Second Beer Panel

Second beer panel in Global Commerce Policy

In this regard, second beer panel is: a dispute in 1991 in the GATT between the United States and Canada. The entries on trade policy are here. It concerned the import, distribution and sale of certain alcoholic drinks by Canadian provincial marketing agencies. There had been a case on the same issue in 1988, hence the name of this case. The Canadian marketing agencies (“liquor boards”), created by provincial laws, had a monopoly on the supply and distribution of alcoholic beverages within provincial boundaries. They also had a monopoly on the import of alcoholic beverages from other provinces or foreign countries. The entries on trade policy are here. A provincial licence was needed for the brewing and selling of beer in a province, and most domestic beer had to be brewed in the province in which it was sold. The entries on trade policy are here. All provinces operated government liquor stores, but they also allowed beer sales at privately-owned retail outlets and brewery stores. The 1988 panel had concluded that mark-ups on imported products that were higher than those on domestic products could only be justified in precisely defined circumstances, that the burden of proof in this regard lay with Canada, and that the listing requirements and the availability of points of sale discriminating against imported alcoholic beverages were restrictions made effective through state-trading operations contrary to Article XI (General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions). The entries on trade policy are here. In 1988, following the first panel, Canada concluded an agreement with the European Community aimed at resolving some of the points at issue. This agreement was to be implemented by the provinces on a most-favoured-nation basis. The panel concluded that, with the exception of one province, the United States had not substantiated its claim concerning Canadian listing and delisting practices. The entries on trade policy are here. As to restrictions on access to points of sale, the panel considered that imported beer had access to fewer of them. The entries on trade policy are here. It found that these restrictions were contrary to the provisions of the GATT. The entries on trade policy are here. It concluded that the mere fact that imported and domestic beer were subject to different delivery systems was not in itself enough to establish inconsistency with the GATT since formally identical national treatment might leave the imported product worse off. The panel then considered the methods for assessing mark-ups and taxes on imported beer and found that they were inconsistent with Article III:4 (National Treatment). The panel next turned to the question of minimum prices and concluded that the maintenance by an import monopoly of any minimum price for an imported product at a level at which a directly-competing, higher-priced domestic product was supplied was inconsistent with Article III:4. The panel considered that the taxes on beer containers had been dealt with as part of its consideration of restrictions on private delivery. The entries on trade policy are here. It concluded that provincial notification procedures did not violate Article X (Publication and Administration of Trade Regulations). Finally, the panel concluded that Canada had failed to comply in several aspects of this case with its obligations under GATT Article XXIV:12 which enjoins GATT members to take reasonable measure to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Agreement by regional and local governments and authorities within its territories. See also implicit discrimination and second-level obligations.[1]

Second beer panelin the wold Encyclopedia

For an introductory overview on international trade policy, see this entry.

Resources

Notes and References

1. Dictionary of Trade Policy, “Second beer panel” entry (OAS)

See Also