1000 fruits would have to be discarded for\ninfestation rates of 0.5, 0.1, and 0.05% in one place for a 5% chance of at least one\nmale and one female emerging to start an infestation.\nSo to answer the latter Part of the questi on, a 0.5% infestation rate of occupied\ncocoons would have a 5% chance of initia ting an infestation if perhaps 500-1000\nfruits were discarded in one place within the female flight range of a susceptible\nhost.\"\n3086\n7.1326 In response to the Panel's subsequent question, Dr Deckers was sceptical about the need for\nfumigating all New Zealand apples for ALCM. \"The necessity to treat all the lots when a fruit sample\nof only 600 apples is inspected is surprising: why not only treat the lots of apples when they come\nfrom an infected orchard or when some ALCM have been found.\"3087\n7.1327 Dr Cross added in one of his written responses to the Panel that \"[t]he requirements for a\n3,000-fruit inspection or for fruit fumigation are clea rly restrictive and alternative measures coupled\nwith a 600-fruit inspection would be preferable provided they met Australia's ALOP.\"3088\n7.1328 In the light of above, the Panel finds th at New Zealand has made a prima facie case that –\ngiven the flawed risk analysis in Australia's IRA, including the flawed comparison between\nAustralia's ALCM measure and the alternative measure identified by New Zealand – a 600-unit\ninspection would achieve Australia's ALOP. Australia's reference to ISPM No. 31 and its own flawed\nanalysis in the IRA has not successfully rebutted th is prima facie case. Thus the alternative ALCM\nmeasure identified by New Zealand fulfils the second condition of Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.\n7.1329 The Panel notes in this context that Australia has a qualitative ALOP, defined as \"providing a\nhigh level of protection aimed at reducing risk to a very low level, but not to zero.\" 3089 In assessing\nthe second condition of the Article 5.6 test, the Pane l had to review whether New Zealand has made a\nprima facie case that its alternative measure would achieve this qualitative ALOP.\n7.1330 In this dispute the Panel needs to review Australia's IRA, not conduct its own risk assessment.\nThe Panel notes that the IRA acknowledges, when describing its ALCM risk management measures,\nthat \"it may be possible to develop other risk management measures (for example, perhaps based on\n\n3086 Dr Cross's reply to Panel question 104, in List of Replies from the scientific experts to questions\nposed by the Panel, paras. 624-627.\n3087 Dr Deckers's reply to Panel question 105, in List of Replies from the scientific experts to questions\n3088 Dr Cross's reply to Panel question 120, in List of Replies from the scientific experts to questions\n3089 Australia's IRA, Part A, p. 3.\n\nlow pest prevalence in orchards or pest free places of production) but this would require more detailed\ninformation on apple leafcurling midge than is currently available.\"\n3090\n7.1331 The Panel therefore reaches its above finding in regard to the second condition of the\nArticle 5.6 test in the specific context of the IRA reviewed in the current dispute. In other words,\nthe Panel's finding that New Zealand has raised a pr esumption (i.e., made a prima facie case) that the\n600-unit inspection would reach Australia's ALOP is a legal, not a scientific finding. If Australia\nconducts a proper risk assessment for New Zealand apples, subject to an objectively justifiable\nanalysis it may conclude that the ALCM risk exceeds Australia's ALOP. In light of such a\nconclusion, Australia may also impose a risk mana gement measure that is different from a 600-unit\ninspection. Any such future risk assessment and ev entual adoption of risk management measures by\nAustralia must comply with the relevant provisi ons of the SPS Agreement, in particular with\nArticles 2.2, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.6.\n(ii) First condition: whether the inspection of a 600-fruit sample from each import lot is\nreasonably available taking into account technical and economic feasibility\n7.1332 New Zealand argues that the alternative measu re of inspecting a 600-fruit sample from each\nimport lot would satisfy the first condition of the Article 5.6 test, as this alternative measure is\nreasonably available taking into account technical and economic feasibility. 3091 According to\nNew Zealand, this is the standard export and impor t phytosanitary inspection procedure for detection\nof quarantine pests applying to all plant commoditi es currently being traded between Australia and\nNew Zealand, and it is used by many other c ountries. The procedures to implement it already\nexist.3092 New Zealand adds that Australia has not cont ested that this alterna tive measure fulfils the\nfirst element of the Article 5.6 test.3093\n7.1333 Australia does not contest this, nor advance any specific arguments in this specific context.\nAustralia makes only general arguments with regard to the first condition of the Article 5.6 test.\nReferencing the compliance panel report in Japan – Apples (Article 21.5 – US) , Australia argues that\nthe technical and economic feasibility of a proposed alternative measure \"in the real world\" is a\nfundamental element for determining whet her such measure should be considered\n\"reasonably available\".3094\n7.1334 The Panel agrees with Australia that, as the aforementioned compliance panel stated, \"when\nconsidering whether an alternative measure is re asonably available taking into account technical and\neconomic feasibility, [the adjudicator] should dete rmine whether the alternative measure would\nconstitute an option reasonably available taking into account technical and economic feasibility in the\nreal world.\"3095\n7.1335 The Panel considers that this is exactly what New Zealand has demonstrated in the current\ndispute. As New Zealand argues, the 600-fruit inspection is already the standard sanitary and\nphytosanitary export and import inspection procedur e between the Parties, and the procedures to\nimplement it already exist. New Zealand contends that the 600-fruit inspection is also applied by\nother WTO Members. Australia does not contest an y of these arguments by New Zealand. In fact,\nAustralia's IRA references in the context of ALCM the \" standard 600-fruit inspection\" advanced by\n\n3090 Australia's IRA, Part B, p. 319.\n3091 New Zealand's first written submission, p. 192. See also New Zealand's first written submission,\npara. 4.516.\n3092 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4.515.\n3093 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.896.\n3094 Australia's first written submission, para. 1077.\n3095 Panel Report on Japan – Apples (Article 21.5 – US), para. 8.171.\n\nPipfruit NZ.3096 Likewise, in the context of mealybugs, the IRA references \" standard 600-unit AQIS\nsampling procedures (to provide 95 per cent confiden ce of detecting a 0.5 per cent defect level or\ngreater)\"3097, and \"note[s] that the requirement for inspec tion of 600 fruit is a general requirement to\naddress a range of quarantine risks, not just mealybugs.\"3098\n7.1336 Accordingly, the 600-fruit inspection is an a lternative measure that is technically and\neconomically feasible in the real world, and therefor e reasonably available – not only in theory but in\nactual practice. Hence, the Panel finds that the alternative measure New Zealand advances in this\ndispute for ALCM fulfils the first condition of the Article 5.6 test.\n(c) Third condition: whether the inspection of a 600-unit sample from each import lot is\nsignificantly less trade restrictive than Australia's current ALCM requirements\n(i) Summary of the Parties' arguments\n7.1337 New Zealand argues that the alternative measu re of inspecting a 600-fruit sample from each\nimport lot would satisfy the third condition of th e Article 5.6 test. The alternative would be\nsignificantly less trade restrictive than the two re quirements currently imposed by Australia, namely:\n(i) the inspection of a 3,000 fruit sample from each lot with a find resulting in mandatory treatment or\nrejection for export; or (ii) the inspection of a 600 fruit sample from each lot, combined with\nmandatory treatment of all fruit. 3099 The expert responses confirm that \"[t]he requirements for a 3000\nfruit inspection or for fruit fumigation are clearly restrictive .'3100\"3101 In response to Australia's\nargument that the alternative measure would need to be \"significantly\" less trade restrictive than\nAustralia's current ALCM measure, New Zealand submits that the alternative measure meets that\nthreshold.\n3102\n7.1338 New Zealand argues in particular that it is already required to undertake a 600-fruit sample\ninspection of export apple fruit in order to comp ly with other more general quarantine pest\nrequirements in the IRA. Hence, the coverage of ALCM within the same 600-fruit inspection would\ncertainly be a less time-consuming and expensiv e measure than sampling 3,000 fruit or requiring\nmandatory treatment of all fruit in addition to a 600 fruit sample.3103\n7.1339 As regards fumigation, New Zealand points out that both Australia's alternative requirements\nresult in fumigation of virtually all consignments. 3104 Also, New Zealand concedes that at a cocoon\ninfestation level of 4.1 per cent, a 600-unit inspec tion would detect ALCM cocoons in most lots,\nwhich would mean that nearly all lots would be subject to fumigation. But, according to\nNew Zealand, that is irrelevant because the co coon infestation rate of New Zealand apples is\nsignificantly lower than 4.1 per cent and only viable co coons are a risk factor. On the basis of actual\ninfestation rates of 0.16 per cent, and taking in to account that only 60 per cent of cocoons are\noccupied, only approximately 44 per cent of consignm ents would be expected to have an occupied\nALCM cocoon found by inspecting a 600-unit sample. Assuming that only detection of occupied\n\n3096 Australia's IRA, Part B, p. 166, footnote 32 (emphasis added).\n3097 Australia's IRA, Part B, p. 289 (emphasis added).\n3098 Australia's IRA, Part B, p. 290.\n3099 New Zealand's first written subm ission, para. 4.514. See also New Zealand's second written\nsubmission, paras. 2.884 and 2.896.\n3100 (footnote original) Cross RPQ, Q 120, p. 22.\n3101 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.907 (original emphasis).\n3102 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.903.\n3103 New Zealand's first written subm ission, para. 4.520. See also New Zealand's second written\nsubmission, para. 2.904.\n3104 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.905. See also, New Zealand's reply to Panel\nquestion 141 after the first substantive meeting, para. 296.\n\ncocoons will lead to fumigation, 56 per cent of cons ignments would pass without fumigation. This is\nsignificantly less trade restrictive than a measure requiring a 600 unit inspection plus mandatory\ntreatment, both in terms of the costs of fumiga tion and the negative impact of fumigation on the\nquality, and therefore the competitiveness, of the product.\n3105 In fact, not only is fumigation costly, it\nmay have a negative impact on fruit quality. Fumigation can cause a number of fruit disorders,\nincluding scalding, internal damage and staining, a ll of which restrict the marketability and therefore\nthe competitiveness of the product.3106\n7.1340 Regarding Australia's suggestion that the 3, 000-unit sample could be minimized through a\nflexible operationalization of the measure, Ne w Zealand contends that apples exported by\nNew Zealand to Australia would be subject to two inspections: one by MAF in New Zealand prior to\nexport and one by Australian officials in Austra lia. The Australian requirement of a 3,000-unit\ninspection relates to the inspection completed by Aust ralian officials in Australia (or in New Zealand,\nif part of a pre-clearance programme). In prac tice, prior to issuing a phytosanitary certificate,\nNew Zealand would replicate the inspection requi rement carried out on the Australian side, and\ntherefore incur the costs of both the 3,000-unit sample in New Zealand and the sample in Australia.\nThis would be necessary to ensure that lots cleared by MAF are not rejected by Australia. Australia's\nproposal of combining 600 unit inspections in Ne w Zealand is therefore not appropriate, because it\nwould not match the same confidence/sensitivity le vel as the 3,000-unit inspection being carried out\nby Australia.3107 In fact, a 600-fruit sample would provide 95 per cent confidence that less than 0. 5\nper cent of the fruit are infested with ALCM. A 3,000-fruit sample, being a significantly larger\nsample, would provide 95 per cent confidence that less than 0.1 per cent fruit are infested.3108\n7.1341 At a later point in the proceeding, New Zeala nd argues that Australia misses the point in\nsuggesting the flexible operationalization of the 3,000-unit inspection.3109 In New Zealand's view, the\nkey problem with Australia's proposal is that it relates not to the inspection completed by Australian\nofficials in Australia but to the inspection comple ted by New Zealand officials in New Zealand.\nWhat Australia is proposing is that, while the Au stralian inspection would remain a 3,000 sample,\nNew Zealand could combine individual 600-unit inspections in New Zealand towards the 3,000\nrequirement.\n3110 New Zealand submits that this measure will affect inspections undertaken by\nNew Zealand officials since these inspections w ill fail to match the confidence/sensitivity levels\napplied by Australia.3111\n7.1342 New Zealand adds that its apple growers woul d be discouraged from exporting to Australia\nbecause of Australia's costly, time-consuming and unnecessary ALCM measure. According to\nNew Zealand, the economic risk factors for New Zealand growers set out with respect to fire blight\nand European canker also apply in the case of ALCM. 3112 In the context its fire blight and European\ncanker arguments under the third condition of the Article 5.6 test, New Zealand contends that\ncompliance with Australia's onerous measures combin ed with the risk of being excluded from exports\nas a result of a single fire blight or European canker strike in an orchard creates a significant level of\neconomic risk for New Zealand apple growers. F aced with this risk, New Zealand apple growers\nwould rather refrain from registering their orchards for Australian export in the first place, and would\nturn to other export markets. Conversely, under the alternative measure of restricting trade to mature,\n\n3105 New Zealand's reply to Panel question 141 after the first substantive meeting, paras.295-297 See\nalso, New Zealand's second written submission, paras. 2.905-2.906.\n3106 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.906.\n3107 New Zealand's reply to Panel question 139 after the first substantive meeting, paras. 291-292.\n3108 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.910.\n3109 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.908.\n3110 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.909.\n3111 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.910.\n3112 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4.521.\n\nsymptomless apple fruit, an orchard would not be disqualified as a result of the discovery of a single\nfire blight or European canker strike on a tree. Thus, New Zealand apple growers would avoid risking\nthe loss of their investment.3113\n7.1343 New Zealand confirms Australia's argument that New Zealand apple exports to the\nUnited States are already subjected to much highe r inspection rates (up to 20,000 apples) than that\nrequired by Australia. New Zealand points out th at regarding New Zealand apples, US sample sizes\nvary from 3,000 to 20,000 per consignment, depending on the mode of trade. However, as stated in\nthe third party written submission of the United States, this sampling regime is designed to detect light\nbrown apple moth, not ALCM.3114\n7.1344 Australia accepts that New Zealand's alternativ e measure may be less trade restrictive than\nAustralia's current ALCM measure. Australia cont ests, however, that the alternative measure would\nbe \"significantly\" less trade restrictive. 3115 According to Australia, it is not sufficient for a\ncomplainant to identify an alternativ e measure that is merely less rest rictive to trade than the existing\nmeasure. Based on the language of footnote 3 to Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, the alternative\nmeasure must be \"significantly less restrictive to tr ade\" than the existing measure in order to find a\nviolation of Article 5.6. Thus, an alternative meas ure would need to be less restrictive to trade by a\ndegree which is important, notable or consequential.3116\n7.1345 Australia submits that if the infestation rate of New Zealand apples is around 4.1 per cent, the\nalternative measure would clearly not be significantly less restrictive to trade than Australia's existing\nmeasure. The IRA found that at an infestation rate of 4.1 per cent a 600-unit inspection will detect\nALCM in practically every lot and therefore prac tically every lot will be fumigated, which would\neffectively result in mandatory fumigation. Such a measure would then be hardly less trade-restrictive\nthan Australia's current option of a 600-unit inspection plus mandatory treatment. 3117 In response to\nNew Zealand's argument that Australia's selected measures would result in fumigation of virtually\nevery apple, Australia notes that it is entitled to set its own ALOP. Furthermore, the IRA indicates\nthat some New Zealand apples would not be fu migated because a 3000-unit inspection would still\nallow 0.005 per cent of New Zealand apples to enter Australia with viable ALCM on them.3118\n7.1346 In response to New Zealand's argument that a 300-unit inspection would be undertaken by\nAustralian officials in addition to the 300-unit insp ection required to be undertaken by New Zealand,\nAustralia submits that it requires only a single 3000- unit inspection per consi gnment (rather than per\norchard) to be conducted under the auspices of New Zealand. 3119 Australia adds that it is flexible\nabout how the 3,000-unit inspection measure could be operationalized. New Zealand packing houses\ntypically conduct a 600-unit pest inspection of each grow er lot that is received by a packing house.\nMultiple grower lots may be received in a day or processed in a single packing run, and go on to\ncomprise a single consignment. The 600-unit inspecti ons per grower lot could be aggregated for the\nsingle consignment, towards achieving the required 3,000-unit inspection. In effect, this means that in\n\n3113 New Zealand's first written submission, paras. 4.507-4.508.\n3114 New Zealand's reply to Panel question 140 after the first substantive meeting, para. 294.\n3115 Australia's first written submission, paras. 1099-1100. See also Australia's reply to Panel\nquestion 138 after the first substantive meeting.\n3116 Australia's first written submission, para. 1079.\n3117 Australia's first written submission, para. 1101. See also, Australia's reply to Panel question 141\nafter the first substantive meeting.\n3118 Australia's comments on New Zealand's reply to Panel questions after the second substantive\nmeeting, para. 202.\n3119 Australia's opening oral statemen t at the second substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties,\npara. 106.\n\nmany cases there would be no additional requirement to that which New Zealand packing houses\nalready apply, and therefore minimal trade-restrictive effects.\n3120\n7.1347 Australia points out that the IRA defines \"lot\" as \"all apple fruit packed for export to Australia\neach day by a registered packing house.\" Therefore, a \"lot\" is not a fixed quantity. Each lot would be\ninspected on the basis of a 3,000-unit sample selected at random across the whole lot. A unit is one\npiece of fruit. Where a lot comprises apples from more than one supplying orchard or block, then the\ninspection sample would be selected proportionally across all orchards/blocks. The 3,000-unit\ninspection would be undertaken by, or under the au spices of, MAFNZ. The cost implications will\ndepend upon the circumstances of individual packing houses.\n3121 In any event, the visual inspection\nrequired by Australia for ALCM is not a destructiv e examination – that is, it does not require cutting\nor other damage to the fruit. Therefore, any fruit examined would remain available for export.3122\n7.1348 Australia points out that the practice of multiple units of inspection is not unusual for trade\nbetween Australia and New Zealand. For example, in respect of fresh fruit exports from Australia\nthat pose a risk of providing a vector for fruit fly, New Zealand requires each grower lot in a\nconsignment to be subject to a 600-unit inspecti on by a delegated inspector, followed by a further\n600-unit inspection of the consignment by AQIS, followed by mandatory treatment.\n7.1349 According to Australia, under some circumstances New Zealand apple exports to the\nUnited States are already subjected to much highe r inspection rates (up to 20,000 apples) than that\nrequired by Australia.3123 Although the United States' measure is targeted at light brown apple moth,\nthis measure is not indifferent to ALCM. ALCM is an actionable quarantine pest for California, and\nif any ALCM is discovered during such an inspecti on, then a notation would have to be made on the\nphytosanitary certificate to that effect, and it woul d also have to be marked \"not suitable for\nCalifornia\". Further, lots inspected and found fr ee of ALCM during USDA pre-clearance inspections\nmay enter all US States including California subject to the ALCM-free status being indicated on the\nrelevant form.3124\n(ii) The Panel's analysis\n7.1350 The Panel agrees with Australia that the third cond ition of the Article 5.6 test requires that the\ncomplainant identify an alte rnative measure that is \" significantly less restrictive to trade\" than the\ncontested measure(s). This is in line with th e language of footnote 3 to Article 5.6 of the\nSPS Agreement3125, and it also accords with how previous pa nels and the Appellate Body identified\nthis third condition.3126\n7.1351 Previous panels assessed the third condition of the Article 5.6 test by looking at the difference\nin market access under the measures at issue and the alternative measure(s) identified by the\ncomplainant. In particular, previous panels analysed whether, under th e alternative measure,\n\n3120 Australia's first written submission, para. 1102. See also, Australia's reply to Panel question 139\nafter the first substantive meeting.\n3121 Australia's reply to Panel question 139 after the first substantive meeting.\n3122 Ibid.\n3123 Australia's first written submission, para. 1103.\n3124 Australia's reply to Panel question 140 after the first substantive meeting.\n3125 Footnote 3 to Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement provides that \"[f]or the purposes of paragraph 6 of\nArticle 5, a measure is not more trade-restrictive than required unless there is another measure, reasonably\navailable taking into account technical and economic feasibility, that achieves the appropriate level of sanitary\nor phytosanitary protection and is significantly less restrictive to trade.\" (emphasis added).\n3126 See Appellate Body Report on Australia – Salmon, paras. 186 and 194; Panel Report on Japan –\nAgricultural Products II, para. 8.72; and Appellate Body Report on Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 95.\n\n\"market access would be obtained significantly more easily than under the current regime\" 3127 and\nwhether \"the increased market access that would result under the alternative[] ... would be\nsignificant.\"3128 This Panel will assess, in light of the Par ties' arguments, whether this is the case in\nthe current dispute.\n7.1352 Australia's contested ALCM measure has two alternative requirements. As regards inspection\nintensity, only the first requirement, the 3,000-unit inspection, would differ from the 600-unit\ninspection alternative advanced by New Zealand. In fact, the sample size of Australia's first\nrequirement (3,000) is five times the sample size of the alternativ e advanced by New Zealand (600).\nAustralia's second alternative requirement involv es the same 600-fruit sample size as New Zealand's\nalternative. Importantly, the two requirements under Australia's ALCM measure are alternatives. 3129\nAccording to the IRA, \"New Zealand could choo se either [of the two alternative requirements].\" 3130\nAccordingly, in the context of inspection, the alternative measure advanced by New Zealand might be\nless – let alone significantly less – trade restrictive only in comparison with Australia's first alternative\nrequirement and not the second.\n7.1353 In principle, a more intensive inspection is cer tainly more costly and time-consuming than an\nalternative inspection with a five times smaller samp le size. These cost a nd time burdens would arise\non the New Zealand side, since under the IRA, MAFNZ or its accredited agency would be involved in\nthe 3,000-unit inspection requirement.3131 Although New Zealand does not explain exactly how much\nmore costly or time-consuming a 3,000-unit inspec tion might be than a 600-unit inspection, the Panel\nnotes that New Zealand is advancing an alternative measure with a five times smaller sample size,\nwhich has been found to meet Australia's ALOP. The Panel also recalls Dr Cross's statement that\n\"[t]o inspect 3,000 fruits is a big requirement and w ould be, I think, quite a restriction on the possible\ntrade. It would be very difficult to do, in my view – expensive to do, if it was done for every\norchard.\"\n3132\n7.1354 Likewise, in response to the Panel Dr Cross e xplains that \"[t]he requirements for a 3000 fruit\ninspection or for fruit fumigation are clearly restrictive and alternative measures coupled with a\n600 fruit inspection would be preferable provided they met Australia's ALOP.\"3133\n7.1355 The Panel considers that the higher costs of Australia's 3,000-unit inspection requirement are\nsomewhat mitigated since, as Australia points out , visible inspection for ALCM is not invasive.\nInspected apples would not be physically destroyed and could still be used for export. This would\nreduce but not eliminate the difference in trade -restrictiveness between a 600-unit and a 3,000-unit\ninspection.\n7.1356 Ultimately, any differences between the trade restrictiveness of a 600-unit and a 3,000-unit\ninspection would only partly answer the questi on whether the alternative measure advanced by\nNew Zealand would be significantly less trade restrictive overall than the ALCM measure imposed by\nAustralia. As noted above, this latter has two a lternative requirements, and the first of these\nrequirements differs from the alternative measure advanced by New Zealand only in terms of\ninspection sample rate.\n\n3127 Panel Report on Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 8.96.\n3128 Panel Report on Australia – Salmon (Article 21.5 – Canada), para. 7.151.\n3129 Australia's IRA, Part B, p. 192. See also, Australia's IRA, Part B, pp. 319-322.\n3130 Australia's IRA, Part B, p. 319.\n3131 Ibid.\n3132 Dr Cross's reply in Transcript of the Panel's meeting with experts, para. 662.\n3133 Dr Cross's reply to Panel question 120, in List of Replies from the scientific experts to questions\n\n7.1357 The Panel therefore turns to assessing whether in terms of fumigation the alternative measure\nadvanced by New Zealand would be significan tly less trade restrictive than Australia's\nALCM measure.\n7.1358 In light of the information submitted by the Partie s, the Panel has reasons to believe that the\nfirst alternative requirement under Australia's ALCM measure, a 3,000-unit inspection, would\neffectively result in a fumigation of all lots. In turn, the second alternative requirement under\nAustralia's ALCM measure explicitly prescribes the fumigation of all lots.\n7.1359 Whether the alternative measure advanced by New Zealand would result in a lower\nfumigation rate of New Zealand apples depends on the ALCM infestation rate of New Zealand apples.\nThe Parties agree that at an infestation rate of 4. 1 per cent, there would not be a significant difference\nin fumigation rates since at that infestation ra te the 600-unit inspection would find ALCM and result\nin fumigation for almost every lot. At the same time , at an infestation rate of 0.16 per cent and taking\ninto account that only 60 per cent of cocoons are occupied, according to New Zealand, only\napproximately 44 per cent of cons ignments would be expected to have an occupied ALCM cocoon\nfound during a 600-unit sample. Thus, assuming that only detection of occupied cocoons will lead to\nfumigation, 56 per cent of consignments would pass without fumigation at an ALCM infestation rate\nof 0.16 per cent.\n7.1360 The Panel notes that it has already found that the IRA's conclusion that New Zealand apples\nhave a 4.1 per cent infestation rate does not result from a coherent and objective risk assessment. As\nnoted above, New Zealand has made a prima facie case that an infestation rate more in the range\nfound in the August 2005 data would be more realistic in light of the various factors that the IRA did\nnot properly take into account.\n7.1361 If only around 44 per cent of lots would be exp ected to have an occupied cocoon and would\nneed to be fumigated, the costs of fumigati on under the alternative measure advanced by\nNew Zealand would be around half of the costs of mandatory or de facto fumigation of all lots under\nAustralia's ALCM measure. Australia does not c ontest New Zealand's argument that fumigation is\ncostly. Thus, at an infestation rate of around 0. 16 per cent, the fumigation costs of the alternative\nmeasure would be significantly lower than the fu migation costs under either of the alternative\nrequirements of Australia's ALCM measure.\n7.1362 This significant difference in fumigation costs would also result in a significant difference in\ntrade restrictiveness. An SPS measure that is signi ficantly more costly for the complainant than an\nalternative measure, would certainly reduce market access or make it more difficult.\n7.1363 The Panel also notes that Australia does not contest New Zealand's argument that,\nunlike inspection, fumigation has an impact on the quality and marketability of apples. In other\nwords, fumigation directly affects the market acces s of New Zealand apples to Australia. Hence, a\nmeasure involving half the fumigation rate of a nother measure would be significantly less trade\nrestrictive than that other measure.\n7.1364 In the light of the above, the Panel concludes that New Zealand has demonstrated that the\nalternative measure of a 600-unit inspection of e ach import lot would be significantly less trade\nrestrictive than Australia's current ALCM measure.\n(d) Conclusion on New Zealand's Article 5.6 claim in regard to ALCM\n7.1365 New Zealand has demonstrated that the alte rnative for the ALCM measure (Measure 14)\nfulfils all three cumulative conditions of the Article 5.6 test. Accordingly, the Panel finds that\nMeasure 14 is inconsistent with Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.\n\n4. General measures\n(a) Alternative measure identified by New Zealand for the general measures\n7.1366 In the context of Article 5.6 of the SPS Ag reement, in its first written submission\nNew Zealand references \"auditing by AQIS officers of New Zealand systems applicable to the import\nof apples to Australia from New Zealand\" 3134 as an alternative to the \"[g]eneral\" measures\n(Measures 15-17) identified in its panel request as follows:\n\"[15] The requirement that Australian Qu arantine and Inspection Service officers\nbe involved in orchard inspections for Eur opean canker and fire blight, in direct\nverification of packing house procedures, and in fruit inspection and treatment.\n[16] The requirement that New Zealand en sure that all orchards registered for\nexport to Australia operate under standard commercial practices.\n[17] The requirement that packing houses provide details of the layout of\npremises.\"3135\n7.1367 In response, Australia argues that New Zealand failed to identify any real alternative for either\nof these three general measures. 