United States - Definition of Industry Concerning Wine and Grape Products
US Wine and Grape Products (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
|Products at issue||
Wine and grape products
|Type of product||
Key legal aspects
|Chairperson||Magnus Lemmel (Sweden)|
|Other members||Darry Salim (Indonesia), Hielke van Tuinen (Netherlands)|
|Legal basis at issue||
|Claims at issue||
|Defences at issue||
|No of Pages (total / legal reasoning)||12|
|Request for consultations|
|Request for conciliation|
|Request for establishment|
|Adoption of report|
|Outcome of the proceedings||
|Additional Info||SCM/71 (26/02/1986) Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures - United States - Definition of Industry concerning Wine and Grape Products - Report by the Panel: the EEC requested the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures to establish a panel to examine the amendments to the definition of industry made in the United States Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 concerning wine and grape products. Since the issue raised by the EEC was the conformity of the US law in question as such with the provisions of the Code, the Panel proceeded with its work, irrespective of whether any concrete countervailing duty investigation was under way or whether any countervailing duties based on the above-noted provision were being or had been levied.
The EEC argued that the amendment to the definition of industry contained in the US Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 constituted a serious departure from the general rule that, in the context of countervailing duty investigations of imports of a particular product, domestic industry was defined in Article 6:5 of the Code as the domestic producers as a whole of the like products. The exception introduced into US law consisted of defining the term "domestic industry", in the case of wine and grape products, to include not only the producers of the like product itself (wine) but also producers of the principal raw agricultural product (grapes) when wine and grape products were being investigated. Having found that in fact two separate industries existed in the United States, namely an industry comprising wine-grape growers on the one hand and an industry comprising wineries on the other and having found that Article 6:5 of the Code gave a precise definition of "domestic industry", a definition which in the view of the Panel could not be interpreted extensively, the Panel concluded that Section 771(4)(a) of the US Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the US Trade and Tariff Act of 1984, was inconsistent with the definition of "domestic industry" contained in Article 6:5 of the Code. Consequently, the United States had not acted in conformity with its obligation under Article 19:5(a) of the Code.
SCM/M/59 (08/07/1992) Minutes of SCM Committee Meeting (28/04/1992) US: "the original reasons which had led the United States to block adoption of the Panel report (…) (SCM/71) had ceased to exist. (…) [T]his case involved US legislation that had long since expired. There was, therefore, no substantive issue. (…) Thus, in accepting this Panel report, the United States was not accepting the underlying views of delegations such as the EEC on the issue of "industry" in the processed agricultural product industry."
Subsequent discussions took place in the SCM Committee after the Panel report, see SCM/M/31, SCM/M/32, SCM/M/34.