WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS334/R 
21 September 2007 
 (07-3877) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
     
 
    
 
TURKEY – MEASURES AFFECTING THE 
IMPORTATION OF RICE 
 
 
Report of the Panel 
 
   WT/DS334/R 
 Page i 
 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page  
 
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... .1 
II. FACTUAL ASPECTS ..............................................................................................................2  
A. PRODUCT DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................2  
B. TURKEY 'S RICE MARKET .............................................................................................................3  
1. Turkey's rice production....................................................................................................... ...3 
2. Rice consumption in Turkey....................................................................................................5  
3. Turkey's impo rts of rice ....................................................................................................... ....5 
4. Domestic rice producers........................................................................................................ .12 
C. GENERAL IMPORT REGIME ........................................................................................................13  
1. Tariff rates................................................................................................................... ............13  
2. Preferential agreements for the importation of rice ............................................................13  
3. General procedure for the importation of rice.....................................................................13  
D. CERTIFICATES OF CONTROL ......................................................................................................14  
1. Legal basis .................................................................................................................... ...........14  
(a) Situation at the time of the est ablishment of this Panel ............................................................14  
(b) New legislation after the estab lishment of this Panel ...............................................................17  
2. Approved Certificates of Control ..........................................................................................17  
(a) Statement by Turkey............................................................................................................ .....17  
(b) Request for evidence from Turkey............................................................................................17  
(c) New request for evid ence from Turkey ....................................................................................17  
3. Rejection of Certificates of Control.......................................................................................19  
(a) Rejection of Certificates of Control..........................................................................................1 9 
(b) Request for evidence from Turkey............................................................................................20  
(c) New request for evid ence from Turkey ....................................................................................20  
4. Procedures in Turkish administrative courts.......................................................................21  
(a) Arguments by MARA before an  administrative court..............................................................21  
5. Decision by a Turkish administrative court .........................................................................22  
E. THE TARIFF RATE QUOTA SYSTEM ............................................................................................22  
1. Situation at the time of the establishment of this Panel.......................................................22  
(a) Decree No. 95/6814 of 30 April 1995.......................................................................................22  
(b) Decree No. 2004/7333 of 10 May 2004....................................................................................23  
(c) Decree 2005/9315 of September 2005......................................................................................23  
(d) Communiqué No. 25,943 of the FTU .......................................................................................24  
2. Earlier tariff quota regimes ................................................................................................... 25 WT/DS334/R 
Page ii  
 
  (a)
 Decree 2004/7135 of 20 April 2004 (from 20 April 2004 to 31 August 2004) ........................25  
(b) Decree 2004/7756 of August 2004 (from 1 N ovember 2004 to 31 July 2005) ........................27  
3. Import licences ................................................................................................................ ........28  
F. THE TURKISH GRAIN BOARD ....................................................................................................29  
G. LETTERS OF ACCEPTANCE .........................................................................................................32  
1. The so-called "lett ers of acceptance"....................................................................................32  
2. Evidence of letters of acceptance ...........................................................................................33  
3. Content of letters of acceptance.............................................................................................33  
4. Nature of letters of  acceptance...............................................................................................3 4 
H. LETTER FROM THE MINISTER OF STATE OF TURKEY ................................................................35  
III. PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FIND INGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................35  
IV. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND THIRD PARTIES ............................................38  
V. INTERIM REVIEW...............................................................................................................38  
A. REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF PRECISE ASPECTS OF THE INTERIM REPORT ...................................38  
B. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL ECONOMY ...........................................................................................38  
C. BURDEN OF PROOF ....................................................................................................................39  
D. PARTIES ' DUTY TO COLLABORATE ............................................................................................40  
E. APPROPRIATE INFERENCES .......................................................................................................41  
F. PANEL 'S RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................41  
G. ADDITIONAL REVISIONS AND CORRECTIONS ............................................................................43  
VI. PRELIMINARY RULING BY THE PAN EL ON THIRD PARTY RIGHTS..................43  
VII. FINDINGS....................................................................................................................... ........45  
A. BURDEN OF PROOF ....................................................................................................................45  
B. THE DENIAL OR FAILURE TO GRANT LICENCES TO IMPORT RICE AT OR BELOW THE 
BOUND RATE OF DUTY ...............................................................................................................48  
1. The United St ates' claims ...................................................................................................... .48 
2. Turkey's response .............................................................................................................. .....49  
3. The challenged  measure ......................................................................................................... 50 
(a) The so-called "blanket prohibition" ..........................................................................................50  
(b) The measure at issue ........................................................................................................... ......51  
(c) Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... ...........51  
4. Order of analysis.............................................................................................................. .......52  
5. Claim under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture..................................................56  
(a) Arguments of the parties....................................................................................................... ....56  
(b) Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture ............................................................................57  
(c) The Panel's analysis ........................................................................................................... .......57   WT/DS334/R 
 Page iii 
 
 
  (i) Importance of Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture......................................................57  
(ii) Issues for the Panel's consideration..........................................................................................5 8 
(iii) Has the United States produced evidence of the challenged measure?....................................59  
(iv) Has Turkey produced evidence to  rebut the presumption?.......................................................65  
(v) Is Turkey's decision to deny, or fail to gr ant, Certificates of Control to import rice 
outside of the tariff rate quota a "measure of the kind which have been required to be 
converted into ordinary customs duties"?.................................................................................69  
The Panel's Analys is........................................................................................................... ..................... 69  
Quantitative import restrictions............................................................................................... ................ 70  
Discretionary im port licen sing ................................................................................................. ............... 73  
Final consid erations........................................................................................................... ...................... 75  
(vi) Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... ...........76  
6. Claim under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 .......................................................................76  
(a) Arguments of the parties....................................................................................................... ....76  
(b) The Panel's analysis ........................................................................................................... .......76  
7. Claims concerning the administration of Turkey's decision to deny or fail to 
grant Certificates of Cont rol to import rice .........................................................................77  
(a) Arguments of the parties....................................................................................................... ....77  
(b) The Panel's analysis ........................................................................................................... .......78  
C. THE DOMESTIC PURCHASE REQUIREMENT .................................................................................78  
1. The United St ates' claims ...................................................................................................... .78 
2. Turkey's response .............................................................................................................. .....78  
3. Findings on an expired measure............................................................................................79  
(a) Arguments of the parties....................................................................................................... ....79  
(b) The Panel's analysis ........................................................................................................... .......82  
(c) Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... ...........85  
4. Order of analysis.............................................................................................................. .......85  
5. Claim under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 .......................................................................88  
(a) Arguments of the parties....................................................................................................... ....88  
(b) Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 ................................................................................................9 0 
(c) The Panel's analysis ........................................................................................................... .......91  
(i) Likeness of products........................................................................................................... .......91  
(ii) Law, regulation or requirement affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, 
purchase, transportation, distribution or use ...........................................................................91  
(iii) Less favourable treatment...................................................................................................... ...93 
(iv) Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... ...........96  
6. Claim under Articles XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture .................................................................................................................... ..........96  WT/DS334/R 
Page iv  
 
  (a)
 Arguments of the parties....................................................................................................... ....96  
(b) Articles XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.............................98  
(c) The Panel's analysis ........................................................................................................... .......99  
7. Claim under the TR IMs Agreement .....................................................................................99  
(a) Arguments of the parties....................................................................................................... ....99  
(b) The Panel's analysis ........................................................................................................... .....100  
8. Recommendations................................................................................................................ .100 
(a) Arguments of the parties....................................................................................................... ..100  
(b) The Panel's analysis ........................................................................................................... .....101  
D. CLAIMS AGAINST THE DOMESTIC PURCHASE REQUIREMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH  
THE DENIAL OR FAILURE TO GRANT LICENC ES TO IMPORT RICE AT OR BELOW THE 
BOUND RATE OF DUTY .............................................................................................................103  
1. The United Stat es' claims .....................................................................................................1 03 
2. Response from  Turkey .........................................................................................................10 5 
3. Provisions invoked by the United States.............................................................................105  
4. Panel's analysis............................................................................................................... .......106  
E. THE UNITED STATES ' CLAIMS CONCERNING ARTICLES 3.5(A)  AND 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, AND 
5.4 OF THE IMPORT LICENSING AGREEMENT ..........................................................................107  
1. The United Stat es' claims .....................................................................................................1 07 
2. Turkey's response .............................................................................................................. ...107  
3. The Panel's analysis ........................................................................................................... ...108  
F. THE ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTAS .....................................................................110  
1. The United St ates' claim....................................................................................................... 110 
2. Response from  Turkey .........................................................................................................11 0 
3. Article 3.5(h) of the Impo rt Licensing Agreement.............................................................111  
4. Panel's analysis............................................................................................................... .......111  
G. SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT ..............................................................................112  
VIII.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................112  
  WT/DS334/R 
 Page v 
 
 
  LIST OF ANNEXES 
  
ANNEX A 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OF THE FIRST WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 
BY THE PARTIES AND WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS BY THE THIRD PARTIES 
 
Contents Page 
Annex A-1 Executive summary of the first written submission by the 
United States (27 September 2006) A-2 
Annex A-2 Executive summary of the first written submission by Turkey 
(18 October 2006) A-10 
Annex A-3 Third party written submis sion by China (18 October 2006) A-18 
Annex A-4 Third party written submis sion by Egypt (18 October 2006) A-22 
Annex A-5 Third party written submission by the European Communities 
(18 October 2006) A-28 
 
 
ANNEX B 
 
ORAL STATEMENTS BY THE PARTIES AND THIRD PARTIES 
AT THE FIRST SUBSTANTIVE MEETING 
 
Contents Page 
Annex B-1 Executive summary of the opening oral statement by the 
United States at the first substantive meeting (17 November 2006) B-2 
Annex B-2 Closing oral statement by th e United States at the first substantive 
meeting (9 November 2006) B-7 
Annex B-3 Opening and closing oral statements by Turkey at the first 
substantive meeting (8-9 November 2006) B-9 
Annex B-4 Oral statement by Australia at the third party session 
(9 November 2006) B-19 
Annex B-5 Oral statement by China at the third party session 
(9 November 2006) B-23 
Annex B-6 Oral statement by Egypt at the third party session 
(9 November 2006) B-25 
Annex B-7 Oral statement by the European Communities at the third party 
session (9 November 2006) B-27 
Annex B-8 Oral statement by Korea at the third party session 
(9 November 2006) B-29 
Annex B-9 Oral statement by Thailand at the third party session 
(9 November 2006) B-31 
 
 WT/DS334/R 
Page vi  
 
  ANNEX C 
 
REPLIES BY THE PARTIES AND THIRD PARTIES TO THE QUESTIONS 
POSED BY THE PANEL AFTER THE FIRST SUBSTANTIVE MEETING 
 
Contents Page 
Annex C-1 Replies by the United States to the questions posed by the Panel 
after the first substantive meeting (30 November 2006) C-2 
Annex C-2 Replies by Turkey to the ques tions posed by the Panel after the first 
substantive meeting (30 November 2006) C-33 
Annex C-3 Replies by Australia to the questions posed by the Panel after the 
first substantive mee ting (21 November 2006) C-73 
Annex C-4 Replies by Egypt to the questions posed by the Panel after the first 
substantive meeting (21 November 2006) C-74 
Annex C-5 Replies by the European Communities to the questions posed by 
the Panel after the first substantive meeting (21 November 2006) C-75 
Annex C-6 Reply by Korea to the questions posed by the Panel after the first 
substantive meeting (21 November 2006) C-77 
 
 
ANNEX D 
 
REBUTTAL SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES 
 
Contents Page 
Annex D-1 Executive summary of the rebuttal submission by the United States 
(15 December 2006) D-2 
Annex D-2 Executive summary of th e rebuttal submission by Turkey 
(20 December 2006) D-10 
 
 
ANNEX E 
 
ORAL STATEMENTS BY THE PARTIES 
AT THE SECOND SUBSTANTIVE MEETING 
 
Contents Page 
Annex E-1 Executive summary of the opening oral statement by the United 
States at the second substantive meeting (25 January 2007) E-2 
Annex E-2 Closing oral statement by the United States at the second 
substantive meeting (18 January 2007) E-7 
Annex E-3 Opening oral statement by Turkey at the second substantive 
meeting (17 January 20007) E-9 
Annex E-4 Closing oral statement by Tu rkey at the second substantive meeting 
(18 January 2007) E-17 
 
  WT/DS334/R 
 Page vii 
 
 
  ANNEX F 
 
REPLIES BY THE PARTIES TO THE QUESTIONS POSED BY THE PANEL 
AND OTHER PARTIES AFTER THE SECOND SUBSTANTIVE MEETING, 
AND COMMENTS BY THE PARTIES ON THE OTHER PARTY'S REPLIES 
 
Contents Page 
Annex F-1 Replies by the United States to the questions posed by the Panel 
and Turkey after the second substan tive meeting (6 February 2007) F-2 
Annex F-2 Comments by the United States on the replies by Turkey to the 
questions posed by the Panel af ter the second substantive meeting 
(20 February 2007) F-22 
Annex F-3 Comment by the United States on the comments by Turkey on the 
replies by the United States to the questions posed by the Panel and 
Turkey after the second substantive meeting (28 February 2007) F-43 
Annex F-4 Replies by Turkey to the questions posed by the Panel after the 
second substantive meeting (6 February 2007) F-44 
Annex F-5 Comments by Turkey on the replies by the United States to the 
questions posed by the Panel and Turkey after the second substantive meeting (20 February 2007) F-79 
 
 
ANNEX G 
 
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL 
BY THE UNITED STATES 
 
 
 
ANNEX H 
 
WORKING PROCEDURES FOR THE PANEL  
 
 
 
ANNEX I 
 
LETTER FROM THE PANEL TO THE PARTIES, DATED 30 AUGUST 2006, 
REGARDING PAKISTAN'S PARTICIPATION AS A THIRD PARTY  
 
  
ANNEX J 
 
LISTS OF EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES 
 
Contents Page 
Annex J-1  List of exhibits submitted by the United States J-2  
Annex J-2 List of exhibits submitted by Turkey J-6 
 
 WT/DS334/R 
Page viii  
 
  ANNEX K 
 
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PANEL AND PARTIES 
REGARDING SECTION VII.G OF THE PANEL REPORT 
 
Contents Page 
Annex K-1 Letter dated 6 August 2007 fro m the United States to the Panel K-2 
Annex K-2 Letter dated 8 August 2007 fro m Turkey to the Panel commenting 
on the United States' letter dated 6 August 2007 K-3 
Annex K-3 Fax dated 9 August 2007 fro m the Panel to the parties K-4 
Annex K-4 Letter dated 9 August 2007 fro m the United States to the Panel in 
reply to Turkey's letter dated 8 August 2007 K-5 
Annex K-5 Fax dated 10 August 2007 fro m the Panel to the parties K-7 
Annex K-6 Fax dated 13 August 2007 fro m the Panel to the parties K-8 
Annex K-7 Letter dated 20 August 2007 fro m the United States to the Panel K-9 
Annex K-8 Letter dated 27 August 2007  from Turkey to the Panel K-10 
Annex K-9 Letter dated 30 August 2007 fro m the United States to the Panel K-12 
Annex K-10 Fax dated 11 September fr om the Panel to the parties K-13 
 
  WT/DS334/R 
 Page ix 
 
 
  TABLE OF WTO CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT 
 
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Argentina – Textiles and 
Apparel  Panel Report, Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, 
Apparel and Other Items , WT/DS56/R, adopted 22 April 1998, modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS56/AB/R, DSR 1998:III, 1033 
Australia – Salmon  Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon , 
WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, 3327 
Canada – Aircraft  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian 
Aircraft , WT/DS70/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1377 
Canada – Autos  Panel Report, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry , 
WT/DS139/R, WT/DS142/R, adopted 19 June 2000, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, DSR 2000:VII, 3043 
Canada – Dairy  Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the 
Exportation of Dairy Products , WT/DS103/R, WT/DS113/R, adopted 27 October 
1999, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS103/AB/R, WT/DS113/AB/R, 
DSR 1999:VI, 2097 
Canada – Dairy  
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US II)
  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk 
and the Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States , WT/DS103/AB/RW2, 
WT/DS113/AB/RW2, adopted 17 January 2003, DSR 2003:I, 213 
Canada – Wheat Exports and 
Grain Imports Panel Report, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of 
Imported Grain , WT/DS276/R, adopted 27 September 2004, upheld by Appellate 
Body Report, WT/DS276/AB/R, DSR 2004:VI, 2817 
Chile – Price Band System  Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures 
Relating to Certain Agricultural Products , WT/DS207/AB/R, adopted 23 October 
2002, DSR 2002:VIII, 3045 
Chile – Price Band System  Panel Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to 
Certain Agricultural Products , WT/DS207/R, adopted 23 October 2002, modified 
by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS207AB/R, DSR 2002:VIII, 3127 
Dominican Republic – Import 
and Sale of Cigarettes Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the 
Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes , WT/DS302/AB/R, adopted 19 May 
2005 
Dominican Republic – Import 
and Sale of Cigarettes Panel Report, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and 
Internal Sale of Cigarettes , WT/DS302/R, adopted 19 May 2005, modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS302/AB/R 
EC – Approval and Marketing 
of Biotech Products Panel Report, European Communities – Measures  Affecting the Approval and 
Marketing of Biotech Products , WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R, 
Corr.1 and Add.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, adopted 21 November 2006 
EC – Bananas III  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, 
Sale and Distribution of Bananas , WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September 1997, 
DSR 1997:II, 591 
EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar (Australia) Panel Report, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar, Complaint by 
Australia , WT/DS265/R, adopted 19 May 2005, modified by Appellate Body 
Report, WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R 
EC – Hormones  Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products 
(Hormones) , WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998, 
DSR 1998:I, 135 WT/DS334/R 
Page x  
 
  Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
EC – Poultry  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting the 
Importation of Certain Poultry Products , WT/DS69/AB/R, adopted 23 July 1998, 
DSR 1998:V, 2031 
Guatemala – Cement I  Appellate Body Report, Guatemala – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding 
Portland Cement from Mexico , WT/DS60/AB/R, adopted 25 November 1998, 
DSR 1998:IX, 3767 
India – Autos  Panel Report, India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector , WT/DS146/R, 
WT/DS175/R and Corr.1, adopted 5 April 2002, DSR 2002:V, 1827 
India – Patents (US) Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products , WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998, 
DSR 1998:I, 9 
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II  Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS8/AB/R, 
WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, DSR 1996:I, 97  
Japan – Apples  Appellate Body Report, Japan - Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples , 
WT/DS245/AB/R, adopted 10 December 2003, DSR 2003:IX, 4391 
Japan – Film  Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and 
Paper , WT/DS44/R, adopted 22 April 1998, DSR 1998:IV, 1179 
Korea – Various Measures on 
Beef  Appellate Body Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled 
and Frozen Beef , WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, adopted 10 January 2001, 
DSR 2001:I, 5 
Korea – Various Measures on Beef
  Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen 
Beef, WT/DS161/R, WT/DS169/R, adopted 10 January 2001, modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, DSR 2001:I, 59 
Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks Panel Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages , 
WT/DS308/R, adopted 24 March 2006, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS308/AB/R 
Turkey – Textiles  Panel Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports  of Textile and Clothing Products , 
WT/DS34/R, adopted 19 November 1999, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS34/AB/R, DSR 1999:VI, 2363 
US – Carbon Steel  Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany , 
WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 December 2002, DSR 2002:IX, 3779 
US – Certain EC Products  Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Measures on Certain Products 
from the European Communities , WT/DS165/AB/R, adopted 10 January 2001, 
DSR 2001:I, 373 
US – FSC  
(Article 21.5 – EC)  Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" – Recourse to Articl e 21.5 of the DSU by the European 
Communities , WT/DS108/AB/RW, adopted 29 January 2002, DSR 2002:I, 55 
US – Gasoline  Panel Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional 
Gasoline , WT/DS2/R, adopted 20 May 1996, modified by Appellate Body 
Report, WT/DS2/AB/R, DSR 1996:I, 29 
US – Shrimp  Panel Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp 
Products , WT/DS58/R and Corr.1, adopted 6 November 1998, modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS58/AB/R, DSR 1998:VII, 2821 
US – Wheat Gluten Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities , WT/DS166/AB/R, 
adopted 19 January 2001, DSR 2001:II, 717  WT/DS334/R 
 Page xi 
 
 
  Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Wool Shirts and Blouses  Appellate Body Report, United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven 
Wool Shirts and Blouses from India , WT/DS33/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 
23 May 1997, DSR 1997:I, 323 
 
 WT/DS334/R 
Page xii  
 
  TABLE OF GATT CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT 
 
Short Title Footnote Citation 
Canada – FIRA Panel Report, Canada – Administration of the Foreign Investment Review 
Act, adopted 7 February 1984, BISD 30S/140. 
Italy – Agricultural Machinery Panel Report, Italian Discrimination Against Imported Agricultural 
Machinery , adopted 23 October 1958, BISD 7S/60 
US – Taxes on Automobiles Panel Report, United States – Taxes on Automobiles , 11 October 1994, 
unadopted, DS31/R 
  WT/DS334/R 
 Page xiii 
 
 
  TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT 
 
DSB Dispute Settlement Body 
DSU Dispute Settlement Understanding EC European Communities 
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 
FTU Turkish Foreign Trade Undersecretariat GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GATT 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1947 GATT 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
HS Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System 
Import Licensing Agreement Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures MARA Turkish Ministry of Ag riculture and Rural Affairs 
MFN Most-Favoured Nation TMO Turkish Grain Board 
TRIMs Agreement Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures 
TRQ Tariff-rate Quota WCO World Customs Organization WTO World Trade Organization WTO Agreement Marrakesh Agreement esta blishing the World Trade Organization 
 
 
  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 1 
 
 
  I. INTRODUCTION 
1.1 On 2 November 2005, the United States requested  consultations with Turkey pursuant to 
Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules a nd Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes 
(DSU), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), Article 6 of 
the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (Im port Licensing Agreement), Article 8 of the 
Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs Agreement), and Article 19 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture with resp ect to Turkey's alleged import restrictions on rice from the United 
States.1 
1.2 On 16 November 2005, Australia and Thailand requested, pursuant to paragraph 11 of 
Article 4 of the DSU, to be joined in the cons ultations requested by the United States with Turkey.2 
1.3 On 6 February 2006, the United States request ed the establishment of a panel pursuant to 
Article 6 of the DSU, Article 6 of the Im port Licensing Agreement, Article 8 of the 
TRIMs Agreement, and Article 19 of the Agreemen t on Agriculture, concerning Turkey's alleged 
import restrictions on rice.3 
1.4 At its meeting on 17 March 2006, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a Panel 
pursuant to the request of the United States in doc ument WT/DS334/4, in accordance with Article 6 of 
the DSU.4 
1.5 On 20 July 2006, the United States requested  the Director-General to determine the 
composition of the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 8 of the DSU.  Accordingly, on 
31 July 2006, the Director-General  composed the Panel as follows: 
 Chairperson: Ms Marie-Gabrielle Ineichen-Fleisch 
 
 Members: Mr Johann Frederick Kirsten    Mr Yoichi Suzuki
5 
 1.6 The Panel's terms of reference are the following: 
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited 
by the United States in document WT/DS334/4,  the matter referred to the DSB by the 
United States in that document, and to ma ke such findings as will assist the DSB in 
making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements."
6 
                                                      
1 Request for Consultations by the United States, Turkey – Measures Affecting the Importation of Rice  
(Turkey – Rice ), 7 November 2005, WT/DS334/1. 
2 Request to Join Consultations, Communication from Australia, Turkey – Rice , 17 November 2005, 
WT/DS334/2 and Request to Join Consultations, Communication from Thailand, Turkey – Rice , 18 November 
2005, WT/DS334/3. 
3 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States, Turkey – Rice , 7 February 2006, 
WT/DS334/4. 
4 Constitution of the Panel Established at the Reques t of the United States (Note by the Secretariat), 
Turkey – Rice , 1 September 2006, WT/DS334/5/Rev.1, para. 1. 
5 Ibid., para. 4. 
6 Ibid., para. 2. WT/DS334/R 
Page 2  
 
  1.7 Argentina, Australia, China, Egypt, the Europ ean Communities, Korea, Pakistan and Thailand 
reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.
7 
1.8 In accordance with the timetable adopted after consultations with the parties, the Panel 
received written submissions from the United States  and Turkey on 20 September and on 11 October 
2006, respectively.  The Panel received written rebut tals from the parties on 14 December 2006.  The 
Panel also held two substantive meetings with  the parties. The first meeting was held on 
8 and 9 November 2006, and the second on 17 and 18 Ja nuary 2007.  The Panel received third-party 
written submissions from China, Egypt and the European Communities on 18 October 2006.  It met with the third parties during a session of the first substantive meeting held on 9 November 2006.  
The Panel posed questions to the parties after each substantive meeting.  Turkey also posed questions 
to the United States after the second substantive meet ing.  The Panel received replies from the parties 
on 30 November 2006 and on 6 February 2007.  Pa rties submitted comments on each other's replies 
on 20 February 2007.  The Panel also posed questi ons to third parties after the third party session.  
It received replies from some third parties on 21 November 2006. 
1.9 The descriptive sections of the draft report, incl uding facts and arguments, were circulated to 
both parties on 13 March 2007.  On the same date , third parties were sent the relevant descriptive 
sections of the draft report, containing their respective arguments.  The Panel received comments to the descriptive sections of the draft report from th e United States and Turkey on 20 March.  On the 
same date, Korea presented editorial comments on the section containing its arguments. 
1.10 The Panel submitted its interim report to the pa rties on 3 May 2007.  On 18 May, the Panel 
received written requests for review of precise aspect s of the interim report from both parties.  On 
1 June, the parties submitted written comments on each other's written requests for review. 
II. FACTUAL ASPECTS 
A. P
RODUCT DESCRIPTION  
2.1 The current dispute concerns claims brought by the United States against Turkey's alleged 
import restrictions on rice. 
2.2 Rice can be generally defined as: 
"The grain of the grass Oryza sativa , a major world cereal."8 
2.3 As explained in a fact sheet published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 
Nations (FAO): 
"Rice is the predominant staple food for 17 countries in Asia and the Pacific, nine 
countries in North and South America and eight countries in Africa.  Rice provides 
20 per cent of the world's dietary energy supply, while wheat supplies 19 per cent and 
maize 5 per cent."9 
2.4 Under the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (Harmonized System or 
HS) developed by the World Customs Organization (WCO), rice is classified under tariff item 1006.  
                                                      
7 Constitution of the Panel Established at the Reques t of the United States (Note by the Secretariat), 
Turkey – Rice , 1 September 2006, WT/DS334/5/Rev.1, para. 5. 
8 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , Fifth Edition, Oxford University Press, 2003, Volume 2, p. 2577. 
9 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), "Rice and Human Nutrition", in:  
http://www.fao.org/rice2004/en/f-sheet/factsheet3.pdf .  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Within this item, rice is classified according to the three stages of its production process into the 
following sub-items:10 
 (i) HS 1006.10:  Rice in the husk, also known as paddy or rough rice, is "rice grain still 
tightly enveloped by the husk". 
 
 (ii) HS 1006.20:  Husked rice, also known as brown or cargo rice, has had the husk 
"removed by mechanical huskers [but] is still enclosed in the pericarp.  Husked rice 
almost always contains a small quantity of paddy." 
  (iii) HS 1006.30:  Semi-milled or wholly-milled rice, whether or not polished or glazed, 
corresponds to "whole rice grains from which the pericarp has been partly removed" 
and "whole rice grains from which the pericarp has been removed through special tapering cylinders", respectively.  It is otherwise known as white rice.
11 
 B. T
URKEY 'S RICE MARKET  
1. Turkey's rice production 
2.5 Turkish paddy rice is grown in various Turkish provinces12 by farmers holding a permit to 
plant paddy rice.13   The Turkish rice harvest period lasts for several months in the second half of each 
calendar year.  The United States alleges that the harvest period "begins in August and ends in 
October"14;  while in Turkey's opinion it "begins in mid-September and lasts until the end of 
November".15  The marketing year runs from September to August. 
2.6 According to data provided by the United St ates and not contested by Turkey, the Turkish 
harvest area increased from 70,000 hectares in th e marketing years between September 2001 and 
August 2004, to around 80,000 hectares in the marketing year between September 2004 and 
August 2005, and further to 90,000 hectares by the marketing year that commenced in 
September 2005.16 
2.7 As maintained by both parties, Turkish ri ce production has shown a continuous increase over 
recent years17, with a steeper increase in production after 2003.18  This latter trend is underscored by 
the paddy rice production figures provided by the parties. 
                                                      
10 Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System , Volume 1, First Edition (1986), Customs 
Cooperation Council, Brussels, Belgium, page 69.  Tari ff heading 1006 also includes  enriched rice, parboiled 
rice and broken rice. 
11 Parties also referred to milled rice in some of their submissions as "rice". 
12 The United States mentions some of those rice producing provinces in its First Written Submission, 
identifying "Edirne [as] Turkey's largest rice producing province".  United States' first submission, paras. 49 
and 51.  Exhibit US-24. 
13 Executive Summary of Turkey's first submission, para. 32.  Turkey's response to question 40(c).  
Exhibit TR-34. 
14 United States' first submission, para. 14. 
15 Turkey's response to question 5. 
16 Exhibit US-45. 
17 United States' first submission, para. 11.  Turkey's response to question 49(c). 
18 Turkey's response to question 49(c) .  United States' rebuttal, para. 78.  United States' response to 
question 72, para. 111 and footnote 44. WT/DS334/R 
Page 4  
 
  TURKISH PADDY RICE PRODUCTION FIGURES PROVIDED BY PARTIES (TONNES)19 
Figures provided by th e United States in 
exhibit US-45 Figures provided by Turkey in exhibit TR-24 
Sep 2001 – Aug 2002 360,000 360,000 2001 
Sep 2002 – Aug 2003 360,000 360,000 2002 
Sep 2003 – Aug 2004 415,000 372,000 2003 
Sep 2004 – Aug 2005 500,000 490,000 2004 
Sep 2005 – Aug 2006 600,000 550,000 2005 
Sep 2006 – Aug 2007 600,000*   
* estimate   
 
2.8 A statement by the Turkish Ministry of Agricu lture mentions that "[a]n 87% increase in 
[paddy rice] productions was recorded in 2006, compared to the year 2002."20 
2.9 Milled rice production figures provided by the parties also show an increase. 
TURKISH MILLED RICE PRODUCTION FIGURES PROVIDED BY THE PARTIES (TONNES) 
Figures provided by the United St ates in exhibit US-45 F igures provided by Turkey in exhibit TR-24 
Sep 2001 – Aug 2002 234,000 216,000 2001 
Sep 2002 – Aug 2003 234,000 216,000 2002 
Sep 2003 – Aug 2004 270,000 223,000 2003 
Sep 2004 – Aug 2005 300,000 294,000 2004 
Sep 2005 – Aug 2006 360,000 330,000 2005 
Sep 2006 – Aug 2007 360,000* 390,000** 2006 
* estimate ** Turkey's re sponse to question 49(c) 
 
2.10 Despite the differences in the deta iled figures provided by the parties21, Turkish milled rice 
production has risen from around 40 per cent of Turkish rice consumption in the marketing year 
between September 2002 and August 2003 to around 60 per cent of Turkish rice consumption for the 
marketing year between September 2005 and August 2006. 
2.11 As for the average price of paddy rice purch ased from producers in the Turkish market, the 
United States provides wholesale prices for differe nt types and origins of rice between 2003 and 
200622, while Turkey considers its own figures on th e unit price of domestic paddy purchases made by 
individual companies in 2005 "a more accurate and reliable source."23  Despite those differences, 
parties seem to agree that the average price of  paddy rice purchased by individual companies from 
                                                      
19 Reference to "tonnes" is equivalent to "metric tons". 
20 Exhibit US-77.  United States' comments on Turkey's responses to question 148, para. 60. 
21 Exhibit US-45 and exhibit TR-24. 
22 Exhibit US-54. 
23 Turkey's response to question 12 referring to exhibit TR-27.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 5 
 
 
  producers in 2005 was YTL 640 per tonne24, although they disagree whether the actual market price 
might be influenced by the purchases made by the Turkish Grain Board (TMO).25 
2.12 Domestic paddy rice is processed into brown and milled rice by millers, who purchase paddy 
rice either directly from farmers or their cooperatives and unions, or through the TMO. 
2. Rice consumption in Turkey 
2.13 As shown in the following table, Turkish rice consumption increased in the past few years, 
from 550,000 tonnes in 2003 to 570,000 in 2005.26 
TURKISH MILLED RICE CONSUMPTION FIG URES PROVIDED BY PARTIES (TONNES) 
Figures provided by the United St ates in exhibit US-45 F igures provided by Turkey in exhibit TR-24 
Sep 2001 – Aug 2002 540,000 540,000 2001 
Sep 2002 – Aug 2003 545,000 545,000 2002 
Sep 2003 – Aug 2004 550,000 550,000 2003 
Sep 2004 – Aug 2005 560,000 560,000 2004 
Sep 2005 – Aug 2006 570,000 570,000 2005 
Sep 2006 – Aug 2007 575,000*   
* estimate 
 
2.14 According to Turkey, "consumption levels do not  change considerably on a monthly basis.  
Therefore, average monthly consumption can be calculated by total consumption divided by 12."27 
2.15 As regards consumer choices, the United States poi nts out that "[n]early all rice consumed in 
Turkey is milled white rice"28, as "[m]illed rice, and less frequently brown rice, is consumed at the 
dinner table."29 
2.16 Turkey asserts that "since rice is not a homogene ous product in taste and quality, certain types 
of rice are preferred by consumers.  Moreover, in the Turkish market [the] domestic types of rice are 
sold at higher prices".30 
3. Turkey's imports of rice 
2.17 Since the establishment of Turkey's TRQ for rice in 2004, Turkey provided for the 
importation of rice under the following three arrange ments:  (i) MFN, or over-quota imports at 
applied rates of duty of 34, 36 and 45 per cen t for paddy, brown and milled rice, respectively31;  
(ii) preferential rates within predetermined tariff rate quotas (TRQs), for some periods between April 
2004 and July 2006;  and (iii) preferential trade a rrangements, such as the fr ee trade agreements with 
                                                      
24 Turkey's response to questions 10 and 12.  United States' response to question 11, para. 13, based on 
exhibits TR-27 and US-52. 
25 Turkey's response to question 110. 
26 United States' first submission, para. 12.  Exhibits US-45 and TR-24. 
27 Turkey's response to question 6. 
28 United States' response to question 6, para. 14. 
29 United States' first submission, para. 10.  Exhibit US-38. 
30 Turkey's response to question 49 (c), fourth paragraph. 
31 Turkey's first submission, para. 2. WT/DS334/R 
Page 6  
 
  the European Communities and the Former  Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)
32 for a total 
of 28,00033 and 8,00034 tonnes of duty-free rice imports per annum , respectively.35 
2.18 The parties concur that Turkey is a net rice importer36, and their weight-based annual figures 
on realized imports, i.e, the actual volume of rice imports, according to rice type are rather similar, although not identical in all respects.
37 
ANNUAL WEIGHT-BASED FIGURES ON REALIZED  IMPORTS BY TYPE OF RICE (TONNES) 
Period Party 
submitting 
information Paddy Rice Brown Rice Milled Rice Annual total 
United States* 247,723 10,036 213,519 471,997 2003 Turkey** 247,723 10,934 213,528 472,186*** 
United States* 26,749 26,177 101,188 154,485 2004 Turkey** 35,432 26,176 103,887 165,496*** 
United States* 102,198 42,193 158,423 302,814 2005 Turkey** 102,197 42,193 158,422 302,813*** 
2006 Jan-Nov United States* 91,744 41,704 53,063 186,513 
2006 Jan-Sep Turkey** 102,761 54,430 87,597 244,789*** 
* Exhibit US-81rev, source: Turkish Statistics Corporation (TUIK) 
** Exhibit TR-23, source:  UFT.  See also exhibit TR-25. *** Based on figures in exhibit TR-23 
 
2.19 The parties agree that 2003 has seen "the highest level of importation over the last 10 years".38  
They disagree, however, on the level of milled rice equivalent imports in 2003, as well as on the level 
and trend of total annual milled ri ce equivalent imports since 2004.  On the one hand, Turkey argues 
that "together with the rise in domestic rice producti on, there has been a rise in [the figure of total 
annual rice equivalent] imports of rice into Turk ey.  For instance, in the period between 2004 and 
2006, in which the TRQ regime was in force, rice  equivalent imports have increased from 146,458 
tonnes to 253,436 tonnes."39  The United States, on the other hand, states that: 
"Turkey's argument that rice imports have increased from 2004 through 2006 is 
misleading.  First, imports of rice in 2004 fell from 2003 levels...  As shown in 
exhibit US-45, TY (trade, or calendar y ear) imports were 151,000 metric tons in 
2004, as compared to 320,000 metric tons in  2003... [Subsequently, r]ice imports did 
not rebound to previous levels.  While TY  imports in 2005 were  298,000 metric tons, 
                                                      
32 Turkey's response to question 123(c). 
33 United States' comments on Turkey's response to question 22, para. 22.  Exhibits TR-31 and US-58. 
34 Exhibit US-72. 
35 United States' comments on Turkey's response to question 102.  See also United States' rebuttal, 
footnote 20. 
36 United States' first submission, para. 12.  Turkey's response to questions 49(c) and 92(d). 
37 As the United States points out, "[t]he annual totals for 2003, 2004, and 2005 in exhibit US-81[rev] 
are comparable to the annual totals for the same years provided by Turkey in Annex TR-23.  With respect to the 
2006 data, the annual total of Turkish rice imports contained in exhibit US-81[rev] is approximately 58,000 
metric tons less than the figure provided by Turkey in Annex TR-23."  United States' response to question 99, 
para. 3. 
38 Turkey's response to question 49(c), sixth paragraph, and to question 114(a).  Exhibit US-47. 
39 Turkey's response to question 49 (c), fifth paragraph.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 7 
 
 
  they fell again in 2006 to approximately 1 54,000 metric tons, which is virtually the 
same quantity of imports as in 2004."40 
These differences between the milled rice equivalent figures presented by each party could be due to 
the different methods of converting import figures for paddy and brown rice into the milled rice 
equivalent.41  In any event, despite the Panel' s questions pointing out the differences42, the parties' 
responses did not provide a completely  satisfactory explanation for them. 
2.20 The weight-based annual realized import figures, on which the parties seem to largely agree, 
appear to confirm a significant fall between 2003 an d 2004 in annual total import volumes, as well as 
in annual imports of milled rice and particularly of paddy rice.  Further, the weight-based annual 
realized import figures provided by the parties s how that imported quantities of paddy and milled rice, 
as well as total rice imports, have rebounded in 2005, although to lower levels than in 2003 – 
especially as regards paddy rice.  This was followed by a significant decrease in the relevant periods 
of 2006 for total and milled rice imports.  Whereas paddy rice imports in 2006 seem to be 
significantly higher than in 2004, figures for 2006 pr ovided by the parties differ and do not cover the 
whole year, which makes it difficult to establish wh ether the total and milled rice import figures for 
2006 are significantly higher or lower, respectively, compared to the relevant data for 2004.  Finally, 
weight-based annual figures of realized brown rice imports seem to develop differently from other 
figures throughout the entire period between 2003 and 2 006, in that weight-based realized brown rice 
imports, while relatively low, te nd to continuously increase. 
2.21 Turkey has repeatedly argued that it has imported ri ce in the past years.  In particular, Turkey 
has stressed that milled rice equivalent imports between January 2004 and A ugust 2006 amounted to 
939,013 tonnes.43  However, based on import data from the Turkish Statistics Corporation (TUIK), the 
United States contends that, if imports under th e TRQ as well as duty-free imports realized under 
Turkey's free trade agreements with the Europ ean Communities and the FYROM are disregarded, 
"[m]onthly non-EU Turkish rice imports are zero or negligible when the TRQ is closed."44 
2.22 Both parties have provided figures for total rice imports to Turkey by country of origin.  
The figures they provided on a milled rice equivalent  basis are not comparable.  First, as mentioned 
earlier, the parties use different conversion rates to  convert paddy and brown rice imports into milled 
rice equivalent figures.  Second, Turkey provid es totals for the period between January 2004 and 
August 200645, while the United States provides data on an annual basis.46  As regards actual import 
figures, a comparison of the figures and calculated to tals in the relevant exhibits of the parties 
containing data on detailed actual imports47 show that the total figures of annual imports per country 
of origin according to rice type are very similar, with a few exceptions.48  Based on the data that is 
common to the exhibits submitted by both parti es, the following observations can be made: 
                                                      
40 United States' comment on Turkey's response to question 151, para. 66.  See also United States' 
response to question 99, para. 5. 
41 The United States, for instance, explained in its response to question 117, para. 18, that the US 
Department of Agriculture used a conversion factor of 70 per cent for of paddy rice and 88 per cent for brown 
rice. Turkey, on its part, clarified its conversion method in para. 4 of its comments to the descriptive part of the 
report, as 60 per cent for paddy rice and 80 per cen t for milled rice.  See exhibits TR-9 and US-10. 
42 See Panel's questions after the second su bstantive meeting, e.g., question 99(b). 
43 Turkey's response to question 4(c), second paragraph.  Exhibit TR-8. 
44 Exhibit US-53. 
45 Exhibit TR-8. 
46 Exhibit US-47. 
47 See exhibits US-81rev, TR-25 and TR-26. 
48 In particular, as regards paddy rice imports, exhibit TR-25 shows 5,229.580 tonnes of paddy rice 
imports from the United States in December 2004 versus 195 tonnes in exhibit US -81rev.  Under brown rice WT/DS334/R 
Page 8  
 
  SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION OR  LACK OF IMPORTS  
2003 
Jan Feb Mar  Apr May  Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec RICE 
TYPE 
         no imports paddy 
no imports 
      no imports brown 
        significantly lower imports  
        only EC 
imports mainly 
EC 
imports only EC 
imports   milled 
 
2004 
Jan Feb Mar  Apr May  Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec  
parties 
disagree 
whether 
any 
imports no imports minimal 
EC 
imports no imports    significantly 
lower 
imports no 
imports   
paddy 
no imports significantly 
lower 
imports    no imports  
brown 
minimal EC imports no imports         milled 
 
2005 
Jan Feb Mar  Apr May  Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec  
        no imports significantly 
lower 
imports  
paddy 
 significantly 
lower 
imports   significantly 
lower 
imports   no imports   
brown 
        significantly lower imports   
        only EC imports   milled 
 
2006 
Jan Feb Mar  Apr May  Jun Jul Aug Sep     
  parties 
disagree 
whether any 
imports    parties 
disagree 
whether any 
imports    no imports    paddy 
       parties 
disagree 
whether 
any 
imports parties 
disagree 
whether any 
imports    brown 
       parties disagree 
whether any imports    milled 
Based on data in exhibits US-81rev, TR-25 and TR-26  
 
