Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION 7786
Ⅱ. FACTUAL ASPECTS 7790
A. Background 7790
1. Object of the current dispute 7790
2. Basic chronology 7790
B. Product Description 7798
C. European Communities’ Legal Framework for Bananas Imports 7799
1. European Communities’ bananas import regime 7799
2. European Communities’ current bananas import regime 7803
3. Impact of the different European Communities enlargements in its bananas import regime 7808
D. European Communities’ Bananas Market 7808
1. European Communities’ bananas production 7808
2. European Communities’ bananas consumption 7809
3. European Communities’ bananas imports 7810
4. European Communities’ banana imports under Council Regulation 1964/2005 7811
5. United States’ banana production 7813
E. Panel and Appellate Body Findings in Previous Proceedings 7814
1. Measures subject to the original proceedings 7814
2. Panel and Appellate Body main findings in the original proceedings 7814
3. Panel findings in the first compliance proceedings 7820
4. Award of the Arbitrators in the proceedings requested by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU 7823
5. Panel findings in the second compliance proceedings requested by Ecuador 7824
F. Measures Challenged by the United States in this Dispute 7824
Ⅲ.PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7824
Ⅳ. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 7827
A. United States 7827
1. First written submission of the United States 7827
（a） Introduction 7827
（b） Procedural history 7828
（i） Understanding on Bananas 7829
（ii） GATT Article Ⅰ waiver and arbitrations 7829
（iii） Article ⅩⅢ Waiver 7831
（c） The European Communities’ revised measures 7831
（d） Legal arguments 7832
（i） The European Communities’ revised measures are inconsistent with Article Ⅰ of the GATT 1994 7832
Termination of GATT Article Ⅰ Waiver 7833
（ii） The European Communities’ revised measures are inconsistent with Article ⅩⅢ of the GATT 1994 7834
The European Communities’ import regime for bananas is inconsistent with GATT Article ⅩⅢ：1 7835
The European Communities’ import regime for bananas is inconsistent with GATT Article ⅩⅢ：2 7836
（e） Conclusion 7837
2. Second written submission of the United States 7837
（a） The European Communities’ preliminary objections should be rejected 7837
（i） The United States was not required to request consultations with the EC 7837
（ii） The EC-US Understanding on Bananas does not preclude this proceeding 7839
（iii） The United States’ complaint falls within the scope of Article 21.5 7841
（b） The European Communities’ arguments about “standing” and nullification or impairment have been rejected before and should be rejected once again 7841
（i） The United States has standing to challenge the EC’s banana regime 7842
（ii） The United States is not required to demonstrate nullification or impairment of benefits to advance claims of an EC breach of GATT Articles Ⅰ and ⅩⅢ 7842
（c） The European Communities’ Article Ⅰ waiver has expired， and it therefore maintains its banana measures in breach of GATT Article Ⅰ 7843
（d） The European Communities maintains its exclusive tariff rate quota for ACP bananas in violation of GATT Article 7845
（i） The European Communities’ tariff rate quota is a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article ⅩⅢ 7845
（ii） Article ⅩⅢ applies even where the entire EC banana market is not controlled by quotas 7846
（iii） The European Communities maintains its ACP tariff rate quota in breach of GATT Article ⅩⅢ 7847
（e） Conclusion 7848
3. Oral statement of the United States 7848
（a） The European Communities’ bananas import regime is a measure taken to comply 7849
（b） The European Communities’ regime is in breach of GATT 1994 Articles ⅩⅢ and Ⅰ 7852
（i） The European Communities’ regime is in breach of GATT 1994 Article ⅩⅢ 7852
（ii） The European Communities’ regime is in breach of Article Ⅰ， and the Article Ⅰ waiver has ceased to apply 7854
（c） The Panel should reject the European Communities’ preliminary objections regarding the Understanding and nullification or impairment 7855
（i） The EC-US Understanding was not a “mutually agreed solution” and even if it were it would not preclude this proceeding 7856
