UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) REQUIREMENTS RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY MEXICO COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY
Document: COMMUNICATION FROM
Date: 27 January 2015
Document codes: WT/DS384/31; WT/DS386/30
Complainant: Canada
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, EU, Guatemala, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Taiwan
Dispute stage: Implementation & Compliance
Agreements cited: Art. 2.1, 2.2, 2.4  Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. 2, 5, 7  Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)Art. IX:2, IX, X:3(a)  GATT 1994Art. 2(b), 2(c), 2(e), 2(j)  Rules of Origin

UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) REQUIREMENTS
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY MEXICO
COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY
The following notification, dated 26 January 2015, from the Chair of the Appellate Body addressed
to the Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated to Members in accordance with
Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.

I am writing to you pursuant to Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), wh ich stipulates that, as a general rule, the
Appellate Body will circulate its report no later than 60 days after the appellant has formally
notified the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of its decision to appeal. Article 17.5 states,
furthermore, that, when the Appellate Body considers that it cannot provide its report within
60 days, it shall inform the DSB in writing of the reasons for the delay together with an estimate of
the period within which it will submit its report.

The United States notified the DSB on 28 November 2014 of its decision to appeal certain issues of
law covered in the Panel Reports and and legal interpretations
developed by the Panel in these disputes, with the result that the 60-day period expires on
Tuesday, 27 January 2015. For the reasons expressed below, the Appellate Body will not be able to
circulate its reports by this date, or within the 90-day timeframe provided for in the last sentence of
Article 17.5 of the DSU.

On 28 November 2014, the Appellate Body also received a joint request by the participants
requesting extensions of the time-periods for filing written submissions pursuant to Rule 16(2) of
the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (Working Procedures). The participants submitted
that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the time-periods set out in the Working
Procedures would not afford the United States as appellant sufficient time to present its
arguments. In their joint request, the participants also requested consequential extensions of the
time-periods for filing other appellants' and appellees' submissions. In support of their request, the
participants pointed to serious resource constraints due to concurrent work on other pending
proceedings, as well as the constraints imposed by the contemporaneous holiday period, the
multiple complex issues at stake in these disp utes, and the present workload of the Appellate
Body. After hearing the views of the third particip ants, the Appellate Body Division hearing this
appeal issued a Procedural Ruling dated 2 Dece mber 2014 in which it extended, pursuant to
Rule 16(2) of the Working Procedures, the time-p eriods foreseen in Rules 21(1), 22(1), and 23(3)
and (4) for filing written submissions.

On 11 December 2014, the Appellate Body Division hearing this appeal received a letter from
Australia requesting an extension of the deadli ne for the filing of the third participants'
submissions. Australia noted that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the time-period of
three days between the filing of the appellees' subm issions and the filing of the third participants'
submissions would run over a weekend, providing th ird participants with only one working day to
incorporate reactions to the appellees' submissions into their third participants' submissions.
Furthermore, Australia explained that these cha llenges would be exacerbated by the decreased
staffing capacity during the peak summer holi day period in the Southern hemisphere. After
WT/DS384/31 • WT/DS386/30

hearing the views of the participants and other third participants, the Appellate Body Division
hearing this appeal issued, pursuant to Rule 16(2) of the Working Procedures, a Procedural Ruling
dated 17 December 2014 in which it extended the time-periods for filing third participants'
submissions.

Moreover, on the date this appeal was filed, a ppeals in three other disputes were ongoing, and
appeals in two further disputes were subsequently filed during the course of the present
proceedings, resulting in substantial workload for the Appellate Body. In addition, overlap in the
composition of the Divisions hearing the different appeals during this time-period led to difficulties
in scheduling meetings in these proceedings.

In sum, there are several factors rendering it im possible for the Appellate Body to circulate its
reports within the 90-day timeframe provided for in Article 17.5 of the DSU. These include the
current workload of the Appellate Body, the number and complexity of the issues raised in these
appeal proceedings, and the demands that this places on the WTO Secretariat's translation services.
These also include extensions of the deadlines for filing written submissions in this appeal granted
at the request of the participants and third part icipants, the intervening year-end closure of the
WTO Secretariat, as well as scheduling difficulties arising from overlap in the composition of the
Divisions hearing appeals pending before the Appellate Body at the same time.

The circulation date of the Appellate Body reports in this appeal will be communicated to the
participants and third participants shortly after the oral hearing, at which time the scheduling in
other appeals concurrently pending before the Appellate Body will have been decided.