RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/BOL/3
G/SCM/Q1/BOL/3
22 March 2000
(00-1198)
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 the UNITED STATES2
The following communication, dated 9 March 2000, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Bolivia.
_______________
Question
1. Under Article 25 [page 6] to whom do th e interested parties appeal the decision?
Reply
1. Pursuant to Supreme Decree 23308, the interested pa rties will be able to appeal to the former
Ministry of Exports and Economic Competition;  th e Ministry of Economic Development is currently
responsible.
Question
2. What is required for the continuation of an order under Article 26 [page 6] other than
filing of an application?
Reply
2. Apart from filing an application, it is necessary to show that the reasons for the application of
the countervailing duties or anti-dumping measures continue to exist.  In response to a request for
extension, the Ministry of Economic Development sha ll recommend that the following steps be taken by
the Techncial Secretariat:
(a) At the end of the first two years, a new assessment will be made of the margin of
dumping or the amount of subsidy, and in the light of the results of this new
investigation the amount of the anti-dumpin g or countervailing duty may be modified,
in accordance with the provisions of the existing regulations.  A further assessment
shall be made, upon request, after another two years.
                                                     
1G/ADP/N/1/BOL/1-G/SCM/N/1/BOL/1+G/ADP/N/1/BOL/1/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/BOL/1/Suppl.1.
2 G/ADP/W/379 – G/SCM/W/389G/ADP/Q1/BOL/3
G/SCM/Q1/BOL/3
Page 2
(b) After five years, a further assessment shall be  made of the injury or threat of injury and
the margin of dumping or amount of the subsidy and the causal link between the two.
If no application is received from the interest ed parties, the definitive duties shall lapse.
Imports of products subject to payment of anti-dumping or countervailing duties:  the
Directorate-General of Customs shall require the certifi cate of origin showing the origin or source of the
product;  the above without prejudice to possible in spection under the responsibility of any inspection
body legally established in the country.
Question
3. Article 12 [page 14] states that within a maximum period of 45 working days from the
date of dispatch of the questionnaires the T echnical Secretariat sha ll reach a preliminary
determination.  Is this consistent with AD Article 7 which states that preliminary duties cannot be
applied sooner than 60 days?
Reply
3. The regulations establishing a time-limit of 45 working days from the date of despatch of the
questionnaires for the Technical Secretariat to make a preliminary determination was enacted beforeBolivia ratified the Final Act of the Uruguay Round establishing the WTO;  it is therefore not consistent
with Article 7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The Bolivian Government is currently drafting up a
new rule which will be consistent with the WTO Agreements.
Question
4. The standard for comparison of normal val ue to export price contained in Article 26
[page 18] appears different from that contained in AD Article 2.4.2.  Could you please explain the
apparent differences?
Reply
4. There is obviously a discrepancy between  Article 26 and Article 2.4.2 of Anti-Dumping
Agreement, owing to the fact that  the regulations were drawn up before ratification of the Final Act of
the Uruguay Round establishing the WTO.  The ne w regulations being prepared by the Bolivian
Government will be in conformity with the WTO Agreement.
Question
5. Article 28(1) [page 19] states that "C apital investment by governments which is
inconsistent with the usual investment practice of private investors in Bolivia" is a domestic
subsidy.  This appears inconsistent with SCM Article 14(a) which uses the investment practice ofthe exporting member as the benchmark for dete rmining whether government provision of equity
capital confers a benefit.  Could you please explain this apparent inconsistency?
Reply
5. There is an inconsistency between Article  28.1 and Article 14(a) of the WTO Agreement,
owing to the fact that the national regulations were  drawn up prior to ratification by Bolivia of the
Uruguay Round final act establishing the WTO.  The Government of Bolivia is currently working on
new regulations which will be consistent with the WTO Agreements.G/ADP/Q1/BOL/3
G/SCM/Q1/BOL/3
Page 3
Question
6. What provisions have been made for conducting "new shipper" reviews as provided for
by AD Article 9.5?
Reply
6. The Government of Bolivia is in the process of drawing up regulations which will be consistent
and compatible with the WTO Agreement.
Question
7. What provisions have been made for judi cial review as required by AD Article 13 and
Article 23 of the SCM Agreement?
Reply
7. The new Bolivian regulations are to be made consistent with the WTO Agreements and will
provide for judicial review procedures in accordance with Article 13 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
and Article 23 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
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 currentregulations are therefore not in conformity with the WTO Agreements.  Work is currently
under way on the elaboration of new national regulations that will be consistent with the
WTO Agreements.
__________