WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/C/W/391
9 July 2002
(02-3806)
Council for Trade in Goods
 ARTICLE VIII OF THE GATT 1994 –  SCOPE AND APPLICATION
Note by the Secretariat
1. Introduction
Following the Secretariat's paper on GATT Article X1 in response to Members' request at an
informal trade facilitation meeting on 25 February 2002 to prepare a background document on GATT
Articles V, VIII and X, the present note now takes up Article VIII. Like the previous paper, it will
restrict itself to a factual outline of the relevant provisions from a legal perspective and refrain from
entering into an analysis of whether, and to what extent, there is room for possible clarification andimprovement.
2. Structure
As in the case of the previous background document on GATT Article X, this paper first
briefly introduces the text of the examined Article and its negotiating history, followed by a legal
analysis of the Article's coverage and an outline of the basic obligations arising therefrom. The paper
then looks at how Article VIII has been applied in GATT/WTO jurisprudence so far.
3. Article VIII: Fees and Formalities connected with Importation and Exportation
3. 1  Text
1. (a) All fees and charges of whatever character (other than import and export duties and
other than taxes within the purview of Article III) imposed by contracting parties on or in connection
with importation or exportation shall be limited in amount to the approx imate cost of services rendered
and shall not represent an indirect protection to dom estic products or a taxation of imports or exports
for fiscal purposes.
(b) The contracting parties recognize the need  for reducing the number and diversity of fees
and charges referred to in sub-paragraph (a).
                                                     
1 G/C/W/374.This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own
responsibility and without prejudice to the positions of Members
and to their rights and obligations under the WTOG/C/W/391
Page 2
(c) The contracting parties also recogniz e the need for minimizing the incidence and
complexity of import and export formalities and for decreasing and simplifying import and export
documentation requirements.*
2. A contracting party shall, upon request by  another contracting party or by the CONTRACTING
PARTIES , review the operation of its laws and regulations in  the light of the provisions of this Article.
3. No contracting party shall impose substantia l penalties for minor breaches of customs
regulations or procedural requirements.  In particula r, no penalty in respect of any omission or mistake
in customs documentation which is easily rectifiable and obviously m ade without fraudulent intent or
gross negligence shall be greater than necessary to serve merely as a warning.
4. The provisions of this Article shall extend to fees, charges, formalities and requirements
imposed by governmental authorities in connec tion with importation and ex portation, including those
relating to:
(a)consular transactions, such as consular invoices and certificates;
(b)quantitative restrictions;
(c) licensing;
(d)exchange control;
(e) statistical services;
(f) documents, documentation and certification;(g)analysis and inspection;  and
(h)quarantine, sanitation and fumigation.
3. 2       Negotiating History
The negotiating history of Article VIII:1 was considered by the panel in  US – Customs User
Fee.
2 Much of the language of Article VIII of the GATT was drawn from a proposal made by the
United States in September 1946.3 This proposal in turn had its origins in the International
Convention Relating to the Simpl ification of Customs Formalities  of 3 November 19234, and in
recommendations made by the World Economic Conference of 1927.5 The Convention and the
Conference aimed to reduce the consular fees imposed in connection with the issuance of visas for
commercial travellers and consignments of goods, and to limit such fees to the cost of the relevant
government activity performed.  Thus, the World Economic Conference of 1927 recommended that:
(1) Consular fees should be a charge, fixed in amount and not
exceeding the cost of issue, rather than an additional source of
revenue. Arbitrary or variable consular fees cause not only an
increase of charges, which is at times unexpected, but also an
unwarrantable uncertainty in trade.
                                                     
2Panel Report, United States – Customs User Fee  ("US – Customs User Fee "), adopted
2 February 1988, BISD 35S/245.
3Article VIII:1(a) first appeared as Article 13, Suggested Charter for an International Trade
Organization of the United Nations, s ubmitted by the United States in Sept ember 1946.  Department of  State,
Publication 2598, Commercial Policy Series 93.
4League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 30, p. 372 (1925).
