3.21 The United States maintained that Canada had not advanced any plausible justification for
characterizing its restrictions as "necessary" quality controls or marketing measures within the meaning
of Article XI:2(b). The restriction maintained by Canada on unprocessed fish could not be considered
"necessary", or even rationally related, to any conceivable marketing, product quality or standards
for processed products. Defects in the quality of fish products occurred almost exclusively in processing.
In any case, the responsibility to ensure quality of processed fish products lay exclusively with the
processor and the country of the processor and/or consumer. Furthermore, it was generally impossible
to ascertain whether fish products marketed under a processor's label were originally purchased from
domestic or foreign fishermen. Thus, Canada could protect its "quality reputation" in foreign markets
only by careful supervision and testing of fish that had been processed in Canada. Canada could not
enhance that reputation by restricting exports of fish that would be processed elsewhere.