Uruguayan Recourse to Article XXIII (I)
Uruguay - Recourse to Article XXIII (I) (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
|Products at issue||
Frozen bovine, chilled bovine, frozen ovine, chilled offals (bovine or sheep), preserved meat, meat extracts, wheat, wheat flour, barley, rice, crude linseed oil, boiled linseed oil, crude edible oils, refined or purified edible oils, oil cake, meal resulting from the extraction of vegetable oils, dried and salted cow-hide, dried and salted sheepskins, sheepskins in the wool, tanned cow-hide, sheepskin leather, chamois-dressed leather, parchment-dressed leather, patent leather and metallized leather, greasy wool, washed wool, waste of wool, combed wool, yarn of combed wool, wool textiles.
|Type of product||
Key legal aspects
|Chairperson||R. Campbell Smith (Canada)|
|Other members||P. P. Vidal (Brazil), S. L. Portella de Aguiar (Brazil), A. Vlachos (Greece), M. G. Mathur (India), M. Itan (Israel), M. H. van Wijk (Netherlands), E. J. Biermann (Netherlands), R. W. Dell (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland), A. Schnebli (Switzerland), C. Kayra (Turkey)|
|No of Pages (total / legal reasoning)||64|
|Request for consultations|
|Request for establishment|
|Adoption of report|
|Outcome of the proceedings||
|Additional Info||L/1572 (03/10/1961) Uruguay Statement at Council Meeting of Ministers (27/09/1961) proposals to the Contracting Parties to, inter alia, remove residual import restrictions and GATT-inconsistent trade barriers and end agricultural waivers. Had prior bilateral consultations. Spec(61)294 Table of restrictions applied to products from Uruguay
L/1647 (23/11/1961) Uruguay Recourse to Article XXIII (nullification or impairment of benefits) (XXIII:2(i)) (21/11/1961) Consultations held with Contracting Parties with predominant role in its foreign trade: under GATT Article XXIII (1960) Germany; and under GATT Article XXII (1961) France directly and Italy within a Working Party; request for liberalising measures at Nineteenth Session. Request for consultations to 11 Contracting Parties and 1 acceding party on import restrictions under GATT Article XXIII:1 (19/10/1961,26/10/1961 and 07/11/1961). Completed consultations with Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Czechoslovakia. Ongoing consultations with US (02/11/1961), upcoming with Switzerland, Austria and Japan.
L/1662 (05/12/1961) Table on restrictions applied to imports from Uruguay: frozen bovine, chilled bovine, frozen ovine, chilled offals (bovine or sheep), preserved meat, meat extracts, wheat, wheat flour, barley, rice, crude linseed oil, boiled linseed oil, crude edible oils, refined or purified edible oils, oil cake, meal resulting from the extraction of vegetable oils, dried and salted cow-hide, dried and salted sheepskins, sheepskins in the wool, tanned cow-hide, sheepskin leather, chamois-dressed leather, parchment-dressed leather, patent leather and metallized leather, greasy wool, washed wool, waste of wool, combed wool, yarn of combed wool, wool textiles.
L/1679 (18/12/1961) Uruguay Recourse to Article XXIII (nullification or impairment of benefits) (Article XXIII:1(c)) (08/12/1961) Formally place matter before Contracting Parties, authorised the Council (should Uruguay so request) to investigate and make appropriate recommendations or rulings under GATT Article XXIII:2.
L/1712 (25/01/1962) Dates of consultations under GATT Article XXIII and dates of request of consultations (15 Contracting Parties).
SR.19/11 (19/12/1961) Summary record of Eleventh Meeting of Contracting Parties, Nineteenth Session (08/12/1961): Consultations taking place under Article XXIII:1 with 15 Contracting Parties. At Uruguay's request, Contracting Parties delegated authority to the Council in case Uruguay referred a case under Article XXIII:2.
C/W/33 (27/02/1962) Recourse to Article XXIII by Uruguay - Communication of Uruguay to the Council (26/02/1962): para.9 Uruguay communication to 15 Contracting Parties to consider the abolition of restrictive measures (11-13/12/1961). Consultations ended 12/1961 with no significant changes. At request of Uruguay, to be submitted to Council on behalf of Contracting Parties under XXIII:2.
C/M/9 (08/03/1962) Minutes of Council Meeting (22-28/02/1962): Chairman proposed procedure approved by Contracting Parties, since 15 cases to be examined, appoint a larger Panel and to request the Contracting Parties Chairman to select four members to examine each case brought forward. Appointment of seven panelists and one Chairman. (Finally, some unable to participate and two substituted.)
L/1739 (07/03/1962) Terms of reference under GATT Article XXIII:2 and establishment of the panel (Chairman and seven panelists).
