What's New?
 - Sitemap - Calendar
Trade Agreements - FTAA Process - Trade Issues 

espa�ol - fran�ais - portugu�s
Search

World Trade
Organization

WT/DS103/R WT/DS113/R
17 May 1999
(99-1924)
Original: English

Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products

Report of the Panel

(Continued)


2. Article II:1 of GATT 1994

4.468 The United States argued that Canada's administration of its TRQ was inconsistent with Article II:1 of the GATT 1994. Article II:1(b) required that a Member provide tariff treatment no less favorable than was provided for in its Schedule of Concessions to imports from the territories of other WTO Members and exempt such imports from any customs duty in excess of the rate bound in the importing Member's Schedule. The Appellate Body had recently elaborated on the requirements of Article II:1(b) in its Report in Argentina - Footwear:

"In accordance with the general rules of treaty interpretation set out in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, Article II:1(b), first sentence, must be read in its context and in light of the object and purpose of the GATT 1994. Article II:1(a) is part of the context of Article II:1(b); it requires that a Member must accord to the commerce of other Member's "treatment no less favourable than that provided for" in its Schedule. It is evident to us that the application of customs duties in excess of those provided for in a Member's Schedule, inconsistent with the first sentence of Article II:1(b), constitutes "less favourable" treatment under the provisions of Article II:1(a). A basic object and purpose of the GATT 1994, as reflected in Article II, is to preserve the value of tariff concessions negotiated by a Member with its trading partners, and bound in that Member's Schedule, a reduction in its value by the imposition of duties in excess of the bound tariff rate would upset the balance of concessions among Members." 314

4.469 The United States noted that Canada allowed only fluid milk entries that were made pursuant to a general permit by a resident of Canada making retail purchases for the person's own, or their household's, personal use to qualify for the lower rate of duty under the tariff-rate quota. The language of Canada's Schedule, however, did not justify that limitation. By denying access for all other entries under the tariff-rate quota, and thereby imposing duties on those other entries in excess of those provided for in its Schedule, Canada was granting tariff treatment less favorable than was provided for in its Schedule of Concessions.

4.470 The United States noted that Canada justified its ban of entries other than small purchases for the personal use of the Canadian resident from the tariff-rate quota on the language in column seven of its Schedule, which Canada claimed constituted a "term, condition, or qualification" within the meaning of Article II:1(b). 315 Canada asserted that this language properly limited the scope of eligibility for the lower in-quota duty rate to imports of fluid milk made in cross-border trade by retail customers for their own personal use. However, the text which appeared in Schedule V relating to tariff item number 0401.10.10 did not warrant Canada's interpretation. The pertinent language was as follows "This quantity represents the estimated annual cross border purchases imported by Canadian consumers".

4.471 The United States argued that for the text relied on by Canada to create a condition on the applicability of the lower in-quota tariff rate, that language had to clearly establish the limitation that Canada had imposed on the scope of the concession. 316 The language in Schedule V, however, did not permit the interpretation that Canada had adopted. First, there was no basis to conclude that the language on which Canada relied constituted a "term, condition, or qualification." The language that the quantity of the tariff-rate quota "represents the estimated annual cross border purchases" simply described the manner in which the size of the tariff-rate quota was determined. The language in Canada's Schedule could not be construed to constitute a limitation on the access under the tariff-rate quota; there was no indication from the language contained in the Schedule that any type of limitation, other than the quantitative limitation to 64,500 tonnes, was provided for.

4.472 Second, the United States maintained that contrary to principles of treaty interpretation, Canada's construction of the language in its Schedule imputed words that were not there. 317 The words "cross-border purchases" contained in the Schedule could not be construed to limit eligibility to the in-quota rate to retail purchases valued at C$20, or less, for the personal use of the purchaser. All imports that were the result of a sales transaction of some type were "cross-border purchases". These words could not be read to differentiate between retail purchases for personal use and other types of purchases. Similarly, the phrase "imported by Canadian consumers" did not limit the scope of eligibility in the manner suggested by Canada. The ordinary meaning of the word "consumer" was "one that consumes" or "a person who acquires goods or services; a buyer." 318 The word "consumer" did not distinguish between retail purchases for personal use and other types of transactions. Purchasers who consumed milk in their business endeavours, whether it be manufacturing or some other pursuit were also "consumers". Therefore, Canada lacked any textual support in its Schedule for the limitations that it had imposed on access to the in-quota rate. Absent language in its Schedule that constituted a "term, condition, or qualification" within the meaning of Article II:1 of the GATT 1994, Canada acted in derogation of its obligations under Article II when it provided treatment less favorable to any imports than was provided for in its Schedule.

