53854 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 1997 / Notices

Tariffs and Trade 1994; and Article 4 of

the Agreement on Agriculture.

On April 7, 1997, the Government of

the United States requested

consultations with Japan regarding these

measures pursuant to Article 4 of the

Understanding on Rules and Procedures

Governing the Settlement of Disputes

(‘‘DSU’’), Article 11 of the Agreement on

the Application of Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Measures, Article XXIII of

the General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade 1994, and Article 19 of the

Agreement on Agriculture.

Under section 304 of the Trade Act,

the USTR must determine within 18

months after the date on which this

investigation was initiated, or within 30

days after the conclusion of World

Trade Organization dispute settlement

procedures, whichever is earlier,

whether any act, policy, or practice or

denial of trade agreement rights

described in section 301 of the Trade

Act exists and, if that determination is

affirmative, the USTR must determine

what action, if any, to take under

section 301 of the Trade Act.

Public Comment: Requirements for

Submissions

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments concerning

the acts, policies and practices of Japan

which are the subject of this

investigation, the amount of burden or

restriction on U.S. commerce caused by

these acts, policies and practices, and

the determinations required under

section 304 of the Trade Act. Comments

must be filed in accordance with the

requirements set forth in 15 CFR

2006.8(b) (55 FR 20593) and must be

filed on or before noon on Tuesday,

November 11, 1996. Comments must be

in English and provided in twenty

copies to: Sybia Harrison, Staff Assistant

to the Section 301 Committee, Room

223, Office of the U.S. Trade

Representative, 600 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20508.

Comments will be placed in a file

(Docket 301–112) open to public

inspection pursuant to 15 CFR 2006.13,

except confidential business

information exempt from public

inspection in accordance with 15 CFR

2006.15. Confidential business

information submitted in accordance

with 15 CFR 2006.15 must be clearly

marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’

in a contrasting color ink at the top of

each page on each of 20 copies, and

must be accompanied by a

nonconfidential summary of the

confidential information. The

nonconfidential summary shall be

placed in the file that is open to public

inspection. An appointment to review

the docket (Docket No. 301–112) may be

made by calling Brenda Webb (202)

395–6186. The USTR Reading Room is

open to the public from 9:30 a.m. to 12

noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, and is located

in Room 101.

Irving A. Williamson,

Chairman, Section 301 Committee.

[FR Doc. 97–27304 Filed 10–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D–19]

WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding

Regarding Korean Taxes on Alcoholic

Beverages

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 127(b)(1)

of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)), the

Office of the United States Trade

Representative (USTR) is providing

notice that the United States has

requested establishment of a dispute

settlement panel under the Agreement

Establishing the World Trade

Organization (WTO), to examine excise

taxes imposed by Korea on distilled

spirits. In this dispute the United States

alleges that Korea’s excise taxes are

inconsistent with Article III:2 of the

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

1994 (GATT 1994). USTR also invites

written comments from the public

concerning the issues raised in the

dispute.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any

comments received during the course of

the dispute settlement proceedings,

comments should be submitted on or

before November 1, 1997 to be assured

of timely consideration by USTR in

preparing its first written submission to

the panel.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted to Ileana Falticeni, Office of

Monitoring and Enforcement, Room

501, Attn: Korea Spirits Dispute, Office

of the U.S. Trade Representative, 600

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC

20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rick Ruzicka, Office of Asia & the

Pacific, (202) 395–4755; Francis James,

Office of Monitoring and Enforcement,

(202) 395–3582; or Rachel Shub,

Associate General Counsel, (202) 395–

7305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 10, 1997, the United States

requested the establishment of a WTO

dispute settlement panel to examine

whether taxes on distilled spirits

imposed by Korea are inconsistent with

Korea’s obligations under the GATT

1994. The WTO Dispute Settlement

Body is likely to establish the panel no

later than October 16, 1997. Under

normal circumstances, the panel, which

will hold its meetings in Geneva,

Switzerland, would be expected to issue

a report detailing its findings and

recommendations within nine months

after it is established.

Major Issues Raised by the United

States and Legal Basis of Complaint

Korea assesses excise taxes at

different rates on different types of

distilled spirits. Under its general liquor

tax law, Korea imposes a lower tax on

soju, a traditional Korean distilled

spirit, than the high taxes it applies to

other distilled spirits such as whiskey,

brandy, vodka, rum, gin and ‘‘admixtures.’’ This tax differential is made

even more dramatic by the application

of an Education Tax, which is higher

when the liquor tax rates are higher.

Soju is very similar to the distilled

products produced by the United States

and also is in direct competition in the

market with them. The result of this tax

rate differential is a tax burden on some

U.S. distilled spirits that is over four

times greater than the burden on soju

(assuming the actual prices where the

same). The United States claims that

these taxes contravene the obligations of

Korea under Article III:2 of the GATT

1994.

Public Comment: Requirements for

Submissions

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments concerning

the issues raised in the dispute.

Comments must be in English and

provided in fifteen copies. A person

requesting that information contained in

a comment submitted by that person be

treated as confidential business

information must certify that such

information is business confidential and

would not customarily be released to

the public by the commenter.

Confidential business information must

be clearly marked ‘‘BUSINESS

CONFIDENTIAL’’ in a contrasting color

ink at the top of each page of each copy.

