GD/203
United States - Restrictions on the Importation of Sugar and Sugar-Containing Products applied under the 1955 Waiver and under the Headnote to the Schedule of Tariff Concessions
Other titles
1955 Waiver Headnote; US Sugar Waiver
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
Sugar
|
| Type of product |
Agricultural
|
| Product sub-type |
Sugar and confectionary
|
Related disputes
| GATT | |
| WTO |
Key legal aspects
Adjudicators
| Type | Panel |
| Chairperson | Felipe Jaramillo (Colombia) |
| Other members | Pekka Huhtaniemi (Finland), Darry Salim (Indonesia) |
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timeline
| Request for consultations |
|
| Request for establishment | |
| Establishment | |
| Composition | |
| Report | |
| Adoption of report |
Outcome
| Outcome of the proceedings |
Report adopted
|
| Additional Info | L/6631 (05/01/1990) United States - Restrictions on the Importation of Sugar and Sugar-Containing Products Applied under the 1955 Waiver and under the Headnote to the Schedule of Tariff Concessions - Report of the Panel: The Panel found that the quantitative limitations on imports of sugar-containing products were inconsistent with Article XI:1, which proscribes import prohibitions and import restrictions made effective through quotas. As to the fees on refined sugar, the Panel noted that the United States made its concession for sugars, and covering refined sugar, subject to the existence of Title II of the Sugar Act of 1948 or substantially equivalent legislation. The Panel noted that the General Agreement did not oblige contracting parties to make concessions and specifically allowed them in Article II:1(b) to subject to conditions the concessions they decided to make. The Panel therefore concluded that, while sugars were subject to tariff concessions in the United States' Schedule of Concessions, the maximum rates for sugars set forth in that Schedule were, in the absence of legislation substantially equivalent to Title II of the expired Sugar Act of 1948, presently not effective. The imposition of the fees on refined sugar therefore did not entail the imposition of duties in excess of those set forth in the United States' Schedule of Concessions. The Panel also concluded that the United States had not acted in contradiction with the terms, conditions and procedures of the Waiver of the US obligations under Article XI by imposing quantitative limitations on imports of sugar-containing products. However, the Panel also considered that the CONTRACTING PARTIES, when they had granted the Waiver in 1955, may not have expected that the United States would impose prohibitions on imports of sugar-containing products under Section 22 of the Waiver to prevent the importation of new or newly classified products, that the fees provided for in Section 22 would be imposed in conjunction with restrictions imposed under another domestic legal authority inconsistently with the General Agreement, or that the United States would pursue a sugar policy of this kind, given the assurances in the preamble of the Waiver that it would continue to seek a solution of the problem of surpluses of agricultural commodities. |