WORLD TRADE WT/DS62/8
WT/DS67/6
ORGANIZATION WT/DS68/5
24March 1998
(98-1238)
Original: English
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES -CUSTOMS CLASSIFICATION
OFCERTAIN COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
Notification ofanAppeal bytheEuropean Communities under
paragraph 4ofArticle 16oftheUnderstanding onRules
andProcedures Governing theSettlement ofDisputes (DSU)
Thefollowing notification, dated 24March 1998, sentbytheEuropean Communities tothe
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), iscirculated toMembers. Thisnotification alsoconstitutes theNotice
ofAppeal, filedonthesame daywiththeAppellate Body, pursuant totheWorking Procedures for
Appellate Review .
_______________________
Pursuant toparagraph 4ofArticle 16oftheUnderstanding onRules andProcedures Governing
theSettlement ofDisputes (DSU) andRule20oftheWorking Procedures onAppellate Review, the
European Communities hereby notify theirdecision toappeal totheAppellate Body certain issues of
lawcovered inthepanel report onEuropean Communities -Customs Classification ofCertain Computer
Equipment (WT/DS26/R, WT/DS67/R, WT/DS68/R).
TheEuropean Communities request thattheAppellate Body review anumber oferrors oflaw
andcertain legal interpretations developed bythePanel initsreport. Theerrors oflawandlegal
interpretations tobereviewed include thefollowing:
1. ThePanel erredwhere itfound thatthemeasures under dispute andtheproducts affected
bysuchmeasures wereidentified sufficiently specifically bytheUnited States toinclude
measures other thanCommission Regulation (EC)No.1165/95 asfarasitconcerns
Local Area Network (LAN) adapter cards.
2. ThePanel erred where itconsidered thatthemeaning ofaparticular position inthe
Schedule ofatariff concessions ofaWTO Member should bereadinthelightofthe
"legitimate expectations" ofanexporting Member outside thecontext ofnullification
andimpairment claims intheabsence ofaviolation ofaGATT provision (so-called
non-violation claims) andwhere itconsidered thatArticle II.5oftheGATT 1994was,
ontheonehand, confirming thisviewand,ontheother hand, wasnotrelevant tothe
present case.
3. Subordinately, thePanel erred, where itconsidered thatthe"legitimate expectations"
oftheexporting Member withregard totheinterpretation ofatariffconcession should
bebased ontheclassification practices forindividual importers andindividual
./.WT/DS62/8
WT/DS67/6
WT/DS68/5
Page2
consignments, oronthesubjective perception ofanumber ofexporting companies
ofthatexporting Member andnotontheimporting Member 'sSchedule ofconcessions,
itspublished legislation anditscustoms nomenclature. Bysodoing, itconfused in
particular thelegally separate issues ofcustoms classification, ontheonehand, and
thetarifftreatment required under aMember 'sSchedule oftariff concessions, onthe
other hand.
4. Finally, thePanel erred where itconsidered that,inanycase, theonusofclarifying
thescope ofatariffconcession during amultilateral tariffnegotiation under theauspices
oftheGATT/WTO shallnecessarily beputonthesideoftheimporting Member.
Bysodoing, thePanel hascreated andapplied anewruleontheburden ofproof in
thedispute settlement procedure which isoutside itsterms ofreference andisbeyond
thepowers ofapanel.
Theabove errors inlawandlegalinterpretations affect, interalia,thefollowing findings of
thePanel thattheECrequests theAppellate Body torevise andreverse:
8.9,8.10, 8.23, 8.28, 8.30to8.31, 8.33, 8.35to8.62, 8.69to8.70, 9.1and9.2.
__________