RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/BOL/2
G/SCM/Q1/BOL/2
22 March 2000
(00-1192)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  Spanish
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Replies of BOLIVIA1
to Questions from VENEZUELA2
The following communication, dated 9 March 2000, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Bolivia.
_______________
1. GENERAL
Question (a)
Could the delegation of Bolivia say wheth er the Marrakesh Agreement and its associated
Agreements, including the Anti-Dumping Agree ment (A-D Agreement) and the Agreement on
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreem ent), form part of Bolivia's domestic
legislation?
Reply
Bolivia's legislation is currently being brought into line with the WTO Ag reement, so that the
Marrakesh Agreements and its associated agreements will form part of Bolivian legislation.
Question (b)
What is the status of the WTO's A-D a nd SCM Agreements within Bolivia's domestic
legislation and, in particular, in relation to the A-D and SCM legislation previously promulgated
and any legislation which might be promul gated subsequent to the said Agreements?
Reply
The Bolivian rules currently being harmonized w ith the WTO Agreement will have the force of
law.  Bolivia ratified the Final Act of the Uruguay Round by means of Law No. 1637, and any
legislation promulgated in the future will be in conformity with that Agreement.
Question (c)
How are the WTO's A-D and SCM Agreements applied and incorporated in Bolivia's
domestic legislation?
                                                     
1 G/ADP/N/1/BOL/1-G/SCM/N/1/BOL/1 + Suppl.1.
2 G/ADP/W/367-G/SCM/W/377.G/ADP/Q1/BOL/2
G/SCM/Q1/BOL/2
Page 2
Reply
The WTO's A-D and SCM Agreements will be incorp orated in Bolivia's domestic legislation by
law.
Question (d)
Is it intended to introduce new domestic A-D and SCM legislation in order to implement
the WTO's A-D and SCM Agreements?  If so, what st atus will the new legislation have in relation
to the WTO's A-D and SCM Agreements and other pre-existing legislation?
Reply
The Vice-Ministry for Industry and Internal Tr ade is in the process of reviewing domestic
legislation on unfair trade practices (dumping, subsid ies and countervailing duties) in order to bring it
into line with the provisions of the WTO's A-D and SCM Agreements.  The new legislation will have
the force of law.
2. SUBSTANTIVE ASPECTS OF THE A-D AND SCM LEGISLATION NOTIFIED BY
BOLIVIA
2.1 Determination of dumping
(a) Observations
Article 24 of Bolivia's regulat ions implementing the legislation on unfair trade practices
states that where it is not possible to establish th e normal value in the ordinary course of trade or
make a valid comparison with the export pri ce, the normal value shall be calculated by
considering the highest export price for the like product exported to a third country, provided it is
representative.
Question
Can the delegation of Bolivia explain how calculating the normal value from the highest
price for export to a third country can be reconciled with the provisions of Article 2.2 of the
WTO's A-D Agreement?
Reply
The new regulations under the Bolivian legislation on unfair trade practices will provide for
clear and precise procedures and will be fully consistent with the WTO Agreements.
(b) Observations
The WTO requires that for the purposes of determining the margin of dumping the
normal value shall be compared with the export pr ice on the basis of the weighted average of each
or on a transaction-to-transaction basis.  It allows a normal value established on a weighted
average basis to be compared to the prices of individual export transactions in special
circumstances.G/ADP/Q1/BOL/2
G/SCM/Q1/BOL/2
Page 3
Questions
Can the delegation of Bolivia explain how th e comparison between the normal value and
the export price for the purposes of determining the margin of dumping specified in Article 26 of
the regulations implementing it s legislation can be reconciled with the provisions of Article 2.4.2
of the WTO's A-D Agreement?  Can the delegation of Bolivia say whether when the normal value
calculated on the basis of a weighted average is  compared with the prices of individual export
transactions the corresponding criteria establ ished by the WTO in Article 2.4.2 of the A-D
Agreement are taken into account?
Reply
Article 26 of the regulations implementing Bolivian legislation on unfair  trade practices is not
entirely analogous to Article 2.4.2 of the WTO Agreem ent, hence work is proceeding on the preparation
of a new rule which will be fully consistent with the WTO Agreements.
2.2 Determination of injury
(a) Observations
Bolivia's legislation on unfair trade practices does not take into account, for the purpose of
determining the existence of threa t of injury, whether imports are entering at prices that would
have a significant depressing or suppressing effe ct on domestic prices and would likely increase
demand for further imports.  Nor does it appear to take into account inventories of the product
being investigated.  This follows from a reading of Article 31 of the regulations implementing its
legislation.
Question
Can the delegation of Bolivia explain how Article 31 of the regulations implementing its
legislation on unfair trade practices can be reconciled with Articles 3.7 and 15.7 of the WTO's
A-D and SCM Agreements respectively?