3136 First, Australia contends, New Zealand's alleged alternative is\nidentical to Australia's existing requirement under Measure 15:\n\"Australia's requirement in respect of AQIS officers is that they will conduct systems\naudits only. New Zealand's description of potential AQIS systems audits accords\nwith Australia's view of its requirement. Therefore, New Zealand has not identified\nan 'alternative' measure because it is in fact the same requirement as that which\nAustralia imposes.\"\n3137\n7.1368 Second, according to Australia, the alternative measure proposed by New Zealand cannot be\nan alternative for Measures 16 and 17. Although New Zealand argues that Australia has not explained\nthe basis for imposing these two measures, New Ze aland has not identified any alternative measure\nfor these measures. Therefore, New Zealand has failed to support its claim under Article 5.63138:\n\"[New Zealand] has failed to demonstrate how any 'alternative' measure could replace\nthe other two general requirements. In particular, Australia's requirement that\n'MAFNZ will ensure that all orchards regi stered for export to Australia are operating\nunder standard commercial practices', is not related to New Zealand's concern with\n'AQIS involvement' in inspections, etc. Th e measure as challenged by New Zealand\n[as Measure 16] is:\nThe requirement that New Zealand ensure that all orchards registered for export to\nAustralia operate under standard commercial practices.\n\n3134 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4.525.\n3135 Australia – Apples , Request for the Establishment of a Panel by New Zealand (WT/DS367/5),\n7 December 2007, attached as Annex A-1 to this report, p. 3.\n3136 Australia's first written submission, paras. 1 106-1112. See also Australia's second written\nsubmission, para. 737.\n3137 Australia's first written submission, para. 1107. See also Australia's second written submission,\npara. 737.\n3138 Australia's first written submission, para. 1112.\n\nThus, the measure at issue is not any AQIS verification of this requirement – rather,\nthe challenge is against the substantive re quirement that orchards must operate under\nstandard commercial practices. Thus, an 'alternative' to the 'AQIS involvement'\nrequirement is not an alternative to the standard commercial practice requirement.\"\n3139\n7.1369 Australia adds that New Zealand is wrong in ar guing that there is no justification in the IRA\nfor Measures 16 and 17:\n\"New Zealand has alleged that 'Australia does not provide any justification' for its\nrequirement in respect of standard commerc ial practice. This is clearly incorrect,\nas the Final IRA Report makes it clear that the IRA Team assumed that New Zealand\nexporters would operate under standard commercial practice throughout its\nassessment of the unrestricted risk associated with importing New Zealand apples,\nand therefore assurance was required that all orchards registered for export to\nAustralia would be operating under standard commercial practices.\nNew Zealand also challenges the justification for the requirement that packing houses\nprovide details of the layout of premises. As explained above, a basic map of packing\nhouses is sought in order that AQIS officers can identify areas of potential risk in the\npacking houses in preparation for the required packing house audits.\"\n3140\n7.1370 In response, New Zealand explains that it sees important differences between Measure 15 and\nthe alternative measure, which it identified in its first written submission as \"auditing by AQIS\nofficers of New Zealand systems applicable to the import of apples to Australia from\nNew Zealand\".\n3141 \"New Zealand's characterisation of an AQIS audit is very different from\nAustralia's. While, as explained above, Australia has characterised the IRA's measure requiring\n'AQIS involvement' as '100% audit of survey t eams and packing houses', New Zealand's proposed\nalternative would involve the audit of only a sample of the relevant New Zealand systems. These are\ntwo very different things.\"3142\n7.1371 In its second written submission New Zealand slightly rephrases the suggested alternative\nmeasure as \"an audit by AQIS officials of a sample of the New Zealand systems that implement the\nrelevant requirements\"3143, and confirms that it proposes this alternative instead of \"all three general\nmeasures.\"3144 According to New Zealand:\n\"In terms of the relevant New Zealand systems that would be audited, in accordance\nwith the findings of the panel in Japan – Apples, any AQIS involvement should relate\nonly to those requirements imposed by Austra lia that are scientifically justified in\naccordance with Article 2.2. Since none of the Australian measures at issue are\nscientifically justified, AQIS involvement should extend only to the two less trade\nrestrictive alternatives available for fi re blight, European canker and ALCM\n(the requirements that apples be mature a nd symptomless and be subject to a 600 unit\nsample inspection).\"\n3145\n7.1372 New Zealand adds that \"[c]onsequently, the l ess trade restrictive alternative for the three\ngeneral measures would be an audit by AQIS of a sa mple of: (i) the relevant New Zealand systems\n\n3139 Australia's first written submission, paras. 1108-1109 (footnotes omitted).\n3140 Australia's first written submission, paras. 1110-1111 (footnotes omitted).\n3141 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4.525.\n3142 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.914 (footnote omitted).\n3143 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.916.\n3144 Ibid.\n3145 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.915 (footnote omitted).\n\ndesigned to ensure that apples are mature and symp tomless, and (ii) the procedures for inspection of a\n600-unit sample.\"3146\n7.1373 In the light of New Zealand's response to Au stralia's arguments, the Panel considers that\nNew Zealand suggests the following alternative meas ure for all three general measures (Measures 15-\n17) in the context of its Article 5.6 claim: \"an audit by AQIS of a sample of: (i) the relevant\nNew Zealand systems designed to ensure that apples are mature and symptomless, and (ii) the\nprocedures for inspection of a 600-unit sample.\"3147\n7.1374 As New Zealand explains, it suggests this alte rnative not only for Measure 15 but also for\nMeasures 16 and 17. Accordingly, the Panel turn s to assessing whether this alternative satisfies the\nthree cumulative conditions of the Article 5.6 test in regard to Measures 15-17.\n(b) Whether an audit by AQIS of a sample of: (i) the relevant systems designed to ensure that\napples are mature and symptomless, and (ii) the procedures for inspection of a 600-unit\nsample satisfies the three-pronged Article 5.6 test\n7.1375 As the Appellate Body explained, to pass this three-pronged test of Article 5.6,\nthe complainant needs to demonstrate that another, alternative measure:\n\"(1) is reasonably available taking into account technical and economic\nfeasibility;\n(2) achieves the Member's appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary\nprotection; and\n(3) is significantly less restrictive to trade than the SPS measure contested.\"\n3148\n7.1376 As mentioned above, the Panel starts its anal ysis of the general measures with the third\ncondition of the Article 5.6 test. 3149 This condition entails whether the alternative measure identified\nby the complainant is significantly less trade restri ctive than the respondent's contested measure(s).\nUnlike the first two conditions of the Article 5.6 t est, the third condition requires a direct comparison\nbetween the contested and the alternative measure(s).\n7.1377 The Parties dispute whether such a comparison is possible, at least in regard to Measure 15.\nThe possibility of such a comparison is thus an impor tant threshold issue for the Panel's analysis of\nthe third condition of the Article 5.6 test. Since the th ree conditions of this test are cumulative, this is\nalso a threshold issue for the Panel's analysis of the three-pronged Article 5.6 test as such.\n(i) Summary of the Parties' arguments\n7.1378 New Zealand argues that its alternative is l ess trade restrictive than Australia's general\nmeasures (Measures 15-17). New Zealand notes that Australia's current measures would be time-\nconsuming, labour-intensive and costly. Also, th ey are unprecedented and not required in respect of\nany other exports from New Zealand to Australia.3150\n\n3146 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.915.\n3147 Ibid.\n3148 Appellate Body Report on Australia – Salmon , para. 194; and Appellate Body Report on Japan –\nAgricultural Products II, para. 95.\n3149 See para. 7.1108 above.\n3150 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4. 534. See also, New Z ealand's second written\nsubmission, para. 2.920.\n\n7.1379 New Zealand does not agree with Australia's characterization of Measure 15 as a systems\naudit.\n3151 An AQIS audit of New Zealand's systems would involve only a sample of all necessary\naspects of the export programme. ISPM No. 20 also requires \"some sort of sampling process\" of the\nrelevant systems.\n3152 Conversely, Measure 15 requires AQIS to conduct an audit of all survey teams\nand all packing houses 3153, and none of Australia's explanati ons suggest less than 100 per cent\ninspection intensity. In fact, Australia confirmed th at it would be necessary to audit each survey team\nat least in the first year of trade. 3154 New Zealand adds that 100 per cent AQIS involvement for\nNew Zealand apples is unprecedented. Under Austra lia's regime applicable for stone fruit, AQIS will\naudit a sample of the systems being implemented by each of the sample operators.3155\n7.1380 New Zealand argues that its alternative would involve the audit of New Zealand relevant\nsystems implementing scientifically justified requirements 3156, which is significantly less trade\nrestrictive than a measure requiring an audit of all survey teams and all packing houses. 3157\nThese systems audits would be less frequent and le ss intrusive since they would review and assess\nNew Zealand phytosanitary practices only from time to time. According to New Zealand, this would\nvalidate existing procedures which Australia h as never suggested would be inadequate.\nThe alternative would involve minimal additional co sts and would not require the creation of new,\nexpensive and unnecessary systems.3158\n7.1381 New Zealand claims that Measure 15 would double the number of inspectors and it would\nmore than double the cost of orchard and pack ing house inspections. New Zealand would be\nresponsible for the time costs of the AQIS inspec tors involved, as well as for their travel and\naccommodation expenses. For instance, the orch ard inspections under Measure 15 involve an\nintensive and time-consuming requirement to use la dders to inspect the tops of trees for European\ncanker. New Zealand growers and exporters would incur these heavy and unjustifiable costs, which\nwould be significantly trade restrictive.3159\n7.1382 New Zealand points out that Measure 16 would require NZMAF to verify through a costly\ncompliance program that the apple industry is operating in accordance with standard commercial\npractices. Australia does not provide any justifi cation for Measure 16, neither for Measure 17.\nThese two measures have the effect of placing a trade restriction behind the border and are\nunwarranted.3160 In addition, New Zealand relies on the e xperts' responses to support its view that\nAustralia does not provide any scientific basis for Measure 17.3161\n7.1383 New Zealand argues that even if the details of Measure 16, which requires compliance with\nstandard commercial practices, have not yet been developed, it would require MAFNZ to audit a\n\n3151 New Zealand's reply to Panel question 46 after the first substantive meeting, para. 71. See also,\nNew Zealand's comments on Australia's reply to Panel questions 105-106 after the second substantive meeting,\npara. 250.\n3152 New Zealand's comments on Australia's reply to Panel questions 105-106 after the second\nsubstantive meeting, para. 252.\n3153 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.921.\n3154 New Zealand's comments on Australia's reply to Panel questions 105-106 after the second\nsubstantive meeting, para. 253.\n3155 New Zealand's reply to Panel question 109 after the second substantive meeting, para. 164.\nNew Zealand's comments on Australia's reply to Panel question 107 after the second substantive meeting,\npara. 255.\n3156 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.915.\n3157 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.921.\n3158 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4.536.\n3159 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4.535.\n3160 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4.537.\n3161 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.279.\n\nsample of growers in order to verify that th e growers had followed the recommendations of the\nIndustry Integrated Fruit Production Manual. According to New Zealand, this verification component\nmakes the process trade restrictive. It is sci entifically unjustified, it would be costly and\ntime-consuming, and it would have flow-on effect s concerning maintenance of auditable records of\ngrowers' monitoring and pest control activities. 3162 In addition, Australia does not require the same\nverification under any other import risk analysis, for any other fruit exported to Australia, including\nstone fruit, kiwi or avocadoes.3163\n7.1384 New Zealand disagrees with Australia's argum ent that the standard commercial practice\nrequirement is also included in other Australian import risk analyses. The examples cited by\nAustralia do not contain a requirement for the NPPO in the exporting country to verify that fruit has\nbeen produced in accordance with standard commercial practice. For instance, Australia's risk\nanalysis for longan and lychee fruit from China a nd Thailand states that all export orchards are\nexpected to produce commercial longan and lychee under standard cultivation, harvesting and packing\nactivities, and Australia's import risk analysis fo r Indian mango provides that the existing commercial\npractice of a post-harvest fungicida l dip is an underlying requirement for export to Australia. By\ncontrast, the IRA for New Zealand apples requires that MAFNZ ensure that all orchards registered for\nexport operate under standard commercial practice.3164\n7.1385 New Zealand also contests Australia's reliance on the assumption that all New Zealand\nexporting orchards would operate under standard commercial practices. 3165 The IRA provides no\nexplanation how standard commercial prac tices would mitigate against assessed risk. 3166 A risk\nassessment should not be allowed to build on unjustified assumptions that only serve to impose\nobligations on exporting countries.3167\n7.1386 Australia argues that New Zealand has accepted that all of Australia's measures are based on\nthe IRA, i.e. that there is a rational relations hip between the risk assessment and the measures\nrecommended by the IRA. Accordingly, the Panel needs to determine only whether Australia's risk\nassessments for the three pests at issue are objectiv ely justifiable and whether the measures are more\ntrade restrictive than required within the meaning of Article 5.6. Australia advances that the\njustification of the general measures flows from th e technical justification of the pest-specific\nmeasures.3168\n7.1387 Australia contends that in the context of the third prong of the Article 5.6 test, it is not enough\nfor the complainant to demonstrate that the alternativ e is merely less trade restrictive. The alternative\nmust be significantly less trade restrictive; \"significant\" meaning \"important, notable,\nconsequential\".3169 Australia's understanding of the panel report in EC – Approval and Marketing of\nBiotech Products is that a given risk assessment may be s upported by a range of possible measures,\nand it is within the Member's discretion to choose a measure providing the best protection taking into\n\n3162 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.922.\n3163 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.923. See also, New Zealand's reply to Panel\nquestion 53 after the first substantive meeting, para. 80.\n3164 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.924.\n3165 New Zealand's comments on Australia's reply to Panel question 113 after the second substantive\nmeeting, para. 266.\n3166 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.289.\n3167 New Zealand's comments on Australia's reply to Panel question 113 after the second substantive\nmeeting, para. 266.\n3168 Australia's reply to Panel question 113 after the second substantive meeting, para. 493.\n3169 Australia's first written submission, para. 1079.\n\naccount its ALOP. Accordingly, the Panel must re spect \"a Member's right to choose its preferred\nmeasure, unless there is another measure that is significantly less restrictive to trade\".\n3170\n7.1388 Australia argues that the IRA does not define the level of AQIS involvement required by\nMeasure 15. The requirement does not demand the involvement of Australia's authorities in all\norchard inspections and packing houses operations. For orchards inspections, the audit would include\n100% of survey teams in the field and the intensity of the audits would be adjusted over time\ndepending on performance. In the first year of trade, all relevant packing houses would be audited.3171\nAustralia contends that these audits will be facilitated by Measure 17. 3172 The latter requires packing\nhouses to provide a basic map of the layout of their premises, so that AQIS officers can identify areas\nof potential risk in preparation for the required packing house audits. 3173 Australia explains that AQIS\nclarified these requirements on a number of occasions during bilateral discussions on the standard\noperating procedure in 2007 and early 2008. 3174 The extent of AQIS involvement in fruit inspections\nwill be determined when New Zealand completes th e required standard operating procedure and work\nplan to operationalize the requirements of the Fi nal IRA Report. At that point and based on\nNew Zealand's intentions, there may be a number of options to minimize costs and avoid duplication,\nas demonstrated by Australia's experience in join t inspections with the United States' authorities. 3175\nBased upon information provided by New Zealand during a meeting with Australian officials,\nAustralia offered that AQIS would conduct system audits and verifications in the first year of\ntrade.\n3176\n7.1389 With regard to Measure 16, Australia argues that the data provided by New Zealand during\nthe IRA process was based on, or derived from, or chards and packing houses that follow standard\ncommercial practices such as the Integrated Fruit Production (IFP) manual. According to Australia,\nNew Zealand did not provide any data relating to orchards or packing houses that do not follow the\nIFP manual. Based on its meetings with New Z ealand officials and the New Zealand submissions,\nAustralia asserts that New Zealand's access request concentrated on apples processed under standard\ncommercial practices. Therefore the IRA did not assess the risk associated with other types of\nproduction, and the measures required by the IR A only apply to apples produced under standard\ncommercial practices. 3177 Australia adds that it does require operation under standard commercial\npractices in the context of table grapes from Ch ile, longans and lychees from China and Thailand and\nfor mangoes from India.3178\n(ii) The Panel's analysis\n7.1390 The Panel first addresses the threshold issu e whether the alternative advanced by\nNew Zealand can be usefully compared with the ge neral measures, or at least Measure 15, for the\npurposes of the third condition of the Article 5.6 test.\n7.1391 In its earlier analysis of the Parties' disagreements concerning Measure 15, the Panel has\nnoted how, despite its efforts and questions, it ne ver received a clear explanation of these procedures\nand how they would function, and particularly of the frequency of AQIS involvement. 3179 The Panel\nhas also been unable to establish whether Measure 15 relates solely to the part of the IRA entitled\n\n3170 Australia's first written submission, paras. 1080-1081.\n3171 Australia's first written submission, para. 151.\n3172 Australia's first written submission, para. 152.\n3173 Australia's first written submission, para. 153.\n3174 Australia's first written submission, para. 154.\n3175 Australia's reply to Panel question 102 after the second substantive meeting, para. 458.\n3176 Australia's reply to Panel question 105 after the second substantive meeting, para. 471.\n3177 Australia's reply to Panel question 113 after the second substantive meeting, para. 491.\n3178 Australia's first written submission, para. 968.\n3179 See para. 2.231 above.\n\n\"Requirement for pre-clearance\" or whether it is al so addressed in the subsequent part of the IRA,\nentitled \"Audit\". 3180 The Panel could not establish either whether Measure 15 involves\n\"systems audits\" as that term is understood by the Par ties; the Panel merely noted that this issue is\nmore directly related to New Zealand's claim under Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.3181\n7.1392 Further, the Panel has found that these uncertainti es with regard to the IRA in the context of\nMeasure 15 are underscored by the IRA's requirement that the details of pre-clearance be addressed\nby the Parties in the standard operating manual and work plan, which have not yet been adopted.3182\n7.1393 While the Panel understands that New Zealand may not be responsible for the uncertainty\nregarding the scope of Measure 15, the burden still falls on New Zealand as the complainant to make\na prima facie case regarding these requirements. In the light of the above uncertainties in the IRA\nregarding Measure 15 and in the absence of the st andard operating manual and work plan, the Panel\ncannot usefully compare Measure 15 with New Zealand' s alternative. In particular, the Panel cannot\nassess whether New Zealand's alternative measure is less trade restrictive than Measure 15, let alone\nwhether it is significantly less trade restrictive.\n7.1394 The Panel will continue its analysis of the third prong of the Article 5.6 test by looking at\nMeasures 16 and 17. The Panel will assess whet her New Zealand's alternative measure is\nsignificantly less trade restrictive than these two measures.\n7.1395 The Panel agrees with Australia that the third cond ition of the Article 5.6 test requires that the\ncomplainant identify an alte rnative measure that is \" significantly less restrictive to trade\" than the\ncontested measure. This is in line with the language of footnote 3 to Article 5.6 of the\nSPS Agreement3183, and it also follows how previous panels and the Appellate Body have identified\nthis third condition.3184\n7.1396 Previous panels analysed the third condition of the Article 5.6 test by looking at the difference\nin market access under the meas ures at issue and the alterna tive measure identified by the\ncomplainant. In particular, previous panels analysed whether, under th e alternative measure,\n\"market access would be obtained significantly more easily than under the current regime\" 3185 and\nwhether \"the increased market access that would result under the alternative[] ... would be\nsignificant.\"3186\n7.1397 In regard to Measure 16, New Zealand contest s the IRA's assumption that all New Zealand\ngrowers interested in exporting to Australia w ould operate under standard commercial practices.\nHowever, New Zealand does not explain what pro portion of New Zealand growers would need to\nadapt to standard commercial practices, or what woul d be the costs of such adaptation. In fact, the\nelement of Measure 16 that New Zealand contests most vigorously is not growers' compliance with\nstandard commercial practices, but the verificati on by MAFNZ of such compliance. New Zealand\nargues that it is this verification component th at makes Measure 16 trade restrictive because it is\nscientifically unjustified, it would be costly and time-consuming, and it woul d have flow-on effects\n\n3180 See para. 2.215 above.\n3181 See para. 2.231 above.\n3182 See para. 2.225 above.\n3183 Footnote 3 to Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement provides that \"[f]or the purposes of paragraph 6 of\nArticle 5, a measure is not more trade-restrictive than required unless there is another measure, reasonably\navailable taking into account technical and economic feasibility, that achieves the appropriate level of sanitary\nor phytosanitary protection and is significantly less restrictive to trade.\" (emphasis added).\n3184 See Appellate Body Report on Australia – Salmon, paras. 186 and 194; Panel Report on Japan –\nAgricultural Products II, para. 8.72; and Appellate Body Report on Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 95.\n3185 Panel Report on Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 8.96.\n3186 Panel Report on Australia – Salmon (Article 21.5 – Canada), para. 7.151.\n\nconcerning maintenance of auditable records of gr owers' monitoring and pest control activities.\nNew Zealand adds that Australia does not require the same verification under any other import risk\nanalysis, for any other fruit exported to Australia, including stone fruit, kiwi or avocadoes.\n7.1398 The Panel can accept only part of these arguments as relevant for New Zealand's claim that\nthe third prong of the Article 5.6 test is fulfille d in the context of Measure 16. Indeed, whether\nMeasure 16 is scientifically justified is distinct fro m its alleged trade restrictiveness. The scientific\njustification of an SPS measure is not a matter of Article 5.6 but Articles 5. 1 and 5.2 and 2.2 of the\nSPS Agreement. The Panel has already addressed this matter for Measure 16 in the context\nNew Zealand's claim under the latter three provisions of the SPS Agreement. Likewise, whether other\nIRAs have similar verification requirement s says little about Measure 16's alleged trade\nrestrictiveness, and is a matter for Article 2.3, not Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.\n7.1399 New Zealand argues that verification of growers' compliance with standard commercial\npractices would be costly and time-consuming, and it would have flow- on effects concerning\nmaintenance of auditable records of growers' mon itoring and pest control activities. The Panel does\nnot necessarily contest this. Nonetheless, the Pa nel considers that New Zealand should have\nadvanced more arguments and evidence to demonstr ate that its alternative is less – let alone\nsignificantly less – trade restrictive than Measure 16. In particular, New Zealand should have\nexplained and demonstrated how, by being less cos tly and time-consuming, its alternative measure\nwould involve significantly increased market acc ess for New Zealand apples to Australia than\nMeasure 16. By merely referencing flow-on effects, and asserting that Measure 16 is costly and time-\nconsuming, New Zealand has not demonstrated that its alternative measure would involve\nsignificantly increased market access for New Zealand apples to Australia.\n7.1400 Moving on to Measure 17, the Panel notes that New Zealand argues only that this measure is\nunwarranted and scientifically unjustified. Agai n, the Panel cannot consider these arguments as\nsufficient to demonstrate that New Zealand's alte rnative measure would be significantly less trade\nrestrictive than Measure 17.\n7.1401 In the light of the above, the Panel concludes th at New Zealand has not demonstrated that its\nalternative for the three general measure is significan tly less trade restrictively than the three general\nmeasures (Measures 15-17) either individually or ta ken as a whole. Accordingly, New Zealand has\nnot made a prima facie case that the alternative for the three general measures fulfils the third\ncondition of the Article 5.6 test.\n(c) Conclusion on New Zealand's Article 5.6 claim in regard to the general measures\n7.1402 New Zealand has not made a prima facie case that the third condition of the Article 5.6 test is\nfulfilled in the context of the general measures. Sin ce the three conditions of this test are cumulative,\nthe Panel finds that New Zealand has not demonstr ated that Measures 15, 16 and 17 are inconsistent\nwith Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.\n5. The Panel's conclusions on New Zealand's Article 5.6 Claim\n(a) The Panel's conclusions under Article 5.6\n7.1403 In the light of the above anal ysis, the Panel concludes that New Zealand has demonstrated\nthat the contested pest-specific measures (Measures 1-11 and 13-14) are inconsistent with Article 5.6\nof the SPS Agreement, while New Zealand has failed to demonstrate the same for the three general\nmeasures (Measures 15-17).\n\n(b) New Zealand's arguments linking its Article 5.6 claim to Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement\n7.1404 In its first submission, New Zealand states at the end of its arguments under Article 5.6 that:\n\"In addition, because they are more trade rest rictive than required, the measures also\nbreach the requirement in Article 2.2 that measures be 'applied only to the extent\nnecessary to protect human, animal or plan t life or health.' Australia has also,\ntherefore, again, acted inconsistently with Article 2.2.\"3187\n7.1405 Article 2.2 provides that:\n\"Members shall ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary measure is applied only to\nthe extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health , is based on\nscientific principles and is not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence,\nexcept as provided for in paragraph 7 of Article 5.\" (emphasis added)\n7.1406 In response to New Zealand, Australia argu es, that in the absence of any substantive\nargument, it appears that New Zealand has e ffectively abandoned any claim under the first\nrequirement of Article 2.2, and the Panel s hould refrain from considering the matter further. 3188\nAustralia points out that New Zealand has devoted only a single paragraph in its first written\nsubmission in support of any claim that Australia 's measures are inconsistent with the first\nrequirement of Article 2.2. New Zealand's argument is a postscript to its arguments in relation to\nArticle 5.6, in particular the third condition of the Article 5.6 test.\n3189\n7.1407 Australia submits that New Zealand has failed to provide any explanation or argument as to\nwhy any finding under Article 5.6 of the SPS Agre ement that measures are \"more trade restrictive\nthan required\" should automatically lead to a cert ain finding under Article 2.2. Australia points out\nthat the respective texts of Article 2.2 and Artic le 5.6 make no mention of the other provision.\nPrevious panels or the Appellate Body have provided no guidance on this question. They have opined\nmerely that the first element of Article 2.2 is relevant context for interpreting the obligation in\nArticle 5.6.3190\n7.1408 In any event, Australia adds, any outstanding claim by New Zealand in respect of the first\nrequirement of Article 2.2 is clearly dependent on the outcome of its claims in respect of Article 5.6.\nSince New Zealand has failed to discharge its burden of proof in respect of Article 5.6, it has also\nfailed to make such a case in respect of the first requirement of Article 2.2.\n3191\n7.1409 The Panel has already found that the measures at issue in this dispute are inconsistent with the\nclause of Article 2.2 requiring that Members' SPS measures be \"based on scientific principles and is\nnot maintained without sufficient scientific evidence.\"\n3192 Accordingly, a positive settlement of the\ndispute does not require the Panel to assess whet her the same measures also violate the first\nrequirement of Article 2.2.\n7.1410 The Panel therefore does not consider it nec essary to analyse this Article-5.6-related\nArticle 2.2 claim by New Zealand, nor whether Ne w Zealand has properly articulated arguments for\nthis claim. Consequently, the Panel does not need to engage in a detailed anal ysis of the relationship\n\n3187 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4.528.\n3188 Australia's first written submission, para. 1115. See also, Australia's second written submission,\npara. 160.\n3189 Australia's first written submission, para. 1114.\n3190 Australia's first written submission, para. 1115.\n3191 Australia's first written submission, para. 1116.