BRAZIL – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF RETREADED TYRES
Document: Report of the Appellate Body
Date: 3 December 2007
Document codes: WT/DS332/AB/R
Complainant: EU
Respondent: Brazil
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, China, Cuba, Guatemala, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Paraguay, Taiwan, Thailand, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. I:1, III:4, XI:1, XIII:1  GATT 1994

BRAZIL – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF RETREADED TYRES

AB-2007-4

Report of the Appellate Body

APPELLATE BODY

European Communities, Appellant
Brazil, Appellee

Argentina, Third Participant
Australia, Third Participant
China, Third Participant
Cuba, Third Participant
Guatemala, Third Participant
Japan, Third Participant
Korea, Third Participant
Mexico, Third Participant
Paraguay, Third Participant
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu,
Kinmen, and Matsu, Third Participant
Thailand, Third Participant
United States, Third Participant
AB-2007-4

Present:

Abi-Saab, Presiding Member
Baptista, Member
Taniguchi, Member

I. Introduction
1. The European Communities appeals certain issues of law and legal inte rpretations developed
in the Panel Report, (the "Panel Report"). 1
The Panel was established to consider a compla int by the European Communities concerning the
consistency of certain measures imposed by Braz il on the importation and marketing of retreaded
tyres 2 with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "GATT 1994").

1, 12 June 2007.
2Retreaded tyres are used tyres that are reconditione d for further use by stripping the worn tread from
the skeleton (casing) and replacing it with new material in the form of a new tread, and sometimes with new
material also covering parts or all of the sidewalls. (See Panel Report, para. 2.1) Retreaded tyres can be
produced through different methods, all indistinctively referred to as "retreading". These methods are: (i) top-
capping, which consists of replacing only the tread; (ii) re-capping, which entails replacing the tread and part of
the sidewall; and (iii) remoulding, which consists of replacing the tread and the sidewall including all or part of
the lower area of the tyre. (See ibid., para. 2.2) The retreaded tyres covere d in this dispute are classified under
subheadings 4012.11 (motor cars), 4012.12 (buses and lorries), 4012.13 (aircraft), and 4012.19 (other types) of
the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System , done at Brussels,
14 June 1983. In contrast, used tyres are classified under subheading 4012.20. New tyres are classified under
heading 4011. (See ibid., para. 2.4)

2. Before the Panel, the European Communities claimed that Brazil imposed a prohibition on the
importation of retreaded tyres, notably by virtue of Article 40 of Portaria No. 14 of the Secretaria de
Comércio Exterior ("SECEX") (Secretariat of Foreign Trade of the Brazilian Ministry of
Development, Industry, and Foreign Trade), da ted 17 November 2004 ("Portaria SECEX 14/2004")
3,
and that this prohibition was inconsiste nt with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. 4 The European
Communities also contended that certain Brazilian measures providing for the imposition of fines on
the importation of retreaded tyres, and on the mark eting, transportation, storage, keeping, or
warehousing of imported retreaded tyres 5, were similarly inconsistent with Article XI:1 or,
alternatively, Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 6 In addition, the Europ ean Communities made claims
under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 in respect of certain state measures prohibiting the marketing
of, and/or imposing disposal obligations on the importers of, imported retreaded tyres. 7 Finally, the
European Communities challenged the exemption fro m the import prohibition on retreaded tyres and
associated fines provided by Brazil to retreaded ty res originating in countries of the Mercado Común

3Exhibits BRA-84 and EC-29 submitted by Brazil and the European Communities, respectively, to the
Panel. Article 40 of Portaria SECEX 14/2004 reads as follows:
Article 40 – An import license will not be granted for retreaded and used
tires, whether as a consumer product or feedstock, classified under NCM
code 4012, except for remoulded tires, classified under NCM codes
4012.11.00, 4012.12.00, 4012.13.00 and 4012.19.00, originating and
proceeding from the MERCOSUR Me mber States under the Economic
Complementation Agreement No. 18.
(See Panel Report, para. 2.7)
4Ibid., paras. 3.1 and 7.1.
5Article 47-A of Presidential Decree 3.179 of 21 September 1999, as amended by Article 1 of
Presidential Decree 3.919 of 14 September 2001, provides:
Importing used or recycled tires:
Fine of R$ 400.00 (four hundred reais) per unit.
Sole paragraph : The same penalty shall apply to whosoever trades,
transports, stores, keeps or maintains in a depot a used or recycled tire
imported under such conditions.
(Ibid., para. 2.10 (referring to Exhibit BRA-72 submitted by Brazil to the Panel); see also Exhibit EC-34
submitted by the European Communities to the Panel)
6Panel Report, paras. 3.1 and 7.358.
7Ibid., para. 7.391. The measures of the State of Rio Grande do Sul are identified in paragraphs 2.11
and 2.12 of the Panel Report.

del Sur ("MERCOSUR") (Southern Common Market). 8 The European Communities contended that
these exemptions were inconsistent with Articles I:1 and XIII:1 of the GATT 1994.9
3. Brazil did not contest that the prohibition on the importation of retreaded tyres and associated
fines were prima facie inconsistent with Article XI:1 10; or that state measures prohibiting the
marketing of, and/or imposing disposal obligations on the importers of, imported retreaded tyres were
prima facie inconsistent with Article III:411; or that the exemptions from both the import prohibition
and associated fines afforded to retreaded tyres imported from MERCOSUR countries were prima
facie inconsistent with Articles I:1 and XIII:1 of the GATT 1994. 12 Instead, Brazil submitted that the
prohibition on the importation of retreaded tyres a nd associated fines, and state measures restricting
the marketing of imported retreaded tyres, were all justified under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994.13
Brazil contended that the fines associated with the import prohibition on retreaded tyres were justified
also under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994. 14 Brazil further maintained that the exemption from the
import prohibition and associated fines afforded to imports of remoulded tyres from MERCOSUR
countries was justified under Articles XX(d) and XXIV of the GATT 1994.15

8The exemption from the import prohibition afforded to MERCOSUR countries is provided in
Article 40 of Portaria SECEX 14/2004 (see supra, footnote 3) and applies exclusively to remoulded tyres, a
subcategory of retreaded tyres. (See Panel Report, footnote 1440 to para. 7.265) The exemption from the fines
associated with the import prohibition on retreaded tyres is provided in Article 1 of Presidential Decree 4.592 of
11 February 2003 (Exhibit BRA-79 submitted by Brazil to the Panel), and exempts imports of all categories of
retreaded tyres originating in MERCOSUR countries from the fines provided in Article 47-A of Presidential
Decree 3.179, as amended, in the following terms:
Article 1: Article 47-A of Decree 3.179 of 21 September 1999 shall apply
with the addition of the following paragraph, and the current sole paragraph
shall be renumbered as (1):
paragraph (2) – Imports of retreaded tyres classified under heading MCN
4012.1100, 4012.1200, 4012.1300 and 4012.1900, originating in the
MERCOSUR member countries under Economic Complementation
Agreement No. 18 shall be exempt from payment of the fine referred to in
this Article.
(See supra, footnote 5; see also Panel Report, para. 2.16)
9Panel Report, para. 7.448.
10Ibid., paras. 7.2 and 7.359. Brazil did not acknowledge any inconsistency of the fines with
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. (See ibid., para. 7.359)
11Ibid., para. 7.392.
12Ibid., para. 7.449.
13Ibid., paras. 7.2, 7.217, 7.359, and 7.392.
14Ibid., para. 7.359.
15Ibid., para. 7.449.

4. The Panel Report was circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (the "WTO")
on 12 June 2007. The Panel found that the impor t prohibition on retreaded tyres was inconsistent
with Article XI:1 and not justif ied under Article XX of the GATT 1994.
16 In its analysis, the Panel
found that the import prohibition on retreaded tyres was provisionally justified as "necessary to
protect human, animal or plant life or health" under Article XX(b).
17 However, the Panel also found
that the importation of used tyres under court injunctions resulted in the import prohibition on
retreaded tyres being applied by Brazil in a manne r that constituted both "a means of unjustifiable
discrimination [between countries] where the same conditions prevail" 18 and "a disguised restriction
on international trade"19, within the meaning of the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994.
5. The Panel found further that the fines associat ed with the import prohibition on retreaded
tyres were inconsistent with Article XI:1 and not justified under either paragraph (b) or (d) of
Article XX of the GATT 1994. 20 The Panel also determined that state law restrictions on the
marketing of imported retreaded tyres and associated disposal obligations we re inconsistent with
Article III:4 and not justified under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994. 21 The Panel exercised judicial
economy with respect to the European Communitie s' claims that the exemption from the import
prohibition and associated fines afforded to retreaded tyres imported from MERCOSUR countries
was inconsistent with Articles I:1 and XIII:1 of the GATT 1994, and with respect to Brazil's related
defence under Articles XX(d) and XXIV of the GATT 1994. 22 The Panel accordingly recommended
that the Dispute Settlement Body (the "DSB") request Brazil to bring those measures found to be
inconsistent into conformity with its obligations under the GATT 1994.23
6. At its meeting on 10 August 2007, the DSB agreed to a joint requ est by Brazil and the
European Communities to extend the time period for a doption of the Panel Report until no later than
20 September 2007. 24 On 3 September 2007, the European Communities notified the DSB of its
intention to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations
developed by the Panel, purs uant to Article 16.4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures

16Panel Report, paras. 7.357 and 8.1(a)(i) and (ii).
17Ibid., para. 7.215.
18Ibid., para. 7.310; see also para. 7.306.
19Ibid., para. 7.349.
20Ibid., para. 8.1(b). The Panel did not rule on the European Communities' alternative claim that the
fines associated with the prohibition on the importation of retreaded tyres were inconsistent with Article III:4 of
21Ibid., para. 8.1(c).
22Ibid., paras. 7.456 and 8.2.
23Ibid., para. 8.4.
24WT/DS332/8, 31 July 2007. The minutes of the DSB meeting are set out in WT/DSB/M/237.

Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU"), and filed a Notice of Appeal 25 pursuant to Rule 20
of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (the " Working Procedures ").26 On 10 September
2007, the European Communities filed an appellant's submission. 27 On 28 September 2007, Brazil
filed an appellee's submission. 28 On the same day, Argentina, Au stralia, Japan, Korea, the Separate
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, and the United States each filed a third
participant's submission. 29 Also on 28 September 2007, China, Cuba, Guatemala, Mexico, and
Thailand each notified its intention to appear at the oral hearing as a third participant. 30 On 5 October
2007, Paraguay notified its intention to appear at the oral hearing as a third participant.31
7. On 28 September 2007, the Appellate Body received an amicus curiae brief from the
Humane Society International. On 11 Octobe r 2007, the Appellate Body further received an amicus
curiae brief submitted jointly by a group of nine non-governmental organizations. 32 The Appellate
Body Division hearing the appeal di d not find it necessary to take these amicus curiae briefs into
account in rendering its decision.
8. The oral hearing in this appeal was held on 15 and 16 October 2007. The participants and the
third participants, with the exception of Argen tina, China, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, and
Thailand, made oral statements. The participants and the third participants responded to questions
posed by the Members of the Division hearing the appeal.

25WT/DS332/9, 3 September 2007 (attached as Annex I to this Report).
26WT/AB/WP/5, 4 January 2005.
27Pursuant to Rule 21 of the Working Procedures.
28Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Working Procedures.
29Pursuant to Rule 24(1) of the Working Procedures.
30Pursuant to Rule 24(2) of the Working Procedures.
31Pursuant to Rule 24(4) of the Working Procedures.
32These non-governmental organizati ons are: Associação de Combate aos Poluentes (ACPO), Brazil;
Associação de Proteção ao Meio Ambiente de Cianorte (APROMAC), Brazil; Centro de Derechos Humanos y
Ambiente (CEDHA), Argentina; Center for Intern ational Environmental Law (CIEL), United States and
Switzerland; Conectas Direitos Humanos, Brazil; Frie nds of the Earth Europe, Belgium; The German NGO
Forum on Environment and Development, Germany; Justiça Global, Brazil; and Instituto O Direito por Um
Planeta Verde, Brazil.

II. Arguments of the Participants and the Third Participants
A. Claims of Error by the European Communities – Appellant
1. The Necessity Analysis

9. The European Communities claims that the Pane l erred in finding that the import prohibition
on retreaded tyres imposed by Brazil (the "Import Ban") was necessary to protect human, animal, or
plant life or health, within the meaning of Ar ticle XX(b) of the GATT 1994. The European
Communities requests the Appellate Body to reverse th is finding and to find, instead, that the Import
Ban is not "necessary" within the meaning of Article XX(b).
10. The European Communities' claims of error are directed at three distinct aspects of the Panel's
necessity analysis: first, the Panel's finding that the Import Ban contributed to the realization of its
stated objective; secondly, the Panel's finding that there were no reasonably available alternatives to
the Import Ban; and thirdly, the Panel's alle ged failure to conduct the process of weighing and
balancing the relevant factors a nd the alternatives that was require d to determine whether the Import
Ban was "necessary" under Article XX(b). The arguments advanced by the European Communities in
relation to each of these claims of error are addressed in turn.
(a) The Contribution Analysis
11. The European Communities argu es that the Panel erred in finding that the Import Ban
contributed to the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health. The European Communities
maintains that the Panel "applied an erroneous legal standard"
33 by examining whether the Import Ban
could make, or could have made, a contribution to the protection of human life or health, rather than
establishing the actual contribution of the measure to its objective. By applying a standard of
potential contribution, rather than one of actual cont ribution, the Panel acted inconsistently with the
case law of the Appellate Body 34, which requires the Panel to have assessed the extent of the
contribution made by the Import Ban to the reduction of waste tyres arising in Brazil. The European
Communities reasons that "no meaningful weighing and balancing is possible" 35 absent a proper
determination of the extent of the contribution made by the measure, and that, for necessity to be
demonstrated, the contribution required is "more th an mere suitability", it must be "verifiable and
significant".36 In this case, assessing the contribution of th e measure to the achievement of its stated

34Ibid., para. 169 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 164).
35Ibid., para. 171.
36Ibid., para. 172.

goals involved assessing whether the Import Ban reduced the number of waste tyres in Brazil. The
European Communities does not see how this could have been done in any way other than through
quantification, and stresses that this is not a case involving scientific uncer tainty about the existence
of risks. Rather, that "[t]he very indirect nature of the alleged risks attributed to imported retreaded
tyres should have called for a particularly diligent ex amination of the contribution made by the ban to
the reduction of the number of waste tyres arising in Brazil."37
12. In addition, the European Communities claims that the Panel did not make an objective
assessment of the facts of the case, as required by Article 11 of the DSU, in determining the
contribution of the Import Ban to the realization of the ends pursued by it. The European
Communities asserts that the Panel ignored significant facts and arguments in its analysis, and failed
to conduct an overall assessment of the evidence, in stead, referring to the evidence before it in a
selective and distorted manner.
13. According to the European Communities, in concluding that it had "no reason to believe that
new tyres sold in Brazil are low-quality tyres"
38 that were not capable of being retreaded, the Panel
ignored evidence that demonstrated "the exis tence ... of low-quality non-retreadable tyres" 39 in Brazil.
The Panel's finding that "at least some domestic used tyres are being retreaded in Brazil" 40 is based
exclusively on a statement contained in a report by the Associação Brasileira do Segmento de
Reforma de Pneus (the "ABR") (Brazilian Associ ation of the Retreading Industry) (the "ABR
Report")41 and on Technical Note 001/2006 of the Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Normalização e
Qualidade Industrial ("INMETRO") (National Institute for Metrology, Standardization and Industrial
Quality).42 The European Communities submits that the Pa nel failed to consider that the former is
directly contradicted by a second report by the ABR43, or to discount the evidentiary value of the latter

37European Communities' appellant's submission, para. 177. For the European Communities, the
indirect nature of the alleged risk distinguishes this case from EC – Asbestos, as the factual context of this case
does not concern the evaluation of risk in quantitative or qualitative terms. Rather, it concerns the quantification
of the contribution of the measure to achieving its stated objective. (See ibid., para. 175)
39Ibid. (referring to Exhibits EC-15 and EC-67 to EC-71 submitted by the European Communities to
the Panel; European Communities' oral statement at the first Panel meeting, para. 28; and European
Communities' response to Question 11 posed by the Panel, Panel Report, pp. 254-255).
40Panel Report, para. 7.136.
41European Communities' appellant's submission, para. 186 (referring to the report of the ABR on tyre
retreading activities in Brazil, 26 May 2006 (Exhibit BRA-95 submitted by Brazil to the Panel), para. 6)).
42Exhibit BRA-163 submitted by Brazil to the Panel.
43European Communities' appellant's submission, para. 187 (referring to the report of the ABR on the
reformed tyres sector in Brazil, 23 June 2006 (Exhibit BRA-157 submitted by Brazil to the Panel), para. 6)).

given that it was issued during the course of th e Panel proceedings and contradicts the earlier
INMETRO Technical Note 83/2000.
44
14. Moreover, the European Communities contends that the Panel ignored evidence that
contradicted its findings regarding the retreadability of used tyres in Brazil, namely, a study by the
consultancy LAFIS
 45, and the fact that domestic retreaders have sought court injunctions to obtain the
right to import used tyres for further retreading in Brazil. The European Communities also denounces
the Panel's references to measures that Brazil mi ght adopt in the future (such as more frequent
automotive inspections), emphasizing that the questi on of whether the Import Ban contributed to the
achievement of its stated objective had to be determin ed at the time of the establishment of the Panel,
and speculation about future events is not a sufficient basis for an objective assessment of the facts.
(b) Alternatives to the Import Ban
15. The European Communities argues that the Pane l committed multiple errors in holding that
there were no reasonably available alternatives to th e Import Ban that would ensure the same level of
protection of human life and health. The European Communities points out that it presented two
categories of alternative measures: measures to reduce the accumulation of waste tyres; and
measures to improve the management of waste tyres.
16. In the view of the European Communities, th e Panel improperly excluded measures to ensure
a better implementation and enforcement of the import ban on used tyres from its analysis of
possible alternatives to the Import Ban on retreaded tyres. The most relevant and obvious
alternative that would allow Brazil to prevent th e risks associated with the accumulation of waste
tyres would be to put an end to the importation of used tyres. Thus, the European Communities
insists, the Panel should have analyzed this altern ative irrespective of whether it also considered the
implementation of the import ban on used tyres as part of its analysis under the chapeau of
Article XX.
17. The European Communities adds that the Panel incorrectly defined as "alternatives" to the
Import Ban only measures that avoid the genera tion of waste tyres specifically from imported
retreaded tyres. Such a narrow definition of "a lternatives" wrongly links the notion of alternative
measures to the means (avoidance or non-generation of waste tyres) employed by the measure at issue

44European Communities' appellant's submission, paras. 188 and 189; Exhibit EC-45 submitted by the
European Communities to the Panel.
45Ibid., para. 190 (referring to the report by LAFIS, "Auto Parts and Vehicles: Tyres", 20 April 2006
(Exhibit EC-92 submitted by the European Communities to the Panel), p. 11). This study indicates that, in
Brazil, the overall rate of retreading for all types of vehicles is 9.9 per cent.

to achieve its objective, rather than to the objective itself. Available alternatives to the Import Ban are
not, therefore, as the Panel found, limited to non- generation measures, but include any alternatives
that would allow Brazil to attain the stated objectiv e of the Import Ban, namely, the protection of life
and health from mosquito-borne diseases and from tyre fire emissions. In the European Communities'
view, the Panel's narrow conception of "alternative" resulted in the erroneous rejection of several
alternatives that were capable of achieving this ob jective, such as measures to improve the domestic
retreading and retreadability of tyres, the collec tion and disposal scheme imposed by the Conselho
Nacional do Meio Ambiente ("CONAMA") (National Council for the Environment of the Ministry of
the Environment), and measures relating to the management of waste tyres, such as co-incineration.
18. The European Communities points to two additio nal errors in the Panel's conception of
alternative measures. First, the Panel refused to consider as alternatives measures that could be
"cumulative rather than substitutable" 46 with the Import Ban. For the European Communities, a
measure that is cumulative or complementary to the Import Ban is capable of achieving the same
objective as the ban and, therefore, is an alternativ e that must be taken into account. Secondly, in
examining the CONAMA scheme and co-incinerati on of waste tyres, the Panel did not inquire
whether the proposed options exist and are reasonably available, but, instead, examined whether those
options are actually being employed.
19. Moreover, the European Communities argues that the Panel erred by excluding as alternatives
a correct and complete implementation of certain state measures merely on the basis that these
measures have already been implemented in Brazil. Specifically, the European Communities submits
that evidence before the Panel demonstrated that Brazil neither implements correctly the obligations
under the CONAMA scheme, nor enforces properly its collection and disposal system. Therefore, a
better enforcement of the CONAMA scheme is an alte rnative that would be more effective than the
Import Ban in reducing risks associated with tyre waste. The Panel also erroneously ignored the
European Communities' contention that collection a nd disposal programmes, such as Paraná Rodando
Limpo
47 should be adopted by all states in Brazil.
20. The European Communities also challenges the Pa nel's findings that most of the material
recycling alternatives it proposed could not constitute reasonably available alternatives to the Import
Ban because they "are only capable of dispos ing [of] a small ... number of waste tyres". 48 The case
law of the Appellate Body regarding Article XX( b) does not require that one single alternative

47See Exhibit EC-49 submitted by the European Communities to the Panel.
48European Communities' appellant's submission, para . 238 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.201,
7.205, and 7.206). (underlining omitted)

measure achieve the same objective as the challenged measure. Therefore, the Panel erred in rejecting
several alternative measures on the grounds that, take n individually, each measure did not fully attain
the objective of the challenged measure. The Euro pean Communities also considers that the Panel
erred in its analysis by requiring alternatives to be capable of dealing with the management of all
waste tyres in Brazil, rather than with the number of waste tyres attributable to imported retreaded
tyres.
21. Finally, the European Communities submits th at the Panel's factual findings regarding
reasonably available alternatives were not based on an objective assessment of the facts, as required
by Article 11 of the DSU. More specifically, the Panel's rejection of landfilling of waste tyres as an
alternative to the Import Ban was based on evid ence related exclusively to landfilling of whole tyres,
when the only alternative proposed was the landfilling of shredded tyres, and the Panel did not take
into account legislation that permits the landfilling of shredded tyres in Brazil. As regards controlled
stockpiling, the Panel erred in rejecting this a lternative on the grounds that stockpiling does not
dispose of waste tyres, and that it entails some risk to human health and the environment. As
recognized in the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste
and Their Disposal
 49, controlled stockpiling is a disposal operation that is used for temporary storage.
It is a crucial element in managing waste tyres, and the mere fact that it does not avoid all the risks
that the Import Ban seeks to eliminate does not mean th at it could not be an alternative. Regarding
co-incineration, the European Communities ar gues that the Panel relied on evidence on
co-incineration activities in countries other than Brazil 50, and failed to require Brazil to explain why
unused capacity in its existing incineration facilities c ould not be used to burn more waste tyres as an
available alternative to the Import Ban. The Europ ean Communities adds that the Panel's finding that
co-incineration "may potentially pose health risks to humans" 51 is based on outdated evidence that
does not represent the current state of the art on energy recovery.
22. The European Communities contends further that the Panel's rejection of material recycling as
an alternative to the Import Ban is also not based on an objective assessment of the facts. The Panel
disregarded evidence presented by the European Communities and, instead, relied on a brief paper by
an unidentified organization, which related to a single material recycling application—civil
engineering—to conclude that "it is not clear that these [material recycling] applications are entirely

49Adopted 1989; entry into force 1992 (Exhibit EC-24 submitted by the European Communities to the
Panel).
50European countries and the United States. See also Panel Report, footnote 1339 to para. 7.192.

safe".52 The European Communities adds that the Pa nel's conclusion that material recycling
alternatives, such as civil engineering and rubber asphalt, would not be "reasonably" available due to
their prohibitive costs was based on evidence adduced exclusively in relation to a single material
recycling application—devulcanization.
23. Finally, the European Communities claims that the Panel failed to analyze one of the possible
alternative measures identified by the European Communities, and which has already been adopted by
Brazil—the National Dengue Control Programme 53—and that this failure constitutes a violation of
Article 11 of the DSU.
(c) The Weighing and Balancing Process
24. The European Communities claims that the Panel failed to condu ct the process of weighing
and balancing the relevant factors and the alternatives that was required in order to determine whether
the Import Ban was "necessary" under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994. For the European
Communities, weighing and balancing involves, fi rst, an individual assessment of each element
(importance of the objective pursued; trade rest rictiveness of the measure; contribution of the
measure to the achievement of the objective) and, then, a consideration of the role and relative
importance of each element together with the other elements, for the purposes of deciding whether the
challenged measure is necessary to achieve the rele vant objective. The Panel, however, failed to
weigh properly the trade restrictiveness of the Impor t Ban. Because the Panel incorrectly analyzed
the extent of the contribution of the Import Ban to the reduction in the number of waste tyres and,
indirectly, to the protection of human life and h ealth, the Panel was also incapable of properly
weighing and balancing this contribution against an y of the other elements. The Panel failed to
consider that the risks addressed by the Import Ban we re not directly linked to retreaded tyres but to
the waste they eventually turn in to, and that the level of such risks depends on how waste tyres are
managed and disposed of. Thus, the Panel failed to acknowledge the indirect, uncertain, and relative
contribution of the Import Ban to its stated objective and, in turn, failed to limit the weight afforded to
this element in the weighing and balancing process.

The European Communities also criticizes the Panel for reaching its finding on high costs of rubber asphalt
applications on the basis of a piece of evidence desc ribing this application as a "promising outlet for
recycled rubber because rubberised asphalt lasts longer than conventional asphalt". ( Ibid., para. 279 (quoting
Panel Report, footnote 1367 to para. 7.205, in turn quoting the report of the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development ("OECD"), Working Group on Waste Prevention and Recycling,
ENV/EPOC/WGWPR(2005)3/FINAL, 26 September 2005 (Exhibit EC-16 submitted by the European
Communities to the Panel)))
53Brazil's Ministry of Health National Dengue Control Programme (NDCP), adopted 24 July 2002
(Exhibit EC-93 submitted by the European Communities to the Panel).

25. The European Communities contends that the Panel based its weighing and balancing
exercise on its flawed analysis of reasonably availa ble alternatives. The Panel also failed to take
proper account of the trade restrictiveness of the Im port Ban in the weighing and balancing exercise.
The Panel focused on non-generation measures, and overlooked the considerable advantages of sound
waste tyre collection and disposal schemes, incl uding the fact that the implementation of the
CONAMA scheme is less trade rest rictive than the Import Ban. The Panel conducted an individual
analysis of possible alternatives, did not really carry out a global assessment, and discarded measures
that have already been implemented without verifyin g the extent of implementation. In sum, asserts
the European Communities, the Panel did not conduct a proper weighing and balancing of the relevant
elements and alternatives, but, rather, a superficial analysis that repeated all of the errors it had
already made in its assessment of the necessity of the Import Ban.
26. For all of the above reasons, the European Communities requests the Appellate Body to
reverse the Panel's finding that the Import Ban was "necessary" to protect human, animal, or plant life
or health, within the meaning of Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994. Should the Appellate Body accept
this request, the European Communities further requ ests the Appellate Body to find that the Import
Ban is not "necessary" within the meaning of Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994.
2. The Chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994

(a) The MERCOSUR Exemption
27. The European Communities claims that the Panel erred in finding that the exemption from the
Import Ban on imports of retreaded tyres from MERCOSUR countries (the "MERCOSUR
exemption") did not constitute arbitrary or unjustif iable discrimination or a disguised restriction on
international trade and was not, therefore, contrary to the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994.
These findings were based on a "confused" analysis "marred by serious errors of law".54 In particular,
the European Communities emphasizes that the fact that Brazil introduced the MERCOSUR
exemption in order to comply with its obligations under MERCOSUR does not preclude a finding of
"arbitrary" discrimination. The European Communities argues further that the volume of imports
from MERCOSUR countries is irrelevant to the an alysis of whether that exemption constitutes
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination. The Eu ropean Communities requests the Appellate Body to
reverse this finding and to find, instead, that th e MERCOSUR exemption results in the Import Ban
being applied inconsistently with the chapeau of Article XX.

28. For the European Communities, the "arbitrar y" discrimination and the "unjustifiable"
discrimination mentioned in the chapeau of Ar ticle XX are closely related. Both require
discrimination to be explained through convincing, reasonable, and rational arguments. What is
arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination must, in the view of the European Communities, be
established in relation to the objective of the meas ure at issue and the conditions prevailing in the
countries concerned. At the same time, the notions of "arbitrary" and "unjustifiable" are not identical:
"the term 'arbitrary' has its 'centre of gravity' in the lack of consistency and predictability in the
application of the measure, while the term 'unjustifia ble' refers more to the lack of motivation and
capacity to convince."
55
29. The European Communities submits that, in its analysis, the Panel wrongly defined
"arbitrary" discrimination as being limited to "capricious", "unpredictable", or "random"
discrimination.56 This definition failed to take into acc ount the object and purpose of Article XX, as
well as the context provided by the close link betw een "arbitrary discrimina tion" and "unjustifiable
discrimination". The European Communities adds that this definition would deprive arbitrary
discrimination of its useful value, because "few ac tions of governments are ever entirely 'random' or
'capricious'."
57 The chapeau of Article XX expresses "requirements of good faith, and requires a
delicate balancing of the interests of the Memb er invoking an exception ... and the rights of other
Members".58 The European Communities contends that the Panel's approach, however, was not
consistent with the required balancing of interests, because it would allow discrimination "on the basis
of purely extraneous factors which have nothing to do with the objectives of the measure" 59, as long
as the discrimination is not random or capricious.
30. According to the European Communities, whether a measure involves arbitrary
discrimination can only be determined by taking in to account the objective of the measure in respect
of which Article XX is invoked. A measure will not be arbitrary if it "appears as reasonable,
predictable and foreseeable"60 in the light of that objective.

