Home
Current Issue
Developments
Archive
Table of Contents
Surveys
Book Reviews
Discussion Forum
Information
Reading Room
Links of Interest
Search
Join our email list
Translate this page
  

European Communities--Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment

Previous PageTable of ContentsNext Page

Joel P. Trachtman

Download the Complete Survey (RTF Format)

WTO Appellate Body Report:

European Communities--Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment,

AB-1998-2, WT/DS62, 67, 68/AB/R (98-2271),

adopted by Dispute Settlement Body, [not yet adopted as of 30 June 1998].

European Communities, Appellant; United States, Appellee; Japan, Third Participant.

Division: Beeby, Ehlermann and Lacarte-Muró.

Major Topics Addressed by Appellate Body: Specificity of Notice under Article 6.2 of the DSU; Interpretation of Tariff Schedules.

1. Abstract

This decision concerns the tariff treatment of local area network ("LAN") equipment and personal computers with multimedia capability ("PCs with multimedia capability"). At the core of this dispute was the question of whether LAN equipment fell under heading 84.71 of the European Communities ("EC") tariff schedule, relating to automatic data processing machines and units thereof ("ADP machines"), or whether, as the EC argued, this equipment was properly included under heading 85.17, relating to telecommunications equipment. Customs duties are generally higher on the latter. Indeed, this case explores the intersection between computation and communication.

The Panel allocated the burden of clarification of these tariff categories to the importing state--the EC--and considered the exporting state's unilateral "legitimate expectations" as a guide to interpretation. The Appellate Body rejected these decisions, determining that all parties share responsibility for clarification of WTO treaty rules, and that the Vienna Convention does not support a reference to only one side's "legitimate expectations." However, the Appellate Body decision is troubling for several reasons, not the least of which is that the Appellate Body, having rejected the Panel's analysis, did not seem to engage in a complete interpretative analysis of its own.

Previous PageTable of ContentsNext Page





Top of Page

© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law
All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster
This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute.
This file was last modified: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:50PM