* This document was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the WTO website (visited September 20, 2001) http://www.wto.org.

1 WT/DS135/R, 18 September 2000.

2 Journal officiel, 26 December 1996.

3 WT/DS135/R/Add.1,pp. 3-6

4 Panel Report, paras. 1.1 and 1.2. In its request for the establishment of a panel (WT/DS/135/3,9 October 1998), Canada also claimed that the Decree is inconsistent with the obligations of the European Communities under Articles 2 and 5 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures(the “SPS Agreement“). However, Canada did not pursue this claim in its written or oral arguments before the Panel.

5 Panel Report, para. 9.1.

6 Ibid., para. 8.159.

7 WT/DS135/8, 23 October 2000.

8 Pursuant to Rule 21(1) of the Working Procedures.

9 Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures.

10 Pursuant to Rules 22 and 23(3) of the Working Procedures.

11 Pursuant to Rule 24 of the Working Procedures.

12 WT/DS135/10, 20 December 2000.

13 Pursuant to Rule 27 of the Working Procedures.

14 Appellate Body Report, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, para. 124.

15 Panel Report, WT/DS2/R, adopted 20 May 1996, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WT/DS2/AB/R, DSR 1996:1, 29.

16 Panel Report, para. 8.191.

17 Ibid., para. 8.191 and footnote 147.

18 Panel Report, paras. 8.192 and 8.193.

19 Ibid., para. 8.192 and footnote 154.

20 Ibid., paras. 8.202 and 8.203.

21 Ibid., para. 8.191.

22 European Communities’ appellee's submission, para. 43.

23 European Communities’ other appellant's submission, para. 29.

24 Panel Report, para. 8.132.

25 Panel Report, para. 8.131.

26 Ibid., para. 8.264.

27 Appellate Body Report, United States — Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/AB/R, adopted 23 May 1997, DSR 1997:1, 323, at 340.

28 Panel Report, paras. 6.1-6.4 and 8.12-8.14.

29 WT/DS 135/9, 8 November 2000.

30 Such submissions were received from: Asbestos Information Association (United States); HVL Asbestos (Swaziland) Limited (Bulembu Mine); South African Asbestos Producers Advisory Committee (South Africa); J & S Bridle Associates (United Kingdom); Assoçiãfao das Indústrias de Produtos de Amianio Crisótilo (Portugal); Asbestos Cement Industries Limited (Sri Lanka); The Federation of Thai Industries, Roofing and Accessories Club (Thailand); Korea Asbestos Association (Korea); Senac (Senegal); Syndicat des Métallos (Canada); Duralita de Centroamerica, S.A. de C.V. (El Salvador); Asociacion Colombiana de Fibras (Colombia); and Japan Asbestos Association (Japan).

31 Applications from the following persons were received by the Division after the deadline specified in the Additional Procedure for receipt of such applications: Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (United Kingdom); All India A.C. Pressure Pipe Manufacturer's Association (India); International Confederation of Free Trade Unions/European Trade Union Confederation (Belgium); Maharashtra Asbestos Cement Pipe Manufacturers’ Association (India); Roofit Industries Ltd. (India); and Society for Occupational and Environmental Health (United States).

32 Applications from the following persons were received by the Division within the deadline specified in the Additional Procedure for receipt of such applications: Professor Robert Lloyd Howse (United States); Occupational & Environmental Diseases Association (United Kingdom); American Public Health Association (United States); Centro de Estudios Comunitarios de la Universidad Nacional de Rosario (Argentina); Only Nature Endures (India); Korea Asbestos Association (Korea); International Council on Metals and the Environment and American Chemistry Council (United States); European Chemical Industry Council (Belgium); Australian Centre for Environmental Law at the Australian National University (Australia); Associate Professor Jan McDonald and Mr. Don Anton (Australia); and a joint application from Foundation for Environmental Law and Development (United Kingdom), Center for International Environmental Law (Switzerland), International Ban Asbestos Secretariat (United Kingdom), Ban Asbestos International and Virtual Network (France), Greenpeace International (The Netherlands), World Wide Fund for Nature, International (Switzerland), and Lutheran World Federation (Switzerland).

33 These organizations, together with the Center for International Environmental Law and the Lutheran World Federation, filed a joint application for leave to file a written brief. We decided to deny leave to these applicants to file a written brief. See supra, para. 56 and footnote 32.

34 Panel Report, heading (a) on p. 404 and heading (b) on p. 411

35 Ibid., para. 8.72(a).

36 Ibid., para. 8.72.

37 Ibid., para. 8.5

38 WT/DS135/3. In its request for the establishment of a panel, Canada stated: … the Government of Canada requested consultations with the European Communities concerning certain measures taken by France prohibiting asbestos and products containing asbestos, and concerning the general asbestos regulations in force in France. These measures and regulations include, but are not limited to, Decree No. 96-1133 … (emphasis added) Canada requested that the Panel “find that Decree No. 96-1133” is inconsistent with the European Communities’ WTO obligations, (emphasis added) See, further, Canada's request for consultations, WT/DS135/1, G/SPS/GEN/72, G/TBT/D/15, which also identifies the measure at issue as Decree No. 96-1133.

39 The full text of the Decree is reproduced in Annex I in the Addendum to the Panel Report. Articles 1 and 2 of the Decree are reproduced in paragraph 2 of this Report.

40 Panel Report, para. 8.57. We note that the Panel stated that a “technical regulation” must apply to “identifiable” products (Panel Report, para. 8.38; emphasis added). However, the Panel went on to state that a “technical regulation” must apply to “given” products (Panel Report, para. 8.57; emphasis added). The Panel also noted that the measure does not “identify by name nor even by function or category” the products covered by the measure (Panel Report, para. 8.40; emphasis added). Thus, in parts of the Panel Report, the Panel appears to require that a “technical regulation” apply to given products rather than identifiable products.

41 Canada asserted that “chrysotile fibre has no use in its raw form; it serves as an input in the production of chrysotile materials” (Panel Report, paras. 3.418 and 3.439). This assertion is not contested by the European Communities.

42 Article 5 of the Decree characterizes a contravention of any aspect of Articles 1.1 or 1.II as a “5th class offence.“

43 Article 2.II of the Decree.

44 Article 2.1 of the Decree.

45 Article 3.1 of the Decree.

46 Article 3.II of the Decree limits the benefit of the exception to activities that have been the subject of the necessary formalities.

47 Panel Report, para. 8.69.

48 See, for instance, Appellate Body Report, United States — Gasoline, supra, footnote 15, at 18 ff; Appellate Body Report, Canada — Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals ^Canada — Periodicals“), WT/DS31/AB/R, adopted 30 July 1997, DSR 1997:1, 449, at 469 ff; Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products ﹛Hormones) (“European Communities — Hormones“), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998, paras. 222 ff; Appellate Body Report, European Communities—Measures Affecting the Importation of Certain Poultry Products, WT/DS69/AB/R, adopted 23 July 1998, paras. 156 ff; Appellate Body Report, Australia — Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon (“Australia — Salmon“), WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, paras. 117 ff, 193 ff and 227 ff; Appellate Body Report, United States — Shrimp, supra, footnote 14, paras. 123 ff; Appellate Body Report, Japan — Measures Affecting Agricultural Products, WT/DS76/AB/R, adopted 19 March 1999, paras. 112 ff; Appellate Body Report, United States — Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations,” WT/DS 108/AB/R, adopted 20 March 2000, paras. 133 ff; Appellate Body Report, Canada — Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU, WT/DS70/AB/RW, adopted 4 August 2000, paras . 43 ff; and Appellate Body Report, United States — Definitive\ Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities (“United States — Wheat Gluten“), WT/DSl66/AB/R, adopted 19 January 2001, paras. 80 ff and 127 ff. In addition, after modifying the panel's reasoning, we have, on occasion, applied our interpretation of the legal provisions at issue to the facts of the case (see, for instance, Appellate Body Report, Argentina—Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and Other Items, WT/DS56/AB/R, adopted 22 April 1998, paras. 48 ff; Appellate Body Report, Canada — Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products, WT/DS103/AB/R, WT/DSl 13/AB/R, adopted 27 October 1999, paras. 138 ff; Appellate Body Report, Argentina — Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear, WT/DSl21/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, paras. 109 ff).

