AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTATION OF SALMON AB-1998-5
Document: Report of the Appellate Body
Date: 20 October 1998
Document codes: WT/DS18/AB/R
Complainant: Canada
Respondent: Australia
Third parties: EU, India, Norway, U.S.
Dispute stage: Implementation & Compliance
Agreements cited: Art. 2, 3, 5  Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)Art. XI, XIII  GATT 1994

AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTATION
OF SALMON
AB-1998-5
Report of the Appellate Body

APPELLATE BODY
Australia - Measures Affecting Importation of
Salmon
Australia, Appellant/Appellee
Canada, Appellant/Appellee
European Communities, India, Norway and the
United States, Third Participants
AB-1998-5
Present:
Ehlermann, Presiding Member
Beeby, Member
El-Naggar, Member
I. Introduction
1. Australia and Canada appeal from certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel
Report, Australia - Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon .1 The Panel was established to
consider a complaint by Canada regarding Australia's prohibition on the importation of fresh, chilled
or frozen salmon from Canada under Quarantine Proclamation 86A ("QP86A")
2, dated
19 February 1975 and any amendments or modifications thereto.
2. Before the promulgation of QP86A on 30 June 1975, Australia imposed no restrictions on the
importation of salmonid products. QP86A "prohibit[s] the importation into Australia of dead fish of
the sub-order Salmonidae, or any parts (other than semen or ova) of fish of that sub-order, in any form
unless: [...] prior to importation into Australia the fish or parts of fish have been subject to such
treatment as in the opinion of the Director of Quarantine is likely to prevent the introduction of any
infectious or contagious disease, or disease or pest affecting persons, animals or plants". Pursuant to
QP86A and in accordance with the authority delegated therein, the Director of Quarantine has
permitted the entry of commercial imports of heat-treated salmon products for human consumption as
well as non-commercial quantities of other salmon (primarily for scientific purposes) subject to

1, 12 June 1998.
2Quarantine Proclamation No. 86A, Australian Government Gazette, No. S33, 21 February 1975.

prescribed conditions.3 Canada requested access to the Australian market for fresh, chilled or frozen,
i.e., uncooked, salmon. Australia conducted an import risk analysis for uncooked, wild, adult, ocean-
caught Pacific salmonid product ("ocean-caught Pacific salmon"). This category of salmon is to be
distinguished from the other categories of salmon for which Canada seeks access to the Australian
market ("other Canadian salmon").
4 The risk analysis on ocean-caught Pacific salmon was first set
forth in the 1995 Draft Report 5, revised in May 1996 6 and finalized in December of 1996 (the
"1996 Final Report").7 The 1996 Final Report concluded that:
... it is recommended that the present quarantine policies for uncooked
salmon products remain in place.8
The Director of Quarantine, on the basis of the 1996 Final Report, decided on 13 December 1996 that:
... having regard to Australian Government policy on quarantine and
after taking account of Australia's international obligations,
importation of uncooked, wild, adult, ocean-caught Pacific salmonid
product from the Pacific rim of North America should not be
permitted on quarantine grounds.
9
The relevant factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in the Panel Report, in
particular, at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.30 as well as at paragraphs 6.1 to 6.157 and Annex 2, which deal
with the Panel's consultation with scientific experts.

3Panel Report, para. 2.16. With regard to the requirements laid down by the Director of Quarantine in
relation to salmon imports, the Panel refers explicitly to, inter alia, the following:
- Guidelines for the Importation of Smoked Salmon and Trout into Australia , Chief Quarantine
Officer (Animals) Circular Memorandum 82/83, dated 25 July 1983 (the "1983 Guidelines").
- Conditions for the Importation of Salmonid Meat and Roe into Australia , Chief Quarantine Officer
(Animals) Circular Memorandum 166/88, dated 9 June 1988 (the "1988 Conditions").
- Requirements for the Importation of Individual Consignments of Smoked Salmonid Meat ,
Quarantine Operational Notice 1996/022 of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service
("AQIS"), dated 24 January 1996 (the "1996 Requirements").
4I.e., adult, wild, freshwater-caught Pacific salmon; adult, Pacific salmon cultured in seawater on the
Pacific coast; adult, Atlantic salmon cultured in seaw ater on the Pacific coast; and adult, Atlantic salmon
cultured in seawater on the Atlantic coast.
5AQIS, Import Risk Analysis, Disease risks associated with the importation of uncooked, wild, ocean-
caught Pacific salmon product from the USA and Canada, Draft, May 1995.
6AQIS, An assessment by the Australian Government of quarantine controls on uncooked, wild, ocean-
caught Pacific salmonid product sourced from the United States of America and Canada , Revised Draft, May
1996.
7Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Salmon Import Risk Analysis: An assessment by the
Australian Government of quarantine controls on uncooked , wild, adult, ocean-caught Pacific salmonid product
sourced from the United-States of America and Canada, Final Report, December 1996.
81996 Final Report, page 70.
9AQIS, File Note by Paul Hickey, Executive Director, 13 December 1996 (the "1996 Decision").

3. The Panel Report was circulated to the Members of the World Trade Organization (the
"WTO") on 12 June 1998. The Panel found that Australia has acted inconsistently with Articles 5.1,
5.5 and 5.6 and, by implication, Articles 2.2 and 2.3 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (the "SPS Agreement"). In paragraph 9.1 of its Report, the Panel reached
the following conclusions:
(i) Australia, by maintaining a sanitary measure which is
not based on a risk assessment, has acted (both in so far as the
measure applies to salmon products at issue from adult, wild,
ocean-caught Pacific salmon and the other categories of
salmon products in dispute), inconsistently with the
requirements contained in Article 5.1 of the Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and, on
that ground, has also acted inconsistently with the
requirements contained in Article 2.2 of that Agreement;
(ii) Australia, by adopting arbitrary or unjustifiable
distinctions in the levels of sanitary protection it considers to
be appropriate in different situations (on the one hand, the
salmon products at issue from adult, wild, ocean-caught
Pacific salmon and, on the other hand, whole, frozen herring
for use as bait and live ornamental finfish), which result in
discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade,
has acted inconsistently with the requirements contained in
Article 5.5 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures and, on that ground, has also
acted inconsistently with the requirements contained in Article
2.3 of that Agreement;
(iii) Australia, by maintaining a sanitary measure (with
respect to those salmon products at issue from adult, wild,
ocean-caught Pacific salmon) which is more trade-restrictive
than required to achieve its appropriate level of sanitary
protection, has acted inconsistently with the requirements
contained in Article 5.6 of the Agreement on the Application
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
Since Article 3.8 of the DSU provides that "[i]n cases where there is
an infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered
agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of
nullification or impairment", we conclude that to the extent Australia
has acted inconsistently with the SPS Agreement it has nullified or
impaired the benefits accruing to Canada under the SPS Agreement.
In paragraph 9.2 of its Report, the Panel made the following recommendation:
We recommend that the Dispute Settlement Body request Australia to
bring its measure in dispute into conformity with its obligations under
the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures.

4. On 22 July 1998, Australia notified the Dispute Settlement Body (the "DSB") of its decision
to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed
by the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU"), and filed a notice of appeal
10 with the Appellate
Body pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (the " Working
Procedures"). On 3 August 1998, Australia filed an appellant's submission. 11 On 6 August 1998,
Canada also filed an appellant's submission. 12 On 14 August 1998, both Australia 13 and Canada 14
filed appellee's submissions. On the same day, the European Communities, India, Norway and the
United States filed separate third participant's submissions.
15
5. The oral hearing in the appeal was held on 21 and 22 August 1998. The participants and third
participants presented oral arguments and responded to questions put to them by the Members of the
Division hearing the appeal.
II. Arguments of the Participants and Third Participants
A. Australia - Appellant
1. Terms of Reference
6. Australia contends that inasmuch as the request for the establishment of a panel contained no
information on the specific measures that might be at issue, other than a general claim that the
measures include QP86A, Australia had no knowledge of the "specific claims of fact in regard to the
identification of the measures at issue". Since QP86A covers all salmonid products, including live,
fresh, chilled, frozen, smoked and canned salmon and trout, the request for a panel did not indicate the
specific measures that might be at issue. According to Australia, Canada "did not clarify" the measure
at issue in its first written submission, while Australia's first submission did, by contesting Canada's
claim about the measure, and by asserting that the measure at issue is the December 1996 Decision of
the Director of Quarantine. Since the differences between the parties on this matter were apparent
from the beginning, Australia considers that the Pane l's terms of reference required it to first examine
conflicting claims of fact, which otherwise, could lead to wrong factual presumptions.

10WT/DS18/5, 22 July 1998.
11Pursuant to Rule 21(1) of the Working Procedures.
12Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures.
13Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Working Procedures.
14Pursuant to Rule 23(3) of the Working Procedures.
15Pursuant to Rule 24 of the Working Procedures.

7. On a more substantive point, Australia argues that the Panel exceeded its terms of reference in
respect of "both the product covered and the applicable quarantine measures for consideration".
Australia contends that the Panel erred in law by extending its terms of reference beyond a sanitary
and phytosanitary ("SPS") measure having applicat ion to fresh, chilled or frozen salmon to include
heat treatment, an SPS measure which applies only to smoked salmon. Australia argues that the Panel
demonstrated "sharply flawed logic" by describing a quarantine measure for smoked salmon as the
sanitary aspect of a trade measure for fresh, chilled or frozen salmon ("the other side of a single
coin"). According to Australia, it is not a consequence of the requirement that smoked salmon be
heat-treated that imports of fresh, chilled or frozen salmon are prohibited. Australia stresses that
smoked salmon and fresh, chilled or frozen salmon are different products and that the quarantine
measures for each are not two sides of the same coin.
8. Australia further contends that the Panel erred in law by extending the product coverage, as
set out in its terms of reference, to heat-treated salmonid products. Australia concedes that while the
Panel expressly stated that heat-treated products fall outside the coverage of this dispute, nevertheless,
the Panel, "by the time of its examination of consistency of 'the measure' with the provisions of
Article 5.1 [of the SPS Agreement], seemingly decided that its terms of reference cover all forms of
salmon product processed from the 'initial' product, i.e., fresh salmon". As confirmed by the experts
advising the Panel, fresh, chilled or frozen salmon is not the same product as heat-treated (smoked)
salmon. These products enter Australia through different tariff classifications. Although the title of
the 1988 Conditions - "Conditions for the Importati on of Salmonid Meat and Roe into Australia" - is
"superficially broad", Australia asserts that the substantive provisions of the 1988 Conditions relating
to heat treatment are "clearly more narrowly directed" in their product scope and apply only to
smoked salmon and salmon roe. According to Australia, this was substantiated by factual evidence
before the Panel.
9. Australia also complains that the Panel exceeded its terms of reference by extending the scope
of its examination of Article 5 of the SPS Agreement to include Article 6 of the same Agreement.
Australia argues that the Panel "construed a 'doubt' about the 'strictness' of Australia's approach to
internal controls on movement of salmon products" on the basis of "an uncollaborated reference" to
Article 6. According to Australia, this "suggests that the Panels 'doubt' was based on an implied
finding of inconsistency with Article 6", a provision not included in the Panel's terms of reference.

2. Burden of Proof
10. Australia contends that the Panel failed to properly assess, in its consideration of the evidence
before it, whether Canada had discharged its burden of proof in relation to Articles 5.1, 5.5 and 5.6 of
the SPS Agreement. In particular, Australia asserts that Canada failed to raise a prima facie
presumption on the following claims: that the SPS measure at issue is not based on a risk assessment;
that the different situations the Panel examined are comparable on a scientific basis; that the SPS
measure is unjustified; that there is a causal connection between the arbitrary or unjustifiable
distinction in levels of sanitary protection and resultant discrimination or disguised restriction on
international trade; that there are alternative measures available which are economically and
technically feasible; and that at least one of these alternative measures could meet Australia's
appropriate level of protection.
11. Australia argues that the Panel did not require directly relevant scientific data to support
Canadian assertions, and thereby created an imbalance in the evidentiary standards demanded of the
complainant and respondent. According to Austra lia, while the Panel "superficially" adopted the
interpretative approach of the Appellate Body in EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products
(Hormones) ("European Communities - Hormones ")
16, it failed to follow the interpretative guidance
provided by the Panel Reports in the same case. 17 It maintained a conceptual approach to the
SPS Agreement modelled on Article III and Article XX of the GATT 1994 in regard to its
interpretations of the provisions of Articles 5.1, 5.5 and 5.6 and by association, Articles 2.2 and 2.3,
even in the manner of allocating the burden of proof.
3. Objective Assessment of the Matter
12. Australia asserts that a corollary of the requirement that a prima facie case be made out and
that a panel not undertake a de novo review, is that a panel should accord due deference to certain
matters of fact put forward by parties to a dispute. The Panel was obliged under WTO jurisprudence
and rules of customary international law to give due deference to certain evidence put before it by
Australia. Its failure to do this, according to Aust ralia, is evident in its treatment of Australia's
determination of its appropriate level of protection, Australia's characterization of the legal status and
application of its own SPS measures, and Australia's domestic practices and processes in risk
assessment including the role of draft reports and recommendations as part of the risk communication
stage.

16Adopted 13 February 1998, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R.
17Adopted 13 February 1998, WT/DS/26/R/USA and WT/DS48/R/CAN.

13. According to Australia, the Panel partially or wholly ignored relevant evidence placed before
it, or misrepresented evidence in a way that went beyond a mere question of the weight attributed to
it, but constituted an egregious error amounting to an error of law.
4. Other Procedural Matters
14. Australia and Canada were informed by the Panel that all evidence were to be submitted by
7 October 1997. According to Australia, the Panel erred in law by permitting Canada to submit
evidence of a scientific nature until 5 February 1998 and by drawing on some of this evidence in
reaching its findings. This evidence includes, in particular, two versions of an import risk analysis by
David Vose. Australia further complains that the Panel considered evidence on the effect of low-
range heat treatment on the growth of disease pathogens which Canada referred to in its oral statement
at the second substantive meeting with the Panel but which it never submitted.
15. Australia asserts that at the second substantive meeting, the Panel denied Australia the right to
submit a formal written rebuttal submission to Canada's oral statement which raised many "new
matters". Its grant of one week for a written comment limited to specific matters was not sufficient to
fully address the substantive issues raised in th e statement, in accordance with the time periods
provided by the Working Procedures of Appendix 3 of the DSU.
5. Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement
16. Australia claims that the Panel's finding of a violation of Article 5.1 is fundamentally flawed
as it rests on the absence of a risk assessment on the heat-treatment requirement, a measure that does
not have application to the products in dispute, hence outside of the Panel's terms of reference.
17. Australia argues that the Panel failed to interpret the requirement for a measure to be based on
a "risk assessment" in accordance with the plain meaning and proper context of "risk". The term
"risk" needs to be interpreted in the sense of the definitional terms of Annex A of the SPS Agreement,
as interpreted by the Appellate Body in European Communities - Hormones . In the specific matter
before the Panel, Australia posits that the "risk" to be assessed is the risk of the potential biological
and economic consequences for salmonid populations in Australia, arising from the entry or
establishment of diseases associated with the products in dispute.
18. Australia claims that the Panel also failed to interpret the obligations of Article 5.1 in their
proper context, including Articles 5.2 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement. Article 5.2 provides that: "In
the assessment of risks, Members shall take into account ... relevant processes and production
methods ...". Clearly, a process method is only "relevant" if it is actually used in producing the

product to be imported in fresh, chilled or frozen form. Thus, if a process method embodied in a
"measure" is not a relevant process method for fresh, chilled or frozen salmon, there is no obligation
on WTO Members to assess that process method. According to Australia, there is no basis in the
SPS Agreement for concluding that for a measure to be based on a risk assessment, it is required that
the risk be assessed on a process method which does not have application to the product at issue. To
suggest that a risk assessment on heat treatment could provide the basis for an import prohibition on
fresh, chilled or frozen product is not only a logical absurdity but would nullify the meaning of the
term based on as used in Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement.
6. Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement
19. According to Australia, the Panel imputed an incorrect meaning to the term "risk" in
identifying the existence of "different situations" and in finding the existence of "arbitrary or
unjustifiable distinctions" in the levels of protection applied in those different situations. The Panel
thereby erred in confining its examination of "different situations" to the risk of introduction of
disease agents. On the basis of the definition in paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement, the
"risk" to be examined is not either the risk of entry, establishment or spread or t h e r i s k o f t h e
associated biological and economic consequences but the risk of entry, establishment or spread of
disease and the associated biological and economic consequences.
20. According to Australia, the Appellate Body's statement in European Communities –
Hormones on the need for the "different situations" in Article 5.5 to "present some common element
or elements sufficient to render them comparable " was misapplied by the Panel, since the statement
should not be read, as the Panel did in this case, to provide a basis for ignoring the explicit wording of
the SPS Agreement. Australia argues that: "If Article 5.5 is applied correctly in the context of the
plain reading of paragraphs 1 and 4 of Annex A, then if the risks of entry, establishment or spread of
one disease and the associated biological and economic consequences is the same or similar to the risk
of 24 diseases, a comparison would be legitimate." According to Australia, it is not necessary to have
24 diseases in common; the fundamental issue is that the risks - as defined by the SPS Agreement -
should be comparable.
21. Australia also argues that the Panel incorrectly interpreted "entry, establishment or spread" as
"introduction" in the sense of "entry", contrary to the explicit wording of Articles 5.1 to 5.3 and
Annex A, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the SPS Agreement, and has thereby failed to give effect to all the
terms of the treaty. This has led the Panel into serious legal error in failing to examine the
consequences of disease entry, establishment or spread.

22. According to Australia, the Panel failed to es tablish that there were sufficient elements in
common with regard to the biological and economic consequences for Australia's salmonid population
which will arise from the importation of salmonid species vis-à-vis those from widely different
species of other aquatic animals. Evidence and scientific opinion were disregarded by the Panel
because they were extraneous to the Panel's oversimplified examination which did not take it beyond
a "concern" for the aquatic environment in general, and a view that there might be more risks
associated with the importation of non-salmonid species than previously understood.
23. Australia asserts that the Panel, in determining that its examination of "arbitrary or
unjustifiable distinctions in levels of protection in different situations" must be limited solely to
disease agents positively detected, failed to interpret those terms in their proper context. The Panel
thereby diminished Australia's WTO right to ad opt a cautious approach in determining its own
appropriate level of protection. The Panel has, therefore, failed to observe the provisions of Articles
3.2 and 19.2 of the DSU.
24. Australia argues that the Panel misused the statement in paragraph 215 of the Appellate Body
Report in European Communities - Hormones to justify its use of arbitrary distinctions in levels of
protection as a "warning signal" in the third test of Article 5.5. Not only has it erred in effectively
using this single element in three different guises in three of its "warning signals" and "other factors",
but it has gone beyond using it as a "warning sign al" that something "might" be the case, and given it
greater and inappropriate evidential weight by including it among signals and factors which
"considered cumulatively", create a presumption of a legal violation.
25. Australia asserts that an adverse finding under Article 5.1 does not provide any evidence of a
"disguised restriction on trade" resulting from arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in the levels of
protection under Article 5.5, nor should it presume or pre-empt a finding under Article 5.5. Any such
interpretation would negate any burden of proof on the complainant to establish a presumption in
regard to the three elements of Article 5.5 and would not provide any scope for rebuttal by the
respondent. Furthermore, such an interpretation would fail to give effect to all the terms of the treaty,
and would vitiate the role of Article 5.5 as an additional obligation to that imposed by Article 5.1.
26. Australia claims that the first of the "other factors" cited by the Panel, referring to "two
substantially different implementing measures" which involve "discrimination" between products, is
based on an inappropriate analogy to Article III of the GATT 1994 and is a manifest factual
inaccuracy. Furthermore, according to Australia, th e Panel erred if it is applying an interpretation of
discrimination based on Arti cle III of the GATT 1994, rather than applying an interpretation in the

sense of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement, i.e., discrimination between different WTO Members or
between Australia and Canada "where identical or similar conditions prevail".
27. According to Australia, the Panel mischaracterized the difference between the
recommendation of the 1995 Draft Report and the recommendation of the 1996 Final Report as a
"change" and a "rather substantial change in conclusions". It incorrectly accorded a draft
recommendation the status of an SPS measure and erroneously adhered to a view that the only way to
justify a difference between draft recommendations and final recommendations under the
SPS Agreement is by new scientific evidence. In this context, the Panel refused to consider relevant
evidence submitted by Australia on re-evaluation of data and the role of draft reports and
recommendations as part of the transparency of the practices and processes of government. Australia
asserts that there is no SPS provision that requires a WTO Member to implement draft
recommendations absent new scientific evidence.
28. Australia contends that the Panel is in legal error in implying that, with regard to one disease,
epizootic haematopoietic necrosis ("EHN"), which is endemic in certain regions of Australia, but
exotic to others, consistency with Article 5.5 requires either restrictions on the internal movement of
salmon products within Australia, or alternatively, that Australia apply import zoning to grant access
to Canada. The Panel did not identify any legal requirements in Article 5.5 in this regard, or in any
other part of the SPS Agreement, although it noted the provisions of Article 6 in a footnote. The
Panel did not claim that Australia's internal cont rols are in violation of Article 5.5 or any other
provision of the SPS Agreement, but used this claim as somehow c onstituting factual evidence of the
existence of a disguised restriction on trade without providing any relevant argument to support this
claim.
7. Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement
29. Australia claims that the Panel has erred in law in the way it has applied the three-pronged
test to establish inconsistency with Article 5.6. According to Australia, no evidence was presented to
indicate that the 1996 Final Report considered four alternative quarantine policy options as
"reasonably available taking into account technical and economic feasibility". The 1996 Final Report
did not address this issue, as it concluded that the options would not achieve Australia's appropriate
level of protection.
30. Furthermore, Australia argues that the Panel "has incorrectly characterized the measure which
currently achieves Australia's appropriate level of protection in determining that this level can be met
by certain heat treatment conditions." Heat treatment does not constitute the level of protection for

fresh, chilled or frozen salmon. Australia also contends that it never claimed that the difference
between the alternative quarantine policy options was "only a minimal, if any, difference".
B. Canada - Appellee
1. Terms of Reference
31. Canada posits that the Panel’s inquiry could not be confined to the 1996 Decision of the
Director of Quarantine because it is too narrow in scope as it applies only to ocean-caught Pacific
salmon, as it takes effect only from 13 December 1996 and as it is only one element of the measure at
issue. The 1988 Conditions fell, by Australia's own admission, within the terms of reference since
these Conditions were implemented pursuant to QP86A, the instrument Australia describes as "the
legal framework for the authority to determine the 1988 Conditions". If the 1996 Decision is the only
measure at issue, then the Panel would have had to find Australia in violation of Article XI of the
GATT 1994.
32. Canada claims that Australia was at all times well aware of the case against it, including the
measure that was being challenged and the claims of violation that Canada was making in respect of
that measure. Canada and Australia had been engaged since 1975 in discussions about Australia’s
denial of access to Canadian fresh, chilled or frozen salmon. The request for a panel leaves no room
for doubt. It referred to Australia’s measures prohibiting the importation of fresh, chilled or frozen
salmon and specified that those measures included QP86A and any modifications or amendments
thereto. The request for consultations is also clear on its face. It states that Australia prohibits the
importation of untreated fresh, chilled or frozen salmon from Canada under QP86A, dated 19
February 1975. Finally, contrary to Australia’s assertion that Canada provided no further clarification
as to the measure at issue in its first submission, Canada identified the measure at issue on the very
first page of its submission.
33. Canada asserts that Australia’s contention is simply a game of semantics. It is abundantly
clear from the Panel Report that the Panel examined whether Canadian fresh, chilled or frozen salmon
had access to the Australian market. It was not requested nor did it concern itself with Canadian
access to the Australian market for heat-treated salmon. The reason for this is obvious: heat-treated
salmon is permitted entry into Australia and there is no dispute between the parties as to that product.
What is also abundantly clear is that fresh, chilled or frozen salmon is not permitted entry into
Australia because it is not heat-treated in accordance with the prescribed temperatures and heat
duration periods.