                                                                                                                                                                     
imports, exhibit TR-25 show s imports from Argentina,  Greece and Uruguay in 2005  and 2006, which are not 
reflected in exhibit US-81rev.  Moreover, exhibit TR-25 shows higher brown rice import figures for Bulgaria, 
Egypt and Italy than exhibit US-81rev, which often show s nil or lower figures in the same period.  Also, 
exhibit TR-25 shows brown rice imports of 1,049.540 tonnes from Egypt in May 2003, while exhibit US-81rev 
indicated 150 tonnes.  As regards milled rice, exhibit TR -25 shows slightly higher figures for milled rice imports 
from Italy and Egypt in December 2004 than exhibit US-81rev.  Further, various figures for milled rice imports in 2006, especially from summer 2006 onwards are higher in exhibit TR-25 than in exhibit US-81rev, partly 
because the latter shows no impor ts from August 2006 onwards.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 9 
 
 
  2.23 Indeed, in one of its questions to the parties, the Panel noted that: 
"according to the information provided by Turkey in exhibit TR-25, there seems to 
have been no imports of... paddy rice or brow n rice in the months of October in 2003, 
2004 and 2005.  In addition, the data in e xhibit TR-33 suggest that no rice imports 
whatsoever (paddy, brown or milled) t ook place in February and March 2004.  
Further, the data in exhibit TR-33 seem to suggest that there were no rice imports 
other than EC/Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia out-quota rice imports in October – December 2003 and in September – October 2005."
49 
Parties did not contest these observations made by th e Panel.  In addition, in response to another 
question by the Panel50, the parties pointed out that no imports of milled rice took place in 
April 2004.51 
2.24 Turkey has noted that "the major importers of  rice into Turkey used to be the millers, 
although their import share has recently decreased."52  As regards imports of rice originating in the 
United States, the United States specifies that "[t]he  main importers... are Torunlar, Akel, and Goze, 
but they may also import rice from other sources.  All three of these companies have a large milling 
capacity, so they prefer to import US paddy rice."53  The United States adds that these three Turkish 
importers, together with Mehmetoglu, which the "United States understands ... is the major importer 
of Egyptian rice into Turkey"54, "account for approximately 90 per cent of all imported rice into 
Turkey."55  Turkey has submitted data on the quantities and value of rice imports made by Torunlar, 
Mehmetoglu and ETM, another company referenced by the United States.  The data show that 
Torunlar had an average share of 17 per cent of imports of paddy rice from the United States between 
2002 and 2006, and that the three companies had an  overall share of general imports of paddy, brown 
and milled rice, of 16, 1 and 10 per cent, respectively.56 
2.25 The United States also points out that, overall "[t]he United States and Egypt are the two 
largest exporters of rice to Turkey."57  In particular, according to the United States in 2003 the most 
important rice exporters to Turkey in terms of vol ume were Egypt, the United States, China, and the 
European Communities, and in 2004 and 2005 Egypt, the United States and the European 
Communities.58  According to figures provided by Turkey, in 2003 the largest exporters of paddy rice 
to Turkey were the United States, Australia, Ukraine and Italy.  The main exporters of milled rice to 
Turkey in the same year were Eg ypt, China, Italy, the United States, and Vietnam.  The only exporter 
of brown rice was Egypt.59  Figures provided by Turkey show that in 2004 the largest exporters of 
paddy rice to Turkey were the United States, Ital y and Russia.  The only exporter of brown rice was 
Egypt.  The main exporters of milled rice to Turk ey in the same year were Italy, Egypt, China, 
Vietnam, Thailand, and the United States.60  In 2005, the largest exporters of paddy rice to Turkey 
were the United States, Russia and Bulgaria.  The ma in exporters of brown rice were Egypt, Bulgaria 
                                                      
49 Panel's question 102(a). 
50 Panel's question 108. 
51 Parties' responses to question 108. 
52 Turkey's response to question 102. 
53 United States' response to question 17, para. 35. 
54 United States' response to question 47, para. 72. 
55 Ibid., para. 70.  United States' response to question 63, para. 100. 
56 Exhibit TR-39. 
57 United States' response to question 47, para. 70.  United States' response to question 63, para. 100. 
58 Exhibit US-47. 
59 Exhibit TR-26. 
60 Exhibit TR-25. WT/DS334/R 
Page 10  
 
  and Italy.  The main exporters of milled rice to Tu rkey in 2005 were Egypt, Italy, the United States, 
Vietnam, and China.
61 
2.26 With regard to imports from the United States,  the United States stated that, "[g]iven the 
longer shipping distance, US exporters tend to ship  rice less frequently and in larger allotments, 
typically between 10,000 and 20,000 metric tons."62  The Panel notes that, "according to the 
information provided by Turkey in exhibit TR-25, there seem to have been no imports of... (b) milled 
rice from the United States during:  (i) January – May 2004;  (ii) July 2004;  (iii) September – November 2004;  (iv) July – December 2005;  and,  (v) January 2006 – onwards;  (c) paddy rice from 
the United States during:  (i) October – December 2003;  (ii) February – May 2004;  and, (iii) September – November 2005."
63  Further, the Panel noted in particular that, based on data 
provided by Turkey, it seems that "no over quota imports of US rice ... have actually occurred 
[between September 2003 and April 2005], with the excep tion of one shipment of 611 [metric] tons of 
paddy rice (date of Certificate of Cont rol 15.09.2004; importation date 16.09.2004)."64  I n  i t s  
response, Turkey did not appear to contest the substance of that data, although it noted that imports from other sources have taken place in that period.
65  As regards 2006, the United States pointed out 
that "Turkey's import data shows that 90,000 metr ic tons of rice from the United States entered 
Turkey in 2006.  US export statistics record 17,78966 metric tons of US rice shipped to Turkey in 
2006, and no future sales have been recorded in the USDA Export Sales Report.  The United States 
understands that any additional en tries would have come from US rice Turkey finally released from 
bonded warehouse that had previously been refused entry."67 Turkey, on its part, contended that, 
assuming there was a late release of rice, the reasons behind it could be the importers' "business 
calculations and decisions", such as keeping stocks  until 'the appropriate moment to release it on the 
Turkish market in order to maximize the economic returns.68 
2.27 As regards the price of imported rice, the parti es generally dispute each other's figures.  Their 
total monthly average c.i.f. landed prices for different types of imported rice, however, are largely similar
69, although some differences remain:70 
                                                      
61 Exhibit TR-25. 
62 United States' rebuttal, para. 35. 
63 Panel's questions 102(b) and (c). 
64 Panel's question 114(b). 
65 Turkey's response to question 114(b). 
66 (footnote original ) See exhibit US-74. 
67 United States' response to question 116, para. 16. 
68 Turkey's comments on United States' response to question 116. 
69 As the Panel noted in its question 99(c), "some figures provided by the United States and Turkey 
show a high degree of similarity:  (c) Figures in exhibits US-55 and TR-28 for landed CIF. prices of paddy rice 
throughout 2003, April to November 2004, throughout 2005 and June to August 2006;  of brown rice 
throughout 2003 (except for March), throughout 2005, and April to June 2006;  and of milled rice throughout 2003, throughout 2004,  throughout 2005 (e xcept for December) and from  January to July 2005." 
70 As the Panel noted in its question 99(c), "[c]ertain data contained in some of the exhibits provided by 
the Parties show significant discrepancies:  … Figures in exhibits US-55 and TR-28 for landed CIF prices of paddy rice in December 2004;  of brown rice in March 2003, Marc h to June 2004, Septem ber to December 2004 
and June 2006;  and of milled rice in December 2005."  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 11 
 
 
  MONTHLY AVERAGE LANDED CIF PRICES FOR PADDY RICE 
(Unit Price per Tonne in US Dollars) 
2003 2004 2005 2006 
MONTH United 
States* Turkey** United 
States* Turkey** United 
States* Turkey** United 
States* Turkey** 
January 222 218 n/a 897 255 262 279 257 
February 155 154 n/a 0 967 964 n/a 229 
March 241 241 n/a 0 275 273 576 537 
April 179 179 721 726 252 254 273 268 
May 182 177 n/a 0 230 231 n/a 265 
June 461 457 190 191 240 243 266 265 
July 156 159 272 273 236 237 257 258 
August 211 214 266 268 264 260 263 260 
September 181 175 307 305 n/a 0 n/a 0 
October n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0   
November n/a 0 888 885 201 200   
December n/a 0 183 503 220 219   
* based on exhibit US-55, source:  Turkish Statistics Corporation (TUIK) 
** based on exhibit TR-28 
 
  
MONTHLY AVERAGE LANDED CIF PRICES FOR BROWN RICE 
(Unit Price per Tonne in US Dollars) 
2003 2004 2005 2006 
MONTH United 
States* Turkey** United 
States* Turkey** United 
States* Turkey** United 
States* Turkey** 
January n/a 0 n/a 0 239 244 286 289 
February n/a 0 n/a 0 230 236 273 358 
March 1,498 214 n/a 0 239 238 303 324 
April 180 180 n/a 0 242 244 288 289 
May 129 131 248 247 242 241 300 301 
June 135 136 283 283 244 244 285 291 
July 167 165 287 287 238 239 292 321 
August 148 151 269 274 n/a 0 n/a 307 
September n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 342 
October n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0   
November n/a 0 n/a 0 270 268   
December n/a 0 240 239 276 278   
* based on exhibit US-55, source:  Turkish Statistics Corporation (TUIK) 
** based on exhibit TR-28 
 
 WT/DS334/R 
Page 12  
 
  MONTHLY AVERAGE LANDED CI F PRICES FOR MILLED RICE 
(Unit Price per Tonne in US Dollars) 
2003 2004 2005 2006 
MONTH United 
States* Turkey** United 
States* Turkey** United 
States* Turkey** United 
States* Turkey** 
January 262.51 258 1,670.68 1,643 314.03 319 362.21 365 
February 231.42 231 716.27 711 307.82 310 373.86 375 
March 224.51 225 n/a 0 311.93 312 409.63 408 
April 234.16 233 n/a 0 365.04 368 437.45 441 
May 248.62 247 266.26 266 403.71 405 373.68 392 
June 356.52 355 287.09 288 376.41 380 383.9 384 
July 249.32 249 285.88 285 358.41 358 358.78 382 
August 357.35 364 399.42 403 453.41 451 n/a 332 
September 703.21 688 536.46 537 600.07 607 n/a 354 
October 612.62 607 559.77 561 671.78 671   
November 717.56 719 404.03 403 384.04 382   
December 473.97 464 403.76 411 405.76 361   
* based on exhibit US-55, source:  Turkish Statistics Corporation (TUIK) 
** based on exhibit TR-28 
 
2.28 These latter three tables illustrate that aver age monthly landed c.i.f. prices increased 
significantly at the beginning of 2004 for paddy and milled rice, and in the middle of 2004 for brown 
rice.  In 2005 and 2006, these prices returned to le vels slightly above the 2003 figures.  Nevertheless, 
significant fluctuations in landed c. i.f. prices have occurred from one month to another, at different 
times of the year.  As the Panel noted in one of its questions to the parties: 
"[T]he Panel has considered the informa tion provided by Turkey on 'Monthly landed 
c.i.f. values' in exhibit TR-28, and noted a sharp increase in paddy rice prices in June 
2003, January and November 2004, February  2005 and March 2006.  Likewise, it has 
noted a sharp increase in milled rice prices in September 2003, January and August 
2004 and September 2005.  It has also noted a significant fall in the price for milled 
rice in December 2003."71 
Parties did not contest these observations made by the Panel. 
 
4. Domestic rice producers  
2.29 Turkey maintains a registration system for all domestic producers.72  Applications to the 
National Farmer Registration Syst em involve "controls of existence of agricultural production"73 as 
well as the submission, inter alia , of a farmer registration form, copy of the Turkish identity card, 
proof of tax identification number, copy of a farmer  document and one of the specified documents to 
prove land ownership.74 
                                                      
71 Panel's question 100. 
72 Regulation on National Farmer Registration System , published in Turkey's Official Gazette 
No. 25,778 dated 16 April 2005, exhibit TR-34.  See also Turkey's response to question 40(c). 
73 Regulation on National Farmer Registration System, Article 6. 
74 Ibid., Article 7.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 13 
 
 
  C. GENERAL IMPORT REGIME  
1. Tariff rates 
2.30 Turkey's bound MFN rate for rice under heading HS 1006 is 45 per cent ad valorem .75  
However, Turkey's current applied rates for imports of paddy, brown and milled rice are, respectively, 
34 per cent ad valorem , 36 per cent ad valorem  and 45 per cent ad valorem .76 
2. Preferential agreements for the importation of rice 
2.31 According to the evidence on record, Turkey has bilateral arrangements with the European 
Communities and with FYROM, whereby preferential  access into the Turkish market is granted for 
rice imported from these two origins.  Asked by the Panel, Turkey has stated  that these are the only 
preferential trade agreements signed by Turkey covering trade in rice.77 
2.32 Under Decision No. 1/98 of the EC-Turkey Asso ciation Council of 25 February 1998 on the 
Trade Regime for Agricultural Products78, Turkey committed to open annually a zero per cent duty 
tariff quota for 28,000 tonnes of semi -milled or wholly-milled rice that originated within the European 
Communities.79 
2.33 Under a bilateral free trade agreement between Turkey and FYROM, Turkey grants an annual 
zero per cent quota for 8,000 tonnes of rice that originated in FYROM.80 
3. General procedure for the importation of rice 
2.34 From the evidence on record, an individual or company wishing to import rice into Turkey at 
the MFN tariff rate would need to complete the following steps:81 
(a) obtain a Certificate of Control from MARA.  The legal basis and the requirements for 
obtaining a Certificate of Control are explained below.82 
(b) submit the Certificate of Control to the customs authorities at the port where the 
importation is to take place and complete  the required customs form.  The customs 
form requires information such as:  (a) impor ter's identification information;  (b) code 
of imported items;  (c) description of the product being imported;  (d) quantity of the 
                                                      
75 Schedule XXXVII-Turkey, Part I Most-Favoured Nation Tariff, Section I – Agricultural Products, 
Section I-A Tariffs, 15 April 1994. Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations, Legal Instruments Embodying 
the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations Done at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994, 
Schedules, Vol. 10, p. 9332.  See also United States' first submission, para. 13 and exhibit US-15. 
76 United States' first submission, para. 13 and Turkey's first submission, para. 14.  See also, 
exhibit US-17. 
77 See Turkey's response to question 123(c). 
78 Decision No. 1/98 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 25 February 1998 on the Trade Regime 
for Agricultural Products , Official Journal of the European Communities, 20.3.98, L 86/15, in exhibit TR-31. 
79 Ibid.  See also Turkey's response to question 13(a) and Decision Regarding Tariff Quota Imposition 
on Import of Certain Agricultural Products of European Community Origin , published in Turkey's Official 
Gazette No. 23,225, dated January 9, 1998, in exhibit US-58. 
80 Exhibit US-72.  See also Turk ey's response to question 123, and para. 8 of the United States 
statement during the second meeting with the Panel. 
81 See United States' response to question 14, paras. 22-33, and Turkey's response to questions 14, 31, 
39, 55 and 129. 
82 See paras. 2.35-2.49, below. WT/DS334/R 
Page 14  
 
  product being imported;  (e) country of origin;  (f) value of the product being 
imported;  (g) country in which the product was loaded;  (h) port.
83 
(c) submit the approved Certificate of Control with the required attachments, the customs 
declaration and the phytosanitary certificate, to MARA. 
(d) customs authorities conduct a documentation control as well as an identity check 
between the product actually imported and the product in the declaration. 
(e) MARA's and customs officials perform physical inspections. 
D. CERTIFICATES OF CONTROL  
1. Legal basis 
(a) Situation at the time of the establishment of this Panel 
2.35 At the time of the establishment of this Panel, the relevant legal basis for the regulation of the 
Certificates of Control was to be found in Communiqué 2006/05 on Standardization in Foreign Trade , 
issued by the Foreign Trade Undersecretariat (FTU).84 
2.36 In turn, the legal authority for the FTU to issue such communiqués was found in Turkey's 
Regime for Technical Regulations and Standardization for Foreign Trade , contained in Decree 
No. 2005/9454.85  According to Article 4 of this Regime: 
"In the framework of this Decree, the [FTU] is authorized:  
d) To harmonize the technical le gislation, which is published in 
the framework of the competencies given by the legislation to the [FTU] and the Ministries and other institutions, with the foreign trade and to lay down the application principles." 
2.37 Pursuant to this authority
86, and to the similar provision contained in earlier decrees, the FTU 
has issued a number of Communiqués on Standardization in Foreign Trade . 
2.38 According to Article 1 of Communiqué 2006/05: 
"Pursuant to subparagraph (d) of Article 4 of the Decree on Technical Regulations 
and Standardization for Foreign Trade whic h came in force with the Council of 
Ministers' Decree No. 2005/9454 on 7/9/20 05, the conformity of the substances 
which are on the annex lists of this Comm uniqué and which are subject to the Entry 
into the Free Circulation Regime, the Internal Process Regime, the Regime on the Process under the Customs Control and the Te mporary Import Regime, in respect of 
                                                     
 
83 Exhibit US-62.  See also Un ited States' rebuttal, para. 19. 
84 Communiqué 2006/05 on Standardization in Foreign Trade , published in Turkey's Official Gazette 
No. 26,040, dated 31 December 2005, in exhibit TR-1. Se e Turkey's response to questions 15(a) and 30(b). 
85 Regime for Technical Regulations and Standardization for Foreign Trade , Decree No. 2005/9454, 
published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25,965, dated 13 October 2005, in exhibit TR-2.  See also Regime for 
Technical Regulations and Standardization for Foreign Trade , Decree No. 96/7794, published in Turkey's 
Official Gazette No. 22,541 bis, dated 1 February 1996, in exhibit US-1. 
86 Turkey's response to questions 15(a), 125(b) and 125(c).  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 15 
 
 
  human health and safety, animal and plant existence and health shall be determined 
by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs."87 
2.39 Article 2 of Communiqué 2006/05 also states that: 
"At import stage of the products, which ha ve been included in the annex lists 
(Annex I, Annex II/A-B, Annex III, Annex IV, Annex V/A-B, Annex VI-A), control 
certificate approved by the Ministry of Agri culture and Rural Affairs shall be asked 
for by relevant customs administration.  For getting control certificate, it is necessary to apply to the mentioned Ministry or to  provincial affiliates (bodies) authorized by 
the Ministry with control certificate form (Annex VII), pro forma invoice or invoice and other documents which may be asked  for, depending on product, by the 
Ministry ..."
88 
2.40 Article 3 of Communiqué 2006/05 further adds that: 
"In case that the compatibility of substances, which are to be imported on the basis of 
control certificate, with human health a nd safety, animal and plant existence and 
health is determined by the Ministry or its authorized units, the importation of these 
substances is allowed."89 
2.41 Rice (not including seeds) is listed in Annex VI-A of Communiqué 2006/05 and, therefore, a 
Certificate of Control from the Ministry of Agricu lture and Rural Affairs (MARA) must be presented 
by the importer to the Turkish customs authorities as a condition for importation.90 
2.42 In turn, Communiqué No. 31 on the Issuance of Control Certification at the Importation of 
Foodstuffs and Packaging Materials that come into Contact with Foodstuffs and on Control 
Procedures at Importation Stage91 contains additional rules regarding the "procedures and principles 
to be complied with during the approval of control certification procedures at the importation of foodstuffs and packaging materials that come in to contact with foodstuffs, and procedures at 
importation stage".
92 
2.43 As noted in Article 2 of Communiqué 2006/05, the form to be used in order to apply for a 
Certificate of Control is contained in Annex VII of the communiqué.93  This form required 
information such as:  tariff h eading applicable to the product being imported;  description of the 
product which would be in the cons ignment;  list or annex in whic h the product was included (e.g., in 
the case of rice, Annex VI-A to Communiqué No . 2006/05);  information on the importer 
(e.g., business title, address, telephone number);  impor ter's tax registration number;  information on 
                                                      
87 Communiqué 2006/05 on Standardization in Foreign Trade , published in Turkey's Official Gazette 
No. 26,040, dated 31 December 2005 , in exhibit TR-1.  See also Communiqué 2005/05 on Standardization in 
Foreign Trade , published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25 ,687, dated 31 December 2004, in exhibit US-7.  
Communiqué 2005/05 was repealed by Communiqué 2006/05.  See Turkey's response to questions 15(a) and 30(b).  See also Turkey's response to questions 36 and 37. 
88 Communiqué 2006/05 on Standardization in Foreign Trade , in exhibit TR-1. 
89 Ibid. 
90 Exhibit TR-3.  See also Turkey's first submission, para. 18.  United States' first submission, para. 19. 
91 Communiqué No. 31 on the Issuance of Control Certification at the Importation of Foodstuffs and 
Packaging Materials that come into Contact with Foodstuffs and on Control Procedures at Importation Stage , 
published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25,216, dated 1 September 2003.  (An amendment to the 
communiqué was published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 26,116, dated 22 March 2006.)  See exhibit TR-21 
and Turkey's response to question 14. 
92 Ibid., Article 1.  See exhibit TR-21 and Turkey's response to question 14. 
93 Exhibit TR-4.  See also Turkey's first submission, para. 20. WT/DS334/R 
Page 16  
 
  the exporter (e.g., business title, address, telephone numb er);  intended use of the product;  quantity of 
the product being imported;  country of origin of the product;  country in which the product was to be loaded for transportation into Turkey;  customs point  of entry of the product into Turkey;  information 
on the firm which would use the imported product (e.g., business title, addre ss, telephone number);  
and applicable information indicating compliance of  the imported product with  the relevant Turkish 
technical regulations or specifications implem enting international standards (i.e., European 
Communities, World Health Organization or F AO Codex) for the specific imported product.
94 
2.44 In addition to this information, MARA may requi re other documents and information, to grant 
a Certificate of Control.95  According to Turkey, other docum ents are required, in general, 
"[F]or processed agricultural products and agricultural products which are composed 
of more than one component. As rice does not involve more than one component, no 
other document such as 'the component list' is requested".96 
Other information communiqués issued jointly by MARA and the Ministry of Health have approved 
particular additional specifications for rice.97 
 
2.45 According to Article 9(c) of Communiqué 2006/ 05, once issued, the Certificate of Control 
from MARA is valid for 12 months.98 
2.46 According to Article 6.B(a) of Communiqué 31, the application form for a Certificate of 
Control is to be presented "pr operly typed or filled out in co mputer, containing no erasures or 
abrasions, and... signed and sealed by the authori zed person/persons of the company under their 
name/names and surname/surnames."99 
2.47 As clarified by Turkey, even if an importer could demonstrate the fulfilment of the separate 
requisites that are normally verified through a Cer tificate of Control, an importation would not be 
allowed in the absence of a valid Certif icate of Control approved by MARA.100 
2.48 Furthermore, as Turkey has specified, the Cer tificate of Control does not guarantee that an 
import will be allowed.  In other words, although the Certificate of  Control is a prerequisite for 
importation, it does not guarantee it. 
"Turkish customs authorities have the legal authority to reject the importation of a 
shipment of goods, even if a Certificate of Control has been issued and approved by 
MARA... If the imports fail to comply with th e specifications cited in the Certificate 
                                                      
94 Exhibit TR-4.  See also Turkey's first submission, para. 21. 
95 Turkey's first submission, para. 22.  United States' first submission, para. 20. 
96 Turkey's response to question 128 (a). 
97 Communiqué 2001/10 on Rice , Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and Ministry of Health, 
published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 24,378, dated 19 April 2001, in exhibit TR-5.  Communiqué 2002/11 
on Paddy Rice , Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and Mini stry of Health, published in Turkey's Official 
Gazette No. 24,672, dated 15 February 2002, in exhibit TR-6.  Communiqué 2002/12 on Rice , Ministry of 
Agriculture and Rural Affairs and Ministry of Health, pub lished in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 24,672, dated 
15 February 2002, in exhibit TR-7.  See also Turkey's first submission, para. 23. 
98 Communiqué 2006/05 on Standardization in Foreign Trade , in exhibit TR-1.  See also Turkey's first 
submission, para. 25, and Turkey's response to questions 30(c) and 38(a). 
99 Communiqué No. 31, Article 6.B(a). 
100 See Turkey's response to question 32.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 17 
 
 
  of Control, and if the inspections reveal that the imports are not consistent with SPS 
requirements, these imports are rejected."101 
(b) New legislation after the establishment of this Panel 
2.49 In the course of this Panel's proceedings, in January 2007, a new Communiqué on 
Standardization in Foreign Trade  was published.102  In response to a question from the Panel, Turkey 
has stated that, under the new Communiqué 2007/ 21, "there is no amendment affecting the 
importation of rice into Turkey".103 
2. Approved Certificates of Control 
(a) Statement by Turkey 
2.50 Turkey has stated that a number of Certificat es of Control have been authorized for the 
importation of rice.  In its first submission, Turkey  stated that 2,223 Certificates of Control for the 
importation of rice had been authorized betw een 2003 and September 2006, allowing the importation 
of 2,264,857 tonnes of paddy, brown and milled rice.104  That figure was subsequently updated by 
Turkey to 9 November 2006, to a total of 2,242 Certificates of Control for the importation of rice.105 
(b) Request for evidence from Turkey 
2.51 After the first substantive meeting, the Panel asked Turkey to provide a photocopy of each of 
the 2,223 Certificates of Control approved between 2003 and September 2006 for the importation of rice.
106  In response, Turkey stated that "photocopies of  Certificates of Control [were] available", but 
that "[t]he relevant Ministries [were] not, howev er, authorized to provide all the copies to the 
Panel".107 
2.52 Turkey submitted that it would "be able to provide  to the Panel in strict confidence copies of 
any individual Certificate of Control listed in Annex TR-33 [containing the list of Certificates of 
Control for the importation of rice authorized  between 2003 and 9 November 2006] upon request 
from the Panel".108 
(c) New request for evidence from Turkey 
2.53 After the second substantive meeting, the Panel re ferred to its earlier request to Turkey that it 
provide a photocopy of each of the 2,223 Cer tificates of Control approved between 2003 and 
September 2006.  The Panel asked Turkey to elaborate on the legal reasons why, under its domestic legislation, it would not be authorized to provide the copies requested by the Panel.
109  The Panel then 
asked Turkey, if it could not provide a photocopy of each of the 2,223 Certificates of Control 
approved between 2003 and September 2006, that it pr ovide at least a photocopy of each of the 56 
approved Certificates of Control, which had been ch aracterized as "relevant" by the United States 
                                                      
101 Turkey's response to question 55. 
102 Communiqué 2007/21 on Standardization in Foreign Trade , published in Turkey's Official Gazette 
No. 26,406, dated 17 January 2007, in exhibit TR-44.  See Turkey's response to question 125(a).  See also United States' comments on Turkey's response to question 125(a), in paras. 28-30. 
103 Turkey's response to question 125(a). 
104 Turkey's first submission, para. 26.  Exhibit TR-20. 
105 Turkey's response to question 44.  Exhibit TR-33.  See also Turkey's rebuttal, para. 20. 
106 Panel's question 44(e) to Turkey. 
107 Turkey's response to question 44 (e). 
108 Ibid. 
109 Panel's question 133(a) to Turkey. WT/DS334/R 
Page 18  
 
  during the second substantive meeting with the Panel.
110  The Panel also asked Turkey to indicate how 
many of the 2,223 Certificates of Control, a pproved between 2003 and September 2006, were the 
result of resubmitted applications that had been in itially rejected by the Turkish authorities, and to 
provide a photocopy of each one of these Certificates of Control.111  Finally, the Panel proposed that, 
if Turkey could not provide the full photocopies re quested, with the purpose of protecting the privacy 
of the companies involved, it at least provide those same photocopies after having blacked out the 
names of the companies.112 
2.54 In response, Turkey stated that its Statisti cal Law prevents confidential data acquired, 
processed and kept for official statistics, to be p assed-on to any administrative, judicial or military 
office, authority or person, to be used except for statistical purposes, or to  be used as evidence.  
According to Turkey's statement, the same la w provides that public officials violating these 
prohibitions would be punished in accord ance with the Turkish Criminal Code.113 
2.55 With regard to the Panel's question asking fo r the number of the Certificates of Control 
approved between 2003 and September 2006, which were the result of resubmitted applications that 
had been initially rejected by the Turkish au thorities and requesting a photocopies of these 
Certificates of Control114, Turkey responded that "this information and documentation [was] not 
available in the records kept by MARA".115 
2.56 Finally, with respect to the Panel's new request  for photocopies of the approved Certificates of 
Control, Turkey stated that it had provided a consolidation of the relevant information in 
exhibit TR-33.  Regarding the actual Certif icates of Control, Turkey stated that: 
"Given the strict confidentiality requireme nts provided by Turkish law... and the well-
established communications and informati on-exchanges between the United States 
and a number of Turkish rice traders... Tu rkish officials involved in this Panel 
proceeding [did] not feel comfortable in risking information leaks and possible criminal accusations of violation of Turkish law on confidentiality." 
It added that, while it: 
 
"[stood] firm in relation to the truthfuln ess, completeness and usefulness of the 
information that it provided earlier by means of its... consolidation... [it was] not in a 
position to provide copies of the actual Certificates of Control for circulation." 
Turkey concluded that: 
 
"Exceptionally [it] would be willing to provide 'blacked-out' copies of the 56 
'relevant' Certificates of Control only to the Panel and after a clear understanding with 
the Panel and between the parties to this dispute that these documents would not be 
                                                     
 
110 Panel's question 133(b) to Turkey.  See also para. 7 of the United States statement during the second 
meeting with the Panel and exhibit US-71.  The United Stat es clarified its characteriza tion of  'relevant' in its 
comments to Turkey’s response to question 115, as referring to the period during which it was alleging a breach 
(i.e. from 10 September 2003 through 17 March 2006). 
111 Panel's question 133(c) to Turkey. 
112 Panel's question 133(f) to Turkey. 
113 Turkey's response to question 133(a). 
114 Panel's question 133(c) to Turkey. 
115 Turkey's response to question 133(c).  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 19 
 
 
  made available to the United States nor to  any other entity beside the Panel and the 
WTO Secretariat".116 
2.57 The Panel notes that the possibility of the Pa nel adopting special rules to protect the 
confidentiality of information submitted by the partie s was suggested by the complainant in the course 
of the substantive meetings with the parties.  Tu rkey did not ask, however, that the Panel adopt any 
particular measures in order to grant special protect ion to the confidentiality of the Certificates of 
Control requested as evidence by the Panel.  After a request from the Panel, Turkey offered to submit 
the Certificates of Control, but with "a clear unde rstanding with the Panel and between the parties... 
that these documents would not be made available to  the United States nor to any other entity beside 
the Panel and the WTO Secretariat."117 
3. Rejection of Certificates of Control 
(a) Rejection of Certificates of Control 
2.58 The complainant has submitted ev idence of the rejection of Certificates of Control for the 
importation of rice requested by two companies (Torunlar and Mehmetoglu).  According to the record, requests filed by Torunlar were rejected  in September 2003 and again in November 2003 for 
reasons respectively cited as "missing items"
118 or "spelling errors".119  Turkey did not contest the 
authenticity of these rejections, but it noted that the application allegedly rej ected for "spelling errors" 
could not be found among the records of MARA.120  In 2004, this company filed a motion in a 
Turkish administrative court against the government 's refusal to authorize the importation of rice.121  
In September 2004, after the motion had been filed in  the administrative court, MARA rejected a third 
request for a Certificate of Control filed by the same company for the importation of rice.122 
2.59 In the case of Mehmetoglu, a request made in April 2006 to obtain a Certificate of Control for 
the importation of milled rice from the United States, was rejected in May 2006.  The letter of rejection from MARA states that "it is not possible to prepare a control certificate according to our 
laws and regulations".
123 
2.60 Documents related to procedures before Turkish administrative courts, which are on record in 
this case, refer to additional instances of rejection of Certificates of Control for the importation of 
rice.124 One such document contains a decision by an administrative court in Ankara to dismiss the 
petition presented by the importing company Helin.  As described in this document, Helin had its 
application rejected on 15 August 2005, on the grounds  that "no [Certificates of Control] for husked 
rice would be approved until new guidelines are establis hed for such importation, as expressed in the 
approval… dated July 29, 2005".125 
2.61 Also on record are three petitions before the ad ministrative courts, each filed by a different 
importing company.  In these petitions, the companies describe that, after an initial rejection, they 
                                                      
116 Turkey's response to questions 133(b) and 133(f) .  See also Turkey's comments on United States' 
response to question 116. 
117 Turkey's response to question 133(b) and (f). 
118 Letter dated 10 September 2003, in exhibit US-28. 
119 Letter dated 23 October 2003, in exhibit US-29. 
120 See Turkey's response to question 135. 
121 Exhibit US-30.  United States' first submission, para. 29. 
122 Exhibit US-33.  See also exhibit US-34 and United States' first submission, para. 31. 
123 Exhibit US-22.  See also exhibit US-40 and United States' first submission, paras. 35-36.  See also 
Turkey's response to question 29. 
124 Exhibits US-63 to US-67. 
125 Exhibit US-63. WT/DS334/R 
Page 20  
 
  resubmitted requests for Certificates of Control for the importation of rice on 18 October 2005.  
These requests were rejected by MARA thr ough letters dated 28 Oct ober 2005, and numbered 
112603, 112604 and 112605, respectively, with an id entical explanation that MARA was "unable to 
prepare [Certificates of Control] for rice, un til the new application rules are confirmed".
126 
2.62 An additional petition, filed by another importi ng company before an administrative court, 
describes that, after three successive applications, MARA rejected its requests for Certificates of 
Control for the importation of rice through a le tter dated 12 December 2005,  and numbered 114092, 
with the explanation that MARA was "unable to pr epare [Certificates of Control] for rice, until the 
new application rules are confirmed".127 
(b) Request for evidence from Turkey 
2.63 After the second substantive meeting, the Pa nel referred to exhibit TR-36 submitted by 
Turkey, which contains a list prepared by Turkey of the applications for Certificates of Control for the 
importation of rice which were rejected from 2003 to 21 September 2006, including the reasons for 
denial.  The Panel asked Turkey to provide a photocop y of each of the rejected applications, cited in 
the list contained in exhibit TR-36, as well as of th e corresponding letters by which its authorities had 
notified the requesting companies of the rejection of a requested Certificate of Control.128 
2.64 The Panel proposed that, if Turkey could not provide the full photocopies requested, out of 
concerns for the privacy of the companies involved, it at least provide those same photocopies after having blacked out the names of the companies.
129 
2.65 In response, Turkey stated that  "this information and documenta tion [was] not available in the 
records kept by MARA."130 
(c) New request for evidence from Turkey 
2.66 After the second substantive meeting, the Panel posed questions to Turkey regarding exhibit 
US-29, submitted by the complainant as  an annex to its first submission.131  That exhibit contains a 
photocopy of an application for a Certificate of Control for the importation of rice, filed on 23 October 2003 and which was rejected on 3 Nove mber 2003, allegedly "due to spelling errors".
132  
The Panel noted that "spelling errors" had not be en listed by Turkey as reasons for denial of 
Certificates of Control and asked Turkey to confir m whether such errors would be grounds for the 
rejection of an application for a Certificate of Contro l.  If so, it asked Turkey to identify the legal basis 
for rejecting applications ow ing to "spelling errors". 
2.67 In its reply, Turkey submitted that it could no t provide an answer to this question, as the 
application cited by the United States coul d not be found among the records of MARA.133  It argued, 
however, that it is not MARA's general policy to sy stematically deny applications on the basis of 
minor spelling mistakes.  Nevertheless, it noted that , in certain instances, spelling errors may affect 
crucial elements of the application and the pro cess of importation, which may lead to individual 
                                                      
126 Exhibits US-64, US-65 and US-66. 
127 Exhibit US-67. 
128 Panel's question 133(e) to Turkey. 
129 Panel's question 133(f) to Turkey. 
130 Turkey's response to question 133(e). 
131 Panel's question 135 to Turkey. 
132 Exhibit US-29.  United States' first submission, para. 28. 
133 Turkey's response to question 135.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 21 
 
 
  rejections.  In Turkey's opinion, this case cited by the complainant is an individual episode that does 
not "imply or suggest a pattern of systematic  rejection of applications for futile reasons".134 
4. Procedures in Turkish administrative courts 
(a) Arguments by MARA before an administrative court 
2.68 As mentioned above, in 2004, Torunlar filed a motion in a Turkish administrative court 
against the government's refusal to authorize the importation of rice.135  In its response to this motion, 
filed in November 2004, the counsel for MARA argued before the court that the rejection of the Certificates of Control "was undertaken in ob servance of the common good and public service 
keeping in mind the goals of protecting [Turkish] na tional producer[s], to redress their grievances and 
to prevent unnecessary stock build up..."
136  In support of its argument, the counsel for MARA cited 
letters from MARA's General Directorate of Protect ion and Control and from the TMO, by which the 
authorization of Certificates of Control for the im portation of rice was suspended over several periods.  
The counsel for MARA specifically referred to the following letters: 
(a) Letter No. 964 from MARA dated 10 Sept ember 2003, by which the period for 
issuing Certificates of Control for the importation of rice would begin on 
1 March 2004.137 
(b) Letter by which the General Directorate of the TMO requested that no Certificates of 
Control for the importation of rice be i ssued until 30 June 2004, because existing rice 
and paddy rice stocks were estimated to be  adequate for the nation's needs until the 
end of June 2004.138 
(c) Letter No. 107 from MARA dated 23 January 2004, by which the period for issuing 
Certificates of Control for the importation of rice and paddy rice would begin in 
July 2004.139 
(d) Letter No. 689 dated 4 June 2004, from the General Directorate of the TMO, by 
which "the instruction was given to extend the term for stopping the issuance of [Certificates of Control], from July 01, 2004 to the beginning of January 2005, in 
order to protect [Turkish] national produc tion, to redress the grievances of the 
domestic grower, [and] to conserve nationa l currency reserves by avoiding excessive 
imports".
140 
(e) Letter No. 905 from MARA dated 28 June 200 4, by which the period for issuing 
Certificates of Control for the importation of rice and paddy rice was to open on 1 January 2005, with a closing date of 1 August 2005 for rice and 1 September 2005 
for paddy rice.
141 
                                                      
134 Turkey's response to question 135. 
135 Exhibit US-30.  United States' first submission, para. 29. 
136 Exhibit US-31. 
137 Ibid. 
138 Ibid. 
139 Ibid. 
140 Ibid. 
141 Ibid. WT/DS334/R 
Page 22  
 
  2.69 The lawsuit concluded with a decision in favour of MARA.
142  This decision was not 
appealed by Torunlar143, nor by MARA.144 
5. Decision by a Turkish administrative court 
2.70 As mentioned above, also on record is a decisi on by an administrative court in the case of a 
petition presented by another importing company, Helin , against MARA's rejection of its application 
for a Certificate of Control for the importation of rice.145   The court dismissed the petition on the 
grounds that: 
"[I]t is verified that the opening date fo r the issuance of the Inspection Document 
[Certificate of Control] was indeed  determined as August 1, 2005 by the 
administration as is evident from the 'approva l' document issued by the Office dated 
12.30.2004, number 1795;  however, as stated by the 'approval' document issued on 
7.29.2005, number 1304, the stocks of produced and imported husked rice in 2004 were deemed to be at a level that would meet the needs of the country handily; therefore no Inspection Document [Certifi cate of Control] would be issued until 
consumption volume and trade policies are reviewed, and a basis for the new 
practices is established.  Under these circum stances, the court finds no basis for the 
claim of illegality in the decision not to grant an inspection document until the establishment of new practices, or in the pr ocedure by which the plaintiff's request 
was declined."
146 
E. THE TARIFF RATE QUOTA SYSTEM  
1. Situation at the time of the establishment of this Panel 
(a) Decree No. 95/6814 of 30 April 1995 
2.71 Decree No. 95/6814 of 30 April 1995 on Surveillance and Safeguard Measures for Imports 
and Administration of Quotas and Tariff Quotas147 contains procedures and principles related to, inter 
alia, "[t]he use of quotas in case tariff quotas are applie d for imports in the framework of the bilateral 
or multilateral preferential trade agreements or unilaterally according to the provisions of the 
international agreements."148  Article 3 of this decree grants the FTU the authority: 
"(b) To determine the quantities and/or values of quotas and the procedure and 
principles of distribution... and to issue doc uments with this objective and to instruct 
to the relevant institutions and organi zations concerning the implementation and 
necessary permissions. 
(c) To determine the procedures and prin ciples for use of the tariff quotas which 
are opened unilaterally according to internati onal agreements or based on the bilateral 
or multilateral preferential trade agreements."149 
                                                      
142 Turkey's response to question 66.  See also United States' rebuttal, para. 27. 
143 Turkey's response to question 66. 
144 Turkey's response to question 145. 
145 Exhibit US-63. 
146 Ibid. 
147 Surveillance and Safeguard Measures for Imports and Administration of Quotas and Tariff Quotas , 
Decree No. 95/6814, published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 22,300, dated 1 June 1995, in exhibit TR-14. 
148 Ibid., Article 1. 
149 Ibid., Article 3 (b) and (c).  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 23 
 
 
  (b) Decree No. 2004/7333 of 10 May 2004 
2.72 Rules on the matter are also contained in Decree No. 2004/7333 of 10 May 2004 on the 
Administration of Quotas and Tariff Quotas :150 
"This Decree covers the procedures and principles related to the administration of 
quotas and tariff quotas that can be applied in the framework of the measures adopted 
based on the bilateral or multilateral preferen tial trade agreements or unilaterally by 
taking the international obliga tions into consideration."151 
2.73 According to Provisional Article 1 of Decree No. 2004/7333: 
"[T]he procedures concerning the quotas and tariff quotas imposed under the Decree 
on Surveillance and Safeguard Measures for Imports and Administration of Quotas 
and Tariff Quotas, which was put into fo rce in accordance with the Council of 
Ministers Decree No. 95/6814 of 30 April 1995 shall carry on under the provisions of this Decree."
152 
2.74 In turn, Provisional Article 2 of Decree No. 2004/7333 states that: 
"References to the Decree on Surveillance and Safeguard Measures for Imports and 
Administration of Quotas and Tariff Quotas, which was put into force in accordance 
with the Council of Ministers Decree No. 95/6814 of 30 April 1995 concerning the administration of quotas and tariff quotas, shall be understood as referring to this 
Decree."
153 
2.75 Article 3 of Decree No. 2004/7333 maintains the authority of the FTU: 
"(a) to determine the procedures and principles of the application, distribution and 
use of quotas and tariff quotas and to pr epare documents in this purpose... 
(d) to coordinate and give instructi ons to the relevant institutions and 
organizations for the implementation of this Decree; 
(e) to prepare Regulations and Communiqués concerning the implementation of 
this Decree."154 
(c) Decree 2005/9315 of September 2005 
2.76 Pursuant to Decree No. 2004/7333155, a tariff quota regime for the importation of rice was put 
in place by Decree 2005/9315 of 10 August 2005 on the Application of Tariff Quota for the 
                                                      