（ii） The Panel must reject the European Communities’ arguments regarding nullification or impairment 7857
4. Closing statement of the United States 7858
B. European Communities 7859
1. First written submission of the European Communities 7859
（a） Preliminary objections 7859
（i） The United States did not request consultations 7859
（ii） The United States is barred from challenging the Cotonou Preference 7860
（iii） The complaint of the United States falls outside the scope of Article 21.5 of the DSU 7860
（b） GATT Article Ⅰ： The Doha Waiver covers the Cotonou Preference until the end of 2007 7861
（c） There is no violation of GATT Article ⅩⅢ 7862
（d） Absence of nullification or impairment of a benefit accruing to the United States 7863
2. Second written submission of the European Communities 7864
（a） Preliminary objections 7864
（i） The United States did not request consultations 7864
（ii） The Understanding bars the United States from challenging the Cotonou Preference 7864
（iii） The United States’ complaint falls outside the scope of Article 21.5 of the DSU 7867
（b） The Cotonou Preference does not violate the GATT 7868
（i） The Doha Waiver covers the Cotonou Preference until the end of 2007 7868
（ii） There is no violation of GATT Article ⅩⅢ 7869
（c） Absence of “nullification or impairment” 7870
3. Oral statement of the European Communities 7871
（a） Preliminary issues 7871
（b） The United States’ claims under Article Ⅰ 7873
（c） The United States’ claims under Article ⅩⅢ 7874
（d） The United States does not suffer any “nullification or impairment” 7876
4. Closing statement of the European Communities 7877
Ⅴ. ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES 7880
A. Belize， Cameroon， Cote d’Ivoire， Dominica， Dominican Republic， Jamaica， Saint Lucia， Saint Vincent and the Grenadines， and Suriname 7880
1. Written submission of the ACP third parties 7880
（a） The United States cannot challenge the new EC banana import regime pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU 7880
（b） There is no violation of GATT Article Ⅰ because the Doha Waiver still applies 7881
（c） There is no violation of GATT Article ⅩⅢ 7882
B. Belize 7883
1. Oral statement of Belize 7883
C. Cameroon 7885
1. Oral statement of Cameroon 7885
（a） This dispute is of primary importance for the ACP countries 7885
（b） United States trade is not affected by the Community’s new regime for the importation of bananas 7886
（c） The United States is attacking a preference granted to developing countries even though it is not suffering any negative consequences om it and it had accepted the principle of the preference 7886
（d） The United States cannot question a preference which it accepted in the Memorandum of Understanding 7887
（e） The United States cannot challenge the Community import regime for bananas pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU 7888
（f） The United States completely ignores the way the market has developed 7888
（g） Conclusion 7890
D. Cote d’lvoire 7890
1. Oral statement of Cote d’lvoire 7890
E. Dominican Republic 7893
1. Oral statement of the Dominican Republic 7893
F. Jamaica 7894
1. Oral statement of Jamaica 7894
G. Saint Lucia 7896
1. Oral statement of Saint Lucia 7896
H. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 7901
1. Oral statement of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 7901
I. Suriname 7903
1. Oral statement of Suriname 7903
（a） Preliminary issue： the United States failed to request consultations 7903
（b） The Bananas Ⅲ dispute has been settledthrough the Understanding on Bananas 7904
（c） The new EC banana import regime is not a measure taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings in the original Banana Ⅲ dispute 7906
J.Brazil 7907
1. Oral statement of Brazil 7907
（a） The Understanding 7907
（b） Whether the European Communities’ 2006 import regime is a “measure taken to comply” 7909
（c） Final remarks 7910
（d） Conclusion 7911
K. Colombia 7911
1. Written submission of Colombia 7911
（a） The preferential tariff treatment accorded to ACP bananas is not justified under the Article Ⅰ Doha Waiver 7911