34. Australia alleges that the Panel exceeded its terms of reference by examining the consistency
of Australia’s measure with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. According to Canada, the Panel did no
such thing. It merely cited Article 6 in a footnote and did not "examine the consistency of the
measure" with Article 6.
2. Burden of Proof
35. Canada asserts that Australia’s claims that Canada did not establish a prima facie case of
violation by Australia of Articles 5.1, 5.5 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement are unsubstantiated and
without merit. Its allegations of Panel error are in fact allegations that the Panel has not made an
objective assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts. This is an
extremely serious allegation. It demands that Australia provide full and convincing evidence.
Australia comes nowhere near to meeting this standard.
36. Canada claims that Australia misconceives the meaning of the evidentiary standard of prima
facie by considering that a prima facie case exists when "subject to rebuttal, a panel could find that
it is more probable than not that each element of the claim can be satisfied according to each of the
Articles under which the claim has been brought". According to Canada, the Panel correctly
articulated and applied the evidentiary standard, by relying on the Appellate Body Report in United
States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses ("United States – Shirts and
Blouses").
18
3. Objective Assessment of the Matter
37. According to Canada, nowhere does Australia’s submission identify an egregious error that
calls into question the good faith of the Panel. Australia’s allegations of "error" are merely attempts
to reargue its case and to have the Appellate Body substitute its judgment for that of the Panel as the
trier of facts.
4. Other Procedural Matters
38. Canada asserts that, as Australia itself acknowledges, the Panel did allow it to make a third
written submission regarding its allegations that Canada had made new "claims" at the second
substantive meeting. Australia appears to be arguing that it has nevertheless been denied due process.
All of the so-called new claims are new argument s, as the Panel correctly pointed out. Throughout

18Adopted 23 May 1997, WT/DS33/AB/R.

this dispute, the Panel extended deadlines and made accommodations to meet Australia’s objections
that it did not have adequate time to prepare.
39. Due to Australia’s objections, the Panel held that the Vose Report was "not crucial to our
report" and that "we shall not further consider it in our examination". According to Canada, however,
the Vose Report went specifically to the issue of whether Australia omitted significant information
from the 1996 Final Report that was in the 1995 Draft Report, which information was critical to the
transparent estimation of risk. Thus, if there has been any denial of "due process", it is Canada that
has suffered it. The Panel’s failure to consider the Vose Report deprived Canada of a relevant piece
of evidence.
40. Canada argues that Australia's claims of prejudice due to the reference by Canada of certain
studies showing the ineffectiveness of heat treatment against particular disease agents, which studies
were not submitted in evidence, but were relied upon by the Panel, "is the most outrageous" of
Australia's due process assertions. According to Canada, Australia claims that it could not locate
these studies to verify or substantiate them due to Canada's typographic error in a footnote listing the
publication dates as 1933 rather than 1993. Canada asserts that "what Australia has neglected to tell
the Appellate Body is that the studies referred to by Canada were all referenced in the
1996 Final Report, which is where Canada found them. Both parties submitted the December
1996 Final Report into evidence. Canada submits that Australia was, therefore, well aware of these
studies, or that it should have been aware of them."
5. Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement
41. In Canada's view, the Panel correctly applied the legal standard and correctly considered the
evidence to determine whether the results of the risk assessment provided a rational scientific basis to
support the heat-treatment requirement. The Panel was compelled to conclude that the results of
Australia’s risk assessment did not "reasonably support" the heat-treatment requirement.
6. Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement
42. According to Canada, the issue facing the Panel under Article 5.5 was not whether the risks
posed by different products were the same, but whether the appropriate levels of protection
maintained by Australia to address those risks were different, and, if they were, whether those
differences were arbitrary or unjustifiable and resulted in discrimination or a disguised restriction on
international trade.

43. The key point before the Panel, in Canada's view, was that despite the absence of evidence
that dead, eviscerated, fresh, chilled or frozen salmon for human consumption has ever introduced
disease anywhere, and that the risk of such introduction was extremely low, Australia closes its
market. By contrast, when faced with the knowledge that many of the same disease agents are
entering Australia, through fish products other than salmon, Australia allows the fish products in,
because it claims not to know the likelihood that those disease agents would infect the Australian
salmonid population or the consequences if they did. In other words, Australia adopts two
diametrically opposed levels of protection.
44. Canada claims that contrary to Australia's assertions, the Panel did consider "potential
biological and economic consequences." Australia had argued that for different situations to be
comparable, both disease and consequences needed to be the same. However, the Panel found as a
fact, based on the experts’ testimony, that for a given disease, the biological and economic
consequences of a disease introduction would be the same or similar, regardless of the product
introducing the disease.
45. In response to Australia's claim that the Panel denied it the right to adopt a cautious approach,
and to determine its own level of protection, Canada points out that what the Panel did was to
compare the measures imposed by Australia in respect of salmon and non-salmonids. Australia
contended throughout the case that its appropriate level of protection for disease agents that could
affect its salmonids is very conservative. According to Canada, it was so conservative in fact, that at
times Australia appeared to be insisting that no matter how remote the probability or likelihood of the
risk, the mere possibility that such disease agents might be introduced was sufficient for it to ban
salmonids that might host the agents in question. When confronted with the fact that many of the
same disease agents not only might occur, but are known to occur in non-salmonid products, Australia
takes a very different approach: it lets the products in. It is, therefore, difficult to understand what
Australia hopes to gain by faulting the Panel fo r comparing only disease agents known to occur in
salmon with those known to occur in non-salmonids. According to Canada, had the Panel expanded
its analysis to contrast Australia’s "cautious" position on potential disease agents in salmonids with its
"open market" for non-salmonids in which such disease agents have been confirmed, Australia’s
discrepancies in levels of protection would have appeared that much greater.
46. According to Canada, the Panel might well have found that the distinctions in levels of
protection in all of the different situations identified by Canada were arbitrary or unjustifiable.
However, it did not. Instead, it focused on the tw o comparative products - whole frozen herring used
as bait and live ornamental finfish - for which Australia’s differing measures seemed the most
egregious. This was because, as the Panel's experts noted, the importation of live ornamental fish and

bait fish are generally considered to pose higher risks of introducing exotic disease agents than does
the importation of dead fish for human consumption. Moreover, as the experts noted, there has never
been a recorded case of dead, eviscerated fish, such as the salmon that Australia prohibits, resulting in
an exotic disease introduction. By contrast, there are many such documented introductions in the case
of live fish, even in Australia.
47. Canada states that when it comes to the risks of disease introduction that non-salmonid
imports (particularly live fish, bait fish, and other fish for human consumption) pose to Australia’s
salmonids, Australia demands that Canada provide not just evidence, but proof of risk. However, in
the case of salmonid imports, despite the strong evidence that the risk is negligible, Australia imposes
an import ban "just in case".
48. Canada submits that the evidence regarding all three elements of Australia’s Article 5.5
violation is as compelling as one is ever likely to find, not only insofar as the measure applies to
ocean-caught Pacific salmon, but to all fresh, chilled or frozen salmon products covered by the
measure. If the evidence in this case is insufficient to support a finding that Australia violated Article
5.5, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which a Member could prove an Article 5.5
violation.
7. Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement
49. Canada asserts that although Australia contends that the 1996 Final Report concluded that the
other quarantine policy options it identified (Options 2-5) would not meet Australia’s appropriate
level of protection, there is nothing in the 1996 Final Report to sustain this assertion. A review of the
Panel Report, and the 1996 Final Report, reveals that this conclusion applies, if at all, only to the two
options rejected ab initio - removal of all quarantine restrictions or a ban on all salmon imports -
which the 1996 Final Report found could not "reasonably be considered as appropriate, having regard
to associated quarantine risks".
50. According to Canada, Australia implies illogically that the only measure in place that actually
achieves the prohibition on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon - heat treatment - does not achieve
Australia’s appropriate level of protection, while the prohibition itself does. Also, by stating that its
appropriate level of protection is "explicit" in the prohibition itself, Australia appears to be suggesting
that the appropriate level of protection is the prohibition. The language of Article 5.6 makes perfectly
clear that a measure is not the appropriate level of protection.

C. Canada - Appellant
1. Product Coverage
51. Canada asserts that the Panel’s failure to make findings under Articles 5.5 and 5.6 for salmon
products other than ocean-caught Pacific salmon was based on a misapplication of the "principle of
judicial economy" as set out by the Appellate Body in United States – Shirts and Blouses
19 and led to
a result contrary to Article 3.7 of the DSU. Moreover, the Panel’s approach had the perverse result of
subjecting a Member’s measure to less scrutiny the more overt its violation of its SPS obligations. In
the alternative, Canada submits that the Panel’s limited consideration of Articles 5.5 and 5.6 was
based on justifications at odds with the ample evidence before the Panel, thereby constituting a
violation of Article 11 of the DSU.
52. According to Canada, if making a ruling on one claim will sufficiently determine the course
of implementation so as to secure a positive solution to the dispute, it would be redundant for a panel
to proceed further. However, a panel that addresses certain claims but declines to address others that
would better frame the course of implementation will not necessarily have resolved the matter in
dispute. An implementing Member may be able to implement in such a way as to bring its measure
into conformity in respect of the claims addressed by the panel, but not in respect of the other claims
that the panel did not address. The matter would not be resolved in respect of those other claims and
the complaining Member would be forced to bring another case to address them. Hence, the "judicial
economy" sought by the panel would be a false economy.
53. Canada claims that the Panel's decision in the present case to limit its findings to ocean-
caught Pacific salmon was not a decision to address certain claims. Rather, it was a decision to
address only one of the product categories, namely ocean-caught Pacific salmon, in respect of which
Canada had claimed a violation of the two articles in question. Given that neither Australia’s measure
nor the scope of the dispute was limited to ocean-caught Pacific salmon but, rather, extended to all
fresh, chilled or frozen salmon, and having found that in order to resolve this dispute it was
appropriate and necessary to consider Canada's Articles 5.5 and 5.6 claims for ocean-caught Pacific
salmon, it logically follows that it was appropriate an d necessary to do so in respect of all the salmon
products covered by the measure. By omitting to do so, the Panel failed to resolve the matter at issue
in the dispute. Canada argued that the findings of the Panel under Articles 5.5 and 5.6 with regard to
ocean-caught Pacific salmon could be extended to other Canadian salmon.

19Adopted 23 May 1997, WT/DS33/AB/R.

2. Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement
54. Canada asserts that it presented evidence to support its independent Article 2.3 claim - that
although Australia bans the importation of uncooked salmon from Canada ostensibly to prevent the
entry and establishment of exotic diseases, it does not control the movement of salmon within
Australia from states with, to states without, certai n diseases. However, the Panel decided that it was
"more appropriate in the circumstances of this dispute to first deal with Canada’s claims under
Article 5" and when it considered Article 5.5, it did so only in respect of ocean-caught Pacific salmon.
It was on the ground of having found a violation of Article 5.5 that the Panel found Australia also
inconsistent with the requirements of Article 2.3. The Panel’s finding on Article 2.3, therefore, was
limited to ocean-caught Pacific salmon as the Panel declined to "further examine Canada’s other
claims under Article 2".
55. According to Canada, the Panel erred in applying the first sentence of Article 2.3 as an
afterthought to its analysis of Article 5.5. It erred in interpreting the first sentence of Article 2.3 only
as preambular language and examining it solely through Article 5.5, and not as an independent
obligation. It compounded this error by inappropriately confining its analysis and finding to ocean-
caught Pacific salmon rather than considering all categories of salmon at issue. In doing so the Panel
disregarded its terms of reference and the evidence placed before it.
56. Canada claims that the Panel’s interpretation has the effect of emasculating Article 2.3, first
sentence. It violates customary rules of interpretation of public international law and offends the
principle articulated by the Appellate Body Report in United States – Standards for Reformulated and
Conventional Gasoline ("United States – Gasoline ")
20 that the interpreter must give effect to all the
terms of a treaty. It also runs afoul of the admonition in Article 3.2 of the DSU that
"recommendations and rulings of the DSB cannot add to or diminish the rights and obligations
provided in the covered agreements". It fails to secure a positive solution to the dispute.
D. Australia - Appellee
1. Product Coverage
57. Australia asserts that the lighter scrutiny by the Panel of farmed salmon vis-à-vis ocean-
caught Pacific salmon was not a matter of legal error, but was caused by the failure of Canada to
present legal claims and arguments relevant to all of the salmon categories, which effectively invited
the Panel to engage in "product splitting" in its examination of claims. According to Australia,

20Adopted 20 May 1996, WT/DS2/AB/R.

Canada is wrong in asserting that the Panel can find inconsistency on the basis of a limited category
of products in respect of some of the elements forming part of the obligations of Articles 5.5 and 5.6
and can thereby extend those findings to another category of products, thus avoiding the need to
establish a prima facie case in respect of all elements of the obligations with respect to the latter
products.
58. In Australia's view, there was, contrary to what Canada contends, no "ample evidence" before
the Panel in respect of other categories of salmon, since most of the studies referred to by Canada are
of a general nature or are based on late or unsubmitted evidence.
2. Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement
59. According to Australia, Canada's appeal in respect of Article 2.3, first sentence, is based on a
mischaracterization of the Panel's findings of viol ation under Article 5.5. The Panel did not find a
violation of Articles 5.5 and 2.3 because Australia applies different measures on domestic salmonid
product and imported salmon. Hence, all of Canada's arguments relating to internal and external
controls are irrelevant to the matters under appeal.
60. Australia argues that the notion of Article 2.3 as an independent obligation would conflict
with the ordinary meaning of the terms in their context. Canada has not explained why its claims of
error should not have equal application to the obligations expressed in the second sentence of Article
2.3, or for that matter in regard to the provisions of Articles 2.2 and 5.1.
E. Arguments by the Third Participants
1. European Communities
61. The European Communities states that the Pa nel's limitation of the products examined to
ocean-caught Pacific salmon is not justified by the principle of judicial economy. However, it is not
clear that the Panel was in a position to examine claims in respect of the other categories of salmon.
Therefore, it did not make a finding not because such was not necessary but because it did not have
the necessary evidence to make a finding.
62. The European Communities observes that the Pa nel appears to have made a very peculiar
application of the principles governing the allocation of the burden of proof. The claim that
"disguised restriction of trade" is evidenced by the absence of similar restrictions on the internal
movement of salmon was raised by, and therefore had to be substantiated by, Canada. If, despite the
evidence submitted by Canada, the Panel still had "doubts" on the factual accuracy or relevance of
this claim to the third element of Article 5.5, it should have dismissed the claim.

63. The European Communities also states that the frequent resort by the Panel, in its
examination of Article 5, to the use of assumptions rather than making definitive findings is an
extreme and undesirable use of judicial economy. This approach is not conducive to the resolution of
disputes.
64. The European Communities argues that the normal meaning of "potential" and "likelihood" is
different - "likelihood" implies a higher degree of probability than "potential". However, the object,
purpose and context of the SPS Agreement indicate that no greater level of probability could have
been intended for the first type of risk assessment than for the second type as defined by paragraph 4
of Annex A of the Agreement. There is no reason why SPS measures against pests and diseases will
be more stringently examined than those against health risks from additives, contaminants, etc.
65. The European Communities also states its concern that the panel might be misconstrued to
have stated that a "zero risk" level of protection is not a choice open to Members under the
SPS Agreement. This is not at all what the Appellate Body meant in European Communities -
Hormones
21 when it referred to the "theoretical uncertainty" which always remains.
66. The European Communities argues that there is no relevant difference between the "trade
perspective" and the "sanitary perspective" of the measure at issue. In the case of fresh, chilled or
frozen salmon the measure at issue from both perspectives is an import ban. The conclusion of the
Panel that heat treatment does not sufficiently reduce risk and hence there is no rational relationship
between the risk assessment and the measure of heat treatment does not follow from its previous
reasoning for two reasons: first, the treatment has no application to fresh, chilled or frozen salmon,
and, second, if heat treatment is not effective, it strengthens the conclusion that imports of fresh,
chilled or frozen salmon should be prohibited.
67. The European Communities also asserts that the Panel was correct in proceeding with an
examination of Articles 5.5 and 5.6 because the consequences on implementation arising from a
finding of a violation of Article 5.1 are not the same as those from a finding of a violation of Articles
5.5 or 5.6. However, it was wrong to justify its decision to conduct further examination by the use of
the "alternative" approach, i.e., had the Panel been judged incorrect on its findings on Article 5.1 then,
it would have been required to examine Articles 5.5. and 5.6. That approach is a negation of the
principle of judicial economy since its logic would always require all claims to be examined.

21Adopted 13 February 1998, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R.

