COLOMBIA – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON FROZEN FRIES FROM BELGIUM, GERMANY AND THE NETHERLANDS REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
Document: REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY
Date: 20 November 2019
Document codes: WT/DS591/1; G/ADP/D133/1; G/VAL/D/14; G/L/1339
Complainant: EU
Respondent: Colombia
Third parties: Brazil, China, Honduras, India, Japan, Russia, Turkey, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.1, 2.6, 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 5.3, 5.8, 6.1.2, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.8, 6.9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 11.1, 12.2, 12.2.2, 18.1, Annex II  Anti-dumpingArt. 10  Customs valuationArt. VI  GATT 1994

COLOMBIA – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON FROZEN FRIES
FROM BELGIUM, GERMANY AND THE NETHERLANDS
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
The following communication, dated 15 November 2019, from the delegation of the European Union
to the delegation of Colombia, is circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body in accordance with
Article 4.4 of the DSU.

My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the government of the Republic of
Colombia (Colombia) pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of
Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement), Article 19
of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994 (Customs Valuation Agreement) and Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) concerning the imposition of anti -dumping (AD) duties on certain
imports of potatoes, prepared or preserved (otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid), frozen (frozen
fries), originating in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany (the countries concerned).
The measures that the EU would like to address in the consultations ( "measures at issue") are the
anti-dumping duties imposed by Colombia on imports of potatoes, prepared or preserved (otherwise
than by vinegar or acetic acid), frozen, classified under tariff sub-heading 2004.10.00.00 originating
in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany ( "products under investigation"). The measures at issue
include, and are evidenced by, the following instruments/documents:
- Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism Resolution Number 191 of 1 November 2017 1
adopting the preliminary determination on the administrative investigation initiated by
means of Decision 121 of 2 August 2017, published in the Official Journal No 50.406 of 9
November 2018, page 42;
- Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism Resolution Number 257 of 9 November 2018 3
adopting the final determination on the administrative investigation initiated by Decision 121
of 2 August 2017, published in the Official Journal No 50.772 of 9 November 2018, page 94;
- Responses to the Comments on the Essential Facts in the Investigation of Dumping of
Imports of Potatoes, Prepared or Preserved, Classified under Tariff Subheading
2004.10.00.00 Originating in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany5;

1 http://www.mincit.gov.co/mincomercioexterior/defensa-comercial/dumping/derechos-antidumping-
vigentes/papa-congelada/resolucion-191-del-1º-de-noviembre-de-2017.aspx, last accessed on 21 October
2019.
2 http://svrpubindc.imprenta.gov.co/diario/view/diarioficial/consultarDiarios.xhtml, last accessed on 21
October 2019.
3 http://www.mincit.gov.co/mincomercioexterior/defensa-comercial/dumping/derechos-antidumping-
vigentes/papa-congelada/resolucion-no-257-del-9-de-noviembre-de-2018.aspx , last accessed on 21 October
2019.
4 http://svrpubindc.imprenta.gov.co/diario/index.xhtml;jsessionid=f3a676a718bd19151d80b155f949 ,
last accessed on 21 October 2019.
5 http://srvcalidad.mincomercio.gov.co/Practicas-Comerciales/Mincomercio/D-087-03-573-02-023-01-
95-PAPA-PUBLICA-T18.PDF , document stamped with numbers 6055 to 6070, last accessed on 21 October
2019.
WT/DS591/1 • G/ADP/D133/1 • G/VAL/D/14 • G/L/1339

- Final Technical Report, Public Version, Investigation of Alleged Dumping of Imports of
Potatoes, Prepared or Preserved (otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid), Classified under
Tariff Subheading 2004.10.00.00 Originating in Belgium, the Netherlands (Holland) and
Germany, 20186;
- Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism Resolution Number 093 of 13 May 2019 addressing
some requests for administrative review 7, published in the Off icial Journal No 50.956,
page 188.
This request also covers any annexes thereto, notices, preliminary findings, reviews, amendments,
supplements, replacements, renewals, extensions, implementing measures or any other related
measures.
The measures at issue described above appear to be inconsistent with Colombia’s obligations under
the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994:
1. Article 2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because Colombia, in its determination on
dumping, did not rely on correct export prices from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands
and did not exclude a sample transaction from the calculation of the dumping margin,
thereby erroneously arriving at inflated dumping margins, in excess of de minimis.
2. Articles 6.8 and paragraphs 3 and 6 of Annex II, in conjunction with Article 2.1 of the Anti -
Dumping Agreement because Colombia determined dumping of the products under
investigation on the basis of the facts available, even though no interested party refused
access to, or otherwise did not provide, necessary information within a reasonable period or
significantly impeded the investigation. In particular, Colombia determined the export price
of the products under investigation based on the Dirección de Impuestos y Aduanas
Nacionales (DIAN) database for all exporting producers rather than based on the export
price data provided by those producers. Moreover, Colombia failed to take into account when
its determinations were made, all information which was verifiable, which was appropriately
submitted so that it could be used in the investigation without undue difficulties and which
was supplied in a timely fashion. Colombia also failed to inform the supplying parties
forthwith of the reasons for not accepting the evidence or information provided and failed to
give the supplying an opportunity to provide further explanations within a reasonable period.
3. Articles 5.8 in conjunction with Articles 2.1 and 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because
Colombia did not reject the application for initiating an anti -dumping investigation of the
products under investigation, or did not terminate that investigation promptly, even though
there was not sufficient evidence of either dumping or of injury to justify proceeding with
the case. In particular, a proper dumping analysis concerning the products under
investigation in keeping with the requirements of Article 2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
would not have led to any margins of dumping in excess of de minimis.
4. Articles 2.1 and 2.6 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the product which Colombia
considered as being dumped is not "like" the product when destined for consumption in the
exporting country. Colombia wrongly included, in the scope of the product under
consideration, both traditional frozen fries and frozen specialities and failed to apply the
terms "like product " as meaning identical, i.e. alike in all resp ect to the product under
consideration, or although it is not alike in all respects, having characteristics closely
resembling those of the products under consideration.
5. Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Colombia did not make a fair comparison
between the export price and the normal value. In particular, Colombia did not make due
allowances for differences which affect price comparability, including for differences in
physical characteristics and/or any other differences between the products sold on the
domestic markets in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, and the products under
investigation sold on the export market, which were demonstrated to affect price