150 Administration of Quotas and Tariff Quotas , Decree No. 2004/7333, published in Turkey's Official 
Gazette No. 25,473, dated 26 May 2004, in exhibits US-4 and TR-15. 
151 Ibid., Article 1. 
152 Ibid., Provisional Article 1. 
153 Ibid., Provisional Article 2. 
154 Ibid., Article 3(a), (d) and (e). 
155 Turkey's first submission, para. 35. WT/DS334/R 
Page 24  
 
  Importation of Some Species of Paddy Rice and Rice.
156  This tariff quota was in force at the time this 
Panel was established. 
2.77 Decree 2005/9315 opened a tariff quota for the im portation of rice from 1 November 2005 to 
31 July 2006.157  Importers who purchased paddy rice from domestic producers or purchased paddy 
rice or milled rice from the TMO would be able to benefit from the tariff quotas.158  These importers 
could enjoy tariffs of 20 per cent ad valorem  for paddy rice (1006.10)159, 25 per cent ad valorem  for 
husked rice (1006.20), and 43 per cent ad valorem  for semi-milled or milled rice (1006.30)160, instead 
of paying the rates otherwise set in Turkey's domes tic tariff schedule (respectively, 34, 36 and 45 per 
cent ad valorem ). 
2.78 The maximum amount assigned under the quota w as equal to 300,000 tonnes of semi-milled 
or milled rice equivalent (with a conversion factor of 60 per cent for paddy rice and 75 per cent for 
brown rice).  In other words, the quantity of the tariff quota was equal to 500,000 tonnes if wholly allocated to paddy rice (1006.10), 400,000 tonnes if  wholly allocated to husked rice (1006.20), and 
300,000 tonnes if wholly allocated to semi-milled or milled rice (1006.30).
161  In order to import 
under the tariff quota, importers would need to obtain an import licence from the FTU.162 
2.79 An additional tariff quota of 50,000 tonnes of milled rice at a 43 per cent tariff rate, from 
1 October 2005 to 31 July 2006, was assigned to the TMO "to be used in need".163 
2.80 As noted above, Article 5 of Decree No . 2005/9315 established a domestic purchase 
requirement, which conditioned the alloca tion of tariff quotas to the purchase of: 
"[P]addy rice from [domestic] paddy producers having permission to plant paddy rice 
or from their cooperatives and unions [with pr oof of] this purchase with the certificate 
issued by Turkish Grain Board and ... [t o the] purchase of paddy rice or rice from 
[the] Turkish Grain Board."164 
(d) Communiqué No. 25,943 of the FTU 
2.81 The rules for the implementation of the tariff rate quotas, including the conditions of 
eligibility, the implementation methods, the applicat ion procedures and requirements, the periods for 
application, the expiration dates, and other releva nt details, were provided by means of decrees and 
FTU communiqués. 
                                                      
156 Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of Paddy Rice and Rice , Decree 
No. 2005/9315, published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25,935, dated 13 September 2005, in exhibits TR-9 
and US-10. 
157 Ibid., Article 1. 
158 Ibid., Article 5. 
159 With the exception of item 1006.10.10 (rice planting seeds). 
160 Decree No. 2005/9315, Article 1. 
161 Ibid. 
162 Ibid., Article 4. 
163 Ibid., Article 2. 
164 Ibid., Article 5.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 25 
 
 
  2.82 Accordingly, Communiqué No. 25,943 of the FTU on the Application of Tariff Quota for the 
Importation of Some Species of Paddy Rice and Rice165 contained rules on the implementation of the 
tariff rate quota in force at the time of the establishment of this Panel. 
2.83 Communiqué No. 25,943 conditioned the alloca tion of tariff quotas under the TRQ opened 
between November 2005 and July 2006 on the purch ase of domestic rice from domestic producers 
and from the TMO from 1 September 2005 until 31 March 2006, according to the conversion 
coefficients provided therein.166  In order to benefit from the tariff quotas, importers were required to 
purchase the domestic rice from local producers or fr om the TMO and to submit their form to the 
FTU, with all necessary documents, by 10 April 2006.167  The FTU could allocate any portion of the 
quota that remained unallocated by 11 April 2006.168  Import licences granted by the FTU would be 
valid from 1 November 2005 until 31 July 2006 and could not be transferred to third parties.169 
2.84 The allocation of tariff quotas depended on the type of domestic rice which was purchased, its 
source and its region of origin.  According to Communiqué No. 25,943, the following ratios were 
applied: 
(a) The purchase of 1,000 kg of paddy rice from paddy producers permitted to plant 
paddy rice or from their cooperatives and uni ons, from regions other than Balikesir, 
Bursa, Çanakkale, Edirne, Istanbul, Kirkareli, Sakarya and Tekirda ğ, allowed for the 
import of 800 kg of paddy rice, 640 kg of  brown rice, or 480 kg of milled rice. 
(b) The purchase of 1,000 kg of paddy rice from paddy producers permitted to plant 
paddy rice or from their cooperatives and unions located in Balikesir, Bursa, 
Çanakkale, Edirne, Istanbul, Kirk areli, Sakarya and Tekirda ğ, allowed for the import 
of 600 kg of paddy rice, 480 kg of brown rice, or 360 kg of milled rice. 
(c) The purchase of 1,000 kg of paddy rice from the TMO allowed for the import of 
500 kg of paddy rice, 400 kg of brown rice, or 300 kg of milled rice. 
(d) The purchase of 1,000 kg of milled rice from the TMO allowed for the import of 
833 kg of paddy rice, 666 kg of brown rice, or 500 kg of milled rice.170 
2. Earlier tariff quota regimes 
(a) Decree 2004/7135 of 20 April 2004 (fro m 20 April 2004 to 31 August 2004) 
2.85 A similar tariff quota regime had been in place the year before, under Decree 2004/7135 of 
20 April 2004 on the Application of Tariff Quota for the Im portation of Some Species of Paddy Rice 
and Rice .171  This decree was issued pursuant to the ru les contained in Decree No. 95/6814 of 30 April 
                                                      
165 Communiqué of the FTU on the Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of 
Paddy Rice and Rice , published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25,943, dated 21 September 2005, in exhibits 
TR-13 and US-11.  See also Turkey's first submission, para. 42. 
166 Communiqué of the FTU on the Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of 
Paddy Rice and Rice , published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25,943, dated 21 September 2005, in exhibits 
TR-13 and US-11, Articles 1 and 2. 
167 Ibid., Article 2. 
168 Ibid. 
169 Ibid., Articles 3 and 5. 
170 Ibid., Article 1. 
171 Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of Paddy Rice and Rice , Decree No. 
2004/7135, published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25,439, dated 20 April 2004, in exhibits US-2 and 
TR-11.  See also Turkey's first submission, paras. 32-33 and 35. WT/DS334/R 
Page 26  
 
  1995 on Surveillance and Safeguard Measures for Imports and Administration of Quotas and Tariff 
Quotas . 
2.86 Decree 2004/7135 opened a tariff quota for the importation of rice from the date of the decree 
(20 April 2004) until 31 August 2004.
172  Under this regime, importer s could enjoy tariffs of 32 per 
cent ad valorem  for paddy rice (1006.10)173, 34 per cent ad valorem  for husked rice (1006.20), and 
43 per cent ad valorem  for semi-milled or milled rice (1006.30)174, instead of paying the rates 
otherwise set in Turkey's domestic tariff schedule. 
2.87 The maximum amount assigned under the quota w as equal to 72,000 tonnes of semi-milled or 
milled rice equivalent (with a conversion factor of 60 per cent for paddy rice and 75 per cent for 
brown rice).  In other words, the quantity of the tariff quota was equal to 120,000 tonnes if wholly 
allocated to paddy rice (1006.10), 96,000 tonnes if  wholly allocated to husked rice (1006.20), and 
72,000 tonnes if wholly allocated to  semi-milled or milled rice (1006.30).175  In order to import under 
the tariff quota, importers would need to obtain an import licence from the FTU.176 
2.88 Communiqué No. 25,445 of the FTU on the Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of 
Some Species of Paddy Rice and Rice177conditioned the allocation of tariff quotas under the TRQ 
opened between 20 April 2004 and 31  August 2004 to the purchase of  domestic rice from the 
2003/2004 crop season from the TMO since 1 Sept ember 2003, according to the conversion 
coefficients provided therein.178  Import licences granted by the FTU would be valid until 
31 August 2004 and could not be transferred to third parties.179 
2.89 It does not appear that Communiqué No. 25,445 of the FTU specified the amounts of rice that 
an importer who purchased 1,000 kg of paddy rice from the TMO would be allowed to import.  The 
communiqué only seems to have indicated that those amounts would be allocated "based on the 
purchase from TMO".180  Turkey has informed, however, that the allocation of tariff quotas for the 
period from 20 April 2004 until 31 August 2004 was ca rried out according to the following ratios: 
(a) The purchase of 1,000 kg of paddy rice from the TMO allowed for the import of 
1,000 kg of paddy rice, 800 kg of br own rice, or 600 kg of milled rice. 
(b) The purchase of 1,000 kg of milled rice from the TMO allowed for the import of 
1,666 kg of paddy rice, 1,333 kg of  brown rice, or 1,000 kg of milled rice.181 
                                                      
172 Decree No. 2004/7135, Article 1. 
173 With the exception of item 1006.10.10 (rice planting seeds). 
174 Decree No. 2004/7135, Article 1. 
175 Ibid. 
176 Ibid., Article 3. 
177 Communiqué of the FTU on the Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of 
Paddy Rice and Rice , published in Turkey's Official  Gazette No. 25,445, dated 27 April 2004, in exhibits TR-12 
and US-3.  See also Turkey's first submission, para. 37. 
178 Communiqué of the FTU on the Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of 
Paddy Rice and Rice , published in Turkey's Official  Gazette No. 25,445, dated 27 April 2004, in exhibits TR-12 
and US-3, Article 1.  See also United Stat es' response to question 69, para. 105. 
179 Communiqué of the FTU on the Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of 
Paddy Rice and Rice , published in Turkey's Official  Gazette No. 25,445, dated 27 April 2004, in exhibits TR-12 
and US-3, Articles 3 and 5. 
180 Ibid., Article 1.  See also United States' first submission, para. 39, and United States' comments on 
Turkey's response to question 146, in para. 56. 
181 See exhibit TR-12 and Turkey's response to question 146.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 27 
 
 
  (b) Decree 2004/7756 of August 2004 (from 1 November 2004 to 31 July 2005) 
2.90 Another tariff quota regime was put in place under Decree 2004/7756 of August 2004 on the 
Application of Tariff Quota for the Importa tion of Some Species of Paddy Rice and Rice .182 
2.91 Decree 2004/7756 opened a tariff quota for the im portation of rice from 1 November 2004 to 
31 July 2005.183  Importers who purchased paddy rice from domestic producers or purchased paddy 
rice or rice from the TMO would be ab le to benefit from the tariff quotas.184  These importers could 
enjoy tariffs of 32 per cent ad valorem  for paddy rice (1006.10)185, 34 per cent ad valorem  for husked 
rice (1006.20), and 43 per cent ad valorem  for semi-milled or milled rice (1006.30)186, instead of 
paying the rates otherwise set in Turkey's domestic tariff schedule. 
2.92 The maximum amount assigned under the quota w as equal to 300,000 tonnes of semi-milled 
or milled rice equivalent (with a conversion factor of 60 per cent for paddy rice and 75 per cent for 
brown rice).  In other words, the quantity of the tariff quota was equal to 500,000 tonnes if wholly allocated to paddy rice (1006.10), 400,000 tonnes if  wholly allocated to husked rice (1006.20), and 
300,000 tonnes if wholly allocated to semi-milled or milled rice (1006.30).
187  In order to import 
under the tariff quota, importers would need to obtain an import licence from the FTU.188 
2.93 An additional tariff quota of 50,000 tonnes of milled rice at a 43 per cent tariff rate, from 
1 October 2004 to 31 July 2005, was assigned to the TMO "to be used in need".189 
2.94 Communiqué No. 25,577 of the FTU on the Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of 
Some Species of Paddy Rice and Rice190 conditioned the allocation of tariff quotas under the TRQ 
opened between November 2004 and July 2005 to the requirement of purchasing domestic rice from 
domestic producers and from the TMO since 1 Se ptember 2004, according with the conversion 
coefficients provided therein.191  In order to benefit from the tariff quotas, importers were required to 
submit their form to the FTU, with all the documents necessary, by 31 January 2005.192  The FTU 
could extend this date, provided there rema ined an unallocated portion of the quota by 
1 February 2005.193  Indeed, the date for filing the forms wa s twice extended, first to 29 April 2005 
                                                      
182 Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of Paddy Rice and Rice , Decree No. 
2004/7756, published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25,566, dated 27 August 2004, in exhibit TR-16 and US-
 5.  See also Turkey's first submission, para. 38. 
183 Decree No. 2004/7135, Article 1. 
184 Ibid., Article 5. 
185 With the exception of item 1006.10.10 (rice planting seeds). 
186 Decree No. 2004/7135, Article 1. 
187 Ibid. 
188 Ibid., Article 4. 
189 Ibid., Article 2. 
190 Communiqué of the FTU on the Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of 
Paddy Rice and Rice , published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25,577, dated 8 September 2004, in 
exhibit TR-17 and US-6.  See also Turkey's first submission, para. 40. 
191 Communiqué of the FTU on the Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of 
Paddy Rice and Rice , published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25,577, dated 8 September 2004, in 
exhibit TR-17 and US-6, Article 1. 
192 Ibid., Article 2. 
193 Ibid. WT/DS334/R 
Page 28  
 
  and then to 15 June 2005.
194  Import licences granted by the FTU would be valid from 1 November 
2004 until 31 July 2005 and could not be transferred to third parties.195 
2.95 The allocation of tariff quotas depended on the type of domestic rice which was purchased, its 
source and its region of origin.  According to Communiqué No. 25,577, the following ratios were 
applied: 
(a) The purchase of 1,000 kg of paddy rice from paddy producers permitted to plant 
paddy rice or from their cooperatives and uni ons, from regions other than Balikesir, 
Bursa, Çanakkale, Edirne, Kirkareli, Sakarya and Tekirda ğ, allowed for the import of 
1,000 kg of paddy rice, 800 kg of br own rice, or 600 kg of milled rice. 
(b) The purchase of 1,000 kg of paddy rice from paddy producers permitted to plant 
paddy rice or from their cooperatives and unions located in Balikesir, Bursa, 
Çanakkale, Edirne, Kirkare li, Sakarya and Tekirda ğ, allowed for the import of 700 kg 
of paddy rice, 560 kg of brown rice, or 420 kg of milled rice. 
(c) The purchase of 1,000 kg of paddy rice from the TMO allowed for the import of 
500 kg of paddy rice, 400 kg of brown rice, or 300 kg of milled rice. 
(d) The purchase of 1,000 kg of milled rice from the TMO allowed for the import of 
833 kg of paddy rice, 666 kg of brown rice, or 500 kg of milled rice.196 
3. Import licences 
2.96 Under the tariff quota regime for the importation of rice that was in place at the time when 
this Panel was established, pursuant to Decree 2005/9315 of September 2005197, importers who 
wished to benefit from the reduced tariffs n eeded to obtain an import licence from the FTU.  
The licence would then have to be presented to th e related customs administration on the date in 
which the customs liability arises.198 
2.97 Under Communiqué No. 25,943, applications for import licences could be submitted from the 
day the in which the communiqué entered into for ce (i.e., 21 September 2005), until 10 April 2006.  
Applications lacking the complete information or documents required and app lications submitted after 
the depletion of the tariff quota would not be considered.199 
                                                      
194 Exhibits US-8 and US-9.  See also United States' first submission, para. 46, and Turkey's first 
submission, para. 122. 
195 Communiqué of the FTU on the Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of 
Paddy Rice and Rice , published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25,577, dated 8 September 2004, in 
exhibit TR-17 and US-6, Articles 3 and 5. 
196 Ibid., Article 1. 
197 Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of Paddy Rice and Rice , Decree No. 
2005/9315, published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25,935, dated 13 September 2005, in exhibits TR-9 and US-10. 
198 Ibid., Article 4. 
199 Communiqué of the FTU on the Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of 
Paddy Rice and Rice , published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25,943, dated 21 September 2005, in exhibits 
TR-13 and US-11, Article 2.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 29 
 
 
  2.98 Import licences were non-transferable and va lid from 1 November 2005 until 31 July 2006.200  
During this time, the items had to enter into circulation.201  The import licences had to be returned to 
the FTU's Directorate General for Imports within 10 days of their expiration.202 
2.99 The Annex of Communiqué No. 25943 of the FTU contained the form that should be 
completed by applicants and listed the informatio n and documents required.   This form required 
information such as:  (a) importer's name, addres s, telephone and fax number,  tax registration number 
and e-mail address;  (b) country of origin and co untry in which the product was to be loaded for 
transportation into Turkey;  (c) description of th e product being imported, item name, as indicated in 
the HS code, and HS code in 12 digits;  (d) qua ntity and unit of measurement of the product being 
imported;  (e) value of the product being imported;   (f) original invoice or proforma invoice;  
(g) identification of the Directorate of Custom s and Customs Enforcement from which importation 
was to be made;  (h) original certificate issued by  TMO, which proved the purchase of domestic rice;  
(i) original invoice of the purchase of domestic ri ce;  and, (j) approved copies that proved the 
signatory power of the applicant and Trade Records Gazette where the name of the company had been 
published.203 
F. THE TURKISH GRAIN BOARD  
2.100  The Turkish Grain Board is described as a "S tate Economic Corporation organized under the 
name Toprak Mahsulleri Ofisi (T.M.O.) A. Ş." by the Turkish Grain Board (Agricultural Products 
Office, Inc.) Articles of Incorporation204, which is the legal instrument with "all relevant information 
regarding the nature, functions and com position of the TMO" provided by Turkey.205 
2.101  A recent Trade Policy Review of Turkey conducted by the WTO Secretariat206 only refers to 
the TMO when describing the changes it was under going at the time as part of its restructuring 
process: 
"[O]n the basis of the EU system...  [i.e.] limiting TMO's purchases to emergency and 
supplementary purchases;  transferring the existing storage facilities to the private 
sector, and then leasing such facilities to pr oducers;  maintaining TMO as a central 
institution with a view to facilitating emer gency and intervention purchases in the 
medium term;  and guaranteeing that th e TMO's purchases are made only through the 
commodity markets.207"208 
No particular reference is made to its participation in the Turkish rice market. 
 2.102  The TMO Articles of Incorporation define a st ate economic corporation as a "state economic 
enterprise the capital of which is fully held by th e state and which is founded to operate in the 
economy according to commercial practices."
209  Article 3, paragraph 4,  of the TMO Articles of 
                                                      
200 Communiqué of the FTU on the Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of 
Paddy Rice and Rice , published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25,943, dated 21 September 2005, in exhibits 
TR-13 and US-11, Articles 3 and 5. 
201 Ibid., Article 4. 
202 Ibid., Article 9. 
203 Exhibit TR-13.  See also exhibit TR-10. 
204 Turkish Grain Board (Agricultural Products Office, Inc.) Articles of Incorporation , in 
exhibit TR-40. 
205 Turkey's response to questions 90 (a), (b) and (c). 
206 Trade Policy Review of Turkey – Report by the Secretariat, WT/TPR/S/125, 19 November 2003. 
207 (footnote original ) Republic of Turkey (2002). 
208 Trade Policy Review of Turkey, para. IV.29. 
209 TMO Articles of Incorporation, Article 2, paragraph 3. WT/DS334/R 
Page 30  
 
  Incorporation provides that "the Corporation's capital is TL 50 (fifty) billion [Now, TL 330 trillion 
(YPK resolution no. 985/66 of 8.12.1998)] which is fu lly held by the State.  The Corporation's capital 
may be changed by a Coordination Board decision upon a proposal by the competent Ministry."
210  
Further, Articles 2 and 20 of the same legal text provide that the TMO's budget is controlled by the 
state and supervised by the competent Ministry and State Planning Organization.211 
2.103  The function of the TMO is that of preventing "the falling of grain prices below normal levels 
in view of the producers and extraordinary incr ease thereof in view of the interests of the 
consumers".212  One of the ways to achieve market stabilization, would be by buying and selling 
grains, as well as creating and keeping necessary stocks.213  In Turkey's words, "the TMO acts as an 
intervention agency."214 
2.104  The TMO neither buys nor sells any brown rice.215  Both Decree No. 2004/7556 and Decree 
No. 2005/9315 granted the TMO a tariff quota of 50,000 tonnes of milled rice "to be used in need", in 
the context of the tariff rate quotas opened from November 2004 to July 2005 and from November 2005 to July 2006.
216  However, purchases of rice by the TMO have been restricted to 
paddy rice.217 
2.105  Data provided by Turkey regarding the quantities purchased by the TMO between 2003 and 
2006 is the following:218 
TMO PADDY RICE PURCHASES (TONNES) 
2003 130,632 
2004 14,855 
2005 11,899 
2006* 12,464 
* As of 15 October 2006 
 
2.106  Based on these figures, Turkey asserts that: 
"In the years 2005 and 2006, the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) was not determining 
market prices, due to the fact that it ma de purchases of very little quantities of paddy 
rice (i.e., approximately 14,000 tonnes)".219 
2.107  The quantities of rice sold by the TMO from 2003 to 2006, as presented by Turkey, 
correspond to:220 
                                                      
210 TMO Articles of Incorporation, Article 3, paragraph 4, and Article 20. 
211 Ibid., Articles 2 and 20.  But see Turkey's response to question 92 (b). 
212 Article 4 of the Turkish Grain Board [Agricultural Products Office, Inc.] Articles of Incorporation. 
213 Ibid, Article 4, paragraph 1.  See also Turkey's response to question 91. 
214 Turkey's response to question 111. 
215 Exhibit TR-29. 
216 Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of Paddy Rice and Rice , Decree No. 
2004/7556, published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25,566, dated 23 August 2004, in exhibits TR-16 and 
US-5, Article 2.  See also Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of Paddy Rice and 
Rice, Decree No. 2005/9315, published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25 ,935, dated 13 September 2005, in 
exhibits TR-9 and US-10, Article 2. 
217 Exhibit TR-30. 
218 Ibid. 
219 Turkey's response to question 110.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 31 
 
 
   TMO PADDY RICE 
SALES (TONNES) TMO MILLED RICE 
SALES (TONNES) 
2003 - 17,789 
2004 119,880 14,122 
2005 3,228 6,639 
2006* 9,575 2,718 
* As of 16 November 2006 
 2.108  Regarding the prices at which TMO purchases ri ce, both Turkey and the United States have 
provided the Panel with the figures presented in the following tables:  (a) the first table reflects the 
information submitted by the United States on pad dy and milled rice, with periods corresponding to 
the Turkish Marketing Years from 2003 to 2007;  (b) the second table contains the information 
submitted by Turkey on paddy rice, with periods  corresponding to calendar years from 2004 to 2006;  
(c) the third table contains the information subm itted by Turkey on milled rice, with periods 
corresponding to calendar years from 2003 to 2006;  (d) the fourth table reflects the comparison 
between the first column of the first and the third tables.  All the figures are expressed in new Turkish 
lira by Tonnes (YTL/T).
221 
Turkish Grain Board Announced Prices*:222 
 
Turkish 
Marketing Year 
(Sept/Aug) Paddy Procurement Prices 
from Producers for 
Osmancik Milled Rice Sales Price for 
Osmancik 
2003/2004 700 1250 
2004/2005 756 1500 
2005/2006 720 1500 
2006/2007 720 1500 
*Sources: Turkish Grain Board website 2004/2005, 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. 
Turkish Rice Millers Association 2003/2004 prices. Paddy prices are for rice with 
average milling rate. 
 
 
Paddy Rice Selling Prices Declared by the TMO (Yearly Averages)*:223 
 
 BALDO OSMANCIK 
2004* 840 743 
2005 978 871 
2006 970 772 
* No data available for the period prior to January 2004 
 
                                                                                                                                                                     
220 Exhibit TR-30. 
221 Some of the tables below make reference to "Baldo" and "Osmancik". As explained by Turkey in 
exhibit TR-29, "[i]n Turkish rice market, long grai n rices are sub-grouped un der these specific names." 
222 Exhibit US-56. 
223 Exhibit TR-29. WT/DS334/R 
Page 32  
 
   
Rice Selling Prices (Wholesale) Declared by TMO (Yearly Averages):
224 
 
 BALDO OSMANCIK 
2003 1,352 1,209 
2004 1,543 1,338 
2005 1,741 1,469 
2006 1,630 1,470 
 
 Selling Price by the TMO of Osmancik Milled Ri ce as Presented by the United States and Turkey: 
 
 United States TURKEY 
2003/2004 (2003) 1,250 1,209 
2004/2005 (2004) 1,500 1,338 
2005/2006 (2005) 1,500 1,469 
2006/2007 (2006) 1,500 1,470 
 
2.109  The TMO determines the price at which it purch ases rice, which Turkey has submitted as the 
following:225 
PURCHASING PRICES DECLARED BY TMO AND PRICES 
RECEIVED BY GROWERS FOR LONG GRAIN PADDY RICE 
(NEW TURKISH LI RAS BY TONNES)  
 DECLARED PRICE RECEIVED PRICE* 
2002 600 554 
2003 700 628 
2004 756 695 
2005 720 612 
2006 720 639 
* The difference between the declared and the received prices is due to quality 
 
G. LETTERS OF ACCEPTANCE  
1. The so-called "letters of acceptance" 
2.110  The record shows that, in a number of cases, MARA's General Directorate of Protection and 
Control has recommended to the Minister of Agri culture and Rural Affairs that the granting of 
Certificates of Control be temporarily suspended.   These recommendations have been made through 
documents that have been called "letters of Accepta nce" throughout the proceedings of this Panel.  
                                                      
224 Exhibit TR-29. 
225 Ibid.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 33 
 
 
  Letters of Acceptance were signed by MARA's Ge neral Director, and then by the Minister in 
acceptance of the recommendation.226 
2.111  As identified below, copies of several letters of  acceptance of this type have been submitted 
as exhibits by the complainant.  Their ex istence has not been rebutted by Turkey.227  The legal nature 
of these documents, however, has been contested between  the parties.  Turkey has also argued that the 
letters of acceptance "often contain confidential positions".228 
2. Evidence of letters of acceptance 
2.112  The record shows evidence of the following lette rs of acceptance:  (a) letter No. 107, dated 
23 January 2004229;  (b) letter No. 905, dated 28 June 2004230;  (c) letter No. 1,795, dated 
30 December 2004231;  and, (d) letter number unknown, dated 24 March 2006232. 
2.113  Some of these letters, in turn, make reference to  other letters of acceptance of which there is 
no copy on file.  Namely:  (a) letter No. 964 of 10 September 2003;  and, (b) letter No. 1,304 of 
29 July 2005. 
3. Content of letters of acceptance 
2.114  Letter No. 107 of 23 January 2004 .  Refers to a letter from th e ministerial office No. 964 of 
10 September 2003, which determined the period of  issuance of Certificates of Control for rice from 
1 March 2004 and for paddy rice from 1 August 2004 , both ending on 1 September 2004.  It then 
notes that the General Directorate of the TMO has as ked that Certificates of Control for rice should 
not be issued until 30 June 2004, "on the grounds that it became evident th rough the talks with rice 
[and] paddy rice growers, as well as the importers, based on estimates, [that] rice stocks [would] be adequate for [Turkey's] needs until ... June 30,  2004."  The letter concludes by requesting a 
rescheduling of the opening date for the period of issuance of Certificates of Control to 1 July 2004.
233 
2.115  Letter No. 905 of 28 June 2004 .  Refers to a letter from the ministerial office No. 107 of 
23 January 2004, which determined the period of issuance of Certificates of Control from 1 July 2004 
to 1 August 2004 for rice, and from 1 July 2004 to 1 September 2004 for paddy rice.  It then notes that the General Directorate of the TMO has stated that: 
"[P]addy rice harvest season would begin as of September;  and that even though it is 
difficult to make an accurate estimate, it is expected to be at the level of the previous year (370,000 tons);  and that it would be appropriate to extend the period of 
[Certificates of Control] issuance which w ould initially have begu n in July 01 2004, 
until January 2005, in order to protect the national growers, to redress their 
grievances and to avert building padd y rice and rice stocks needlessly". 
                                                     
 
226 See, for example, United States' first submission, paras. 22-34. 
227 See Turkey's opening statement in the se cond meeting with the Panel, para. 12. 
228 Turkey's first submission, paras. 78-79, and Turkey's response to question 27(b).  Turkey did not 
ask, however, that the Panel adopt any particular me asures in order to grant special protection to the 
confidentiality of the content of the letters that were submitted as evidence by the United States. 
229 Exhibit US-12. 
230 Exhibit US-13. 
231 Exhibit US-14. 
232 Exhibit US-36. 
233 Exhibit US-12. WT/DS334/R 
Page 34  
 
  The letter concludes by requesting a rescheduling of  the opening date for the period of issuance of 
Certificates of Control to 1 January 2005 for mille d rice and paddy rice, with a closing date of 1 
August 2005 for milled rice and 1 September 2005 for paddy rice.
234 
 2.116  Letter No. 1,795 of 30 December 2004
.  Refers to a letter from the ministerial office No. 905 
of 28 June 2004, which determined the issuance period of Certificates of Control from 
1 January 2005, with a closing date of 1 August 2005 for milled rice and 1 September 2005 for paddy 
rice.  It then notes that the General Directorate of the TMO has stated "that the practice of not issuing 
[Certificates of Control] for the persons and cor porations who do not purchase paddy rice from the 
growers controlled by TMO and directly from TM O is deemed appropriate to be extended until 
07.30.2005".  The letter concludes by requesting a rescheduling of the opening date for the period of 
issuance of Certificates of Control to 1 August 2005.235 
2.117  Letter number unknown of 24 March 2006 .  Refers to a letter from the ministerial office 
No. 1,304 of 29 July 2005, which de termined that Certificates of C ontrol would not be issued "until a 
new policy [was] in place".  It also refers to th e fact that the United States has taken action in the 
WTO "about our implementations on rice imports".  It goes on to note the letters received from the 
General Directorate of the TMO numbered 531 a nd 603 of 3 March 2006 and 14 March 2006, 
respectively.236  Those letters allegedly state that: 
"The applicability of the Tariff Quota System will not be possible in the coming 
years.  Our producers should be supported through paying the price difference to close the gap with world prices, and the system should be operated without leading to 
international disputes.  Meanwhile, the temporary ban of issuance of control 
certificates during harvest season will be suitable to be kept in place". 
The letter concludes by requesting that the dates to issue Certificates of Control to import milled rice 
and paddy rice be rearranged to begin on 1 Ap ril 2006 and close on 1 August 2006.  It also 
recommends that Certificates of Control be issued  one at a time, each limited to 10,000 tonnes for 
milled rice and 15,000 tonnes for paddy rice.  New Ce rtificates of Control for the importation of rice 
would only be authorized after the quota of  each previous certificate was fully used.
237 
 
4. Nature of letters of acceptance 
2.118  The nature of the letters of acceptance has been disputed by the parties.  The United States 
has argued that these letters provide a binding in struction which is relied upon by MARA authorities 
to deny the issuance of Control Certificates for the importation of rice.238 
2.119  In turn, Turkey has stated  that these documents are: 
"[M]ere instruments of internal communication among Turkish administrators and 
public officials [that] often contain confid ential positions and/or political statements 
which are aimed at developing unofficial policy recommendations."239 
2.120  On the occasion of the second substantive meeti ng, the Panel referred to these statements.  
It then asked Turkey whether the Minister of  Agriculture and Rural Affairs could refuse the 
                                                      
234 Exhibit US-13. 
235 Exhibit US-14. 
236 See the latter in exhibit US-37. 
237 Exhibit US-36. 
238 United States' rebuttal, para. 29. 
239 Turkey's first submission, para. 78.  See also Turkey's rebuttal, para. 23 and Turkey's response to 
question 23.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 35 
 
 
  recommendation made by a Director General of MARA through a letter of acceptance.  The Panel 
asked Turkey to provide documentar y evidence in support of its response.240  The Panel also asked 
Turkey to provide evidence of letters of accep tance containing policy recommendations that the 
Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs had not approved.241  In response to these questions, Turkey 
replied that "the Minister may refuse the reco mmendation made by a Director General of MARA".242  
It did not provide any specific documen tary evidence to support this response.243  Turkey also stated 
that, "given the privileged nature of the communi cations internal to the Administration and the 
confidential nature of the information contained therein", "Turkey [was not] in the position to 
circulate" any such documents.244 
2.121  Also on the occasion of the second substantive meeting, and in response to a different 
question from the Panel, Turkey stated that "[n]o Letters of Acceptance relevant to this proceeding 
were ever circulated within the Administration prio r to the ones identified by the United States in its 
submission".245 
H. LETTER FROM THE MINISTER OF STATE OF TURKEY  
2.122  On 24 March 2006, after this Panel was establishe d, the Minister of State of Turkey sent a 
letter to the United States Trade Representative, e xpressing the belief that a mu tually agreed solution 
could be found to the dispute concerning the measur es related to the importation of rice into Turkey.  
In his letter, the Minister of State informed that "Control Certificate will be issued as of 
April 1, 2006".246 
III. PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
3.1 In this dispute, the United States has challenge d the restrictions allegedly maintained by 
Turkey on the importation of rice.  More specifi cally, the United States h as identified the following 
measures: 
(a) The alleged denial or failure to grant li cences to import rice at or below the bound 
rate of duty; 
(b) The alleged requirement that importers must purchase specified quantities of 
domestic rice, in order to be allowed to import specified quantities of rice at reduced-
tariff levels; 
(c) Turkey's administration of tariff-rate quotas for reduced tariff duty imports of rice;  
and, 
(d) Turkey's administration of its import regime for rice, more generally. 
3.2 More specifically, in its submissions the Unite d States has articulated the following claims 
with regard to the provisions  of WTO covered agreements: 
                                                      
240 Panel's question 141(e) to Turkey. 
241 Panel's question 142 to Turkey. 
242 Turkey's response to question 141(e). 
243 Ibid. 
244 Turkey's response to question 142. 
245 Turkey's response to question 143. 
246 Exhibit US-35.  See also United States' first submission, para. 32, and Turkey's response to 
question 138. WT/DS334/R 
Page 36  
 
  (a) That Turkey's alleged denial or failure to grant licences to import rice at or below the 
bound rate of duty is inconsistent with: 
(i) Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 , because it is a prohibition or restriction on 
imports, other than in the form of a duty, tax or other charges; 
(ii) Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture , because it is a measure of the 
kind that have been require d to be converted into ordinary customs duties and 
which Members may not maintain or resort to; 
(iii) Articles 1.4(a) and 1.4(b) of the Import Licensing Agreement and 
Articles X:1 and X:2 of the GATT 1994 , because Turkey has not published 
such measure and, thus, has neither provided an opportunity for governments 
and traders to become acquainted with it, nor has it provided Members with 
the opportunity to provide written comments and to discuss those comments upon request;  and 
(iv) Articles 3.5(e) and 3.5(f) of the Import Licensing Agreement , because 
Turkey does not specify a timeframe within which import licence 
applications that are submitted will be approved or rejected and does not 
provide applicants with the reasons for rejection. 
(b) That Turkey's alleged requirement that importers must purchase domestic rice is 
inconsistent with: 
(i) Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 , because Turkey accords imported rice less 
favourable treatment than that accorded to domestic rice, with respect to a 
measure that affects its internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, 
transportation, distribution or use; 
(ii) Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 , because it is a restriction on imports other 
than in the form of duties, taxes, or other charges; 
(iii) Article 2.1 and paragraph 1(a) of Annex 1 ( sic) of the TRIMs Agreement ;  
and 
(iv) Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture , because it is a measure of the 
kind that have been require d to be converted into ordinary customs duties and 
which Members may not maintain or resort to. 
(c) That Turkey's administration of tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) for reduced tariff duty 
imports of rice is inconsistent with Article 3.5(h) of the Import Licensing 
Agreement , because Turkey administers its TRQs in such a way as to discourage the 
full utilization of quotas. 
(d) That Turkey's alleged requirement that importers must purchase domestic rice, in 
conjunction with  its alleged denial or failure to grant licences to import rice at or 
below the bound rate of duty, is inconsistent with: 
(i) Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 , because it is a restriction on imports other 
than in the form of duties, taxes, or other charges;  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 37 
 
 
  (ii) Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture , because it is a measure of the 
kind that have been require d to be converted into ordinary customs duties and 
which Members may not maintain or resort to;  and 
(iii) Article 1.6 of the Import Licensing Agreement , because applicants have to 
approach more than one administra tive body in connection with their 
applications.247 
(e) That Turkey's administration of its impor t regime for rice is inconsistent with: 
(i) Article 3.5(a) of the Import Licensing Agreement , because Turkey has 
failed to provide, upon the request of  the United States, all relevant 
information concerning the administration of its import licensing regime and 
the import licences which have been granted over a recent period;  and 
(ii) Articles 5.1, 5.2(a), (b), (c), (d), (e),  (g) and (h), 5.3 and 5.4 of the Import 
Licensing Agreement , because Turkey has failed to notify its import 
licensing regime for rice. 
3.3 Turkey has disputed the facts presented by th e United States.  More specifically, Turkey has 
argued that: 
(a) Throughout the period covered by this dis pute, over-quota imports have taken place 
and Certificates of Control have been issued;248 
(b) Certificates of Control are not import licences;249 
(c) The tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) regime for reduced-tariff duty imports of rice is no 
longer in force and the Panel should theref ore refrain from making findings on those 
measures or, if it decided to make these findings, it should abstain from making any 
recommendation to the Dispute Settlement Body;250 
(d) While it was in force, the TRQs regime fo r reduced-tariff duty imports of rice "was 
administered on the basis of automatic import licensing procedures and certain legal requirements which were applied in a non-di scriminatory, predictable and transparent 
fashion";  and
251 
(e) The United States has not made a prima faci e case to support its own claims and that 
Turkey's relevant laws, regulations and pr ocedures, both in relation to MFN and to 
TRQ rice imports, are not inconsistent with Articles III:4, X:1, X:2, and XI:1 of the 
GATT 1994;  Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture;  Articles 1.4(a) and (b), 3.5(a), (e), (f), and (h), 5.1, 5.2(a), (b), (c),  (d), (e), (g), and (h), 5.3, and 5.4 of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures;  nor with Article 2.1 and paragraph 1(a) 
of Annex 1 of the Agreement on Tr ade-Related Investment Measures.
252 
                                                      
247 Comments of the United States concerning the draft descriptive part of the Panel's Report, 20 March 
2007, page 4. 
248 See, inter alia , Turkey's first submission, para. 26, Tu rkey's opening statement at the second 
substantive meeting, para. 8, and Turkey's closing statem ent at the second substantiv e meeting, paras. 1 and 4. 
249 See, inter alia , Turkey's first submission, paras. 27, 47 to 57, 71 and 87. 
250 See, inter alia , Ibid., paras. 2, 6, and 136 to 139. 
251 See, inter alia , Ibid., para. 2. 
252 See, inter alia , Ibid., para. 140. WT/DS334/R 
Page 38  
 
  IV. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND THIRD PARTIES 
4.1 The arguments of the parties and third parties ar e set out in their written submissions and oral 
statements to the Panel.  Executive summaries of those submissions and statements are appended to 
this report. 
V. INTERIM REVIEW 
A. R
EQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF PRECISE ASPECTS OF THE INTERIM REPORT  
5.1 The Panel submitted its interim report to the pa rties on 3 May 2007.  On 18 May, the Panel 
received written requests for review of precise aspect s of the interim report from both parties.  On 
1 June, the parties submitted written comments on each other's written requests for review. 
5.2 Pursuant to Article 15.3 of the DSU, this sec tion of the Panel Report contains the Panel's 
response to the requests and comments made by the par ties in relation to the interim report.  The Panel 
has modified aspects of its report in light of the parties' requests and comments where it considered it 
appropriate.  The Panel has also made certain revi sions and editorial corrections for the purposes of 
clarity and accuracy, as explained below.  Referenc es to paragraph numbers and footnotes in this 
Section refer to those in the interim report, except as otherwise noted. 
B. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL ECONOMY  
5.3 In paragraphs 7.109 to 7.118, the Panel had foun d that Turkey's denial or failure to grant 
Certificates of Control to import rice outside of  the tariff rate quota, from September 2003 and for 
different periods of time, could be characterized as a quantitative import restriction and, therefore, as 
a measure of the kind which have been required to  be converted into ordinary customs duties under 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Later, in paragraphs 7.119 to 7. 131, the Panel found that 
the same measure could also be characterized as a practice of discretionary import licensing and, 
likewise, as a measure of the kind which have been required to be converted into ordinary customs 
duties under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
5.4 Turkey requested that the Panel remove para graphs 7.120 to 7.131 from the report.  In 
Turkey's view, once the Panel found that the ch allenged measure could be characterized as a 
quantitative import restriction, it should then exercise  judicial economy regarding its consideration of 
the same measure as a practice of discretionary import licensing. 
5.5 In its comments on Turkey's requests for revi ew, the United States asked the Panel not to 
exercise judicial economy in the manner requested by Turkey.  In the United States' view, this would 
be a "false" exercise of judicial economy, as the "Panel ’s analysis with regard to the U.S. argument on 
discretionary import licensing is helpful to resolvi ng the dispute".  The United States added that 
nothing in the DSU requires a panel to exercise judicial economy.  The United States recalled 
Articles 3.4 and 3.7 of the DSU to the effect that: 
"[A] panel's recommendations and rulings 's hall be aimed at achieving a satisfactory 
settlement of the matter' [and that] 'the aim of the dispute settlement mechanism is to secure a positive resolution to a dispute'." 
5.6 The United States finally argued that: 
"[I]n Chile – Price Bands , a dispute with a closely analogous situation involving the 
same provision at issue (Article 4.2), the panel made findings that the measure at issue constituted both a variable import levy  and a system of minimum import prices  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 39 
 
 
  within the meaning of footnote 1 of Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture .  The 
Appellate Body agreed with this appr oach and upheld the panel's findings." 
5.7 The Panel has reviewed the releva nt paragraphs in the light of Turkey's request.  As noted by 
the Appellate Body, a panel has the discretion to exercise judicial economy and, therefore: 
"[T]he discretion to determine the claims it must address in order to resolve the 
dispute between the parties -- provided that t hose claims are within that panel's terms 
of reference."253 
5.8 In our view, the consideration of Turkey's denial  or failure to grant Certificates of Control to 
import rice outside of the tariff rate quota as a quantitative import restric tion would be enough to 
conclude that it is a measure of the kind which have  been required to be converted into ordinary 
customs duties and, therefore, a measure incons istent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  In any event, if this measure was not to be considered as a quantitative import 
restriction, we believe that it can nevertheless be  characterized as a practice of discretionary import 
licensing.  The Panel has therefore decided not to exercise judicial economy in the manner requested 
by Turkey.254 
C. BURDEN OF PROOF  
5.9 The United States requested a change in the language  of paragraph 7.57.  In its original text, 
the paragraph stated that: 
"In order to assess whether the United Stat es has met its initial burden, the Panel will 
accordingly consider if the evidence on the record, as submitted by both parties, is 
sufficient to raise a preliminary presumption that Turkey has engaged in the denial, or 
failure to grant, licences to import rice outsi de of the tariff rate quota.  Only if the 
evidence on the record supported such a presumption, would the burden then be shifted unto Turkey to adequately rebut it.  If the United States were successful in 
raising that preliminary presumption, and Turkey failed to rebut it, the Panel would then consider whether the facts so dem onstrated can be qualified as constituting a 
border measure of the kind which has been required to be converted into ordinary 
customs duties by the Agreement on Agriculture." 
5.10 The United States proposed the following text for the paragraph 7.57: 
"In order to assess whether the United Stat es has met its initial burden, the Panel will 
accordingly consider if the United States has provided evidence and argumentation on the record, sufficient to establis h that Turkey has engaged in the denial, or failure to 
grant, licences to import rice outside of the ta riff rate quota.  Only if the United States 
has provided evidence and argumentation on the record sufficient to make out a 
prima facie  case, would the burden then be shif ted onto Turkey to adequately rebut 
the U.S. allegations.  If the United States were successful in establishing its prima 
facie  case, and Turkey failed to rebut it, th e Panel would then consider whether the 
United States has established that the facts so demonstrated can be qualified as 
                                                     
