GD/94
EEC - Programme of Minimum Import Prices (MIPS), Licences, and Surety Deposits for Certain Processed Fruits and Vegetables (US)
Other titles
EEC Minimum Import Prices (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
Processed fruits and vegetables
|
| Type of product |
Agricultural
|
| Product sub-type |
Processed fruits/vegetables
|
Related disputes
| GATT | |
| WTO |
Key legal aspects
Adjudicators
| Type | Panel |
| Chairperson | Carlo S. F. Jagmetti (Switzerland) |
| Other members | Viktor Segalla (Austria), Erik Hagfors (Finland), Mauri Eggert (Finland), Korenelius Sigmundsson (Iceland), Takashi Yoshikuni (Japan), Nimal L. Breckenridge (Sri Lanka) |
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timeline
| Request for consultations | |
| Request for establishment | |
| Establishment | |
| Composition | |
| Report | |
| Adoption of report |
Outcome
| Outcome of the proceedings |
Report adopted
|
| Additional Info | L/4687 (04/10/1978) European Community Programme of Minimum Import Prices, Licences and Surety Deposits for Certain Processed Fruits and Vegetables – Report of the Panel: Regarding the challenged import certificate arrangements, the Panel considered that automatic licensing did not constitute a restriction under Article XI:1; that none of the provisions relating to the issuance of import certificates and security associated with the import certificates were inconsistent with Article VIII; and that security arrangements relating to interest charges and costs and the forfeiture of security associated with the import certificates were not inconsistent with Article II. Regarding the minimum import price arrangements for tomato concentrates, the Panel considered that they were a restriction "other than duties, taxes or other charges" within the meaning of Article XI:1, and thus examined whether they qualified for the exemption under Article XI:2(c). The Panel considered that, even if fresh tomatoes were considered to be the "like domestic product", the intervention system for fresh tomatoes did not qualify as a governmental measure which operated "to restrict the quantities of the like domestic product permitted to be marketed or produced" or "to remove a temporary surplus of the like domestic product by making the surplus available to certain groups of domestic consumers free of charge or at prices below the current market level", within the meaning of Article XI:2(c)(i) and (ii). For this reason the Panel concluded that the minimum import price system for tomato concentrates did not qualify for the exemptions under Article XI:2(c) and therefore was inconsistent with Article XI:1. The Panel further concluded that associated interest charges and costs were in excess of the bound rate within the meaning of, and therefore inconsistent with, Article II:1(b). One member of the Panel concluded that the minimum import price system was not being enforced in a manner which would qualify it as a restriction within the meaning of Article XI and therefore considered that it could not be inconsistent with that provision; that member considered, however, that the forfeiture provisions qualified as "other duties or charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with the importation" in excess of the bound rate within the meaning of Article II:1(b) and was therefore inconsistent with that provision. The Panel further found no inconsistency of the minimum import price system with Articles I or VIII. Finally, the Panel concluded that the inconsistencies it had found constituted a prima facie case of nullification or impairment of benefits accruing to the United States within the meaning of Article XXIII. |