WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG264/2 
8 March 2011 
 (11-1158) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements Original:   English/ 
 Spanish 
 
 
 
BILATERAL PROTOCOL BETWEEN COSTA RICA AND PANAMA TO THE 
FREE TRADE TREATY BETWEEN CENTRAL AMERICA AND PANAMA 
(GOODS AND SERVICES) 
 
Questions and Replies  
   The following communication, dated 3 March 2011, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of Costa Rica and Panama. 
 
 This document reproduces the questions addressed to the Parties and the responses submitted.  
_______________ 
 
 Questions from the Delegation of Brazil
 
 
1. According to document WT/REG264/1 (F actual Presentation:  Bilateral Protocol 
between Costa Rica and Panama to the Free  Trade Treaty between Central America and 
Panama - Report by the Secretariat), on page 52, "Article 20.20 stipulates that a Party may not 
provide for right of action in its legislation ag ainst the other Party, and Article 20.21 encourages 
the Parties to promote alternative means for dispute settlement, in that it provides for the establishment, at the Commission's behest, of an Advisory Committee on Private Disputes to 
examine matters relating to the resolution  of disputes among private parties." 
 
 Please explain in more detail the mandate  of the Advisory Committee on Private 
Disputes.  Is this Committee an alternative to domestic litigation?  
 The Committee's mandate is established in Article 20.21 of the Treaty and consists in 
presenting reports and recommendations of a general nature to the Commission on the existence, use 
and effectiveness of arbitration and other pro cedures for the settlement of private disputes. 
 
 The Committee therefore has an advisory role vis-à-vis  the Commission with regard to 
alternative means of dispute settleme nt between private parties;  it does not participate in any disputes 
and is not an alternative to domestic jurisdiction.  2. Concerning the chapter on sanitary and phy tosanitary issues, the Panama-Costa Rica 
Bilateral Protocol proposes more detailed meas ures compared to the SPS Agreement of the 
WTO.  For example, the Protocol establishes spec ific deadlines for the completion of sanitary 
inspections and risk assessment analysis, which ar e important steps that precedes market access 
and can be used as barrier.  Establishing de adlines for these tasks increase the predictability of 
the process leading to greater market acce ss, thus strengthening the SPS commitments 
undertaken in the WTO.  WT/REG264/2 
Page 2  
 
   The interpretation is correct.  The intenti on was to introduce dead lines in the inspection 
process which would permit the normal flow of trade,  in order to prevent inspections becoming trade 
barriers.  
Questions from the Delegation of Colombia
 
 
3. In Chapter III A 1(a) Import Duties and Charges, and Quantitative Restrictions - 
General provisions, paragraph 26 of the Fa ctual Presentation, the Secretariat states: 
 
 "26. Under Article 3.04, the Parties undertake to eliminate tariffs, fees and charges on 
imports of originating goods other than tho se set out in Annex 3.04 (Tariff Elimination 
Programme, TEP);  in practice, however, this "negative list" encompasses the entire tariff 
universe and includes all products, regardless of the tariff elimination date (see section 
III.A.1(b) below ).  It is also forbidden to increase , or apply new, tariffs above the levels 
specified in the TEP.  Article 3.11 extends th at prohibition to customs processing fees and 
consular fees, and eliminates the current ones.   Tariff-rates quotas are allowed for some 
products (see paragraph 35 below)."   (Emphasis added) 
 
 Could the Parties please explain the sense and meaning of the negative list of tariff 
elimination commitments?  If the Parties undert ake to eliminate tariffs, fees and charges on 
imports of originating goods other than those set out in Annex 3.04 (Tariff Elimination 
Programme, TEP), what products are included in wh at the Secretariat calls the "negative list"?  
Are they not included in the tariff elimination pr ogramme?  Are we to understand that they are 
those included in the category of "products that are excluded"? 
 
 Annex 3.04 (Tariff Elimination Programme) is not a negative list. 
 
