70/AB/R, DSR 1999:IV, 1443 
Canada – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Brazil)  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian 
Aircraft – Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS70/AB/RW, 
adopted 4 August 2000, DSR 2000:IX, 4299 
Canada – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Brazil)  Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft  
– Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS70/RW, adopted 
4 August 2000, as modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS70/AB/RW, DSR 2000:IX, 4315 
Canada – Aircraft Credits and 
Guarantees  Panel Report, Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional 
Aircraft , WT/DS222/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 February 2002, DSR 2002:III, 849 
Canada – Aircraft Credits and 
Guarantees  (Article 22.6 – Canada)
  Decision by the Arbitrator, Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for 
Regional Aircraft – Recourse to Arbitrati on by Canada under Article 22.6 of the 
DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement , WT/DS222/ARB, 17 February 
2003, DSR 2003:III, 1187 
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 WT/AB/9 
Page 54  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Canada – Autos  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 – 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, as reversed by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS103/AB/RW, 
WT/DS113/AB/RW, DSR 2001:XIII, 6865 
Canada – Dairy  
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US II)
  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk 
and the Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States , WT/DS103/AB/RW2, 
WT/DS113/AB/RW2, adopted 17 January 2003, DSR 2003:I, 213 
Canada – Dairy  
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US II)
  Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the 
Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States , WT/DS103/RW2, WT/DS113/RW2, adopted 
17 January 2003, as modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS103/AB/RW2, 
WT/DS113/AB/RW2, DSR 2003:I, 255 
Canada – Patent Term  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Term of Patent Protection , WT/DS170/AB/R, 
adopted 12 October 2000, DSR 2000:X, 5093 
Canada – Patent Term  Panel Report, Canada – Term of Patent Protection , WT/DS170/R, adopted 
12 October 2000, upheld by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS170/AB/R, DSR 2000:XI, 5121 
Canada – Patent Term  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
  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 WT/AB/9 
Page 55 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Canada – Wheat Exports and 
Grain Imports Panel Report, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of 
Imported Grain , WT/DS276/R, adopted 27 September 2004, upheld by Appellate 
Body Report, WT/DS276/AB/R, DSR 2004:VI, 2817 
Chile – Alcoholic Beverages  Appellate Body Report, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS87/AB/R, 
WT/DS110/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, 281 
Chile – Alcoholic Beverages  Panel Report, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS87/R, WT/DS110/R, 
adopted 12 January 2000, as modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS87/AB/R, WT/DS110/AB/R, DSR 2000:I, 303 
Chile – Alcoholic Beverages  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 and Corr.1, adopted 
23 October 2002, DSR 2002:VIII, 3045 
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  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, upheld by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS207/AB/RW 
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 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, 
Corr.1 and Add.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, adopted 21 November 2006 
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 WT/AB/9 
Page 56  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 
EC – Bananas III  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 and Corr.1, 12 April 1999, 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 (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  WT/AB/9 
Page 57 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
EC – Bed Linen  
(Article 21.5 – India)  Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of 
Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU  by 
India , WT/DS141/RW, adopted 24 April 2003, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report, WT/DS141/AB/RW, DSR 2003:IV, 1269  
EC – Butter Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Butter Products , 
WT/DS72/R, 24 November 1999, unadopted  
EC – Chicken Cuts Appellate Body Report, European  Communities – Customs Classification of 
Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts , WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB/R, and 
Corr.1, adopted 27 September 2005, 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 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 WT/AB/9 
Page 58  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar – 
Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS265/33, WT/DS266/33, 
WT/DS283/14, 28 October 2005, DSR 2005:XXIII, 11581 
EC – Hormones  Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products 
(Hormones) , WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998, 
DSR 1998:I, 135 
EC – Hormones (Canada)  Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), 
Complaint by Canada , WT/DS48/R/CAN, adopted 13 February 1998, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:II, 235 
EC – Hormones (US)  Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), 
Complaint by the United States , WT/DS26/R/USA, adopted 13 February 1998, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:III, 699 
EC – Hormones  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 
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 
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 WT/AB/9 
Page 59 
 
 
 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 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-XI, 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-IX, 
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 – Autos  Appellate Body Report, India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector , 
WT/DS146/AB/R, WT/DS175/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2002, DSR 2002:V, 1821 
India – Autos  Panel Report, India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector , WT/DS146/R, 
WT/DS175/R and Corr.1, adopted 5 April 2002, DSR 2002:V, 1827 
India – Patents (EC)  Panel Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural 
Chemical Products, Complaint by the European Communities , WT/DS79/R, 
adopted 22 September 1998, DSR 1998:VI, 2661 
India – Patents (US)  Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products , WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998, 
DSR 1998:I, 9 
