Case Analysis: Banin v Athea - Trade Regulations and WTO Compliance

This case study delves into the trade dispute between Banin and Athea, focusing on Athea's plain packaging regulations for cigarettes and their consistency with GATT and the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. Banin argues that Athea's regulations create unnecessary trade restrictions and discriminate against imported products by exempting Capadocia. The analysis examines the obligations of GATT members, the provisions of Article II regarding non-discriminatory treatment, and Article XX concerning exceptions for protecting human health. The study concludes that while Athea's plain packaging regulations are justifiable for health reasons, the exemption granted to Capadocia constitutes unfair discrimination, making the regulations inconsistent with GATT obligations. The document includes relevant case law and bibliography and is available on Desklib, a platform offering study tools and resources for students.

Case: A Healthy Lifestyle (
Banin v Athea)

ROLE OF PANEL
In the given case study the present issue is related with the laws and regulations of the member
of the (GATT) general agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The primary objective of this Act is to
promote the business among the several countries of the world by reducing the trade obstacles.
In the given study, Athea is the member of the WTO (World trade organization), due to
increasing deceased by cigarettes; Athea has signed and approved the world trade health
organization framework convention on Tobacco control, which included the plain packaging in
its guidelines. Therefore all the countries have to adopt the guidelines. Under this guideline, the
packaging of the cigarettes must be in the simple form and proper font size. No trademark,
colour and logo can be put on the packaging. With this regards, another member of the WTO
named as Banin, made the complained to the trade office that this is considered as the restriction
on the trade. Along with Banin, one more member of the world trade organization named as
capadocia protested about the plain packaging of the cigarettes. Due to the problems with the
neighbouring partners, Athea has exempted cigarettes produced in Capadocia for the compliance
with the plain packaging requirement.
The Banin bring the case to dispute settlement body and contented that the regulations made by
the Athea was inconsistent with the obligation of the Athea under the GATT 1994 and the
technical barrier to trade agreement. As per the obligations of the members of the GATT, the
measures related with the technical standard, qualification requirement, requirement of the
licence is not regarded as the unnecessary barrier of trade1. It is based on the objective and
1 E JAMES DAILY, KIEFF SCOTT F. and WILMARTH JR E. ARTHUR .
"Introduction." Perspectives on Financing Innovation. (Routledge, 2014). Pp 13-16.

transparency requirement and for ensuring the quality of the product. The technical barrier of
trade agreement stated that the regulations, guidelines, standards, assessment procedure should
not create the unnecessary hurdles for the trade. However at the same time, it make out that the
members of the WTO has a right to implement all measures, standard and regulations for
safeguarding the human health, safety, protection of the environment. The main objective of this
agreement is to enhance the international trade by considering the transparency provisions2. On
the basis of the above provision of the GATT and technical barriers to trade it has been
concluded that the regulations made by the Athea for the simple packaging of cigarette is not the
varying with the responsibility under the GATT and the technical barrier to trade agreement. As
for the security of health and protection of the human, unnecessary promotion through the
packaging can be prevented3.
Another issue submitted by the Banin is that the internal regulations are inconsistent with article
of the GATT as it provides less favourable treatment to products imported from other country as
compare with the similar product imported from Capadocia. According to the article II of the
GATT, any steps or guidelines covered under the agreement must be equally applicable to all the
other members immediately and unconditionally4. No member of the GATT should be treated
2 Peter Bossche Van den and Prévost Denise. Essentials of WTO law. (Cambridge University
Press, 2016).
3 Dani Rodrik,. "What Do Trade Agreements Really Do?." Journal of Economic
Perspectives 32.2 [2018]: Pp73-90.
4 Edmond McGovern,. International trade regulation. Vol. 2. (Globefield Press, 2018).

less favourable as compare with the other member of the GATT. The provision of the agreement
must not construct in such a way by which any other member can get the advantage. On the basis
of the provision contained in the article II, it has been seen that the internal regulation applied by
Banin are inconsistent with the provision contained in the Article. The Banin exempted the duty
on cigarette manufactured in Capadocia for the compliance of the packing guidelines. With
regards to the tariff all the countries must be equally treated5. Due to the exemption of duty,
Capadocia can get the advantage and leads to the lower cost of the product. Therefore the
cigarette imported from Capadocia has the low cost as compare with any other country member.
All the activities leads to the favourable treatment for Capadocia as compare with the other
members of the world trade organization.
Another issue is that Athea contented that according to article XX of the GATT, internal
regulations are justified and they encounter the obligation of the Article XX. The article XX
specify the conditions in which the members may be exempted from the compliance of the rules
made under GATT. Members of the WTO can apply the policy which is inconsistent with rules
of the GATT, which is essential for protection of the human, environment and animal. However
the article is not applicable where the unjustified treatment made with the countries even if the
same conditions prevail. In other words it can be say that implementation of the article does not
leads to the unfair discrimination. In the legal case of Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, Brazil make the
prohibition on the import of the Retreaded tyre, after considering all the facts the court held that
the import ban applied in a manner which leads to unjustifiable treatment with the other
5 Richard Baldwin. "The World Trade Organization and the future of multilateralism." Journal of
Economic Perspectives30.1 [2016]Pp 95-116.

countries6. Therefore ban on the import of used tyre is not justifiable according to the article XX
of the GATT. Moreover it can be say that Article XX represents the acknowledgement by the
members of the world trade organization to preserve the balance between the right of member for
implementing the exception and the right of all the other members of GATT (general agreement
on tariff and trade).In the present study, Athea exempted the duty on the Cigarette only in the
Capadocia, for the compliance of the packaging requirement. The same conditions for the
packaging requirement implemented on the other countries but the Athea by giving the
exemption to Capadocia make the unfair discrimination with the other countries7. As per the
article XX, members may be exempted for the compliance of the rules made under general
agreement on trade and tariff. However in this case Article XX not applicable because it leads to
unfavourable treatment along with the unjustified treatment with the other members of the
WTO . Therefore submission by the Athea not gets succeed.
6 Rachel Harrisand Moon Gillian. "GATT Article XX and Human Rights: What Do We Know
from the First 20 Years." Melb. J. Int'l L. 16 [2015] p 432.
7 Mitsuo Matsushita, et al. The World Trade Organization: law, practice, and policy. (Oxford
University Press, 2015).

BIBLOGRAPHY
Baldwin, R.. "The World Trade Organization and the future of multilateralism." Journal of
Economic Perspectives30.1 [2016]:Pp 95-116.
DAILY, J., F. SCOTT K., and ARTHUR E. W. JR. "Introduction." Perspectives on Financing
Innovation. (Routledge, 2014). Pp13-16.
Harris, R. and Gillian M. "GATT Article XX and Human Rights: What Do We Know from the
First 20 Years." Melb. J. Int'l L. 16 [2015]. p 432.
Matsushita, M., et al. The World Trade Organization: law, practice, and policy. (Oxford
University Press, 2015).
McGovern, E.. International trade regulation. Vol. 2. (Globefield Press, 2018).
Rodrik, D.. "What Do Trade Agreements Really Do?." Journal of Economic Perspectives 32.2
[2018]: Pp 73-90.
Van den B., P. and Denise P. Essentials of WTO law. (Cambridge University Press, 2016).