49 See Appellate Body Report, Australia — Salmon, supra, footnote 48, paras. 209 ff, 241 ff and 255; Appellate Body Report, Korea — Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, paras. 91 ff and 102 ff; Appellate Body Report, Canada — Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry, WT/DSl39/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, adopted 19 June 2000, paras. 133 ff and 144 ff; Appellate Body Report, Korea — Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef (“Korea —Beef“), WT/DS1 61/AB/R, WT/DSl 69/AB/R, adopted 10 January 2001, paras. 128 ff.

50 Supra, footnote 48, at 469.

51 The Panel's approach is set forth in para. 8.111 of the Panel Report.

52 Panel Report, para. 8.144.

53 Ibid., para. 8.150.

54 Working Party Report, Border Tax Adjustments, adopted 2 December 1970, BISD 18S/97.

55 Panel Report, paras. 8.130 and 8.132.

56 European Communities’ other appellant's submission, para. 45.

57 We have already had occasion to interpret other aspects of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 in two other appeals, but in neither appeal were we asked to address the meaning of the term “like products” (see Appellate Body Report, European Communities — Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September 1997, and Appellate Body Report, Korea — Beef, supra, footnote 49).

58 See, for instance, Working Party Report, Brazilian Internal Taxes, adopted 30 June 1949, BISD 11/181, (Article III:2 of the GATT 1947); Working Party Report, The Australian Subsidy on Ammonium Sulphate (“Australia — Ammonium Sulphate“), adopted 3 April 1950, BISD 11/188 (Articles I and III:4 of the GATT 1947); Panel Report, Treatment by Germany of Imports of Sardines (“Germany — Sardines“), adopted 31 October 1952, BISD IS/53 (Articles I and XIII of the GATT 1947); Working Party Report, Border Tax Adjustments, supra, footnote 54 (Articles II, III and XVI of the GATT 1947); Panel Report, EEC — Measures on Animal Feed Proteins (“EEC — Animal Feed“), adopted 14 March 1978, BISD 25S/49 (Articles I,III:2 and III:4 of the GATT 1947); Panel Report, Spain — Tariff Treatment of Unroasted Coffee, adopted 11 June 1981, BISD 28S/102 (Article I:I of the GATT 1947); Panel Report, Spain — Measures Concerning Domestic Sale of Soyabean Oil (“Spain — Soyabean“), L/5142, 17 June 1981, unadopted (Article III:4 of the GATT 1947); Panel Report, Canada — Measures Affecting the Sale of Gold Coins, L/5863, 17 September 1985, unadopted (Article III:2 of the GATT 1947); Panel Report, United States — Taxes on Petroleum and Certain Imported Substances adopted 17 June 1987, BISD 34S/136 (Article III:2 of the GATT 1947); Panel Report, Japan — Customs Duties, Taxes and Labelling Practices on Imported Wines and Alcoholic Beverages (“1987 Japan — Alcoholic Beverages“), adopted 10 November 1987, BISD 34S/83 (Article III:2 of the GATT 1947); Panel Report, Canada/Japan — Tariff on Imports of Spruce, Pine, Fir (SPF) Dimension Lumber, adopted 19 July 1989, BISD 36S/167 (Article I:I of the GATT 1947); Panel Report, United States — Definition of Industry Concerning Wine and Grape Products, adopted 28 April 1992, BISD 39S/436 (Article VI of the GATT 1947); Panel Report, United States — Denial of Most-favoured-nation Treatment as to Non-rubber Footwear from Brazil, adopted 19 June 1992, BISD 39S/128 (Article I:I of the GATT 1947); Panel Report, United States — Measures Affecting Alcoholic and Malt Beverages, adopted 19 June 1992, BISD 39S/206 (Article III:2 and III:4 of the GATT 1947); Panel Report, United States — Taxes on Automobiles, DS31/R, 11 October 1994, unadopted (Article III:2 and III:4 of the GATT 1947); Panel Report, United States — Gasoline, supra, footnote 15 (Article III:4 of the GATT 1994); Panel Report, Japan — Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (“Japan—Alcoholic Beverages“), WT/DS8/R, WT/DS10/R, WT/DSl 1/R, adopted 1 November 1996, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, DSR 1996:1, 125 (Article III:2 of the GATT 1994); Appellate Body Report, Japan — Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DSl 1/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, DSR 1996:1,97 (Article III:2 of the GATT 1994); Panel Report, Canada — Periodicals, WT/DS31/R, adopted 30 July 1997, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WT/DS31/AB/R, DSR 1997:1,481 (Articles III:2 and III:4 of the GATT 1994); Appellate Body Report, Canada — Periodicals; supra, footnote 48 (Article III:2 of the GATT 1994); Panel Report, Indonesia — Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industr.