4.473 Furthermore, the United States argued that Canada's manner of administering the tariff-rate quota through the use of a general permit also resulted in treatment less favorable than provided for in its Schedule and, thus, was also inconsistent with its obligations under Article II:1. More specifically, Canada conditioned use of the general permit on each import entry of dairy products being valued at less than C$20 and for the personal use of the importer. Neither of these restrictions appeared as a "term, condition, or qualification" in Canada's Schedule of Concessions. Yet, Canada denied the in-quota duty rate to any entries which did not meet the requirements of the general permit. By doing so, Canada denied all entries which could otherwise qualify for the 64,500 tonne tariff-rate quota the lower duty rate under the in-quota rate that was provided for in Canada's Schedule. As a result such entries were subjected to duties in excess of those provided for in Canada's Schedule.

4.474 Canada argued that it had the right, �Error!Marcador no definido.under Article II, to set terms and conditions on the application of customs duties. Canada had the obligation, under Article II of the GATT 1994, not to impose "ordinary customs duties in excess of those set forth and provided" in its Schedule. Article II further provided that such obligation was "subject to the terms, conditions or qualifications set forth in that Schedule."

4.475 Canada noted that prior to the entry into force of the WTO Agreements, GATT 1947 panel practice had interpreted this "qualification" provision in two ways. First, each Contracting Party had the right to impose conditions on the concessions granted in the form of bound tariffs, so long as those conditions were not, in themselves, inconsistent with GATT 1947. Second, each Contracting Party could, in addition to making concessions in the form of bound tariffs, set down other concessions ("terms") in its Schedule. Canada noted that in European Economic Community - Imports of Beef from Canada, 319 the Panel held that:

"... the European Economic Community had, by virtue of the footnote in the Schedule, reserved its right to set conditions for the entry under the levy-free tariff quota in question. The Panel further found that the right to set conditions was presupposed in Article II:1(b) of the General Agreement." 320 (emphasis added)

4.476 Canada further noted that in United States - Restrictions on Imports of Sugar 321 the Panel noted that Article II:1(b) "permits contracting parties to qualify the obligation to exempt products from customs duties in excess of the levels specified in the Schedule." 322 The Panel found, however, that Contracting Parties could not, in their Schedules, qualify their obligations under other Articles of the GATT. 323 In United States - Restrictions on the Importation of Sugar and Sugar Containing Products Applied under the 1955 Waiver and under the Headnote to the Schedule of Tariff Concessions (hereafter "US - Sugar II") 324 , the Panel found that "the General Agreement does not oblige contracting parties to make concessions and specifically allows them in Article II:1(b) to subject to conditions the concessions they decide to make."

4.477 Canada noted that, in the recent report on Computer Equipment 325 , the Appellate Body made a number of observations about the interpretation of tariff schedules and Article II of the GATT 1994 that were relevant to this dispute. As a first principle, the Appellate Body stated that items in tariff schedules to the GATT 1994 were to be considered to be integral parts of a treaty and as such to be subject to the customary principles of treaty interpretation, as set out in the Vienna Convention. As such, they were to be interpreted on the basis of the common intention of the parties :

"The security and predictability of tariff concessions would be seriously undermined if the concessions in Members' Schedules were to be interpreted on the basis of the subjective views of certain exporting Members alone.

(...)

