UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) REQUIREMENTS
Document: RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY CANADA AND MEXICO NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Date: 2 December 2014
Document codes: WT/DS384/29; WT/DS386/28
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 CANADA AND MEXICO
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES
AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),
AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
 The following notification, dated 28 Nove mber 2014, from the Delegation of the
United States, is being circulated to Members.

Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate
Review, the United States hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain
issues of law covered in the Reports of the Panels in : Recourse to Articl e 21.5 of the DSU by Canada / Recourse to
Article 21.5 of the DSU by Mexico ( and ) ("Panel Reports") and
certain legal interpretations developed by the Panels.
2. The United States seeks review by the A ppellate Body of the Panels' findings and
conclusion that amended U.S. COOL measure is inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the Agreement on
Technical Barriers to Trade (the "TBT Agreement") because the amended COOL measure accords
less favorable treatment to complainants' livestock exports. 1 This conclusion is in error and is
based on erroneous findings on issues of law and legal interpretations, including:
(a) the Panels' finding that the detrimental impact does not stem exclusively from
legitimate regulatory distinctions beca use the amended COOL measure entails an
increased recordkeeping burden and increased segregation.2
(b) the Panels' finding that the detrimental impact does not stem exclusively from
legitimate regulatory distinctions because the current labels provided by the
amended COOL measure have a potential for label inaccuracy.3
(c) the Panels' finding that the detrimental impact does not stem exclusively from
legitimate regulatory distinctions because the amended COOL measure continues
to exempt a large proportion of muscle cuts.4
3. In the event that Canada or Mexico appeals the ultimate findings of either Panel that the
amended U.S. COOL measure is not inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement 5, the
United States seeks conditional review of the Panels' legal interpretation of the phrase "the risks

1 See, e.g., Panel Reports, paras. 7.284-7.285, 8.3(b) (DS384), 8.3(b) (DS386).
2 See, e.g., Panel Reports, paras. 7.134, 7.149-7.150, 7.220-7.221, 7.271-7.272, 7.282.
3 See, e.g., Panel Reports, paras. 7.243-7.244, 7.252-7.254, 7.269-7.270, 7.282.
4 See, e.g., Panel Reports, paras. 7.216-7.219, 7.201-7.203, 7.272-7.277, 7.282.
5 See, e.g., Panel Reports, paras. 8.3(c) (DS384), 8.3(c) (DS386).
WT/DS384/29 • WT/DS386/28

non-fulfilment would create." 6 This analysis is based on erroneous findings on issues of law and
legal interpretations, including: the Panels' interpre tation of what effect a finding with regard to
"the risks non-fulfilment would create" can have as to whether any particular alternative measure
makes a contribution to the objective equivalent to the contribution made by the challenged
measure.7
4. The United States seeks review by the A ppellate Body of the Panels' findings and
conclusion that the amended U.S. COOL measur e is inconsistent with Article III:4 of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "GATT 1994").8 This conclusion is in error and is based
on erroneous findings on issues of law and legal interpretations, including that "the amended COOL
measure accords less favourable treatment within the meaning of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994"
9
and that the amended COOL measure would not be examined under Article XX of the GATT 1994.10
5. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panels' failure to address the
aspect of the relationship between Article 2. 1 of the TBT Agreement and Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994 related to the availability of an exce ption under Article XX of the GATT 1994 and the
Panels' failure to address the availability of Article XX as an exception for Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994 with respect to the amended U.S. COOL measure.11
6. Finally, in the event that Canada or Mexico appeals the determination by either Panel not
to make findings or legal conclusions in relation to the non-violation claim by that complainant
under Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994, the United States seeks conditional review by the
Appellate Body of the Panels' findings and co nclusion that the non-violation claims under
Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994 were within the Panels' terms of reference.
12 This conclusion is
in error and is based on erroneous findings on issues of law and legal interpretations, including
that "reviewing the 'consistency' of a measure taken to comply under Article 21.5 of the DSU
extends to non-violation claims under Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994 and Article 26.1 of the
DSU."