WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/AB/3 
25 January 2005 
 (05-0287) 
  
  
 
     
 
    
 
     
APPELLATE BODY 
 
 
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2004 
 
 
 
JANUARY 2005 
  
 
     
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
     
 
    
 
    
 
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/3 
Page i 
 
Table of Contents  
 
I. Composition of the Appellate Body ...........................................................................................1  
II. Appeals Filed .................................................................................................................. ............2  
III. Appellate Bo dy Reports......................................................................................................... .....2 
IV. Participants and Third Participants ............................................................................................ .3 
V. Subject Matter of Appeals ...................................................................................................... ....5 
A. Appellate Body's Findings and Conclusions ..................................................................5  
B. Agreements Covered ......................................................................................................5  
C. Procedural Issues ..........................................................................................................6  
VI. Working Procedures for Appellate Review .................................................................................7  
A. Amendments to the Working Procedures .......................................................................7  
B. New Numbering System for Documents Relating to the Working Procedures ..............9  
VII. Arbitrations under Article  21.3(c) of the DSU .........................................................................10  
VIII. Technical As sistance........................................................................................................... ......10  
IX. Other Developments ............................................................................................................. ....10  
A. WTO Appellate Body Repertory of  Reports and Awards:  1995-2004 ........................10  
B. Tenth Anniversary Conferences ...................................................................................11  
C. WTO Internship Program ............................................................................................12  
D. In-House Briefings and Other Activities ......................................................................12 
 
Annex 1 Former Appellate Body Members and Chairpersons ...................................................13  
Annex 2 Appeals Filed Be tween 1995 and 2004........................................................................14  
Annex 3 Percentage of Panel Repor ts Appealed:  1996 to 2004 ................................................15  
Annex 4 Appeals from Article 21.5 Panel Reports:  1995 to 2004.............................................16  
Annex 5 Participants and Third Participants  in Appeals Circulated Between 1996 and 
2004........................................................................................................................... ...17 
Annex 6 Summaries of Appellate Body Reports  and Article 21.3(c) Arbitration Awards 
Circulated in 2004 ........................................................................................................27  
Annex 7 WTO Agreements Covered in Appe llate Body Reports Circulated Through 
2004........................................................................................................................... ...30 
Annex 8 Amendments to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review ..................................31  
Annex 9 Documents Relating to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review .......................37  
Annex 10 Tenth Anniversary Conf erences:  Provisional Programs .............................................38  
 WT/AB/3 
Page ii  
TABLE OF CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT 
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 – 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 
Australia – Salmon  Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon , 
WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, 3327 
Brazil – Aircraft  Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft , 
WT/DS46/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1161 
Brazil – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Canada)  Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Export Financing Pr ogramme 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 – Desiccated Coconut  Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affe cting Desiccated Coconut , 
WT/DS22/AB/R, adopted 20 March 1997, DSR 1997:I, 167 
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  
(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 – 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 – 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  
(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 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 
Canada – Patent Term  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Term of Patent Protection , 
WT/DS170/AB/R, adopted 12 October 2000, DSR 2000:X, 5093 
Canada – Periodicals  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals , 
WT/DS31/AB/R, adopted 30 July 1997, DSR 1997:I, 449 
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 
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 – Price Band System  Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures 
Relating to Certain Agricultural Products , WT/DS207/AB/R, adopted 
23 October 2002 
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/3 
Page iii 
 
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:II, 943 
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  
(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  
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 – 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 – 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 – Sardines  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Trade Description of 
Sardines , WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 23 October 2002 
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 
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 
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 
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 
India – Autos  Appellate Body Report, India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector , 
WT/DS146/AB/R, WT/DS175/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2002 WT/AB/3 
Page iv  
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
India – Patents (US)  Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products , WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998, 
DSR 1998:I, 9 
India – 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 
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 – 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 – Apples  Appellate Body Report, Japan - Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples , 
WT/DS245/AB/R, adopted 10 December 2003 
Korea – Alcoholic Beverages  Appellate Body Report, Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , 
WT/DS75/AB/R, WT/DS84/AB/R, adopted 17 February 1999, DSR 1999:I, 3 
Korea – 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 – 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 
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 – Telecoms Panel Report, Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services , 
WT/DS204/R, adopted 1 June 2004 
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 
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 
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 – 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 
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 – 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  
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 WT/AB/3 
Page v 
 
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
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 
US – FSC  Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" , WT/DS108/AB/R, adopted 20 March 2000, DSR 2000:III, 1619 
US – FSC  
(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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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  
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 
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 
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 
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 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 – 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  
(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 – 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 
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 
US – Softwood Lumber V  Report of the Arbitrator, United States – Final Dumping Determination on 
Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS264/13, 13 December 2004 WT/AB/3 
Page vi  
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 
US – Steel Safeguards Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Certain Steel Products , WT/DS248AB/R, WT/DS249AB/R, 
WT/DS251AB/R, WT/DS252AB/R, WT/DS253AB/R, WT/DS254AB/R, WT/DS258AB/R, WT/DS259AB/R,  adopted 10 December 2003  
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 – Upland Cotton United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton , WT/DS267, Notice of Appeal filed 
18 October 2004 
US – Wheat Gluten  Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities , WT/DS166/AB/R, 
adopted 19 January 2001, DSR 2001:II, 717 
US – 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 
 
 WT/AB/3 
Page vii 
 
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT 
 
Abbreviation Description 
2004 TA Plan WTO Technical Assi stance and Training Plan 2004 
Anti-Dumping Agreement Agreement on Implementatio n of Article VI of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade 1994   
ATC Agreement on Textiles and Clothing  
DSB Dispute Settlement Body  
DSU Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes  
Enabling Clause Decision on Differential an d More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity, and 
Fuller Participation of Developing Countries, GATT Document L/4903, 28 
November 1979, BISD 26S/203  
GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services   
GATT 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  
GSP Generalized System of Preferences 
Import Licensing  Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures   
SCM Agreement  Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  
SPS Agreement  Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
STEs State trading enterprises 
TBT  Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade   
TRIMs  Agreement on Trade- Related Investment Measures   
TRIPs Agreement on Trade-Related As pects of Intellectual Property Rights   
Working Procedures Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
WTO World Trade Organization 
WTO Agreement  Marrakesh Agreement Establishing  the World Trade Organization  
 
 WT/AB/3 
Page 1 
 
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
APPELLATE BODY 
 
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2004 
 
 The following report provides a summary of th e activities undertaken by the Appellate Body 
of the World Trade Organization (the "WTO"), and its Secretariat, during 2004.  
 
I. Composition of the Appellate Body 
 The Appellate Body is composed of seven Members appointed to four-year terms by the 
WTO's Dispute Settlement Body (the "DSB").  The current Members of the Appellate Body and their 
respective terms of office are: 
 
Name Nationality Term(s) of office 
Georges Michel Abi-Saab — Chairman Egypt 2000-2004 
2004-2008 
Luiz Olavo Baptista Brazil 2001-2005 
Arumugamangalam Venkatachalam Ganesan India 2000-2004 
2004-2008 
Merit E. Janow United States 2003-2007 
John Lockhart Australia 2001-2005 
Giorgio Sacerdoti Italy 2001-2005 
Yasuhei Taniguchi Japan 2000-2003 
2003-2007 
 
 On 1 June 2004, Mr. Georges Abi-Saab and Mr. A.V. Ganesan each commenced a new term 
of office, having been appointed by the DSB, on 7 November 2003, to a second four-year term that 
will expire on 31 May 2008.1  Mr. Yasuhei Taniguchi was also appointed to a second four-year term 
on 7 November 2003.  His second four-year term  began on 11 December 2003 and will expire on 
10 December 2007.   Appellate Body Members elected Mr. Abi-Saab, pursuant to Rule 5(1) of the Working 
Procedures for Appellate Review  (the " Working Procedures "), to serve as Chairman of the Appellate 
Body from 13 December 2003 to 12 December 2004.
2  On 17 December 2004, Appellate Body 
Members elected Mr. Taniguchi to serve as Chairman  of the Appellate Body from 17 December 2004 
to 16 December 2005.3 
  Sadly, Dr. Said El-Naggar, one of the origin al seven Members of the Appellate Body, passed 
away on 11 April 2004.  Dr. El-Naggar was appointed  to the Appellate Body in December 1995 and 
served until 31 March 2000. During his term, he serv ed on twelve Appellate Body Divisions and as 
arbitrator in two arbitrations under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes  (the "DSU").   
  In November 2004, Mr. Florentino Feliciano,  who was a Member of the Appellate Body 
between 1995 and 2001, was named an Honorary Member  of the American Society of International 
Law "for his distinguished work in international la w".  A list of former Appellate Body Members and 
chairpersons is provided in Annex 1.   
                                                     
 
1WT/DSB/M/157, paras. 62-63. 
2WT/DSB/36. 
3WT/DSB/38. WT/AB/3 
Page 2  
 The Appellate Body receives legal and admi nistrative support from the Appellate Body 
Secretariat, in accordance with Article 17.7 of the DSU.  The Director of the Appellate Body Secretariat is Ms. Valerie Hughes, who heads a team of ten lawyers, one administrative assistant, and 
three support staff.  
II. Appeals Filed 
 Five appeals were filed during 2004.  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.  Table 1 (below) lists the WTO document numbers of the Notices of Appeal filed, 
the dates of filing, and the WTO Members that filed the Notices.    
Table 1:  Notices of Appeal filed in 2004 
  
Case  Notice of Appeal 
document number Date of Notice of 
Appeal Appellant4 
EC – Tariff Preferences WT/DS246/7 8 January 2004 European 
Communities 
US – Softwood Lumber V WT/DS264/6 13 May 2004 United States 
Canada – Wheat Exports and 
Grain Imports WT/DS276/15 1 June 2004 United States 
US – Oil Country Tubular Goods 
Sunset Reviews WT/DS268/5 31 August 2004 United States 
US – Upland Cotton WT/DS267/17 18 October 2004 United States 
 
 Information on the number of appeals filed each year since 1995 is contained in Annex 2.   
 
 Under Article 21.5 of the DSU a panel may be established to hear a "disagreement as to the 
existence or consistency with a covered agre ement of measures taken to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings" of the DSB upon the a doption of a previous panel or Appellate Body 
report.  No panel reports pursuant to  Article 21.5 were adopted in 2004. 
 
 Of the eight panel reports adopted in 2004, six were appealed ―that is, 75 per cent. Table 2 
(below) lists panel reports that were adopted by the DSB during 2004 without an appeal having been 
filed.  
 