\n3192 See paras. 7.510, 7.779, 7.887 and 7.905 above.\n\nbetween the third condition of the Article 5.6 test and the first requirement of Article 2.2 of the\nSPS Agreement.\nG. N\nEW ZEALAND'S CLAIMS UNDER ARTICLE 8 AND ANNEX C(1)(A) OF THE SPS AGREEMENT\n1. Summary of the Parties' arguments\n7.1411 New Zealand makes claims under Annex C(1 )(a) and Article 8 of the SPS Agreement: 3193\naccording to New Zealand, Australia's violation of Annex C(1)(a) necessarily results in a violation of\nArticle 8, which requires complian ce with the provisions of Annex C. 3194 Australia disagrees,\nprimarily by calling into question whether these clai ms, in particular the measures to which they\nrelate, are within the Panel's terms of reference.3195\n(a) Parties' arguments on the substance of Annex C(1)(a)\n7.1412 In regard to Annex C(1)(a), New Zealand pr ovides a chronology of the issues regarding the\naccess of its apples to Australia's market since 1919. 3196 New Zealand points out that in January 1999\nit lodged its fourth request that Australia allow the importation of New Zealand apples. 3197\nNew Zealand \"makes no complaint about th e commencement of the approval process.\" 3198\nNew Zealand contests the fact that \"the approval procedures were not completed until November 2006\nand the measures formally endorsed in March 2007, more than eight years after the filing of the\nrequest.\"3199\n7.1413 New Zealand argues that, in the light of the panel report in EC – Approval and Marketing of\nBiotech Products , the duration of the approval process le ading to the IRA constitutes undue delay\nwithin the meaning of Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement. The delay was not due to science-\nrelated factors. 3200 Australia had already reviewed th e relevant science in the context of\nNew Zealand's three earlier apple entry requests. 3201 Moreover, the Japan – Apples dispute had dealt\nwith phytosanitary measures for fire blight. Rather, the delay was due to repeated changes to the risk\nassessment process and a parallel and interlinked, highly charged political process.3202\n7.1414 New Zealand adds that in April 1999 Aust ralia informed stakeholders, including\nNew Zealand, that due to the review of New Zealand' s three previous entry requests, the risk analysis\nshould not be technically complex and it \"[would] ta ke approximately twelve months to complete\".\nAccordingly, New Zealand hoped that the draft IRA would be released in November 1999. That\nended up not being the case, and eventually the final IRA was issued after 94 months.3203\n\n3193 New Zealand's communication to the Panel, 7 April 2008, submission regarding Australia's request\n3194 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4.563.\n3195 Australia's second written submission, para. 218.\n3196 New Zealand's first written submission, Annex 1.\n3197 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4.551.\n3198 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4.553.\n3199 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4.551.\n3200 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4.559.\n3201 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4.561.\n3202 New Zealand's first written submission, paras. 4.55 4-4.559. See also New Zealand's closing oral\nstatement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel w ith the Parties, para. 11; New Zealand's reply to Panel\nquestion 146 after the first substantive meeting, paras. 299-306; and New Zealand's closing oral statement at the\nsecond substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties, para. 12.\n3203 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.934.\n\n7.1415 New Zealand references a recent independent review of Australian quarantine and biosecurity\narrangements initiated by the Australian Government. 3204 New Zealand argues that, in principle,\nthe Australian Government agrees with the outcome of this review. 3205 This review identifies the IRA\nfor New Zealand apples as one of the IRAs that have \"done much to generate international\nperceptions [concerning] trade-restrictiveness, unreasonable delays and questionable science.\" 3206\nThe report concludes that \"these [IRAs] may have involved complex scientific assessments ... [but]\nthe time taken [for completing these IRAs] is difficult to justify.\" 3207 The report notes that the 2007\nchanges to the regulations governing IRAs prescr ibe much tighter timelines: 30 months for an\nexpanded IRA, and 24 mont hs for a standard one. 3208 New Zealand points out that the IRA for\nNew Zealand apples has exceeded these maximum timelines more than threefold.3209\n7.1416 In response, Australia reject s New Zealand's substantive arguments under Annex C(1)(a) and\nArticle 8 of the SPS Agreement. Australia submit s that New Zealand's arguments that the IRA is\ntainted by an intertwined political process are spurious and unsupported by evidence. 3210 I n t e n s e\npolitical and public debate, parliamentary enquiries a nd domestic court proceedings \"are not evidence\nof 'politicisation', but rather the normal functioning of a healthy democracy.\" 3211 The SPS Agreement\nrecognizes WTO Members' right to base their SPS measu res on scientific evidence, and this is what\nAustralia has done in regard to New Zealand apples.3212\n7.1417 Australia provides a detailed list of the steps in its IRA process to fill in the gaps it perceives\nin the chronology put forward by New Zealand. 3213 Australia points out that the independent report\nreferenced by New Zealand recognized that the time taken to complete certain of Australia's IRAs was\nnot unique.3214\n(b) Parties' arguments on whether New Zealand's claims are within the Panel's terms of reference\n7.1418 A key point of discord between the Parties unde r Annex C(1)(a) and Article 8 is whether the\nPanel's terms of reference cover New Zealand's claims, and the measures to which these claims relate.\n(i) Parties' arguments leading to Australia's second preliminary ruling request\n7.1419 In its written submission on Australia's first pr eliminary ruling request under Article 6.2 of\nthe DSU, New Zealand argues that \"the final IR A as a whole is inconsistent with Australia's\n\n3204 One Biosecurity: A Working Partnership, The Independent Review of Australia's Quarantine and\nBiosecurity Arrangements, Report to the Australian Government, 30 September 2008. See New Zealand's\n3205 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.935, footnote 101.\n3206 One Biosecurity: A Working Partnership, The Independent Review of Australia's Quarantine and\nBiosecurity Arrangements, Report to the Australian Government, 30 September 2008, p. 112. See\nNew Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.935.\n3207 One Biosecurity: A Working Partnership, The Independent Review of Australia's Quarantine and\nBiosecurity Arrangements, Report to the Australian Government, 30 September 2008, p. 100. See\nNew Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.935.\n3208 One Biosecurity: A Working Partnership, The Independent Review of Australia's Quarantine and\nBiosecurity Arrangements, Report to the Australian Government, 30 September 2008, p. 100. See\nNew Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.937.\n3209 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.938.\n3210 Australia's first written submission, para. 1125.\n3211 Australia's first written submission, para. 28.\n3212 Australia's first written submission, para. 32.\n3213 Australia's first written submission, para. 1058 and Annex 1.\n3214 Australia's reply to Panel question 127 after the second substantive meeting, paras. 536-537.\n\nobligations under the SPS Agreement. That is the essence of New Zealand's Article 8 and\nAnnex C(1)(a) claim.\"\n3215\n7.1420 In response, Australia points out that New Zeal and's panel request did not identify \"the IRA\nas a whole\" as a measure at issue. 3216 By challenging the IRA in and of itself as a measure at issue,\n\"New Zealand has attempted to ... introduce a new claim in the dispute.\"3217\n7.1421 In its preliminary ruling on Australia's first preliminary ruling request, the Panel found that\n\"New Zealand's panel request do es not identify with sufficient precision any measures contained in\nAustralia's FIRA, other than the 17 specific items identified through bullet points.\"3218\n7.1422 After this preliminary ruling, New Zealand argues in its first written submission that\n\"Australia's process for considering New Zealand's request for access for New Zealand apples to the\nAustralian market was delayed well beyond any reasonable period of time for considering the\nrequest.\"3219 In the light of the panel report in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products ,\nundue delay in this \"IRA process\" is covered by Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement.3220\n7.1423 In response, in its first written submission Australia argues that the \"IRA process\" is not a\nmeasure at issue, either. The IRA process does not fall within the scope of New Zealand's panel\nrequest3221 because \"no possible characterisation of th e 17 measures [identified in bullet points in\nNew Zealand's panel request] could encapsulate the IRA process.\"3222 The IRA process is also\noutside the Panel's terms of reference as clar ified by the Panel in its preliminary ruling. 3223 Indeed, in\nits preliminary ruling the Panel effectively rejected New Zealand's argument that the inconsistency of\nthe final IRA as a whole is the essence of New Zealand's Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a) claim. 3224\nAustralia adds that New Zealand has not argued that any of the 17 measures at issue are subject to a\nclaim of undue delay. In any event, New Zeal and has failed to establish that the 17 measures are\napproval procedures within the meaning of Annex C(1).3225\n7.1424 Days before the Panel's first substantive m eeting, Australia submitted a second preliminary\nruling request, making similar arguments. Australia ask ed the Panel to rule that, in the light of the\nPanel's first preliminary ruling, New Zealand's undue delay claim as it relates to the IRA process is\noutside the scope of the dispute.3226\n7.1425 Following the first substantive meeting, in th e course of which the Panel heard the Parties'\nand Third Parties' arguments on Australia's sec ond preliminary ruling request, the Panel found that\nAustralia had not shown good cause for the Panel is suing a second preliminary ruling. The Panel\n\n3215 New Zealand's communication to the Panel, 7 April 2008, submission regarding Australia's request\n3216 Australia's communication to the Panel, 14 April 2008, submission regarding Australia's request for\na preliminary ruling, paras. 5 and 12.\n3217 Australia's communication to the Panel, 14 April 2008, submission regarding Australia's request for\na preliminary ruling, para. 3.\n3218 Australia – Apples , Communication From the Chairman of the Panel: Preliminary Ruling by the\nPanel (WT/DS367/7), 23 June 2008, attached as Annex A-2 to this report, p. 4, para. 13(b).\n3219 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4.541.\n3220 New Zealand's first written submission, para. 4.546.\n3221 Australia's first written submission, para. 1122.\n3222 Australia's first written submission, para. 1119 (o riginal emphasis). See also Australia's opening\noral statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties, para. 60.\n3223 Australia's first written submission, para. 1122.\n3224 Australia's first written submission, para. 1120.\n3225 Australia's first written submission, paras. 1123-1124.\n3226 Australia's second preliminary ruling request, 22 August 2008.\n\ninformed the Parties that it intended to addr ess New Zealand's claim regarding Article 8 and\nAnnex C(1)(a) in its final report, together with New Zealand's other claims.3227\n(ii) The Parties' further arguments\n7.1426 After this communication from the Panel, the Pa rties continued their exchange of arguments\ntriggered by Australia's second preliminary ruling request. These arguments by the Parties address in\nparticular the type of measure covered by A nnex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement, and whether\nNew Zealand's panel request had identified such a measure.\nNew Zealand\n7.1427 New Zealand argues that \"it has never claimed that the measure at issue is the\n'IRA process'.\"3228 New Zealand did not refer to th e IRA process in its panel request 3229, and\nfurthermore it is unclear how the IRA process could be regarded a measure at issue. 3230 N o r i s\nNew Zealand arguing that the undue delay is the measure at issue. 3231 Rather, \"the measures at issue\nunder New Zealand's Annex C(1)(a) and Article 8 claim are the 17 measures identified in\nNew Zealand's panel request.\"3232 New Zealand contends that \"the 17 measures ... at issue ... were not\ndeveloped and adopted without undue delay.\" 3233 In other words, the \"SPS measures resulting from\nan unduly delayed process have not been imposed in accordance with the SPS Agreement.\"3234\n7.1428 New Zealand references the Appellate Body report in EC – Selected Customs Matters3235, and\nargues that Australia \"blurs the distinction between legal claims and measures at issue .\"3236\nNew Zealand refers to the IRA process because that approval procedure must be undertaken and\ncompleted without undue delay. 3237 There is a close relationship between the IRA process and the\nmeasure at issue because \"[t]he IRA process was th e process by which the measures at issue were\ndeveloped.\"3238 So the IRA process is certainly relevant to New Zealand's claim, but it is not the\n\n3227 Panel's response to Australia's second preliminary ruling request, 8 September 2008.\n3228 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties,\n3229 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties,\npara. 125.\n3230 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties,\npara. 131.\n3231 New Zealand's reply to Panel question 143 after the first substantive meeting, para. 298.\n3232 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties,\n3233 New Zealand's reply to Panel question 143 after the first substantive meeting, para. 298.\n3234 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.928.\n3235 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the s econd substantive meeting of the Panel with the\nParties, para. 112.\n3236 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties,\npara. 129 (original emphasis). See also New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.930.\n3237 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties,\npara. 129.\n3238 New Zealand's reply to Panel question 143 after the first substantive meeting, para. 298.\n\nmeasure at issue.\n3239 It is the \"procedure to check and ensure the fulfilment of SPS measures\" 3240, that\nis the \"subject of the obligation [under Annex C(1)(a)], ... not the measure at issue.\"3241\n7.1429 According to New Zealand, in a literal sense, the combined actions, omissions and decisions\nof various actors in the Australian system cumulatively resulted in an eight-year delay. But it would\nbe unrealistic to expect the complainant to identify these multiple causes as the measures at issue in an\nAnnex C(1)(a) claim.\n3242 In a broader sense, the cause of th e delay is inextricably linked to the\nintertwined political process. However, the politici zation of the IRA process cannot be thought of as\nthe measure at issue. 3243 As the Panel explained in its preliminary ruling, the complainant need not\nprovide the arguments with respect to the undue delay claim in its panel request.3244\n7.1430 New Zealand contends that Article C(1)(a ) should be read in the context of the\nGeneral Provisions of the SPS Agreement, in particular Article 1.1, which provides that SPS measures\nshall be \"developed and applied\" in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement. Consequently,\nthe obligation to undertake and complete approval procedures without undue delay is an obligation\nthat relates directly to the \"development\" of SPS measures.3245\n7.1431 New Zealand adds that Australia is mistaken in believing that the \"measures at issue\" under\nAnnex C(1) must be the \"procedures to check and ensure the fulfilment of SPS measures\" referred to\nin the chapeau of Annex C(1).3246 In the present dispute, the IRA process for New Zealand apples is\nthe procedure to check and ensure the fulf ilment of SPS measures within the meaning of\nAnnex (C)(1).3247 In fact, \"[t]he IRA process is a specific application of Australia's more general\napproval requirements relating to the importation of fresh fruit and vegetables ... [,] set out in\nAustralia's Quarantine Proclamation 1998, and Australia's Import Risk Analysis Handbook.\" 3248\nThe \"sanitary and phytosanitary measures\" referenced in the chapeau of Annex C(1) are Australia's\nregime relating to the approval of fresh fruit or vegetables. 3249 This is not a measure at issue, and\nNew Zealand is not claiming that Annex C(1) relates to the development of that SPS measure.3250\n7.1432 According to New Zealand, in the light of the panel report in EC – Approval and Marketing\nof Biotech Products , the measures at issue do not th emselves need to satisfy the chapeau of\nAnnex C(1). The European Communities' generic approval legislation relating to GMOs was not a\n\n3239 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties,\npara. 129.\n3240 New Zealand's reply to Panel question 146 after the first substantive meeting, paras. 299-306.\n3241 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the s econd substantive meeting of the Panel with the\nParties, para. 112. See also, New Zealand's comments on Australia's reply to Panel question 128 after the\nsecond substantive meeting, paras. 284-289.\n3242 New Zealand's comments on Australia's reply to Panel question 128 after the second substantive\nmeeting, paras. 284-289.\n3243 Ibid.\n3244 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the s econd substantive meeting of the Panel with the\nParties, para. 114.\n3245 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties,\npara. 130.\n3246 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties,\npara. 126.\n3247 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties,\npara. 128.\n3248 Ibid.\n3249 New Zealand's reply to Panel question 146 after the first substantive meeting, paras. 299-306.\n3250 New Zealand's second written submission, para. 2.930.\n\nmeasure at issue in that dispute. The measure at issue was the de facto moratorium on approvals,\nwhich was not in itself a procedure to check and ensure the fulfilment of SPS measures.3251\n7.1433 New Zealand points out that where SPS measu res were adopted following an approval\nprocess, the approval process itself has ceased to exist. 3252 The IRA process is not challengeable in\nthis dispute because it has ceased to exis t by the time the Panel was established. 3253 In EC – Chicken\nCuts the Appellate Body established that \"the measur es included in a panel's terms of reference must\nbe measures that are in existence at the time of the establishment of the panel.\" 3254 In EC – Selected\nCustoms Matters, the Appellate Body specified that there ar e two exceptions to this rule, but neither\nof these apply in the present dispute. The measures at issue in this dispute did not arise after the\nestablishment of the Panel, nor does this dispute i nvolve subsidies whose legislative basis has expired\nbut whose effects continue to impair benefits accruing to the complainant. 3255 An interpretation of\nAnnex C(1)(a) that requires the complainant to ch allenge measures that have ceased to exist would\nnot accord with the DSU's objective to secure a positive solution to the dispute.3256\nAustralia\n7.1434 Australia considers that New Zealand's arguments constitute an inadmissible attempt at curing\nthe fatal flaw in its panel request. 3257 Even at an advanced stage of the dispute, there remains\nconsiderable confusion concerning what measures New Zealand is challenging with respect to its\nundue delay claim.3258 In fact, New Zealand's undue delay clai m has constantly shifted in an attempt\nto bring it within the Panel's terms of reference. 3259 At different points in the dispute, New Zealand\nclaimed that the measure at issue was the IRA pr ocess or Australia's general approval requirements\nconcerning the importation of fresh fruit or vege tables. New Zealand's panel request, however,\ndoes not reference either the IRA process or Australia's general approval requirements.3260\n7.1435 Australia contends that Annex C(1)(a) do es not refer to the \"development\" of SPS\nmeasures.3261 New Zealand's reliance on Article 1.1 of the SPS Agreement in this regard is\nmisplaced.3262 In line with the customary rules of interp retation, an analysis of Annex C(1)(a) should\nfocus on the ordinary meaning of the terms used in that provision, in their context and in the light of\nthe object and purpose of the SPS Agreement. 3263 Annex C(1)(a) provides that \"such procedures\" are\nto be \"undertaken and completed without undue delay.\" \"Such procedure\" must be understood by\nreference to the immediate context, found in the chapeau of Annex C(1): \"procedures to check and\n\n3251 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties,\npara. 127. See also New Zealand's reply to Panel ques tion 146 after the first substantive meeting, paras. 299-\n306; and New Zealand's reply to Australia's question 18 after the second substantive meeting, paras. 43-47.\n3252 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties,\npara. 132.\n3253 New Zealand's reply to Australia's question 18 after the second substantive meeting, paras. 43-47.\n3254 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the s econd substantive meeting of the Panel with the\nParties, para. 115.\n3255 New Zealand's reply to Australia's question 17 after the second substantive meeting, paras. 40-42.\n3256 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties,\npara. 133.\n3257 Australia's intervention on New Zealand's oral statement in relation to Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a),\n2 September 2008, p. 2. See also, Australia's reply to Panel question 144 after the first substantive meeting;\nAustralia's second written submission, paras. 186 and 212; and Australia's communication to the Panel,\n14 April 2008, submission regarding Australia's request for a preliminary ruling, paras. 13-14.\n3258 Australia's reply to Panel question 144 after the first substantive meeting.\n3259 Australia's second written submission, para. 184.\n3260 Australia's second written submission, paras. 214-216.\n3261 Australia's reply to Panel question 128 after the second substantive meeting, paras. 538-545.\n3262 Australia's reply to Panel question 144 after the first substantive meeting.\n3263 Ibid. See also Australia's second written submission, para. 187.\n\nensure the fulfilment of SPS measures.\" If a pro cedure checks and ensures the fulfilment of a\nmeasure, logically that measure must already ex ist. Thus a procedure within the scope of\nAnnex C(1)(a) must check and ensure the fulfil ment of pre-existing SPS measures. Therefore,\nAnnex C(1)(a) cannot be an obliga tion that relates directly to the development of SPS measures.\n3264\nIf, as New Zealand argues, the IRA process is the re levant procedure in the context of Annex C(1),\nand assuming that the 17 requirements are the \"SPS me asures\" referred to in Annex C(1)(a), the IRA\nprocess must be checking and ensuring the fulfilmen t of the 17 SPS measures at issue. The IRA\nprocess, however, took place before the 17 measures came into existence.3265 In fact, the 17 measures\nidentified in New Zealand's panel request were a dopted on the basis of the recommendations in the\nIRA, which itself was a result of the IRA process.3266\n7.1436 Australia concedes that New Zealand's altern ative formulation, according to which the\nIRA process (as the relevant procedure) checks and ensures the fulfilment of Australia's quarantine\nframework (as the relevant SPS measure), may fit bette r within the ordinary meaning of the text of\nAnnex C(1). The fundamental problem with that, however, is that similar to the IRA process,\nAustralia's quarantine framework is not id entified in New Zealand's panel request.\n3267 Neither the\nIRA process, nor Australia's quarantine framework are set out within the 17 specific measures at\nissue.\n7.1437 According to Australia, New Zealand's reliance on the panel report in EC – Approval and\nMarketing of Biotech Products is misguided. In that dispute, Argentina and Canada clearly identified\nthe subject of their undue delay claim by referring, in their panel requests, to both the relevant\nEC approval processes and the European Communiti es' failure to approve without undue delay,\napplications for approval of specific products.3268\n7.1438 Australia adds that it is not blurring the dis tinction between measures and claims. The IRA\nprocess is clearly the measure that New Zealand seeks to challenge.3269 Only the IRA process, and not\nthe 17 requirements listed in New Zealand's pa nel request, could have caused a violation of\nAnnex C(1)(a).3270 Accordingly, New Zealand should have identified the \"IRA process\" in its panel\nrequest as the measure at issue in the context of its undue delay claim. The IRA process clearly falls\nwithin the broad definition of measures subject to WTO dispute settlement: \"'any act or omission\nattributable to a WTO Member' 3271\".3272 In EC – Selected Customs Matters , the Appellate Body held\nthat \"[t]he 'specific measure' to be identified in a panel request is the object of the challenge, namely,\nthe measure that is alleged to be causing the vi olation of an obligation contained in a covered\nagreement. In other words, the measure at issue is what is being challenged by the complaining\nMember.3273\"3274\n\n3264 Australia's reply to Panel question 144 after the first substantive meeting. See also Australia's\nsecond written submission, paras. 189-192.\n3265 Australia's second written submission, para. 196.\n3266 Australia's second written submission, para. 209.\n3267 Australia's second written submission, para. 197.\n3268 Australia's second written submission, para. 206.\n3269 Australia's comments on New Zealand's replies to Panel questions after the second substantive\nmeeting, para. 225.\n3270 Australia's reply to Panel question 128 after the second substantive meeting, para. 544.\n3271 (footnote original) Appellate Body Report, US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 81.\n3272 Australia's reply to Panel question 128 after the second substantive meeting, paras. 538-545.\n3273 ( footnote original ) Appellate Body Report, EC – Selected Customs Matters , para. 130\n(original emphasis).\n3274 Australia's second written submission, para. 199. See also, Australia's second written submission,\npara. 201.\n\n7.1439 In Australia's view, since New Zealand's clai m is that Australia failed to undertake and\ncomplete the IRA process without undue delay, an ar gument in support of that claim would have been\nthat the IRA process was unduly delayed for specif ic reasons. However, Australia has never\nsuggested that New Zealand needed to provide such an argument in its panel request.3275\n7.1440 Australia sees no problem with the fact that th e IRA process ceased to exist by the time the\nPanel was established. The quote in the Appellate Body report on EC – Chicken Cuts is introduced\nwith the words \"[a]s a general rule\". Also, EC – Chicken Cuts addressed measures arising after the\npanel request. 3276 Further, in EC – Selected Customs Matters the Appellate Body was not talking\nabout exceptions to the rule that a measure at issue must be identified in the panel request, but about\nexceptions to the general rule that measures that have ceased to exist cannot be reviewed in WTO\ndispute settlement.3277 Also, the Appellate Body referenced \"at least two exceptions\", implying that\nthe category of exceptions is not closed. Further, the Appellate Body appr oved the panel's statement\nin that dispute that \"a panel may also be competent to make findings and make recommendations on\nmeasures that have expired\n3278.\"3279\n7.1441 Likewise, Australia does not consider that the Appellate Body report in US – Certain\nEC Products supports New Zealand's arguments on the exclusion from WTO dispute settlement of\nmeasures that ceased to exist before panel establishm ent. While in that dispute the Appellate Body\nrefrained from making recommendations pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU, it nonetheless made\nfindings despite the measure having ceased to exist. The Appellate Body followed a similar approach\nin US – Upland Cotton.3280\n7.1442 In any event, Australia argues, there was nothing to preclude New Zealand from making a\nclaim of undue delay in relation to the IRA pro cess prior to its conclu sion in November 2006. 3281\nIf, in the alternative, New Zealand considered that it could not challenge the IRA process because that\nprocess had already expired, New Zealand should not have made an undue delay claim under\nArticle 8 and Annex C(1)(a) in this dispute.3282\n2. The Panel's analysis\n7.1443 The first and main question in regard to New Zealand's claims under Annex C(1)(a) and\nArticle 8 of the SPS Agreement is whether these cl aims, in particular the measures to which the\nclaims relate, are within the Panel's terms of reference.\n7.1444 As indicated above3283, the Panel's terms of reference in this dispute are as follows:\n\"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited\nby New Zealand in document WT/DS367/5, the matter referred to the DSB by\n\n3275 Australia's comments on New Zealand's replies to Panel questions after the second substantive\nmeeting, para. 226.\n3276 Australia's reply to Panel question 129 after the second substantive meeting, paras. 546-550.\n3277 Australia's comments on New Zealand's replies to Panel questions after the second substantive\nmeeting, para. 221.\n3278 ( footnote original ) Panel Report, EC – Selected Customs Matters, para. 7.36; Appellate Body\nReport, EC – Selected Customs Matters, para. 184 (emphasis added).\n3279 Australia's comments on New Zealand's replies to Panel questions after the second substantive\nmeeting, para. 222.\n3280 Australia's reply to Panel question 129 after the second substantive meeting, paras. 546-550.\n3281 Ibid.\n3282 Australia's comments on New Zealand's replies to Panel questions after the second substantive\nmeeting, para. 227.\n3283 See para. 1.3 above.\n\nNew Zealand in that document, and to ma ke such findings as will assist the DSB in\nmaking the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those\nagreements.\"\n3284\n7.1445 Under Article 7 of the DSU, and according to established jurisprudence, a panel's terms of\nreference are usually determined by the compla inant's request for establishing the panel. In EC –\nBananas III, the Appellate Body explained that \"[i]t is important that a panel request be sufficiently\nprecise for two reasons: first, it often forms the basi s of the terms of reference of the panel pursuant\nto Article 7 of the DSU; and, second, it informs the defending party and the third parties of the legal\nbasis of the complaint.\"3285\n7.1446 In the present dispute, New Zealand's panel request provides in relevant part:\n\"On 27 March 2007, the Australian Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine\ndetermined a policy for the importation of apples from New Zealand: 'Importation of\napples can be permitted subject to the Quarantine Act 1908 , and the application of\nphytosanitary measures as specified in the Final import risk analysis report for\napples from New Zealand, November 2006'.3286\nNew Zealand considers that the measures specified in and required by Australia\npursuant to the Final import risk analysis report for apples from New Zealand are\ninconsistent with the obligations of Australia under the Agreement on the Application\nof Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ('SPS Agreement').\nIn particular, New Zealand considers that the following measures are, both\nindividually and as a whole, inconsistent w ith the obligations of Australia under the\nSPS Agreement:\n[bullet point list of 17 specific requirements spelt out in the IRA]\nNew Zealand considers that the above measur es are inconsistent with the obligations\nof Australia under Article[] ... 8 (in relati on to Annex C) and Annex C(1)(a) of the\nSPS Agreement.