WT/DS457/7  
 
26 March 2015  
(15-1699)  Page: 1/3  
    
 
 PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF 
CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY PERU 
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES 
AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SE TTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),  
AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW 
The following communication, dated 25 March 2015,  from the delegation of Peru, is being 
circulated to Members.  
_______________ 
 
 1. Pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review 
("Working Procedures"), Peru hereby notifies its de cision to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretation in the Report of the Panel in Peru – Additional Duty on Imports of Certain 
Agricultural Products (WT/DS457) (the "Panel Report"). 
2. Peru appeals, and requests the Appellate Body to  reverse, modify or declare moot and of no 
legal effect the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Panel with respect to the following errors of law and legal interpretations contained in the Panel Report:
1  
I.  The Panel Erred in Law by Failing to Find that Guatemala Acted Inconsistently with 
Its Good Faith Obligations under DSU Articles 3.7 and 3.10  
3. Peru seeks review by the Appellate Body of th e Panel's findings and conclusions that there 
was "no evidence that Guatemala brought these proceedings in a manner contrary to good faith" within the meaning of DSU Articles 3.7 and 3.10, and its concomitant conclusion that "there is 
therefore no reason for the Panel to refrain from  assessing the claims put forward by Guatemala".
2 
4. The Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation include its assumption that the legal status 
of the Peru-Guatemala Free Trade Agreement ("FTA") was dispositive to its ruling on good faith. 
The status of the FTA has no bearing on the issue of whether Guatemala acted contrary to its good 
faith obligations under DSU Article 3.7 and 3.10. Th e Panel's interpretation of the requirements of 
DSU Articles 3.7 and 3.10 was thus fundamentally flawed. 
5. Accordingly, Peru requests the Appellate Body to declare moot and with no legal effect the 
Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.75, 7.84, 7.88, 7.91-7.93, 7.96, 7.526-7.528, and to reverse the 
Panel's conclusion in paragraphs 8.1(a), 8.1(f), and 8.8. Peru also respectfully requests the 
Appellate Body to complete the analysis and find that Guatemala has acted inconsistently with its 
obligations under DSU Articles 3.7 and 3.10. 
                                               
1 Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of th e Working Procedures for Appellate Review  this Notice of Appeal 
includes an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Pa nel Report containing the alle ged errors, without prejudice 
to the ability of Peru to refer to other paragraphs  of the Panel Report in the context of its appeal. 
2 See Panel Report, paras. 7.66-7.96 and 8.1(a). WT/DS457/7 
 
- 2 - 
 
  II. The Panel Erred in Law by Finding that Pe ru Acted Inconsistently with Article 4.2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture  6. Peru seeks review of the Panel's findings and conclusions that the duties resulting from the 
Price Range System ("PRS") constitute variable import levies or share sufficient characteristics 
with variable import levies to be considered a border measure similar to a variable import levy, within the meaning of footnote 1 to the Agreement on Agriculture
3, and that by maintaining such 
measures Peru is acting inconsistently with its obligations under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.4 
7. The Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation include: 
 The Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture by failing 
to take into account the FTA as a relevant rule of international law within the meaning of 
Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ("Vienna Convention")5; 
 The Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture by failing 
to take into account Articles 20 and 45 of the International Law Commission (ILC) Draft 
Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts ("ILC Articles") as relevant rules of international law within the meaning of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna 
Convention; 
 The Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture by failing 
to take into account the FTA as a "subsequent agreement between the parties" within the meaning of Article 31(3)(a) of the Vienna Convention; and 
 The Panel erred in finding that the measure was a variable import levy or similar measure 
and thus a violation of Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
6 In addition, the Panel 
failed to make an objective assessment of the matter before it, as required by DSU 
Article 11. 
8. Accordingly, Peru requests the Appellate Body to declare moot and with no legal effect the 
Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.316, 7.321, 7.324-7.325, 7.328, 7.334-7.340, 7.345-7.347, 
7.349, 7.350-7.352, 7.371-7.374, and 7.526-7.528 and to reverse the Panel's conclusions in 
paragraph 8.1(b) and 8.1(d), 8.1(f), and 8.8. 
III. The Panel Erred in Law by Finding that Pe ru Acted Inconsistently  with Article II:1(b) 
of the GATT 1994 
 
9. Peru seeks review of the Panel's findings and conclusions that the additional duties resulting 
from the PRS constitute "other duties or charges … imposed on or in connection with the 
importation", within the meaning of the second sentence of GATT Article II:1(b), and that in 
applying measures, Peru acted inconsistently with its obligations under the second sentence of Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.
7 
10. The Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation include: 
 The Panel erred in its interpretation of the second sentence of GATT Article II:1(b) by failing 
to take into account the FTA as a relevant rule of international law within the meaning of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention
8; 
 The Panel erred in its interpretation of the second sentence of GATT Article II:1(b) by failing 
to take into account Articles 20 and 45 of the ILC Articles as relevant rules of international law within the meaning of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention; 
                                               
3 Panel Report, para. 8.1(b). 
4 Panel Report, para. 8.1(d). 
5 See Panel Report, paras. 7.525-7.528 and 8.1(f). 
6 See Panel Report, paras. 7.371-7.372 and 8.1(b)-(d). 
7 Panel Report, para. 8.1(e). 
8 Panel Report, paras. 7.525-7.528 and 8.1(e) and (f). WT/DS457/7 
 
- 3 - 
 
   The Panel erred in its interpretation of the second sentence of GATT Article II:1(b) by failing 
to take into account the FTA as a "subsequent agreement between the parties" within the meaning of Article 31(3)(a) of the Vienna Convention; and 
 The Panel erred in finding that the additional du ties were other duties or charges and thus a 
violation of the second sentence of GATT Article II:1(b). In addition, the Panel failed to 
make an objective assessment of the matter before it, as required by DSU Article 11. 
11. Accordingly, Peru requests the Appellate Body to declare the Panel's findings in 
paragraphs 7.423, 7.425-7.426, 7.430-7.432, 7.526-7.528, 8.1(e), 8.1(f), and 8.8 to be moot and 
of no legal effect. 
12. The reasons for Peru's appeal are further elaborated in its submission to the Appellate Body. 
 
 
__________