Reply
Article 31 of the Bolivian regulations is obvious ly not consistent with Articles 3.7 and 15.7 of
the WTO's A-D and SCM Agreements, since these regula tions were enacted prior to ratification of the
Uruguay Round Final Act which established the World Trade Organizati on.  New legislation is
therefore being prepared which will be compatible with the WTO Agreements.
(b) Observations
It is noted that the Bolivian A-D and SCM le gislation permits the application of corrective
measures solely on evidence of the existence of an unfair trade practice if the country underinvestigation does not grant the injury test when  investigating Bolivian products.  This follows
from Article 2 of Bolivia's regulations implemen ting the legislation on unfair trade practices.G/ADP/Q1/BOL/2
G/SCM/Q1/BOL/2
Page 4
Question
Can the delegation of Bolivia explain how this provision fits in with the WTO's A-D and
SCM Agreements, considering that the latt er do not include any similar provision?
Reply
Bolivian legislation is not currently in conform ity with the WTO Agreement, but work is under
way on laws that will be WTO-consistent.
2.3 Initiation and procedure
(a) Observations
Bolivia's A-D and SCM legislation appear s to disregard the degree of support or
opposition expressed by the rest of the dome stic producers in esta blishing whether the
complainant represents a substantial proportion of the domestic industry.  This follows fromArticle 2 of the regulations implementing its legislation on unfair trade practices.
Question
Can the delegation of Bolivia explain how this  provision can be reconciled with Article 5.4
of the WTO's A-D Agreement and with Article 11.4 of its SCM Agreement?
Reply
Article 2 of the regulations implementing the Bo livian legislation is not in conformity with
Article 5.4 of the WTO's A-D Agreement and with Article 11.4 of its SCM Agreement, since the
legislation predates the WTO Agreements, but work is under way on new regulations which will be
consistent with the WTO Agreements.
(b) Observations
Article 33 of Bolivia's regulatio ns implementing its legislation on unfair trade practices
determines the significance of the dumped impo rts on the basis of co nsiderations relating to
domestic consumption.  In establishing the rele vant criteria, the WTO texts refer to the share of
the imports in question in the tota l imports of the country concerned.
Question
Can the delegation of Bolivia explain how the Bolivian criterion for the significance of
imports can be reconciled with the provisions  of Article 5.8 of the WTO's A-D Agreement?
Reply
Article 33 of the Regulations under the legisla tion on unfair trade practices is not entirely
consistent with Article 5.8 of the WTO Agreement for the reasons mentioned.G/ADP/Q1/BOL/2
G/SCM/Q1/BOL/2
Page 5
2.4 Evidence and provisional measures
(a) Observations
Article 11 of Bolivia's regulat ions implementing the legislation on unfair trade practices
fixes a time-limit of twenty (20) working days from the date of despatch of the questionnaires for
the interested parties to return th em to the Technical Secretariat.
Questions
Can the delegation of Bolivia explain how this time-limit can be reconciled with the
provisions of Articles 6.1.1 and 12.1.1 of the WTO's A-D and SCM Agreements respectively?
How does the Technical Secretariat of the MECE treat requests for an extension of the time-limit
for the return of questionnaires, as envisaged in the above-mentioned articles of the WTO's A-D
and SCM Agreements?
Reply
Article 11 of the regulations implementing the Bolivian legislation on unfair trade practices is
not entirely consistent with Articles 6.1.1 and 12.1.1 of the WTO's A-D and SCM Agreements, for the
reasons given in previous replies.
(b) Observations
Bolivia's regulations implementing its legislation on unfair international trade practices
fix a maximum period of 45 working days from the date of despatch of the questionnaires for
making a preliminary determination of the existen ce of an unfair trade practice.  Considering that
the time-limit for despatching questionnaires is five (5) working days from the date of initiation of
the investigation, the maximum period for the preliminary determination is fifty (50) working
days from the initiation of the investigation.
Question
Can the delegation of Bolivia explain how this time-limit can be reconciled with the
provisions of Articles 7.3 and 17.3 of th e A-D and SCM Agreements respectively?
Reply
The regulation establishing the time-limit of 45 working days from the date of dispatch of the
questionnaire for the Technical Secretariat to make a preliminary determination will remain in force
pending approval of the new rules on the subject.  It should be pointed out that these regulations were
approved before Bolivia ratified the Uruguay Round Final Act establishing the WTO;  they are
therefore not in conformity with Article 7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Note: The Government of Bolivia enacted Supreme Decree No. 23308 on 22 October 1992 and the
regulation thereto, No. 25191-93, on 14 February 1993, at a time when the GATT rules
served as guidelines and were not binding on Bolivia.  Bolivia ratified the Uruguay Round
Agreement on 5 July 1995, by means of Law No. 1637, many aspects of the current
regulations are therefore not in conformity with the WTO Agreements.  Efforts are currentlybeing made to bring our national legislation into line with the WTO Agreements.
__________