\"\n3287\n7.1447 In EC – Bananas III, the Appellate Body prescribed a clo se scrutiny of panel requests. \"As a\npanel request is normally not subjected to detaile d scrutiny by the DSB, it is incumbent upon a panel\nto examine the request for the estab lishment of the panel very carefully to ensure its compliance with\nboth the letter and the spirit of Article 6.2 of the DSU.\"3288\n7.1448 In US – Carbon Steel , the Appellate Body held that the actual wording of panel requests is\nkey for this kind of analysis. \"[C]ompliance w ith the requirements of Article 6.2 must be\ndemonstrated on the face of the request for the establishment of a panel. Defects in the request for the\nestablishment of a panel cannot be 'cured' by subse quent submissions of the parties during the panel\nproceedings.\"3289\n\n3284 Australia – Apples, Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of New Zealand: Note by\nthe Secretariat (WT/DS367/6), 13 March 2008, p. 2.\n3285 Appellate Body Report on EC – Bananas III, para. 142.\n3286 (footnote original) Biosecurity Australia Policy Memorandum 2007/07, 27 March 2007.\n3287 Australia – Apples , Request for the Establishment of a Panel by New Zealand (WT/DS367/5),\n7 December 2007, attached as Annex A-1 to this report, pp. 1-3.\n3288 Appellate Body Report on EC – Bananas III, para. 142.\n3289 Appellate Body Report on US – Carbon Steel, para. 126.\n\n7.1449 As explained above, upon Australia's request, in its preliminary ruling the Panel clarified its\nterms of reference in regard to the measures at issue as follows:\n\"Looking at the text of New Zealand's panel request, the Panel finds that, with respect\nto the 17 items identified by New Zealand through 17 separate bullet points,\nthe request is sufficiently precise in identif ying the specific measures at issue with\nrespect to those 17 items, pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.\nOn the other hand, given the length and complexity of Australia's FIRA, the Panel\nfinds that the broad reference in New Z ealand's panel request to the 'measures\nspecified in and required by Australia pursuant to the [ FIRA]' fails to satisfy the\nrequirement of sufficient clarity in the iden tification of the specific measures at issue\nset forth in Article 6.2 of the DSU. Accordingly, the Panel finds that its terms of\nreference are limited to the 17 measures speci fically identified by New Zealand in its\npanel request and do not encompass other measures that may be contained in\nAustralia's FIRA, but which were not identified with sufficient precision in the panel\nrequest.\"\n3290\n7.1450 The Panel's preliminary ruling concluded that:\n\"(a) With respect to the 17 items contained in Australia's Final import risk\nanalysis report for apples from New Zealand (FIRA) and identified by bullet\npoints in New Zealand's request for the establishment of this Panel, dated\n7 December 2007, the specific measures at issue have been properly\nidentified;\n(b) New Zealand's panel request does not identify with sufficient precision any\nmeasures contained in Australia's FIRA, other than the 17 specific items\nidentified through bullet points. Accordingly, any such other measures are\nnot part of this Panel's terms of reference; and,\n(c) New Zealand's panel request contains sufficient information regarding the\nlegal basis of the complaint to present th e problem clearly with respect to the\n17 identified items.\"\n3291\n7.1451 It is clear from the preliminary ruling that the Panel effectively limited the measures at issue\nin this dispute to the 17 specific requirements in the IRA identified in the 17 bullet point items\ncontained in New Zealand's panel request. The preliminary ruling explicitly excluded from the\nPanel's terms of reference any ot her requirements contained in the IRA that New Zealand had not\nidentified in the 17 bullet points. Consequently, Au stralia is correct in arguing that the IRA as a\nwhole cannot constitute a measure at issue in this dispute.\n7.1452 In any event, even absent the clarification of the Panel's terms of reference resulting from the\nPanel's preliminary ruling, the IRA as a whole would not be within this Panel' s terms of reference.\nNew Zealand's panel request does not identify the IRA as a whole as a measure at issue in this\ndispute. It refers to \"the measures specified in and required by Australia pursuant to [the IRA]\", and it\nidentifies 17 specific requirements. The IRA is a long, complex document that specifies a large\nnumber of requirements in relation to many different pests. For this reason, the Panel held in its\n\n3290 Australia – Apples , Communication From the Chairman of the Panel: Preliminary Ruling by the\nPanel (WT/DS367/7), 23 June 2008, attached as Annex A-2 to this report, p. 3, paras. 8-9.\n3291 Australia – Apples , Communication From the Chairman of the Panel: Preliminary Ruling by the\nPanel (WT/DS367/7), 23 June 2008, attached as Annex A-2 to this report, p. 4, para. 13.\n\npreliminary ruling that the broad reference to the \"measures specified in a nd required by Australia\npursuant to [the IRA]\" was not sufficiently precise in identifying the measures at issue. However,\neven if this portion of the panel request remained part of the Panel's terms of reference, it does not\nidentify the IRA itself as a measure at issue and, as such, the IRA taken as a whole would not form\npart of this Panel's terms of reference.\n7.1453 Accordingly, only the requirements described in the 17 bullet points in New Zealand's panel\nrequest identify the measures at issu e with sufficient precision. The question before the Panel is then\nwhether the 17 specific requirements at issue can violate Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement, or\nalternatively, whether the measure that could allege dly infringe Annex C(1)(a) is different from these\n17 specific requirements, and hence not properly identified in New Zealand's panel request. This calls\nfor a closer look at Annex C(1)(a).\n7.1454 Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement provides in relevant part:\n\"1. Members shall ensure, with respect to any procedure to check and ensure the\nfulfilment of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, that:\n(a) such procedures are undertaken and completed without undue delay\n...\"\n7.1455 As Australia suggests\n3292, an ordinary reading of this provision – according to its structure and\nwording, in particular the use of the word \"s uch\" – allows it to be rephrased as follows: Members\nshall ensure that any procedure to check and en sure the fulfilment of sanitary and phytosanitary\nmeasures is undertaken and completed without undue delay.\n7.1456 All obligations in the WTO covered agreements re late to measures. In fact, only one or more\nmeasures, i.e. an \"act or omission attributable to a WTO Member\" 3293, can be said to violate an\nobligation contained in a covered agreement. This applies also to Annex C(1)(a) of the\nSPS Agreement.\n7.1457 To bring a specific measure within the scope of WTO dispute settlement, the complainant\nneeds to identify it in the panel request. Article 6. 2 of the DSU provides that \"[t]he request for the\nestablishment of a panel ... shall ... identify the specific measures at issue and provide a brief summary\nof the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly.\" As Australia points\nout3294, in EC – Selected Customs Matters the Appellate Body held on the first of these requirements\nunder Article 6.2 that \"[t]he 'specific measure' to be identified in a panel request is the object of the\nchallenge, namely, the measure that is alleged to be causing the violation of an obligation contained in\na covered agreement. In other words, the measure at issue is what is being challenged by the\ncomplaining Member.\"3295\n7.1458 The Appellate Body continued, distinguishing the other requirement under Article 6.2 of the\nDSU as follows:\n\"In contrast, the legal basis of the compla int, namely, the 'claim' pertains to the\nspecific provision of the covered agreement th at contains the obligation alleged to be\nviolated. A brief summary of the legal basi s of the complaint required by Article 6.2\n\n3292 Australia's reply to Panel question 144 after the first substantive meeting and Australia's second\nwritten submission, para. 191.\n3293 Appellate Body Report on US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 81.\n3294 Australia's second written submission, para. 199. See also, Australia's second written submission,\npara. 201.\n3295 Appellate Body Report on EC – Selected Customs Matters, para. 130 (original emphasis).\n\nof the DSU aims to explain succinctly how or why the measure at issue is considered\nby the complaining Member to be violating the WTO obligation in question.\nThis brief summary must be sufficient to present the problem clearly. Taken\ntogether, these different aspects of a panel request serve not only to define the scope\nof a dispute, but also to meet the due process requirements.\"\n3296\n7.1459 As to the specific measure that New Zealand was supposed to identify in its panel request,\nwhat does New Zealand challenge under Annex C(1)(a)? What, according to New Zealand, causes\nthe violation of Annex C(1)(a)? In New Zealand' s own words, that \"the 17 measures ... at issue ...\nwere not developed and adopt ed without undue delay.\" 3297 In other words, New Zealand contests\nwhat it sees as the unjustifiably delayed development and adoption of the 17 SPS measures at issue.\nIn order to cover that, Annex C(1)(a) needs to relate to the developm ent and approval of SPS\nmeasures. Invoking Article 1.1 of the SPS Agreement, New Zealand argues that that is the case.3298\n7.1460 In the part of the SPS Agreement entitled \"General Provisions\", Article 1.1 provides that:\n\"This Agreement applies to all sanitary and phytosanitary measures which may,\ndirectly or indirectly, affect internationa l trade. Such measures shall be developed\nand applied in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.\"\n7.1461 Based on the second sentence of Article 1.1, undoubtedly, the SPS Agreement establishes\nobligations regarding the developm ent and application of SPS measur es that may affect international\ntrade. Based on the same sentence, however, the SPS Agreement covers the development and\napplication of SPS measures \"in accordance with [its] provisions\", i.e. only to the extent that the\nspecific provisions of the Agreement relate to the development or application of SPS measures.\n7.1462 Therefore, the question is whether Annex C(1)(a ) of the SPS Agreement can be interpreted as\napplying to the development of SPS measures – in particular, the development of the 17 measures at\nissue in this dispute. Australia disagrees, arguing that Annex C(1)(a) applies to \"procedures to check\nand ensure the fulfilment of SPS measures\", and that such procedures can n ecessarily only follow in\ntime the SPS measures that they check and ensure.3299\n7.1463 The Panel has a more nuanced reading of Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement in that regard.\nThe text of Annex C(1)(a) relates to \"procedures to check and ensure the fulfilment of SPS measures\",\nnot to develop SPS measures (emphasis added). However, unde r the definition of Annex A(1) of the\nSPS Agreement, SPS measures include both substantive requirements and procedures. Therefore, the\n\"SPS measure\" referenced in the language of A nnex C(1)(a) may be a requirement to conduct an\nimport risk assessment prior to allowing for the importation of goods that might pose sanitary or\nphytosanitary risks. In that case, the actual import risk assessment conducted for a specific good\nmight constitute the procedure to check and ensure the fulfilment of this \"SPS measure\".\n7.1464 Indeed, in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products the panel found that:\n\"[T]he term 'requirements' as it appears in the second paragraph of Annex A(1) is\nunqualified and thus is applicable both to requirements which are generally applicable\n\n3296 Appellate Body Report on EC – Selected Customs Matters, para. 130 (original emphasis).\n3297 New Zealand's reply to Panel question 143 after the first substantive meeting, para. 298.\n3298 New Zealand's opening oral statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties,\npara. 130.\n3299 Australia's reply to Panel question 144 after the first substantive meeting and Australia's second\nwritten submission, paras 195-196.\n\nand to requirements which have been imposed on specific products.\n3300 In our view,\nthe application of a generally applicable SPS 'requirement' (e.g., a pre-marketing\napproval requirement for biotech products) to a specific product may result in a\ndifferent, product-specific SPS 'requirement ' (e.g., a ban on the marketing of a\nspecific biotech product). In other words, there may be cases where the application\nof an SPS 'requirement' and, hence, of an SPS measure, may give rise to a new SPS\nrequirement and, hence, a new SPS measure.\"\n3301\n7.1465 In other words, if unduly delayed, an SPS approval procedure like the IRA process might\ninfringe Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement. The Panel finds support for this interpretation in the\ncontext of Annex C(1)(a). As indicated in its title, Annex C applies to \"[c]ontrol, inspection and\napproval procedures\". Also, Article 8 prescribes Members' compliance with Annex C \"in the\noperation of control, inspection and approval procedures, including national systems for approving the\nuse of additives or for establishing tolerances for c ontaminants in foods, beverages or feedstuffs.\"\nIn EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products the panel interpreted the language \"procedures\nto check and ensure the fulfilment of [SPS] m easures\" in Annex C(1)(a) to apply to approval\nprocedures, by interpreting the first clause of Annex C(1)(a) \"essentially as a good faith obligation\nrequiring Members to proceed with their approval procedures as promptly as possible, taking account\nof the need to check and ensure the fulfilment of their relevant SPS requirements.\"3302\n7.1466 Finding that under specific circumstances Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement might apply\nto an approval process leading to the development of substantive SPS measures is only half of the\nanalysis the Panel needs to conduct here. The othe r half is whether New Zealand has properly called\nthis into question in this dispute. The answer to this latter question turns on whether in this case\nNew Zealand should have identified in its panel request an additional measure separate from the\n17 specific requirements.\n7.1467 The Panel recalls the words of the Appellate Body in EC – Selected Customs Matters ,\naccording to which \"[t]he 'specific measure' to be identified in a panel request is the object of the\nchallenge, namely, the measure that is alleged to be causing the violation of an obligation contained in\na covered agreement. In other words, the measure at issue is what is being challenged by the\ncomplaining Member.\"3303\n7.1468 Reading this and keeping the specific context of the present dispute in mind, it is clear that\nunder its Annex C(1)(a) claim New Zealand is not challenging the content of the 17 requirements as\nsuch. Rather, it is the procedur e leading to the adoption of these 17 requirements, and more precisely\nthe alleged delay in this procedure that in New Zealand's view violates Annex C(1)(a). Or, in\nNew Zealand's words, the \"development\" of these 17 measures.\n7.1469 As noted above, the development of the 17 measu res, and particularly any alleged delays\ninvolved, might be covered by Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement. From the viewpoint of\nidentifying the measure that infringes that provision, however, the 17 requirements and their\ndevelopment are separate measures. Accordingly, in the context of its Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a)\nclaim, New Zealand should have done more in its panel request than merely identify the\n17 requirements set out in the IRA.\n\n3300 ( footnote original ) We note in this respect that the fo otnote to Annex B(1) defines \"[SPS]\nregulations\" as \"[SPS] measures ... which ar e applicable generally\". It follows, a contrario, that there can be\nSPS measures which are not applicable generally.\n3301 Panel Report on EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1336.\n3302 Panel Report on EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1498.\n3303 Appellate Body Report on EC – Selected Customs Matters, para. 130 (original emphasis).\n\n7.1470 Annex C(1)(a) applies to procedures. This is clear from both subparagraph (a)\n(\"such procedures\") and from the chapeau of Annex C(1) (\"procedures to check and ensure ...\").\nFurther, as mentioned above, Annex C and Article 8 also apply to procedures, namely \"control,\ninspection and approval procedures\". These procedures might be measures in their own right;\nthey may even qualify as SPS measures. Indeed, the definition of SPS measures in Annex A(1) of the\nSPS Agreement provides that \"[s]anitary or phytosanitary measures include all relevant ... procedures,\nincluding inter alia ... testing, inspection, certification a nd approval procedures, [and] sampling\nprocedures.\" Likewise, the footnote to the title of Annex C provides that \"[c]ontrol inspection and\napproval procedures include, inter alia , procedures for sampling, testing and certification.\" As the\npanel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products held, \"Annex C(1)(a), first clause,\nestablishes disciplines concerning the 'enfor cement' of SPS measures, namely, approval\nprocedures.\"\n3304\n7.1471 As the Panel recognized above, each of the 16 measures at issue in this dispute might also\ninvolve a procedure. 3305 New Zealand, however, does not argue that these procedures infringe\nAnnex C(1)(a) or Article 8. Rather, New Zealand contests the way in which the 17 requirements were\ndeveloped.\n7.1472 It is perfectly plausible that an unduly dela yed specific approval process is found inconsistent\nwith Annex C(1)(a) (and consequently Article 8) of the SPS Agreement, even if that process does not\nlead to the adoption of substantive SPS requirements. To a certain extent, this is what happened in the\nEC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products dispute. As Australia points out 3306, the IRA\nprocess was not necessarily supposed to lead to subs tantive SPS requirements concerning the pests at\nissue in the current dispute, and it would not have been appropriate for Australia to conduct its IRA\nprocess with preconceived measures in mind. Accordingly, the Panel can imagine situations where an\napproval process simply takes too long for the compla inant, especially if the complainant is prevented\nfrom exporting the goods in question during that period. In such circumstances, it would be\ninappropriate if the complainant were prevente d from initiating a WTO dispute merely because the\nlengthy approval process did not lead to substan tive SPS requirements. A different interpretation\nwould empty out the procedural requirement containe d in the first clause of Annex C(1)(a) of the\nSPS Agreement.\n7.1473 In its preliminary ruling, the Panel limited this dispute to the 17 specific requirements\nidentified in bullet points in New Zealand's panel requ est. Subsequently, in an earlier section of this\nreport, the Panel has found that each of the 16 ou t of the 17 requirements that remain within the\npurview of this dispute following the Parties' ag reed understanding on Measure 12 not being imposed\nby Australia, constitutes an SPS measure on its own.\n3307 In the light of the text of New Zealand's\npanel request, however, these findings are necessarily limited to the requirements in question as they\nare contained in the IRA. The findings do not cover the separate issue of the procedure through which\nthe requirements were developed in the IRA process.\n7.1474 Accordingly, the Panel agrees with Australia that New Zealand has not properly identified the\nmeasure at issue in its panel request in the context of its Annex C(1)(a) and Article 8 claim. In fact, in\nits panel request New Zealand identified the 17 s ubstantive requirements contained in the IRA.\nNew Zealand did not identify any aspects of what exactly might have caused the infringement of\nAnnex C(1)(a) (and consequently Article 8), nor did it provide a brief summary of why and how these\nprovisions could be infringed by the 17 specific requirements at issue.\n\n3304 Panel Report on EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1499.\n3305 See para. 7.163 above.\n3306 Australia's second written submission, para. 209.\n3307 See para. 7.172 above.\n\n7.1475 It is difficult to tell in the abstract what ki nd of precise language would have been appropriate\nfor New Zealand to use. The Panel sees various possible approaches, although in the absence of\nspecific language it is difficult to say with certa inty whether these would eventually satisfy the\nrequirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU. Indeed, th e sufficiency of a panel request in the context of\nArticle 6.2 requires a case-by-case analysis, \"consider [ing] the panel request as a whole, and in the\nlight of attendant circumstances.\"\n3308 In any event, in general the Panel could have imagined\nNew Zealand's panel request adopting one of the following alternative approaches. New Zealand\ncould have referred to the development of the 17 m easures (the IRA process) and could have claimed\nthat that process violated Annex C(1)(a) and Ar ticle 8 because of undue delays. Or New Zealand\ncould have referred to the delays in the IRA process claiming that th ese have violated Annex C(1)(a)\nand Article 8. Or, to use the language of Annex C(1)(a), New Zealand could have claimed that undue\ndelays in completing the IRA process infringed A nnex C(1)(a) and Article 8. Alternatively,\nNew Zealand could have identified specific acts or om issions attributable to Australia that resulted in\nundue delay in the IRA process, and claim that the se acts or omissions violated Annex C(1)(a) and\nArticle 8.\n7.1476 New Zealand's panel request offered none of these explanations. As Australia points out 3309,\nthis is in stark contrast with the panel requests in the EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech\nProducts dispute, which explicitly referenced the legisl ative instruments containing the EC's general\napproval regime, and identified as the measures at issu e (i) the suspension of the consideration of, and\nthe failure to consider or appr ove, various applications for appr oval of agricultural biotechnology\nproducts; and (ii) the general suspension of such c onsiderations or undue delays in finalizing such\nconsiderations under the EC's general approval regime.3310\n7.1477 In the light of the above, New Zealand's Anne x C(1)(a) claim and its consequential claim\nunder Article 8 of the SPS Agreement are outside of th e Panel's terms of reference in this dispute.\nThe Panel will therefore refrain from assessing the substance of New Zealand's claims under these\nprovisions.\n7.1478 Before concluding its analysis under these provi sions, the Panel will address the issue of\nwhether New Zealand could have challenged the IR A process, and the delays in that process,\nfollowing the completion of the IRA process, i.e. even if that process had ceased to exist before the\nPanel's establishment. Both Parties have raised th is issue. It is important to address it because the\nPanel's consideration of the arguments relating to Annex C(1)(a) and Article 8 is predicated on the\nview that this would have been possible – for the following reasons.\n7.1479 The first clause of Annex C(1)(a) provides that \"such procedures are undertaken and\ncompleted without undue delay\" (emphasis added). In EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech\nProducts the panel attached equal importance to both the words \"undertaken\" and \"completed\" within\nthat phrase:\n\"The verb 'undertake' makes clear that Me mbers are required to begin, or start,\napproval procedures after receiving an application for approval. 3311 T h e v e r b\n\n3308 Appellate Body Report on US – Carbon Steel, para. 127.\n3309 Australia's second written submission, para. 206.\n3310 See, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products , Request for the Establishment of a Panel\nby the United States (WT/DS291/23), 8 August 2003; EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products ,\nRequest for the Establishment of a Panel by Canada, (WT/DS292/17), 8 August 2003; EC – Approval and\nMarketing of Biotech Products , Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Argentina (WT/DS293/17),\n8 August 2003.\n3311 ( footnote original ) The dictionary meanings of the verb \"undertake\" include \"[t]ake on\n(an obligation, duty, task, etc.); commit oneself to pe rform; begin (an undertaking, enterprise, etc.)\". The New\nShorter Oxford English Dictionary , L. Brown (ed.) (Clarendon Press, 1993), Vol. II, p. 3476. The French and\n\n'complete', on the other hand, indicates that approval procedures are not only to be\nundertaken, but are also to be finished, or concluded. 3312 Thus, in our view, the\nphrase 'undertake and complete' covers all stages of approval procedures and should\nbe taken as meaning that, once an applicati on has been received, approval procedures\nmust be started and then carried out from beginning to end.\"3313\n7.1480 Australia argues3314, and New Zealand does not contest, that the IRA process could have been\nchallenged under Annex C(1)(a) and Artic le 8 before it was concluded. The Panel agrees with that in\nprinciple. A relevant measure that is in force at the time of panel establis hment might be challenged\nin WTO dispute settlement. As the EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products dispute\nshowed, an ongoing – although delayed, because suspended – SPS approval process is no exception.\n7.1481 But, as the panel in the same dispute explaine d, Annex C(1)(a) applies to all stages of an\napproval process, from beginning to end. In part icular, Annex C(1)(a) applies not only to the\n\"undertak[ing]\" but also to the \"complet[ion]\" of approval processes.\n7.1482 Common sense dictates that the completion of an approval process shall be open to challenge\nunder WTO dispute settlement after the completion has taken place. In fact, a potential complainant\nmight have indications of an approval process not being undertaken without undue delay already in\nthe course of the approval process. However, th e full picture on the approval process not being\ncompleted without undue delay becomes clear for th e complainant only after the approval process has\nbeen effectively completed.\n7.1483 Not allowing completion of an approval pr ocess to be challenged under Annex C(1)(a)\nprecisely because the process has \"ce ased to exist\" when it was co mpleted would read the term\n\"complete\" out of Annex C(1)(a). Also, it would defeat basic objectives of WTO dispute settlement\nunder the DSU: the preservation of the rights and obligations of Members under the covered\nagreements\n3315, and the effective resolution of disputes.3316\n7.1484 This applies in particular when a potential complainant considers challenging not only the\napproval process but also any substantive SPS require ments resulting from such process. Of course,\na Member could initiate two disputes: one agai nst the approval process during the course of that\nprocess, and another one against the resulting SPS re quirements. Alternatively, a complainant may\nraise these matters in one single dispute. This is the case in particular when the complainant has a\npotentially more pressing concern with the SPS requi rements resulting from the approval process than\nwith the undue delay in the approval process. By definition, such a dis pute can be launched only\nwhen the resulting SPS requirements are in plac e, and the approval process leading to those\nrequirements has been already completed.\n\nSpanish versions of Annex C(1)(a), first clause, also support this reading. The French version uses the verb\n\"engager\", the Spanish version the verb \"iniciar\". We also note that Annex C(1)(b) requires Members to ensure,\ninter alia, that \"when receiving an application, the competen t body promptly examines the completeness of the\ndocumentation and informs the applicant in a precise and complete manner of all deficiencies\". Thus, it is clear\nthat approval procedures are \"undertaken\" upon receipt of an application from an applicant.\n3312 ( footnote original ) The dictionary meanings of the verb \"complete\" include \"[b]ring to an end,\nfinish, conclude\". The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, L. Brown (ed.) (Clarendon Press, 1993), Vol. I,\np. 460. The French and Spanish versions of Annex C(1)(a ), first clause, also support this reading. The French\nversion uses the verb \"achever\", the Spanish version the verb \"ultimar\".\n3313 Panel Report on EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1494.\n3314 Australia's reply to Panel question 129 after the second substantive meeting, paras. 546-550.\n3315 See Article 3.2 of the DSU.\n3316 See Article 21.1 of the DSU.\n\n7.1485 The Panel finds support in previous jurispruden ce for the possibility of a complainant filing a\nsingle complaint. In general, a WTO dispute settleme nt procedure starts with the complainant filing a\nrequest for consultations. The Appellate Body held in US – Upland Cotton that consultations \"must\npertain to 'measures affecting the ope ration of any covered agreement'\"\n3317, i.e. measures \"whose\neffects are alleged to be impairing the benefits accruing to the requesting Member under a covered\nagreement\"3318 at present. The Appellate Body explicitly found that \"[w]hether or not a measure is\nstill in force is not dispositive of whether that measure is currently affecting the operation of any\ncovered agreement.\"3319\n7.1486 Using the same logic, an alleged undue dela y in a completed approval process that might\ncontinue to impair benefits accruing to the comp lainant under Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement\nshould not be excluded from WTO dispute settlement merely because the process has been completed.\nThis is particularly the case when the complainan t was prevented from exporting the goods subject to\nthe approval process during that time, and the compla inant continues to feel jeopardized from starting\nits exports in the light of the SPS requirements resulting from the approval process.\n7.1487 The Panel notes that in US – Upland Cotton the Appellate Body found contextual support in\nArticle 3.3 of the DSU for its above-cited arguments:\n\"Article 3.3 focuses not upon 'existing' measu res, or measures that are 'currently in\nforce' but, rather, upon 'measures taken' by a Member, which includes measures taken\nin the past. We also observe that Arti cle 3.3 envisages that disputes arise when a\nMember 'considers' that benefits accruing to it are being impaired by measures taken\nby another Member. By using the word 'considers', Article 3.3 focuses on the\nperception or understanding of an aggrieve d Member. This does not exclude the\npossibility that a Member requesting consulta tions may have reason to believe that a\nmeasure is still impairing benefits even though its legislative basis has expired.\"3320\n7.1488 The Panel is cognizant that in EC – Chicken Cuts the Appellate Body found in regard to\nrequests for panel establishment that \"[t]he term 's pecific measures at issue' in Article 6.2 suggests\nthat, as a general rule, the measures included in a panel's terms of reference must be measures that are\nin existence at the time of the establishment of the panel. 3321\"3322 As Australia argues 3323, however,\nthe Appellate Body introduced its statement with th e words \"as a general rule\", suggesting that there\nmight be exceptions to this general rule. Subsequently, in EC – Selected Customs Matters the\nAppellate Body interpreted its statement in EC – Chicken Cuts as a \"general rule ... qualified by\nat least two exceptions.\" 3324 This not only confirmed that ther e are exceptions to the general rule,\nbut implied that the exceptions are not necessarily li mited to the two identified by the Appellate Body\nin its earlier jurisprudence. In fact, in the same paragraph of its report in EC – Selected Customs\nMatters3325 the Appellate Body also upheld the following finding by the panel:\n\n3317 Appellate Body Report on US – Upland Cotton, para. 260.