59 T/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WTDS64/R, adopted 23 July 1998 (Articles I:I and III:2 of the GATT 1994); Panel Report, Korea — Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (“Korea — Alcoholic Beverages“), WT/DS75/R, WT/DS84/R, adopted 17 February 1999, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WT/DS75/AB/R, WT/DS84/AB/R (Article III:2 of the GATT 1994); Appellate Body Report, Korea —Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS75/AB/R, WT/DS84/AB/R, adopted 17 February 1999 (Article III:2 of the GATT 1994); Panel Report, Chile — Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DSSl/R, WT/DSDOfR, adopted 12 January 2000, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WT/DS87/AB/R, WT/DS110/AB/R (Article III:2 of the GATT 1994).

59 In addition, the term “like commodity” appears in Article VI:7 and the term “like merchandise” is used in Article VII:2 of the GATT 1994.

60 Appellate Body Report, Japan — Alcoholic Beverages, supra, footnote 58, at 114. We also cautioned against the automatic transposition of the interpretation of “likeness” under the first sentence of Article III:2 to other provisions where the phrase “like products” is used (p. 113).

61 The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Lesley Brown (ed.) (Clarendon Press, 1993), Vol. I, p. 1588.

62 WTO Agreement, final, authenticating clause. See, also, Article 33(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, done at Vienna, 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331; 8 International Legal Materials 679.

63 Appellate Body Report, Canada — Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, para. 153.

64 Appellate Body Report, Japan — Alcoholic Beverages, supra, footnote 58, at 112 and 113. See, also, Appellate Body Report, Canada — Periodicals, supra, footnote 48, at 473.

65 Appellate Body Report, Japan — Alcoholic Beverages, supra, footnote 58, at 111.

66 Ibid.

67 The meaning of the second sentence of Article III:2 is elaborated upon in the Interpretative Note to that provision. This note indicates that the second sentence of Article III:2 applies to “directly competitive or substitutable produces].“

68 Supra, footnote 58, at 112 and 113.

69 Appellate Body Report, Japan —Alcoholic Beverages, supra, footnote 58, at 109 and 110.

70 Ibid., at 111.

71 Appellate Body Report, Japan —Alcoholic Beverages, supra, footnote 58, at 114.

72 Appellate Body Report, Japan —Alcoholic Beverages, supra, footnote 58, at 113.

73 See, further, Appellate Body Report, Japan —Alcoholic Beverages, supra, footnote 58, at 113 and, in particular, footnote 46. See, also, Panel Report, United States — Gasoline, supra, footnote 15, para. 6.8, where the approach set forth in the Border Tax Adjustment case was adopted in a dispute concerning Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 by a panel. This point was not appealed in that case.

74 The fourth criterion, tariff classification, was not mentioned by the Working Party on Border Tax Adjustments, but was included by subsequent panels (see, for instance, EEC — Animal Feed, supra, footnote 58, para. 4.2, and 1987 Japan — Alcoholic Beverages, supra, footnote 58, para. 5.6).

75 European Communities’ other appellant's submission, para. 33.

76 Panel Report, paras. 8.114 and 8.115.

77 Ibid., para. 8.126.

78 Ibid., paras. 8.123, 8.124 and 8.126.

79 Ibid., para. 8.130.

80 Ibid., para. 8.136.

81 Panel Report, para. 8.139.

82 Ibid.

83 Ibid., para. 8.143.

84 Ibid., para. 8.144.

85 Ibid.

86 Ibid., para. 8.150. The Panel devoted six paragraphs to the “likeness” of the cement-based products, whereas it devoted 27 paragraphs to the “likeness” of chrysotile asbestos and PCG fibres

