ARGENTINA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE EXPORT OF BOVINE HIDES AND THE IMPORT OF FINISHED LEATHER
Document: Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes Award of the Arbitrator Florentino P. Feliciano
Date: 31 August 2001
Document codes: WT/DS155/10
Complainant: EU
Respondent: Argentina
Third parties: U.S.
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. XI:1, X:3(a), III:2  GATT 1994

ARGENTINA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE EXPORT OF
BOVINE HIDES AND THE IMPORT OF FINISHED LEATHER
Arbitration
under Article 21.3(c) of the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes
Award of the Arbitrator
Florentino P. Feliciano

I. Introduction
1. On 16 February 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body (the "DSB") adopted the Panel Report
1 in

("Argentina – Hides and Leather").2 At the DSB meeting of 12 March 2001, Argentina informed the
DSB, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU"), that it would implement the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB in this dispute and that it would require a "reasonable period of time" to do so, under the terms
of Article 21.3 of the DSU.
2. In view of its inability to reach an agreement with Argentina on the period of time reasonably
required for implementation of those recommendations and rulings, the European Communities
requested that such period be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the
DSU.
3
3. By joint letter of 12 June 2001, Argentina and the European Communities notified the DSB
that they had agreed that the duration of the "reasonable period of time" for implementation should be
determined through binding arbitration, under the terms of Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, and that I
should act as Arbitrator.
4 The parties also indicated in that letter that they had agreed to extend the
time-period for the arbitration, which shall be completed no later than 90 days after the date of the
appointment of the arbitrator.
5 Notwithstanding this extension of the time-period, the parties stated
that the arbitration award would be deemed to be an award made under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.
My acceptance of this designation as Arbitrator was conveyed to the parties by letter of 12 June 2001.
4. Written submissions were received from Argentina and the European Communities on
3 July 2001, and an oral hearing was held on 18 July 2001.
II. Arguments of the Parties
A. Argentina
5. Argentina requests the arbitrator to fix the "reasonable period of time" at forty-six months and
fifteen days, so that that period of time will expire on 31 December 2004.

1WT/DS155/R, WT/DS155/R/Corr.1.
2WT/DS155/5.
3WT/DS155/6.
4WT/DS155/8.
5Ibid.

6. Argentina submits that the text of Article 21.3(c) of the DSU makes it clear that the 15-month
period provided as a guideline is merely indicative. Article 21.3(c) speaks of the possibility of fixing
a period of longer than 15 months for the implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB. According to Argentina, the circumstances in this particular dispute warrant the granting of a
period longer than 15 months for the implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings.
7. Since 1992, Argentina has been working on a programme to combat tax evasion and reform
its tax system. The cornerstone of this programme is the system of percepciones and retenciones
applied to the Impuesto al Valor Agregado (the "IVA") and the Impuesto de Ganancias (the "IG").
This programme ties in, both economically and legally, with the objective of reducing the fiscal
deficit. The programme has been explicitly backed by various international financial agencies, in
particular, the International Monetary Fund (the "IMF"). The agreements concluded with the IMF set
out a number of quantitative targets, notably for the levels of fiscal deficit, primary spending and
public debt, that are monitored on a quarterly basis throughout the period covered by the programme.
Failure of Argentina to achieve these targets would preclude disbursement of the funds otherwise
available under the agreements.
8. Argentina stresses that its fiscal position has seriously deteriorated over the past years,
essentially as a result of the fall in tax revenue brought about by the economic recession that began in
the third quarter of 1998 in the wake of the 1997 "Asian crisis". In this context of economic
recession, Argentina sought to reduce the deficit by increasing taxes, and reducing primary spending.
These efforts must continue this year and over the next few years.
9. Under these circumstances, Argentina argues that legal and fiscal difficulties would result
from eliminating the extra financial burden imposed on importers as a result of the advances on the
IVA and IG at rates higher than those applie d to domestic transactions, through a "downward
equalization" of the rates applied to imports.
10. Argentina, at the same time, contends that although in theory it would be possible to comply
with the findings of the Panel through an "upward equalization" of the rates of the said payments on
account, that is, by increasing the rates for domestic transactions, the effects of such a measure on
Argentina's current situation, when the country is trying to recover from recession, would make the
measures politically and economically unfeasible. Similarly, the introduction of a system of
refunding interests to importers, would involve setting up a very complex administrative mechanism
to ensure accurate calculation of interest due. Moreover, it would open the door to complaints from
the relevant domestic sectors, complicating further the fiscal situation.

