GD/106
Spain - Tariff Treatment of Unroasted Coffee
Other titles
Spain Unroasted Coffee (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
Unroasted coffee
|
| Type of product |
Agricultural
|
| Product sub-type |
Other agriculture products
|
Related disputes
| GATT | |
| WTO |
Key legal aspects
| Legal basis |
|
| Claims raised |
|
| Defences raised |
|
Adjudicators
| Type | Panel |
| Chairperson | H. Ewerlöf (H. Ewerloef) (Sweden) |
| Other members | R. Daniel (Poland), U. Herrmann (Switzerland) |
| Type | Panel |
| Legal basis at issue |
|
| Claims at issue |
|
| Defences at issue |
|
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timeline
| Request for consultations | |
| Request for establishment | |
| Establishment | |
| Composition | |
| Report | |
| Adoption of report |
Outcome
| Outcome of the proceedings |
Report adopted
|
| Additional Info | L/5135 (27/04/1981) Spain – Tariff Treatment of Unroasted Coffee – Report of the Panel: The Panel considered whether the Spanish tariff regime for unroasted coffee set out in Royal Decree 1764/79 was consistent with Spain's obligations under the GATT. Having noted that Spain had not bound under the GATT its tariff rate on unroasted coffee, the Panel pointed out that Article 1:1 equally applied to bound and unbound tariff items. The Panel found that there was no obligation under the GATT to follow any particular system for classifying goods, and that a contracting party had the right to introduce in its customs tariff new positions or subpositions as appropriate. The Panel considered, however, that, whatever the classification adopted, Article 1:1 required that the same tariff treatment be applied to "like products". The Panel noted that neither the General Agreement nor the settlement of previous cases gave any definition of such concept. The Panel examined all arguments that had been advanced during the proceedings for the justification of a different tariff treatment for various groups and types of unroasted coffee. It noted that these arguments mainly related to organoleptic differences resulting from geographical factors, cultivation methods, the processing of the beans, and the genetic factor. The Panel did not consider that such differences were sufficient reason to allow for a different tariff treatment. It pointed out that it was not unusual in the case of agricultural products that the taste and aroma of the end-product would differ because of one or several of the above-mentioned factors. The Panel furthermore found relevant to its examination of the matter that unroasted coffee was mainly, if not exclusively, sold in the form of blends, combining various types of coffee, and that coffee in its end-use, was universally regarded as a well-defined and single product intended for drinking. The Panel noted that no other contracting party applied its tariff regime in respect of unroasted, non-decaffeinated coffee in such a way that different types of coffee were subject to different tariff rates. The Panel therefore concluded that unroasted, non-decaffeinated coffee beans should be considered as "like products" within the meaning of Article 1:1. The Panel further noted that Brazil exported to Spain mainly "unwashed Arabica" and also Robusta coffee which were both presently charged with higher duties than that applied to "mild" coffee. Since these were considered to be "like products", the Panel concluded that the tariff regime as presently applied by Spain was discriminatory vis-à-vis unroasted coffee originating in Brazil. Having found that the tariff regime for unroasted coffee introduced by Spain through the Royal Decree 1764/79 not to be in conformity with the provision of Article 1:1, the Panel further concluded that this constituted prima facie a case of impairment of benefits accruing to Brazil within the meaning of Article XXIII. The Panel suggested that the contracting parties request Spain to take the necessary measures in order to make its tariff regime for unroasted coffee conform to Article 1:1. |