TWN Info Service
on WTO and Trade Issues (Sept10/03)
Geneva, 31 Aug (Kanaga Raja) -- Australia on Tuesday formally appealed the panel ruling in the dispute brought against it by New Zealand over the nearly 90-year-old Australian measures affecting the importation of apples from New Zealand.
The panel report, made public on 9 August, had been tabled for adoption at a meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) on Tuesday.
The panel report had
Following a new request
for access to the Australian market filed by
The scope of the risk
analysis was the importation of mature apple fruit free of trash, either
packed or sorted and graded bulk fruit from
New Zealand had requested the panel to find that the challenged measures, both individually and as a whole, are inconsistent with the obligations of Australia under the following provisions of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement): Articles 2.2 and 2.3, Articles 5.1, 5.2, 5.5 and 5.6, Article 8, and Annex C(1)(a).
Australia's measures were also not based on a "risk assessment" within the meaning of Article 5.1 and Annex A and were therefore inconsistent with Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, said New Zealand.
In a nearly 600-page
report, the panel ruled that the Australian measures against the import
of apples from
The panel ruled amongst others that Australia's measures at issue regarding fire blight, European canker and ALCM, as well as the requirements identified by New Zealand as "general" measures that are linked to all three pests at issue in the dispute, were inconsistent with Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement and, by implication, these requirements were also inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.
It also said that
The panel recommended
that the Dispute Settlement Body request
In other actions, in
respect of the dispute brought by
It said that the US Department of Commerce recalculated the margins of dumping from the investigation for two respondents, providing offsets for non-dumped comparisons. The recalculated margin for one of the respondents was zero, and the Department has revoked the order with respect to that respondent.
In addition, said the
According to the
It said that it will continue to monitor the implementation of this determination to ensure that traders benefit fully from the panel's rulings and recommendations in the dispute. +