WT/DS599/4  
20 August  2021 
(21-6437) Page: 1/9 
 Original:  Spanish  
 
  
PANAMA - MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN PRODUCTS  
FROM COSTA RICA  
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY COSTA RICA  
The following communication, dated 19  August  2021, from the delegation of Costa Rica to the 
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article  6.2 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
On 11  January  2021, Costa Rica requested consultations with Panama pursuant to Articles  1 and 4 
of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Go verning the Settlement of Disputes  (DSU), 
Article  19 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Article 11 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), and Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade 1994 (G ATT 1994), with respect to measures taken by Panama that restrict or prohibit 
the importation of various products or groups of products originating in Costa Rica, including : 
(i) strawberries ; (ii) milk products ; beef products ; pork products ; cured b eef, pork and poultry 
products ; aquatic animal (fish) food ; and pet (dog) food containing protein of ruminant origin ; 
(iii) pineapples ; and (iv) plantains and bananas.  
 
The consultations between the two countries were held on 8  February  2021. However, thes e 
consultations failed to settle the dispute.  
 
Accordingly, Costa Rica respectfully requests the establishment of a panel pursuant to Articles  4.7 
and 6 of the DSU, Article  19 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Article  11.1 of the SPS  Agreement , 
and Article  XXIII of the G ATT 1994, in order to examine the matters described below.  
 
I. SPECIFIC MEASURES AT ISSUE  
 
1. Measure restricting or prohibiting imports of strawberries originating in Costa  Rica 
 
On 20  February  2020, through communication AUPSA -AG-051-2020, and without prior notice, 
Panama took the decision to ban imports of strawberries from Costa Rica . The only reason given by 
Panama was the alleged detection of oxamyl residues that exceeded Panama's  maximum residue 
levels (MRLs) in two shipments of Costa Rican strawberries sent in February  2020. According to the 
above -mentioned communication, the ban on these imports will be maintained until the 
phytosanitary authority of Costa Rica indicates that it has taken corrective measures . This 
communication from Panama identifies Executive Decree No. 467 of 7 November  2007 as the basis 
for establishing the oxamyl MRL for strawberries, yet the instrument in question does not stipulate 
any such MRL for this specific product.  
 
In response, Co sta Rica sent Panama official letter DSFE -0343-2020 of 5 May 2020, indicating that 
the Costa Rican authority had made  an inspection visit to the producer concerned, during which it 
had conducted a residue analysis and found no oxamyl residues . In this same  communication, 
Costa  Rica reported that, despite having found no oxamyl residues at the producer's premises, the 
phytosanitary authority of Costa Rica had issued recommendations to the producer in order to 
prevent the potential contamination of future shi pments and had indicated that it would continue to 
monitor this producer's situation . In the absence of a reply from Panama to this communication, 
Costa Rica sent Panama official letters DSFE -0525-2020 of 12  June 2020 and D SFE 108-108-2021 WT/DS599/4  
- 2 - 
  of 19  February  2021, in which it asked Panama to reply and reiterated Costa Rica's readiness to 
resolve this situation, with the fundamental aim being to resume exports of Costa Rican strawberries.  
 
Panama replied through communication DNSV -0111-2021-OIAR of 2 2 February  2021, stating, in 
general terms, that its authorities ha d "initiated a review process for 'phytosanitary policies' and 
safety policies as key matters under the competencies of both entities", without mentioning any 
concrete action geared towards reviewing the ban on imports of Costa Rican strawberries . In this 
communication, Panama makes no reference to the comments by the phytosanitary authority of 
Costa Rica that the relevant analyses did not bring to light any data on the use of oxamyl in 
strawberries . Moreover, the communication from Panama indicates that the measures adopted by 
Costa Rica and the explanations provided " show little  effectiveness in terms of  controls and 
traceability, meaning that the level of protection required in this area by our autho rities has not 
been met" . However, Panama fails to explain and give the reason why it considers the measures 
adopted by Costa Rica to be ineffective and why these measures would fall short of  complying with  
Panama's level of protection.  
 