 The Secretariat makes an interpretation of th e wording of Article 3.04, "Tariff Elimination 
Programme", which states that:  "Upon the entry into force of this Agreement, the Parties undertake to 
guarantee access to their respective markets through the total and de finitive elimination of customs 
import tariffs and any other duties or charges on trad e in originating goods, other than those specified 
in Annex 3.04", and Annex 3.04 is defined as a "neg ative list".  However, what is contained in this 
Annex are the tariff elimination programmes of Cost a Rica and Panama, which cover the entire tariff 
universe of products, including those that qualify for immediate free trade, those subject to the elimination programme and products that are excluded.  
4. Under (b) (Liberalization of tariff lines and trade) the Secretariat states in 
paragraph 31, on page 11, that:  
 "Under the TEP, tariffs are eliminated in  accordance with 11 different categories for 
Costa Rica and 12 for Panama, while a last category applies for product s that are excluded 
from the Treaty .  In accordance with paragraph 2(a)(ii)  of Annex 3.04 of the Protocol, the 
first instalment of the tariff dismantling took  place on 1 January 2009.  Transition periods 
of respectively 16 and 17 years will apply to Costa Rica and Panama - thus running until 
2025 and 2026.  Box III.1 below summarizes the TEP and its scope of application in terms 
of tariff lines."   (Emphasis added) 
 
 (a) What criteria were used to exclude pr oducts for which there is bilateral trade 
from the tariff elimination programme? 
 
 The products excluded from the tariff eliminati on programme reflect the result of negotiations 
which took due account of the respective sensibilities a nd export interests of the Parties, at the same 
time guaranteeing conformity with the requirements of Article XXIV.  WT/REG264/2 
 Page 3 
 
 
   
 (b) What is the procedure for importing chicken cuts?  Are there any special 
regulations within the Protocol? 
 
 The Protocol contains no special regulations  for the importation of chicken cuts.  These 
products, regardless of their country of origin, must meet the sanitary requirements of each signatory.  
Products included in the Tariff Elimination Programme  (TEP) must also comply with the rule of 
origin in order to qualify for tariff preferences under the Treaty.  In the case of  Costa Rica, they have 
to comply with the requirements laid down by the National Animal Health Service, which are 
available for consultation at the following link:  http://www.senasa.go.cr/ .  In the case of Panama, 
compliance with the requirements laid down in  national sanitary legislation is required. 
 
5. Paragraphs 56 to 63 in Chapter III B (Regulatory Provisions on Trade in Goods) 
provide information relating to standards and sanitary and phytosanitary measures in the 
context of standardization, metrology, and pro cedures for control, inspection and approval of 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures:  
 (a) Could the Parties explain whether th e requirements for conformity assessment, 
recognition and certification are equivalent or similar between the different parties to the FTA? 
  The corresponding chapter provides a legal frame work within which specific applications for 
equivalence may be made in relation to any me asure or product.  However, no equivalence 
determinations have been made to date. 
 
 (b) Could the Parties elaborate how they use the guidelines established by relevant 
international organizations, and whether they would be applying these 
guidelines in a manner that does not discriminate against other trading partners? 
 
 As long as they are relevant to achieving an  adequate level of protection and fulfilling 
legitimate aims, Costa Rica and Panama use the rul es of international reference organizations as a 
basis for their national legislation in this area.  These measures are applied in accordance with the 
principles of non-discrimination established in the SPS and TBT Agreements of the WTO. 
 
 (c) Could the parties confirm whether these guidelines are only applied in the 
context of the FTA, or whether they are generally applied with respect to all 
trade? 
 
 Generally speaking, they are applied to a ll trading partners, unless otherwise provided. 
 
6. In this same connection, the end of paragraph 63 in Chapter III B (Regulatory 
Provisions on Trade in Goods) of the Factual P resentation provides the following information: 
 
 "63. ... In addition, the Parties agreed to establish a maximum period of 90 days, 
counted from the date on which the request wa s first submitted, for the importing Party to 
conduct an inspection of a productive unit of the exporting Party, where such an inspection 
is a prerequisite for import.  Once the inspectio n has been conducted, the authority of the 
importing Party shall issue a reasoned decision  and notify it within a maximum of 30 days 
of the date on which the inspection was completed." 
 WT/REG264/2 
Page 4  
 
   Do the Parties recognize certification and a ccreditation granted by a third party to the 
party that will be undergoing inspection?  If the production unit has been certified and recognized by the certifying entity of a third country, is a new inspection still required? 
 
• Prima facie the certification and/or accreditation referred to is not recognized unless a 
specific application is submitted.  In th at case, the sanitary and phytosanitary 
authorities shall be required to examine whether the relevant requirements are met. 
• No recognition if there are no prior agreements on recognition. 
7. Under Section 3 (Anti-dumping and Co untervailing Measures) of this chapter, 
paragraph 76 on page 27 states the following: 
 
 "Definitive anti-dumping duties shall be terminated within a period of not more than 
60 months from the date of imposition and may not be extended (Article 7.04)." 
 