（i） The Article Ⅰ Doha Waiver has ceased to apply to bananas as of 1 January2006， and the EC was no longer entitled to “rectify the matter” 7911
（ii） Assuming， arguendo， that the EC had the opportunity to “rectify the matter”、 the tariff level of ？176/tonne does not comply with the Tariff Level Standard 7912
The European Communities has not discharged its burden of showing compliance with the elements required under the Waiver Annex 7912
The European Communities’ quantity- or volumes-based analysis is contrary to the Tariff Level Standard 7912
The applied tariff of ？176/tonne does not result in at least maintaining total market access for MFN banana suppliers 7913
（b） The Preferential Tariff Rate Quota accorded to ACP bananas is inconsistent with Article ⅩⅢ of the GATT 1994 7914
（c） Conclusion 7915
2. Oral statement of Colombia 7915
L. Ecuador 7919
1. Oral statement of Ecuador 7919
M. Japan 7921
1. Written submission of Japan 7921
（a） The Understanding does not preclude the United States from challenging the European Communities’ tariff only regime even if the Understanding is a “mutually agreed solution” 7921
（b） The complaint of the United States is considered to fall under the scope of Article 21.5 of the DSU 7922
（c） Issues relating to nullification or impairment of a benefit accruing to the United States 7922
（i） The United States has “standing” to challenge the European Communities’ 2006 regime 7922
（ii） Whether there is any nullification or impairment of a benefit accruing to the United States 7923
The United States is not required to affirmatively demonstrate that there is a “nullification or impairment of a benefit” in advancing its claim on GATT Articles 7923
Whether there is no “nullification or impairment of a benefit” for the purpose of Article 3.8 when the “level of nullification or impairment of a benefit” for the purpose of Article 22 is ”zero 7923
Whether this Panel should find in the course of its proceeding that the “level of nullification or impairment of a benefit” for the purpose of Article 22 is zero or not 7924
2. Oral statement of Japan 7925
（a） Does the EC-US Understanding bar the United States from challenging the Cotonu Preference？ 7925
（b） Is the current EC banana regime the “measure taken to comply”？ 7926
（c） Does any nullification or impairment of benefits exist for the United States in this dispute？ 7928
N.Mexico 7929
1. Oral statement of Mexico 7929
（a） Importance of the preliminary claims 7929
（b） Issues of systemic interest 7930
（c） Comments on the substantive claims 7932
（d） Conclusion 7932
O. Nicaragua and Panama 7933
1.Combined written submission of Nicaragua and Panama 7933
（a） Introduction 7933
（b） The European Communities’ preliminaryobjections have no basis in law or fact 7933
（c） The European Communities’ ACP tariff preference is inconsistent with GATT Article Ⅰ：1 and is not covered by its Article Ⅰ waiver 7935
（d） The European Communities’ ACP tariff quota is inconsistent with GATT Article ⅩⅢ：1 and ⅩⅢ：2 7935
（e） The United States is not required to demonstrate nullification or impairment 7936
（f） Conclusion 7937
2. Combined oral statement by Nicaragua and Panama 7937
（a） Nicaragua’s role in this dispute 7937
（b） Panama’s role in this dispute 7937
（c） The WTO inconsistencies 7938
（i） The European Communities’ failed objections 7938
（ii） The European Communities’ breach of GATT Article Ⅰ 7939
（iii） The European Communities’ breach of GATT Article ⅩⅢ 7940
Ⅵ. INTERIM REVIEW 7940
A. Product Description 7941
B. European Communities’ Council Regulation （EC） No.1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 7941
C. Award of the Arbitrators in the Proceedings Requested by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU 7945
D. Description of the Measures Challenged by the United States 7946
E. Terms and Main Elements of the Bananas Understanding 7946
F. Adoption of the Bananas Understanding Subsequent to Recommendations and Suggestions by the DSB 7946
1. Related first compliance proceeding brought by Ecuador 7946
2. Further adjustment of language 7947
G. Bananas Understanding： Arguments by the European Communities Concerning Good Faith 7947