11. Argentina submits that the structure of its tax system justifies the requested time-limit. Under
Argentina law, there is a set of regulations govern ing the conditions and time-limits for action by the
national authorities in the domestic sphere. In the external sphere, there is a set of payment
obligations and commitments assumed by Argentina that can only be honoured by strict compliance
with the laws in force: the National Budget Law No. 25,401 of 12 December 2000 and the Fiscal
Solvency Law No. 25,152 of 15 September 1999.
12. Argentina describes the process by which its annual budget is enacted as follows. In
September of each year, the Executive submits to the Congress of the Nation its draft budget for the
following financial year, containing estimated income and expenditure authorizations. First, it is
examined by the Budget and Finance Committee of the Chamber of Deputies. Once that Committee
has issued its opinion, the draft budget is examined by the Chamber, and upon approval by the
Chamber of Deputies, it is passed on to the Budget and Finance Committee of the Senate before final
transmission to the Senate. When it has been ap proved by both Chambers, it is promulgated by the
Executive, which has partial veto authority. Once this process has been completed, the National
Budget becomes a Law of the Nation, and can be amended only by another national law.
13. The text of the law is accompanied, inter alia , by a number of annexed tables providing a
breakdown of the budgetary information (income, expenditure, financing, etc.) according to the
organization of the national administration and its decentralized bodies. The tax revenue forecast is
broken down according to the different taxes (IG, IVA, Personal Property Tax, etc.) and set out in
detail in the Executive's annual letter of submission to the National Congress.
14. The projected amounts are then incorporated in th e final estimate of income that is ultimately
approved by Congress. The specification of these amounts, once they are included in the budget,
forms part of the Law and make up the estimate of income for the entire financial year; in other
words, they can only be amended by another law, since any change would involve a consequential
change in the expenditure/income equation and the deficit level already approved.
15. Argentina further explains that, at the same time, the tax system is tied to the Law on Fiscal
Solvency which provides, inter alia, for the progressive reduction of the national public deficit with
a view to balancing the budget by 2005. This Law establishes target deficit levels for each year, and
any change in the deficit levels indicated would also require a legislative amendment. Because of the
relationship between the Law on Fiscal Solvency and the Budget Law, estimated income and
expenditure will have to be adjusted in order to reduce the deficit to attain the target prescribed. The
procedure will have to be applied by law in each of the succeeding financial years until the process is
completed in 2005.