Subsequently, thro ugh communication DSFE -0128-2021 of 1 March  2021, Costa Rica requested 
from Panama a copy of the analysis results, as well as the data from the analysis and sampling 
methods used for the two strawberry shipments that were alleged to contain oxamyl residues . In its 
response contained in communication AUPSA -AG-151-2021 of 1 7 March  2021, Panama failed to 
provide the analysis results requested by Costa Rica . However, in the same communication, 
Panama:  (i) requests specific information from Costa Rica regarding its control programmes for good 
agricultural practices and sampling at export production sites ; and (ii) belatedly reports that further 
violations of Panama's MRLs for a number of substances were detected in two shipments of 
Costa  Rican strawberries .1 According to Panama, these violations concern results "issued after the 
temporary ban communicated on 2 0 February  2020 [...] in note AG -051-2020 following  the 
oxamyl -related violation".2 
 
In view of this situation, Costa Rica sent communication DSFE -0393-2021 to Panama on 
18 May 2021, in which it re peated  its request to receive a copy of the analysis results, as well as 
the data from the analysis and sampling methods used for the two original strawberry shipments, 
and explained the importance of having thi s information . This request is consistent with 
Codex  Alimentarius guidelines, which recognize the right of the exporting country that has  had its 
food products rejected due to MRL violations to receive details on the analyses applied . By means 
of communica tion DSFE -0393-2021, Costa Rica, in good faith and in response to Panama's request3, 
also provided detailed information on its good agricultural practices, sampling at sites producing 
strawberries for export, laboratory results, analysis methods and analy tical techniques.4 
 
Despite the information and explanations provided by Costa Rica, Panama continues to maintain the 
ban on imports of Costa Rican strawberries indicated in communication AUPSA -AG-051-2020 of 
20 February  2020, which is baseless and lacks scientific evidence, a risk analysis or any other valid 
justification under WTO r ules. 
 
1 See also Panama's communication DNSV -0128-2021 of 1 March 2021, in which Panama reported that 
it had detected residues of spiromesifen, acephate, methamidophos, prochloraz, cypermethrin and 
carbendazim in two shipments of Costa Rican strawberries. Carbendazim is the only one of these substances 
listed in Panamanian Executive Decree No. 467/2007 as a substance subject to MRLs for strawberries.  
2 Panama's communicat ion DNSV -0128-2021 of 1 March 2021.  
3 See Panama's communication AUPSA -AG-151-2021 of 17 March 2021.  
4 In its communication DSFE -0393-2021, Costa Rica submitted 23 annexes with information supporting 
its explanation of its good agricultural practices, samp ling at sites producing strawberries for export, laboratory 
results, analysis methods and analytical techniques.  WT/DS599/4  
- 3 - 
  2. Measure restricting or prohibiting imports of : (i) milk products ; (ii) beef products ; 
(iii) pork products ; (iv) cured beef, pork and poultry products ; (v) aquatic animal 
(fish) food ; and (vi) pet (dog) food containing protein of ruminant origin, all 
originating in Costa  Rica.  
 
As stated in a number of communications5 and in spite of the renewal requests submitted in advance 
by Costa Rica, Panama decided not to renew the sanitary approvals for various exporting 
establishments6, which expired on 3 0 June 2020. Until the date of expiry, these establishments had 
been export ing the following products to Panama for decades : milk products ; beef products ; pork 
products ; cured beef, pork and poultry products ; aquatic animal (fish) food ; and pet (dog) food 
containing pro tein of ruminant origin . Exports of animals products from Costa Rica to Panama were 
banned from 3 0 June 2020, without there having been a change in Costa Rica's sanitary status, an 
emergency situation or an increase in the risks associated with the product s. Panama's decision not 
to renew the establishments' approval s thus meant that the market closed down due to the 
application of a measure that is unsubstantiated and lacks sufficient scientific evidence, a risk 
analysis or any other justification, thereby  constituting a disguised restriction on trade.  
 
Panama took this step even though the Costa Rican Government had requested, prior to the expiry 
date, that the sanitary approvals be extended in order to avoid disrupting trade, as is the practice 
between th e two countries .7 Unlike the practice previously applied to Costa Rican establishments8 
(and that applied to other countries), the Panamanian authority refused on this occasion to extend 
the validity of the approvals, thereby preventing the export of the se products to Panama.  
 
In a number of communications9, Panama stated that instead of renewing the previous approvals, 
it was, in this case, necessary to conduct a new procedure to determine Costa Rica's zoosanitary 
eligibility and thus establish whether the country was "eligible" to send these products to Panama . 
This disregarded the fact that the Costa Rican system had for years been considered by Panama to 
be eligible to export, which is obvious when the length  of time during which Costa Rica sent these 
products to the Panamanian market is taken into account.  
 
