GD/96
EEC - Measures on Animal Feed Proteins
Other titles
EEC Animal Feed Proteins (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
Skimmed milk powder
|
| Type of product |
Agricultural
|
| Product sub-type |
Dairy products
|
Related disputes
| GATT | |
| WTO |
Key legal aspects
| Legal basis |
|
| Claims raised |
|
| Defences raised |
|
Adjudicators
| Type | Panel |
| Chairperson | P. Kaarlehto (Finland) |
| Other members | G. Denis (Canada), C. G. Barnett (Jamaica), B. Eberhard (Switzerland), I. Parman (Turkey) |
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timeline
| Request for consultations | |
| Request for establishment | |
| Establishment | |
| Composition | |
| Report | |
| Adoption of report |
Outcome
| Outcome of the proceedings |
Report adopted
|
| Additional Info | L/4599 (02/12/1977) EEC Measures on Animal Feed Proteins – Report of the Panel: Having examined such factors as the number of products and tariff items carrying different duty rates and tariff bindings, the varying protein contents and the different vegetable, animal and synthetic origins of the protein products, the Panel concluded that they could not be considered as "like products" within the meaning of Articles I and III. The Panel considered, however, that vegetable proteins and skimmed milk powder were "directly competitive and substitutable" products. The Panel concluded that because the measures sought to ensure the sale of a given quantity of skimmed milk powder, they protected this product in a manner contrary to the principles of Article III:1 and to the provisions of Article III:5, second sentence. The Panel was not convinced that economic considerations relating to the level of domestic production and the application of a security deposit justified the non-application of these measures to domestic corn gluten and therefore concluded that the measures accorded imported corn gluten less favourable treatment than that accorded corn gluten of national origin in violation of Article III:4. After examining the drafting history of Articles II and III and their subsequent application by contracting parties, particularly with a view to ascertaining the relationship between these two Articles, the Panel concluded that the measures should be examined as internal measures under Article III and not as border measures under Article I. Finally, the Panel noted that since it heard no evidence that the purchasing obligation, the security deposit or the protein certificate discriminated against imports of like products from any contracting party, it concluded that the EEC measures were not inconsistent with the EEC obligations under Article I:1. C/M/124 (05/04/1978) Minutes of Council Meeting (14/03/1978) EEC: The measure had been in force only six months in 1976. The Council noted that the measure had been terminated and adopted the report. SCM/W/48 (11/05/1983) Negotiating History of Article 18.9 and the Treatment of Reports of Working Parties and Panels under Article XXIII of the General Agreement - SCM Committee - Factual Note by the Secretariat: Reported as an Article XXIII complaint "Council adopted report on 14 March 1978." |