Korea—Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled, and Frozen Beef
World Trade Organization, Appellate Body
WT/DS161, 169/AB/R (December 11, 2000)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Korea (defendant) adopted a retail system that treated domestic and imported beef differently. The law, adopted in 1990, required small retailers to choose only one type of beef to sell, either domestic or regular. Large retailers, like a supermarket, were permitted to sell both, but only if the two types were sold in separate sales areas. When the law was adopted, the vast majority of small retailers chose domestic beef. Therefore, the result of this law and separate system for imported beef was a drastic reduction of commercial opportunity to reach consumers. The United States and Australia (plaintiffs) challenged this law in 1998 as violating the national-treatment principle under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). At that time, there were only approximately 5,000 shops selling imported beef versus approximately 45,000 shops selling domestic beef. The GATT Panel determined that the law violated the national-treatment principle because the law distinguished between goods based on origin. Korea appealed to the World Trade Organization Appellate Body.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
