没时间写blog，上传我的presentation outline

linpx -

Due to the time limit, we are going to present you the essence of this case.
There of course will be some aspects we are not going to cover, but that does
not mean they are not important.

On 5 February 1996, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States
acting jointly and severally, requested consultations with the European
Communities regarding the EC regime for the importation, sale and distribution
of bananas.

As we all have learnt in last class, the consultation between Complaining
party and Respondent party is necessary to the Procedure of Panel Report.
Which means that only by failing a consultation between two parties can resort
the case to Panel.

On 14, 15 March, 1996, consultations were held but left an unsatisfied result.
Then a panel was established by the said countries to resolve the matter.

So here the question is WHAT IS THE MATTER?

To know a better fact of this case, a basic introductory of the importation,
sale and distribution of bananas of EC regime would be necessary.

I would like to introduce some concepts. ACP countries, countries from
African, Caribbean, Pacific region, which signed Fourth Lomé Convention with
EC. Under this agreement, the importation of bananas is regulated.

BFA stands for Framework Agreement on Bananas, an agreement between EC and
Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela and Nicaragua concerning the size of the basic
tariff quota, the in-quota tariff (ECU 75 per tonne), country-specific
allocations and transferability of those allocations.

ECU is a monetary unit, which later is replaced by Euro.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1994, the EC was the world s second largest importer of bananas. All of importation is under charge of common market organization for bananas, which replace the various national banana import regimes.
Basically, it establishes three categories of imports:

(i) Traditional imports from twelve ACP countries;

(ii) Non-traditional imports from ACP countries which are defined as both any
quantities in excess of traditional quantities supplied by traditional ACP
countries and any quantities supplied by ACP countries which are not
traditional suppliers of the EC; and

(iii) Imports from third (non-ACP) countries.

What are difference treatments between these 3 categories?

For the 1st category, it is all duty free. No tariff at all.

2nd category. Duty free in a certain amount, for the quantities exceeding the
amount, ECU 693 per ton for out of quota importation.

3rd one, ECU 75 per ton for in-quota importation. ECU 793 per ton for out-of-
quota importation.

Did you see the difference treatment between this 3 categories? Yes, kind of
discriminatory, isn’t it? At least, it is not according to MFN.

Also, all the importation of bananas subjects to the licensing procedures.

For the 1st category, ACP imports, it requires a certificate of country of
origin.

But 2nd and 3rd categories, subject to: (i) allocation of licences based on
three operator categories; (ii) allocation of licences according to three
activity functions; (iii) export certificate requirements for imports from
Costa Rica, Colombia and Nicaragua; and (iv) a two-round quarterly procedure
to administer licence applications.

It is much easier for traditional ACP imports license and more difficult and
complicated for the 2nd and 3rd categories.

Above all are the basic facts of the case, also the reason why US, along with
other countries filed a suit against the EC. US is not a traditional banana
producer, but a banana industry investor.

The arguments are concerning about 3 issues:

  1. tariff issue. The tariff quota s tariff structure was challengeable because
    it imposed differential rates as between third-country bananas on the one
    hand, and non-traditional ACP bananas on the other. A serious contradiction to
    the GATT s most fundamental guarantee of non-discriminatory tariff treatment
    set forth in Article I:1.

  2. allocation issue. EC is allocating the market share of bananas to the
    countries from which bananas are imported. To get straight, some countries,
    basing on the Lome Convention and BFA agreement, some countries get more
    favourable treatments in importation from EC, while others don’t.

  3. import licensing issue.

As I told you before, in the fact introductory, the licensing systems is
highly complex, which creates: (i) Highly unfavourable conditions of
application for categories 2 and 3 comparing to the simple procedure of
category 1. (ii) even between categories 2 and 3, a more favourable condition
including the in-quota quantity, tariff rate is granted to the ACP countries
than third countries.

It is very clear now that case is concerning about the discriminatory
treatment. A very contradiction to the fundamental principle of then GATT.