Table 2:  Panel Reports adopted in 2004 without appeal 
 
Case Date Panel Report circulated Date DSB adopted Panel Report 
US – Softwood Lumber VI  22 March 2004 26 April 2004 
Mexico – Telecoms  2 April 2004 1 June 2004 
 
 Annex 3 summarizes the percentage of pane l reports adopted from 1996 to 2004 that were 
appealed.   
III. Appellate Body Reports 
 The Appellate Body circulated five reports during 2004.  One of the reports related to a 
Notice of Appeal filed in 2003.
5  The other four reports related to Notices of Appeal filed during 
2004.   
                                                      
4Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures . 
5The Notice of Appeal in US – Softwood Lumber IV  was filed on 21 October 2003. WT/AB/3 
Page 3 
 
 The following table lists the five Appellate  Body reports circulated during 2004.   
 
Table 3:  Appellate Body Reports circulated in 2004 
 
Case Date Appellate Body Report 
Circulated Date DSB Adopted Appellate 
Body Report 
US – Softwood Lumber IV 19 January 2004 17 February 2004 
EC – Tariff Preferences 7 April 2004 20 April 2004 
US – Softwood Lumber V 11 August 2004 31 August 2004 
Canada – Wheat Exports and 
Grain Imports 30 August 2004 27 September 2004 
US – Oil Country Tubular Goods 
Sunset Reviews 29 November 2004 17 December 2004 
 
 As of the end of 2004, the Appellate Body h as circulated a total of 64 reports since it was 
established in 1995.   
 
 Since 1995, eight Appellate Body reports have been circulated regarding Article 21.5 panel 
reports.6  In one dispute, parties resorted to Article  21.5 procedures twice and both panel reports were 
the subject of an appeal.7  In another dispute, an Article 21. 5 panel report was appealed, although the 
original panel report had not been appealed.8  A list of appeals from panel reports circulated pursuant 
to Article 21.5 is provided in Annex 4.   
 
IV. Participants and Third Participants 
 Table 4 (below) lists the WTO Members that pa rticipated in appeals in which an Appellate 
Body report was circulated during 2004.  Table 4 distinguishes between appellants that filed a Notice 
of Appeal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures  (the "original appellant") and those that 
filed an appeal pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures (commonly known as "other 
appellants").  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 othe r alleged errors in the issues of law covered in the 
panel report and legal interpreta tions developed by the panel".  Under the version of the Working 
Procedures  that applied until the end of 2004, parties wish ing to appeal pursuant to Rule 23(1) had to 
file an other appellant's submission within fifteen days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal.9  The 
modified Working Procedures  require parties wishing to appeal purs uant to Rule 23(1) to file a Notice 
of Other Appeal.   Table 4 also specifies whether third particip ants made an appearance under paragraphs (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 may file a written subm ission as a third participant within 25 days of 
the filing of the Notice of Appeal.  Pursuant to Ru le 24(2), a Member that was a third party to the 
panel proceedings that has not filed 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 
                                                     
 
6Under Article 21.5 of the DSU a panel may be estab lished to hear a "disagreement as to the existence 
or consistency with a covered agreement of measures ta ken to comply with the recommendations and rulings" of 
the DSB upon the adoption of a previous panel or Appellate Body report. 
7See Appellate Body Report, Canada – Dairy (Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US)  and Appellate Body 
Report, Canada – Dairy (Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US II) . 
8Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Corn Syrup (Article 21.5 – US) . 
9Changes to the procedures for participating in an appeal pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working 
Procedures became effective for appeals filed after 1 January 2 005.  An explanation of the changes is provided 
in Section VI of this Annual Report and the text of the amendments to the Working Procedures is provided in 
Annex 8. WT/AB/3 
Page 4  
oral statement at the hearing.  Rule 24(4) provides that a Member that has neither filed a written 
submission in accordance with Rule 24(1) nor give n notice in accordance with Rule 24(2) may notify 
its intention to appear at the oral heari ng and request to make an oral statement. 
 
Table 4:  Participants and Third Participants in Appeals – 2004
10 
 
Third Participant 
Case Appellant11 Other 
Appellant12 Appellee13 
Rule 24(1) Rule 24(2) Rule 24(4) 
US – Softwood 
Lumber IV United States Canada Canada 
United States European 
 Communities 
Japan  India  
EC – Tariff 
Preferences European 
 Communities  India Bolivia 
Colombia 
Costa Rica Ecuador 
Panama 
Paraguay 
Peru 
United States  Venezuela Brazil 
El Salvador 
Guatemala Honduras 
Mauritius 
Nicaragua 
Pakistan
14 
 Cuba 
US – Softwood 
Lumber V United States Canada Canada 
United States European 
 Communities 
Japan India  
Canada – 
Wheat Exports 
and Grain 
Imports United States Canada Canada 
United States Australia 
China 
European 
 Communities Mexico 
Separate 
 Customs 
 Territory of  Taiwan, 
 Penghu, 
 Kinmen and  Matsu  
US – Oil 
Country 
Tubular Goods Sunset 
Reviews United States Argentina Argentina 
United States European 
 Communities 
Japan Korea 
Mexico Separate 
 Customs 
 Territory of  Taiwan, 
 Penghu, 
 Kinmen and  Matsu  
 
 A total of 27 WTO Members appeared at least once, as an appellant, an appellee, or a third 
participant, in appeals in which an Appellate Body report was circulated during 2004.15  Of these 
                                                      
10The various rules pursuant to which Members participate in appeals, as appellant, other appellant, 
appellee, or third participant, are described above on page 3. 
11Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures . 
12Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures . 
13Pursuant to Rule 22 or Rule 23(3) of the Working Procedures . 
14Pakistan initially submitted a request to appear at th e oral hearing pursuant to Rule 24(2).  Later, 
Pakistan submitted a request to make an oral statement pursuant to Rule 24(4). 
15This represents an increase from the previous y ear, which saw 24 WTO Members appearing at least 
once in the six appeals in which an Appellate Body report was circulated during 2003.  See Appellate Body 
Annual Report for 2003 , WT/AB/1 (7 May 2004), p. 6. WT/AB/3 
Page 5 
 
27 WTO Members, 5 were developed country WTO Members and 22 were developing country WTO 
Members.      Of the 51 appearances by WTO Members before the Appellate Body during 2004, 24 were by developed country WTO Members and 27 by de veloping country WTO Members.  Developed 
country WTO Members made 5 appear ances as appellants, 3 as other appellants, 7 as appellees, and 9 
as third participants.  Developing country WTO Members made no appearances as appellants, 1 as 
other appellant, 2 as appellees, and 24 as third participants. 
  Certain amendments to the Working Procedures , which aimed to  facilitate the involvement of 
WTO Members as third participants in appellate  proceedings, became effective on 1 May 2003.
16  
Although it is too early to evaluate fully the effects of these changes, there appears to be a discernible 
increase in the number of third participants in appeals in which an Appellate Body report was 
circulated during 2004 as compared to 2003.  In  2004, appeals averaged 6.6 third participants, 
whereas in 2003, appeals aver aged 5 third participants.17  In appeals in which an Appellate  
Body report was circulated in the period 1996 to 2003, the average number of third participants was 
only 2.8.   
  Annex 5 lists the appellants, ot her appellants, appellees, and thir d participants in appeals for 
which an Appellate Body report w as circulated between 1996 and 2004. 
 
V. Subject Matter of Appeals 
A. Appellate Body's Findings and Conclusions 
 Annex 6 contains summaries of the Appellate Body's findings and conclusions in the five 
Appellate Body reports circulated in 2004.    
B. Agreements Covered 
 The following table provides information about  the WTO Agreements covered in the five 
Appellate Body reports circulated during 2004.  
Table 5:  Agreements covered in Appella te Body Reports circulated in 2004 
 
Case WTO Agreements Covered 
US – Softwood Lumber IV SCM Agreement 
GATT 1994 
EC – Tariff Preferences GATT 1994  
(Enabling Clause)  
US – Softwood Lumber V Anti-Dumping Agreement 
GATT 1994 
Canada – Wheat Exports and Grain Imports GATT 1994 
DSU 
US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews Anti-Dumping Agreement 
GATT 1994 
DSU  
 
                                                      
16See the Appellate Body Annual Report for 2003 , WT/AB/1 (7 May 2004), pp. 7-8. 
17The number of third participants in the appeal in EC – Tariff Preferences , which was circulated in 
2004, was unusually high (17). WT/AB/3 
Page 6  
 Two of these appeals dealt primarily with issues related to the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
18, 
and one appeal related mainly to the SCM Agreement .19  Two other appeals focused on the 
GATT 1994, particularly the 1979 Decision of the Contracting Parties on Differential and More 
Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity, and Fuller Partic ipation of Developing Countries (the "Enabling 
Clause")20, which deals with tariff preferences for developing countries21, and Article XVII, which 
concerns state trading enterprises ("STEs").22  Annex 7 provides a statistical summary of the WTO 
Agreements covered in Appellate Body re ports circulated between 1996 and 2004.  
 
C. Procedural Issues 
 Several appeals for which an Appellate Bo dy report was circulated during 2004 involved 
procedural issues, which are summarized in the following paragraphs.   
 
 In  US – Softwood Lumber IV , for scheduling reasons, the United States withdrew the Notice 
of Appeal that it had filed on 2 October 2003 and re-filed it on 21 October 2003.  The United States' 
appellant's submission was filed on the same day as the re-filed Notice of Appeal, in accordance with 
the Working Schedule drawn up by the Division for the appeal.  The European Communities, one of 
the third parties in the panel proceedings, requ ested the Appellate Body to modify the Working 
Schedule.  The European Communities argued that the time-period within which it had to file a third 
participant's submission was contrary to Rule 24(1) of the Working Procedures , because it was less 
than 25 days from the date of re-filing of the Notic e of Appeal.  The Appellate Body declined this 
request, noting that an extension of the date for filing third participants' submissions would significantly reduce the time available for the Divisi on to consider carefully the arguments raised 
therein, as well as the time available to the particip ants to respond to those arguments.  The Division 
also observed that the two Notices of Appeal filed by  the United States were identical in all relevant 
respects, and that the critical time-period for third participants and appellees to prepare their responses 
to arguments raised by appellant s and other appellants is the pe riod between the receipt of the 
appellant's or other appellant's su bmissions and the date for filing th ird participants' submissions.  In 
this appeal, the time-period between the receipt of  the appellant's submission and the due date for 
third participants' submissions was the same as it is in all appeals.
23 
  In the same appeal, one of the Members of the Division hearing the appeal (Mr. A.V. Ganesan) was prevented from continuing to serve on the Division for serious personal reasons.  
Accordingly, the Appellate Body selected Mr. Giorgio Sacerdoti to replace Mr. Ganesan on the 
Division.
24 
   In EC – Tariff Preferences , Pakistan submitted a request to make a statement at the oral 
hearing pursuant to Rule 24(4) of the Working Procedures .  Pakistan had previously notified its 
intention to appear at the oral hearing as a th ird participant, pursuant to Rule 24(2) of the Working 
Procedures .  No participant objected to Pakistan's request, and the Division hearing the appeal 
exercised its discretion in accordan ce with Rule 24(4) and authorized Pakistan to make a statement.
25 
  During the oral hearing in US – Softwood Lumber V , Canada requested authorization to file 
the preliminary results of an anti-dumping duty administrative review and a memorandum of the 
                                                     
