WT/DS591/1, G/ADP/D133/1  
G/VAL/D/14, G/L/1339  
 
20 November 2019  
(19-7896) Page: 1/4 
  Original: English  
 
COLOMBIA – ANTI -DUMP ING DUTIES ON FROZEN  FRIES  
FROM BELGIUM, GERMAN Y AND THE NETHERLAND S 
REQUEST FOR CONSULTA TIONS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
The following communication, dated  15 November 2019, from the delegation of the European Union  
to the delegation of Colombia , is circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body in accordance with 
Article  4.4 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the government of the Republic of 
Colombia (Colombia)  pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of 
Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Anti -Dumping Agreement), Article  19 
of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade  1994 (Customs Valuation Agreement) and Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) concerning the imposition of anti -dumping (AD) duties on certain 
imports of potatoes, prepared or preserved (otherwise than by vinegar or ac etic acid), frozen ( frozen 
fries), originating in  Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany (the countries concerned).   
The measures that the EU would like to address in the consultations ( "measures at issue ") are the 
anti-dumping duties imposed by Colombia on imports of potatoes, prepared or preserved (otherwise 
than by vinegar or acetic acid), frozen, classified under tariff sub -heading 2004.10.00.00 originating 
in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany ( "products under investigation "). The measures at issue 
include, and are evidenced by, the following instruments/documents:  
- Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism Resolution Number 191 of 1 November 20171 
adopting the preliminary determination on the administrative investigation initiated by 
means of Decision 121  of 2 August 2017, published in the Official Journal No 50.406 of 9 
November 2018, page 42; 
- Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism Resolution Number 257 of 9 November 20183 
adopting the final determination on the administrative investigation initiated by Decision 121 
of 2 August 2017, published in the Official Journal No 50.772 of 9 November 2018, page 94; 
- Responses to the Comments on the Essential Facts in the Investigation of Dumping of 
Imports of Potatoes, Prepared or Preserved, Classified under Tariff Subheading 
2004.10.00.00 Originating in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany5; 
 
1 http://www.mincit.gov.co/mincomercioexterior/defensa -comercial/dumping/derecho s-antidumping -
vigentes/papa -congelada/resolucion -191-del-1º-de-noviembre -de-2017.aspx , last accessed on 21 October 
2019.  
2 http://svrpubindc.imprenta.gov.co/diario/view/diarioficial/consultarDiarios.xhtml , last accessed on 21 
October 2019.  
3 http://www.mincit.gov.co/mincomercioexterior/defensa -comercial/dumping/derechos -antidumping -
vigentes/papa -congelada /resolucion -no-257-del-9-de-noviembre -de-2018.aspx  , last accessed on 21 October 
2019.  
4 http://svrpubindc.imprenta.gov.co/diario/index.xhtml;jsess ionid=f3a676a718bd19151d80b155f949  , 
last accessed on 21 October 2019.  
5 http://srvcalidad.mincomercio.gov.co/Practicas -Comerciales/Mincomercio/D -087-03-573-02-023-01-
95-PAPA-PUBLICA -T18.PDF  , document stamped with numbers 6055 to 6070, last accessed on 21 October 
2019.  WT/DS591/1 • G/ADP/D133/1 • G/VAL/D/14 • G/L/1339  
 
