session 5 Flashcards
Concepts “like” products
???
Concept of “directly competitive” products
???
Concept of substitutable products
???
De facto discrimination
De facto discrimination - is states not to be discriminated through the law or regulation but in the fact of these laws or regulations which produce discrimination. For example state adopt the law or regulation in which grants trade advantages to all countries in the law, so de jure there is no discrimination but after we analyze that countries which can really benefit from those advantages in the light of condition which have been impose through the law we realize that only very limited group of countries can benefit from that advantages. It will constitute the discrimination de facto because even the state did not frame this regulation in order to discriminate but de facto there will be discrimination. De facto discrimination is very complex to identify.
Border tax adjustments
???
First sentence art III:2
- Internal tax or other charge
- “Like products” :
Working Report Body tax adjustment
* Properties, quality and the nature of product (physical characteristic of the product)
* End-uses
* Consumer taste and habits (is it interchangeable product, consist on how the consumer behave concerned some drink)
* Tarif classification (there are HS is they are on the same level) - Imports taxed “in excess of” like domestic products (even not the smallest difference of tax %) (Tarif classification)
Second sentence art III:2
- Internal tax or other charge
- “Directly competitive or substitutable” products
- Imports and directly competitive or substitutable domestic products not “similarly taxed” (contains a de minimis exception( (has to be more de minims ) will be resident on the base on case to the raveling market) ) and you need to prove that they are not similarly taxed.
- Dissimilar taxation is “applied so as to afford protection” (here you need to prove that protectionism was applied)
You need to prove that competitive relation is distorted between two products. Nullified. That you can conclude. Equality of competitive distortion.
Art. III:2 addresses internal taxation.
???
Rule of national treatment
??? The national treatment obligation»_space;>relates to whether a country favours itself over other countries»_space;>prohibits a country to discriminate against other countries
Government Procurement
???
Plausible public policy
???
Asbestos
high toxical material
PCG fibers
???
asbestos fibers
???
Less favorable treatment
- Treatment no less favorable = effective equality of opportunities
???
If the measures can be objectively determined with reference to a legitimate policy objective, such as environmental protection or public moral, it will not be de facto discriminatory with reference to origin.
Asbestos
Chrysotile asbestos is generally considered to be a highly toxic material, exposure to which poses significant threats to human health (such as asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma)However, due to certain qualities (such as resistance to very high temperature), chrysotile asbestos has been widely used in various industrial sectors.
The most-fovared-nation clause
Article I
The national treatment clause
Article III
So national treatment covered by GATT Art III:2 and there are 3 requirements for there to be a violation
- There are must be an “internal tax” or “other internal charge” applied, directly or indirectly, to imported and domestic products
- The imported and domestic products must be “like”
- Imports must be taxed “in excess of” like domestic products.
DCS products
DCS products
???
To demonstrate a violation of Article III:4 three conditions apply:
- The measure at issue must be a law, regulation or requirement “affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use of products (on which more below in section D
- This measure accords treatment…less favorable
- Products from WTO member as compared to “like products” of national origin.
so as to afford protection
???
measure can be held to be inconsistent with ArtIII:4
Thus, even if two products are “like” that does not mean that a measure is inconsistent with art III:4. A complaining member must still establish that the measure accords to the group of “like” imported products “less favorable treatment” than it accords to the group of “like” domestic products.