GD/160
Canada - Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Manufacturing Beef from the EEC
Other titles
Canada Manufacturing Beef CVD (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
Manufacturing beef
|
| Type of product |
Agricultural
|
| Product sub-type |
Meat products
|
Related disputes
| GATT | |
| WTO |
Key legal aspects
| Legal basis |
|
| Claims raised |
|
| Defences raised |
|
Adjudicators
| Type | Panel |
| Chairperson | Carl Henrik von Platen (Sweden) |
| Other members | Adin Talbar (Israel), Robert E. Hudec (United States) |
| Type | Panel |
| Legal basis at issue |
|
| Claims at issue |
|
| Defences at issue |
|
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timeline
| Request for consultations |
|
| Request for conciliation | |
| Conciliation meeting | |
| Request for establishment | |
| Establishment | |
| Composition | |
| Report |
Outcome
| Outcome of the proceedings |
Report issued
|
| Additional Info | SCM/85 (13/10/1987) Canada – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Manufacturing Beef from the EEC – Report by the Panel: The Panel agreed with both parties that the central issue to be decided was whether, both for the purpose of determining standing to complain under Article 2:1 of the Code and for assessing "injury" under Article 6 of the Code, the cattlemen and feedlot operators represented by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA) could be considered part of the relevant "domestic industry" within the meaning of Article 6:5 of the Code. The question whether cattlemen and feedlot operators could be considered part of the "domestic industry" turned on whether they could be considered "producers" of manufacturing beef. Under the normal meaning of "producer" indicated by the text of Article 6:5 and 6:6, the cattlemen represented by CCA could not be considered producers of manufacturing beef. The good they actually produced (cattle) was not itself the "like product", and their cattle-raising operations were clearly separate from the subsequent processing operations where cattle were made into manufacturing beef, virtually all of which were under different ownership. The Panel then addressed the main argument made by Canada, supported by Australia and the United States, in favour of interpreting the term "producer" to include certain suppliers of inputs. The Panel concluded that both the text and the negotiating history of the relevant Code provisions made it impossible to accept Canada's contention that governments intended the concept of "domestic industry" to be interpreted with sufficient flexibility to permit treating input suppliers as "producers" of the like product when economic circumstances warranted. The Panel therefore found that Canada's interpretation of the term "producer" in this case was inconsistent with the relevant Code provisions. The Panel suggested that the Committee recommend that Canada terminate the outstanding countervailing duty order on manufacturing beef from the EEC, and that it refund any duties collected under that order. Subsequent discussion in SCM Committee after Panel report, as reflected in document SCM/M/39. The Panel Report SCM/85 (13/10/1987) was submitted to the SCM Committee and considered in SCM Committee Meetings SCM/M/35, 36, 37, 38 and 42. Not adopted. SCM/M/70 (30/01/1995) Minutes of the SCM Committee Meeting: Canada "efforts to resolve the issue bilaterally were continuing. The issue was caught up in a wider question on matters of access with the EC. At this point Canada was not prepared to adopt the Panel Report." |