H. Preliminary Objection of the European Communities Concerning whether the Complaint by the United States Falls Within the Scope of Article 21.5 of the DSU 7948
1. Arguments made by Japan 7948
2. Whether the current bananas import regime is closely related to the original recommendations and rulings adopted by the DSB in 1997 7948
3. Whether the current bananas import regime constitutes a measure taken by the European Communities in the direction of， or for the purpose of achieving， compliance 7949
（a） Termination of US suspension of concessions 7949
（b） Clarification of language 7949
（c） Licensing system 7949
I. The Relevant Language of Article ⅩⅢ： l of the GATT 1994 for this Dispute 7950
J. The United States’ Claim under Article ⅩⅢ：2 of the GATT 1994： Panel’s Analysis 7950
K. General Conclusions 7950
1. Panel’s Conclusions 7950
2. Implementation of recommendations and rulings of the DSB 7951
L. Nullification or Impairment of Benefits 7951
M. Recommendation 7952
N. Additional Revisions and Corrections 7953
Ⅶ.FINDINGS 7953
A. Attempts at Harmonizing the Timetables 7953
B. Order of the Panel’s Analysis 7955
C. Preliminary Objection of the European Communities Concerning the Alleged Lack of Standing and Argument Regarding the Alleged Lack of Nullification or Impairment of Benefits to the United States 7956
1. The European Communities’ arguments 7956
2. The United States’ response 7958
3. Panel’s Analysis 7960
（a） Verification of the United States’ standing to commence these proceedings 7960
（b） Verification of the nullification or impairment of trade benefits accruing to the United States 7961
4. Conclusion 7962
D. Preliminary objection of the european communities concerning whether the United States is barred from challenging the European Communities’ Bananas Import Regime as a result of the Bananas Understanding signed in April 2001 7962
1. Arguments of the parties 7962
（a） The European Communities’ arguments 7962
（b） The United States’ response 7969
2. Panel’s analysis 7973
（a） The nature and scope of this preliminary issue under Article 21.5 of the DSU 7974
（b） Is the United States barred by the Bananas Understanding from bringing this compliance challenge？ 7975
（i） Panel’s approach 7975
（ii） The terms and main elements of the Bananas Understanding 7979
（iii） The Bananas Understanding provides only for a means for resolving and settling the dispute 7982
（iv） The adoption of the Bananas Understanding subsequent to recommendations and suggestions by the DSB 7984
（v） Parties’ conflicting communications to the WTO concerning the Bananas Understanding 7987
（vi） Remaining key arguments raised under this preliminary issue 7990
Did the United States accept， through the Bananas Understanding， the existence of the ACP preference beyond 2005？ 7990
Arguments by the European Communities concerning good faith 7992
（vii） Conclusion 7994
E. Preliminary objection of the european communities concerning whether the complaint by the United States falls within the scope of Article 21.5 of the DSU 7995
1. Summary of Parties’ arguments 7995
（a） The European Communities’ arguments 7995
（i） Alleged measures taken to comply identified by the European Communities 7997
（ii） The current EC bananas importregime is not a measure taken to comply 7998
The EC-Bananas Ⅲ dispute ended before 2006 7998
No linkage to the DSB recommendations and rulings of 1997 8001
（b） The United States’ response 8008
（i） The current EC bananas regime is a measure taken to comply 8009
（ii） The response of the United States to the EC arguments that the link with the original recommendations and rulings was broken 8020
（iii） The response of the United States to the EC arguments that the dispute was settled before 2006 8025
（iv） A compliance proceeding can extend to measures closely related to measures taken to comply 8030
2. The Panel’s analysis 8031
（a） The Panel’s approach 8031
（i） Burden of proof 8031
（ii） The specific issue before this Panel 8032
（b） Whether the current EC bananas import regime is a measure taken to comply 8032
（i） The limited scope of compliance proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU 8032
（ii） The Panel’s role in assessing whether the current EC bananas import regime is a measure taken to comply 8034
