UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLE AND LIGHT TRUCK TYRES FROM CHINA
Document: Communication from the Appellate Body
Date: 5 September 2011
Document codes: WT/DS399/8; WT/DS399/AB/R.
Complainant: China
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: EU, Japan, Taiwan, Turkey, Vietnam
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 16.1, 16.3, 16.4, 16.6  Protocol of AccessionArt. I:1, II, XIX  GATT 1994  Safeguards

UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF CERTAIN PASSENGER
VEHICLE AND LIGHT TRUCK TYRES FROM CHINA

Communication from the Appellate Body

 The following communication, dated 5 Septem ber 2011, from the Chair of the Appellate
Body addressed to the Chair of the Dispute Settle ment Body, is circulated in accordance with
Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.

 I am pleased to provide you with a copy of the Appellate Body Report in United States –
Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passe nger Vehicle and Light Truck Tyres from China ,
 It will be circulated to Member s of the at 4.00 p.m.
today. It is a confidential document until its circul ation. The three Members of the Appellate Body
who served on this appeal were: Mr. Shotaro Oshima, Mr. Peter Van den Bossche and myself, as
Presiding Member.

 I note that the Appellate Body was not able to complete work on this appeal during the 90-day
timeframe provided for in Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes . Today's circulation date marks the 104th day from the date on which this
appeal was filed. On 22 July 2011, pursuant to Article 17.5 of the DSU, we notified the DSB in
document that it would not be possible to complete the appeal within 60 days.

 The delay in the completion of the Report in this case is a result of a number of factors, most
importantly the large caseload that the Appellate Body was, and is, facing. When the appeal in this
case was filed on 24 May 2011, the Appellate Body had yet to complete its reports in Thailand –
 Cigarettes (Philippines) and EC – Fasteners (China) and was fully engaged with the appeal of the
Panel Report in US – Large Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint). This workload reflects an overall trend of
a greater number of increasingly complex appeals, with longer submissions by parties and more issues
being appealed, all at a time when the resources avai lable to the Appellate Body remained unchanged.
The Appellate Body understands its obligations under Articles 17.5 and 17.12 of the DSU.

 In this particular case, the working schedul e for the appeal was established with the
understanding that an appeal in US – Orange Juice was expected shortly thereafter. Therefore, the
schedule was organized in a manner that would allow the Appellate Body to complete its work on the
already pending appeals and to complete the work on both this appeal and US – Orange Juice in as
expeditious a manner as possible. By the time the US – Orange Juice panel report was adopted
without appeal by the DSB on 19 June, adjusting th e timetable already established for this appeal,
with the oral hearing scheduled for 7-8 July, was not a reasonable option.