G/TBT/W/647  
4 July 2019 
(19-4484) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  Original:  Spanish  
 
  
URUGUAY – ANALYSIS OF IMPORTED PRODUCTS – RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD  
OF THE NATIONAL GRAPE -GROWING AND WINE PRODUCTION INSTITUTE  
(INAVI) OF 14 FEBRUARY 2019  
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF INAVI POSTPONING IMPLEMENTATION UNTIL  
1 MAY 2019 – EXOGENOUS WATER IN WINE  
STATEMENT BY CHILE TO THE COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE  
20 AND 21 JUNE 2019  
The following communication , dated 4 July 2019, is being circulated at the request of the delegation 
of Chile. 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.   Chile would l ike to raise a trade concern regarding a measure notified by Uruguay to the 
TBT Committee , as follows : 
2.  On 14 February  2019, the National Grape -Growing and Wine Production Institute  (INAVI) of 
the Republic of Uruguay issued the resolution , under Act No. 005/2019, implement ing the 
requirement  to submit certifica tion attesting  that, as part of the import procedure, a certificate be 
submitted for all wine product s attesting that the shipment  contain s no percentage of exogenous 
water . This was  communicated to the Committee through Notifica tion G/TBT/N/URY/27,  indica ting 
that it was an emergency notification , and its revised version G/TBT/N/URY/27/Rev.1, published on 
14 March  2019 and 25 March  2019, respectiv ely, with entry into force from 1 May 2019 ( in 
accordance with the aforementioned Rev.1).  
3.  INAVI consider s that the presenc e of exogenous water in wine , whatever its percentage , is illegal . 
Moreover , the resulting wine will be considered artificial and will therefor e be unable to enter 
Uruguay.  
4.  As everyone knows , Members have the r esponsib ility under the WTO's TBT Agreement  to meet 
the obligations establis hed therein , and to comply with the Decisions and Recommendations adopted 
by the WTO's TBT Committee . 
5.  According t o Notifica tion G/TBT/N/URY/27/Rev.1 , Uruguay corrected the reasons for urgenc y, 
notifying under Article 2.9. 2 of the TBT Agreement , set a deadline of 2 5 April for comments , and 
postpon ed entry  into force until 1 May 2019. On 25 April, INAVI issued a statement  indicating its 
decision to postpone entry  into force of the measure until 1 June 2019. It should be emphasized 
that the requirement to set a period of at least 60 days for comments was not met.  
6.  Chile sent comments on 8 April 2019, throug h the official contact point for the TBT Agreement in 
Uruguay . A reply was sent on 13 May, which referred explicitly to only three of the seven comments 
sent by the Government . Comments sent by the industry (Wines of Chile) and the Association of 
Oenologis ts did not receive  any response . 
7.  The main observa tions regarding  the obliga tions of the TBT Agreement are as follows : 
8.  Chile recogn izes the importance of the contribution of international standards to improving 
efficiency of production and facilitating the conduct of international trade . In this regard , it 
appreciates that Uruguay consider s, as indicated in its noti fied resolution , the International G/TBT/W/647  
- 2 - 
  Organisation of Vine and Wine ( OIV) as an internation al reference body for recognition regarding 
the preparation and evalua tion of the conformi ty of wine . 
9.  By means of recommendations, t he OIV also proposes technical, regulatory or economic 
resolutions to the governments of member countries  aimed at maint aining the development of the 
production and marketing of wines and other vine-based  products.  
10.  Chile has been a n OIV  member State since 1952, adopting into its legislation the oenological  
practices and treatments that all correspond  to resolutions published and recommended by the OIV 
and are relevant to the practical reality of Chilean grape -growing and wine production , thereby 
harmoniz ing these practices and treatments with international standards.  
11.  In this context , the OIV consider s and recognizes the variability of expression and production in 
the global wine industry , in view of the differences in the soil and climatic con ditions of 
wine-producing  countries . In recognition  of this geographical and climatic diversity, OIV resolutions 
are established by the consensus of all member States.  
12.  Accordingly , the oenological practices and treatments authorized by Chile correspond to those 
recommended by the OIV, but only those that are relevant to grape -growing and wi ne production in 
Chile are adopted.  
13.  The r esolu tions recom mended by the  OIV concerning oenological practices and treatments 
involve the implicit use of water as a universal solvent for various additives and processing aids, on 
the understanding that c ertain  substances must first be dissolved in water before being added to 
the wine-making and preparation processes for the pr oduction  of quality wines without affecting  the 
genuineness  of the product.  
14.  Chile consider s that the resolution adopted by INAVI in Urugu ay could be a discriminator y 
measure  if this regula tion establ ishes that water originating from these oenological practices is of 
exogenous origin and is  thus considered a technical obstacle  to international trade.  
15.  Chile hopes that the successful trade in wine will be maintained . It also wishes  to highlight  the 
good trade relations  and cooperative spirit  that exist , as reflected in the recent signature of the free 
trade agreement between the Chile and Uruguay . 
16.  It should  also be noted tha t Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement provides  that Members shall 
ensure that technical regulations are not prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the 
effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade . For this purpose, technical re gulations 
shall not be more trade -restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking account of 
the risks non -fulfilment would create . Under this provision , Uruguay would need to clarify the nature 
of the legitimate objective established in the TBT Agreement which it seeks to fulfil with the 
application of the new regulation.  
17.  Moreover , Article 2.9.1 of the TBT Agreement  provides  that Members shall publish a notice in a 
publication at an early appropriat e stage, in such a manner as to enable interested parties in other 
Members to become acquainted with it, that they propose to introduce a particular technical 
regulation ; and Article 2.9.4 of the said Agreement  provides that  Members shall , without 
discrimi nation, allow reasonable time for other Members to make comments in writing, discuss these 
comments upon request, and take these written comments and the results of these discussions into 
account . 
18.  Under this interna tional commitment  entered into  by Uruguay  under the said Agreement , Chile 
requests Uruguay to explain whether it  has incorpor ated the comments received concerning the 
development of this regulator y process . 
19.  Regarding the date of entry into force of the proposal , namely 1 June 2019, it should be 
emphasized that , under Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement , Members shall leave a reasonable 
interval between the publication of technical regulations and their entry into force, except in the 
case of certain urgent circumstances ; this is not the c ase here and it has restricted market access  
for wine . G/TBT/W/647  
- 3 - 
  20.  It should be recalled that the Ministerial Decision on Implementation -Related Issues and 
Concerns, adopted on 1 4 November  2001 in Doha, provides that, subject to the conditions specified 
in Article 2.1 2, the phrase "reasonable interval" shall be understood to mean normally a period of 
not less than six months, except when this would be ineffective to fulfil the legitimate objectives 
pursued . The TBT Committee  stresses the importance of the Doha Minister ial Decision with respect  
to Article 2.12 on technical regulations . 
21.  Furthermore, while noting that Article 2.12 already includes reference to developing country 
Members and their specific needs, the Committee encourages Members to provide an interval of 
more than six months, when possible, between the publication of technical regulations and their 
entry into force so that producers, in particular in developing country Members, have sufficient time 
to adapt to the new requirements . This was not done by Urugu ay. 
22.  In the light of the above , the measure in question is consider ed to be an unnecessary obstacle  
to trade  and to  infringe  Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement , inasmuch as the said objective could be 
fulfilled  in a manner less restrictive  to trade . 
23.  We kindly  request Uruguay to revise this measure , to reply to all the comments issued through  
the contact point and to align the measure with the rights and obligations  of the TBT Agreement, 
and also with good international regulatory practices and the recomm endations of this Committee.  
 
__________