WT/DS76/R
27 October 1998
(98-4093)
Original: English
Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products
Report of the Panel
The report of the Panel on Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural
Products is being circulated to all Members, pursuant to the DSU. The
report is being circulated as an unrestricted document from 27 October
1998 pursuant to the Procedures for the Circulation and Derestriction of
WTO Documents (WT/L/160/Rev.1). Members are reminded that in accordance
with the DSU only parties to the dispute may appeal a panel report. An
appeal shall be limited to issues of law covered in the Panel report and
legal interpretations developed by the Panel. There shall be no ex
parte communications with the Panel or Appellate Body concerning
matters under consideration by the Panel or Appellate Body.
Note by the Secretariat: This Panel Report shall
be adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) within 60 days after the
date of its circulation unless a party to the dispute decides to appeal or
the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the report. If the Panel Report
is appealed to the Appellate Body, it shall not be considered for adoption
by the DSB until after the completion of the appeal. Information on the
current status of the Panel Report is available from the WTO Secretariat.
The United States specifically alleged that, for each agricultural
product for which Japan required quarantine treatment, Japan
prohibited the importation of each variety of that product until the
quarantine treatment had been tested for that variety, even though the
treatment had proven effective with respect to other varieties of the
same product. The United States claimed that Japan's prohibition
adversely affected exports of US agricultural products, and,
furthermore, that Japan's measure appeared to be inconsistent with the
obligations of Japan under the SPS Agreement, the GATT 1994 and the
Agreement on Agriculture. The provisions of these agreements with
which these measure appeared to be inconsistent included, but were not
limited to: (i) SPS Agreement, Articles 2, 4, 5 and 8; (ii) GATT 1994,
Article XI; and, (iii) the Agreement on Agriculture, Article 4. The
measures also appeared to nullify or impair benefits accruing to the
United States directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.
Consultations were held on 5 June 1997, but failed to settle the
dispute.2
In a communication dated 3 October 1997, the United States requested
the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") to establish a panel
with standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7 of the DSU. 3
The US claims of inconsistency in their Request for the Establishment
of a Panel were identical to those set out in their request for
consultations, except for an additional claim of inconsistency under
Article 7 of the SPS Agreement.
On 18 November 1997, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the
request of the United States, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.
4 In accordance with
Article 7.1 of the DSU, the terms of reference of the Panel were:
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the
covered agreements cited by the United States in document WT/DS76/2,
the matter referred to the DSB by the United States in that document
and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the
recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those
agreements."
On 18 December 1997, the Panel was constituted with the following
composition:
Chairman:
Mr. Kari Bergholm
Panelists:
Mr. Germain Denis
Mr. Eiríkur Einarsson
The European Communities, Hungary and Brazil reserved their right to
participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.
The Panel met with the parties on 2 and 3 April 1998. It met with
third parties on 3 April 1998. The Panel consulted scientific and
technical experts and met with them on 23 June 1998. The Panel held a
second meeting with the parties on 24 June 1998.
On 3 July 1998 the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that the
Panel had not been able to issue its report within six months. The
reasons for that delay were stated in document WT/DS76/4.
The Panel issued its interim report on 6 August 1998. On 21
September 1998, on request by Japan, an interim review meeting was
held with the parties. The Final Report was circulated to the parties
on 6 October 1998. The report was circulated to Members in all three
languages on [27 October 1998].
5 The US Administration
has expressed willingness to consult with the US Congress on changes to
US law if alternatives do not exist for control of key pests as the 2001
phase-out date approaches.
6
The main purposes of probit analysis are (i) to define susceptibility of
a population of target organisms to a treatment in terms of LD, LC or LT
values; (ii) subsequent comparisons of susceptibility of populations of
target organisms, varying response according to substrates, or
treatment; and, (iii) the prediction of the dose required for a specific
level of treatment efficacy.
Probit 9 is equivalent to a target level of mortality, or level of
treatment efficacy, of 99.9968 per cent mortality.
Sorption
The sum of adsorption, absorption and chemisorption. Adsorption is a
physical surface effect and results from the attraction of molecules
to the surface of products 7
and other materials in the fumigation chamber. Absorption is also a
physical process whereby the chemical enters into the product and
other materials in the fumigation chamber. Chemisorption is an
irreversible reaction in which residues are left in the fumigated
products and materials. When the pest takes in the fumigant while in a
product, or takes in the fumigant while on the surface of the fruit,
it may die.
Variety
A category within a species, based on some hereditary difference. 8
6 Dr. Heather referred to:
Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J.H., Principles and Procedures of Statistics
with Special Reference to the Biological Sciences, McGraw-Hill (1960)
p.22.
7 In this report the word
"product" is used instead of "commodity" or
"species".
8 Webster's Encyclopaedic
Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 1996 Random House. The
International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of
2 December 1961, Article 1, (vi) defines "variety" as: "[A]
plant grouping within a single botanical taxon of the lowest known rank,
which grouping, irrespective of whether the conditions for the grant of a
breeder’s right are fully met, can be – defined by the expression of
the characteristics resulting from a given genotype or combination of
genotypes, - distinguished from any other plant grouping by the expression
of at least one of the said characteristics and – considered as a unit
with regard to its suitability for being propagated unchanged ¼
.".