16. The Law on Fiscal Solvency also lays down the obligation to include in the letter of
submission of the annual budget a multi-year budget covering at least three years. In other words, the
Executive must submit to the Congress, together with the budget for the coming year, a multi-year
projection containing estimates of income on the basis of existing tax rates which means calculating
the advances in the form of retenciones and percepciones needed in order to meet the objectives of
the Law on Fiscal Solvency for 31 December 2004.
17. As a result, in the view of Argentina, it is not possible to amend the budget currently in force
without altering its deficit target as well as the deficit target of the Law on Fiscal Solvency. Nor is it
possible, in the current situation, to alter the system of customs levies. That system is not only linked
to imports, but is also part of a comprehensive scheme to combat tax evasion which includes levies on
purchases in the domestic market and the retenciones regime. The system makes it possible to
maintain better monitoring of the obligations of taxpayers while providing them with adequate
incentives to declare and regularize their operations.
18. Argentina believes that a single and immediate modification of this regime involving a
reduction of the rates of levies on imports would clash with the objective of the Law on Fiscal
Solvency, since it would involve a significant loss in tax revenue. Moreover, the agreement in force
with the IMF provides for reduction in the deficit over the next few years in line with the Law on
Fiscal Solvency. This agreement is binding on the Argentine Government, is currently in force, and
specifically takes up the deficit reduction commitments contained in the Law on Fiscal Solvency.
Any amendment to the IMF agreement would require renegotiation, and the fiscal targets are
determined in compliance with the Law on Fiscal Solvency.
19. The Argentine public debt structure includes commitments for short, medium and long-term
interest and capital payments. Argentina undertook a major debt equity swap in order to ease the
burden imposed by the sequence of debt maturities. Having conducted this swap, it is particularly
important in view of the rescheduling of maturities, involving a considerable medium-term fiscal cost,
to ensure solvency during the stage covered by the Law on Fiscal Solvency extending up to 2005.
20. Argentina submits that Article 21.2 of the DSU, which speaks of "interests" of developing
countries, ties in with the general provisions of Article 21.3(c). The "particular circumstances" of
Argentina in this case are a combination of legal obligations that can only be amended through an act
of the National Congress, as in the case of the Budget Law and the Law on Fiscal Solvency, and of
international obligations such as the IMF commitments.
21. Argentina recalls that according to past arbi tral awards, Article 21.2 of the DSU "… enjoins,
inter alia, an arbitrator […] to be generally mindful of the great difficulties that a developing country

Member may, in a particular case, face as it proceeds to implement the recommendations and rulings
of the DSB." 6 In the present case, Argentina's economic interests as a developing country and its
fiscal solvency are at stake. This is clearly reflected in the capital debt maturity schedule throughout
the period requested as a reasonable period of time (up to 2005). Likewise, owing to the size of the
debt involved, and in particular to the impact of any failure to comply with the IMF Agreement,
Argentina would have great difficulty financing an increase in its budget deficit.
22. Argentina maintains that the imp act of any change in the rates would be significant. The
retenciones and percepciones are a fundamental element in maintaining an adequate tax collection
level. Through this mechanism, $1,600 million were collected in 2000, i.e. more than 18 per cent of
the total taxes collected in connection with foreign trade. During the same year, IVA and IG collected
at customs accounted for more than 7 per cent and 6 per cent respectively of the total amount
collected for each tax. To cushion the impact of this loss of revenue, a procedure involving
progressive equalization sector by sector is necessary. Argentina's "interest" as a developing country,
therefore, consists in avoiding an abrupt implem entation without a transition period, in the space of a
single financial year, that would jeopardize the objective of reducing the deficit.
23. Against the foregoing background, Argentina, requests that consideration be given to its
"interest" in being granted a period of time that would enable it to implement the recommendations
and rulings of the DSB in this dispute "progressively", (i.e., by instalments, as it were) over a period
of three financial years beginning in 2002 and ending on 31 December 2004.
B. The European Communities
24. The European Communities notes that the measures in dispute are contained in a series of
Resoluciones Generales issued by the Dirección General Impositiva (the "DGI"). In 1997 the DGI
was merged with the Dirección General de Aduanas in order to create the Administración Federal de
Ingresos Públicos (the "AFIP"). The AFIP is an "autarchic entity", which operates autonomously,
under the general supervision and control of the Minister of Economy. The Chief of the AFIP is
empowered to issue new Resoluciones Generales and to amend existing ones.
25. The European Communities submits that in orde r to comply with the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB, Argentina must take one of th e following actions: equalize the rates applied to
imports and to internal sales (including the zero rates); and/or provide for the refund to the importers
of the additional costs imposed by the higher rates on imports, or establish a similar compensation

6Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages
("Chile – Alcoholic Beverages "), WT/DS87/15, WT/DS110/14, 23 May 2000, para 45.

