Feb 8, 1991

MEXICO-U.S. DISPUTE ON TUNA IMPORTS FOR GATT PANEL.

GENEVA, FEBRUARY 7 (CHAKRAVARTHI RAGHAVAN) – A dispute raised by Mexico over U.S. restrictions on imports of yellow-fin tuna products on purported environment grounds of protecting dolphins was referred to a GATT panel Wednesday.

An unusually large number of countries, over 25 counting the EC as one, said they had an interest in the matter and would intervene before the panel.

The dispute arose over an U.S. decision to prohibit all imports of yellowfin tuna and products from Mexico as of 10 October 1990.

This was on the basis of a California court order, implementing the provisions of the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act. Subsequently, in December 1990, the U.S. adopted the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act under which "Dolphin Safe" label on packages for sale may be used only for tuna and tuna products not fishing in the eastern tropical pacific ocean or which met a number of additional requirements if they contained tuna fished in that area.

Mexico contended that the Marine Mammal Protection Act was contrary to GATT Articles XI (quantitative restrictions), XIII (non-discriminatory administration of QRs) and III (National treatment for imports on internal regulations and taxes) while the Dolphin Protection of Consumer Information Act was incompatible with Article IX (marks of origin).

The U.S. argued that the prohibitions were in accord with the general exceptions relating to conservation of exhaustible natural resources under Article XX (g) and that the prohibitions were not currently operational but that it would not oppose reference to panel.

On other issues, the U.S.-Canada dispute panel ruling on U.S. levy of countervailing duties against imports of Canadian pork again came up before the Council.

Canada pressed for adoption of the ruling and the U.S. continuing to oppose it on the ground that it must await the outcome of the bilateral panel under the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. The Canadians however contended that the two panels were seized of different issues. Council action was put off until the next meeting.

On another U.S.-Canada dispute, on ice-cream yoghurt where the ruling went in favour of the U.S. and Canada had tied implementation to the outcome of the Uruguay Round, particularly on Article XI, the U.S. again pressed for word from Canada on implementation and said that it had already drawn up a list of products against which the U.S. would retaliate if Canada did not act.

Argentina’s Amb. Juan Lanos intervened to make the general point of complaint that a number of dispute settlement rulings of GATT panels adopted by the Council were being held hostage to the completion of the Uruguay Round.

On another panel ruling against Canada (in a dispute with the EC) over activities of provincial liquor marketing boards, the U.S. pressed for Canadian actions to comply with the ruling over beer imports from the U.S. Canada however said that it was still in active consultations with the EC on implementation of the ruling related to wines and spirits, but that the Canadian marketing board restrictions on U.S. beer were consistent with the GATT. But Canada was willing to agree to panel being set up, as sought by the U.S.

The panel is expected to have the same membership as the original EC-Canada panel on this, with consultations to be held to decide on terms of reference of the new panel.

Another issue that came up related to a 1988 panel ruling against Japan, in a case brought by the U.S., over restrictions on imports of a number of agricultural products. Japan at that time had agreed to remove restrictions on a number of items except two where it had agreed to provide increased market access. These are due to expire in March 1991, and the U.S. sought information on what would happen after that date.

Japan said that it was implementing the ruling in the large majority of the cases cited and the issue of implementation in the remaining two products was tied to the outcome of the Uruguay Round and clarifications on Article XI, in the overall context of the consideration in the agriculture negotiations of the issues of waivers and variable levies and equitable treatment of all countries.

In other actions, the Council adopted the report of the working party I on the accession of Guatemala. The report of the working party took note of Guatemala’s commitment to the gradual elimination of import prohibitions and licensing requirements and other quantitative restrictions except those being maintained to protect to human and plant health and public morals.

The accession protocol would now go to a vote of the CPs. When 68 of them accept it, and Guatemala ratifies the protocol, it would be able to sign and become a member.

The Council was also informed about the disinvoking of balance-of-payments rights under Art XVIII: B by Peru and Argentina.

Czechoslovakia, on the other hands, invoked Article XII (the applicable provision for countries other than Third World countries) to introduce a 20 percent import surcharge on all imports of consumer and food products as a measure to safeguard bop under its reform programme.