- 2 - 
 
  - Final Technical Report, Public Version, Investigation of Alleged Dumping of Imports of 
Potatoes, Prepared or Preserved (otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid), Classified und er 
Tariff Subheading 2004.10.00.00 Originating in Belgium, the Netherlands (Holland) and 
Germany, 20186;  
- Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism Resolution Number 093 of 13 May 2019 addressing 
some requests for administrative review7, published in the Off icial Journal No 50.956, 
page 188. 
This request also covers any annexes thereto, notices, preliminary findings, reviews, amendments, 
supplements, replacements, renewals, extensions, implementing measures or any other related 
measures.    
The measures at iss ue described above appear to be inconsistent with Colombia’s obligations under 
the following provisions of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994:  
1. Article 2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because Colombia, in its determination on 
dumping, did not r ely on correct export prices from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands 
and did not exclude a sample transaction from the calculation of the dumping margin, 
thereby erroneously arriving at inflated dumping margins, in excess of de minimis .  
2. Articles 6.8 and  paragraphs 3 and 6 of Annex II, in conjunction with Article 2.1 of the Anti -
Dumping Agreement because Colombia determined dumping of the products under 
investigation on the basis of the facts available, even though no interested party refused 
access to, o r otherwise did not provide, necessary information within a reasonable period or 
significantly impeded the investigation. In particular, Colombia determined the export price 
of the products under investigation based on the Dirección de Impuestos y Aduanas 
Nacionales ( DIAN) database for all exporting producers rather than based on the export 
price data provided by those producers. Moreover, Colombia failed to take into account when 
its determinations were made, all information which was verifiable, which was  appropriately 
submitted so that it could be used in the investigation without undue difficulties and which 
was supplied in a timely fashion. Colombia also failed to inform the supplying parties 
forthwith of the reasons for not accepting the evidence or in formation provided and failed to 
give the supplying an opportunity to provide further explanations within a reasonable period.  
3. Articles 5.8 in conjunction with Articles 2.1 and 3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because 
Colombia did not reject the application for initiating an anti -dumping investigation of the 
products under investigation, or did not terminate that investigation pro mptly, even though 
there was not sufficient evidence of either dumping or of injury to justify proceeding with 
the case. In particular, a proper dumping analysis concerning the products under 
investigation in keeping with the requirements of Article 2.1 of  the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
would not have led to any margins of dumping in excess of de minimis . 
4. Articles 2.1 and 2.6 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the product which Colombia 
considered as being dumped is not "like" the product when destined for c onsumption in the 
exporting country. Colombia wrongly included, in the scope of the product under 
consideration, both traditional frozen fries and frozen specialities and failed to apply the 
terms "like product " as meaning identical, i.e. alike in all resp ect to the product under 
consideration, or although it is not alike in all respects, having characteristics closely 
resembling those of the products under consideration.  
5. Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because Colombia did not make a fair compari son 
between the export price and the normal value. In particular, Colombia did not make due 
allowances for differences which affect price comparability, including for differences in 
physical characteristics and/or any other differences between the products  sold on the 
domestic markets in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, and the products under 
investigation sold on the export market, which were demonstrated to affect price 
 
6 http://srvcalidad.mincomercio.gov.co/Practicas -Comerciales/Mincomercio/D -087-03-573-02-023-01-
95-PAPA-PUBLICA -T18.PDF  , document stamped with numbers 6071 to 6130, last accessed on 21 October 
2019.  
7 http://www.mincit.gov.co/mincomercioexterior/defensa -comercial/dumping/derechos -antidumping -
vigentes/papa -congelada/resolucion -093-rd.aspx  , last accessed on 21 October 2019.  
8 http://svrpubindc.imprenta.gov.co/diario/view/diarioficial/consultarDiarios.xhtml  , last accessed on 21 
Octob er 2019.  WT/DS591/1 • G/ADP/D133/1 • G/VAL/D/14 • G/L/1339  
 
- 3 - 
 
  comparability. Inter alia, Colombia disregarded the different proportions of high  and low 
value products exported to Colombia as compared to domestic sales in Belgium, Germany 
and the Netherlands as well as differences in packaging and differences resulting from the 
use of different types of oils.  
6. Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreem ent because Colombia did not make a fair comparison 
between the export price and the normal value by deducting certain sea freight and 
insurance costs twice from the export price of a company, thereby unduly lowering the 
export price.  
7. Article 2.4 of the An ti-Dumping Agreement because Colombia failed to indicate to the parties 
in question what information was necessary to ensure a fair comparison and imposed an 
unreasonable burden of proof on those parties.  
8. Articles 2.4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement becaus e Colombia converted the currency of 
the normal value and export price, the euro, into US dollars even though the comparison 
under Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement did not require such a conversion of 
currencies.  
9. Each of Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3. 6, 3.7 and 3.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because 
Colombia, in its injury determination, wrongly included non -dumped imports.  
10. Article 3.1 in conjunction with Article 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because Colombia 
did not carry out an objective exam ination of the effect of the dumped imports on prices in 
the domestic market for the like product. Notably, Colombia’s injury determination did not 
include data with respect to domestic prices and, in particular, whether there had been a 
significant price undercutting, price depression or price suppression by the dumped imports.  
11. Article 3.1 in conjunction with Article 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because Colombia 
did not carry out an objective examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the 
domestic industry concerned. Rather than making the required overall evaluation of all 
relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, Colombia 
unduly limited its analysis to examining seven economic factors, and by evalua ting those 
factors in isolation. Moreover, Colombia wrongly compared an average of five semesters for 
the injury period with an average of two semesters for the dumping period.  
12. Article 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because Colombia did not demonstrate that the 
dumped imports of the product under investigation are, through the effects of dumping, 
causing injury within the meaning of that agreement. In particular, Colombia looked into 
causation by examining dumped and non -dumped imports together and did n ot consider the 
increase in price of the raw material as a known factor other than the products under 
investigation which at the same time was injuring the domestic industry.  
13. Articles 5.1 in conjunction with Article 5.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement becau se Colombia 
initiated the investigation without ensuring that the written application for an investigation 
was "made by or on behalf " of the relevant "domestic industry ", as defined in Article 4.1 of 
that agreement. In particular, Colombia initiated the investigation without determining, on 
the basis of an examination of the degree of support for, or opposition to, the application 
expressed by domestic producers of the li ke product, that the application had been made by 
or on behalf of the domestic industry. In particular, Colombia did not provide evidence of 
the legal capacity of the applicant to represent and lodge the complaint on behalf of the 
domestic industry.  
14. Article 5.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because Colombia failed to examine the accuracy 
and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application on dumping, injury and causation 
to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation.  
15. Article 5.8, first sentence of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because Colombia initiated an 
investigation without the required sufficient evidence.  
16. Articles 6.1.2 and 6.2 in conjunction with Article 6.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because 
Colombia failed to make available promptly to other interested parties participating in the 
investigation, evidence presented in writing. Colombia also failed to provide all interested 
parties a full opportunity for the defence of their interests as well as t imely opportunities to 
see all non -confidential information relevant to the defence of their interests with regard to, 
inter alia , the methodology used to calculate the dumping margin, including the adjustments 
made and the material injury analysis.  WT/DS591/1 • G/ADP/D133/1 • G/VAL/D/14 • G/L/1339  
 