55European Communities' appellant's submission, para . 310 (referring to European Communities' first
written submission to the Panel, para. 152).
56Panel Report, paras. 7.272, 7.280, and 7.281.
58Ibid., para. 319 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp , paras. 158 and 159, where the
Appellate Body also found that the "rigidity" and "inflexib ility" of certain certification requirements introduced
by the United States constituted "arbitrary discrimination").
59Ibid., para. 319.
60Ibid., para. 321.

31. It follows, according to the European Communities, that the Panel erred in finding that the
MERCOSUR exemption did not constitute arbitrary discrimination because it had been introduced in
response to a ruling of a MERCOSUR arbitral tribunal. The MERCOSUR exemption does not
further, and has the potential of undermining, the stated objective of the measure (the protection of
life and health from risks arising from mosquito-borne diseases and tyre fires), and for this reason
must be regarded as unreasonable, contradictory, a nd thus arbitrary. For the European Communities,
allowing a Member's obligations under other inte rnational agreements to render discrimination
consistent with the chapeau of Article XX woul d seriously undermine the effectiveness of the
chapeau. The fact that the chap eau of Article XX prohibits discrimination "between countries where
the same conditions prevail" provides further suppor t for the European Comm unities' interpretation,
because whether the same conditions prevail in different countries is an objective question, not a
question of legal obligations vis-à-vis another country. It is thus "inconceivable that the mere
compliance with an international agreement would suffice to render discrimination between countries
where the same conditions prevail compatible with the chapeau of Article XX".
61
32. As regards the Panel's attempt to buttress its reasoning by referring to Article XXIV of the
GATT 1994 and the "'nature' of Mercosur as an agreement" 62 within the meaning of that provision,
the European Communities submits that agreements justified unde r Article XXIV would not entitle
Members to discriminate in the application of Article XX measures, because Article XXIV:8(a)(i) and
(b) explicitly excludes measures that are justified under Article XX from the requirement to eliminate
restrictive regulations of commerce with respect to substantially all the trade within a customs union
or free trade area. The European Communities furt her criticizes the Panel for not verifying whether
MERCOSUR is a customs union that complies with the requirements of Article XXIV of the GATT
1994.
33. The European Communities points to two additio nal flaws in the Panel's reasoning: its
statement that it took into account "the nature of the ruling on the basis of which Brazil has acted"
63;
and the Panel's reliance on Brazil's statement that the MERCOSUR exemption was "the only course
of action available to it" 64 to implement the ruling. The nature of the ruling on the basis of which
Brazil has acted is irrelevant for the determination of whether the MERCOSUR exemption constitutes
arbitrary discrimination. Moreover, before the MERCOSUR tribunal, Brazil chose not to defend the
Import Ban by invoking an exception clause related to the protection of human life and health, and

62Ibid., para. 329.

thus the fact that it invoked such grounds in this di spute must be regarded as arbitrary. The European
Communities further submits that the MERCOSUR tribunal did not oblige Brazil to discriminate
between its MERCOSUR partners and other WTO Me mbers, because Brazil could have implemented
the arbitral ruling by lifting the Import Ban with respect to all third countries.
34. The European Communities argues further that th e Panel erred in finding that unjustifiable
discrimination could arise only if imports under the MERCOSUR exemption were to take place in
such amounts that the achievement of the objective of the Import Ban would be significantly
undermined. By assessing the existence of unjus tifiable discrimination on the basis of import
volumes, the Panel applied a test that has no basis in the text of Article XX and finds no support in
WTO case law. The Europ ean Communities adds that, if adopted by the DSB, this finding would
diminish its rights under the covered agreements, contrary to Article 3.2 of the DSU.
35. The European Communities submits that import volumes under the MERCOSUR exemption
are irrelevant for determining whether this exemption constitutes arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination. The specific volume of imports from MERCOSUR countries in a given year is not
related to the manner in which the Import Ban is a pplied, but rather dependent upon economic factors
relating to supply and demand. Moreover, this volume can fluctuate significantly from year to year,
and may be more likely to do so if the Panel's findi ng stands, given that it creates an incentive to shift
retreaded tyre production to MERCOSUR countries, especially to those that do not restrict the
importation of used tyres. Thus, reasons the Euro pean Communities, in addition to being incorrect,
the Panel's findings increase the likelihood of future litigation on whether increases in imports from
MERCOSUR countries have rendered the exemption in consistent with the chapeau. This is not
consistent with Article 3.3 of the DSU, which pr ovides that the prompt settlement of disputes "is
essential for the effective functioning of the WTO".
65
36. According to the European Communities, the Pane l's approach is also inconsistent with the
Appellate Body Report in US – Gambling , where "the Appellate Body did not attach importance to
the 'volume' of services traded under [that] exempt ion, and to how that volume compared with the
volume of online gambling services offered by Anti gua and Barbuda or, in fact, all other WTO
Members cumulatively."66 The Panel's approach also goes against Appellate Body reports confirming
the right of Members to challenge measures, as such , and the need to protect the security and
predictability of the multilateral trading system that underpins that right. 67 Yet, under the Panel's

67Ibid., para. 345 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review ,
para. 82).

approach, the question of which volumes of imports would be regarded as "significant" for purposes
of the chapeau of Article XX would ultimately de pend on market factors, and could be assessed only
ex post based on data relating to trade flows.
37. The European Communities also contests th e Panel's conclusions that the MERCOSUR
exemption did not constitute "a dis guised restriction on international trade" within the meaning of the
chapeau of Article XX. Like its finding on unjustif iable discrimination, the Panel's finding was based
on the rationale that MERCOSUR imports have not been significant in volume. Thus, submits the
European Communities, the Panel's finding on a disgui sed restriction on international trade is equally
erroneous. The European Communities fails to understand how the Panel could characterize the
imports under the MERCOSUR exemption, increasi ng tenfold since 2002 from 200 to 2,000 tons of
tyres per year by 2004, as "insignificant".
68
38. For these reasons, the European Communities re quests the Appellate Body to reverse the
Panel's finding that the MERCOSUR exemption di d not constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination between countries where the same cond itions prevail, or a disguised restriction on
international trade, within the meaning of the chap eau of Article XX, and to find, instead, that the
MERCOSUR exemption results in the Import Ban bei ng applied inconsistently with the requirements
of that provision.
(b) Imports of Used Tyres
39. With respect to the Panel's analysis of imports of used tyres under the chapeau of Article XX,
the European Communities supports the Panel's conc lusion that such imports constituted unjustifiable
discrimination between countries where the same c onditions prevail, but challenges several other
findings made by the Panel in this part of its analysis. Specifically, the European Communities
contends that the Panel erred, first, in finding th at the imports of used tyres through court injunctions
did not result in arbitrary discrimination and, secondly, in finding that such imports constituted
unjustifiable discrimination and a disguised restricti on on international trade only to the extent that
they occurred in such amounts as to significantly undermine the objective of the Import Ban.
40. For the European Communities, the Panel adopted an overly restrictive approach to the notion
of "arbitrary discrimination", in considering that act ion is not arbitrary as long as there is some cause
or reason to explain it. What is arbitrary must be decided in the light of the stated objective of the
measure. The European Communities reasons that, because, from the perspective of the protection of
human life or health, there is no di fference between, on the one hand, a retreaded tyre produced in the

European Communities and, on the other hand, a retreaded tyre produced in Brazil from a casing
imported from the European Communities, the importation of used tyres through court injunctions
must be regarded as constituting arbitrary discrimin ation. The European Communities adds that the
Panel's attempt to distinguish betw een, on the one hand, the actions of Brazilian courts in granting
injunctions allowing imports of used tyres and, on the other hand, the compliance of administrative
authorities with those injunctions, is ill-founded. A WTO Member must assume responsibility for the
acts of all the branches of its government. The cont radiction between the actions of the branches of
the Brazilian government that have allowed the impor tation of used tyres, and those that ban the
importation of retreaded tyres, must be regarded as arbitrary behaviour on the part of Brazil.
41. The European Communities also su bmits that the Panel erred in finding that the imports of
used tyres under court injunctions resulted in unjustif iable discrimination only to the extent that they
significantly undermined the objective of the Import Ban. In analyzing whether imports of used tyres
under court injunctions were inconsis tent with the chapeau of Articl e XX, the Panel applied the same
quantitative approach that it had incorrectly applied when assessing the MERCOSUR exemption
under that provision. The European Communities refe rs to the arguments it advanced in relation to
the MERCOSUR exemption to explain why the volumes of imports are irrelevant for purposes of
determining the consistency of a measure with the chapeau of Article XX.
42. The European Communities observes further that the court injunctions effectively exempt
Brazilian retreaders from the import ban on used tyres, because they do not contain any temporal or
quantitative limitations. Thus, the Panel's quan titative approach engenders uncertainty for the
implementation of the Panel Report and is not in accordance with the prompt settlement of the dispute
as required by Article 3.3 of the DSU. The Panel characterized imports of 10.5 million used tyres into
Brazil in 2005 as "significant", but failed to identify the threshold below which imports of used tyres
would no longer be "significant". The European Communities adds that, for the same reasons
adduced in relation to unjustifiable discrimination, th e Panel erred in finding that the imports of used
tyres through court injunctions resulted in the Impor t Ban being applied in a manner that constitutes a
disguised restriction on international trade only to the extent that these imports occurred in such
quantities that they significantly undermined the objective of the Import Ban.
43. For all these reasons, the European Communities requests the Appellate Body to reverse the
Panel's finding that imports of used tyres unde r court injunctions did not constitute arbitrary
discrimination under the chapeau of Article XX, and constituted unjustifiable discrimination or a
disguised restriction on international trade under the terms of this provision only to the extent that
those imports significantly undermined the objective of the Import Ban. The European Communities
requests the Appellate Body to find, instead, that im ports of used tyres under court injunctions result

in the Import Ban being applied inconsistently w ith all of the requirements of the chapeau of
Article XX of the GATT 1994.
3. Conditional Appeal

44. Should the Appellate Body not find, as request ed by the European Communities, that the
MERCOSUR exemption results in the Import Ban bei ng applied inconsistently with the chapeau of
Article XX, then the European Communities conditi onally appeals the Panel's decision to exercise
judicial economy with respect to its separate clai ms that the MERCOSUR exemption is inconsistent
with Articles I:1 and XIII:1 of the GATT 1994. In such circumstances, the European Communities
requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's decision to exercise judicial economy with respect
to these claims and to complete the legal analysis and find that the MERCOSUR exemption is
inconsistent with Articles I:1 and XIII:1, and not justified under Articles XX(d) and XXIV of the
GATT 1994.
(a) The Panel's Exercise of Judicial Economy
45. The European Communities submits that, in dec lining to rule on the European Communities'
claims under Articles I.1 and XIII:1 of the GATT 19 94, the Panel exercised "false judicial economy"
and did not provide a positive resolution to the disput e as required by Articles 3.3, 3.4, and 3.7 of the
DSU.
69 In the light of the Panel's finding that the Import Ban was inconsistent with the chapeau of
Article XX only to the extent that imports of used tyres were occurring in amounts that significantly
undermined the objective of the Import Ban, Brazil was under no obligation to remove the
MERCOSUR exemption per se. Therefore, the Panel should have addressed the European
Communities' claims that the MERCOSUR exemption per se is incompatible with Articles I:1
and XIII:1.
(b) Completing the Legal Analysis
46. The European Communities submits that there ar e sufficient factual findings of the Panel and
uncontested facts on record for the Appellate Body to complete the legal analysis and find that the
MERCOSUR exemption is incompatible with Arti cles I:1 and XIII:1, and is not justified under
Articles XX(d) and XXIV of the GATT 1994. The Eu ropean Communities recalls that Brazil did not
contest that the MERCOSUR exemption constitutes a violation of Articles I:1 and XIII:1. Therefore,
the only question to be addressed by the Appellate Body is whether this measure can be justified
under Articles XX(d) and XXIV.

(c) The MERCOSUR Exemption and Article XXIV of the GATT 1994
47. The European Communities argu es that the MERCOSUR exemption is not justified under
Article XXIV of the GATT 1994, because it does not satisfy the two conditions identified by the
Appellate Body in its Report in Turkey – Textiles .70 First, Brazil failed to demonstrate that
MERCOSUR complies with the conditions of Article XXIV:8(a) and 5(a) of the GATT 1994. As
explained extensively in the European Communitie s' submissions to the Panel, Brazil failed to
demonstrate that MERCOSUR has achieved a liberalization of "substantially all" 71 the trade within
MERCOSUR, as required by Article XXIV:8(a)(i). The European Communities contends that trade
in the automotive and sugar sectors has not been entirely liberalized within MERCOSUR, and
highlights that "the automotive sector alone accounts for approximately 29%" 72 of trade within
MERCOSUR. In addition, according to the Eu ropean Communities, exceptions to MERCOSUR's
common external tariff "currently concern up to 10% of the tariff lines" 73 applicable to external trade,
and individual MERCOSUR countries "maintain export duties and 'other regulations of commerce' on
trade with third countries that are not common to all Mercosur countries."74
48. The European Communities adds that Braz il failed to demonstrate that MERCOSUR
complies with the requirement in Article XXIV:5(a) of the GATT 1994 that duties and other
restrictive regulations of commerce are not to be on the whole more restrictive than the general
incidence of these measures prior to the creation of MERCOSUR, in particular, as regards non-tariff
measures. Indeed, emphasizes the European Comm unities, the measure at issue in this dispute
illustrates that MERCOSUR countries continue to adopt such non-tariff measures.
49. Secondly, the European Communities maintains that Brazil has not shown that the
MERCOSUR exemption was necessary for the forma tion of MERCOSUR. Nothing in the reasoning
of the Appellate Body Report in Turkey – Textiles suggests that this condition would not apply to
cases such as this one where a restriction is first imposed on all goods, and then subsequently
removed only for goods originating in the custom s union. Moreover, the European Communities
considers that "Article XXIV would be turned into an almost limitless exception, which would allow

70European Communities' appellant's submission, pa ra. 381 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
Turkey – Textiles, para. 58).
71Ibid., para. 383.
72Ibid.
73Ibid., para. 384 (referring to Committee on Trade and Development, "Examination of the Southern
Common Market (MERCOSUR) Agreement", WT/COMTD/1/Add.17, 9 June 2006 (Exhibit EC-121 submitted
by the European Communities to the Panel), p. 2).
74Ibid.

parties to a customs union to take any measure derogating from WTO obligations"
75 if WTO
Members were not required to demonstrate that th e measure was necessary for the formation of the
customs union in question.
50. The European Communities submits that the MERCOSUR exemption was not necessary for
the formation of MERCOSUR. Article XXIV:8(a)(i ) explicitly exempts measures consistent with
Article XX from the requirement to eliminate barrier s to trade with respect to substantially all the
trade between the constituent members of a customs union. For this reason, it follows that Article XX
cannot be invoked in order to justify the selective el imination of such trade barriers only with respect
to trade within the customs union or free trad e area. Nor can the MERCOSUR exemption be
characterized as necessary for the formation of MERCOSUR because it was adopted several years
after the conclusion of MERCOSUR.
(d) The MERCOSUR Exemption and Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994
51. The European Communities submits that the MERCOSUR exemption is also not justified
under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994. The Appellate Body found, in Mexico – Taxes on Soft
Drinks, that the term "laws and regulations" in Article XX(d) covered "rules that form part of the
domestic legal system of a WTO Member, including rules deriving from international agreements that
have been incorporated into the domestic legal system of a WTO Member".
76 However, Brazil has
not demonstrated that the obligation to comply w ith rulings of the MERCOSUR arbitral tribunals has
been incorporated into the Brazilian legal system . The European Communitie s suggests further that
the term "securing compliance" in Article XX(d) does not mean simply "complying". Instead,
"securing compliance" refers to enforcement measures where compliance is achieved by persons other
than the entity "securing" the compliance. Thus, Article XX(d) does not cover Brazil's adoption of
the MERCOSUR exemption. Furthermore, the ME RCOSUR exemption is not "necessary" within the
meaning of Article XX(d) because Brazil could ha ve complied with the ruling of the MERCOSUR
arbitral tribunal by lifting the Import Ban with re spect to all third countries, rather than only its
MERCOSUR partners. Finally, the European Co mmunities submits that the MERCOSUR exemption
does not fulfil the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX, because it constitutes unjustifiable and
arbitrary discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, in particular, given that,
by virtue of it, Brazil allows the imports of retreaded tyres from MERCOSUR countries even when
those tyres are made from used tyres originating in the European Communities.

76Ibid., para. 402 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks, para. 79).

B. Arguments of Brazil – Appellee
1. The Necessity Analysis
52. Brazil maintains that the Panel properly found that the Import Ban was "necessary" to protect
human, animal, or plant life or health within th e meaning of Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994, and
therefore requests the Appellate Body to uphold this finding.
(a) The Contribution Analysis
53. First, Brazil argues that the Panel correctly assessed the contribution made by the Import Ban
to the achievement of its objective. The paragraphs set out in Article XX focus on the measure, as
such, while the chapeau focuses also on the application of the measure. Therefore, actual contribution
is not relevant to the analysis under paragraph (b ) of Article XX, and the Panel applied the correct
legal standard in using phrases such as "can contribute" and "capable of contributing". 77 S u c h a
standard is also particularly appropriate give n that some measures—for example, environmental
measures—may not have immediate effect. The Panel's approach was in line with "virtually all" other
cases that have examined a measure's contribution u nder paragraphs (b) and (d) of Article XX of the
GATT 1994 or under Article XIV of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (the "GATS"). 78
This is the case whether the risk sought to be avoided is direct or indirect. Brazil adds that the need to
undertake the weighing and balancing exercise also illustrates that the Eu ropean Communities cannot
be correct. If a panel were required to assess the ex tent of a measure's actua l contribution, it would
have to do the same for alternative measures in or der to compare them. Yet, this is impossible,
because an alternative measure is one that has not ye t been realized. That the Panel was not, as the
European Communities claims, required to quantify the Import Ban's contribution to reducing waste
tyre volumes is confirmed in the Appellate Body Report in EC – Asbestos, where the Appellate Body
held that "a risk may be eval uated either in quantitative or qualitative terms".79 Brazil also expresses
its understanding that, according to existing case law, if the measure can make a contribution to its
objective, and no reasonably available alternatives exist, then the measure is "necessary".
54. In addition, Brazil argues that the Panel acted consistently with its duty under Article 11 of
the DSU in finding that the Import Ban contributed to the achievement of its objective. The Panel
relied on numerous studies and reports, which provided it with more than a sufficient basis to find that

77Brazil's appellee's submission, para. 74 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.118 and 7.142).
78Ibid., para. 77 (referring to Panel Report, US – Gambling , para. 6.494; Panel Report, Dominican
Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes , para. 7.217; Panel Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef ,
79Ibid., para. 81 (quoting Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos , para. 167). (emphasis added by
Brazil)

tyres used in Brazil are retreadable and are bei ng retreaded. The Panel referred to the ABR Report
80
and INMETRO Technical Note 001/2006 81 merely as examples of such reports and studies. In
addition, the Panel's reliance on INMETRO Technical Note 001/2006, rather than on an earlier
INMETRO note, was justified, because it is well established that a panel may rely on evidence that
post-dates the panel's establishment, and because Br azil had explained why it was not appropriate for
the Panel to rely on the earlier INMETRO note. The mere fact that the Panel did not describe its
conclusions on each piece of evidence—or resp ond to each of the European Communities'
objections—does not mean that it did not consider the evidence. The Eu ropean Communities may
disagree with the weight the Panel assigned to the va rious factual elements before it, but there is no
indication that the Panel exceeded its discretion as the trier of fact.
55. As regards numerous other arguments raised by the European Communities, Brazil identifies
evidence that provides support for the Panel's findings that retreaded tyres have a shorter lifespan than
new tyres and that new tyres are retreadable and ar e being retreaded in Brazil, and asserts that the
Panel did not, as the European Communities claims, base its findi ngs on speculation about future
events. Brazil also emphasizes that imports of used tyres under court injunctions and imports of
retreaded tyres under the MERCOSUR exemption ar e extraneous to the Import Ban and do not
properly form part of the "necessity" analysis.
(b) Alternatives to the Import Ban
56. Brazil contends that the Panel correctly dete rmined that none of the measures suggested by
the European Communities constituted a reasonably av ailable alternative to the Import Ban. As a
preliminary matter, Brazil contends that the Europ ean Communities' appeal on this issue is premised
on a mistaken understanding of Brazil's cho sen level of protection. Brazil is not seeking to reach a
fixed level of health and safety, or only to pr otect against mosquito-borne diseases and tyre fire
emissions (accumulation risks). Rather, it seeks to reduce accumulation, transportation, and disposal
risks associated with the generation of waste tyres in Brazil to the maximum extent possible. Because
the Panel's finding of fact correctly identified th e level of protection sought by Brazil, and the
European Communities, in its appeal, does not challenge this finding under Article 11 of the DSU, the
European Communities' claims of error regarding reasonably available alternatives fall outside the
scope of appellate review.

80Supra, footnote 41.
81Supra, footnote 42.

57. Taking account of the proper definition of its ch osen level of protecti on (including against
disposal risks), Brazil asserts that the Panel properly recognized that stockpiling, landfilling,
co-incineration, and material recycling all present risks to human health and the environment. The
Panel also correctly dismissed a better enforcement of the import ban on used tyres as an alternative to
the Import Ban, because such a measure would not allow Brazil to reduce the number of additional
waste tyres generated by imported short-lifespan retr eaded tyres. Brazil also rejects the European
Communities' assertion that the Panel applied an in correct definition of "alternative", because, for
Brazil, an alternative must allow a Member to achie ve its chosen level of pr otection, and that level
requires a reduction to the maximum extent possible of risks arising from waste tyre accumulation,
transportation, and disposal risks. Because the Pane l correctly defined Brazil' s level of protection, it
was also correct to consider that other complementary measures to reduce the overall number of waste
tyres were not "alternatives" to the Import Ban on re treaded tyres. Brazil adds that, contrary to the
European Communities' claims on appeal, the Panel did not require a single alternative measure to
achieve fully the desired objective, did not refuse to consider the proposed alternatives collectively,
and did not focus on whether options were actually being employed instead of whether they were
reasonably available.
58. Furthermore, Brazil argues that the Panel's findings on the availability of alternative measures
rested on an objective assessment of the facts, as re quired by Article 11 of the DSU. According to
Brazil, the Panel based its finding that disposal of waste tyres presents serious health and
environmental risks on an extensiv e factual record. The evidence on record fully supports the Panel's
finding that landfilling of both whole and shredded waste tyres presents human health and
environmental risks. Brazil also argues that the Panel's reference to the fact that the European
Communities prohibits landfilling w as relevant, because the health and environmental objectives
listed in the European Communities' Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of
waste
82 mirror Brazil's objective. Furthermore, the Br azilian legislation that allowed landfilling, and
which the European Communities claims the Panel should have taken into account, was a temporary
measure adopted in a single Brazilian state to co mbat a significant increase in dengue cases. That
legislation does not demonstrate that landfilling is safe, but only that, in those circumstances, the
short-term need to combat dengue was more pressing.

82Exhibit BRA-42 submitted by Brazil to the Panel.

59. In relation to stockpiling, Brazil submits that the evidence on record, in cluding a study by the
California Environmental Protection Agency
 83, supports the Panel's findi ng that stockpiling presents
human health and environmental risks. Furthe rmore, the European Communities itself acknowledges
that "'controlled stockpiling is not a final disposal operation ' but merely 'temporary storage.'" 84 As
regards co-incineration, the eviden ce on record fully supports the Panel's finding that incineration of
waste tyres presents risks to human health, that toxic emissions from the incineration of tyres cannot
be eliminated, and that these emissions are higher than those generated by the burning of conventional
fuels. In the light of these acknowledged risks, it would not have made sense, as the European
Communities now argues, for the Panel to have required Brazil to provide evidence on co-incineration
in Brazil rather than in other countries, or to u se increased co-incineration as an alternative. The
Panel acted within its discretion in determining th e weight attributed to several reports that the
European Communities considers outdated and, in an y event, the evidence relied upon by the Panel is
not as "outdated", nor is the evidence cited by the European Communities as "recent", as the European
Communities claims on appeal. The Appellate Bo dy, therefore, should reject the European
Communities' attempts to have it second-guess the Panel's appreciation of the evidence.
60. In relation to material recycling, Brazil subm its that the Panel did not consider only civil
engineering in reaching its findings on alternativ e measures. The Panel also considered evidence
related to rubber asphalt, use of rubber granulates, and devulcanization. Nor did the Panel base its
finding that material recycling applications could not dispose of existing volumes of waste tyres on
evidence of devulcanization alone. Instead, conte nds Brazil, the Panel c ited documents suggesting
that material recycling applications collectively lacked adequate disposal capacity.
(c) The Weighing and Balancing Process
61. Brazil asserts that the Panel properly weighed an d balanced the relevant factors and proposed
alternatives in determining that the Import Ban w as "necessary" within the meaning of Article XX(b)
of the GATT 1994, and that the European Commun ities' appeal on this point amounts to mere
disagreement with the Panel's exerci se of its discretion in determining which evidence to rely upon in
support of its findings. The Panel expressly recognized that the Import Ban is highly trade restrictive,
but rejected the European Communities' argument that this fact alone precluded a finding that the ban
was "necessary". Instead, the Panel properly recogni zed that there may be circumstances in which a
highly restrictive measure is nonetheless necessary a nd, in the process of weighing and balancing,

83California Environmental Protection Agency (US), Integrated Waste Management Board, "Increasing
the Recycled Content in New Tyres" (May 2004) (Exhibit BRA-59 submitted by Brazil to the Panel).
84Brazil's appellee's submission, para. 154 (quoting European Communities' appellant's submission,

identified the specific circumstances of this case that led it to such a conclusion. With respect to the
question of contribution, Brazil re calls its position that Article XX(b) does not require a party to
quantify the measure's contribution to the objective pursued. In any event, the Import Ban's
contribution is substantial "because it reduced imports of retreaded tyres from 18,455 tons in 1999 to
1,727 tons in 2005 (over 90 percent)."85 Brazil also argues that, because imports of retreaded tyres, by
definition, increase the amount of waste tyres in Brazil, the relationship between the Import Ban and
Brazil's goal of reducing waste tyre risks to the maximum extent possible is both direct and certain.
2. The Chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994
(a) The MERCOSUR Exemption
62. Brazil argues that the Panel correctly held th at the MERCOSUR exemption did not result in
the Import Ban being applied in a manner that cons tituted "arbitrary or unjustifiable" discrimination
or "a disguised restriction on international trade" within the meaning of the chapeau of Article XX of
the GATT 1994. Accordingly, Brazil requests th e Appellate Body to reject the European
Communities' claims of error and to uphold the Panel's findings in this respect.
63. Brazil asserts that the Panel properly interprete d the meaning of the word "arbitrary" in the
chapeau of Article XX, in accordance with the customary rules of interpretation of public
international law. The Panel took into account th e ordinary meaning of the word, along with both the
context and the object and purpose of the chapeau of Article XX, as well as previous panel and
Appellate Body reports. On this basis, the Pane l interpreted the word "arbitrary" "as lacking a
reasonable basis and requiring the need to convincingly explain the rationale of the measure".
86
64. Brazil disputes the European Communities' as sertion that what constitutes arbitrary
discrimination must be determined in relation to th e objective of the measure. The specific contents
of the measure at issue, including its policy objective, must be examined under the exceptions listed in
the paragraphs of Article XX. The chapeau of Article XX, in turn, requires panels to examine
whether the measure at issue is applied reasonably, in a manner that does not result in an abusive
exercise of a Member's right to pursue its polic y objective. Brazil emphasizes that the European
Communities' interpretation would impermissibly narr ow the scope of the chapeau of Article XX and
limit the flexibility that Members have to protect legitimate values under that provision. Brazil adds
that, in any event, in this case the Panel did consider imports under th e MERCOSUR exemption in
relation to the objective of the measure at issue when it determined that, at the time of its examination,

85Brazil's appellee's submission, para. 177 (referring to Panel Report, para. 4.54; and Brazil's response
to Question 40 posed by the Panel, Panel Report, p. 270).
86Ibid., para. 191 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.260, 7.273, and 7.283).

volumes of retreaded tyres imported under the MERCOSUR exemption did not significantly
undermine the objective of the Import Ban. Furthermore, reasons Brazil, it would not have been
reasonable or rational, in the light of the objective of the Import Ban, for Brazil to have implemented
the MERCOSUR ruling by abolishing the ban altogether, as the European Communities suggests.
65. Brazil considers that the Panel correctly fo und that the discrimination resulting from the
MERCOSUR exemption was not arbitrary. In Braz il's view, even under the European Communities'
definition of "arbitrary", the following considerati ons identified by the Panel demonstrate that the
MERCOSUR exemption did not amount to arbitrary discrimination: (i) Brazil introduced the
exemption only after a dispute settlement tribuna l established under MERCOSUR ruled that the ban
violated Brazil's obligations under MERCOSUR; (ii) the MERCOSUR ruling was adopted in the
context of an agreement intended to liberalize trad e that is expressly recognized in Article XXIV of
the GATT 1994; (iii) agreements of the type r ecognized by Article XXIV inherently provide for
discrimination; (iv) Brazil had an obligation unde r international law to implement the ruling by the
MERCOSUR tribunal; (v) Brazil applied the MERCO SUR ruling in the most narrow way possible,
that is, by exempting imports of a particular kind of retreaded tyres (remoulded) from the application
of the ban; and (vi) it was not reasonable for Brazil to implement the MERCOSUR ruling with
respect to imports from all sources, because doing so would have forced Brazil to abandon its policy
objective and its chosen level of protection. The Panel appropriately determined that these
circumstances provided a rational basis for enacting the MERCOSUR exemption. Brazil rejects as a
"blatant misrepresentation"
87 the European Communities' argument that the Panel's finding necessarily
implies that mere compliance with any interna tional agreement would exclude the existence of
arbitrary discrimination, particularly given that the Panel expressly stated that its finding was limited
to the "specific circumstances of the case". 88 Furthermore, the European Communities' systemic
concerns in this respect are contrary to the we ll-established precept under ge neral international law
that "bad faith on the part of States is not to be presumed" 89, and it is "absurd" 90 to suggest that a
WTO Member would conclude an agreement under Article XXIV for purposes of circumventing the
requirements of the chapeau of Article XX.
66. Brazil also submits that the Panel correctly concluded that the legal standard under the
chapeau of Article XX is different from the lega l standard under Article XX IV. As Brazil argued

89Ibid., para. 213. (footnote omitted)
90Ibid., para. 214.

before the Panel, a measure that does not meet th e requirements of Article XXIV can nevertheless
meet the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX.
67. Brazil considers that the Panel correctly found that the operation of the MERCOSUR
exemption has not resulted in the Import Ban be ing applied in a manner that would constitute
unjustifiable discrimination. Brazil has difficu lty understanding the European Communities'
objections to the Panel's analysis since the Euro pean Communities itself argu es that what constitutes
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination must be es tablished in relation to the objective of the measure
at issue, and the Panel did precisely that. The Panel determined how Brazil's policy objective of
reducing unnecessary generation of tyre waste to the maximum extent possible was being affected by
imports of retreaded tyres under the MERCOSUR exemption. The level of imports and their effect on
the objective of the Import Ban were relevant, in particular, because the chapeau of Article XX
focuses on the application of the measure at issue. Br azil also explains that the level of imports could
not rise to a level that would undermine the obj ective of the Import Ban in the future, because
Resolution No. 38 of the Câmara de Comércio Exte rior (Chamber of Foreign Trade) of 22 August
2007
 91 established annual limits on the number of retr eaded tyres that can be imported into Brazil
from MERCOSUR countries. According to Brazil, these import volumes "correspond roughly" to the
import volumes that the Panel found "were not significant".92
68. Brazil considers that the European Communitie s' reference to the right of Members to
challenge measures, as such, is misplaced. The chap eau of Article XX requires an examination of the
manner in which a measure is being applied, and th is will "rarely" be based on "immutable, static
situations".93 The European Communities' challenge to the Panel's finding that 2,000 tons of
retreaded tyres is "insignificant" is similarly wit hout merit. According to Brazil, it is worth noting
that the level of 2,000 tons is only one seventh of the 14,000 tons previously imported from the
European Communities and, in any event, the Panel's finding that 2,000 tons is not a significant
amount is a factual finding that cannot be revisited on appeal.
69. In addition, Brazil submits that the Panel's finding that the MERCOSUR exemption did not
result in the Import Ban being applied in a manne r that constitutes "a disguised restriction on
international trade" under the chapeau of Article XX is legally sound, and refers to its arguments
before the Panel in support of this position.

91Exhibit BRA-175 submitted by Brazil to the Appellate Body.
93Ibid., para. 229.

(b) Imports of Used Tyres
70. Brazil submits that the Panel committed no erro r in the analytical approach it adopted in
determining whether imports of used tyres under court injunctions resulted in the Import Ban being
applied in a manner that constituted "arbitrary discr imination", "unjustifiable discrimination", or "a
disguised restriction on international trade" within the meaning of the chapeau of Article XX of the
GATT 1994. Brazil requests the Appellate Body to re ject the European Communities' claims of error
and to uphold the Panel's findings that the imports of used tyres did not constitute "arbitrary
discrimination" and constituted "unjustifiable discrimination" or "a disguised restriction on
international trade" within the meaning of that provision only to the extent that import volumes of
used tyres "significantly undermined" the objective of the Import Ban.
71. Brazil argues that the Panel correctly found that the imports of used tyres under court
injunctions did not result in the Import Ban bein g applied in a manner that constituted "arbitrary
discrimination". The Panel was satisfied, on the b asis of the evidence before it, that there was a
rational basis for the importation of used tyres. Furthermore, as it did in the context of the
MERCOSUR exemption, the Panel did analyze whether the imports of used tyres significantly
undermined the objective of the Import Ban—that is , it took the very approach advocated by the
European Communities. The Panel did not, as the European Communities now claims, draw a
distinction between the actions of certain Brazilian courts granting injunctions and the compliance by
Brazilian administrative authorities with those court injunctions. Brazil also rejects the European
Communities' allegation that there is a contradicti on between the actions of different branches of the
Brazilian government. Rather, insists Brazil, th e Import Ban, the court injunctions, and the
enforcement of the injunctions by the customs aut horities were the result of the operation of the Rule
of Law. "There is nothing unpredictable, irrati onal, abnormal, unreasonable, or even illegal in the
conduct of Brazil's legislative, executive, or judiciary branches."
94
72. With respect to the Panel's analysis of "unjustifiable discrimination", Brazil submits that it
was appropriate for the Panel to cons ider the level of imports of used tyres. For the same reasons that
Brazil articulated with respect to the MERCOSUR exemption, the effect that the volume of imports of
used tyres had on Brazil's ability to achieve its policy objective was relevant to the Panel's analysis of
unjustifiable discrimination. Brazil points out th e inconsistencies in the European Communities'
arguments, which, on the one hand, criticize the Pane l for taking into account the effects of import
volumes on Brazil's ability to achieve its policy objectiv e, and, on the other hand, insist that arbitrary
and unjustifiable discrimination can be established only when analyzed in relati on to the objective of

the measure at issue. Brazil disputes the European Communities' assertion that the Panel's analysis of
the volume of imports involves uncertainty for impl ementation of its report. According to Brazil,
monitoring of a WTO Member's compliance is an inte gral part of the dispute settlement mechanism,
and there are various examples of cases where panels made findings that were based on facts and
circumstances that were potentially subject to change.
95
73. Finally, Brazil argues that the Panel correctly considered the volume of imports of used tyres
as part of its determination that the Import Ban was being applied in a manner that constituted "a
disguised restriction on international trade", and refe rs to the arguments it made before the Panel in
support of this position.
3. The European Communities' Conditional Appeal
(a) The Panel's Exercise of Judicial Economy
74. Brazil considers that the Panel was justified in deciding to exercise judicial economy with
respect to the European Communities' separa te claims that the MERCOSUR exemption was
inconsistent with Articles I:1 and XIII:1 and not jus tified under Articles XX(d) and XXIV of the
GATT 1994. In the light of the Panel's finding that the Import Ban was inconsistent with Article XI:1
of the GATT 1994, a separate finding in relation to an exemption to the Import Ban was not necessary
to secure a positive resolution of the dispute. The MERCOSUR exemption could not exist in the
absence of the Import Ban, which had previously b een found to be inconsistent with the GATT 1994.
The allegedly limited basis for the Panel's finding of incons istency under Article XI:1 is not relevant,
because Article 3.7 of the DSU "does not distinguish between different degrees of solutions". 96
Brazil also distinguishes the fact s of this case from those in EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar , on the
basis that "the remedies under the GATT and the DSU for a violation of Article XI (found by the
Panel) are no different from the remedies for a violation of Article XIII or I."
97 Furthermore, the very
condition on which the European Communities appeals the Panel's ex ercise of judicial economy
contradicts its contention that separate rulings unde r Article I:1 and Article XIII:1 were necessary.
According to Brazil, by conditioning its appeal on a finding by the Appellate Body that the
MERCOSUR exemption does not result in the Impor t Ban being applied in consistently with
Article XX, the European Communities is implicitly r ecognizing that a finding that the Import Ban is

95See Brazil's appellee's submission, para. 253 (referring to Panel Report, US – Section 301 Trade Act ,
paras. 7.131-7.136, 7.170, 7.179, and 7.185; and Panel Report, US – Shrimp (Article 21.5 – Malaysia) ,
para. 6.1).
96Ibid., para. 268. (original emphasis)
97Ibid., para. 269.

not justified under Article XX renders unnecessary fi ndings on its separate claims under Articles I:1
and XIII:1.
(b) Completing the Legal Analysis
75. In the event the Appellate Body were to reve rse the Panel's decision to exercise judicial
economy, Brazil submits that the Appellate Body does not have a sufficient basis on which to
complete the analysis of the European Commun ities' claims that the MERCOSUR exemption is
inconsistent with Articles I:1 and XIII:1, and with respect to Brazil's relate d defences under
Articles XXIV and XX(d) of the GATT 1994. There are neither undisputed facts nor factual findings
by the Panel concerning the consistency of MERCO SUR with Article XXIV:5(a) and 8(a) of the
GATT 1994 or the justification of the MERCOSU R exemption under Article XX(d). Brazil
specifically contests, as it did before the Pane l, assertions made by the European Communities
regarding intra-MERCOSUR liberalization of the automotive and sugar sectors, as well as with
respect to alleged exceptions to the common external tariff. In addition, the European Communities'
claims under Articles XIII:1 and I:1, and Brazi l's related defence under Article XXIV, are not
suitable for completion of the analysis, because th ey are not closely related to the provisions
examined by the Panel, and because they involve nove l legal issues that have not been explored in
depth by the parties. Brazil cites as examples of such unexplored issues the questions of what
constitutes "substantially all the trade" under Article XXIV:8(a)(i) and what constitutes "substantially
the same duties and other regulations of commerce" under Article XXIV:8(a)(ii).
(c) The MERCOSUR Exemption and Article XXIV of the GATT 1994
76. In the event the Appellate Body considers it ca n complete the analysis with respect to the
separate claims made by the European Communities in relation to the MERCOSUR exemption, Brazil
submits that this measure is justified under Article XXIV of the GATT 1994.
77. Brazil argues that it submitted sufficient evidence before the Panel to make a prima facie
case that MERCOSUR meets the requirements of Article XXIV:5(a) and 8(a). In particular, Brazil
submitted the results of calculations made by the Secretariat for MERCOSUR and the WTO
Secretariat showing that the duties and other re gulations of commerce applied at the time of
MERCOSUR's formation (1995), and in 2006, were not "on the whole" higher or more restrictive than
those applied prior to its formation. Brazil furthe r suggests there is evidence on record demonstrating
that "substantially all the trade" between cons tituent members of MERCOSU R has been liberalized,
and that MERCOSUR countries maintain substantia lly the same duties and other regulations of
commerce on trade vis-à-vis third countries, thus complying with the requirements of
Article XXIV:8(a). Brazil notes in this regard that, before the Panel, it incorporated by reference all

of the documents submitted by MERCOSUR members to the Committee on Regional Trade
Agreements (the "CRTA").
78. Brazil contends that the European Comm unities has failed to rebut Brazil's prima facie
demonstration that MERCOSUR is consistent with the requirements of Article XXIV:5 and 8. The
fact that the CRTA and the Committee on Trade and Development did not reach the conclusion that
MERCOSUR is in compliance with Article XXIV does not suggest that MERCOSUR is inconsistent
with Article XXIV, in particular, because Members' measures are presumed WTO-consistent until
sufficient evidence is presented to prove the contrary, and because the CRTA has only once
concluded that a regional trade agreement was compatible with the GATT 1994.
79. In addition, Brazil maintains th at the European Communities faile d to substantiate its claims
that MERCOSUR was inconsistent with Article XXIV. Although the European Communities asserts
that the automotive and sugar sectors within MERCO SUR have not been fully liberalized, this is
contradicted by the evidence it submitted to the Panel. According to Brazil, evidence before the Panel
demonstrated that "the automotive sector has been the subject of continuing and progressive
liberalization [and that] bilateral agreements be tween Mercosur members have already led, in
practice, to duty-free trade in almost 100 pe rcent of the commerce in the auto sector." 98 Brazil
suggests further that the sugar sector alone cannot prevent compliance with the requirement under
Article XXIV:8(a)(i) that "substantially all the trade" between the constituent territories be liberalized,
because it "accounts for less than 0. 001 percent of the total [trade]". 99 As regards the European
Communities' assertion that there are exceptions to MERCOSUR's common external tariff, Brazil
submits that the evidence on record demonstrates that MERCOSUR "applies a common external tariff
to products in over 90 percent of the tariff lines and has a specific timetable in place to cover the
remaining categories of products by 2008." 100 Brazil also rejects the European Communities'
assertion that MERCOSUR does not meet the requirement under Article XXIV:5(a) that non-tariff
barriers on trade with third countries not be "on the whole ... more restrictive"101, noting that the only
example provided by the European Communities is the Import Ban itself. According to Brazil, a
single measure cannot constitute sufficient eviden ce to show that MERCOSUR does not meet the
requirements of Article XXIV:5(a).

98Brazil's appellee's submission, para. 295 (referring to Panel Report, para. 4.391; and
WT/COMTD/1/Add.17, supra, footnote 73, p. 3).
99Ibid. (referring to Committee on Trade and Developm ent, "Examination of the Southern Common
Market (MERCOSUR) Agreement", WT/COMTD/1/Add.16, 16 May 2006 (Exhibit BRA-170 submitted by
Brazil to the Panel), para. 14; and WT/COMTD/1/Add.17, supra, footnote 73, p. 3).
100Ibid., para. 296 (referring to Brazil's response to Question 132 posed by the Panel, Panel Report,
pp. 360-361, in turn citing WT/COMTD/1/Add.17, supra, footnote 73, p. 2).

80. Moreover, Brazil contends that th e Appellate Body's decision in Turkey – Textiles cannot be
read as requiring Brazil to demonstrate that the MERCOSUR exemption was introduced upon the
formation of a customs union, and that its formation would have been prevented if it were not allowed
to introduce such a measure. The analytical approach adopted by the Appellate Body in Turkey –
Textiles should not be applied in the present disput e, because the MERCOSUR exemption does not
impose new restrictions against third countries but, rather, eliminates restrictive regulations between
the parties to the customs union.
102 Furthermore, Brazil contends that a Member should not be
allowed to demonstrate the necessity of its measure only as of the time a customs union is formed,
because such customs unions and the integration of their members evolve and deepen over time.
81. Brazil also rejects the European Communities' argument that the fact that the text of
Article XXIV:8(a)(i) exempts Article XX measures from the requirement to eliminate duties and other
restrictive regulations of commerce demonstrates that the MERCOSUR exemption was not necessary
for the formation of MERCOSUR. Such an interp retation would require the members of the customs
union to exempt Article XX measures from internal lib eralization, "lest they are later challenged by
third countries for discrimination and not permit ted to invoke Article XXIV to justify those
measures."103 Moreover, the Appellate Body has explained that "the terms of [Article XXIV:8(a)(i)]
offer 'some flexibility' to the constituent members of a customs union when liberalizing their internal
trade".104 This flexibility in Article XXIV permits Brazil to eliminate the Import Ban in respect of
MERCOSUR countries while maintaining it in r espect of non-MERCOSUR countries. Brazil also
emphasizes that the MERCOSUR exemption was not introduced pursuant to its obligations under
Article XXIV:8(a)(i), but was rather the result of its unsuccessful attempt to defend the Import Ban
before a MERCOSUR arbitral tribunal.
(d) The MERCOSUR Exemption and Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994
82. Should the Appellate Body decide to complete the analysis of the European Communities'
claims under Articles I:1 and XIII:1 of the GA TT 1994, Brazil submits that it should find the
MERCOSUR exemption to be justified under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.

102For Brazil, US – Line Pipe is a more apposite case in the factua l context of this dispute. (See Brazil
appellee's submission, para. 301 (referring to Panel Report, US – Line Pipe, paras. 7.147 and 7.148))
103Ibid., para. 307.

83. Brazil submits that the Panel correctly interpreted and applied the term "to secure
compliance" in Article XX(d), in contrast to th e European Communities' interpretation that a state
"secures compliance" within the meaning of Article XX(d) only when it enforces rules or regulations
as regards other actors, and not when it secures its ow n compliance with the laws or regulations of its
domestic legal system. Moreover, the Appellate Body's interpretation of Article XX(d) in Mexico –
Taxes on Soft Drinks made no such distinction. Rather, the Appellate Body's interpretation of the text
of Article XX(d) makes clear that domestic laws or regulations that ensure compliance by a state with
its obligations are within the scope of that provision . Brazil also contends that it has incorporated the
obligation to comply with rulings of MERCOSUR tr ibunals into its domestic law, and that evidence
to that effect exists in the record.
84. Lastly, Brazil contends that the MERCOSUR exemption is "necessary" within the meaning of
Article XX(d). Brazil argues that it could not have complied with the ruling of the MERCOSUR
tribunal by simply exempting all third countries from the Import Ban, as the European Communities
suggests it should have done, because this would have forced Brazil to abandon its policy objective of
reducing unnecessary generation of tyre waste to the maximum extent possible.
C. Arguments of the Third Participants
85. Pursuant to Rule 24(2) and (4) of the Working Procedures, China, Cuba, Guatemala, Mexico,
Paraguay, and Thailand chose not to file a third par ticipant's submission but attended the oral hearing.
Cuba, in its statement at the oral hearing, expressed its agreement with the Panel's findings that the
Import Ban was necessary to reduce the exposure of human, animal, or plant life or health to risks
arising from waste tyres. Cuba also emphasized the importance of the principle of sustainable
development and environment pr eservation policies, and recalled that waste tyre management
presents a challenge in particular for developing countries, given the significant environmental and
economic costs it involves.
1. Argentina
86. Argentina agrees with the Panel's finding that the Import Ban contributed to the protection of
human life and health within the meaning of Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994. Argentina submits
that the Panel's necessity analysis was consistent with the case law of the Appellate Body, and that
"the Panel's reasoning relie[d] on facts broug ht to its attention by the parties."
105 The Panel correctly
rejected the European Communities' contention that the Import Ban did not contribute to reducing the
number of waste tyres, based on its conclusion that "the direct effect of [the Import Ban] is to compel

105Argentina's third participant's submission, para. 14.

consumers of imported retreaded tyres to switch either to retreaded tyres produced domestically or to
new tyres."
106 If the direct effect of the Import Ban were to impede additional imports of retreaded
tyres with a shorter lifespan than new tyres, then it would fulfil Brazil's objective of avoiding
generation and accumulation of waste tyres. Arge ntina underscores further that the Panel was not
required to quantify the contribution of the Import Ban to the realization of the objective pursued.107
87. Argentina submits that the Panel was correct in concluding that the objective of protecting
human health and life against life-threatening diseases "is both vital and important in the highest
degree".108 The Panel correctly found that the alte rnative measures identified by the European
Communities aimed at reducing the number of waste tyres and at improving the management of waste
tyres in Brazil, but not at preventing the generation of waste tyres to the maximum extent possible.
Argentina also agrees with the Panel's finding th at "the promotion of domestic retreading and
enhanced retreadability of locally used tyres in Brazil would not lead to the reduction in the number of
waste tyres additionally generated by 'i mported short-lifespan retreaded tyres'." 109 For Argentina, the
measures identified by the European Communities did not constitute alternatives that could be applied
as a substitute for the Import Ban in preventing the generation of waste tyres to the maximum extent
possible. Lastly, Argentina concludes that the Panel did not err in finding that there were no
reasonably available alternatives to the Import Ban th at would ensure the same level of protection to
human life and health sought by Brazil.
2. Australia
88. Australia submits that the Panel erred in findi ng that the Import Ban was "necessary" within
the meaning of Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994. Article XX(b) should be interpreted so as to
maintain the careful balance between the rights and obligations of WTO Members to secure their
trade interests and the rights of Members to impose measures necessary to protect human, animal, or
plant life or health. In Australia's view, the Pane l incorrectly balanced these factors in making its
findings on necessity.

89. Australia notes that the Panel, in identifying the measure at issue, should have considered the
MERCOSUR exemption in relation to a breach of Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. Australia
encourages the Appellate Body to treat the Import Ban and the MERCOSUR exemption "as an
'integrated whole'"110 under Article XX(b).
90. Moreover, although the Appellate Body stated that a "necessary" m easure is significantly
closer to the pole of "indispensable" than to the opposite pole of simply "making a contribution", the
Panel applied a definition of "necessary" that is closer to "making a contribution" than to
"indispensable".111 The Panel correctly considered the rela tive importance of the interests or values
pursued by the Import Ban, but did not correctly examine the contribution of the measure to the
realization of the ends pursued by it. The Panel also failed to consider adequately the restrictive
impact of the Import Ban when conducting the wei ghing and balancing process. If the measure is
properly identified as including both the Import Ban a nd exemptions to that ban, it is then more
appropriate to determine first whether such a measur e, in its totality, is necessary in the context of
Article XX(b), taking into account the potential rest rictive impact on international commerce, among
other factors.
91. In relation to the Panel's assessment of alterna tive measures, Australia submits that the Panel
did not properly weigh and balance possible alterna tives, because it incorrectly identified the ends
pursued by the measure, incorrectly limited its cons ideration of alternatives to those available "in
reality"
112, and failed to consider potential alternatives cu mulatively rather than only on an individual
basis. Australia also argues that the Panel incorrectly excluded a better enforcement of the import ban
on used tyres as an alternative measure to the Im port Ban. For Australia, there is no basis in
Appellate Body case law for excluding from the necessity analysis alternatives that relate to the
manner in which the relevant measure is implemented in practice. The Panel also applied an incorrect
definition of "alternatives" when limiting its an alysis to those measures seeking to avoid the
accumulation of waste tyres generated from imported re treaded tyres. Finally, Australia disagrees
with the Panel's reasoning that "complementary" me asures were not "alternative" measures, because
they could not be directly substituted for the Im port Ban. Although the Panel recognized that a
combination of measures may be appropriate where different alternatives are complementary in
addressing the risk, in practice, the Panel evaluated each individual alternative measure in isolation.

110Australia's third participant's submission, pa ra. 5 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC –
Asbestos, para. 64).
111Ibid., para. 6 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 161).
112Ibid., para. 20.

92. Australia argues further that the Panel erre d in finding that the MERCOSUR exemption did
not constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimin ation within the meaning of the chapeau of
Article XX of the GATT 1994. In defining "arbitrar y" as "motivated by capricious or unpredictable
reasons", the Panel placed too much emphasis on di ctionary definitions and reduced the term to
"inutility".
113 Consistent with the Appellate Body's statement in US – Shrimp that "the precise
meaning of the terms in the chapeau [of Article XX] may shift 'as the kind and the shape of the
measures at stake vary and as the facts making up specific cases differ'" 114, the Panel should have
considered the specific factual situation that was before it. Australia adds that, although it accepts that
compliance with an international agreement "could be considered as a factor by a panel in deciding
whether discrimination was 'arbitrary'" 115, this approach requires panels to "make a judgement on the
status and validity of action under the agreement".116
93. With respect to the Panel's finding that unjustif iable discrimination occurs only to the extent
that the objective of the Import Ban has been significantly undermined by a significant amount of
imports, Australia submits that the Panel may have created a new test for the consideration of
unjustifiable discrimination under the chapeau of Ar ticle XX. Australia recognizes that a measure
with no real impact in practice may not constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination, but
maintains that the import into Brazil of 2,000 tons of retreaded tyres per year would not appear to be
insignificant or without practical impact. If the Appellate Body upholds the Panel's approach, the
European Communities potentially would be for ced to commence a new dispute under the DSU,
either under Article 21.5 or under a newly constituted panel, in the ev ent that imports of retreaded
tyres from MERCOSUR countries increase to a level th at would undermine the achievement of the
objective of the Import Ban. Such re-litigation of essentially the same dispute would not ensure the
prompt settlement of the dispute, as provided for in Article 3.3 of the DSU.
94. Finally, Australia considers that, for the same reasons as those presented in relation to the
MERCOSUR exemption, the Panel erred in finding th at the Brazilian court injunctions that permitted
the importation of used tyres were not arbitrary.

113Australia's third participant's submission, para. 38 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US –
Gasoline, p. 23, DSR 1996:I, 3, at 21; and Appellate Body Report, Canada – Dairy, para. 133).
115Ibid., para. 42.
116Ibid.

3. Japan
95. Japan argues that what constitutes "arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination" under the
chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994 relates to the manner in which a challenged measure is
applied and should not be defined in relation to the objective of that measure. The objective of a
measure is relevant only to the determination of whether it falls under one of the paragraphs of
Article XX, and not as an element to justify the measure's compatibility with the chapeau of that
provision. The ordinary meaning of the term "arbitr ary" indicates that an arbitrary discrimination test
should focus primarily on subjective elements (such as motivations) in assessing the manner in which
the measure is applied. As for the term "unjustif iable", the Panel correctly concluded that it suggests
the "need to be able to 'defend' or convincingly explain the rationale for any discrimination in the
application of the measure." 117 According to Japan, Members can reasonably provide such
convincing explanation of the rationale based on objective elements, since they are considered to be
easier to validate.
96. In addition, Japan agrees with the Panel th at the importation of used tyres under court
injunctions did not constitute arbitrary discrimina tion under the chapeau of Article XX, because the
Panel focused on subjective elements in evaluating the manner of application of the Import Ban. For
Japan, the administrative authority is obliged to follow a court order (where the authority has
challenged it before the courts without success), a nd has no discretion not to obey it. Therefore,
whether acts of all branches of a government are "arb itrary" usually needs to be examined in relation
to the pertinent decision-making processes. In this case, the Panel correctly found that the actions of
the Brazilian courts and those of Brazilian administra tive authorities were not arbitrary. Japan adds
that it does not necessarily follow that the government as a whole acted in an arbitrary manner just
because acts of its difference branches contradict each other.
97. Japan next submits that the Panel was incorrect in assessing whether "unjustifiable
discrimination" arose from the MERCOSUR exemp tion and from imports of used tyres under court
injunctions on the basis of import volumes. Alt hough import volumes may be a relevant factor in
determining whether the application of a measur e constitutes unjustifiable discrimination, import
volumes are subject to strong fluctuation due to economic factors, and are therefore an inadequate
benchmark for purposes of determini ng the consistency of a measure with the chapeau of Article XX.
According to Japan, import volumes constitute a "vague threshold"
118 that would lead to
disagreements between the parties as to the consiste ncy of the measure in the implementation stage.

118Ibid., para. 25.

Japan suggests that Brazil's dispo sal capacity is a more reasonable threshold, because it is directly
related to the reduction in the amount of waste tyre accumulation in Brazil. Japan adds that Brazil's
disposal capacity is more easily quantifiable and l ess prone to fluctuation due to supply and demand
than to import volumes.
98. Finally, Japan submits that the Panel erroneously exercised judicial economy with respect to
the European Communities' claims that the MERCOSUR exemption was inconsistent with
Articles I:1 and XIII:1 of the GATT 1994. The Panel should have examined these claims, because the
European Communities had set out, in its panel re quest, claims that the MERCOSUR exemption as a
specific measure was inconsistent with these GATT provisions. Japan considers that a panel's
discretion in exercising judicial economy must not adversely affect the appropriateness of the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, which are key to the full and satisfactory settlement of a
dispute.
119 In this case, the Panel's exercise of judicial economy prevented the satisfactory settlement
of the matter, because the Panel's findings required Br azil to rectify the Import Ban only in relation to
imports of used tyres under court injunctions, but did not necessarily require Brazil to address the
measure's inconsistency in relation to the MERCOSUR exemption.
4. Korea

99. Korea submits that the Panel erred in concluding that the Import Ban was capable of
contributing to the achievement of its objective. Korea agrees with the Panel that "there is no
requirement that there be a precise measu rement of the health risk involved". 120 However, Korea
distinguishes the facts in EC – Asbestos from the facts in this dispute, because the measure at issue in
EC – Asbestos "was a ban on the use of the product and th e qualitative linkage was of the product to
cancer"121, while in the present dispute there is no inhere nt danger in the product itself. In particular,
when unlimited domestic production and importation from MERCOSUR countries are permitted, the
statement that "numerical precision" is not required can be abused as "an excuse for any lack of effort
in assessing degrees of risk". 122 In Korea's view, Brazil failed to demonstrate what amount of waste
tyre reduction is optimal for achieving Brazil's objec tive and its chosen level of protection and how
the limitations introduced by the Import Ban relate to any such level.

119Japan's third participant's submission, paras. 31-32 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Canada –
Wheat Exports and Grain Imports , para. 133; and Appellate Body Report, EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar ,
paras. 330-335).
120Korea's third participant's submission, para. 8 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.118 and 7.119).
121Ibid., para. 9.
122Ibid.

