Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, Apparel, and Footwear

This dispute was brought about by Panama who alleged that a “compound tariff” had been imposed by Colombia on certain textiles, apparel and footwear.

Columbia had been imposing a compound tariff (in the form of an ad valorem levy, expressed as a percentage of the customs value of the goods) and a specific levy (WTO Appellate Body Report: Colombia – Textiles , 2016) against the import of textiles, apparel, and footwear from Panama. Panama disagreed with this practice and filed a dispute with the World Trade Organization (WTO). The Panel agreed with Panama that the compound tariff was a customs duty that exceeded the levels bound in Colombia’s tariff schedule, in violation of GATT Article II:1(a) and (b) (WTO Appellate Body Report: Colombia – Textiles , 2016).

The Colombian compound tariff had been enforced since 2013, and consisted of a combination of 10 percent of the import price as well as a “specific component,” the latter of which varies according to the import price and customs classification (McGivern, 2016). According to Colombia, the thresholds incorporated in the compound tariff “reflected a distinction between licit imports, as well as imports that they had determined were imported at artificially low prices to launder money, on the other hand” (McGivern, 2016). Colombia also argued that “a measure designed to combat illegal trade operations that are not covered by Article II of the GATT 1994” (WTO Appellate Body Report: Colombia – Textiles , 2016). The WTO Appellate Body ruled that a Colombian law designed to combat money laundering violates Colombia’s tariff obligations under Article II of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 (McGivern, 2016).

Colombia argued that certain goods entering its territory at “artificially low prices” were being used to launder money, and therefore implemented a “compound tariff” to impose higher duties. In upholding the complaint by Panama, the Appellate Body rejected Colombia’s argument that GATT Article II did not apply to illicit trade. It also rejected Colombia’s arguments that its measure was “necessary to protect public morals” and “necessary to secure compliance” with Colombia’s anti-money laundering laws (McGivern, 2016). This dispute and decision are notable because they enforce other rulings were WTO members tried to use “public morals” to implement inconsistent regulations. The basis for Colombia’s argument was that it was trying to combat money laundering into the country. However, in the prior proceedings of the disputes they were unable to show proof.

According to the WTO judges, the combating money laundering reflected “societal interests”. Based upon this and the arguments on both sides I agree with the appellate body’s decision. I believe that given Colombia’s history of corruption and illicit activities they felt that they could impose whatever types of tariffs they felt necessary. This is a prime example of why the World Trade Organization was created. If they were not around there would be trade disputes among countries consistently. Possibly effecting political relations. Without them to regulate the trade industry countries would be able to do as they please in regards to imports and exports. Those costs would then be passed until us the consumers. Imagine the costs of our imported goods. The WTO is a place for its members to go and sort out any trade problems that may exist amongst each other. References 1. Hill, C. W. (2014). International Business Competing in the Global Marketplace.