87 Ibid., para. 8.126.

88 Panel Report, para. 8.123.

89 Ibid., para. 8.121.

90 Ibid., paras. 8.122 and 8.124.

91 Ibid., paras. 8.123 and 8.125.

92 Ibid., para. 8.126.

93 Ibid., para. 8.125.

94 Panel Report, para. 8.132.

95 Ibid., para. 8.130.

96 Panel Report, para. 8.220.

97 Panel Report, para. 8.136.

98 Ibid., para. 8.124.

99 Ibid., paras. 8.124 and 8.125.

100 Ibid,, para. 8.139.

101 In that respect, we note that, at the oral hearing before us, Canada stated that it believed that the parties were in agreement that consideration of consumers’ tastes and habits “would add nothing” to the determination of “likeness.“

102 We have already noted the health risks associated with chrysotile asbestos fibres in our consideration of properties (supra, para. 1141.

103 We recognize that consumers’ reactions to products posing a risk to human health vary considerably depending on the product, and on the consumer. Some dangerous products, such as tobacco, are widely used, despite the known health risks. The influence known dangers have on consumers’ tastes and habits is, therefore, unlikely to be uniform or entirely predictable.

104 Supra, footnote 58, para. 115.

105 Ibid., para. 120. We added that “studies of cross-price elasticity … involve an assessment of latent demand” (para. 121).

106 Supra, footnote 58, para. 137.

107 Panel Report, para. 8.143.

108 Panel Report, para. 8.145.

109 Ibid.

110 Ibid., para. 8.148.

111 Ibid., para. 8.149.

112 Ibid., para. 8.150.

113 Supra, para. 113.

114 Supra, para. 114.

115 Panel Report, para. 8.203.

116 Panel Report, para. 8.145.

117 See, further, supra, paras. 117 and 118. See, also, supra, paras. 121 and 122.

118 Panel Report, para. 8.121.

119 Supra, para. 114.

120 Panel Report, para. 8.188.

121 Ibid., para. 8.220.

122 Ibid.

123 Panel Report, para. 8.125.

124 Ibid., para. 3.21.

125 Ibid., paras. 3.21 (Canada) and 3.23 (European Communities). The lists of important uses given by the parties is not identical in all respects and we have distilled from each list the common elements.

126 Panel Report, para. 3.21, footnote 7.

127 Supra, paras. 120 and 123.

128 Ibid.

129 Our reasons for reaching this conclusion are set forth, supra, in paras. 117, 118, 121 and 122.

130 Canada did present evidence that the impact of the Decree was to reduce demand for chrysotile (Panel Report, paras. 3.20 and 3.422). However, as Canada recognized, this is a necessary consequence of the prohibition on chrysotile and is not evidence of consumers’ attitudes and choices regarding the products at issue. As we have said, regulatory measures may suppress latent consumer demand for a product (supra, para. 123).

131 Panel Report, para. 8.203.

132 Ibid., para. 8.145.

133 Supra, para. 129.

134 Supra, paras. 120 and 123.

135 Supra, para. 117.

136 Supra, para. 130.

137 Panel Report, para. 8.148.

138 Supra, para. 114.

139 Ibid.

140 Ibid.

141 Panel Report, para. 8.188. See, supra, para. 114.

142 Panel Report, para. 8.193.

143 Panel Report, para. 8.194.

144 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 170. The seven factors Canada relies upon are identified in para. 19 of this Report.

145 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 171.

146 Supra, footnote 48, para. 151.

147 Supra, footnote 58, para. 161.

148 Appellate Body Report, United States — Wheat Gluten, supra, footnote 48, para. 151.

149 Panel Report, para.8.188.

150 Panel Report, para. 8.222.

151 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 187.

152 Ibid., paras. 188 and 189.

153 Ibid, para. 193.

154 Ibid., para. 195.

155 Supra, paras. 159-163.

156 Appellate Body Report, European Communities — Hormones, supra, footnote 48, para. 186.

157 Panel Report, para. 8.202.

158 Ibid., para. 8.188. See Panel Report, para. 5.29, for a description of mesothelioma given by Dr. Henderson.

159 Ibid., para. 8.204.

160 Ibid., para. 8.220.

161 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 202, referring to, inter alia, para. 130 of that submission.

