GD/174
United States - Customs User Fee
Other titles
US Customs User Fee (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Parties
| Complainant |
|
| Respondent |
|
| Third Parties |
|
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
General
|
| Type of product |
Not specified
|
| Product sub-type |
|
Related disputes
Key legal aspects
|
Legal basis
|
- GATT Article XXII:1
- GATT Article XXIII:1
|
|
Claims raised
|
- GATT Article II:2(c)
- GATT Article VIII:1(a)
|
|
Defences raised
|
|
Adjudicators
| Type |
Panel |
| Chairperson |
F. P. Donovan (Australia) |
| Other members |
Robert E. Hudec (United States), Elbio Rosselli (Uruguay) |
| Type |
Panel |
| Legal basis at issue |
- GATT Article XXII:1
- GATT Article XXIII:1
|
|
Claims at issue
|
- GATT Article II:2(c)
- GATT Article VIII:1(a)
|
|
Defences at issue
|
|
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) |
46 |
|
|
- Inconsistency found
- Inconsistency found
|
|
|
Timeline
| Request for consultations |
|
| Request for establishment |
|
| Establishment |
|
| Composition |
|
| Report |
|
| Adoption of report |
|
Outcome
| Outcome of the proceedings |
Report adopted
|
| Additional Info |
L/6264 (25/11/1987) United States Customs User Fee – Report by the Panel: The Panel found that the term "cost of services rendered" in Articles II:2(c) and VIII:1(a) must be interpreted to refer to the approximate cost of customs processing for the individual entry in question, and that consequently the ad valorem structure of the United States merchandise processing fee was inconsistent with the obligations of Articles II:2(c) and VIII: 1(a) to the extent it caused fees to be levied in excess of these approximate costs. The United States merchandise processing fee, as applied in Fiscal Year 1987 and as established for Fiscal Year 1988, also exceeded the "cost of services rendered" within the meaning of Articles II:2(c) and VIII: 1(a) to the extent it included charges for the cost of certain activities of the US Customs Service. Accordingly, to the extent it had caused fees to be levied in excess of the "cost of services rendered" within the meaning of Articles II:2(c) and VIII:1(a), the United States merchandise processing fee had to be considered prima facie to nullify or impair benefits accruing to Canada and to the European Economic Community under the General Agreement. The Panel suggested that the contracting parties recommend that the United States bring the merchandise processing fee into conformity with its obligations under the General Agreement. |