system. The above actions will require, respectively, amending the existing Resoluciones Generales
or adopting new ones.
26. The European Communities observes that the adoption or amendment of a Resolución
General of the AFIP does not have to follow any pre- determined procedural steps, other than the
prior consultation (intervención) of two administrative units of the AFIP. Nor are they subject to any
deadlines, whether mandatory or voluntary. The Resoluciones Generales can be enacted or amended
within a short time frame and, in practice, are issued very frequently.
27. The latest amendment of Resolución General No. 3431/91 is contained in Resolución
General No. 1021/2001 of 7 June 2001, which lowers the rate of the advance IVA on imports of
capital goods to 5 per cent. The reduction of the IVA rate on capital goods was decided for general
reasons of economic policy. Nevertheless, according to the European Communities, the ensuing
reduction of the advance IVA rate on imports of those products has had the incidental effect of
partially removing one of the GATT inconsistent aspects of the measures in dispute. This shows that
it is practicable for the AFIP to take the type of measures that would be required for complying with
the other DSB's recommendations within an equally short time frame.
28. Article 21.1 of the DSU states the general principle that "prompt compliance with
recommendations or rulings of the DSB is essential in order to ensure effective resolution of disputes
to the benefit of all Members". This obligation is elaborated in Article 21.3 of the DSU, where it is
stipulated that "[i]f it is impracticable to comply immediately with the recommendations and rulings,
the Member concerned shall have a reasonable period of time in which to do so". Accordingly,
Members should aim to comply "immediately" with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
Only if it is "impracticable" to do so, is the Member concerned entitled to a "reasonable period of
time" for implementation.
29. The European Communities submits that the 15-month period mentioned in Article 21.3(c) of
the DSU is a "guideline" for the arbitrator, and not an average, or usual period. As stated in
Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon ("Australia – Salmon"), it "does not mean,
however, that the Arbitrator is obliged to grant 15 months in all cases."
7 According to the award in
EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) ("European Communities –
Hormones"), the "reasonable period of time" should be "the shortest period possible within the legal
system of the Member to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB". 8 Therefore, the

7Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS18/9, 23 February 1999, para. 30.
8Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13 , 29 May 1998,
para. 26.

"particular circumstances" mentioned in Article 21.3(c) of the DSU are those which can influence
what the shortest period possible for implementation may be within the legal system of the
implementing Member.
30. Referring to the award in Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products
("Canada – Pharmaceutical Patents "), the European Communities contends that such "particular
circumstances" may include, for example: whether legislative or administrative measures are needed;
the complexity of the measures to be adopted; and whether the procedural steps towards
implementation, and their respective duration, are mandated by law or are discretionary.
9
31. The European Communities maintains that the impact of the implementing measures on the
domestic industry is not a relevant factor. As noted by the arbitrator in Indonesia – Certain
Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry ("Indonesia – Automobile Industry"), "in virtually every
case in which a measure has been found to be inconsistent with a Member's obligations under the
GATT 1994 or any other covered agreement, and therefore must be brought into conformity with that
agreement, some degree of adjustment by the domestic industry of the Member concerned will be
necessary […] Structural adjustment to the withdrawal or the modification of an inconsistent measure,
therefore, is not a 'particular circumstance' that can be taken into account in determining the
reasonable period of time under Article 21.3(c)".
10
32. Similarly, the mere fact that the required implementing measures may be controversial and
likely to raise opposition domestically is also not a relevant factor. As the arbitrator in Canada –
Pharmaceutical Patents noted, there is nothing in Article 21.3(c) to indicate that the supposed
domestic contentiousness of a measure taken to comply with a WTO ruling should in any way be a
factor to be considered in determining a 'reasonable period of time' for implementation.11
33. The European Communities argues that though in accordance with Article 21.2 of the DSU,
when assessing the "reasonable period of time" the arbitrator must take into account the "interests" of
Argentina as a developing country, this does not mean that the arbitrator must take into account
"circumstances" which are "qualitatively different" from those that would be relevant for a developed
country. Rather, the arbitrator must apply the same kind of criteria to developing as to developed
countries, but bearing in mind the greater difficulties which might be encountered by Argentina as a
developing country.

9Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS114/13, 18 August 2000.
10Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, WT/DS54/15, WT/DS55/14, WT/DS59/13,
WT/DS64/12, 7 December 1998, para. 23.
11Supra, footnote 9.

34. The European Communities submits that in this case, the implementation of the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB does not require any legislative action, but merely
administrative measures at the sub-ministerial level, namely the adoption or amendment of
Resoluciones Generales of the AFIP. Previous practice shows that it is practicable to adopt or amend
a Resolución General of the AFIP within a matter of months, if not weeks or even days.
35. The European Communities asserts that the "reasonable period of time" proposed in its
submission has been generously estimated so as to take into account the "interests" of Argentina as a
developing country. Were Argentina a developed country, the "reasonable period of time" would
have to be much shorter in the light of the above considerations.
36. The European Communities, therefore, for its part, requests the arbitrator to rule that the
reasonable period of time for Argentina to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in
this case is eight months from the date of adoption by the DSB of the Panel report.
III. Reasonable Period of Time
37. My task in this arbitration is to determine the "reasonable period of time", as that term is used
in Article 21.3 of the DSU, for the implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in
Argentina – Hides and Leather.
38. The DSB, as already noted, adopted the Panel's recommendation in Argentina – Hides and
Leather. That recommendation was that Argentina should bring Resolución (ANA) No. 2235/96 and
Resoluciones Generales (DGI) Nos. 3431/91 and 3543/92 into conformity with Argentina's
obligations under Article X:3(a) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("the
GATT 1994"), and under Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994, respectively. At the DSB
meeting of 12 March 2001, Argentina informed the DSB that it would require a "reasonable period of
time" to implement the recommendations an d rulings of the DSB, with respect to Resoluciones
Generales (DGI) Nos. 3431/91 and 3543/92, and, at the same time, advised that it had already
complied with the recommendations and rulings in respect of Resolución (ANA) No. 2235/96.
12 The
request for arbitration by the European Communities, accordingly, did not include

12Panel Report, para. 12.7.

the measures already taken by Argentina to implement its obligations in respect of Resolución
(ANA) No. 2235/96.13
39. Thus, the present arbitration relates only to the implementation of the DSB recommendations
and rulings in respect of Resoluciones Generales Nos. 3431/91 and 3543/92.
40. It is useful to go back to basics and perhaps most basic of all considerations is the nature of
the act(s) of compliance or implementation that a WTO Member like Argentina, which has engaged in
dispute resolution proceedings, is obliged to carry out. Implementation, in essence, consists of
bringing the measure held to be inconsistent with the obligations of the WTO Member concerned
under particular provisions of a particular covered agreement, into conformity with those same
provisions. Article 3.7 of the DSU stresses that "the first objective of the dispute settlement
mechanism is usually to secure withdrawal of the WTO-inconsistent measure ". (emphasis added)
The DSU goes on to state that compensation may be resorted to only if "the immediate withdrawal of
the measure is impracticable and then only as "a temporary measure pending the withdrawal of the
WTO-inconsistent measure." (emphasis added) Suspension of concessions or other obligations under
the covered agreements is explicitly designated as a " last resort " mode of compliance "subject to
authorization by the DSB", but it too remains a "temporary" remedy allowed under Article 22.8 of the
DSU only until the non-conforming measure is " removed" or a " mutually satisfactory solution " is
achieved. Moreover, and at any rate, Article 22.1 of the DSU cautions that neither compensation nor
suspension of concessions or other obligations is to be "preferred to full implementation of a
recommendation to bring a measure into conformity with the covered agreements." Clearly,
therefore, the non-conforming measure is to be brought into a state of conformity with specified treaty
provisions either by withdrawing such measure completely, or by modifying it by excising or
correcting the offending portion of the measure involved. Where the non-conforming measure is a
statute, a repealing or amendatory statute is commonly needed. Where the measure involved is an
administrative regulation, a new statute may or may not be necessary, but a repealing or amendatory
regulation is commonly required.
14

