Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

United States — Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China

Type de cour
Cour internationale
Sep 29, 2010
Nom du tribunal
WTO Panel
Numéro de référence
Alimentation et nutrition

On 17 April 2009, China requested consultations with the United States concerning certain measures taken by the United States affecting the import of poultry products from China.  The measure primarily at issue is Section 727 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, which effectively prohibits the establishment or implementation of any measures that would allow Chinese poultry to be imported into the United States because it denies the use of any funding by USDA for this purpose.

The United States argue that this measure is motivated by sanitary concerns since China change its sanitary procedures and the States need time to verify the conformity of these procedures.The Panel found that Section 727 satisfied the two conditions in Art. 1 for a measure to be considered an SPS measure under the SPS Agreement. The Panel concluded that Section 727 was inconsistent with Arts. 5.1 and 5.2 because it was not based on a risk assessment that took into account the factors set forth in Art. 5.2. It was also found inconsistent with Art. 2.2 because it was maintained without sufficient scientific evidence.

The Panel found that Section 727 was inconsistent with Art. 5.5 because the distinction in the appropriate levels of protection for poultry products from China and for poultry products from other WTO Members was arbitrary or unjustifiable and that such a distinction resulted in discrimination against China.

The Panel found that Section 727 was inconsistent with Art. I:1 of GATT because the United States treated the like products from China in a less favourable manner than those from the other Members; and with Art. XI:1, because Section 727 imposed a prohibition on the importation of poultry products from China. The Panel found that Section 727 was not justified under Art. XX(b) because it was found inconsistent with Arts. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.


Based on:

Texte intégral
Site web