GD/242
United States - Measures Affecting Alcoholic and Malt Beverages
Other titles
US Malt Beverages (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
Alcoholic and malt beverages
|
| Type of product |
Agricultural
|
| Product sub-type |
Alcoholic beverages
|
Related disputes
| GATT | |
| WTO |
Key legal aspects
| Legal basis |
|
| Claims raised |
|
| Defences raised |
|
Adjudicators
| Type | Panel |
| Chairperson | Julio Lacarte-Muró (Uruguay) |
| Other members | Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (Germany, Fed. Rep.), Yvonne Choi (Hong Kong) |
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 101 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timeline
| Request for consultations | |
| Request for establishment | |
| Establishment | |
| Composition | |
| Report | |
| Adoption of report |
Outcome
| Outcome of the proceedings |
Report adopted
|
| Additional Info | DS23/R (16/03/1992) United States – Measures Affecting Alcoholic and Malt Beverages – Report of the Panel: The Panel concluded that: (a) the provision of a lower rate of federal excise tax on domestic beer from qualifying United States producers, which lower rate is not available in the case of imported beer, is inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, and is not covered by Article III:8(b); (b) the provision of a federal excise tax credit on domestic wine and cider, which credit is not available to imported wine and cider, is inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, and is not covered by Article III:8(b); (c) the provision by the states of New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of excise tax exemptions and reductions to domestic beer and wine, which exemptions and reductions are not available to imported beer and wine, is inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, and is not covered by Article III:8(b); (d) the provision by the states of Kentucky, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin of excise tax credits to domestic breweries based on annual beer production, which credits are not available to imported beer, is inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, and is not covered by Article III:8(b); (e) the provision by the states of Alabama, Georgia, Nebraska and New Mexico of lower excise tax rates on wine based upon its in-state or domestic origin, which lower rates are not available to imported wine, is inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, and is not covered by Article III:8(b); (f) the application by the state of Iowa of an excise tax at the wholesale level, which applies to all imported wine but not necessarily to all domestic wine which – unlike imported wine – may be sold directly at retail, is inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, and is not covered by Article III:8(b); (g) the provision by the states of Michigan, Ohio and Rhode Island of preferential excise tax treatment to wine produced from local ingredients is inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, and is not covered by Article III:8(b); (h) the provision by the state of Mississippi of a lower excise tax rate to wine produced from a special variety of grape with a limited growing area, which rate is not available to imported wine produced from other varieties of grape, is inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence; (i) the provision by the state of Pennsylvania of an excise tax credit on beer for the purchase of manufacturing equipment, which credit is not available to imported beer, is inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, and is not covered by Article III:8(b); (j) the exemption by various states of local producers from state requirements to use wholesalers, which requirements apply in the case of imported beer and wine, is inconsistent with Article III:4 and has not been demonstrated to be justified under Article XX(d); (k) the record does not support findings that the distribution requirements in Kentucky and Missouri are inconsistent with Article III:4; (l) the requirements in the states of Arizona, California, Maine, Mississippi and South Carolina that imported beer and wine be transported into these states by common carrier, which requirements do not exist for the in-state like products, are inconsistent with Article III:4 and have not been demonstrated to be justified under Article XX(d); ( m) the application of a higher licensing fee for imported beer and/or wine than for the like domestic products is, in the case of Alaska, in view of the wholesaler requirement applicable to imported beer and wine, inconsistent with Article III:4, and, in the case of Vermont, inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence; (n) the exemption by the state of Mississippi of domestic in-state wine, but not the like imported product, from decisions to prohibit the sale of alcohol within political subdivisions of the state is inconsistent with Article III:4, whether or not the law is presently being implemented; (o) the application by the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island of price affirmation requirements for imported beer and wine, which requirements are not applicable to the like domestic products, is inconsistent with Article III:4, whether or not these requirements are presently being enforced; (p) the listing and delisting practices maintained by the liquor control boards in the states of Idaho, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Virginia, which accord to imported wine less favourable treatment than that accorded to the like domestic product, are inconsistent with Article III:4; (q) the record does not support a finding that the listing and delisting practices in the states of Alabama, North Carolina and Oregon are inconsistent with Article III:4; (r) the beer alcohol content requirements maintained in the states of Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are not inconsistent with either Article III:4 or Article III:1; (s) the record does not support a finding that the state wholesaler distribution requirements in Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Oregon, Texas and Utah are "mandatory existing legislation" in terms of the Protocol of Provisional Application; (t) the United States has not demonstrated to the Panel that the conditions for the application of Article XXIV:12 have been met; and (u) in view of the Panel's conclusions in respect of federal and state tax measures, it is not necessary to address Canada's subsidiary argument that these federal and state tax measures nullify or impair tariff concessions on beer, wine and cider granted by the United States pursuant to Article II. The Panel recommended that the contracting parties request the United States to bring its inconsistent federal and state measures into conformity with its obligations under the General Agreement. C/190 (31/10/1994) Status of Work in Panels and Implementation of Panel Reports - Report by the Director-General to the Council (10/11/1994) reports the dispute at the implementation stage, with implementation issues raised through documents SR.48/2, DS23/6, DS23/8 and DS23/10 to DS23/18 in meetings C/M/262-268, 270-275 (04/10/1994). |