DS: Belgium — Administration of Measures Establishing Customs Duties for Rice

back to top

Current status

 

back to top

Key facts

 

back to top

Latest document

  

back to top

Summary of the dispute to date

The summary below was up-to-date at

Consultations

Complaint by the United States.

On 12 October 2000, the US requested consultations with the EC concerning the administration by Belgium of laws and regulations establishing the customs duties applicable to rice imported from the United States. The United States considered that:

• Belgium has failed to administer the pertinent laws and regulations in a manner that is consistent with its WTO obligations, leading to the assessment of duties on rice imported from the United States in excess of the bound rate of duty, in contravention of Article II of the GATT 1194;
   
• Belgium’s use of reference prices in the calculation of the applicable import duties would appear to be inconsistent with Article VII of the GATT 1994 and the Customs Valuation Agreement;
   
• Belgium’s refusal to recognize widely accepted industry standards associated with the grading of rice appears to be inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade;
   
• Belgium has failed to administer its customs valuation determinations and its assessment of tariffs in a transparent manner, thereby impeding trade, and appears to have applied the measures in a manner that discriminates against rice imported from the United States.
   
• According to the United States, the measures have restricted imports of rice into Belgium. Thus, the Belgian measures also appear to be inconsistent with Articles I, X and XI of the GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
   
• According to the United States, Belgium’s measures appear to be inconsistent with the following specific provisions of the identified agreements: Articles I, II, VII, VIII, X and XI of the GATT 1994; Articles 1-6, 7, 10, 14, 16 and Annex I of the Customs Valuation Agreement; Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade; Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Belgium’s measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the United States directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.

On 19 January 2001, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 1 February 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

 

Panel and Appellate Body proceedings

Further to a second request to establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 12 March 2001. India and Japan reserved their third-party rights. On 29 May 2001, the US requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 7 June 2001, the Panel was composed.

On 26 July 2001, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that, further to the request of the United States, the panel had agreed, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, to suspend its work until 30 September 2001 in the light of the ongoing consultations between the United States and the European Communities. After informing the DSB of several requests from the complainant to extend the suspension of the panel proceedings, on 19 November 2001, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that it had accepted the United States' request to suspend its work until 30 November 2001.

 

Mutually agreed solution

On 18 December 2001, the US and the EC informed the DSB that they had reached a mutually agreed solution pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU.