. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS207/22 
5 February 2007 
 
 (07-0519) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
CHILE – PRICE BAND SYSTEM AND SAFEGUARD MEASURES 
RELATING TO CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 
 
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina
 
 
Notification of an Appeal by Chile  
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules  
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),  
and under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
   The following notification, dated 5 February  2007, from the Delegation of Chile, is being 
circulated to Members. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Pursuant to Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes  ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, Chile 
hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate  Body certain issues of law covered in the Report 
of the Panel on  Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Me asures Relating to Certain Agricultural 
Products - Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina (WT/DS207/RW) and certain legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel.  
 
 Chile seeks review by the Appellate Body of cer tain Panel conclusions that are in error and 
are based upon erroneous findings on issues of law and on related le gal interpretations. 
 1. The Panel failed to determine and apply the appropriate burden of proof applicable to a 
dispute settlement proceeding under Article 21.5 of  the DSU by allocating to Chile the burden to 
prove that Law 19.897 and Supreme Decree 831 (collec tively, the "Implementing Measure") were no 
longer WTO inconsistent rather than allocati ng the burden to Argentina to prove that the 
Implementing Measure was inconsistent with Ch ile's WTO obligations under Article 4.2 and 
footnote 1 of the  Agreement on Agriculture .
1 
 
2. The Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 4.2 and footnote 1 of the  Agreement on 
Agriculture  by failing to give effect to the language  "other than ordinary customs duties" in 
footnote 1,2 by failing to examine "similarity" with variable import levies and minimum import prices 
on an empirical basis with reference to th e actual effects of the Implementing Measure,3 by 
                                                      
1The Panel's errors are reflected in its overall analysis  in paragraphs 7.14 to 7.104, most notably in its 
findings in paragraphs 7.14, 7.44, 7.54, 7.55, 7.79, 7.81, 7.92, 7.96, and in its findings in relation to the parties' 
comments on the interim report in paragraphs 6.8 to 6.12, most notably paragraph 6.12. 
2The Panel's error is set forth in paragraphs 7.14, 7.20, 7.54, 7.81, 7.92 and 7.104. 
3The Panel's error is set forth in paragraphs 6.9 to 6.12 and 7.97 to 7.103 and otherwise apparent from 
the Panel's analysis in paragraphs 7.14 to 7.104. WT/DS207/22 
Page 2  
 
  misinterpreting the term "variable" in footnote 1, including in a manner not in accordance with the 
Appellate Body's findings,
4 by interpreting the terms "transpare ncy" and "predictability" in a manner 
not in accordance with the Appellate Body's findings,5 and by otherwise developing a legal test for 
compliance with Article 4.2 and footnote 1 of the  Agreement on Agriculture   that is internally 
contradictory and not in accordance with the A ppellate Body's findings in the prior dispute.6  
 
3. The Panel erred in its application of  Article 4.2 and footnote 1 of the  Agreement on 
Agriculture   to the Implementing Measure, including its findings relating to whether the 
Implementing Measure, was similar to a "variable import levy"7 and its findings relating to whether 
the Implementing Measure was similar to a "minimum import price"8 particularly when such an 
analysis is appropriately conducted on an empirical basis. 
 4. The Panel acted inconsistently with its oblig ations under Article 11 of the DSU to "make an 
objective assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of the case 
and the applicability of and conformity with the re levant covered agreements " and Article 12.7 of the 
DSU to set out "the findings of fact, the applicab ility of relevant provisions and the basic rationale 
behind any findings and recommendations that it makes" by,  inter alia :  
 
(a) concluding, without explanation, that the Ministry of Finance violated Chilean law in establishing the levels of the price bands;
9 
 
(b) failing, without explanation, to correct e rrors in the Original Panel's characterization 
of the Price Band System, although the Panel relied on such characterization in making its 
own findings;10  
 (c)  conducting only a cursory review of rele vant features of the Implementing Measure 
in isolation;
11  and 
 (d) failing to consider empirical evidence on the actual operation of the Implementing Measure.
12 
  Chile respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse the findings and conclusions of 
the Panel and modify accordingly the r ecommendations and rulings of the Panel.
13 
 
__________ 
                                                      
4The Panel's errors are set forth in paragraphs 7.28 and 7.55 to 7.104. 
5The Panel's errors are set forth in paragraphs 7.28 and 7.55 to 7.104. 
6The Panel's errors are reflected in its overa ll analysis in paragraphs 7.14 to 7.104. 
7The Panel's error is set forth in paragraphs 7.55 to 7.104, in particular paragraphs 7.55 to 7.81. 
8The Panel's errors are reflected in paragraphs 7.55 to 7.104, in particular paragraphs 7.82 to 7.92. 
9The Panel's error is set forth in paragraph 7.79. 
10The Panel's error is set forth in paragraphs 6.14, 7.40(d), 7.48, 7.50, 7.75, and 7.86 to 7.88. 
11The Panel's errors are reflected in its overa ll analysis in paragraphs 7.14 to 7.104. 
12The Panel's errors are reflected in its overall analysis in paragraphs 7.14 to 7.104 and in its findings in 
relation to the parties' comments on the interim report in paragraphs 6.8 to 6.12. 
13See  paragraphs 8.2(a), 8.3, and 8.4.