. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DS210/1
G/L/400
G/VAL/D/5
G/TBT/D/21G/AG/GEN/45
19 October 2000
(00-4328)
Original:  English
BELGIUM – ADMINISTRATION OF MEASURES
ESTABLISHING CUSTOMS DUTIES FOR RICE
Request for Consultations by the United States
The following communication, dated 12 October 2000, from the Permanent Mission of the
United States to the Permanent Mission of Belgiu m and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement
Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
_______________
My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of Belgium
pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement
of Disputes (DSU), Article XXIII of the Genera l Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994),
Article 19 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade 1994 (the Customs Valuation Agreemen t), Article 14 of the Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade, and Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture, with respect to the administration
by Belgium of laws and regulations establishing the customs duties applicable to rice imported from
the United States.
Since July 1997, Belgian customs authorities have established customs values and duties for
rice by using reference prices coupled with provision for a possible rebate of tariff overcharges on rice
imports so that at least in theory the duties ultimately imposed would be consistent with Belgium's
commitments under Headnote 7 of the Schedule of Specific Commitments of the European
Communities and their Member States LXXX, a part of the GATT 1994.  It appears, however, that
Belgium has failed to administer the pertinent laws and regulations in a manner that is consistent with
its WTO obligations, leading to a denial of the specified duty rebates on rice imported from the
United States and the assessment of duties in excess of the bound rate of duty in contravention of
Article II of the GATT 1994.
In addition, Belgium's use of reference prices in the calculation of the applicable import duties
would appear to be inconsistent with Article VII of the GATT 1994 and the Customs Valuation
Agreement.  Belgium's refusal to recognize certain widely accepted industry standards associated with
the grading of rice, moreover, appears to be inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.
Belgium has also failed to administer its customs valuation determinations and its assessment
of tariffs on imported rice in a transparent manner, which has produced substantial uncertainty
regarding the rate of duty that will be applicab le to shipments of imported rice, thereby impeding
trade.  Moreover, the measures by Belgian authorities appear to have been applied in a manner that
discriminates against rice imported from the United States.  The Belgian measures have restrictedimports of rice into Belgium.  Thus, the Belgian measures also appear to be inconsistent withWT/DS210/1, G/L/400,
G/VAL/D/5, G/TBT/D/21,
G/AG/GEN/45
Page 2
Belgium's obligations under GATT Articles I, X and XI, and Article 4 of the Agreement on
Agriculture.
The measures of Belgium appear to be inconsis tent with the following specific provisions of
the identified Agreements:
1. GATT 1994, Article I, II, VII, VIII, X and XI;2. Customs Valuation Agreement, Articles 1-6, 7, 10, 14, 16 and Annex I;
3. Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9;
4. Agreement on Agriculture, Article 4.
Belgium's measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the United States
directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.
We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually
convenient date for consultations.
__________