Spain—Tariff Treatment of Unroasted Coffee
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Panel
GATT B.I.S.D. 102 (June 11, 1981)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Spain (defendant) classified all unroasted, non-decaffeinated coffee under one tariff heading until 1979. That year, Spain adopted a new classification, dividing coffee imports into five headings. Three of those headings had a 7 percent tariff applied, and the other two were duty-free. The classifications were based on geographical factors, cultivation methods, processing, and the genetics of the coffee beans. Brazil (plaintiff) challenged these classifications under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) because the two types of coffee beans it exported to Spain, Arabica and Robusta, were subject to the 7 percent tariff. Brazil argued that its coffee should be treated as favorably as the other types of unroasted, non-decaffeinated coffee under the most-favored-nation clause. The evidence before the GATT Panel indicated that no other party to the GATT divided up the types of unroasted coffee for tariff purposes as Spain had done. Additionally, coffee was typically sold to consumers as blends of coffee from different categories and was considered as a single product intended for drinking. The GATT Panel considered Brazil’s challenge to the Spanish tariff classifications of coffee beans.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.