WT/DS461/17  
10 February  2017 
(17-0883) Page: 1/3 
 Original:  Spanish  
 
  COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION  
OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR  
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY COLOMBIA  
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL  
The following communication, dated 9 February  2017, from the delegation of Colombia t o the 
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
On 22 June 2016, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the Appellate Body Report and the 
Panel Report (as modified by the Appellate Body) in the dispute Colombia – Measure s Relating to 
the Importation of Textiles, Apparel and Footwear (DS461).  
 
The DSB found , for imports of products classified in Chapters 61, 62, 63 and 64 (except for 
heading 64.06 but including tariff line 6406.10.00. 00) of Colombia's Customs Tariff, that in the 
instances identified in the Panel Report, the compound tariff exceed ed the bound tariff rate in 
Colombia' s Schedule of Concessions, and wa s therefore inconsistent with Article II:1(a)  and (b) of 
the GATT 1994.1 
 
The DSB also found that although the measure at issue was "design ed" to protect public morals 
in Colombia within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, Colombia had failed to 
demonstrate that the compound tariff was a measure "necessary to protec t public morals" within 
the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 . Similarly, the DSB found that although the 
measure at issue was "designed" to secure compliance with laws or regulations which are not 
inconsistent with the GATT 1994, namely, Article 3 23 of Colombia's Criminal Code, within the 
meaning of Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994, Colombia had not demonstrated that the compound 
tariff was a measure "necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations which are not 
inconsistent" with the GATT 19 94, within the meaning of Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.  
 
As already communicated to the DSB2,3 and as explained below, Colombia replaced the compound 
tariff with an ad valorem  tariff that does not exceed Colombia's WTO bound tariffs, and in that 
sense, i t has brought the measure subject to the DSB's recommendations into compliance with 
its WTO obligations . Panama does not agree with Colombia that Decree 1744 replacing the 
compound tariff is consistent with the covered agreements and brings Colombia into c ompli ance 
with the  GATT 1994 . In the circumstances of this dispute, Colombia considers it appropriate to 
seek recourse to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes (DSU), including wherever possible reso rt to the original panel, to resolve 
the disagreement as to compliance.4 
 
                                                
1 Minutes of the DSB Meeting held on 22  June 2016 (WT/DSB/M/380), para. 9.7; Appellate Body Report, 
Colombia – Textiles , paras. 6.3, 6.6, 6.7, 6. 9 and 6.10.  
2 Communication from Colombia of 13  December  2016, circulated to the DSB on 15  December  2016 
(WT/DS461/15).  
3 Statement by Colombia at the DSB Meeting of 16  December  2016.  
4 See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Suspension  of Obligations in the 
EC - Hormones Dispute , WT/DS320/AB/R, adopted on 14  November  2008, para. 353 (" US – Continued 
Suspension (AB) "). WT/DS461/17  
- 2 - 
  On 2 November  2016, the Colombia n Government issued Decree 1744 of 2016 modifying the 
tariffs applicable to imports of products classified in Chapters 61, 62 and 63 of the Customs Ta riff, 
and certain items in Chapter 64.  
 
Decree 1744 sets an ad valorem  MFN tariff of 40 % for imports of products classified in 
Chapter s 61 and 62 of the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Colombia when the declared FOB 
import price is less than or equal to ten (10) US  dollars  per gross kilogram . This tariff is equal to 
the bound tariff in Colombia's Schedule LXXVI, Part I – Most-Favoured -Nation Tariff , Section II – 
Other Products, a nnexed to the GATT 1994 . In cases where the import price for these products 
exceed s ten (10) US  dollars , the MFN tariff will be as provided in Decree 4927 of 2011 or any 
amending decree, containing the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Colombia, and as such  neither 
of the two mentioned levies will  exceed Colombia's bound tariff s. 
 
As regards imports of products classified under tariff headings 6401, 6402, 6403, 6404 and 6405 
of the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Colombia, an MFN tariff of 35 % ad valorem  is 
applied  when the declared FOB import price is less than or equal to prices  that vary between 
six (6) US dollars  and ten (10) US dollars per pair, in accordance with the said Decree . For imports 
of products classified under subheading 6406.10.00.00, an MFN tariff of 35 % ad valorem  will be 
applied when the declared FOB price is le ss than or equal to five (5) US dollars per gross kilogram . 
These tariffs are equal to the tariff bound in Colombia's Schedule LXXVI, Part I – 
Most-Favoured -Nation Tariff, Section II – Other Products, annexed to the GATT 1994.  In cases 
where the import pri ce for these products exceeds the above -mentioned prices, the MFN tariff will 
be as provided in Decree 4927 of 2011 or any amending decree, and as such neither of the 
two mentioned levies will exceed Colombia's bound tariffs.  
 
For imports of the other prod ucts that were covered by the compou nd tariffs introduced by 
Decree  456 of 2014, includ ing the products classified in C hapter 63 of the Customs Tariff and 
those classified under the headings of Chapter 64 not mentioned above, t he applicable tariff, as 
from 2 November, is the MFN ad valorem  tariff set forth in Decree 4927 of 2011 or any amending 
decree, and as such it will not exceed Colombia's bound tariffs.  
 
Colombia and Panama have held extensive consultations on this matter and on Decree 17445, and 
Colom bia remains ready to further discuss the matter with Panama .6 However, Colombia 
understands that Panama does not agree that Decree 1744 replacing the compound tariff is 
consistent with the covered agreements and brings the compound tariff into conformity w ith 
the GATT 1994 .7 Panama has not sought  the establishment of a compliance panel . On the 
contrary, today it directly request ed the suspension of concessions to Colombia , in spite of the fact 
we had implemented a compliance measure which was notified to th e DSB8 and all Members 
effectively amend ing the measure at issue in this dispute, in conformity with the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB and within the period set forth in the award of the arbitrator as the 
reasonable period of time for implementati on. As noted, in the circumstances of this dispute, 
Colombia accordingly considers it appropriate to seek recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU, 
including wherever possible resort to the original panel, to  resolve the disagreement as 
to compliance.9 
 
Therefo re, as Colombia has brought the compound tariff subject to the DSB's recommendations 
into compliance  with the GATT 1994, prompt findings by the DSB will assist the parties in securing 
a positive solution to the dispute.10 
 
                                                
5 For example, the meeting between the Vice-Ministers of Trade of Colombia and Panama held in Bogota 
on 8 February  2017,  and the constant telephone communication at that level between the capitals.  
6 Today, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of Trade of the two countries are meeting in Cartagena to 
continue consultations on this matter.  
7 In a communication dated 20  Janua ry 2017 sent to the Permanent Mission of Colombia to the WTO, 
Panama stated that there were still concerns regarding Colombia's compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings and asked to enter into negotiations with Colombia with a view to developi ng 
mutually acceptable compensation pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU.  
8 Communication from Colombia dated 13  December  2016, circulated to the DSB on 15  December  2016 
(WT/DS461/15).  
9 See, e.g., US – Continued Suspension (AB) , para. 353.  
10 Article 3.7 of  the DSU ("The aim of the dispute settlement mechanism is to secure a positive solution 
to a dispute.")  WT/DS461/17  
- 3 - 
  In view of the above, I would be g rateful if this request could be included in the DSB's agenda for 
examination on 20 February  2017. 
 
__________