 Does the Protocol make provision for cases in which, at the end of the period of 
60 months of anti-dumping duties, the conditions which gave rise to the imposition of the duties still remain? 
 
 If at the end of the 60-month period the conditions which gave rise to the imposition of the duties still remain, the domestic industry would still  have the option of requesting a new anti-dumping 
investigation concerning the same product at the end of the period.  
8. In Chapter IV (Trade in Services and In vestment), Part A (Scope and Definitions), 
paragraphs 92 and 93 on page 30 state the following:  
 "92. Chapter 13 on 'Telecommunications' - which contains a series of rights and 
obligations related exclusively to the teleco mmunications sector - do not apply between the 
two countries (Article 13.01);  however, the te lecommunications sector is not excluded from 
the coverage as trade in this sector remains su bject to the disciplines of Chapters 10, 11 and 
14 and to the reservations laid down in the Annexes on Non-Conforming Measures.  Since 
the entry into force of the Treaty, there have been changes to Costa Rican legislation on 
telecommunications, which was amended to abo lish monopoly and allow free competition;  
nonetheless, the Parties have no t agreed to modify the Treaty's provisions relating to 
telecommunications services."  (Emphasis added) 
 
 Could the Government of Costa Rica confirm whether the new telecommunications 
legislation has eliminated the monopoly and enable d other parties to take part in trade in this 
sector? 
  Yes, the telecommunications monopoly was recentl y eliminated in Costa Rica in respect of 
the following services:  
• Private network services; 
 
• Internet services; 
 
• mobile wireless services. 
 Consequently, it is possible for Panamanian firm s to participate in the services in accordance 
with the established legal requirements.  WT/REG264/2 
 Page 5 
 
 
   
9. Chapter IV (Trade in Services and Investment), Part B (Denial of Benefits) states in 
paragraph 98, on page 32, the following: 
 
 "Denial of benefits are foreseen in the context of both investment and trade in services 
(Articles 10.14 and 11.10, respectively).  Subj ect to prior notification and consultation 
in accordance with Articles 18.04 and 20.06, a Party may deny the benefits of those Chapters to: 
 
 (a) Service suppliers of the other Party, if it is determined that the services are being 
provided by an enterprises that is no t undertaking "substantial business activities" 
in the territory of the other Party and that , in accordance the latter's legislation, 
this enterprise is owned or controlled by investors from a non-Party.  "Substantial business activities", as defined in Article 2.01, require that the enterprise (a) is registered as an income tax payer in the territory of that Party;  (b) has a 
payroll duly registered with the corresponding  authority of that Party;  or (c) has 
permanent premises, facilities or offices in that Party, which are not restricted to 
receiving notifications. 
 
 (b) Investors of the other Party that constitu te an enterprise, and their investments, if 
the enterprise is owned or controlled by investors from a non-Party (as defined in 
Article 10.40), and this enterprise is not undertaking "substantial business 
activities" in the territory of that Party." 
 
 Could the Parties explain how Article 10. 14 complies with the GATS Article V.6 
requirement that a juridical person of any WTO Member that is constituted under the laws of a 
party and has substantive business operations th ere, be entitled to treatment granted under 
Article V of the Agreement? 
 
 Article 10.14 of the regulatory text of th e Panama-Central America FTA complies with 
GATS Article V.6.  GATS Article V provides that a service supplier of a WTO country Member that is not a party to a trade agreement shall be entitled to the benefits thereof if it meets two conditions:  
(1) That of having been constituted under the laws of a party to the agreement;  and (2) That it 
engages in substantive business operations in the territory of the parti es to such agreement. 
  Article V of the GATS is interpreted in the same way as Article 10.04 of the Panama-Central 
America FTA.  Thus, the provisions of the GATS apply solely to service suppliers, while 
Article 10.14 of the Panama-Central America FTA covers investment in services. 
 
