STC Number - 2
  Generate document   Go back   New search

Import clearance measures and practices

Maintained by: Korea, Republic of
Raised by: United States of America
Supported by: Unspecified
First date raised: June 1995 G/SPS/R/2 paras. 39-40
Dates subsequently raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5 paras. 4-5)
October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6 para. 54)
March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7 para. 54)
July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8 para. 77)
October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1 (EN), paras. 42-43; G/SPS/R/9 (FR, ES), paras. 42-43)
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22 para. 127)
Number of times subsequently raised: 6
Relevant documents: G/SPS/W/64 G/SPS/W/66 G/SPS/GN/6 G/SPS/GEN/265 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1 WT/DS3/1; WT/DS3/2; WT/DS5/1; WT/DS5/5; WT/DS5/5/Add.1; WT/DS5/5/Corr.1; WT/DS41/1
Products covered:
Primary subject keyword: Other concerns
Keywords: Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures; Good Offices/Consultations/Dispute Settlement; Other concerns
Status: Resolved
Solution: In July 2001, the United States informed that several bilateral consultations initiated under the dispute settlement framework resulted in a mutually satisfactory and positive outcome regarding the import clearance procedures in question (G/SPS/GEN/265).
Date reported as resolved: 01/07/2001

Extracts from SPS Committee meeting summary reports

In June 1995, the United States informed the Committee that his country had held consultations with the government of the Republic of Korea under the provision of Article 4 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding with regard to two matters relevant under the Agreement, the first relating to inspection and testing methods and the second concerning government mandated shelf-life (WT/DS3/1 of 26 April 1995 and WT/DS5/1 of 3 May 1995, respectively). The delegate also noted that Canada had joined the consultations related to shelf-life measures.

The representative of Korea informed the Committee that although the consultations had been productive and useful there remained a high degree of ambiguity and lack of clear guidance in the actual implementation of the Agreement. He noted that on most of the issues discussed during the consultations the parties had been unable to identify relevant international standards. Furthermore, there appeared to be a range of diverse practices maintained by different countries. Korea stressed that it was the task of the Committee to shed light on such aspects in the implementation of the Agreement, taking due consideration of the different levels of development among Members.

In May 1996, the United States expressed serious concern regarding Korea's import clearance measures and practices which, in his government's view, were not based on science, did not conform to international practice or standards, and were deliberately employed to discourage food and agricultural imports. As the United States felt that Korea had not followed through on their commitment to implement previously agreed reforms, the United States had, on 24 May 1996, submitted a formal request for consultations (G/SPS/W/64). The full statement by the United States is available in document G/SPS/W/66. Several delegations expressed their exasperation with regard to difficulties in access to the Korean market for agricultural products. It was noted that although there was a substantial potential for trade, it could not been fully realized. Korea was strongly urged to adhere to the principles of the SPS Agreement.

The representative of Korea informed the Committee that the issues raised had been discussed extensively in a series of bilateral consultations between Korea and the United States, and, intermittently, with other countries. Korea had, since early 1995, taken various measures in order to bring its sanitary and phytosanitary practices in line with the SPS Agreement. Many of the difficulties encountered were common to developing countries, such as: a low level of sanitary infrastructure, the absence of accumulated experience and information, and the lack of relevant international standards. However, the representative of Korea noted that his government would continue to streamline its SPS measures in light of its obligations under the SPS and other WTO Agreements. Improvements would be made in a timely manner.

In October 1996, the United States reported on ongoing discussions with Korea with respect to Korea's long and burdensome import clearance procedures. The US government expected reforms to shorten import clearance processing in Korea and not be accompanied by the development of other practices not based on science or not in conformity with international practices, which undercut the initial liberalisation effect. The Korean government should also provide WTO Members with a full comment period. In response, the representative of Korea noted that an ambitious program had been launched last year, aimed at streamlining and harmonizing Korea's sanitary measures with the relevant international principles and standards. Regarding the particular issue of inspection and quarantine system, Korea planned to establish the advanced system by the end of 1996. The full statement of the representative of Korea is available in document G/SPS/GN/6.

In March 1997, the United States noted that consultations continued with Korea on import clearance procedures continued. Although encouraged by some changes Korea had implemented, concerns remained. The representative of Korea indicated that this country's programme to improve its inspection and quarantine procedures had already been introduced at the previous meeting of the Committee (G/SPS/GN/6). The Committee was assured that Korea would continue its efforts to streamline and conform its sanitary and phytosanitary legislation to the SPS Agreement.

In July 1997, the United States reported on the status of consultations with Korea regarding the latter's import clearance procedures, which had resulted in important delays and, occasionally, precluded entry of imported food and agricultural products. After five rounds of consultations under the WTO dispute settlement procedure, some Korean import clearance laws and regulations had been reformed, a progress that was welcomed by the United States. However, the US delegation reported that, since January, problems had arisen again in some ports as a result of these amendments. In addition, other import clearance requirements had recently become another source of concern. The US delegation appreciated a previous opportunity to comment on Korea's proposed changes toits food additives code and renew edits request for technical consultations on the same issue. The United States reaffirmed its determination to continue to address these concerns in bilateral consultations, until the clearance times in Korean ports were comparable to those in other similar ports. The representative of Korea assured the Committee that the US request for consultations would be duly conveyed to his authorities and requested that the scientific evidence on which the US claimed that clearance times should be equal in all similar ports of entry be communicated to its delegation so that a detailed response be prepared.

In October 1997, the United States reported on his government's ongoing bilateral consultations with Korea, under the provisions of Articles XXIII of GATT 1994, on Korea's import clearance procedures. He noted that some progress had been made. However, in addition to the remaining unresolved issues of principle, the United States was concerned by reports of continuing problems with implementation of certain changes that Korea had previously agreed to make to its administrative and legal requirements. The United States expected that implementation of these and other changes would result in significantly shorter delays in clearing agricultural and food products through Korean ports.

The representative of the Republic of Korea expressed his disappointment to see this issue repeatedly featured on the Committee's agenda. This repetition could negatively affect the perceptions of Korea's trading partners regarding the import clearance system applied, which Korea believed was in full compliance with the provisions of the SPS Agreement. Korea explained that the previous requirement that all ingredient percentages be reported had been abolished by an amendment to the Ministerial Ordinance of the Food Sanitation Act in December 1996. Under the new system, the reporting of percentages was only required for the main ingredients, other ingredients being cited only by names. As for the requirement dealing with the provision of manufacturing process information, its purpose was to facilitate the automatic exemption of a given company and product from laboratory examination. Furthermore, it was not mandatory for all importers. Finally, regarding the technical consultations on the Food Additives Code, the Korean delegate believed that his government had already responded to the concerns expressed by the United States. Nonetheless, the continued concerns expressed by the United States would be conveyed to the competent authorities in Seoul.

In July 2001, the United States introduced an update to the Secretariat document on specific trade concerns (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1). The United States had examined the issues it had raised in the Committee to determine whether the issues had been resolved. This exercise had shown that the SPS Committee was a useful forum to address and resolve trade issues. The US document presented the US view on the status of the relevant issues, and the United States was prepared to discuss other Members' views on this status.