ARGENTINA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF GOODS JOINT COMMUNICATION FROM ARGENTINA, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES
Document: COMMUNICATION FROM
Date: 9 December 2014
Document codes: WT/DS444/16; WT/DS445/17
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: Argentina
Third parties: Australia, Canada, China, Ecuador, EU, Guatemala, India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. X:1, X:3, XI:1  GATT 1994Art. 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5(f), 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4  Import LicensingArt. III:4  GATT 1994

ARGENTINA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF GOODS
JOINT COMMUNICATION FROM ARGENTINA, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES
The following communication, dated 5 December 2014, from the delegations of Argentina, Japan
and the United States to the Presiding Member of the Appellate Body Division in these disputes, is
circulated at the request of those delegations.

Argentina, the United States, and Japan ("the parties") are in receipt of a 20 November 2014
communication from the Appellate Body to the Chai r of the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB"). In
that communication, the Appellate Body states that it will not be able to issue its reports in the
above-referenced appeals within 60 days. The communication also indicates that the Appellate
Body expects that it will not be able to circulate its reports within the 90-day time limit set out in
Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
("DSU") and sets out certain reasons why this is the case. The communication states that the
Appellate Body instead expects to circulate its reports by Thursday, 15 January 2015.

The parties note that the Division hearing this appeal did not consult with them on its need to
exceed the 90-day time limit. We regret this lack of consultation given the prior practice of
Members and the Appellate Body until 2011, in which the Appellate Body consulted with the
parties and obtained their agreement before circul ating reports after the deadline provided for in
the DSU.
1

If the parties had been consulted, we would have been willing to positively consider a
communication from the Division of its need for additional time. In this regard, we note that
Members continue to demonstrate their willingness to cooperate with the Appellate Body in
relation to any need for additional time.
2

1 See, e.g., Appellate Body Reports, US – Continued Suspension & Canada – Continued Suspension,
para. 29 ("After consultation with the Appellate Body Secretariat, Canada, the European Communities, and the
United States each agreed that it would not be possible for the Appellate Body to circulate its Reports in these
appeals within the 90-day time-limit referred to in Article 17.5 of the DSU. Canada, the European
Communities, and the United States agreed that additional time was needed . . . . ") (italics added; footnote
omitted); Appellate Body Report, US – Upland Cotton: Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil, para. 14
("After consultation with the Appellate Body Secretariat, Brazil and the United States agreed, in a joint letter
dated 19 March 2008, that it would not be possible for the Appellate Body to circulate its Report in this appeal
within the 90-day time-limit referred to in Article 17.5 of the DSU.") (italics added); Appellate Body Reports,
EC − Export Subsidies on Sugar (Australia) & EC − Export Subsidies on Sugar (Brazil) & EC − Export Subsidies
on Sugar (Thailand), para. 7 ("After consultation with the Appellate Body Secretariat, the European
Communities and Australia, Brazil, and Thailand agreed, in letters filed on 19 January 2005, that it would not
be possible for the Appellate Body to circulate its Report in this appeal within the 90-day time limit referred to
in Article 17.5 of the DSU.") (italics added); Appellate Body Report, US –Upland Cotton, para. 8 ("After
consultation with the Appellate Body Secretariat, Brazil and the United States noted, in letters filed on 10
December 2004, that it would not be possible for the Appellate Body to circulate its Report in this appeal within
the 90-day time limit referred to in Article 17.5 of the DSU. Brazil and the United States agreed that additional
time was needed . . . .") (italics added).
2 See, e.g., Joint Communication from the United States and India, US – Carbon Steel (India)
(WT/DS436/9) (6 November 2014); Joint Communication from Canada and the United States, US – COOL
(WT/DS384/17 and Corr. 1) (3 July 2012); Joint Communication from Mexico and the United States, US –
COOL (WT/DS386/16 and Corr. 1) (3 July 2012); Joint Communication from the United States and Mexico, US
– Tuna II (Mexico) (WT/DS381/13) (19 April 2012); Joint Communication from the United States and China,
WT/DS444/16 • WT/DS445/17

The parties hereby confirm that they will consider Appellate Body reports circulated no later than
15 January 2015 to be Appellate Body reports circulated pursuant to Article 17.5 of the DSU.

(Signed)
Enrique Ferrer Vieyra
Minister
Permanent Mission
of Argentina

(Signed)
Hiroshi Ogihara
First Secretary
Permanent Mission
of Japan

(Signed)
Clete Willems
Legal Advisor
Permanent Mission of
the United States

China – Raw Materials (WT/DS394/14) (13 January 2012); Communication from the United States and China,
US –Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China) (WT/DS379/7) (8 February 2011).