In notes SENASA -DG-1233-2020 of 1 3 October  2020, SENASA -DG-1420-2020 of 
24 November  2020 and SENASA -DG-191-2021 of 2 4 February  2021, Costa Rica informed Panama 
that the initiation of a new zoosanitary evaluation procedure was neither justifiable nor necessary  
considering that Costa  Rican establishments had exported these goods to Panama for decades  
thanks to the country's eligibility having previously be en approved by Panama .10 Costa Rica, in good 
faith and in order to provide information for the resumption of trade, issued its updated replies to 
Panama's questionnaire through communication SENASA -DG-340-2021 of 2 4 March  2021, with a 
view to verifying Costa  Rica's sanitary status . By means of communication SENASA -DG-725-2021 
of 3 June 2021, Costa  Rica clarified that it had provided this information in fulfilment of the 
commitment undertaken  with Panama at a previous meeting and in order to enable Panama to 
conduct an evaluation of Costa  Rica's sanitary system leading to the renewal of the permits in 
question, and not so that Panama could carry out an analysis of whether Costa Rica was eligible to 
export these products, as if the country were exporting them for the first time.  
 
5 These communications include notes AUPSA -AG-229-2020 of 10 July 2020, AUPSA -AG-395-2020 of 
21 August  2020, AUPSA -AG-481-2020 of 9 October 202 0, AUPSA -AG-571-2020 of 23 November 2020 and 
AUPSA -AG-100-2021 of 22 February 2021.  
6 The Annex to this panel request contains the list of Costa Rican establishments that have not had their 
sanitary approvals renewed by Panama. The establishments are ident ified according to the establishment 
number assigned by the Panamanian Food Safety Authority (AUPSA).  
7 The Government of Costa Rica asked the Government of Panama to extend the validity of the sanitary 
approvals in question through a number of communications, including notes SENASA -DG-721-2020 of 
12 June 2020, DM -COR-CAE-0330-2020 of 8 July 2020, DM -COR-CAE-0349-2020 of 15 July 2020 and 
SENASA -DG-152-2021 of 12 February 2021.  
8 See, for example, Panama's communication AUPSA -AG-399-2019 of 15 Oct ober 2019.  
9 These communications include notes AUPSA -AG-229-2020 of 10 July 2020, AUPSA -AG-395-2020 of 
21 August  2020, AUPSA -AG-481-2020 of 9 October 2020, AUPSA -AG-571-2020 of 23 November 2020, 
AUPSA -AG-001-2020 of 2 January 2020 and AUPSA -AG-100-2021 of  22 February 2021.  
10 Costa Rica also stated that Panama's actions were contrary even to the country's own national 
regulations, which identify two specific cases for the loss of sanitary approval, neither of which apply in this 
situation (see note SENASA -DG-191-2021 of 24 February 2021).  WT/DS599/4  
- 4 - 
  Despit e these steps taken by Costa Rica, Panama continues to maintain an import ban stemming 
from the non -renewal of the sanitary approvals of a number of Costa Rican establishments11 that 
produce and export the above -mentioned products, and from Panama's requir ement for a new 
zoosanitary eligibility procedure to be conducted in order to restore trade in these products, as if 
Costa Rica were a country that will be exporting for the first time.  
 
3. Measure restricting or prohibiting imports of fresh pineapples origin ating in 
Costa  Rica 
 
On 29  January  2019, through communication AUPSA -AG-032-2019, and without prior notice, 
Panama took the decision to ban imports of fresh pineapples from Costa Rica . These exports had 
previously been permitted in line with the requirements established by Panama in Decision 
AUPSA -DINAN -116-2008 of 4 July 2008. Panama stated that the reason for the ban was the 
presence of the Maconellicoccus hirsutus  (pink hibiscus mealybug) pest in Costa Rica . Although this 
pest was reported by C osta Rica in 2014, it is not found in pineapple production areas in Costa Rica, 
hence its presence had not prevented exports of pineapples to Panama, which had continued as 
normal for years before the unjustified closure of the market . In addition, on 24  September  2019, 
in note 1029.OIAR/EA -19, Panama raised its concern regarding the possible presence in Costa  Rica 
of Fusarium guttiforme  (Fusarium in pineapples), a pest that is absent throughout Costa Rican 
territory.  
 