13The European Communities has, however, stated that such exclusion did not mean an admission that
the measures already taken by Argentina constituted "adequate implementation" of the DSB recommendations
and rulings. The European Communities reserved their right to request recourse to panel proceedings under
Article 21.5 of the DSU, should that become necessary. European Communities submission, para. 9.
14The non-conforming measure might also assume other forms: e.g., an executive or administrative
practice actually carried out but not specifically mandated or authorized by statute or administrative regulation;
or a "quasi-judicial" determination by an administrative body. Since the Argentine measures involved in this
arbitration are not of these kinds, it is not necessary to examine the requirements of compliance where those
other kinds of measures are concerned.

41. It thus appears that the concept of compliance or implementation prescribed in the DSU is a
technical concept with a specific content: the withdrawal or modification of a measure, or part of a
measure, the establishment or application of which by a Member of the WTO constituted the violation
of a provision of a covered agreement. Compliance within the meaning of the DSU is distinguishable
from the removal or modification of the underlying economic or social or other conditions the
existence of which might well have caused or contributed to the enactment or application of the
WTO-inconsistent governmental measure in the first place. Those economic or other conditions
might, in certain situations, survive the removal or modification of the non-conforming measure;
nevertheless, the WTO Member concerned will have complied with the DSB recommendations and
rulings and with its obligations under the relevant covered agreement. To my mind, it is inter alia
for the above reason that the need for structural adjustment of the industry or industries in respect of
which the WTO-inconsistent measure was promulgated and applied, has generally been regarded, in
prior arbitrations under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, as not bearing upon the determination of a
"reasonable period of time" for implementation of DSB recommendations and rulings.
15
42. In the present arbitration, some debate has been generated on the question whether
compliance by Argentina with the DSB recommendatio ns and rulings necessitate the enactment of a
statute by the federal legislature of Argentina or whether a new Resolución General by the AFIP
would be sufficient. The European Communities maintains that all that is needed is the adoption of a
new Resolución General modifying the existing Resoluciones Generales (DGI) Nos. 3431/91
and 3543/92 (relating to the advance or withholding payments on IVA and IG on imports), or
modifying the present Resoluciones Generales Nos. 3337/91, 18/97 and 2784/84 (relating to the
advance or withholding payments on IVA and IG on internal sales). The new Resolución General
could "equalize" the advance or withholding payment rates with respect to imports and with respect to
internal sales, or provide for the refund to importers of the additional costs entailed by the higher rates
on imports or for a similar "compensation" scheme. Whether the curative or remedial action adopted
provides for "equalization" of rates or for a refund or "compensation" arrangement, the European
Communities states that no new Argentine legislation is required.
43. The submissions of Argentina on this point are much more complex. Argentina seems to
acknowledge that the Resoluciones Generales found to be WTO-inconsistent can be revoked or
amended by another Resolución General that the AFIP is competent to issue, and that a new
legislative enactment by the federal legislature is not, as a matter of public or administrative law,
required for that specific purpose. At the oral hearing in this arbitration, Argentina confirmed this. At

15Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, Indonesia – Automobile Industry,
WT/DS54/15, supra, footnote 10 para. 23; and Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU,
Canada – Pharmaceutical Patents, supra, footnote 9 para. 52.

