Set theorists typically prove the existence of Banach limits (EBL) using the Ultrafilter Theorem or, its equivalent, the Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem (BPI). Analysts, on the other hand, typically prove the existence of Banach limits using the Hahn-Banach Theorem (HB). It is known that ZF + BPI implies HB, but ZF+ HB does not imply BPI. This raises the question if ZF+ HB implies EBL or do the proofs employed by analyst’s (of necessity) make use (tacit or otherwise) of a consequence of the Axiom of Choice in addition to HB?
Edit: The proof given by J. B. Conway, in A Course in Functional Analysis, Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Vol. 96. New York: Springer, 1994, does not appear to make an overt use of a consequence of the Axiom of Choice other than HB.