KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Document: Notification of an Appeal by the Republic of Korea under paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU)
Date: 11 September 2000
Document codes: WT/DS161/8; WT/DS169/8
Complainant: Australia
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: Canada, New Zealand, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. II, III, X, XI, XVII  GATT 1994Art. 3, 4, 6, 7  AgricultureArt. 1, 3  Import Licensing

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH,
CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Notification of an Appeal by the Republic of Korea under
paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU)
The following notification, dated 11 September 2000, sent by the Republic of Korea to the
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), is circulated to Members. This notification also constitutes the
Notice of Appeal, filed on the same day with the Appellate Body, pursuant to the Working
Procedures for Appellate Review.
Pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for
Appellate Review, the Government of Korea hereby notifies its decision to appeal certain issues of
law covered in the Panel Report on (, ) and certain lega l interpretations developed by the Panel.
The present Notice of Appeal relates to the following findings of the Panel:
1. The Panel erred in its finding with respect to Section I, Part IV of Korea's Schedule LX of the
WTO Agreements. The Panel found that the figures without brackets in Section I must be
treated as constituting Korea's commitments. In doing so, the Panel ruled on an issue not
covered in its terms of reference. Furthermore, it based its findings on an erroneous
interpretation of Korea's Schedule LX.
2. The Panel erred by ruling on the calculating methodology of Korea's domestic support to the
cattle industry. The issue was not before the Panel, because Australia and the United States
neither made a claim against the calculating methodology nor included Annex 3 of the
Agreement on Agriculture as a treaty provision claimed to have been violated. Furthermore,
the Panel based its findings on an erroneous interpretation of Article 1 of the Agreement on
Agriculture.
3. The Panel erred by finding that the dual retail system was inconsistent with Korea's
obligations under Article III:4 of GATT 1994, because the Panel reached its findings on the
basis of an erroneous interpretation of Article III:4 of GATT 1994. Were the Appellate Body
to support the Panel's finding that the dual retail system violates Article III:4 of GATT 1994,
however, Korea seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's finding that Korea's
defence with respect to this measure does not comply with Article XX(d) of GATT 1994. In
addition, the Panel failed to make sufficient factual findings with respect to Articles III:4
and XX(d) of GATT 1994.

4. The Panel erred by finding that the requirement to display a sign " Specialized Imported Beef
Store" was inconsistent with Korea's obligations under Article III:4 of GATT 1994, because
the Panel reached its findings on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of Article III:4 of
GATT 1994. Moreover, the Panel failed to make sufficient factual findings with respect to
Article III:4 of GATT 1994. Were the Appellate B ody to support the Panel's finding that the
requirement to display a sign violates Article III:4 of GATT 1994, however, Korea seeks the
Appellate Body's ruling on Korea's defense under Article XX(d) of GATT 1994 since the
Panel failed to address Korea's Article XX(d) of GATT 1994 defense.
The Government of Korea respectfully requests the Appellate Body to reverse the findings
and conclusions of the Panel and to modify accordingly the recommendations of the Panel.