162 See Panel Report, United States — Gasoline, supra, footnote 15, paras. 6.26 and 6.28.

163 Adopted 20 February 1990, BISD 37S/20O, para. 75.

164 Supra, footnote 49, paras. 159 ff.

165 Adopted 7 November 1989, BISD 36S/345, para. 5.26; we expressly affirmed this standard in our Report in Korea — Beef supra, footnote 49, para. 166.

166 Appellate Body Report, Korea — Beef, supra, footnote 49, paras. 166 and 163.

167 Ibid., para. 162.

168 Panel Report, para. 8.209.

169 Ibid., paras. 8.209 and 8.211.

170 Ibid., paras. 8.213 and 8.214.

171 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 204.

172 Ibid.

173 Ibid., para. 209.

174 Ibid., para. 204.

175 Appellate Body Report, Korea —Alcoholic Beverages, supra, footnote 58, para. 161. See, supra, para. 160.

176 Supra, footnote 48, para. 194.

177 Panel Report, para. 5.1.

178 Ibid., para. 5.20.

179 Ibid.

180 Ibid., para. 5.22.

181 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 211, footnote 219, referring to Panel Report, paras. 5.335, 5.345, 5.346, 5.353, 5.363, 5.364, 5.370, 5.371, and 5.374, and to Annex VI of the Panel Report, para. 222.

182 Panel Report, para. 8.255.

183 Ibid., para. 8.257.

184 Ibid., paras. 8.265 and 8.274.

185 Ibid., para. 8.304.

186 Adopted 25 January 1990, BISD 37S/86, para. 144.

187 Adopted 22 April 1998, WT7DS44/R, para. 10.37.

188 Supra, footnote 187, para. 10.36. Claims under Article XXIII:l(b) have been considered in the following reports: Working Party Report, Australia —Ammonium Sulphate, supra, footnote 58; Panel Report, Germany — Sardines, supra, footnote 58; Panel Report, Uruguayan Recourse to Article XXIII, adopted 16 November 1962, BISD 1 IS/95; Panel Report, Spain — Soyabean, supra, footnote 58; Panel Report, European Community — Tariff Treatment on Imports of Citrus Products from Certain Countries in the Mediterranean Region (“EC — Citrus Products“), L/5776,7 February 1985, unadopted; Panel Report, European Economic Community — Production Aids Granted on Canned Peaches, Canned Pears, Canned Fruit Cocktail and Dried Grapes (“EEC — Canned Fruit“), L/5778, 20 February 1985, unadopted; Panel Report, Japan — Trade in Semi-Conductors, adopted 4 May 1988, BISD 35S/116; Panel Report, United States — Trade Measures Affecting Nicaragua, L/6053, 13 October 1986, unadopted; Panel Report, EEC — Oilseeds, supra, footnote 186; Panel Report, United States — Restrictions on the Importation of Sugar and Sugar-Containing Products Applied under the 1955 Waiver and under the Headnote to the Schedule of Tariff Concessions, adopted 7 November 1990, BISD 37S/228; Panel Report, Japan — Film, supra, footnote 187; Panel Report, Korea — Measures Affecting Government Procurement, WT/DS163/R, adopted 19 June 2000. We note that claims under Article XXIII:l(b) of the GATT 1947 were also examined in the Panel Report, European Economic Community — Follow-up on the Panel Report, Payments and Subsidies Paid to Processors and Producers of Oilseeds and Related Animal-Feed Proteins (“EEC — Oilseeds II“), 31 March 1992, BISD 39S/91, unadopted. Including EEC — Oilseeds II, and the present dispute, there have, therefore, been 14 cases in which a claim under Article XXIII: 1 (b) has been considered by working parties, panels, and, now, the Appellate Body. In six of these cases, the claim under Article XXIII: l(b) was successful and, on three of these occasions, the report was adopted. The successful claims were made in: Australia —Ammonium Sulphate (adopted 3 April 1950), Germany — Sardines (adopted 31 October 1952), EC — Citrus Products (unadopted), EEC — Canned Fruit (unadopted), EEC — Oilseeds (adopted 25 January 1990) and EEC — Oilseeds II (unadopted).

189 See Panel Report, para. 8.263, which refers to the Panel Report in Japan — Film, supra, footnote 187, para. 10.50, and footnote 1214; and EEC — Oilseeds, supra, footnote 186, para. 144.