（iii） The current EC bananas import regime 8035
（iv） Criteria for assessing whether the current EC bananas import regime is a measure taken to comply 8037
（v） Whether the current EC bananas import regime is closely related to the original recommendations and rulings adopted by the DSB in 1997， including to the measure being reviewed and found inconsistent in the original panel and appellate proceedings 8041
（vi） Whether the current EC bananasimport regime constitutes a measure taken by the European Communities in the direction of， or for the purpose of achieving， compliance 8049
The European Communities’ first attempt to comply with the original DSB recommendations and rulings， and its review under dispute settlement proceedings 8049
Subsequent developments 8053
Specific arguments by the European Communities to refute the proposition that its current bananas import regime is a measure taken to comply 8063
Whether a particularly close link exists between the current and the 2002-2005 EC bananas import regimes 8088
（c） Conclusion 8094
F. Objection of the European Communities Concerning the Lack Of Formal Consultations 8096
G. The United States’ Claim under Article Ⅰ of the GATT 1994 8099
1. The United States’ claim 8099
2. The European Communities’ response 8100
3. Article Ⅰ：1 of the GATT 1994 8101
4. Panel’s analysis 8102
（a） Is the ACP preference inconsistent with Article I：1 of the GATT 1994？ 8103
（i） Whether the preference granted by the European Communities constitutes an advantage of the pe covered by Article Ⅰ of the GATT 1994 8103
（ii） Whether the relevant products in this dispute are like products 8104
（iii） Whether the preference granted by the European Communities is immediately and unconditionally extended 8105
（iv） Preliminary conclusion regarding the United States’ claim under Article Ⅰ：1 of GATT 1994 8105
（b） Is the preference covered by a waiver？ 8105
（i） Terms and conditions of the Doha Waiver and the Bananas Annex 8106
（ii） Uncontested facts 8107
（iii） Main issue contested between the parties 8108
（iv） Conditions envisaged in the Bananas Annex 8110
（v） Is the European Communities’ current bananas regime “the new EC tariff regime”？ 8111
（vi） Is the maintenance of total market access for MFN banana suppliers a relevant consideration for extending the duration of the Doha Waiver with regard to bananas？ 8113
（vii） Conclusion regarding the Doha Waiver 8116
5. Conclusion 8117
H. The United States’ Claim under Article ⅩⅢ of the GATT 1994 8117
1. Summary of parties’ arguments 8117
（a） The United States’ claim 8117
（b） The European Communities’ response 8119
2. Order of analysis 8120
3. The applicability of Article of the GATT 1994 to the European Communities’ bananas import regime 8121
（a） The European Communities’ arguments 8121
（b） The United States’ arguments 8124
（c） Panel’s analysis 8126
（i） Relevance of Article ⅩⅢ of the GATT 1994 to tariff quotas in agriculture 8126
（ii） Analysis of Article ⅩⅢ：5 of the GATT 1994 8128
（iii） Interrelation of Articles Ⅰ and ⅩⅢ of the GATT 1994 8130
4. The United States’ claim under Article ⅩⅢ：1 of the GATT 1994 8133
（a） The United States’ arguments 8133
（b） The European Communities’ response 8134
（c） Panel’s analysis 8136
（i） The relevant language of Article ⅩⅢ ：1 of the GATT 1994 for this dispute 8136
（ii） The applicability of Article ⅩⅢ： 1 of the GATT 1994 8137
Whether all bananas are like products 8138
Whether any prohibition or restriction is applied by the European Communities on the importation of bananas of the territory of MFN banana suppliers， including the United States 8138
（iii） Whether the importation of bananas from ACP countries is similarly restricted 8140
5. The United States’ claim under Article ⅩⅢ：2 of the GATT 1994 8145
（a） The United States’ arguments 8145
（b） The European Communities’ arguments 8146
（c） Panel’s analysis 8147
（i） Chapeau of Article ⅩⅢ：2 of the GATT 1994 8147
（ii） Subparagraph （d） of Article ⅩⅢ：2 of the GATT 1994 8148
6. The existence of an applicable waiver 8151
7. Conclusion 8152
I. Final remarks 8152
Ⅷ.CONCLUSIONS 8153
A. General Conclusions 8153
B. Nullification or Impairment of Benefits 8154
C. Recommendation 8156