\n3318 Appellate Body Report on US – Upland Cotton, para. 263.\n3319 Appellate Body Report on US – Upland Cotton, para. 262.\n3320 Appellate Body Report on US – Upland Cotton, para. 264.\n3321 (footnote original) These measures should also have been the subject of consultations prior to the\nestablishment of the panel, although the Appellate Body has held that there is no need for a \" precise and exact\nidentity\" between the measures addressed in consultations and the measures identified in the panel request.\n(Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Aircraft, para. 132) (original emphasis)\n3322 Appellate Body Report on EC – Chicken Cuts, para. 156.\n3323 Australia's reply to Panel question 129 after the second substantive meeting, paras. 546-550.\n3324 Appellate Body Report on EC – Selected Customs Matters, para. 184 (emphasis added).\n3325 Ibid.\n\n\"We understand that, as a general principle, a panel is competent to make findings\nand recommendations on measures in existence at the time of establishment of the\npanel, assuming that the request for establishment of a panel covers those measures.\nNevertheless, a panel may also be co mpetent to make findings and make\nrecommendations on measures that have expired or are not yet in existence at the\ntime of establishment, assuming again that the request covers those measures.\nMore specifically, we understand that, to the extent that expired measures affect the\noperation of a covered agreement at the time of establishment of a panel, they may\nproperly be the subject of findings and reco mmendations by a panel, particularly if\nsuch findings and recommendations are n ecessary to secure a positive solution to the\ndispute.\n3326\"3327\n7.1489 Accordingly, the Panel concludes that in the cu rrent dispute, in principle, New Zealand could\nhave challenged the IRA process, and the alleged undue delays in that process, even though that\nprocess had already been completed by the time the Panel was established.\n7.1490 However, this remains a mere possibility in this dispute. As explained above, since\nNew Zealand has not effectively identified the meas ure at issue in the context of its Annex C(1)(a)\nand Article 8 claims, these measures and the claims to which they relate are outside the scope of this\ndispute. As the Appellate Body noted in Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes , \"[t]he\nAppellate Body has consistently maintained that, where a panel request fails to identify adequately\nparticular measures or fails to specify a particular claim, then such measures or claims will not form\npart of the matter covered by the panel's terms of reference.\"3328\nVIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION\n8.1 For the reasons indicated in this report, the Panel has found that:\n(a) There is no evidence that the process of selection and consultation of experts was\nconducted improperly, that due process in the expert consultation phase of these\nproceedings was compromised, nor that Australia's procedural rights were in any\nmanner negatively affected in this regard;\n(b) The 16 measures at issue in the current dispute, both as a whole and individually,\nconstitute SPS measures within the meaning of Annex A(1) and are covered by the\nSPS Agreement;\n(c) Australia's measures at issue regarding fi re blight, European canker and ALCM, as\nwell as the requirements identified by New Zealand as \"general\" measures that are\nlinked to all three pests at issue in the present dispute, are inconsistent with\nArticles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement and, by implication, these requirements\nare also inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement;\n(d) New Zealand has failed to demonstrate that the measures at issue in the current\ndispute are inconsistent with Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement and, consequentially,\nhas also failed to demonstrate that these meas ures are inconsistent with Article 2.3 of\nthe SPS Agreement;\n\n3326 (footnote original) See, Appellate Body Report, US – Upland Cotton , para. 261; Appellate Body\nReport, Chile – Price Band System, paras. 126-144; Appellate Body Report, EC – Chicken Cuts, para. 156.\n3327 Panel Report on EC – Selected Customs Matters, para. 7.36.\n3328 Appellate Body Report on Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes, para. 120.\n\n(e) Australia's measures at issue regarding fi re blight, European canker and ALCM, are\ninconsistent with Article 5.6 of the S PS Agreement; New Zealand has failed to\ndemonstrate, however, that the requirements identified by New Zealand as \"general\"\nmeasures that are linked to all three pests at issue in the present dispute, are\ninconsistent with Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement; and,\n(f) New Zealand's claim under Annex C(1)(a) cl aim and its consequential claim under\nArticle 8 of the SPS Agreement are outside of the Panel's terms of reference in this\ndispute.\n8.2 Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations\nassumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of\nnullification or impairment. The Panel concludes that , to the extent that Australia's measures at issue\nregarding fire blight, European canker and ALCM, as well as the requirements identified by\nNew Zealand as \"general\" measures that are linked to all three pests at issue in the present dispute, are\ninconsistent with the SPS Agreement, they have nullified or impaired benefits accruing to\nNew Zealand under the WTO Agreements.\n8.3 The Panel recommends that the Dispute Settleme nt Body request Australia to bring the\ninconsistent measures as listed above into conformity with its obligations under the SPS Agreement.\n\nANNEX A\n\nCONTENTS Page\nAnnex A-1 Request for the Establis hment of a Panel (WT/DS367/5) A-2\nAnnex A-2 Communication from the Chairman of the Panel: Preliminary Ruling\nby the Panel (WT/DS367/7)\nA-5\nAnnex A-3 Working Procedures for the Panel, adopted on 26 March 2008 A-9\nAnnex A-4 Procedures for the Panel's fi rst substantive meeting, adopted on\n4 August 2008\nA-13\nAnnex A-5 Procedures for the Panel's meeti ng with the experts and Parties and the\nPanel's second substantive meeting, adopted on 11 June 2009\nA-17\n\nANNEX A-1\n\n7 December 2007\n\n (07-5456)\n Original: English\n\nRequest for the Establishment of a Panel by New Zealand\n\n The following communication, dated 6 Decemb er 2007, from the delegation of New Zealand\nto the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.\n\n On 27 March 2007, the Australian Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine determined a\npolicy for the importation of apples from New Zeal and: \"Importation of apples can be permitted\nsubject to the Quarantine Act 1908, and the application of phytosanitary measures as specified in the\nFinal import risk analysis report for apples from New Zealand, November 2006\".\n1\n\n New Zealand considers that the measures specifi ed in and required by Australia pursuant to\nthe Final import risk analysis report for apples from New Zealand are inconsistent with the\nobligations of Australia under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary\nMeasures (\"SPS Agreement\").\n\n In particular, New Zealand considers that the following measures are, both individually and as\na whole, inconsistent with the obligations of Australia under the SPS Agreement:\n\nFire blight\n\n• The requirement that apples be sourced from areas free from fire blight disease\nsymptoms.\n• The requirement that orchards/blocks be inspected for fire blight disease symptoms,\nincluding that they be inspected at an inspection intensity that would, at a 95%\nconfidence level, detect visual symptoms if shown by 1% of the trees, and that such\ninspections take place between 4 to 7 weeks after flowering.\n• The requirement that an orchard/block inspection methodology be developed and\napproved that addresses issues such as visibility of symptoms in the tops of trees, the\n\n1 Biosecurity Australia Policy Memorandum 2007/07, 27 March 2007.\n\ninspection time needed and the number of trees to be inspected to meet the efficacy level,\nand training and certification of inspectors.\n• The requirement that an orchard/block be suspended for the season on the basis that any\nevidence of pruning or other activities carried out before the inspection could constitute\nan attempt to remove or hide symptoms of fire blight.\n• The requirement that an orchard/block be suspended for the season on the basis of\ndetection of any visual symptoms of fire blight.\n• The requirement that apples be subject to disinfection treatment in the packing house.\n• The requirement that all grading and packing equipment that comes in direct contact with\napples be cleaned and disinfected (using an approved disinfectant) immediately before\neach Australian packing run.\n• The requirement that packing houses registered for export of apples process only fruit\nsourced from registered orchards.\nEuropean canker\n\n• The requirement that apples be sourced fro m export orchards/blocks free of European\ncanker (pest free places of production).\n• The requirement that all trees in export orch ards/blocks be inspected for symptoms of\nEuropean canker, including that orchards/b locks in areas less conducive for disease are\ninspected for symptoms by walking down ever y row and visually examining all trees on\nboth sides of each row, and that areas more conducive to the disease are inspected using\nthe same procedure combined with inspection of the upper limbs of each tree using\nladders (if needed), and that such inspections take place after leaf fall and before winter\npruning.\n• The requirement that all new planting stock be intensively examined and treated for\nEuropean canker.\n• The requirement that an orchard/block be suspended for the season on the basis that any\nevidence of pruning or other activities carried out before the inspection could constitute\nan attempt to remove or hide symptoms of European canker.\n• The requirement that exports from an orch ard/block be suspended for the coming season\non the basis of detection of European ca nker and that reinstatement would require\neradication of the disease, confirmed by inspection.\nApple leafcurling midge\n\n• The requirements of inspection and treatment for apple leafcurling midge, including:\nthe option of inspection of each lot on the b asis of a 3000 unit sample selected at random\nacross the whole lot for apple leafcurling midge, symptoms of quarantineable diseases,\nquarantineable pests, arthropods, trash and weed seeds, with detection of any live\nquarantineable arthropod resulting in appropriate treatment or rejection for export;\n\nthe option of inspection of each lot on the basis of a 600 unit sample selected at random\nacross the whole lot for symptoms of quarantin eable diseases, trash and weed seeds, plus\nmandatory appropriate treatment of all lots.\nGeneral\n\n• The requirement that Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service officers be involved\nin orchard inspections for European canker a nd fire blight, in direct verification of\npacking house procedures, and in fruit inspection and treatment.\n• The requirement that New Zealand ensure th at all orchards registered for export to\nAustralia operate under standard commercial practices.\n• The requirement that packing houses provide details of the layout of premises.\n New Zealand considers that the above measure s are inconsistent with the obligations of\nAustralia under Articles 2.2, 2.3 (both sentences), 5.1, 5.2, 5.5 (first sentence), 5.6 and 8 (in relation to\nAnnex C) and Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement.\n\n On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested cons ultations with Australia regarding the above\nmeasures pursuant to Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 , Article 4 of\nthe Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (\"DSU\"), and\nArticle 11 of the SPS Agreement. In accordance with Article 4 of the DSU the request was notified to\nthe Dispute Settlement Body (\"DSB\"), the Counc il for Trade in Goods, and the Committee on\nSanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. The request was circulated to members of the World Trade\nOrganization on 4 September 2007 (WT/DS367/1). Australia accepted New Zealand's request and\nconsultations were held on 4 Oc tober 2007 in Geneva. However, th e consultations have failed to\nresolve the matter.\n\n Accordingly, New Zealand respectfully requ ests the DSB to establish a panel pursuant to\nArticle 6 of the DSU, with standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU.\n\n I would be grateful if you would place this item on the agenda for the next DSB meeting on\n17 December 2007 and circulate this request to Members.\n\nANNEX A-2\n\n23 June 2008\n\n (08-2984)\n Original: English\n\nCommunication from the Chairman of the Panel\n\nPreliminary Ruling by the Panel\n\n The following communication, dated 19 June 2008, from the Chairman of the Panel to the\nChairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated to Members for their information.\n\n On 13 March 2008, Australia, the respondent in the above-mentioned dispute, raised a\npreliminary procedural question concerning the consistency of New Zealand's request for the\nestablishment of the Panel (WT/DS367/5) with Article 6.2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding.\n\n Over the past months, the Panel has received written submissions on this preliminary issue\nfrom both parties as well as from two third parties. On 6 June 2008, the Panel issued the enclosed\npreliminary ruling on the procedural question raised by Australia, reserving its right to further develop\nthe reasons for its preliminary ruling later in the proceedings or to include them in its report, as\nappropriate.\n\n After having consulted the parties to the disput e, the Panel has decided to inform the Dispute\nSettlement Body of the content of its preliminary ru ling. Therefore, I would be grateful if you could\ncirculate the body of this letter and the enclosed preliminary ruling as a WT/DS367 document in all\nthree official languages of the WTO at the same time.\n\n Circulation of the preliminary ruling as a sep arate document in the WT/DS series was decided\nbecause of the specific circumstances of the case before this Panel and in the light of the outcome of\nthe preliminary ruling. Accordingly, it should not be seen as establishing a practice or setting a\nprecedent for the circulation of preliminary rulings in any other dispute.\n\nPRELIMINARY RULING OF THE PANEL\n\n6 June 2008\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n1. On 13 March 2008, Australia filed a request be fore this Panel for a preliminary procedural\nruling. Australia asserted that New Zealand's re quest for the establishment of this Panel, dated\n7 December 2007, is inconsistent with Article 6.2 of the Disput e Settlement Understanding (DSU),\nbecause the panel request fails to identify the specific measures at issue and fails to provide a brief\nsummary of the legal basis of New Zealand's complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly.\nAustralia asked the Panel to find that New Zealand' s panel request fails to fulfil the requirements of\nArticle 6.2 of the DSU, and therefore to refrain from considering the substance of New Zealand's\nclaims in this dispute.\n1\n\n2. The Panel has examined Australia's prelim inary request, as well as the arguments presented\nsubsequently by Australia and New Zealand, a nd by Chile and the European Communities as third\nparties to the dispute. In considering Australia 's request, the Panel has looked at New Zealand's\nrequest for the establishment of the Panel as a w hole and on its face, as well as the attendant\ncircumstances of the present case. The Panel assessed the sufficiency of this panel request in the light\nof the terms used in Article 6.2 of the DSU in th eir context and in the light of the object and purpose\nof this provision.\n\n3. In the interest of due process, and especia lly in order to allow parties and third parties\nsufficient time to prepare their first written submis sions, the Panel has decided to issue an early\npreliminary ruling. This is consistent with Aust ralia's request that the Panel issue its preliminary\nruling prior to the due dates of the parties' first written submissions.\n2 The Panel reserves its right to\nfurther develop the reasons for its ruling later in the proceedings, or to include them in its report.\n\n4. The Panel begins by recalling the requirements contained in Article 6.2 of the DSU. These\nrequirements are as follows:\n\n\"The request for the establishment of a pane l shall be made in writing. It shall\nindicate whether consultations were held, identify the specific measures at issue and\nprovide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the\nproblem clearly. In case the applicant re quests the establishment of a panel with\nother than standard terms of reference, th e written request shall include the proposed\ntext of special terms of reference.\"\n5. The Panel notes that New Zealand's panel request clearly satisfies the first two requirements\ncontained in Article 6.2 of the DSU. In this regard, the panel request was made in writing and\nindicates that \"consultations [between the parties] were held on 4 October 2007 in Geneva ... [but\nthey] failed to resolve the matter\".\n3 Indeed, neither Australia nor the third parties have raised any\nissue with regard to these particular two require ments. The Panel will now turn to whether New\nZealand's panel request satisfies the other requirements of Article 6.2.\n\n1 Australia's letter dated 13 March 2008.\n2 Australia's letter dated 17 March 2008.\n3Australia – Apples , Request for the Establishment of a Panel by New Zealand (WT/DS367/5),\n7 December 2007, p. 3.\n\nII. ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE SPECIFIC MEASURES AT ISSUE\n6. As to whether New Zealand's panel request identifies the specific me asures at issue in a\nmanner consistent with the requirements of Artic le 6.2 of the DSU, the Panel has reached the\nconclusions set forth below.\n\n7. In its panel request, New Zealand has referred to both \"measures specified in and required by\nAustralia pursuant to the Final import risk analysis report for apples from New Zealand \" (FIRA) and,\n\"in particular\" to a list of 17 requirements spelt out in the FIRA and identified in the panel request\nthrough bullet points.\n\n8. Looking at the text of New Zealand's panel re quest, the Panel finds that, with respect to the 17\nitems identified by New Zealand through 17 separate bullet points, the request is sufficiently precise\nin identifying the specific measures at issue with respect to those 17 items, pursuant to Article 6.2 of\nthe DSU.\n\n9. On the other hand, given the length and complexity of Australia's FIRA, the Panel finds that\nthe broad reference in New Zealand's panel request to the \"measures specified in and required by\nAustralia pursuant to the [ FIRA]\" fails to satisfy the requirement of sufficient clarity in the\nidentification of the specific measur es at issue set forth in Article 6.2 of the DSU. Accordingly, the\nPanel finds that its terms of reference are limite d to the 17 measures specifically identified by New\nZealand in its panel request and do not encompass other measures that may be contained in Australia's\nFIRA, but which were not identified with sufficient precision in the panel request.\n\nIII. THE SUMMARY OF THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT\n10. In its panel request, New Zealand has lis ted a number of provisi ons of the covered\nagreements, which it alleges are breached by the measures adopted by Australia. New Zealand has\nnot drawn an explicit and detailed connection be tween the specific measures challenged and the\nprovisions invoked. New Zealand has only stated in general terms that \"the above measures are\ninconsistent with the obligations of Australia under [nine provisions of the Agreement on the\nApplication of Sanitary and Phyto sanitary Measures, (SPS Agreement)]\".\n4 Having carefully\nconsidered the language used in the panel request and the specific content of the provisions of the SPS\nAgreement cited therein, the Panel understands that New Zealand has claimed that \"every measure ...\n[identified] in its panel request is inconsistent w ith each of the [nine] provisions referred to [in the\npanel request].\"5 In the Panel's view, this satisfies the re quirement that the panel request lays out a\nconnection between the various measures challenged and the specific provisions invoked.6\n\n11. The Panel now turns to the issue of whethe r New Zealand's panel request provides a brief\nsummary of the legal basis of the complaint, whic h is sufficient to present the problem clearly, as\nrequired by Article 6.2 of the DSU. The Pane l would ideally have preferred a more explicit\nexplanation of how or why the measures at issue are considered by New Zealand to be violating the\nidentified provisions of the SPS Agreement. Howe ver, considering the language used in the panel\nrequest and the specific content of the provision s of the SPS Agreement cited therein, the Panel\nconcludes that New Zealand's panel request contai ns enough information to adequately inform the\n\n4 Australia – Apples , Request for the Establishment of a Panel by New Zealand (WT/DS367/5),\n7 December 2007, p. 3.\n5 Australia – Apples , Written Submission by New Zealand on Australia's Request for a Preliminary\nProcedural Ruling in Relation to the Consistency of New Zealand's Panel Request with Article 6.2 of the DSU,\n7 April 2008, para. 2.51.\n6 See Appellate Body Report on US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Review, para. 162.\n\nresponding party and other WTO Members on the nature of the complaint\n7 and to allow the\nresponding party to begin preparing its defence.8 The Panel recalls in this regard that the complaining\nparty is under no obligation to develop its arguments in its panel request. 9 Furthermore, the Panel's\nconclusion in this case is supported by practice fo llowed by WTO Members in some previous panel\nrequests (including that of New Zealand and Australia ), as well as by rulings such as that adopted by\nthe panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products . Finally, the Panel notes that it is not\nconvinced by Australia's arguments that the lack of a more detailed explanation as to how or why the\n17 specifically listed measures at issue are considered by New Zealand to be violating the provisions\ninvoked has prejudiced or will prejudice Australia's ab ility to defend itself in the course of the Panel's\nproceedings.\n\n12. Accordingly, the Panel finds that New Zeala nd's panel request does not fail to provide a brief\nsummary of the legal basis of its complaint, wh ich is sufficient to present the problem clearly, as\nrequired by Article 6.2 of the DSU.\n\nIV. CONCLUSION\n13. In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds:\n\n(a) With respect to the 17 items contained in Australia's Final import risk analysis report\nfor apples from New Zealand (FIRA) and identified by bullet points in New Zealand's\nrequest for the establishment of this Pa nel, dated 7 December 2007, the specific\nmeasures at issue have been properly identified;\n(b) New Zealand's panel request does not identify with sufficient precision any measures\ncontained in Australia's FIRA, other than the 17 specific items identified through\nbullet points. Accordingly, any such other measures are not part of this Panel's terms\nof reference; and,\n(c) New Zealand's panel request contains suffici ent information regarding the legal basis\nof the complaint to present the problem clearly with respect to the 17 identified items.\n14. In light of the findings above, the Panel will a llow this proceeding to continue with respect to\nthe 17 measures specifically identified in New Zealand's panel request and to the alleged\ninconsistency of such measures with the provisions of the SPS Agreement cited therein.\n\nANNEX A-3\n\n(WT/DS367)\n\nWorking Procedures for the Panel\n\n1. In its proceedings the Panel shall follow th e relevant provisions of the Dispute Settlement\nUnderstanding (DSU). In addition, the following Working Procedures shall apply.\n\n2. The Panel will provide the Parties\n1 and Third Parties 2 with a timetable for its proceedings.\nThe timetable may be modified by the Panel as appropriate, after having consulted the Parties.\n\n3. The Panel shall conduct its intern al deliberations in closed session. The Parties and interested\nThird Parties shall be present at the meetings only wh en invited by the Panel to appear before it. The\nPanel may open its substantive meeting with th e Parties to the public, subject to appropriate\nprocedures to be adopted by the Panel after consulting the Parties.\n\n4. The deliberations of the Panel and the documen ts submitted to it shall be kept confidential.\nNothing in the DSU, nor in these Working Pro cedures, precludes a Party or a Third Party from\ndisclosing statements of its own positions to the public. Members shall treat as confidential\ninformation submitted by any other Member to th e Panel which that Member has designated as\nconfidential. As provided in Article 18.2 of th e DSU, where a Party or a Third Party submits a\nconfidential version of its written submissions to th e Panel, it shall also, upon request of any other\nParty or Third Party, provide a non-confidentia l summary of the information contained in its\nsubmissions that could be disclosed to the public. Non-confidential summaries\n shall be normally\nsubmitted no later than one week after the written submission is presented to the Panel, unless a different\ndeadline is granted by the Panel upon a showing of good cause.\n\n5. Before the substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties, and in accordance with the\ntimetable approved by the Panel, the Parties shall transmit to the Panel written submissions and\nsubsequently written rebuttals in which they presen t the facts of the case, their arguments and their\ncounter-arguments, respectively. Third Parties may transmit to the Panel written submissions after the\nfirst submissions of the parties have been filed, and in accordance with the timetable approved by the\nPanel.\n\n6. At its first substantive meeting with the Par ties, the Panel shall ask New Zealand to present its\ncase first. Subsequently, and still at the same mee ting, Australia will be asked to present its point of\nview. Parties will then be allo wed an opportunity for final statements, with New Zealand presenting\nits statement first.\n\n7. Third Parties shall be invited to present th eir views during a separate session of the first\nsubstantive meeting of the Panel set aside for that purpose. Third Parties may be present during the\nentirety of this session.\n\n1 Throughout this document, the term \"Party\" refers to either New Zealand or Australia, as appropriate.\nThe term \"Parties\" refers to both New Zealand and Australia.\n2 Throughout the document, the term \"Third Parties\" refers to Chile, the European Communities, Japan,\nPakistan, Chinese Taipei and the United States.\n\n8. Formal rebuttals shall be made at a second substantive meeting of the Panel. At this meeting,\nAustralia shall have the right to take the floor fi rst to be followed by New Zealand. Parties shall\nsubmit, prior to that meeting, and in accordance with the timetable approved by the Panel, written\nrebuttals to the Panel.\n\n9. The Panel may at any time put questions to th e Parties and to the Third Parties and ask them\nfor explanations either in the course of the substant ive meetings or in writing. Replies to questions\nshall be submitted in writing by the date specified by the Panel. In additio n, the Parties shall be\npermitted to ask questions to each ot her and to Third Parties. Repli es of the Parties and Third Parties\nto questions, and Parties' comments on each other's re plies to questions, will not be attached to the\nPanel report as annexes. They will be reflected in the findings section of the Panel report where\nrelevant.\n\n10. Each Party shall make available to the Panel a nd to the other Party a written version of its oral\nstatements, preferably at the end of the meeting wi th the Panel, and in any event no later than the\nworking day following the presentation. Any Third Party that wishes to present its views shall\nsimilarly make available to the Panel and to the Pa rties and other Third Parties a written version of its\noral statements, preferably at the end of the meeti ng with the Panel, and in any event no later than the\nworking day following the presentation. Parties and Third Parties shall provide the Panel and other\nparticipants at the respective session with a provision al written version of their oral statements before\nthese statements are made.\n\n11. In the interest of full transparency, oral presentations shall be made in the presence of the\nParties. Moreover, each Party's written submissions, including replies to questions put by the Panel,\nshall be made available to the other Party. Thir d Parties shall receive copies of the Parties' first\nwritten submissions and rebuttals. Parties shall su bmit all factual evidence to the Panel as early as\npossible and no later than during the first substan tive meeting, except with respect to evidence\nnecessary for purposes of rebuttals or answers to qu estions. Exceptions may be granted by the Panel\nupon a showing of good cause. In such cases, the othe r Party shall be accorded a period of time for\ncommenting, as appropriate.\n\n12. Within seven (7) calendar days followi ng the submission of a written submission or\npresentation of an oral statement to the Panel, each Party and Third Party shall provide the Panel with\nan executive summary of the respective submission or statement. These executive summaries will be\nused by the Panel only for the purpose of drafting a concise factual and arguments section of the Panel\nreport so as to facilitate timely translation and circulation of the Panel report to the Members.\nExecutive summaries shall not serve in any way as a substitute for the submissions of the Parties.\nExecutive summaries to be provided by Parties shall each not exceed ten (10) pages in length. Third\nParties' executive summaries shall not exceed three (3) pages in length. The Panel may, in light of\nfurther developments, allow the Parties and Third Parties to submit longer summaries.\n\n13. To facilitate the maintenance of the record of the dispute, and to maximize the clarity of\nsubmissions, in particular the refe rences to exhibits submitted by Pa rties, Parties shall sequentially\nnumber their exhibits throughout the course of the di spute. For example, exhibits submitted by New\nZealand should be numbered NZ-1, NZ-2, etc. If the last exhibit in connection with the first\nsubmission was numbered NZ-5, the first exhibit of the next submission thus would be numbered NZ-\n6. Exhibits submitted by Australia should be numbered AUS-1, AUS-2, etc.\n\n14. Following the issuance of the interim report, Parties shall have two weeks to submit written\nrequests to review precise aspects of the interim report. Following receipt of any written requests for\nreview, and unless any Party requests the Panel to hol d an interim review meeting with the Parties,\neach Party shall have one week to submit written comments on the other Party's written request for\n\nreview. Comments shall be strictly limited to commenting on the other Party's written request for\nreview.\n\n15. The Parties and Third Parties have the right to determine the composition of their own\ndelegations. Delegations may include, as represe ntatives of the government concerned, private\ncounsel and advisers. The Parties and Third Parti es shall have responsibility for all members of their\ndelegations and shall ensure that all members of their delegations, as well as any other advisors\nconsulted by a Party or Third Party, act in acco rdance with the rules of the DSU and the Working\nProcedures of this Panel, particularly in regard to confidentiality of the proceedings. Parties shall\nprovide a list of the participants of their delegation to the Secretary of the Panel and to each other no\nlater than 5.00 pm, local Geneva time, the working day before any meeting with the Panel.