BRAZIL - MEASURES AFFECTING DESICCATED COCONUT
Document: Original: English BRAZIL - MEASURES AFFECTING DESICCATED COCONUT Notification of an Appeal by the Philippines under paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU)
Date: 18 December 1996
Document codes: WT/DS22/8
Complainant: Philippines
Respondent: Brazil
Third parties: Canada, EU, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. VI:6, VI:3  GATT 1994

BRAZIL - MEASURES AFFECTING DESICCATED COCONUT
Notification of an Appeal by the Philippines under
paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU)
The following notification, dated 16 December 1996, sent by the Philippines to the Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB), is circulated to Members. Simultaneously, a Notice of Appeal was filed with
the Appellate Body pursuant to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (WT/AB/WP/1).
Pursuant to Article 16(4) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement
of Disputes and Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, please be informed that
the Republic of the Philippines has decided to appeal to the Appellate Body on certain issues and
interpretations of law covered and developed by the panel report on () (17 October 1996).
Attached is a copy of our corresponding letter addressed to the Appellate Body Secretariat and
the Notice of Appeal, which is being filed simultaneously.
Notice of Appeal by the Republic of the Philippines
Pursuant to Article 16 of the Understanding on the Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (the
"Working Procedures"), the Republic of the Philippines (the "Philippines") hereby notifies its decision
to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the panel report on () (17 October 1996) and certain legal interpretations developed
by the panel.
The Philippines seeks a review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's legal interpretations of
Articles 32.3, 32.4, 32.1, 21 and 10 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
(which the Philippines did not invoke in its request for establishment of a panel, and in the terms of
reference); the Preamble, and Articles II:2, II:4 and XVI:1 of the WTO Agreement; Articles I, II
and VI of GATT 1994; Article 7.1 of the DSU; and other related provisions (including certain of
the December 1994 transitional Decisions, and related GATT/WTO jurisprudence) - in connection
with the Panel's principal conclusion that Articles I, II and VI of GATT 1994 are inapplicable to the
present dispute.

The Philippines considers that the interpretations developed by the Panel are not supported
by the text and context of the above-mentioned provisions, and by the object and purpose of the WTO
Agreement; and improperly ignored other relevant provisions. The Panel's interpretations and
conclusions are consequently contrary to the principles set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties concerning the interpretation of treatiesand the applicability of new treatiesthat have already
entered into force. The Philippines furtherconsidersthat the Panel erred inlaw when itfailed toexamine
whether the measure at issue is inconsistent with Articles I and II of GATT 1994, and is not justified
under the requirements of Article VI of GATT 1994.
The Philippines considers that there is sufficient basis, such as under DSU Article 19 and
Rule 16(1) of the Working Procedures, for the Appellate Body to examine the disputed measure and
to conclude that the measure is inconsistent with Articles I and II of GATT 1994 and/or is not justified
under Article VI of GATT 1994; and to recommend that Brazil bring the measure into conformity
with Articles I, II and VI of GATT 1994. Should the AppellateBody determine that such an examination
of the disputed measure may require more time than is normally allocated to the appellate review process,
the Philippines would have no objections if the Appellate Body were to decide to extend its proceedings
beyond the standard time limits set out in the DSU and in the Working Procedures.