5League of Nations Document C.356.M.129.1927.II, para. 5 (1).G/C/W/391
Page 3
Article VIII was neither discussed extensively nor modified significantly through the
negotiations leading to the approval, at the close of the 1947 Geneva Conference, of the text that was
to become the GATT.6  In  US – Customs User Fee ,  the panel explained that:
"The criteria stated in the initial draft texts submitted to the negotiating
conference were almost identical to those adopted in the final texts,
with the result that the actual negotiations presented no occasions for
further elaboration of their meaning."7
Although the Havana Charter never came into force, its Article 36, which dealt with the same
subject matter as Article VIII of the GATT, contained certain differences from the text of Article VIII.
Only one of the modifications discussed during the Havana Conference, and included in the Havana
Charter, was subsequently made part of Article VIII of the GATT.8 During the Havana Conference, it
was considered important to clarify that the scope of Article VIII did not relate to import duties
(regulated by Article II), to export duties, or to the type of internal taxes regulated by Article III of the
GATT.9  The Havana Charter thus revised paragraph 1 to include the phrase "all fees and charges of
whatever character (other than import and export duties, and other than taxes within the purview of
Article 18)".10
Three noteworthy changes were made to Article VIII in the Review Session amendments to
Part II of the GATT, which were adopted in March 1955 and entered into force in October 1957.11
The first was the addition to paragraph 1 of the Havana Charter language aimed at distinguishing thescope of Article VIII from the scope of Articles II and III. The second was the replacement of theword "should"  in paragraph VIII:1(a) with the word "shall"  and the deletion of language stating that
contracting parties need take action in accordance with that provision only "at the earliest practicable
date".  This modification had the effect of making the obligations in Article VIII:(1)(a) mandatory
rather than simply hortatory.  Third, the second interpretative note to Article VIII, which states that, in
accordance with paragraph 1, "the production of certificates of origin should only be required to theextent that is strictly indispensable", was also added in 1955.
In paragraph 1(c) of Article VIII, the contracting parties "recognize the need for minimizing
the incidence and complexity of import formalities and for decreasing and simplifying import and
export documentation requirements". To this end, the CONTRACTING PARTIES adopted a number
reports, decisions, and recommendations intended to simplify documentary requirements relating to
the importation of goods, including certificates of orig in;  to simplify formalities associated with the
administration of quantitative requirements, the im portation of commercial samples, and inspections;
                                                     
6The text of Article 13 of the  Suggested Charter for an International Trade Organization of the United
Nations , is very similar to the text of Article VIII as adopted in 1947.
7Panel Report, US -  Customs User Fee , BISD 35S/245, para. 73.
8The following modifications contained in the Havana Charter were not subsequently incorporated into
Article VIII of the GATT:  (i) that a Member was required to review its internal laws and regulations only if
such request was made by another Member that was "directly affected" by those laws and regulations (Article
36.2 of the Havana Charter);  (ii) the addition of a provision relating to tariff discrimination based on the use ofregional or geographical names (Article 36.6 of the Havana  Charter);  (iii) the first interpretative note relating to
the International Monetary Fund did not require the "approval" of the International Monetary Fund, but only thatthe relevant currency exchange fees "not be inconsistent with the Articles of Agreement of the International
Monetary Fund" (Report of Committees and Principal Sub-committees of the UN Conference on Trade and
Employment, 1948, p. 77, para. 41)
9Havana Report, U. N. Doc. ICITO/1/8, p. 76, para. 35.
10Article 18 of the Havana Charter corresponds to Article III of the GATT.
11See  Final Act and Instruments adopted at the Ninth Session of the CONTRACTING PARTIES,
10 March 1955, in the  Protocol Amending the Preamble and Parts II and III of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (Legal Instrument 37) , p. 85;  and BISD 3S/214.G/C/W/391
Page 4
and to abolish consular formalities.12 Much of this work was conducted in conjunction with the
International Chamber of Commerce and the Customs Co-operation Council.13
Certain subjects covered by Article VIII are also now regulated by specific Uruguay Round
Agreements.  For example, the  Agreement on Preshipment Inspection,  the  Agreement on Sanitary
Phyto-Sanitary Measures   and the  Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade  impose disciplines on,
inter alia , certain fees and formalities imposed by Members in connection with importation. The
Agreement on Rules of Origin  and the  Agreement on Import Licensing  also relate to subject matter
covered by Article VIII.