Information or advice contained in a

comment submitted, other than business

confidential information, may be

determined by USTR to be confidential

in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of

the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that

information or advice may qualify as

such, the submitter—
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 1997 / Notices 53855

(1) Must so designate that information

or advice;

(2) Must clearly mark the material as

‘‘SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE’’ in a

contrasting color ink at the top of each

page of each copy; and

(3) Is encouraged to provide a nonconfidential summary of the

information or advice.

Pursuant to section 127(e) of the

URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will

maintain a file on this dispute

settlement proceeding, accessible to the

public, in the USTR Reading Room:

Room 101, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public

file will include a listing of any

comments received by USTR from the

public with respect to the proceeding;

the U.S. submissions to the panel in the

proceeding; the submissions, or nonconfidential summaries of submissions,

to the panel received from other

participants in the dispute, as well as

the report of the dispute settlement

panel and, if applicable, the report of

the Appellate Body. An appointment to

review the public file (Docket WTO/D–

19, ‘‘Korea Spirits Dispute’’) may be

made by calling Brenda Webb, (202)

395–6186. The USTR Reading Room is

open to the public from 9:30 a.m. to 12

noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday.

A. Jane Bradley,

Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for

Monitoring and Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 97–27481 Filed 10–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D–21]

WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding

Regarding Indian Import Restrictions

on Agricultural, Textile and Industrial

Products

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 127(b)(1)

of the Uruguay Agreements Act (URAA)

(19 U.S.C. 3527(b)(1)), the Office of the

United States Trade Representative

(USTR) is providing notice that the

United States has requested

establishment of a dispute settlement

panel under the Agreement Establishing

the World Trade Organization (WTO), to

examine quantitative restrictions

maintained by India on over 2700

agricultural, textile and industrial

product tariff lines. In this dispute the

United States alleges that India’s

quantitative restrictions are inconsistent

with Articles XI, XIII and XVIIII of the

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

1994 (GATT 1994), and Article 4.2 of

the WTO Agreement on Agriculture,

and Article 3 of the WTO Agreement on

Imports Licensing Procedures. USTR

also invites written comments from the

public concerning the issues raised in

the dispute.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any

comments received during the course of

the dispute settlement proceedings,

comments should be submitted on or

before November 10, 1997 to be assured

if timely consideration by USTR in

preparing its first written submission to

the panel.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted to Ileana Falticeni, Office of

Monitoring and Enforcement, Room

501, Attn: India Import Restrictions

Dispute, Office of the U.S. Trade

Representative, 600 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rick Ruzicka, Office of Asian & the

Pacific (202) 395–4755, Elena Bryan,

Office of WTO and Multilateral Affairs,

(202) 395–5079, Amelia Porges, Senior

Counsel for Dispute Settlement, (202)

395–7305, or Gregory Gerdes, Office of

Monitoring and Enforcement, (202) 395–

3582).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 3, 1997, the United States

requested the establishment of a WTO

dispute settlement panel to examine

whether quantitative restrictions

maintained by India are inconsistent

with India’s obligation under the GATT

1994, the Agreement on Agriculture and

the Agreement on Import Licensing

Procedures. The WTO Dispute

Settlement Body is likely to establish

the panel no later than November 18,

1997. Under normal circumstances, the

panel, which will hold its meetings in

Geneva, Switzerland, would be

expected to issue a report detailing

findings and recommendations within

nine months after it is established.

Major Issues Raised by the United

States and Legal Basis of Complaint

Since the 1940s, India has maintained

quantitative restrictions on imports of

many agricultural, textile and industrial

products. These restrictions were

formerly maintained under provisions

of the GATT which permit import

restrictions to protect against a serious

decline in a GATT member’s foreign

exchange reserves, or in the case of a

GATT member with inadequate

reserves, to achieve a reasonable rate of

increase in those reserves. However,

India’s foreign exchange situation no

longer justifies import restrictions; this

fact has been recognized by the

International Monetary Fund.

There are currently 2,714 eight-digit

Indian tariff line items (one third of

India’s tariff schedule) subject to import

restrictions or prohibitions for which no

claim of legal justification has been

made other than the GATT balance-ofpayments provisions. These items are

also subject to a complex and nontransparent import licensing system.

The United States believes that these

measures are inconsistent with several

provisions of the WTO agreements. It

appears that India’s maintenance of

import quotas is inconsistent with

Articles XI:1 and XVIII:11 of the GATT

1994, and is not justified as a balanceof-payments measure under Article

XVIII of the GATT 1994; India’s

maintenance of import quotas is also

inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the

Agreement on Agriculture; and India’s

import licensing procedures and

practices are inconsistent with Article

XIII:3(b) of the GATT 1994 and Article

3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing

Procedures.

Public Comment: Requirements for

Submissions

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments concerning

the issues raised in the dispute.

Comments must be in English and

provided in fifteen copies. A person

requesting that information contained in

a comment submitted by that person be

treated as confidential business

information must certify that such

information is business confidential and

would not customarily be released to

the public by the commenter.

Confidential business information must

be clearly marked ‘‘BUSINESS

CONFIDENTIAL’’ in a contrasting color

ink at the top of each page of each copy.

Information or advice contained in a

comment submitted, other than business

confidential information, may be

determined by USTR to be confidential

in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of

the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that

information or advice may qualify as

such, the submitter—

(1) Must so designate that information

or advice;

(2) Must clearly mark the material as

‘‘SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE’’ in a

contrasting color ink at the top of each

page of each copy; and

(3) Is encouraged to provide a nonconfidential summary of the

information or advice.

Pursuant to section 127(e) of the

URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will

maintain a file on this dispute