100. For Korea, the Panel's finding that the Import Ba n was "capable of contributing to the overall
reduction of the amount of waste tyres" 123 amounts to a violation of Article 11 of the DSU. It is
unclear what the Panel understood as "capable of co ntributing", and the Panel should have quantified
the extent of the actual contribution of the Import Ba n to the achievement of its objective, particularly
in the light of its subsequent finding that a quantity of 2,000 tons of retreaded tyres imported under the
MERCOSUR exemption did not "significantly" undermine the objective of the measure.
101. Korea agrees with the Panel that Members can choose the level of protection they consider
appropriate. However, the measure in question does not relate directly to the reduction of mosquito-
borne diseases and tyre fire emissions. Rather, it is "derivative" and relates to the reduction in the
number of waste tyres, which may have a "knock-on effect" 124 on the reduction of mosquito-borne
diseases and tyre fire emissions. However, in Korea's view, the Panel failed to assess properly the
relationship of the Import Ban to its stated goal of safeguarding human health through the reduction of
waste tyres. For Korea, without a better assessment of whether or not the Import Ban actually results
in a reduction of the accumulation of waste tyres, one cannot establish a measurable link (or, indeed,
any link) to the stated health goal. Therefore, Korea reasons, "some sort of metric, even if not a
precise one"125, would have been necessary for the Panel to determine the contribution of the Import
Ban to the achievement of its objective. Korea considers that the European Communities provided a
number of alternatives to the Import Ban, any of wh ich individually or in combination would provide
less trade-restrictive measures in achieving the stated goal.
102. Korea argues further that the Panel erred in finding that the MERCOSUR exemption did not
result in the Import Ban being applied in a manner inc onsistent with the chapeau of Article XX of the
GATT 1994. First, Korea agrees with the Panel that the ordinary meaning of the word "arbitrary"
includes the "elements of capricious, unpredictable and inconsistent".126 However, the Panel assessed
the MERCOSUR exemption only in the light of the meaning of the terms "capricious" and
"unpredictable". According to Korea, the term "inconsistent" informs the whole meaning of
"arbitrary".127 This is significant, because the ME RCOSUR exemption is not capricious, or
unpredictable. However, the Import Ban a nd the MERCOSUR exemption certainly were
"inconsistent" in the light of the underlying jus tification, that is, the protection of humans from
mosquito-borne diseases and tyre fire emissions. Fo r Korea, there is no logical way of distinguishing

123Korea's third participant's submission, para. 10.
124Ibid., para. 11.
125Ibid., para. 12.
126Ibid., para. 19.
127Ibid., para. 20.

between retreaded tyres from a MERCOSUR country and retreaded tyres from another WTO Member
in relation to the protection of human life and health objective pursued by Brazil.
103. Secondly, Korea submits that the Panel erred in finding that 2,000 tons of retreaded tyres
imported from MERCOSUR countries did not significantly undermine the objective of the Import
Ban. Korea asserts that the initial burden was on Brazil to establish adequately the factual link
between the health goal and the measure in ques tion, and to do so "with some certainty and
demonstrability".
128 Thus, in the absence of such a benchmark provided by Brazil, the Import Ban is
by definition "arbitrary", because it "may be applie d or not applied in inc onsistent manners without
any factual or logical basis."129 Korea argues that the Panel misint erpreted the nature of the exception
provided under Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and how it interacts with the exception under
Article XX.
104. Finally, Korea argues that there was no legal b asis for the Panel to find that the open-ended
MERCOSUR exemption was consistent with Brazi l's defence under Article XX based on the novel
standard of significantly undermining th e objective that the Panel had construed. 130 This reasoning
implied that MERCOSUR imports could increase to some unknown level that might then significantly
undermine the protection of human life and health objec tive stated by Brazil. Korea contends that the
Panel's approach virtually invited future disputes. Th is is not consistent with Article 3.3 of the DSU,
which provides that prompt settlement of disputes is a key element of the dispute settlement system.
According to Korea, the Panel erred by attempting to make an "as applied" ruling based on transient
facts, when the structure of the measure and the open-ended MERCOSUR exemption required an "as
such" finding.
5. The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu
105. The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu submits that the
Panel erred in its interpretation of the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994, and in finding that
the MERCOSUR exemption did not result in the Import Ban being applied in a manner that
constituted either "arbitrary discrimination" or "a di sguised restriction on international trade" within
the meaning of the chapeau.

128Korea's third participant's submission, para. 29.
129Ibid.
130Ibid., para. 33.

106. The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu submits that the
Panel's finding that the MERCOSUR exemption did not constitute "arbitrary discrimination between
countries where the same conditions prevail" was in error, because the MERCOSUR exemption "was
done unpredictably". 131 In support of this argument, the Se parate Customs Territory of Taiwan,
Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu recalls that Brazil main tained a general ban on the importation of used
tyres even after the formation of MERCOSUR, when Brazil should have eliminated most of the trade
barriers with other MERCOSUR countries, and that Br azil even enacted new restrictions on imports
when it enacted the Import Ban. Moreover, Brazil did not invoke the protection of human life and
health in its defence before the MERCOSUR arbitral tribunal, and that tribunal did not specify how
Brazil should implement its ruling. Brazil itself decided to adopt the MERCOSUR exemption. For
these reasons, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu contends that
"it is quite clear that no 'predictability' could be fo und in Brazil's trade policy, which would justify the
effect of discrimination on retreaded tyres." 132 This lack of predictability results in the discrimination
introduced by the MERCOSUR exemption being "arbitr ary" within the meaning of the chapeau of
Article XX.
107. In addition, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu argues
that the MERCOSUR exemption should be considered arbitrary in the light of the objective of the
Import Ban. It is uncontested that retreaded tyres exported from MERCOSUR countries into Brazil
had the same potential to damage human life or health as retreaded tyres exported from non-
MERCOSUR countries. For this reason, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen,
and Matsu submits that, "if the protection of hum an life or health necessitates Brazil adopting an
import ban on retreaded tyres, a loophole in th e ban would undermine Brazil's asserted objective." 133
The MERCOSUR exemption is just such a loophole , and the discrimination that it engenders is,
therefore, arbitrary.
108. The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu argues further that
the Panel erred in finding that the discrimina tion engendered by the MERCOSUR exemption was
permissible pursuant to Article XXIV of the GATT 1994. Even assuming that MERCOSUR is
consistent with Article XXIV, Article XXIV:8(a) specifically excludes measures adopted consistently
with Article XX from the obligation to liberalize "sub stantially all the trade" within a customs union.

131Third participant's submission of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and
Matsu, para. 7.
132Ibid., para. 13.
133Ibid., para. 15.

The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu also highlights that the
objectives of Articles XX and XXIV "are diametrically opposed".
134
109. The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Pe nghu, Kinmen, and Matsu also argues that the
Panel erred in finding that the MERCOSUR exempti on did not constitute "a disguised restriction on
international trade" under the chapeau of Article XX, "because the amount of imported retreaded tyres
did not increase 'significantly' following [its] introduction". 135 The chapeau of Article XX does not
require evidence of a disruption in trade flows fo r a complainant to make a case that a disguised
restriction exists. The "logic" 136 of the Appellate Body's rulings in US – Shrimp and in US –
Gambling was "to discourage a [WTO] Member from adop ting a measure having an adverse effect on
international trade." 137 Therefore, a disguised restriction on international trade should be found to
exist when there is a possibility that it does exist. The Panel's test of "significance", in contrast,
clearly lacked a legal basis.
110. The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Pe nghu, Kinmen, and Matsu adds that, as a result
of the MERCOSUR exemption, "the trade flow of retreaded tyres to Brazil has been changed in a
manner benefiting other MERCOSUR countries" 138, because these countries are now "able to import
used tyres from non-MERCOSUR countries in the firs t place, retread them locally, and finally
re-export retreaded tyres to Brazil." 139 The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen,
and Matsu concludes that internationa l trade in retreaded tyres will be distorted, and that a disguised
restriction results from such trade distortion.
111. The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Pe nghu, Kinmen, and Matsu further suggests that
the Panel's findings in this dispute might cause confusion for WTO Members when assessing whether
a specific measure is WTO-consistent, create a te ndency for WTO Members to initiate a multiplicity
of WTO disputes, and undermine the security and pr edictability needed to conduct future trade.
These problems stem from the Panel's failure to provid e clear criteria for determining what volume of
imports or increase in import volumes would be c onsidered "significant". Moreover, since import
volumes are generally determined by supply and de mand, the Panel's significance test, if adopted,
would make it difficult for WTO Members, who do not have the power to control trade flows into

134Third participant's submission of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and
Matsu, para. 21.
136Ibid., para. 26.
137Ibid. (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, paras. 166-184; and Appellate Body Report,
US – Gambling, para. 369).
138Ibid., para. 27.

their domestic markets, to adopt WTO-consistent measures or to eliminate WTO-inconsistent
measures.
6. United States
112. The United States agrees with the European Co mmunities that the manner in which the Panel
considered the MERCOSUR exemption in its Artic le XX analysis was erroneous in a number of
respects. First, the Panel erred in disreg arding the MERCOSUR exemption when determining
whether the Import Ban was "necessary" within th e meaning of Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994.
The MERCOSUR exemption is contained in Portaria SECEX 14/2004 140, and this was the measure
found by the Panel to be inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. For this reason, the Panel
was obliged to determine whether Brazil had est ablished that the same measure—Portaria SECEX
14/2004—was justified under Article XX, includi ng by considering the aspect of the MERCOSUR
exemption in its necessity analysis. The United St ates highlights that a single sentence of Portaria
SECEX 14/2004 contains both the Import Ban and the MERCOSUR exemption. According to the
United States, the Panel should have considered, in determining the contribution of the measure to the
ends pursued by it, the fact that retreaded tyr es continue to be imported due to the MERCOSUR
exemption, and its failure to do so constituted a breach of Article 11 of the DSU.
113. However, the United States disagrees with the European Communities' apparent position that
the contribution of the measure to the ends pursu ed must be evaluated quantitatively, or that
demonstrating a contribution requires "verifiable" evidence of whether the measure "actually"
contributed to the ends pursued.
141 Article XX(b) does not contain a requirement to quantify
"necessity", and both quantitative and qualitative evidence may be releva nt to the necessity analysis,
including the analysis of the contribution of the measure to the ends pursued.
114. The United States also argues that the Panel erred in finding that the MERCOSUR exemption
did not result in the Import Ban being applied in a manner that constitutes "arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination" or "a disguised restriction on in ternational trade", contrary to the chapeau of
Article XX. First, the Panel erred in basing its finding that the MERCOSUR exemption did not
constitute arbitrary discrimination on the fact that the exemption was adopted to comply with a ruling
issued by a MERCOSUR tribunal. The ruling did not prescribe any specific implementation action
and, more fundamentally, the United States objects to the Panel's reference to Article XXIV in the
context of the MERCOSUR ruling. The United States explains that "Article XXIV does not

140See supra, footnote 3.
141United States' third participant's submission, para. 6 (referring to European Communities' appellant's
submission, paras. 172-174).

'expressly recognize' any and all frameworks for [WTO] Members to discriminate in favor of
partners in customs unions or free trade areas, but rather recognizes particular agreements that meet
the conditions specified therein."
142 The Panel could not have properly concluded that MERCOSUR
is a type of agreement expressly recognized in Article XXIV, because it made no findings as to
whether MERCOSUR meets the terms of Article XXIV.
115. Secondly, the United States maintains that the Panel erred in relying on the number of
retreaded tyres imported into Brazil from MERCOSU R countries as a basis for its finding that the
MERCOSUR exemption did not constitute "unjustifiable discrimination" or "a disguised restriction on
international trade" under the chapeau of Article XX. The Panel found that the volume of imports
from MERCOSUR countries appears not to have been "significant", but failed to offer any
meaningful analysis of what volume would be "si gnificant". The United States points out that import
volumes may change, and that simple reliance on a figure "appears a dubious basis for the Panel's
conclusion that the permitted imports will not 'undermine' the objective of the measure."143 According
to the United States, the chapeau of Article XX requires panels to evaluate whether unjustifiable
discrimination or a disguised restriction on intern ational trade exists, and not simply whether the
discrimination that exists undermines the objective of the measure.
116. Finally, should the Appellate Body reach the European Communities' conditional appeal and
decide to rule on the European Communities' sepa rate claims that the MERCOSUR exemption is
inconsistent with Articles I:1 and XIII:1 of the GATT 1994, the United States submits that Brazil may
not rely on Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 as a defence. MERCOSUR has not been notified under
Article XXIV as a customs union, as required by Ar ticle XXIV:7 of the GATT 1994. According to
the United States, failure to notify a customs union under Article XXIV:7 does not merely render a
customs union inconsistent with that paragra ph; rather, pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Understanding
on the Interpretation of Article XXIV of th e General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the
"Understanding on Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 "), such a customs union is not consistent with
Article XXIV as a whole. Members that opt not to subject their customs union to the procedures set
out in Article XXIV and the Understanding on Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 or its interpretation
are not entitled to invoke that provision as a defe nce. Moreover, the Un ited States notes that
MERCOSUR countries notified MERCOSUR pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the GATT 1979 Decision
on Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reci procity and Fuller Participation of Developing
Countries (the "Enabling Clause") 144 rather than under Article XXIV:7(a) of the GATT 1994. The

142United States' third participant's submission, para. 9. (original emphasis)
143Ibid., para. 11.
144L/4903, 28 November 1979, BISD 26S/203.

United States argues that regional arrangements as defined under Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Enabling
Clause have different characteristics and are subject to different obligations than customs unions and
free trade areas covered by Article XXIV.

III. Issues Raised in This Appeal
117. The following issues are raised in this appeal:
(a) with respect to the Panel's analysis of "necessity" within the meaning of
Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994:
(i) whether the Panel erred in finding th at the Import Ban is "necessary" to
protect human or animal life or health145; and
(ii) whether the Panel breached its duty under Article 11 of the DSU to make an
objective assessment of the facts;
(b) with respect to the Panel's interpretation and application of the chapeau of Article XX
of the GATT 1994:
(i) whether the Panel erred in finding that the MERCOSUR exemption has not
resulted in the Import Ban being applied in a manner that is inconsistent with
the chapeau146; and
(ii) whether the Panel erred in its analysis of whether imports of used tyres under
court injunctions have resulted in th e Import Ban being applied in a manner
that is inconsistent with the chapeau; and
(c) if the Appellate Body does not find that the MERCOSUR exemption results in the
Import Ban being applied in a manner that is inconsistent with the chapeau of
Article XX of the GATT 1994, then:
(i) whether the Panel erred in exercising judicial economy in relation to the
European Communities' separate claim that the MERCOSUR exemption is
inconsistent with Articles I:1 and XIII:1 of the GATT 1994; and, if so

145Panel Report, para. 7.215.
146Ibid., paras. 7.289 and 7.354.

(ii) whether the MERCOSUR exemption is inconsistent with Articles I:1
and XIII:1 and is not justified under Ar ticle XXIV or Article XX(d) of the
GATT 1994.

IV. Background and the Measure at Issue
A. Factual Background
118. Tyres are an integral component in passenger car s, lorries, and airplanes and, as such, their
use is widespread in modern soci ety. New passenger cars are typica lly sold with new tyres. When
tyres need to be replaced, consumers in some countries
147 may have a choice between new tyres or
"retreaded" tyres. This dispute concerns the latter category of tyres. 148 Retreaded tyres are used tyres
that have been reconditioned for further use by stripping the worn tread from the skeleton (casing) and
replacing it with new material in the form of a new tread, and sometimes with new material also
covering parts or all of the sidewalls. 149 Retreaded tyres can be produced through different methods,
one of which is called "remoulding".150
119. At the end of their useful life 151, tyres become waste, the accumulation of which is associated
with risks to human, animal, and plant life and health. 152 Specific risks to human life and health
include:

147We note that Brazil is not the only WTO Member that has adopted a ban on imports of retreaded
tyres. According to Brazil, countries that have restricted imports of used and retreaded tyres include Argentina,
Bangladesh, Bahrain, Nigeria, Pakistan, Thailand, and Venezuela. (Brazil's first submission to the Panel,
para. 67) At the oral hearing, Brazil identified the following as countries that ban imports of retreaded tyres:
Argentina, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Thailand, Tunisia, and Venezuela.
148Retreaded tyres are classified in the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity
Description and Coding System , done at Brussels, 14 June 1983, under subheadings 4012.11 (motor cars),
4012.12 (buses and lorries), 4012.13 (aircraft), and 4012.19 (other types). (Panel Report, para. 2.4)
149Panel Report, para. 2.1.
150"Remoulding" consists of replacing the tread and the sidewall including all or part of the lower area
of the tyre. The other two methods of retreading are "top-capping", which consists of replacing only the tread,
and "re-capping", which entails replacing the tread and part of the sidewall. (Ibid., para. 2.2)
151The Panel assumed that, on average, a tyre—wheth er new or retreaded—can be used on a passenger
car for five years before it becomes a used tyre. (Ibid., para. 7.128)
152Ibid., para. 7.109.

(i) the transmission of dengue, yellow fever and malaria through
mosquitoes which use tyres as breeding grounds; and (ii) the
exposure of human beings to toxic emissions caused by tyre fires
which may cause loss of short-term memory, learning disabilities,
immune system suppression, cardiovascular problems, but also
cancer, premature mortality, reduced lung function, suppression of
the immune system, respiratory effects, heart and chest problems.
 153
Risks to animal and plant life and health include: "(i) the exposure of animals and plants to toxic
emissions caused by tyre fires; and (ii) the transmission of a mosquito-borne disease (dengue) to
animals."154
120. Governments take actions to minimize the adverse effects of waste tyres. Policies to address
"waste" include preventive measures aiming at reducing the generation of additional waste tyres 155, as
well as remedial measures aimed at managing and di sposing of tyres that can no longer be used or
retreaded, such as landfilling, stockpiling, the incineration of waste tyres, and material recycling.
121. The Panel observed that the parties to this dispute have not suggested that retreaded tyres used
on vehicles pose any particular risks compared to new tyres, provided that they comply with
appropriate safety standards. Various internationa l standards exist in relation to retreaded tyres,
including, for example, the norm stipulating that passenger car tyres may be retreaded only once. 156
One important difference between new and retreaded tyres is that the latter have a shorter lifespan and
therefore reach the stage of being waste earlier.157
B. The Measure at Issue
122. Article 40 of Portaria No. 14 of the Secretaria de Comércio Exterior ("SECEX") (Secretariat
of Foreign Trade of the Brazilian Ministry of De velopment, Industry, and Foreign Trade), dated
17 November 2004 ("Portaria SECEX 14/2004")158 reads as follows:

153Panel Report, para. 7.109. See also ibid., paras. 7.53-7.83.
154Ibid., para. 7.112.
155See the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.100 of its Report, that "policies to address 'waste' by non-
generation of additional waste are a generally recognized means of addressing waste management issues", as
well as footnote 1170 thereto, detailing the evidence on which the Panel relied in reaching this conclusion.
156Ibid., para. 2.3.
157Ibid., paras. 7.129 and 7.130.
158Exhibits BRA-84 and EC-29 submitted by Brazil a nd the European Communities, respectively, to
the Panel. We note that, in Novemb er 2006, Article 40 of Portaria SECEX 14/2004 was replaced by Article 41
of Portaria SECEX No. 35 dated 24 November 2006, the te xt of which is identical to that of Article 40 of
Portaria SECEX 14/2004. (European Communities' appellant's submission, para. 145 and footnote 18 thereto)

Article 40 – An import license will not be granted for retreaded tyres
and used tyres, whether as a consumer product or feedstock,
classified under NCM code 4012, except for remoulded tyres,
classified under NCM codes 4012.11.00, 4012.12.00, 4012.13.00 and
4012.19.00, originating and proceed ing from the Mercosur Member
States under the Economic Complementation Agreement No. 18.
159
Article 40 of Portaria SECEX 14/2004 contains three main elements: (i) an import ban on retreaded
tyres (the "Import Ban")160; (ii) an import ban on used tyres; and (iii) an exemption from the Import
Ban of imports of certain retreaded tyres fro m other countries of the Mercado Común del Sur
("MERCOSUR") (Southern Common Market), which h as been referred to in this dispute as the
"MERCOSUR exemption".161 The MERCOSUR exemption did not fo rm part of previous regulations
prohibiting the importation of retreaded tyres, not ably Portaria SECEX No. 8 of 25 September 2000
("Portaria SECEX 8/2000") 162, but was introduced as a result of a ruling issued by a MERCOSUR
arbitral tribunal.163
123. This dispute concerns the Import Ban and the MERCOSUR exemption in Article 40 of
Portaria SECEX 14/2004, but not the import ban on used tyres. 164 In its request for the establishment
of a panel 165, the European Communities identified the Import Ban and the MERCOSUR exemption
as distinct measures, and made separate claims against each of these measures. The European
Communities claimed that the Import Ban was inconsis tent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, and

159See Panel Report, para. 2.7.
160Throughout this Report, reference to the "Import Ban" shall be understood as referring only to the
import ban on retreaded tyres. It therefore does not include the MERCOSUR exemption, despite the fact that
this exemption is contained in the same legal instrument as the Import Ban, that is, Article 40 of Portaria
SECEX 14/2004.
161The MERCOSUR exemption applies exclusively to remoulded tyres, a subcategory of retreaded
tyres, which result from the process of replacing the tread and the sidewall, including all or part of the lower
area of the tyre. (See Panel Report, para. 2.74 and footnote 1440 to para. 7.265)
162Exhibits BRA-71 and EC-26 submitted by Brazil a nd the European Communities, respectively, to
the Panel. See also Panel Report, para. 2.8.
163Following the adoption of Portaria SECEX 8/2000, Uruguay requested, on 27 August 2001, the
initiation of arbitral proceedings within MERCOSUR. Uruguay alleged that Portaria SECEX 8/2000 constituted
a new restriction of commerce between MERCOSUR co untries, which was incompatible with Brazil's
obligations under MERCOSUR. In its ruling of 9 Januar y 2002, the arbitral tribunal found that the Brazilian
measure was incompatible with MERCOSUR Decision CMC No. 22 of 29 June 2000, which obliges
MERCOSUR countries not to introduce new inter se restrictions of commerce. (See Panel Report, para. 2.13;
see also Exhibits BRA-103 and EC-40 submitted by Brazil and the European Communities, respectively, to the
Panel) Following the arbitral awar d, Brazil enacted Portaria SECEX No. 2 of 8 March 2002, which eliminated
the import ban for remoulded tyres originating in other MERCOSUR countries. (See Panel Report, para. 2.14;
see also Exhibit BRA-78 submitted by Brazil to the Panel; see also Exhibit EC-41 submitted by the European
Communities to the Panel) This exemption was incorporated into Article 40 of Portaria SECEX 14/2004.
164The European Communities confirmed, in response to questioning at the oral hearing, that it has not
challenged the ban on the import of used tyres contained in Article 40 of Portaria SECEX 14/2004.
165WT/DS332/4, 18 November 2005. See also European Communities' first written submission to the
Panel, para. 47.

could not be justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994. 166 The European Communities also made
distinct claims that the MERCOSUR exemption was inconsistent with Article I:1 and Article XIII:1
of the GATT 1994, and could not be justified unde r either Article XXIV:5 of the GATT 1994 or the
Enabling Clause.167 In comments made during the interim review, Brazil stated that it had treated the
Import Ban and the MERCOSUR exemption as two separate measures contained in the same legal
instrument.
168
124. Following the approach of the parties, the Pa nel analyzed the claim made against the Import
Ban separately from the claims made against the MERCOSUR exemption. The Panel found the
Import Ban to be inconsistent w ith Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. 169 It then turned to Brazil's
related defence under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994, stating that its analysis of Brazil's
justification of the violation should focus also on the Import Ban, because this was the "specific
measure" that had been found to be inconsistent with Article XI:1.170 Thus, according to the Panel, its
analysis of the necessity of that specific measure should not have taken account of "elements
extraneous to the measure itself" or of situations in which the Import Ban "does not apply (i.e. the
exemption of MERCOSUR imports)". 171 The Panel recognized, nonetheless, that "the MERCOSUR
exemption is foreseen in the very legal instrument containing the import ban". 172 It then included the
MERCOSUR exemption in its analysis of the chap eau of Article XX, because the chapeau involves
consideration of the manner in which the specific measure to be justified (in this case, the Import Ban)
is applied.
125. On appeal, the European Communities indicated , in response to questioning at the oral
hearing, that the Import Ban and the MERCOSUR exemption are two aspects of a single measure—
that is, Article 40 of Portaria SECEX 14/2004—and that this provision is the measure at issue.
Notwithstanding this position, the European Comm unities does not appeal the Panel's analytical
approach. More specifically, the European Comm unities does not contend that the Panel erred in

166See, for instance, European Communities' first written submission to the Panel, paras. 89-168.
167Supra, footnote 144. See also European Communities' first written submission to the Panel,
paras. 193-222.
168Panel Report, para. 6.17.
169The Panel found that the prohibition of the issuan ce of import licences for retreaded tyres has the
effect of prohibiting the importation of retreaded tyres, an d is thus inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT
1994. (Ibid., paras. 7.14, 7.15, and 7.34) In making the finding that Portaria SECEX 14/2004 is inconsistent
with Article XI:1, the Panel focused on the import pr ohibition; its reasoning reflects the notion that an
exemption from an import ban by its nature does not constitute a prohibition or restriction.
170Ibid., para. 7.106.
171Ibid., para. 7.107. (footnote omitted)
172Ibid., para. 7.237; see also para. 6.19.

identifying and separately treating as two distinct matters before it: a claim relating to the Import
Ban; and a claim concerning the discrimination introduced by the MERCOSUR exemption.
126. We observe, nonetheless, that the Panel might have opted for a more holistic approach to the
measure at issue by examining the two elements of Article 40 of Portaria SECEX 14/2004 that relate
to retreaded tyres together. The Panel could, under such an approach, have analyzed whether the
Import Ban in combination with the MERCOSUR exem ption violated Article XI:1, and whether that
combined measure, or the resulting partial import ban, could be considered "necessary" within the
meaning of Article XX(b).
173
127. Yet, the Panel's approach reflects the manner in which the European Communities formulated
its claims to the Panel, and the fact that the ME RCOSUR exemption was not part of the original ban
on the importation of retreaded tyres adopted by Brazil (Portaria SECEX 8/2000), but was only
introduced following a ruling in 2002 by a MERCOSU R arbitral tribunal. These considerations
prompt us to examine the issues appealed on the b asis of the conceptual approach adopted by the
Panel in defining the scope of the measure at issu e, which, as indicated above, has not specifically
been appealed by the European Communities.
C. Related Measures
128. In addition to the Import Ban, Brazil has adopted a variety of other measures which were also
challenged or discussed before the Panel. Althoug h none of these measures are directly at issue in
this appeal, we consider it useful to identify them briefly.
129. Presidential Decree 3.179, as amended 174, provides sanctions applicable to conduct and
activities harmful to the environment, and othe r provisions, and its Article 47-A subjects the
importation, as well as the marketing, transportation, storage, keeping or warehousing, of imported
used and retreaded tyres to a fine of R$400/unit.
130. Resolution No. 258 of 26 August 1999 of the Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente
("CONAMA") (National Council for the Environment of the Ministry of the Environment)
("CONAMA Resolution 258/1999")
175, as amended by CONAMA Resolution No. 301 of 21 March

173Indeed, two of the third participants in this a ppeal—Australia and the United States—suggest that
the Panel should have adopted such an approach. (Australia's third participant's submission, paras. 4 and 5;
United States' third participant's submission, para. 5)
174See supra, footnote 5.
175Exhibits BRA-4 and EC-47 submitted by Brazil and by the European Communities, respectively, to
the Panel.

2002176, created a collection and disposal scheme that makes it mandatory for domestic manufacturers
of new tyres and tyre importers to provide for the safe disposal of waste tyres in specified
proportions.177 CONAMA Resolution 258/1999, as amended in 2002, aims to ensure the
environmentally appropriate final disposal of unusab le tyres. Also, by exempting domestic retreaders
from disposal obligations as long as they process tyres consumed within Brazil 178, CONAMA
Resolution 258/1999, as amended in 2002, seeks to encourage Brazilia n retreaders to retread more
domestically used tyres.
131. Brazilian states have also enacted measures aiming at reducing risks arising from the
accumulation of waste tyres. Law 12.114 of the State of Rio Grande do Sul prohibits the
commercialization of imported used tyres within its territory, which includes imported retreaded tyres,
as well as retreaded tyres made in Brazil from imported casings.
179 A 2005 amendment to that law
allows the importation and marketing of imported retreaded tyres provided that the importer proves
that it has destroyed ten used tyres in Brazil for ev ery retreaded tyre imported. In the case of imports
of used tyre casings, however, the destruction of on ly one used tyre per imported tyre is required. 180
The State of Paraná has adopted Paraná Rodando Limpo, a voluntary programme to collect, inter alia,
all existing unusable tyres currently discarded throughout the territory of Paraná.181
132. Finally, we note that, notwithstanding the impor t ban on used tyres contained in Article 40 of
Portaria SECEX 14/2004, a number of Brazilian re treaders have sought, and obtained, injunctions
allowing them to import used tyre casings in or der to manufacture retreaded tyres from those used
tyres.182 Although the Brazilian government has, with in the Brazilian domestic legal system, opposed
these injunctions, it has had mixed results in its effort s to prevent the grant, or obtaining the reversal,
of court injunctions for the importation of used tyres.183

176Exhibit BRA-68 submitted by Brazil to the Panel.
177See para. 154 and footnote 253 thereto of this Report.
178Panel Report, para. 7.137.
179Ibid., para. 2.11.
180Ibid., para. 2.12.
181Ibid., paras. 7.66, 7.174, 7.175, and 7.178.
182Ibid., paras. 7.241 and 7.92-7.305.
183Ibid., para. 7.304.

