ARGENTINA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF GOODS NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY ARGENTINA 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
Document: AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Date: 29 September 2014
Document codes: WT/DS438/15; WT/DS444/14; WT/DS445/14
Complainant: EU
Respondent: Argentina
Third parties: Australia, Canada, China, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. X:1, X:3, XI:1  GATT 1994Art. 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5(f)  Import LicensingArt. III:4  GATT 1994

ARGENTINA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF GOODS
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY ARGENTINA
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 26 September 2014, from the Delegation of Argentina, is
being circulated to Members.

Argentina – Measures Affecting the Importation of Goods () ("Panel Report").
2. The measures at issue are the Declaración Jurada Anticipada de Importación ("DJAI") and
the alleged "Trade-Related Requirements" ("TRRs") measure.
3. The issues that Argentina raises in this appeal relate to the Panel's findings and conclusions
in respect of the Panel's terms of reference under the DSU, as well as the Panel's findings and
conclusions with respect to the consistency of the challenged measures with various provisions of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994").
4. Pursuant to Rules 20(1) and 21(1) of the Working Procedures, Argentina files this Notice of
Appeal together with its Appellant's Submission with the Appellate Body Secretariat.
5. Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Pr ocedures, this Notice of Appeal provides an
indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Repo rt containing the alleged errors of law and legal
interpretation by the Panel, without prejudice to Ar gentina's ability to rely on other paragraphs of
the Panel Report in its appeal.
I. REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S FINDINGS REGARDING THE PANEL'S TERMS OF
REFERENCE
6. Argentina seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's finding that the alleged "TRRs"
measure was within its terms of reference. The Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation
include:
 The Panel erred by relying on its prior "conclusion" that the alleged "TRRs" measure was
"explicitly identified as a measure at issue" in the complainants' consultations requests;
1

WT/DS438/15 • WT/DS444/14 • WT/DS445/14

 The Panel erred by failing to consider Argentina's argument that the complainants'
introduction in their panel requests of "as such" or equally broad claims with respect to
the alleged "TRRs" measure impermissibly expanded the scope of the dispute.
2
7. For these reasons, Argentina requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's conclusion
in paragraph 4.1(b) of the Preliminary Ruling by the Panel (16 September 2013), in which the
Panel concluded that "[t]he characterization of the RTRRs as a single 'overarching measure' in the
complainants' panel requests does not expand th e scope or change the essence of the dispute."
3
Argentina requests that the Appellate Body also reverse the Panel's ultimate conclusions to this
effect in paragraphs 7.1(b), 7.5(b), and 7.9(b) of the Panel Report.
8. Argentina requests that the Appellate Body find, instead, that the complainants' introduction
of the alleged "TRRs" measure in their panel requests did expand the scope or change the essence
of the dispute, and that the alleged measure was therefore outside of the Panel's terms of
reference.
II. REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S FINDINGS UN DER ARTICLES III:4 AND XI:1 OF THE
GATT 1994 AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE ALLEGED "TRRS" MEASURE
9. Argentina seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings that the alleged "TRRs"
measure is inconsistent with Articles III:4 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994, as well as the Panel's
separate findings that the alleged "TRRs" measure is inconsistent "as such" with Articles XI:1 and
III:4 of the GATT 1994. The Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation include:
 The Panel erred in failing to apply the correct legal standard to ascertain the existence of
the alleged "TRRs measure";4
 The Panel acted inconsistently with its duty under Article 11 of the DSU to conduct an
objective assessment of the matter when assessing Japan's "as such" claims against the
alleged "TRRs measure".
5
10. Argentina therefore respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's finding
that the complainants had established that the alleged "TRRs measure" existed or "operate[d] as a
single measure",6 as well as the Panel's findings that the alleged measure was inconsistent with
Articles XI:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994. 7 Accordingly, Argentina respectfully requests that the
Appellate Body reverse the Panel's ultimate conclusions to this effect in paragraphs 7.1(d)-(f),
7.5(c)-(d), and 7.9(d)-(f) of the Panel Report.
11. Argentina also respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's ultimate
conclusion in paragraph 7.9(h) that the alleged "TRRs measure" is "as such" inconsistent with
Articles XI:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994.
III. REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S FINDINGS UN DER ARTICLES VIII AND XI OF THE
GATT 1994 AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE DJAI
12. Argentina seeks review by the Appellate Body certain limited aspects of the Panel's findings
and conclusions in respect the interpretation and application of Articles VIII and XI:1 of the
GATT 1994 as they pertain to the DJAI. The Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation include:
 The Panel erred in its assessment of the scope of Article VIII, and in particular in its
implication that Article VIII does not encompass import procedures that are a "necessary
pre-requisite for importing goods";
8

2 Panel Report, Annex D.1, paras. 3.29-3.33.
3 Panel Report, Annex D.1, para. 4.1(b).
4 Panel Report, paras. 6.138-6.231.
5 Panel Report, paras. 6.315-6.343.
6 Panel Report, para. 6.231.
7 Panel Report, paras. 6.265, 6.295, 6.343.
8 Panel Report, paras. 6.425-6.444.
WT/DS438/15 • WT/DS444/14 • WT/DS445/14

 The Panel erred in not establishing and applying a proper analytical framework for
distinguishing between the scope and disciplines of Article VIII, on the one hand, and the
scope and disciplines of Article XI:1, on the other;
9 and,
 The Panel erred in its conclusion that the DJAI procedure is inconsistent with Article XI:1
based on its finding that the approval of a DJAI application is not "automatic".10
13. For these reasons, Argentina requests that the Appellate Body modify or reverse the Panel's
findings in paragraph 6.433 of the Panel Report implying that any import procedure that is a
"necessary pre-requisite for importing goods" or by which a Member "determines the right to
import" to be outside the scope of Article VIII.
14. Argentina respectfully requests the Appellate Body to modify the Panel's reasoning in
paragraphs 6.435 to 6.445 of the Panel Report and to find that, to the extent that import
formalities and requirements can be examined under Article XI:1 at all, a finding of inconsistency
would require the complaining Member to prove that: (1) the formality or requirement at issue
limits the quantity or amount of imports to a ma terial degree that is separate and independent of
the trade-restricting effect of any substantive rule of importation that the formality or requirement
implements; and (2) this separate and independent trade-restricting effect is greater than the
effect that would ordinarily be associated with a formality or requirement of its nature.
15. Argentina respectfully requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding in
paragraph 6.474 of the Panel Report that the DJAI procedure is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of
the GATT 1994 on the grounds that the attainment of a DJAI in exit status is not "automatic".
Argentina also requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's ultimate conclusion that the
DJAI procedure is inconsistent with Article XI:1, as set forth in paragraphs 6.479, 7.2(a), 7.6(a)
and 7.10(a) of the Panel Report.