10. According to Chapter IV (Trade in S ervices and Investment), Part C (General 
Provisions on Trade in Services and Investment ), Section I (Market Access), paragraph 102: 
 
 "102. Quantitative restrictions are defined in Article 11.01 as non-discriminatory 
measures which place limitations on the num ber of service suppliers or their operations, 
either in the form of a quota or an economic n eeds test, or by any other quantitative means.  
The Parties are required to establish procedu res for notifying quantitative restrictions and 
for specifying their undertakings to liberali ze quantitative restrictions, as well as for 
consultations with a view to further libera lize such restrictions (Article 11.12).  
Article 11.09 provides that existing QRs are to  be listed in Annex V, that any new such 
measure shall be notified to the other Party and included in Annex V, and that at least once 
every two years Parties shall aim at negotiate  the liberalization or elimination of these 
measures .  In Annex V attached to the Protocol , Costa Rica and Panama have agreed not 
to elaborate such a list, making clear how ever that the rights afforded by the Article WT/REG264/2 
Page 6  
 
  remained valid.  As part of the process of establishing the Administrative Commission, the 
Parties are drawing up the lists of the secto rs, subsectors or activities to which they apply 
quantitative restrictions;  as at December 2010, they had not completed their work."   
(Emphasis added) 
 
 Could the Parties confirm whether existing qua ntitative restrictions that are to be listed 
in Annex V and the "NEW" such measures to be included in the same annex are being and will 
be notified to the WTO? 
 
 Paragraph 7 of GATS Article V provides that Members which are parties to an agreement 
shall promptly notify any such agreement and any enlargement or significant modification thereof to 
the Council for Trade in Services.  Accordingly,  Panama and Costa Rica shall be required to 
coordinate on future notification to the WTO.  
11. Referring to the clause whereby recourse to  one forum excludes recourse to another, 
paragraph 170 of the Presentation states the following:  
 "170.  Procedures governing the settlement of disputes are laid down in Chapter 20.  They 
are applicable to the settlement of any dispute regarding application or interpretation of the 
Treaty, wherever a Party considers that an actual or proposed measure of the other Party might be inconsistent with obligations under th e Treaty or, in the case of trade in goods, 
wherever technical barriers to trade or cr oss-border trade in services may cause 
nullification or impairment of benefits exp ected (without infringement).  Any dispute 
arising under the Treaty or the WTO Agreement  or conventions negotiated in accordance 
with the latter may be heard by either foru m at the discretion of the complaining Party, 
although once an arbitral panel has been est ablished, the forum selected excludes recourse 
to any other." 
 
 In the light of the relevant provisions of the Dispute Settlement Understanding and of 
the results of the case Argentina  - Definitive Anti-dumping Duties on Poultry from 
Brazil  (WT/DS241), it is important for Colombia to have a clearer idea of the following: 
 
 (a) Whether the arbitral forum of the noti fied treaty can discuss WTO rules, and if 
so what is the practical effect of arbitral awards thus issued? 
 
 (b) Whether in the opinion of the parties when such cases are discussed in the forum 
of the treaty the principle of res judicata
 operates with respect to the DSB. 
 
 Article 20.04 of the Free Trade Treaty between Central America and Panama provides that:   Article 20.04 Choice of forum   1. Any dispute arising under this Treaty and the WTO Agreement or any agreement 
negotiated under the latter may be settled in either forum, at the discretion of the complaining 
Party. 
  2. Once a Party has requested the establishmen t of an arbitral panel under Article 20.08 
or of a panel under Article 6 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, the forum selected 
pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be to the exclusion of any other. 
  It was the intention of the Parties to include  an article permitting selection of a forum for the 
settlement of disputes in which the same measure ma y violate the rules of both the Treaty and the 
WTO.  WT/REG264/2 
 Page 7 
 
 
   
 The aim is to guarantee flexibility in dispute settlement and legal certainty for the Parties.  In addition, it is sought to prevent possible abu se of process whereby a Party files spurious claims 
relating to the same measure in various forums.  
 It is customary to include an article of this  nature in agreements throughout the region.  
Examples may be seen in Article 2103 of the Fr ee Trade Agreement between Canada and the 
Republic of Colombia and Article 18.4 of th e Free Trade Agreement between Colombia and 
El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.  The provi sion included in the Treaty under consideration 
should be interpreted and treated in the same wa y as the provision in the above-mentioned treaties. 
 
12. Regarding rules of origin, we  have the following concerns: 
 
 It is Colombia's understanding that accordin g to the factual presentation of the Treaty 
provisions on rules of origin, these provisions are complemented by other provisions in the 
bilateral Protocol.  Specific rules of origin are listed either in the Treaty or in the Protocol.  This 
fragmentation of specific rules of origin results in origin of a "Party" being defined differently to either include any of the six signatories of the Treaty or only the two signatories of the Protocol - thus having effects on cumulation possibilities. 
 
 (a) Is our understanding correct?  Could you please elaborate on the concurrent 
operation of these instruments? 
 