 
253 Appellate Body Report on India – Patents (US) , para. 87. 
254 We additionally note that, in Chile – Price Band System , the Panel and the Appellate Body 
considered the same measure to be similar to both a variable import levy and a minimum import price and did not exercise judicial economy in this regard.  Panel Report on Chile – Price Band System , paras. 7.26-7.47.  
Appellate Body Report on Chile – Price Band System , paras. 192-262. WT/DS334/R 
Page 40  
 
  constituting a border measure of the kind wh ich has been required to be converted 
into ordinary customs duties by the Agreement on Agriculture." 
5.11 In the United States' opinion, the proposed change in language would: 
"[A]void any possible mis-interpretation of the current text as partially relieving the 
complainant of its burden of making out a prima facie case by placing some of that 
burden on the respondent.  The burden of making out a prima facie case by making 
argumentation and providing evidence on the r ecord lies solely with the complaining 
party – in this case, the United States.  Once the complainant has made out a prima 
facie case, a burden which the United States has met, it falls to the responding party 
to rebut that prima facie case with evidence and arguments of its own." 
5.12 In our view, the duty that a panel has, under Article 11 of the DSU, to "make an objective 
assessment of the matter before it, including an obj ective assessment of the facts of the case", implies 
that the panel is bound to consider all the eviden ce on record, which incl udes the evidence submitted 
by the parties and that procured by the panel it self under its broad authority "to seek information and 
technical advice from any individual or body which it  deems appropriate" in the terms of Article 13.1 
of the DSU.  As noted by the Appellate Body in US – Wheat Gluten , "under Article 11 of the DSU, a 
panel must draw inferences on the basis of all of the facts of record relevant to the particular 
determination to be made."
255  A panel's duty to consider all available evidence on record does not 
relieve the complaining party of its burden to make a prima facie case that a challenged measure is inconsistent with the WTO agreements by putting forward adequate legal arguments and evidence.  
Indeed, in the lack of adequate legal arguments and evidence to sustain its claim, the panel would 
have to conclude that the complaining party has failed to make a prima facie  case.  The 
aforementioned rule regarding the allocation of the burden of proof was articul ated in paragraph 7.56 
of the interim report: 
"[W]e are of the view that, in this ca se, the initial burden of proof rests upon the 
United States, as a complainant, to establish its prima facie  case that the challenged 
conduct, first, has existed, and then, that it is inconsistent with the invoked provision 
of the WTO covered agreements, i.e., Artic le 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
If the United States meets this test, the burde n would then be on Turkey to rebut the 
said claim." 
5.13 Accordingly, the Panel has revised the langua ge of paragraph 7.57, so as to avoid any 
possible misinterpretation regarding the proper allocation of the burden of proof. 
D. P
ARTIES ' DUTY TO COLLABORATE  
5.14 The United States requested that the Panel remove the references made to the Panel Report on 
Argentina – Textiles and Apparel  in paragraphs 7.6 and 7.94, rega rding the existence of a "rule of 
collaboration" by which "the adversary is obligated  to provide the tribunal with relevant documents 
which are in its sole possession".  In the United States' opinion: 
"[T]hese references to a 'rule of collaboration' [should] be deleted, as they are not 
necessary to resolve the matter, and could be read as going beyond the requirements 
of the DSU, which does not provide for such a rule." 
                                                      
255 Appellate Body Report on US – Wheat Gluten , para. 174.  See also Appellate Body Report on 
Canada – Aircraft , paras. 204-205.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 41 
 
 
  5.15 As noted above, panels are under a duty, pursuant to Article 11 of the DSU, to "make an 
objective assessment of the matter before it, includ ing an objective assessment of the facts of the 
case".  In order to exercise such duty, panels ha ve been given authority "to seek information and 
technical advice from any individual or body which [they deem] appropriate" by Article 13.1 of the 
DSU.  Article 13.1 also refers explicitly to the Memb ers' obligation to collaborate with panels in the 
exercise of their duty: 
"A Member should respond promptly and fully to any request by a panel for such 
information as the panel considers necessary and appropriate." 
5.16 The parties' rule of collaboration, therefore, does not go beyond the requirements of the DSU 
but rather flows explicitly from its text.  In Canada – Aircraft , the Appellate Body referred to "the 
duty of a Member to comply with the request of a panel to provide information", noting that under 
Article 13.1 of the DSU "Members are [...] under a duty and an obligation to 'respond promptly and 
fully' to requests made by panels for information".256 
5.17 Despite these considerations, the Panel has revised the language of the first part of 
section VII.A (on Burden of Proof) in order to avoid an y misinterpretation of the applicable rules.  In 
particular, the Panel has inserted an introductory  paragraph to that section and made a small 
adjustment to the language of paragraphs 7.1 and 7. 8 of the interim report.  It also included two new 
paragraphs at the end of that section.  The Panel has made small adjustments into paragraphs 7.94 and 
7.95, mainly to avoid repeating th e reference to the Panel Report on Argentina – Textiles and Apparel . 
E. APPROPRIATE INFERENCES  
5.18 The United States requested the Panel to m odify the language in the second sentence of 
paragraph 7.103, replacing the expression "necessary adverse infe rences" with "appropriate 
inferences".  In the United States' opinion: 
"[W]hile paragraphs 7 and 8 of Anne x V of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures specifically provide  for 'adverse' inferences, no other 
covered agreement contains such language.  Nevertheless, the 'appropriate' inference 
to be drawn from Turkey's failure to provi de evidence in support of its arguments, 
either on its own or in response to repeated requests by the Panel, is that 'Turkey has 
failed to rebut the presumption that, from Se ptember 2003 and for different periods of 
time, it has adopted a decision to deny, or fail to grant, Certificates of Control to import rice outside of the tariff rate quota.'" 
5.19 The United States has also requested that the Pane l remove the last part of paragraph 7.103, 
including the reference to the Appellate Body Report on Canada – Aircraft . 
5.20 In the light of such request, the Panel has revised the language of the paragraph 7.103. 
F. P
ANEL 'S RECOMMENDATIONS  
5.21 The United States requested the Panel to issue a specific recommendation to the DSB 
regarding the domestic purchase requirement.  In  the United States' opinion, the Panel could 
recommend: 
                                                      
256 Appellate Body Report on Canada – Aircraft , para. 187. WT/DS334/R 
Page 42  
 
  "[T]hat Turkey 'bring its domestic purchase requirement into conformity with its 
obligations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, if and to the extent that, that 
measure has not already ceased to exist.'" 
5.22 The United States argued that such a recommenda tion would be required by Article 19.1 of 
the DSU, which states that: 
"Where a panel or the Appellate Body concl udes that a measure is inconsistent with a 
covered agreement, it shall recommend that the Member concerned [footnote omitted] bring the measure into conformity with that agreement." 
5.23 As the United States pointed out, such a qualified recommendation would also be similar to 
the recommendation made by the Panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products . 
5.24 The United States added that "the question of the future behavior of a responding Member 
whose measure is found to be inconsistent is not a ma tter for an original panel to consider, but is an 
issue that could arise, if at all, in the compliance phase based on the actions of a responding party in response to the DSB’s recommendations and rulings" and that it is not "necessary or appropriate for 
panels to reach definitive judgments on alleged changes to measures which take place after panel 
establishment".  In its view, "[a] qualified recommenda tion in this dispute with respect to the domestic 
purchase requirement would... safeguard and preserve  the rights and interests of all parties". 
5.25 In its comments on the United States' requests fo r review, Turkey noted that it agrees "with 
the Panel's decision of not issuing any recomme ndation on Turkey's expired domestic purchase 
requirement."  In Turkey's view: 
"[T]he Panel's decision is supported by the law and is in line with the practice and 
interpretation of previous panels and of the Appellate  Body when dealing with 
measures that expired in the course of the proceedings." 
5.26 Turkey argued that the Panel's decision is consis tent with the language of Article 19.1 of the 
DSU which provides that: 
"Where a panel or the Appellate Body concludes that a measure is inconsistent with a 
covered agreement, it shall recommend that the Member concerned bring the measure 
into conformity with that agreement." [Emphasis added, footnotes omitted.] 
In Turkey's view, the wording and the use of the present tense in the provision indicate that 
recommendations are due when a measure is inconsistent with a covered agreement and not when it 
was inconsistent in the past. 
 
5.27 Turkey added that the decisions of previous panels and the Appellate  Body support its view 
that: 
"[T]here is no requirement for this Pane l to issue recommendations to bring into 
conformity measures which have expired in the course of the proceedings.  [I]t would be more correct to state that recommendations are not  required in those cases." 
5.28 Turkey finally noted that the parties have not  contended that the me asure has changed, but 
rather that it has expired: 
"In this context, Turkey does not believe  that a qualified recommendation would be 
appropriate for this case."  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 43 
 
 
  5.29 With regard to this request for review, the Pa nel starts by noting that the domestic purchase 
requirement was part of the tariff quota regime fo r the importation of rice which was in force in 
Turkey at the time when this Panel was established.  As noted in section II of this report (on Factual 
Aspects), such tariff quota regime was in force until 31 July 2006.257  In the course of the proceedings, 
Turkey requested the Panel to refrain from making findings on the domestic purchase requirement, 
since the tariff quota regime was no longer in force,  or, if the Panel decided to make those findings, 
not to make any recommendation to the DSB.  In its report, the Panel has noted that the domestic 
purchase requirement was properly brought before the Pa nel and was within its terms of reference, but 
terminated after the Panel was established.258  The Panel has also noted  that tariff quotas for the 
importation of rice had expired and then been re opened by Turkey over the last few years.  
Furthermore, the legislative framework which has allowed for the establishment of the earlier TRQs 
remains in force.259  The Panel has finally noted Turkey's statement that it has no intention to reinstate 
tariff quotas for the importation of rice.260  In the light of such considerations, and in the absence of an 
agreement by the parties to terminate the pro ceedings with regard to the domestic purchase 
requirement, the Panel decided that it would be in appropriate to abstain from making findings with 
respect to such measure.  Indeed, the Panel has found that the domestic purchase requirement was 
inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  It has considered, however, that  there is no need to 
recommend to the DSB that it make any request to Turkey with respect to the domestic purchase 
requirement, in view of the fact that it has expired and that Turkey has declared its intention not to 
reintroduce the measure at issue. 
5.30 In our view, the Panel's decision can already be  considered as a "qualified decision", to the 
extent that the Panel decided not to make a recommendation regarding Turkey's domestic purchase 
requirement, only after taking into account that the submitted evidence pointed to the expiry of the 
measure, and Turkey's declared intention not to reintroduce it. 
5.31 We do not see any reason to modify our earlier decision to abstain from making specific 
recommendations to the DSB regarding Turkey's dom estic purchase requirement.  In our view, such 
decision does not jeopardise the rights and interests of the United States, inasmuch as it is already 
qualified by the analysis which precedes it. 
G. ADDITIONAL REVISIONS AND CORRECTIONS  
5.32 The Panel made additional revisions and correcti ons to paragraphs 1.10,  2.102, 7.47, 7.127 of 
the interim report.  New paragra phs on the consideration of releva nt provisions on differential and 
more-favourable treatment for Turkey, as a developi ng country Member, were inserted at the end of 
Section VII.  Minor editorial corrections were also  made in paragraphs 2.19, 2.20, 2.26, 2.28, 2.44, 
2.56, 2.60, 2.61, 2.62, 2.75, 2.80, 2.84, 2.95, 2.101, 2.106, 2.110, 2.115, 2.117, 2.119, 3.2(d), 7.47, 7.116, 7.127, 7.232, 7.270, and footnotes 91, 216 and 373. 
VI. PRELIMINARY RULING BY THE PANEL ON THIRD PARTY RIGHTS 
6.1 Argentina, Australia, China, Egypt, the Eur opean Communities, Korea and Thailand reserved 
their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as  third parties, either by announcing their interest 
in the course of the DSB meeting on 17 March 2006 when the Panel was established or within the ten 
                                                     
 
257 See para. 2.77 above. 
258 See paras. 7.165 and 7.166 below. 
259 See para. 7.170 below. 
260 See para. 7.171 below. WT/DS334/R 
Page 44  
 
  subsequent days.  On 15 August 2006, more than te n days after the establishment of the Panel, and 
after the Panel had been composed, Pakistan notifie d its interest in participating  as a third party.
261 
6.2 The Panel raised this third party request by Pa kistan with the parties at the organizational 
meeting, held on 16 August 2006.  The complainant favoured Pakistan's request, while the respondent 
opposed it.  Taking into account parties' views on this matter, on 30 August 2006 the Panel informed 
the parties and third parties in this case that: 
"[It had] decided to accept as third parties all Members that have so far expressed that 
interest, including Pakistan... [and f]urther details regarding the Panel's decision on 
the matter [would] be included in full in the Panel's Report."262 
6.3 We start by noting that paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 10 of the DSU provide that: 
"1. The interests of the parties to a dispute and those of other Members under a 
covered agreement at issue in the dispute shall be fully taken into account during the panel process. 
2. Any Member having a substantial inte rest in a matter before a panel and 
having notified its interest to the DSB (referred to in this Understanding as a 
'third party') shall have an opportunity to be heard by the panel and to make written 
submissions to the panel.  These submissions shall also be given to the parties to the 
dispute and shall be reflected in the panel report." 
6.4 Article 10 of the DSU is silent on when Member s need to notify to the DSB their interest in 
participating in any specific dispute as third par ties.  The Panel is aware, however, of the GATT 
Council Chairman's Statement of June 1994, whic h provided for a ten-day notification period: 
"Delegations in a position to do so, should indicate their intention to participate as a 
third party in a panel proceeding at the Council session which establishes the panel.  
Others who wish to indicate a third party interest should do so within the next ten days."
263 
6.5 As noted by the Panel in EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar (Australia) : 
"[T]he status of that Chairman's Statem ent [has] been discussed on several occasions 
at the DSB and the timing of third-party notifications [has been] the subject of proposals in the context of the DSU  negotiations."
264 
6.6 In the same case, the Panel further noted that: 
"[T]he Appellate Body's decision in EC – Hormones ... stated that 'the DSU leaves 
panels a margin of discretion to deal, al ways in accordance with due process, with 
                                                      
261 Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of the United States, Turkey – Rice , Note by the 
Secretariat, Revision, 1 September 2006, WT/DS334/5/Rev.1, footnote. 1 on page 2. 
262 Letter from the Panel to the parties, 30 August 2006, in Annex I. 
263 Third Party Participation in Panels, Statement by the Chairman of the Council, C/COM/3 of 
27 June 1994, page 1.  At the request of Turkey, the st atement was read out at the or ganizational meeting in this 
case. 
264 Panel Report on EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar (Australia) , para. 2.2.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 45 
 
 
  specific situations that may arise in a particular case and that are not explicitly 
regulated.'265"266 
6.7 The Panel in EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar (Australia)  additionally noted, with regard to 
the requests to participate as third parti es in that particular dispute, that: 
"(a) the selection and composition of the Panel did not appear to have been 
adversely affected;  and 
(b) the Panel process had not been hampered."267 
6.8 The relevant third party requests in EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar (Australia)  were 
submitted "before the Director-Gener al was asked by the parties to compose the Panel pursuant to 
Article 8.7 of the DSU."268  In the present case, Pakistan's thir d party request was made after this 
Panel had been composed.  Nevertheless, simila rly to the relevant third party requests in EC – Export 
Subsidies on Sugar (Australia) , as a result of Pakistan's request , the Panel process has not been 
hampered.  In addition, although the Panel had alr eady been composed when Pakistan formulated its 
third party request, we see no reason to believe th at accepting Pakistan's request would affect the 
"independence of the members" of this Panel, as st ipulated by Article 8.2 of the DSU, nor does it 
seem to prejudice in any way the ma nner in which this Panel fulfil its functions specified in Article 11 
of the DSU: 
"[T]o assist the DSB in discharging its responsibilities under this Understanding and 
the covered agreements.  Accordingly, a panel should make an objective assessment 
of the matter before it, including an objectiv e assessment of the facts of the case and 
the applicability of and conformity with th e relevant covered agreements, and make 
such other findings as will assist the DS B in making the recommendations or in 
giving the rulings provided fo r in the covered agreements..." 
6.9 In the light of the above, as communicated on 30 August 2006 to the parties and third parties 
in these proceedings, we decided to accept as third parties all Members that had expressed a third-
party interest and saw no reason to treat them differently.  Similar to the Panel in EC – Export 
Subsidies on Sugar (Australia)269, we emphasize that this decision is specific to this dispute and is not 
intended to offer a legal interpretation of the te n-day notification period referred to in the GATT 
Council Chairman's Statement of June 1994. 
VII. FINDINGS 
A. BURDEN OF PROOF  
7.1 Under Article 11 of the DSU, panels have th e duty to "make an objective assessment of the 
matter before [them], including an objective assessment of the facts of the case".  In order to exercise 
such duty, panels have been granted the authorit y "to seek information and technical advice from any 
individual or body which [they d eem] appropriate" by Article 13.1 of the DSU.  Pursuant to 
Article 13.1 of the DSU, Members have committed to collaborate with panels in the exercise of their 
duties:  "[a] Member should respond promptly and fully to any request by a panel for such 
information as the panel considers necessary and appropriate." 
                                                      
265 (footnote original) Appellate Body Report  on EC – Hormones , footnote 138. 
266 Panel Report on EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar (Australia) , para. 2.3. 
267 Ibid. 
268 Ibid., para. 2.1. 
269 Ibid., para. 2.4. WT/DS334/R 
Page 46  
 
  7.2 As articulated by the Appellate Body, the genera l rule in dispute settlement procedures is that 
the burden of proof rests upon the party, whethe r complaining or defending, who asserts the 
affirmative of a particular claim or defence.
270  Following this principle, the Appellate Body has 
explained that the complaining party in any given case should establish a prima facie  case of 
inconsistency of a measure with a provision of the WTO covered agreements, before the burden of 
showing consistency with that pr ovision or defending it under an exception is to be undertaken by the 
defending party.271  According to the Appellate Body, a prim a facie case is "one which, in the absence 
of effective refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of 
the complaining party presenting the prima facie  case."272  To establish a prima facie  case, the party 
asserting a particular claim must adduce evidence su fficient to raise a presumption that what is 
claimed is true. 
7.3 Regarding the issue of the burden of proof, we recall the words of the Appellate Body: 
"[W]e find it difficult... to see how any system of judicial settlement could work if it 
incorporated the proposition that the mere as sertion of a claim might amount to proof.  
It is, thus, hardly surprising that vari ous international tribunals, including the 
International Court of Justice, have gene rally and consistently accepted and applied 
the rule that the party who asserts a fact, whether the claimant or the respondent, is 
responsible for providing proof thereof.273  Also, it is a generally-accepted canon of 
evidence in civil law, common law and, in f act, most jurisdictions, that the burden of 
proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defen ce.  If that party ad duces evidence sufficient 
to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to the other 
party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption.
274"275 
7.4 And, in the same case: 
"[A] party claiming a violation of a provision of the WTO Agreement  by another 
Member must assert and prove its claim."276 
                                                      
270 Appellate Body Report on US – Wool Shirts and Blouses , p. 14, DSR 1997:I, p. 323 at p. 335.  Panel 
Report on US – Shrimp , para. 7.14. 
271 Appellate Body Report on EC – Hormones , para. 104. 
272 Ibid. 
273 (footnote original ) M. Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Rela ted Issues:  A Study on Evidence Before 
International Tribunals (Kluwer La w International, 1996), p. 117. 
274 (footnote original) See M.N. Howard, P. Crane and D.A. Hochberg, Phipson on Evidence , 14th ed. 
(Sweet & Maxwell, 1990), p. 52:  "The burden of proof rests upon the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who 
substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. "  See also L. Rutherford and S. Bone (eds.),  Osborne's Concise 
Law Dictionary , 8th ed. (Sweet & Maxwell, 1993), p.  266;  Earl Jowitt and C. Walsh, Jowitt's Dictionary of 
English Law , 2nd ed. by J. Burke (Sweet & Maxwell, 1977), Vol. 1, p. 263;  L.B. Curzon, A Directory of Law , 
2nd ed. (Macdonald and Evans, 1983), p. 47;  Art. 9, Nouveau Code de Procédure Civile;  J. Carbonnier, Droit 
Civil,  Introduction, 20th ed. (Presses Universitaires de France, 1991), p. 320;  J. Chevalier and L. Bach, Droit 
Civil , 12th ed. (Sirey, 1995), Vol. 1, p. 101;  R. Guillien and J. Vincent, Termes juridiques , 10th ed. (Dalloz, 
1995), p. 384;  O. Samyn, P. Simonetta and C. Sogno, Dictionnaire des Termes Juridiques  (Editions de Vecchi, 
1986), p. 250;  J. González Pérez, Manual de Derecho Procesal Administrativo , 2nd ed. (Editorial Civitas, 
1992), p. 311;  C.M. Bianca, S. Patti and G. Patti, Lessico di Diritto Civile  (Giuffré Editore, 1991), p. 550; F. 
Galgano, Diritto Privato , 8th ed. (Casa Editrice Dott. Antonio Milani, 1994), p. 873;  and A. Trabucchi, 
Istituzioni di Diritto Civile  (Casa Editrice Dott. Antonio Milani, 1991), p. 210. 
275 Appellate Body Report on US – Wool Shirts and Blouses , p. 14. 
276 Ibid., p. 16.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 47 
 
 
  7.5 In another case, the Appellate Body stated further: 
"[W]e have consistently held that, as a ge neral matter, the burden of proof rests upon 
the complaining Member.  That Member must make out a prima facie  case by 
presenting sufficient evidence to raise a presu mption in favour of its claim.  If the 
complaining Member succeeds, the respondi ng Member may then seek to rebut this 
presumption.  Therefore, under the usual allocation of the burden of proof, a 
responding Member's measure will be treated as WTO- consistent , until sufficient 
evidence is presented to prove the contrary.  We will not readily find that the usual 
rules on burden of proof do not apply, as they reflect a 'canon of evidence' accepted and applied in international proceedings."
277 
7.6 That said, as noted by the Appellate Body, these statements: 
"[D]o not imply that the complaining party is responsible for providing proof of all 
facts raised in relation to the issue of de termining whether a measure is consistent 
with a given provision of a covered agre ement.  In other words, although the 
complaining party bears the burden of proving its case, the responding party must 
prove the case it seeks to make in response."278 
7.7 Regarding the responding party's role  in the proceedings, the Panel on Argentina – Textiles 
and Apparel  stated that: 
"Another incidental rule to the burden of pr oof is the requirement for collaboration of 
the parties in the presentation of the facts and evidence to the panel and especially the 
role of the respondent in that process.  It is often said that the idea of peaceful 
settlement of disputes before international tr ibunals is largely based on the premise of 
co-operation of the litigating parties.  In th is context the most important result of the 
rule of collaboration appears to be that the adversary is obligated to provide the 
tribunal with relevant documents which ar e in its sole possession.  This obligation 
does not arise until the claimant has done its best to secure evidence and has actually 
produced some prima facie  evidence in support of its case."279 
7.8 With regard to evidence, the A ppellate Body has stated that: 
"[P]recisely how much and precisely what kind of evidence will be required to 
establish such... [presumptions] will necessarily vary from measure to measure, provision to provision, and case to case."
280 
7.9 In the present case, the initial burden of proof rests upon the United States, as a complainant, 
to establish its prima facie  case that the challenged measures at issue are inconsistent with certain 
provisions of the WTO covered agreements.  Were  the United States to establish such a case, the 
burden would then shift to Turkey to rebut that claim. 
7.10 As noted above, Members are under the obligati on to respond promptly and fully to requests 
made by panels for information.  In Canada – Aircraft , the Appellate Body referred to "the duty of a 
Member to comply with the request of a panel to provide information", noting that under 
Article 13.1 of the DSU "Members are [...] under a duty and an obligation to 'respond promptly and 
                                                      
277 Appellate Body Report on Canada – Dairy (Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US II) , para. 66. 
278 Appellate Body Report on Japan – Apples , para. 154. 
279 Panel Report on Argentina – Textiles and Apparel , para. 6.40. 
280 Appellate Body Report on US – Wool Shirts and Blouses , p. 14. WT/DS334/R 
Page 48  
 
  fully' to requests made by panels for information".
281  In the absence of such collaboration, and 
pursuant to its duty to make an objective assessment of  the facts of the case, a panel is entitled to draw 
appropriate inferences.  In this contex t, the Appellate Body has stated that: 
"Where a party refuses to provide informa tion requested by a panel under Article 13.1 
of the DSU, that refusal will be one of th e relevant facts of record, and indeed an 
important fact, to be taken into account in determining the appropriate inference to be 
drawn."282 
7.11 Such inferences would then have to be consid ered by the panel, with all other available 
evidence on the record, to determin e whether the complainant has succeed ed in meeting its burden to 
make its prima facie case and whether the r espondent has successfully rebutted such a case. 
B. THE DENIAL OR FAILURE TO GRANT LICENCES TO IMPORT RICE AT OR BELOW THE BOUND 
RATE OF DUTY  
1. The United States' claims 
7.12 In its request for the establishment of a panel, th e United States stated that "Turkey denies or 
fails to grant licenses to import rice at or below the bound rate of duty without domestic purchase, 
including at the over-quota rate of duty."283 This measure was referred to by the United States as the 
"denial or failure to grant licenses to import rice at or below the bound rate of duty". 
7.13 The United States has argued that, according to relevant Turkish legislation: 
"[T]he importation of certain agricultural pr oducts is subject to [the] approval [of the 
Turkish Ministry of Agriculture and Rura l Affairs (MARA)]...  MARA determines 
the 'fitness and compatibility' of certain pr oducts with respect to human health and 
safety and other concerns.  Rice is listed in [the legislation], which means that rice 
importers must present a [so-called] Certificate of Control from MARA to Turkish Customs as a condition upon importation."
284 
7.14 The United States has stated that the Certificat e of Control issued by MARA "is an import 
license within the definition in Article  I of the Import Licensing Agreement."285 
7.15 According to the United States, since Se ptember 2003, MARA has not been issuing 
Certificates of Control at the bound tariff rates, th ereby effectively preventing out-of-quota imports.286 
7.16 The United States has made the claim that Turkey 's denial, or failure to grant, licences to 
import rice at or below the bound rate of duty, thr ough MARA's denial of Certificates of Control to 
importers of rice, is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994;  with Article 4.2 of the 
                                                      
281 Appellate Body Report on Canada – Aircraft , para. 187. 
282 Appellate Body Report on US – Wheat Gluten , para. 174.  See also Appellate Body Report on 
Canada – Aircraft , paras. 202-203 and 205. 
283 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States, Turkey – Rice , 7 February 2006, 
WT/DS334/4, p. 1. 
284 United States' first submission, para. 19.  See also United States' rebuttal, para. 1. 
285 United States' opening statement at  the first substantive meeting, pa ra. 10.  See also United States' 
rebuttal, para. 7. 
286 United States' first submission, para. 22.  See al so United States' rebuttal, para. 1, United States' 
opening statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 6, United States' response to question 3 from Turkey, 
para. 69, and United States' comments on Turkey's response to questions 102 and 114, paras. 3 and 17.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 49 
 
 
  Agreement on Agriculture;  with Articles 1.4(a) an d (b) and 3.5(e) and (f) of the Import Licensing 
Agreement;  and with Articles X:1 and X:2 of the GATT 1994.287 
2. Turkey's response 
7.17 Turkey has confirmed that, in order to import rice, importers must obtain a Certificate of 
Control from MARA: 
"In order to facilitate the process of customs clearance, traders must submit at 
importation a document, known as Certificate of Control, which contains all the 
information required for customs purposes.  This document must be approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs."
288 
7.18 Turkey has argued, however, that the Certificat es of Control are "administrative forms that 
are required exclusively for ' customs purposes '"289 and "[are] not, nor should... be interpreted as, an 
import license or an instrument of allocation of imports to origins or traders"290 within the meaning of 
Article 1.1 of the Import Licensing Agreement,291 nor under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.292  
Turkey has stated that there is neither a de jure  nor a de facto  "prohibition" or "restriction" in relation 
to the United States' allegation that Turkey denies or  fails to grant licences to import rice at or below 
the bound rate of duty,293 nor a practice that would constitute "discretionary import licensing" or a 
"quantitative import restriction" within the meani ng of Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.294 
7.19 Turkey has also stated that: 
"Contrary to what is erroneously claimed by the United States, Certificates of Control 
have been systematically and regularly approved on a non-discriminatory basis since 
the entering into force of ' The Regime for Technical Regulations and Standardization 
for Foreign Trade'  in 1996...  This has been the ca se both for rice imports occurring 
at the 'over-quota' MFN or applied rate le vel and... within the 'in-quota' volumes 
established each year since 2004."295 
7.20 In Turkey's opinion: 
"Individual instances of administrative delay, rejection, or even domestic litigation in 
relation to the approval (or non approval) of a particular application for a specific 
                                                      
287 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States, Turkey – Rice , 7 February 2006, 
WT/DS334/4, pp. 2-3. 
288 Turkey's first submission, para. 3.  See also Ibid., para. 57. 
289 Turkey's rebuttal, para. 3.  See also Turkey's cl osing statement at the second substantive meeting, 
para. 12. 
290 Turkey's first submission, para. 18.  See also Ibid., para. 3; Turkey's statemen t at the first substantive 
meeting, paras. 4 and 47; and Turkey's opening statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 4. 
291 Turkey's first submission, paras. 47-57 and 87.  S ee also Turkey's statement at the first substantive 
meeting, para. 11, and Turkey's response to question 59. 
292 Turkey's first submission, para. 58. 
293 Ibid., paras. 63, 66 and 69.  See also Turkey's st atement at the first substantive meeting, paras. 12-
14, and Turkey's rebuttal, para. 16. 
294 Turkey's first submission, para. 71.  See also Tu rkey's statement at the first substantive meeting, 
para. 37. 
295 Turkey's first submission, para. 26.  See also Turkey's response to questions 15 (b) and 45; Turkey's 
rebuttal, para. 19; and Turkey's opening statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 8. WT/DS334/R 
Page 50  
 
  Certificate of Control, cannot be used to claim or imply that Turkey adopted and/or 
applied this instrument as an intentional barrier to trade."
296 
7.21 Turkey has also indicated that the lack of pub lication of "certain internal unofficial working 
documents and the information contained therein" woul d not amount to a violation of Article X of the 
GATT 1994.297 
3. The challenged measure 
(a) The so-called "blanket prohibition" 
7.22 At various moments during the proceedings, the United States stated that Turkey has 
maintained a "blanket prohibition on the issuance of Control Certificates."298  At times, the 
United States argued that the "blanket pr ohibition [covered] all imports of rice",299 that it applied to 
the issuance "of Control Certificates outside the TRQ"300, or that it applied "to those importers who do 
not purchase domestic paddy rice".301 In terms of the argument that Tu rkey has maintained a "blanket" 
prohibition on the issuance of Certificates of Cont rol for the importation of rice, the United States 
stated in its first submission that "Turkey fails to  grant Certificates of Control 100 per cent of the 
time"302 and that "Turkey never  grants Certificates of Control".303 
7.23 Turkey has argued in response that: 
"[T]here is no clarity [regarding the 'measure contested' by the United States]:  is it 
the alleged 'blanket denial', is it the 'Lette rs of Acceptance', is it the Certificate of 
Control as such, or is it something else?"304 
7.24 Turkey has added that: 
"The United States has merely claimed the existence of an alleged 'blanket denial', but 
Turkey believes to have satisfactorily pr oved that no 'blanket denial' was ever in 
place."305 
7.25 It has also stated that: 
"Individual instances of denial of approval in  relation to specific applications made 
by individual importers cannot be used to imply a 'blanket denial' ..."306 
                                                      
296 Turkey's statement at the first substantive meeting, para. 9.  See also Turkey's first submission, 
para. 29, and Turkey's rebuttal, para. 21. 
297 Turkey's first submission, para. 77.  See also Turkey's response to question 61. 
298 United States' response to question 56, para. 87.  See also United States' first submission, para. 79, 
and United States' response to question 61, para. 98. 
299 United States' response to question 26(b), para. 57. 
300 United States' rebuttal, para. 22.  See also Un ited States' response to question 60, para. 94. 
301 United States' rebuttal, para. 3.  See also United States' rebuttal, para. 22. 
302 United States' first submission, para. 72. 
303 Ibid. (emphasis in the original). 
304 Turkey's rebuttal, para. 33. 
305 Turkey's opening statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 9.  See also Ibid., paras. 10, 11 
and 14. 
306 Turkey's response to question 60.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 51 
 
 
  (b) The measure at issue 
7.26 We agree with Turkey that the Panel shoul d begin by identifying the precise measure 
challenged by the United States, i.e., the measure th at should be the object of the Panel's analysis.  
Indeed, the jurisdiction of a panel with regard to the is sues in a particular dispute is limited to the terms 
of reference that have been approved by the DSB.  In turn, those terms of reference are, in accordance 
with Article 7.1 of the DSU, defined by the "matter" that has been referred to the DSB.307  As stated 
by the Appellate Body: 
"'[T]he matter referred to the DSB' for the purposes of Article 7 of the DSU... must be 
the 'matter' identified in the request for the establishment of a panel under Article 6.2 
of the DSU.  That provision requires the complaining Member, in a panel request, to 
'identify the specific measures at issue  and provide a brief summary of the legal basis 
of the complaint  sufficient to present the problem clearly'...  The ' matter  referred to 
the DSB', therefore, consists of two elements:  the specific measures  at issue and the 
legal basis of the complaint  (or the claims )."308 
7.27 In other words, the Panel need s to determine at the outset and with precision which are the 
measures that constitute its terms of reference.  In  determining what measures are before the Panel, 
we turn to the United States' request for establis hment of a panel, which is found in document 
WT/DS334/4 of 7 February 2006. 
7.28 As noted above, in its request for the establishment of a panel309, the United States referred to 
the measure under consideration as the "denial or fa ilure to grant licenses to import rice at or below 
the bound rate of duty".310  In that regard, the United States asserted that "Turkey denies or fails to 
grant licenses to import rice at or below the bound rate of duty without domestic purchase, including 
at the over-quota rate of duty."311 
7.29 Regarding what can constitute a measure for WTO dispute settlement proceedings, we recall 
the words of the Appellate Body: 
"In principle, any act or omission attributable to a WTO Member can be a measure of 
that Member for purposes of dispute settlement proceedings."312 
7.30 Looking at the description of the measure cont ained in the United States' request for the 
establishment of a panel, we conclude that the measure  before us is Turkey's alleged denial, or failure 
to grant, licences to import rice outside of the tariff rate quota, and not a so-called "blanket 
prohibition". 
(c) Conclusion 
7.31 For the reasons stated above, and noting the term s of reference contained in the request for 
establishment of this panel, we conclude that the measure before us is Turkey's alleged denial, or 
failure to grant, from September 2003 and for periods  of time, licences to import rice outside of the 
tariff rate quota. 
                                                      
307 Appellate Body Report on US – Carbon Steel , para. 125. 
308 Appellate Body Report on Guatemala – Cement I , para. 72 (emphasis in the original). 
309 See para. 7.12 above. 
310 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States, Turkey – Rice , 7 February 2006, 
WT/DS334/4, p. 1. 
311 Ibid. 
312 Appellate Body Report on US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review , para. 81. WT/DS334/R 
Page 52  
 
  4. Order of analysis 
7.32 Regarding the proper order of analysis to be undertaken by the Panel in considering the 
different claims advanced by the United States in rega rd to the alleged denial of, or failure to grant, 
import licences to import rice outside of the tariff ra te quota, the Panel will consider whether it should 
start its analysis under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994;   Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture;  
Articles 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 3.5(e) and 3.5(f) of the Import Licensing Agreement;  or Articles X:1 and X:2 
of the GATT 1994. 
7.33 Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 provides: 
"No prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges, whether 
made effective through quotas, import or export licences or other measures, shall be 
instituted or maintained by any contracting party on the importation of any product of 
the territory of any other contracting party or on the exportation or sale for export of any product destined for the territory of any other contracting party." 
7.34 In turn, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture states that: 
"Members shall not maintain, resort to, or revert to any measures of the kind which 
have been required to be convert ed into ordinary customs duties
1, except as otherwise 
provided for in Article 5 and Annex 5. 
_______________ 
 1 These measures include quantitative import restrictions, variable import levies, 
minimum import prices, discretionary import licensing, non-tariff measures maintained 
through state-trading enterprises, voluntary ex port restraints, and similar border measures 
other than ordinary customs duties, whether or not the measures are maintained under 
country-specific derogations from the provisions of GATT 1947, but not measures maintained 
under balance-of-payments provisions or under other general, non-agriculture-specific provisions of GATT 1994 or of the other Multila teral Trade Agreements in Annex 1A to the 
WTO Agreement." 
7.35 Articles 1.4(a) and (b) of the Import Licensing Agreement stipulate that: 
"(a) The rules and all information con cerning procedures for the submission of 
applications, including the eligibility of  persons, firms and institutions to 
make such applications, the administra tive body(ies) to be approached, and 
the lists of products subject to the licen sing requirement shall be published, in 
the sources notified to the Committee on Import Licensing provided for in Article 4 (referred to in this Agreem ent as "the Committee"), in such a 
manner as to enable governments
313 and traders to become acquainted with 
them.  Such publication shall take place, whenever practicable, 21 days prior 
to the effective date of the requirement but in all events not later than such 
effective date.  Any exception, derogati ons or changes in or from the rules 
concerning licensing procedures or the list of products subject to import licensing shall also be published in th e same manner and within the same 
time periods as specified above.  Copies of  these publications shall also be 
made available to the Secretariat. 
                                                     
 
313 (footnote original ) For the purpose of this Agreement, the term "governments" is deemed to include 
the competent authorities of the European Communities.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 53 
 
 
  (b) Members which wish to make comme nts in writing shall be provided the 
opportunity to discuss these comments u pon request.  The concerned Member 
shall give due consideration to th ese comments and results of discussion." 
7.36 In turn, Articles 3.5(e) and 3.5(f) of th e Import Licensing Agreement provide that: 
"(e) any person, firm or institution wh ich fulfils the legal and administrative 
requirements of the importing Member sha ll be equally eligible to apply and 
to be considered for a licence.  If the licence application is not approved, the 
applicant shall, on request, be given the reason therefor and shall have a right 
of appeal or review in accordance with  the domestic legislation or procedures 
of the importing Member; 
(f) the period for processing applications shall, except when not possible for 
reasons outside the control of the Member, not be longer than 30 days if applications are considered as and when received, i.e. on a first-come first-served basis, and no longer than  60 days if all applications are 
considered simultaneously.  In the latter case, the period for processing 
applications shall be considered to begin on the day following the closing 
date of the announced application period". 
7.37 Finally, Articles X:1 and X:2 of the GATT 1994 set out that: 
"1. Laws, regulations, judicial decisions  and administrative rulings of general 
application, made effective by any contracting party, pertaining to the classification or the valuation of products for customs purposes, or to rates of duty, taxes or other 
charges, or to requirements, restrictions or prohibitions on imports or exports or on 
the transfer of payments therefor, or affecting their sale, distribution, transportation, insurance, warehousing inspection, exhibiti on, processing, mixing or other use, shall 
be published promptly in such a manner as to enable governments and traders to become acquainted with them.  Agreements affecting international trade policy which 
are in force between the government or a governmental agency of any contracting 
party and the government or governmental agen cy of any other contracting party shall 
also be published.  The provisions of this paragraph shall not require any contracting 
party to disclose confidential information which would impede law enforcement or 
otherwise be contrary to the public inte rest or would prejudice the legitimate 
commercial interests of particular enterprises, public or private. 
2. No measure of general application take n by any contracting party effecting an 
advance in a rate of duty or other charge on imports under an established and uniform 
practice, or imposing a new or more burdensome requirement, restriction or 
prohibition on imports, or on the transfer of payments therefor, shall be enforced before such measure has b een officially published." 
7.38 In contrast to Article XI:1 of the GA TT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, the provisions of the Import Licensing Agreement invoked by the United States and Articles X:1 and X:2 of the GATT 1994 deal with the administration or application of trade measures rather than with the substan tive content of such measures per se .  In this regard, the Appellate Body 
found in EC – Poultry  that "Article X relates to the publication  and administration  of 'laws, 
regulations, judicial decisions and administrative ruli ngs of general application', rather than to the WT/DS334/R 
Page 54  
 
  substantive content  of such measures."
314  Likewise, in EC – Bananas III  the Appellate Body found 
that: 
"As a matter of fact, none of the provisions of the Licensing Agreement  concerns 
import licensing rules , per se .  As is made clear by the title of the Licensing 
Agreement , it concerns import licensing procedures .  The preamble of the Licensing 
Agreement  indicates clearly that this agreement relates to import licensing procedures 
and their administration, not to import licensing rules.  Article 1.1 of the Licensing 
Agreement  defines its scope as the administrative procedures  used for the operation 
of import licensing regimes."315 
7.39 The Panel notes, in this context, that  the European Communities stated that: 
"It is arguable that the Agreement on Import Licensing  relates more specifically to the 
matter before this Panel than the GATT  and the Agreement on Agriculture . Therefore 
in accordance with the Appellate Body report in EC – Bananas316 the EC invites the 
Panel to consider whether the alleged violations of the Agreement on Import 
Licensing  should be considered first before the a lleged violations of Article 4.2. of the 
Agreement on Agriculture  and the GATT ."317 
7.40 The Panel notes, however, that the United States  has consistently structured its claims 
concerning Turkey's alleged denial, or failure to gr ant, licences to import rice outside of the tariff rate 
quota by invoking first the provisions that deal with the substantive content of that measure. 
7.41 If the Panel finds that the measure at issue is in breach of substantive obligations under either 
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 or Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, then the question of 
how the measure has been administered by Turkey b ecomes irrelevant.  On the contrary, if the Panel 
finds that the measure in question is not in breach of  substantive obligations under either Article XI:1 
of the GATT 1994 or Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, it would need to additionally consider whether Turkey, by its alleged denial, or failure to grant, licences to import rice outside of 
the tariff rate quota, has breached the provisions of the Import Licensing Agreement invoked by the 
United States in this context, or Articles X:1 and X:2 of the GATT 1994. 
7.42 Accordingly, the Panel will begin its analysis w ith the substantive content of that measure in 
regard to Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 or Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
7.43 In order to carry out its analysis of the subs tantive content of the measure in question, the 
Panel turns to the issue of whether it should start its  analysis with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 or 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
7.44 The Panel notes that, in this respect, the United States has argued that: 
"Other panels have found, in similar circumstances, that where a measure with 
respect to agricultural products
318 is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, 
                                                      