3. 3       Coverage
Article VIII addresses fees and formalities connected with importation and exportation. The
first paragraph of Article VIII makes clear that the disciplines set forth in Article VIII apply to all
"fees and charges of whatever character … imposed on or in connexion with importation or
exportation" except for :  (i) import and export duties;  and (ii)  internal taxes within the scope of
Article III of the GATT. Thus, Article VIII applies to a residual category of fees and charges.Examples of the types of fees and charges covered by Article VIII are set forth in the fourth paragraph
of Article VIII.
Typical fees and charges that would fall within the scope of Article VIII include licence fees,
document fees, stamp fees and inspection fees.  Examples of import-related formalities that would fallwithin the scope of Article VIII include requirem ents relating to the documentation needed for import,
and to the procedures to be followed for customs clearance.
Article VIII includes specific legal obligations applicable to fees and charges and to the
penalties that may be imposed for minor breaches of customs procedures, as well as hortatorystatements recognizing the need to reduce the nu mber and complexity of import and export-related
fees and formalities.
Paragraph 1
In addition to defining the residual category of fees connected with importation and
exportation to which Article VIII applies, paragraph 1(a) contains the principal legal obligationsimposed pursuant to that provision. Members are directed to limit such fees "in amount to the
approximate cost of services rendered". The phrase "services rendered" can be understood to refer to
government regulatory activities performed in connection with the importation and customs entry
processes , such as the processing and clearing of documents and goods, and inspections.
14
In addition, such fees and charges must not "represent an indirect protection to domestic
products or a taxation of imports or exports for fiscal purposes."
Paragraph 1(b) and (c) do not contain specific legal requirements. Rather, in these provisions,
Members simply "recognize the need" for "reducing the number and diversity of fees and charges"covered by Article VIII, and "for minimizing the incidence and complexity of import and export
formalities and for decreasing and simplifying import and export documentation requirements."
                                                     
12The various actions taken by the CONTRACTING PARTIES are summarized in the  Analytical
Index, Guide to GATT Law and Practice  (World Trade Organization, 1995), Vol. I, pp. 278–281.
13The Customs Co-operation Council is now called the World Customs Organization.
14 See Panel Report, US – Custom User Fee , BISD 35S/245, paras. 76 and 77.G/C/W/391
Page 5
In 1952, the CONTRACTING PARTIES  took a Decision adopting a Code of Standard Practices
for Documentary Requirements for the Importation of Goods.15
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2 of Article VIII requires a Member to review the operation of its "laws and
regulations in the light of the provisions of this Article", at the request of another Member or the
relevant WTO body.16 In the Havana Charter, this provision included a qualification that the
obligation to "review" only applied when the requesting Member was "directly affected" by therelevant laws and regulations. However, this qualification was not inserted into the GATT.
17
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3 prohibits the imposition of "substantial" penalties for minor breaches of customs
regulations or procedures.  Specifically, when customs documentation contains mistakes or omissions
that are easily rectifiable and were "obviously made without fraudulent intent or gross negligence,"
then the penalties imposed as a result of such mistakes or omissions may not exceed what is
"necessary to serve merely as a warning".
In 1952 the CONTRACTING PARTIES  issued a Recommendation on Standard Practices for
Consular Formalities, suggesting that no charge, other than the regular charge for replacement of a
document, should be imposed for mistakes made in good faith, and that, "within reasonable limits",
corrections to the original documents should be allowed.18
Paragraph 4
The last paragraph of Article VIII sets forth an illustrative list of the types of fees, charges,
formalities and requirements that fall within the scope of Article VIII. These include fees, charges,
formalities and requirements relating to:
(a) consular transactions, such as consular invoices and certificates;
(b) quantitative restrictions;
(c) licensing;
(d) exchange control;
(e) statistical services;
(f) documents, documentation and certification;
(g) analysis and inspection;  and
(h) quarantine, sanitation and fumigation.