the same time, however, Argentina underscores its deep concern that so revoking or modifying the
Resoluciones Generales here involved would set in motion a whole series of financial and fiscal
consequences which would, in turn, require it to amend its National Budget Law No. 25,401 and its
Fiscal Solvency Law, No. 25,152. The inter-relation of these two statutes is such, in the submission
of Argentina, that any modification of estimated tax revenues would involve multi-year (at least three
years) changes in the specific requirements of both statutes and, as well, changes in the financial
ratios and commitments set out in Argentina's present agreements with the IMF.
44. Argentina contends that "equalizing" downwards – that is, lowering the rates of the advance
or withholding tax payments on imports to the level of those imposed on internal sales – would result
in significant reduction of the IVA and IG tax revenues actually realized. Such decrease in tax
revenues would, Argentina maintains, substantially aggravate the current severe liquidity problems of
the country. On the other hand, "equalizing" upwards – that is, raising the advances or withholding
tax rates imposed on internal sales to the level of those prescribed in respect of imports, would
increase the difficulties of controlling the economic recessionary trends the country is presently
undergoing. Additionally, it is argued that for Ar gentina to reimburse importers for the additional
costs incurred as a result of the higher advanced or withholding rates on imports would require not
only new disbursements from the national treasury and thus affect the estimated level of deficit
expenditures, but also the establishment of a complex administrative mechanism to ensure correct and
fair reimbursements.
45. Certain considerations need to be brought to mind in respect of the above submissions of
Argentina. Firstly, Argentina is not arguing that it needs forty-six months to formulate, draft and put
into effect one or more Resoluciones Generales to bring its existing WTO-inconsistent Resoluciones
Generales into conformity with the requirements of Article III(2), first sentence, of the GATT 1994.
My understanding is that Argentina, in effect, is contending that it needs forty-six months to control
and counter certain economic and financial consequences that it apprehends will follow from putting
into legal effect an appropriate amendatory Resolución General , to implement the recommendations
and rulings of the DSB in this dispute.

46. Secondly, the economic and social consequences of which Argentina is apprehensive, have
not been demonstrated to be causally linked to adoption of an appropriate amendatory Resolución
General in the course of these arbitration proceedings. 16 At least one of the consequences Argentina
is anxious about, the decline in revenue collected, is demonstrably not linked to an amendatory
Resolución General that would, for instance, "equalize" dow nwards the advance or withholding tax
rates on imports to the level imposed on internal sales. Since the final or true tax rates remain the
same regardless of the level of advance or withholding rates, any decline in taxes actually collected
will be directly attributable to the deficiencies of the revenue collection system in place and to the
high levels of tax evasion said to be currently prevailing. Those deficiencies and levels of tax evasion
have existed for some years now and certainly long before any amendatory Resolución General will
have been adopted and put into effect.
47. A third consideration is that there is nothing to prevent Argentina from enacting new
legislation or administrative regulations, at the same time that an amendatory Resolución General is
adopted or soon thereafter, designed, for instance, to strengthen further the existing revenue collection
systems and create new incentives for improving voluntary tax compliance among particular sectors
of the general community. At the oral hearing in this arbitration, Argentina noted that it already has
laws providing for heavy penalties for tax evasion. The kinds of strategies that may be devised for the
securing of such objectives are many and varied indeed, and it is the sovereign prerogative of
Argentina to determine what strategies are best suited given the actual conditions of the country. It
should, however, be borne in mind that the co mpliance or implementation obligation owed by
Argentina by reason of the DSB recommendations and rulings in Argentina – Hides and Leather , is
not the comprehensive reform of its internal tax system or the elimination or minimization of tax
evasion in the general Argentine community. That duty is, as earlier stressed, much more modest and
specific in scope: to revoke or modify certain identified Resoluciones Generales so as to bring them
into conformity with Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994.
48. A fourth consideration is that while formal adoption of an amendatory Resolución General
may, as a theoretical matter, require less time than the enactment of a new statute, debate within the

16The European Communities asserted that the submissions made by Argentina in these arbitration
proceedings amount to an effort to re-open issues deci ded by the Panel in its Report. Argentina at the oral
hearing disclaimed any intent to re-open issues decided in the Panel Report. I do not find it necessary to pass
upon this particular question. It is clear, on the one hand, that an arbitrator functioning under Article 21.3(c) of
the DSU, in principle, lacks jurisdiction to re-open issues decided in a Panel Report which has become final and
binding by reason of adoption by the DSB. On the other hand, making factual statements before a panel for the
purpose of justifying a measure complained about as WTO-inconsistent need not, in principle, preclude a
respondent Member from making the same or similar factual statements before an Article 21.3(c) arbitrator to
sustain a claim that particular circumstances exist justifying grant of a certain period as a "reasonable period of
time" for implementation purposes.