V. The Panel's Analysis of the Necessity of the Import Ban
A. The Panel's Necessity Analysis under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994
133. The first legal issue raised by the European Communities' appeal relates to the Panel's finding
that the Import Ban is "necessary" within the meaning of Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994.
184 The
European Communities challenges thre e specific aspects of the Panel's analysis under Article XX(b).
First, the European Communities contends that the Panel applied an "erroneous legal standard" 185 in
assessing the contribution of the Import Ban to the reali zation of the ends pursued by it, and that it did
not properly weigh this contribution in its analysis of the necessity of the Import Ban. Secondly, the
European Communities submits that the Panel did not define correctly the alternatives to the Import
Ban and erred in excluding possible altern atives proposed by the European Communities.
186 Thirdly,
the European Communities argues that, in its analysis under Article XX(b), the Panel did not carry out
a proper, if any, weighing and balancing of the relevant factors. 187 We will examine these contentions
of the European Communities in turn.
1. The Panel's Analysis of the Contribution of the Import Ban to the
Achievement of Its Objective
134. In the analysis of the contribution of the Impor t Ban to the achievement of its objective, the
Panel first recalled its previous findings that, th rough the Import Ban, Brazil pursued the objective of
reducing exposure to the risks to human, anim al, and plant life and health arising from the
accumulation of waste tyres, and that such polic y fell within the range of policies covered by
paragraph (b) of Article XX of the GATT 1994. 188 The Panel also found that Brazil's chosen level of
protection is the "reduction of the risks of waste tyre accumulation to the maximum extent
possible".
189 In analyzing whether the Import Ban "contributes to the realization of the policy
pursued, i.e. the protection of human, animal and plant life and health from the risks posed by the
accumulation of waste tyres" 190, the Panel examined two questions. First, the Panel sought to assess
whether the Import Ban can contribute to the reduction in the number of waste tyres generated in
Brazil. Secondly, the Panel sought to evaluate wh ether a reduction in the nu mber of waste tyres can

184Panel Report, para. 7.215.
186Ibid., para. 209.
187Ibid., para. 285.
188Panel Report, para. 7.115.
189Ibid., para. 7.108. (footnote omitted)
190Ibid., para. 7.115.

contribute to the reduction of the risks to human, an imal, and plant life and health arising from waste
tyres.191
135. Regarding the first question, the Panel noted Br azil's explanation that the Import Ban would
contribute to the achievement of the objective of reducing the number of waste tyres if imported
retreaded tyres would be replaced either with domes tically retreaded tyres made from tyres used in
Brazil, or with new tyres capable of future retreading. The Panel began by examining the replacement
of imported retreaded tyres with new tyres on Brazil's market. 192 The Panel determined that "all types
of retreaded tyres (i.e. for passenger car, bus, truck and aircraft) have by definition a shorter lifespan
than new tyres."193 Accordingly, the Panel reasoned that "an import ban on retreaded tyres may lead
to a reduction in the total number of waste tyres because imported retreaded tyres may be substituted
for by new tyres which have a longer lifespan." 194 The Panel verified next whether there is a link
between the replacement of imported retreaded tyres with domestically retreaded tyres and a reduction
in the number of waste tyres in Brazil.195 If retreaded tyres are manufactured in Brazil from tyres used
in Brazil, the retreading of these used tyres cont ributes to the reduction of the accumulation of waste
tyres in Brazil by "giving a second life to some used tyres, which otherwise would have become waste
immediately after their first and only life." 196 The Panel added that "an import ban on retreaded tyres
can encourage domestic retreaders to retread more domestic used tyres than they might have done
otherwise"197, because it "compel[s] consumers of imported retreaded tyres to switch either to
retreaded tyres produced domestically or to new tyres." 198 The Panel then assessed whether domestic
used tyres can be retreaded in Brazil. On the basi s of the evidence provided by the parties, the Panel
found that "at least some domestic used tyres are being retreaded in Brazil" 199, that Brazil "has the
production capacity to retread domestic used tyres" 200, and that new tyres sold in Brazil have the
potential to be retreaded. 201 The Panel also observed that "A rticle 40 of Portaria SECEX 14/2004
bans the importation of both used and retreaded tyres to Brazil" and that "the import ban on used tyres
supports the effectiveness of the import ban on re treaded tyres regarding the reduction of waste

191Panel Report, para. 7.122.
192Ibid., paras. 7.126-7.130.
193Ibid., para. 7.130.
194Ibid.
195Ibid., para. 7.132.
196Ibid., para. 7.133.
197Ibid., para. 7.134. (footnote omitted)
198Ibid.
199Ibid., para. 7.136.
200Ibid., para. 7.142.
201Ibid., para. 7.137.

tyres."
202 The Panel concluded that the Import Ban "is capable of contributing to the reduction of the
overall amount of waste tyres generated in Brazil."203
136. The Panel then turned to the question of whether the reduction in the number of waste tyres
would contribute to a reduction of the risks to human , animal, and plant life and health arising from
waste tyres. For the Panel, "the very essence of the problem is the actual accumulation of waste in
and of itself."
204 The Panel added that "[t]o the extent th at this accumulation has been demonstrated
to be associated with the occurren ce of the risks at issue, including the providi ng of fertile breeding
grounds for the vectors of these diseases, a reduc tion in this accumulation, even if it does not
eliminate it, can reasonably be expected to constitute a step towards the reduction of the occurrence of
the diseases and the tyre fires."205 The Panel concluded that:
... the prohibition on the importation of retreaded tyres is capable of
making a contribution to the objective pursued by Brazil, in that it
can lead to a reduction in the overall number of waste tyres generated
in Brazil, which in turn can redu ce the potential for exposure to the
specific risks to human, animal, plant life and health that Brazil seeks
to address.
206
137. According to the European Communities, the Pane l, in its assessment of the contribution of
the Import Ban to the realization of the ends pursu ed by it, referred only to the potential contribution
this measure might make.207 The European Communities argues th at the Panel applied an "erroneous
legal standard" 208 in so doing, and that the Panel s hould have sought "to establish the actual
contribution of the measure to its stated goa ls, and the importance of this contribution". 209 For the
European Communities, the Panel was required to determine the extent to which the Import Ban
makes a contribution to the achievement of its stated objective because, otherwise, it is not possible to
weigh and balance properly this contribution against other relevant factors. 210 Accordingly, the
European Communities contends, the Panel erred by not quantifying the reduction of waste tyres
resulting from the Import Ban. 211 For the European Communities, "[t]he very indirect nature of the

202Panel Report, para. 7.139.
203Ibid., para. 7.142.
204Ibid., para. 7.146.
205Ibid.
206Ibid., para. 7.148.
208Ibid., para. 166.
209Ibid., para. 167.
210Ibid., para. 171.
211Ibid., para. 174.

alleged risks attributed to imported retreaded ty res should have called for a particularly diligent
examination of the contribution made by the ban to the reduction of the number of the waste tyres
arising in Brazil."212
138. Brazil counters that the Panel correctly assessed the contribution of the Import Ban to the
achievement of its objective. Brazil argues that actual contribution is properly assessed under the
chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994, which fo cuses on the application of the measure. Brazil
asserts further that the Appellate Body expressly recognized, in EC – Asbestos , that "a risk may be
evaluated either in quantitative or qualitative terms" 213 and, therefore, the Panel was under no
obligation to quantify the Import Ban's contribution to the reduction in waste tyre volumes.
139. We begin by recalling that the analysis of a measure under Article XX of the GATT 1994 is
two-tiered.214 First, a panel must examine whether the measure falls under at least one of the ten
exceptions listed under Article XX. 215 Secondly, the question of whether the measure at issue
satisfies the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX must be considered.
140. We note at the outset that the participants do not dispute that it is within the authority of a
WTO Member to set the public health or environmental objectives it seeks to achieve216, as well as the
level of protection that it wants to obtain, through the measure or the policy it chooses to adopt.217
141. Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994 refers to me asures "necessary to protect human, animal or
plant life or health". The term "necessary" is mentioned not only in Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994,
but also in Articles XX(a) and XX(d) of the GATT 1994, as well as in Article XIV(a), (b), and (c) of
the GATS. In Korea – Various Measures on Beef , the Appellate Body underscored that "the word
'necessary' is not limited to that which is 'indispensable'".218 The Appellate Body added:

213Brazil's appellee's submission, para. 81 (quoting Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 167).
(emphasis added by Brazil)
214Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline , p. 22, DSR 1996:I, 3, at 20. See also Appellate Body
Report, Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes, para. 64.
215In other words, the policy objective of the measure at issue must fall under the range of policies
covered by the paragraphs of Article XX of the GATT 1994. (See, for instance, Appellate Body Report, US –
Shrimp, para. 149)
216Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 30, DSR 1996:I, 3, at 28.
218Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 161.

Measures which are indispensable or of absolute necessity or
inevitable to secure compliance certainly fulfil the requirements of
Article XX(d). But other measures, too, may fall within the ambit of
this exception. As used in Ar ticle XX(d), the term "necessary"
refers, in our view, to a range of degrees of necessity. At one end of
this continuum lies "necessary" understood as "indispensable"; at the
other end, is "necessary" taken to mean as "making a contribution
to." We consider that a "necessary" measure is, in this continuum,
located significantly closer to the pole of "indispensable" than to the
opposite pole of simply "making a contribution to".
219 (footnote
omitted)
142. In Korea – Various Measures on Beef , the Appellate Body explained that determining
whether a measure is "necessary" within the meaning of Article XX(d):
... involves in every case a process of weighing and balancing a series
of factors which prominently include the contribution made by the
compliance measure to the enforcement of the law or regulation at
issue, the importance of the common interests or values protected by
that law or regulation, and the accompanying impact of the law or
regulation on imports or exports.
220
143. In US – Gambling , the Appellate Body addressed the "necessity" test in the context of
Article XIV of the GATS. The Appellate Body stated that the weighing and balancing process
inherent in the necessity analysis "begins with an assessment of the 'relative importance' of the
interests or values furthered by the challenged measure"
221, and also involves an assessment of other
factors, which will usually include "the contributio n of the measure to the realization of the ends
pursued by it" and "the restrictive impact of the measure on international commerce".222
144. It is against this background that we must determine whether the Panel erred in assessing the
contribution of the Import Ban to the realization of the objective pursued by it, and in the manner in
which it weighed this contribution in its analysis of the necessity of the Import Ban. We begin by
identifying the objective pursued by the Import Ban. The Panel found that the objective of the Import
Ban is the reduction of the "exposure to the risks to human, animal or plant life or health arising from
the accumulation of waste tyres" 223, and noted that "few interests are more 'vital' and 'important' than

219Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 161.
220Ibid., para. 164.
221Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, para. 306. (footnote omitted)
222Ibid. In Korea – Various Measures on Beef , the Appellate Body observed that "[a] measure with a
relatively slight impact upon imported products might more easily be considered as 'necessary' than a measure
with intense or broader restrictive effects." (Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef ,
para. 163)
223Panel Report, para. 7.102.

protecting human beings from health risks, a nd that protecting the environment is no less
important."224 The Panel also observed that "Brazil's cho sen level of protection is the reduction of the
risks of waste tyre accumulation to the maximum extent possible." 225 Regarding the trade
restrictiveness of the measure, the Panel noted th at it is "as trade-restrictive as can be, as far as
retreaded tyres from non-MERCOSUR countries are concer ned, since it aims to halt completely their
entry into Brazil."226
145. We turn to the methodology used by the Panel in analyzing the contribution of the Import Ban
to the achievement of its objective. Such a contri bution exists when there is a genuine relationship of
ends and means between the objective pursued and the measure at issue. The selection of a
methodology to assess a measure's contribution is a f unction of the nature of the risk, the objective
pursued, and the level of protection sought. It u ltimately also depends on the nature, quantity, and
quality of evidence existing at the time the analysis is made. Because the Panel, as the trier of the
facts, is in a position to evaluate these circumstan ces, it should enjoy a certain latitude in designing
the appropriate methodology to use and deciding how to structure or organize the analysis of the
contribution of the measure at issue to the realizati on of the ends pursued by it. This latitude is not,
however, boundless. Indeed, a panel must analyze th e contribution of the measure at issue to the
realization of the ends pursued by it in accordance with the requirements of Article XX of the GATT
1994 and Article 11 of the DSU.
146. We note that the Panel chose to conduct a qua litative analysis of the contribution of the
Import Ban to the achievement of its objective.
227 In previous cases, the Appellate Body has not
established a requirement that su ch a contribution be quantified. 228 To the contrary, in EC –
Asbestos, the Appellate Body emphasized that there is "no requirement under Article XX(b) of the
GATT 1994 to quantify, as such, the risk to human life or health".229 In other words, "[a] risk may be
evaluated either in quantitative or qualitative terms."230 Although the reference by the Appellate Body

225Ibid. (footnote omitted)
226Ibid., para. 7.114.
227Ibid., para. 7.118.
228Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef , paras. 163 and 164; Appellate Body
Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 172; Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, para. 306; Appellate Body Report,
Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes, para. 70.
229Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 167. (original emphasis; footnote omitted)
230Ibid.

to the quantification of a risk is not the same as the quantification of the contribution of a measure to
the realization of the objective pursued by it (which could be, as it is in this case, the reduction of a
risk), it appears to us that the same line of reasoni ng applies to the analysis of the contribution, which
can be done either in quantitative or in qualitative terms.
147. Accordingly, we do not accept the European Communities' contention that the Panel was
under an obligation to quantify the contribution of the Import Ban to the reduction in the number of
waste tyres and to determine the number of waste tyres that would be reduced as a result of the Import
Ban.
231 In our view, the Panel's choice of a qualitativ e analysis was within the bounds of the latitude
it enjoys in choosing a methodology for the analysis of the contribution.
148. The Panel analyzed the contribution of the Import Ban to the achievement of its objective in a
coherent sequence. It examined first the impact of the replacement of imported retreaded tyres with
new tyres on the reduction of waste. Secondly, th e Panel sought to determine whether imported
retreaded tyres would be replaced with domestically retreaded tyres, which led it to examine whether
domestic used tyres can be and are being retreaded in Brazil. Thirdly, it considered whether the
reduction in the number of waste tyres would contri bute to a reduction of the risks to human, animal,
and plant life and health.
149. The Panel's analysis was not only directed at an assessment of the current situation and the
immediate effects of the Import Ban on the reduction of the exposure to the targeted risks. The
Panel's approach also focused on evaluating the extent to which the Import Ban is likely to result in a
reduction of the exposure to these risks. 232 In the course of its reasoning, the Panel made and tested
some key hypotheses, including: that imported retreaded tyres are being replaced with new tyres 233
and domestically retreaded tyres 234; that some proportion of domestic used tyres are retreadable and
are being retreaded 235; that Brazil introduced a number of measures to facilitate the access of

232In the Panel's view, "it cannot be reasonably expect ed that the specific meas ure under consideration
would entirely eliminate the ri sk ... or even that its impact on the actual reduction of the incidence of the
diseases at issue would manifest itself very rapidly after the enactment of the measure." (Panel Report,
para. 7.145)
233Ibid., para. 7.130.
234Ibid., paras. 7.133-7.135.
235Ibid., para. 7.136.

domestic retreaders to good-quality used tyres 236; that more automotive inspections in Brazil lead to
an increase in the number of retreadable used tyres 237; and that Brazil has the production capacity to
retread such tyres. 238 The Panel sought to verify these hypotheses on the basis of the evidence
adduced by the parties and found them to be logically sound and supported by sufficient evidence. In
the next Section, we will examine the European Co mmunities' claim that the Panel failed to make an
objective assessment of the facts with respect to the verification of some of these hypotheses.
Assuming, for the time being, that the Panel asses sed the facts in accordance with Article 11 of the
DSU, it appears to us that the Panel's analysis s upports its conclusion that the Import Ban is capable
of making a contribution and can result in a reduction of exposure to the targeted risks.
239 We have
now to determine whether this was sufficient to c onclude that the Import Ban is "necessary" within
the meaning of Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994.
150. As the Panel recognized, an import ban is "by design as trade-restrictive as can be". 240 We
agree with the Panel that there may be circum stances where such a measure can nevertheless be
necessary, within the meaning of Article XX(b). We also recall that, in Korea – Various Measures on
Beef, the Appellate Body indicated that "the word 'necessary' is not limited to that which is
'indispensable'".241 Having said that, when a measure produ ces restrictive effects on international
trade as severe as those resulting from an import ban, it appears to us that it would be difficult for a
panel to find that measure necessary unless it is satisfied that the measure is apt to make a material
contribution to the achievement of its objective. Thus, we disagree with Brazil's suggestion that,
because it aims to reduce risk exposure to the maximu m extent possible, an import ban that brings a
marginal or insignificant contribution can nevertheless be considered necessary.
242
151. This does not mean that an import ban, or anot her trade-restrictive measure, the contribution
of which is not immediately observable, cannot be justified under Article XX(b). We recognize that
certain complex public health or environmental pr oblems may be tackled only with a comprehensive
policy comprising a multiplicity of interacting measures. In the short-term, it may prove difficult to

236Panel Report, para. 7.137.
237Ibid., para. 7.138.
238Ibid., para. 7.141.
239Ibid., para. 7.148.
240Ibid., para. 7.211.
241Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 161.
242Brazil's appellee's submission, paras. 80 and 83. According to Brazil, given its chosen level of
protection to reduce the risk of waste tyre accumulation to the maximum extent possible, "[i]f the Panel finds
that there are no reasonable alternativ es to the measure, the measure is necessary—no matter how small its
contribution—because the WTO does not second-guess the Member’s chosen level of protection." ( Ibid.,
para. 80)

isolate the contribution to public health or e nvironmental objectives of one specific measure from
those attributable to the other measures that are part of the same comprehensive policy. Moreover,
the results obtained from certain actions—for instan ce, measures adopted in order to attenuate global
warming and climate change, or certain preventive actions to reduce the incidence of diseases that
may manifest themselves only after a certain period of time—can only be evaluated with the benefit
of time.
243 In order to justify an import ban under Artic le XX(b), a panel must be satisfied that it
brings about a material contribution to the achieveme nt of its objective. Such a demonstration can of
course be made by resorting to evidence or data, pertaining to the past or the present, that establish
that the import ban at issue makes a material contribution to the protection of public health or
environmental objectives pursued. This is not, howev er, the only type of demonstration that could
establish such a contribution. Thus, a panel might conclude that an import ban is necessary on the
basis of a demonstration that the import ban at issu e is apt to produce a material contribution to the
achievement of its objective. This demonstrati on could consist of quantitative projections in the
future, or qualitative reasoning based on a set of hypotheses that are tested and supported by sufficient
evidence.
152. We have now to assess whether the qualitative anal ysis provided by the Panel establishes that
the Import Ban is apt to produce a material cont ribution to the achievement of the objective of
reducing exposure to the risks arising from the accumulation of waste tyres.
153. We observe, first, that the Panel analyzed the contribution of the Import Ban as initially
designed, without taking into account the im ports of remoulded tyres under the MERCOSUR
exemption. As we indicated above, this is not th e only possible approach. Nevertheless, we proceed
with our examination of the Panel's reasoning on that basis for the reasons we explained earlier. In
the light of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Panel was of the view that the Import Ban would
lead to imported retreaded tyres being replaced with retreaded tyres made from local casings
244, or
with new tyres that are retreadable. 245 As concerns new tyres, the Panel observed, and we agree, that
retreaded tyres "have by definition a shorter lifespan than new tyres" 246 and that, accordingly, the

243In this respect, we note that, in US – Gasoline , the Appellate Body stated, in the context of
Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994, that, "in the field of conservation of exhaustible natural resources, a substantial
period of time, perhaps years, may have to elapse before the effects attributable to implementation of a given
measure may be observable." (Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 21, DSR 1996:I, 3, at 20)
244Panel Report, paras. 7.126-7.130.
245Ibid., paras. 7.131-7.142.
246Ibid., para. 7.130.

Import Ban "may lead to a reduction in the total number of waste tyres because imported retreaded
tyres may be substituted for by new tyres which have a longer lifespan." 247 As concerns tyres
retreaded in Brazil from local casings, the Panel was satisfied that Brazil had the production capacity
to retread domestic used tyres 248 and that "at least some domestic used tyres are being retreaded in
Brazil."249 The Panel also agreed that Brazil has taken a series of measures to facilitate the access of
domestic retreaders to good-quality used tyres 250, and that new tyres sold in Brazil are high-quality
tyres that comply with international standa rds and have the potential to be retreaded. 251 The Panel's
conclusion with which we agree was that, "if the domestic retreading industry retreads more domestic
used tyres, the overall number of waste tyres w ill be reduced by giving a second life to some used
tyres, which otherwise would have become wast e immediately after their first and only life." 252 For
these reasons, the Panel found that a reduction of waste tyres would result from the Import Ban and
that, therefore, the Import Ban would contribute to reducing exposure to the risks associated with the
accumulation of waste tyres. As the Panel's an alysis was qualitative, the Panel did not seek to
estimate, in quantitative terms, the reduction of wast e tyres that would result from the Import Ban, or
the time horizon of such a reduction. Such estimates would have been very useful and, undoubtedly,
would have strengthened the founda tion of the Panel's findings. Having said that, it does not appear
to us erroneous to conclude, on the basis of th e hypotheses made, tested, and accepted by the Panel,
that fewer waste tyres will be generated with the Import Ban than otherwise.
154. Moreover, we wish to underscore that the Impor t Ban must be viewed in the broader context
of the comprehensive strategy designed and implemen ted by Brazil to deal with waste tyres. This
comprehensive strategy includes not only the Import Ban but also the import ban on used tyres, as
well as the collection and disposal scheme adopted by CONAMA Resolution 258/1999, as amended
in 2002, which makes it mandatory for domestic manuf acturers and importers of new tyres to provide

247Panel Report, para. 7.130.
248Ibid., para. 7.141. The Panel noted that, in 2005, 33.4 million new tyres (all types included) were
sold in Brazil (either domestically produced or imported) and 18.6 million retreaded tyres were produced
domestically.
249Ibid., para. 7.136.
250Ibid., para. 7.137.
251Ibid.
252Ibid., para. 7.133.

for the safe disposal of waste tyres in specified proportions.
253 For its part, CONAMA Resolution
258/1999, as amended in 2002, aims to reduce the exposure to risks arising from the accumulation of
waste tyres by forcing manufacturers and importers of new tyres to collect and dispose of waste tyres
at a ratio of five waste tyres for every four ne w tyres. This measure also encourages Brazilian
retreaders to retread more domestic used tyres by exempting domestic retreaders from disposal
obligations as long as they process tyres consumed within Brazil. 254 Thus, the CONAMA scheme
provides additional support for and is consistent with the design of Brazil's strategy for reducing the
number of waste tyres. The two mutually enforc ing pillars of Brazil's ove rall strategy—the Import
Ban and the import ban on used tyres—imply that the demand for retreaded tyres in Brazil must be
met by the domestic retreaders, and that these retr eaders, in principle, can use only domestic used
tyres for raw material.
255 Over time, this comprehensive regulatory scheme is apt to induce
sustainable changes in the practices and behaviour of the domestic retreaders, as well as other actors,
and result in an increase in the number of retreadable tyres in Brazil and a higher rate of retreading of
domestic casings in Brazil. Thus, the Import Ban appears to us as one of the key elements of the
comprehensive strategy designed by Brazil to deal with waste tyres, along with the import ban on

253Article 3 of CONAMA Resolution 258/1999, as amended in 2002, provides:
The time periods and quantities for collection and environmentally
appropriate final disposal of unusable tyres resulting from use on
automotive vehicles and bicycles covered by this Regulation are as follows:
I – as of 1 January 2002: for every four new tyres produced in Brazil or
imported new or reconditioned tyres, including those on imported vehicles,
manufacturers and importers must ensure final disposal of one unusable
tyre;
II – as of 1 January 2003: for every two new tyres produced in Brazil or
imported new or reconditioned tyres, including those on imported vehicles,
manufacturers and importers must ensure final disposal of one unusable
tyre;
III – as of 1 January 2004:
a) for every one new tyre produced in Brazil or imported new tyre, including
those on imported vehicles, manufacturers and importers must ensure final
disposal of one unusable tyre;
b) for every four imported reconditioned tyres, of any type, importers must
ensure final disposal of five unusable tyres;
IV – as of 1 January 2005:
a) for every four new tyres produced in Brazil or imported tyres, including
those on imported vehicles, manufacturers and importers must ensure final
disposal of five unusable tyres;
b) for every three imported reconditioned tyres, of any type, importers must
ensure final disposal of four unusable tyres.
254Panel Report, para. 7.137.
255Leaving aside, as explained above, the imports under the MERCOSUR exemption and under court
injunctions.

used tyres and the collection and disposal schem e established by CONAMA Resolution 258/1999, as
amended in 2002.
155. As we explained above, we agree with the Pane l's reasoning suggesting that fewer waste tyres
will be generated with the Import Ban in place. In addition, Brazil has deve loped and implemented a
comprehensive strategy to deal with waste tyres. As a key element of this strategy, the Import Ban is
likely to bring a material contribution to the achievement of its objective of reducing the exposure to
risks arising from the accumulation of waste tyres. On the basis of these considerations, we are of the
view that the Panel did not err in finding that th e Import Ban contributes to the achievement of its
objective.
2. The Panel's Analysis of Possible Alternatives to the Import Ban
156. In order to determine whether a measure is "n ecessary" within the meaning of Article XX(b)
of the GATT 1994, a panel must assess all the relevant factors, particularly the extent of the
contribution to the achievement of a measure's object ive and its trade restrictiveness, in the light of
the importance of the interests or values at stake. If this analysis yields a preliminary conclusion that
the measure is necessary, this result must be conf irmed by comparing the measure with its possible
alternatives, which may be less trade restrictive wh ile providing an equivale nt contribution to the
achievement of the objective pursued. It rests upon the complaining Member to identify possible
alternatives to the measure at issue that the responding Member could have taken.256 As the Appellate
Body indicated in US – Gambling , while the responding Member must show that a measure is
necessary, it does not have to "show, in the first instance, that there are no reasonably available
alternatives to achieve its objectives." 257 We recall that, in order to qualify as an alternative, a
measure proposed by the complaining Member must be not only less trade restrictive than the
measure at issue, but should also "preserve for the responding Member its right to achieve its desired
level of protection with resp ect to the objective pursued". 258 If the complaining Member has put
forward a possible alternative measure, the res ponding Member may seek to show that the proposed
measure does not allow it to achieve the level of protection it has chosen and, therefore, is not a
genuine alternative. The responding Member ma y also seek to demonstrate that the proposed
alternative is not, in fact, "reasonably available". 259 As the Appellate Body indicated in US –
Gambling, "[a]n alternative measure may be found not to be 'reasonably available' ... where it is
merely theoretical in nature, for instance, where the responding Member is not capable of taking it, or

257Ibid., para. 309. (original emphasis)
258Ibid., para. 308.
259Ibid., para. 311.

where the measure imposes an undue burden on that Member, such as prohibitive costs or substantial
technical difficulties."
260 If the responding Member demonstrates that the measure proposed by the
complaining Member is not a genuine alternative or is not "reasonably available", taking into account
the interests or values being pursued and the resp onding Member's desired level of protection, it
follows that the measure at issue is necessary.261
157. Before the Panel, the European Communities put forward two types of possible alternative
measures or practices: (i) measures to reduce the number of waste tyres accumulating in Brazil; and
(ii) measures or practices to improve the management of waste tyres in Brazil. 262 The Panel examined
the alternative measures proposed by the European Communities in some detail, and in each case
found that the proposed measure did not constitute a reasonably available alternative to the Import
Ban. Among the reasons that the Panel gave for its rejections were that the proposed alternatives
were already in place, would not allow Brazil to achie ve its chosen level of protection, or would carry
their own risks and hazards.
158. Regarding the measures to reduce the accumulatio n of waste tyres, the Panel first discussed
measures to encourage domestic retreading or improve the retreadability of domestic used tyres. The
Panel observed that these measures had already been implemented or were in the process of being
implemented 263 so that the impact of these measures a nd the Import Ban "could be cumulative rather
than substitutable". 264 Therefore, the Panel disagreed with the European Communities that "the
institution of domestic measures to encourage timely domestic retreading and to improve the
retreadability of domestic used tyres would achieve the same outcome as the import ban".265
159. The Panel went on to discuss the European Communities' contention that Brazil should
prevent imports of used tyres into Brazil through court injuncti ons. The Panel noted that imports of
used tyres were already prohibited by law in Brazil, "so that if the 'alternative measure' proposed by
the European Communities is the prohibition of used tyres, it could be said that Brazil actually already
imposes that measure." 266 Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the possible alternative measures
identified by the European Communities to avoid the generation of waste tyres could not "apply as a

261Ibid., para. 311.
262Panel Report, para. 7.159.
263Ibid., para. 7.169.
264Ibid.
265Ibid.
266Ibid., para. 7.171.

substitute" for the Import Ban but are, rather, complementary measures that Brazil already applies, at
least in part.267
160. Turning to alternatives aiming to improve mana gement of waste tyres, the Panel examined,
first, collection and disposal schemes and, secondly, disposal methods.
161. The European Communities referred mainly to two collection and disposal schemes.268 In the
analysis of these schemes, the Panel recalled that "B razil's chosen level of protection is the reduction
of the risks associated with waste tyre accumulation to the maximum extent possible". 269 According
to the Panel, "insofar as the level of protection pursued by Brazil involves the 'non-generation' of
waste tyres in the first place", collection and disp osal schemes, such as that adopted by CONAMA
Resolution 258/1999 or the Paraná Rodando Limpo 270 programme, "would not seem able to achieve
the same level of protection as the import ban". 271 The Panel also noted Brazil's concern that these
collection and disposal schemes do not address or eliminate disposal risks. 272 The Panel concluded
that these schemes cannot be considered as alternat ives to the Import Ban at the level of protection
sought by Brazil, because they were already im plemented in Brazil and do not address the risks
associated with the disposal of waste tyres.273
162. The Panel then examined the following disp osal methods identified by the European
Communities: (i) landfilling; (ii) stockpiling; (iii) incineration of waste tyres in cement kilns and
similar facilities; and (iv) material recycling.
163. Concerning landfilling, the Panel found that the landfilling of waste tyres may pose the very
risks Brazil seeks to reduce through the Import Ban, and for this reason cannot constitute a reasonably
available alternative.
274 For the Panel, landfilling of waste tyres poses problems, including the
"instability of sites that will affect future land r eclamation, long-term leaching of toxic substances,
and the risk of tyre fires and mosquito-borne diseases." 275 The Panel also obser ved that the evidence

267Panel Report, para. 7.172. (original emphasis)
268The scheme adopted by CONAMA Resolution 258/1999, as amended in 2002, which makes it
mandatory for domestic producers and importers of new tyres to provide for the safe disposal of waste tyres (or
unusable tyres) in specified proportions; and a voluntary multi-sector programme called Paraná Rodando
Limpo, which has been put in pl ace in the State of Paraná. (See supra, footnote 253; see also supra, paras. 130
and 131)
269Panel Report, para. 7.177.
270See Exhibit EC-49 submitted by the European Communities to the Panel.
271Panel Report, para. 7.177.
272Ibid.
273Ibid., para. 7.178.
274Ibid., para. 7.186.
275Ibid., para. 7.183. (footnote omitted)

it examined showing the existence of such risks did not make a clear distinction between landfilling of
shredded tyres (also referred to as "controlle d landfilling") and landfi lling of whole tyres
("uncontrolled landfilling"). Thus, fo r the Panel, it was not possible to conclude that landfilling of
shredded tyres does not pose risks similar to those linked to other types of waste tyre landfills.
276
164. Regarding stockpiling 277, the Panel observed that this method does not "dispose of" waste
tyres278, and added that "the evidence shows that even the so-called 'controlled stockpiling' that is to
say stockpiles designed to prevent the risk of fi res and pests may still pose considerable risks to
human health and the environment." 279 The Panel concluded that st ockpiling did not constitute an
alternative to the Import Ban.280
165. With respect to the incineration of waste tyres, the Panel found that sufficient evidence
demonstrated that health risks exist in relation to the incineration of waste tyres, even if such risks
could be significantly reduced through strict emission standards. 281 For the Panel, the evidence
suggested that "the question still remains whethe r toxic chemicals emitted by incineration of waste
tyres, regardless of the level of emission, may potentially pose health risks to humans." 282 The Panel
added that, although emission levels can vary la rgely depending on the emission control technology,
"the most up-to-date technology that can control toxic emissions to minimum levels is not necessarily
readily available, mostly for financial reasons."283
166. Finally, the Panel examined material recycling applications. Regarding civil engineering
applications using waste tyres, the Panel found th at demand for these applications was fairly limited
partly due to their high costs, that they are capable of disposing of only a small number of waste tyres,
and that the evidence casts doubt on the safety of some of these engineering applications. 284 With
respect to rubber asphalt, the Panel found that the in formation showed that "the use of rubber asphalt
results in higher costs." 285 Consequently, "the demand for this technology is limited and its waste

276Panel Report, para. 7.184.
277Stockpiling consists of storing waste tyres in designated installations. (See European Communities'
second written submission to the Panel, para. 104)
278Panel Report, para. 7.188.
279Ibid. (footnote omitted)
280Ibid., para. 7.189.
281Ibid., para. 7.194.
282Ibid., para. 7.192. (footnote omitted)
283Ibid., para. 7.193. (footnotes omitted)
284Ibid., paras. 7.201 and 7.202.
285Ibid., para. 7.205.

disposal capacity is reduced." 286 The Panel also noted that the use of rubber granulates in the
production of certain products may dispose of only a limited amount of waste tyres. 287 Finally, as
regards devulcanization and other forms of chemical or thermal transformation, the Panel observed
that, "under current market conditions, the econom ic viability of these options has yet to be
demonstrated."288 In the light of these considerations, the Panel concluded that " it is not clear that
material recycling applications are entirely safe" 289, and that even if they were completely harmless,
"they would not be able to dispose of a quantity of waste tyres sufficient to achieve Brazil's desired
level of protection due to their prohibitive costs and thus cannot constitute a reasonably available
alternative".290
167. On appeal, the European Communities contends th at the Panel erred in its analysis of the
measures or practices that were presented as possible alternatives to the Import Ban. In particular, the
European Communities submits that the Panel used in its analysis an incorrect concept of
"alternative". In addition, the European Communities argues that the Panel should have considered as
alternatives to the Import Ban a better enforcement of the ban on imports of used tyres and of existing
collection and disposal schemes.
168. Brazil asserts that the Panel was correct in fi nding that none of the alternative measures
suggested by the European Communities constituted "reasonably available" alternatives to the Import
Ban. For Brazil, the Panel correctly took account of Brazil's chosen level of protection—that is, the
reduction of risks associated with the generation of waste tyres in Brazil to the maximum extent
possible—in concluding that none of the alte rnatives suggested by the European Communities
avoided the generation of additional waste tyres in the first place.
169. The Panel examined each of the measures or practices put forward by the European
Communities in order to determine whether they were reasonably available alternatives in the light of
the objective of the Import Ban and Brazil's chosen level of protection.291

286Panel Report, para. 7.205. (footnote omitted)
288Ibid., para. 7.207. (footnote omitted)
289Ibid., para. 7.208.
290Ibid. (footnote omitted)
291Ibid., para. 7.152.

