UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) REQUIREMENTS
Document: Notification of an Other Appeal by Canada under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), and under Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
Date: 2 April 2012
Document codes: WT/DS384/13
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

Notification of an Other Appeal by Canada
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),
and under Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review

 The following notification, dated 28 March 2012, from the Delegation of Canada, is being
circulated to Members.

 Pursuant to Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Rule 23 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , Canada
hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Report
of the Panel in
() (Panel Report) and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel.

1. Canada seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's legal conclusions that:

(a) Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Techni cal Barriers to Trade requires identifying a
potential objective of a challenged measure rather than the actual objective of that
measure; and

(b) the objective of the COOL measure
1 is legitimate within the meaning of Article 2.2 of
the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.

2. Canada also appeals the Panel's failure, in cont ravention of Article 11 of the DSU, to make an
objective assessment of the facts demonstrating that the objective of the COOL measure is
protectionism. In the alternative, if the objective of the COOL measure is not protectionism, the Panel
erred by failing to define the objective at a sufficiently detailed level.

3. If the Appellate Body does not uphold the Panel's finding that the COOL measure fails to
fulfil a legitimate objective, then Canada seeks a fi nding by the Appellate Body that there are less
trade-restrictive alternative measures that fulfil th at objective, and that therefore the COOL measure
violates Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.

1The COOL measure includes the COOL Statute and th e Final Rule, as set out in the Panel Report,
paras. 7.21, 7.34, and 7.63.

4. Canada further seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's exercise in judicial
economy on Canada's GATT Article III:4 claim regarding the COOL measure and the Vilsack letter
2.

5. Finally, Canada seeks conditional review by th e Appellate Body of the Panel's failure to find
that the COOL measure and the Vilsack letter cons titute an instance of non-violation nullification or
impairment under GATT Article XXIII:1(b). That re quest for review is conditional on the Appellate
Body not finding a violation of either Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement or Article III:4 of the GATT.

2Defined in the Table of Abbreviations of the Panel as "Letter to 'Industry Representative' from the
United States Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas J. Vilsack, of 20 February 2009".