314 Appellate Body Report on EC – Poultry , para. 115.  See also Appellate Body Report on EC – 
Bananas III , para. 200. 
315 Appellate Body Report on EC – Bananas III , para. 197.  See also Panel Report on Korea – Various 
Measures on Beef , paras. 784-785. 
316 (footnote original ) Appellate Body Report, EC – Bananas , paras. 202-204. 
317 European Communities' third party submission, para. 18. 
318 (footnote original ) As noted above, under the Harmonized Sy stem, rice is classifi ed under tariff item 
1006.  Annex 1, paragraph 1, of the Agriculture Agre ement states that "[t]his Agreement shall cover the 
following products":  "(i) HS Chapters 1 to 24 less fish and fish products."  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 55 
 
 
  it is necessarily inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agriculture Agreement, which 
provides in footnote 1 that, inter alia , 'quantitative import restrictions' and 
'discretionary import licensing' are measur es that Members may not maintain, resort 
to, or revert to.319"320 
7.45 Similarly, Egypt has noted that: 
"[P]anels have found that restrictions on agricultural products that were found to be 
inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GA TT 1994 constituted violati ons of Article 4.2 
[of the Agreement on Agriculture]."321 
7.46 In contrast to those arguments by the United States and Egypt, while "agree[ing] with the US 
that there is a general systemic link between the two provisions"322, the European Communities has 
stated that: 
"[A]part from the footnote in Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture  in which 
reference is made to quantitative import rest rictions, no automatic link has been made 
in the text of these provisions.  The EC th erefore considers that caution should be 
exercised in concluding that the violation of Article XI:1 of the GATT  would 
necessarily and in all circumstances lead to the violation of Article 4.2. of the 
Agreement on Agriculture ."323 
7.47 Further, the European Communities has pointed out that: 
"It is arguable that the Agreement on Agriculture  should be considered more specific 
in relation to the GATT  in a situation where the import of a particular agricultural 
product is at stake.  Consequently, in a ccordance with the Appellate Body report in 
EC – Bananas324 it is arguable that the alleged violation of Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture  should be considered first befo re the alleged violations of 
the GATT ."325 
7.48 Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of  the Agreement on Agriculture have similar 
scopes of application as they bot h apply to border measures.  Ar ticle XI:1 of the GATT 1994, 
however, is generally applicable to import prohibiti ons or restrictions imposed on any product, while 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture is li mited to measures imposed on products that fall 
within the scope of the Agreement of Agriculture .  In other words, the Agreement on Agriculture 
deals more specifically than the GATT 1994 w ith the prohibition on maintaining quantitative 
restrictions or quotas, inasmuch as the Agreement on Agriculture refers to these measures only when 
applied to products falling within the scope of th e Agreement of Agricultu re, such as rice.  In EC – 
Bananas III , the Appellate Body indicated that a panel should start by examining the claims presented 
under the agreement that "deals, specifically, and in detail" with the matter at issue.326  Following this 
                                                      
319 (footnote original ) See India QRs , paras. 5.238-5.242, and Korea Beef , para. 768 ("Since the panel 
has already reached the conclusion that the above measures  are inconsistent with Artic le XI and the Ad Note to 
Articles XI, XII, XIII, XIV and XVIII relating to state-trading enterprises,  the same measures are necessarily 
inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture  and its footnote referring to non-tariff measures 
maintained through state-trading enterprises"). 
320 United States' first written submission, para. 75. 
321 Egypt's third party submission, para. 22. 
322 European Communities' third party submission, para. 20. 
323 Ibid., para. 20. 
324 (footnote original ) Appellate Body Report, EC – Bananas , paras 202-204. 
325 Third Party written submission by the European Communities, para. 21. 
326 Appellate Body Report on EC – Bananas III , para. 204.  See para 7.38 above. WT/DS334/R 
Page 56  
 
  approach, the Panel will commence by examining the claims presented by the United States under 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, since th is Agreement may be considered more specific to 
the border measures imposed on agricultural products.  The Panel will turn to Article XI:1 of the 
GATT 1994 only as a second step. 
7.49 As regards the claims of the United States c oncerning the administration of the measure in 
question, the Panel has already noted that it will onl y consider whether Turkey, by its alleged denial, 
or failure to grant, licences to import rice outside of the tariff rate quota, has breached the provisions 
of the Import Licensing Agreement invoked by the Un ited States in this context, or Articles X:1 
and X:2 of the GATT 1994, if the Panel were to find that the measure at issue is not in breach of substantive obligations under either Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture or Article XI:1 of the 
GATT 1994.
327 
7.50 In order to analyze, if required, the clai ms made by the United States concerning the 
administration of the measure at issue, the Panel mu st determine whether to begin such analysis with 
Articles X:1 and X:2 of the GATT 1994 or with th e provisions of the Import Licensing Agreement 
invoked by the United States in regard to the measure in question.  In order to do so, if needed, the 
Panel would start by assessing whether the challenged measure falls within the coverage of the Import 
Licensing Agreement.  If the Panel were to find that  this is the case, based on the finding of the 
Appellate Body in EC – Bananas III referenced above328, it would start with assessing the claims of 
the United States under the Import Licensing Agreement first, since that agreement deals specifically, 
and in detail, with the administration of import licensing procedures.  In this respect, depending on any findings made under the Import Licensing Agreemen t, there may be no need for the Panel to 
make any additional findings under Articles X:1 and X:2 of the GATT 1994. 
5. Claim under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
(a) Arguments of the parties 
7.51 The United States has articulated the claim that Tu rkey's denial, or failure to grant, licences to 
import rice outside of the tariff rate quota, is a me asure of the kind which have been required to be 
converted into ordinary customs duties, such as a "q uantitative import restriction" or a "discretionary 
import licensing" practice, and is therefore incons istent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.
329 
7.52 In its rebuttal submission, the United States added that: 
"[F]or the United States to demonstrate succes sfully that Turkey is in breach of 
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, the 
United States is not required to show that no Control Certificates were granted at the 
MFN rate.  The United States has demonstrated  that Turkey is restricting at least 
some trade in rice, and that is sufficient to demonstrate a breach of Article XI:1...  Even if Turkey's data had demonstrated that the Letters of Acceptance were not 
enforced at all, that would not change  the conclusion that the Letters breach 
Article XI:1...  [E]ven were the Panel to c onclude that the Letters were not enforced 
at all, the Panel should still find, in line with findings of past panels with respect to non-enforced mandatory measures, that Turkey 's restrictions on MFN trade in rice are 
inconsistent with Article XI:1 ...  Lastly, Tu rkey's failure to issue Control Certificates 
                                                     
 
327 See paras. 7.41 and 7.42 above. 
328 See Appellate Body Report, EC – Bananas III , para. 204.  See para. 7.38 above. 
329 United States' first submission, paras. 76-78.  See also United States' opening statement at the first 
substantive meeting, para. 26.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 57 
 
 
  for the import of rice at the over-quota rates of duty breaches both Article XI:1 of the 
GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreem ent on Agriculture because it constitutes 
discretionary import licensing ... .  [I]t is certainly clear that Turkey  believes it has the 
discretion not to grant Control Certificates if it wants to, and the United States has 
provided documentary evidence highlighting instances where Turkey has denied or 
failed to grant such Certificates."330 
7.53 Turkey stated that: 
"[As] the Certificates of Control are not import licenses within the meaning of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures ... there is clearly no 'denial' of Certificates of Control, and ... there is no de jure  or de facto  import prohibition or 
restriction within the meaning of GATT Article  XI:1 ... [, therefore] there cannot be 
'discretionary import licensing ' and/or ' quantitative import restrictions ' within the 
meaning of Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and footnote 1 thereof."
331 
(b) Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
7.54 Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture states that: 
"Members shall not maintain, resort to, or revert to any measures of the kind which 
have been required to be convert ed into ordinary customs duties1, except as otherwise 
provided for in Article 5 and Annex 5. 
___________________ 
 1 These measures include quantitative import restrictions, variable import levies, 
minimum import prices, discretionary import licensing, non-tariff measures maintained 
through state-trading enterprises, voluntary ex port restraints, and similar border measures 
other than ordinary customs duties, whether or not the measures are maintained under 
country-specific derogations from the provisions of GATT 1947, but not measures maintained 
under balance-of-payments provisions or under other general, non-agriculture-specific provisions of GATT 1994 or of the other Multila teral Trade Agreements in Annex 1A to the 
WTO Agreement." 
(c) The Panel's analysis 
(i) Importance of Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
7.55 The Appellate Body has highlighted the impor tance of Article 4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  The Appellate Body has called Ar ticle 4 "the main provision of Part III of 
the Agreement on Agriculture", and has defined it as "the legal vehicle for requiring the conversion 
into ordinary customs duties of certain market access barriers affecting imports of agricultural products".
332  In the words of the Appellate Body: 
                                                      
330 United States' rebuttal, paras. 58, 60, 62, 63 and 64.  See also United States' opening statement at the 
second substantive meeting, paras. 12-14. 
331 Turkey's first submission, para. 71 (emphasis in th e original).  See also Tu rkey's statement at the 
first substantive meeting, para. 37, and Turkey's response to question 19. 
332 Appellate Body Report on Chile – Price Band System,  para. 201. WT/DS334/R 
Page 58  
 
  "[W]e turn now to Article 4, which is the main provision of Part III of the Agreement 
on Agriculture .  As its title indicates, Article 4 deals with 'Market Access'.
333  During 
the course of the Uruguay Round, negotiato rs identified certain border measures 
which have in common that they restrict the volume or distort the price of imports of agricultural products.  The negotiators d ecided that these border measures should be 
converted into ordinary customs duties, w ith a view to ensuring enhanced market 
access for such imports.  Thus, they envisioned that ordinary customs duties would, in principle, become the only form of border protection.  As ordinary customs duties are more transparent and more easily quan tifiable than non-tariff barriers, they are 
also more easily compared between trading partners, and thus the maximum amount 
of such duties can be more easily reduced in future multilateral trade negotiations.  
The Uruguay Round negotiators agreed that  market access would be improved—both 
in the short term and in the long term—thr ough bindings and reducti ons of tariffs and 
minimum access requirements, which were to be recorded in Members' Schedules. 
Thus, Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture  is appropriately viewed as the legal 
vehicle for requiring the conversion into or dinary customs duties of certain market 
access barriers affecting imports of agricultural products …"
334 
7.56 The objectives of the Agreement on Agriculture ar e described in its preamble:  "to establish a 
fair and market-oriented agricultural trading syst em", and to initiate a reform process "through the 
negotiation of commitments on support and protectio n and through the establishment of strengthened 
and more operationally effective GATT rules and disciplines".335  To achieve this objective, the 
preamble states that it is necessary to provide for reductions in protection, "resulting in correcting and 
preventing restrictions and distortio ns in world agricultural markets"336, through achieving "specific 
binding commitments"337, inter alia , in the area of market access.338 
7.57 As has been noted by the Appellate Body, during the course of the Uruguay Round, 
negotiators decided that certain border measures, whic h restricted the volume of trade or distorted the 
price of imports of agricultural products, had to be  converted into ordinary customs duties, with a 
view to ensuring enhanced market access for such im ports.  This agreement is reflected in the text of 
Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture which,  as its title indicates, deals with "Market Access".339 
(ii) Issues for the Panel's consideration 
7.58 The issue to be decided by the Panel under this particular claim is whether Turkey's alleged 
conduct, i.e., its alleged denial, or failure to gran t, licences to import rice outside of the tariff rate 
quota, is inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Ag reement on Agriculture.  More specifically, whether 
this alleged conduct, if proven to have occurred, can be considered to be a border measure "of the 
kind which have been required to be converted into  ordinary customs duties", such as a "quantitative 
import restriction", a "discretionary import licensi ng" practice, or another border measure that is 
sufficiently similar to either of the preceding two. 
                                                      
333 (footnote original) Part III contains only one other provision, namely, Article 5, which provides for 
a special safeguard mechanism that may be used to der ogate from the requirements of Article 4 when certain 
conditions are met.  We will discuss Article 5 later in this section. 
334 Appellate Body Report on Chile – Price Band System , paras. 200-201. 
335 Preamble to the Agreement on Agriculture, recital 2. 
336 Ibid., recital 3. 
337 Ibid., recital 4. 
338 Appellate Body Report on Chile – Price Band System,  para. 196. 
339 Ibid., para. 200.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 59 
 
 
  7.59 We have already addressed the general rules regarding the burden of proof.340  Considering 
the above, we are of the view that, in this case, the initial burden of proof rests upon the United States, as a complainant, to establish its prima facie  case that the challenged conduc t, first, has existed, and 
then, that it is inconsistent with the invoke d provision of the WTO c overed agreements, i.e., 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  If th e United States meets this test, the burden would 
then be on Turkey to rebut the said claim. 
7.60 In order to assess whether the United States has met its initial burden, the Panel will 
accordingly consider if the evidence on the record, as submitted by both parties, is sufficient to raise a 
preliminary presumption that Turkey has engaged in the denial, or failure to grant, licences to import 
rice outside of the tariff rate quota.  Only if the evidence on the record is sufficient for the Panel to 
conclude that the United States has made a prima facie case, would the burden then be shifted onto 
Turkey to adequately rebut the United States' alle gations.  If the United States were successful in 
establishing its prima facie case, and Turkey failed to rebut it, the Panel would then consider whether 
the facts so demonstrated can be qualified as constitu ting a border measure of the kind which has been 
required to be converted into ordinary customs duties by the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(iii) Has the United States produced evidence of the challenged measure? 
7.61 As noted above, the first issue for the Panel to determine is whether there is enough evidence 
on the record that Turkey has denied, or failed to gr ant, licences to import rice outside of the tariff rate 
quota. 
7.62 In order to prove this allegation, the Unit ed States has submitted the following evidence: 
(a) photocopies of rejected applications for Cer tificates of Control for the importation of 
rice filed by importing companies in Turkey
341; 
(b) photocopies of motions presented in Turkish administrative courts against the 
Government's rejection of the authorization to import rice342; 
(c) photocopies of documents related to proce dures before Turkish administrative courts, 
which refer to additional instances of rejec tion of applications for Certificates of 
Control for the importation of rice343; 
(d) photocopies of documents containing arguments presented by the counsel for MARA 
before Turkish administrative courts, justifying the rejection of Certificates of Control 
for the importation of rice344; 
(e) photocopies of internal documents fr om MARA, in which MARA's General 
Directorate of Protection and Control recommended temporary suspensions of the 
granting of Certificates of Control for the importation of rice to the Minister of 
Agriculture and Rural Affairs, whic h the Minister apparently approved345; 
                                                      
340 See paras. 7.1 to 7.11 above. 
341 Exhibits US-22, US-28, US-29, US-33 and US-34. 
342 Exhibit US-30. 
343 Exhibits US-63 to US-67. 
344 Exhibit US-31. 
345 Exhibits US-12, US-13, US-14 and US-36. WT/DS334/R 
Page 60  
 
  (f) photocopy of a letter from the General Directorate of the TMO to MARA's General 
Directorate of Protection and Control, recommending the temporary suspension of the granting of Certificates of Control for the importation of rice
346; 
(g) photocopy of a letter from the Minister of State of Turkey to the United States Trade 
Representative, informing that Certificates of Control for the importation of rice 
would be issued as of 1 April 2006.347 
7.63 Turkey has not disputed the veracity of any of these documents.  Turkey has admitted, for 
instance, that the so-called "letters of acceptance"  (i.e, letters in which MARA's General Directorate 
of Protection and Control recommended to the Minist er of Agriculture and Rural Affairs temporary 
suspensions of the granting of Certificates of Co ntrol for the importation of rice), such as those 
provided to the Panel by the United States, "were written and were in circulation".348 
7.64 Parties differ, however, as to the facts that these documents would prove.  In the United 
States' view, the documents are ev idence that Turkey has maintained  in place a legal prohibition and a 
restriction on the importation of rice.349  The evidence also shows, according to the United States, 
"that the granting of Control Certificates is discretionary".350  The United States has contended that it 
has "presented a large amount of documentary evid ence demonstrating that Turkey does not issue 
Certificates of Control, which are necessary to import rice outside the TRQ."351 
7.65 Turkey has stated that these copies of "letters of acceptance": 
"[M]ust be either considered as inadmissi ble evidence or considered as only partial 
and unreliable evidence of the real intenti on and trade policies of Turkey in relation 
to rice importation."352 
7.66 While Turkey has admitted that "domestic courts appear to have given effect" to the "letters 
of acceptance", it argues that these documents are only "policy recommendations, falling outside the 
very competence of the Minister".353  In its view, the "letters of acceptance": 
"[W]ere internal communications aimed at developing policies.  These administrative 
communications never resulted in the adopti on of laws or regulations.  They were 
never used to systematically deny the a pproval of applications for Certificates of 
Control.  And even if, hypothetically, they had been used to limit the approval of Certificates of Control, which Turkey veheme ntly denies, this is not evidence that 
there was a measure prohibiting or restricting imports … . The record shows that, despite the 'Letters of Acceptance', Certificates of Control were approved."
354 
7.67 As already noted, Turkey has not disputed th e veracity of the documents submitted by the 
United States regarding rejected applications for Ce rtificates of Control for the importation of rice and 
related briefs presented before Turkish administ rative courts.  In Turkey's opinion, however: 
                                                      
346 Exhibit  US-37. 
347 Exhibit  US-35. 
348 Turkey's statement at the firs t substantive meeting, para. 50. 
349 United States' opening statement at  the second substantive meeting, para. 12. See also United States' 
response to question 56, para. 87. 
350 United States' opening statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 13. 
351 Ibid., para. 11.  See also Ibid., para. 14, and United States' response to question 56, para. 89. 
352 Turkey's first submission, para. 81. 
353 Turkey's response to question 145. 
354 Turkey's statement at the first substantive meeti ng, paras. 50 and 51.  See also Turkey's first 
submission, paras. 78 and 84, and Turkey's response to question 145.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 61 
 
 
  "[I]ndividual instances of non-approval by MARA of particular rice importers' 
applications must be seen as a natural component of the interaction between any 
WTO Member's administration and its business community and cannot be generalized into a ' denial of Certificates of Control to import rice ', particularly when 
the trade statistics clearly indicate otherwise."
355 
7.68 Turkey has referred to the rejections for Cer tificates of Control for the importation of rice 
identified by the United States as "individual rejections , perfectly compatible with Turkish legislation 
and with Turkey's obligations under the WTO".356  With respect to these rejections, Turkey has added 
that: 
"The reasons for rejection of individual importers' applications have always been 
provided and, in general terms, were most  often due to missing or wrong information 
supplied by the importers such as the introduction of the wrong customs code classification, the lack of indication of the chosen customs points of entry, or the wrong origin information."
357 
7.69 The processes before Turkish administrative cour ts, identified by the United States, regarding 
the denial of Certificates of Control for the importa tion of rice, have likewise been characterized by 
Turkey as: 
"[I]ndividual instances of domestic litigation [which] must be objectively seen as a 
natural component of the interaction between any WTO Member's administration and its business community and cannot be used to  prove an instance of systematic trade 
restriction, let alone a trade prohibition (i.e., the 'blanket denial')."
358 
7.70 As noted, Turkey has admitted that "domestic courts  appear to have given effect" to "letters of 
acceptance".  In Turkey's view, however, by doing so "the domestic courts appear  to have given effect 
to an ultra vires  act of the Minister."359  Consequently, Turkey has argued that "no value should be 
given to the rulings issued by the Administrative C ourts of Ankara by this  Panel and for purposes of 
this proceeding."360 
7.71 Regarding the letter sent by the Turkish Mi nister of State to the United States Trade 
Representative, Turkey has stated that: 
"The diplomatic Letter … was designed to reassure the United States that, with the 
phasing-out of the TRQ, traders would likely resume trading on MFN terms.  It was not an implicit confirmation of any systematic denial of the approval of Certificates of Control."
361 
7.72 Turkey has concluded that: 
"The United States has not shown that there was a systematic rejection of requests for 
approval.  They have given evidence in re lation to five individual cases which have 
                                                      
355 Turkey's first submission, para. 68 (emphasis in the original).  See also Ibid., para. 29; Turkey's 
statement at the first substantive meeting, paras. 9 and 18; and Turkey's rebuttal, para. 21. 
356 Turkey's response to question 20.  See also Turkey's rebuttal, para. 33. 
357 Turkey's statement at the firs t substantive meeting, para. 14. 
358 Turkey's opening statement at the se cond substantive meeting, para. 14. 
359 Turkey's comment on United States' response to question 145.  See also Turkey's closing statement 
at the second substantive meeting, para. 9. 
360 Turkey's response to question 145. 
361 Turkey's closing statement at the se cond substantive meeting, para. 3. WT/DS334/R 
Page 62  
 
  resulted in domestic litigation.  This represen ts 0.2% of the approved Certificates of 
Control."
362 
7.73 Turkey has argued that it has "systematically a nd regularly" approved Certificates of Control 
allowing the importation of rice.  Turkey has also i ndicated that "the only way to determine its actual 
policy is to look at the evidence provided by trade statistics."363  In its words: 
"Contrary to what is erroneously claimed by the United States, Certificates of Control 
have been systematically and regularly approved on a non-discriminatory basis since 
the entering into force of ' The Regime for Technical Regulations and Standardization 
for Foreign Trade ' in 1996 (as promulgated in the Official Gazette dated 
1 February 1996 and numbered 22541 bis).  This has been the case both for rice 
imports occurring at the 'over-quota' MFN or applied rate level and, most importantly 
for purposes of the allegations by the Unite d States, within the 'in-quota' volumes 
established each year since 2004.  In particular, from 2003 to date, Turkey has approved a total of 2,223 Certificates of  Control, allowing a total importation of 
2,264,857 tonnes of foreign rice (paddy, br own and milled).  Of the aforementioned 
quantity, 497.469 tonnes of rice equivale nt have been allocated under the TRQ 
system since January 2004."
 364 
7.74 In support of this assertion, Turkey has provided statistics on the importation of rice365 and 
lists of approved and rejected Certificates of Control for the importation of rice.366 
7.75 As noted, Turkey has not contested that there have been cases in which, since 
September 2003, Turkish authorities have rejected a pplications for Certificates of Control for the 
importation of rice outside of the tariff-rate quota.   In some cases on the record, the administration 
notified the applicant, as reasons for the rejection,  that the application presented "missing items" or 
"spelling errors". 
7.76 It is also an uncontested fact that the rejecti ons of Certificates of Control for the importation 
of rice for which the United States has presented evid ence, coincided with a period in which Turkey's 
Minister of Agriculture had received the reco mmendation, and allegedl y had approved it, to 
temporarily suspend the granting of Certificates of Control for the importation of rice outside of the 
tariff-rate quota by MARA's General Dir ectorate of Protection and Control. 
7.77 The Panel is aware that merely because th ese two facts coincide in time, it does not 
automatically lead to the conclusion that the rejection of the Certificates of Control was a 
consequence of the recommendation of MARA's Ge neral Directorate of Protection and Control 
contained in the "letters of acceptance".  Nor does su ch coincidence, in and of itself, necessarily imply 
that the Turkish government had put in place a general policy, during that period, of suspending the concession of Certificates of Control for the im portation of rice outside of the tariff-rate quota. 
7.78 Accordingly, the Panel turns to the other evid ence available on the record.  We start by 
noting, as a factual matter, that there are a number of statements and actions by different official 
Turkish authorities on the record, each of which tend s to ascribe more importance to the instructions 
contained in the "letters of acceptance" than Turkey  has granted them during the current proceedings.  
We refer in this regard to:  (i) the explicit referenc e that some of these "letters of acceptance" make to 
                                                     
 
362 Turkey's closing statement at the se cond substantive meeting, para. 6. 
363 Turkey's first submission, para. 81. 
364 Ibid., para. 26.  See also Ibid., para. 65. 
365 Exhibit TR-8. 
366 Exhibit TR-20.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 63 
 
 
  previous "letters of acceptance";  (ii) the statem ents made in Turkish domestic courts by the 
representatives of MARA when defending it against actions brought by rice importers;  (iii) the 
decisions of Turkish domestic courts;  and (iv) the statement of Turkey's Minister of State to the United States Trade Representative.
367 
7.79 The Appellate Body has cautioned against ascr ibing too much importance to unilateral 
statements of Member's domestic authorities when characterizing their measures.368  Given the 
particular circumstances of the present case, however , we do not feel that the concurrent actions 
adopted by authorities in different branches of the Turkish government should be totally disregarded 
and deprived of any value, inasmuch as they point to the existence of a conviction on the part of these 
authorities that the Ministry of Agriculture had the discretion to suspend the concession of Certificates 
of Control for the importation of rice. 
7.80 There is evidence that, not only on a single occasion, but repeatedly and periodically, 
MARA's General Directorate of Protection and Control issued written recommendations to the 
Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs to temporarily suspend the granting of Certificates of Control for the importation of rice.  The recommend ations that are on the record cover the periods 
from September 2003 to March 2004
369, from January to July 2004370, from July 2004 to 
January 2005371, from January to August 2005372, from July 2005 "until a new policy [was] in place", 
and from March 2006 to April 2006.373 
7.81 Even assuming ad arguendo  that, in themselves these lette rs were only recommendations and 
did not produce legal effects, many of these letters make explicit refe rence in their text to preceding 
suspensions of the concession of Certificates of C ontrol for the importation of rice, made pursuant to 
recommendations contained in previous "letters of acceptance".  For example, letter No. 107 of 
January 2004 refers to previous  letter No. 964 of September 2003, which had limited the period of 
issuance of Certificates of Control for the im portation of rice from 1 March 2004 and for paddy rice 
from 1 August 2004, both ending on 1 September 2004.  In turn, letter No. 905 of June 2004 refers to 
the preceding letter (letter No. 107 of January 2004), which apparently limited the period of issuance 
of Certificates of Control for the importation of rice from 1 July 2004 to 1 August 2004 for rice, and 
from 1 July 2004 to 1 September 2004 for paddy rice.  Thus, in their text, the letters record the existence of periodic suspensions of the issuance of Certificates of Control for the importation of rice. 
7.82 Furthermore, we do not find convincing Turkey's  argument that the Minister of Agriculture 
and Rural Affairs had no authority to order a tempor ary suspension of the granting of Certificates of 
Control for the importation of rice, because MARA's  General Directorate of Protection and Control 
and the TMO continued to periodically recommend in writing that the Minister adopt exactly such 
action, and the Minister repeatedly noted such r ecommendation, by affixing his signature on the text 
of the  document containing the recommendation.  Wh ile we can agree with Turkey's characterization 
that these "letters of acceptance" contain "policy recommendations"
374, it remains unconvincing that 
such recommendations would be repeatedly brought to  the attention of the Minister if, as Turkey has 
                                                      
367 The United States has also produced copy of a newspaper article, dated 7 April 2006, reporting a 
protest made by Turkish ri ce producers against MARA because of th e supposed decision to grant an import 
permit to a company, "without procuring any paddy or milled rice domestically, which was required".  The 
article also reports that the importing company "denied this  claim, stating they were informed that rice imports 
would be possible after April 1, 2006."  Exhibit US-21. 
368 Appellate Body Report on Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II , pp. 27-28, DSR 1996:I, p. 97, at pp. 119. 
369 Exhibits US-12 and US-31. 
370 Exhibit US-12.  See also Exhibit US-31. 
371 Exhibit US-13. 
372 Exhibit US-14. 
373 Exhibit US-36. 
374 Turkey's response to question 145. WT/DS334/R 
Page 64  
 
  argued, they fell "outside the very competence of the Minister".
375  We note, in this regard, that 
Turkey was requested by the Panel to provide evid ence of recommendations contained in "letters of 
acceptance" that the Minister of Agriculture and Ru ral Affairs had not approved.  To this request, 
Turkey replied that: 
"There is no such document that Turkey is in the position to circulate given the 
privileged nature of the communications internal to the Administration and the 
confidential nature of the in formation contained therein."376 
7.83 There is strong indication that, once the Minister had approved the letters, the 
recommendation effectively became an instruction to temporarily suspend the granting of Certificates 
of Control for the importation of rice, at least for imports falling outside of the tariff-rate quotas.  This 
indication is confirmed not only by the text of the "letters of acceptance" themselves, many of which, 
as noted, refer to previous temporary suspensions of th e granting of Certificates of Control. It is also 
confirmed by the statements of MARA's representati ves when defending the actions of MARA before 
Turkish domestic courts377 and by the decision of Turkish domest ic courts to uphold the actions of 
MARA in denying specific requests for Certificates  of Control for the importation of rice, based on 
one of these temporary suspensions as reflected in letters of acceptance.378 
7.84 Turkey has argued that the Panel should give no value to the rulings issued by Turkish 
domestic courts upholding MARA's actions on the basis of the approved "letters of acceptance".379  In 
the course of these proceedings, Turkey has argued th at these court decisions would be contrary to 
Turkish domestic legislation and "appe ar to have given effect to an ultra vires  act of the Minister."380  
Turkey has added that "[t]his Panel has to decide whether, de jure , there is any provision in the 
Turkish law on Certificates of Control which gives any administrative authority the discretion to deny 
their approval."381 
7.85 We disagree with this last statement.  The Pane l does not need to decide whether there is any 
provision in Turkish domestic legisl ation which would give the Minister of MARA the discretion to 
deny the approval of Certificates of Control.  Ind eed, it would be outside this Panel's jurisdiction to 
determine whether the refusal to grant Certificat es of Control for the importation of rice, made 
pursuant to recommendations contained in "letters of  acceptance", is consiste nt or not with Turkish 
domestic legislation.  We should presume that th e actions of the authorities of a WTO Member are 
consistent with that Member's domestic legislation,  in the absence of proof to the contrary.  In any 
event, other than its statements made in the c ourse of these proceedings, Turkey has not adduced any 
evidence that those rejections were illegal under Turkish legislation.  It is also noteworthy that, before 
domestic courts, the Turkish government has argued ex actly the opposite.  In any event, even if the 
Minister's actions and the court decisions were cont rary to Turkish domestic legislation and had given 
effect to ultra vires  acts, there is no reason for the Panel to disregard them, as they constitute an 
additional indication that the Turkish government  had put in place a policy of suspending the 
concession of Certificates of Control for the im portation of rice outside of the tariff-rate quota. 
7.86 Considering all of these elements taken together, we find that the letter sent by the Minister of 
State of Turkey to the United States Trade Representative on 24 March 2006, informing that 
                                                      
375 Turkey's response to question 145. 
376 Turkey's response to question 142. 
377 Exhibit US-31. 
378 Exhibit US-63. 
379 Turkey's response to question 145. 
380 Turkey's comment on United States' response to question 145.  See also Turkey's closing statement 
at the second substantive meeting, para. 9. 
381 Turkey's opening statement at the se cond substantive meeting, para. 13.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 65 
 
 
  Certificates of Control for the importation of rice would be issued as of 1 April 2006382, is additional 
indication that those Certificates of Control were not being issued at the time. 
7.87 In view of the above, we preliminarily conclude, as a factual matter, that there is sufficient 
evidence on the record to substan tiate a prima facie case that, fro m September 2003, and for different 
periods of time383, Turkey has adopted a decision to deny, or fail to grant, Certificates of Control to 
import rice outside of the tariff rate quota.  In these circumstances, we feel that the burden has been 
adequately shifted onto Turkey to rebut this presumption. 
(iv) Has Turkey produced evidence to rebut the presumption? 
7.88 Having preliminarily found that the United St ates was able, based on the evidence on the 
record, to make a prima facie case that Turkey, from September 2003 and for different periods of 
time, has adopted a decision to deny, or fail to grant,  Certificates of Control to import rice outside of 
the tariff rate quota, it is Turkey's burden to rebut such presumption. 
7.89 As noted, Turkey has disputed the facts descr ibed by the United States.  Turkey has argued 
that it has "systematically and regularly" approved Certificates of Control allowing the importation of 
rice.  Turkey has also indicated that "the only wa y to determine its actual policy is to look at the 
evidence provided by trade statistics."384  In the course of the pro ceedings, Turkey stated that 
2,242 Certificates of Control for the importation of rice had been authorized between 2003 and November 2006.
385 
7.90 Noting the statistics provided by Turkey, the Panel repeatedly asked  Turkey for evidence 
regarding approved and rejected Certificates of Cont rol for the importation of rice.  After the first 
substantive meeting, the Panel asked Turkey to pr ovide a photocopy of each of the 2,223 Certificates 
of Control approved between 2003 and Sept ember 2006 for the importation of rice.386  In response, 
Turkey stated that photocopies of Certificates of Control were available, but that the relevant 
Ministries were not authorized to pr ovide "all the copies to the Panel".387  Turkey added that, upon 
request from the Panel, it would "be able to provide  to the Panel in strict confidence copies of any 
individual Certificate of Control" authorized between 2003 and 9 November 2006.388 
7.91 Again, after the second substantive meeting, th e Panel asked for evidence regarding approved 
and rejected Certificates of Control for the impor tation of rice.  Referring to Turkey's previous 
statement, the Panel asked Turkey, if it could not provide a photocopy of each of the 2,223 Certificates of Control approved between 2003 and September 2006, that it provide at least a 
photocopy of each of the 56 approved Certificates of  Control, which had been identified by the United 
States during the second substantive meeting with th e Panel (as presumably corresponding to imports 
outside of the tariff rate quota and of preferential trade arrangements).
389  The Panel also asked Turkey 
to provide a photocopy of each one of the Certificates of Control approved between 2003 and September 2006 which were the result of resubmitted  applications, initially rejected by the Turkish 
                                                     
 
382 Exhibit US-35.  See also United States' first submission, para. 32, and Turkey's response to 
question 138. 
383 See, for example, paras. 7.80 and 7.81 above. 
384 Turkey's first submission, para. 81. 
385 Turkey's response to question 44 and exhibit TR-33.  See also Turkey's first submission, para. 26, 
Turkey's rebuttal, para. 20, and Exhibit TR-20. 
386 Panel's question 44(e) to Turkey. 
387 Turkey's response to question 44(e). 
388 Ibid. 
389 Panel's question 133(b) to Turkey.  See also United States' statement at  the second substantive 
meeting, para. 8, and exhibit US-71. WT/DS334/R 
Page 66  
 
  authorities.
390  Finally, the Panel proposed that, if Turkey could not provide the full photocopies 
requested, with the purpose of protecting the privacy  of the companies involved, it at least provide 
those same photocopies after having blacked out the names of the companies.391 
7.92 Regarding the requested photocopies of the 56 approved Certificates of Control identified by 
the United States during the second substantive meet ing with the Panel, Turkey responded that: 
"With respect to the actual Certificates of  Control, Turkey understands that the 
documents provided to the Panel would have to be made available also to the United 
States.  Given the strict confidentiality requirements provided by Turkish law … and the well-established communications and in formation-exchanges between the United 
States and a number of Turkish rice traders, the Turkish officials involved in this 
Panel proceeding do not feel comfortable in  risking information leaks and possible 
criminal accusations of violation of Turkish law on confidentiality… 
Turkey is not in a position to provide copies of the actual Certificates of Control for 
circulation.  Exceptionally, Turkey would be willing to provide 'blacked-out' copies 
of the 56 'relevant' Certificates of C ontrol only to the Panel and after a clear 
understanding with the Panel and between the parties to this dispute that these 
documents would not be made available to the United States nor to any other entity beside the Panel and the WTO Secretariat."
392 
7.93 Turkey has asserted that Certificates of Control allowing the importation of rice were 
"systematically and regularly" approved.  It has al so stated that individual instances of non-approval 
by MARA of particular rice importers' applicati ons should not be seen as evidence of a general 
policy.  We note, however, that as stated by the A ppellate Body, "the mere assertion of a claim [does 
not] amount to proof".393  Accordingly, we must determine whether there is enough evidence on the 
record to allow us to conclude that Turkey has adequately discharged its burden to rebut the 
presumption that, from September 2003 and for different periods of time, it has adopted a decision to deny, or fail to grant, Certificates of Control to import rice outside of the tariff rate quota. 
7.94 We must note, as a factual matter, that desp ite repeated requests addressed to Turkey, the 
Panel was not able to obtain evidence that Turk ey had been, as it stated, "systematically and 
regularly" approving Certificates of Control allowing the importation of rice outside of the tariff rate quota. 
7.95 Turkey has argued that it has provided "ample evidence showing that no de facto 'prohibition' 
or 'restriction'  is to be found in relation to the approval of Certificates of Control.
394  T u r k e y  h a s  
stated that "2,242 Certificates of Control were approved between 2003 and 9 November 2006"395, 
i.e., the period "during which the United States alle ge that a 'blanket denial' was being enforced".396  
In addition, Turkey has submitted that, "of tho se 2,242 approved Certificates of Control, 1,335 
(i.e., 59.5%) were approved in relation to out-of-quota trade (i.e., MFN or FTA trade)".397  The figure 
of 2,242 represented an a pproval rate of over 95 per cent of all a pplications lodged by importers for 
approval of Certificates of Control.  According to Turkey: 
                                                      
390 Panel's question 133(c) to Turkey. 
391 Panel's question 133(f) to Turkey. 
392 Turkey's response to question 133(b) and (f). 
393 Appellate Body Report on US – Wool Shirts and Blouses , p. 14. 
394 Turkey's rebuttal, para. 19.  See also, Turkey's first submission, para. 65. 
395 Turkey's rebuttal, para. 20. 
396 Ibid., para. 19. 
397 Ibid., para. 20.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 67 
 
 
  "[B]etween 2003 and September 2006, a total of  2,324 applications for approval were 
put forward and resulted in the approval of 2,223 Certificates of Control.  Only 102 
applications (equal to a mere 4.38%) were  rejected for 'non-compliance with the 
requirements set forth in the relevant legislation'.398  Turkey believes that a rejection 
rate of less than 5% cannot be quantified or qualified into a de facto  import 
'restriction '." 
7.96 The only evidence provided by Turkey to su pport these statements, however, have been 
copies of Turkish rules and regulations399, copies of forms used for Certificates on Control and for 
import licences under the tariff rate quotas400, as well as estimates, tables and calculations prepared by 
Turkey for purposes of the present case.401  Such documents, including the estimates, tables and 
calculations that Turkey has especially emphasize d in its submissions, cannot, in our opinion, be 
regarded as sufficient evidence to rebut the prima faci e case made by the United States in this context. 
7.97 We cannot fail to note, in particular, that th e evidence requested by the Panel of Turkey, 
regarding Certificates of Control approved for th e importation of rice, is in Turkey's possession. 
7.98 In this regard, we have already found that  the evidence provided by the United States is 
sufficient to substantiate a prima facie case that , from September 2003 and fo r different periods of 
time, Turkey has adopted a decision to deny, or fail to grant, Certificates of Control to import rice outside of the tariff rate quota. 
7.99 In response to the Panel's requests for evidence regarding approved and re jected Certificates 
of Control for the importation of rice, Turkey cited limitations under its domestic legislation.  In the 
light of the concerns expressed by Turkey, the Pane l asked Turkey to elaborate on the legal reasons, 
under Turkish domestic legislation, which would deny  authorization to the Turkish government to 
provide the documents requested by the Panel.
402  Turkey replied that: 
"According to Article 13 of the Turkish Statistical Law, the confidential data 
acquired, processed and kept for official statistics cannot be passed-on to any administrative, judicial or military office, authority or person, and cannot be utilized 
except for statistical purposes or be utilized as  a tool for proof.  Public officials or 
other authorities that gather the information have to abide by this rule.  Article 53 of 
the same law provides that public officials violating the prohibitions embodied in Article 13 will be punished in accordance with Article 258 of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237."
403 
7.100  The Panel was explicit in the documents it re quested from Turkey, both after the first and 
after the second substantive meeting with the parties.404  As noted above, in response to the Panel's 
requests, Turkey expressed that its "officials i nvolved in this Panel proceeding [did] not feel 
comfortable in risking information leaks and possibl e criminal accusations of violation of Turkish law 
on confidentiality".405  Turkey offered to provide "'blacked-out' copies of [some] Certificates of 
Control only to the Panel and after a clear unders tanding... that these documents would not be made 
                                                      
