Relationship with other WTO Agreements. In Argentina – Textiles and Apparel, the Appellate Body responded to an argument by Argentina that the Panel's interpretation of Article VIII should have taken into account a Memorandum of Understanding between Argentina and the IMF providing for fiscal measures to be adopted including"… increases in import duties, including a temporary 3 per cent surcharge on imports". The Appellate Body ruled that:
Relationship with other WTO Agreements. Where a measure for the protection of health is at issue, it could fall under any of the following three WTO agreements, namely the SPS Agreement, the TBT Agreement or GATT 1994, depending on the nature and content or objective of the measure. While both the SPS Agreement and the TBT Agreement circumscribe the measures to which they apply,75 GATT 1994 rules76 generally apply to discriminatory measures applicable 70 Report of the Appellate Body, EC—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, ¶ 128. 71 Concluded in Vienna on May 23, 1969, 8 I.L.M. 679 (1969). 72 Report of the WTO Panel, EC—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Complaint by the United States, supra note 53, ¶ 8.25; and Report of the WTO Panel, EC—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Complaint by Canada, supra note 53, ¶ 8.25. 73 Report of the Appellate Body, EC—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), supra note 70, ¶ 128. 74 Id. ¶ 129. 75 The SPS Agreement applies to SPS measures as defined in Annex A thereto and the TBT Agreement applies to technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures, as defined in Annex 1 thereto, except where these are covered by the SPS Agreement.
Relationship with other WTO Agreements.
1.2.1 Concurrent claims under the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Agriculture and Article 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement
1. In Canada – Dairy, the Panel addressed the United States' claim that Canada was in violation of Article II of the GATT 1994 and Article 3 of the Licensing Agreement because it restricted access to tariff quotas to certain cross-border imports by Canadians. Having found that the restriction was inconsistent with Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, the Panel did not find it necessary to examine whether in so doing, Canada also violated Article 3 of the Licensing Agreement.1
2. Similarly, the Panel in Turkey – Xxxx did not find it necessary to examine claims under Articles 3.5(a), 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 of the Agreement, as it had found that Turkey's failure to grant Certificates of Control to import rice outside of the tariff rate quota substantively violated Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.2 The Panel in Turkey –Rice also declined to rule on a US claim under Article 3.5(h) of the Import Licensing Agreement as it had ruled that the measure at issue violated Article III:4 of GATT 1994.3
3. In several cases, including Argentina – Import Measures and Indonesia — Import Licensing Regimes, the panels found violations of Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and proceeded to exercise judicial economy in respect of claims under Article 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement.4 In Argentina – Import Measures, the Appellate Body stated: "Similarly to these disputes, the complainants in EC – Bananas made claims under provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Import Licensing Agreement. In that case, the Appellate Body considered that a panel should apply first the agreement that 'deals specifically, and in detail,' with the matter at issue. (Appellate Body Report, EC – Bananas III, para. 204) As the Panel's decision to start its examination with the claims under Article XI:1 is not appealed, we neither endorse nor reject the Panel's approach in this regard. (See Panel Reports, paras. 6.358-6.361 and 6.448) In addition, we recall that the Panel examined the consistency of the DJAI procedure with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, irrespective of whether the DJAI procedure constitutes an import licensing procedure, and subsequently refrained from making any findings under the Import Licensing Agreement. (Ibid., paras. 6.479, 6.505, 6.511, 6.517, 6.523, 6.529, 6.535, 6.540, and 6.543) As the Panel's approach, in this regard, is not appealed, we neither endor...
Relationship with other WTO Agreements.
2. See also the documents on the Agreement on Trade Facilitation (Practice).