\n\n16. Any request for a preliminary ruling (including rulings on jurisdictional issues) to be made by\nthe Panel shall be submitted no later than in a Pa rty's first written submission. Unless provided\notherwise by the Panel, if New Zealand requests any such ruling, Australia shall submit its response to\nsuch a request in its first written submission. Likewise, and unless provided otherwise by the Panel, if\nAustralia requests any such ruling, New Zealand sh all submit its response to such a request in its\nrebuttal submission. Exceptions to this proce dure may be granted by the Panel upon a showing of\ngood cause. The Panel shall inform the Parties promptly of any preliminary rulings it might make in\nthe course of the proceedings. In addition, the Panel may also choose to inform Third\nParties of such preliminary rulings, if appropriate.\n\n17. In the course of the proceedings, the Panel will determine if there is the need to seek expert\nadvice. In such case, the following procedures shall apply:\n\n(a) The Panel may seek expert advice from i ndividual experts and from international\norganizations, as appropriate.\n(b) The Panel may ask the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention\n(IPPC), as well as the Parties, for suggestions of possible experts. Parties shall not\nengage in direct contacts with individuals suggested.\n(c) The Panel will provide the Parties with a list of possible experts, including\ninformation from their curricula vitae and declarations of potential conflicts of\ninterest. Parties will have the opportunity to comment and to make known any\ncompelling objections to any particular expert.\n(d) The Panel will select the experts on the basis of their qualifications and the need for\nspecialized scientific expertise. The Pane l will decide the number of experts in light\nof the number and type of issues on wh ich advice will be sought, as well as of the\ndifferent areas on which each expert can provide expertise.\n(e) The Panel will inform the Parties of the experts it has selected. Individual experts\nshall act in their personal capacities and not as representatives of any entity. They\nshall be subject to the DSB's Rules of Conduct for the Understanding on Rules and\nProcedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (WT/DSB/RC/1).\n(f) The Panel will prepare written questions fo r the experts. Parties will have the\nopportunity to comment on the proposed ques tions, or suggest additional ones, before\nthe Panel decides on the final questions to be sent to the experts. The Panel may\nprovide the experts, on a confidential basis, with relevant parts of the Parties'\nsubmissions, including exhibits, as well as with any additional information deemed\nnecessary.\n\n(g) Experts will be requested to provide responses in writing within a time-period\nspecified by the Panel. Copies of the r esponses will be provided by the Panel to the\nParties. The Parties will have the opportunity to comment in writing on the responses\nfrom the experts.\n(h) The Panel may schedule a meeting with e xperts, prior to the second substantive\nmeeting with the Parties. Prior to said m eeting, the Panel will ensure that: (i) the\nParties' comments on the experts' responses are provided to the experts; (ii) the\nexperts are individually provided with th e other experts' responses to the Panel's\nquestions. During the meeting, experts will be invited to present their responses to\nquestions and to complement these res ponses as necessary, and to respond to\nadditional questions from the Panel and the Parties. The Panel may schedule\nadditional meetings with experts if its deems it appropriate. The Secretariat will\nprepare a summary of the experts' written replies to questions, as well as a transcript\nof the meeting with the experts, for inclus ion in the Panel's report. The experts will\nbe given an opportunity to comment on the drafts of these texts before they are\nfinalized.\n18. The following procedures regarding service of documents shall apply:\n\n(a) Each Party shall serve its submissions directly on the other Party. Each Party shall, in\naddition, serve its first written submission on Third Parties. Each Third Party shall\nserve its submissions on the Parties and othe r Third Parties. Each Party and Third\nParty shall confirm in writing, at the time it provides the submission to the\nSecretariat, that copies have been served as required.\n(b) The Parties and Third Parties shall provid e their written submissions to the Panel,\nthrough the Secretariat, by 5:00 p.m., local Geneva time, on the deadlines established\nby the Panel.\n(c) The Parties and Third Parties shall provide the Secretariat with seven (7) paper copies\nof all their submissions as well as an electronic copy on a CD-ROM, diskette or as an\ne-mail attachment, in a format compatible with the Secretariat's software. Paper\ncopies shall be delivered to the Disp ute Settlement Registrar, Mr. ***** *****\n(Room 2150). Electronic copies should be sent by e-mail to Mr. ***** at\nDSregistry@wto.org\n; Ms. ***** ***** at *****.*****@wto.org; Mr. ***** *****\nat *****.*****@wto.org; and, Mr. ***** ***** at *****.*****@wto.org.\n(d) Parties and Third Parties shall provide the Secretariat with written copies of their oral\nstatements no later than close of busin ess on the day following the date of the\npresentation. Written replies to questions sh all be submitted at the date decided by\nthe Panel.\n(e) The Panel will provide Parties with an electronic version of the descriptive sections of\nits draft report, the interim report and the final report, as well as of other documents,\nas appropriate. When the Panel transmits to the Parties or Third Parties both paper\nand electronic versions of a document, the paper version shall constitute the official\nversion for the purposes of the record of the dispute.\n19. These Working Procedures may be modified by the Panel as appropriate, after having\nconsulted the Parties.\n\nANNEX A-4\n\n(WT/DS367)\n\nProcedures for the Panel's First Substantive Meeting\n\n2-3 September 2008\n\nI. OPEN HEARINGS\n1. As set out in the timetable for this dispute, the Panel will hold its first substantive meeting on\nTuesday 2 and Wednesday 3 September 2008. Furt her to the parties' request, and after having\nconsulted the Parties\n1 and Third Parties2 on possible options, the first substantive meeting will be held\nthrough open hearings according to the procedures set out below.\n\n2. To respect the rules of confidentiality, in particular as regards the Exhibit identified by\nNew Zealand as business confidential, no information designated as confidential by a party or a third\nparty shall be addressed during these open hearings. The Panel reserves the right to call for a closed\nconfidential session of the substantive meeting, if n ecessary, in order to address issues related to any\nconfidential information. The Panel also reserves th e right to suspend the open hearings at any time,\non its own initiative or at the request of either Party, if there is any risk of breach of confidentiality or\nof disruption of the meeting. If the open heari ngs are suspended by the Panel for any reason, the\nPanel may decide to resume the meeting in a closed confidential session.\n\n3. At the open hearings, the Panel will ask New Z ealand and Australia, in that order, to make\ntheir respective opening statements. After Parties have made these opening statements, New Zealand\nand Australia will be given the opportunity to ma ke comments on each other's statements and to pose\nquestions. The Panel may also pose questions to the Parties. In a separate session of the open\nhearings, Third Parties will be given the opportunity to make their own statements, if they so wish.\n\n4. Registered delegates of WTO Members and othe r registered individuals will be able to follow\nthe open hearings by means of simultaneous broadcas ting of the proceedings to a separate room. If,\nfor logistical reasons, simultaneous broadcasting of the proceedings should turn out to be not feasible\nor convenient, registered persons may be invited to follow the open hearings by seating in the gallery\nof the room where the meeting is being held.\n\n5. The proceedings of the substantive meeting, including those of the closed confidential\nsession, may be tape-recorded by the Secretariat. Tape recordings of the meeting will be for the\nexclusive use of the Panel and of the WTO Secretar iat staff assisting the Panel, and will be kept\nconfidential.\n\n1 Throughout this document, the term \"Party\" refers to either New Zealand or Australia, as appropriate.\nThe term \"Parties\" refers to both New Zealand and Australia.\n2 Throughout this document, the term \"Third Parties\" refers to Chile, the European Communities,\nJapan, Pakistan, Chinese Taipei and the United States.\n\nII. THIRD PARTY SESSION\n6. Unless otherwise provided by the Panel, the first substantive meeti ng will be reconvened on\nWednesday, 3 September 2008, at 10 a.m., in the Ce ntre William Rappard, for a Third Party session,\nat which Third Parties will be given the opportunity to make their statements, if they so wish.\n\n7. After Third Parties have made their statemen ts, New Zealand and Australia will be given the\nopportunity to pose questions to any Third Party or to make comments on the statements of Third\nParties. The Panel may also pose questions to the Third Parties.\n\nIII. CLOSED CONFIDENTIAL SESSION\n8. After having heard the statements of Parties and Third Parties, the Panel may decide to call\nfor a closed confidential session of the substantive meeting, if necessary.\n\n9. In the light of the nature of the information to be discussed and the content of the statements\nmade by Parties and Third Parties, the Panel will decide whether Third Parties will be invited to\nparticipate in the closed confidential session.\n\n10. At the closed confidential session, the Panel may invite New Zealand and Australia, as well as\nThird Parties if it were the case, to make further statements. The Panel may also pose questions to\nParties and, if it were the case, to Third Parties.\n\nIV. FURTHER RULES\n11. After having consulted the Parties, the Panel may amend the procedures for the first\nsubstantive meeting or complement them with additional rules, as appropriate.\n\nANNEX 1 (TENTATIVE ORDER OF PROCEEDINGS)1\n\nTuesday, 2 September 2008\n\n10:00 – 13:00 Statements of Parties.\n\n13:00 – 15:00 Break.\n\n15:00 – 18:00 Statements of Parties (cont'd.). Questions and answers.\n\nWednesday, 3 September 2008\n\n10:00 – 13:00 Statements of Third Parties. Questions and Answers.\n\n13:00 – 15:00 Break.\n\n15:00 – 16:00 Closed confidential session (if necessary).\n\n16:00 – 18:00 Concluding statements of Parties.\n\nANNEX 2 (IMPORTANT DATES)\n1\n\nWednesday, 23 July\n: Panel sends proposed procedures for substantive meeting to Parties for\ncomments.\n\nTuesday, 29 July: Parties send comments on proposed procedures for substantive meeting to Panel.\n\nTuesday, 5 August\n: Panel sends approved procedures for s ubstantive meeting to Parties and Third\nParties.\n\nThursday, 7 August: Members are informed of open hearings for substantive meeting.\n\nMonday, 11 August\n: Notice of open hearings for substa ntive meeting is published on the WTO\nwebsite. Registration begins.\n\nFriday, 29 August: End of registration for outside individua ls (non delegates) wishing to attend open\nhearings for substantive meeting.\n\nANNEX A-5\n\n(WT/DS367)\n\nProcedures for the Panel's Meeting with the Experts and Parties\n\nand the Panel's Second Substantive Meeting\n\n30 June 2009 and 1-2 July 2009\n\nThe current procedures shall apply to the meetin g of the Panel with the designated experts and\nParties\n1, scheduled to take place on Tuesday 30 June 2009, as well as to the Panel's second substantive\nmeeting with the Parties, scheduled to take place on Wednesday 1 and Thursday 2 July 2009. In case\nof any conflict, the current procedures take precedence over any conflicting provisions in the Working\nProcedures for the Panel adopted on 26 March 2008.\n\nV. PANEL'S MEETING WITH THE EXPERTS AND PARTIES (30 JUNE 2009 AND, IF\nNECESSARY, 1 JULY)\n1. As set out in the timetable for this dispute, the Panel will hold a meeting with the designated\nexperts on Tuesday 30 June 2009. The Panel may decide to continue the meeting into the morning of\nWednesday 1 July 2009, if necessary and after having consulted the Parties. Further to the Parties'\nrequest, and after having consulted the Parties on possible options, the meeting of the Panel with the\ndesignated experts will be held through an open session according to the procedures set out below.\nThe meeting will be conducted in English only, without simultaneous interpretation.\n\n2. To respect the rules of confidentiality, in par ticular as regards exhibits identified by any of the\nParties as confidential, no information designated as confidential by a Party shall be addressed during\nthis open session. The Panel reserves the right to call for a closed confidential session of the meeting\nwith the designated experts, if necessary, in or der to address issues related to any confidential\ninformation. The Panel also reserves the right to suspend the open session at any time, on its own\ninitiative or at the request of either Party, if th ere is any risk of breach of confidentiality or of\ndisruption of the meeting. If the open session is suspended by the Panel for any reason, the Panel may\ndecide to resume the meeting in a closed confidential session.\n\n3. The purpose of the Panel's meeting with th e experts is for the Panel to obtain further\nclarification of some of the factual issues relevant for this case. In particular, the meeting should\nallow the experts to elaborate and clarify the written responses submitted to the questions that were\nposed by the Panel, and to respond to the comments made to those responses by the Parties, as well as\nallow the Panel and the Parties to pose questions to the experts in order to seek any elaboration or\nclarification on issues that are relevant to the case.\n\n4. At the meeting, the Panel will introduce the e xperts. Subsequently, experts will be allowed\nthe opportunity to make brief general comments on their responses, in light of the written comments\nmade by the Parties. The Panel will then pose qu estions to the experts and allow New Zealand and\nAustralia the opportunity to pose their own questions to experts. Parties shall pose direct factual\nquestions and refrain from making statements, and argum entative or leading questions to the experts.\n\n1 Throughout this document, the term \"Party\" refers to either New Zealand or Australia, as appropriate.\nThe term \"Parties\" refers to both New Zealand and Australia.\n\nExperts should answer only those questions that th ey feel competent to answer. If necessary, and\nafter having heard the Parties' opinions, the Panel will decide on the appropriateness of any question\nbeing posed to the experts. Parties will not pose questions to each other, except with the Panel's\nauthorization. In the course of the Panel's se cond substantive meeting, Parties will have ample\nopportunities to develop their respective arguments in cluding, if they so wish, to develop arguments\non the experts' responses.\n\n5. The focus of the meeting will be the science relied upon by Australia in its IRA regarding fire\nblight, European canker and apple leafcurling midge , as well as the risk assessment techniques used\nby Australia in its IRA. The Panel intends to group the discussion into six subject areas and to\norganize the discussion accordingly. The subject ar eas will be as follows: (a) General terms and\ndefinitions; (b) Risk assessment techniques; (c) Fire blight; (d) European canker; (e) Apple\nleafcurling midge; and, (f) Other. For each of these subject areas, the Panel will organize the\ndiscussion so that both Parties and the Panel have the opportunity to pose questions on the various\nissues. The Panel will normally allow New Zealand the opportunity to pose questions to the experts\nfirst, to be followed by Australia. Throughout the discussion of each issue, the Panel may pose\nquestions before, during or after the Parties are gi ven the opportunity to pose their own questions.\nThe Panel may also allow the opportunity to Parti es to come back with new questions or follow-up\nquestions. Once the Panel has decided that a particul ar issue has been sufficiently explored, the Panel\nmay invite the experts to make some concluding re marks on the specific issue, if they so wish.\nThroughout the meeting with the experts, the Panel will endeavour to ensure that sufficient time is\ndevoted to the discussion of the different relevant issu es. In order to achieve this objective, the Panel\nmay decide at any point that there is a need to move on to a different issue. Experts will be asked to\nprovide their responses individually and shall refrain from conferring during the course of the\nmeeting.\n\n6. Parties shall refrain from submitting any new f actual evidence to the Panel in the course of\nthe meeting with the experts. Upon a showing of good cause, the Panel may exceptionally allow the\nintroduction of new evidence in the course of the mee ting with the experts at the request of a Party,\nand after having heard the other Party, if such new evidence is necessary for the purpose of posing a\nquestion to an expert. The Panel may allow the subm ission by any expert of background material that\nis necessary to respond to a written comment made by any of the Parties or to respond to a question\nposed by the Panel or by any of the Parties.\n\n7. Persons in possession of a valid WTO badge and individuals registered through the WTO\nSecretariat will be able to follow the open session of the Panel's meeting with the experts by means of\nsimultaneous broadcasting of the proceedings to a separate room. If, for logistical reasons,\nsimultaneous broadcasting of the proceedings shoul d turn out to be infeasible or inconvenient,\ninterested persons may be invited to follow the ope n hearings by seating in the gallery of the room\nwhere the meeting is being held.\n\n8. The proceedings of the Panel's meeting with the experts, including those of the closed\nconfidential session if such a session were to ta ke place, will be tape-recorded by the WTO\nSecretariat. Tape recordings of the meeting will be for the exclusive use of the Panel and of the\nSecretariat staff assisting the Panel, and will be kept confidential. No recording or filming of the\nproceedings other than by the WTO Secretariat will be allowed.\n\n9. The WTO Secretariat shall prepare a transcript of the proceedings of the Panel's meeting with\nthe experts. For the purpose of reviewing the tran script's accuracy, the Panel will send a copy of the\ntranscript to the experts and to the Parties. The tr anscript of the proceedings of the Panel's meeting\nwith the experts and the compilations of written rep lies of the experts shall be referenced in the\nPanel's report. The Panel may quote from that tran script and from the compilation in the relevant\nsections of the Panel's report. Such transcript a nd compilation, however, will not be appended in full\n\nto the Panel's report. In the interest of transp arency, the Panel shall ask the Secretariat to make\navailable the transcript of the pro ceedings of the Panel's meeting with the experts and the compilation\nof the experts' written replies on the WTO's website, in the section of that website that is related to the\ncurrent dispute.\n\nVI. PANEL'S SECOND SUBSTANTIVE MEETING (1-2 JULY 2009)\nA. O\nPEN HEARINGS\n10. As set out in the timetable for this dispute, the Panel will hold its s econd substantive meeting\nwith the Parties on Wednesday 1 and Thursday 2 July 2009. Further to the Parties' request, and after\nhaving consulted the Parties on possible options, th e second substantive meeting will be held through\nopen hearings according to the procedures set out below. The meeting will be conducted in English\nonly, without simultaneous interpretation.\n\n11. To respect the rules of confidentiality, in par ticular as regards exhibits identified by any of the\nParties as confidential, no information designated as confidential by a Party shall be addressed during\nthese open hearings. The Panel reserves the right to call for a closed confidential session of the\nsubstantive meeting, if necessary, in order to addr ess issues related to any confidential information.\nThe Panel also reserves the right to suspend the ope n hearings at any time, on its own initiative or at\nthe request of either Party, if there is any risk of breach of confidentiality or of disruption of the\nmeeting. If the open hearings are suspended by th e Panel for any reason, the Panel may decide to\nresume the meeting in a closed confidential session.\n\n12 At the open hearings, the Panel will ask Austra lia and New Zealand, in that order, to make\ntheir respective opening statements. After Parties ha ve made these opening statements, the Panel will\ngrant Parties the opportunity to pose questions a nd to make comments on each other's statements.\nAfter Parties have made their opening statements , and throughout the meeting, the Panel may pose\nquestions to the Parties. In order to facilitate the exchange of views and information, Parties are\nencouraged to provide preliminary oral replies to the que stions posed by the other Party and by the\nPanel. At the end of the meeting, the Panel will ask New Zealand and Australia, in that order, to make\ntheir respective concluding statements.\n\n13. Persons in possession of a valid WTO badge and individuals registered through the WTO\nSecretariat will be able to follow the open heari ngs by means of simultaneous broadcasting of the\nproceedings to a separate room. If, for logistical reasons, simultaneous broadcasting of the\nproceedings is infeasible or inconvenient, inter ested persons may be invited to follow the open\nhearings by seating in the gallery of the room where the meeting is being held.\n\n14. The proceedings of the substantive meeting, including those of the closed confidential\nsession, may be tape-recorded by the Secretariat. Tape recordings of the meeting will be for the\nexclusive use of the Panel and of the WTO Secretar iat staff assisting the Panel, and will be kept\nconfidential. No recording or filming of the pro ceedings other than by the WTO Secretariat will be\nallowed. There will be no transcript of the subs tantive meeting and only written versions of oral\nstatements as well as written responses to questions will become part of the record.\n\nB. C\nLOSED CONFIDENTIAL SESSION\n15. After having heard the statements of the Par ties, the Panel may decide to call for a closed\nconfidential session of the substantive meeting, if necessary.\n\n16. At the closed confidential session, the Panel may invite the Parties to make further statements.\nThe Panel may also pose questions to the Parties.\n\nVII. FURTHER RULES\n17. After having consulted the Parties, the Pane l may amend the procedures for the substantive\nmeeting or for the Panel's meeting with the experts, or complement them with additional rules, as\nappropriate.\n\nANNEX\n(IMPORTANT UPCOMING DATES)1\n\nWednesday, 3 June\n: Panel sends proposed procedures for second substantive meeting and for the\nPanel's meeting with the experts to Parties for their comments.\n\nTuesday, 9 June\n: Parties send comments on proposed procedures for substantive meeting and for the\nmeeting with the experts to Panel.\n\nBy Friday, 12 June\n: Panel sends approved procedures for second substantive meeting and for the\nPanel's meeting with the experts, to Parties and experts.\n\nMonday, 15 June\n: Members are informed of open hearings for substantive meeting.\n\nBy Thursday, 18 June : Notice of open hearings for substa ntive meeting is published on the WTO\nwebsite. Registration begins.\n\nThursday, 25 June\n: End of registration for outside indivi duals (persons not in possession of a valid\nWTO badge) wishing to attend substantive meeting or meeting of the Panel with the experts.\n\nThursday, 25 June: Parties provide a list of their respective delegations to the Secretary of the Panel\nand to each other.\n\nMonday, 29 June\n: Secretary of the Panel provides Parties with a list of the individuals registered\nthrough the WTO Secretariat.\n\nTuesday, 30 June: Panel's meeting with the designated experts and the Parties.\n\nWednesday and Thursday, 1-2 July 2009\n: Panel's second substantive meeting with the Parties.\n\nBy Friday, 10 July\n: Panel sends written questions to Parties. Parties send written questions to each\nother, copying the Panel.\n\nBy Friday, 24 July\n: Parties submit replies to questions.\n\nBy Friday, 31 July\n: Parties may submit comments on each other's replies to questions.\n\nANNEX B\n\nCONTENTS Page\nAnnex B-1 List of replies from the scientific experts to questions posed by the\nPanel\nB-2\nAnnex B-2 Transcript of the Panel's m eeting with the scientific experts B-2\n\nANNEX B-1\n\nThe List of replies from the scientific expert s to questions posed by the Panel (document\nWT/DS367/11) will only be available electronically on the WTO website.\n\nANNEX B-2\n\nThe Transcript of the Panel's meeting with the scientific experts (document WT/DS367/12) will only\nbe available electronically on the WTO website."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:52:01.090057"}}}],"truncated":false,"partial":false},"paginationData":{"pageIndex":58,"numItemsPerPage":100,"numTotalItems":9414,"offset":5800,"length":100}},"jwt":"eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSJ9.eyJyZWFkIjp0cnVlLCJwZXJtaXNzaW9ucyI6eyJyZXBvLmNvbnRlbnQucmVhZCI6dHJ1ZX0sImlhdCI6MTc3OTYyMTY3Nywic3ViIjoiL2RhdGFzZXRzL2RlYW4yMjAyOS9XVE9fRG9jcyIsImV4cCI6MTc3OTYyNTI3NywiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9odWdnaW5nZmFjZS5jbyJ9.w2DKVxiHwxZlaEitsb6XXE3sBSZTMc6ICkEX_kUvoAjSyUazw7HXhx4BgYS2zp6ParBDO7jRiZwEx1mmQ4JfDQ","displayUrls":true,"splitSizeSummaries":[{"config":"default","split":"train","numRows":9414,"numBytesParquet":235278256}]},"discussionsStats":{"closed":0,"open":1,"total":1},"fullWidth":true,"hasGatedAccess":true,"hasFullAccess":true,"isEmbedded":false,"savedQueries":{"community":[],"user":[]}}">
folder_number stringclasses 626
values | case_number stringclasses 626
values | original_filename stringlengths 23 61 | new_filename stringlengths 23 61 | doc_sequence int32 1 277 | doc_type stringclasses 42
values | doc_type_raw stringlengths 0 1.4k | doc_class stringclasses 5
values | variant stringclasses 4
values | part_number int32 0 42 ⌀ | case_title stringlengths 0 1.38k | date stringdate 1995-01-13 00:00:00 2025-04-14 00:00:00 ⌀ | header_codes stringlengths 0 267 | agreement_indicators stringclasses 76
values | complainant stringclasses 60
values | respondent stringclasses 63
values | third_parties stringclasses 336
values | dispute_stage stringclasses 7
values | agreements_cited stringclasses 563
values | case_summary stringclasses 617
values | page_count int32 1 1.08k | clean_text stringlengths 67 4.06M | processing_date stringdate 2026-03-15 15:30:25 2026-03-15 16:10:02 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
362 | 362 | DS362_SEQ18_Executive_Summary_02.pdf | DS362_SEQ18_Executive_Summary_02.pdf | 18 | Executive_Summary | WT/DS362/R Page B-1 ANNEX B SUBMISSIONS OF CHINA CONTENTS PAGE B-1 Executive Summary of the first written submission of China B-2 B-2 Executive Summary of the oral statement of China at the first substantive meeting B-16 B-3 Closing oral statement of China at the first substantive meeting B-21 | NUMBERED | null | 2 | null | WT/DS362/R | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Mexico', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey'] | Panel | Art. 61, 41.1, 46, 59, 9.1, 14, 3.1 Intellectual Property (TRIPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
26 May 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning certain measures pertaining to the protection and enforcement of intellectual prope... | 46 | ANNEX B
SUBMISSIONS OF CHINA
CONTENTS PAGE
B-1 Executive Summary of the first written submission of China B-2
B-2 Executive Summary of the oral statement of China at the first
substantive meeting
B-16
B-3 Closing oral statement of China at the first substantive meeting B-21
B-4 Executive Summary of the rebuttal submi... | 2026-03-15T15:51:45.264336 | ||
362 | 362 | DS362_SEQ19_Executive_Summary_03.pdf | DS362_SEQ19_Executive_Summary_03.pdf | 19 | Executive_Summary | WT/DS362/R Page C-1 ANNEX C ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES CONTENTS PAGE C-1 Executive Summary of the third party submission by Argentina C-2 C-2 Executive Summary of the third party submission by Australia C-7 C-3 Oral statement by Australia C-12 C-4 Executive Summary of the third party submission by Brazil C-13 C-5 O... | NUMBERED | null | 3 | null | WT/DS362/R | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Mexico', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey'] | Panel | Art. 61, 41.1, 46, 59, 9.1, 14, 3.1 Intellectual Property (TRIPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
26 May 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning certain measures pertaining to the protection and enforcement of intellectual prope... | 61 | ANNEX C
ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES
CONTENTS PAGE
C-1 Executive Summary of the third party submission by Argentina C-2
C-2 Executive Summary of the third party submission by Australia C-7
C-3 Oral statement by Australia C-12
C-4 Executive Summary of the third party submission by Brazil C-13
C-5 Oral statement by B... | 2026-03-15T15:51:45.295521 | ||
362 | 362 | DS362_SEQ20_Report_Of_Panel_00.pdf | DS362_SEQ20_Report_Of_Panel_00.pdf | 20 | Report_Of_Panel | Report of the Panel | PANEL_REPORT | null | 0 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS | 26 January 2009 | WT/DS362/R | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Mexico', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey'] | Panel | Art. 61, 41.1, 46, 59, 9.1, 14, 3.1 Intellectual Property (TRIPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
26 May 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning certain measures pertaining to the protection and enforcement of intellectual prope... | 147 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE PROTECTION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
Report of the Panel
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 On 10 April 2007, the United States requested co nsultations with the Government of the
People's Republic of China pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures... | 2026-03-15T15:51:45.390848 | |
362 | 362 | DS362_SEQ21_Report_Of_Panel_04.pdf | DS362_SEQ21_Report_Of_Panel_04.pdf | 21 | Report_Of_Panel | WT/DS362/R Page D-1 ANNEX D MISCELLANEOUS CONTENTS PAGE D-1 Request for the Establishment of the Panel by the United States D-2 D-2 Letter dated 21 April 2008 from the Panel to the International Bureau of WIPO D-8 | PANEL_REPORT | null | 4 | 21 April 2008 | WT/DS362/R | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Mexico', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey'] | Panel | Art. 61, 41.1, 46, 59, 9.1, 14, 3.1 Intellectual Property (TRIPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
26 May 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning certain measures pertaining to the protection and enforcement of intellectual prope... | 18 | ANNEX D
MISCELLANEOUS
CONTENTS PAGE
D-1 Request for the Establishment of the Panel by the United States D-2
D-2 Letter dated 21 April 2008 from the Panel to the International Bureau
of WIPO
D-8
D-3 Reply from the International Bur eau of WIPO dated 6 June 2008 D-9
ANNEX D – 1
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PAN... | 2026-03-15T15:51:45.400901 | ||
363 | 287 | DS287_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations_Add.pdf | DS287_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations_Add.pdf | 1 | Request_For_Consultations | Request for Consultations by the United States Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 16 July 2007 | WT/DS363/1/Add.1; G/L/820/Add.1; S/L/287 | General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS); General Council | ['EU'] | ['Australia'] | ['Canada', 'Chile', 'China', 'India', 'Philippines', 'Thailand', 'U.S.'] | Mutually Agreed Solution | Art. 2.2, 4.1, 5.1, 5.6, 5.7 Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by the European Communities.