Regarding pink hibiscus mealybug, Costa Rica explained to Panama in various communications – 
including official letters DSFE -083-2019 of 6 February  2019, DSFE -0838-2019 of 8  October  2019, 
DSFE -0849-2019 of 1 0 October  2019 and DSFE -0109-2021 of 1 9 February  2021 – that its 
phytosanitary status has not changed since 2014 (with pink hibiscus mealybug being a pest that is 
present but not widespread in Costa Rica), that its pineapple shipments are certified as being free 
of this pest, and that there are no reports of pink hibisc us mealybug being detected in pineapple 
shipments from Costa Rica to Panama . In these communications, Costa Rica also asked Panama for 
a copy of the pest risk analysis that allegedly supported the closure of the Panamanian market to 
fresh pineapples from C osta Rica . However, Panama failed to provide this information.  
 
Regarding Fusarium in pineapples, Costa Rica explained to Panama, in official letter  DSFE -0848-2019 
of 10 October  2019, that the pest status has been determined as absent in Costa  Rica, and th at the 
pest has never been recorded in Costa Rica . In this regard, Costa Rica referred to the communication 
issued by the Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria , OIRSA (International 
Regional Organization for Plant and Animal Health), in note 110 -038/19 of 3 0 September  2019, 
addressed to Costa Rica . In this communication, OIRSA specifically clarifies that attributing the risk 
of Fusarium to Costa Rica in the August –September  2019 edition of the Boletín del Clima No 11 
(Climate Newsletter No. 11) was a transcription error, and that this pest is absent from Costa  Rica. 
 
Panama did not reply to Costa Rica until two years after the market had been closed . 
On 22 February  2021, Panama sent communication DNSV -0112-2021.OIAR, requesting Costa  Rica 
to provide further information on the phytosanitary status of pineapple production areas with respect 
to pink hibiscus mealybug and reiterating its concern regarding Fusarium in pineapples . On 
1 March  2021, Costa Rica replied through communication DSFE -0127-2021, requesting Panama to 
provide details of the kind of information that would be required to re -establish trade . In response, 
Panama sent notes DNSV -0127-2021 of 1 March  2021 and DNSV -0177-2021 of 1 0 March  2021, 
specifying this information . In communication DSFE -0165-2021 of 1 7 March  2021, Costa Rica 
provided the information requested on the absence of Fusarium in pineapples in Costa Rica, attaching 
the OIRSA  note confirming the absence of this pest in Costa Rican  territory . In addition, in 
communication DSFE -0254-2021 of 2 8 April 2021, Costa Rica sent Panama the information 
requested on the status of pink hibiscus mealybug in pineapple production areas, attaching a 
45-page report with 34  annexes . Panama acknowledg ed receipt of this information on 29  April 2021. 
In addition, on 23  July 2021, in communication DSFE -0497-2021, Costa Rica supplemented the 
information sent to Panama with a 141 -page report on the specific surveillance carried out at 
pineapple production s ites to determine the status of the pest in question . The sampling manual 
used by the Costa Rican authorities (document OR -BSI-M-01) was also attached to the report . All 
the information provided to Panama confirms that the pink hibiscus mealybug pest has o nly been 
 
11 The Annex to this panel request contains the list of Costa Rican establishments that have not had 
their sanitary approvals renewed by Panama. The establishments are identified according to the establishment 
number assigne d by the Panamanian Food Safety Authority (AUPSA).  WT/DS599/4  
- 5 - 
  detected in the ornamental plant Hibiscus  sp. but is absent from pineapple growing sites . Despite 
this, the Panamanian market remained closed to fresh pineapples from Costa  Rica without any 
technical justification to support the closure.  
 
To date, Panama has maintained the ban on imports of fresh Costa Rican pineapples notified in 
communication AUPSA -AG-032-2019 of 29  January  2019.  
 