398 (footnote original) See Annex TR-35 of Turkey’s Replies to Questions posed by the Panel. 
399 Exhibits TR-1, TR-2, TR-5, TR -6, TR-7, TR-9, TR-11, TR-12, TR-13, TR-14, TR-15, TR-16, 
TR-17, TR-18, TR-19, TR -21, TR-22, TR-31, TR -34, TR-40 and TR-44. 
400 Exhibits TR-4 and TR-10. 
401 Exhibits TR-8, TR-20, TR-23, TR -24, TR-25, TR-26, TR-27, TR-28,  TR-29, TR-30, TR-32, TR-33, 
TR-35, TR-36, TR-37, TR-38, TR -39, TR-41, TR-42 and TR-43. 
402 Panel's question 133(a) to Turkey. 
403 Turkey's response to question 133(a). 
404 Panel's questions 44(e) and 133 (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). 
405 Turkey's response to question 133(b) and (f). WT/DS334/R 
Page 68  
 
  available to the United States nor to any other en tity beside the Panel and the WTO Secretariat".
406  
However, the Panel cannot accept such an offer fro m Turkey, which is one of the parties to this 
dispute.  Indeed, the evidence requested by the Pa nel, as well as all submissions under the proceedings 
at issue, fall under the provision contained in Article 18.1 of the DSU: 
"1. There shall be no ex parte  communications with the panel or Appellate Body 
concerning matters under consideration by the panel or Appellate Body." 
7.101  In addition, rule 10 of this Panel's Working Pr ocedures, adopted after consulting the parties to 
the dispute, provides that: 
"In the interest of full transparency, th e presentations, rebuttals and statements 
referred to in paragraphs 5 to 9 of these working procedures [i.e., oral statements 
made by the parties and third parties during the substantive meetings with the Panel, 
and parties' and third parties' responses to questions posed by the Panel and the 
parties during the substantive meetings with the Panel] shall be made in the presence 
of the parties. Moreover, each party's written submissions, including any comments 
on the descriptive part of the report, res ponses to questions put by the Panel and 
comments on responses made by other parties,  shall be made available to the other 
party." 
7.102  Turkey has explicitly acknowledged that it "unde rstands that the documents provided to the 
Panel would have to be made available also to the United States."407 
7.103  At no point during the Panel's proceedings did Turkey request the adoption of special and 
additional rules for handling confidential informa tion, nor was such a request made subsequently, 
even though the complainant raised the possibility of  introducing such rules.  The issue was brought 
up orally by the United States during the second substa ntive meeting with the Panel, and was reflected 
in its response to Panel's question 116: 
"[A]s the United States noted during that meeting, it is not uncommon for WTO 
panels to adopt procedures for the protecti on of confidential information submitted by 
a party.  Such procedures, which ensure that only the panelists, the WTO Secretariat, 
and designated representatives of the other party have access to such information, 
have generally worked well in the past and could have been employed in this dispute 
if Turkey had concerns."408 
7.104  Turkey, for its part, commented on this response, reiterating its willingness to provide the 
requested copies of Certificates of Control but  "blacked out" and only to the Panel, expressly 
excluding the United States.409  This would suggest ex parte communication, which, as explained 
above410, is in direct contravention of Article 18.1 of the DSU. 
7.105  In addition to not being in a position to accept Tu rkey's offer to submit evidence through what 
would effectively amount to an ex parte  communication of the requested  documents, the Panel is not 
persuaded by Turkey's arguments regarding limitations on its ability to share this information under 
                                                      
406 Turkey's response to question 133(b) and (f). 
407 Ibid. 
408 United States' response to question 116. 
409 Turkey's comments on the United States' response to question 116. 
410 See para. 7.100 above.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 69 
 
 
  domestic law.  Without adequate knowledge of the full text of the legislation referred to by Turkey411, 
the Panel fails to comprehend how, for example, its rules would prevent Turkey from sharing the 
requested information with the United States, but yet allow it to share such information with the 
Panel. 
7.106  Even if the Panel were to assume as valid Tu rkey's arguments concerning its limitations under 
domestic law, that alone would not suffice to dischar ge Turkey from its evidentiary burden in these 
proceedings.  In the absence of an y rebutting evidence provided by Turkey, it is appropriate for this 
Panel to draw the appropriate inferences412, as the United States has sugg ested on several occasions 
during this dispute.413 
7.107  Accordingly, in the absence of the information required by th e Panel and, more generally 
lacking any evidence that would allow us to reach a different conclusion, we c onclude that Turkey has 
failed to rebut the presumption that, from Septembe r 2003 and for different periods of time, it has 
adopted a decision to deny, or fail to grant, Certificates of Control to import rice outside of the tariff rate quota. 
(v) Is Turkey's decision to deny, or fail to grant, C ertificates of Control to import rice outside of 
the tariff rate quota a "measure of the kind whic h have been required to be converted into 
ordinary customs duties"? 
The Panel's Analysis
 
7.108  The Panel will now turn to the issue of whet her Turkey's decision, from September 2003 and 
for different periods of time, to deny, or fail to gran t, Certificates of Control to import rice outside of 
the tariff rate quota, can be considered as a "measu re of the kind which have been required to be 
converted into ordinary customs duties" under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
7.109  As noted by the Appellate Body in Chile – Price Band System : 
"Footnote 1 [to Article 4.2 of the Agreem ent on Agriculture] lists six categories of 
border measures and a residual category of such measures that are included  in 
'measures of the kind which have been requi red to be converted into ordinary customs 
duties' within the meaning of Article 4.2. [Footnote omitted]  The list is illustrative, 
and includes 'quantitative import restrictions , variable import levies, minimum import 
prices, discretionary import licensing, non-tariff measures maintained through state-trading enterprises, voluntary export rest raints, and similar border measures other 
than ordinary customs duties'.  These kinds of measures were identified by the negotiators of the Agreement on Agriculture as measures that had to be converted into 
ordinary customs duties in order to ensure enhanced market access for imports of 
agricultural products."
414 
                                                      
411 Turkey did not provide a copy of the rules in its domestic legislation under which it would be would 
prevented from providing the evidence requested by the Panel, namely the Turkish Statistical Law and the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237. 
412 See para. 7.10 above.  See also Appellate Body Report on US – Wheat Gluten , para. 174. 
413 United States' closing statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 6.  United States' 
comments on Turkey's responses to question 102, para. 4. 
414 Appellate Body Report on Chile – Price Band System , para. 219. WT/DS334/R 
Page 70  
 
  7.110  The United States has argued that Turkey's denial, or failure to grant, Certificates of Control 
to import rice outside of the tariff rate quota c onstitutes a "quantitative import restriction" and a 
practice of "discretionary import licensing".
415 
7.111  As noted, footnote 1 to Article 4.2 of the Ag reement on Agriculture lists "quantitative import 
restrictions" and "discretionary import licensi ng" among the kind of measures which have been 
required to be converted into ordinary customs duties.  In the words of the Appellate Body: 
"The footnote imparts meaning to Article 4.2 by enumerating examples of 'measures 
of the kind which have been required to be converted', and which Members must not 
maintain, revert to, or resort to, from th e date of the entry into force of the  WTO 
Agreement ."416 
Quantitative import restrictions  
7.112  As mentioned by a previous panel: 
"The prohibition on the use of quantitative restrictions forms one of the cornerstones 
of the GATT system.  A basic principle of the GATT system is that tariffs are the 
preferred and acceptable form of protecti on...  The prohibition against quantitative 
restrictions is a reflection that tariffs  are GATT's border protection 'of choice'.  
Quantitative restrictions impose absolute limits on imports, while tariffs do not.  In contrast to MFN tariffs which permit the mo st efficient competitor to supply imports, 
quantitative restrictions usually have a trad e distorting effect, their allocation can be 
problematic and their administration may not be transparent. 
Notwithstanding this broad prohibition against quantitative restrictions, GATT 
contracting parties over many years failed to respect completely this obligation.  
From early in the GATT, in sectors such as agriculture, quantitative restrictions were 
maintained and even increased to the extent that the need to rest rict their use became 
central to the Uruguay Round negotiations.  In the sector of textiles and clothing, quantitative restrictions were maintained under the Multifibre Agreement...  Certain 
contracting parties were even of the view that quantitative restrictions had gradually 
been tolerated and accepted as negotiable and that Article XI could not be and had 
never been considered to be, a provision prohi biting such restrictions irrespective of the 
circumstances specific to each case.  This argument was, however, rejected in an adopted panel report EEC – Imports from Hong Kong .
417 
Participants in the Uruguay Round recogni zed the overall detrimental effects of non-
tariff border restrictions (whether applied to imports or exports) and the need to 
favour more transparent price-based, i.e. tariff-based, measures; to this end they 
devised mechanisms to phase-out quantitative r estrictions in the sectors of agriculture 
and textiles and clothing.  This re cognition is reflected in the GATT 1994 
Understanding on Balance-of-Payments Provisions418, the Agreement on 
                                                      
415 United States' first submission, paras. 76-77. 
416 Appellate Body Report on Chile – Price Band System , para. 209. 
417 (footnote original ) Panel Report on EEC – Quantitative Restrictions Against Imports of Certain 
Products from Hong Kong, adopted on 12 July 1983, BISD 30S/129, ("EEC – Imports from Hong Kong"). 
418 (footnote original)  See for instance paras. 2 and 3 of the GATT 1994 Understanding on the Balance-
of-Payments Provisions which provide that Members shall seek to avoid the imposition of new quantitative 
restrictions for balance-of-payments purposes .  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 71 
 
 
  Safeguards419, the Agreement on Agriculture where quantitative restrictions were 
eliminated420 and the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing... where MFA derived 
restrictions are to be completely eliminated by 2005."421 
7.113  We have already determined that, from Septem ber 2003 and for different periods of time, 
Turkey adopted a decision to deny, or fail to grant, Certificates of Control to import rice outside of the 
tariff rate quota.  We note as an additional factual matter that the decision to temporarily suspend the 
granting of Certificates of Control for the importation of rice was justified, on several occasions during the period observed, as an instrument to ensure  the absorption of local rice production.  This is 
clear in the reasons provided by MARA's General Directorate of Pr otection and Control, in several 
letters of acceptance, when recommending to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs the 
temporary suspension of the granting of Certificates of Control.
422  The justification of the decision to 
temporarily suspend the granting of Certificates of Control is also present in several letters from the 
TMO to MARA.423 
7.114  As noted, in response to the United States' cl aim that the denial, or failure to grant, 
Certificates of Control to import rice outside of the tariff rate quota is a "quantitative import 
restriction", Turkey has argued that Certificat es of Control should not be considered as import 
licences within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the Import Licensing Agreement424, nor under 
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.425 
7.115  Turkey has also stated that there is neither a de jure  nor a de facto  "prohibition" or 
"restriction" under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994426, nor a practice that would constitute a 
"quantitative import restriction" within the meani ng of Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.427  
Turkey has added that: 
"Certificates of Control have been syst ematically and regularly approved on a non-
discriminatory basis... both for rice imports occurring at the 'over-quota' MFN or applied rate level and... within the 'in- quota' volumes established each year since 
2004."
428 
                                                      
419 (footnote original)  The Agreement on Safeguards also evidence s a preference for the use of tariffs.  
Article 6 provides that provisional safeguard measures "s hould take the form of tariff increases" and Article 11 
prohibits the use of voluntary export restraints . 
420 (footnote original)  Under the Agreement on Agriculture, notw ithstanding the fact that contracting 
parties, for over 48 years, had been relying a great deal on import restrictions and other non-tariff measures, the 
use of quantitative restrictions and ot her non-tariff measures was prohibited  and Members had to proceed to a 
"tariffication" exercise to transform quantitati ve restrictions into tariff based measures. 
421 Panel Report on Turkey – Textiles , paras. 9.63-9.65. 
422 See, inter alia , Exhibit US-12 and US-13. 
423 See, inter alia , Exhibit US-13.  See also Exhibit US-31. 
424 Turkey's first submission, paras. 45-57.  See also Ibid., paras. 3 and 18, Turkey's statement at the 
first substantive meeting, paras. 4, 11 and 47, Turkey's response to question 59, Turkey's rebuttal, para. 3, 
Turkey's opening statement at the seco nd substantive meeting, para. 4, an d Turkey's closing statement at the 
second substantive meeting, para. 12. 
425 Turkey's first submission, para. 58. 
426 Ibid., paras. 63, 66 and 69.  See also Turkey's statement at the first substantive meeting, paras. 
12-14, Turkey's response to question 19 and Turkey's rebuttal, para. 16. 
427 Turkey's first submission, para. 71.  See also Tu rkey's statement at the first substantive meeting, 
para. 37. 
428 Turkey's first submission, para. 26.  See also Turkey's response to questions 15 (b) and 45; Turkey's 
rebuttal, para. 19; and Turkey's opening statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 8. WT/DS334/R 
Page 72  
 
  7.116  In Turkey' view, since: 
"[T]he Certificates of Control are not import licenses within the meaning of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures... there is clearly no 'denial' of 
Certificates of Control, and... there is no de jure  or de facto  import prohibition or 
restriction within the meaning of GATT Article XI:1... [t]herefore... there cannot be 
'discretionary import licensing ' and/or ' quantitative import restrictions ' within the 
meaning of Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and footnote 1 thereof".
429 
7.117  We have already noted that Turkey has not provided evidence of its assertion that a certain 
number of Certificates of Contro l were approved between 2003 and 2006 for the importation of rice.  
Nor has Turkey provided evidence of the alleged high rate of approval of applications for Certificates 
of Control for the importation of rice.  However, even  if a number of Certificates of Control had been 
approved, that would not nullify the fact that a decision was adopted to suspend at times the concession of Certificates of Control to import rice  outside of the tariff rate quota.  From the 
statements contained in the differe nt documents from the Turkish authorities related to the adoption of 
such decision, it is clear to the Panel that the su spension of the concession of Certificates of Control 
was adopted to limit the amount of rice imports, in or der to ensure the absorption of local production. 
7.118  In our view, the factual determination that, from September 2003 and for different periods of 
time, Turkey has decided to deny, or fail to grant, Certificates of Control to import rice outside of the 
tariff rate quota in order to ensure the absorption of  local production, is enough in itself to conclude 
that this conduct constitutes a quantitative import rest riction, within the meaning of footnote 1 to 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
7.119  The Panel recalls that in Chile – Price Band System , when referring to "variable import 
levies" within the meaning of footnote 1 to Article 4.2, the Appellate Body noted some features that 
are present in such measures: 
"These additional features include a lack of transparency and a lack of predictability 
in the level of duties that will result from su ch measures.  This lack of transparency 
and this lack of predictability are liable to restrict the volume of imports...  [A]n 
exporter is less likely to ship to a market if that exporter does not know and cannot reasonably predict what the amount of duties will be.[Footnote omitted]  This lack of transparency and predictability will also cont ribute to distorting the prices of imports 
by impeding the transmission of international prices to the domestic market."
430 
7.120  In the present dispute, the challenged measure doe s not affect the level of duties, but rather 
the quantities of product that can enter the Turkish market.  We find, however, that the features of 
"lack of transparency and lack of predictability" th at result from Turkey's decision to deny or fail to 
grant Certificates of Control to import rice outside of  the tariff rate quota are similar to those observed 
by the Appellate Body Report in Chile – Price Band System .  Even without any systematic intention 
to restrict the importation of rice at a certain level,  the lack of transparency and of predictability of 
Turkey's issuance of Certificates of Control to import rice is similarly liable to restrict the volume of 
imports. 
7.121  In conclusion, we consider that there is su fficient evidence regarding the manner in which, 
from September 2003 and for different periods of time, Turkey has denied or failed to grant 
Certificates of Control to import rice outside of th e tariff rate quota, to characterize this measure as a 
quantitative import restriction.  Through this prac tice, the Turkish authorities have restricted the 
                                                      
429 Turkey's first submission, para. 71. 
430 Appellate Body Report on Chile – Price Band System , para. 234.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 73 
 
 
  importation of rice for periods of time.  This conduct can, therefore, be considered as a measure of the 
kind which have been required to be converted into  ordinary customs duties under Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. 
Discretionary import licensing  
7.122  Once found that Turkey's decision to deny or fail to grant Certificates of Control to import 
rice outside of the tariff rate quota may be charact erized as a quantitative import restriction, in 
principle the Panel need not proceed to consider  further whether it may also be considered as a 
practice of discretionary import licensing.  We will nevertheless analyze this issue since, throughout 
the Panel's proceedings, the United States articulated its claim against Turkey's decision to deny or 
fail to grant Certificates of Control to import rice out side of the tariff rate quota, under Article 4.2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture, both as a quantit ative import restriction and as a practice of 
discretionary import licensing.431 
7.123  In examining the ordinary meaning of the term  "discretionary import licensing" as it appears 
in footnote 1 to Article 4.2, we note that a "licence" can be defined as a: 
"Formal, usu[ally] printed or written, permission from an authority to do something... 
or to own something ...;  a document giving such permission;  a permit".432 
7.124  Parties have engaged in an exte nsive discussion regarding the a ppropriate interpretation of the 
terms "import licences" and "import licensing".  In particular, they have discussed at length whether Certificates of Control may be characterized as "im port licences".  Turkey has stated that the purpose 
of the Certificates of Control is "to facilitate  the process of customs clearance, [through the 
submission] at importation [of a single] document... which contains all the information required for 
customs purposes".
433 
7.125  We do not feel that, for the resolution of the pr esent dispute, we need to articulate a general 
definition of what constitutes an "import licence".  Neither the Agreement on Agriculture, nor any of 
the other WTO covered agreements, contain a general definition of "import licence". 
7.126  Article 1.1 of the Import Licensing Agreement, however, contains a particular definition of 
"import licensing," provided for the purpose of that agreement: 
"For the purpose of this Agreement, import licensing is defined as administrative 
procedures434 used for the operation of import licensing regimes requiring the 
submission of an application or other doc umentation (other than that required for 
customs purposes) to the relevant admi nistrative body as a prior condition for 
importation into the customs territory of the importing Member." 
7.127  Having referred to the ordinary meaning of the term "licence", we note that not all documents 
giving the permission to import may be necessarily c onsidered to be "import licences".  As noted by 
the parties, the importation process is often a complex procedure during which a number of steps must be completed in order to obtain the permission to  import certain products.  Throughout this process, 
governments may require that written documents be obtained and then produced to certify the 
completion of certain steps and thus the compliance w ith certain legal requirements, in order to allow 
                                                     
 
431 United States' first submission, paras. 3, 75-78, United States' opening statement at the first 
substantive meeting, para. 26, and United States' rebuttal, para. 64. 
432 The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary  (Clarendon Press, 1993), Vol. I, p. 1578. 
433 Turkey's first submission, para. 3. 
434 (footnote original) Those procedures referred to as "licensing" as well as other similar 
administrative procedures. WT/DS334/R 
Page 74  
 
  the importation of goods and their final entry into  the importing market.  Each of these steps and 
documents may serve particular objectives.  Strictly  speaking, these special documents, when used for 
purposes such as sanitary and phytosanitary control, customs clearance, payment of taxes or duties, 
are not to be considered as "import licences". 
7.128  In turn, not all practices of "import licensing"  would be "discretionary import licensing".  
"Discretionary" is defined as "pertaining to discretion [or] left to discretion".
435  "Discretion" can be 
characterized in turn as the "[f]reed om to decide or act as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits;  
having one's own judgement as the sole arbiter".436 
7.129  In considering whether a measure may be charact erized as an "import licence" or a conduct as 
an "import licensing" practice, the proclaimed objec tives of a particular document or requirement are 
not the main issue to consider in this dispute.  Based on our earlier analysis, we have concluded that 
there is sufficient evidence on the record to demons trate that, regardless of the purported objectives of 
the Certificates of Control, the decision to stop granting such documents fo r periods of time has 
served as an instrument for administering trade. 
7.130  Considering the immediate context of the term "discretionary import licensing", we note that 
it appears as one of the measures in the indicativ e list of "measures of the kind which have been 
required to be converted into ordinary customs du ties".  The object and purpose of Article 4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, "to achieve improved mark et access conditions for imports of agricultural 
products by permitting only the applic ation of ordinary customs duties"437, would be undermined if 
Members could decide, at their discretion, whether or not to grant permission for the importation of a 
good, or if they could decide, at their discretion, whether or not to grant a document that is 
indispensable for such importation. 
7.131  This interpretation is consistent  with the definition agreed by WTO Members in the context of 
the Import Licensing Agreement.  Article 1.1 of the Import Licensing Agreement and its footnote, 
when defining import licensing, refer to licensing a nd "other similar administrative procedures".  We 
note in this regard that the footnote to the Annual Questionnaire on import licensing procedures, 
adopted by the WTO Committee on Import Licensing,438 indicates that "similar procedures": 
"[A]re understood to include technical visas, surveillance systems, minimum price 
arrangements, and other administrative reviews effected as a prior condition for entry 
of imports ."439 
7.132  When considering the decision to deny or fail to grant Certificates of Control to import rice as 
a "quantitative import restriction", we noted that th e challenged measure does not affect the level of 
duties, but rather whether or not the product can en ter the Turkish market.  We also noted that the 
features of "lack of transparency and lack of pred ictability" that result from Turkey's decision to deny 
or fail to grant Certificates of Control to import rice outside of the tariff rate quota are similar to those 
                                                      
435 The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary  (Clarendon Press, 1993), Vol. I, p. 689. 
436 Ibid. 
437 Appellate Body Report on Chile – Price Band System , para. 234. 
438 Annex, Questionnaire on Import Licensing Procedures, Notifications under Article 7.3 of the 
Agreement, Note by the Secretariat, 20 October 1995, G/LIC/2.  See also , Annex, Procedures for Notification 
and Review under the Agreement on Import Licensing Pro cedures, Note by the Secretariat, 7 November 1995, 
G/LIC/3. 
439 Annex, Questionnaire on Import Licensing Procedures, Notifications under Article 7.3 of the 
Agreement, Note by the Secretariat, 20 October 1995, G/LIC/2 (emphasis added).  Under this definition, a main 
element considered by Members to determine whether a measure is to be characterized as an import licensing 
procedure is whether the measure has been established as a prior condition to the entry of imports into the 
territory .  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 75 
 
 
  observed by the Appellate Body Report in the Chile – Price Band System  case.  Such lack of 
transparency and of predictability of Turkey's i ssuance of Certificates of Control to import rice is 
similarly liable to restrict the volume of imports. 
7.133  In the light of the above, without necessarily having to articulate a general definition of what 
constitutes an "import licence" or a practice of "imp ort licensing", we find that the discretionary use 
by authorities in an importing country of the concessi on, or refusal to grant, a particular document 
which is necessary for the importation of a good, as an instrument to administer trade, in this case can 
be safely characterized as a practice of "discreti onary import licensing" under footnote 1 to Article 4.2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
7.134  In conclusion, we consider that there is su fficient evidence regarding the manner in which, 
from September 2003 and for different periods of time, Turkey has denied or failed to grant 
Certificates of Control to import rice outside of th e tariff rate quota, to characterize this measure as a 
discretionary practice by the Turkish authorities to  decide whether or not to grant permission to 
import a particular good.  Through this discretionary practice, the Turkish authorities have suspended 
the concession of Certificates of Control in regard to rice imports for periods of time.  Given the fact 
that importers must produce a Certificate of Control in order to be able to import rice even if they 
fulfil the criteria required to be cer tified therein (as confirmed by Turkey440), this practice effectively 
has served as a way to administer trade.  This conduct can be considered as a practice of "discretionary import licensing" and, therefore, as a measure of the kind which have been required to 
be converted into ordinary customs duties unde r Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
Final considerations
 
7.135  We have concluded that, from September 2003 a nd for different periods of time, Turkey has 
denied or failed to grant Certificates of Control to import rice outside of the tariff rate quota, which 
can be characterized as a "quantitative import restri ction" and as a practice of "discretionary import 
licensing".  In any event, we note that, as clarifie d by the Appellate Body, the "list of measures [in 
footnote 1 to Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture] is illustrative, not exhaustive".441  Indeed: 
"Footnote 1 also refers to a residual category of 'similar  border measures other than 
ordinary customs duties', which indicates that the drafters of the Agreement did not seek to identify all 'measures which have been required to be converted' during the 
Uruguay Round negotiations."
442 
7.136  Even if it were not to be considered as a "quantitative import restriction" or as a practice of 
"discretionary import licensing", we consider that, due to its recognized impact on the administration 
of rice imports, Turkey's decision to deny or fail to grant Certificates of Control to import rice outside 
of the tariff rate quota would at least qualify as a m easure that has sufficient likeness or resemblance, 
so as to be similar to quantitative import restricti ons or to practices of discretionary import licensing 
and, therefore, as a measure of the kind which have  been required to be converted into ordinary 
customs duties under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
7.137  We are aware that a measure enumerated in the list provided in footnote 1 to Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture may nevertheless not be considered to be a measure "of the kind which 
have been required to be converted into ordina ry customs duties" if it falls under the exceptions 
contained in the same footnote (i.e., if it is  a measure maintained under balance-of-payments 
provisions or under any other general, non-agricu lture-specific, provision of GATT 1994 or of the 
                                                      
440 See para. 2.47 above. 
441 Appellate Body Report on Chile – Price Band System , para. 209. 
442 Ibid., para. 210. WT/DS334/R 
Page 76  
 
  other Multilateral Trade Agreements  in Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement) or if it falls under the 
exceptions contained in Article 5 a nd Annex 5 of the Agreement on Agri culture.  None of the parties, 
however, has argued that Turkey's decision to deny or  fail to grant Certificates of Control to import 
rice outside of the tariff rate quota was adopted or maintained under any general, non-agriculture-
specific, provision of any of the WTO Multilateral Tr ade Agreements on Trade in Goods, nor that it 
was adopted or maintained through the Special Safe guard Provisions in Article 5 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture or under the provisions on Special Treatm ent contained in Annex 5 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
(vi) Conclusion 
7.138  For the reasons indicated above, the Panel concludes that Turkey's decision, from 
September 2003 and for different periods  of time, to deny, or fail to grant, Certificates of Control to 
import rice outside of the tariff rate quota, constitu tes a quantitative import restriction, as well as a 
practice of discretionary import licensing, within the meaning of footnote 1 to Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  Accordingly, it is a meas ure of the kind which have been required to be 
converted into ordinary customs duties and is theref ore inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture. 
6. Claim under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 
(a) Arguments of the parties 
7.139  The United States has raised the claim that Turk ey's denial, or failure to grant, licences to 
import rice outside of the tariff rate quota, "is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 
because it prohibits or restricts imports at the over-quota rate".
443  In the United States' view: 
"Turkey's denial of import licenses outside the TRQ is in breach of Article XI of the 
GATT 1994 because Turkey prohibits or rest ricts imports at the over-quota rate 
through the use of import licenses or other measures."444 
7.140  Turkey has responded that Certificates of Control are not import licences, but rather 
"administrative forms that are required exclusively for ' customs purposes '".445  Turkey has added that 
"no ' restriction ' or ' prohibition ' of rice importation... was instituted or maintained... by means of a 
measure (i.e., the alleged ' denial of Certificates of Control to import rice ') which would amount to an 
'other measure ' within the meaning of GATT Article XI:1".446 
(b) The Panel's analysis 
7.141  The Panel has already found that Turkey's decision, from September 2003 and for different 
periods of time, to deny or fail to grant Certificat es of Control to import rice outside of the tariff rate 
quota is inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Ag reement on Agriculture.  We do not believe that, 
having found that this measure is inconsistent w ith Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, an 
additional finding regarding the same measure under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 would be 
necessary to resolve the matter at issue. 
7.142  Accordingly, under the guidance of the principle of judicial economy, the Panel considers it 
unnecessary for the resolution of this dispute to address the United States' claim that Turkey's 
                                                      
443 United States' first submission, paras. 3, 58-73. 
444 United States' opening statement at the first substantive meeting, para. 11. 
445 Turkey's first submission, para. 52 (emphasis in the original). 
446 Ibid., para. 69 (emphasis in the original).  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 77 
 
 
  decision, from September 2003 and for different periods of time, to deny or fail to grant Certificates 
of Control to import rice outside of the tariff rate quota is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 
1994.  Therefore, the Panel refrains from making any fi ndings with respect to this particular claim. 
7. Claims concerning the administration of Turk ey's decision to deny or fail to grant 
Certificates of Control to import rice 
(a) Arguments of the parties 
7.143  The United States has raised the claim that Turkey 's failure to publish its decision to deny or 
fail to grant Certificates of Control to import rice out side of the tariff rate quota is inconsistent with 
Articles X:1 and X:2 of the GATT 1994.  In its view: 
"The Letters of Acceptance, which apply to all importers seeking a Certificate of 
Control from MARA in order to import rice,  are Ministerial Decisions taken by the 
Turkish Minister of Agriculture and are binding under Turkish law ...  Turkey does 
not publish the Letters of Acceptance in th e Official Gazette.  This obscures from 
importers and other WTO Members that MARA is not issuing Certificates of Control, 
thereby blocking all imports of rice outside the TRQ regime.  Turkey's failure to issue 
Certificates of Control is inconsistent with Articles X:1 and X:2 of the GATT 
1994."447 
7.144  The United States has further made the claim th at, for the same reason, this measure is 
likewise inconsistent with Articles 1.4(a) and 1.4(b)  of the Import Licensing Agreement.  In its words: 
"Because Turkey does not publish the Lette rs of Acceptance, it also necessarily 
breaches Articles 1.4(a) and 1.4(b) of the Import Licensing Agreement."448 
7.145  The United States has finally claimed that: 
"Turkey also has acted inconsistently with Articles 3.5(e) and (f) of the Import 
Licensing Agreement [because ] Turkey has decided not to process Certificate of 
Control applications within the periods specified in subparagraph (f) [i.e., no more 
than 30 days, except when not possible for r easons outside the control of the Member, 
and no longer than 60 days if all applica tions are considered simultaneously]... Nor 
has Turkey ever asserted that it is 'not possi ble for reasons outside  [its] control' to 
process applications within the periods set out in Article 3.5(f)... Further, although 
Turkey does not approve any license applications, it does not provide the applicant 'the reason therefor' – that is ... that Turkey has decided not to approve any license 
applications."
449 
7.146  Turkey has rejected these claims as, in its  opinion, Articles 1.4 and 3.5 of the Import 
Licensing Agreement do not apply to this dispute.  In Turkey's view: 
"[T]he United States bases its allegati ons and legal conclusions on the wrong 
assumption that Certificates of Control are (or function as) import licenses.  On the basis of the legal arguments and factual ev idence provided, Turkey  reaffirms that the 
Certificates of Control are not import licen ses within the meaning of the Agreement 
on Import Licensing Procedures.  Therefore, the claim by the United States that 
                                                     
 
447 United States' first submission, para. 80. 
448 Ibid., para. 81. 
449 Ibid., paras. 83-85. WT/DS334/R 
Page 78  
 
  Turkey has acted inconsistently with th ese obligations of transparency and due-
process must be rejected for the inapplicabilit y, in the case at issu e, of the Agreement 
on Import Licensing Procedures."
450 
(b) The Panel's analysis 
7.147  The Panel has already found that Turkey's decision, from September 2003 and for different 
periods of time, to deny or fail to grant Certificat es of Control to import rice outside of the tariff rate 
quota is a border measure inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  In the light 
of this finding, the question of how this measure ha s been administered by Tu rkey becomes irrelevant 
for the resolution of this dispute. 
7.148  Accordingly, the Panel refrains from making an y findings with respect to these particular 
claims. 
C. THE DOMESTIC PURCHASE REQUIREMENT  
1. The United States' claims 
7.149  In its request for the establishment of a panel, the United States stated that: 
"Turkey operate[d] tariff-rate quotas ('TRQs') fo r rice imports requiring that, in order 
to import specified quantities of rice at reduced tariff levels, importers... purchase 
specified quantities of domestic rice, including from the Turkish Grain Board ('TMO'), Turkish producers, or producer associations."
451 
7.150  The United States referred to this particular measure as the "domestic purchase requirement".  
In its view, the domestic purchase requirement is inc onsistent with Article 2. 1 and paragraph 1(a) of 
the Annex to the TRIMs Agreement;  with Article I II:4 of the GATT 1994;  with Article XI:1 of the 
GATT 1994;  and with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.452  Initially, the United States 
presented each of these as an independent claim.  Later in the proceedings, however, the United States 
suggested that, "if the Panel [found] that Turkey [had] breached Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 by instituting a domestic purchase requirement, it need not make a finding under Article 2.1 and paragraph 1(a) of Annex 1 of the TRIMs Agreement".
453 
2. Turkey's response 
7.151  Turkey has confirmed that the importation of rice under the tariff rate quota (TRQ) system 
was subject to a domestic purchase requirement.454  Turkey has argued, however, that its domestic 
purchase requirement was not a measure which affected  the internal sale, o ffering for sale, purchase 
or use of imported rice, and that it did not accord less favourable treatment to rice imported from the 
United States by adversely affecting the conditi ons of competition in favour of domestic rice.455  
Turkey added that the TRQ regime, and its dome stic purchase requirement "never resulted in a 
                                                      
450 Turkey's first submission, para. 87.  See also Tu rkey's statement at the first substantive meeting, 
para. 38. 
451 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States, Turkey – Rice , 7 February 2006, 
WT/DS334/4, p. 1. 
452 Ibid., p. 3. 
453 United States' comments on Turkey's responses to question 151, para. 63. 
454 See, for example, Turkey's firs t submission, para. 33.  The domestic purchase requirement in force 
at the time when this Panel was established was regulated in Decree 2005/9315 of 10 August 2005 on the Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of Paddy Rice and Rice .  See para. 2.76 above. 
455 Turkey's first submission, paras. 91-99.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 79 
 
 
  substantial restriction on imports of rice".456  Turkey also stated that its TRQ regime was administered 
through "an automatic import licensing system"457 and  could not be considered as a "non-tariff 
measure maintained through state trading enterprises".458 
7.152  Turkey has further added that "the legisl ative framework providing for the TRQ regime, 
including the domestic purchase requirement, is no longer in force".459  Therefore, it has requested the 
Panel "to either refrain from making findings on th e measures related to Turkey's TRQ regime as [it 
is] no longer in force, or, should the Panel cons ider making these findings necessary for purposes of 
securing a positive solution to the dispute, not to make any recommendation to the Dispute Settlement 
Body".460 
3. Findings on an expired measure 
7.153  Before the Panel can consider the United Stat es' claims regarding the so-called domestic 
purchase requirement, we believe that the Panel must  first address Turkey's request that it should 
refrain from making findings on the measures related to Turkey's TRQ regime, including the domestic 
purchase requirement, because such measures have expire d.  In other words, we believe that the Panel 
must start by verifying at the outset whether it should issue findings on the claims advanced by the 
United States regarding the domestic purchase requirement. 
(a) Arguments of the parties 
7.154  As noted above, Turkey has stated that "the  legislative framework providing for the TRQ 
regime, including the domestic purchase requirement, is no longer in force".461  It has therefore 
requested the Panel "to either refrain from making findings on the measures related to Turkey's TRQ 
regime as [it is] no longer in force, or, should the Panel consider making these findings necessary for 
purposes of securing a positive solution to the dis pute, not to make any recommendation to the 
Dispute Settlement Body".462  Turkey has added that "it has no intention to renew these measures, 
neither extending them nor adopting new legislative instruments".463 
7.155  In support of its request, Turkey reca lled the Appellate Body's finding in US – Certain EC 
Products  that: 
"[T]here is an obvious inc onsistency between the finding of the Panel that '[a 
specific] Measure is no longer in existenc e' and the subsequent recommendation of 
the Panel that the DSB request that the United States bring [that] Measure into 
conformity with its WTO obligations.  Th e Panel erred in recommending that the 
                                                      
456 Turkey's first submission, para. 105.  See also Tu rkey's statement at the first substantive meeting, 
para. 22. 
457 Turkey's first submission, para. 115. 
458 Ibid., para. 116. 
459 Ibid., para. 136. 
460 Ibid., para. 139.  See also Turkey's statement at the first substantive meeting, para. 39 and Turkey's 
rebuttal, para. 37. 
461 Turkey's first submission, para. 136. 
462 Ibid., para. 139.  See also Turkey's statement at the first substantive meeting, para. 39 and Turkey's 
rebuttal, para. 37. 
463 Turkey's rebuttal, para. 44.  See also the Europe an Communities' statement at the third party session, 
para. 4. WT/DS334/R 
Page 80  
 
  DSB request the United States to bring into conformity with its WTO obligations a 
measure which the Panel has found no longer exists."
464 
7.156  Turkey has also cited cases in which, based on the Appellate Body's reasoning, subsequent 
panels issued findings on specific measures that had expired, but abstained from recommending to the DSB that it ask the Member concerned to brin g its measure into conformity with the WTO 
agreements.
465  Additionally, Turkey quoted the statement of the Panel on EC – Approval and 
Marketing of Biotech Products  to the effect that: 
"[A] panel is not necessarily required to make  use of its authority to make findings in 
respect of measures which were no longer in existence on the date of establishment of 
[the] panel [and] that in determining wh ether to make findings on a measure no 
longer in existence on the date of establishmen t of a panel, panels should notably take 
account of the object and purpose of the dispute settlement system [which is, p]ursuant to Article 3.7 of the DSU ... 'to secure a positive solution to a dispute'."
466 
7.157  Turkey has further quoted a statement by the same Panel on EC – Approval and Marketing of 
Biotech Products  regarding the issue of whether it should recommend, as requested by one of the 
parties, that the Member concerned bring its measure  into conformity with the WTO agreements.  In 
that case, one of the complainants had argued th at, when a panel finds that a measure is WTO-
inconsistent, it must recommend pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU that the responding party bring that measure into conformity with its WTO obligatio ns, regardless of whether the measure has ceased 
to exist after the panel was established.  The comp lainant had gone on to note the Appellate Body's 
statement in US – Certain EC Products  quoted above and emphasized that the measure in that case 
had been terminated shortly before th e Panel was established.  The Panel on EC – Approval and 
Marketing of Biotech Products , found that this reasoning was correct , but added that "the Appellate 
Body nowhere suggested that the situation could be different in a case where a measure ceased to 
exist in the course of panel proceedings
467".468 
7.158  Turkey has also quoted the EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products  Panel as citing 
another panel report, that of Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes , "in support of the 
view that panels are to avoid making recommenda tions which would apply to measures that are no 
longer in existence469 both in relation to measures expired be fore or after the commencement of the 
panel proceedings".470 
                                                      
464 Appellate Body Report on US – Certain EC Products , para. 81, cited in Turkey's first submission, 
para. 137, and Turkey's rebuttal, para. 38. 
465 See references to Panel Report on Chile – Price Band System , para. 7.112, and Panel Report on 
Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes , para. 7.363, in Turkey's first submission, para. 138, and 
Turkey's rebuttal, para. 38. 
466 Panel Report on EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products , para. 7.1651-7.1652, cited in 
Turkey's rebuttal, para. 41. 
467 (footnote original ) The Appellate Body stated that "[a]s we have upheld the Panel's finding that [...] 
the measure at issue in this dispute [...] is no longer in existence, we do not make any recommendation to the 
DSB pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU.  Appellate Body Report, US – Certain EC Products , para. 129 
(emphasis added).  In our view, if the Appellate Body had intended to distinguish between measures which ceased to exist before a panel was established and meas ures which ceased to exist in the course of panel 
proceedings, it would have used a phrase like "the measure at issue in this dispute was no longer in existence 
when the panel was established". 
468 Panel Report on EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products , para. 7.1313, cited in Turkey's 
rebuttal, para. 42. 
469 (footnote original ) See European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of 
Biotech Products , paras. 7.1313-7.1316.  See also para. 7.1670. 
470 Turkey's rebuttal, para. 42.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 81 
 
 
  7.159  The United States has rejected these arguments.  It has stated that the "TRQ regime allegedly 
'expired' on July 31, 2006", after consultations had taken place and the Panel had been established.471  
It pointed out that the legislativ e framework that has provided for the establishment of tariff quotas, 
namely, Decree No. 95/6814 of 30 April 1995 on Surveillance and Safeguard Measures for Imports 
and Administration of Quotas and Tariff Quotas  and Decree No. 2004/7333 of 10 May 2004 on the 
Administration of Quotas and Tariff Quotas , is still in force.472  The United States added that, "given 
the number of unpublished documents that the Governme nt of Turkey issues with respect to the rice 
trade"473 and the fact that the TRQs have expired before and then been reopened on previous 
occasions474, in its view it is "critical for achieving a definitive resolution of this matter", not only that 
the Panel make findings with regard to the measur e, but "that it also issue recommendations that 
Turkey bring its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations".475 
7.160  The United States has argued that "the TRQ regime had not 'expired' at the time of 
consultations and panel establishment,  and [therefore] the Panel is char ged by [its] terms of reference 
and Article 3.3 of the DSU to issue findings with  respect to the consistency of the measures 
comprising Turkey's TRQ regime with the relevant  provisions of the covered agreements and [to] 
make recommendations in order to resolve the dispute".476 
7.161  The United States has further argued that "[t]he re ports cited by Turkey respect the distinction 
between measures that expire prior to consultations  and panel establishment and measures that expire 
after panel establishment".477  In its opinion, the Panel on US – Certain EC Products  and the Chile – 
Price Band System  was faced with measures that had expired prior to the establishment of that 
Panel.478  As for the Panel on Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes , the United States 
has argued that: 
"[T]he Appellate Body later disagreed  with [that] panel and, contrary to what the 
panel did [i.e., not consider it necessary to issue findings with respect to a measure that had expired during the course of pa nel proceedings], recommended that the 
Dominican Republic bring its measure into conformity with its WTO obligations to 
the extent that it [had] not already done so".
479 
7.162  The United States has also noted that: 
"[T]he reports cited by Turkey support  the U.S. position that the Panel should make 
findings on the measures at issue, and if  the panel finds the TRQ regime to be 
inconsistent with provisions of the covere d agreement, [that it should] make the 
recommendations required under the DSU".480 
7.163  The United States has also pointed out that the Panel on EC – Approval and Marketing of 
Biotech Products  recalled: 
                                                      
471 United States' opening statement at the first substantive meeting, paras. 43-44. 
472 United States' response to question 22, para. 46. 
473 Ibid., para. 47. 
474 United States' response to question 18, para. 37. 
475 Ibid., para. 47.  See also Thailand's statement at  the third party session, para. 8.  But see Egpyt's 
statement at the third party session, para. 13. 
476 United States' opening statement at the first substantive meeting, para. 44. 
477 Ibid., para. 45. 
478 Ibid. 
479 Ibid. (emphasis in the original). 
480 Ibid., para. 46 (emphasis in the original). WT/DS334/R 
Page 82  
 
