GD/196
EEC - Restrictions on Imports of Dessert Apples - Complaint by Chile
Other titles
EEC Dessert Apples (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
Apples
|
| Type of product |
Agricultural
|
| Product sub-type |
Fruits and dried fruits
|
Related disputes
| GATT | |
| WTO |
Key legal aspects
| Legal basis |
|
| Claims raised |
|
| Defences raised |
|
Adjudicators
| Type | Panel |
| Chairperson | George A. Maciel (Brazil) |
| Other members | Margaret Liang (Singapore), Thomas Cottier (Switzerland) |
| Type | Panel |
| Legal basis at issue |
|
| Claims at issue |
|
| Defences at issue |
|
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timeline
| Request for consultations |
|
| Request for establishment | |
| Establishment | |
| Composition | |
| Report | |
| Adoption of report |
Outcome
| Outcome of the proceedings |
Report adopted
|
| Additional Info | L/6491 (18/04/1989) EEC – Restrictions on Imports of Dessert Apples – Complaint by Chile – Report of the Panel: The Panel first found that the system of restrictive licensing applied by the EEC to imports of apples from April through August 1988 constituted an import restriction or prohibition inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the General Agreement, and that the EEC had presented no arguments to refute this conclusion. The Panel found that the EEC measures taken under the intervention system for apples did not constitute marketing restrictions of a type which could justify import restrictions under Article XI:2(c)(i). From the statistics available to it, the Panel found that the 1988 surplus could not be considered a temporary one, and that therefore the EEC did not meet the conditions for imposing import restrictions under Article XI:2(c)(ii). The Panel recognized that, given its finding that the EEC measures were a violation of Article XI:1 and not justified by Article XI:2(c)(i) or (ii), no further examination of the administration of the measure would normally be required. Nonetheless, in view of the questions of great practical interest raised by both parties it considered it appropriate to examine the administration of the EEC measures in respect of Article XIII. The Panel found that this measure constituted a prohibition in terms of Article XIII:1, and that it was applied contrary to that provision since the like products of all third countries had not been similarly prohibited. The Panel then considered the EEC administration of the import quotas in light of the subsequent provisions which delineated more specific requirements to achieve the aim of Article XIII:1. The Panel found that the account taken of special factors by the EEC in allocating Chile's quota share did not meet the requirements of Article XIII:2(d). Concerning the notification of quotas and quota shares, the Panel considered that the allocation of back-dated quotas, that is, quotas declared to have already been filled at the time of their announcement, did not conform to the requirements of Article XIII:3(b) and Article XIII:3(c). The Panel also found that by allowing entry only to those goods en route for which an import licence had been issued prior to the Regulation's entry into force the EEC had added a requirement for which there was no basis in Article XIII. Further, the Panel found that the EEC had observed the requirement of Article X:l to publish the measures under examination "promptly in such a manner as to enable governments and traders to become acquainted with them", and noted that no time limit or delay between publication and entry into force was specified by this provision. However, it interpreted the requirements of this provision as clearly prohibiting the use of back-dated quotas, whose use by the EEC in the case of Chile had already been the subject of a finding under Article XIII. |