Interpretative notes
There are two interpretative notes to Article VIII.  The first states that the use of taxes or fees
as a device for implementing multiple currency practices is inconsistent with Article VIII, but creates
                                                     
15 BISD 1S/23 and 24.
16According to the Explanatory Note contained in paragraph 2 (b) of the language incorporating the
GATT 1994 into Annex 1A of the  WTO Agreement ,  functions assigned by the GATT 1994 to the
CONTRACTING PARTIES are to be allocated by the Ministerial Conference.
17See Article 36.2 of the Havana Charter.
18BISD 1S/26, para. 4.G/C/W/391
Page 6
an exception, in accordance with Article XV:9(a) of the GATT 19, for circumstances in which a
Member uses multiple currency exchange fees for balance of payments reasons with the approval of
the International Monetary Fund.
The second interpretative note recognizes that requiring the production of certificates of
origin is not, as such, inconsistent with Article VIII, but qualifies the use of such requirements by
stipulating that "the production of certificates of origin should only be required to the extent that is
strictly indispensable".
3. 4        Basic Obligations
Article VIII seeks to limit the costs and complexity of the importation and exportation process
by imposing specific legal obligations on Members with respect to the fees and charges that may be
charged in connection with importation and exportation and the penalties that may be imposed for
minor breaches of customs procedures; as well as by explicitly recognizing the need to reduce the
number and complexity of import and export-related fees and formalities.
Article VIII requires each WTO Member to ensure that:
(i) the non-tariff fees and charges that it im poses on or in connection with importation or
exportation: (a) are limited in their amount to  the approximate cost of the regulatory
activities performed by that Member in connection with such importation or exportation;
and (b) do not represent indirect protection to domestic products or taxation of imports
or exports for fiscal purposes (paragraph 1);
(ii) upon request by another Member or by the relevant WTO Body20, it reviews the
operation of its laws and regulation in the light of the provisions of Article VIII(paragraph 2);  and
(iii) it does not impose substantial penalties for minor breaches of customs regulations or
procedural requirements, in particular when such breaches are the result of mistakes that
are easily rectifiable and do not result from fraud or gross negligence (paragraph 3).
In Article VIII, Members also "recognize", but undertake no explicit obligations with respect
to:
(i) the need to reduce the number and diversity of the fees and charges addressed by Article
VIII;  and
(ii) the need to minimize the incidence and co mplexity of import and export formalities, and
to decrease and simplify import and export documentation requirements.
3. 5       Application
                                                     
19Article XV:9(a) provides:
Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude:(a) the use by a contracting party of exchange controls or exchange restrictions in
accordance with the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund or with thatcontracting party's special exchange ag reement with the CONTRACTING PARTIES,
20 See footnote 58 above.G/C/W/391
Page 7
Article VIII has been interpreted by both GATT and WTO panels, as well as by the Appellate
Body. The aim of this section is to identify some of the principal findings that have been made with
respect to the specific provisions of Article VIII.21 This section begins with a brief summary of the
general nature of Article VIII:1(a), and then follows the order of the text of Article VIII.
General
In  US – Customs User Fee ,  the panel summarized the nature of Article VIII:1(a) as follows:
Article VIII:1(a) states a rule applicable to all charges levied at the
border, except tariffs and charges which serve to equalize internal
taxes.  It applies to all such charges, whether or not there is a tariffbinding on the product in question. The rule of Article VIII:1(a)
prohibits all such charges unless they satisfy the three criteria listed
in that provision:
a) the charge must be "limited in amount to the approximate
cost of services rendered";
b) it must not "represent an indirect protection to domestic
products";
c) it must not "represent … a taxation of imports … for fiscal
purposes".
22
"All fees and charges … on or in connection with importation or exportation"
In  US – Customs User Fee ,  the panel considered the types of fees and charges covered by
Article VIII, and determined that there was "a rather well established general understanding of this
concept, demonstrated more by practice than by  the actual text of the General Agreement." 23  The panel
noted that the illustrative list in paragraph 4 of Ar ticle VIII "includes various aspects of the customs
process such as 'consular transactions', 'statistical se rvices', and 'analysis and inspection'."   According to
the panel, in practice the illustrative list has been  interpreted "as a list of those customs-related
government activities which the draftsmen meant when they referred to 'services rendered'." 24    The
panel noted that consular fees, customs fees, and statistical fees had been treated as falling within the
scope of Article VIII:1(a) or Article II:2(c).25 That panel also found that a merchandise processing fee
for imports was covered by Article VIII:1(a).
