Appellate Body Reports

On 4 June 1997 and 15 December 1997, the EC requested consultations with Chile in respect of Chile’s Special Sales Tax on spirits, which allegedly imposes a higher tax on imported spirits than on Pisco, a locally brewed spirit. The EC’s second request (WT/DS110), takes issue with the modification to the law on taxation on alcoholic beverages passed by Chile to address the concerns of the EC in WT/DS87. The EC contended that this differential treatment of imported spirits violates Article III:2 of GATT 1994.

On 4 April 1997, the EC requested consultations with Korea in respect of internal taxes imposed by Korea on certain alcoholic beverages pursuant to its Liquor Tax Law and Education Tax Law. The EC contended that the Korean Liquor Tax Law and Education Tax Law appear to be inconsistent with Korea’s obligations under Article III:2 of GATT 1994. On 23 May 1997, the US requested consultations with Korea in respect of the same measures complained of by the EC. The US also alleged violations of Article III:2.

On 19 June 1996, Canada requested consultations with Brazil under Article 4 of the SCM Agreement, which provides for special procedures for export subsidies. Canada claimed that export subsidies granted under the Brazilian Programa de Financiamento às Exportações (PROEX) to foreign purchasers of Brazil’s Embraer aircraft are inconsistent with Articles 3, 27.4 and 27.5 of the SCM Agreement.

On 24 February 1997, Brazil requested consultations with the EC in respect of the EC regime for the importation of certain poultry products and the implementation by the EC of the Tariff Rate Quota for these products. Brazil contended that the EC measures are inconsistent with Articles X and XXVII of GATT 1994 and Articles 1 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. Brazil also contended that the measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly under GATT 1994.

On 15 October 1996, Mexico requested consultations with Guatemala in respect of an anti-dumping investigation commenced by Guatemala with regard to imports of portland cement from Mexico. Mexico alleged that this investigation was in violation of Guatemala’s obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 7.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

On 4 October 1996, the US requested consultations with Argentina concerning the imposition of specific duties on these items in excess of the bound rate and other measures by Argentina. The US contended that these measures violate Articles II, VII, VIII and X of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, Article 1 to 8 of the Agreement on the Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994, and Article 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.

On 5 October 1995, Canada requested consultations with Australia in respect of Australia’s prohibition of imports of salmon from Canada based on a quarantine regulation. Canada alleged that the prohibition is inconsistent with Articles XI and XIII of the GATT 1994, and also inconsistent with the SPS Agreement.

On 30 December 1994, India requested consultations with the United States concerning the transitional safeguard measure imposed by the United States. India claimed that the safeguard measure is inconsistent with Articles 2, 6 and 8 of the ATC.

Complaints by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States. The complainants in this case other than Ecuador had requested consultations with the European Communities on the same issue on 28 September 1995 (DS16). After Ecuador’s accession to the WTO, the current complainants again requested consultations with the European Communities on 5 February 1996. The complainants alleged that the European Communities’ regime for importation, sale and distribution of bananas is inconsistent with Articles I, II, III, X, XI and XIII of the GATT 1994 as well as provisions of the Import Licensing Agreement, the Agreement on Agriculture, the TRIMs Agreement and the GATS.

On 27 November 1995, the Philippines requested consultations with Brazil in respect of a countervailing duty imposed by Brazil on the Philippine’s exports of desiccated coconut. The Philippines claimed that this duty was inconsistent with WTO and GATT rules.