68. The European Communities contends that the Pane l's consideration of the "difference in the
degree of risk" in the context of the second element of Article 5.5 is wrong because such is not a
means to evaluate the arbitrariness or unjustifiability of distinctions in levels of protection. It is an
element of the definition of the level of protection.
69. Because of this error, according to the Euro pean Communities, the analysis was confined to
determine whether the differences between the measures applied to different types of fish could be
justified by corresponding differences in the degree of risk. The only logical conclusion that the Panel
could have drawn from that type of analysis was whether or not there were differences in levels of
protection. That type of analysis was not sufficient to establish whether the differences in levels of
protection were "arbitrary" or "unjustified". For that, the Panel should have evaluated the "character"
of these differences.
70. According to the European Communities, the Pa nel also made four serious legal errors in
applying the third element of Article 5.5: i) it gave excessive weight to the existence of differences in
levels of protection as indirect evidence of th e third element of Article 5.5, thereby blurring the
distinction between the second and the third elements of Article 5.5; ii) it erroneously interpreted
"disguised restriction on international trade" to include "discrimination between products"; iii) it
inferred the motive of Australia in reversing the recommendation of the 1995 Draft Report through
pure speculation; and iv) it made an irrelevant argument derived from the absence of internal
controls on the movement of salmon.
71. The European Communities asserts that the Panel's analysis of the measure at issue under
Article 5.6 suffers from the same defects as the analysis under Article 5.1, since it is based on the
erroneous notion that the measure at issue is heat treatment. The Panel also erred in its approach to
the burden of proof in connection with Article 5.6. While it stated that it was not making a finding on
whether any alternative option would actually achieve Australia's appropriate level of protection, it
nevertheless concluded that Canada raised a presumption on the availability of other measures which
would achieve Australia's appropriate level of protection. This demonstrates that the Panel is making
a "presumption" in the sense of an indication or a suspicion that a fact is true.
2. India
72. India asserts that in matters such as these, the burden of proof was on Australia. Article 3.3
of the SPS Agreement specifically states that Members may introduce measures which result in a
higher level of protection than measures based on relevant international standards, provided that there
is scientific justification and that it is not more trade restrictive than required to achieve the
appropriate level of protection. Article 5.8 states that in case any other Member feels that such a

measure is constraining or has the potential to constrain its exports and that the measure is not based
on relevant international standards, it can ask for an explanation. This clearly shows, according to
India, that in all such cases the burden of proof is on the Member who has introduced the measure.
73. India argues that Article 5.5, both in letter and in spirit, stresses consistency in the application
of SPS measures. Its intention and objective is very clear - Members shall avoid distinctions in the
levels of protection they consider appropriate in different situations, if these result in discrimination or
disguised restriction on international trade.
74. India claims that since Australia's own risk assessment concedes that the levels of risk
presented by the five quarantine policy options cannot be distinguished, each of these options could
therefore achieve Australia's appropriate level of protection. Australia should have adopted the least
trade-restrictive of these options.
3. Norway
75. Norway contends that the Panel's approach to the substantive requirements of a risk
assessment is correct, especially with respect to the requirement that an evaluation be made of the
effectiveness of various risk reduction options. According to Norway, the Panel should, however,
have concluded separately on the substantive requirements of a risk assessment before moving on to
the requirement that the measure is based on a risk assessment. All the necessary elements of fact for
such conclusions seem to be present. The consequences of the Panel's approach become evident if the
Appellate Body were to accept Australia's claims regarding the measure. In such a case there would
be no finding, based on the facts of the case, that relates to the risk assessment as such - or the
requirements regarding scientific evidence and scientific principles in Article 2.2.
76. Norway argues that proper interpretation of based on is that the effectiveness of a measure in
reducing the risk must be established by the risk assessment, and that the chosen measure must be
among those that were evaluated and found to have a certain effectiveness. The concrete choice of
the appropriate measure to achieve a Member's level of protection, should thereafter be addressed
under the "necessity requirement" in Article 2.2 as elaborated in Article 5.6. If the necessity of the
chosen measure is implicit in Article 5.1, Article 5.6 would be deprived of its meaning.
77. Norway forwards that this requires a three step approach: i) a finding regarding the
substantive requirements of the risk assessment itself; ii) a finding regarding whether the measure is
among those that were evaluated and found effective in the risk assessment; and iii) a finding
regarding whether the applied measure is necessary to achieve the importing Member's level of
protection.

78. Norway contests Australia's claims that the Panel is creating a new legal obligation, by
determining that diseases not detected cannot be validly taken into account for the purpose of a
Member's appropriate level of protection. In Norway 's view, if Australia's contention is correct, a
Member would be permitted to adopt an SPS measure without having to identify a risk. Norway
thinks that it is clear from the definition of Annex A, paragraph 1, of the SPS Agreement that SPS
measures relate to protection from risks; therefore, if no risk has been identified with respect to a
specific import, no SPS measure can be applied.
79. Norway argues that if one were to accept Australia's claim that the measure is an import ban,
then the question becomes one of determining whether any of the identified alternative measures,
reasonably available, is sufficient to reduce risk to the "very low levels" demanded by Australia. The
1996 Final Report does not make a clear evaluation and determination in this regard, and this lack of
evaluation may in itself be a violation of the substantive requirements of a risk assessment under
Article 5.1.
80. Norway asserts that the Panel should take the obligations in Article 2 as its point of departure,
since they encompass the "Basic Rights and Obligations." This is because the crux of the matter is
whether the Australian measure is "necessary" to achieve its level of protection, whether it is based on
scientific principles and sufficient scientific evidence, and/or whether the measure amounts to an
unjustifiable restriction on international trade.
4. United States
81. The United States asserts that Australia’s argument ignores the fact that heat treatment was
evaluated in Australia’s 1996 Final Report, as well as in the 1995 Draft Report, alongside other
measures with relation to fresh, chilled or frozen salmon.
82. Ironically, according to the United States, Australia cites comments by the experts noting that
Australia’s heat-treatment requirement effectively changes - i.e., destroys - the product, as support for
its claim that heat treatment is not applicable to fresh, chilled or frozen salmon. This is like asserting
that a requirement that concrete blocks be pulverized to dust before importation is a measure that
pertains only to the importation of dust. Again, th e Panel was not required to disregard Australia’s
requirement for heat treatment simply because Australia’s measure requires that the character of fresh,
chilled or frozen salmon be destroyed so that the resulting product is no longer "fresh, chilled or
frozen".

83. The United States argues that if the Panel limited its analysis to ocean-caught Pacific salmon
based on the interest of judicial economy, that principle was misapplied as it resulted in a failure of
the Panel to resolve completely the matter at issue in the dispute. This is not a situation where a Panel
properly elected not to consider all of the arguments or claims presented by a party. Instead, the Panel
in this proceeding failed to extend the analysis to all fresh, chilled or frozen salmon which is the
subject of Canada’s panel request.
84. The United States asserts that Australia implemented a ban to address the possibility that
eviscerated salmon, imported for human consumption, might serve as a host to introduce diseases,
only some of which are exotic to Australia, into its salmon fisheries and that it was just such
hypothetical risks that the Appellate Body in European Communities - Hormones concluded were
not the "kind of risk which, under Article 5.1, is to be assessed".
85. The United States argues that Australia, by in sisting that the Panel’s comparison of the levels
of protection only be made between different types of fish that are host to a like number of diseases
would require that the comparison be made only where identical risks prevail. Such a limitation
simply is not warranted by the text of Article 2.3, which the Appellate Body has said is an important
element of the context of Article 5.5. In addition, Australia’s argument regarding the appropriateness
of the Panel’s comparison ignores the scientific evidence before the Panel that it is very unlikely that
imported salmon bears many, if any, of the approximately 20 diseases to which Australia refers.
86. The United States further argues that the Appellate Body in European Communities -
Hormones implicitly approved comparisons of levels of protection in circumstances where the risks
and conditions were not identical.
87. The United States asserts that Australia's arguments on Article 5.6 ignore two basic
considerations. First, the Panel had before it scientific evidence which called into question the
effectiveness of heat treatment. Thus, if heat treatment was achieving Australia’s level of protection,
there were alternatives available, including evisceration, that would also achieve the same level of
protection. Second, the Panel noted the scientific conclusions that the risk associated with the
importation of salmon for human consumption was small. Also, the 1996 Final Report found that
"[t]he difference in level of risk between each option is incremental and cannot be quantified".
Canada had therefore established an unrebutted prima facie case that less trade-restrictive alternative
measures, capable of achieving Australia’s level of protection, were available.

III. Issues Raised in this Appeal
88. The appellant, Australia, raises the following issues in this appeal:
(a) whether the Panel failed to interpret correctly its terms of reference with respect to the
measure and the product at issue;
(b) whether the Panel exceeded its terms of reference by extending the scope of its
examination of Article 5 to include Article 6 of the SPS Agreement;
(c) whether the Panel erred in law in finding that the measure at issue, as it applies to
ocean-caught Pacific salmon, is not based on a risk assessment, and that Australia has
therefore acted inconsistently with Article 5.1, and, by implication, Article 2.2 of the
SPS Agreement;
(d) whether the Panel erred in law in finding that Australia has acted inconsistently with
Article 5.5, and, by implication, Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement;
(e) whether the Panel erred in law in finding that Australia has acted inconsistently with
Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement; and
(f) whether the Panel correctly allocated and applied the burden of proof, conducted an
objective assessment of the matter, erred in admitting or considering certain evidence,
and failed to accord Australia due process in denying Australia's request to submit a
third written submission.
89. The appellant, Canada, raises the following issues in this appeal:
(a) whether the Panel erred in law in its application of the principle of judicial economy
and in failing to extend its assessment of Canada's claims under Articles 5.5 and 5.6 of
the SPS Agreement to other Canadian salmon; and
(b) whether the Panel erred in law in not finding a violation of Article 2.3, first sentence,
independently from its finding that Australia has acted inconsistently with Article 5.5
of the SPS Agreement.

IV. Terms of Reference
A. The Measure and Product at Issue
90. The first question we address is whether the Panel failed to interpret correctly its terms of
reference with respect to the measure and the product at issue in this dispute. In its request for the
establishment of a panel, Canada identified the measure and the product at issue as follows:
The Australian Government's measures prohibiting the importation of
fresh, chilled or frozen salmon (the "Australian measures" or the
"measures") include Quarantine Proclamation 86A, dated
19 February 1975, and any amendments or modifications to it. The
measures adversely affect the importation of Canadian salmon.
22
91. With regard to the measure at issue, the Panel concluded in paragraph 8.19 of its Report that:
… according to our terms of reference, the measure we need to
examine in this dispute is QP86A as implemented or confirmed by the
1988 Conditions, the 1996 Requirements and the 1996 Decision and
this in so far as it prohibits the importation into Australia of fresh,
chilled or frozen salmon.
92. In coming to that conclusion, the Panel considered in paragraph 8.18 of its Report that the
1988 Conditions:
23
… in effect deny the importation of commercial quantities of salmon
product not heat-treated as prescribed. The 1988 Conditions can, in
that sense, also be said to constitute a measure "prohibiting the
importation of fresh, chilled or frozen salmon" as referred to in the
Panel request. For the above reasons, we consider that also the 1988
Conditions fall within our terms of reference.
With regard to the 1996 Requirements24, the Panel subsequently considered:
... the same reasoning as that developed above for the 1988 Conditions
applies. We thus consider that the 1996 Requirements fall within our
terms of reference.
25

22WT/DS18/2, 10 March 1997.
23Supra., footnote 3.
24Ibid.
25Panel Report, para. 8.18.

93. Later in the Panel Report, in examining whether the SPS measure at issue was based on a risk
assessment as required by Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, the Panel found that:
... From a trade perspective (focusing on what product cannot enter the
Australian market) the measure at issue in effect constitutes an import
prohibition on, inter alia, fresh, chilled and frozen salmon. However,
if we approach the measure at issue to determine its sanitary aspects
(focusing on what is required for the product to be allowed for
importation) - an approach we need to conduct in the context of the
SPS Agreement - we find that it, in effect, imposes heat treatment as a
sanitary solution to the risk posed by the importation of salmon.
These two perspectives are two sides of a single coin: a consequence
of Australia's sanitary requirement that salmon be heat-treated before
it can be imported, is that imports of fresh, chilled and frozen salmon
are prohibited ...
26
In a footnote to this paragraph, the Panel further clarified that:
What Canada is challenging before this Panel is Australia's
justification for the measures that prohibit access for fresh, chilled or
frozen salmon – or, in other words, which permit access for salmon
only if it has been heat-treated in accordance with the 1988 Conditions
or commercially canned.
27
94. With regard to the product at issue, the Panel stated that the product coverage of this dispute
is limited, in accordance with the request for the establishment of a panel, to "fresh, chilled or frozen
salmon". The Panel explicitly held that the product coverage "does exclude heat-treated product"
28
and that "heat-treated product falls outside the product coverage of this dispute".29
95. According to Australia, the Panel exceeded it s terms of reference in respect of "both the
product covered and the applicable quarantine measures for consideration". 30 With regard to product
coverage, Australia contends that the Panel erred in law by extending the product coverage to heat-
treated salmonid products.
31 Australia concedes that the Panel expressly stated that heat-treated
products fall outside the product coverage of this dispute, but it argues that "[b]y the time of its
examination of consistency of 'the measure' with the provisions of Article 5.1, the Panel seemingly
decided that its terms of reference cover all forms of salmon product processed from the 'initial'

26Panel Report, para. 8.95.
27Panel Report, footnote 302.
28Panel Report, para. 8.24.
29Ibid.
30Australia's appellant's submission, para. 50. See also Notice of Appeal, point 2.

product, i.e., fresh salmon." 32 Australia contends that the Panel extended its terms of reference
beyond the SPS measure at issue, i.e., the import prohibition on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon 33, by
including the heat-treatment requirement which applies only to smoked salmon and salmon roe. 34
Australia argues that the Panel, by characterizing a quarantine measure for smoked salmon as a
sanitary aspect of a trade measure for fresh, chilled or frozen salmon (the "other side" of a single
coin)
35, demonstrated "sharply flawed logic".36 According to Australia, it is not a consequence of the
requirement that smoked salmon be heat-treated that imports of fresh, chilled or frozen salmon are
prohibited. Australia stresses that smoked salmon and fresh, chilled or frozen salmon are different
products and that the quarantine measures for each are not "two sides of the same coin".37
96. With regard to the product at issue in this dispute, we note that the Panel explicitly stated that
heat-treated products fall outside the product coverage of this dispute. 38 Furthermore, it is clear from
the Panel Report that the Panel only considered "fresh, chilled or frozen salmon". We, therefore,
conclude that Australia's claim that the Panel exceeded its terms of reference by considering products
outside its terms of reference and, in particular, heat-treated products, is without merit.
97. With regard to the measure at issue, we note that QP86A provides, in relevant part:
NOW THEREFORE I, …, the Governor-General of Australia, …,
hereby, …
(d) prohibit the importation into Australia of dead fish of the sub-
order Salmonidae, or any parts (other than semen or ova) of fish of
that sub-order, in any form unless
(i) prior to importation into Australia the fish or parts of
fish have been subject to such treatment as in the opinion of
the Director of Quarantine is likely to prevent the introduction
of any infectious or contagious disease, or disease or pest
affecting persons, animals or plants; and

34Australia's appellant's submission, para. 23. Furt her, in para. 24 of its appellant's submission,
Australia argues that the Panel erred by construing the measure at issue as a measure "in effect", rather than a
measure "as applied", implying that the measure at issue was some sort of disguised import prohibition – in the
form of a measure that applied to products outside its terms of reference (i.e., the heat-treatment requirement
applied to smoked salmon and salmon roe).
35Panel Report, para. 8.95.
37Ibid.
38Panel Report, para. 8.24.

(ii) the Director of Quarantine or a person authorized by
him has, by instrument in writing, consented to the
importation and the instrument is produced to a Collector …
or to a quarantine officer. (emphasis added)
It is clear from the wording of QP86A that it establishes an import prohibition on salmon. This is
not disputed; both parties agree that fresh, chilled or frozen salmon has not been allowed to enter
Australia since QP86A came into force.39
98. Although QP86A imposes an import prohibition, it delegates authority to the Director of
Quarantine to allow imports which have been subject to such treatment as is likely, in his opinion, to
prevent the introduction of any disease. On the basis of this delegated authority, the Director of
Quarantine issued the currently applicable 1988 Conditions.
40 The 1988 Conditions were construed
by the Panel to apply not only to smoked salmon, but also to other categories of salmon, including
fresh, chilled or frozen salmon. In the view of the Panel, this interpretation is justified by the title and
the first paragraph of the 1988 Conditions. The title reads:
Conditions for the Importation of Salmonid Meat and Roe into
Australia.
Paragraph 1 reads:
All uncanned salmon and trout meat and salmon roe will require a
quarantine permit to enter Australia.
99. As the Panel saw it, neither the title nor paragraph 1 specifies that the 1988 Conditions deal
only with smoked salmon. However, upon closer scrutiny, it appears that this interpretation misreads
the actual scope of the 1988 Conditions. They provide that:
(a) the importation of all salmonids other than canned salmon requires a quarantine
permit
41;
(b) the application for such permit must state the temperature and duration at which the
salmon-trout is smoked, or the roe is heated42;

39With the exception of the importation of small quantities of fresh, chilled or frozen salmon allowed
for scientific or taxidermy purposes. Panel Report, para. 8.95.
40Supra., footnote 3. These 1988 Conditions replaced the 1983 Guidelines for the Importation of
Smoked Salmon and Trout into Australia.
411988 Conditions, para. 1.
421988 Conditions, paras. 2 and 8. In para. 3 of the 1988 Conditions, a table of an approved
temperature-time relationship is set out.

(c) for salmon which is not treated as above-provided, the AQIS will consider variations
to these requirements which could take into account the effect of any auxiliary
processing such as "flash-baking", "par-boiling", "gamma irradiation", "brining" or
"freezing" where the effectiveness of this process in inactivating organisms can be
demonstrated
43;
(d) for the importation of consignments of smoked salmon meat under 5 kilograms in
weight, there is no need for a quarantine permit, but the prescribed processing is still
required.44
100. The 1996 Requirements confirm subparagraph (d) above, but modify the labelling
requirement for consignments of smoked salmon under 5 kilograms in weight, as prescribed in the
1988 Conditions.
45
101. We agree with Australia that the heat-treatment requirement mentioned in the 1988
Conditions applies only to smoked salmon, and that these Conditions exempt heat-treated smoked
salmon and salmon roe from the import prohibition laid down in QP86A. Fresh, chilled or frozen
salmon falls under the import prohibition of QP86A, as confirmed by the 1996 Decision of the
Director of Quarantine. Fresh, chilled or frozen salmon is not, and cannot be, subjected to heat
treatment. As a matter of fact, heat treatment w ould destroy fresh, chilled or frozen salmon. As the
Panel itself explicitly stated: "heat treatment actually changes the nature of the product and limits its
use. Heat-treated salmon can obviously no longer be consumed as fresh salmon."
46 Moreover, both
participants agree that fresh, chilled or frozen salmon is an entirely different product from heat-treated
(commercially marketed as "smoked") salmon.
47
102. We recall that the Panel stated that the measure at issue in this dispute "is QP86A as
implemented or confirmed by the 1988 Condit ions, the 1996 Requirements and the 1996 Decision,
and this in so far as it prohibits the importation into Australia of fresh, chilled or frozen salmon".48 As
indicated above, the Panel interpreted its terms of reference to include the 1988 Conditions, by
considering them to constitute a measure "prohibiting the importation of fresh, chilled or frozen

431988 Conditions, para. 5.
441988 Conditions, para. 9.
45Supra., footnote 3.
46Panel Report, para. 8.182.
47Responses by Australia and Canada to questions at the oral hearing.
48Panel Report, para. 8.19.

salmon" unless heat-treated as prescribed. 49 We recall that in the context of its examination of
whether Australia's measure was consistent with Article 5.1, the Panel treated the import prohibition
and the heat-treatment requirement as "two sides of a single coin". It said that a consequence of
Australia's sanitary requirement that salmon be heat-treated before it can be imported is that imports
of fresh, chilled or frozen salmon are prohibited.
50
103. We do not share the Panel's position. In our view, the SPS measure at issue in this dispute
can only be the measure which is actually applied to the product at issue. The product at issue is
fresh, chilled or frozen salmon and the SPS measure applicable to fresh, chilled or frozen salmon is
the import prohibition set forth in QP86A. The heat-t reatment requirement provided for in the 1988
Conditions applies only to smoked salmon and salmon roe, not to fresh, chilled or frozen salmon.
104. We also do not share the Panel's view that the import prohibition and the heat-treatment
requirement are "two sides of the same coin". Smoked salmon and fresh, chilled or frozen salmon are
different products and the SPS measures applied to each are not "two sides of the same coin". We
agree with Australia that it is not a consequence of the requirement that smoked salmon be heat-
treated that imports of fresh, chilled or frozen salmon are prohibited. Imports of fresh, chilled or
frozen salmon are prohibited as a direct consequence of the application of QP86A, and this
prohibition has not been revoked, but has, in fa ct, been continuously maintained since 1975. We
likewise do not share the Panel's view that the 1996 Requirements apply to fresh, chilled or frozen
salmon. These requirements clearly apply only to imports of small amounts of smoked salmon.
105. For the reasons set out above, we reverse the Panel's findings in paragraph 8.18 and 8.19 of
the Panel Report that the 1988 Conditions and the 1996 Requirements fall within the Panel's terms of
reference. We conclude that the SPS measure at issue in this dispute is the import prohibition on
fresh, chilled or frozen salmon set forth in QP86A, as confirmed by the 1996 Decision, rather than the
heat-treatment requirement set forth in the 1988 Conditions.

49Panel Report, para. 8.18.
50Panel Report, para. 8.95.

B. Article 6 of the SPS Agreement
106. The next issue we address is whether the Panel exceeded its terms of reference by extending
the scope of its examination of Article 5 to include Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.
107. In the request for the establishment of a panel, Canada requested that the Panel consider and
find that:
(a) The Australian measures are inconsistent with:
(i) the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures, and in particular Articles 2, 3
and 5 thereof;
(ii) the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, and
in particular Articles XI and XIII thereof;
(b) the application of the Australian measures nullifies or impairs
the benefits accruing to Canada pursuant to the Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization.51
108. In the context of examining the third element of Article 5.5, i.e., the existence of
discrimination or a disguised restriction on inte rnational trade resulting from the arbitrary or
unjustifiable distinction in the levels of sanitary protection in different situations, the Panel took into
account three "warning signals" and three "additional factors".
52 The third of these "additional
factors" concerns the Panel's doubts on whether Australia applies "similarly strict" sanitary standards
to the internal movement of salmon within Australia as it does on imports of salmon. 53 In the context
of its brief and inconclusive discussion on Australia's internal controls on the movement of salmon,
the Panel noted:
... that the other reasons provided by Australia to justify the absence of
any internal restrictions on the movement of salmon products, in
particular from Victoria to other parts of Australia ... would seem to
be equally valid in support of allowing imports of salmon products
into specific parts of Australia.
54

51WT/DS18/2, 10 March 1997.
52Panel Report, para. 8.19.
53Panel Report, para. 8.155.
54Panel Report, para. 8.156.

