Applied tariffs are those that are actually applied by the country concerned. It may be the bound rate, but frequently is not. Unbound tariffs are for which countries have not yet established an upper limit for tariffs. Distinction between formal and de discrimination may argue there is no formal, direct discrimination ‐ we do not draw any distinction between coffee coming from Brazil, Kenya or any other countries, origin‐neutral regime as long as they are the same kind of coffee. But we draw distinction just between different coffees. BUT, even if there is no formal discrimination, it might still be violating the MFN. The Panel’s hearing the case means that the WTO cares about the indirect, informal discrimination. e.g. the requirement of 6’ height to be a policemen regardless of gender But most pool of the people who are – over 6’ are men, therefore, it is a de discrimination against women. It would amount to gender discrimination. Spanish Coffee Case (Unit IV. pp. ) Facts (Try to understand the market condition first.) Coffee is a important product in Spain. It affects 2% of the inflation in Spain, big impact on rate of inflation. Brazil is a big exporter of coffee to Spain. There are different types of coffee, particularly in this case, mild and unwashed Arabica, Robusta, other not‐mild. Brazil is the big exporter of Unwashed Arabica and Robusta. Until 1980, the mild and unwashed Arabica was competing. After 1980, two milds have 0% duty, on the other hand, unwashed Arabica and Robusta are subject to 7% tariff. Brazil complained that it violated the MFN clause of GATT. Spain argues that it is an origin-neutral regime, so formally it is non-discriminatory. distinction is between types of coffee. BUT, law of the GATT is not interested only on direct discrimination: the fact that you are not formally discriminating does not mean that you are not discriminating. If the effect of the law is to single out Brazilian coffee, you still violate MFN. Panel Decision (Note: this predates AB) Weiler: the Spanish Coffee decision is a reasoned” “terribly decision First step: have to decide whether or not the different types of coffee are products”. “like Aristotelian distinction: treat the like in a like manner; treat the unlike in an unlike manner; if you
Applied tariffs are those that are actually applied by the country concerned. It may be the bound rate, but frequently is not. Unbound tariffs are for which countries have not yet established an upper limit for tariffs. Distinction between formal and de discrimination may argue there is no formal, direct discrimination ‐ we do not draw any distinction between coffee coming from Brazil, Kenya or any other countries, origin‐neutral regime as long as they are the same kind of coffee. But we draw distinction just between different coffees. BUT, even if there is no formal discrimination, it might still be violating the MFN. The Panel’s hearing the case means that the WTO cares about the indirect, informal discrimination. e.g. the requirement of 6’ height to be a policemen regardless of gender – But most pool of the people who are over 6’ are men, therefore, it is a de discrimination against women. It would amount to gender discrimination. Spanish Coffee Case (Unit IV. pp. ) Facts (Try to understand the market condition first.) Coffee is a important product in Spain. It affects 2% of the inflation in Spain, big impact on rate of inflation. Brazil is a big exporter of coffee to Spain. There are different types of coffee, particularly in this case, mild and unwashed Arabica, Robusta, other not‐mild. Brazil is the big exporter of Unwashed Arabica and Robusta. Until 1980, the mild and unwashed Arabica was competing. After 1980, two milds have 0% duty, on the other hand, unwashed Arabica and Robusta are subject to 7% tariff. Brazil complained that it violated the MFN clause of GATT. Spain argues that it is an origin-neutral regime, so formally it is non-discriminatory. distinction is between types of coffee. BUT, law of the GATT is not interested only on direct discrimination: the fact that you are not formally discriminating does not mean that you are not discriminating. If the effect of the law is to single out Brazilian coffee, you still violate MFN. Panel Decision (Note: this predates AB) Weiler: the Spanish Coffee decision is a “terribly reasoned” decision First step: have to decide whether or not the different types of coffee are “like products”. Aristotelian distinction: treat the like in a like manner; treat the unlike in an unlike manner; if you