India – Patents (US)  Panel Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural 
Chemical Products, Complaint by the United States , WT/DS50/R, adopted 
16 January 1998, as modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS50/AB/R, 
DSR 1998:I, 41 WT/AB/9 
Page 60  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
India – Quantitative 
Restrictions  Appellate Body Report, India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of 
Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products , WT/DS90/AB/R, adopted 
22 September 1999, DSR 1999:IV, 1763 
India – Quantitative 
Restrictions  Panel Report, India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile 
and Industrial Products , WT/DS90/R, adopted 22 September 1999, upheld by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS90/AB/R, DSR 1999:V, 1799 
Indonesia – Autos  Panel Report, Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry , 
WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R and Corr.1, 2, 3 and 4, 
adopted 23 July 1998, DSR 1998:VI, 2201 
Indonesia – Autos  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  Award of the Arbitrator, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages – Arbitration 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS8/15, WT/DS10/15, WT/DS11/13, 
14 February 1997, DSR 1997:I, 3 
Japan – Apples  Appellate Body Report, Japan - Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples , 
WT/DS245/AB/R, adopted 10 December 2003, DSR 2003:IX, 4391 
Japan – Apples  Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples , 
WT/DS245/R, adopted 10 December 2003, upheld by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS245/AB/R, DSR 2003:IX, 4481  
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 
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 WT/AB/9 
Page 61 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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  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 and Corr.1, adopted 24 February 
2000, DSR 2000:III, 1345 
Mexico – Corn Syrup  
(Article 21.5 – US)  Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose 
Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU  
by the United States , WT/DS132/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, 
DSR 2001:XIII, 6675 
Mexico – Corn Syrup  
(Article 21.5 – US)  Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU  by the 
United States , WT/DS132/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, upheld by Appellate 
Body Report, WT/DS132/AB/RW, DSR 2001:XIII, 6717 
Mexico – 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 WT/AB/9 
Page 62  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 
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, 
upheld by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, 
DSR 2000:X, 4593 
US – 1916 Act (Japan)  Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, Complaint by Japan , 
WT/DS162/R and Add.1, adopted 26 September 2000, upheld by Appellate Body 
Report, WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, DSR 2000:X, 4831 
US – 1916 Act  Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 – Arbitration 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS136/11, WT/DS162/14, 28 February 
2001, DSR 2001:V, 2017 
US – 1916 Act (EC)  
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrators, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, Original 
Complaint by the European Communities – Recourse to Arbitration by the United 
States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS136/ARB, 24 February 2004, DSR 
2004:IX, 4269 
US – Anti-Dumping Measures 
on Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country 
Tubular Goods (OCTG) from Mexico , WT/DS282/AB/R, adopted 28 November 
2005, DSR 2005:XX, 10127 
US – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular 
Goods (OCTG) from Mexico , WT/DS282/R, adopted 28 November 2005, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS282/AB/R, DSR 2005:XXI, 10225 
US – Carbon Steel  Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany , 
WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 December 2002, DSR 2002:IX, 3779 
US – Carbon Steel  Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany , WT/DS213/R and Corr.1, 
adopted 19 December 2002, as modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1, DSR 2002:IX, 3833 WT/AB/9 
Page 63 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 – Corrosion-Resistant 
Steel Sunset Review  Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties 
on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan , 
WT/DS244/AB/R, adopted 9 January 2004, DSR 2004:I, 3  
US – Corrosion-Resistant 
Steel Sunset Review  Panel Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan , WT/DS244/R, 
adopted 9 January 2004, as modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WTDS244/AB/R, DSR 2004:I, 85  
US – Cotton Yarn  Appellate Body Report, United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on 
Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan , WT/DS192/AB/R, adopted 5 November 
2001, DSR 2001:XII, 6027 
US – Cotton Yarn  Panel Report, United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton 
Yarn from Pakistan , WT/DS192/R, adopted 5 November 2001, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS192/AB/R, DSR 2001:XII, 6067 
US – Countervailing Duty 
Investigation on DRAMS Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on 
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea , 
WT/DS296/AB/R, adopted 20 July 2005, DSR 2005:XVI, 8131 
US – Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAMS Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea , WT/DS296/R, 
adopted 20 July 2005, as modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS296/AB/R, DSR 2005:XVII, 8243 
US – Countervailing Measures 
on Certain EC Products  Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning 
Certain Products from the European Communities , WT/DS212/AB/R, adopted 
8 January 2003, DSR 2003:I, 5 
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 – 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 WT/AB/9 
Page 64  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 
US – FSC  
(Article 21.5 – EC II) Panel Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" 
 – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities , 
WT/DS108/RW2, adopted 14 March 2006, upheld by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS108/AB/RW2 
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 and Corr.1, 
adopted 20 April 2005, DSR 2005:XII, 5663 
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 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  Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain  
Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the 
DSU , WT/DS184/13, 19 February 2002, DSR 2002:IV, 1389 WT/AB/9 
Page 65 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Lamb  Appellate Body Report, United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, 
Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia , 
WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, adopted 16 May 2001, DSR 2001:IX, 4051 
US – Lamb  Panel Report, United States – Safeguard Measures  on Imports of Fresh, Chilled 
or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia , WT/DS177/R, 
WT/DS178/R, adopted 16 May 2001, as modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, DSR 2001:IX, 4107 
US – Lead and Bismuth II  Appellate Body Report, United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on 
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom , WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted 7 June 2000, DSR 2000:V, 2595 
US – Lead and Bismuth II  Panel Report, United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain 
Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United 
Kingdom , WT/DS138/R and Corr.2, adopted 7 June 2000, upheld by Appellate 
Body Report, WT/DS138/AB/R, DSR 2000:VI, 2623 
US – Line Pipe  Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Circular Welded Car bon Quality Line Pipe from Korea , 
WT/DS202/AB/R, adopted 8 March 2002, DSR 2002:IV, 1403 
US – Line Pipe  Panel Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of 
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea , WT/DS202/R, adopted 
8 March 2002, as modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS202/AB/, 
DSR 2002:IV, 1473 
US – Line Pipe  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 ) 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 WT/AB/9 
Page 66  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Offset Act  
(Byrd Amendment) (India) (Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by  India – Recourse to Arbitration by the 
United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS217/ARB/IND, 31 August 
2004, DSR 2004:X, 4691 
US – Offset Act  
(Byrd Amendment) (Japan) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by  Japan – Recourse to Arbitration by the 
United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS217/ARB/JPN, 31 August 
2004, DSR 2004:X, 4771 
US – Offset Act  (Byrd Amendment) (Korea) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by  Korea – Recourse to Arbitration by the 
United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS217/ARB/KOR, 31 August 
2004, DSR 2004:X,4851 
US – Offset Act  (Byrd Amendment) (Mexico) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by  Mexico – Recourse to Arbitration by 
the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS234/ARB/MEX, 
31 August 2004, DSR 2004:X,4931 
US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina , WT/DS268/AB/R, 
adopted 17 December 2004, DSR 2004:VII, 3257 
US – Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Sunset Reviews Panel Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil 
Country Tubular Goods from Argentina , WT/DS268/R and Corr.1, adopted 
17 December 2004, as modified by Appellate Body Report, W/DS/268/AB/R, 
DSR 2004:VIII, 3421 
US – Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Sunset Reviews 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 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 25.3)  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/9 
Page 67 
 
 
 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, 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 – Softwood Lumber III  Panel Report, United States – Preliminary Determinations with Respect to Certain 
Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS236/R, adopted 1 November 2002, 
DSR 2002:IX, 3597 
US – Softwood Lumber IV  Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination 
with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS257/AB/R, 
adopted 17 February 2004, DSR 2004:II, 571 
US – Softwood Lumber IV Panel Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with 
Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS257/R and Corr.1, 
adopted 17 February 2004, as modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS257/AB/R, DSR 2004:II, 641  
US – Softwood Lumber IV 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination 
with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse by Canada to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS257/AB/RW, adopted 20 December 2005, DSR 
2005:XXIII, 11357 
US – Softwood Lumber IV (Article 21.5 – Canada) Panel Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with 
Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse by Canada to 
Article 21.5 [of the DSU] , WT/DS257/RW, adopted 20 December 2005 , upheld 
by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS257/AB/RW, DSR 2005:XXIII, 11401 
US – Softwood Lumber V  Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on 
Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS264/AB/R, adopted 31 August 2004, 
DSR 2004:V, 1875 
US – Softwood Lumber V  Panel Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber 
from Canada , WT/DS264/R, adopted 31 August 2004, as modified by Appellate 
Body Report, WT/DS264/AB/R, DSR 2004:V, 1937 
US – Softwood Lumber V  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 
US – Softwood Lumber V  
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Panel Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber 
from Canada – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada , WT/DS264/RW, 
adopted 1 September 2006, as revers ed by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS264/AB/RW WT/AB/9 
Page 68  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 and Corr.1, adopted 9 May 2006  
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  
US – Stainless Steel  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) Panel Report, United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel 
from Mexico , WT/DS344/R, circulated to WTO Members 20 December 2007 
[adoption pending] 
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  
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, and 
Corr.1, adopted 21 March 2005, as modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS267/AB/R, DSR 2005:II-VI, 299 
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, circulated to WTO 
Members 18 December 2007 [adoption pending] 
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 WT/AB/9 
Page 69 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 and Corr.1, adopted 
23 May 1997, DSR 1997:I, 323 
US – Wool Shirts and Blouses  Panel Report, United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts 
and Blouses from India , WT/DS33/R, adopted 23 May 1997, upheld by Appellate 
Body Report, WT/DS33/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, 343 
US – Zeroing (EC) Appellate Body Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for 
Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") , WT/DS294/AB/R and Corr.1, 
adopted 9 May 2006 
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 
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) Report of the Arbitrator, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and 
Sunset Reviews , WT/DS322/21, 11 May 2007 
 
 
__________