109. In a footnote to this paragraph, the Panel referred to Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement and
stated:
We note that in this respect Article 6 of the SPS Agreement provides:
"Members shall ensure that their sanitary ... measures are adapted to
the sanitary ... characteristics of the area - whether all of a country,
part of a country , or all or parts of several countries - ... to which the
product is destined. In assessing the sanitary or phytosanitary
characteristics of a region, Members shall take into account, inter alia,
the level of prevalence of specific diseases or pests, the existence of
eradication or control programmes, and appropriate criteria or
guidelines which may be developed by the relevant international
organizations".55
110. Canada's request for the establishment of a panel did not include a claim of violation of
Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. The Panel's terms of reference are determined by Canada's request
for the establishment of a panel. We, therefor e, agree with Australia that Article 6 of the
SPS Agreement is not within the terms of reference of the Panel. However, we disagree with
Australia that the Panel exceeded its terms of reference in quoting Article 6.1 in a footnote, attached
to a paragraph in which the Panel examined a violation of Article 5.5. More precisely, we reject
Australia's contention that the Panel, by merely referring to Article 6.1 in a footnote, made an implied
finding of inconsistency with Article 6. In our view, the statement of the Panel with regard to
Article 6, in footnote 430 of its Report, is similar in character to the statement of the panel in United
States – Shirts and Blouses , with regard to the powers of the Textile Monitoring Body ("TMB").
India appealed from this statement, but we found it to be "purely a descriptive and gratuitous
comment providing background concerning the Panel's understanding of how the TMB functions".
56
We did not consider that statement to be "a legal finding or conclusion" which the Appellate Body
"may uphold, modify or reverse". Likewise, we consider that in this case, the Panel's statement in
footnote 430 of its Report regarding Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement is a purely gratuitous
comment and not "a legal finding or conclusion". By making such a comment, the Panel did not
exceed its terms of reference.

55Panel Report., footnote 430.
56Adopted 23 May 1997, WT/DS33/AB/R, p. 17.

V. The SPS Agreement
A. Preliminary Observation
111. The Panel made separate analyses and findings on ocean-caught Pacific salmon and on other
Canadian salmon. With respect to other Canadian salmon, the Panel found that Australia, by
maintaining the measure at issue, without even purporting to conduct or rely on a risk assessment, has
acted inconsistently with Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.
57 This finding is not appealed.
The Panel limited its further examination and findings of violations of Articles 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, and the
consequential violations of Articles 2.2 and 2.3 of the SPS Agreement , to ocean-caught Pacific
salmon.
58 The following three sections (B, C and D) of our Report, which examine Australia's appeal
against these findings, are therefore also confined to ocean-caught Pacific salmon. Canada's appeal
from the Panel's lack of findings relating to its claims under Articles 5.5 and 5.6 with respect to other
Canadian salmon is examined in Section E. Canada's appeal from the Panel's lack of a finding on its
independent claim under the first sentence of Article 2.3, for both categories of salmon, is examined
in Section F.
B. Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement
112. We first address the question of whether the Panel erred in finding that the measure at issue,
as it applies to ocean-caught Pacific salmon, is not based on a risk assessment and that Australia,
therefore, has acted inconsistently with Article 5.1 and, by implication, Article 2.2 of the
SPS Agreement.
113. The Panel first addressed the issue of whether the 1996 Final Report is a risk assessment
within the meaning of Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement. It did not make a finding on this issue but
assumed, for the purpose of its further examination, that the 1996 Final Report meets the requirements
of a risk assessment. It subsequently examined whether the SPS measure at issue, which, in its view,
is the heat-treatment requirement, is based on the 1996 Final Report, "the only risk assessment
forwarded by Australia".
59 In paragraph 8.99 of its Report, the Panel came to the conclusion that "the
measure at issue - in so far as it applies to ocean-caught Pacific salmon - is not 'based on' a risk

57Panel Report, para. 8.59.
58Panel Report, para. 8.60.
59Panel Report, para. 8.96.

assessment," and that, therefore, Australia has acted inconsistently with Article 5.1 and, by
implication, Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.60
114. Australia appeals from the Panel's finding that the measure in dispute was not based on a risk
assessment. In the view of Australia, this finding is vitiated by the Panel's conclusion that the SPS
measure in dispute is the heat-treatment requirement rather than the import prohibition.
115. We recall that we have found that the SPS measure at issue is the import prohibition on fresh,
chilled or frozen salmon, not the heat-treatment requirement.
61 The import prohibition is, therefore,
the measure which must be examined under the SPS Agreement. More particularly, under Article
5.1, the Panel should have determined whether the import prohibition on fresh, chilled or frozen
salmon was based on a risk assessment, instead of examining whether the heat-treatment requirement
was based on a risk assessment. We believe this to be an error of law and we therefore reverse the
Panel's finding in paragraph 8.99 that the SPS measure, as it applies to ocean-caught Pacific salmon,
is not based on a risk assessment, and that Australia has acted inconsistently with Article 5.1 and, by
implication, Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.
116. The Panel did not examine whether the import prohibition on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon,
the proper SPS measure at issue in this dispute, is based on a risk assessment, and there is no finding
on this question in the Panel Report.
117. We are cognizant of the provisions of Article 17 of the DSU that state our jurisdiction and our
mandate. Article 17.6 of the DSU provides: "An appeal shall be limited to issues of law covered in
the panel report and legal interpretations developed by the panel." Article 17.13 of the DSU states:
"The Appellate Body may uphold, modify or reverse the legal findings and conclusions of the panel."
In certain appeals, when we reverse a panel's finding on a legal issue, we may examine and decide an
issue that was not specifically addressed by the panel, in order to complete the legal analysis and
resolve the dispute between the parties. This occurred, for example, in the appeals in United States –
Gasoline
62, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals 63, European Communities –

60It appears that the Panel did not find it necessary to make a definitive finding on whether the
1996 Final Report constituted a "risk assessment", after having come to its conclusion that the measure at issue
was not based on a risk assessment.
61Supra., para. 105.
62Adopted 20 May 1996, WT/DS2/AB/R, pages 19 ff.
63Adopted 30 July 1997, WT/DS31/AB/R, pages 23 ff.

Measures Affecting the Importation of Certain Poultry Products ("European Communities –
Poultry")64, and United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products.65
118. As we have reversed the Panel's finding that the SPS measure at issue, erroneously identified
as the heat-treatment requirement, is not based on a risk assessment, we believe that -- to the extent
possible on the basis of the factual findings of the Panel and/or of undisputed facts in the Panel
record -- we should complete the legal analysis and determine whether the actual SPS measure at
issue, i.e., Australia's import prohibition on fresh, chilled or frozen ocean-caught Pacific salmon, is
based on a risk assessment.
119. In examining whether Australia's import prohibition is consistent with Article 5.1, we first
have to address whether the 1996 Final Report is, indeed, as Australia contends, a risk assessment
within the meaning of Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement. After a detailed analysis of the
requirements of the SPS Agreement relating to risk assessments, and a detailed analysis on whether
the 1996 Final Report fulfils these requirements, the Panel assumed -- without making a finding on
this issue -- "that the 1996 Final Report meets the requirements of a risk assessment set out in Articles
5.1 and 5.2".
66 We do not believe it appropriate to base our examination of Article 5.1 on this
assumption made by the Panel that the 1996 Final Report is a proper risk assessment. We must,
therefore, address this question ourselves. This is possible, because the Panel made all the factual
findings necessary to enable us to examine whether the 1996 Final Report meets the requirements of a
risk assessment under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement.
120. Paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement defines two types of "risk assessment". We
agree with the Panel that the type of risk assessment which is required in this case is the type defined
in the first part of paragraph 4 of Annex A
67, which reads as follows:
Risk Assessment - The evaluation of the likelihood of entry,
establishment or spread of a pest or disease within the territory of an
importing Member according to the sanitary or phytosanitary
measures which might be applied, and of the associated potential
biological and economic consequences;

64Adopted 23 July 1998, WT/DS69/AB/R, paras. 154 ff.
65WT/DS58/AB/R, dated 12 October 1998, paras. 123 ff.
66Panel Report, paras. 8.91 and 8.92.
67The SPS measure in dispute is a measure to protect animal life or health from risks arising from the
entry, establishment or spread of diseases, rather than from risks arising from additives, contaminants, toxins or
disease-causing organisms in foodstuffs. Therefore, the type of risk assessment required is the type defined in
the first part, rather than the second part, of paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement.

121. On the basis of this definition, we consider that, in this case, a risk assessment within the
meaning of Article 5.1 must:
(1) identify the diseases whose entry, establishment or spread a Member wants to prevent
within its territory, as well as the potential biological and economic consequences
associated with the entry, establishment or spread of these diseases;
(2) evaluate the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of these diseases, as well as
the associated potential biological and economic consequences; and
(3) evaluate the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of these diseases according
to the SPS measures which might be applied.
122. We note that the Panel identified the same three requirements for a risk assessment, within the
meaning of Article 5.1 and the first part of paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement.
68
123. Before taking up the question of whether the 1996 Final Report satisfies these requirements,
we note that the first definition in paragraph 4 of Annex A speaks about the evaluation of
"likelihood."
69 I n our repo rt in European Communities – Hormones, we referred to the dictionary
meaning of "probability" as "degrees of likelihood" and "a thing that is judged likely to be true", for
the purpose of distinguishing the terms "potential" and "probability". 70 For the present purpose, we
refer in the same manner to the ordinary meaning of "likelihood", and we consider that it has the same
meaning as "probability".71 On this basis, as well as on the basis of the definition of "risk" and "risk

68However, the test developed by the Panel seems to suggest that the Member imposing the SPS
measure would itself have to conduct the risk assessment (Panel Report, para. 8.72). In that respect the Panel
is mistaken. We recall that in paragraph 190 of our report in European Communities – Hormones, we stated that
"Article 5.1 does not insist that a Member that adopts a sanitary measure shall have carried out its own risk
assessment. It only requires that the SPS measures be 'based on an assessment, as appropriate for the
circumstances …'. The SPS measure might well find its objective justification in a risk assessment carried out
by another Member, or an international organization."
69We note that the first type of risk assessment in paragraph 4 of Annex A is substantially different
from the second type of risk assessment contained in the same paragraph. While the second requires only the
evaluation of the potential for adverse effects on human or animal health, the first type of risk assessment
demands an evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of a disease, and of the associated
potential biological and economic consequences. In view of the very different language used in paragraph 4 of
Annex A for the two types of risk assessment, we do not believe that it is correct to diminish the substantial
differences between these two types of risk assessments, as the European Communities seems to suggest when it
argues that "the object, purpose and context of the SPS Agreement indicate that no greater level of probability
can have been intended for the first type of risk assessment than for the second type, [as b]oth types can apply
both to human life or health and to animal or plant life or health". (Third participant's submission of the
European Communities, para. 7).
70Adopted 13 February 1998, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 184.
71"Likelihood: probability", The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (9 th ed., Clarendon
Press).

assessment" developed by the Office international des épizooties ("OIE") 72 and the OIE Guidelines
for Risk Assessment73, we maintain that for a risk assessment to fall within the meaning of Article 5.1
and the first definition in paragraph 4 of Annex A, it is not sufficient that a risk assessment conclude
that there is a possibility of entry, establishment or spread of diseases and associated biological and
economic consequences. A proper risk assessment of this type must evaluate the "likelihood", i.e., the
"probability", of entry, establishment or spread of diseases and associated biological and economic
consequences as well as the "likelihood", i.e., "probability", of entry, establishment or spread of
diseases according to the SPS measures which might be applied.
124. We note that, although the Panel stated that the definition of a risk assessment for this type of
measure requires an "evaluation of the likelihood", for the purpose of satisfying the second and third
requirements
74, it subsequently was hesitant in applying these requirements, by stating or suggesting
in paragraphs 8.80, 8.83, 8.89 and 8.91, that some evaluation of the likelihood or probability would
suffice. We consider this hesitation unfortunate. We do not agree with the Panel that a risk
assessment of this type needs only some evaluation of the likelihood or probability. The definition
of this type of risk assessment in paragraph 4 of Annex A refers to "the evaluation of the likelihood"
and not to some evaluation of the likelihood. We agree, however, with the Panel's statements in
paragraph 8.80 that the SPS Agreement does not require that the evaluation of the likelihood needs to
be done quantitatively. The likelihood may be expressed either quantitatively or qualitatively.
Furthermore, we recall, as does the Panel
75, that we stated in European Communities – Hormones
that there is no requirement for a risk assessment to establish a certain magnitude or threshold level of
degree of risk.
76
125. The Panel adds to these considerations, the following statement:
... [W]e consider that a risk assessment, on which to base an import
prohibition in accordance with Article 5.1, cannot be premised on the
concept of "zero risk". Otherwise, all import prohibitions would be
based on a risk assessment since there is a risk (i.e., a possibility of
an adverse event occurring), however remote, associated with most (if
not all) imports.77

72OIE Code, Section 1.1, Definitions, p. 13. We note that Article 5.1 provides that risk assessments
should take "into account risk assessment techniques devel oped by the relevant international organizations". In
the context of this case, the relevant international organization is the OIE.
73OIE Code, Chapter 1.4.2, p. 33 and 34.
74Panel Report, para. 8.72.
75Panel Report, para. 8.80.
76Adopted 13 February 1998, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 186.
77Panel Report, para. 8.81.

In its third participant's submission, the European Communities states that it finds this statement
perplexing. The European Communities is concerned that what the Panel affirmed might be
misconstrued to mean that "zero risk" as an appropriate level of protection is not a choice open to
Members under the SPS Agreement. The statement by the Panel quoted above is not appealed, and
we merely note that it is important to distinguish -- perhaps more carefully than the Panel did --
between the evaluation of "risk" in a risk assessment and the determination of the appropriate level of
protection. As stated in our Report in European Communities – Hormones, the "risk" evaluated in a
risk assessment must be an ascertainable risk; theoretical uncertainty is "not the kind of risk which,
under Article 5.1, is to be assessed."
78 This does not mean, however, that a Member cannot determine
its own appropriate level of protection to be "zero risk".
126. Applying our three-pronged test set out in paragraph 128 above, to the 1996 Final Report in
order to determine whether that Report meets the requirements of a risk assessment within the
meaning of Article 5.1 and the first definition in paragraph 4 of Annex A, we note that the Panel
found that the 1996 Final Report identifies the diseases whose entry, establishment or spread Australia
wants to prevent as well as the potential biological and economic consequences associated with the
entry, establishment or spread of such diseases. The Panel, therefore, concluded that "the
1996 Final Report meets the first requirement of a risk assessment".
79 We agree with the Panel.
127. With regard to the second requirement for a risk assessment of the type applicable in this
case, namely, the evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of the diseases of
concern and of the associated potential biological and economic consequences, we note that the
Panel stated in paragraph 8.82 of its Report:
… the 1996 Final Report uses the words probability, possibility and
likelihood on different occasions and evaluates elements of probability
for some of the diseases of concern.277 (emphasis added)
277 At the meeting with experts advising the Panel Australia stated that "we
contend we have conducted a probability risk assessment" and implied that
assessing risk as low or small is a statement of probability (Transcript, para.
155).
After citing some passages from the 1996 Final Report which evaluate elements of probability 80, the
Panel concluded:

78Adopted 13 February 1998, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 186.
79Panel Report, para. 8.73.
80The Panel cited only a passage in the Executive Summary, two passages with respect to two diseases
(Aeromonas salmonicida and Parvicapsula sp.), and a passage from the disease agent conclusions. See Panel
Report, para. 8.82.

Considering the evidence before us, we note that the
1996 Final Report addresses some elements of both probability and
possibility. We shall, therefore, assume - without making a finding on
this issue - that it meets the requirement set out above. 81 (emphasis
added)
128. We believe, however, that on the basis of the facts found by the Panel, it could, and should,
have come to the conclusion that the 1996 Final Report does not contain the "evaluation of the
likelihood of entry, establishment or spread" of the diseases of concern "and of the associated
potential biological and economic consequences" as required by paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS
Agreement. As we have already emphasized, some evaluation of the likelihood is not enough.
82
129. In arriving at our conclusion that the 1996 Final Report does not meet the second requirement
of a risk assessment of the type applicable in this case, we rely, in particular, on the Panel's factual
findings in paragraph 8.83 of its Report:
… that the 1996 Final Report (as stated by several of the experts
advising the Panel 284) lends more weight to the unknown and
uncertain elements of the assessment than the 1995 Draft Report (on
which the 1996 Final Report is based). This, on occasions, results in
general and vague statements of mere possibility of adverse effects
occurring; statements which constitute neither a quantitative nor a
qualitative assessment of probability.
285
284 Wooldridge answers, p.6, quoted in para. 8. and Rodgers answers, p.1
("As such, the 1995 report is a more useful document, in the sense of an
internal risk assessment exercise, since it 'evaluates' the data to conclude that
a negligible risk exists, while at the same time recognising that the overall
risk of disease introduction cannot be quantified. The final report seems to
lend more weight to the unknown elements of the assessment and as such is
more cautious, which results in an outcome closer to the 'unacceptable' rather
than the 'negligible but acceptable' end of the scale").
285 This led the experts advising the Panel on this issue to the conclusion that
the 1996 Final Report does not appropriately assess probability as is required
in their view. See Burmaster's answer to Panel Question 1, Burmaster
answers, p.1; Rodgers, Transcript, para. 26 ("[The 1996 Final Report]
assesses risks on a disease-by-disease basis but in a textural form and does
not assign any probabilities that would be needed to reach a conclusion. In
this respect, therefore, I think, it possibly does fall short of determining any
probability based on the information available") and Wooldridge, Transcript,
para. 55 ("... since [the 1996 Final Report] looks only at the possibility of the
unwanted outcomes of infection and disease importation, rather than the
probability, in my opinion, it does not in any event fulfil the essential
requirements of a risk assessment").

81Panel Report, para. 8.83.
82Supra., para. 124.

130. We might add that the existence of unknown and uncertain elements does not justify a
departure from the requirements of Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3, read together with paragraph 4 of Annex
A, for a risk assessment. We recall that Article 5.2 requires that "in the assessment of risk, Members
shall take into account available scientific evidence". We further recall that Article 2, entitled "Basic
Rights and Obligations", requires in paragraph 2 that "Members shall ensure that any sanitary …
measure … is based on scientific principles and is not maintained without sufficient scientific
evidence, except as provided for in paragraph 7 of Article 5." As we stated in European
Communities – Hormones , "Articles 2.2 and 5.1 should constantly be read together. Article 2.2
informs Article 5.1: the elements that define the basic obligation set out in Article 2.2 impart meaning
to Article 5.1."
83
131. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that the 1996 Final Report does not meet the second
requirement of the type of risk assessment applicable in this case, i.e., the evaluation of the likelihood
of entry, establishment or spread of the diseases of concern and of the potential associated biological
and economic consequences.
132. We turn now to the third requirement of a risk assessment within the meaning of Article 5.1
and the first definition in paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement, namely, the evaluation of
the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of a disease according to the SPS measures which
might be applied. We agree with the Panel that the measures which might be applied are those which
reduce the risks of concern, and are referred to in the 1996 Final Report as risk reduction factors. We
note that the Panel observed that the 1996 Final Report examines a large number of different risk
reduction factors for each of the 24 diseases of concern
84, and we note that the Panel came to the
following factual finding:
For most of these risk reduction factors, the 1996 Final Report
provides some evaluation of the extent to which these factors could
reduce risk.85 (emphasis added)

83Adopted 13 February 1998, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 180.
84Panel Report, para. 8.89. These risk reduction factors are: "restricting zone of origin, species of
origin, life cycle stage; pre and post shipping quarantine; product testing with tests having high sensitivity;
processing, maturation and storage for specified time and temperature; treatments, (e.g., heating, disinfection);
restricting the destination; vaccination; and certification."
85Panel Report, para. 8.89.

133. With regard to the quarantine policy options considered to reduce the total risk associated
with all diseases of concern, the Panel, arrived at these factual findings:
… that the 1996 Final Report does not substantively evaluate the
relative risks associated with these different options. Even though the
definition of risk assessment requires an "evaluation ... according to
the sanitary ... measures which might be applied", the
1996 Final Report identifies such measures but does not, in any
substantial way, evaluate or assess their relative effectiveness in
reducing the overall disease risk.
86 (emphasis added)
Thereafter, the Panel stated:
Considering the evidence before us, we recall that the
1996 Final Report addresses and to some extent evaluates a series of
risk reduction factors, in particular, on a disease-by-disease basis. We
shall, therefore, assume - without making a finding on this issue - that
the 1996 Final Report … does make such evaluation according to and
taking into account the sanitary measures or options - considered to
reduce the alleged risk - which might be applied.
87 (emphasis added)
134. We believe that the above assumption is not justified by the Panel's factual findings in
paragraphs 8.89 and 8.90 of its Report. On the basis of its factual findings, the Panel should have
come to the conclusion that the 1996 Final Report does not fulfil the third requirement for the type of
risk assessment applicable in this case, i.e., it does not contain the required evaluation of the
likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of the diseases of concern according to the SPS measures
which might be applied. We recall that, contrary to the Panel, we consider that some evaluation of the
likelihood is not enough.
88
135. We conclude, on the basis of the factual findings made by the Panel and the requirements for
a risk assessment as set forth above, that the 1996 Final Report meets neither the second nor the third
requirement for the type of risk assessment appl icable in this case, and, therefore, that the
1996 Final Report is not a proper risk assessment within the meaning of Article 5.1 and the first
definition in paragraph 4 of Annex A.