Argentine government about the most suitable policies to be embodied in the amendatory Resolución
General may well involve some additional expenditure of time and administrative resources.
49. A final point that should be made is that to build into the concept of a "reasonable period of
time" to comply with DSB recommendations and ru lings, time or opportunity to control and manage
economic or social conditions which antedate or are contemporaneous with the adoption of the WTO-
inconsistent governmental measure, may, in the gene rality of instances, be to defer to an indefinitely
receding future the duty of compliance. The implications for the multilateral trading system as we
know it today, of such an interpretation of "reas onable period of time" for compliance are clear and
far-reaching and ominous. Such an interpretation would tend to reduce the fundamental duty of
"immediate" or "prompt" compliance to a figure of speech.
50. Argentina also emphasizes that it is a developing country for purposes of Article 21.2 of the
DSU. In Article 21.2, the DSU, immediately after stressing that "prompt compliance" with the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB is essential for the WTO dispute settlement system,
provides that
Particular attention should be paid to matters affecting the interests of
developing country Members with respect to measures which have
been subject to dispute settlement.
51. Argentina submits that its interests as a developing country Member whose measures have
been subjected to dispute settlement proceedings, must be taken into account in determining a
"reasonable period of time" for compliance. However, Argentina has not been very specific about
how its interests as a developing country Member actually bear upon the duration of the "reasonable
period of time" needed to put into legal effect an appropriate amendatory Resolución General .
Arguably, Argentina is assimilating its "interests" as a developing country Member with the severe
economic and financial difficulties it is currently facing. Article 21.2 is cast in exceedingly general
terms. Nevertheless, in the arbitral award in Chile – Alcoholic Beverages, it is said that "because
Article 21.2 is in the DSU, it is not simply to be disregarded." The award goes on to say that
"Article 21.2, whatever else it may signify, usefully enjoins, inter alia , an arbitrator functioning
under Article 21.3(c) to be generally mindful of the great difficulties that a developing country
Member may, in a particular case, face as it proceeds to implement the recommendations and rulings
of the DSB." In Indonesia – Automobile Industry , the arbitrator took into consideration as "very
particular circumstances" the status of Indonesia as a developing country and the fact that it was then
"currently in a dire economic and financial situation" and its economy "near collapse". The arbitrator
then accorded a substantial additional period over and above the "normal" period required for
completion of Indonesia's domestic rule-making process. I agree that under Article 21.2 of the DSU

in conjunction with Article 21.3(c), account may appropriately be taken of the circumstance that the
WTO Member which must comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings is a developing
country confronted by severe economic and financial problems. That those problems in the case of
Argentina are real is not disputed, although there may be debate as to whether Argentina's economy is
"near collapse".
IV. The Award
52. Having regard to the written and oral submissions of the parties, the considerations indicated
above and the circumstances constituting this case, my determination is that the reasonable period for
Argentina to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in Argentina – Hides and
Leather by withdrawing or appropriately amending its Resoluciones Generales (DGI) Nos. 3431/91
and 3543/92, or (should Argentina choose to "equalize upwards") its Resoluciones Generales
Nos. 3337/91, 18/97 and 2784/84, is not more than twelve months and twelve days from
16 February 2001. This period will accordingly expire on 28 February 2002.
Signed in the original at Geneva this 15th day of August 2001 by:
Florentino P. Feliciano
Arbitrator