RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/SPS/W/41
30November 1995
ORGANIZATION(95-3871)
Original: English Committee onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures
STATEMENT MADE BYTHE UNITED STATES
ATTHE MEETING OF15-16 NOVEMBER 1995
Youwillrecall thatatthelastmeeting weinformed theCommittee ofourconsultations with
theGovernment oftheRepublic ofKorea under Article 4oftheDispute Settlement Understanding
withregard togovernment mandated shelf-life. TheUSdelegation wishes toexpress itsserious concern
thattheKorean Government isnotimplementing the20JulyUS-Korea settlement onshelflife,which
wasnotified totheDispute Settlement Body (WT/DS5/5) andtheSPSCommittee (G/SPS/W/27) in
July. Thisisbased ondeficiencies inthe12October 1995notification ofKorea totheSPSCommittee
(G/SPS/W/27/Add.1) andinthefailure oftheKorean Government totaketheactions required under
thesettlement bythe1October deadline specified inthesettlement.
The20Julysettlement obligated Korea tonotify theWTO beginning 1October ofall
corresponding six-digit HSnumbers (orfour-digit intheevent asix-digit number doesnotexist) for
eachitemsubjecttoashelf-liferequirement,orforwhichashelf-liferequirementisremovedorproposed
toberemoved. Korea hasfailed todothis.
Instead, inits12October SPSnotification, Korea states thattheHSnumbers inthenotification
areonlyforreference, andthatthemeasures described inthenotification donotnecessarily apply
toallproducts included intheHSheadings.
Thisisnottheunderstanding oftheUnited States ofwhatKorea agreed todointhesettlement.
TheUnited States andKorea negotiated six-digit HSnumbers inthe20Julysettlement precisely to
avoid anymisunderstanding astothecoverage ofthesettlement. Thecoverage ofthemeasures to
betaken byKorea should benolessthanthecoverage oftheHSnumbers specified inthesettlement.
The20JulysettlementobligatesKoreatoallowmanufacturerstodetermineshelf-liferequirements
forallshelf-stable products, including canned, dried, packaged andbottled products. According to
Korea 'snotification, Korea hasfailed todothis.
Finally, theKorean Government hasindicated initsnotification thattheproducts havetocomply
withtheKorean Food Code eveniftheyarespecifically listed inthesettlement, thusgiving theKorean
Food Code precedence overthesettlement. Inourview, thiscould nullify theentire settlement.
Theinadequate notification coupled withKorea 'sunilateral interpretation ofthemeaning of
thesettlement agreement, areextremely troubling. Wehaveheard conflicting reports fromKorea as
tothemeaning ofthenotification andwhether itisinfactintended tobeinconsistent withthesettlement.
WeurgetheKorean Government topromptly clarify andcorrect itsOctober notification. We
alsourgetheKorean Government promptly totakeandnotify therestoftheactions itwasrequired
tohavetaken by1October 1995.