86Panel Report, para. 8.90.
87Panel Report, para. 8.91.
88Supra., para 124.

136. Inasmuch as we have found that the 1996 Final Report is not a proper risk assessment, and
since it was the only risk assessment put forward by Australia, we conclude that the measure at issue,
i.e., the import prohibition on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon, is not based on a risk assessment as
required by Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, and, therefore, that Australia has acted inconsistently
with Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement.
137. We note that the Panel, after reiterating our statement on the relationship between Articles 2.3
and 5.5 in European Communities – Hormones, went on to say:
… Articles 5.1 and 5.2 ... "may be seen to be marking out and
elaborating a particular route leading to the same destination set out
in" Article 2.2. Indeed, in the event a sanitary measure is not based on
a risk assessment as required in Articles 5.1 and 5.2, this measure can
be presumed, more generally, not to be based on scientific principles
or to be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. We
conclude, therefore, that if we find a violation of the more specific
Article 5.1 or 5.2 such finding can be presumed to imply a violation of
the more general provisions of Article 2.2. We do recognize, at the
same time, that given the more general character of Article 2.2 not all
violations of Article 2.2 are covered by Articles 5.1 and 5.2.
89
138. We agree with the Panel, and, therefore, conclude that, by maintaining an import prohibition
on fresh, chilled or frozen ocean-caught Pacific salmon, in violation of Article 5.1, Australia has, by
implication, also acted inconsistently with Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.
C. Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement
139. The next issue we address is whether the Panel erred in law in finding that Australia has acted
inconsistently with Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.
140. Following our Report in European Communities – Hormones
90, the Panel considered:
... that three elements are required in order for a Member to act
inconsistently with Article 5.5:
- the Member concerned adopts different appropriate levels of
sanitary protection in several "different situations";
- those levels of protection exhibit differences which are
"arbitrary or unjustifiable"; and
- the measure embodying those differences results in
"discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade".91

89Panel Report, para. 8.52.
90Adopted 13 February 1998, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 214.
91Panel Report, para. 8.108.

141. The Panel found that all three conditions are fulfilled and therefore concluded that:
Since all three elements of Article 5.5 are present in this case, we find
that Australia, by maintaining the measure at issue, acts inconsistently
with its obligations under Article 5.5. Given our earlier finding - that
a violation of the more specific Article 5.5 can be presumed to imply a
violation of the more general Article 2.3 - we find that Australia, to
that extent, also acts inconsistently with Article 2.3.
92
142. Australia appeals from this finding of inconsistency with Article 5.5 and, by implication,
Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement. Without challenging the Panel's three-step legal test for
inconsistency with Article 5.5 as such, Australia contends that the Panel has made a series of errors of
law in the interpretation and application of the test.93 Australia argues that the Panel, in its application
of Article 5.5, exceeded its terms of reference, erred in the allocation and application of the burden of
proof, failed to make an objective assessment of the matter as required by Article 11 of the DSU and
made a number of substantive errors in its interpretation and application of Article 5.5. The first of
these claims has already been dealt with in Part IV of our Report; the second and third claims are
dealt with in Sections A and B of Part VI. In this section we focus exclusively on the substantive
errors of law Australia claims the Panel made in its interpretation and application of each of the three
elements of Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.
1. First element of Article 5.5
143. With regard to the first element of Article 5.5, namely, the existence of distinctions in
appropriate levels of protection in different situations, the Panel cited our Report in European
Communities – Hormones, where we stated that "situations … cannot, of course, be compared, unless
they are comparable, that is, unless they present some common element or elements sufficient to
render them comparable".
94 The Panel found that:
... in the circumstances of this dispute, we can compare situations
under Article 5.5 if these situations involve either a risk of "entry,
establishment or spread" of the same or a similar disease or o f the
same or similar "associated biological and economic consequences"
and this irrespective of whether they arise from the same product or
other products.95 (emphasis added)

92Panel Report, para. 8.160.
93Australia's appellant's submission, paras. 146 ff.
94Adopted 13 February 1998, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R para. 217.
95Panel Report, para. 8.117.

144. On this basis, the Panel determined that the import prohibition on fresh, chilled or frozen
salmon for human consumption and the admission of imports of (i) uncooked Pacific herring, cod,
haddock, Japanese eel and plaice for human consumption; (ii) uncooked Pacific herring, Atlantic
and Pacific cod, haddock, European and Japanese eel and Dover sole for human consumption;
(iii) herring in whole, frozen form used as bait ("herring used as bait"); and (iv) live ornamental
finfish, are "different" situations which can be compared under Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.
96
145. Australia argues that the Panel erred by considering that situations are "different", i.e.,
"comparable", if these situations involve either a risk of entry, establishment or spread of the same
or a similar disease, or a risk of the same or similar "associated potential biological and economic
consequences".97 Australia contends that the Panel has imputed a meaning to the term "risk" which
conflicts with the ordinary meaning of the term as used in its context and in the light of the object and
purpose of the SPS Agreement. According to Australia, the "r isk" to be examined is the risk
evaluated in the risk assessment, namely, the risk of entry, establishment or spread of several different
diseases and of the associated potential biological and economic consequences.
98
146. Situations which involve a risk of entry, establishment or spread of the same or a similar
disease have some common elements sufficient to render them comparable under Article 5.5.
Likewise, situations with a risk of the same or similar associated potential biological and economic
consequences also have some common elements sufficient to render them comparable under Article
5.5. We, therefore, consider that for "different" situations to be comparable under Article 5.5, there is
no need for both the disease and the biological and economic consequences to be the same or
similar. We recognize that, as pointed out by Austra lia, the risk which needs to be examined in a risk
assessment, pursuant to Article 5.1 and the first definition of risk assessment of paragraph 4 of Annex
A , is t h e r isk o f both the entry, establishment or spread of a disease and the associated potential
biological and economic consequences. However, we fail to see how this can be of relevance to the
question of comparability of different situations under Article 5.5 which is the issue addressed by the
Panel. We, therefore, conclude that the Panel was correct in stating that situations can be compared
under Article 5.5 if these situations involve either a risk of entry, establishment or spread of the same
or a similar disease, or a risk of the same or similar "associated potential biological and economic
consequences".

96Panel Report, para. 8.121. Hereafter, we refer to these groups of imports as "other fish and fish
products".
97Australia's appellant's submission, paras. 155 ff, referring to the Panel Report, para. 8.117.
98Australia's appellant's submission, paras. 159 ff.

147. Moreover, we note that the Panel examined and concluded, with respect to each of the four
comparisons, that there is a risk of entry, establishment or spread of the same or similar diseases and
that the risk of associated potential biological and economic consequences is the same or similar.99
148. Australia also argues that the Panel erred by examining the biological and economic
consequences of the "introduction" of diseases rather than the biological and economic consequences
of the "entry, establishment or spread" of diseases.
100 According to Australia, the Panel's
interpretation of "entry, establishment or spread" as "introduction" is contrary to the SPS provisions
on risk assessment, i.e., Articles 5.1 to 5.3 and Annex A. 101 We note that it is clear from the context
of the relevant Panel discussion, that the Panel merely used the word "introduction" as a short hand
expression for "entry, establishment or spread". It explicitly defined the consequences of disease
introduction as "the consequences of a disease once established in a country".102
149. Furthermore, even if there were to be a difference between the consequences of "disease
introduction" and the consequences of the "entry, establishment and spread of a disease", we note that
for the comparability of situations under Article 5.5, nothing requires us to look at the latter and not at
the former. We recognize that the definition of a risk assessment requires a risk assessment to
evaluate the consequences of the "entry, establishment and spread of a disease" but we fail to see how
this can be of relevance to the question of the comparability of different situations under Article 5.5.
150. Australia finally contends that the Panel erred in determining that its examination on the
comparability of different situations must be limited solely to those disease agents positively detected.
According to Australia, the Panel diminished Australi a's right to a cautious approach to determine its
own appropriate level of protection. Australia argues that the Panel failed to interpret the provisions
of Article 5.5 in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the SPS Agreement.
According to Australia, the terms "likelihood" and "potential" in regard to the definition of "risk
assessment" contained in paragraph 4 of Annex A, and the terms "scientific principles" and "sufficient
scientific evidence" contained in Article 2.2, make it clear that the basic SPS right set out in Article
2.1 to take SPS measures necessary for the protection of animal life or health, is not contingent on
positive scientific evidence of disease detection.
103

99Panel Report, para. 8.121.
100Australia's appellant's submission, para. 168, referring to the Panel Report, para. 8.121. We recall
that Australia's claims relating to the burden of proof and Article 11 of the DSU are dealt with in Part VI of this
Report.
102Panel Report, para. 8.121.

151. We note that, contrary to what Australia argues, the Panel did not limit its examination under
Article 5.5 to diseases positively detected in fresh, chilled or frozen ocean-caught Pacific salmon. On
the contrary, it appears clearly from Annex 1 to the Panel Report, entitled "The Four Comparisons
under Article 5.5", that the Panel examined diseases of concern which, according to Australia, may be
carried by fresh, chilled or frozen ocean-caught Pacific salmon but which have not yet been positively
detected in this type of salmon.
104 We also note that the Panel stated explicitly that:
... To the extent that both the other products and the salmon products
further examined are known to be hosts to one of these disease agents
or - for the salmon products - give rise to an alleged concern for that
disease agent , they can be associated with the same kind of risk,
namely a risk of entry, establishment or spread of that disease. 105
(emphasis added)
152. In addition, we believe that for situations to be comparable under Article 5.5, it is sufficient
for these situations to have in common a risk of entry, establishment or spread of one disease of
concern. There is no need for these situations to have in common a risk of entry, establishment or
spread of all diseases of concern. Therefore, even if the Panel had excluded from its examination
some diseases of concern not positively detected in fresh, chilled or frozen ocean-caught Pacific
salmon, this would not invalidate its finding in paragraph 8.121 on comparable situations under
Article 5.5.
153. We, therefore, uphold the Panel's finding in paragraph 8.121 of its Report that the import
prohibition on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon for human consumption and the admission of imports
of other fish and fish products are "different" situations which can be compared under Article 5.5 of
the SPS Agreement.
106

104We recognize that the Panel in footnote 469 to Annex 1 stated: "When addressing 'disease
occurrence' in this Annex, we focus on whether or not the specific disease agent has been detected in the product
concerned. We realize that [in] doing so we simplify the comparison and that a better comparison could be made
if more data was available. …". In the light of the information contained in the Annex itself, this cannot be
understood to mean that diseases not positively detected were not considered.
105Panel Report, para. 8.119.
106We note that the Panel subsequently examined whether there is, for each of these "different"
situations, a distinction in levels of sanitary protection. In para. 8.129, it concluded:
... We thus assume in this case that the rather substantial difference in
sanitary measures imposed by Australia for ... [ocean-caught Pacific salmon]
(an import prohibition) as opposed to those imposed for the other four
situations (where imports are allowed, often without control; ...), does reflect
a difference in the levels of protection considered to be appropriate by
Australia for each of the four comparisons in the sense of the first element of
Article 5.5.
This finding is not appealed.

2. Second element of Article 5.5
154. With regard to the second element of Article 5.5, namely, the existence of arbitrary or
unjustifiable distinctions in appropriate levels of protection in different situations, the Panel began its
analysis by noting that in view of the difference in SPS measures and corresponding levels of
protection for salmon products, on the one hand, and the four categories of other fish and fish
products, on the other, one might expect some justification for this difference, such as a higher risk
from imported salmon.
107 However, as the Panel noted:
... the arguments, reports, studies and expert opinions submitted to us
in this respect - rather than pointing in the direction of a higher risk
related to ...[ocean-caught Pacific salmon], in order to justify the
stricter sanitary measures imposed for these products - all provide
evidence that the two categories of non-salmonids [herring used as
bait and live ornamental finfish], for which more lenient sanitary
measures apply, can be presumed to represent at least as high a risk -
if not a higher risk - than the risk associated with ... [ocean-caught
Pacific salmon].
108
155. The Panel, therefore, found that, on the basis of the evidence before it, the distinctions in
levels of sanitary protection reflected in Australia's treatment of, on the one hand, ocean-caught
Pacific salmon and, on the other, herring used as bait and live ornamental finfish, are "arbitrary or
unjustifiable" in the sense of the second element of Article 5.5.
109
156. Australia argues that the Panel erred in determining that its examination under Article 5.5,
second element, must be limited solely to those disease agents positively detected in ocean-caught
Pacific salmon. Australia raises the same objections to this limitation as it did in the context of the
first element discussed above.
110
157. We do not agree with Australia that the Panel excluded diseases of concern which have not
been positively detected in ocean-caught Pacific salmon from its examination under Article 5.5. The
Panel explicitly took into account diseases which have not been positively detected in ocean-caught
Pacific salmon but had been detected in herring used as bait and live ornamental finfish.
111 I n
addition, we observe that the inclusion in the examination under Article 5.5, second element, of all
diseases of concern which have not been positiv ely detected in ocean-caught Pacific salmon would

107Panel Report, para. 8.133.
108Panel Report, para. 8.134.
109Panel Report, para. 8.141.
110Supra., para. 150.
111Panel Report, para. 8.140.

logically have led to the inclusion of all diseases of concern which have not been positively detected
in herring used as bait and live ornamental finfish. Due to the lack of reliable scientific information,
this exercise would have become highly speculative and, moreover, would probably not have changed
the Panel's finding in paragraph 8.141 on the "arbitrary or unjustifiable" character of the distinctions
in the levels of protection.
158. Australia determined explicitly that its appropriate level of protection with respect to ocean-
caught Pacific salmon is "a high or 'very conservative' level of sanitary protection aimed at reducing
risk to 'very low levels', 'while not based on a zero-risk approach'."
112 The level of protection
reflected in Australia's treatment of herring used as bait and live ornamental finfish is definitely lower.
We note the Panel's factual finding that herring used as bait and live ornamental finfish can be
presumed to represent at least as high a risk - if not a higher risk - than the risk associated with ocean-
caught Pacific salmon.
113 Therefore, we uphold the Panel's finding in paragraph 8.141 of its Report to
the extent that the Panel found that the second element of Article 5.5 is fulfilled.
3. Third element of Article 5.5
159. With regard to the third element of Article 5.5, i.e., that the arbitrary or unjustifiable
distinctions in levels of protection result in "discrimination or a disguised restriction on international
trade", we note that the Panel identified three "warning signals" as well as three "other factors more
substantial in nature" ("additional factors"). 114 The Panel considered that each of these "warning
signals" and "additional factors" can be taken into account in its decision on the third element of
Article 5.5. In paragraph 8.159 of its Report, it concluded:
On the basis of all "warning signals" and factors outlined above,
considered cumulatively , ... the distinctions in levels of protection
imposed by Australia for, on the one hand, ... [ocean-caught Pacific
salmon] and, on the other hand, herring ... use[d] as bait and live
ornamental finfish, ... result[...] in "a disguised restriction on
international trade", in the sense of the third element of Article 5.5.
115
(emphasis added)

112Panel Report, para. 8.107.
113Panel Report, para. 8.134 quoted in relevant part in para. 154 of this Report.
114Panel Report, paras. 8.149 and 8.158.
115Panel Report, para. 8.159.

160. Australia contends that the Panel made a number of substantive errors of law in using these
"warning signals" and "additional factors" to come to its conclusion on the third element of Article
5.5.
116
161. The first "warning signal" the Panel considered was the arbitrary or unjustifiable character of
the differences in levels of protection. 117 I t n o t e d w h a t w e s t a t e d i n European Communities -
Hormones:
... the arbitrary or unjustifiable character of differences in levels of
protection [...] may in practical effect operate as a "warning" signal
that the implementing measure in its application might be a
discriminatory measure or might be a restriction on international
trade disguised as an SPS measure for the protection of human life or
health".118
The Panel, therefore, considered that:
... In this dispute, ... the arbitrary character of the differences in levels
of protection is a "warning signal" that the measure at issue results in
"a disguised restriction on international trade".119
162. According to Australia, the Panel erred in acco rding the first "warning signal", the status of
evidence which demonstrates that the measure results in a disguised restriction on international
trade.
120 We note however, that it appears clearly from the Panel Report, and in particular, from the
reference therein to our Report in European Communities – Hormones, that the Panel considered the
arbitrary or unjustifiable character of differences in levels of protection as a "warning signal" for, and
not as "evidence" of, a disguised restriction on international trade.
121

116Australia also claims that the Panel exceeded its terms of reference, violated the rules on burden of
proof and failed to make an objective assessment of the matter as required by Article 11 of the DSU. These
claims are examined in Section B of Part IV and Sections A and B of Part VI of this Report.
117Panel Report, para. 8.149.
118Adopted 13 February 1998, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 215.
119Panel Report, para. 8.149.
121Panel Report, para. 8.149.

163. The second "warning signal" considered by the Panel was the rather substantial difference
in levels of protection between an import prohibition on ocean-caught Pacific salmon, as opposed to
tolerance for imports of herring used as bait and of live ornamental finfish.
122 The Panel noted our
statement in European Communities - Hormones that:
... the degree of difference, or the extent of the discrepancy, in the
levels of protection, is only one kind of factor which, along with
others, may cumulatively lead to the conclusion that discrimination or
a disguised restriction on international trade in fact results from the
application of a measure.123 (emphasis added)
On that basis, the Panel stated:
... we do consider that the rather substantial difference in levels of
protection is one of the factors we should take into account in deciding
whether the measure at issue results in "a disguised restriction on
international trade", as argued by Canada.
124
164. Australia contends that this second "warning signal" is effectively no different in character
from the first "warning signal" and should therefore be discounted. 125 We note, however, that in this
case the degree of difference in the levels of protection (prohibition versus tolerance) is indeed, as
the Panel stated, "rather substantial". We, therefore, consider it legitimate to treat this difference as a
separate warning signal.
165. The third "warning signal" the Panel considered was the inconsistency of the SPS measure at
issue with Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement. The Panel considered that its earlier finding of
inconsistency with Articles 5.1 and 2.2:
... may, together with other factors, lead to the conclusion that the
measure at issue results in a "disguised restriction on international
trade". Indeed, considering these violations of Articles 5.1 and 2.2 it
would seem that the measure at issue constitutes an import
prohibition, i.e., a restriction on international trade, "disguised" as a
sanitary measure. We do stress, however, that this additional
"warning signal" as such cannot be sufficient to conclude that the
measure results in a "disguised restriction on international trade".
126

122Panel Report, para. 8.150.
123Adopted 13 February 1998, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 240.
124Panel Report, para. 8.150.
126Panel Report, para. 8.151.

166. Australia objects to the use of this inconsistency as a warning signal in the context of the third
element of Article 5.5.127 It argues that inconsistency with Article 5.1 cannot "presume" or pre-empt a
finding under Article 5.5. We note that a finding that an SPS measure is not based on an assessment
of the risks to human, animal or plant life or health - either because there was no risk assessment at all
or because there is an insufficient risk assessment - is a strong indication that this measure is not
really concerned with the protection of human, animal or plant life or health but is instead a trade-
restrictive measure taken in the guise of an SPS measure, i.e., a "disguised restriction on international
trade". We, therefore, consider that the finding of inconsistency with Article 5.1 is an appropriate
warning signal for a "disguised restriction on international trade".
167. The first "additional factor" considered by the Panel is the fact that the two substantially
different SPS measures that Australia applies (import prohibition versus import tolerance) lead to
discrimination between salmon, on the one hand, and he rring used as bait and live ornamental finfish
on the other. In the Panel's view, the concept of "disguised restriction on international trade" in
Article 5.5 includes, among other things, restrictions constituting arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination between certain products.
128
168. Australia contends that this first "additional factor" is merely a combination of the first two
"warning signals" and does not, therefore, constitute additional "evidence". Furthermore, Australia
argues that this first "additional factor" is based on an inappropriate analogy to Article III of the
GATT 1994 and a wrong concept of discrimination which, in the context of Article 5.5, means, in its
view, discrimination between countries.
129 According to Australia, the first "additional factor" should
therefore be excluded.
169. We believe that the first "additional factor" should indeed be excluded from the examination
of the third element of Article 5.5. All "arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions" in levels of protection
will lead logically to discrimination between products, whether the products are the same (e.g.,
discrimination between imports of salmon from different countries or between imported salmon and
domestic salmon) or different (e.g., salmon versus herring used as bait and live ornamental finfish).
The first "additional factor" is therefore not different from the first warning signal, and should not be
taken into account as a separate factor in the determination of whether an SPS measure results in a
"disguised restriction on international trade".

127Australia's appellant's submission, paras. 218 and 273 - 276.
128Panel Report, para. 8.153.
129Australia's appellant's submission, paras. 219 and 277 - 280.

