WORLD TRADE WT/DS58/7
7February 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-0444)
Original: English
UNITED STATES -IMPORT PROHIBITION OFCERTAIN SHRIMP
AND SHRIMP PRODUCTS
Request fortheEstablishment ofaPanel byPakistan
Thefollowing communication, dated 30January 1997, fromthePermanent Mission ofPakistan
totheDispute Settlement Body, iscirculated attherequest ofthatdelegation.
_______________
Iamwriting tosaythatthrough aseries ofactions, including enactment ofSection 609ofPublic
Law101-162 amending theEndangered Species Actof1973, 16U.S.C. §1531etseq.,promulgation
ofregulations andissuance ofjudicial decisions interpreting thelawandregulations, theGovernment
oftheUnited States hasimplemented apartial embargo ontheimportation ofcertain shrimp andshrimp
products which isinconsistent withitsobligations under theAgreement Establishing theWorld Trade
Organization(WTOAgreement)includingtheGeneralAgreementonTariffsandTrade1994(“GATT”).
Specifically, theembargo isinconsistent withatleastthefollowing threeobligations under GATT 1994;
(1)Article XI:1clearly states thatnocontracting partywillimpose prohibitions orrestrictions onimports
through quotas, licenses orother measures; (2)themost-favoured-nation principle embodied in
Article I:1;and(3)Article XIII:1 which states thatallallowable prohibitions orrestrictions onimports
must beapplied inanon-discriminatory manner.
Inaneffort toresolve these matters andpursuant toArticle 4oftheUnderstanding onRules
andProcedures Governing theSettlement ofDisputes (“DSU”)andArticle XXII:1 oftheGATT, on
October 8,1996, theGovernments ofIndia, Malaysia, Pakistan andThailand requested consultations
with theUnited States (seedocument WT/DS58/1). Subsequently, consultations were heldon
19November 1996, inGeneva, andthereafter letters wereexchanged regarding points requiring further
clarification. However, theparticipants failed toreach anunderstanding during theconsultations.
Consequently,pursuanttoArticleXXIIIoftheGATT,theGovernmentofPakistanjoinsMalaysia
andThailand asaco-complainant andrequests thatapanel beestablished tosettle thisdispute in
accordance withArticle 6oftheDSU, withthestandard terms ofreference referred toinArticle 7
oftheDSU.