USTR Seeks Comments on WTO Dispute Regarding EC Banana Importing Regime
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has issued a notice announcing that at the request of the U.S., the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the World Trade Organization has established a dispute settlement panel (DSP) to examine whether the European Community has implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a long-standing dispute regarding the EC's import regime for bananas.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The USTR states that it invites written comments from the public concerning the issues raised in this dispute. To be assured of timely consideration, comments should be submitted on or before September 21, 2007.
U.S. Alleges Failure to Implement the DSB's Recommendations
USTR states that nearly a decade after the DSB made its original recommendations and rulings, the U.S. considers that the EC has failed to bring its import regime for bananas into compliance with its WTO obligations. (See BP Note for history.)
The U.S. considers that the EC's current import regime for bananas is inconsistent with Article I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) because it applies a zero-duty Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) to imports of bananas originating in African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries in a quantity up to 775,000 tons but does not accord the same duty-free treatment to imports of bananas originating in all other WTO Members.
Additionally, the U.S. finds the EC's banana import regime is inconsistent with various other Articles of the GATT because it reserves the 775,000 ton zero-duty TRQ for imports of bananas originating in ACP countries but does not provide access to this preferential TRQ to imports of bananas originating in non-ACP substantial or non-substantial supplying countries.
(See ITT's Online Archives or 07/05/07 and 03/15/07 news, 07070599 2 and 07031599 2, for BP summaries of the U.S. request for a new WTO panel on the EC banana import regime and Ecuador's request for a new WTO review of European Union (EU) banana import restrictions, respectively.
See ITT's Online Archives or 12/07/05 news, 05120799 2, for BP summary of the U.S. disappointment with the EU's banana tariff proposal.
See ITT's Online Archives or 12/21/01, 07/03/01 and 04/12/01 news, 01122120, 01070318 and 01041139, for BP summaries of the EU approving a regulation to "complete" implementation of the agreement ending the WTO banana dispute; the U.S. terminating the 100% duties that were applied to certain EC products due to the dispute; and the agreement the U.S. and EU reached to end the dispute, respectively.)
-written comments should be submitted on or before September 21, 2007
USTR contact - Mara Pagn (202) 395-7305
USTR notice (D/N WTO/DS-27, FR Pub 09/06/07) available at http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-4341.pdf
WTO EC Banana Dispute II history (DS27, up-to-date as of 08/20/07) available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds16_e.htm
BP Note
In 1997, the DSB ruled that the EC's import regime for bananas was inconsistent with its obligations under the GATT in a dispute brought by the U.S., Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. An appointed arbitrator awarded the EC a ''reasonable period of time'' in which to come into compliance - until January 1, 1999.
At the end of that time, the EC implemented a first set of changes to its import regime for bananas and in November 1999, announced a second reform of its banana regime, which would comprise a two-stage process involving a transition period during which a TRQ system would be applied with preferential access for ACP countries and after which, a tariff-only regime would be introduced.
The transition period was to end no later than January 1, 2006. This two-stage proposal was memorialized in separate understandings reached with the U.S. and Ecuador in April 2001.