L/1923 (16/11/1962) Report of the Panel on Uruguayan recourse to Article XXIII: The matter concerned restrictive measures imposed by fifteen industrialized countries affecting exports from Uruguay. Panel originally consisting of a Chairman and seven members, however some unable to participate and two substituted, with the actual membership of the panel resulting in a Chairman and four panelists. General report and attached 15 reports regarding measures of each Contracting Parties. Conclusions ranged from:
- not appropriate to make recommendations based on GATT Article XXIII:2 because Uruguay did not question a contracting party's contention that certain measures were consistent with the provisions of GATT, or were permitted under the terms of the Protocol of Provisional Application, the Annecy Protocol or the Torquay Protocol on account of their being applied pursuant to "existing legislation"; or because the Panel has not considered it appropriate to examine the consistency or otherwise of variable import levies or charges, given the Contracting Parties' discussion at the nineteenth session that such measures raised serious questions which had not been resolved.;
- a priori grounds for assuming that, having regard to the nature of certain measures (maximum and minimum prices systems, import charges, state trading, variable surtax, mixing regulation) and the interest which Uruguay has in the products in question, these measures would have adverse effects under GATT Article XXII on Uruguay's imports and therefore the contracting parties concerned should accord sympathetic consideration to any concrete representations which Uruguay might wish to make concerning such measures or their administration, with a view to minimizing any such adverse effects;- useful to enter into consultations to examine the possibility of administering certain health regulations in such a way as to permit the entry of Uruguayan products, whilst affording adequate sanitary protection;
- endeavour to ensure that certain measures (quantitative restrictions) maintained under Article XII not to have incidental protective effects which would render their removal difficult when the contracting party no longer had need to have recourse to Article XII;
- with respect to tariff preferences and bearing in mind the basic objectives of the General Agreement, accord due consideration to any proposals that might be made by Uruguay in the context of the Contracting Parties tariff reduction activities or discussions relevant to the reduction of customs tariffs;
- maintenance of certain measures (import permit requirements, mixing regulation, quotas) could nullify or impair benefits accruing to Uruguay, insofar as it had not been established that these measures were being applied consistently with the GATT or permitted by the terms of the Protocol under which contracting parties applied the GATT. Therefore, recommendation to give immediate consideration to the removal of measures and to report on compliance "or any other satisfactory adjustment" by 01/03/1963; otherwise, circumstances to be deemed "serious enough" to justify an action under GATT Article XXIII:2 and Uruguay entitled to ask for authorization of suspension of concessions or obligations (7 contracting parties: Austria, Belgium, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Norway and Sweden).
L/1940 (26/11/1962) Statement by Brazil: "Brazil supports the main report of the Panel and the fifteen attached country reports" and expects compliance in the interest of all Contracting Parties.
L/1980 (12/03/1963) Action Taken by Contracting Parties in Compliance with the Recommendations of 16 November 1962: Austria (28/02/1963)
L/1980/Add.1 (13/03/1963) Action Taken by Contracting Parties in Compliance with the Recommendations of 16 November 1962: Norway (05/03/1963)
L/1980/Add.2 (13/03/1963) Action Taken by Contracting Parties in Compliance with the Recommendations of 16 November 1962: Federal Republic of Germany (06/03/1963)
L/1980/Add.3 (19/03/1963) Action Taken by Contracting Parties in Compliance with the Recommendations of 16 November 1962: France (11/03/1963)
L/1980/Add.4 (22/03/1963) Action Taken by Contracting Parties in Compliance with the Recommendations of 16 November 1962: Belgium (14/03/1963)
L/1980/Add.5 (25/03/1963) Action Taken by Contracting Parties in Compliance with the Recommendations of 16 November 1962: Italy (16/03/1963)
L/1980/Add.6 (16/04/1963) Action Taken by Contracting Parties in Compliance with the Recommendations of 16 November 1962: Sweden (01/04/1963)
L/1980/Add.7 (12/07/1963) Action Taken by Contracting Parties in Compliance with the Recommendations of 16 November 1962: Austria (05/07/1963)
L/1980/Add.8 (19/08/1963) Action Taken by Contracting Parties in Compliance with the Recommendations of 16 November 1962: Sweden (08/08/1963)
C/M/15 (15/05/1963) Minutes of Council Meeting (25/04/1963-01/05/1963) At Uruguay's request, Council gave authority to reconvene the panel of experts at a date to be fixed by the Executive Secretary.
L/2012 (06/06/1963) Communication from Uruguay (16/05/1963) to Executive Secretary requesting Panel meeting to consider replies from 7 Contracting Parties requesting a recommendation on their degree of compliance and other compatibility matters.
L/2074 (30/07/1963) Second Report of the Panel: The Panel made comments on the replies of the 7 Contracting Parties. Removal of measures complied with the Contracting Parties recommendations; improvement of market access to be judged by Uruguay if "satisfactory adjustment"; on new contentions, up to Uruguay to challenge; no change; not appropriate to go into new measures; full compliance (Sweden).