WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/DS386/12 
2 April 2012 
 
 (12-1707) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) 
REQUIREMENTS 
 
Notification of an Other Appeal by Mexico 
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules 
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),  
and under Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
 
  The following notification, dated 28 March 2012,  from the Delegation of Mexico, is being 
circulated to Members. 
 
_______________ 
 
 1. Pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes  (DSU) and Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , 
the United Mexican States ("Mexico") hereby notifi es its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body 
certain issues of law and certain legal in terpretations developed by the Panel in United States – 
Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements (WT/DS386)  ("Panel Report"). 
 
2. Pursuant to Rule 23(2)(c)(ii) of the  Working Procedures for Appellate Review , this Notice of 
Other Appeal includes an indicative list of the para graphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged 
errors, without prejudice to Mexico's ability to refe r to other paragraphs of the Panel Report in the 
context of this appeal.  
I. Conditional Appeal of the Panel's Decision to Exercise Judicial Economy with Respect 
to Mexico's Claims under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994  
 
3. This appeal is conditional in the event that the Appellate Body overturns the Panel's finding 
that the COOL measure is inconsistent w ith Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement.  
 
4. If this condition is triggered, Mexico appeals the Panel's decision to exercise judicial 
economy in respect of Mexico's claim under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.
1 
 5. The Panel erred in its decision to exercise judi cial economy with respect  to Mexico's claims 
under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, considering the par ticular circumstances of this case, where, if 
the Panel's finding on inconsistency of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement is overturned, the Panel's 
legal basis for exercising judicial economy will no longer exist and Mexico will be left with no 
positive solution to its discrimination clai ms under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  
 
                                                      
1Panel Report, 7.807, 8.4(a). WT/DS386/12 
Page 2  
  6. As a result of the foregoing error, Mexico requ ests the Appellate Body to modify the Panel's 
legal conclusions and findings in pa ragraph 8.4 (a) and paragraph 7.807  of the Panel Report, complete 
the analysis of Mexico's claims under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, and find that the COOL 
Measure is inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 
 
II. Conditional Appeal of the Panel's Finding Regarding the Identification of the Objective 
Pursued by the COOL Measure and the Examination of Its Legitimacy  
 
7. This appeal is conditional in the event that the Appellate Body overturns the Panel's finding 
that the COOL measure is inc onsistent with Article 2.2. 
 
8. If this condition is triggered, Mexico appeals the Panel's finding that the objective of the 
COOL measure is to " provide as much clear and accurate information as possible to consumers "
2 and 
that " providing consumer information on origin is a legitimate objective within the meaning of 
Article 2.2 ".3 
 
9. The Panel applied an incorrect legal analysis to determine the objective and, by doing so, it 
incorrectly identified that objective. Having erred in  identifying the objective, the Panel incorrectly 
found that the objective was legitimate.  10. Moreover, because the legal errors led to the exclus ion of relevant facts, the approach is also 
factually erroneous. In this sense, the Panel faile d to make an objective assessment of the matter 
before it and thereby acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU. 
 11. As a result of the foregoing errors, Mexico requ ests the Appellate Body to modify the Panel's 
legal conclusions and findings in paragraphs 7.620, 7.651, inter alia , of the Panel Report, apply the 
correct analysis to identify the objective and exam ine its legitimacy, and find that the objective is 
inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. 
 
III. Conditional Appeal of the Panel's Decision to Exercise Judicial Economy in Respect of 
the Existence of an Alternative Measure That is Less Trade Restrictive and That Fulfils the Legitimate Objective Taking Into Acco unt the Risks Non-Fulfilment Would Create 
 12. This appeal is conditional in the event that the Appellate Body overturns the Panel's finding 
that the COOL measure is inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. 
 13. If this condition is triggered, Mexico appeals the Panel's decision to exercise judicial 
economy in respect of "whether the COOL measure is 'more trade-restrictive than necessary' based on 
the availability of less trade-restrictive alterna tive measure that can equally fulfil the identified 
objective".
4  
 14. The Panel erred in its decision to exercise judici al economy in respect to Mexico's claims that 
the COOL measure is more trade restrictive than  necessary. In particular, there are alternative 
measures that are less trade restrictive and that fulfil the legitimate objective taking into account the 
risks non-fulfilment would create and, considering the particular circumstances of this case, if the 
Panel's finding on inconsistency of Article 2.2 of the TBT is overturned, the Panel's legal basis for 
exercising judicial economy will no longer exist and Mexico will be left with no positive solution to 
its claims under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.   
                                                      
2Panel Report, 7.620. 
3Panel Report, 7.651. 
4Panel Report, 7.719. WT/DS386/12 
Page 3 
 
  15. As a result of the foregoing error, Mexico requ ests that the Appellate Body modify the Panel's 
legal conclusions and findings in the second sen tence of paragraph 7.719 of the Panel Report, 
complete the analysis and find that the COOL m easure is inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the 
TBT Agreement.  
IV. Conditional Appeal of the Panel's Decision to Exercise Judicial Economy with  
Respect to Mexico's Claim of Non-Viol ation Nullification or Impairment under 
Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994. 
 
16. This appeal is conditional in the event that th e Appellate Body overturns the Panel's findings 
that the COOL measure is inconsistent with Artic le 2.1 of the TBT Agreement and does not complete 
the analysis and find that the measure is in consistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 
 17. If this condition is triggered, Mexico appeals the Panel's decision to exercise judicial 
economy with respect to Mexico's claim of non-violation nullification or impairment under 
Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.
5 
 
18. The Panel erred in its decision to exercise judici al economy with respect to Mexico's claim of 
non-violation nullification or impairment under Artic le XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994, considering the 
particular circumstances of this case, where, if the Panel's finding on inconsis tency of Article 2.1 is 
overturned and there is not a finding that the m easure is inconsistent with Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994, the Panel's legal basis for exercising ju dicial economy will no longer exist and Mexico 
will be left with no positive solution to its clai m of non-violation nullifica tion or impairment under 
Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.  19. As a result of the foregoing error, Mexico requ ests the Appellate Body to modify the Panel's 
legal conclusions and findings in pa ragraph 8.5 and paragraph 7.907, inter alia, of the Panel Report, 
complete the analysis of Mexico's claim, and find that the COOL measure nullifies or impairs benefits 
accruing to Mexico under the GATT 1994 within the meaning of Article XXIII:1(b) of the 
GATT 1994. 
__________ 
 
                                                      
5Panel Report, 7.907, 8.5.