170. The second "additional factor" considered by the Panel was the substantial, but unexplained
change in conclusion between the 1995 Draft Repor t (which recommended allowing the importation
of ocean-caught Pacific salmon under certain conditions) and the 1996 Final Report (which
recommended continuing the import prohibition). The Panel suggested that the decisive reason for
the reversal of the 1995 draft recommendation "might well have been inspired by domestic pressures
to protect the Australian salmon industry against import competition".
130
171. Australia argues that the Panel erred in considering this difference as a factor to be taken into
account in the examination of the third element of Article 5.5. Australia contends that the Panel has
incorrectly accorded a draft recommendation the status of an SPS measure and that no provision of
the SPS Agreement requires WTO Members to implement draft recommendations absent new
scientific evidence. Moreover, Australia argues that the Panel refused to consider its arguments and
evidence on the role of draft reports and recommendation in the decision-making process of
governments. Australia contends that the Panel mischaracterized the reasons for the introduction of
QP86A. In Australia's view, the Panel also erre d in speculating about the presence and role of
lobbying in Australia's decision to adopt the 1996 Final Report.
131
172. We consider Australia's arguments to be without merit. First, we note that paragraph 1 of
Annex A of the SPS Agreement defines a sanitary measure of the type relevant in this dispute as a
measure applied to protect animal life or health within the territory of a Member from risks arising
from the entry, establishment or spread of diseases. In the light of this definition, the Panel was
correct to consider the recommendation of the 1995 Draft Report to allow under certain conditions
the importation of ocean-caught Pacific salmon to be a recommendation of an SPS measure.
173. Second, we note that the Panel did not at any point state that WTO Members are obliged to
implement draft recommendations absent new scientific evidence. It did not introduce such
obligation. We note that the Panel explicitly acknowledged that the substantial but unexplained
reversal of the 1995 draft recommendation does not constitute, in itself, sufficient proof that the
measure results in a disguised restriction on trade.
132 The Panel merely considered that this factor
"can be taken into account cumulatively with other factors" in the examination under the third element
of Article 5.5. We agree with the Panel. We do not share Australia's criticism on the Panel's use of
the 1995 Draft Report, which the Panel used correctly as "part of the architecture" or "part of a
process"
133 leading to the 1996 Final Report. We also do not see the relevance of the historical

130Panel Report, para. 8.154.
131Australia's appellant's submission, paras. 281 - 289.
132Panel Report, para. 8.154.
133Panel Report, footnote 418.

reasons for the introduction of QP86A in 1975 to the examination of the substantial changes in
conclusion between the 1995 Draft Report and the 1996 Final Report.
174. The third "additional factor" considered by the Panel was the absence of controls on the
internal movement of salmon products within Australia compared to the prohibition of the importation
of ocean-caught Pacific salmon.134 The Panel did not come to a conclusion on the existence or nature
of this alleged difference, but considered that its doubts whether Australia applies similarly strict
sanitary standards, "though probably not conclusive as such, can also be taken into account,
cumulatively with other factors, in [its] decision on whether the measure at issue results in a
'disguised restriction on international trade'."
135
175. Australia contends that the Panel erred in implying that consistency with Article 5.5, requires
either restrictions on the internal movement of salmon products within Australia or, alternatively, that
Australia apply import zoning to grant access to Australia for ocean-caught Pacific salmon.
136
176. We note that, as acknowledged by Australia 137, the Panel did not conclude that the alleged
absence of internal controls constituted a violation of Article 5.5 or any other provision of the
SPS Agreement. The Panel merely stated its doubts on whether Australia applies similarly strict
sanitary standards on the internal movement of salmon products within Australia as it does on the
importation of salmon products and considered that as a factor which can be taken into account in
the examination under the third element of Article 5.5. We consider that these doubts do not carry
much weight, but we agree with the Panel that they can nevertheless be taken into consideration.
138
177. In the above analysis, we have upheld the Panel's findings on the first, second and third
"warning signals" as well as its findings on the second and third "additional factors". We have only
reversed the Panel's finding on the first "additional factor". We consider, however, that this reversal
does not affect the validity of the Panel's conclusion in paragraph 8.159 of its Report, that the
"warning signals" and "other factors", considered cumulatively , lead to the conclusion that the
distinctions in the levels of protection imposed by Australia result in a disguised restriction on
international trade.

134Panel Report, para. 8.155.
135Panel Report, para. 8.158.
137Ibid.
138That such doubts can be taken into consideration in the examination of the existence of
discrimination in the context of Article 5.5 does not prejudice the question of whether or not there is a violation
of Article 2.3, first sentence. This point will be taken up in Section F of Part V of this Report.

178. We, therefore, uphold the Panel's finding that, by maintaining the measure at issue, Australia
has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 5.5, and, by implication, Article 2.3 of the
SPS Agreement.
139
D. Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement
179. We next consider the question of whether the Panel erred in finding that the SPS measure at
issue is "more trade-restrictive than required" to achieve Australia's appropriate level of protection,
and, therefore, that Australia has acted inconsistently with Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.
180. After noting that Article 5.6 must be read in context and, in particular, in light of Article 2.2
of the SPS Agreement
140, the Panel turned its attention to the footnote to Article 5.6. 141 In the Panel's
view, this footnote defines an SPS measure to be "more trade-restrictive than required" only if there is
another SPS measure which:
(1) is "reasonably available taking into account technical and economic feasibility";
(2) "achieves [Australia's] appropriate level of sanitary ... protection"; and
(3) is "significantly less restrictive to trade" than the sanitary measure contested.
The Panel viewed these three elements as cumulative in nature.
142
181. Applying this three-pronged test to the facts in this case, the Panel first recalled that the
1996 Final Report identifies five potential quarantine policy options, ranging from heat treatment to
simple evisceration, which are:
1. Permit the importation of product effectively heat treated for
pathogens of concern
- product might be heat treated prior to export, or
- heat treated on arrival prior to general distribution
2. Implement the recommendations of the BRS report "Aquatic
Animal Quarantine in Australia: Report of the Scientific Working
Party on Aquatic Animal Quarantine" in part or in full [allowing
imports of salmon but, inter alia, with certain certification and
inspection requirements and only as eviscerated, filleted flesh].

139Panel Report, para. 8.160.
140Panel Report, para. 8.165.
141Panel Report, para. 8.167.
142Panel Report, para. 8.167.

3. Permit the importation of retail-ready fillets, for distribution in
raw form under specified conditions.
4. Implement the recommendations of AQIS's 1995 draft IRA, that
is, permit the importation of headless, gilled, eviscerated product
under specified conditions.
5. Permit importation of product that complies with current
international standards for trade in salmon product for human
consumption, that is, OIE recommends that product be
eviscerated and that no other risk reduction measures need be
taken.143
182. The Panel then examined whether any of the latter four quarantine policy options (options 2
to 5, "the four options") meet the three elements of the test under the footnote to Article 5.6. The
Panel excluded option 1 since it speaks of the heat-treatment requirement which the Panel considered
to be the SPS measure against which the other four options are to be examined.
183. On the first element of the test under Article 5.6, i.e., whether there is an alternative SPS
measure which is "reasonably available, taking into account technical and economic feasibility", the
Panel noted that the four options were described in the 1996 Final Report as options "which merit
consideration", and found that "this implies that the 1996 Final Report put forward the four
alternatives … as technically or economically feasible policy options". The Panel, therefore,
concluded that the first element of the test under Article 5.6 is met.
144
184. On the second element, i.e., whether any of these four quarantine policy options "achieves
Australia's appropriate level of sanitary protection", the Panel started from the premise that:
... the level of protection implied or reflected in a sanitary measure or
regime imposed by a WTO Member can be presumed to be at least as
high as the level of protection considered to be appropriate by that
Member.145

143Panel Report, para. 8.168, which incorporates the list of quarantine policy options found in the
1996 Final Report, p.62. "IRA" refers to "Import Risk Analysis".
144Panel Report, para. 8.171.
145Panel Report, para. 8.173.

On the basis of this premise, it stated that:
... To determine whether any of the alternative measures meet
Australia's appropriate level of protection, we should […] examine
whether these alternatives meet the level of protection currently
achieved by the measure at issue.
146
According to the Panel, Australia's "appropriate level of protection" with respect to ocean-caught
Pacific salmon can, therefore, be presumed to be at least as high as the level of protection implied in
the measure currently imposed, which in the view of the Panel is in effect and from a sanitary
perspective the heat-treatment requirement.
147
185. Following this reasoning and focusing its attention on the second quarantine policy option,
i.e., certification, inspection, evisceration and filleting, the Panel found that there are alternative SPS
measures which would meet Australia's appropriate level of protection.
148 It, therefore, concluded that
the second element of the test under Article 5.6 is met.149
186. On the third element, i.e., whether any of the four quarantine policy options is significantly
less restrictive to trade than the SPS measure currently applied, the Panel pointed out that these four
alternative quarantine policy options would "allow imports" of ocean-caught Pacific salmon, albeit
under specific conditions, whereas the SPS measure currently applied amounts to an "outright
prohibition". The Panel, therefore, concluded that the third element of the test under Article 5.6 is
also met.
150
187. Having found that all three elements of the test under Article 5.6 are fulfilled, the Panel
reached the conclusion that Australia, by maintain ing the measure at issue, has acted inconsistently
with Article 5.6.151

We recall, … that to determine whether any of the alternative measures meet
Australia's appropriate level of protection, we should examine whether these
alternatives meet the level of protection currently achieved by the measure in
place (in effect, the heat treatment requirements in the 1988 Conditions) …
147Panel Report, para. 8.173.
148Panel Report, para. 8.176.
149Panel Report, para. 8.181.
150Panel Report, para. 8.182.
151Panel Report, para. 8.183.

188. We note that, in the examination of Canada's claim under Article 5.6, the Panel referred to its
earlier ruling152 that "the measure in dispute is inconsistent with Article 2.2", and, therefore, the Panel
decided that it "shall not further address the legal relationship between Articles 5.6 and 2.2".153
189. Australia appeals from the finding of inconsistency with Article 5.6. Australia does not
disagree with the three-pronged legal test under Article 5.6 as set out by the Panel. Australia argues,
however, that the Panel erred in law, particularly in the way in which it examined the second element
of the test under Article 5.6, i.e., whether any of the four options achieves Australia's appropriate level
of protection.
154
190. According to Australia, the Panel incorrectly characterized the existing measure which
currently achieves Australia's appropriate level of protection. Australia asserts that the Panel has
effectively determined that Australia's appropriate level of protection for fresh, chilled or frozen
salmon can be met by certain heat-treatment conditions.
155 In line with its claim of error on the SPS
measure at issue, Australia argues that the Panel er red in considering that heat treatment "constitutes"
the level of protection for fresh, chilled or frozen salmon. According to Australia, its appropriate
level of protection is "explicit in the measure currently imposed, i.e., the import prohibition on fresh,
chilled or frozen salmon."
156
191. We recall that we have already concluded that the SPS measure at issue is not the heat-
treatment requirement, but rather is the import prohibition on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon. 157 As
we observed in the context of our examination of Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, the measure to be
examined under the SPS Agreement is, therefore, the import prohibition. The Panel had to examine
under Article 5.6 whether the import prohibition is "not more trade-restrictive than required" to
achieve Australia's appropriate level of protection. Instead, the Panel examined whether the heat-
treatment requirement is "not more trade-restrictive th an required". Because of this error, we reverse
the Panel's finding in paragraph 8.183 that Australia, by maintaining the SPS measure at issue, has
acted inconsistently with Article 5.6.

152Panel Report, para. 8.99.
153Panel Report, para. 8.165.
154We note that Australia also claims with regard to the first element of the test under Article 5.6 that
the Panel misapplied the rules on burden of proof. We deal with this claim in Part VI of this Report.
155Australia's appellant submission, para. 306.
156Australia's appellant submission, para. 311.
157Supra., para. 105.

192. There is no finding nor examination in the Panel Report on the question of whether the import
prohibition on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon is "not more trade-restrictive than required" to achieve
Australia's appropriate level of protection.
193. However, in the same context and manner that we did our examination under Article 5.1 of
the SPS Agreement, we believe that - to the extent this is possible on the basis of the factual findings
of the Panel and/or facts that are undisputed between the parties - we should complete the legal
analysis and determine whether the proper SPS measure at issue, i.e., Australia's import prohibition on
fresh, chilled or frozen salmon, is "not more trade-restrictive than required" to achieve Australia's
appropriate level of protection.
194. We agree with the Panel that Article 5.6 and, in particular, the footnote to this provision,
clearly provides a three-pronged test to establish a violation of Article 5.6. As already noted, the three
elements of this test under Article 5.6 are that there is an SPS measure which:
(1) is reasonably available taking into account technical and economic feasibility;
(2) achieves the Member's appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection; and
(3) is significantly less restrictive to trade than the SPS measure contested.
These three elements are cumulative in the sense that, to establish inconsistency with Article 5.6, all of
them have to be met. If any of these elements is not fulfilled, the measure in dispute would be
consistent with Article 5.6. Thus, if there is no alternative measure available, taking into account
technical and economic feasibility, or if the alternative measure does not achieve the Member's
appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection, or if it is not significantly less trade-
restrictive, the measure in dispute would be consistent with Article 5.6.
195. With regard to the first element of this test, we note the Panel's factual finding that there are
alternative SPS measures that are reasonably available, taking into account technical and economic
feasibility. We, therefore, consider that the first element of the test under Article 5.6 is met.
196. With regard to the second element of the test under Article 5.6, i.e., whether the available
alternative SPS measures meet the appropriate level of protection, we note that the Panel stated in
paragraph 8.173 of its Report, that "[t]o determine whether any of the alternative measures meet
Australia's appropriate level of protection, we should […] examine whether these alternatives meet
the level of protection currently achieved by the measure at issue." As already noted, this statement is
based on the Panel's premise that "the level of protection implied or reflected in a sanitary measure

or regime imposed by a WTO Member can be presumed to be at least as high as the level of
protection considered to be appropriate by that Member." We disagree with the Panel.
197. We note that, in this case, the level of protection reflected in the SPS measure at issue, i.e.,
the import prohibition, is undisputedly a "zero-risk level" of protection. However, Australia
determined explicitly that its appropriate level of protection is:
... a high or "very conservative" level of sanitary protection aimed at
reducing risk to "very low levels", "while not based on a zero-risk
approach".
158
It is clear, in this case, that the appropriate level of protection as determined by Australia is
definitely not at least as high as the level of protection reflected in the SPS measure at issue.
198. In discussing Australia's position with respect to its appropriate level of protection, the Panel
noted:
It is for Australia to decide on ... [its appropriate level of protection],
but, again, in so doing it has to act consistently with the
SPS Agreement, in particular Articles 2, 5.1 to 5.3 and 5.6. Our
examination under Article 5.6 is not aimed at a de novo review of
what sanitary measure Australia should have chosen to achieve its
appropriate level of protection. On the other hand, we cannot
completely defer this decision to Australia and thus not give effect to
Article 5.6. Our mandate under Article 11 of the DSU requires us to
"make an objective assessment of the matter before [us], including an
objective assessment of the facts of the case".
159
199. We do not believe that Article 11 of the DSU, or any other provision of the DSU or of the
SPS Agreement, entitles the Panel or the Appellate Body, for the purpose of applying Article 5.6 in
the present case, to substitute its own reasoning about the implied level of protection for that
expressed consistently by Australia. The determination of the appropriate level of protection, a notion
defined in paragraph 5 of Annex A, as "the level of protection deemed appropriate by the Member
establishing a sanitary … measure", is a prerogative of the Member concerned and not of a panel or
of the Appellate Body.

158Panel Report, para. 8.107.
159Panel Report, para. 8.172.

200. The "appropriate level of protection" established by a Member and the "SPS measure" have to
be clearly distinguished.160 They are not one and the same thing. The first is an objective, the second
is an instrument chosen to attain or implement that objective.
201. It can be deduced from the provisions of the SPS Agreement that the determination by a
Member of the "appropriate level of protection" logically precedes the establishment or decision on
maintenance of an "SPS measure". The provisions of the SPS Agreement also clarify the correlation
between the "appropriate level of protection" and the "SPS measure".
202. According to Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement:
Members may introduce or maintain sanitary or phytosanitary measures
which result in a higher level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection
than would be achieved by measures based on the relevant international
standards, ... as a consequence of the level of sanitary or phytosanitary
protection a Member determines to be appropriate … (emphasis added)
Article 5 of the SPS Agreement, entitled "Assessment of Risk and Determination of the Appropriate
Level of Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection", provides in paragraph 3:
In assessing the risk to animal or plant life or health and determining
the measure to be applied for achieving the appropriate level of sanitary
or phytosanitary protection from such risk ... (emphasis added)
Paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the SPS Agreement addresses, specifically, the determination of the
appropriate level of protection in requiring that:
Members should, when determining the appropriate level of sanitary
or phytosanitary protection, take into account the objective of
minimizing negative trade effects. (emphasis added)
203. The correlation between the "appropriate level of protection" and the "SPS measure" is
perhaps shown most clearly in Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement which reads:
... when establishing or maintaining sanitary or phytosanitary measures
to achieve the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection,
Members shall ensure that such measures are not more trade-restrictive
than required to achieve their appropriate level of sanitary or
phytosanitary protection ... (emphasis added)

160That the level of protection and the SPS measure applied have to be clearly distinguished results
already from our Report in European Communities – Hormones, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13
February 1998, para. 214.

The words of Article 5.6, in particular the terms " when establishing or maintaining sanitary ...
protection", demonstrate that the determination of the level of protection is an element in the decision-
making process which logically precedes and is separate from the establishment or maintenance of
the SPS measure. It is the appropriate level of protection which determines the SPS measure to be
introduced or maintained, not the SPS measure introduced or maintained which determines the
appropriate level of protection. To imply the appropriate level of protection from the existing SPS
measure would be to assume that the measure always achieves the appropriate level of protection
determined by the Member. That clearly cannot be the case.
204. We, therefore, conclude that the Panel's statement that "to determine whether any of the
alternative measures meet Australia's appropriate level of protection, we should […] examine whether
these alternatives meet the level of protection currently achieved by the measure at issue" is wrong.
What is required under Article 5.6 is an examination of whether possible alternative SPS measures
meet the appropriate level of protection as determined by the Member concerned.
205. We recognize that the SPS Agreement does not contain an explicit provision which obliges
WTO Members to determine the appropriate level of protection. Such an obligation is, however,
implicit in several provisions of the SPS Agreement, in particular, in paragraph 3 of Annex B, Article
4.1
161, Article 5.4 and Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. 162 With regard to Article 5.6, for example,
we note that it would clearly be impossible to examine whether alternative SPS measures achieve the
appropriate level of protection if the importing Member were not required to determine its appropriate
level of protection.
206. We thus believe that the SPS Agreement contains an implicit obligation to determine the
appropriate level of protection. We do not believe that there is an obligation to determine the
appropriate level of protection in quantitative terms. This does not mean, however, that an importing
Member is free to determine its level of protection with such vagueness or equivocation that the
application of the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement, such as Article 5.6, becomes impossible.
It would obviously be wrong to interpret the SPS Agreement in a way that would render nugatory
entire articles or paragraphs of articles of this Agreement and allow Members to escape from their
obligations under this Agreement.

161Reasonable questions from interested Members within the meaning of paragraph 3 of Annex B can
arise, in particular, with respect to the application of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement. Articles 4.1 and 4.2 imply,
in our view, a clear obligation of the importing Member to determine its appropriate level of protection.
162Furthermore, it could be argued that an implicit obligation for a Member to determine the appropriate
level of protection results also from Article 5.8 and Article 12.4 of the SPS Agreement.

207. While in this case Australia determined its appropriate level of protection, and did so with
sufficient precision to apply Article 5.6, we believe that in cases where a Member does not determine
its appropriate level of protection, or does so with insufficient precision, the appropriate level of
protection may be established by panels on the basis of the level of protection reflected in the SPS
measure actually applied. Otherwise, a Member's failure to comply with the implicit obligation to
determine its appropriate level of protection – with sufficient precision – would allow it to escape
from its obligations under this Agreement and, in particular, its obligations under Articles 5.5 and 5.6.
208. We recall that the second element of the test under Article 5.6 requires us to examine whether
any of the possible alternative SPS measures identified above would achieve Australia's appropriate
level of protection. To be able to do this, first of all, we have to know what level of protection could
be achieved by each of these alternative SPS measures.
209. We note, however, as we already stated in the context of our examination of Article 5.1, that
the Panel made the following factual finding:
... the 1996 Final Report does not substantively evaluate the relative
risks associated with these different options [i.e., the five quarantine
policy options mentioned in the 1996 Final Report].[…] Even though
the definition of risk assessment requires an "evaluation … according
to the sanitary … measures which might be applied", the
1996 Final Report identifies such measures but does not, in any
substantial way, evaluate or assess their relative effectiveness in
reducing the overall disease risk.
163
210. This makes it impossible to verify in an objective manner on the basis of the
1996 Final Report, whether any of the alternative policy options discussed in this Report would
achieve Australia's appropriate level of protection for ocean-caught Pacific salmon.
211. In addition, we note that the Panel Report does not contain any other factual element which
would allow us to examine the alternative quarantine policy options, as the Panel examined them only
in comparison to the erroneous yardstick of the level of protection implied from the heat-treatment
requirement. It was on this basis that the Panel made its finding that Canada had raised "a
presumption – which has not been rebutted – that there are alternative measures available which
would meet Australia's appropriate level of protection". The Panel was however cautious to add:

163Panel Report, para. 8.90.