The purpose of treaty interpretation under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention is to ascertain the common intentions of the parties. These common intentions cannot be ascertained on the basis of the subjective and unilaterally determined "expectations" of one of the parties to a treaty. Tariff concessions provided for in a Member's Schedule - the interpretation of which is at issue here - are reciprocal and result from a mutually-advantageous negotiation between importing and exporting Members. A Schedule is made an integral part of the GATT 1994 by Article II:7 of the GATT 1994. Therefore, the concessions provided for in that Schedule are part of the terms of the treaty. As such, the only rules which may be applied in interpreting the meaning of a concession are the general rules of treaty interpretation set out in the Vienna Convention." 326 (emphasis in the original)

4.478 Canada further noted that to determine that common understanding, the Appellate Body then referred to Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention:

"Pursuant to Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention, the meaning of a term of a treaty is to be determined in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to this term in its context and in the light of the object and purpose of the treaty"

(...)

"The application of these rules in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention will usually allow a treaty interpreter to establish the meaning of a term. However, if after applying Article 31 the meaning of the term remains ambiguous or obscure, or leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable, Article 32 allows a treaty interpreter to have recourse to:

... supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion.

With regard to 'the circumstances of [the] conclusion' of a treaty, this permits, in appropriate cases, the examination of the historical background against which the treaty was negotiated." 327

4.479 Canada recalled that on the point of the circumstances under which the treaty interpreter should examine the "historical background against which the treaty was negotiated," the Appellate Body quoted Sir Ian Sinclair:

".. the reference in Article 32 of the Convention to the circumstances of the conclusion of a treaty may have some value in emphasising the need for the interpreter to bear constantly in mind the historical background against which the treaty has been negotiated." 328

4.480 Canada noted that the Appellate Body had also specifically rejected the idea, as suggested by the Panel in the EC - Computer Equipment case, that the burden of clarifying the scope of a tariff concession rested solely on the importing Member. Returning to its view that the key issue in treaty interpretation was one of determining the common intention, the Appellate Body made the question one of common burden:

"We consider that any clarification of the scope of tariff concessions that may be required during the negotiations is a task for all interested parties." 329 (emphasis in original)

4.481 In this context, the Appellate Body commented on the burden this placed on the exporting member :

"Tariff negotiations are a process of reciprocal demands and concessions, of "give and take". It is only normal that importing Members define their offers (and their ensuing obligations) in terms which suit their needs. On the other hand, exporting Members have to ensure that their corresponding rights are described in such a manner in the Schedules of importing Members that their export interests, as agreed in the negotiations, are guaranteed. There was a special arrangement made for this in the Uruguay Round. For this purpose, a process of verification of tariff schedules took place from 15 February through 25 March 1994, which allowed Uruguay Round participants to check and control, through consultations with their negotiating partners, the scope and definition of tariff concessions. 330 Indeed, the fact that Members' Schedules are an integral part of the GATT 1994 indicates that, while each Schedule represents the tariff commitments made by one Member, they represent a common agreement among all Members." 331 (emphasis in original)

4.482 Canada noted that the United States acknowledged the application of the EC - Computer Equipment dispute. However, the brief quotation selected from the case and accompanying comment found in the submission of the United States did not reflect the full opinion of the Appellate Body as set out above. The United States attempted to suggest that the case stood for the proposition that a greater burden lay on the importing Member in matters regarding the interpretation of a tariff item. In fact, as noted above, the Appellate Body had expressly rejected this idea which had been suggested in the Panel Report and had pointed emphatically to the determination of the common intention of the Parties as being the central purpose of treaty interpretation. Moreover, in this context, the Appellate Body made it clear that if a greater burden lay anywhere, it was with the exporting Member.

4.483 Canada argued that it had a right, under Article II of the GATT 1994, to impose such terms and conditions on its tariffs as set out in its Schedule. Furthermore, in respect to the level of clarity and "notice" needed to ensure that other Members were aware of the value and the nature of the concession they were receiving, terms and conditions were to be treated without distinction from specific tariff items.