 Because negotiations were conducted between  Central America and Panama, common rules 
of origin between the five countries of the regi on and Panama were negotia ted for some products.  
In such cases, the Central American countries may use the principle of cumulation for exports to 
Panama.  This principle was set forth in paragr aph 4(a) of Article 4.06, which provides that 
cumulation shall apply where "a specific rule of orig in for a good is common to all the Parties to this 
Treaty".  On the other hand, owing to differences between the produc tive structures of each country, it 
was not possible to reach a consen sus on rules of origin for other products, and these were therefore 
negotiated on a bilateral basis between each Central American country and Panama.  The 
corresponding rules for Costa Rica are included in the Bilateral Protocol between Costa Rica and 
Panama.  In this case, paragraph 4( b) of Article 4.06 provides that origin may be cumulated between 
the Central American countries where "a specific rule of origin and the same tariff elimination period 
for a good are common to a group of no fewer than three (3) countries Parties to this Treaty".  
 (b) We would appreciate a complete explan ation of the re-export regime from free 
zones and the recognition of such goods as originating. 
 
 No provision in the Treaty excludes tariff pr eferences for products processed under the free 
zone regime.  Consequently, provided that the rule of origin is complied with, such products shall be 
eligible for preferences in accord ance with the TEP.  Costa Rica's Law on the free zone regime is 
available for consultation at the following link: 
 
 http://www.procomer.com/contenido/descar gables/zonas_francas/ Ley_Zona_Franca_2010.pdf
 
  The free zone laws of Panama may be viewed at the following links:  
http://www.zonalibredecolon.com.pa /page/show/regimen-juridico
 
  http://www.vicomex.gob.pa/leyincexp.html
 
 WT/REG264/2 
Page 8  
 
   Moreover, Annex 3.09 governing domestic support and export subsidy programmes reads as 
follows:  
"ANNEX 3.09 
 
RESTRICTIONS ON DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT SUBSIDY PROGRAMMES 
  1. Subsidies for exports of agricultural and non-agricultural goods   (a) The Parties share the objective of elimin ating subsidies for exports of agricultural 
goods within the context of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and shall cooperate to 
achieve those objectives. 
  (b) The Parties shall eliminate export subs idies for agricultural and non-agricultural 
goods in their mutual trade upon the entry into force of the Treaty. 
 
 (c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties may maintain a measure inconsistent with 
paragraph 2, provided that such measure is main tained in compliance with Article 27.4 of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM). 
  2. Aid measures or domestic support in respect of agricultural goods 
 
The Parties recognize that domestic support measures may be of crucial importance to their agricultural sectors, but may also have distorting effects on production and trade in agricultural goods.  Accordingly, the Parties agr ee to cooperate in the multilateral sphere in 
order to achieve the greatest possible reduction or elimination of trade-distorting domestic 
support measures." 
 
Questions from the Delegation of the United States
 
 
Technical Barriers to Trade  
 
13. Paragraph 59 of the Factual Presentation states:  "Articles 9.10 and 9.11 establish 
criteria for notification and designation of e nquiry points, respectively."  Could the Parties 
elaborate on this?  For example, does the FTA establish new criteria for notification to the 
WTO?  Does the FTA designate other bodies to  be the enquiry points than are currently 
established under the WTO? 
 
 Under Article 9.10 of the FTA, the Parti es are required to notify where no relevant 
international standard exists or where the conten t of a technical regulation or conformity assessment 
procedure applicable to a planned technical regulation is not consistent with th e relevant international 
standards, and provided that such regulation c ould have a significant effect on trade among the 
Parties, each Party shall notify the proposed me asure in writing to the other Party at least 
sixty (60) days in advance of its adoption, so as to enable the interested parties to formulate and 
submit comments and questions during that period a nd permit the notifying Party to take them into 
account.   The transparency provisions of the FTA are al so WTO-consistent with regard to emergency 
measures.  No enquiry points are designated othe r that those established under the WTO Agreement. 
  The FTA establishes obligations additional to those of the WTO Agreement in Article 9.10.6, 
which states that, where a Party administratively re jects a shipment or the provision of services, it  WT/REG264/2 
 Page 9 
 
 
  shall promptly notify, in writing, the owner of the shipment or the service provider of the technical 
justification for the rejection.  
Services
 
 
14. Paragraph 96 of the Factual Presentation (FP) describes activities and measures that are excluded from coverage of the Agreement's Inv estment Chapter.  According to the Factual 
Presentation, these include measures taken by a Party to "restrict investment … for public 
policy or national security reasons," as well as "government services or functions," as described 
in paragraph 93(c) of the FP. 
 
