Tweet
THE UKRAINE-ARMENIA CIGARETTES AND ALCOHOL DISPUTE
Simon Lester
International Economic Law and Policy
October 26, 2010 Tuesday 10:50 AM EST
Oct. 26, 2010 (International Economic Law and Policy Blog delivered
by Newstex) --
I had been trying to do someposts on the Ukraine-Armenia WTO dispute
over taxes and duties on cigarettes and alcohol (DS411), because I
figured it would not get reported on much in the mainstream media.
But perhaps I better stop trying to do this kind of reporting, given
my record of accuracy. In my last post, based on a news report on
an Armenian web site indicating that the measure had been modified,
I said:
The Ukraine had requested a panel, but the dispute didn't even reach
the panel establishment stage. Apparently, sometimes a panel request
is all you need in order to get compliance.
But now I see a report from the WTO in its summary of yesterday's
DSB meeting, noting that the panel request is going ahead:
Ukraine introduced its first-time request for a panel. Ukraine
was of the view that Armenias measures violated Articles III:1,
III:2 and III:4 of GATT 1994 as well as Armenias commitment in
its accession working party report to apply its domestic taxes in
a non-discriminatory manner consistent with the national treatment
provisions before or from the date of accession. According to Ukraine,
the measures at issue are: the Presumptive Tax which imposes higher
tax rates on imported cigarettes than on like domestic products; the
collection of import duties on imported cigarettes in excess of duties
set forth in Armenias Schedule of Concessions; and the imposition of
higher excise tax rates on imported alcoholic beverages than on like
domestic products. Armenia said that it hoped to intensify bilateral
consultations with Ukraine and was thus not in a position to agree to
the establishment of a panel. Consequently, the DSB agreed to revert
to this matter.
I think the lesson is that I should stick to quoting cases and such,
and avoid trying to figure out what is in the minds of governments
in relation to their plans for particular cases!
From: A. Papazian
Simon Lester
International Economic Law and Policy
October 26, 2010 Tuesday 10:50 AM EST
Oct. 26, 2010 (International Economic Law and Policy Blog delivered
by Newstex) --
I had been trying to do someposts on the Ukraine-Armenia WTO dispute
over taxes and duties on cigarettes and alcohol (DS411), because I
figured it would not get reported on much in the mainstream media.
But perhaps I better stop trying to do this kind of reporting, given
my record of accuracy. In my last post, based on a news report on
an Armenian web site indicating that the measure had been modified,
I said:
The Ukraine had requested a panel, but the dispute didn't even reach
the panel establishment stage. Apparently, sometimes a panel request
is all you need in order to get compliance.
But now I see a report from the WTO in its summary of yesterday's
DSB meeting, noting that the panel request is going ahead:
Ukraine introduced its first-time request for a panel. Ukraine
was of the view that Armenias measures violated Articles III:1,
III:2 and III:4 of GATT 1994 as well as Armenias commitment in
its accession working party report to apply its domestic taxes in
a non-discriminatory manner consistent with the national treatment
provisions before or from the date of accession. According to Ukraine,
the measures at issue are: the Presumptive Tax which imposes higher
tax rates on imported cigarettes than on like domestic products; the
collection of import duties on imported cigarettes in excess of duties
set forth in Armenias Schedule of Concessions; and the imposition of
higher excise tax rates on imported alcoholic beverages than on like
domestic products. Armenia said that it hoped to intensify bilateral
consultations with Ukraine and was thus not in a position to agree to
the establishment of a panel. Consequently, the DSB agreed to revert
to this matter.
I think the lesson is that I should stick to quoting cases and such,
and avoid trying to figure out what is in the minds of governments
in relation to their plans for particular cases!
From: A. Papazian