 
18Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber V and Appellate Body Report, US – Oil Country 
Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews . 
19Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber IV . 
20GATT Document L/4903, 28 November 1979, BISD 26S/203.  The Enabling Clause "has become an 
integral part of the GATT 1994". (Appellate Body Report, EC – Tariff Preferences , para. 90)   
21Appellate Body Report, EC – Tariff Preferences . 
22Appellate Body Report, Canada – Wheat Exports and Grain Imports . 
23Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber IV , paras. 6-7. 
24Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber IV , para. 10. 
25Appellate Body Report, EC – Tariff Preferences , para. 7. WT/AB/3 
Page 7 
 
United States investigating authority, both of whic h, according to Canada, became available after the 
filing of Canada's other appellant's submission.  Ca nada stated that it made its request pursuant to 
Rule 16 of the Working Procedures .  The United States objected, arguing that the introduction of 
these materials would be inconsistent with Article 17.5(ii) of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement   and with 
the Working Procedures .  The Division agreed that the mate rials at issue constituted new factual 
evidence and, therefore, fell outside the scope of the appeal pursuant to Article 17.6 of the DSU.  
Accordingly, the Division informed the participants in the course of the oral hearing that it denied 
Canada's request.26 
  The Division hearing the appeal in
 US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews  received 
a letter from Argentina (the appellee and the other appe llant in the dispute) requesting that the parties 
be informed, in advance of the oral hearing, of the order in which the Division intended to address the 
issues on appeal.  The United States (the original appellant) did not object to Argentina's request.  The 
Division responded to Argentina's request in a letter sent to the participants and third participants, 
which stated that although "it is not the practice of  the Appellate Body to inform the participants, in 
advance of the oral hearing, of the issues on whic h a Division intends to pose questions", the Division, 
exercising its discretion in the conduct of the oral hearing, had decided to provide and identify in 
advance the order in which the issues on appeal  would be addressed duri ng the questioning.  The 
Division emphasized, however, that "this order of questi oning is general in nature, and that it is also 
subject to change, at the Division's discretion, as the Division's work on this appeal continues".27 
  
VI. Working Procedures for Appellate Review 
A. Amendments to the Working Procedures 
 The Appellate Body adopted amendments to the Working Procedures that came into effect on 
1 January 2005, and that apply to a ll appeals initiated after that date.28  Revised, consolidated Working 
Procedures  were circulated on 4 January 2005 as docum ent WT/AB/WP/5, and certain previously 
issued documents were re-issued with ne w document numbers, as explained below. 
 
 The changes adopted by the Appellate Body are set out in full in Annex 8.   In brief, they 
relate to:    
(i)  Content of the Notice of Appeal  
 
 Rule 20(2)(d) has been amended in order to cl arify what is meant by the requirement that a 
Notice of Appeal set out a "brief statement of the nature of the appeal".  Three new subparagraphs 
added to this Rule require a Notice of Appeal to incl ude:  identification of the specific error(s) of law 
that the panel is alleged to have made;  a list of the specific legal provision(s) of the covered 
agreements that the panel is allege d to have erred in interpreting or applying;  and an indicative list of 
the specific paragraphs of the panel repo rt containing the alleged error(s).   
 
(ii)  New Requirement to File a Notice of Other Appeal and Associated Changes 
to the Deadline for the Appellant's Submission  
 
 The Appellate Body amended Rule 23 to require  other appellants to file a Notice of Other 
Appeal, the content of which must satisfy the sa me requirements as a Notice of Appeal.  Until now, 
the only document required to be filed by an other appellant was an other appellant's submission.  A 
new paragraph of Rule 23 requires ot her appellants to file a Notice of Other Appeal within 12 days of 
the filing of the (original) Notice of Appeal, which is  three days before the deadline for submitting the 
                                                     
 
26Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber V , para. 9. 
27Appellate Body Report , US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews , para. 10. 
28These amendments were set out and explained in a communication from the Chairman of the 
Appellate Body to the Chair of the DSB on 7 October 2004, circulated to WTO Members as document WT/AB/WP/W/9.   WT/AB/3 
Page 8  
other appellant's submission.  The Appellate Bo dy also amended Rule 21 to bring forward the 
deadline for the submission of appellants'  submissions to 7 days after the filing of the Notice of 
Appeal.  Previously, Rule 21 required such submissions to be filed within 10 days of the filing of the 
Notice of Appeal.  This change was made in order to  allow other parties time to review an appellant's 
submission before deciding whether to file a Notice of Other Appeal.  
(iii)  Amendment of a Notice of Appeal or Notice of Other Appeal 
 
 The Appellate Body introduced a new Rule 23 bis, which provides for the possibility for an 
appellant or other appellant to apply for leave to  amend its Notice of Appeal or Notice of Other 
Appeal, and identifies some of the criteria that th e Division hearing the appeal will take into account 
in deciding whether to grant such requests.   
 
(iv)  Modification of the Deadline for Seeking  Leave to Correct Clerical Errors in 
Submissions  
  The Appellate Body modified the deadline by which Members must seek permission to 
correct clerical errors in the documents that they  submit in appeals, in accordance with Rule 18(5).  
This provision previously required that such request s be made within three days of the filing of the 
relevant submission.  The new vers ion of Rule 18(5) requires such re quests to be made no later than 
30 days after the date of the filing of the Notice of Appeal. 
 
(v)  Miscellaneous Other Amendments  
  These amendments include modifications to Rule 27 concerning the scheduling of the oral hearing, to certain defined terms, and to Anne x I, as well as the introduction of a new Annex III, a 
"Table of Consolidated and Revised Versions of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review ".  
These amendments are consequential amendments ma de necessary by the cha nges described above, as 
well as changes designed either to reflect existing pr actice or to provide useful information to WTO 
Members. 
 
 The adoption of these amendments was the culmination of an extensive process of 
consultation carried out by the Appellate Body.  Article 17.9 of the DSU and Rule 32(2) of the 
Working Procedures  require the Appellate Body to consul t with the Director-General and the 
Chairperson of the DSB in adopting amendments to the  Working Procedures .  Furthermore, in 
December 2002, the DSB adopted additional pro cedures for consultations between WTO Members 
and the Chairperson of the DSB with  respect to amendments to the Working Procedures .
29  Taking 
account of these provisions, the Appellate Body circ ulated, on 8 April 2004, a document setting out a 
number of possible amendments to the Working Procedures  and seeking the views of Members 
thereon.  Over the next few months, Memb ers provided extensive comments on the proposed 
amendments to the Appellate Body.  Oral co mments were provided at a regular DSB meeting30 and an 
informal DSB meeting, and many Members also provided comments in writing.  Having received 
these constructive and helpful comments from Members, the Appellate Body made certain modifications to the changes it had put forward in April 2004.  The Appellate Body also decided not 
to adopt, for the time being, a proposed amendment th at would have introduced two annual periods of 
three weeks each during which the 90-day appeal period would be suspended.     This is the fourth time that a revised version of the Working Procedures has been issued to 
reflect amendments.  In 1997, the Appellate Body am ended Rule 5(2) to allow the first Chairman of 
the Appellate Body to serve for a term of two years, rather than one year.
31  Rule 5(2) was amended 
                                                      
29WT/DSB/31.  
30Meeting of the DSB held on 19 May 2004, WT/DSB/M/169, paras. 41-87. 
31From 4 January 2005, the new document number for the second version of the Working Procedures is 
WT/AB/WP/2.  See Table of Consolidated and Revised Versions of the Working Procedures for Appellate 
Review  included on the last page of Annex 7. WT/AB/3 
Page 9 
 
again in 2002 to allow for an Appellate Body Memb er serving as Chairman of the Appellate Body to 
be appointed to a second one-year term.32  In September 2002, the Appellate Body provisionally 
amended the Working Procedures  with a view to facilitating participation of third parties in appeals, 
but did not issue a new version of the Working Procedures until May 2003, upon adoption of the final 
version of those amendments.33 
 
B. New Numbering System for Documents Relating to the Working Procedures  
 At the same time that it adopted the most recent amendments to the Working Procedures, the 
Appellate Body informed WTO Members that it ha d decided to introduce a new numbering system 
for the Working Procedures .34  Previously, all documents relating to the  Working Procedures   had 
been issued with a "WT/AB/WP" series number, irr espective of the nature of such documents.  Thus, 
the several versions of the  Working Procedures  themselves, as well as any explanatory documents or 
other communications about the  Working Procedures , had been issued with a "WT/AB/WP" series 
number.  The Appellate Body was concerned that this numbering system could make it difficult for 
Members to identify the most recent version of the Working Procedures .  Accordingly, as from 2005, 
the "WT/AB/WP" document series will be  reserved for versions of the Working Procedures   
themselves.  All previous versions of the Working Procedures will be re-issued with a note indicating 
that they are no longer in force and, as necessary, a new "WT/AB/WP" number.     The Appellate Body has also introduced a new "WT/AB/WP/W" series for working or discussion papers, communications, a nd explanations relating to the  Working Procedures .  As a 
result, certain documents previously issued with a "WT/AB/WP" number will be re-issued with a new 
"WT/AB/WP/W" number.  Notes in both the ne w "WT/AB/WP/W" document and any renumbered 
"WT/AB/WP" document will explain the new documen t number(s) and allow readers to locate the 
document that they seek, even if its number has chan ged.  In addition, three communications from the 
Chairman of the Appellate Body to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body that were previously provided to Members in hard copy only, without any document numbers, will be circulated for the 
first time as "WT/AB/WP/W" documents.
35   
  A table identifying all documents relating to the Working Procedures, along with their 
original and new document numbers, is attached as A nnex 9.  A copy of the "Table of Consolidated 
and Revised Versions of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review " is included on the last page 
of Annex 8.
 