- 4 - 
 
  17. Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because Colombia failed to treat confidential 
information or information provided on a confidential basis as such and disclosed it without 
specific permission of the parties submitting it.  
18. Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping  Agreement because Colombia treated as confidential, 
without showing good cause, information supplied by the applicant. In particular, although 
Colombia required the applicant to justify the confidential treatment of the information 
submitted, Colombia pro vided confidential treatment on its own initiative, in the absence of 
an indication by the applicant asserting the confidential nature of the information supplied, 
i.e. without good cause having been shown by the applicant.  
19. Both Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article 10 of the Customs Valuation 
Agreement because Colombia has not treated information that is by nature confidential or 
information which was provided on a confidential basis by a party for the purposes of 
customs valuation, as such  and because Colombia disclosed such information without 
specific permission of the party submitting it. In particular, Colombia published information 
of clients, price and volume per transaction for the exports made during the investigation 
period by one party, which is by nature confidential and whose confidentiality has not been 
waived.  
20. Article 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because Colombia did not require the applicant 
to furnish non -confidential summaries of confidential information provided by it and which 
provide sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the 
information submitted in confidence. If the applicant claimed that the information was not 
susceptible of summary, Colombia failed to require that a stateme nt of reasons in support 
of that claim be provided.  
21. Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because Colombia did not sufficiently inform all 
interested parties of the essential facts under consideration which form the basis of the 
decision to impose defi nitive anti -dumping measures, including the essential facts underlying 
the determinations of the existence of dumping and the calculation of the margins of 
dumping and the determination of injury. This precluded the possibility of interested parties 
to def end their interests, in particular to assess whether Colombia’s conclusions were 
supported by evidence and whether they reflected an objective examination of evidence.  
22. Articles 12.2 in conjunction with 12.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because Colombia 
did not disclose, in a public notice, essential information on dumping and injury and failed 
to provide in sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and 
law considered material by the investigating authority, as well as a ll relevant information on 
the matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to the imposition of final measures. 
Colombia also failed to provide a public notice or a separate report with the relevant 
information on the matters of fact and law and the  reasons which have led to the imposition 
of final measures, in particular the reasons for the rejection of relevant arguments or claims 
in relation to this sample transaction during the investigation.  
23. Colombia’s anti -dumping measures on the products under  investigation also appear to be 
inconsistent with Articles 1, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 11.1 and 18.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
and Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of the breaches of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement described above.  
As a result of these i nconsistencies, Colombia 's measures, also appear to nullify or impair the 
benefits accruing to the European Union, directly or indirectly, under the covered agreements.  
The European Union reserves the right to address additional measures and claims under other 
provisions of the covered agreements regarding the above matters during the course of the 
consultations.  
The European Union looks forward to receiving Colombia 's reply to this request and to finding a 
mutually convenient date for the consultations.  
__________