  "[T]he informal, de facto  nature of [the challenged me asure] which means that it can 
be re-imposed just as soon as it can be e nded.  In these circumstances, [the Panel 
agreed] that even if the [m easure] ceased to exist after August 2003 [date of the 
establishment of the panel], if [the Panel was] to find that the European Communities acted inconsistently with its WTO obligati ons by applying a general moratorium in 
August 2003 [at that same date], this coul d help prevent a WTO-inconsistent general 
moratorium from being reintroduced and, in this way, secure a positive solution to 
this dispute".
481 
7.164  The United States added that the same Panel pointed out in a footnote to the paragraph quoted 
above that: 
"[I]f we were not to make findings on th e [measure], there would effectively be a 
possibility of shielding it from scrutiny by a panel because this type of de facto  
measure could be ended shortl y before or during panel pr oceedings and promptly re-
imposed thereafter."482 
(b) The Panel's analysis 
7.165  This Panel was established by the DS B in its meeting of 17 March 2006.483  I t  i s  a n  
uncontested fact that the most recent TRQ for th e importation of rice was opened by Turkey from 
1 November 2005 to 31 July 2006.  This TR Q was regulated through Decree 2005/9315 of 
10 August 2005 on the Application of Tariff Quota for the Impor tation of Some Species of Paddy Rice 
and Rice  and was therefore in force at the time this Panel was established.484 
7.166  The challenged measure was properly brought befo re the Panel and is within its terms of 
reference.  Indeed, Turkey has not disputed this:  it has only requested that the Panel, based on the 
subsequent expiration of the most recent tariff quot a for the importation of rice, refrain from making 
findings on the measures related to Turkey's tariff quota regime or otherwise abstain from making recommendations to the DSB. 
7.167  The initial issue is thus whether the Panel should refrain from making findings on a measure 
that has been properly brought to the Panel's atten tion by the complainant and that is within the 
Panel's terms of reference,  but terminated after the Panel was esta blished.  This is not a novel issue.  
Previous panels and the Appellate Body have been faced with similar situations.  Only if the Panel 
decides to make such findings, and if they consist in  the determination of one or more violations of 
the covered agreements, does the issue arise of wh ether the Panel should proceed to make specific 
recommendations to the DSB with respect to that measure. 
7.168  As pointed out by Turkey, previous panels have refrained from making findings on measures 
that had terminated before  those panels had been established.
485  In Argentina – Textiles and Apparel , 
the Panel declined to rule on a measure that was "revoked before the Panel was established and its 
term of reference set, i.e. before th e Panel started its adjudication process"486, even though the 
measure was included in that Panel's terms of reference.  In arriving at its decision, the Argentina – 
                                                      
481 Panel Report on EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products , para. 7.1311, cited in United 
States' response to question 152, para. 60. 
482 Ibid., footnote 1194 to para. 7.1311, cited in United States' response to question 152, para. 60. 
483 Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request  of the United States (Note by the Secretariat), 
Turkey – Rice , 1 September 2006, WT/DS334/5/Rev.1, para. 1. 
484 See para. 2.76 above. 
485 See, for example, Panel Report on US – Gasoline , and Panel Report on Argentina – Textiles and 
Apparel . 
486 Panel Report on Argentina – Textiles and Apparel , para. 6.13.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 83 
 
 
  Textiles and Apparel  Panel cited the statement of the Appellate  Body in an earlier case that the aim of 
dispute settlement: 
"[Is not] to encourage either panels or th e Appellate Body to 'make law' by clarifying 
existing provisions of the WTO Agreement outside the context of resolving a particular dispute.  A panel need only address those claims which must be addressed 
in order to resolve the matter in issue in the dispute."
487 
7.169  However, in the dispute before us, the term ination of the TRQ, and of the corresponding 
domestic purchase requirement, occurred on 31 July 2006 .  That date is more than four months after  
the establishment of the Panel and the approva l of its terms of reference by the DSB. 
7.170  The Panel notes the United States' argument that, given the fact that the TRQs have expired 
before and then been reopened on previous occasi ons, a finding on this matter is "critical for 
achieving a definitive resolution".488  The Panel also notes that the legislative framework which has 
allowed for the establishment of the earlier TRQs (Decree No. 2004/7333 of 10 May 2004 on the Administration of Quotas and Tariff Quotas ) is still in force.
489 
7.171  There is no reason, however, for the Panel to  doubt Turkey's statement that "it has no 
intention to renew these measures, neither extending them nor adopting new legislative 
instruments".490  This is notwithstanding the fact that , when asked by the Panel after the first 
substantive meeting about its statement that the TR Q would not be reintroduced in the future, Turkey 
linked such commitment to the assumption of an un certain factor, i.e., that current domestic and 
international economic conditions would not change.  In Turkey's words: 
"The domestic and international economic indicators also lead Turkey to the 
assumption that there will not be, at least for the foreseeable futu re, needs for market 
intervention and stabilization of the types that  the TRQ helped address.  In particular, 
the Turkish Lira is no longer weak and unstable, plenty of rice is available 
internationally, and domestic rice remain s competitive with predictable production 
forecasts."491 
7.172  Turkey has nevertheless added that: 
"In any event... it will no longer have r ecourse to the TRQ system, if anything to 
lower its administrative costs and to avoi d misunderstandings of the type that may 
have triggered this dispute settlement pro ceeding.  The only real market stabilization 
instruments will remain the action of the TMO coupled with the use of appropriate 
MFN actual rates of duty."492 
7.173  Turkey's earlier statement led the Panel, afte r the second substantive meeting, to ask Turkey 
whether it would re-evaluate the convenience of re introducing a TRQ regime for the importation of 
rice, if any of the domestic and international econo mic indicators that it had originally considered 
were to change.  In response to th is question, Turkey declared that: 
"[D]espite the theoretical possibility th at 'domestic and international economic 
indicators' may change in the future, the TR Q system is an instrument that Turkey 
                                                      
487 Appellate Body Report on US – Wool Shirts and Blouses , p. 19. 
488 United States' response to question 18, paras. 37 and 47. 
489 Turkey's response to question 148(e). 
490 Turkey's rebuttal, para. 44. 
491 Turkey's response to question 82. 
492 Ibid. WT/DS334/R 
Page 84  
 
  considers too costly and administrativ e burdensome to achieve the intended 
objectives of market intervention and stabili zation.  Other less complicated trade 
policies (i.e., the action of the TMO as an  intervention agency, the appropriate and 
legitimate use of MFN and applied rates of  duty) stand-out as sufficient mechanisms 
to manage the market in a WTO consistent fashion."
493 
7.174  Accordingly, and despite the United Stat es' arguments on the likelihood of Turkey 
reintroducing a TRQ regime for the importation of rice, and with it a domestic purchase requirement, the Panel must not lightly assume that Turkey will  not abide by its stated intentions and its WTO 
commitments.  Indeed, as stated by the Panel on Argentina – Textiles and Apparel , panels "must 
assume that WTO Members will perform their treaty ob ligations in good faith, as they are required to 
do by the WTO Agreement and by international law."
494 
7.175  Notwithstanding these considerations, and re gardless of whether Turkey reintroduces a 
domestic purchase requirement in the future in the context of a new TRQ, the Panel notes that it is 
confined to the mandate it has received from the WTO Members, through the DSB and in accordance 
with the DSU.  That mandate consists of perform ing the tasks defined in Article 11 of the DSU: 
"[T]o assist the DSB in discharging its responsibilities under this Understanding and 
the covered agreements.  Accordingly, [t o] make an objective assessment of the 
matter before it, including an objective ass essment of the facts of the case and the 
applicability of and conformity with the re levant covered agreem ents, and make such 
other findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the 
rulings provided for in the covered agreements..." 
7.176  More specifically, in the present case, the Pa nel has been given the following terms of 
reference by the DSB: 
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited 
by the United States in document WT/DS334/4,  the matter referred to the DSB by the 
United States in that document, and to ma ke such findings as will assist the DSB in 
making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those 
agreements."495 
7.177  The "matter before the Panel", i.e., "the matter referred to the DSB by  the United States in" 
document WT/DS334/4, consists "of two elements:  the specific measures  at issue and the legal basis 
of the complaint  (or the claims )".496 
7.178  The mandate of the Panel is therefore to undert ake a careful and objective consideration of the 
matter that has been referred to it by the DSB.  This mandate does not necessarily require examination 
of each and every legal claim made by the complaini ng party.  Indeed, panels may exercise judicial 
economy as long as they consider "those claims on whic h a finding is necessary in order to enable the 
DSB to make sufficiently precise recommendations a nd rulings so as to allow for prompt compliance 
by a Member with those recommendations and rulings  'in order to ensure effective resolution of 
disputes to the benefit of all Members'."497 
                                                      
493 Turkey's response to question 148(c). 
494 Panel Report on Argentina – Textiles and Apparel , para. 6.14. 
495 Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request  of the United States (Note by the Secretariat), 
Turkey – Rice , 1 September 2006, WT/DS334/5/Rev.1, para. 2. 
496 See, for example, Appellate Body Report on Guatemala – Cement I , para. 72. 
497 Appellate Body Report on Australia – Salmon , para. 223.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 85 
 
 
  7.179  The Panel does not believe that, given the circum stances of this dispute, it should refrain from 
making any legal finding with regard to the domes tic purchase requirement, a measure that has been 
properly brought before it, merely because the measur e expired after the establishment of the Panel.  
To refrain from making such legal findings would, in the Panel's opinion, be inconsistent with the 
duties assigned to it by the DSB. 
(c) Conclusion 
7.180  In the light of the above, and in particular of  its terms of reference as approved by the DSB, 
the requirements set out in Article 11 of the DSU, a nd in the absence of an agreement by the parties to 
terminate the proceedings as regards this contested  measure, the Panel concludes that, it would be 
inappropriate to abstain from making findings with  respect to the domestic purchase requirement, a 
measure that has been properly brought before it.  In addition, the Panel notes at this stage that it 
would be appropriate for it to consider the subsidia ry request made by Turkey (i.e., that it abstain 
from making any recommendation to the DSB regardi ng this measure), only if the Panel determines 
that the domestic purchase requirement is inconsiste nt with any of the provisions cited by the United 
States. 
4. Order of analysis 
7.181  Regarding the proper order of analysis to be undertaken by the Panel in considering the 
different claims advanced by the United States, we  begin by noting the first provisions cited by the 
United States in its claims against the domestic purchase requirement, i.e., those contained in the TRIMs Agreement. 
7.182  Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement states that: 
"Without prejudice to other rights and obligations under GATT 1994, no Member 
shall apply any TRIM that is inconsiste nt with the provisions of Article III or 
Article XI of GATT 1994". 
7.183  In turn, paragraph 1(a) of the Annex to the TRIMs Agreement provides that: 
"TRIMs that are inconsistent with the oblig ation of national treatment provided for in 
paragraph 4 of Article III of GATT 1994 include those which are mandatory or 
enforceable under domestic law or under ad ministrative rulings, or compliance with 
which is necessary to obtain an  advantage, and which require: 
the purchase or use by an enterprise of  products of domestic origin or 
from any domestic source, whether specified in terms of particular products, in terms of volume or valu e of products, or in terms of a 
proportion of volume or value of its local production". 
7.184  Both provisions of the TRIMs Agreement, Article  2.1 and paragraph 1(a)  of the Annex, refer 
to the obligation of Members not to apply trade-re lated investment measures in a manner that is 
inconsistent with specific rules contained in the GA TT 1994, notably in Article III and in Article XI.  
Consequently, consideration of the United States' claims regarding the provisions of the GATT should 
precede that of the cited provisions of the TRIMs Agre ement.  This would also be consistent with the 
United States' statement that, if the Panel found that  the domestic purchase requirement is inconsistent WT/DS334/R 
Page 86  
 
  with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, the Pane l need not make a finding under the TRIMs 
Agreement.
498 
7.185  The Panel thus needs to consider whether it shoul d start its analysis of the domestic purchase 
requirement in relation to Article III:4 of th e GATT 1994, Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, or 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
7.186  In its relevant section, Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 states that: 
"The products of the territory of any contr acting party imported into the territory of 
any other contracting party shall be accord ed treatment no less favourable than that 
accorded to like products of national origin  in respect of all laws, regulations and 
requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, 
distribution or use." 
7.187  Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 provides: 
"No prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges, whether 
made effective through quotas, import or export licences or other measures, shall be instituted or maintained by any contracting party on the importation of any product of 
the territory of any other contracting party or on the exportation or sale for export of 
any product destined for the territory of any other contracting party." 
7.188  In turn, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture states that: 
"Members shall not maintain, resort to, or revert to any measures of the kind which 
have been required to be convert ed into ordinary customs duties
1, except as otherwise 
provided for in Article 5 and Annex 5. 
 __________ 
 
1 These measures include quantitative import restrictions, variable import 
levies, minimum import prices, discretionary import licensing, non-tariff measures 
maintained through state-trading enterprises,  voluntary export restraints, and similar 
border measures other than ordinary customs duties, whether or not the measures are maintained under country-specific derogations from the provisions of GATT 1947, 
but not measures maintained under balance-of-payments provisions or under other 
general, non-agriculture-specific provisions of GATT 1994 or of the other Multilateral Trade Agreements in Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement." 
7.189  The challenged measure is a specific requirement that was part of Turkey's TRQ system for 
the importation of rice.  The Panel notes that Artic le III:4 of the GATT 1994, on one hand, and, on the 
other, Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 4. 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, have distinct 
scopes of application.  The former deals with me asures affecting imported products inside domestic 
markets, whereas the latter two provisions deal with border measures that prohibit or restrict imports.  
As stated by the GATT Panel on Canada – FIRA , in words that were quoted by the WTO Panel on 
India - Autos : 
"[T]he General Agreement distinguishes be tween measures affecting the 'importation' 
of products, which are regulated in Artic le XI:1, and those affecting 'imported 
                                                      
498 United States' comments on Turkey's responses to question 151, para. 63.  See also para 7.150 
above.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 87 
 
 
  products', which are dealt with in Article III.   If Article XI:1 were interpreted broadly 
to cover also internal requirements, Article III would be partly superfluous".499 
7.190  Like Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture also deals 
with border measures.  Article 4.2 refers to "measu res of the kind which have been required to be 
converted into ordinary customs duties" .  As noted by the Appellate Body in Chile – Price Band 
System , the footnote to Article 4.2 "imparts meaning to [this provision] by enumerating examples of 
'measures of the kind which have been required to be converted', and which Members must not 
maintain, revert to, or resort to, from th e date of the entry into force of the  WTO Agreement ."500  
These are generally referred to in the footnote as "border measures other than ordinary customs duties". 
7.191  Having said that, the Panel also bears in mind that, as noted by the Panel on India - Autos : 
"[I]t... cannot be excluded a priori  that different aspects of a measure may affect the 
competitive opportunities of imports in different ways, making them fall within the scope either of Article III (where compe titive opportunities on the domestic market 
are affected) or of Article XI (where th e opportunities for importation itself, i.e. 
entering the market, are affected), or even that there may be, in perhaps exceptional 
circumstances, a potential for overlap between the two provisions ..."
501 
7.192  In this particular dispute, the United Stat es' main claim against the domestic purchase 
requirement is that it is a measure that "treats imported rice less favorably than domestic rice and 
adversely affects the conditions of competiti on for imported rice in the Turkish market".502  T h e  
United States' other claims against that same meas ure – that it is a border measure that restricts 
imports – have only been presented in the alternative.   As argued by the United States:  "To the extent 
Turkey's domestic purchase requirement is not view ed as a 'law, regulation or requirement' within the 
meaning of Article III, this requirement breach es Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, because it is a 
'restriction... on importation' within  the meaning of Article XI:1".503 
7.193  In other words, the United States made its clai m against the domestic purchase requirement as 
a violation of Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 c ontingent on a finding by the Panel that such 
requirement was not a "law, regulation or requirem ent" within the meaning of Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994.  As the measure has been challenged  first because of its alleged effects on the 
competitive position between imported and domestic ri ce, the Panel finds it reasonable to begin its 
analysis by focusing on the claim brought under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 
7.194  Only after the Panel considers the consiste ncy of the domestic purchase requirement with 
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, will it turn to the i ssue of whether the same measure should also, or 
alternatively, be viewed as a border measure and thus properly analysed under Article XI:1 of the 
GATT 1994 or Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agricultu re, or both.  In this regard, the Panel has 
already noted that Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
have similar scopes of application as they both apply to border measures.504  Article XI:1 of the 
GATT 1994, however, is generally applicable to im port prohibitions or restrictions imposed on any 
                                                      
499 GATT Panel Report on Canada – FIRA , L/5504, adopted on 7 February 1984, para. 5.14, as quoted 
in the Panel Report on India - Autos , para. 7.220. 
500 Appellate Body Report on Chile – Price Band System , para. 209. 
501 Panel Report on India - Autos , para. 7.224. 
502 United States' first submission, para. 86. 
503 Ibid., para. 103. 
504 See paras. 7.48 and 7.189 above. WT/DS334/R 
Page 88  
 
  product, while Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Ag riculture is limited to measures imposed on 
products that fall within the scope of the Agreement of Agriculture. 
7.195  In this particular case, and with regard to  the domestic purchase requirement, the United 
States' claims under both Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture may be considered to be equivale nt.  Following the same approach used before
505, if the 
Panel decides that it should also, or alternativel y, consider the domestic purchase requirement as a 
border measure, it will start by examining the claims presented by the United States under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, since this Agreement may be considered more specific in respect of 
border measures imposed on agricultural products. 
7.196  In conclusion, the Panel will begin its analysis of the claims advanced by the United States 
regarding the domestic purchase requirement, by considering first the claim brought under 
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  After the domestic  purchase requirement has been considered under 
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, the Panel will then  consider whether the same measure should also, 
or alternatively, be viewed as a border measure and thus analysed under Article XI:1 of the GATT 
1994 or Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, or both.  In this part of its analysis, should it be 
necessary, the Panel would start by examining the claims presented by the United States under 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, since th is Agreement may be considered more specific in 
respect of border measures imposed on agricultura l products.  If the Panel were to make findings 
under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, it would then consider whether it should also 
make findings under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.  Fi nally, if the Panel were to determine that the 
domestic purchase requirement was inconsistent with  any or all of the above-cited GATT provisions, 
it would then consider whether it is also necess ary to issue findings under the TRIMs Agreement. 
5. Claim under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 
(a) Arguments of the parties 
7.197  The United States claims that: 
"Turkey's imposition of a domestic purchase requirement under the TRQ regime on 
potential importers of rice into Turkey is inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 
1994, because the measure treats imported rice less favorably than domestic rice and adversely affects the conditions of competition for imported rice in the Turkish market.
506 
7.198  Recalling the Appellate Body's statement in Korea – Various Measures on Beef , the United 
States has stated that: 
"[T]here are three elements that must be satisfied to establish that a measure is in 
breach of Article III:4:  (1) the importe d and domestic products must be 'like' 
products;  (2) the measure is a law, regulati on, or requirement 'affecting their internal 
sale, offering for sale, purchase, transporta tion, distribution or use';  and (3) the 
imported products are treated less favorably than domestic products."507 
                                                      
505 See para. 7.48 above. 
506 United States' first submission, para . 86.  See also United States' rebu ttal, para. 65.  See also China's 
third party submission, para. 9.  See also Australia's statement at the third party session, para. 22, China's 
statement at the third party session, para. 3, Korea's statement at the third party session, pp. 3-4, and Thailand's statement at the third party session, para. 4. 
507 United States' first submission, para. 87.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 89 
 
 
  7.199  The United States has argued that Turkish rice and United States rice are like products.  
Firstly, because the difference in treatment between domestic and imported rice accorded by the challenged measure is based exclusiv ely on the origin of the products.
508  Secondly, based on the 
terms of their tariff classification;  their properti es, nature and quality;  their end uses;  and the 
consumer preferences.509 
7.200  The United States has added that the domestic pur chase requirement can be characterized as a 
"requirement", in terms of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, inasmuch as the measure is tantamount to an obligation which importers voluntarily accep t in order to obtain an advantage from the 
government, i.e., the ability to pay a reduced rate of duty to import rice.
510  It would "affect the 
internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, and use of  the like products", becau se compliance with the 
domestic purchase requirement provides the only way to import rice into Turkey511 and, more 
generally, because "[o]nly domestic rice satisfies the purchase requirement in order to import rice into Turkey under the TRQ, whereas imported rice does not".
512 
7.201  The United States has also stated that "Turke y's domestic purchase requirement accords less 
favorable treatment to imported rice", because "impor ted rice cannot be sold in the domestic market 
under any circumstance unless the importer first purchases, at inflated prices, domestic rice" and 
because "the domestic purchase requirement creates a disincentive to purchase and import foreign rice"
513: 
"Consequently, by making the sourcing of imported rice less desirable, the domestic 
purchase requirement alters the decision-ma king calculus of domestic entities when 
making purchasing decisions regarding rice.  And by making imported rice ineligible 
to satisfy the purchase requirement, the conditions of competition are altered in favor 
of domestic rice."514 
7.202  The United States has also argued that: 
"[D]omestic rice has an advantage in the marketplace that imported rice does not 
have, and domestic rice is more attractive as a result.  A purchaser considering a 
purchase of domestic or imported rice knows that only the domestic rice can be used 
to facilitate importation under the TRQ and so that advantage accrues only to the domestic rice."
515 
7.203  The United States has indicated that early GATT panels, as well as WTO panels and the 
Appellate Body, have found that "a Member's requiring the sourcing of domestic goods as a condition 
to receive a benefit [is] inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT".516  The United States specifically 
referred to the GATT Panel report in Italy – Agricultural Machinery  and to the WTO Panel report in 
India – Autos .517 
                                                      
508 United States' first submission, paras. 89-90. 
509 Ibid., paras. 91-92. 
510 Ibid., paras. 93-94. 
511 Ibid., paras. 95-96. 
512 United States' opening statement at  the first substantive meeting, pa ra. 29.  See also United States' 
opening statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 16. 
513 United States' first submission, paras. 97-98. 
514 Ibid., para. 98. 
515 United States' opening statement at the first substantive meeting, para. 29. 
516 Ibid., paras. 30-31. 
517 Ibid. WT/DS334/R 
Page 90  
 
  7.204  Turkey has agreed with the United States regarding the thr ee elements that must be 
determined in order to find a violation of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.
518 
7.205  Turkey has also agreed with th e United States that "the imported and domestic products in the 
case at stake [imported and domestic rice] are, in fact, ' like products '."519 
7.206  Turkey has also agreed that its domestic purch ase requirement "can be considered as either a 
'law, regulation or requirement ' within the meaning of [Article III:4 of the GATT 1994]."520  Turkey, 
however, has stated that this measure "does not ' affect the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase 
(…) or use ' of imported rice".521  In this respect, Turkey has argued that: 
"[I]t is wrong and misleading to state that  the fulfilment of the [domestic purchase 
requirement] by importers ' provides the only way to import rice into Turkey '.  In fact, 
as widely known and as effectively evidenced  in the factual background, any importer 
is free to import whatever quantity of rice into Turkey from whatever country at the MFN or applied rate of duty."
 522 
7.207  In Turkey's view, "[t]he regime of importati on which was applied within the TRQ was meant 
to provide an advantage to importers of foreign rice to adequately supply the Turkish rice market."523 
7.208  Turkey has argued that "the opening... of its  TRQ... resulted in the modification of the 
conditions of competition between domestic and im ported products in favour of imported products ", 
by making imported rice "purchased through the TRQ regime" cheaper than like domestic rice.524 
7.209  Turkey has finally argued that "the cond itions of competition [between imported and 
domestic rice] have not been adversely affected by  the [domestic purchase requirement] in favour of 
domestic rice and no less favourable treatment [has been] accorded by Turkey to rice imported from 
the United States".525 
7.210  Therefore, Turkey has concluded that the Pane l should reject the claim by the United States 
that the domestic purchase requirement is inc onsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.526 
(b) Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 
7.211  Under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994: 
"The products of the territory of any contr acting party imported into the territory of 
any other contracting party shall be accord ed treatment no less favourable than that 
accorded to like products of national origin  in respect of all laws, regulations and 
requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, 
distribution or use..." 
                                                      
518 Turkey's first submission, para. 89. 
519 Ibid, para. 90 (emphasis in the original). 
520 Ibid., para. 91 (emphasis in the original). 
521 Ibid. (emphasis in the original). 
522 Ibid., para. 93 (emphasis in the original).  See also Turkey's statement at the first substantive 
meeting, paras. 25 and 30, and Turkey's rebuttal, para. 47. 
523 Turkey's first submission, para. 93.  See also Tu rkey's statement at the first substantive meeting, 
paras. 22-23 and 25, and Turkey's rebuttal, paras. 46-47. 
524 Turkey's first submission, paras. 94-97.  See also Turkey's statement at the first substantive meeting, 
paras. 26 and 30, and Turkey's rebuttal, para. 48. 
525 Turkey's first submission, para. 98. 
526 Ibid., para. 99.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 91 
 
 
  (c) The Panel's analysis 
7.212  As recalled by both parties, the Appellate Body has said that: 
"For a violation of Article III:4 to be estab lished, three elements must be satisfied:  
that the imported and domestic products at is sue are 'like products';  that the measure 
at issue is a 'law, regulation, or requirement affecting their internal sale, offering for 
sale, purchase, transportation, distribution, or  use';  and that the imported products are 
accorded 'less favourable' treatment than that accorded to like domestic products."527 
(i) Likeness of products 
7.213  There is no disagreement between the parti es that the relevant imported and domestic 
products (imported and domestic rice) are "like products".528 
7.214  In any event, a number of panels have held the view that where a difference in treatment 
between domestic and imported products is based ex clusively on the products' origin, it is correct to 
treat products as "alike" within the meaning of Article III:4.  In that case, there is no need to establish 
the likeness between imported and domestic products in terms of the traditional criteria – that is, their 
physical properties, end-uses and consumers' tastes and habits.529 
7.215  The measure under consideration, the domestic  purchase requirement, created a distinction 
between different categories of rice, based solely on the criterion of their respective origin.  Under the 
rules contained in Decree 2005/9315 of 10 August 2005 on the Application of Tariff Quota for the 
Importation of Some Species of Paddy Rice and Rice , the purchase of paddy rice from domestic 
producers and the purchase of domestic paddy rice or milled rice from the TMO granted the purchaser 
the benefit of access to the importation of rice at reduced tariff levels.  In contrast, the purchase of 
imported rice did not grant the same benefit.  Turkey has not disputed this fact.530 
7.216  Accordingly, imported and domestic rice can be  considered as "like products", within the 
meaning of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, and fo r the purpose of considering the United States' 
claims regarding the domestic purchase requirement. 
(ii) Law, regulation or requirement affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, 
transportation, distribution or use 
7.217  There is no disagreement between the parties that the domestic purchase requirement can be 
considered as a "law, regulation or requirement".531  In any event, we recall that the Panel on India – 
Autos , when considering the notion of "requirement" within the meaning of Article III:4 of the GATT 
1994, first noted that: 
"An ordinary meaning of the term 'require ment', as articulated in the New Shorter 
Oxford Dictionary, is 'Something called fo r or demanded; a condition which must be 
complied with'."532 
                                                      
527 Appellate Body Report on Korea – Various Measures on Beef , para. 133. 
528 Turkey's first submission, para. 90.  United States' first submission, paras. 89-92. 
529 See, for example, Panel Report on India - Autos , para. 7.174, and Panel Report on Canada – Wheat 
Exports and Grain Imports,  para. 6.164 and footnote 246. 
530 See, for example, Turkey's  first submission, para. 33. 
531 Ibid., para. 91.  United States' first submission, paras. 93-94. 
532 Panel Report on India - Autos , para. 7.181. WT/DS334/R 
Page 92  
 
  7.218  The same Panel then noted that GATT jurispr udence "suggests two distinct situations which 
would satisfy the term 'requirement' in Article III:4:   (i) obligations which an enterprise is 'legally 
bound to carry out'; [and (ii)] those which an en terprise voluntarily accepts in order to obtain an 
advantage from the government."
533 
7.219  The domestic purchase requirement can clearly be considered as a "requirement", within the 
meaning of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, as it is a condition that importers may voluntarily accept 
in order to obtain an advantage from the Turkish government, i.e., the ability to import rice at reduced 
tariff rates. 
7.220  Turkey argues, however, that this measure does not  affect the internal sale, offering for sale, 
purchase or use of imported rice.534  In Turkey's view, the domestic purchase requirement was part of 
a regime that provided an advantage to importers of  foreign rice to adequately supply the Turkish rice 
market, but did not prevent them from otherwise importing rice into Turkey from any origin at the MFN or applied rate of duty.
535 
7.221  We note that the term "affecting" in the expression "laws, regulations and requirements 
affecting [the] internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use" in 
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 has been found to have  a broad scope.  As articulated in WTO and 
GATT jurisprudence, it "cover[s] not only laws a nd regulations which direc tly govern the conditions 
of sale or purchase but also any laws or regulations  which might adversely modify the conditions of 
competition between domestic and imported products536."537 
7.222  In US – FSC  (Article 21.5 – EC) , the Appellate Body also di scussed the use of the word 
"affecting" in Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, and noted that: 
"The word 'affecting' serves a similar function in Article I:1 of the  General 
Agreement on Trade in Services  (the 'GATS'), where it also defines the types of 
measure that are subject to the disciplin es set forth elsewhere in the GATS but does 
not, in itself, impose any obligation.538  I n  EC – Bananas III ,  we considered the 
meaning of the word 'affecting' in that provision of GATS.  We stated: 
[t]he ordinary meaning of the word 'affecting' implies a measure that 
has 'an effect on', which indicates a  broad scope of application .  This 
interpretation is further reinforced  by the conclusions of previous 
panels that the term 'affecting' in the context of Article III of the GATT is wider in scope than su ch terms as 'regulating' or 
'governing'.
539 (emphasis added, footnote omitted)."540 
                                                      
533 Panel Report on India - Autos , para. 7.184. 
534 Turkey's first submission, para. 91. 
535 Ibid., para. 93. 
536 (footnote original ) Panel Report on Italian Agricultural Machinery , supra  note 390, para. 12. 
537 Panel Report on Canada – Autos , para. 10.80.  See also, for example, Panel Report on Mexico – 
Taxes on Soft Drinks , para. 8.108. 
538 (footnote original)  Article I:1 of the GATS provides that "[t]his Agreement applies to measures by 
Members  affecting  trade in services."  (emphasis added) 
539 (footnote original)  Appellate Body Report, supra , footnote 47, para. 220.  We made the same 
statement regarding the word "affecting" in Article I:1 of the GATS in our Report in  Canada – Autos,  supra , 
footnote 56, para. 150. 
540 Appellate Body Report on US – FSC  (Article 21.5 – EC),  para. 209.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 93 
 
 
  7.223  Turkey has admitted that the domestic purchase requirement was established: 
"To partially compensate against [a] shif t of competitive conditions solely towards 
imported rice, while at the same time pursu ing the objectives of greater market supply 
(through the TRQ) and market stabilization (which also carried obvious consequences 
in terms of the viability and affordabilit y, within the committed AMS levels, of 
Turkey’s market intervention mechanisms)".541 
7.224  As Turkey has stated in other words: 
"[I]ts domestic purchase requirement was introduced within the TRQ in order to 
partly moderate the advantageous effects of the preferential rates (i.e., advantages 
which were totally in favo ur of imported products)."542 
7.225  The Panel believes that, if the domestic purchase requirement had the effect of altering the 
competitive relationship between imported and domest ic rice, even for the purpose of partially 
compensating for the benefits granted through the TR Qs, it is difficult to see how this requirement did 
not affect the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, and use of imported rice.  The domestic purchase requirement certainly "had an effect on" the competitive relationship between imported and 
domestic rice, and thus affected the decisions of operators on the purchase of imported and domestic 
rice. 
7.226  Accordingly, we conclude that the domestic  purchase requirement can be considered as a 
requirement affecting the internal sale, offering fo r sale, purchase and use of imported rice, within the 
meaning of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 
(iii) Less favourable treatment 
7.227  The United States has argued that the domes tic purchase requirement results in less 
favourable treatment for imported rice than for like domestic rice.  In its view: 
"Under the applicable regulations, imported rice cannot be sold in the domestic 
market under any circumstance unless the importer first purchases... domestic rice.  Domestic rice producers are not subject to the same requirement in order to bring 
their product to market, which provides them  a tremendous advantage in the market.  
Further, because the domestic purchase requirement makes pr ocuring imported rice 
more costly ... the domestic purchase requirement creates a disincentive to purchase and import foreign rice.  Consequently, by making the sourcing of imported rice less 
desirable, the domestic purchase requirement alters the decision-making calculus of domestic entities when making purchasing decisions regarding rice.  And by making 
imported rice ineligible to satisfy th e purchase requirement, the conditions of 
competition are altered in favor of domestic rice."
543 
                                                      
541 Turkey's first submission, para. 96. 
542 Turkey's opening statement at the se cond substantive meeting, para. 32. 
543 United States' first submission, para. 98. WT/DS334/R 
Page 94  
 
  7.228  Turkey has rejected this argument.   It has stated instead that: 
"The [domestic purchase requirement], in substance, was altering the conditions of 
competition between domestic  and imported products in favour of imported 
products ."
544 
7.229  Turkey has argued further that the domestic  purchase requirement should not be seen in 
isolation, but as a component of the TRQ: 
"The domestic purchase requirement must be seen as a fundamental of the TRQ 
system itself, just like the in-quota and the preferential rates of duty.  Turkey 
maintains that it was fully entitled to decide , in line with its economic policies, the 
characteristics of the TRQ.  For those importers that did not consider TRQ trade 
advantageous, MFN always remained an option."545 
7.230  In Turkey's view, "a TRQ system without the domestic purchase requirement would have 
resulted in too great an advantag e in favour of imported products".546 
7.231  In order to determine whether the domestic pur chase requirement resulted in treatment for 
imported rice that is less favourable than that acco rded to like domestic products, the Panel is guided 
by the statement from the Appellate Body that  such an assessment should focus on examining 
"whether a measure modifies the conditions of compe tition in the relevant market to the detriment of 
imported products".547 
7.232  Indeed, when considering the issue of "less favourable treatment" under Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994, previous panels have highlighted the importance of ensuring the "equality of competitive 
conditions between importe d products and like domestic products ".  As noted by the Panel on Japan – 
Film : 
"Recalling the statement of the Appellate Body in Japan – Alcoholic Beverages  that 
'Article III obliges Members of the WTO to provide equality of competitive conditions for imported products in relation to domestic products' 
548, we consider 
that this standard of effective equality of competitive conditions on the internal 
market is the standard of national treatment that is required, not only with regard to 
Article III generally, but also more particular ly with regard to the "no less favourable 
treatment" standard in Article III:4.  We note in this regard that the interpretation of 
equal treatment in terms of effective equality of competitive opportunities, first 
clearly enunciated by the panel on US – Section 337549, has been followed 
consistently in subsequent  GATT and WTO panel reports.550"551 
                                                      
544 Turkey's first submission, para. 96. 
545 Turkey's statement at the firs t substantive meeting, para. 30. 
546 Turkey's rebuttal, para. 50. 
547 Appellate Body Report on  Korea –Various Measures on Beef, para. 137. 
548 (footnote original)  Japan – Alcoholic Beverages , p. 16, citing US – Taxes on Petroleum Products 
and Certain Imported Substances , BISD 34S/136, para. 5.1.9 and Japan – Liquor Taxes , BISD 34S/83, 
para. 5.5(b). 
549 (footnote original ) US – Section 337 , BISD 36S/345, 386-387, para. 5.11. 
550 (footnote original)  See e.g. Canada – Import, Distribution and Sale of Certain Alcoholic Drinks by 
Provincial Marketing Agencies , adopted on 18 February 1992, BISD 39S/27, paras. 5.12-5.14 and 5.30-5.31; 
US – Malt Beverages , BISD 39S/206, para. 5.30; US – Gasoline , WT/DS2/R, para. 6.10; Canada – Periodicals , 
WT/DS31/R, adopted on 20 July 1997, p. 75;  Bananas III , WT/DS27/R, paras. 7.179-7.180. 
551 Panel Report on Japan – Film , para. 10.379.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 95 
 
 
  7.233  There is no disagreement between the par ties that, pursuant to Decree 2005/9315 of 
10 August 2005 on the Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of Paddy Rice 
and Rice552, which was in force at the time of establis hment of this Panel, only importers who 
purchased domestic paddy rice from local producers or who purchased domestic paddy rice or milled 
rice from the TMO were eligible to benefit from the tariff quotas for the importation of rice.  In other 
words, compliance with the domestic purchase re quirement was a necessary condition to benefit from 
access to the TRQ.  Purchase of like import ed rice did not grant the same benefit. 
7.234  In our view, as mentioned above, the domestic purchase requirement modified the conditions 
of competition in the Turkish market to the detriment of imported rice.  The purchase of domestic rice accorded an advantage that the pur chase of the like imported product did not, i.e., the option to buy 
imported rice at reduced tariff rates. 
7.235  We note that its 1958 report on Italy – Agricultural Machinery , a GATT Panel found that the 
provision by the Italian government of certain faciliti es (special and more favourable credit terms) to 
the purchasers of Italian tractors and other agricultura l machinery, facilities that were not available to 
the purchasers of imported agricultural machinery was inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT.  
The Panel added that: 
"The selection of the word 'affecting' [in Article III:4] would imply... that the drafters 
of the Article intended to cover in para graph 4 not only the laws and regulations 
which directly governed the conditions of sale or purchase but also any laws or regulations which might adversely modify the conditions of competition between the 
domestic and importe d products on the internal market..."
553 
7.236  The Panel notes that the parties hold contrasting views on the economic attractiveness for an 
operator in Turkey to import rice under the TRQs.  The United States has argued that, because of the 
high prices of the domestic rice that had to be boug ht in order to opt for an import licence under the 
TRQs, "the large cost associated with domestic pur chase more than offsets any alleged cost savings 
resulting from the preferential rates of duty realized by importers under the TRQ".554  In its opinion, 
the only reason why Turkish operators opted for importing rice under the TRQs was because the 
Turkish government was not allowing the importation of rice at MFN rates. 
7.237  Turkey has rejected this argument and contende d that "the [tariff quota] system was voluntary 
and conferred an advantage to the importers meeting the requirements stipulated in the legislation...  
[T]he high volumes of in-quota imports and the high numbers of licences which [were] issued are testimony to the attractiveness and appeal that  the tariff advantage has had in the business 
determinations made by individua l rice importers.  This in-quota advantage has always existed in 
parallel to the ability to import at the less advantageous MFN rates of duty."
555 
7.238  In our view, however, the most important consid eration is that, through the contested measure 
(the domestic purchase requirement), the purchase of Turkish domestic rice granted to operators in 
Turkey an option that the purchase of like imported rice did not, i.e., the option to import rice at 
reduced tariff rates.  The fact that purchase of domes tic rice gave that option to operators in Turkey, 
an option that would not accrue from the purchase of like imported rice, is in itself a benefit that 
                                                      
552 Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of Paddy Rice and Rice , Decree 
No. 2005/9315, published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25,935, dated 13 September 2005, in exhibits TR-9 and US-10. 
553 GATT Panel Report on Italy – Agricultural Machinery , para. 12. 
554 United States' opening statement at the first substantive meeting, para. 32. 
555 Turkey's statement at the first substantive meeti ng, paras. 22-23.  See also Ibid., para. 30, and 
Turkey's first submission, para. 97. WT/DS334/R 
Page 96  
 
  modified the conditions of competition in the Turkish market to the detriment of imported rice.  This 
is irrespective of whether operators ultimately f ound it economically advantageous or not to import 
rice under the TRQs. 
7.239  Turkey's repeated argument that the TRQs pr ovided a significant advantage to operators, by 
allowing them to purchase imported rice at lower cost s does not alter our conclusion.  If anything, it 
confirms that the domestic purchase requirement a ltered the competitive conditions between domestic 
and imported rice by making this advantage conditional on the purchase of domestic rice. 
7.240  Accordingly, we conclude that the domestic purchase requirement resulted in less favourable 
treatment for imported rice than for like domestic rice, within the meaning of Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994. 
(iv) Conclusion 
7.241  For the reasons indicated, the Panel concludes that, through the requirement that importers 
must purchase domestic rice, in order to be allowe d to import rice at reduced-tariff levels under the 
tariff quotas, Turkey accorded less favourable treatme nt to imported rice than that accorded to like 
domestic rice.  This measure was therefore in consistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 
6. Claim under Articles XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
(a) Arguments of the parties 
7.242  In addition to its claim that the domestic purch ase requirement was an internal measure that 
accorded less favourable treatment to imported rice  than to the like domestic product, the United 
States has also made the claim that this measure was "an additional import restriction... inconsistent 
with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Artic le 4.2 of the Agriculture Agreement".
556 
7.243  With respect to Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, the United States has argued that: 
"To the extent Turkey's domestic purchase requirement is not viewed as a 'law, 
regulation or requirement' within the m eaning of Article III, this requirement 
breaches Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, because it is a 'restriction... on importation' within the meaning of Article XI:1."
557 
7.244  In the United States' view: 
"[T]he domestic purchase requirement, on its  face, imposes a substantial restriction 
on imports of rice.  Importation under the TRQ regime cannot be realized unless an importer purchases large quantities of domes tic rice and presents proof of such 
purchases from TMO to FTU.  The TRQ regime constitutes a discretionary import licensing system, because receiving a license to import under the TRQ is non-
automatic; rather, importation under the TR Q is conditioned on domestic purchase.  
Further, the Turkish regulations have not always specified the amount of rice that would need to be procured in order to receive a portion of the quota, which has rendered importers completely unable to ship at times, or at best, has left them in a 
state of considerable uncertainty as to how much domestic rice they would need to 
procure from TMO, Turkish producers, or Tu rkish producer associations in order to 
                                                     
 
556 United States' rebuttal, para. 4. 
557 United States' first submission, para. 103.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 97 
 
 
  bring their shipments of foreign rice into the country.558  All of these features of the 
system make the importation process more burdensome and create serious disincentives to importation."
559 
7.245  Turkey has responded that: 
"[T]he allegation that its domestic pur chase requirement imposes, on its face, a 
substantial restriction on imports of rice is legally incorrect and not based on 
convincing factual evidence.  In fact, the TRQ regime, and its DPR system, only restricted imports in relation to the TR Q trade volumes (i.e., those imported at 
preferential rates) and in a strict non-discr iminatory fashion, but never altered or 
removed the ability of importers to import unlimited quantities or rice from any origin 
at the applied or MFN bound rate.  Theref ore, it never resulted in a substantial 
restriction on imports of rice."
560 
7.246  In Turkey's opinion: 
"[T]he allegation by the United States that Turkey's TRQ regime is based on non-
automatic import licensing conditioned upon domestic purchase is legally incorrect 
[because] the import licensing regime used to administer the TRQ regime was an 
automatic import licensing system and, therefore, not falling within the scope of GATT Article XI."
561 
7.247  The United States has also argued that Turkey's domestic purchase requirement is inconsistent 
with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  In its opinion, the domestic purchase requirement 
constitutes: 
"[A] discretionary import licensing system  and [a] non-tariff [measure] maintained 
through [a] state-trading [enterprise].  FTU will only grant a license to import rice under the TRQ to those importers who proc ure large quantities of domestic rice from 
TMO, Turkish producers, or Turkish pr oducer associations and who present to FTU 
proof of such purchase.  As the issuance of licenses is not automatic but contingent 
on domestic purchase,  Turkey’s maintenance of a domestic purchase requirement to 
import under the TRQ constitutes discretionary import licensing. 
The domestic purchase requirement is also a non-tariff measure maintained through a 
state-trading enterprise, because TMO admi nisters the domestic purchase requirement 
aspect of the TRQ.  An importer may only import rice under the TRQ if it purchases rice domestically, including from TMO, which sells rice at prices it announces.  In 
addition, the importer must obtain proof of such purchase from TMO, which must be 
presented to FTU.  If an importer does not present that documentation, FTU will not 
grant a license to import under the TRQ.  Lastly, under the regulations TMO is permitted to import 50,000 metr ic tons of milled rice in order to help stabilize the 
domestic market in the event that prices increase."
562 
                                                      
