G/SCM/Q5/PER/1  
14 April 2016  
(16-2120)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  Original: Spanish  
 
  COUNTERVAILING MEASURES 
QUESTIONS FROM ARGENTINA RELATING 
TO THE NOTIFICATION OF PERU1 
The following communication, dated 13 April 2016, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Argentina.  
_______________ 
  
INVESTIGATION IN TO ALLEGED SUBSID Y PRACTICES RELATING TO IMPORTS 
OF B100 BIODIESEL ORIGINATIN G IN THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC 
Regarding the notification on the application by Pe ru of definitive countervailing duties on imports 
of B100 biodiesel originating in Argentina (d ocument G/SCM/N/302 of 16 March 2016), Argentina 
would be grateful for Peru's replies to the following questions: 
 SUPPLY AGREEMENTS 
 
1. Argentina would like to know why the Peruvi an investigating authority consider that the 
supply agreements confer a benefit on companies exporting B100 biodiesel to Peru when the Argentine Government, through Law 26.093, prioritizes small and medium enterprises (chiefly 
those located far away from the export centres), and limits the participation of the investigated 
companies, since in the absence of that regulation the companies exporting to Peru could themselves easily cover the total demand for biodiesel on the domestic market? 
 
2. How can the residual and decreasing domestic market share of the investigated companies be reconciled with the determination of subsidization and the profit margin put forward by INDECOPI? 
 
3. How does Peru consider Resolution No. 011-2016/CDB-INDECOPI to be consistent with the ASCM when the INDECOPI Dumping and Subsidies Commission (CFD) itself recognizes that the sales that took place under the Supply Agreement are destined solely and exclusively for the 
domestic market and not the export market? 
 4. How can Peru maintain that biodiesel exports to Peru benefited from the alleged subsidies when 
the applicable legislation and the agreements concluded establish a control mechanism by 
the Law 26.093 implementing authority to ensure th at the destination of the sales is in fact the 
domestic market and not the export market? 
 
5. Bearing in mind the above questions, how does Peru justify the magnitude of the benefit determined by its investigating authority?  
6. Argentina would like to know whether, in calculating the alleged benefit, Peru took into 
consideration the accounting information provided by the investigated enterprises? If not, could Peru explain how and why the calculation of the amount of the alleged benefit is consistent with 
Article 14 of the ASCM? 
 
                                               
1 G/SCM/N/302. G/SCM/Q5/PER/1 
- 2 - 
  PRESUMED MINIMUM PROFITS TAX 
 7. INDECOPI found that in 2013 there was no budget allocation and hence, no tax expense relating to the presumed minimum profits tax under Law 26.093. At the same time, the 
Argentine Government submitted Note No. 70 fr om the Secretariat for Energy, in which the 
implementing authority for the mentioned Law certified, at the request of INDECOPI itself, that the 
relevant provision of Law 26.093 had not been implemented, and that consequently there were no 
biodiesel producers in the territory of Argentina that received the promotional concessions 
provided for therein. In view of the above, does Pe ru consider that the findings of its investigating 
authority are consistent with the ASCM Article 12 .5 obligation to "satisfy themselves as to the 
accuracy of the information supplied by interested Members or interested parties upon which their 
findings are based"? 
 8. How does Peru consider its findings of a subsidy arising from the presumed minimum profit tax 
to be consistent with the ASCM when the record  shows, without any positive evidence to the 
contrary from the petitioner or the Commission, that at least some of the cumulative preconditions required under Law 26.093 for the conferral of a possible benefit had not been met, for example: 
(1) access to the tax quota; (2) prior approval of the project by the Secretariat for Energy; 
(3) prior existence of the register for access to tax benefits?  INJURY 
 
9. How can Peru's affirmative determination of injury to the domestic industry be reconciled with Article 15.4 of the ASCM given that the petitioner's  indicators either improved or, in some cases 
such as market share, remained stable during most of the period of the investigation to determine 
injury?  
ABSENCE OF A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP 
 10. Does Peru consider that it has properly assessed all of the "other" factors brought to the attention of the investigating authority in accordance with the standard established for Article 15.5 
of the ASCM, and that its affirmative determination of a causal relationship is consistent with that 
Article given the systematic and consensual way in  which the leading refineries in Peru showed, 
and credibly demonstrated in the investigation, that far from being purely a matter of price, the 
real reason behind the preference for biodiesel of  Argentine origin can be found in the objections 
regarding the quality of the product provided by the petitioner?  
__________