                                                      
32From 4 January 2005, the new document number for the third version of the Working Procedures is 
WT/AB/WP/3.  See Table of Consolidated and Revised Versions of the Working Procedures for Appellate 
Review  included on the last page of Annex 7. 
33From 4 January 2005, the new document number for the fourth version of the Working Procedures is 
WT/AB/WP/4.  See Table of Consolidated and Revised Versions of the Working Procedures for Appellate 
Review  included on the last page of Annex 7. 
34WT/AB/WP/W/9, pp. 2 and 3. 
35Eventually, Members will quickly and easily be able to identify the current version of the Working 
Procedures simply by going to the latest number in the "W T/AB/WP" series.  However, a transition phase  
will be necessary before reaching th at stage.  This is because, thus far, documents WT/AB/WP/1 through 
WT/AB/WP/8 have already been issued, even though only four of those documents were versions of the Working Procedures themselves.  Accordingly, in January 2005, the new revised, consolidated version of the 
Working Procedures  (the fifth version of the Working Procedures ) was issued as document WT/AB/WP/5, and 
the documents that previously ca rried the numbers WT/AB/WP/6, WT/AB/WP/7, and WT/AB/WP/8 were re-
issued with new document numbers under the new series.  At the same time, short explanatory notes were issued 
with the numbers WT/AB/WP/6, WT/AB/WP/7, and WT /AB/WP/8.  These temporary documents contain 
nothing other than an identification of the new number of the original document and an explanation of the two separate document series.  These notes will be eventually replaced as new versions of the Working Procedures  
are issued.  This transition phase will come to an en d once the eighth document in the updated "WT/AB/WP" 
series has been issued (that is, the eighth version of the Working Procedures  themselves), after which time there 
will no longer be a need for new documents to be issued with explanatory notes about number changes.   WT/AB/3 
Page 10  VII. Arbitrations under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU 
 Appellate Body Members are called upon from  time to time to determine the "reasonable 
period of time" for the implementation by a WTO Member of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, through binding arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  The parties to the arbitration select the arbitrator or, if they cannot agree on an arbitrator, the Director-General of the WTO 
appoints the arbitrator.  In carrying out arbitra tions under Article 21.3(c), Appellate Body Members 
act in an individual capacity.   
  One award in an Article 21.3(c) arbitration was issued in 2004.  Mr. John Lockhart was 
appointed by the Director-General as arbitrator in EC – Tariff Preferences on 4 August 2004.
36  
Mr. Lockhart issued his award on 20 September 2004. The reasonable period of time determined in 
that arbitration was 14 months and 11 days from th e date of adoption by the DSB of the Panel and 
Appellate Body Reports in EC – Tariff Preferences .37  A summary of the award of the arbitrator is 
included in Annex 6.   On 4 November 2004, Mr. Lockhart accepted the parties' request that he act as arbitrator 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU in US – Softwood Lumber V .
38  On 13 December 2004, he issued a 
report noting that the parties had reached agre ement on the reasonable period of time and that, 
therefore, it would not be necessary to issue an award.39 
  As of the end of 2004, Appellate  Body Members have been appointed as arbitrators in a total 
of 19 arbitrations under Article 21.3(c).
40 
 
VIII.  Technical Assistance 
 The Appellate Body Secretariat made a si gnificant contribution to the WTO Technical 
Assistance and Training Plan 2004 (the "2004 TA Plan")41, particularly to activities relating to dispute 
settlement.  Appellate Body Secretariat staff par ticipated in seven regional workshops on dispute 
settlement (five conducted in English,  one in French, and one in Spanis h), which were held in Africa, 
Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East.  Also, 
Appellate Body Secretariat staff conducted five national seminars on dispute settlement (two in 
English and three in Spanish) in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.  Furthermore, the Appellate Body 
Secretariat participated in nine other technical  assistance missions falling under the 2004 TA Plan, 
including regional trade policy courses and national trade policy courses.  Finally, the Appellate Body 
Secretariat provided resource persons for three Sp ecialized Dispute Settlement Seminars (two in 
English and one in Spanish) and four Trade Policy C ourses (two in English, one in French, and one in 
Spanish) held in Geneva.  Overall, the Appellate  Body Secretariat participated in 28 technical 
assistance activities during 2004.  IX. Other Developments 
A. WTO Appellate Body Repertory of  Reports and Awards:  1995-2004 
 In 2004, the Appellate Body Secretariat prepared a new publication entitled WTO Appellate 
Body Repertory of Reports and Awards:  1995-2004 , which compiles excerpts from all Appellate 
Body reports circulated through 7 April 2004.  The excerpts are indexed according to the provision of 
                                                     
 
36WT/DS246/13. 
37Award of the Arbitrator, EC – Tariff Preferences , para. 60. 
38WT/DS264/11. 
39Report of the Arbitrator, US – Softwood Lumber V , para. 5.  
40In two of these arbitrations ( US – Line Pipe and US – Softwood Lumber V ), the parties reached an 
agreement on the reasonable period of tim e before the arbitrator had issued an  award, so it was not necessary for 
the arbitrator to issue an award.  
41WT/COMTD/W/119.  WT/AB/3 
Page 11 
 
the WTO Agreements examined, and by subject matter .  In addition, the publication includes excerpts 
from the awards issued in arbitrations under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU relating to the period of time 
granted to WTO Members to implement decisions by dispute settlement panels and the Appellate 
Body.   The WTO Appellate Body Repertory of Reports and Awards:  1995-2004  will be published in 
the three official languages of the WTO.  The English version will be published by Cambridge 
University Press in January 2005, and the French and Spanish versions will be published by the WTO 
shortly thereafter.     The Appellate Body Secretariat prepared this  publication in the hope that it will be of 
assistance to WTO Members, academi cs, students, private practitioners, and others who have an 
interest in WTO dispute settlement.  In particular, it is hoped that this publication will be of assistance 
to developing country WTO Members.  Publication of the WTO Appellate Body Repertory of Reports 
and Awards:  1995-2004  in 2005 will also mark the Tenth Anniversary of the establishment of the 
Appellate Body.  Updates will be published annually,  with the first update scheduled for publication 
in January 2006. 
  Copies of the WTO Appellate Body Repertory of Reports and Awards:  1995-2004  can be 
ordered online at <https://secure.vtx.c h/shop/boutiques/wt o_index_boutique.html
>. 
 
B. Tenth Anniversary Conferences 
 In 2005 and 2006, a series of regional conferences will be held to mark the Tenth Anniversary 
of the WTO Dispute Settlement System and the Appe llate Body.  They will be hosted by academic 
institutions with which some Members of the A ppellate Body are affiliated.  The conferences will 
focus on current dispute settlement issues and the A ppellate Body's contribution to dispute settlement.  
Participants will include current and former A ppellate Body Members, high-ranking government 
representatives, WTO officials, academics, journalis ts, students, and civil society representatives. 
  The first conference in this series will take pl ace in Stresa, Italy, from 11 to 13 March 2005.  
It is being organized by the Research Centre on International Economic  Organisations of the 
Universities of Piemonte Orientale, Torino, Genova, Milano, and Bocconi.  Mr. Giorgio Sacerdoti, Appellate Body Member and Professor at Bocconi Un iversity, is a member of the steering committee 
for this conference.  Further information about the Stresa conference, including an updated program, 
may be found online at <h ttp://www.stresawtoat10.org
>. 
  The second conference in the Tenth Anniversary ser ies will be held in São Paulo, Brazil, from 
15 to 17 May 2005.  It is being organized by the Brazilian Institute of International Trade Law and 
Development (IDCID) in cooperation with  the University of São Paulo (Law School/International 
Law Department – USP) and the Administrative Institu te Foundation (FIA).  Mr . Luiz Olavo Baptista,  
Appellate Body Member and Professor at the Univers ity of São Paulo Law School, is a member of the 
steering committee for this conference.  The program will include issues of special interest to Latin 
American WTO Members.  Further information abou t the São Paulo conference, including an updated 
program, may be found online at <http://www.idcid.org.br
>. 
 
 The third conference will be held at the Un ited Nations University in Tokyo, Japan, from  
25 to 27 October 2005.  It is being organized by Tokyo Keizai University with the support of 
governmental and semi-governmental agencies.  The WTO Research Center of Aoyama Gakuin University in Tokyo and the Institute for Internati onal Studies and Training will also participate in the 
project.  Mr. Yasuhei Taniguchi, Professor at Tokyo Ke izai University and a Member of the Appellate 
Body, is a member of the conference steering committee, which is coordinated by the Fair Trade Center.  Although the details are not yet finalized, it is contemplated that the program will focus on 
issues related to the Asia-Pacific region.   WT/AB/3 
Page 12  
 The tentative programs for the Stresa and São Paulo conferences are provided in Annex 10.  
Other conferences in the Tenth Anniversary series are scheduled for 2005 and 2006 in Cairo, Egypt;  
Sydney, Australia;  and New York, United States.    Updated information on the Te nth Anniversary series of conferences may be obtained online 
at <http://www.wto.org/appellatebody
>.   
 
C. WTO Internship Program 
 The Appellate Body Secretariat participates in the WTO internship program, 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 program is open to na tionals of WTO Members and also to nationals of 
countries and customs territories engaged in accession negotiations.   The Appellate Body Secretariat generally hosts two interns at a time, and each internship is 
for a three-month period.  Efforts are made to ensure  that at least half the interns are from developing 
countries or economies in transition.  During 2004, the Appellate Body Secretariat welcomed interns 
from Germany, Greece, India, Peru, Poland, Russi a, Slovakia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and 
Zimbabwe.  Since 2001, the Appellate Body Secretaria t has also had interns from Australia, Austria, 
Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ghana,  Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Mexico, the 
Netherlands, Romania, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan
 Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, the 
United States, and Uruguay.  A total of 33 student s, of 28 different nationalities, have completed 
internships with the Appellate Body Secretariat since 2001.42 
  Further information about the WTO internship program, including eligibility  requirements and application instru ctions, may be obtained online at 
<http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/vacan_e/intern_e.htm
>. 
 
D. In-House Briefings and Other Activities 
 Appellate Body Secretariat staff often partic ipate 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 general, and appellate proceedings in particular.  During 
2004, Appellate Body Secretariat sta ff gave briefings to 13 groups.  Appellate Body Secretariat staff 
also participated as judges in the European La w Students' Association Moot Court Competition on 
WTO Law (in English) and the Charles Rousseau M oot Court in International Law (in French). 
  
                                                     
 
42Data on internships for pre-2001 are not available.   WT/AB/3 
Page 13 
 
Annex 1 
 
Former Appellate Body Members  
 
Name Nationality Term(s) of Office 
James Bacchus United States 1995-1999 
1999-2003 
Christopher Beeby* New Zealand 1995-1999 
1999-2000 
Claus-Dieter Ehlermann Germany 1995-1997 
1997-2001 
Said El-Naggar Egypt 1995-1999 
1999-2000 
Florentino Feliciano Philippines 1995-1997 
1997-2001 
Julio Lacarte-Muró Uruguay 1995-1997 
1997-2001 
Mitsuo Matsushita Japan 1995-1999 
1999-2000 
 *Mr. Beeby passed away on 19 March 2000, befo re completing his term, and was replaced by 
Mr. Yasuhei Taniguchi.   
 