The panel in  EEC – Minimum Import Prices  considered whether the forfeiture of a security
lodged in anticipation of importation when no importation took place within the date specified in an
import certificate constituted a charge in connection with importation within the meaning of
Article VIII:1(a). In the view of the panel, "suc h a penalty should be considered as part of an
enforcement mechanism and not as a fee or formal ity 'in connection with importation' within the
purview of Article VIII." 26  
                                                     
21This note is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of  all  findings related to Article VIII that
have been made by GATT/WTO dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body.
22Panel Report  US – Customs User Fee,  BISD 35S/245  , para. 69.
23Ibid., para. 76.
24Ibid.
25Ibid.
26Panel Report, EEC – Programme of Minimum Import Prices, Licences and Surety Deposits for
Certain Processed Fruits and Vegetables  ("EEC – Minimum Import Prices "), adopted 18 October 1978,
BISD 25S/68, para. 4.3.G/C/W/391
Page 8
The potential forfeiture of security was also at issue in  EEC – Bananas II . 27  That panel
referred to the reasoning of the panel in  EEC – Minimum Import Prices ,  agreed that the potential
forfeiture of a security deposit did not, as such, fall within Article VIII:1(a), and added that "it had not
received sufficient evidence demonstrating that th e security requirement gave rise to costs amounting
to a charge prohibited by paragraph 1(a) of Article VIII." 28
The relationship between "fees and charges"  falling within the scope of Article VIII:1 and
Article II was considered by the panel in  US – Customs User Fee.29 According to that panel, Article
II:1(b) establishes a ceiling on the charges that can be levied on a product whose tariff is bound.  Such
product must be exempted from all tariffs in excess of the bound rate, and from all other charges in
excess of those: (i) in force as of the date of the relevant tariff concession; or (ii) directly and
mandatorily required by legislation in force on that date. In addition, the panel observed, Article II:2authorizes governments to impose three types of non-tariff charges above the tariff-binding ceiling,
including "fees or other charges commensurate with the cost of services rendered".
30 In the view of the
panel in  US – Customs User Fee , no difference in meaning was in tended between this exception in
Article II:2(c) and the phrase "fees and charges … limited in amount to the approximate cost of services
rendered" in Article VIII:1(a).31
The panel in US – Tobacco  considered the consistency of an inspection fee with Article VIII,
as all the parties to the dispute had asked it to. The panel, however, noted that the question of the
consistency of the inspection fees with the GATT "could present itself differently under Article III in
that the focus of the examination would then be on the inspection fees as internal charges and onwhether or not national treatment was accorded in respect of such charges." 
32
"limited in amount to the approxim ate cost of services rendered"
The panel in  US –  Customs User Fee observed that:
"… [this] requirement is actually a dual requirement, because the
charge in question must first involve a 'service' rendered, and then the
level of the charge must not exceed the approximate cost of that
'service'."33
In discussing the meaning of "services rendered",  the panel noted that "the drafters … were
clearly not employing the term … in the economic sense", since government regulation is notnecessarily desired by importers and does not necessarily add value to the imported goods.
34 Rather,
"services rendered" means "government activities closely enough connected to the processes of customs
entry that they might, with no more than the custom ary artistic license accorded to taxing authorities, be
called a 'service' to the importer in question."35
                                                     
27Panel Report, EEC – Import Regime for Bananas  ("EEC – Bananas II "), 11 February 1994,
unadopted, DS38/R.
28Ibid. , para. 150.
29Panel Report, United States – Customs User Fee  ("US – Customs User Fee "), adopted
2 February 1988, BISD 35S/245.
30The other two types of charges authorized pursuant  to Article II:2 are: (a) charges equivalent to
internal taxes imposed consistently with Article III:2;  and (b) anti-dumping and countervailing duties imposed
consistently with Article VI.
31Panel Report, US – Customs User Fee,   BISD 35S/245, para. 75.