Our finding does, therefore, not endorse any of the alternative options
we examined. It does not imply that Option 2 would actually achieve
Australia's appropriate level of protection nor does it imply that
Option 2 would be the only option which could achieve that level.164
212. We, therefore, are not in a position to complete the examination of the second element of the
test under Article 5.6, i.e., whether there is another measure that achieves the appropriate level of
sanitary protection.
213. We recall that because of the Panel's error of examining whether the heat-treatment
requirement, rather than the proper SPS measure at issue, i.e., the import prohibition, is "not more
trade-restrictive than required", we are compelled to reverse the Panel's finding that Australia has
acted inconsistently with Article 5.6.
165 In reversing the Panel's finding on Article 5.6, we do not,
however, conclude that Australia did or did not vi olate Article 5.6. There may well be a violation of
Article 5.6, and possibly Article 2.2166 , but we are unable to come to a conclusion on these issues due
to the insufficiency of the factual findings of the Panel and of facts that are undisputed between the
parties.
E. Articles 5.5 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement with Respect to Other Canadian Salmon
214. The next issue which we have to address is whether the Panel erred in law by misapplying the
principle of judicial economy, in particular, in failing to extend its assessment of Canada's claims
regarding Articles 5.5 and 5.6 to other Canadian salmon.
167
215. We recall that the Panel distinguished, in its findings, between ocean-caught Pacific salmon
and other Canadian salmon. The Panel found for both ocean-caught Pacific salmon, in paragraph
8.99, and other Canadian salmon, in paragraph 8.59, that Australia, by maintaining the measure at
issue, has acted inconsistently with Article 5.1 and, by implication, Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.
However, the Panel limited its findings on Article 5.5 and, by implication, on Article 2.3, as well as
its findings on Article 5.6, to ocean-caught Pacific salmon.

164Panel Report, para. 8.181.
165Supra., para. 191.
166Article 2, entitled "Basic Rights and Obligations", requires in paragraph 2 that:
Members shall ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary measure is
applicable only to the extent necessary to protect ... animal life or health.
(emphasis added)
The establishment or maintenance of an SPS measure which implies or reflects a higher level of
protection than the appropriate level of protection determined by an importing Member, could constitute a
violation of the necessity requirement of Article 2.2.

216. The Panel justified this limitation of the product scope of its findings on Articles 5.5, 2.3 and
5.6 in the following manner:
Given the fact that (1) most of the studies and reports before us, and in
particular the 1996 Final Report (Australia's only formal risk
assessment) specifically address and discuss adult, wild, ocean-caught
Pacific salmon (even though the data they contain may relate to or be
relevant for other salmon) and (2) Canada itself also focused on adult,
wild, ocean-caught Pacific salmon during our proceedings, we, in
turn, concentrated our attention and questions (to both the parties and
the experts advising the Panel) on adult, wild, ocean-caught Pacific
salmon. For these reasons, the evidence and arguments before us
which are relevant to Articles 5.5 and 5.6 are centred on adult, wild,
ocean-caught Pacific salmon. We do not therefore consider it
appropriate or necessary "in order to resolve the matter in issue in the
dispute"
251 to further address the salmon products in dispute other than
those from adult, wild, ocean-caught Pacific salmon.168
251 Appellate Body Report on US - Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool
Shirts and Blouses from India, adopted 23 May 1997, WT/DS33/AB/R, pp.17-20,
addressing the issue of judicial economy, at p.19 ("A panel need only address
those claims which must be addressed in order to resolve the matter at issue in the
dispute").
217. Canada appeals from this finding. Canada submits that the Panel's failure to assess the
consistency of the measure at issue with Articles 5.5 and 5.6 for other Canadian salmon was based on
a misapplication of the "principle of judicial economy" that we set out in United States – Shirts and
Blouses. According to Canada, this misapplication led to a result contrary to Article 3.7 of the DSU.
Canada argues, "in the alternative", that the Panel's limited consideration of Articles 5.5 and 5.6
disregarded the ample evidence before it, thereby constituting a violation of Article 11 of the DSU.
169
218. Australia does not address Canada's claims of legal error with regard to judicial economy.
According to Australia, it is read ily apparent that judicial economy was not, in fact, the principal
reason for the Panel's limitation of its findings. Australia argues that the Panel limited its findings on
Articles 5.5 and 5.6 to ocean-caught Pacific salmon because Canada did not present sufficient
evidence to allow the Panel to make findings with regard to other Canadian salmon.
170

168Panel Report, para. 8.60.

1. The Principle of Judicial Economy
219. As cited by the Panel, we stated in United States – Shirts and Blouses that "a panel need only
address those claims which must be addressed in order to resolve the matter at issue".171
220. The matter at issue is set forth in the Panel's terms of reference, which are usually defined by
the request for establishment of a panel which must contain a statement of both the specific measure
at issue and the legal basis of the complaint.
172 The standard terms of reference, used in this case 173,
instruct the Panel:
To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered
agreements cited by Canada in document WT/DS18/2, the matter
referred to the DSB by Canada in that document and to make such
findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in
giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.
174
221. Article 3.7 of the DSU provides as follows:
... The aim of the dispute settlement mechanism is to secure a positive
solution to a dispute. ...
This is affirmed in Article 3.4 of the DSU which stipulates:
Recommendations or rulings made by the DSB shall be aimed at
achieving a satisfactory settlement of the matter in accordance with
the rights and obligations under this Understanding and under the
covered agreements.
222. As recommendations and rulings of the DSB are a function of the findings and
recommendations of panels and the Appellate Body, Canada submits that a panel must address, at a
minimum, those claims covered by the terms of reference that will determine the course of
implementation. If making a ruling on one claim will sufficiently determine the course of
implementation, it would be redundant for a panel to go further. However, a panel that addresses

171Adopted 23 May 1997, WT/DS33/AB/R, p. 19.
172DSU, Article 6.2. The "legal basis of the complaint" involves the claims of the complainant.
Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of
Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September 1997, para. 141.
173Panel Report, para. 1.4.
174WT/DS18/3/Rev.1, 11 June 1997.

certain claims, but declines to address others that would better frame the course of implementation
will, in Canada's view, not necessarily have resolved the matter at issue.175
223. The principle of judicial economy has to be applied keeping in mind the aim of the dispute
settlement system. This aim is to resolve the matter at issue and "to secure a positive solution to a
dispute".
176 To provide only a partial resolution of the matter at issue would be false judicial
economy. A panel has to address those claims on which a finding is necessary in order to enable the
DSB to make sufficiently precise recommendations and rulings so as to allow for prompt compliance
by a Member with those recommendations and rulings "in order to ensure effective resolution of
disputes to the benefit of all Members."
177
224. In this case, for the Panel to make findings concerning violation of Article 5.1 with respect to
other Canadian salmon, without also making findings under Articles 5.5 and 5.6, would not enable the
DSB to make sufficiently precise recommendations and rulings so as to allow for compliance by
Australia with its obligations under the SPS Agreement, in order to ensure the effective resolution of
this dispute with Canada. An SPS measure which is brought into consistency with Article 5.1 may
still be inconsistent with either Article 5.5 or Article 5.6, or with both.
225. Furthermore, there is no reason, in applying the principle of judicial economy, to examine
Articles 5.5 and 5.6 for only one category of the products in dispute, i.e., ocean-caught Pacific
salmon, and not to undertake the same analysis for the other categories, i.e., other Canadian salmon.
The Panel gave no convincing reason why it examined Article 5.5 and 5.6 for only one category of the
products in dispute, i.e., ocean-caught Pacific salmon, and did not undertake the same analysis for
other categories, i.e., other Canadian salmon. The Panel's only explanation for limiting its
examination of Article 5.5 and 5.6 to ocean-caught Pacific salmon was that "the evidence and
arguments before us which are relevant to Articles 5.5 and 5.6 are centered on adult, wild, ocean-
caught Pacific salmon."
178 (emphasis added) The Panel made no finding that Canada has not made a
prima facie case relating to its Articles 5.5 and 5.6 claims concerning other Canadian salmon. We
note that, in this respect, the case at hand presents similarities with Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic
Beverages ("Japan – Alcoholic Beverages ") in which we considered the panel's failure to address all

175Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 34 - 36.
176DSU, Article 3.7.
177DSU, Article 21.1.
178Panel Report, para. 8.60.

the products referred to in its terms of reference to be an error of law.179 Likewise, in the present case,
the Panel's terms of reference include not only ocean-caught Pacific salmon, but also other Canadian
salmon.
226. We, therefore, find it to be an error of law that the Panel did not consider it appropriate or
necessary "in order to resolve the matter at issue" to address Article 5.5 and 5.6 with respect to other
Canadian salmon.
2. Article 5.5
(a) First element of Article 5.5
227. We recall that with regard to ocean-caught Pacific salmon, the Panel examined the first
element of Article 5.5, i.e., the existence of distinctions in appropriate levels of protection in different
situations, on the basis of four comparisons. In each of these comparisons, ocean-caught Pacific
salmon was compared to other fish and fish products. The Panel found that ocean-caught Pacific
salmon and other fish and fish products have one or several disease agents in common, or - for ocean-
caught Pacific salmon - give rise to an alleged conc ern for a disease agent. According to the Panel,
the situation regarding ocean-caught Pacific salmon and the situations of other fish and fish products
are therefore different, i.e., comparable, within the meaning of the first element of Article 5.5. We
recall that we have upheld this finding.
180
228. Furthermore, the Panel noted that imports of fresh, chilled or frozen ocean-caught Pacific
salmon are prohibited while imports of other fish and fish products, under certain conditions, are
allowed. This difference in SPS measures indicates a difference in the appropriate levels of
protection. The Panel found, on that basis, distinctions in the appropriate levels of protection in the
different situations which were covered by the four comparisons.
181
229. In its examination of the comparability of situations under the first element of Article 5.5, the
Panel considered only ocean-caught Pacific salmon, not other Canadian salmon. The Panel did not
examine whether other Canadian salmon and other fish and fish products have one or several disease
agents in common, or - for other Canadian salmon - , give rise to an alleged concern for a disease

179Adopted 1 November 1996, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, p. 26. We note that
in the Panel Report in Japan – Alcoholic Beverages there was no finding at all on certain products whereas in
the present case there is a finding on Article 5.1 with regard to all products covered by the terms of reference.
180Supra., para. 153.
181Panel Report, para. 8.129. See also footnote 106 of this Report.

agent.182 It did not, therefore, come to a conclusion on whether the situation regarding other Canadian
salmon and the situations regarding other fish and fish products are comparable within the meaning of
the first element of Article 5.5.
230. We do not believe, however, that the comparability of these situations under Article 5.5
depends on an exact knowledge of the nature and number of diseases positively detected or possibly
occurring in other Canadian salmon. The situation of other Canadian salmon may be the same as that
of ocean-caught Pacific salmon; it may be better or worse. The risks for the Australian aquatic
environment resulting from imports of other Canadian salmon may therefore be identical to, lower or
higher than, those arising from imports of ocean-caught Pacific salmon. However, these differences,
if there are any, do not make the comparisons with other fish and fish products, as undertaken in the
four comparisons, any less meaningful. They do not diminish the comparability of risks for the
Australian aquatic environment arising from the imports of, on the one hand, other Canadian salmon
and, on the other, other fish and fish products.
231. Furthermore, we recall that the Panel noted in the context of its examination of Article 5.5
regarding ocean-caught Pacific salmon that Australia had explicitly determined its appropriate level of
protection to be as "a high or 'very conservative' le vel of sanitary protection aimed at reducing risk to
'very low levels', while 'not … a zero-risk approach' ".
183 However, the Australian statements on its
appropriate level of protection, which were noted by the Panel, are not limited to ocean-caught Pacific
salmon, but apply to all salmon in dispute including other Canadian salmon.
184 We, therefore,
consider that for other Canadian salmon, Australia's appropriate level of protection is also a high or
very conservative level of protection aimed at reducing risk to very low levels, but not a zero risk
level.
232. Australia did not explicitly determine the appropriate levels of protection for other fish and
fish products. We recall, however, that the importation of other fish and fish products is, under
certain circumstances, allowed. The appropriate levels of protection reflected in the SPS measures
applied to other fish and fish products are, therefore, not "very conservative" and thus different from
the appropriate level of protection for ocean-caught Pacific salmon.

182We note that Table 3 in para. 4.41 of the Panel Report lists all diseases of concern to Australia and
shows wide agreement among the parties about their occurrence in Canadian salmon. However, Table 3 does
not distinguish between ocean-caught Pacific salmon and other Canadian salmon.
183Panel Report, para. 8.107.
184See in addition to the references made in support of para. 8.107, i.e., footnotes 326, 327 and 328, the
earlier footnote 274 of the Panel Report.

233. We, therefore, conclude that, with respect to other Canadian salmon, there are distinctions in
the appropriate levels of protection in different, i.e., comparable, situations and that the first element
of Article 5.5 is fulfilled.
(b) Second element of Article 5.5
234. We recall that for ocean-caught Pacific salmon, the Panel began its analysis of the second
element of Article 5.5, i.e., the existence of arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in appropriate levels
of protection, by noting that in view of the difference in SPS measures and corresponding appropriate
levels of protection for ocean-caught Pacific salmon, on the one hand, and the other fish and fish
products, on the other, one might expect some justification with regard to this difference, such as
higher risk related to imported salmon products. The Panel noted, however, that the arguments,
reports, studies and expert opinions, in this respect, point in the other direction. The Panel stated that
these data provide evidence that two categories of non-salmonids, for which more lenient SPS
measures apply, i.e., herring used as bait and live ornamental finfish, can be presumed to represent at
least as high a risk - if not a higher risk - than that associated with ocean-caught Pacific salmon.
185
The Panel found that the distinctions in the levels of protection for ocean-caught Pacific salmon, on
the one hand, and herring used as bait and live or namental finfish, on the other, are arbitrary or
unjustifiable. The Panel, therefore, concluded that the second element of Article 5.5 is fulfilled.
186
We recall that we have upheld this finding.187
235. We believe that this reasoning applies also to other Canadian salmon. In our view, this
reasoning is not affected by the possibility that other Canadian salmon may represent a higher risk for
the Australian salmonid population than ocean-caught Pacific salmon. We note that the Panel stated
that the evidence submitted to it pointed in the direction of a higher risk of disease introduction
associated with imports of herring used as bait and live ornamental finfish than the risk posed by
imports of salmon products for human consumption.
188
236. We, therefore, conclude that with respect to other Canadian salmon the second element of
Article 5.5 is fulfilled.

185Panel Report, para. 8.134.
186Panel Report, para. 8.141.
187Supra., para. 158.
188Panel Report, para. 8.137.

(c) Third element of Article 5.5
237. We recall finally that, with regard to ocean- caught Pacific salmon, the Panel examined the
third element of Article 5.5, i.e., the existence of discrimination or a disguised restriction on
international trade, in taking into account three "warning signals" and three "additional factors". On
the basis of these "warning signals" and "additional factors", considered cumulatively, the Panel
found that the distinctions in the levels of protection imposed by Australia for ocean-caught Pacific
salmon, on the one hand, and, herring used as bait and live ornamental finfish, on the other, result in a
disguised restriction on international trade. We recall that we have upheld this finding.
189
238. Australia's import prohibition applies to both ocean-caught Pacific salmon and other Canadian
salmon. In the context of our examination of the third element of Article 5.5, we do not see any
plausible reason why conclusions reached for ocean-caught Pacific salmon would not also be valid for
other Canadian salmon. If the arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in the levels of protection for
ocean-caught Pacific salmon, on the one hand, and herring used as bait and live ornamental finfish, on
the other, was correctly found to result in a disguised restriction on international trade, the arbitrary or
unjustifiable distinctions in the levels of protection for other Canadian salmon, on the one hand, and
herring used as bait and live ornamental finfish, on the other, must necessarily also result in a
disguised restriction on international trade.
239. In fact, we believe that with respect to one "warning signal", there is even more reason to
conclude that the arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in the levels of protection for other Canadian
salmon, on the one hand, and herring used as bait and live ornamental finfish, on the other, result in a
disguised restriction on international trade. In the context of its examination regarding ocean-caught
Pacific salmon, the Panel considered that the "insufficiency" of the 1996 Final Report, as a risk
assessment reasonably supporting the SPS measure within the meaning of Article 5.1, constitutes a
"warning signal" in the examination under Article 5.5, third element. For other Canadian salmon,
there is not even the beginning of a risk assessment.
240. We thus conclude that, with respect to other Canadian salmon, the third element of Article 5.5
is also fulfilled and that Australia, by maintaining its import prohibition on all Canadian salmon, has
acted inconsistently with Article 5.5 and, by implication, with Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement.

189We upheld this finding although we reversed the Panel's intermediate finding on the first "additional
factor". See paras. 177 and 178 of this Report.

3. Article 5.6
241. With regard to ocean-caught Pacific salmon, the Panel concluded that the SPS measure at
issue - which it considered to be the heat-treatment requirement - is "more trade restrictive than
required" to achieve Australia's appropriate level of protection, and therefore that Australia has acted
inconsistently with Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. Australia appealed this finding of the Panel.
We recall that, because of the Panel's error of examining whether the heat-treatment requirement
rather than the proper SPS measure at issue, i.e., the import prohibition, is "not more trade-restrictive
than required", we reversed the Panel's finding that Australia has acted inconsistently with Article 5.6.
We note that, in reversing the Panel's finding on Article 5.6, we did not conclude whether or not
Australia's import prohibition on ocean-caught Pacific salmon is consistent with Article 5.6. We
recall that we are unable to come to a definitive conclusion on this issue due to the insufficiency of
relevant factual findings by the Panel and of facts that are undisputed between the parties.
242. For the same reasons we are unable to come to a conclusion on the question of whether or not
the import prohibition on other Canadian salmon is consistent with Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.
F. Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement
243. The last substantive issue we address is whether the Panel erred in law in not making a
finding that Australia has acted inconsistently with Article 2.3, first sentence, independently from its
finding that Australia has acted inconsistently with Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.
244. The Panel's findings with respect to Article 2.3 are limited to the following statements:
8.109. ... We conclude … that if we were to find that all three
elements under Article 5.5 - including, in particular, the third element
- are fulfilled and that, therefore, the more specific Article 5.5 is
violated, such finding can be presumed to imply a violation of the
more general Article 2.3.
8.160 ... Since all three elements of Article 5.5 are present in this
case, we find that Australia, by maintaining the measure at issue, acts
inconsistently with its obligations under Article 5.5. Given our earlier
finding - that a violation of the more specific Article 5.5 can be
presumed to imply a violation of the more general Article 2.3 - we
find that Australia, to that extent, also acts inconsistently with
Article 2.3.
8.184 Since we have found that the measure in dispute is
inconsistent with the requirements of Articles 5.1, 5.5 and 5.6 and is,
on that ground, also inconsistent with the requirements of Articles 2.2
and 2.3, we see no need to further examine Canada's other claims
under Article 2 nor its claims under Article 3.

245. In its appeal, Canada argues that the Panel erred in applying Article 2.3, first sentence, solely
through Article 5.5, rather than focusing on this provision as an independent obligation. Canada
criticizes the Panel for not having found a violation of Article 2.3, first sentence, independently from
the finding of a violation of Article 5.5.
190 Furthermore, Canada argues that in applying Article 2.3,
first sentence, as an afterthought to its analysis of Article 5.5, the Panel compounded the error it had
made in confining the analysis of, and the finding under, Article 5.5, to ocean-caught Pacific
salmon.
191
246. With regard to Canada's second ground of appeal , we refer to Section E of Part V of our
Report, in which we deal inter alia with the Panel's failure to extend its findings on Article 5.5, and,
by implication, Article 2.3 to other Canadian salmon. In this section, we will focus on Canada's first
ground of appeal.
247. We note that the Panel indeed failed to examine Canada's claim that Australia's import
prohibition on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon violated the first sentence of Article 2.3. Canada argued
before the Panel that Australia does not control the internal movement of salmonid products from
infected states to disease-free states to protect its salmonid populations from salmonid disease agents
such as EHN. In contrast to this absence of control on the internal movement of salmonid products,
Australia completely prohibits the importation of fresh, chilled and frozen salmon. Canada argued
before the Panel that in this sense the import prohibition on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon constitutes
an arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between imported Canadian and domestic Australian
salmonid products, and that Australia has thereby acted inconsistently with Article 2.3, first sentence.
248. We do not believe that the Panel, by not examining Canada's claim on Article 2.3, first
sentence, intended to deny that Article 2.3, first sentence, contains an obligation independent from
Article 5.5. We note that although the Panel stated that Article 5.5 provides for more specific and
detailed rights and obligations than the "Basic Rights and Obligations" set out in rather broad wording
in Article 2.3
192, the Panel explicitly recognized
… that, given the more general character of Article 2.3, not all
violations of Article 2.3 are covered by Article 5.5.193

191Ibid.
192Panel Report, para. 8.48.
193Panel Report, para. 8.109.