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 
 WT/AB/3 
Page 14  
Annex 2 
 
Appeals Filed Between 1995 and 2004
 
 
Year Number of Notices of 
Appeal filed 
1995 0 
1996 4 
1997 643 
1998 8 
1999 944 
2000 1345 
2001 946 
2002 747 
2003 648 
2004 5 
Total 67 
 
                                                      
43This number includes two Notices of Appeal that were  circulated at the same 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. 
44This number excludes one Notice of Appeal th at was withdrawn by the United States, which 
subsequently filed another Notice of Appeal in relation to the same Panel Report:  US – FSC . 
45This 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. 
46This number excludes one Notice of Appeal th at was withdrawn by the United States, which 
subsequently filed another Notice of Appeal in relation to the same Panel Report:  US – Line Pipe . 
47This number includes one Notice of Appeal in relation to which the appeal was subsequently 
withdrawn:  India – Autos . It excludes one Notice of Appeal that was withdrawn by the European Communities, 
which subsequently filed a new Notice of Appeal in relation to the same Panel Report:  EC – Sardines . 
48This number excludes one Notice of Appeal th at was withdrawn by the United States, which 
subsequently filed a new Notice of Appeal in relation to the same Panel Report:  US – Softwood Lumber IV .  
Annex 3 
 
Percentage of Panel Reports Appealed:  1996 to 200449 
 
 All Panel Reports Panel Reports other than Article 21.5 
Reports50 Article 21.5 Panel Reports 
Year of 
adoption Panel Reports 
adopted51 Panel Reports 
appealed52 Percentage of 
Panel Reports 
appealed53 Panel Reports 
adopted Panel Reports 
appealed Percentage of 
Panel Reports 
appealed Panel Reports 
adopted Panel Reports 
appealed Percentage of 
Panel Reports 
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 - 
Total 95 65 68% 83 57 69% 12 8 67% 
 
                                                      
49No panel reports were adopted in 1995. 
50Under Article 21.5 of the DSU, a panel may be established to hear  a "disagreement as to  the existence or consistency with a cov ered agreement of measures taken to 
comply with the recommendations and rulings" of the DSB upon the adoption of a previous panel or Appellate Body report. 
51The 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  are also counted as a single Panel Report. 
52Panel reports are counted as having been ap pealed where they are adopted as upheld, mo dified, or reversed by an Appellate Body report. The number of panel reports 
appealed may differ from the number of Appellate Body reports because, for example, some Appellate Body reports address more th an one panel report. 
53Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. WT/AB/3
Page 15WT/AB/3 
Page 16  
 
Annex 4 
 
Appeals from Articl e 21.5 Panel Reports
54:  1995 to 2004  
 
Case Date DSB adopted 
Appellate Body Report Related earlier case 
Brazil – Aircraft (Article 21.5 – Canada)  4 August 2000 Brazil – Aircraft 
Canada – Aircraft (Artic le 21.5 – Brazil)  4 August 2000 Canada – Aircraft 
Mexico – Corn Syrup (Article 21.5 – US)  21 November 2001 Mexico – Corn Syrup 55 
US – Shrimp (Article 21.5 – Malaysia)  21 November 2001 US – Shrimp 
Canada – Dairy (Article  21.5 – New Zealand 
and US)  18 December 2001 Canada – Dairy 
US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC)  29 January 2002 US – FSC 
Canada – Dairy (Article  21.5 – New Zealand 
and US II)  17 January 2003 Canada – Dairy 
EC – Bed Linen (Article 21.5 – India ) 24 April 2003 EC – Bed Linen 
 
 
                                                      
54Under Article 21.5 of the DSU a panel may be estab lished to hear a "disagreement as to the existence 
or consistency with a covered agreement of measures ta ken to comply with the recommendations and rulings" of 
the DSB upon the adoption of a previous panel or Appellate Body report. 
55The Panel Report in Mexico – Corn Syrup  was not appealed. WT/AB/3 
Page 17 
 
Annex 5 
 
Participants and Third Participants in  Appeals Circulated Between 1996 and 2004  
 
As at the end of 2004, there are 148 WTO Members,  of which 53 have participated in appeals in 
which Appellate Body reports were  circulated between 1996 and 2004.    No appeals were filed and 
no Appellate Body reports were circ ulated in 1995, the year the Appellate Body was established.    
 
The various rules pursuant to which Members partic ipate in appeals, as appellant, other appellant, 
appellee, or third participant, are described above on page 3.   
 
I.  Statistical Summary 
 
WTO Member Appellant Other 
Appellant Appellee Third 
Participant Total 
Argentina 2 1 3 2 8 
Australia 1 1 4 10 16 
Belize – – – 1 1 
Bolivia – – – 1 1 
Brazil 5 3 7 9 24 
Cameroon – – – 1 1 
Canada 8 6 14 8 36 
Chile 2 – 1 4 7 
China – 1 1 1 3 
Colombia – – – 3 3 
Costa Rica 1 – – 3 4 
Côte d'Ivoire – – – 1 1 
Cuba – – – 2 2 
Dominica – – – 2 2 
Dominican 
Republic – – – 1 1 
Ecuador – 1 1 5 7 
Egypt – – – 1 1 
El Salvador – – – 1 1 
European 
Communities 8 11 24 28 71 
Ghana – – – 1 1 
Grenada – – – 1 1 
Guatemala 1 1 1 1 4 
Honduras – 1 1 1 3 
Hong Kong – – – 4 4 
India 5 1 5 11 22 
Indonesia – – 1 1 2 WT/AB/3 
Page 18  
WTO Member Appellant Other 
Appellant Appellee Third 
Participant Total 
Israel – – – 1 1 
Jamaica – – – 2 2 
Japan 4 4 8 17 33 
Korea 3 2 4 6 15 
Malaysia 1 – 1 – 2 
Mauritius – – – 1 1 
Mexico 1 1 3 12 17 
New Zealand – 2 5 4 11 
Nicaragua – – – 2 2 
Nigeria – – – 1 1 
Norway – 1 1 6 8 
Pakistan – – 2 1 3 
Panama – – – 1 1 
Paraguay – – – 2 2 
Peru – – 1 1 2 
Philippines 1 – 1 1 3 
Poland – – 1 – 1 
Senegal – – – 1 1 
Separate 
Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu – – – 4 4 
St. Lucia – – – 2 2 
St. Vincent and 
the Grenadines – – – 1 1 
Suriname – – – 1 1 
Switzerland – 1 1 – 2 
Thailand 1 – 2 3 6 
Turkey 1 – – 1 2 
United States 19 8 37 20 84 
Venezuela – – 1 5 6 
Total 64 46 131 200 441 
 
 WT/AB/3 
Page 19 
 
II. Detailed Information by Year of Circulation 
1996  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
US – Gasoline United States None Brazil 
Venezuela European 
 Communities 
Norway 
Japan – Alcoholic 
Beverages II Japan 
 United States Canada  
European 
 Communities 
Japan United States None 
 
1997  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
US – Underwear Costa Rica None United States India 
Brazil –  Desiccated 
Coconut Philippines Brazil Brazil 
Philippines European 
  Communities 
United States 
US – Wool Shirts 
and Blouses  India None United States None 
Canada – 
Periodicals Canada 
 United States Canada  
United States None 
EC – Bananas III 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 and the 
  Grenadines 
Senegal Suriname Venezuela 
India – Patents (US) India None United States European 
  Communities WT/AB/3 
Page 20  
1998
 
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
EC – Hormones European 
  Communities  Canada 
United States 
 Canada 
European 
  Communities  
United States  Australia 
New Zealand 
Norway 
Argentina – Textiles 
and Apparel  Argentina None United States European 
Communities 
EC – Computer 
Equipment European 
  Communities None United States Japan 
EC – Poultry  Brazil European 
  Communities Brazil 
European 
  Communities Thailand 
United States 
US – Shrimp  United States None India  
Malaysia 
Pakistan 
Thailand Australia 
Ecuador  
European 
  Communities 
Hong Kong, China Mexico 
Nigeria 
Australia – Salmon Australia Canada Australia 
Canada European 
  Communities 
India 
Norway 
United States 
Guatemala – 
Cement I  Guatemala None Mexico United States 
 
 WT/AB/3 
Page 21 
 
1999  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
Korea – Alcoholic 
Beverages Korea None European 
  Communities  
United States Mexico 
Japan – 
Agricultural Products II Japan  
 United States Japan 
United States Brazil 
European 
  Communities 
Brazil – Aircraft Brazil 
 Canada Brazil 
Canada European 
  Communities  
United States 
Canada – Aircraft Canada Brazil 
 Brazil 
Canada European 
  Communities  
United States 
India – Quantitative 
Restrictions  India None United States None 
Canada – Dairy  Canada None New Zealand 
United States None 
Turkey –Textiles Turkey None India Hong Kong, China 
Japan Philippines 
Chile – Alcoholic 
Beverages Chile None European 
  Communities Mexico 
United States 
Argentina – 
Footwear (EC) Argentina European 
  Communities Argentina 
European 
  Communities Indonesia 
United States 
Korea –Dairy  Korea European 
  Communities Korea 
European 
  Communities United States 
 WT/AB/3 
Page 22  
2000
 
 
Case Appellant Other 
Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
US – FSC  United States European 
  Communities European 
  Communities 
United States Canada 
Japan 
US – Lead and 
Bismuth II United States None European 
  Communities Brazil 
Mexico 
Canada –  Autos Canada 
 European 
  Communities 
Japan Canada 
European 
  Communities 
Japan Korea 
United States 
Brazil – 
Aircraft (Article 
21.5 – Canada) Brazil None Canada European 
  Communities 
United States 
Canada – 
Aircraft (Article 
21.5 – Brazil) Brazil None Canada European 
  Communities 
United States 
US – 1916 Act United States  European 
  Communities 
Japan  
 European 
  Communities 
Japan 
United States European 
  Communities 56 
India  
Japan 57 
Mexico 
Canada – Term of 
Patent Protection Canada None United States None 
Korea – Various 
Measures on Beef Korea None Australia 
United States Canada 
New Zealand 
US – Certain EC 
Products  European 
  Communities United States European 
  Communities 
United States Dominica 
Ecuador 
India 
Jamaica Japan 
St. Lucia 
US – Wheat Gluten United States European 
  Communities European 
  Communities 
United States Australia 
Canada New Zealand 
 
                                                      
56In complaint brought by Japan. 
57In complaint brought by the European Communities. WT/AB/3 
Page 23 
 
2001  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
EC – Bed Linen European 
  Communities India European 
  Communities 
India Egypt 
Japan 
United States 
EC – Asbestos  Canada European 
  Communities Canada 
European 
  Communities Brazil 
United States  
Thailand – H-Beams Thailand None Poland European 
  Communities 
Japan United States 
US – Lamb  United States Australia 
New Zealand Australia 
New Zealand 
United States European 
  Communities 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel United States  Japan Japan 
United States Brazil 
Canada 
Chile European 
  Communities 
Korea 
US – Cotton Yarn United States None Pakistan European 
  Communities 
India 
US – Shrimp (Article 
21.5 – Malaysia) Malaysia None United States Australia 
European 
  Communities 
Hong Kong, China 
India Japan 
Mexico 
Thailand 
Mexico – Corn 
Syrup (Article 21.5 – 
US) Mexico None United States European 
  Communities 
Canada – Dairy (Article 21.5 – New 
Zealand and US) Canada None New Zealand 
United States European 
  Communities 
 WT/AB/3 
Page 24  
2002
 