4. Measure restricting or prohibiting the importation of plantains and bananas 
originating in Costa  Rica 
 
In Octobe r 2019, Panama prohibited imports of plantains and bananas from Costa Rica, without any 
scientific justification, through communications AUPSA -AG-392-2019 of 1 0 October  2019 and 
AUPSA -AG-424-2019 of 2 5 October  2019, respectively . In these communications, P anama stated 
that the importation of these products would remain suspended until Panama had completed a 
technical review of the existing phytosanitary requirements and had approved Costa Rican packing 
plants . This is despite the fact that trade in plantain s and bananas between the two countries had 
continued as normal for years before the unjustified closure of the market . The phytosanitary 
requirements for the importation of plantains from Costa Rica are provided for in 
Decision  AUPSA -DINAN -106-2009 of 2 7 November  2009, and the phytosanitary requirements for 
the importation of bananas from Costa Rica are contained in Decision  AUPSA -DINAN -019-2012 of 
26 April 2012.  
 
Costa Rica sent a number of communications to Panama to try to secure the reopening of the market . 
These communications were DSFE -0909-2019 and DSFE -0910-2019, both of 31  October  2019; 
DM-COR-CAE-0615-2019 of 2 1 November  2019 (note from the Minister of Foreign Trade) ; 
DSFE-0079-2020 and DSFE -0080-2020 of 3 0 January  2020; DSFE-0348-2020 of 6 May 2020; and 
DSFE -0110-2021 of 1 9 February  2021. In these communications, Costa Rica noted that there had 
been no change in Costa Rica's phytosanitary status to justify closing the market, that all shipments 
of Costa Rican plantains and bananas are accompanied by the relevant phytosanitary certificate 
attesting that the product is free from pests of concern to Panama, and that Panama's measure 
without technical justification restricts trade in a manner that is inconsistent with its international 
obligations . Nevertheless, Costa Rica expressed its willingness for Panama to conduct any approval 
visits to plantain and banana packing plants it deems appropriate.  
 
Following the suspension of imports of Costa Rican plantains and bananas, and in connection w ith 
note DM -COR-CAE-0615-2019 from the Ministry of Foreign Trade of Costa Rica, the Minister of Trade 
and Industry of Panama sent note DM -N-1352-2019 of 1 8 December  2019, stating that the 
Panamanian authorities had declared a national state of alert on acc ount of the risk of introduction 
of the "fungus Fusarium oxysporum  f. sp. cubense tropical race 4 affecting musaceae" (Foc R4T) . 
This pest is a quarantine pest for Costa Rica and is absent throughout its territory.  
 
More than a year after it closed the mar ket to Costa Rican plantains and bananas without providing 
any response to Costa Rica's many communications, Panama finally sent Costa Rica notes 
DNSV -0113-2021.OIAR of 2 2 February  2021 and DNSV -0129-2021 of 1 March  2021. In these notes, 
it reiterated, wit hout providing any information, its requirement that Costa Rican packing plants be 
approved and its concern regarding Foc R4T . It also mentioned, for the first time, that in 2019 the 
Panamanian authorities had detected non -compliance with the MRLs establis hed by national 
regulations for the pesticide chlorpyrifos, but did not provide further details on the alleged finding . 
On 1 March  2021, Costa Rica replied to Panama in communication DSFE -0129-2021, again 
requesting details of Panama's requirements for reopening the plantain and banana market, as well 
as documents supporting Costa Rica's alleged non -compliance with MRLs . In response, on 
17 March  2021, Panama sent note DNSV -0207-2021, reiterating what it had stated in its two 
previous com munications and keeping the market closed to Costa Rican plantains and bananas 
without providing any justification.  WT/DS599/4  
- 6 - 
  Lastly, on 6 August  2021, in communication DSFE -0533-2021, Costa Rica reiterated its concern over 
the sudden closure of the Panamanian marke t to plantains and bananas from Costa Rica, where the 
Foc R4T pest is absent . Costa Rica also supplemented the information sent to Panama with a detailed 
description of actions taken since 2013 to ensure that the Foc R4T pest is not introduced into 
Costa  Rica. The above -mentioned communication, consisting of an explanatory note and 10  annexes 
containing supporting documentation, not only confirms that Foc R4T is absent in Costa  Rica, but 
also demonstrates that the country has been proactive in preventing th e entry of this pest into the 
national territory by taking specific action . Despite this, the Panamanian market remained closed to 
Costa Rican plantains and bananas without any technical justification to support the closure.  
 
To date, Panama has maintained  the ban on imports of Costa Rican plantains and bananas notified 
in communications AUPSA -AG-392-2019 of 10  October  2019 and AUPSA -AG-424-2019 of 
25 October  2019.  
 
II. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT  
 
Each and every one of the measures described in Section I of this request (collectively referred to 
as "measures at issue") are inconsistent with each and every one of the following obligations for 
Panama under the WTO covered agreements:  
 
• Article 1.1 of the SPS Agreement, because each of the measures at issue is applied in a 
manner that is not in accordance with the provisions of the SPS Agreement.  
 
• Article 2.1 of the SPS Agreement, because each of the measures at issue is inconsistent 
with the provisions of the SPS Agreement.  
 
• Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, because none of the measures at issue are based on an 
assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to human, animal or plant 
life or health, taking into account risk assessment techniques developed by the rel evant 
international organizations.  
 
• Articles 5.2 and 5.3 of the SPS Agreement, because, in failing to carry out a risk 
assessment for each of the measures at issue, Panama did not take into account the 
scientific, technical and economic factors listed in t hese provisions.  
 
• As a result of the violation of Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3, each of the measures at issue is 
also inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement, since the measures are not based 
on scientific principles and are maintained without suff icient scientific evidence.  
 
• Article 5.4 of the SPS Agreement, because, when determining the appropriate level of 
sanitary or phytosanitary protection, Panama failed to take into account the objective of 
minimizing negative trade effects.  
 
• Panama cannot ju stify any of the measures at issue under Article  5.7 of the 
SPS Agreement, since it is not complying with the requirements of this provision, i.e. that 
the scientific evidence be insufficient, that the sanitary or phytosanitary measures be 
adopted on the b asis of available pertinent information, that efforts be made to obtain the 
additional information necessary, and that the measures be reviewed within a reasonable 
period of time.  
 
• Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement, because none of the measures at issue are  based on 
existing international standards, guidelines or recommendations.  
 
• Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, because each of the measures at issue is more 
trade -restrictive than required to achieve its appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary 
protec tion, taking into account technical and economic feasibility, and considering that 
there are alternative measures to the import ban that are reasonably available, that 
achieve the appropriate level of protection and that are significantly less restrictive to 
trade . Consequently, Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement, given that none of the measures 
at issue are applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or 
health.  WT/DS599/4  
- 7 - 
  • Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement, because each of the measures at issue reflects arbitrary 
or unjustifiable distinctions in the levels that Panama considers to be appropriate in 
different situations, resulting in discrimination or a disguised restriction on international 
trade . Consequently, Article 2.3 of th e SPS Agreement, because each of the measures at 
issue arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminates between Members where identical or similar 
conditions prevail and constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade.  
 
• Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreemen t, because, in spite of Costa Rica's requests, Panama has 
not provided an explanation of the reasons for any of the measures at issue.  
 
• Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement, because none of the measures at issue are adapted to 
the sanitary or phytosanitary cha racteristics of the area from which the product originated 
and to which the product is destined.  
 
• Article 7 and Annex B, paragraph 1, of the SPS Agreement, because Panama failed to meet 
its transparency and publication obligations in relation to each of the measures at issue, 
including by failing to publish the MRLs for substances in respect of which Panama stated 
that it had detected nonconformities in imports from Costa Rica . The foregoing also gives 
rise to a violation of Article X:1 of the G ATT 1994, since Panama failed to publish laws, 
regulations and administrative rulings of general application pertaining to requirements, 
restrictions or prohibitions on imports.  
 
• Annex C, paragraph 1(a), of the SPS Agreement, read in conjunction with Article  8, 
because Panama has incurred undue delay when undertaking and completing the 
necessary procedures to check and ensure the fulfilment of each of the measures at issue.  
 
• Annex C, paragraph 1(b), of the SPS Agreement, read in conjunction with Article  8, in 
relatio n to the processing by Panama of the procedures to check and ensure the fulfilment 
of each of the measures at issue.  
 
• Annex C, paragraph 1(c), of the SPS Agreement, read in conjunction with Article  8, 
because Panama requires more information than is necess ary to carry out the control, 
inspection and approval procedures related to each of the measures at issue.  
 
• Article I:1 of the G ATT 1994, since Panama is acting inconsistently with the 
most-favoured -nation treatment obligation in relation to each of the me asures at issue.  
 
• Article X:3(a) of the G ATT 1994, because Panama administers each of the measures at 
issue in a manner that is not uniform, impartial or reasonable.  
 
• Article XI:1 of the G ATT 1994, because, in relation to each of the measures at issue, 
Panama is acting inconsistently with the obligation not to adopt import restrictions or 
prohibitions.  
 