558 (footnote original)  See the April 2004 Decree (Exhibit US-2) and the April 2004 Notification 
(Exhibit US-3). 
559 United States' first submission, para. 104.  See also United States' rebuttal, para. 66. 
560 Turkey's first submission, para. 105.  See also Tu rkey's statement at the first substantive meeting, 
para. 31, and Turkey's rebuttal, para. 47. 
561 Turkey's first submission, para. 106. 
562 United States' first submission, paras. 114-115. WT/DS334/R 
Page 98  
 
  7.248  Turkey has responded that these allegations "must be rejected in that its TRQ regime was not 
based on discretionary import licensing and it is no t correct to state that non-tariff measures were 
maintained through state trading enterprises".
563  In Turkey's view, its import licensing system for 
purposes of allocating the TRQ to traders: 
"has always been an automatic import li censing system where approval of import 
licenses would be granted in all cases, provided that all application requirements were 
met by importers, as provided by Articles 2.1 and 2.2(a)(i) of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  Since one of the Turkish legal requirements that ' any 
person, firm or institution'  had to fulfil in order to be issued a license for TRQ 
importation was to be in compliance with  the domestic purchase requirements..., the 
United States has failed to demonstrate its clai m that Turkey maintained or resorted to 
discretionary import licensing".
564 
7.249  In relation to the claim that the domestic pur chase requirement is also a non-tariff measure 
maintained through a state-trading enterprise, Turkey has argued that: 
"[T]he TMO was only one of the possible providers of domestic rice under the three 
categories of the DPR (i.e., paddy producers having permission to plant paddy rice, 
their cooperatives and unions or the TMO).  Therefore, the United States fails to prove how the TMO could be in a position to operate non-tariff measures on imports 
of TRQ rice."
565 
(b) Articles XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
7.250  Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 provides that: 
"No prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges, whether 
made effective through quotas, import or export licences or other measures, shall be instituted or maintained by any contracting party on the importation of any product of 
the territory of any other contracting party or on the exportation or sale for export of any product destined for the territory of any other contracting party." 
7.251  In turn, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture states that: 
"Members shall not maintain, resort to, or revert to any measures of the kind which 
have been required to be convert ed into ordinary customs duties
1, except as otherwise 
provided for in Article 5 and Annex 5. 
 __________ 
1 These measures include quantitative import restrictions, variable import 
levies, minimum import prices, discretionary import licensing, non-tariff measures 
maintained through state-trading enterprises,  voluntary export restraints, and similar 
border measures other than ordinary customs duties, whether or not the measures are 
maintained under country-specific derogations from the provisions of GATT 1947, but not measures maintained under balance-of-payments provisions or under other 
general, non-agriculture-specific provisions of GATT 1994 or of the other 
Multilateral Trade Agreements in Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement." 
                                                      
563 Turkey's first submission, para. 115. 
564 Turkey's first submission, para. 115. 
565 Ibid., para. 116.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 99 
 
 
  (c) The Panel's analysis 
7.252  The Panel has already determined that the domestic purchase requirement was inconsistent 
with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  In that regard , the Panel has considered the effect that the 
measure had on the competitive opportunities betw een imported rice and the like domestic products. 
7.253  Having said that, the Panel agrees that, as noted by the Panel on India – Autos , there may be 
cases when a measure can affect both the conditions of competition between imported rice and 
domestic products after  importation, as well the opportunities for importation: 
"[I]t ... cannot be excluded a priori  that different aspects of a measure may affect the 
competitive opportunities of imports in different ways, making them fall within the scope either of Article III (where compe titive opportunities on the domestic market 
are affected) or of Article XI (where th e opportunities for importation itself, i.e. 
entering the market, are affected), or even that there may be, in perhaps exceptional 
circumstances, a potential for overlap between the two provisions... 
… [T]here may be circumstances in which specific measures may have a range of 
effects. In appropriate circumstances they may have an impact both in relation to the 
conditions of importation of a product and in respect of the competitive conditions of 
imported products on the internal market  within the meaning of Article III:4.
566  This 
is also in keeping with the well established notion that different aspects of the same 
measure may be covered by different pr ovisions of the covered Agreements "567 
7.254  In any event, the Panel does not believe that, having found that the domestic purchase 
requirement was inconsistent with Article III:4 of  the GATT 1994, an additional finding regarding the 
same measure as a possible import restriction would be necessary to resolve the matter at issue with 
regard to this particular measure. 
7.255  Accordingly, under the guidance of the principle of judicial economy, the Panel considers it 
unnecessary for the resolution of this dispute to a ddress the United States' claim that the domestic 
purchase requirement is an import restriction inc onsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.  Therefore, the Panel refrains from making any 
findings with respect to these two provisions. 
7. Claim under the TRIMs Agreement 
(a) Arguments of the parties 
7.256  In its request for the establishment of the Panel,  the United States advanced the claim that the 
domestic purchase requirement was also inconsistent w ith Article 2.1 and paragraph 1(a) of the Annex 
to the TRIMs Agreement.568  Throughout the proceedings, the United States presented its claim under 
the TRIMs Agreement independently from its cl aims against the same measure under other 
agreements (most notably, under Articl es III:4 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994). 
                                                      
566 (footnote original)  The Panel notes that the TRIMS Agreement Illustrative List envisages measures 
relating to export requirements both in the context of Artic le XI:1, as noted above in the context of our analysis 
under Article XI:1, and in the context of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, by listing as inconsistent with that 
provision measures which require "that an enterprise's pu rchases or use of imported products be limited to an 
amount related to the volume or value of local products that it exports" TRIMS Illustrative List, Item 1 (b). 
567 Panel Report on India - Autos , paras. 7.224 and 7.296.  See also the European Communities' third 
party submission, para. 28, and the European Communitie s' statement at the third party session, para. 4. 
568 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States, Turkey – Rice , 7 February 2006, 
WT/DS334/4, page 3. WT/DS334/R 
Page 100  
 
  7.257  Turkey has responded that, inasmuch as the Unite d States' claim under the TRIMs Agreement 
was based on the assumption that the domestic purch ase requirement was in breach of Article III:4 of 
the GATT 1994 and, since in Turkey's view that breach had not been dem onstrated, the claim under 
the TRIMs Agreement should likewise be rejected.
569  Turkey added that "the correct methodology for 
interpretation of the TRIMs Agreement should requ ire a preliminary assessment of the existence of 
both the trade and the investment elements of an alleged TRIM".570  In its view, its "domestic 
purchase requirement is not ... a trade-related invest ment measure ... [since] nothing in its expired 
TRQ legislation revealed or even implied 'i nvestment objectives' and it had no relation with 
investment".571 
7.258  At a late stage in the proceedings, when unde r the Panel's working procedures parties were 
invited to comment on each other's responses to qu estions after the second substantive meeting, the 
United States suggested that, "if the Panel [found] that Turkey has breached Article III:4 of the GATT 
1994 by instituting a domestic purchase requirement, it need not make a finding under Article 2.1 and 
paragraph 1(a) of Annex 1 of the TRIMs Agreement".572 
(b) The Panel's analysis 
7.259  The Panel has already determined that the domestic purchase requirement was inconsistent 
with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  Since the Unite d States suggested that, if the Panel were to 
make such a finding, it need not make an additiona l finding under Article 2.1 and paragraph 1(a) of 
Annex to the TRIMs Agreement, the Panel will not address this claim. 
8. Recommendations 
(a) Arguments of the parties 
7.260  Turkey has stated that "the legislative frame work providing for the TRQ regime, including the 
domestic purchase requirement, is no longer in force".573  Based on this statement, it has requested 
that, "should this Panel consider [it] necessary fo r the positive solution of the dispute [to make any 
finding on the TRQ regime and its domestic purch ase requirement, that it] refrain from making any 
recommendations on this matter".574 
7.261  In response, the United States has disagreed th at the measure is no longer in force and has 
argued that, in any event, the Pa nel should not refrain from making recommendations.  It has stated 
that the legislative framework that provided for the establishment of tariff quotas, namely, Decree 
No. 95/6814 of 30 April 1995 on Surveillance and Safeguard Me asures for Imports and 
Administration of Quotas and Tariff Quotas  and Decree No. 2004/7333 of 10 May 2004 on the 
Administration of Quotas and Tariff Quotas , is still in force.575  The United States added that, "given 
the number of unpublished documents that the Governme nt of Turkey issues with respect to the rice 
trade"576 and the fact that the TRQs have expired before and then been reopened on previous 
occasions577, in its view it is "critical for achieving a definitive resolution of this matter", not only that 
                                                      
569 Turkey's first submission, paras. 112-113. 
570 Turkey's response to question 75. 
571 Turkey's response to question 75. 
572 United States' comments on Turkey's responses to question 151, para. 63. 
573 Turkey's first submission, para. 136. 
574 Turkey's rebuttal, para. 37.  See also Turkey's first submission, paras. 6 and 139, Turkey's statement 
at the first substantive meeting, para. 39, and Turkey's rebuttal, paras. 40, 44 and 45.  See also European 
Communities' third party submission, para. 32. 
575 United States' response to question 22, para. 46. 
576 Ibid., para. 47. 
577 United States' response to question 18, para. 37.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 101 
 
 
  the Panel make findings with regard to the measur e, but "that it also issue recommendations that 
Turkey bring its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations".578 
7.262  The United States has argued that: 
"If the Panel were to find that the domestic purchase requirement is inconsistent with 
WTO rules but did not recommend that Turkey bring its measure into compliance 
with such rules, Turkey could re-impo se a domestic purchase requirement and then 
claim before a WTO compliance panel... that  the panel would not have jurisdiction to 
make findings on the consiste ncy of that measure with WTO rules because it was not 
a 'measure taken to comply' under Article 21.3 ( sic) of the DSU...  [W]ould such a 
development be helpful for resolving the di spute between the parties?  [T]he United 
States... submits that the answer is 'no'."579 
7.263  In the United States' view, the Panel's manda te is, not only to make findings, but also 
recommendations "with respect to the measures as th ey existed when this Panel was established".580  
The United States argues that: 
"This interpretation is borne out by the text  of the DSU, past panel reports cited by 
both Turkey and the United States, and the Appellate Body report in  Dominican 
Republic Cigarettes ."581 
7.264  Asked by the Panel, the United States subsequently stated that, in Dominican Republic – 
Import and Sale of Cigarettes , the Appellate Body had disagreed with the Panel's determination to: 
"[make] an adverse finding with respect to the Dominican Republic's Selective 
Consumption Tax, which existed on the date  of panel establishment, but which was 
subsequently modified [but to decide] not to make a recommendation to the DSB that 
the Dominican Republic bring the measure into conformity with WTO rules, on the grounds that the measure was no longer in force".
582 
(b) The Panel's analysis 
7.265  Article 19.1 of the DSU states that: 
"Where a panel or the Appellate Body concl udes that a measure is inconsistent with a 
covered agreement, it shall recommend that the Member concerned583 bring the 
measure into conformity with that agreem ent.[Footnote omitted]  In addition to its 
recommendations, the panel or Appellate Body may suggest ways in which the Member concerned could implement the recommendations." 
7.266  This general rule may be inapplicable when a measure has ceased to exist by the time the 
panel issues its recommendation to the DSB.  The Panel recalls in this regard the words of the 
Appellate Body in US – Certain EC Products : 
                                                     
 
578 Ibid., para. 47. 
579 United States' opening statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 22.  See also United 
States' response to question 152(a), para. 55. 
580 United States' opening statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 20. 
581 Ibid. 
582 United States' response to question 152(b), paras. 57-58. 
583 (footnote original)  The "Member concerned" is the party to the dispute to which the panel or 
Appellate Body recommendations are directed. WT/DS334/R 
Page 102  
 
  "[T]here is an obvious inc onsistency between the finding of the Panel that 'the 3 
March Measure is no longer in existence' and the subsequent recommendation of the 
Panel that the DSB request that the Unite d States bring its 3 March Measure into 
conformity with its WTO obligations.  Th e Panel erred in recommending that the 
DSB request the United States to bring into conformity with its WTO obligations a 
measure which the Panel has found no longer exists."
584 
7.267  The measure challenged by the United States is th e requirement, in force at the time of the 
establishment of this Panel, contained in Decree 2005/9315 of 10 August 2005 on the Application of 
Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of Paddy Rice and Rice585, by which, in order to 
import specified quantities of rice at reduced tariff levels under the TRQs, importers had to purchase 
specified quantities of domestic rice, from the TM O, from Turkish producers, or from producer 
associations. 
7.268  In accordance with the terms of Decree 2005/ 9315, the most recent tariff quota for the 
importation of rice was in force from 1 November 2005 to 31 July 2006.  The Panel has already noted that, despite the United States' arguments about th e likelihood that Turkey may reintroduce a TRQ 
regime for the importation of rice, and with it a domestic purchase requirement, the Panel must not 
lightly assume that Turkey will not abide by its decl aration that "it will no longer have recourse to the 
TRQ system".
586  Indeed, as stated by the Panel on Argentina – Textiles and Apparel , panels "must 
assume that WTO Members will perform their treaty ob ligations in good faith, as they are required to 
do by the WTO Agreement and by international law."587 
7.269  We do not find, from the Appellate Body's report in Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of 
Cigarettes , support for the United States' request that we make a specific recommendation regarding 
an expired measure.  In that case, the Panel noted  that the amendments introduced by the Dominican 
Republic to its Selective Consumption Tax, in the course of the panel's proc eedings, had changed the 
essence of the measure.588  The Panel had found that, in sever al aspects, the measures challenged in 
that case, related to the Selective Consumption Tax, were inconsistent with ob ligations in the covered 
agreements, but did "not find it a ppropriate to recommend to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body that 
it make any request to the Dominican Re public regarding this [amended] measure".589 
7.270  In its report, the Appellate Body did not  reverse any of the Panel's conclusions.590  W i t h  
regard to a particular measure that had b een modified during the appellate review, and not in the 
course of the panel's proceedings, th e Appellate Body noted that both participants had agreed that the 
measure had been altered throug h a new decree in October 2004.591  The Appellate Body then went on 
to note that both participants had nevertheless as ked for it "to rule on the WTO-consistency of the 
original  measure".  In view of the above, in its report, the Appellate Body: 
"[R]ecommend[ed]  that the Dispute Settlement Body request the Dominican 
Republic to bring the tax stamp requirement , found in [that] Report and in the Panel 
Report as modified by [that] Report to be  inconsistent with the GATT 1994, into 
                                                      
584 Appellate Body Report on US – Certain EC Products , para. 81. 
585 Application of Tariff Quota for the Importation of Some Species of Paddy Rice and Rice , Decree 
No. 2005/9315, published in Turkey's Official Gazette No. 25,935, dated 13 September 2005, in exhibits TR-9 and US-10. 
586 Turkey's response to question 82. 
587 Panel Report on Argentina – Textiles and Apparel , para. 6.14. 
588 Panel Report on  Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes , paras. 7.361 and 7.362.  See 
also Ibid., paras. 7.391 and 7.417. 
589 Ibid., para. 7.363.  See also Ibid., paras. 7.393 and 7.419. 
590 Appellate Body Report on Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes , para. 128. 
591 Ibid., para. 129.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 103 
 
 
  conformity with its obligat ions under that Agreement if, and to the extent that, the 
said modifications to the tax st amp regime have not already done so. "592 
7.271  In other words, and contrary to what the United States has argued, in its report, the Appellate 
Body did not reverse the Panel's decision to refrain from making a recommendation to the DSB 
regarding an expired measure.  Rather, the Appella te Body modified a recommendation that the Panel 
had made concerning a different  measure, because this measure had been modified during the 
appellate review.  If anything, we find support in that  case to the proposition that there is generally no 
need for a panel to recommend that the DSB request  the responding party to bring into conformity 
with its WTO obligations a measure which the pane l has found no longer exists and which that party 
has declared does not have th e intention to reintroduce. 
7.272  For the reasons cited above, we note that the domestic purchase requirement challenged by 
the United States has expired and that Turkey h as declared its intention not to reintroduce the 
measure.  Accordingly, we do not believe that th ere is any need for the Panel to recommend to the 
DSB that it make any request to Turkey in this regard. 
D. CLAIMS AGAINST THE DOMESTIC PURCHASE REQUIREMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH  THE 
DENIAL OR FAILURE TO GRANT LICENCES TO IMPORT RICE AT OR BELOW THE BOUND RATE OF 
DUTY  
1. The United States' claims 
7.273  In addition to its claims against the domestic purchase requirement and against the denial or 
failure to grant licences to import rice at or below th e bound rate of duty, considered individually, in 
its request for the establishment of a Panel, the Un ited States also raised claims against both measures 
considered jointly.  The United States stated  that these measures are inconsistent with: 
"Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 because Turkey's domestic purchase requirements, 
in conjunction with its denial of, or failu re to grant, import licenses for rice at or 
below the bound rate of duty, constitute restri ctions on imports other than in the form 
of duties, taxes, or other charges; 
Article 4.2 of the Agriculture Agreem ent because Turkey's domestic purchase 
requirements, in conjunction with its denial of, or failure to grant, import licenses for 
rice at or below the bound rate of duty, are 'measures of the kind which have been 
required to be converted into ordinary customs duties,' such as quantitative import 
restrictions, discretionary import licen sing, and non-tariff measures maintained 
through a state-trading enterprise, which Members may not resort to or maintain 
under that Agreement...  [and] 
Article 1.6 of the Import Licensing Agreemen t because applicants are not provided a 
reasonable period of time for submitting appli cations and because applicants have to 
approach more than one administrative bod y in connection with their applications".593 
7.274  In the course of the proceedings, the United States stated that: 
"Turkey's TRQ regime, under which it requires that importers purchase significant 
quantities of domestic rice as a condition fo r receiving a license to import rice, 
                                                      
592 Ibid. (emphasis added). 
593 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States, Turkey – Rice , 7 February 2006, 
WT/DS334/4, page 4. WT/DS334/R 
Page 104  
 
  coupled with Turkey's denial of Certificates of Control at the rates of duty set out in 
Turkey's domestic schedule or in its WTO Schedule constitutes a prohibition or 
restriction for purposes of Article XI:1.  Each component of Turkey's import licensing system – the TRQ regime and the denial of Certificates of Control outside that regime 
– is inconsistent with Article XI:1 operati ng independently, as previously described.  
In addition, the two components also give rise to a breach of Article XI:1 acting in 
conjunction... 
Turkey's import licensing regime, comprised of (1) the TRQ requiring domestic 
purchase for under-quota imports and (2) the denial of import licenses for any imports at the rates of duty set out in Turkey's domestic schedule or even in its WTO 
Schedule, also constitutes a breach of Article  4.2 of the Agriculture Agreement.  The 
United States already has established that both aspects of Turkey's import licensing regime are inconsistent with Article 4.2 of  the Agriculture Agreement.  The domestic 
purchase requirements under the TRQ constitute discretionary import licensing and non-tariff measures maintained through stat e-trading enterprises, which are measures 
set out in footnote 1 to Article 4.2.  And Turkey's denial of Certificates of Control 
outside the TRQ constitutes a quantitative im port restriction and discretionary import 
licensing, which also are measures set forth in footnote 1.  Furthermore... Turkey's import licensing regime as a whole is inconsistent with GATT Article XI:1's ban 
regarding prohibitions or restrictions on importation.  Because Article 4.2 of the 
Agriculture Agreement prohibits Members from employing quantitative import 
restrictions and discretionary import licensing in place of ordinary customs duties, the 
two measures operating in conjunction are necessarily in breach of Article 4.2."
594 
7.275  Throughout the Panel's proceedings, the United States made only one mention to its claim 
under Article 1.6 of the Import Licensing Agreement.   In response to a question from the Panel after 
the second substantive meeting, the United States stated that: 
"Article 1.6 of the Import Licensing Agreement requires that '[a]pplication 
procedures ... shall be as simple as possible. '  It further provides that '[a]pplicants 
shall have to approach only one administrative body in connection with an application.  Where it is strictly indi spensable to approach more than one 
administrative body, applicants shall not  need to approach more than three 
administrative bodies.'  As previously d escribed by the United States, the rice 
importation process in Turkey is far from si mple.  This highly cumbersome system 
would certainly be less so if the domestic purchase and Control Certificate requirements were eliminated.  Further, the United States has demonstrated that multiple Turkish agencies are collecting th e same customs-related information from 
importers, and that MARA’s collection of this information serves neither a customs 
nor an SPS purpose.  Accordingly, it is not 'strictly indispensable' that applicants 
approach more than one Turkish agency in  order to import rice.  Even if it were, 
Turkey requires that importers approach four agencies, which is more than the Import 
Licensing Agreement permits under the 's trictly indispensable' exception."
595 
                                                      
594 United States' first submission, paras. 120-125. 
595 United States' response to question 131(b), para. 21.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 105 
 
 
  2. Response from Turkey 
7.276  In response to the United States' claim, Turkey has stated that: 
"[T]here is no de jure  or de facto  'denial' of approval of Certificates of Control in 
breach of GATT Article XI...  Certificates of Control are not 'import licenses' but administrative forms relevant for ' customs purposes ', which are aimed at ensuring 
compliance with legitimate objectives ...  MF N trade in rice has effectively occurred 
throughout the operation of the TRQ regime. 
It does not correspond to the reality of facts to claim... that importers of rice were 
forced to import through the TRQ regime.  In addition, it is also misleading to 
affirm... that the TRQ regime was less a dvantageous for importers and that 'no 
economically rational importer' would have chosen it if given the option to import at 
the MFN rates...  [E]ven for an importer of rice coming from the United States, the 
TRQ did provide a substantial advantag e, in spite of the domestic purchase 
requirement... 
Turkey rejects the claim by the United States that a legal or operational link between 
the legislative framework that provides fo r the TRQ regime and the one regulating 
MFN trade would aim at seriously restric ting market access.  There is no prohibition 
or restriction connected with either the Certificates of Control or Turkey’s TRQ 
regime.  There are no discretionary import licensing procedures.  There are no seasonal bans.  Therefore, none of these instruments has ever acted, either individually or in combination with one anot her, to deter full utilization of the quotas 
opened within the TRQ regime or to prohibit or restrict MFN trade ... 
[For the reasons above], there cannot be ' discretionary import licensing ' and/or 
'quantitative import restrictions ' within the meaning of Article 4.2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture and footnote 1 thereof ... 
Turkey rejects the claim by the United States that the 'TRQ requiring domestic 
purchase for under-quota imports' and the 'denia l of import license for any imports' at 
the applied or MFN rates of duty constitute  a breach of Article 4.2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  This never occurred both in relation to the individual instruments and 
what the United States claim was their joint operation."
596 
3. Provisions invoked by the United States 
7.277  As noted above597, in its claims raised jointly agai nst the domestic purchase requirement and 
against the denial or failure to grant licences to im port rice at or below the bound rate of duty, the 
United States has invoked the following three provisions of the WTO covered agreements:  Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article 1.6 of the 
Import Licensing Agreement.  The first two provisi ons have been cited extensively throughout this 
report.
598  In turn, Article 1.6 of the Import Licensing Agreement states that: 
"Application procedures and, where applicable, renewal procedures shall be as simple 
as possible.  Applicants shall be allowe d a reasonable period for the submission of 
                                                      
596 Turkey's first written submission, paras. 125-127 and 130-131.  See also Turkey's oral statement 
during the first substantive meeting with the Panel, para. 37, and Turkey's response to question 19. 
597 See para. 7.273 above. 
598 See, for example, paras. 7.51 to 7.138,  7.139 to 7.142, and 7.242 to 7.255 above. WT/DS334/R 
Page 106  
 
  licence applications.  Where there is a closi ng date, this period should be at least 21 
days with provision for extension in circ umstances where insufficient applications 
have been received within this period.  A pplicants shall have to approach only one 
administrative body in connection with an application.  Where it is strictly indispensable to approach more than one administrative body, applicants shall not 
need to approach more than three administrative bodies." 
4. Panel's analysis 
7.278  As a preliminary matter, we note that in its re quest for the establishment of a Panel the United 
States stated its claim under Article 1.6 of the Im port Licensing Agreement as one of its "Other 
Claims Relating to Turkey's Import Regime".
599  The United States did not explicitly state, as it had 
done with its claims under Article XI:1 of th e GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, that the claim under Article 1.6 of the Import Licensing Agreement was directed at 
Turkey's domestic purchase requirements, considered in conjunction with  its denial of, or failure to 
grant, import licences for rice at or below the bound rate of duty.600  In any event, the United States 
articulated this claim in the course of the Panel' s proceedings as directed against both "the domestic 
purchase and [the] Control Certificate requirements".601  In its comments on the descriptive sections 
of the draft report sent to the parties, the United States further confirmed th at this claim should be 
considered by the Panel as one against Turkey 's domestic purchase requirements, considered in 
conjunction with  its denial of, or failure to grant, import licences for rice at or below the bound rate of 
duty.602 
7.279  The Panel is aware that, as stated by the Panel in Japan – Film : 
"[I]t is not implausible that individual measures which do not impair benefits when 
considered in isolation, could nonetheless have an adverse impact on conditions of 
competition when considered collectively."603 
7.280  The situation in the present case is different, how ever, from that analyzed by the Panel in 
Japan – Film  in the section quoted above.  The United States has not argued that certain individual 
measures, which when individuall y considered might not have c onstituted a breach of obligations 
under the WTO agreements, yet give rise to such a br each when considered in conjunction.  The claim 
is rather that these measures are in violation of the covered agreements, both considered separately 
and in conjunction. 
7.281  The Panel has already found that the two meas ures challenged in conjunction by the United 
States (namely, the denial or failure to grant licen ces to import rice at or below the bound rate of duty 
and the domestic purchase requirement) are each indivi dually inconsistent with  Turkey's obligations 
under covered agreements.604  In the light of these findings, and u nder the guidance of the principle of 
judicial economy, we do not see the need to reach a separate conclusion on these measures considered 
jointly, for the resolution of this dispute. 
                                                      
599 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States, Turkey – Rice , 7 February 2006, 
WT/DS334/4, page 4. 
600 Ibid. 
601 United States' response to question 131(b), para. 21. 
602 Comments of the United States concerning the draft descriptive part of the Panel's Report, 20 March 
2007, page 4. 
603 Panel Report on Japan – Film , para. 10.353.  Cf. GATT Panel Report on US – Taxes on 
Automobiles , para. 5.70. 
604 See paras. 7.138 and 7.241 above.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 107 
 
 
  E. THE UNITED STATES ' CLAIMS CONCERNING ARTICLES 3.5(A)  AND 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, AND 5.4 OF 
THE IMPORT LICENSING AGREEMENT  
1. The United States' claims 
7.282  In its request for the establishment of a panel,  under the heading "Other Claims Relating to 
Turkey's Import Regime"605, the United States made inter alia  two separate claims concerning 
Articles 3.5(a) and 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 of th e Import Licensing Agreement.  In particular, the 
United States claimed the inconsistency of Turkey's  measures listed in the request for establishment of 
a panel606 with: 
(a) "Article 3.5(a) of the Import Licensi ng Agreement because Turkey has failed to 
provide, upon the request of the United Stat es, all relevant information concerning the 
administration of Turkey's import licensing regime and the import licenses granted 
over a recent period607;  and 
(b) Articles 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 of the Import Licensing Agreement because Turkey has 
failed to notify its import licensing regime for rice"608. 
7.283  In its first written submission, the United States linked these two claims, articulating them 
jointly in the following way: 
"During the consultations, the United St ates requested that Turkey provide 
information concerning the issuance of Certif icates of Control at the over-quota rates 
of duty and the number of Certificates that  had been granted over the last year.  
Turkey has not provided this information. Further, in July 2005, the United States 
requested that Turkey notify its non-automa tic import licensing regime for rice to the 
Import Licensing Committee.609  Turkey has not done so.  Accordingly, Turkey is in 
breach of Articles 3.5(a), 5.1, 5.2(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), and (h), 5.3, and 5.4 of the Import Licensing Agreement."
610 
2. Turkey's response 
7.284  In response, Turkey addressed these two claims  jointly under the same heading in its first 
written submission.  Turkey did not explicitly refu te the claims advanced by the United States 
concerning non-compliance with the relevant re quirements of the Import Licensing Agreement;  
rather, Turkey disputed the applicability of those requirements in the case at hand. 
7.285  In regard to the claim by the United States c oncerning Article 3.5(a) of the Import Licensing 
Agreement, Turkey argued that: 
"Certificates of Control are not 'import licenses' within the meaning of the Agreement 
on Import Licensing Procedures.  Therefore, th e obligation under Article 3.5(a) of the 
                                                      
605 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States, Turkey – Rice , 7 February 2006, 
WT/DS334/4, page 4. 
606 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States, Turkey – Rice , 7 February 2006, 
WT/DS334/4, pages 1-2. 
607 Claim 20 in Ibid., page 4. 
608 Claim 21 in Ibid., page 4. 
609 (footnote original ) G/LIC/Q/TUR/3 ( 25 July 2005). 
610 United States' first submission, para. 127.  See also Ibid., para. 5, and Turkey's rebuttal, paras. 5 and 
82, and United States' response to question 139, para. 32. WT/DS334/R 
Page 108  
 
  Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures does not apply to its Certificates of 
Control."
611 
7.286  As to the claim by the United States concerni ng Article 5 of the Import Licensing Agreement, 
Turkey maintained that: 
"Similarly, ... the licensing procedures envi saged under the TRQ regime belong to an 
automatic import licensing system within the meaning of the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures.  Therefore, Turkey’s  import licensing system within the TRQ 
regime is not subject to the notifica tion requirements under Article 5 of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures."612 
3. The Panel's analysis 
7.287  The Panel notes that the Panel on Canada – Dairy  refrained from assessing the United States' 
claims under Article 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement, stating that: 
"Since we have found above that the two acce ss restrictions imposed by Canada with 
respect to its tariff-rate quota for fluid milk are contrary to Canada's obligations under 
Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994, we see no need to examine whether in so doing 
Canada also violates Article 3 of the Licensing Agreement."613 
7.288  The Panel notes the similarities of Canada – Dairy  with the present case.  The Panel in the 
case at hand has already found that Turkey's denial or  failure to grant Certificates of Control to import 
rice outside of the tariff rate quota substantively viol ated Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Further, in Canada – Dairy one of the arguments the United States made under the Import Licensing 
Agreement related to a transparency obligation in Articl e 3.5(a)(iv) of that Agreement.  In that regard, 
in Canada – Dairy  the United States argued, similar to the case at hand, that the respondent: 
"[H]ad failed in its obligation under Article  3.5(iv) to provide information respecting 
the value and volume of fluid milk within  the tariff-rate quota.  This data was 
requested by the United States during c onsultations in November 1997, and 
[the respondent] advised that such info rmation had not been developed despite 
assurances in earlier consultations that the data would be made available.[Footnote 
omitted]"614 
7.289  The Panel notes, in this context, that the Panel on Canada – Dairy exercised judicial economy 
through the above-cited passage in regard to a ll claims of the United States under the Import 
Licensing Agreement, including the transparen cy claim of the United States pursuant to 
Article 3.5(iv) of that Agreement.615  Further, the Panel notes that both sets of relevant provisions 
invoked jointly by the United States in the case at ha nd, namely Article 3.5(a) of the Import Licensing 
Agreement, on the one hand, and Articles 5.1, 5.2(a), (b),  (c), (d), (e), (g), and (h), 5.3, and 5.4 of the 
same Agreement, on the other hand, set out transparen cy obligations, which – similar to Article 3.5(a) 
of the Import Licensing Agreement – ultimately ser ve to provide information to other Members. 
7.290  Indeed, Article 3.5(a) of the Import Licensing Agreement stipulates that: 
                                                      
611 Turkey's first submission, para. 133. 
612 Turkey's first submission, para. 134. 
613 Panel Report on Canada – Dairy , para. 7.157. 
614 Ibid., para. 4.514. 
615 See in particular the heading above para. 7.157. of the Panel Report on Canada – Dairy :  
"The Licensing Agreement".  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 109 
 
 
  "(a) Members shall provide, upon the request of any Member having an interest in 
the trade in the product concerned, all relevant information concerning: 
(i) the administration of the restrictions; (ii) the import licences granted over a recent period; (iii) the distribution of such licences among supplying countries; 
(iv) where practicable, import statistic s (i.e. value and/or volume) with 
respect to the products subject to import licensing.  Developing country Members would not be expected to take additional 
administrative or financial burdens on this account". 
7.291  In turn, Articles 5.1, 5.2(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), and (h), 5.3, and 5.4 of the Import Licensing 
Agreement provide that: 
"1. Members which institute licensing pro cedures or changes in these procedures 
shall notify the Committee of such within 60 days of publication. 
2. Notifications of the institution of import licensing procedures shall include 
the following information: 
(a) list of products subject to licensing procedures; 
(b) contact point for information on eligibility; (c) administrative body(ies) for submission of applications; (d) date and name of publication where licensing procedures are 
published; 
(e) indication of whether the licensing procedure is automatic or non-
automatic according to definitions  contained in Articles 2 and 3; 
[...] 
(g) in the case of non-automatic import licensing procedures, indication 
of the measure being implemented through the licensing procedure;  and 
(h) expected duration of the licensing procedure if this can be estimated 
with some probability, and if not, reason why this information cannot be provided. 
3. Notifications of changes in import licensing procedures shall indicate the 
elements mentioned above, if  changes in such occur. 
4. Members shall notify the Committee of the publication(s) in which the 
information required in paragraph 4 of Article 1 will be published." 
7.292  In the light of the above, like the Panel on Canada – Dairy , this Panel sees no need to 
examine whether, through its decision, from Sept ember 2003 and for different periods of time, to WT/DS334/R 
Page 110  
 
  deny or fail to grant licences to import rice at or below the bound rate of duty, Turkey also violates 
Article 3.5(a) of the Import Licensing Agreement and,  following a similar and related logic, there is 
no need to examine whether Turkey also violates Articles 5. 1, 5.2(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), and (h), 5.3, 
and 5.4 of the Import Licensing Agreement. 
F. 
THE ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTAS  
1. The United States' claim 
7.293  In its request for the establishment of a Panel, in addition to other claims, the United States 
stated that Turkey was acting inconsistently with: 
"Article 3.5(h) of the Import Licensing Agreement because Turkey administers its 
[tariff-rate quotas on rice] in such a wa y as to discourage the full utilization of 
quotas".616 
7.294  In its first submission, the United States ar ticulated this claim in the following manner: 
"Turkey ensures that the full amount of the quotas cannot be reached by setting the 
domestic purchase requirement so high that the entire Turkish domestic production of 
rice would be purchased by importers befo re the in-quota amount was reached.  For 
example, Turkish paddy rice production w as 415,000 metric tons in 2004 and 
500,000 metric tons in 2005.617  The maximum amount of paddy rice that could be 
imported under the TRQ was 500,000 metric tons.618  Yet, in almost every instance, 
an importer seeking to import rice under the TRQ is required to purchase a larger  
quantity of domestic rice than the amount of rice it wants to import.  Put simply, even if importers purchased every grain of rice in Turkey, they would not approach the 
500,000 metric ton limit on paddy rice imports. 
Further, the high cost of domestic purchase makes importing under the TRQ much 
more expensive to the importer, who is likely a miller, than simply procuring rice domestically, and hence discourages the full utilization of the TRQ."
619 
2. Response from Turkey 
7.295  In response to the United States' claim, Turkey has stated that: 
"Article 3.5(h) of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures applies to ' non-
automatic import licensing '... 
Turkey’s import licensing system for purposes of allocating the TRQ to traders has 
always been, while it was in force, an automatic import licensing system... 
[O]n the basis of these legal considerations and factual evidence, it appears clear that 
Turkey's import licensing system for pur poses of allocating the TRQ to traders was 
automatic and has never resulted in the disc ouragement of full utilization of quotas.  
                                                      
616 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States, Turkey – Rice , 7 February 2006, 
WT/DS334/4, page 3. 
617 (footnote original ) Exhibit US-45. 
618 (footnote original) Exhibits US-5 and US-10. 
619 United States' first submission, paras. 118-119.  S ee also Ibid., para. 123, United States' response to 
questions 72 and 77(a), paras. 110-112 and 121, United States' oral statement during the first substantive 
meeting, paras. 32-37, and Exhibit US-52.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 111 
 
 
  In any event, it should be noted that, ra ther than discouraging full utilization of 
quotas, Turkey extended twice in 2005 the deadlines for application of import license within the TRQ opened between 1 November 2004 and 31 July 2005.  This appears to 
be clear and convincing evidence that Turk ey did not intend to discourage full 
utilization of the quotas. 
For these reasons, the claim by the United States under Article 3.5(h) of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures must be rejected."
620 
7.296  In response to the United States ' assertion that Turkey allegedl y ensured that the full amount 
of the quotas could not be reached by setting the do mestic purchase requirement so high that the entire 
Turkish domestic production of rice would have to be purchased by importers before the in-quota 
amount was reached, Turkey submitted that: 
"[T]he total amount of the tariff quota was determined on the basis of the production 
projections of each year and the convers ion coefficients indicated in related 
Communiqués."621 
7.297  In addition, as a claim linked to the domestic  purchase requirement imposed by Turkey with 
respect to the tariff rate quotas for the importati on of rice, the United States' claim regarding the 
alleged discouragement of the full utilization of qu otas falls under the request advanced by Turkey 
that, since its "TRQ regime and its related im port licensing procedures are no longer in force":622 
"[T]he Panel [should] either refrain from making findings on the measures related to 
Turkey's TRQ regime as no longer in for ce, or, should the Panel consider making 
these findings necessary for purposes of secu ring a positive solution to the dispute, 
not to make any recommendation to the Dispute Settlement Body."623 
3. Article 3.5(h) of the Import Licensing Agreement 
7.298  Article 3.5(h) of the Import Licensing Agreement reads: 
"[W]hen administering quotas, Members shall not prevent importation from being 
effected in accordance with  the issued licences, and sh all not discourage the full 
utilization of quotas". 
4. Panel's analysis 
7.299  The United States' claim under Article 3.5(h) of the Import Licensing Agreement is linked to 
the operation of the domestic purchase requirement impos ed by Turkey with respect to the tariff rate 
quotas for the importation of rice.  As articulated by the United States, the alleged discouragement of the full utilization of quotas would occur through the determination of the ra tio of the domestic rice 
which had to be purchased and rice which c ould be imported, unde r the domestic purchase 
requirement, depending on Turkey's est imated domestic production of rice. 
                                                     
 
620 Turkey's first written submission, paras. 119-123.  See also Ibid., paras. 2, 106 and 108, Turkey's 
oral statement during the first subs tantive meeting with the Panel, para. 38, and Turkey's response to 
question 16. 
621 Turkey's response to question 72. 
622 Turkey's first written submission, para. 4. 
623 Ibid., para. 139. WT/DS334/R 
Page 112  
 
  7.300  It follows that the domestic purchase requirement  is a necessary element of the measure that 
has been challenged by the United States under this specific claim.  Without this requirement, the 
alleged discouragement of the full utilization of q uotas claimed by the United States would disappear. 
7.301  The Panel recalls that the domestic purchase requirement has already been found to be 
inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, because it resulted in less favourable treatment to 
imported rice than that accorded to like domestic rice.
624  Therefore, under the guidance of the 
principle of judicial economy, the Panel considers that addressing the claim under Article 3.5(h) of the 
Import Licensing Agreement would be unnecessary  for the resolution of this dispute. 
G. SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT  
7.302  Pursuant to Article 12.11 of the DSU: 
"[W]here one or more of the parties is a developing country Member, the panel's 
report shall explicitly indicate the form in which account has been taken of relevant 
provisions on differential and more-favour able treatment for developing country 
Members that form part of the covered ag reements which have been raised by the 
developing country Member in the cour se of the dispute settlement procedures." 
7.303  In addition, the DSU provides in Article 12.10 that: 
"[I]n examining a complaint against a de veloping country Member, the panel shall 
accord sufficient time for the developing c ountry Member to prepare and present its 
argumentation." 
7.304  The Panel notes that, in the course of these Panel proceedings Turkey did not raise any 
specific provisions on differential and more-favourab le treatment for developing country Members 
that require particular consideration, nor do we  find these specialized provisions relevant for the 
resolution of the specific matter brought before this Panel. 
7.305  In any event, during the Panel proceedings, the Panel took into account the respondent's status 
as a developing country Member, a fact not contested by the complainant, when preparing and revising the timetable for the process.  The Panel attempted, inter alia , to accommodate, to the extent 
possible, Turkey's requests for ex tensions of deadlines to submit responses to the questions posed by 
the Panel both after the first and second substantive m eetings, as well as Turkey's request for time to 
submit comments on the United States comments to the Panel's interim report. 
VIII.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 
8.1 The Panel concludes that Turkey's decision, fro m September 2003 and for different periods of 
time, to deny, or fail to grant, Certificates of Cont rol to import rice outside of the tariff rate quota, 
constitutes a quantitative import restriction, as well as a practice of discretionary import licensing, 
within the meaning of footnote 1 to Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Accordingly, it is a 
measure of the kind which have been required to be  converted into ordinary customs duties and is 
therefore inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
8.2 The Panel recommends that the Dispute Settle ment Body request Turkey to bring the 
inconsistent measures as listed a bove into conformity with its obl igations under the WTO agreements. 
                                                     
 
624 See para. 7.241 above.  WT/DS334/R 
 Page 113 
 
 
  8.3 The Panel also concludes that Turkey's requirement that importers must purchase domestic 
rice, in order to be allowed to import rice at redu ced-tariff levels under the tariff quotas, accorded less 
favourable treatment to imported rice than that  accorded to like domestic rice, in a manner 
inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 
8.4 As we have noted that the requirement that impor ters must purchase domestic rice, in order to 
be allowed to import rice at reduced-tariff levels under the tariff quotas has expired and that Turkey 
has declared its intention not to reintroduce th e measure, we abstain from making any specific 
recommendation to the DSB in this regard. 
8.5 Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations 
assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of 
nullification or impairment.  The Panel concludes that , to the extent that the measures listed above are 
inconsistent with the WTO agreements, they have  nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the 
United States under those agreements. 
 
_______________