32Panel Report, United States Measures Affecting the Importation, Internal Sale and Use of Tobacco
("US – Tobacco "), adopted 4 October 1994, BISD 41S/I/131.
33Ibid. , para. 69.
34Ibid. , para. 77.
35Ibid.G/C/W/391
Page 9
The panel considered a variety of activities that the United States claimed were "services"  that
should be included in calculating the cost base of the merchandise processing fee.  In the view of the
panel, "the government imposing the fee should have the initial burden of justifying any government
activity being charged for." 36 The panel examined a variety of activities to determine whether they
were "both proximate enough, and of sufficiently general applicability, that their costs could be
included in the fee applicable to all commercial importers".37  The panel found that the costs of airport
passenger processing, the costs of collecting and transmitting export documentation, certain costs of
customs officers stationed in other countries, and the costs of customs processing for imports that
were exempt from the merchandise processing fee could not be included in the cost base of the
merchandise processing fee. These activities could not be considered to be government activities
"serving" the commercial importers paying the merchandising free.38 Conversely, the panel found that
the costs of the following activities could be included in the cost base of the fee: investigations of
customs fraud and counterfeit goods; the collection of anti-dumping and countervailing duties;
technical laboratories and the provision of legal rulings on customs matters; and the clearance of
carriers.39
The panel also noted that, in determining whether fees are limited in amount to the cost of
services, "revenues must be measured against the costs of the period in which the revenues are
collected".40
The panel in US – Certain EC Products  expressed doubts regarding the United States'
contention that "bonding requirement s could be viewed as a form of fee for services rendered (the
services being the 'early release of merchandise')".41
In  EC –  Minimum Import Prices 42, the panel considered the consistency with Article VIII of
certain interest charges and costs in connection with the lodging of security associated with importcertificates, and noted that "the incidence of these charges did not exceed 0.005 per cent." In the
opinion of the panel, "these interest charges and costs were limited in amount to the approximate costs
of administration", and "the term 'cost of services rendered' in Article VIII:1(a) would include these
costs of administration".
43
In the same case, the panel held that the authority of EC member States to suspend totally or
partially the issuance of import certificates pending Community action in response to a request forsafeguard action was not inconsistent with Article VIII.
44
In  US –  Customs User Fee ,  the United States argued that an ad valorem fee was the simplest
and cheapest way to administer its merchandise pr ocessing fee, was not price distortive, and was
                                                     
36Ibid. , para. 98.
37Ibid. , para. 103.
38Ibid. , paras. 100, 101, 105, and 106.
39Ibid. , paras.103 and 104.
40Ibid.,  para. 111.
41The panel did not, however, need to decide the issue as it found that the European Communities had
failed to satisfy its burden of proving that Article  VIII was relevant to the dispute:  Panel Report, United States –
Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities ("US – Certain EC Products "),
WT/DS165/R and Add.1, adopted 10 January 2001, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WT/DS165/AB/R,
paras. 6.70 and 6.71.
42Panel Report, EEC – Programme of Minimum Import Prices, Licences and Surety Deposits for
Certain Processed Fruits and Vegetables  ("EEC – Minimum Import Prices "), adopted 18 October 1978,
BISD 25S/68.
43Ibid. , para. 4.2.
44Ibid. , para. 4.5.G/C/W/391
Page 10
predictable for traders.45  The panel, however, found that the  ad valorem  fee was not compatible with
the plain meaning of the text or with the objectives of the GATT.46 The Panel held that the term "cost
of services rendered" referred "to the approximate cost of customs processing for the individual entry in
question".47The panel found the merchandise processing fee was inconsistent with Article VIII:1(a) "to
the extent that it caused fees to be  levied in excess of such costs." 48
In  Argentina – Textiles and Apparel ,  the panel reasoned that:
"An ad valorem  duty with no fixed maximum fee, by its very nature,
is not "limited in amount to the approximate cost of services
rendered". For example, high-price items necessarily will bear a
much greater tax burden than low-price goods, yet the serviceaccorded to both is essentially the same. An unlimited ad valorem
charge on imported goods violates the provisions of Article VIII
because such a charge cannot be related to the cost of the service
rendered."
