_SLIDE_1_
Spain
Coffee case
_SLIDE_2_
_SLIDE_3_
Introduction
Facts
Opinion
Decisions
Reasoning
_SLIDE_4_
1. INTRODUCTION
_SLIDE_5_
Complainant
Respondent
1. INTRO
Brazil complained against Spain¡¯s newly applied tariff on unroasted and non-decaffeinated coffee
_SLIDE_6_
2. FACTS
_SLIDE_7_
Summarize
Former
1764
1980
25% 22.5%
Reduced
1975.11.17
1979.7.8
Effective
Publish Royal Decree 1765/79
State-trading system
Exempt(0%) on certain food products
Modified
Amended
_SLIDE_8_
1979: Royal Decrees
Product Description
Duty Rate
Columbia mild
Free
Other mild
Free
Unwashed Arabica
7% ad valorem
Robusta
7% ad valorem
Other
7% ad valorem
Publish Royal Decre¡¦(»ý·«)
3. With respect to its end use,
1)all the residual tariff headings
2)headings including the same kinds
|
view of the consumer
Blended Coffee
_SLIDE_18_
Brazil
main arguments
Terms type
Quality
Growth
only characterization
meaningful for
trading purposes
_SLIDE_19_
3. With respect to its end use,
coffee is a single product,
generally intended for drinking.
Brazil
main arguments
_SLIDE_20_
main arguments
Do not agree with some past GATT cases that suggested `like products` are all the same tariff heading
Spain
_SLIDE_21_
main arguments
Serious mistake
1)all the residual tariff headings
cover a large number of various products
2)headings including the same kinds
of products where in many instances
these were not `like products` .
Spain
_SLIDE_22_
`mild¡° `unwashed Arabica` belonges to the group of Arabica
Different in quality
BUT
Climatic
Growing Conditions
Methods of Cultivation
In Spain,
distinctive markets exist
Spain
such various types of coffee
could not be regarded as
`like products¡±
_SLIDE_23_
Differentiati