170. We note that the objective of the Import Ban is the reduction of the "exposure to the risks to
human, animal or plant life or health arising from the accumulation of waste tyres"
292 and that
"Brazil's chosen level of protec tion is the reduction of [these] risks ... to the maximum extent
possible"293, and that a measure or practice will not be viewed as an alternative unless it "preserve[s]
for the responding Member its right to achieve its desired level of protection with respect to the
objective pursued".294
171. We recall that tyres—new or retreaded—are essen tial for modern transportation. However, at
the end of their useful life, they turn into w aste that carries risks for public health and the
environment.295 Governments, legitimately, take actions to minimize the adverse effects of waste
tyres. They may adopt preventive measures aimi ng to reduce the accumulation of waste tyres, a
category into which the Import Ban falls. Governme nts may also contemplate remedial measures for
the management and disposal of waste tyres, su ch as landfilling, stockpiling, incineration of waste
tyres, and material recycling. Many of these measures or practices carry, however, their own risks or
require the commitment of substantial resources, or advanced technologies or know-how. Thus, the
capacity of a country to implement remedial measur es that would be particularly costly, or would
require advanced technologies, may be relevant to the assessment of wh ether such measures or
practices are reasonably available alternatives to a preventive measure, such as the Import Ban, which
does not involve "prohibitive costs or substantial technical difficulties".
296
172. Among the possible alternatives, the Europ ean Communities referred to measures to
encourage domestic retreading or improve the retreadability of used tyres, as well as a better
enforcement of the import ban on used tyres and of existing collection and disposal schemes. In fact,
like the Import Ban, these measures already figure as elements of a comprehensive strategy designed
by Brazil to deal with waste tyres.
297 Substituting one element of this comprehensive policy for
another would weaken the policy by reducing the synergies between its components, as well as its
total effect. We are therefore of the view that the Panel did not err in rejecting as alternatives to the

292Panel Report, para. 7.102.
293Ibid., para. 7.108. (footnote omitted)
294Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, para. 308. (footnote omitted)
295See supra, para. 119.
297The Panel noted that Brazil has already implemented or is in the process of implementing measures
to encourage domestic retreading or improve the retreada bility of tyres. (Panel Report, para. 7.169) The Panel
observed that "imports of used tyres are already prohibited". (Ibid., para. 7.171 (original emphasis)) The Panel
agreed with Brazil that "collection and disposal schemes such as Resolution CONAMA 258/1999 as amended
[in 2002] and Paraná Rodando Limpo have already been implemented in Brazil". (Ibid., para. 7.178)

Import Ban components of Brazil's policy regarding w aste tyres that are complementary to the Import
Ban.
173. We move now to the other measures or prac tices proposed by the European Communities as
alternatives to the Import Ban. 298 The European Communities contends that the Panel committed an
error of law by applying a "narrow definition of alternative" 299, according to which an alternative to
the Import Ban is "a measure that must avoid the waste tyres arising specifically from imported
retreaded tyres" 300, or one "equal to a waste non-generation measure". 301 For the European
Communities, this narrow definition differs from "t he objective allegedly pursued by the challenged
measure"302, and resulted in the rejection of several disposal and waste management measures
presented by the European Communities that should ha ve been accepted as a lternatives to the Import
Ban.
174. In evaluating whether the measures or practices proposed by the European Communities were
"alternatives", the Panel sought to determine whether they would achieve Brazil's policy objective and
chosen level of protection 303, that is to say, reducing the "exposure to the risks to human, animal or
plant life or health arising from the accumulation of waste tyres" 304 to the maximum extent
possible.305 In this respect, we believe, like the Pane l, that non-generation measures are more apt to
achieve this objective because they prevent the accumulation of waste tyres, while waste management
measures dispose of waste tyres only once they have accumulated. Furthermore, we note that, in
comparing a proposed alternative to the Import Ban, the Panel took into account specific risks
attached to the proposed alterna tive, such as the risk of leaching of toxic substances that might be
associated to landfilling
306, or the risk of toxic emissions that might arise from the incineration of
waste tyres.307 In our view, the Panel did not err in so doing. Indeed, we do not see how a panel

298These measures or practices are the following disposal methods: land filling; stockpiling;
incineration of waste tyres; and material recycling.
300Ibid., para. 219. (underlining omitted)
301Ibid., para. 222.
302Ibid., para. 221.
303Panel Report, para. 7.157.
304Ibid., para. 7.102.
We must therefore now consider wh ether any alternative measure, less
inconsistent with GATT 1994, that is, less trade-restrictive than a complete
import ban, would have been reasonably available to Brazil to achieve the
same objective, taking into account Br azil's chosen level of protection.
(footnote omitted)
306Ibid., para. 7.183.
307Ibid., para. 7.194.

could undertake a meaningful comparison of the measure at issue with a possible alternative while
disregarding the risks arising out of the implementation of the possible alternative.
308 In this case, the
Panel examined as proposed alternatives landfilling, stockpiling, and waste tyre incineration, and
considered that, even if these disposal methods were performed under controlled conditions, they
nevertheless pose risks to human health similar or additional to those Brazil seeks to reduce through
the Import Ban. 309 Because these practices carry their own risks, and these risks do not arise from
non-generation measures such as the Import Ban, we believe, like the Panel, that these practices are
not reasonably available alternatives.
175. With respect to material recycling, we share the Panel's view that this practice is not as
effective as the Import Ban in reducing the exposur e to the risks arising from the accumulation of
waste tyres. Material recycling applications ar e costly, and hence capable of disposing of only a
limited number of waste tyres. 310 We also note that some of them might require advanced
technologies and know-how that are not readily availabl e on a large scale. Accordingly, we are of the
view that the Panel did not err in concluding that material recycling is not a reasonably available
alternative to the Import Ban.
3. The Weighing and Balancing of Relevant Factors by the Panel
176. The European Communities argues that, in its analysis of the necessity of the Import Ban, the
Panel stated that it had weighed a nd balanced the relevant factors, but it "has not actually done it". 311
According to the European Communities, although the Appellate Body has not defined the term
"weighing and balancing", "this lan guage refers clearly to a process where, in the first place, the
importance of each element is assessed individually and, then, its role and relative importance is taken
into consideration together with the other el ements for the purposes of deciding whether the
challenged measure is necessary to attain the objective pursued." 312 The European Communities
reasons that, "since the Panel failed to establish ... the extent of the actual contribution the [Import
Ban] makes to the reduction of the number of wast e tyres arising in Brazil, ... it was incapable of
'weighing and balancing' this contribution against any of the other relevant factors."313 In addition, the

308This was recognized by the Appellate Body in EC – Asbestos, where it stated that the risks attached
to a proposed measure should be includ ed in the exercise of comparison aiming to determine whether it is a
reasonably available alternative to the measure at issue. (Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 174)
para. 7.194 (waste tyre incineration).
310Ibid., paras. 7.201 and 7.205-7.208.
312Ibid., para. 284.
313Ibid., para. 288.

European Communities contends that "the Panel b ase[d] ... its 'weighing and balancing' exercise on
the wrong analysis it ... made of the alternatives". 314 In sum, the European Communities argues that
the Panel conducted a "superficial analysis" 315 that is not a real weighing and balancing of the
different factors and alternatives, because it did not balance "its arguments about the measure and the
alternatives with the absolute trad e-restrictiveness of the import ban and with a real evaluation of the
contribution of the import ban to the objective pursued."316
177. Brazil counters that the Panel correctly wei ghed and balanced the relevant factors and
proposed alternatives in its necess ity analysis. Brazil argues that the Panel expressly recognized that
the Import Ban is highly trade restrictive, but prop erly weighed and balanced this factor against the
other relevant factors. In relation to contributi on, Brazil considers that Article XX(b) of the GATT
1994 does not require quantification, and that, in any event, the Import Ban's contribution to the
reduction of imports of retread ed tyres is "substantial". 317 Brazil adds that, because imports of
retreaded tyres by definition increase the amount of waste tyres in Brazil, the contribution of the
Import Ban to the reduction of risks arising from wast e tyres to the maximum extent possible is "both
direct and certain".
318
178. We begin our analysis by recalling that, in order to determine whether a measure is
"necessary" within the meaning of Article XX(b ) of the GATT 1994, a panel must consider the
relevant factors, particularly the importance of th e interests or values at stake, the extent of the
contribution to the achievement of the measure's ob jective, and its trade restrictiveness. If this
analysis yields a preliminary conclusion that the me asure is necessary, this result must be confirmed
by comparing the measure with possible alternativ es, which may be less trade restrictive while
providing an equivalent contribution to the achieveme nt of the objective. This comparison should be
carried out in the light of the importan ce of the interests or values at stake. 319 It is through this
process that a panel determines whether a measure is necessary.320

314European Communities' appellant's submission, para. 290. (underlining omitted)
315Ibid., para. 295.
316Ibid., para. 294.
318Ibid., para. 178.
320Ibid.

179. In this case, the Panel identified the objective of the Import Ban as being the reduction of the
exposure to risks arising from the accumulation of waste tyres. It assessed the importance of the
interests underlying this objective. It found that risks of dengue fever a nd malaria arise from the
accumulation of waste tyres and that the objective of protecting human life and health against such
diseases "is both vital and important in the highest degree".
321 The Panel noted that the objective of
the Import Ban also relates to the protection of the environment, a value that it considered—correctly,
in our view—important. 322 Then, the Panel analyzed the trad e restrictiveness of the Import Ban and
its contribution to the achievement of its objectiv e. It appears from the Panel's reasoning that it
considered that, in the light of the importance of th e interests protected by the objective of the Import
Ban, the contribution of the Import Ban to the achievement of its objective outweighs its trade
restrictiveness. This finding of the Panel does not appear erroneous to us.323
180. The Panel then proceeded to examine the alternatives to th e Import Ban proposed by the
European Communities. The Panel explained that so me of them could not be viewed as alternatives
to the Import Ban because they were complement ary to it and were already included in Brazil's
comprehensive policy.324 Next, the Panel compared the other alternatives proposed by the European
Communities—landfilling, stockpiling, incineration, a nd material recycling—with the Import Ban,
taking into consideration the specific risks associ ated with these proposed alternatives. The Panel
concluded from this comparative assessment that none of the proposed options was a reasonably
available alternative to the Import Ban.
181. The European Communities argues that the Panel failed to make a proper collective
assessment of all the proposed alternatives, a conten tion that does not stand for the following reasons.
First, the Panel did refer to its collective examina tion of these alternatives in concluding that "none of
these, either individually or collectively , would be such that the risks arising from waste tyres in
Brazil would be safely eliminated, as is intended by the current import ban."325 Secondly, as noted by

321Panel Report, para. 7.210. (footnote omitted)
322Ibid., para. 7.112.
323Supra, paras. 150-155.
324For example, measures to encourage domestic re treading and improve the retreadability of domestic
used tyres, a better implementation of the import ban on used tyres, and a better implementation of existing
collection and disposal schemes. See also Panel Report, paras. 7.169, 7.171, and 7.178.
325Ibid., para. 7.214. (emphasis added)

the Panel and discussed above, some of the proposed alternatives are not real substitutes for the
Import Ban since they complement each other as part of Brazil's comprehensive policy. 326 Finally,
having found that other proposed alternatives were not reasonably available or carried their own risks,
these alternatives would not have weighed differently in a collective assessment of alternatives.
182. In sum, the Panel's conclusion that the Import Ban is necessary was the result of a process
involving, first, the examination of the contribu tion of the Import Ban to the achievement of its
objective against its trade restrictiveness in the lig ht of the interests at stake, and, secondly, the
comparison of the possible alternatives, including associated risks, with the Import Ban. The
analytical process followed by the Panel is consiste nt with the approach previously defined by the
Appellate Body.327 The weighing and balancing is a holis tic operation that involves putting all the
variables of the equation together and evaluating th em in relation to each other after having examined
them individually, in order to reach an overall j udgement. We therefore do not share the European
Communities' view that the Panel did not "act ually" weigh and balance the relevant factors 328, or that
the Panel made a methodological error in comparing th e alternative options proposed by the European
Communities with the Import Ban.
183. In the light of all these considerations, we are of the view that the Panel did not err in the
manner it conducted its analysis under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994 as to whether the Import Ban
was "necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health".
B. The Panel's Necessity Analysis and Article 11 of the DSU
184. The European Communities claims that the Pa nel breached its duties under Article 11 of the
DSU in its analysis of the "necessity" of the Im port Ban under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994. In
particular, the European Communities submits that the Panel failed to make an objective assessment
of the facts in its assessment of the contribution of the Import Ban to the achievement of its objective,
and in its examination of the proposed alternatives.

326Panel Report, para. 7.213.
327Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef , para. 164; Appellate Body Report, EC
– Asbestos, para. 172; Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, para. 306; Appellate Body Report, Dominican
Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes, para. 70.

1. Article 11 of the DSU and the Panel's Analysis of the Contribution of the
Import Ban to the Achievement of Its Objective
185. We recall that Article 11 requires a panel to conduct "an objective assessment of the matter
before it, including an objective assessment of th e facts of the case". This assessment implies, among
other things, that a panel must consider all the evidence presented to it, assess its credibility,
determine its weight, and ensure that its factual findings have a proper basis in that evidence.329
186. Within these parameters, it is generally "within the discretion of the panel to decide which
evidence it chooses to utilize in making findings" 330, and panels are "not required to accord to factual
evidence of the parties the same meaning and weight as do the parties". 331 A panel is entitled "to
determine that certain elements of evidence shoul d be accorded more weight than other elements—
that is the essence of the task of appreciating the evidence" 332—and the Appellate Body "will not
interfere lightly with the panel's exercise of its discretion".333 Thus, a participant challenging a panel's
findings of fact under Article 11 of the DSU is required to demonstrate that the panel has exceeded
the bounds of its discretion as the trier of facts.
187. Against this background, we turn to the contentions of the European Communities. First, the
European Communities argues that there was an insufficient fact ual foundation for the Panel's
conclusion that it had "no reason to believe that new tyres sold in Brazil are low-quality tyres" that
were not capable of being retreaded
 334, and that the Panel ignored "substantial evidence" produced by
the European Communities demonstrating the exis tence of "low-quality non-retreadable tyres" 335 in
the Brazilian market.

329Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones , paras. 132 and 133. See also Appellate Body Report,
Japan – Apples , para. 221; Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos , para. 161; Appellate Body Report,
Australia – Salmon, para. 266; Appellate Body Report, EC – Bed Linen (Article 21.5 – India) , paras. 170, 177,
and 181; Appellate Body Report, EC – Sardines, para. 299; Appellate Body Report, EC – Tube or Pipe
Fittings, para. 125; Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II , paras. 141 and 142; Appellate
Body Report, Korea – Dairy, para. 138; Appellate Body Report, Korea – Alcoholic Beverages , paras. 161 and
162; Appellate Body Report, US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews , para. 313; Appellate Body
Report, US – Gambling , para. 363; Appellate Body Report, EC – Selected Customs Matters , para. 258; and
Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel, para. 142.
330Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel , para. 142 (quoting Appellate Body Report, EC –
Hormones, para. 135).
333Appellate Body Report, US – Wheat Gluten, para. 151. (footnote omitted)
334Panel Report, para. 7.137; European Communities' appellant's submission, paras. 183 and 184.
335European Communities' appellant's submission, para. 183. (footnote omitted)

188. Brazil submits that the Panel's conclusion is supported by the evidence on record and adds
that high rates of retreadability in the country dem onstrate that new tyres sold in Brazil "generally
have [the] potential for future retreading".336
189. We observe that, in support of its position that it had "no reason to believe that new tyres sold
in Brazil are low-quality tyres" that are not suitabl e for retreading, the Panel referred to standards
applied to new tyres sold in Brazil that are "stric t technical and performance standards that are based
on international standards". 337 The European Communities argues that potential retreadability is not
an element of these standards and that, therefore, the Panel's position on the retreadability of new
tyres sold in Brazil had no factual basis.
338 We are not persuaded by this argument. The Panel's
position was not that these standards include retreadabilit y but, rather, that they result in a level of
quality for new tyres that increases the potential for them to be retreaded. 339 Thus, the Panel's finding
did not lack a factual basis since there was a relationship between the standards to which the Panel
referred and its conclusion that it had "no reason to believe that new tyres sold in Brazil are low-
quality tyres"340 that are not retreadable.
190. Nor did the Panel disregard the evidence presen ted by the European Communities in reaching
its conclusion on retreadability. To the contrary, the Panel expressly referred to various studies
submitted by the European Communities in Exhibits EC-15 and EC-67 through EC-71, which related
to the existence of "cheap low-quality new tyres in Brazil".341 The Panel simply attached more weight
to other pieces of evidence that were before it 342, as Article 11 of the DSU entitles it to do.343
191. The European Communities asserts further that the Panel relied on "arbitrarily chosen pieces
of evidence" and failed to c onsider contradictory evidence 344 in basing its finding that "at least some
domestic used tyres are being retreaded in Brazil" 345 exclusively on a statement contained in a report
by the Associação Brasileira do Segmento de Refo rma de Pneus (the "ABR") (Brazilian Association

337Panel Report, para. 7.137.
339Panel Report, para. 7.137.
340Ibid.
341Ibid., footnote 1252 to para. 7.137 (referring to European Communities' oral statement at the first
Panel meeting, para. 28; and European Communities' response to Question 11 posed by the Panel, Panel
Report, pp. 254 and 255, in turn referring to Exhibits EC-15 and EC-67 through EC-71 submitted by the
European Communities to the Panel).
342Ibid., para. 7.137.
345Panel Report, para. 7.136.

of the Retreading Industry) (the "ABR Report").
346 According to the European Communities, the
Panel neglected to consider evidence contained in a second report by the ABR347 that contradicted this
statement.348 We do not find merit in this argument. The Panel relied on various studies and reports
other than the ABR Report. 349 Moreover, the Panel took into account the evidence in the second
report by the ABR350 as the express reference it made to that report confirms.351
192. The European Communities next charges the Pa nel with failing to discount the evidentiary
value of Technical Note 001/2006 of the Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Normalização e Qualidade
Industrial ("INMETRO") (National Institute for Metrology, Standardization and Industrial Quality)352,
on the grounds that it was issued during the course of the Panel proceedings, and with neglecting to
consider contradictory evidence contained in an earlier INMETRO Technical Note 83/2000.353
193. It is well settled that a panel may consider a piece of evidence that post-dates its
establishment.354 Thus, INMETRO Technical Note 001/2006 was clearly an admissible piece of
evidence. The European Commun ities, however, seems to suggest that the fact that INMETRO
Technical Note 001/2006 post-dates the establishm ent of the Panel undermines its "evidentiary
value", because Brazil was well aware of the si gnificance of INMETRO Technical Note 001/2006 at
that time. In our view, this amounts to an argumen t that the Panel should have attached more weight
to one piece of evidence than to another, and does not suffice to demonstrate that the Panel exceeded
the bounds of its discretion by attaching more weight to INMETRO Technical Note 001/2006—a

346Supra, footnote 41.
347Supra, footnote 43.
348European Communities' appellant's submission, paras. 186 and 187.
349For example, the Panel relied on, inter alia, retreadability figures for the Brazilian company Mazola
Comércio (Panel Report, para. 7.135 and footnote 1236 thereto (referring to Exhibit BRA-93 submitted by
Brazil to the Panel)); studies by the consultancy LAFIS and the Institute of Technological Research of the State
of São Paulo ( ibid., footnote 1237 (referring to Exhibits EC-92 and BRA-159 submitted by the European
Communities and Brazil, respectively, to the Panel)); a video by BS Colway ( ibid., footnote 1239 (referring to
Exhibit EC-72 submitted by the European Communities to the Panel)); and retreadability figures in Brazil
(ibid., footnote 1241 (referring to Brazil's oral statement at the second Panel meeting, paras. 57-61; Brazil's
comments on Question 107 posed by the Panel to the European Communities, Panel Report, pp. 317-323;
Brazil's response to Question 117 posed by the Panel, Panel Report, pp. 332-334; and Exhibit BRA-162
submitted by Brazil to the Panel)) and in other countries ( ibid., footnote 1242 (referring to Brazil's first written
submission to the Panel, para. 79, where Brazil provided some examples of retreadability figures for the United
Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and France)). See also Brazil's response to Question 17 posed by the
Panel, ibid., p. 257.
350Exhibit BRA-157, supra, footnote 43.
351See Panel Report, footnote 1238 to para. 7.135 (referring to Exhibit BRA-157, supra, footnote 43).
352Exhibit BRA-163 submitted by Brazil to the Panel.
353European Communities' appellant's submission, paras. 188 and 189 (referring to INMETRO
Technical Note 83/2000 (Exhibit EC-45 submitted by the European Communities to the Panel)).
354This was confirmed by the Appellate Body in its Report, EC – Selected Customs Matters , at
para. 188.

more recent document—than to INMETRO Technical Note 83/2000. Furthermore, the Panel did not
neglect INMETRO Technical Note 83/2000. As the European Communities acknowledges 355, the
Panel expressly referred to this particular piece of evidence in its analysis.356
194. The European Communities furthe r maintains that the Panel ignored evidence contained in a
study by the consultancy LAFIS 357 indicating that the rate of retreading of passenger car tyres in
Brazil is below 9.99 per cent. 358 The Panel, however, specifically considered the LAFIS study in its
analysis as to whether domestic used tyres are retreadable and are being retreaded in Brazil. 359 It also
discussed the arguments presented by Brazil and the European Communities in relation to this figure.
195. The European Communities charges the Pane l with "bolster[ing] its conclusions" 360 on the
retreadability of domestic casings with speculation on future measures that Brazil may take and, in
particular, in stating that "mandatory inspections are taking place in Brazil and that more frequent
inspections are to be expected once Bill 5979/2001 is approved". 361 However, the Panel's finding that
"mandatory inspections are taking place"362 was based on inspection requirements imposed by Brazil's
National Code of Traffic and applicable technical sta ndards, which were in force at the time the Panel
conducted its review 363, and is not vitiated by the Panel' s additional reference to possible
consequences of the approval of Bill 5979/2001.
196. In addition, the European Communities contends that, in analyzing the contribution of the
Import Ban to the realization of the ends pursued by it, the Panel erred in failing to accord any
evidentiary weight to the fact that Brazilian retr eaders have sought court injunctions that permit the
importation of used tyres for further retreading. 364 The European Communiti es claims that the Panel
engaged in a "wilful exclusion" 365 of evidence relating to the importation of used tyres through court
injunctions, even though this evidence was relevant because it demonstrates that Brazilian retreaded

355European Communities' appellant's submission, para. 189 and footnote 56 thereto.
356Panel Report, footnote 1240 to para. 7.135.
357European Communities' appellant's submission, para. 190 (referring to LAFIS report, supra,
footnote 45, p. 11).
358Ibid., para. 190.
361Panel Report, para. 7.138.
362Ibid.
363See ibid., para. 7.138 (referring to Law No. 9.503 of 23 September 1997 (National Code of Traffic)
(Exhibit BRA-102 submitted by Brazil to the Panel); and Brazil's response to Question 8 posed by the European
Communities).
365Ibid., para. 192.

tyres are produced with imported casings, and casts doubt on Brazil's position that domestic casings
suitable for retreading are readily available in Brazil.
366
197. We are not persuaded that the Panel ignored ev idence relating to the importation of used tyres
through court injunctions in its analysis of the cont ribution of the Import Ban to the realization of the
ends pursued by it. The Panel acknowledged these injunctions and the arguments put forth by the
European Communities in its analysis of the conf licting arguments and evidence regarding the level
of retreadability of tyres in Brazil. 367 In the end, the Panel ascribed more weight to evidence adduced
by Brazil suggesting that "at least some domes tic used tyres are being retreaded in Brazil" 368 and that
"domestic used tyres are suitable for retreading". 369 It appears to us that, in proceeding in that
manner, the Panel did not exceed the bounds of its discretion as the trier of facts.
198. In the light of the above considerations, we find that the Panel did not fail to conduct an
objective assessment of the facts of the case, as requ ired by Article 11 of the DSU, when evaluating
the contribution of the Import Ban to the achievement of its objective.
2. Article 11 of the DSU and the Panel's Examination of Possible Alternatives
to the Import Ban
199. The European Communities contends that, in its analysis of possible alternatives to the Import
Ban, the Panel did not make an objective assessment of the facts as required by Article 11 of the DSU.
The European Communities' claim of error under Artic le 11 is directed at the Panel's appreciation of
the evidence concerning a number of disposal meth ods for waste tyres suggested by the European
Communities as alternatives to the Import Ban, na mely, landfilling, controlled stockpiling, co-
incineration, and material recycling.
200. According to the European Communities, the Pa nel's factual findings in relation to each of
these alternatives were not based on an objective assessment, because the Panel ignored important
facts and arguments submitted by the European Co mmunities and referred to the evidence before it
"in a selective and distorted manner".
370 The European Communities also charges the Panel with
failing to consider one specific alternative to the Import Ban suggested by the European Communities,
namely, the National Dengue Control Programme.371

366European Communities' appellant's submission, paras. 192 and 193.
367Panel Report, para. 7.140.
368Ibid., para. 7.136.
369Ibid., para. 7.142.
371Supra, footnote 53.

