This summary has been prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility. The summary is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of Members.
See also:
> One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
> The basics: how disputes are settled in WTO
> Computer based training on dispute settlement
> Text of the Dispute Settlement Understanding
|
Current status back to top
Key facts back to top
| Short title: |
|
| Complainant: |
|
| Respondent: |
|
| Third Parties: |
|
Agreements cited:
(as cited in request for consultations) |
|
| Request for Consultations received: |
|
| Panel Report circulated: |
31 March 1998 |
Summary of the dispute to date back to top
The summary below was up-to-date at
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 13 June 1996, the United States requested
consultations with Japan concerning Japan’s laws, regulations and
requirements affecting the distribution, offering for sale and internal
sale of imported consumer photographic film and paper. The US alleged
that:
-
the Japanese Government treated imported film and paper
less favourably through these measures, in violation of GATT Articles III
and X.
-
these measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to
the US (a non-violation claim).
On 20 September 1996, the US requested the
establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 3 October 1996, 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 on
16 October 1996. The EC and Mexico reserved their third party rights. On
12 December 1996, the US requested the Director-General to determine the
composition of the Panel. On 17 December 1996, the Panel was composed. The
report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 31 March 1998. The Panel
found:
-
that the US had not demonstrated that the Japanese ‘measures’ cited by the US nullified or impaired, either individually or
collectively, benefits accruing to the US within the meaning of GATT
Article XXIII:1(b);
-
that the US had not demonstrated that the Japanese
distribution ‘measures’ cited by the US accord less favourable treatment
to imported photographic film and paper within the meaning of GATT Article
III:4; and
-
that the US did not demonstrate that Japan failed to
publish administrative rulings of general application in violation of GATT
Article X:1.
The Panel report was adopted by the DSB on 22 April
1998. |
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using. |