On 3 April 2003,
the EC requested consultations with Australia regarding the Australian
quarantine regime for imports, both as such and as applied to certain
specific cases. According to... | 4 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Request for Consultations by the United States
Addendum
The following communication, dated 10 July 2007, from the delegation of the United States
to the delegation of China and to the ... | 2026-03-15T15:51:45.426425 |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | DS363_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | 1 | Request_For_Consultations | Request for Consultations by the United States | NUMBERED | null | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 16 April 2007 | WT/DS363/1; G/L/820; S/L/287 | General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS); General Council | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 5 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Request for Consultations by the United States
The following communication, dated 10 April 2007, from the delegation of the United States
to the delegation of China and to the Chairman ... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.732654 |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ02_Request_To_Join_Consultations_00.pdf | DS363_SEQ02_Request_To_Join_Consultations_00.pdf | 2 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from the European Communities | NUMBERED | null | 0 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 27 April 2007 | WT/DS363/2 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from the European Communities
The following communication, dated 25 April 2007, from the delegation of the European
Communities to the deleg... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.733242 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ03_Request_To_Join_Consultations_01.pdf | DS363_SEQ03_Request_To_Join_Consultations_01.pdf | 3 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Acceptance by China of the Request to Join Consultations The European Communities notified the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of their desire to be joined in the consultations requested by the United States, pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU. The delegation of China informed the DSB th at it had accepted the request o... | NUMBERED | null | 1 | CHINA - MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 25 May 2007 | WT/DS363/3 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA - MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Acceptance by China of the Request to Join Consultations
The European Communities notified the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of their desire to be
joined in the consultations requested ... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.733963 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ04_Request_To_Join_Consultations_02.pdf | DS363_SEQ04_Request_To_Join_Consultations_02.pdf | 4 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from the European Communities | NUMBERED | null | 2 | CHINA - MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 26 July 2007 | WT/DS363/4 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA - MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from the European Communities
The following communication, dated 20 July 2007, from the delegation of the European
Communities to the delega... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.734507 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ05_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf | DS363_SEQ05_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf | 5 | Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel | Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States | NUMBERED | null | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 11 October 2007 | WT/DS363/5 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 8 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States
The following communication, dated 10 Octobe r 2007, from the delegation of the United
States to the Chairman of the Disput... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.739958 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ06_Note_By_Secretariat.pdf | DS363_SEQ06_Note_By_Secretariat.pdf | 6 | Note_By_Secretariat | Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of the United States Note by the Secretariat | NUMBERED | null | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 28 March 2008 | WT/DS363/6; WT/DS363/5; WT/DS363/5 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of the United States
Note by the Secretariat
1. At its meeting on 27 November 2007, the Dis pute Settlement Body (DSB) established a... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.740549 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ07_Communication_00.pdf | DS363_SEQ07_Communication_00.pdf | 7 | Communication | Communication from the Chairman of the Panel | NUMBERED | null | 0 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 23 September 2008 | WT/DS363/7 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
The following communication, dated 22 September 2008, addressed to the Chairman of the
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), is circulated in accor... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.741040 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ08_Communication_01.pdf | DS363_SEQ08_Communication_01.pdf | 8 | Communication | Communication from the Chairman of the Panel | NUMBERED | null | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 26 February 2009 | WT/DS363/8 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
The following communication, dated 25 February 2009, addressed to the Chairman of the
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), is circulated in accord... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.741603 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ09_Communication_02.pdf | DS363_SEQ09_Communication_02.pdf | 9 | Communication | Communication from the Chairman of the Panel | NUMBERED | null | 2 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 29 May 2009 | WT/DS363/9 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
The following communication, dated 28 May 2009 , addressed to the Chairman of the Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB), is circulated in accordan c... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.742190 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ10_Notification_Of_Appeal.pdf | DS363_SEQ10_Notification_Of_Appeal.pdf | 10 | Notification_Of_Appeal | Notification of an Appeal by China under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), and under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review | NUMBERED | null | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 23 September 2009 | WT/DS363/10 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 3 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS
AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Notification of an Appeal by China
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),
and under Rule 20(1) of the ... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.744095 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ11_Working_Procedures.pdf | DS363_SEQ11_Working_Procedures.pdf | 11 | Working_Procedures | Notification of an Other Appeal by the United States 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 | NUMBERED | null | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 6 October 2009 | WT/DS363/11 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS
AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Notification of an Other Appeal by the United States
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),
and under ... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.744786 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ12_Communication_03.pdf | DS363_SEQ12_Communication_03.pdf | 12 | Communication | Communication from the Appellate Body | NUMBERED | null | 3 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 18 November 2009 | WT/DS363/12 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS
AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Communication from the Appellate Body
The following communication, dated 17 November 2009, from the Chairman of the Appellate
Body addressed to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Bo... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.745272 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ13_Communication_04.pdf | DS363_SEQ13_Communication_04.pdf | 13 | Communication | Communication from the Appellate Body | NUMBERED | null | 4 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 21 December 2009 | WT/DS363/13 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS
AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Communication from the Appellate Body
The following communication, dated 21 December 2009, from the Chairman of the Appellate
Body addressed to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Bo... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.745621 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ14_Communication_05.pdf | DS363_SEQ14_Communication_05.pdf | 14 | Communication | Communication from China and the United States concerning Article 21.3(c) of the DSU | NUMBERED | null | 5 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 9 March 2010 | WT/DS363/15 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Communication from China and the United States concerning
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU
The following communication, dated 4 March 2010, from the delegation of China and the
delegation of... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.746231 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ15_Agreement_Art_21_3.pdf | DS363_SEQ15_Agreement_Art_21_3.pdf | 15 | Agreement_Art_21_3 | Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU | NUMBERED | null | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 13 July 2010 | WT/DS363/16 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU
The following communication, dated 12 July 2010, from the delegation of China and the
delegation of the United States to the Chairman of the D... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.746643 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ16_Status_Report.pdf | DS363_SEQ16_Status_Report.pdf | 16 | Status_Report | Status Report by China | NUMBERED | null | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 14 January 2011 | WT/DS363/17 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Status Report by China
The following communication, dated 13 January 2011, from the delegation of China to the
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.747259 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ17_Status_Report_Add.pdf | DS363_SEQ17_Status_Report_Add.pdf | 17 | Status_Report | Status Report by China Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 14 February 2011 | WT/DS363/17/Add.1 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Status Report by China
Addendum
The following communication, dated 11 Februa ry 2011, from the delegation of China to the
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuan... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.747911 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ18_Status_Report_Add2.pdf | DS363_SEQ18_Status_Report_Add2.pdf | 18 | Status_Report | Status Report by China Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 15 March 2011 | WT/DS363/17/Add.2 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Status Report by China
Addendum
The following communication, dated 14 March 2011, from the delegation of China to the
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.748585 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ19_Status_Report_Add3.pdf | DS363_SEQ19_Status_Report_Add3.pdf | 19 | Status_Report | Status Report by China Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 11 April 2011 | WT/DS363/17/Add.3 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Status Report by China
Addendum
The following communication, dated 8 April 2011, from the delegation of China to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant ... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.749209 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ20_Status_Report_Add4.pdf | DS363_SEQ20_Status_Report_Add4.pdf | 20 | Status_Report | Status Report by China Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 13 May 2011 | WT/DS363/17/Add.4 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Status Report by China
Addendum
The following communication, dated 12 May 2011, from the delegation of China to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant t... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.749807 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ21_Status_Report_Add5.pdf | DS363_SEQ21_Status_Report_Add5.pdf | 21 | Status_Report | Status Report by China Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 7 June 2011 | WT/DS363/17/Add.5 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Status Report by China
Addendum
The following communication, dated 6 June 2011, from the delegation of China to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant t... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.750390 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ22_Status_Report_Add6.pdf | DS363_SEQ22_Status_Report_Add6.pdf | 22 | Status_Report | Status Report by China Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 8 July 2011 | WT/DS363/17/Add.6 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Status Report by China
Addendum
The following communication, dated 7 July 2011, from the delegation of China to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant t... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.750968 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ23_Status_Report_Add7.pdf | DS363_SEQ23_Status_Report_Add7.pdf | 23 | Status_Report | Status Report by China Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 23 August 2011 | WT/DS363/17/Add.7 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Status Report by China
Addendum
The following communication, dated 22 August 2011, from the delegation of China to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuan... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.751554 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ24_Status_Report_Add8.pdf | DS363_SEQ24_Status_Report_Add8.pdf | 24 | Status_Report | Status Report by China Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 16 September 2011 | WT/DS363/17/Add.8 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Status Report by China
Addendum
The following communication, dated 14 Septem ber 2011, from the delegation of China to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pur... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.752132 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ25_Status_Report_Add9.pdf | DS363_SEQ25_Status_Report_Add9.pdf | 25 | Status_Report | Status Report by China Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 14 October 2011 | WT/DS363/17/Add.9 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Status Report by China
Addendum
The following communication, dated 13 October 2011, from the delegation of China to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursua... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.752708 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ26_Status_Report_Add10.pdf | DS363_SEQ26_Status_Report_Add10.pdf | 26 | Status_Report | Status Report by China Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 8 November 2011 | WT/DS363/17/Add.10 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Status Report by China
Addendum
The following communication, dated 7 November 2011, from the delegation of China to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursua... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.753281 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ27_Status_Report_Add11.pdf | DS363_SEQ27_Status_Report_Add11.pdf | 27 | Status_Report | Status Report by China Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 9 December 2011 | WT/DS363/17/Add.11 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Status Report by China
Addendum
The following communication, dated 8 December 2011, from the delegation of China to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursua... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.753862 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ28_Status_Report_Add12.pdf | DS363_SEQ28_Status_Report_Add12.pdf | 28 | Status_Report | Status Report by China Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 10 January 2012 | WT/DS363/17/Add.12 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Status Report by China
Addendum
The following communication, dated 9 January 2012, from the delegation of China to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuan... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.754465 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ29_Status_Report_Add13.pdf | DS363_SEQ29_Status_Report_Add13.pdf | 29 | Status_Report | Status Report by China Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 10 February 2012 | WT/DS363/17/Add.13 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Status Report by China
Addendum
The following communication, dated 9 February 2012, from the delegation of China to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursua... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.755077 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ30_Status_Report_Add14.pdf | DS363_SEQ30_Status_Report_Add14.pdf | 30 | Status_Report | Status Report by China Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 13 March 2012 | WT/DS363/17/Add.14 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 2 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Status Report by China
Addendum
The following communication, dated 12 March 2012, from the delegation of China to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.755803 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ31_Status_Report_Add15.pdf | DS363_SEQ31_Status_Report_Add15.pdf | 31 | Status_Report | Status Report by China Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 13 April 2012 | WT/DS363/17/Add.15 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 2 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Status Report by China
Addendum
The following communication, dated 12 April 2012, from the delegation of China to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.756552 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ32_Understanding.pdf | DS363_SEQ32_Understanding.pdf | 32 | Understanding | Understanding between China and the United States Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU | NUMBERED | null | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 19 April 2011 | WT/DS363/18 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 3 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Understanding between China and the United States
Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU
The following communication, dated 13 April 2011, from the delegation of Chin... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.757877 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ33_Understanding_Corr.pdf | DS363_SEQ33_Understanding_Corr.pdf | 33 | Understanding | Understanding between China and the United States Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU Corrigendum The signatures on page 3 of WT/DS363/18 should read as follows: Signed in Geneva, 8 April 2011. | NUMBERED | Corr | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 28 April 2011 | WT/DS363/18/Corr.1; WT/DS363/18 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Understanding between China and the United States
Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU
Corrigendum
The signatures on page 3 of should read as follows:
Signed in G... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.758141 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ34_Communication_06.pdf | DS363_SEQ34_Communication_06.pdf | 34 | Communication | Joint Communication from China and the United States | NUMBERED | null | 6 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 11 May 2012 | WT/DS363/19 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 2 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Joint Communication from China and the United States
The following communication, dated 9 May 2012, from the delegation of China and the
delegation of the United States to the Chairpers... | 2026-03-15T15:51:50.758999 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ35_Report_Of_Panel_00.pdf | DS363_SEQ35_Report_Of_Panel_00.pdf | 35 | Report_Of_Panel | Report of the Panel | PANEL_REPORT | null | 0 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 12 August 2009 | WT/DS363/R | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 491 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS
AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN
PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL
ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Report of the Panel
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 On 10 April 2007, the United States requested c onsultations with the Government of China
pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Ru les and... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.087837 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ36_Report_Of_Panel_01.pdf | DS363_SEQ36_Report_Of_Panel_01.pdf | 36 | Report_Of_Panel | WT/DS363/R Page A-1 ANNEX A CONTENTS PAGE Annex A-1 Translation Differences in the Report – Summary Table A-2 Annex A-2 Short Title of Measures A-4 | PANEL_REPORT | null | 1 | null | WT/DS363/R | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 8 | ANNEX A
CONTENTS PAGE
Annex A-1 Translation Differences in the Report – Summary Table A-2
Annex A-2 Short Title of Measures A-4
ANNEX A-1
TRANSLATION DIFFERENCES IN THE REPORT – SUMMARY TABLE
Key Chinese Term
(phonetic symbol)
Relevant Measures Where
the Terms Are Used
US Preferred English
Translation
China's Pref... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.090518 | ||
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ37_Report_Of_Panel_Corr.pdf | DS363_SEQ37_Report_Of_Panel_Corr.pdf | 37 | Report_Of_Panel | Report of the Panel Corrigendum The second sentence of paragraph 7.1565 should refer to "Article 16" of the Internet Culture Rule rather than "Article 19". | PANEL_REPORT | Corr | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 19 August 2009 | WT/DS363/R/Corr.1 | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS
AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN
PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL
ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Report of the Panel
Corrigendum
The second sentence of paragraph 7.1565 should refer to "Article 16" of the Internet Culture
Rule rather than "Article 19". | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.090739 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ38_Appellate_Body_Report_And_Panel_Report.pdf | DS363_SEQ38_Appellate_Body_Report_And_Panel_Report.pdf | 38 | Appellate_Body_Report_And_Panel_Report | Appellate Body Report and Panel Report Action by the Dispute Settlement Body | AB_REPORT | null | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 21 January 2010 | WT/DS363/14; WT/DS363/AB/R; WT/DS363/R | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS
AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
Appellate Body Report and Panel Report
Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
At its meeting on 19 Janauary 2010, the Dis pute Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body
report on () an... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.091309 | |
363 | 363 | DS363_SEQ39_Report_Of_Appellate_Body.pdf | DS363_SEQ39_Report_Of_Appellate_Body.pdf | 39 | Report_Of_Appellate_Body | Report of the Appellate Body | AB_REPORT | null | null | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS | 21 December 2009 | WT/DS363/AB/R | ['U.S.'] | ['China'] | ['Australia', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Taiwan'] | Appellate Body | Part I, para. 5.2 Protocol of AccessionArt. XI:1, III:4 GATT 1994Art. XVII, XVI Services (GATS)Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1 Protocol of Accession | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 October 2012
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported fi... | 195 | CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND
AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS
AB-2009-3
Report of the Appellate Body
APPELLATE BODY
China, Appellant/Appellee
United States, Other Appellant/Appellee
Australia, Third Participant
European Communities
1, Third Part... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.196257 | |
364 | 364 | DS364_SEQ01_Addendum_Add.pdf | DS364_SEQ01_Addendum_Add.pdf | 1 | Addendum | . /. WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION WT/DS364/3 G/L/822/Add.1 | NUMBERED | Add | null | 12 November 2012 | WT/DS364/3; G/L/822/Add.1 | General Council | ['Panama'] | ['EU'] | [] | Consultation | Art. I:1, II, XIII:1, XIII:2, XXVIII GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
20 November 2012
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 27 June 2007, Panama requested consultations with the European Communities concerning its regime for the importation of bananas that has applied since 1 January 2006.
The request for consultations concerns EC Council Regulation 1... | 2 | European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (Guatemala;
Honduras; Mexico; United States) (DS16)
European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (Ecuador;
Guatemala; Honduras; Mexico; United States) (DS27)
European Communities – Regime for the I... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.265428 | |
364 | 364 | DS364_SEQ02_Report_By_Director_General.pdf | DS364_SEQ02_Report_By_Director_General.pdf | 2 | Report_By_Director_General | EC1 – REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION OF BANANAS (DS364) INITIATED BY PANAMA Report by the Director-General on the Use of His Good Offices in the Above-Mentioned Disputes (pursuant to Article 3.12 of the DSU) | NUMBERED | null | null | 1 – REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION OF BANANAS (DS361) INITIATED BY COLOMBIA | 22 December 2009 | WT/DS361/2; WT/DS364/2 | ['Panama'] | ['EU'] | [] | Consultation | Art. I:1, II, XIII:1, XIII:2, XXVIII GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
20 November 2012
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 27 June 2007, Panama requested consultations with the European Communities concerning its regime for the importation of bananas that has applied since 1 January 2006.
The request for consultations concerns EC Council Regulation 1... | 4 | EC
1 – REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION OF BANANAS (DS361) INITIATED
BY COLOMBIA
EC1 – REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION OF BANANAS (DS364) INITIATED
BY PANAMA
Report by the Director-General on the Use of His Good Offices
in the Above-Mentioned Disputes
(pursuant to Article 3.12 of the DSU)
The following communication, dated 21... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.268023 | |
364 | 364 | DS364_SEQ03_Report_By_Director_General_Corr.pdf | DS364_SEQ03_Report_By_Director_General_Corr.pdf | 3 | Report_By_Director_General | EC1 – REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION OF BANANAS (DS364) INITIATED BY PANAMA Report by the Director-General on the Use of His Good Offices in the Above-Mentioned Disputes (pursuant to Article 3.12 of the DSU) Corrigendum Paragraph 14, 3 rd line: "2009" should read "2008". | NUMBERED | Corr | null | 1 – REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION OF BANANAS (DS361) INITIATED BY COLOMBIA | 8 January 2010 | WT/DS361/2/Corr.1; WT/DS364/2/Corr.1 | ['Panama'] | ['EU'] | [] | Consultation | Art. I:1, II, XIII:1, XIII:2, XXVIII GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
20 November 2012
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 27 June 2007, Panama requested consultations with the European Communities concerning its regime for the importation of bananas that has applied since 1 January 2006.
The request for consultations concerns EC Council Regulation 1... | 1 | EC
1 – REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION OF BANANAS (DS361)
INITIATED BY COLOMBIA
EC1 – REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION OF BANANAS (DS364)
INITIATED BY PANAMA
Report by the Director-General on the Use of His Good Offices
in the Above-Mentioned Disputes
(pursuant to Article 3.12 of the DSU)
Corrigendum
Paragraph 14, 3
rd line: ... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.268345 | |
364 | 364 | DS364_SEQ04_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | DS364_SEQ04_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | 4 | Request_For_Consultations | Request for Consultations by Panama | NUMBERED | null | null | EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION OF BANANAS | 27 June 2007 | WT/DS364/1; G/L/822 | General Council | ['Panama'] | ['EU'] | [] | Consultation | Art. I:1, II, XIII:1, XIII:2, XXVIII GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
20 November 2012
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 27 June 2007, Panama requested consultations with the European Communities concerning its regime for the importation of bananas that has applied since 1 January 2006.
The request for consultations concerns EC Council Regulation 1... | 5 | EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION OF BANANAS
Request for Consultations by Panama
The following communication, dated 22 June 2007, from the delegation of Panama to the
delegation of the European Communities and to th e Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is
circulated in accordance with Article 4... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.271129 |
365 | 365 | DS365_SEQ01_Request_To_Join_Consultations_00.pdf | DS365_SEQ01_Request_To_Join_Consultations_00.pdf | 1 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from Canada | NUMBERED | null | 0 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS | 24 July 2007 | WT/DS365/2 | ['Brazil'] | ['U.S.'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Chile', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'South Africa', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Uruguay'] | Panel | Art. 3.2 Agriculture | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by Brazil.
On 11 July 2007, Brazil requested consultations with the United States concerning two distinct categories of US agricultural measures: (i) domestic support for agricultural products and (ii) export credit guarantees for agricultural... | 1 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES
FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Canada
The following communication, dated 20 July 2007, from the delegation of Canada to the
delegation of the United States, the delegation of Brazil and to the Chairman of the D... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.432574 | |
365 | 365 | DS365_SEQ02_Request_To_Join_Consultations_01.pdf | DS365_SEQ02_Request_To_Join_Consultations_01.pdf | 2 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from Guatemala | NUMBERED | null | 1 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS | 25 July 2007 | WT/DS365/3; WT/DS365/1 | ['Brazil'] | ['U.S.'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Chile', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'South Africa', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Uruguay'] | Panel | Art. 3.2 Agriculture | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by Brazil.
On 11 July 2007, Brazil requested consultations with the United States concerning two distinct categories of US agricultural measures: (i) domestic support for agricultural products and (ii) export credit guarantees for agricultural... | 1 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT
GUARANTEES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Guatemala
The following communication, dated 23 July 2007, from the delegation of Guatemala to the
delegation of the United States, the delegation of Brazil and to the Chairman of... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.433020 | |
365 | 365 | DS365_SEQ03_Request_To_Join_Consultations_02.pdf | DS365_SEQ03_Request_To_Join_Consultations_02.pdf | 3 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from Costa Rica | NUMBERED | null | 2 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS | 26 July 2007 | WT/DS365/4; WT/DS365/1 | ['Brazil'] | ['U.S.'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Chile', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'South Africa', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Uruguay'] | Panel | Art. 3.2 Agriculture | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by Brazil.
On 11 July 2007, Brazil requested consultations with the United States concerning two distinct categories of US agricultural measures: (i) domestic support for agricultural products and (ii) export credit guarantees for agricultural... | 1 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT
GUARANTEES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Costa Rica
The following communication, dated 24 July 2007, from the delegation of Costa Rica to the
delegation of the United States, the delegation of Brazil and to the Chairman ... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.433392 | |
365 | 365 | DS365_SEQ04_Request_To_Join_Consultations_03.pdf | DS365_SEQ04_Request_To_Join_Consultations_03.pdf | 4 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from the European Communities | NUMBERED | null | 3 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS | 27 July 2007 | WT/DS365/5 | ['Brazil'] | ['U.S.'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Chile', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'South Africa', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Uruguay'] | Panel | Art. 3.2 Agriculture | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by Brazil.
On 11 July 2007, Brazil requested consultations with the United States concerning two distinct categories of US agricultural measures: (i) domestic support for agricultural products and (ii) export credit guarantees for agricultural... | 1 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES
FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from the European Communities
The following communication, dated 25 July 2007, from the delegation of the European
Communities to the delegation of the United States, the delegation of... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.433859 | |
365 | 365 | DS365_SEQ05_Request_To_Join_Consultations_04.pdf | DS365_SEQ05_Request_To_Join_Consultations_04.pdf | 5 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from Mexico | NUMBERED | null | 4 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS | 27 July 2007 | WT/DS365/6 | ['Brazil'] | ['U.S.'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Chile', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'South Africa', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Uruguay'] | Panel | Art. 3.2 Agriculture | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by Brazil.
On 11 July 2007, Brazil requested consultations with the United States concerning two distinct categories of US agricultural measures: (i) domestic support for agricultural products and (ii) export credit guarantees for agricultural... | 1 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES
FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Mexico
The following communication, dated 24 July 2007, from the delegation of Mexico to the
delegation of the United States, the delegation of Brazil and to the Chairman of the D... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.434267 | |
365 | 365 | DS365_SEQ06_Request_To_Join_Consultations_05.pdf | DS365_SEQ06_Request_To_Join_Consultations_05.pdf | 6 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from Australia | NUMBERED | null | 5 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS | 30 July 2007 | WT/DS365/7 | ['Brazil'] | ['U.S.'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Chile', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'South Africa', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Uruguay'] | Panel | Art. 3.2 Agriculture | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by Brazil.
On 11 July 2007, Brazil requested consultations with the United States concerning two distinct categories of US agricultural measures: (i) domestic support for agricultural products and (ii) export credit guarantees for agricultural... | 1 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES
FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Australia
The following communication, dated 26 July 2007, from the delegation of Australia to the
delegation of the United States, the delegation of Brazil and to the Chairman of... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.434706 | |
365 | 365 | DS365_SEQ07_Request_To_Join_Consultations_06.pdf | DS365_SEQ07_Request_To_Join_Consultations_06.pdf | 7 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from Argentina | NUMBERED | null | 6 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS | 31 July 2007 | WT/DS365/8; WT/DS365/1; G/L/823; G/SCM/D76/1; G/AG/GEN/75 | Agriculture (AG); General Council; Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) | ['Brazil'] | ['U.S.'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Chile', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'South Africa', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Uruguay'] | Panel | Art. 3.2 Agriculture | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by Brazil.
On 11 July 2007, Brazil requested consultations with the United States concerning two distinct categories of US agricultural measures: (i) domestic support for agricultural products and (ii) export credit guarantees for agricultural... | 1 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES
FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Argentina
The following communication, dated 26 July 2007, from the delegation of Argentina to the
delegation of the United States, the delegation of Brazil and to the Chairman of... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.435185 |
365 | 365 | DS365_SEQ08_Request_To_Join_Consultations_07.pdf | DS365_SEQ08_Request_To_Join_Consultations_07.pdf | 8 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from Thailand | NUMBERED | null | 7 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS | 31 July 2007 | WT/DS365/9 | ['Brazil'] | ['U.S.'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Chile', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'South Africa', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Uruguay'] | Panel | Art. 3.2 Agriculture | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by Brazil.
On 11 July 2007, Brazil requested consultations with the United States concerning two distinct categories of US agricultural measures: (i) domestic support for agricultural products and (ii) export credit guarantees for agricultural... | 1 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES
FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Thailand
The following communication, dated 27 July 2007, from the delegation of Thailand to the
delegation of the United States, the delegation of Brazil and to the Chairman of t... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.435621 | |
365 | 365 | DS365_SEQ09_Request_To_Join_Consultations_08.pdf | DS365_SEQ09_Request_To_Join_Consultations_08.pdf | 9 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from India | NUMBERED | null | 8 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS | 31 July 2007 | WT/DS365/10; WT/DS365/1 | ['Brazil'] | ['U.S.'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Chile', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'South Africa', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Uruguay'] | Panel | Art. 3.2 Agriculture | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by Brazil.
On 11 July 2007, Brazil requested consultations with the United States concerning two distinct categories of US agricultural measures: (i) domestic support for agricultural products and (ii) export credit guarantees for agricultural... | 1 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES
FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from India
The following communication, dated 26 July 2007, from the delegation of India to the
delegation of the United States, the delegation of Brazil and to the Chairman of the Dis... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.435989 | |
365 | 365 | DS365_SEQ10_Request_To_Join_Consultations_09.pdf | DS365_SEQ10_Request_To_Join_Consultations_09.pdf | 10 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from Nicaragua | NUMBERED | null | 9 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS | 1 August 2007 | WT/DS365/11 | ['Brazil'] | ['U.S.'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Chile', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'South Africa', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Uruguay'] | Panel | Art. 3.2 Agriculture | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by Brazil.
On 11 July 2007, Brazil requested consultations with the United States concerning two distinct categories of US agricultural measures: (i) domestic support for agricultural products and (ii) export credit guarantees for agricultural... | 1 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES
FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Nicaragua
The following communication, dated 26 July 2007, from the delegation of Nicaragua to the
delegation of the United States, the delegation of Brazil and to the Chairman of... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.436544 | |
365 | 365 | DS365_SEQ11_Request_To_Join_Consultations_10.pdf | DS365_SEQ11_Request_To_Join_Consultations_10.pdf | 11 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Acceptance by the United States of the Requests to Join Consultations Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, th e European Communities, Guatemala, India, Nicaragua, Mexico and Thailand notified the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of their desire to be joined in the consultations requested by Brazil, pursuant to Articl... | NUMBERED | null | 10 | UNITED STATES - DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS | 21 August 2007 | WT/DS365/12 | ['Brazil'] | ['U.S.'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Chile', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'South Africa', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Uruguay'] | Panel | Art. 3.2 Agriculture | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by Brazil.
On 11 July 2007, Brazil requested consultations with the United States concerning two distinct categories of US agricultural measures: (i) domestic support for agricultural products and (ii) export credit guarantees for agricultural... | 1 | UNITED STATES - DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES
FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Acceptance by the United States of the Requests to Join Consultations
Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, th e European Communities, Guatemala, India,
Nicaragua, Mexico and Thailand notified the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.437205 | |
365 | 365 | DS365_SEQ12_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf | DS365_SEQ12_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf | 12 | Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel | Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Brazil | NUMBERED | null | null | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS | 9 November 2007 | WT/DS365/13 | ['Brazil'] | ['U.S.'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Chile', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'South Africa', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Uruguay'] | Panel | Art. 3.2 Agriculture | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by Brazil.
On 11 July 2007, Brazil requested consultations with the United States concerning two distinct categories of US agricultural measures: (i) domestic support for agricultural products and (ii) export credit guarantees for agricultural... | 14 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES
FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Brazil
The following communication, dated 8 November 2007, from the delegation of Brazil to the
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.443683 | |
365 | 365 | DS365_SEQ13_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | DS365_SEQ13_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | 13 | Request_For_Consultations | Request for Consultations by Brazil | NUMBERED | null | null | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS | 17 July 2007 | WT/DS365/1; G/L/823; G/SCM/D76/1; G/AG/GEN/75 | Agriculture (AG); General Council; Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) | ['Brazil'] | ['U.S.'] | ['Argentina', 'Australia', 'Chile', 'EU', 'India', 'Japan', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'South Africa', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Uruguay'] | Panel | Art. 3.2 Agriculture | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by Brazil.
On 11 July 2007, Brazil requested consultations with the United States concerning two distinct categories of US agricultural measures: (i) domestic support for agricultural products and (ii) export credit guarantees for agricultural... | 8 | UNITED STATES – DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES
FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Request for Consultations by Brazil
The following communication, dated 11 July 2007, from the delegation of Brazil to the
delegation of the United States and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in
accord... | 2026-03-15T15:51:51.448461 |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | DS366_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | 1 | Request_For_Consultations | Request for Consultations by Panama | NUMBERED | null | null | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 17 July 2007 | WT/DS366/1; G/L/824; G/VAL/D/9 | Customs Valuation (VAL); General Council | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 3 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS
ON PORTS OF ENTRY
Request for Consultations by Panama
The following communication, dated 12 July 2007, from the delegation of Panama to the
delegation of Colombia and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in
accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.... | 2026-03-15T15:51:53.823611 |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ02_Request_To_Join_Consultations_00.pdf | DS366_SEQ02_Request_To_Join_Consultations_00.pdf | 2 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from Guatemala | NUMBERED | null | 0 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 27 July 2007 | WT/DS366/2; WT/DS366/1 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 1 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS
ON PORTS OF ENTRY
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Guatemala
The following communication, dated 25 July 2007, from the delegation of Guatemala to the
delegation of Colombia, the delegation of Panama and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement
Body, is ... | 2026-03-15T15:51:53.823985 | |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ03_Request_To_Join_Consultations_01.pdf | DS366_SEQ03_Request_To_Join_Consultations_01.pdf | 3 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from Honduras | NUMBERED | null | 1 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 31 July 2007 | WT/DS366/3 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 1 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND
RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Honduras
The following communication, dated 24 July 2007, from the delegation of Honduras to the
delegation of Colombia, the delegation of Panama and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement
Body, is ci... | 2026-03-15T15:51:53.824389 | |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ04_Request_To_Join_Consultations_02.pdf | DS366_SEQ04_Request_To_Join_Consultations_02.pdf | 4 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from Chinese Taipei | NUMBERED | null | 2 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 1 August 2007 | WT/DS366/4 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 1 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS
ON PORTS OF ENTRY
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Chinese Taipei
The following communication, dated 27 July 2007, from the delegation of Chinese Taipei to
the delegation of Colombia, the delegation of Panama and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement... | 2026-03-15T15:51:53.824834 | |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ05_Request_To_Join_Consultations_03.pdf | DS366_SEQ05_Request_To_Join_Consultations_03.pdf | 5 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Acceptance by Colombia of the Requests to Join Consultations Guatemala, Honduras and Chinese Taipei notif ied the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of their desire to be joined in the consultations re quested by Panama, pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU. The delegation of Colombia informed the DSB that it had accepted th... | NUMBERED | null | 3 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 6 August 2007 | WT/DS366/5 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 1 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS
ON PORTS OF ENTRY
Acceptance by Colombia of the Requests to Join Consultations
Guatemala, Honduras and Chinese Taipei notif ied the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of
their desire to be joined in the consultations re quested by Panama, pursuant to Article 4.11 of the
DSU.
... | 2026-03-15T15:51:53.825375 | |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ06_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf | DS366_SEQ06_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf | 6 | Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel | Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Panama | NUMBERED | null | null | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 18 September 2007 | WT/DS366/6 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 3 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS
ON PORTS OF ENTRY
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Panama
The following communication, dated 14 Sept ember 2007, from the delegation of Panama to
the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.
On 12 July 2007, ... | 2026-03-15T15:51:53.827213 | |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ07_Note_By_Secretariat_00.pdf | DS366_SEQ07_Note_By_Secretariat_00.pdf | 7 | Note_By_Secretariat | Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of Panama Note by the Secretariat | NUMBERED | null | 0 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 11 February 2008 | WT/DS366/7; WT/DS366/6 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 1 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS
ON PORTS OF ENTRY
Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of Panama
Note by the Secretariat
1. At its meeting on 22 October 2007, the Disput e Settlement Body (DSB ) established a panel
pursuant to the request of Panama in document WT /DS366/6, in accordance... | 2026-03-15T15:51:53.827567 | |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ08_Communication.pdf | DS366_SEQ08_Communication.pdf | 8 | Communication | Communication from the Chairman of the Panel | NUMBERED | null | null | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 15 September 2008 | WT/DS366/8 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 1 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS
ON PORTS OF ENTRY
Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
The following communication, dated 9 September 2008, addressed to the Chairman of the
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), is circulated in accordance with Article 12.9 of the Dispute
Settlement Understanding (DSU)... | 2026-03-15T15:51:53.828014 | |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ09_Note_By_Secretariat_01.pdf | DS366_SEQ09_Note_By_Secretariat_01.pdf | 9 | Note_By_Secretariat | Appointment of Arbitrator by the Director-General under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes Note by the Secretariat On 30 July 2009, pursuant to the request received on 24 July 2009 from Panama, the Director-General appointed Mr. Giorgio Sacerdoti to act as ... | NUMBERED | null | 1 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 4 August 2009 | WT/DS366/11 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 1 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS
ON PORTS OF ENTRY
Appointment of Arbitrator by the Director-General under Article 21.3(c) of the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
Note by the Secretariat
On 30 July 2009, pursuant to the request received on 24 July 2009 from Pa... | 2026-03-15T15:51:53.828244 | |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ10_Extension_Of_Time_Period.pdf | DS366_SEQ10_Extension_Of_Time_Period.pdf | 10 | Extension_Of_Time_Period | Extension of Time Period under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU | NUMBERED | null | null | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 28 August 2009 | WT/DS366/12 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 1 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY
Extension of Time Period under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU
The following communication, dated 31 July 2009, from the delegation of Panama and the
delegation of Colombia to the Arbitrator and th e Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is
circulated in ... | 2026-03-15T15:51:53.828581 | |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ11_Understanding_00.pdf | DS366_SEQ11_Understanding_00.pdf | 11 | Understanding | ARB-2009-1/25 Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes | NUMBERED | null | 0 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 2 October 2009 | WT/DS366/13 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 52 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS
ON PORTS OF ENTRY
ARB-2009-1/25
Arbitration
under Article 21.3(c) of the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes
Award of the Arbitrator
Giorgio Sacerdoti
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
Parties
Colombia
Panama
ARB-2009-1/25
Arbitrator:
... | 2026-03-15T15:51:53.852830 | |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ12_Understanding_01.pdf | DS366_SEQ12_Understanding_01.pdf | 12 | Understanding | Understanding between Panama and Colombia Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU | NUMBERED | null | 1 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 26 February 2010 | WT/DS366/14 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 3 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND
RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY
Understanding between Panama and Colombia
Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU
The following communication, dated 23 Februa ry 2010, from the delegation of Panama and
the delegation of Colombia to the Chairman of th e Dispute Settle... | 2026-03-15T15:51:53.854213 | |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ13_Status_Report.pdf | DS366_SEQ13_Status_Report.pdf | 13 | Status_Report | Status Report by Colombia | NUMBERED | null | null | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 9 April 2010 | WT/DS366/15 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 2 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND
RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY
Status Report by Colombia
The following communication, dated 30 March 2010, from the delegation of Colombia to the
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU.
Status Report regarding Implementation and Co... | 2026-03-15T15:51:53.854948 | |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ14_Report_Of_Panel_00.pdf | DS366_SEQ14_Report_Of_Panel_00.pdf | 14 | Report_Of_Panel | Panel Report Action by the Dispute Settlement Body | PANEL_REPORT | null | 0 | COLOMBIA - INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 25 May 2009 | WT/DS366/9; WT/DS366/R; WT/DS366/R/Corr.1; WT/DS366/R; WT/DS366/R/Corr.1 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 1 | COLOMBIA - INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS
ON PORTS OF ENTRY
Panel Report
Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
At its meeting on 20 May 2009, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Panel report
( and ).
COLOMBIE - PRIX INDICATIFS ET RESTRICTIONS
Rapport du Groupe spécial
Groupe spécial ( et ).
COLOMBIA - P... | 2026-03-15T15:51:53.855358 | |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ15_Report_Of_Panel_01.pdf | DS366_SEQ15_Report_Of_Panel_01.pdf | 15 | Report_Of_Panel | Report of the Panel | PANEL_REPORT | null | 1 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 27 April 2009 | WT/DS366/R | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 254 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS
ON PORTS OF ENTRY
Report of the Panel
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia pursuant to Article 4 of the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Govern ing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"),
Article XXII:1 of the General Agr eeme... | 2026-03-15T15:51:54.030187 | |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ16_Report_Of_Panel_Corr.pdf | DS366_SEQ16_Report_Of_Panel_Corr.pdf | 16 | Report_Of_Panel | Report of the Panel Corrigendum Paragraph 6.1 should read as follows: "On 4 March 2009, the Panel issued its Interim Report to the parties. On | PANEL_REPORT | Corr | null | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 6 May 2009 | WT/DS366/R/Corr.1 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 1 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS
ON PORTS OF ENTRY
Report of the Panel
Corrigendum
Paragraph 6.1 should read as follows:
"On 4 March 2009, the Panel issued its Interim Report to the parties. On
18 March 2009, both parties submitted written requests for the review of precise
aspects of the Interim Repor... | 2026-03-15T15:51:54.030502 | |
366 | 366 | DS366_SEQ17_Request_For_Arbitration.pdf | DS366_SEQ17_Request_For_Arbitration.pdf | 17 | Request_For_Arbitration | Request by Panama for Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU | ARBITRATION | null | null | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS ON PORTS OF ENTRY | 9 July 2009 | WT/DS366/10; WT/DS366/R; WT/DS366/R/Corr.1 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['China', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Panel | Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 Customs valuationArt. VII, VII:1, III:2, X:3(a), XIII:1, V:6 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 February 2010
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain... | 1 | COLOMBIA – INDICATIVE PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS
ON PORTS OF ENTRY
Request by Panama for Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU
The following communication, dated 7 July 2009, from the delegation of Panama to the
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated at the request of that delegation.
On 20 May ... | 2026-03-15T15:51:54.030944 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ01_Request_To_Join_Consultations_00.pdf | DS367_SEQ01_Request_To_Join_Consultations_00.pdf | 1 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from the European Communities | NUMBERED | null | 0 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 14 September 2007 | WT/DS367/2 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES
FROM NEW ZEALAND
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from the European Communities
The following communication, dated 13 Sept ember 2007, from the delegation of the
European Communities to the delegation of Austra lia, the delegation of New Zealand an... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.550880 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ02_Request_To_Join_Consultations_01.pdf | DS367_SEQ02_Request_To_Join_Consultations_01.pdf | 2 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Request to Join Consultations Communication from the United States | NUMBERED | null | 1 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 18 September 2007 | WT/DS367/3; WT/DS367/1 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES
FROM NEW ZEALAND
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from the United States
The following communication, dated 14 Sept ember 2007, from the delegation of the
United States to the delegation of Australia, the de legation of New Zealand and to the Chair... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.551459 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ03_Request_To_Join_Consultations_02.pdf | DS367_SEQ03_Request_To_Join_Consultations_02.pdf | 3 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | Acceptance by Australia of the Requests to Join Consultations The European Communities and the United States notified the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of their desire to be joined in the cons ultations requested by New Zealand, pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU. The delegation of Australia informed the DSB that it h... | NUMBERED | null | 2 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 1 October 2007 | WT/DS367/4 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES
FROM NEW ZEALAND
Acceptance by Australia of the Requests to Join Consultations
The European Communities and the United States notified the Dispute Settlement Body
(DSB) of their desire to be joined in the cons ultations requested by New Zealand, pursuant to
Ar... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.552023 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ04_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf | DS367_SEQ04_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf | 4 | Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel | Request for the Establishment of a Panel by New Zealand | NUMBERED | null | null | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 7 December 2007 | WT/DS367/5 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 3 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES
FROM NEW ZEALAND
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by New Zealand
The following communication, dated 6 Decemb er 2007, from the delegation of New Zealand
to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.
... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.553444 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ05_Note_By_Secretariat.pdf | DS367_SEQ05_Note_By_Secretariat.pdf | 5 | Note_By_Secretariat | Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of New Zealand Note by the Secretariat | NUMBERED | null | null | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 13 March 2008 | WT/DS367/6; WT/DS367/5; WT/DS367/5 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES
FROM NEW ZEALAND
Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of New Zealand
Note by the Secretariat
1. At its meeting on 21 January 2008, the Di spute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel
pursuant to the request of New Zealand in document , in ac... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.553995 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ06_Communication_00.pdf | DS367_SEQ06_Communication_00.pdf | 6 | Communication | Communication from the Chairman of the Panel Preliminary Ruling by the Panel | NUMBERED | null | 0 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 23 June 2008 | WT/DS367/7; WT/DS367/5 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 4 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES
FROM NEW ZEALAND
Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
Preliminary Ruling by the Panel
The following communication, dated 19 June 2008, from the Chairman of the Panel to the
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated to Members for their in... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.556664 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ07_Communication_01.pdf | DS367_SEQ07_Communication_01.pdf | 7 | Communication | Communication from the Chairman of the Panel | NUMBERED | null | 1 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 23 September 2008 | WT/DS367/8 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES
FROM NEW ZEALAND
Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
The following communication, dated 19 September 2008, addressed to the Chairman of the
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), is circulated in accordance with Article 12.9 of the Dispute
Settlement Understa... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.557245 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ08_Communication_02.pdf | DS367_SEQ08_Communication_02.pdf | 8 | Communication | Communication from the Chairman of the Panel | NUMBERED | null | 2 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 29 June 2009 | WT/DS367/9 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES
FROM NEW ZEALAND
Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
The following communication, dated 22 June 2009 , addressed to the Chairman of the Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB), is circulated in accordan ce with Article 12.9 of the Dispute Settlement
Understandi... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.557832 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ09_Communication_03.pdf | DS367_SEQ09_Communication_03.pdf | 9 | Communication | Communication from the Chairman of the Panel | NUMBERED | null | 3 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 29 January 2010 | WT/DS367/10 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES
FROM NEW ZEALAND
Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
The following communication, dated 29 January 2010, addressed to the Chairman of the
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), is circulated in accordance with Article 12.9 of the Dispute
Settlement Understand... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.558355 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ10_Questions_And_Replies.pdf | DS367_SEQ10_Questions_And_Replies.pdf | 10 | Questions_And_Replies | Replies from the scientific experts to questions posed by the Panel ∗ In accordance with the Procedures for the Panel' s meeting with the experts and Parties and the Panel's second substantive meeting, adopted by the Panel on 11 June 2009, the list of replies from the scientific experts to questions posed by the Panel ... | NUMBERED | null | null | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 9 August 2010 | WT/DS367/11 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 157 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES
FROM NEW ZEALAND
Replies from the scientific experts to questions posed by the Panel
∗
In accordance with the Procedures for the Panel' s meeting with the experts and Parties and the
Panel's second substantive meeting, adopted by the Panel on 11 June 2009, the... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.646766 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ11_Transcript.pdf | DS367_SEQ11_Transcript.pdf | 11 | Transcript | Transcript of the proceedings of the Panel's meeting with the experts ∗ In accordance with the Procedures for the Panel' s meeting with the experts and Parties and the Panel's second substantive meeting, adopted by the Panel on 11 June 2009, the transcript of the proceedings of the Panel's meeting with the scien tific... | NUMBERED | null | null | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 9 August 2010 | WT/DS367/12 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 96 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES
FROM NEW ZEALAND
Transcript of the proceedings of the Panel's meeting with the experts
∗
In accordance with the Procedures for the Panel' s meeting with the experts and Parties and the
Panel's second substantive meeting, adopted by the Panel on 11 June 2009, t... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.696905 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ12_Notification_Of_Appeal.pdf | DS367_SEQ12_Notification_Of_Appeal.pdf | 12 | Notification_Of_Appeal | Notification of an Appeal by Australia under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), and under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review | NUMBERED | null | null | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 3 September 2010 | WT/DS367/13 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 2 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION
OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND
Notification of an Appeal by Australia
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),
and under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
The followin... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.697744 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ13_Notification_Of_Appeal_Corr.pdf | DS367_SEQ13_Notification_Of_Appeal_Corr.pdf | 13 | Notification_Of_Appeal | Notification of an Appeal by Australia under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), and under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review Corrigendum By letter of 16 September 2010, Australia re quested authorization from the Ap... | NUMBERED | Corr | null | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 27 September 2010 | WT/DS367/13/Corr.1 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION
OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND
Notification of an Appeal by Australia
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),
and under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
Corrigendum
... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.698044 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ14_Working_Procedures.pdf | DS367_SEQ14_Working_Procedures.pdf | 14 | Working_Procedures | Notification of an Other Appeal by New Zealand 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 | NUMBERED | null | null | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 15 September 2010 | WT/DS367/14 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF
APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND
Notification of an Other Appeal by New Zealand
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 ... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.698548 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ15_Communication_04.pdf | DS367_SEQ15_Communication_04.pdf | 15 | Communication | Communication from the Appellate Body | NUMBERED | null | 4 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 11 November 2010 | WT/DS367/15 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION
OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND
Communication from the Appellate Body
The following communication, dated 29 October 2010, from the Chairman of the Appellate
Body addressed to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with
Article 17.5 of the Un... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.699032 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ16_Communication_05.pdf | DS367_SEQ16_Communication_05.pdf | 16 | Communication | Communication from the Appellate Body | NUMBERED | null | 5 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 30 November 2010 | WT/DS367/16; WT/DS367/AB/R. | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION
OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND
Communication from the Appellate Body
The following communication, dated 29 November 2010, from the Chairman of the Appellate
Body addressed to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with
Article 17.5 of the U... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.699352 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ17_Communication_06.pdf | DS367_SEQ17_Communication_06.pdf | 17 | Communication | Communication from Australia | NUMBERED | null | 6 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 13 January 2011 | WT/DS367/18 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES
FROM NEW ZEALAND
Communication from Australia
The following communication, dated 10 January 2011, from the delegation of Australia to the
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated at the request of this delegation.
At its 17 December 2010 meetin... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.699879 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ18_Agreement_Art_21_3.pdf | DS367_SEQ18_Agreement_Art_21_3.pdf | 18 | Agreement_Art_21_3 | Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU | NUMBERED | null | null | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 1 February 2011 | WT/DS367/19 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES
FROM NEW ZEALAND
Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU
The following communication, dated 31 January 2011, from the delegation of Australia and
the delegation of New Zealand to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in
accordance with ... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.700314 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ19_Status_Report.pdf | DS367_SEQ19_Status_Report.pdf | 19 | Status_Report | Status Report by Australia | NUMBERED | null | null | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 23 August 2011 | WT/DS367/20 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 2 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES
FROM NEW ZEALAND
Status Report by Australia
The following communication, dated 22 August 2011, from the delegation of the Australia to
the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU.
Status Report Regarding I... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.701150 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ20_Understanding.pdf | DS367_SEQ20_Understanding.pdf | 20 | Understanding | Understanding between New Zealand and Australia Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU | NUMBERED | null | null | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 19 September 2011 | WT/DS367/21 | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 3 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES
FROM NEW ZEALAND
Understanding between New Zealand and Australia
Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU
The following communication, dated 13 September 2011, from the delegation of
New Zealand and the delegation of Australia to th e Chairpers... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.702492 | |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ21_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | DS367_SEQ21_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | 21 | Request_For_Consultations | Request for Consultations by New Zealand | NUMBERED | null | null | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 4 September 2007 | WT/DS367/1; G/L/825; G/SPS/GEN/796 | General Council; Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES
FROM NEW ZEALAND
Request for Consultations by New Zealand
The following communication, dated 31 Augus t 2007, from the delegation of New Zealand to
the delegation of Australia and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in
accordance with... | 2026-03-15T15:52:00.703201 |
367 | 367 | DS367_SEQ22_Report_Of_Panel.pdf | DS367_SEQ22_Report_Of_Panel.pdf | 22 | Report_Of_Panel | Report of the Panel | PANEL_REPORT | null | null | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND | 9 August 2010 | WT/DS367/R | ['New Zealand'] | ['Australia'] | ['Chile', 'EU', 'Japan', 'Pakistan', 'Taiwan', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 8, Annex C Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
21 October 2011
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by New Zealand.
On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Z... | 598 | AUSTRALIA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE
IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND
Report of the Panel
I. INTRODUCTION
A. REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS
1.1 On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia pursuant to
Article XXII of the General Agre ement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), Article 4 of ... | 2026-03-15T15:52:01.090057 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.