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
US – Section 211 
Appropriations Act  European 
  Communities United States European 
  Communities 
United States None 
US – FSC (Article 
21.5 – EC) United States European 
  Communities European 
  Communities 
United States Australia 
Canada India 
Japan 
US – Line Pipe United States  Korea Korea  
United States Australia 
Canada 
European 
  Communities 
Japan 
Mexico 
India – Autos  58 India None European 
  Communities 
United States Korea 
Chile – Price Band 
System  Chile None Argentina Australia 
Brazil 
Colombia Ecuador European 
  Communities 
Paraguay 
United States  Venezuela 
EC – Sardines  European 
  Communities None Peru Canada 
Chile 
Ecuador 
United States  Venezuela 
US – Carbon Steel United States European 
  Communities European 
  Communities  
United States Japan 
Norway 
US – Countervailing 
Measures on Certain 
EC Products United States None European 
  Communities Brazil 
India Mexico 
Canada – Dairy 
(Article 21.5 – New 
Zealand and US II) Canada None New Zealand 
United States Argentina 
Australia 
European 
  Communities  
 
                                                      
58India withdrew its appeal the day before th e oral hearing was scheduled to proceed. WT/AB/3 
Page 25 
 
2003  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
US – Offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment ) United States None 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 ) India None European 
  Communities Japan 
Korea 
United States 
EC – Tube or Pipe 
Fittings  Brazil None European 
  Communities Chile 
Japan Mexico 
United States 
US – Steel 
Safeguards  United States 
 Brazil 
China European 
  Communities 
Japan Korea 
New Zealand 
Norway Switzerland United States 
Brazil China 
European 
  Communities 
Japan 
Korea 
New Zealand Norway 
Switzerland Canada 
Cuba Mexico 
Separate Customs 
  Territory of   Taiwan, Penghu, 
  Kinmen, and 
  Matsu 
Thailand 
Turkey 
Venezuela 
Japan – Apples  Japan United States Japan 
United States Australia 
Brazil 
European 
  Communities 
New Zealand 
Separate Customs 
  Territory of 
  Taiwan, Penghu, 
  Kinmen, and   Matsu 
US – Corrosion-
Resistant Steel 
Sunset Review  Japan None United States Brazil 
Chile 
European 
  Communities 
India 
Korea Norway 
 WT/AB/3 
Page 26  
2004 
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant Appellee Third Participant 
US – Softwood 
Lumber IV United States Canada Canada 
United States European 
  Communities 
India  
Japan  
EC – Tariff 
Preferences 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 United States Canada Canada 
United States European 
  Communities 
India  Japan 
Canada – Wheat 
Exports and Grain Imports United States Canada Canada 
United States Australia 
China 
European 
  Communities 
Mexico 
Separate Customs 
  Territory of Taiwan,  Penghu, Kinmen   and Matsu 
US – Oil Country Tubular Goods 
Sunset Reviews United States Argentina Argentina 
United States European 
  Communities 
Japan 
Korea Mexico Separate Customs 
  Territory of Taiwan,
  Penghu, Kinmen 
  and Matsu WT/AB/3 
Page 27 
 
Annex 6 
 
Summaries of Appellate Body Reports a nd Article 21.3(c) Arbitration Awards  
Circulated in 200459 
 
 
I.  Appellate Body Reports 
Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Respect to 
Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada ("US – Softwood Lumber IV "), WT/DS257/AB /R, adopted 
17 February 2004. 
 The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that  the United States had correctly determined that 
harvesting rights granted by Canadian provincial g overnments in respect of standing timber constitute 
the provision of goods under Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement .  The Appellate Body reversed the 
Panel's interpretation of Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement  and thus also reversed the Panel's 
finding that the United States had improperly determ ined the existence and amount of the "benefit" 
resulting from the financial contribution provided.  The Appellate Body examin ed this issue in the 
light of its own interpretation of Article 14(d) but found that it was unable to complete the legal 
analysis of whether the United States had correctly de termined benefit in this investigation, due to 
insufficient factual findings by the Panel and insuffi cient undisputed facts in the Panel record.  The 
Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the United States acted inconsistently with provisions 
of the SCM Agreement  and the GATT 1994 by failing to analyze whether subsidies were passed 
through in sales of  logs  by timber harvesters who own sawmills to unrelated producers of softwood 
lumber.  The Appellate Body, however, reversed the Panel's finding that the United States acted 
inconsistently with its WTO obligations by failing to  consider whether subsid ies were passed through 
in sales of  lumber  by sawmills to unrelated lumber remanufacturers. 
 
 
Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff 
Preferences to Developing Countries  ("EC – Tariff Preferences "), WT/DS246/AB/R, adopted 20 
April 2004. 
 
The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that  the Enabling Clause operates as an "exception" to 
Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and therefore that th e European Communities, as the responding party, 
was required to prove that its "special arrangements to combat drug production and trafficking" satisfy 
the conditions set out in the Enabling Clause.  Howeve r, in contrast to the Panel, the Appellate Body 
found that the complaining party is obliged to rai se the relevant provisions of the Enabling Clause in 
making its claim.  The Appellate Body found that I ndia had sufficiently raised paragraph 2(a) of the 
Enabling Clause before the Panel.  The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that the term 
"non-discriminatory" in footnote 3 to paragraph 2(a) of the Enabling Clause requires the provision of identical tariff preferences to all developing co untries without differentiation, except as regards  a 
priori  limitations on imports from certain developing  countries.  Neverthele ss, the Appellate Body 
upheld, for different reasons, the Panel's conclu sion that the European Communities failed to 
demonstrate that its challenged measure is justif ied under paragraph 2(a) of the Enabling Clause. 
 
                                                     
 
59These summaries are intended solely for information and do not constitute an authoritative 
interpretation of the relevant decisions. WT/AB/3 
Page 28  
 Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Dumping Dete rmination on Softwood Lumber from 
Canada ("US – Softwood Lumber V
 "), WT/DS264/AB/R, ad opted 31 August 2004. 
 
The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that  the United States acted inconsistently with 
Article 2.4.2 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement  in determining the existence of margins of dumping on 
the basis of a methodology incorporating the practic e of "zeroing".  The Appellate Body furthermore 
reversed the Panel's finding that the United States di d not act inconsistently with Articles 2.2, 2.2.1, 
2.2.1.1, and 2.4 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement  in its calculation of the amount for financial expense 
for softwood lumber for Abitibi Company—one of the Canadian companies under investigation—but 
did not make findings on whether the United States act ed consistently or inc onsistently with these 
provisions.  The Appellate Body also upheld the Panel's findings that the United States did not act 
inconsistently with Articles 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, and 2.4 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement   in its 
calculation of the amount for by-product revenue from the sale of wood chips as offsets in the case of 
Tembec Company, another of the Canadian companies under investigation.   Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Relating to Expor ts of Wheat and Treatment of 
Imported Grain ("Canada – Wheat Exports and Grain Imports "), WT/DS276/AB /R, adopted 
27 September 2004. 
 
The Appellate Body found that s ubparagraphs (a) and (b) of Artic le XVII:1 of the GATT 1994 ("State 
Trading Enterprises") are necessarily related to each  other;  subparagraph (a) is the general and 
principal provision, and subparagra ph (b) explains it by identifying the types of differential treatment 
in commercial transactions that are most likely to occur in practice.  Therefore, in most if not all 
cases, panels would not be in a position to make an y finding of violation of  Article XVII:1 until they 
have properly interpreted a nd applied subparagraphs (a) and (b) of that Article.  In the present dispute, 
although the Panel assumed that inconsistency with s ubparagraph (b) is sufficient to establish a breach 
of Article XVII:1, its analytical approach was ne vertheless consistent with the Appellate Body's 
interpretation of the relationship between subparagraphs (a) and (b).   The Appellate Body found that 
the United States' claim relating to the phrase "solel y based on commercial consideration" in the first 
clause of subparagraph (b) of Article XVII:1 was ba sed on a mischaracterization of a statement made 
by the Panel and, therefore, dismissed this ground of appeal.  In examining an additional argument 
submitted by the United States, the Appellate Body agreed with the Panel that, although state trading 
enterprises ("STEs") must act in acco rdance with "commercial" consider ations, this is not equivalent 
to an outright prohibition on STEs using their priv ileges whenever such use might "disadvantage" 
private enterprises.  The Appellate Body upheld the Pa nel's interpretation of the term "enterprises" in 
the second clause of subparagraph (b) of Article XVII:1.   In addition, the Appellate Body rejected the 
United States' claims that the Panel had failed to ex amine the measure challenged by the United States 
in its entirety and had not discharged its obligations under Article 11 of the DSU.  Finally, the 
Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that, in th e particular circumstances of this case, Canada's 
preliminary objection to the adequacy of the Unite d States' request for establishment of a panel under 
Article 6.2 of the DSU was not untimely solely b ecause it was not raised at the DSB meetings at 
which the panel request was considered.  WT/AB/3 
Page 29 
 
Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from Argentina  ("US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews "), 
WT/DS268/AB/R, adopted 17 December 2004 
 
The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that  one provision of the "Sunset Policy Bulletin" is 
inconsistent, as such, with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  The Appellate Body also 
found that the Panel had not met its obligation under Article 11 of the DSU to "make an objective 
assessment of the matter before it", in the analysis leading to this finding.  Therefore, the Appellate 
Body was not able to reach its own conclusion, on  the basis of the facts before it, as to the WTO-
consistency of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.  The A ppellate Body upheld all the other findings of the 
Panel that were appealed, including the Panel's findings that a United States statutory provision and 
administrative regulation are inconsistent, as such, with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , 
and that the same administrative regulation is also  inconsistent with Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement .  The Appellate Body upheld all of the Panel's findings on appeal with respect to 
the injury-related aspect of the sunset review determination at issue.  
 
II.  Article 21.3(c) Arbitrations
60 
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  ("EC – Tariff 
Preferences "), WT/DS246/14, 20 September 2004. 
 
Mr. John Lockhart, who was appointed by the Director-G eneral to serve as arbi trator, determined that 
the "reasonable period of time" fo r the European Communities to im plement the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB in EC – Tariff Preferences  was 14 months and 11 days from the adoption of the 
Panel and Appellate Body Reports, and that this period would expire on 1 July 2005.  The Arbitrator indicated that the period to be determined was the reasonable period of time for bringing into 
conformity the measure at issue in the dispute, namely the special arrangements to combat drug 
production and trafficking contained in the Europ ean Communities' existing Generalized System of 
Preferences ("GSP") scheme;  the process for refo rming the overall GSP scheme was irrelevant.  The 
Arbitrator rejected the European Communities' ar gument that the particular nature and political 
sensitivity of the special arrangeme nts warranted an increased period of time for implementation.   
 