4.484 Canada argued that where, in the course of a new tariff regime, a term or condition was introduced and, in particular, where that condition had been the specific subject of on-going negotiations over many months, it was indeed the responsibility of the exporting country to seek clarification if that country considered that there was any uncertainty or ambiguity in the term or condition. Canada had informed the United States at all material times about the terms of access that it proposed to grant to imports of fluid milk in Canada's tariff Schedule. This condition was not novel and posed no surprise for US negotiators as it simply represented a continuation in tariffied form of the long-standing regime in place for fluid milk imports into Canada. The fact that the US side in the negotiations had been seeking greater access than that being offered by Canada did not affect the central question of what had been the nature of Canada's offer. The United States were fully aware of not only the existence of a term or condition, but also the nature of the specific condition on access to the Canadian fluid milk market. The United States could therefore not have had any legitimate expectation that Canada would make any additional concession for the import of commercial shipments of milk in bulk into Canada and thus, there could be no common understanding between the parties to the negotiations in that regard. Indeed, the bilateral negotiating history - the best evidence of what the parties understood - clearly indicated that this issue had been expressly negotiated and that the United States had failed to get additional access because of its failure to provide for practical access with respect to its own fluid milk market.

4.485 Canada recalled that at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round, pursuant to Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Canada converted its existing quantitative restrictions on the importation of fluid milk into a bound tariff on fluid milk. 332 In view of the volume of cross-border trade in consumer-packaged fluid milk, Canada incorporated an additional concession in its Schedule, subject to a condition. The qualified concession, a TRQ for the importation of consumer-packaged fluid milk by Canadian consumers (64,500 tonnes), was set out in Canada's Schedule V and reflected the estimated volume of cross-border trade in fluid milk in the period 1989-91.

4.486 Canada noted that since the implementation of the TRQ, Canada had, in accordance with its qualified concession under Article II, permitted the importation of consumer-packaged fluid milk by Canadian consumers at the lower tariff rate. Such imports were made under the authority of the General Import Permit No.1 under the Export and Import Permits Act. 333 General import permits operated to provide standing authority for imports made within the parameters of the terms and conditions set out in the permit. No additional specific permit or other formality was required for qualifying imports.

4.487 Canada noted that in current circumstances, Canada had not deemed it necessary to impose any monitoring of quantities being imported at the border. The result was that the Canadian border was now effectively open and unrestricted to cross border imports of consumer packaged milk by Canadians for personal use. Canada reserved the right to limit quantities to the 64,500 tonnes stipulated in its Schedule at some future date if circumstances change. In accordance with its qualified concession, Canada had applied the over-quota tariff to fluid milk shipments in commercial containers or in bulk.

4.488 Canada noted that the United States claimed that the words appearing in the "other Terms and Conditions" column had to be read as not stating any term or condition but rather as being no more than a historical note to indicate the source of the TRQ quantity. In short, the United States asked this Panel to ignore or render ineffective a part of Canada's Schedule that Canada had expressly stated to be a "term and condition" of access. Canada argued that this was inconsistent with the principles of interpretation under customary international law and, in particular, those that required that the terms of an agreement be given effect, and that they be interpreted in good faith, in context and in the light of their object and purpose.

4.489 Canada refuted the attempt by the United States to argue that the terms "cross-border purchases" and "consumer", as they appeared in the terms and conditions to the tariff item, had to be read as including commercial bulk purchases was not sustainable. First, it was straining the ordinary meaning of the language to suggest that the term "consumer" embraced large commercial enterprises. A further examination of reference sources did not support such a view. In ordinary legal usage in Canada and the United States the word "consumer" connoted acquisitions by individuals for personal usage. This meaning was evident from legal dictionaries 334 and statutory usage in both Canada and the United States. 335 It was also used in the sense of an individual who purchased a good or service for personal use, as opposed to a purchase made in the course of his trade or profession is also used in several international treaties. 336 Canada submitted that its interpretation of the word "consumer" was the one that was consistent with the ordinary meaning of that word. In fact, Canada argued that at all relevant times, throughout Uruguay Round negotiations the United States had been thoroughly conscious that the distinction between imports for personal use and commercial imports was at the heart of discussions between Canada and the United States on this issue. Accordingly, the claims by the United States in this regard lacked credibility.

4.490 Canada recalled that the Appellate Body had stressed 337 , that a treaty had to be read so as not to render a part of the text redundant or meaningless. The construction that the United States would seek to place on the words in the column entitled "Other Terms and Conditions" ("This quantity represents the estimated annual cross border purchases imported by Canadian consumers.") would leave it without purpose or meaning. The United States argued that the words in question did not indicate any term or condition but merely constituted a historical note explaining the source of the 64,000 tonnes figure. Since there was no need for Canada to set out the source for TRQ figure in the Schedule, the United States suggested that Canada had thrown in redundant words, without purpose or need, into its tariff schedule. This was clearly untenable. To the contrary, the implication of the words in the terms and conditions column was that they established a condition of within-quota access for fluid milk: importation by the consumer in consumer packages.