201. Regarding the landfilling of waste tyres, the Pane l reviewed the extensive evidentiary record
on the risks posed by landfills of waste tyres. 372 In the course of its analysis of this evidence, the
Panel noted the distinction made by the European Communities between "uncontrolled" and
"controlled" landfills373, but observed that "the evidence on th e health and environmental risks posed
by landfills of waste tyres does not make a clear distinction between 'uncontrolled' and the so-called
'controlled' landfills"
374, and that its assessment of that evidence indicated that "it [was] not possible to
conclude that controlled landfills do not pose risks sim ilar to those linked to other types of waste tyre
landfills."375 Therefore, contrary to the European Co mmunities' assertion that the Panel erred in
basing its findings exclusively on evidence relati ng to uncontrolled landfilling, the Panel's conclusion
that landfilling "may pose the very risks Brazil seeks to avoid through the import ban"376 was based on
evidence that demonstrates that risks arise indistinctively from controlled and uncontrolled landfills.
202. The European Communities also suggests that the Panel erred under Article 11 in its rejection
of landfilling as an alternative to the Import Ban because it did not take into account legislation
allowing some landfilling of shredded tyres in Brazil. It is true that the Panel did not refer specifically
to this legislation in its analysis. We note, how ever, that Brazil had argued that the legislation in
question was exceptional, temporary, and in no way contradicted the existence or risks generally
associated with landfilling. 377 A panel enjoys discretion in assessing whether a given piece of
evidence is relevant for its reasoning 378, and is not required to discuss, in its report, each and every
piece of evidence.379
203. We turn to the European Communities' argum ent that the Panel did not objectively assess the
facts in observing that "stockpiling as such does not 'dispose of' waste tyres" and that controlled
stockpiling "may still pose considerable risks to human health and the environment".380 The Panel did
not, as the European Communities contends, errone ously treat stockpiling as a "final disposal

372Panel Report, para. 7.183 and footnotes 1318 and 1319 thereto (referring to Exhibits BRA-1, BRA-8,
BRA-38, BRA-41, BRA-45, and BRA-58 submitted by Brazil to the Panel).
373Ibid., para. 7.184.
374Ibid.
375Ibid. In particular, we observe that the evidence relating to the risk of tyre fires and to the long-term
leaching of toxic chemicals referred to in paragraph 7.183 and footnote 13 18 thereto of the Panel Report does
not appear to distinguish between landfilling of whole tyres and landfilling of shredded tyres.
376Ibid., para. 7.186.
378See Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 132.
379See Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System (Article 21.5 – Argentina) , para. 240; see
also Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 138.
380Panel Report, para. 7.188. (footnote omitted)

operation".
381 To the contrary, the Panel recognized that stockpiling is used only for temporary
storage.382 Moreover, the Panel's finding that stockpiling, even as an intermediate operation, carries
risks of its own rested on various pieces of evid ence, including a California Environmental Protection
Agency study that concludes, in relation to contro lled stockpiling, that "[a]ll tire and rubber storage
facilities should be considered high-risk storage facilities."383
204. Regarding co-incineration, the Panel found that "Brazil has provided sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that health risks exist in relation to the incineration of waste tyres, even if such risks can
be significantly reduced through strict emission standards." 384 In reaching this conclusion, the Panel
relied on evidence consisting of technical studies and reports of regulator y agencies relating to
activities in countries other than Brazil. 385 The Panel acted within its margin of discretion as the trier
of facts in considering that evidence relating to co-incineration activities in countries other than Brazil
was relevant to the question of whether co-incinera tion poses health risks if used in Brazil, and in
relying on that evidence.
205. With respect to material recycling applicati ons such as civil engineering, rubber asphalt,
rubber products, and devulcanization, the Panel f ound that it is not clear that they "are entirely
safe"386, and that even if they were, material recycling applications "would not be able to dispose of a
quantity of waste tyres sufficient to achieve Brazil's desired level of protection due to their prohibitive
costs".387 The European Communities contends that bo th of these findings lacked a proper factual
foundation.

382Panel Report, footnote 1330 to para. 7.188. The Panel referred to the Basel Convention Technical
Guidelines on the Identification and Management of Used Tyres (1999) (Exhibit BRA-40 submitted by Brazil to
the Panel), p. 12, which states, inter alia, that "[s]tockpiling with proper control can be used only for temporary
storage before an end-of-life tyre is forwarded to a recovery operation."
383Panel Report, para. 7.189 and footnote 1331 thereto (referring to California Environmental
Protection Agency (US), In tegrated Waste Management Board, "Tire Pile Fires: Prevention, Response,
Remediation" (2002) (Exhibit BRA-29 submitted by Brazil to the Panel)).
384Ibid., para. 7.194.
385Ibid., para. 7.192 and footnotes 1339-1342 thereto. In particular, the Panel referred to a report which
concluded that "emissions of toxic organics ... [as a re sult of co-incineration of waste tyres] cannot be
effectively controlled." ( Ibid., footnote 1339 (quoting Okopol Institut für Ökologie und Politik GmbH,
"Expertise on the Environmental Risk Associated with the Co-Incineration of Wastes in the Cement Kiln 'Four
E' of CBR Usine de Lixhe, Belgium" (circa 1998) (Exhibit BRA-46 submitted by Brazil to the Panel)) The
Panel also pointed to evidence that demonstrated that "there is no scientific basis for [concluding] that burning
waste tires in cement kilns is safe" ( ibid. (quoting letter from Seymour I. Schwartz to the California Integrated
Waste Management Board, dated 21 January 1998 (Exhibit BRA-49 submitted by Brazil to the Panel)), and that
"[u]se [of waste tyres] in wet cement kilns is not an optimal environmental solution" ( ibid. (quoting European
Environment Agency, "Waste from road vehicles" (2001) (Exhibit BRA-108 submitted by Brazil to the Panel)).
386Ibid., para. 7.208.
387Ibid.

206. The Panel stated that " it is not clear whether some of these engineering applications are
sufficiently safe."388 It also expressed the view that "the evidence is inconclusive on whether rubber
asphalt exposures are more hazardous than conventional asphalt exposures." 389 Furthermore, the
Panel did "not find evidence showing that devulcani zation or other forms of chemical or thermal
transformation such as pyrolisis pose substantial health or environmental risks."390 It is on the basis of
these findings that the Panel concluded that " it is not clear that material recycling applications are
entirely safe."391 The Panel relied on numerous pieces of evidence to make these findings 392, and the
European Communities has not demonstrated that this evidence cannot support the Panel's finding.
Moreover, in finding that material recycling was not a reasonably available alternative to the Import
Ban, the Panel relied mainly on the limited disposal capacity of these applications; safety
considerations were not central to its reasoning.
207. Indeed, the Panel determined that evidence adduced in relation to civil engineering
393, rubber
asphalt394, rubber products395, and devulcanization396 suggested that each of these applications involve
high costs that would significantly limit their ability "to dispose of a quantity of waste tyres sufficient
to achieve Brazil's desired level of protection".
397 The European Communiti es argues that the Panel
erred in rejecting material recycling a pplications on the basis of their costs 398, suggesting that the
Panel erroneously equated high costs with prohibitive costs, when only the latter would justify a
finding that a given alternative is not "reasonably av ailable". This argument is based on an artificial

388Panel Report, para. 7.202. (emphasis added)
390Ibid., para. 7.207.
391Ibid., para. 7.208. (emphasis added)
392Ibid., para. 7.202 and footnote 1359 thereto.
393Ibid., para. 7.201 and footnote 1358 thereto (referring to 2006 report by the European Tyre and
Rubber Manufacturers' Association (Exhibit EC-84 submitted by the European Communities to the Panel);
California Environmental Protection Agency (US), Integr ated Waste Management Boar d, "Five-Year Plan for
the Waste Tire Recycling Management Program" (2003) (Exhibit BRA-36 submitted by Brazil to the Panel);
and K. Cannon, "Environment; Where Mosquitoes And Tires Breed", The New York Times, 8 July 2001 (Exhibit
BRA-130 submitted by Brazil to the Panel)).
394Ibid., para. 7.205 and footnote 1367 thereto (referring to OECD Report, supra, footnote 52).
395Ibid., para. 7.206 and footnote 1368 thereto (referring to J. Serumgard, "Internalization of Scrap Tire
Management Costs: A Review of the North American Experience", in Proceedings of the Second Joint
Workshop of the Secretariat of the United Nations Co nference on Trade and Deve lopment (UNCTAD) and the
International Rubber Study Group on Rubber and the Environment (1998) (Exhibit BRA-125 submitted by
Brazil to the Panel); and Human Re sources and Social Development Canada, Rubber Industry (circa 1999)
(Exhibit BRA-131 submitted by Brazil to the Panel)).
396Ibid., para. 7.207 and footnote 1371 thereto (referring to Exhibits EC-15 and EC-18 submitted by the
European Communities to the Panel; and Exhibit BRA-125 submitted by Brazil to the Panel).
397Ibid., para. 7.208.

distinction between high and prohibitive costs. Further, in our view, this is not an issue relating to the
Panel's appreciation of the evidence, but rather to its legal characterization of the facts. In any event,
what disqualifies these alternatives, according to th e Panel, is not their high costs as such, but the
effect of these high costs in limiting the disposal capacity of these methods.
208. Finally, the European Communities claims th at the Panel failed to analyze as a possible
alternative measure the National Dengue Control Programme, and that this failure constitutes a
violation of Article 11 of the DSU.
399 We observe that the Europ ean Communities referred to the
National Dengue Control Programme in its second wr itten submission to the Panel in support of its
contention that "authorities in Brazil seem to en courage material recycling as an alternative." 400 We
note further that the alternative measure identified th ere was material recycling, and that the National
Dengue Control Programme was discussed under th e subheading "Material recycling" in the
European Communities' written submission merely as one example of material recycling.401 Thus, the
National Dengue Control Programme was not submitte d by the European Communities as a distinct
alternative measure but, rather, was presented as an illustration of material recycling, which the Panel
discussed extensively.
209. Accordingly, we find that the Panel did not fail to conduct an objective assessment of the
facts, as required by Article 11 of the DSU, in finding that the disposal methods for waste tyres
suggested by the European Communities were not reasonably available alternatives to the Import Ban.
C. General Conclusion on the Necessity Analysis under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994
210. At this stage, it may be useful to recapitulate our views on the issue of whether the Import
Ban is necessary within the meaning of Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994. This issue illustrates the
tensions that may exist between, on the one hand, in ternational trade and, on the other hand, public
health and environmental concerns arising from the handling of waste generated by a product at the
end of its useful life. In this respect, the funda mental principle is the right that WTO Members have
to determine the level of protection that they cons ider appropriate in a given context. Another key
element of the analysis of the necessity of a measu re under Article XX(b) is the contribution it brings
to the achievement of its objective. A contribution ex ists when there is a genuine relationship of ends
and means between the objective pursu ed and the measure at issue. To be characterized as necessary,
a measure does not have to be indispensable. Howe ver, its contribution to the achievement of the
objective must be material, not merely marginal or insignificant, especially if the measure at issue is

400European Communities' second written submission to the Panel, para. 137.
401See Ibid., para. 138 under subheading II.A.4 (c) iv) "Material recycling", p. 41.

as trade restrictive as an import ban. Thus, the c ontribution of the measure has to be weighed against
its trade restrictiveness, taking into account the im portance of the interests or the values underlying
the objective pursued by it. As a key component of a comprehensive policy aiming to reduce the risks
arising from the accumulation of waste tyres, the Im port Ban produces such a material contribution to
the realization of its objective. Like the Panel, we consider that this contribution is sufficient to
conclude that the Import Ban is necessary, in the absence of reasonably available alternatives.
211. The European Communities proposed a series of a lternatives to the Import Ban. Whereas the
Import Ban is a preventive non-generation measure, most of the proposed alternatives are waste
management and disposal measures that are remedial in character. We consider that measures to
encourage domestic retreading or to improve the re treadability of tyres, a better enforcement of the
import ban on used tyres, and a better implementation of existing collection and disposal schemes, are
complementary to the Import Ban; indeed, they constitute mutually supportive elements of a
comprehensive policy to deal with waste tyres. Th erefore, these measures cannot be considered real
alternatives to the Import Ban. As regards landfilling, stockpiling, co-incineration of waste tyres, and
material recycling, these remedial methods carry th eir own risks or, because of the costs involved, are
capable of disposing of only a limited number of waste tyres. The Panel did not err in concluding that
the proposed measures or practices are not reasonably available alternatives.
212. Accordingly, having already found that the Pa nel did not breach its duty under Article 11 of
the DSU, and in the light of the above considerations, we uphold the Panel's finding, in paragraph
7.215 of the Panel Report, that the Import Ban can be considered "necessary to protect human, animal
or plant life or health."

VI. The Panel's Interpretation and Application of the Chapeau of Article XX of the GATT
1994
A. The MERCOSUR Exemption and the Chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994
213. After finding that the Import Ban was provisi onally justified under Article XX(b) of the
GATT 1994
 402, the Panel examined whether the applicati on of the Import Ban by Brazil satisfied the
requirements of the chapeau of Article XX.

402Panel Report, para. 7.215.

214. The chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994 reads:
Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a
manner which would constitute a mean s of arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination between countries wher e the same conditions prevail,
or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this
Agreement shall be construed to pr event the adoption or enforcement
... of measures [of the type specified in the subsequent paragraphs of
Article XX].
215. The focus of the chapeau , by its express terms, is on th e application of a measure already
found to be inconsistent with an obligation of the GATT 1994 but falling within one of the paragraphs
of Article XX.
403 The chapeau's requirements are two-fold. First, a measure provisionally justified
under one of the paragraphs of Article XX must not be applied in a manner that would constitute
"arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination" between countries where the same conditions prevail.
Secondly, this measure must not be applied in a ma nner that would constitute "a disguised restriction
on international trade". Through these requirement s, the chapeau serves to ensure that Members'
rights to avail themselves of exceptions are exercise d in good faith to protect interests considered
legitimate under Article XX, not as a means to circ umvent one Member's obligations towards other
WTO Members.404
216. Having determined that the exemption from the Import Ban of remoulded tyres originating in
MERCOSUR countries resulted in discrimination in the application of the Import Ban, the Panel
examined whether this discrimination was arbitrary or unjustifiable. The Panel concluded that, as of
the time of its examination, the operation of the MERCOSUR exemption had not resulted in the
Import Ban being applied in a manner that would constitute "arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination",
within the meaning of the chapeau of Article XX. 405 The Panel also found that the MERCOSUR
exemption had not been shown "to date" to result in the Import Ban being applied in a manner that
would constitute "a disguised restriction on internatio nal trade", within the meaning of the chapeau of
Article XX.406 The European Communities appeals these findings of the Panel.

403Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 22, DSR 1996:I, 3, at 20; Appellate Body Report, US –
Gambling, para. 339.
404Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 22, DSR 1996:I, 3, at 20-21; Appellate Body Report, US
– Gambling, para. 339.
405Panel Report, para. 7.289.
406Ibid., paras. 7.354 and 7.355.

1. The MERCOSUR Exemption and Arbitrary or Unjustifiable Discrimination
217. Regarding the issue of whether the MERCOSUR exemption has resulted in the Import Ban
being applied in a manner that would constitute "a rbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination" between
countries where the same conditions prevail, the Pa nel noted, first, that the health impact of
remoulded tyres imported from MERCOSUR countri es and their European counterparts can be
expected to be comparable. 407 The Panel also observed that it was only after a MERCOSUR tribunal
found Brazil's ban on the importation of remoulded tyres to constitute a new restriction on trade
prohibited under MERCOSUR that Brazil exempted remoulded tyres originating in MERCOSUR
countries from the application of the Import Ban.408 For the Panel, the MERCOSUR exemption "does
not seem to be motivated by capricious or unpredictabl e reasons [as it] was adopted further to a ruling
within the framework of MERCOSUR, which has bi nding legal effects for Brazil, as a party to
MERCOSUR."409 The Panel added that the discrimination arising from the MERCOSUR exemption
was not "a priori unreasonable", because this discrimination arose in the context of an agreement of a
type expressly recognized under Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 that "inherently provides for
preferential treatment in favour of its members, thus leading to discrimination between those members
and other countries."
410
218. The European Communities argued before the Panel that Brazil was at least partially
responsible for the ruling that resulted in the MERCOSUR exemption because it did not defend itself
in the MERCOSUR proceedings on grounds related to human health and safety.411 The Panel was not
persuaded by this submission. I ndeed, the Panel considered it would not be appropriate for it "to
assess in detail the choice of arguments by Brazil in the MERCOSUR proceedings or to second-guess
the outcome of the case in light of Brazil's litigation strategy in those proceedings."412
219. For the Panel, the MERCOSUR ruling provided a reasonable basis to enact the MERCOSUR
exemption, with the implication that th e resulting discrimination is not arbitrary. 413 The Panel
indicated, however, that it was not suggesting that "the invocation of any international agreement
would be sufficient under any circumstances, in order to justify the existence of discrimination in the

407Panel Report, para. 7.270.
408Ibid., para. 7.271.
409Ibid., para. 7.272.
410Ibid., para. 7.273.
411Article 50(d) of the Treaty of Montevideo provides for an exception similar to Article XX(b) of the
GATT 1994. (See infra, footnote 443)
413Ibid., para. 7.281.

application of a measure under the chapeau of Article XX."
414 The Panel acknowledged that "casings
from non-MERCOSUR countries, as well as casings originally used in MERCOSUR, may be
retreaded in a MERCOSUR country and export ed to Brazil as originating in MERCOSUR." 415 The
Panel underscored that, "[i]f such im ports were to take place in such amounts that the achievement of
the objective of the measure at issue would be signi ficantly undermined, the application of the import
ban in conjunction with the MERCOSUR exempt ion would constitute a means of unjustifiable
discrimination."416 However, as of the time of the Panel' s examination, "volumes of imports of
retreaded tyres under the exemption appear not to have been significant." 417 The Panel concluded that
the MERCOSUR exemption has not resulted in the Import Ban being applied in a manner that would
constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination.
418
220. The European Communities claims that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of
the term "arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination" in the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994,
and in finding that the MERCOSUR exemption does not constitute such discrimination. According to
the European Communities, whether a measure invo lves arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination can
only be determined by taking into account the objectiv e of the measure at issue, in this case, the
protection of life and health from risks arising from mosquito-borne diseases and tyre fires. A
measure will not be arbitrary if it "appears as reasonable, predictable and foreseeable"419 in the light of
this objective. It follows, according to the European Communities, that the Panel erred in finding that
the MERCOSUR exemption did not constitute arbitr ary discrimination because it was introduced in
response to a ruling of a MERCOSUR arbitral tribunal. The MERCOSUR exemption does not further
but may undermine the stated objective of the measure. For this reason, it must be regarded as
"unreasonable, contradictory, and thus arbitrary".
420 For the European Communities, allowing a
Member's obligations under other international agre ements to render discrimination consistent with
the chapeau of Article XX would seriously underm ine the effectiveness of the chapeau. The

414Panel Report, para. 7.283. The Panel also considered that it was not contrary to the terms of
Article XXIV:8(a) of the GATT 1994—which specifically excludes measures taken under Article XX from the
requirement to liberalize "substantially all the trade" within a customs union—to take into account, as it did, "the
fact that the MERCOSUR exemption was adopted as a result of Brazil's obligations under MERCOSUR." (Ibid.,
para. 7.284)
415Ibid., para. 7.286.
416Ibid., para. 7.287.
417Ibid., para. 7.288. The Panel noted that imports of retreaded tyres under the MERCOSUR
exemption had increased tenfold since 2002, from 200 to 2,000 tons per year by 2004. For the Panel, "[t]hat
figure remains much lower than the 14,000 tons per year imported from the European Communities alone prior
to the imposition of the import ban." ( Ibid. (referring to European Communities' first written submission to the
Panel, para. 80))
418Ibid., para. 7.289.
420Ibid., para. 323.

European Communities adds that, in any event, the MERCOSUR tribunal did not oblige Brazil to
discriminate between its MERCOSUR partners and other WTO Members, and that Brazil could have
implemented the ruling by lifting the Import Ban for all third countries.421
221. With respect to the Panel's finding that unjus tifiable discrimination could arise if imports
under the MERCOSUR exemption were to take place in such amounts that the achievement of the
objective of the Import Ban would be significantly undermined 422, the European Communities argues
that the Panel applied a test that has no basis in the text of Article XX and no support in the case law
of the Appellate Body or of previous panels. The European Communities also notes that "the level of
imports in a given year may be subject to str ong fluctuations, and for this reason ... is entirely
inadequate for the purposes of assessing the compatibility of a measure with Article XX".423
222. Brazil, for its part, supports the Panel's finding that the MERCOSUR exemption does not
result in the Import Ban being applied in a manner th at constitutes "arbitrary discrimination", contrary
to the chapeau of Article XX. In addition, Braz il disputes the European Communities' argument that
what constitutes "arbitrary discrimination" must be determined only in relation to the objective of the
Import Ban. According to Brazil, the specific contents of the measure, including its policy objectives,
must be examined under the exceptions listed in th e paragraphs of Article XX. The chapeau of
Article XX requires panels to examine whether th e measure at issue is applied reasonably, in a
manner that does not result in an abusive exercise of a Member's right to pursue its policy objectives.
Brazil adds, for the sake of argument, that the Pa nel in any event considered the objective of the
Import Ban when it determined that, at the time of its examination, volumes of imports of retreaded
tyres under the MERCOSUR exemption did not sign ificantly undermine the objective of the Import
Ban. Furthermore, according to Brazil, the Panel was correct in finding th at the ruling of the
MERCOSUR tribunal provided a rational basis for the adoption of the MERCOSUR exemption.
223. For Brazil, the operation of the MERCOSUR exemption has not resulted in the Import Ban
being applied in a manner that would constitute "unj ustifiable discrimination". The Panel determined
how Brazil's policy objective of reducing to the ma ximum extent possible unnecessary generation of
tyre waste was being affected by imports of re treaded tyres under the MERCOSUR exemption. The
level of imports and their effect on the objective of the Import Ban were re levant, in particular,
because the chapeau of Article XX focuses on the application of the measure at issue.

422Panel Report, para. 7.287.

224. We begin our analysis by recalling that the func tion of the chapeau is the prevention of abuse
of the exceptions specified in the paragraphs of Article XX.
424 In US – Shrimp , the Appellate Body
stated that "[t]he chapeau of Article XX is, in fact, but one expression of the principle of good
faith."425 The Appellate Body added that "[o]ne applica tion of this general principle, the application
widely known as the doctrine of abus de droit , prohibits the abusive exercise of a state's rights and
enjoins that whenever the assertion of a right 'impinges on the field covered by [a] treaty obligation, it
must be exercised bona fide, that is to say, reasonably.'" 426 Accordingly, the task of interpreting and
applying the chapeau is "the delicate one of loca ting and marking out a line of equilibrium between
the right of a Member to invoke an exception unde r Article XX and the rights of the other Members
under varying substantive provisions (e.g., Article XI) of the GATT 1994, so that neither of the
competing rights will cancel out the other and thereby distort and nullify or impair the balance of
rights and obligations constructed by the Members themselves in that Agreement." 427 The location of
this line of equilibrium may move "as the kind and the shape of the measures at stake vary and as the
facts making up specific cases differ."428
225. Analyzing whether discrimination is arbitrary or unjustifiable usually involves an analysis
that relates primarily to the cause or the rationale of the discrimination. Thus, we observe that, in
US – Gasoline , the Appellate Body assessed the two explana tions provided by the United States for
the discrimination resulting from the application of the baseline establis hment rules at issue. 429 As it
found them unsatisfactory, the Appellate Body c oncluded that the application of the baseline
establishment rules resulted in arbitr ary or unjustifiable discrimination. 430 I n US – Shrimp , the
Appellate Body relied on a number of factors in findi ng that the measure at issue resulted in arbitrary
or unjustifiable discrimination. The assessment of these factors by the Appellate Body was part

424Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 22, DSR 1996:I, 3, at 21.
426Ibid. (quoting B. Cheng, General Principles of Law as applied by International Courts and Tribunals
(Stevens and Sons, Ltd., 1953), chap. 4, at 125).
427Ibid., para. 159.
428Ibid.
429The US – Gasoline case involved a programme aiming to ensure that pollution from gasoline
combustion did not exceed 1990 levels. Baselines for the year 1990 were set as a means for determining
compliance with the programme requirements. These baselines could be either individual or statutory,
depending on the nature of the entity concerned. Whereas individual baselines were available to domestic
refiners, they were not to foreign refiners.
The first explanation provided by the United States for such discrimination was the impracticability of
verification and enforcement of individual baselines for foreign refiners. (Appellate Body Report, US –
Gasoline, pp. 25-26, DSR 1996:I, 3, at 23-24) Secondly, the United States explained that imposing the statutory
baseline requirement on domestic refiners as well was no t an option, because it was not feasible to require
domestic refiners to incur the physical and financial costs and burdens entailed by immediate compliance with a
statutory baseline. (Ibid., p. 28, DSR 1996:I, 3, at 26-27)
430Ibid., p. 29, DSR 1996:I, 3, at 27.

of an analysis that was directed at the cause, or the rationale, of the discrimination. 431 US – Shrimp
(Article 21.5 – Malaysia) concerned measures taken by the United States to implement
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in US – Shrimp . The Appellate Body's analysis of these
measures under the chapeau of Article XX focused on whether discrimination that might result from
the application of those measures had a legitimate cause or rationale in the light of the objectives
listed in the paragraphs of Article XX.432
226. The Appellate Body Reports in US – Gasoline, US – Shrimp, and US – Shrimp (Article 21.5 –
Malaysia) show that the analysis of whether the app lication of a measure results in arbitrary or
unjustifiable discrimination should focus on the cau se of the discrimination, or the rationale put
forward to explain its existence. In this case, Brazil explained that it introduced the MERCOSUR
exemption to comply with a ruling issued by a MERCOSUR arbitral tribunal. This ruling arose in the
context of a challenge initiated by Uruguay agains t Brazil's import ban on remoulded tyres, on the
grounds that it constituted a new restricti on on trade prohibited under MERCOSUR. The
MERCOSUR arbitral tribunal found Brazil's restrictions on the importation of remoulded tyres to be a
violation of its obligations under MERCOSUR. These facts are undisputed.
227. We have to assess whether this explanation prov ided by Brazil is acceptable as a justification
for discrimination between MERCOSUR countries and non-MERCOSUR countries in relation to
retreaded tyres. In doing so, we are mindful of the function of the chapeau of Article XX, which is to
prevent abuse of the exceptions specified in the paragraphs of that provision. 433 In our view, there is

431These factors were: (i) the discrimination that resulted from a "rigid and unbending requirement"
(Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp , para. 177; see also para. 163) that countries exporting shrimp into the
United States adopt a regulatory programme that is essentially the same as the United States' programme;
(ii) the discrimination that resulted from the failure to take into account different conditions that may occur in
the territories of other WTO Members, in particular, specific policies and m easures other than those applied by
the United States that might have been adopted by an exporting country for the protection and conservation of
sea turtles (ibid., paras. 163 and 164); (iii) the discrimination that resulted from the application of the measure
was "difficult to reconcile with the declared policy ob jective of protecting and conserving sea turtles" ( ibid.,
para. 165), because, in some circumstances, shrimp caught abroad using methods identical to those employed in
the United States would be excluded from the United States market; and (iv) the discrimination that resulted
from the fact that, while the United States negotiated seriously with some WTO Members exporting shrimp into
the United States for the purpose of concluding international agreements for the protection and conservation of
sea turtles, it did not do so with other WTO Members (ibid., paras. 166 and 172).
432Thus, the Appellate Body endorsed the panel's conclusion that conditioning market access on the
adoption of a regulatory programme for the protectio n and conservation of sea turtles comparable in
effectiveness—as opposed to the adoption of "essent ially the same" regulatory programme—"allows for
sufficient flexibility in the application of the measure so as to avoid 'arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination'".
(Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp (Article 21.5 – Malaysia) , para. 144) The Appellate Body also
considered that the measures adopted by the United States permitted a degree of flexibility that would enable the
United States to consider the particular conditions prev ailing in Malaysia, notably because it provides that, in
making certification determinations, the United States authorities "shall also take fully into account other
measures the harvesting nation undertakes to protect sea turtles". (Ibid., para. 147)
433Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 22, DSR 1996:I, 3, at 21.

such an abuse, and, therefore, there is arbitr ary or unjustifiable discrimination when a measure
provisionally justified under a paragraph of Ar ticle XX is applied in a discriminatory manner
"between countries where the same conditions pr evail", and when the reasons given for this
discrimination bear no rational connection to the ob jective falling within the purview of a paragraph
of Article XX, or would go against that objective. The assessment of whether discrimination is
arbitrary or unjustifiable should be made in the li ght of the objective of the measure. We note, for
example, that one of the bases on which the Appellate Body relied in US – Shrimp for concluding
that the operation of the measure at issue result ed in unjustifiable discrimination was that one
particular aspect of the application of the measure (t he measure implied that, in certain circumstances,
shrimp caught abroad using methods identical to those employed in the United States would be
excluded from the United States market
 434) was "difficult to reconcile with the declared objective of
protecting and conserving sea turtles". 435 Accordingly, we have difficulty understanding how
discrimination might be viewed as complying with the chapeau of Article XX when the alleged
rationale for discriminating does not relate to the pur suit of or would go against the objective that was
provisionally found to justify a measure under a paragraph of Article XX.
228. In this case, the discrimination between ME RCOSUR countries and other WTO Members in
the application of the Import Ban was introduced as a consequence of a ruling by a MERCOSUR
tribunal. The tribunal found against Brazil because the restriction on imports of remoulded tyres was
inconsistent with the prohibition of new trade r estrictions under MERCOSUR law. In our view, the
ruling issued by the MERCOSUR arbitral tribunal is not an acceptable rationale for the
discrimination, because it bears no relationship to th e legitimate objective pursued by the Import Ban
that falls within the purview of Article XX(b), and even goes against this objective, to however small
a degree. Accordingly, we are of the view that the MERCOSUR exemption has resulted in the Import
Ban being applied in a manner that constitutes arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination.
229. The Panel considered that the MERCOSUR ex emption resulted in discrimination between
MERCOSUR countries and other WTO Members, but that this discrimination would be
"unjustifiable" only if imports of retreaded tyres entering into Brazil "were to take place in such
amounts that the achievement of the objective of the measure at issue would be significantly
undermined".
436 The Panel's interpretation implies that the determination of whether discrimination is
unjustifiable depends on the quantitative impact of this discrimination on the achievement of the
objective of the measure at issue. As we indicated above, analyzing whether discrimination is

435Ibid.
436Panel Report, para. 7.287.

"unjustifiable" will usually involve an analysis that relates primarily to the cause or the rationale of
the discrimination. By contrast, the Panel's interp retation of the term "unjustifiable" does not depend
on the cause or rationale of the discrimination but, ra ther, is focused exclusively on the assessment of
the effects of the discrimination. The Panel's approach has no support in the text of Article XX and
appears to us inconsistent with the manner the Appellate Body has interpreted and applied the concept
of "arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination" in previous cases.437
230. Having said that, we recognize that in certain cases the effects of the discrimination may be a
relevant factor, among others, for determining whethe r the cause or rationale of the discrimination is
acceptable or defensible and, ultimately, whether th e discrimination is justifiable. The effects of
discrimination might be relevant, depending on the circumstances of the case, because, as we
indicated above
 438, the chapeau of Article XX deals with the manner of application of the measure at
issue. Taking into account as a relevant factor, among others, the effects of the discrimination for
determining whether the rationale of the discrimin ation is acceptable is, however, fundamentally
different from the Panel's approach, which focused ex clusively on the relationship between the effects
of the discrimination and its justifiable or unjustifiable character.
231. We also note that the Panel found that the discrimination resulting from the MERCOSUR
exemption is not arbitrary. The Panel explaine d that this discrimination cannot be said to be
"capricious" or "random" 439 because it was adopted further to a ruling within the framework of
MERCOSUR.440
232. Like the Panel, we believe that Brazil's d ecision to act in order to comply with the
MERCOSUR ruling cannot be viewed as "capricious" or "random". Acts implementing a decision of
a judicial or quasi-judicial body—such as the MERCOSUR arbitral tribunal—can hardly be
characterized as a decision that is "capricious" or "random". However, discrimination can result from
a rational decision or behaviour, and still be "arbitrary or unjustifiable", because it is explained by a

437See supra, paras. 225 and 226. We also observe that the Panel's approach was based on a logic that
is different in nature from that followed by the Ap pellate Body when it addressed the national treatment
principle under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 in Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II . In that case, the Appellate
Body stated that Article III aims to ensure "equality of competitive conditions for imported products in relation to
domestic products". (Appellate Body Report, Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II , p. 16, DSR 1996:I, 97, at 109)
The Appellate Body added that "it is irrelevant that 'the trade effects' of the [measure at issue], as reflected in the
volumes of imports, are insignificant or even non-existent". ( Ibid., at 110) For the Appellate Body, "Article III
protects expectations not of any particular trade volume but rather of the equal competitive relationship between
imported and domestic products." (Ibid. (footnote omitted))
438Supra, para. 215.
439Panel Report, para. 7.281.
440Ibid., para. 7.272.

rationale that bears no relationship to the objectiv e of a measure provisionally justified under one of
the paragraphs of Article XX, or goes against that objective.
441
233. Accordingly, we find that the MERCOSUR exemption h as resulted in the Import Ban being
applied in a manner that constitutes arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination. Furthermore, we
reverse the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.287 of the Panel Report, that, under the chapeau of
Article XX of the GATT 1994, discrimination would be unjustifiable only if imports of retreaded
tyres entering into Brazil "were to take place in su ch amounts that the achievement of the objective of
the measure at issue would be significantly undermined". We therefore reverse the Panel's findings,
in paragraphs 7.288 and 7.289 of the Panel Report, that the MERCOSUR exemption has not resulted
in unjustifiable discrimination. We also reverse the Panel's findings, in pa ragraphs 7.281 and 7.289
of the Panel Report, that, to the extent that the MERCOSUR exemption is not the result of
"capricious" or "random" action, the Import Ban is not applied in a manner that would constitute
arbitrary discrimination.
234. This being said, we observe, like the Panel 442, that, before the arbitral tribunal established
under MERCOSUR, Brazil could have sought to just ify the challenged Import Ban on the grounds of
human, animal, and plant health under Article 50(d) of the Treaty of Montevideo. 443 Brazil, however,
decided not to do so. It is not appropriate for us to second-guess Brazil's decision not to invoke
Article 50(d), which serves a function similar to th at of Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994. However,
Article 50(d) of the Treaty of Montevideo, as well as the fact that Brazil might have raised this
defence in the MERCOSUR arbitral proceedings
444, show, in our view, that the discrimination
associated with the MERCOSUR exemption does not necessarily result from a conflict between
provisions under MERCOSUR and the GATT 1994.445

441See supra, paras. 227 and 228.
442Panel Report, paras. 7.275 and 7.276.
443Treaty of Montevideo, Instrument Establishing the Latin American Integration Association
(ALADI), done at Montevideo, August 1980 (Exhibit EC-39 submitted by the European Communities to the
Panel). Article 50(d) reads as follows:
No provision under the present Treaty shall be interpreted as precluding the
adoption and observance of measures regarding:

d. Protection of human, animal and plant life and health;
444See Panel Report, para. 7.275.
445In addition, we note that Artic le XXIV:8(a) of the GATT 1994 ex empts, where necessary, measures
permitted under Article XX from the obligation to elim inate "duties and other restrictive regulations of
commerce" with respect to "substantially all the trade" within a customs union. Therefore, if we assume, for the
sake of argument, that MERCOSUR is consistent w ith Article XXIV and that the Import Ban meets the
requirements of Article XX, this meas ure, where necessary, could be exempted by virtue of Article XXIV:8(a)
from the obligation to eliminate other restrictive regulations of commerce within a customs union.

2. The MERCOSUR Exemption and Disgui sed Restriction on International
Trade
235. The European Communities also challenges the Panel's conclusion that the MERCOSUR
exemption had not been shown to date to result in the Import Ban being applied in a manner that
would constitute "a disguised restriction on international trade".446
236. When examining whether the Import Ban was applied in a manner that constitutes a disguised
restriction on international trade, the Panel w as not persuaded by the European Communities'
contention that Brazil adopted the prohibition on the importation of retreaded tyres as "a disguise to
conceal the pursuit of trade-restrictive objectives". 447 The Panel recalled that Brazil bans both used
and retreaded tyre imports; for the Panel, such an approach "is consistent with Brazil's declared
objective of reducing to the greatest extent possi ble the unnecessary accumulation of short-lifespan
tyres"448, and "in principle deprives Brazilian retreader s of the opportunity to source casings from
abroad".449
237. The Panel went on to examine more specifica lly the European Communities' argument that
"the MERCOSUR exemption results in the applicatio n of the measure in a manner that constitutes a
disguised restriction on international trade, as it al ters trade flows in a manner that benefits, in
addition to Brazilian retreaders, retreaders from other MERCOSUR countries." 450 The Panel recalled
that, under this exemption, "it is quite possibl e for retreaders from MERCOSUR countries benefiting
from the exemption to source casings from abroad (for example from the European Communities),
retread them locally, and then export the retreaded tyres to Brazil under the MERCOSUR
exemption."451 The Panel referred to the reasoning that it had developed with respect to arbitrary or
unjustifiable discrimination and considered that, if imports from MERCOSUR countries were to occur
in significant amounts, the Import Ban would be a pplied in a manner that constitutes a disguised
restriction on international trade. 452 The Panel was however of the view that, as of the time of its
examination, "the volume of imports of remoul ded tyres that has actually taken place under the
MERCOSUR exemption has not been significant."453

446Panel Report, para. 7.355.
448Ibid., para. 7.343.
449Ibid.
450Ibid., para. 7.350.
451Ibid., para. 7.352. (footnote omitted)
452Ibid., para. 7.353.
453Ibid., para. 7.354. (footnote omitted) See also supra, footnote 417.

238. On appeal, the European Communities does not challenge the Panel's conclusion that the
Import Ban was adopted with the intention of protecting public health and the environment. Its appeal
is, instead, limited to the specific findings ma de by the Panel in relation to the MERCOSUR
exemption
454 and the imports of used tyres through court injunctions. 455 For the European
Communities, the Panel addressed this question with a reasoning almost identical to that it had
developed in respect of the existence of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination. 456 Therefore, the
European Communities reasons, if the Panel's a pproach concerning arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination is not endorsed by the Appellate Body, the Panel's finding that the MERCOSUR
exemption has not been shown to date to result in a disguised restriction on international trade should
also be reversed. 457 In response to questioning at the oral hearing, the European Communities
confirmed that its claim in this regard is based on the same arguments it put forward in relation to
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination.
239. We agree with the European Communities' observation that the reasoning developed by the
Panel to reach the challenged conclusion was the sa me as that made in respect of arbitrary or
unjustifiable discrimination. Indeed, the Panel conditioned a finding of a disguised restriction on
international trade on the existence of significant im ports of retreaded tyres that would undermine the
achievement of the objective of the Import Ban. We explained above why we believe that the Panel
erred in finding that the MERCOSUR exemption would result in arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination only if the imports of retreaded tyres from MERCOSUR countries were to take place
in such amounts that the achievement of the obj ective of the Import Ban would be significantly
undermined.458 As the Panel's conclusion that the MERCOSUR exemption has not resulted in a
disguised restriction on international trade was based on an interpretation that we have reversed, this
finding cannot stand. Therefore, we also reverse the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.354 and 7.355
of the Panel Report, that "the MERCOSUR exemption ... has not been shown to date to result in the
[Import Ban] being applied in a manner that would constitute ... a disguised restriction on
international trade."

454Panel Report, paras. 7.350-7.355.
455Ibid., paras. 7.347-7.349 and 7.355. We examine this aspect of the European Communities' appeal
in Section VI.B.2 of this Report.
457Ibid., paras. 367 and 368.
458Supra, Section VI.A.1.

B. Imports of Used Tyres through Court Injunc tions and the Chapeau of Article XX of
the GATT 1994
1. Imports of Used Tyres through Court Injunctions and Arbitrary or
Unjustifiable Discrimination
240. The European Communities submits that the Panel e rred in its analysis of the imports of used
tyres through court injunctions under the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994. We begin our
analysis with the requirement in the chapeau of Artic le XX that the measure at issue not be applied in
a manner that would result in "arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination".
241. The Panel determined that the imports of used tyres through court injunctions resulted in
discrimination in favour of domestic retreaders. Th is is because these imports enabled retreaded tyres
to be produced in Brazil from imported casings, while retreaded tyres produced abroad using the same
casings could not be imported. 459 Having done so, the Panel went on to examine whether this
discrimination is arbitrary or unjustifiable.
242. The Panel noted that the importation of used ty res into Brazil is prohibited, and that "used
tyres have been imported into Brazil in recent years only as a result of injunctions granted by
Brazilian courts in specific cases." 460 The Panel found that the discrimination resulting from the
imports of used tyres through court injunctions was not the consequence of a "capricious" or
"random" action, and that, to this extent, the Im port Ban was not applied in a manner that would
constitute arbitrary discrimination.
461
243. The Panel recalled, however, that the contributio n of the Import Ban to the achievement of its
objective "is premised on imports of used tyres being prohibited". 462 For the Panel, the granting of
injunctions allowing used tyres to be imported "runs di rectly counter to this premise, as it effectively
allows the very used tyres that ar e prevented from entering into Brazil after retreading to be
imported before retreading."463 The Panel examined the volumes of imports of used tyres that have
taken place under the court injunctions. For the Panel, the amounts of imports of used tyres that have

459Panel Report, para. 7.243.
460Ibid., para. 7.292. (footnote omitted) The Panel also observed that Brazil has challenged these
injunctions "with a certain degree of success". (Ibid.) For the Panel, the imports of used tyres were "the result of
successful court challenges", and found their basis "in the customs author ities' need to give effect to judicial
orders". (Ibid.) The Panel added that nothing in the evidence suggested that the decisions of the Brazilian courts
granting those injunctions were capricious or unpr edictable, nor does "the decision of the Brazilian
administrative authorities to comply with the preliminary injunctions ... seem irrational or unpredictable". (Ibid.,
para. 7.293)
461Ibid., para. 7.294.
462Ibid., para. 7.295.
463Ibid. (original emphasis)

actually taken place under the court injunctions were significant.
464 Accordingly, the Panel found
that, "since used tyre imports have been taking pl ace under the court injunctions in such amounts that
the achievement of Brazil's declared objective is be ing significantly undermined, the measure at issue
is being applied in a manner that constitutes a means of unjustifiable discrimination."465
244. For the European Communities, the Panel erred in finding that the imports of used tyres
through court injunctions do not result in arbitrary di scrimination, given that "[w]hat is arbitrary must
be decided in the light of the stated objectives of the measure". 466 Because, from the point of view of
the protection of human life or health, there is no difference between, on the one hand, a retreaded
tyre produced in the European Communities and, on the other hand, a retreaded tyre produced in
Brazil from a casing imported from the European Co mmunities, prohibiting imported retreaded tyres
while allowing the importation of used tyres thr ough court injunctions must be regarded as
constituting arbitrary discrimination. 467 Furthermore, the European Communities maintains that, as
regards the issue of whether court injunctions constitute unjustifiable discrimination, the Panel
adopted the same erroneous quantitative appr oach as it did when discussing the MERCOSUR
exemption.468 The European Communities adds that the Panel's approach engenders uncertainty for
the implementation of the Panel Report, because the Panel did not identify "the threshold below which
the imports of used tyres would no longer be significant".469
245. Brazil submits that the Panel did not err in th e analytical approach it adopted to determine
whether imports of used tyres under court injunctio ns resulted in the Import Ban being applied in a
manner that constituted "arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination" under the chapeau of Article XX.
For Brazil, it was appropriate for the Panel to cons ider the level of imports of used tyres in its
determination. Brazil thus dismisses the European Communities' argument that the Panel's approach
engenders uncertainty for the implementation of the Panel Report, and stresses that the monitoring of
a WTO Member's compliance is an integral part of the dispute settlement system.

464Panel Report, paras. 7.297 and 7.303. In partic ular, the Panel noted that, in 2005, Brazil imported
approximately 10.5 million used tyres, compared to 1.4 million in 2000, the year in which the ban on imports of
used and retreaded tyres was first enacted (Portaria SECE X 8/2000). The Panel also observed that the total
number of retreaded tyres imported annually to Brazil, from all sources, was 2-3 million prior to the Import Ban.
Thus, according to the Panel, in 2005, the imports of used tyres were approximately three times the amount of
retreaded and used tyres combined that were imported annually prior to the Import Ban. ( Ibid., paras. 7.301 and
7.302)
465Ibid., para. 7.306.
467Ibid.
468Ibid., para. 360.
469Ibid., para. 363.

246. As we explained above, the analysis of whet her the application of a measure results in
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination should focus on the cause or rationale given for the
discrimination.470 For Brazil, the fact that Brazilian retreaders are able to use imported casings is the
result of the decisions of the Brazilian administra tive authorities to comply with court injunctions. 471
We observe that this explanation bears no relati onship to the objective of the Import Ban—reducing
exposure to the risks arising from the accumulation of waste tyres to the maximum extent possible.
The imports of used tyres through court injunctio ns even go against the objective pursued by the
Import Ban. As we indicated above, there is arb itrary or unjustifiable discrimination, within the
meaning of the chapeau of Article XX, when a Me mber seeks to justify the discrimination resulting
from the application of its measure by a rationale that bears no relationship to the accomplishment of
the objective that falls within the purview of one of the paragraphs of Article XX, or goes against this
objective. Accordingly, we find that the imports of used tyres through court injunctions have
resulted in the Import Ban being applied in a ma nner that constitutes arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination.
247. The Panel approached the question of whether the imports of used tyres through court
injunctions result in unjustifiable discriminati on in the same manner as it did with the MERCOSUR
exemption. We explained above why we are of the view that this quantitative approach—according
to which discrimination would be characteri zed as unjustifiable only if imports under the
MERCOSUR exemption take place in such amounts that the achievement of the objective of the
measure at issue would be "significantly undermined" 472—is flawed. 473 Accordingly, we reverse the
Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7. 296 and 7.306 of the Panel Report, that the imports of used tyres
through court injunctions have resulted in the Import Ban being applied in a manner that constitutes
unjustifiable discrimination only to the extent that such imports have taken place in volumes that
significantly undermine the achievement of the objec tive of the Import Ban. Furthermore, for the
same reasons as those explained in paragraph 232, we reverse the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.294
of the Panel Report, that the imports of used tyres under court injunctions have not resulted in
arbitrary discrimination to the extent that such im ports are not the result of "capricious" or "random"
action.

470Supra, Section VI.A.1.
471See Panel Report, paras. 7.292 and 7.293; see also Brazil's appellee's submission, para. 245.
472Panel Report, para. 7.287 (as regards the MERCOSUR exemption); see also para. 7.296 (with
respect to the imports of used tyres through court injunctions).
473Supra, Section VI.A.1.

2. Imports of Used Tyres and Disguised Restriction on International Trade

248. The Panel found that, "since imports of used tyres take place in significant amounts under
court injunctions to the benefit of the domestic re treading industry, the [Impor t Ban] is being applied
in a manner that constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade." 474 The Panel reasoned that
the restriction on international trade inherent in the Import Ban has operated to the benefit of domestic
retreaders, because "[t]he granting of court injunc tions for the importation of used tyres has ... in
effect meant that ... domestic retreaders have been ab le to continue to bene fit from the importation of
used tyres as material for their own activity in significant amounts, while their competitors from non-
MERCOSUR countries have been kept out of the Brazilian market."475
249. The European Communities submits that the Pane l erred in finding that the imports of used
tyres through court injunctions would have resulted in the Import Ban being applied in a manner that
constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade only to the extent that these imports are taking
place in such quantities that they significan tly undermine the objective of the Import Ban. 476 T h e
European Communities refers to the arguments it made regarding the existence of arbitrary or
unjustifiable discrimination, and reiterates its view that the Panel's reliance on import volumes for the
purpose of determining compatibility with the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994 is
erroneous.477
250. Brazil argues that the Panel correctly considered the volume of imports of used tyres as part
of its determination that the Im port Ban was being applied in a ma nner that constituted a disguised
restriction on international trade, and refers to th e arguments that it made before the Panel in support
of this position.
251. The reasoning elaborated by the Panel to reach the challenged finding was the same as that it
developed in respect of "arbitrary or unjustifiabl e discrimination". Indeed, the Panel conditioned a
finding of a disguised restriction on international trade on the existence of imports of used tyres in
amounts that would significantly undermine the achievement of the objective of the Import Ban. We
explained above why we consider this reasoning of the Panel erroneous. As the challenged finding
results from the same reasoning that we have found to be erroneous and have rejected, this finding of
the Panel cannot stand. Accordingly, we reverse the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.349 of the Panel
Report, that the imports of used tyres through cour t injunctions have resulted in the Import Ban being

474Panel Report, para. 7.349.
475Ibid., para. 7.348. (footnote omitted)
476Ibid., para. 7.349.

applied in a manner that constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade only to the extent that
these imports are taking place in such quantities that they significantly undermine the objective of the
Import Ban.
252. We found that the MERCOSUR exemption and the imports of used tyres under court
injunctions have resulted in the Im port Ban being applied in a manner that is inconsistent with the
chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994. In the light of these findings, we uphold, albeit for
different reasons, the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.357 and 8.1(a)(i) and (ii) of the Panel Report,
that the Import Ban, found by the Panel to be incons istent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, is not
justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994.

VII. The European Communities' Claims that th e MERCOSUR Exemption Is Inconsistent
with Article I:1 and Article XIII:1 of the GATT 1994
253. Before the Panel, the European Communiti es made separate claims regarding the
MERCOSUR exemption, namely, that the MERCOSUR exemption was inconsistent with Article I:1
and Article XIII:1 of the GATT 1994. Brazil did not contest that the MERCOSUR exemption was
 prima facie inconsistent with Articles I:1 and XIII:1, but claimed that it was justified under
Articles XX(d) and XXIV of the GATT 1994.
254. After noting that the MERCOSUR exemption and the Import Ban have the same legal basis,
namely, Article 40 of Portaria SECEX 14/2004 478, the Panel emphasized that, under Article 11 of the
DSU, "it was required to address only those issues th at are necessary for the resolution of the matter
between the parties." 479 The Panel recalled its earlier findings that the Import Ban was inconsistent
with Article XI:1 and not justifie d under Article XX(b). It then de cided to exercise judicial economy
in respect of the European Communities' separ ate claims that the MERCOSUR exemption was
inconsistent with Article I:1 and Article X III:1, and not justified under Articles XX(d) or
Article XXIV of the GATT 1994. According to the Panel, the MERCOSUR exemption derives from
and exists only in relation to the Import Ban. The Panel reasoned that, as it had already found that the
Import Ban was inconsistent with the requireme nts of the GATT 1994, it was unnecessary to examine
the European Communities' separate claims regarding the MERCOSUR exemption.480

478See Panel Report, para. 7.453.
479Ibid., para. 7.454 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Wool Shirts and Blouses , p. 18, DSR
1996:I, 323, at 339).
480Ibid., para. 7.455.

255. On appeal, the European Comm unities requests that we reverse the Panel's decision to
exercise judicial economy in relation to its separ ate claims regarding the MERCOSUR exemption.
The European Communities also re quests us to complete the legal analysis and find that the
MERCOSUR exemption is inconsistent with Ar ticles I:1 and XIII:1, and not justified under
Article XX(d) or Article XXIV of the GATT 1994. This request, however , is conditioned upon our
upholding the Panel's finding that the MERCOSUR exemption does not result in the Import Ban
being applied inconsistently with the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX.
256. As we have found that the MERCOSUR exemp tion results in the Import Ban being applied
inconsistently with the chapeau of Article XX, the condition on which the European Communities'
request is predicated has not been fulfilled. It is therefore not necessary for us to rule on the European
Communities' conditional appeal. Accordingly, we do not examine the European Communities'
conditional appeal and make no fi nding in relation to its separate claims that the MERCOSUR
exemption is inconsistent with Article I:1 and Article XIII:1 of the GATT 1994, and not justified
under Article XX(d) or Article XXIV of the GATT 1994.
257. Having said that, we observe that it might have been appropriate for the Panel to address the
European Communities' separate claims that the MERCOSUR exemption was inconsistent with
Article I:1 and Article XIII:1. We have previously indicated that the principle of judicial economy
"allows a panel to refrain from making multiple findi ngs that the same measure is inconsistent with
various provisions when a single, or a certain numbe r of findings of inconsistency, would suffice to
resolve the dispute"
481, and it seems that the Panel assumed this to be the case in the present dispute.
However, the Panel found that the MERCOSUR exemp tion resulted in the Import Ban being applied
consistently with the requirements of the chapeau of Artic le XX. In view of this finding, we must
acknowledge that we have difficulty seeing how the Pa nel could have been justified in not addressing
the separate claims of inconsistency under Article I:1 and Article XIII:1 directed at the MERCOSUR
exemption. We emphasize that panels must be mindful, when applying the principle of judicial
economy, that the aim of the dispute settlement m echanism under Article 3.7 of the DSU is to secure
a positive solution to the dispute. Therefore, a panel' s discretion to decline to rule on different claims
of inconsistency adduced in relation to the same me asure is limited by its duty to make findings that
will allow the DSB to make sufficiently precise re commendations and rulings 'in order to ensure
effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members.'"482

481Appellate Body Report, Canada – Wheat Exports and Grain Imports, para. 133.

VIII. Findings and Conclusions
258. For the reasons set out in this Report, the Appellate Body:
(a) with respect to the analysis of the necess ity of the Import Ban under Article XX(b) of
the GATT 1994:
(i) upholds the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.215 of the Panel Report, that the
Import Ban can be considered "necessary" within the meaning of
Article XX(b) and is thus provisionally justified under that provision; and
(ii) finds
 that the Panel did not breach its duty under Article 11 of the DSU to
make an objective assessment of the facts;
(b) with respect to the analysis under the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994:
(i) reverses the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.287, 7.354, and 7.355 of the
Panel Report, that the MERCOSUR exemption would result in the Import
Ban being applied in a manner that constitutes unjustifiable discrimination
and a disguised restriction on international trade only to the extent that it
results in volumes of imports of re treaded tyres that would significantly
undermine the achievement of the objective of the Import Ban;
(ii) reverses
 the Panel's findings, in paragr aphs 7.281 and 7.289 of the Panel
Report, that the MERCOSUR exemp tion has not resulted in arbitrary
discrimination; also reverses the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.288 and
7.289 of the Panel Report, that the MERCOSUR exemption has not resulted
in unjustifiable discrimination; and finds
, instead, that the MERCOSUR
exemption has resulted in the Import Ban being applied in a manner that
constitutes arbitrary or unjustifiable discr imination within the meaning of the
chapeau of Article XX;
(iii) reverses the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.296, 7.306, 7.349, and 7.355 of
the Panel Report, that the imports of used tyres under court injunctions have
resulted in the Import Ban being a pplied in a manner that constitutes
unjustifiable discrimination and a disgui sed restriction on international trade
only to the extent that such imports have taken place in volumes that
significantly undermine the achievement of the objective of the Import Ban;

(iv) reverses
 the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.294 of the Panel Report, that the
imports of used tyres under court inj unctions have not resulted in arbitrary
discrimination; and finds , instead, that the imports of used tyres under court
injunctions have resulted in the Import Ban being applied in a manner that
constitutes arbitrary or unjustifiable discr imination within the meaning of the
chapeau of Article XX; and
(c) with respect to Article XX of the GATT 1994, upholds
, albeit for different reasons,
the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.357 a nd 8.1(a)(i) and (ii) of the Panel Report,
that the Import Ban is not justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994; and
(d) with respect to the European Communities' claims that the MERCOSUR exemption is
inconsistent with Article I:1 and Article XIII:1 of the GATT 1994, finds that the
condition on which the European Communities' appeal is predicated is not satisfied,
and therefore does not consider it.
259. The Appellate Body recommends that the DSB request Brazil to bring its measure,
found in this Report, and in the Panel Report as modifi ed by this Report, to be inconsistent with the
GATT 1994, into conformity with its obligations under that Agreement.

Signed in the original in Geneva this 16th day of November 2007 by:

Georges Abi-Saab
Presiding Member

 _________________________ _________________________
 Luiz Olavo Baptista Yasuhei Taniguchi
 Member Member

ANNEX I

3 September 2007
 (07-3724)
 Original: English

Notification of an Appeal by the European Communities

under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),
and under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review

 The following notification, dated 3 September 2007, from the Delegation of the European
Commission, is being circulated to Members.

Procedures for Appellate Review, the European Co mmunities submits its Notice of Appeal on certain
issues of law covered in the Report of the Panel on
1 and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel.

2. The European Communities seeks review by the Appellate Body of the following aspects of
the Report of the Panel:
(a) The Panel's finding that the import ban on retreaded tyres was necessary within the
meaning of Article XX(b) of the GATT. The Panel's finding and corresponding
reasoning are contained in paragraphs 7.103 to 7.216 of the Panel Report. The EC
appeals this finding notably because:
- in assessing the contribution of the measure to the protection of human,
animal and plant life and health, the Panel merely assesses whether the ban is
capable of making a potential contribution to its stated objectives. This
reasoning is inconsistent with Article XX(b) of the GATT. Moreover, in
reaching its conclusion regarding the pot ential contribution of the ban, the
Panel also fails to make an objective assessment of the matter before it,
including of the facts of the case, as re quired by Article 11 of the DSU, and
effectively shifts the burden of proof to the EC;

1 WT/DS332/R, circulated on 12 June 2007.

- in assessing the reasonably available a lternative measures, the Panel wrongly
excludes some of the alternatives propo sed by the European Communities, on
the basis that those alternatives are re lated to the manner in which the import
ban is implemented in practice, that they are not necessarily readily available,
that they do not avoid the waste tyres arising specifically from imported
retreaded tyres, that they already exist in Brazil, or that they are individually
capable of disposing only of a small number of waste tyres. Moreover, the
Panel has ignored important facts and arguments presented by the European
Communities, has referred to the evid ence submitted by the parties in a
selective and distorted manner, and has e ffectively shifted the burden of proof
to the EC. These findings are inconsistent with Article XX(b) of the GATT
and with the Panel’s duty to make an objective assessment of the matter
before it, including of the facts of the case, as required by Article 11 of the
DSU;
- contrary to Article XX (b) of the GATT, the Panel has erred by not carrying
out a process of weighing and balancing the relevant factors and elements
(objective pursued, trade-restrictiven ess of the measure, contribution and
alternatives);
(b) the Panel’s finding that the exemption, from the import ban and other challenged
measures, of imports of retreaded tyres from other Mercosur countries does not
constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable discrim ination (paragraphs 7.270 to 7.289 of the
Panel Report). This finding is inconsistent with the chapeau of Article XX of the
GATT;
(c) the Panel’s finding that the imports of used tyres do not constitute arbitrary
discrimination and that they constitute unj ustified discrimination only to the extent
that they significantly undermine the obj ectives of the ban (paragraphs 7.292 to
7.294, 7.296 and 7.306 of the Panel Report). This finding is inconsistent with the
chapeau of Article XX of the GATT;
(d) the Panel’s finding that the Mercosur exemption does not constitute a disguised
restriction on international trade, and that imports of used tyres would constitute a
disguised restriction only to the extent that they significantly undermine the
objectives of the ban (paragraphs 7.347 to 7.35 5 of the Panel Report). This finding is
inconsistent with the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT;
(e) the Panel's decision to exercise judicial economy with respect to the European
Communities' claims under Articles XIII:1 a nd I:1 of the GATT (paragraphs 7.453 to
7.456 and 8.2 of the Panel Report). Si nce the Panel found that the Mercosur
exemption is not incompatible with the chapeau of Article XX GATT, a separate
finding on the compatibility of this exemption with Articles XIII:1 and I:1 GATT
would have been necessary to secure a positiv e resolution of the dispute, as required
by Articles 3.3, 3.4, 3.7 and 11 of the DSU. The European Communities therefore
asks the Appellate Body to find that the Me rcosur exemption is incompatible with
Articles XIII:1 and I:1 of the GATT, and is no t justified either by Article XXIV or by
Article XX(d) of the GATT.