• Article 4.2 and note 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture, because each of the measures at 
issue constitutes a "quantitative import restriction[...]", or in an y case a "similar [...] 
measure[...]", within the meaning of note 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
*****  
 
Costa  Rica has identified the rules, acts and omissions that, on the basis of the information available, 
it considers underpin the various measures at issue . Nevertheless, this list is without prejudice to 
any other rules, administrative or legal decisions, acts, practices, guidance or guidelines issued by 
Panama that may be relevant in examining this dispute . Accordingly, the scope of this p anel request 
covers all the above -mentioned actions, as well as any possible amendments, extensions or additions 
where applicable.  
 
Given the inconsistencies described above, pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, Costa  Rica considers 
that the measures at iss ue nullify or impair the advantages accruing to Costa Rica under the various 
provisions mentioned in this request.  WT/DS599/4  
- 8 - 
  Costa Rica requests that, pursuant to Article  6 of the DSU, the Dispute Settlement Body  (DSB) 
establish a panel to examine this matter . Costa Rica further requests that the panel be given the 
standard terms of reference provided for in Article  7.1 of the DSU.  
 
Costa Rica asks that this request for the establishment of a panel be included in the agenda of the 
DSB meeting scheduled for 30  August  2021.  
 
_______________  
 
  WT/DS599/4  
- 9 - 
  Annex  
List of Costa Rican establishments affected by the non -renewal of permits by Panama  
Establishment number 
assigned by the 
Panamanian Food Safety 
Authority (AUPSA)  Product(s)  
12-C Pig products, as indicated in Resolution No.  010 of 3  April 2014 of 
the Institutional Technical Commission of the Panamanian Food 
Safety Authority (AUPSA)  
12 Beef products, as indicated in Resolution No.  014 of 
3 March  2014 of the AUPSA Institutional Technical Commission  
5 Cured beef, pork and poultry products that undergo a process to 
ensure the inactivation of significant infectious agents, as 
indicated in Resolution No. 046 of 7 November  2014 of the 
AUPSA Institutional Technical Commission  
46-A Milk products, as indicated in Resolution No.  028-2014 of 
7 May 2014 of the AUPSA Institutional Technical Commission  
46-B Milk products of bovine origin, as indicated in Resolution 
No. 029-2014 of  23 January  2013 of the AUPSA Institutional 
Technical Commission  
46-C Milk products of bovine origin, as indicated in Resolution 
No. 030-2014 of 7 May 2014 of the AUPSA Institutional Technical 
Commission  
8 Beef products, as indicated in Resolution No.  016 of 
3 March  2014 of the AUPSA Institutional Technical Commission  
8-C Pig products, as indicated in Resolution No.  011 of 3  April 2014 of 
the AUPSA Institutional Technical Commission  
21 Pig products, as indicated in Resolution No. 012 of  3 April 2014 of 
the AUPSA Institutional Technical Commission  
40 Milk products, as indicated in Resolution No.  010-CTI-16 of 
15 February  2016 of the AUPSA Institutional Technical Commission  
9 Beef products, as indicated in Resolution No.  015 of 
3 March  2014 of the AUPSA Institutional Technical Commission  
48 Milk products, as indicated in Resolution No.  039 of 18  June 2014 
of the AUPSA Institutional Technical Commission  
30-E Cured beef, pork and poultry products that undergo a process to 
ensure the inactivation of significant infectious agents, as 
indicated in Resolution No.  045 of 7  November  2014 of the 
AUPSA Institutional Technical Commission  
7 Cured beef, pork and poultry products that undergo a process to 
ensure the inactivation of significant infectious agents, as 
indicated in Resolution No.  044 of 7  November  2014 of the 
AUPSA Institutional Technical Commission  
45 Milk products, as indicated in Resolution No.  008-CTI-16 of 
15 February  2016 of the AUPSA Institutional  Technical Commission  
47 Milk products, as indicated in Resolution No.  007-CTI-16 of 
15 February  2016 of the AUPSA Institutional Technical 
Commission  
762 Aquatic animal (fish) food , as indicated in Resolution No.  042 of 
21 July 2014 of the AUPSA Institutional Technical Commission  
158 Pet (dog) food containing protein of ruminant origin, as indicated 
in Resolution No.  048 of 7  November  2014 of the 
AUPSA  Institutional Technical Commission  
 
__________