4.491 Canada noted that the context of a provision included its place in the agreement and the other parts of the agreement that may be of relevance. 338 The most obvious and fundamental contextual elements of the words in question had to be the heading under which they appeared, in the case at issue: "Other Terms and Conditions". This context clearly indicated that a term or condition affecting the TRQ was to be found in the words that fell thereunder. Therefore, contrary to the assertions of the United States, a premise was established that there was a term or condition in Canada's TRQ entry on fluid milk beyond mere quantity. That term and condition was that fluid milk had to be imported by the consumer in consumer packages to benefit from the lower tariff. Any other interpretation would have to explicitly ignore the context in which the words in question appeared and would therefore be inconsistent with the customary principles of international law, codified in part in the Vienna Convention. Canada noted that the legal principle of in dubio mitius, may also apply with respect to the interpretation of the terms and conditions in Canada's Schedule regarding fluid milk.

4.492 Canada argued that to the extent that there was any ambiguity, or that the terms persisted in remaining obscure, recourse could be had to the negotiating history of the agreement. 339 Following the Report of the Appellate Body in Computer Equipment, with respect to tariff issues, such recourse to negotiating history could be particularly appropriate. To exclude any consideration of negotiating history from the interpretation of the tariff line at issue, the United States had to establish that the text of the tariff line was, in fact, unambiguous. Canada was of the view that the meaning of the term and condition in the tariff line was clear on its face and in context. If the Panel considered that the meaning was not entirely clear, then, at the very least, the text was raising some element of uncertainty. Accordingly, in accordance with the rules of interpretation under the Vienna Convention, there could be reference to the negotiating history to find the common understanding of the Parties.

4.493 Canada recalled that prior to the conclusion of the Uruguay Round, Canada had maintained a quantitative restriction on uid milk under the Export and Import Permits Act (the "EIPA"). Fluid milk was originally included as "butterfat in any form" for EIPA purposes. Butterfat was listed on the Import Control List beginning in 1958, pursuant to the EIPA. Accordingly, fluid milk was permitted to enter Canada only under the authority of import permits issued under the EIPA. A general import permit (General Import Permit No.1) 340 was issued in 1970 providing authority for the importation of fluid milk in consumer packaging up to the value of C$10.00 per entry. 341 Individual permits for the commercial importation of milk were not issued. As such, this import regime had been a long-established feature of Canada-United States trade, as was well understood by officials on both sides of the border. For reasons of geography and the perishable nature of the product, imports of fluid milk into Canada originated almost exclusively in regions of the United States close to the Canadian border and were described at the time as "cross-border shopping". Canada argued that at all times, the United States was well aware of the details of Canada's pre-Uruguay Round regime for fluid milk. It was understood that any successor regime implanted in the context of tariffication at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round would reflect Canada's then-existing regime for fluid milk. Canada might agree in the process to enhance the access it provided but such enhancement would start with the premise of the existing regime. Thus, the United States could not argue that a reference to "cross-border shopping by Canadian consumer" was novel or isolated or that its meaning was obscure to its officials. Hence, the circumstances of the Uruguay Round negotiations made it crystal clear that United States officials fully understood that it was Canada's intention to limit access to the TRQ for fluid milk to cross-border purchases.

To continue with Article II:1 of GATT 1994


314 Appellate Body Report on Argentina - Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel, and Other Items (hereafter "Argentina - Footwear"), adopted 22 April 1998, WT/DS56/AB/R, para.47.

315 Canada's answers to questions posed during consultations with the United States. (United States, Exhibit 34)

316 The United States noted the relevance of the Appellate Body's findings in the Appellate Body Report on European Communities, United Kingdom, and Ireland - Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment, (hereafter EC - Computer Equipment"), WT/DS62/67/68/AB/R, adopted 22 June 1998, "[t]he security and predictability of tariff concessions would be seriously undermined if the concessions in Member's Schedules were to be interpreted on the basis of the subjective views of certain exporting Members alone." While this referred to the views of exporting Members, it would be even more true for importing Members, who by drafting the text of their tariff concessions were in the best position to specify clearly the scope of the concessions.