249. Furthermore, the Panel made it clear that it abstained from a separate examination of
Article 2.3, first sentence, because it saw no need for such an examination, having already found that
the measure in dispute is inconsistent with the requirements of Articles 5.1, 5.5 and 5.6 and is, on that
ground, also inconsistent with the requirements of Articles 2.2 and 2.3.
194 In other words, the Panel
abstained from a separate examination of Article 2.3 on grounds of judicial economy, not because it
considered that Article 2.3, first sentence, does not contain any obligation independent of Article 5.5.
250. According to Article 2.3, first sentence:
Members shall ensure that their sanitary and phytosanitary measures
do not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members
where identical or similar conditions prevail, including between their
own territory and that of other Members. ...
251. This provision takes up obligations similar to those arising under Article I:1 and Article III:4
of the GATT 1994 and incorporates part of the "chapeau" to Article XX of the GATT 1994. Its
fundamental importance in the context of the SPS Agreement is reflected in the first paragraph of the
preamble of the SPS Agreement.
252. We recall that the third - and decisive - element of Article 5.5, discussed above, requires a
finding that the SPS measure which embodies arbitrary or unjustifiable restrictions in levels of
protection results in "discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade". Therefore, a
finding of violation of Article 5.5 will necessarily imply a violation of Article 2.3, first sentence, or
Article 2.3, second sentence. Discrimination "between Members, including their own territory and
that of others Members" within the meaning of Article 2.3, first sentence, can be established by
following the complex and indirect route worked out and elaborated by Article 5.5.
195 However, it is
clear that this route is not the only route leading to a finding that an SPS measure constitutes arbitrary
or unjustifiable discrimination according to Article 2.3, first sentence. Arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination in the sense of Article 2.3, first sentence, can be found to exist without any
examination under Article 5.5.
253. We now turn to the question of whether the measure at issue, i.e., the import prohibition on
fresh, chilled or frozen salmon, violates Article 2.3, first sentence.

194Panel Report, para. 8.184.
195In European Communities – Hormones we characterized Article 5.5 as "marking out and elaborating
a particular route leading to the same destination set out in Article 2.3" (emphasis added). Adopted 13 February
1998, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 212.

254. We recall that in the context of its examination of the third element of Article 5.5, the Panel
noted that it had doubts whether Australia applies similarly strict sanitary standards on the internal
movement of salmon products within Australia as it does on the importation of salmon products. The
Panel did not come to a conclusion on this alleged difference in sanitary standards. It merely
acknowledged the arguments advanced by both Canada and Australia and stated that it saw "no
benefit in trying to compare" the risk arising from EHN as opposed to that arising from the diseases of
concern to Australia with respect to ocean-caught Pacific salmon.
196 It also stated that it saw no
benefit in trying to compare the different measures imposed by Australia to deal with these risks. 197
The Panel's discussion is characterized by caution and an absence of factual findings.
255. In the context of an examination under Article 2.3, first sentence, it would first of all be
necessary to determine the risk to Australia's salmonid population resulting from diseases, such as
EHN, which are endemic to some parts of Australia but exotic to others. There are, however, no
factual findings by the Panel or undisputed facts between the parties on this matter. It is, therefore,
impossible for us to determine whether the import prohibition on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon, for
both ocean-caught Pacific and other Canadian salmon, constitutes an arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination within the meaning of Article 2.3, first sentence of the SPS Agreement.
VI. Procedural Issues
256. Australia raises a number of procedural issues concerning the Panel's conduct of the
proceedings and its examination of the case. These issues relate to the Panel's allocation and
application of the burden of proof; its duty to conduct an objective assessment of the matter pursuant
to Article 11 of the DSU; the admission of, and consideration by, the Panel of certain evidence; and
the Panel's response to Australia's request to submit a third written submission in reply to Canada's
oral statement at the second meeting of the Panel with the parties.

196Panel Report, para. 8.157.
197Ibid.

A. Burden of Proof
257. First, Australia claims that the Panel erred in its allocation and application of the burden of
proof under Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement. In paragraph 8.40 of its Report, the Panel referred
to our report in European Communities – Hormones which stated:
The initial burden lies on the compla ining party, which must establish
a prima facie case of inconsistency with a particular provision of the
SPS Agreement on the part of the defending party, or more precisely,
of its SPS measure or measures complained about. When that prima
facie case is made, the burden of proof moves to the defending party,
which must in turn counter or refute the claimed inconsistency ...198
Applying this rule, the Panel found:
In this dispute it is thus for Canada to establish a prima facie case of
inconsistency of the Australian measure at issue with each of the
provisions of the SPS Agreement Canada invokes. Once this is done,
it is for Australia to counter or refute the claimed inconsistency. In
other words, if Canada "adduces evidence sufficient to raise a
presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to
[Australia], who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut
the presumption".
199
258. In addressing the various claims of Canada challenging the consistency of the measure at
issue with Articles 5.1, 5.5. and 5.6 (and, indirectly, 2.2 and 2.3), the Panel examined the evidence
submitted by Canada in support of its claims and the evidence submitted by Australia in rebuttal. For
each of these claims, the Panel came to the conclusion that Canada had established a prima facie case
of inconsistency with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement and that Australia had not rebutted
the presumption of inconsistency.
200
259. Australia concedes that the Panel correctly articulated the burden of proof as established by us
in United States – Shirts and Blouses and, in its specific application to the SPS Agreement, European
Communities – Hormones. 201 However, Australia contends that the Panel "applied the burden

198Adopted 13 February 1998, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 98.
199Panel Report, para. 8.40.
200Panel Report, paras. 8.59, and 8.99 (on Article 5. 1), paras. 8.137, 8.139 8.141 and 8.159 (on Article
5.5) and paras. 8.171, 8.181 and 8.182 (on Article 5.6).

incorrectly"202 and failed to properly assess, in its consideration of the evidence before it, whether
Canada had met the burden of proof in relation to its claims under Articles 5.1, 5.5 and 5.6.203
260. It appears to us that the core of Australia's appeal on this question is not a related to the
allocation of the burden of proof, but rather how the Panel considered and weighed the evidence in
concluding that Canada had established a prima facie case of inconsistency with Articles 5.1, 5.5 and
5.6. We stated in European Communities – Hormones:
Under Article 17.6 of the DSU, appellate review is limited to appeals
on questions of law covered in a panel report and legal interpretations
developed by the panel … Determination of the credibility and weight
properly to be ascribed to (that is, the appreciation of) a given piece of
evidence is part and parcel of the fact finding process and is, in
principle, left to the discretion of a panel as the trier of facts. The
consistency or inconsistency of a given fact or set of facts with the
requirements of a given treaty provision is, however, a legal
characterization issue. It is a legal question. Whether or not a panel
has made an objective assessment of the facts before it, as required by
Article 11 of the DSU, is also a legal question which, if properly
raised on appeal, would fall within the scope of appellate review.
204
261. The Panel's consideration and weighing of the evidence in support of Canada's claims relates
to its assessment of the facts and, therefore, falls outside the scope of appellate review under
Article 17.6 of the DSU.
B. Objective Assessment of the Matter
262. Australia claims that the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter before it
and to apply the appropriate standard of review pursuant to Article 11 of the DSU. Australia contends
that the Panel "partially or wholly ignored relevant evidence placed before it, or misrepresented
evidence in a way that went beyond a mere question of the weight attributed to it, but constituted an

202Ibid.
203These allegations can be found in Australia's appellant's submission in paras. 90-96. We note that in
the parts of Australia's appellant's submission dealing with Articles 5.1, 5.5 and 5.6, these allegations are
reiterated in the following paragraphs:
- Article 5.1: paras. 137, 138 and 141;
- Article 5.5: paras. 147, 184, 186, 187, 190, 198, 199, 205, 210, 212, 218, 220 - 224, 275, 297;
- Article 5.6: paras. 299 - 302, 305, 318 and 319.
204Adopted 13 February 1998, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 132.

egregious error amounting to an error of law". 205 Australia also contends that the Panel failed to
accord due deference to matters of fact put forward by parties.206
263. Among the various allegations made by Australia, there are two which stand out. The first
concerns the consideration by the Panel of scientific studies which, according to Australia, were either
not relevant or were too general to answer the question of relative risks to the Australian salmonid
population from the entry, establishment or spread of salmonid vis-à-vis non-salmonid products.
207
The second is the allegation that the Panel seriously mischaracterized the process relating to, and the
character and purpose of, Australian government draft reports, recommendations and legislation.208
264. In our report in European Communities - Hormones, we stated:
... Clearly, not every error in the appreciation of the evidence ... may
be characterized as a failure to make an objective assessment of the
facts. ... The duty to make an objective assessment of the facts is,
among other things, an obligation to consider the evidence presented
to a panel and to make factual findings on the basis of that evidence.
The deliberate disregard of, or refusal to consider, the evidence
submitted to a panel is incompatible with a panel's duty to make an
objective assessment of the facts. The wilful distortion or
misrepresentation of the evidence put before a panel is similarly
inconsistent with an objective assessment of the facts. "Disregard"
and "distortion" and "misrepresentation" of the evidence, in their
ordinary signification in judicial and quasi-judicial processes, imply
not simply an error of judgment in the appreciation of evidence but
rather an egregious error that calls into question the good faith of a
panel. A claim that a panel disregarded or distorted the evidence
submitted to it is, in effect, a claim that the panel, to a greater or lesser
degree, denied the party submitting the evidence fundamental fairness,
or what in many jurisdictions is known as due process of law or
natural justice.
209 (emphasis added)

205Australia's appellant's submission, para. 105. Australia's specific allegations of failure by the Panel
to undertake an objective assessment of the matter in the examination of Canada's claims under Articles 5.1, 5.5
and 5.6 are set out in the following paragraphs of Australia's appellant's submission:
- Article 5.1: paras. 142 - 144;
- Article 5.5: paras. 147, 177, 212, 225 - 297;
- Article 5.6: paras. 299 - 301, 305, 312 – 314.
206Australia's appellant's submission, para. 100. The facts put forward by Australia which, according to
Australia, the Panel failed to give due deference, relate to Australia's determination of its appropriate level of
protection, Australia's 1996 Final Report, Australia's characterization of the measure at issue and the fact that
the 1988 Conditions do not have application to fresh, chil led or frozen salmon, Australia's domestic practices
and processes in risk assessment including the role of draft reports and recommendations, and the legal status
and application of SPS measures.
207Australia's appellant's submission, paras. 168 - 183, 231 - 239 and 243 - 246.
208Australia's appellant's submission, paras. 281 - 289.
209Adopted 13 February 1998, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 133.

265. We also recall our statement in European Communities – Poultry:
An allegation that a panel has failed to conduct the "objective
assessment of the matter before it" required by Article 11 of the DSU
is a very serious allegation. Such an allegation goes to the very core
of the integrity of the WTO dispute settlement process itself. ... 210
(emphasis added)
266. In our view, the Panel did not "deliberately disregard", "refuse to consider", "wilfully distort"
or "misrepresent" the evidence in this case; nor has Australia demonstrated in any way that the Panel
committed an "egregious error that calls into question the good faith" of the Panel. We, therefore,
conclude that the Panel did not abuse its discretion in a manner which even comes close to attaining
the level of gravity required for a claim under Article 11 of the DSU to prevail.
267. Finally, in response to Australia's contention that the Panel failed to accord "due deference" to
matters of fact it put forward, we note that Article 11 of the DSU calls upon panels to "make an
objective assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of the case
and the applicability of and conformity with the relevant covered agreements". Therefore, the
function of this Panel was to assess the facts in a manner consistent with its obligation to make such
an "objective assessment of the matter before it". We believe the Panel has done so in this case.
Panels, however, are not required to accord to factual evidence of the parties the same meaning and
weight as do the parties.
C. Admission and Consideration of Certain Evidence
268. Australia claims that the Panel erred in admitting certain evidence submitted by Canada after
7 October 1997, the deadline set by the Panel in its working procedures. According to Australia, the
Panel drew on some of this evidence in reaching its findings.
211 Australia raises due process concerns,
in particular, about the original and revised version of the "Vose Report", submitted to the Panel on
18 December 1997 and 5 February 1998, respectively. Australia also objects to the fact that the Panel
considered, as stated in paragraph 8.98 of its Report, evidence which was referred to, but not
submitted by Canada.

269. With regard to the "Vose Report", the Panel stated:
At our second substantive meeting, Australia requested us to exclude
Annex K…the "Vose Report" . . . submitted after the 7 October 1997
deadline we imposed. … [S]ince, in our view, the Vose Report is in
any event not crucial to our report, we shall not further consider it in
our examination. ...
212
270. In footnote 315 of its Report, the Panel characterized the evidence at issue in paragraph 8.98
as:
Evidence referred to by Canada in its oral statement at the second
substantive meeting, not submitted to the Panel, but not contested by
Australia.
271. We note that the Panel explicitly stated that it would not consider the "Vose Report" in its
final examination. We also note that Australia did not demonstrate that the Panel, contrary to this
statement of the Panel, considered the "Vose Report" in its final examination. We, therefore, fail to
see how Australia could raise due process concerns about the Panel's alleged "consideration" of this
report.
272. More generally, with regard to Australia's cl aim that the Panel erred in admitting evidence
submitted after 7 October 1997, we note that the Working Procedures in Appendix 3 of the DSU do
not establish precise deadlines for the submission of evidence. Under the provisions of Article 12.1 of
the DSU, panels are permitted to establish their own working procedures, in addition to those set out
in Appendix 3. In this case, the Panel initially set the deadline for the submission of evidence on
7 October 1997, but later decided to admit evidence submitted after this date. We note that Article
12.2 of the DSU provides that "[p]anel procedures should provide sufficient flexibility so as to ensure
high-quality panel reports, while not unduly delaying the panel process." However, a panel must also
be careful to observe due process, which entails providing the parties adequate opportunity to respond
to the evidence submitted. Whether the Panel afforded Australia adequate opportunity to respond is
the question addressed in the next section.
273. Finally, with regard to the evidence Canada re ferred to, but did not submit, we note that this
evidence was referred to in the 1996 Final Report, submitted by Australia as its risk assessment. It
must, therefore, have been known and available to Australia. We can find no error in the Panel's
consideration and admission of this evidence.

212Panel Report, para. 8.4.

D. Right of Response
274. Australia claims that the Panel erred in failing to accord it an opportunity to submit a formal
written rebuttal submission to respond to the oral statement made by Canada at the second meeting of
the Panel. Australia contends that Canada raised "substantially new matters" in this oral statement.
213
275. In paragraph 8.22 of its Report, the Panel stated:
At our second substantive meeting, Australia raised a procedural claim
related to Canada's oral statement made at that meeting. According to
Australia, Canada's oral statement introduced fundamental changes in
the nature of its specific legal claims which are of such significance
that Australia should be allowed to rebut them through a formal
written rebuttal submission. On this ground, Australia requested the
Panel to give it more time - suggesting one extra week - to submit a
third written rebuttal submission. ... We thus granted Australia's
request to submit a third written submission within one week after our
second substantive meeting. We gave the same opportunity to Canada
and specified that both third submissions had to be limited to the
"fundamental changes" introduced by Canada as they were identified
in an oral statement made by Australia at the second substantive
meeting. On 13 February 1998, we received such third submission
from both parties.
214
276. We note that Australia in its appellant's submission contends that this description in paragraph
8.22 of the Panel Report is not accurate. 215 However, it is clearly not within the scope of appellate
review for us to examine the factual correctness of this description by the Panel.
277. We also note that while Australia contends that Canada's oral statement at the second meeting
with the Panel raised "substantially new matters" 216, Australia clarified during our oral hearing that it
did not contend that the issues or claims that Canada raised were outside the Panel's terms of
reference, in the sense of being "new claims" which the Panel had no mandate to examine.

213Australia's appellant's submission, para. 107 ff.
214We also note that in para. 7.8 of the "Interim Review" part of its Report, the Panel stated:
Australia submits that it should have been given the opportunity to rebut the
"fundamental changes" introduced by Canada through a formal written
submission, not through a written comment limited to certain matters…
Whether the additional opportunity we granted to the parties to submit
arguments resulted in a formal written submission or a written comment is in
our view irrelevant.
215Australia's appellant's submission, paras. 108, 110 and 111. Australia does not regard the short paper
entitled "Written Comment by Australia", submitted on 13 February 1998 to have status of a formal written
submission. (Australia's appellant's submission, para. 114.)
216Australia's appellant's submission, para. 107. See also the Notice of Appeal, point 6.

278. We understand the essence of Australia's argument to be that it had no time to prepare an
appropriate response to Canada's oral statement made at the second meeting of the Panel, given its
length and the substantial elaboration of its arguments. However, from the Panel's description of the
proceedings, it appears that Australia had requested one week to respond to Canada's oral statement
and that the Panel granted Australia's request. A fundamental tenet of due process is that a party be
provided with an opportunity to respond to claims made against it. In this case, we believe that the
Panel did accord Australia a proper opportunity to respond by allowing Australia to submit a third
written submission. We cannot see how the Panel failed to accord due process to Australia by
granting the extra time it had requested.
VII. Findings and Conclusions
279. For the reasons set out in this Report, the Appellate Body:
(a) reverses the Panel's findings that the 1988 Conditions and the 1996 Requirements are
within the Panel's terms of reference; and concludes that the SPS measure at issue in
this dispute is the import prohibition on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon set forth in
QP86A, as confirmed by the 1996 Decision, rather than the heat-treatment
requirement set forth in the 1988 Conditions;
(b) considers that the Panel's reference to Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement is not "a
legal finding or conclusion" and that the Panel did not, therefore, exceed its terms of
reference;
(c) reverses the Panel's finding that the measure at issue, as it applies to ocean-caught
Pacific salmon, is not based on a risk assessment in accordance with Article 5.1, and
that Australia has acted inconsistently with Article 5.1 and, by implication, Article
2.2 of the SPS Agreement, because the Panel made this finding on the wrong premise
that the heat-treatment requirement, rather than the import prohibition, is the SPS
measure at issue in this dispute;
(d) finds, on the basis of the Panel's factual findings, that the 1996 Final Report is not a
risk assessment within the meaning of Article 5.1 and the first definition in paragraph
4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement, and that Australia, by maintaining without a
proper risk assessment, an import prohibition on fresh, chilled or frozen ocean-caught
Pacific salmon, has acted inconsistently with Article 5.1 and, by implication, Article
2.2 of the SPS Agreement;

(e) upholds the Panel's finding that, by maintaining the measure at issue as it applies to
ocean-caught Pacific salmon, Australia has acted inconsistently with its obligations
under Article 5.5 and, by implication, Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement;
(f) reverses the Panel's finding that the measure at issue, as it applies to ocean-caught
Pacific salmon, is "more trade-restrictive than required" to achieve Australia's
appropriate level of protection, and that Australia has acted inconsistently with
Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, because the Panel made this finding on the wrong
premise that the heat-treatment requirement, rather than the import prohibition, is the
SPS measure at issue in this dispute;
(g) is unable to come to a conclusion on whether or not the SPS measure at issue, i.e., the
import prohibition, as it applies to ocean-caught Pacific salmon, is consistent with
Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement as a result of insufficient factual findings and
undisputed facts in the Panel record;
(h) finds that the Panel erred in its application of the principle of judicial economy by
limiting its findings under Articles 5.5 and 5.6 to ocean-caught Pacific salmon, and in
considering that it was unnecessary to address Articles 5.5 and 5.6 of the
SPS Agreement with respect to other Canadian salmon;
(i) finds that by maintaining the SPS measure at issue with regard to other Canadian
salmon, Australia has acted inconsistently with Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement;
(j) is unable to come to a conclusion on whether or not the SPS measure at issue, i.e., the
import prohibition, as it applies to other Canadian salmon, is consistent with Article
5.6 of the SPS Agreement as a result of insufficient factual findings and undisputed
facts in the Panel record;
(k) concludes that a finding of inconsistency with Article 2.3, first sentence, can be
reached independently of a finding of inconsistency with Article 5.5; but because of
insufficient factual findings and undisputed facts in the Panel record, is unable to
determine whether the measure at issue constitutes arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination within the meaning of Article 2.3, first sentence, of the
SPS Agreement;

(l) concludes that the Panel's consideration and weighing of the evidence in support of
Canada's claims relates to the Panel's assessment of the facts and, therefore, falls
outside the scope of appellate review;
(m) concludes that the Panel did not abuse its discretion contrary to its obligations under
Article 11 of the DSU;
(n) concludes that the Panel's admission and consideration of certain evidence submitted,
or referred to, by Canada does not raise due process concerns contrary to the DSU;
and
(o) concludes that since the Panel granted Australia extra time to respond to the oral
statement made by Canada at the second meeting of the Panel, the Panel did not fail
to accord due process to Australia contrary to the DSU.
280. The Appellate Body recommends that the DSB request that Australia bring its measure found
in this Report, and in the Panel Report as modified by this Report, to be inconsistent with the
SPS Agreement, into conformity with its obligations under that Agreement.

Signed in the original at Geneva this 7th day of October 1998 by:
Claus-Dieter Ehlermann
Presiding Member
_________________________ _________________________
Member Member