49
"an indirect protection to domestic products or a taxation of imports or exports for fiscal purposes"
In  US –  Customs User Fee ,  the panel raised, but did not decide, the issue of whether the
prohibition on fees and charges that "represent an indirect protection to domestic products" involves a
requirement to consider whether the fees and charges had adverse trade effects. 50
In the same case the panel also noted that, in considering whether fees and charges represent
taxation for fiscal purposes, it is relevant to consider "the question of whether total revenues exceeded
total attributable costs".51
In  Argentina – Textiles and Apparel  52 the panel observed that the statistical tax at issue
"purportedly raises revenue for the purpose of financing customs activities related to the registration,
computing and data processing of information on both imports and exports."  The panel found the tax
to be a measure designated for fiscal purposes inconsistent with Article VIII, reasoning that:
"While the gathering of statistical information concerning imports
may benefit traders in general, Article VIII bars the levying of any
tax or charge on importers to support the related costs "for theindividual entry in question" since it will also benefit exports and
exporters."
53
In that case, Argentina also argued that it was collecting the tax for "fiscal"  purposes in the
context of undertakings it had given to the International Monetary Fund.  The panel observed that:
                                                     
45Panel Report, US – Customs User Fee,   BISD 35S/245, para. 83.
46Ibid. , paras. 80–85.
47Ibid. , para. 125.  See also para. 86.
48Ibid.
49Panel Report, Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of  Footwear, Textiles,  Apparel and Other
Items  ("Argentina – Textiles and Apparel "), WT/DS56/R, adopted 22 April 1998, as modified by the Appellate
Body Report, WT/DS56/AB/R and Corr.1, DSR 1998:III, 1033, para. 6.75.
50Panel Report, US – Customs User Fee,   BISD 35S/245, para. 120.
51Ibid,  para. 119.
52See  footnote 91.
53Ibid. , para. 6.77.G/C/W/391
Page 11
"… not only does Article VIII of GATT expressly prohibit such
measures for fiscal purposes but that clearly a measure for fiscal
purposes will normally lead to a situation where the tax results in
charges being levied in excess of the approximate costs of the
statistical services rendered."54
Article VIII:1(c) – "The contracting parties also recognize the need for minimizing the incidence and
complexity of import formalities and for decrea sing and simplifying import and export documentation
requirements"
In  EEC – Bananas II ,  the panel examined whether the banana import licensing procedures at
issue were consistent with Article VIII:1(c).  According to the panel:
"Article VIII:1(c) refers to import formalities and documentation
requirements, not to the trade regulations which such formalities or
requirements enforce. It further noted that the complaining parties
had criticized the complexity of the EEC's banana import regulations
but that they had not submitted any evidence substantiating that theEEC's import formalities and import documentation requirements, by
themselves, were more complex than necessary to enforce these
regulations.  The Panel therefore found that the complaining parties
had not demonstrated that the EEC had acted inconsistently with
Article VIII:1(c)."
55
International Monetary Fund
In Argentina – Textiles and Apparel, Argentina argued on appeal that , in interpreting Article VIII
and applying it to determine the consistency of the statistical tax with Article VIII, the panel should have
taken account of a "Memorandum of Understanding" between Argentina and the IMF which, accordingto Argentina, included an "undertaking" to impose a statistical tax.
56 The Appellate Body found that:
"Argentina did not show an irreconcilable conflict between the
provisions of its "Memorandum of Understanding" with the IMF and
the provisions of Article VIII of the GATT 1994. We thus agree with
the Panel's implicit finding that Arge ntina failed to demonstrate that it
had a legally binding commitment to the IMF that would somehowsupersede Argentina's obligations under Article VIII of the GATT
1994."
57
__________
                                                     
54Ibid. , para. 6.78.
55Panel Report, EEC – Import Regime for Bananas  ("EEC – Bananas II "), 11 February 1994,
unadopted, DS38/R, para. 151.
56Appellate Body Report, WT/DS56/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 22 April 1998, DSR 1998:III, 1003,
para. 65.
57 Appellate Body Report on Argentina – Textiles and Apparel, para. 69.