317 The United States noted the statement of the Appellate Body noted in India - Pharmaceuticals, op. cit., para. 45: "The duty of a treaty interpreter is to examine the words of the language of the treaty itself. This should be done in accordance with the principles of treaty interpretation set out in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention. But these principles of interpretation neither require nor condone the imputation into a treaty of words that are not there or the importation into a treaty of concepts that are not intended."

318 Webster's II, New Riverside University Dictionary, 1994.

319 Panel Report on European Economic Community - Imports of Beef from Canada (hereafter "EEC - Beef"), L/5099, BISD 28S/92, adopted 10 March 1981.

320 Ibid, para. 4.5(a).

321 Panel Report on United States - Restrictions on Imports of Sugar (hereafter "US - Sugar"), L/6514 BISD 36/S331, adopted 22 June 1989.

322 Ibid, para. 5.2. Canada noted that in paragraph 5.3, the Panel concluded that: "... Article II gives contracting parties the possibility to incorporate into the legal framework of the General Agreement commitments additional to those already contained in the General Agreement and to qualify such additional commitments, not however to reduce their commitments under other provisions of that Agreement." (emphasis added)

323 Ibid, para. 5.3

324 Panel Report on US - Sugar II, L/6631, 37S/228, adopted on 7 November 1990.

325 Appellate Body Report on EC - Computer Equipment, op. cit.

326 Ibid, paras. 82, 84.

327 Ibid, paras. 85-86.

328 I. Sinclair, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd ed., (Manchester University Press, 1984), p.141.

329 Appellate Body Report on EC - Computer Equipment, op. cit., para. 110.

330 Footnote in the original report: "MTN.TNC/W/131, 21 January 1994. See also Marrakesh Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, para. 3.".

331 Appellate Body Report on EC - Computer Equipment, op. cit., para.109.

332 Canada, Exhibit 34.

333 R.S.C. 1985, Chap. E-19. (Canada, Exhibit 35)

334 Canada, Exhibit 36. Therein, see Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., (West Publishing Co.: Minneapolis Minn., 1990): "Consumer Individuals who purchase, use, maintain, and dispose of products and services... Consumers are to be distinguished from manufacturers (who produce goods) and wholesalers and retailers (who sell goods). A buyer (other than for the purpose of resale) of any consumer product." See also The Dictionary of Canadian Law, 2nd ed., (Carswell: Toronto, 1995): "Consumer A natural person. An individual. Consumer Goods Goods that are used or acquired for use primarily for personal, family or household purposes.

335 Canada, Exhibit 37. Therein, see Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9-109: Goods are (1) "consumer goods" if they are used or bought for use primarily for personal, family or household purposes.

336 Canada, Exhibit 38. Canada noted that examples of such usage included Article 5.1 of the European Communities Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome 1980): "1. This Article applies to a contract the object of which is the supply of goods or services to a person ("the consumer") for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, or a contract for the provision of credit for that object."

337 Appellate Body Report on US - Reformulated Gasoline, op. cit., p.23: "one of the corollaries of the 'general rule of interpretation' in the Vienna Convention is that interpretation must give meaning and effect to all the terms of the treaty. An interpreter is not free to adopt a reading that would result in reducing whole clauses or paragraphs of a treaty to redundancy or inutility." This passage was repeated by the Appellate Body in Japan - Liquor Tax, op. cit., p.12.

338 Canada recalled that Article 31.1 of the Vienna Convention stated: "The context for the purposes of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes ... " (emphasis added)

339 Canada recalled that Article 32 of the Vienna Convention states: "Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including preparatory work of the treaty or the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31: (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable."

340 Canada drew the Panel's attention to the attached copy of amendment to General Import Permit No. 1 C.R.C. 1978, c. 613, expanding butter to include dairy products. (See Exhibit 39)

341 Canada noted that this had been increased to C$20.00.