                                                     
 
60On 4 November 2004, Mr. John Lockhart accepted th e parties' request to act as arbitrator under 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU in US – Softwood Lumber V .  On 13 December 2004, he issued a report noting that 
the parties had reached agreement on the reasonable period of time and that, therefore, it would not be necessary 
to issue an award. (Report of the Arbitrator, US – Softwood Lumber V , para. 5). WT/AB/3 
Page 30  
  
Annex 7 
 
WTO Agreements Covered in Appellate Body Reports Circulated Through 2004
61 
 
Year of 
Circulation DSU WTO 
Agree- 
ment GATT 
1994 Agri-
culture SPS ATC TBT TRIMsAnti- 
Dump- 
ing Import 
Licens-
ing SCM TRIPs GATS Safe- 
guards
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 1 1 0 
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 0 0 1 
2000 8 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 1 1 2 
2001 7 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 2 
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 0 0 1 
2004 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 
Total 47 9 39 9 4 3 2 0 14 2 14 3 3 7 
 
                                                      
61No appeals were filed in 1995. WT/AB/3 
Page 31 
 
Annex 8 
 
Amendments to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
 
 The amendments to the  Working Procedures   that came into effect for appeals initiated after 
1 January 2005 are reproduced below.  The amendmen ts include deletion of certain text (which is 
struck out like this ) and addition of certain text (which is underlined like this ).  The amendments are 
explained above in section VI:A of this repor t, and a new consolidated version of the Working 
Procedures  is contained in WTO document WT/AB/WP/5. 
  
1. Content of the Notice of Appeal 
Rule 20 will be amended as follows: 
 
Rule 20 (Commencement of Appeal) 
(2) A Notice of Appeal shall include the following information: 
 
(a) the title of the panel report under appeal; (b) the name of the party to the dispute filing the Notice of Appeal; (c) the service address, telephone and f acsimile numbers of the party to the 
dispute;  and 
(d) a brief statement of the nature of the appeal, including the allegations of 
errors in the issues of law covered in the panel report and legal interpretations 
developed by the panel. : 
  (i) identification of the alleged errors  in the issues of law covered in the 
panel report and legal interpreta tions developed by the panel;  
 (ii) a list of the legal provision(s) of the covered agreements that the 
panel is alleged to have erred in  interpreting or applying;  and  
 (iii) without prejudice to the ability of the appellant to refer to other 
paragraphs of the panel report in the cont ext of its appeal, an indicative list of 
the paragraphs of the panel repor t containing the alleged errors.  
 
 
2. Notice of Other Appeal 
Rules 1, 21 and 23 will be amended as follows: 
 
Rule 1 (Definitions) 
 
"appellant" means any party to the dispute th at has filed a Notice of Appeal pursuant 
to Rule 20or has filed a submission pursuant to paragraph 1 of Rule 23 ; 
 … 
 
 
"appellee" means any party to the dispute that has filed a submission pursuant to 
Rule 22 or paragraph 3
 4 of Rule 23; 
 ... 
 WT/AB/3 
Page 32  
 "documents" means the Notice of Appeal, any Notice of Other Appeal
 and the 
submissions and other written statemen ts presented by the participants or 
third participants ; 
 …  
"other appellant" means any pa rty to the dispute that has filed a Notice of Other Appeal 
pursuant to paragraph 1 of Rule 23;  
 ...  
"participant" means any party to the dispute that has filed a Notice of Appeal pursuant 
to Rule 20, a Notice of Other Appeal pursuant to Rule 23
 or a submission 
pursuant to Rule 22 or paragraphs 1 or 3  4 of Rule 23; 
 
Rule 21 (Appellant's Submission) 
 
 (1) The appellant shall, within 10  7 days after the date of the filing of the Notice of 
Appeal, file with the Secretariat a writ ten submission prepared in accordance with 
paragraph 2 and serve a copy of the submi ssion on the other parties to the dispute and 
third parties. 
 
Rule 23 (Multiple Appeals)  
 
(1) Within 15 12 days after the date of the filing of the Notice of Appeal, 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 
interpretations developed by the panel.  Th at party shall notify the DSB in writing of 
its appeal and shall simultaneously file a Notice of Other Appeal with the Secretariat.  
 (2) Any written submission made pursuant to pa ragraph 1 shall be in the format required 
by paragraph 2 of Rule 21.   
A Notice of Other Appeal shall in clude the following information:  
 
(a) the title of the panel report under appeal;  
(b) the name of the party to the dispute filing the Notice of Other Appeal;  
(c) the service address, telephone and f acsimile numbers of the party to the 
dispute;  and either  
 
(i) a statement of the issues raised on appeal by another participant with 
which the party joins;  or  
(ii) a brief statement of the nature of the other appeal, including:  
 
(A) identification of the alleged errors in the issues of law covered 
in the panel report and legal in terpretations developed by the 
panel;  
(B) a list of the legal provision(s) of the covered agreements that 
the panel is alleged to have erre d in interpreting or applying;  
and 
(C) without prejudice to the ability of the other appellant to refer to 
other paragraphs of the panel repor t in the context of its appeal, 
an indicative list of the paragraphs of the panel report 
containing the alleged errors.  
 WT/AB/3 
Page 33 
 
(3) The other appellant shall, within 15 days after the date of the filing of the Notice of 
Appeal, file with the Secretariat a written submission prepared in accordance with 
paragraph 2 of Rule 21 and serve a copy of the submission on the other parties to the 
dispute and third parties.  
 
(3) (4) The appellant, any appellee and any other party to the dispute that wishes to respond 
to a submission filed pursuant to paragraph 1  3 may file a written submission within 
25 days after the date of the filing of the Notice of Appeal, and any such submission 
shall be in the format require d by paragraph 2 of Rule 22. 
 (4)
 (5) This Rule does not preclude a party to the dispute which has not filed a submission 
under Rule 21 or a Notice of Other Appeal under  paragraph 1 of this Rule from 
exercising its right of appeal pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the DSU. 
 (5)
 (6) Where a party to the dispute which has not filed a submission under Rule 21 or a 
Notice of Other Appeal under  paragraph 1 of this Rule exercises its right to appeal as 
set out in paragraph 4 5, a single division shall examine the appeals. 
  
3. Amending Notices of Appeal 
A new Rule 23
 bis  will be inserted following Rule 23: 
 
Rule 23 bis  (Amending Notices of Appeal)  
 
(1) The division may authorize an original appellant to amend a Notice of Appeal or an 
other appellant to amend a Notice of Other Appeal.  
 
(2) A request to amend a Notice of Appeal or a Notice of Other Appeal shall be made as 
soon as possible in writing and shall state the reason(s) for the request and identify 
precisely the specific amendments that the appellant or other appellant wishes to 
make to the Notice.  A copy of the request  shall be served on the other parties to the 
dispute, participants, third participants and third parties, each of whom shall be given 
an opportunity to comment in writing on the request.  
 
(3) In deciding whether to authorize, in full or in part, a request to amend a Notice of 
Appeal or Notice of Other Appeal, the division shall take into account:  
 
(a) the requirement to circulate the appellate report within the time-period set out 
in Article 17.5 of the DSU or, as appropriate, Article 4.9 of the 
SCM Agreement ;  and,  
(b)  the interests of fairness and orderly procedure, including the nature and extent 
of the proposed amendment, the timing of the request to amend the Notice of 
Appeal or Notice of Other Appeal, any reasons why the proposed amended 
Notice of Appeal or Notice of Other Appeal was not or could not have been 
filed on its original date, and any other considerations that may be 
appropriate.   
 (4) The division shall notify the parties to the dispute, participants, third participants, and 
third parties of its decision.  In the event that the division authorizes an amendment to 
a Notice of Appeal or a Notice of Other Appeal, it shall provide an amended copy of 
the Notice to the DSB.  
  WT/AB/3 
Page 34  
 4. Correcting Clerical Errors 
Rule 18(5) will be amended as follows: 
Rule 18 (Documents) 
 
(5) Upon authorization by the division, a par ticipant or a third participant may correct 
clerical errors in any of its submissions
 documents (including typographical mistakes, 
errors of  grammar, or words or numbers placed in the wrong order).  Such correction 
shall b e made within 3 days of the filing of the original submission and a copy of the 
revised version  The request to correct clerical erro rs shall identify the specific errors 
to be corrected and shall be filed with the Secretariat no later than 30 days after the 
date of the filing of the Notice of Appeal.  A copy of the request shall be served upon 
the other parties to the dispute, participan ts, third parties and third participants, each 
of whom shall be given an opportunity to  comment in writing on the request.  The 
division shall  notify the parties to the dis pute, participants, third parties and third 
participants of its decision.   
 
 
5. Oral Hearing 
Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Rule 27 will be amended as follows: 
 
Rule 27 (Oral Hearing) 
 
(1) A division shall hold an oral hearing, wh ich shall be held, as a general rule, between  
30 35 and 45  days after the date of the filing of a Notice of Appeal. 
  …  
(4) The Presiding Member may, as necessary,
 set time-limits for oral arguments and 
presentations .   
  WT/AB/3 
Page 35 
 
6. Timetable for Appeals 
Annex I to the  Working Procedures  will be amended as follows: 
  
TIMETABLE FOR APPEALS
1 
 
 General Appeals  Prohibited Subsidies Appeals  
 Day Day Notice of Appeal
1 2 0 0 
Appellant's Submission 2 3 10  7 5  4 
Notice of Other Appeal4 12  6  
Other Appellant(s) Submission(s) 3 5 15 7 
Appellee(s) Submission(s)4 6 
Third Participant(s) Submission(s)5 7 
Third Participant(s) Notification(s)6 8 25 
25 25 12 
12 
12 
Oral Hearing 
7 9 30  35-45  15  17-23  
Circulation of Appellate Report 60 – 908 10 30 – 609 11 
DSB Meeting for Adoption 90 – 12010 12 50 – 8011 13 
 
 
    
1Rule 17 applies to the computation of the time-periods below.  
1 2Rule 20. 
2 3Rule 21(1) . 
3 4Rule 23(1).  
3 5Rule 23(3 1). 
4 6Rules 22 and 23(4 3). 
5 7Rule 24(1). 
6 8Rule 24(2). 
7 9Rule 27. 
8 10Article 17: .5, DSU. 
9 11Article 4: .9, SCM Agreement . 
10 12Article 17: .14, DSU. 
11 13Article 4: .9, SCM Agreement . WT/AB/3 
Page 36  
 7. Table of Consolidated and Revised Versions of the Working Procedures  
A new Annex III will be added to the Working Procedures  as follows: 
  