 (a) With respect to the first exclusion (for measures that restrict investment), how is 
"public policy" defined in the Agreement?  If "public policy" is not defined, how 
have the Parties sought to ensure that this exclusion is not overly broad?  (Arguably, all government measures are taken for "public policy" reasons.) 
 
 The exact term used in the Treaty is "public order" - as established in Article XIV(a) of the 
GATS, and not "public policy".   The definition of "public order" must be unde rstood in the light of the Parties' domestic 
legislation. 
 
 (b) With respect to the second exclusion (for government services or functions), does 
this exclusion apply only to the market access, or to all the obligations in the 
Investment Chapter, including the core investment protections?  For example, are these activities also excluded from the Chapter's obligations on 
expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, and (post-establishment) 
non-discriminatory treatment? 
 
 This exclusion applies to all obligations in th e Investment Chapter.  However, paragraph 4 of 
Article 10.01 states that:  
 "Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2(d) , if a duly authorized investor of one Party 
provides services or carries out functions such as services related to social rehabilitation, 
unemployment benefit or insurance, social security, so cial welfare, public education, public training, 
infant health and care or child protection, the invest ments of that investor shall be protected by the 
provisions of this Chapter." 
 
15. Paragraph 102 of the Factual Presentation notes that, under Article 11.01 of the 
Agreement, the Parties are required to estab lish procedures for notifying quantitative 
restrictions and for specifying their undertakings  to liberalize these restrictions.  The FP then 
notes that the Parties have in fact agreed not to elaborate a list of such measures, but that the "rights afforded by the Article remained valid." 
 
 (a) What "rights" does Article 11.01 of the Agreement afford to service suppliers, 
according to the Parties? 
 
 Each Party is entitled to be notified of an y measure that constitutes a non-discriminatory 
quantitative restriction adopted by the other Party und er Article 11.09, paragraph 2, of the Free Trade 
Treaty between Panama and Costa Rica.  WT/REG264/2 
Page 10  
 
   Annex V provides that the Parties are entitled to: 
 1. Maintain existing non-discriminatory quantitativ e restrictions at the entry into force of the 
Treaty, as established in the legislation of each Party.  
2. Adopt non-discriminatory quantitative restrictions  subsequent to the entry into force of the 
Treaty.  
 (b) It appears that nothing in Articl e 11.01 the Agreement actually requires Parties 
to liberalize or eliminate existing quant itative measures, or prevents Parties 
from introducing new quantitative restrictions - is this correct? 
 
 The Parties to the Treaty made a commitment th at, at least once every two years, they would 
seek to negotiate the liberalization or elimin ation of existing non-discriminatory quantitative 
restrictions adopted by each Party under Article 11.09 , paragraph 3. 
 
16. Paragraph 115 of the Factual Presentation notes that paragraph 6 of Article 10.07 lists 
performance requirements that are not prohibit ed under the Agreements, but that "shall be 
dealt with by the Administrative Commission, upon request of a Party which deems that they adversely affect trade or constitute a significant barrier to investment …". 
 
 (a) Could the Parties please describe the requirements that are listed in paragraph 6 
of Article 10.07? 
 
 The requirements listed in Article 10. 07, paragraph 6, are the following: 
 
1. To restrict sales in its territory of the goods produced by the investment, by relating such sales 
in any manner to the volume or value of its exports or foreign exchange earnings; 
 2. to transfer technology, a production process or other proprietary knowle dge to a person in its 
territory, except where the requirement is imposed by a court, administrative tribunal or competent 
authority in order to remedy an alleged violation of  competition legislation or to act in a manner that 
is not inconsistent with other provisions of this Treaty;  or 
 3. to act as the exclusive supplier of the goods it produces to a specific regional or world market. 
 
Notifications
 
 
17. According to Table V.1 on page 55 of the Factual Presentation, both Costa Rica and 
Panama are parties to ag reements that have not been notified  to the WTO.  We request that 
both Costa Rica and Panama please update th e Membership as to when each of these 
agreements will be notified. 
  In the case of Costa Rica, the Central American  Treaty on Investment and Trade in Services 
was submitted to the Legislative A ssembly for approval and will be no tified as soon as it enters into 
force.  Notification of agreements between Central America and the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica-CARICOM is being coordinated with the respective counterparts.  
 Panama will notify outstanding agreements to the WTO in the course of this year. 
 
__________