UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) REQUIREMENTS
Document: Joint Communication from Canada and the United States
Date: 3 July 2012
Document codes: WT/DS384/17
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

Joint Communication from Canada and the United States

 The following communication, dated 28 June 2012, from the delegati on of Canada and the
delegation of the United States to the Presiding Memb er of the Appellate Body Division in this
dispute, is circulated at the request of those delegations.

Canada and the United States ("the parties to the dispute") are in receipt of the
communication dated 21 May 2012, from the Appellat e Body to the Chair of the Dispute Settlement
Body.
1 In that communication, the Appellate Body stat es that it would not be able to issue its report
in the above-referenced appeal within 60 days. The communication also indicates that the Appellate
Body expects that it will not be able to circulat e its report 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 report by Friday, 29 June.

The parties note that the Division hearing this a ppeal did not consult with them on its need to
exceed the 90-day time limit. We consider that, consistent with the practice of Members and the
Appellate Body until 2011, the Appellate Body sh ould consult with the parties and obtain their
agreement to receive reports that are to be circulated after the deadline provided for in the DSU.
2

1 (23 May 2012); (23 May 2012).
2 See, e.g., United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute (AB)
() and Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute (AB)
(), para. 29 (adopted 14 November 2008) (" 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); United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton: Recourse
to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil (AB) (WT/DS267/AB/RW), para. 14 (adopted 20 June 2008) (" 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 Artic le 17.5 of the DSU.") (italics added); European Communities − Export
Subsidies on Sugar (AB)
 (WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R), para. 7 (adopted 19 May
2005) (" 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); United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton (AB) (WT/DS267/AB/R), para. 8 (adopted 21 March
2005) ("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

We particularly regret the lack of consultation with the Division hearing this appeal given that
the parties would have been willing to positively co nsider a communication from the Division of its
need for additional time.
 3 While we note our understanding that fu rther delays will not be required in
upcoming disputes given the anticipated workload of the Appellate Body in the immediate future,
should delays in the circulation of reports beyond the 90-day deadline be again considered necessary,
we would expect a return to the Appellate Body's pre-2011 practice.

Without prejudice to our positions on how the conc erns set out above should be addressed by
Members, the Appellate Body and the DSB, in the interests of restoring predictability for the
disputing parties and in the current circumstances Canada and the United States hereby confirm that
they will each consider an Appellate Body Repo rt circulated in this proceeding no later than
29 June 2012, to be an Appellate Body Report circulated pursuant to Article 17.5 of the DSU.

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).
3 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. See, e.g. , Joint Communication from the
United States and Mexico, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna
and Tuna Products (WT/DS381/13) (19 April 2012); Joint Comm unication from the United States and China,
China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (WT/DS394/14) (13 January 2012);
Communication from the United States and China, United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing
Duties on Certain Products from China (WT/DS379/7) (8 February 2011).