ANNEX III 
 
Table of Consolidated and Revised Versions of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
 
Document 
Number Effective 
Date Rules Amended Working 
Documents/Explanatory 
Texts Principal DSB 
Meeting(s) at which 
Amendments 
Discussed, Minutes 
WT/AB/WP/1 15 February 
1996 N/A WT/AB/WP/W/1 31 January 1996, 
WT/DSB/M/10 and 
21 February 1996, 
WT/DSB/M/11 
WT/AB/WP/2 28 February 
1997 Rule 5(2)  
and Annex II WT/AB/WP/W/2, 
WT/AB/WP/W/3 25 February 1997, 
WT/DSB/M/29 
WT/AB/WP/3 24 January 
2002 Rule 5(2) WT/AB/WP/W/4, 
WT/AB/WP/W/5 24 July 2001,  
WT/DSB/M/107 
WT/AB/WP/4 1 May 2003 Rules 24 and 27(3), 
with consequential 
amendments to Rules 
1, 16, 18, 19, and 28, 
and Annex I WT/AB/WP/W/6, 
WT/AB/WP/W/7 23 October 2002, 
WT/DSB/M/134 
WT/AB/WP/5 1 January 
2005 Rules 1, 18, 20, 21, 
23, 23 bis, and 27, and 
Annexes I and III WT/AB/WP/W/8, 
WT/AB/WP/W/9 19 May 2004, 
WT/DSB/M/169 
 
 WT/AB/3 
Page 37 
 
Annex 9 
 
Documents Relating to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
 
OLD DOCUMENT 
NUMBER NEW DOCUMENT 
NUMBER DOCUMENT TITLE, DATE 
No document number 
assigned when hard copy 
circulated in 1996 WT/AB/WP/W/1 Communication from the Chairman of the 
Appellate Body to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body , 7 February 1996 
WT/AB/WP/1 WT/AB/WP/1 
(no change) Working Procedures for Appellate Review,  
15 February 1996 
WT/DSB/RC/2 WT/DSB/RC/2, 
WT/AB/WP/W/2 Communication from the Chairman of the 
Appellate Body to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body , 20 January 1997 
WT/AB/WP/2 WT/AB/WP/W/3 Communication from the Chairman of the 
Appellate Body to the Chairman of the Dispute 
Settlement Body , 24 February 1997 
WT/AB/WP/3 WT/AB/WP/2 Working Procedures for Appellate Review ,  
28 February 1997  
No document number 
assigned when hard copy 
circulated in 2001 WT/AB/WP/W/4 Communication from the Chairman of the 
Appellate Body to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body , 10 July 2001 
No document number 
assigned when hard copy 
circulated in 2001 WT/AB/WP/W/5 Communication from the Chairman of the 
Appellate Body to the Chairman of the Dispute 
Settlement Body , 18 September 2001 
WT/AB/WP/4 WT/AB/WP/3 Working Procedures for Appellate Review , 
 24 January 2002 
WT/AB/WP/5 WT/AB/WP/W/6 Communication from the Chairman of the 
Appellate Body to the Chairman of the Dispute 
Settlement Body, 17 December 2002 
WT/AB/WP/6 WT/AB/WP/W/7 Communication from the Chairman of the 
Appellate Body to the Chairman of the Dispute 
Settlement Body, 9 April 2003 
WT/AB/WP/7 WT/AB/WP/4 Working Procedures for Appellate Review , 
1 May 2003 
WT/AB/WP/8 WT/AB/WP/W/8 Communication from the Chairman of the 
Appellate Body to the Chairperson of the Dispute 
Settlement Body, 8 April 2004 
 WT/AB/3 
Page 38  
 Annex 10 
 
Tenth Anniversary Conference s:  Provisional Programs
 
 
The WTO at 10: The Role of the Dispute Settlement System 
11-13 March 2005 
Stresa, Italy 
 
Inter-University "Research Centre on Intern ational Economic Organisations" of the 
Universities of Piemonte orientale, Torino, Genova, Milano, Bocconi  
 
The conference will address basic issues confronted by  the current "rule oriented" multilateral trading system 
and its innovative dispute settlement system, on the occas ion of the tenth anniversary of the WTO and of its 
Appellate Body. The conference will feature discussions be tween legal experts, diplomats and officials from the 
WTO community in Geneva, government officials from Member governments, NGOs, and other international 
experts.  
 Friday, 11 March 2005  (8 p.m.)
 
Inaugural Dinner and Opening Address 
"Ten Years after the Conclusion of the Uruguay Ro und: Bilateralism, Regiona lism and the Multilateral 
Trading System"  
Speaker: H.E. Mr. Renato Ruggiero , Ambassador and Former Director-General of the WTO 
 
Saturday, 12 March 2005  (Morning)  
The Challenges to the WTO from Within and Without 
1st Session: "The Doha Round and the Future of the WTO" 
Moderator: Mr. Danilo Taino , Special Economics Correspondent, "Corriere della Sera" 
Discussants:  
Mr. E. Barón Crespo , Chair, European Parliament Committee on International Trade 
Mr. Patrick Low , Director, Economic Research and Statistics Division, WTO 
H.E. Ms. Amina Mohamed , Ambassador, Permanent Mission of Kenya to the WTO, Chair of the Dispute Settlement 
Body 
 
2nd Session: "The Limits of the WTO: Facing Non-Trade Issues" 
Moderator: Prof. Sergio Carbone , University of Genova, Chairman CIDOIE 
Reporter: Prof. Friedl Weiss , University of Amsterdam 
Discussants:  
Mr. Guy Ryder , General Secretary, International Confederation of Free Trade Unions 
Prof. Francesco Francioni , European University Institute, Florence 
Mr. Jeremy Hobbs , Executive Director, Oxfam International 
Mr. Faizel Ismail , Head of the South African Delegation to the WTO WT/AB/3 
Page 39 
 
Saturday, 12 March 2005 (Afternoon)  
The Dispute Settlement System in Action 
3rd Session: "Trade Negotiations and Dispute Settlement: What Bala nce Between Political Governance 
and Judicialization?" 
Chair: Prof. Claus-Dieter Ehlermann , Counsel, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr; and former Chairman 
of the Appellate Body 
Reporter: Prof. Rob Howse , University of Michigan (with Susan Esserman) 
Discussants:  
Prof. Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann , European University, Florence 
Prof. Hélène Ruiz-Fabri , University of Paris 
H.E. Mr. Alejandro Jara , Ambassador of Chile to the WTO 
Mr. Tim Reif , Chief Democratic Trade Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means, US House of Representatives 
 
4th Session: "From Initiating Pr oceedings to Ensuring Implementa tion: What Needs Improvement?" 
Chair:  
H.E. Mr. David Spencer , Ambassador, Permanent Mission of Australia  to the WTO and Chairman of the Special 
Session of the Dispute Settlement Body 
Reporter:  
Ms. Valerie Hughes , Director, Appellate Body Secretariat, WTO 
Discussants:  
Prof. Thomas Cottier , University of Bern 
Mr. Pieter-Jan Kuijper , Principal Legal Advisor, External Relations, European Commission 
Prof. Jacques Bourgeois , Collége Europe, Bruges ; Partner, Akin Gump LLP, Brussels 
Mr. Daniel Brinza , Assistant US Trade Representative for Monitori ng and Enforcement, Office of the US Trade 
Representative 
Saturday Night Dinner  
Key note Address  
Speaker:  
Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi , Director-General, WTO 
Dinner chaired by H. E. Mr. Adolfo Urso , State Minister for Foreign Trade of Italy WT/AB/3 
Page 40  
 Sunday, 13 March 2005 (Morning)  
The Dispute Settlement System in Perspective 
5th Session: "1995-2004, Ten Years and 64 Cases Later: The Contribution of the Appellate Body to the 
Development of International Trade Law" 
Chairman: Justice Florentino Feliciano , Member, ICC International Court of  Arbitration, Paris; and former 
Chairman of the Appellate Body 
Reporter: Prof. Peter Van den Bossche , University of Maastricht 
Discussants:  
Prof. Brigitte Stern , Directrice du CEDIN, Centre de droit in ternational de l'Université de Paris I 
Prof. Donald McRae , University of Ottawa 
Prof. Petros Mavroidis , Columbia University and University of Neuchâtel 
Ms. Gabrielle Marceau , Counsellor, Legal Affairs Division, WTO 
 
Final Round Table: "Treaty Interpre tation in International Law: Comparing the Appellate Body with 
the Courts in the Hague,  Hamburg and Luxembourg" 
Chair: Professor Georges Abi-Saab , Member and former Chairman of the Appellate Body 
Participants:  
H.E. Judge Gilbert Guillaume , Member and former Chairman of the International Court of Justice 
H.E. Judge Paolo Mengozzi , European Court of Justi ce, Court of First Instance 
H.E. Judge Allan Rosas , European Court of Justice, Luxembourg 
H.E. Judge Tullio Treves , International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea 
 
Closing Remarks 
Prof. Giorgio Sacerdoti , Bocconi University and Member of the Appellate Body WT/AB/3 
Page 41 
 
The WTO at 10: A Look at the Appellate Body 
15-17 May 2005 
São Paulo, Brazil 
 
Brazilian Institute of International Trade Law and Development (IDCID) in cooperation with   
the University of São Paulo (Law School/I nternational Law Department - USP) and  
the Administrative Institute Foundation (FIA) 
 
Sunday evening 
Inaugural Dinner and Welcome to Brazil  
(TBD) 
 
 Welcome speech 
 
Monday morning
 
 
8:15 – 8:45:  Credentials 
8:45 – 9:15:  Opening Address  
 
9:15 – 10:45:  1st Session:  "The first years of the Appellate Body and the WTO Dispute Settlement 
System: a historical perspective" 
 
11:00 – 12:30:  2nd Session:  "The WTO Appellate Body's role: a view from the academic and diplomatic 
communities" 
 
 
Monday afternoon  
 
1:45 – 3:15:  3rd Session:  "The panel process and the Appellate Body: locus for legal and cultural 
convergence"  
 
30 – 5:30:  4th Session:  "Jurisdiction and Interpretation: WTO di spute settlement in the international law 
context" 
 
 
Tuesday morning  
 
8:30 – 10:30:  1st Session:  "Agriculture-related disputes in the WTO system" 
 
10:45 – 12:45:  2nd Session:  "Regional and Multilateral Dispute Settlement Systems: a comparative 
perspective"  
 
 
Tuesday afternoon  
 
2:00 – 3:30:  3rd Session:  "Weaknesses and proposed improvemen ts to the WTO Dispute Settlement 
System: an economic and market view"  
 
3:45 – 5:45:  4th Session :  "The WTO Dispute Settlement System in the Next Ten Years: Proposals for 
Systemic and Procedural Reforms" 
 
5:45 – 6:15:  Closing Session 
 
__________