6 http://srvcalidad.mincomercio.gov.co/Practicas-Comerciales/Mincomercio/D-087-03-573-02-023-01-
95-PAPA-PUBLICA-T18.PDF , document stamped with numbers 6071 to 6130, last accessed on 21 October
2019.
7 http://www.mincit.gov.co/mincomercioexterior/defensa-comercial/dumping/derechos-antidumping-
vigentes/papa-congelada/resolucion-093-rd.aspx , last accessed on 21 October 2019.
8 http://svrpubindc.imprenta.gov.co/diario/view/diarioficial/consultarDiarios.xhtml , last accessed on 21
October 2019.
WT/DS591/1 • G/ADP/D133/1 • G/VAL/D/14 • G/L/1339

comparability. Inter alia, Colombia disregarded the different proportions of high and low
value products exported to Colombia as compared to domestic sales in Belgium, Germany
and the Netherlands as well as differences in packaging and differences resulting from the
use of different types of oils.
6. Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Colombia did not make a fair comparison
between the export price and the normal value by deducting certain sea freight and
insurance costs twice from the export price of a company, thereby unduly lowering the
export price.
7. Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Colombia failed to indicate to the parties
in question what information was necessary to ensure a fair comparison and imposed an
unreasonable burden of proof on those parties.
8. Articles 2.4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Colombia converted the currency of
the normal value and export price, the euro, into US dollars even though the comparison
under Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement did not require such a conversion of
currencies.
9. Each of Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3. 6, 3.7 and 3.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because
Colombia, in its injury determination, wrongly included non-dumped imports.
10. Article 3.1 in conjunction with Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Colombia
did not carry out an objective examination of the effect of the dumped imports on prices in
the domestic market for the like product. Notably, Colombia’s injury determination did not
include data with respect to domestic prices and, in particular, whether there had been a
significant price undercutting, price depression or price suppression by the dumped imports.
11. Article 3.1 in conjunction with Article 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Colombia
did not carry out an objective examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the
domestic industry concerned. Rather than making the required overall evaluation of all
relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, Colombia
unduly limited its analysis to examining seven economic factors, and by evalua ting those
factors in isolation. Moreover, Colombia wrongly compared an average of five semesters for
the injury period with an average of two semesters for the dumping period.
12. Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Colombia did not demonstrate that the
dumped imports of the product under investigation are, through the effects of dumping,
causing injury within the meaning of that agreement. In particular, Colombia looked into
causation by examining dumped and non-dumped imports together and did not consider the
increase in price of the raw material as a known factor other than the products under
investigation which at the same time was injuring the domestic industry.
13. Articles 5.1 in conjunction with Article 5.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Colombia
initiated the investigation without ensuring that the written application for an investigation
was "made by or on behalf" of the relevant "domestic industry", as defined in Article 4.1 of
that agreement. In particular, Colombia initiated the investigation without determining, on
the basis of an examination of the degree of support for, or opposition to, the application
expressed by domestic producers of the like product, that the application had been made by
or on behalf of the domestic industry. In particular, Colombia did not provide evidence of
the legal capacity of the applicant to represent and lodge the complaint on behalf of the
domestic industry.
14. Article 5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Colombia failed to examine the accuracy
and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application on dumping, injury and causation
to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation.
15. Article 5.8, first sentence of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because Colombia initiated an
investigation without the required sufficient evidence.
16. Articles 6.1.2 and 6.2 in conjunction with Article 6.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because
Colombia failed to make available promptly to other interested parties participating in the
investigation, evidence presented in writing. Colombia also failed to provide all interested
parties a full opportunity for the defence of their interests as well as timely opportunities to
see all non-confidential information relevant to the defence of their interests with regard to,
inter alia, the methodology used to calculate the dumping margin, including the adjustments
made and the material injury analysis.
WT/DS591/1 • G/ADP/D133/1 • G/VAL/D/14 • G/L/1339

17. Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because Colombia failed to treat confidential
information or information provided on a confidential basis as such and disclosed it without
specific permission of the parties submitting it.
18. Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because Colombia treated as confidential,
without showing good cause, information supplied by the applicant. In particular, although
Colombia required the applicant to justify the confidential treatment of the information
submitted, Colombia provided confidential treatment on its own initiative, in the absence of
an indication by the applicant asserting the confidential nature of the information supplied,
i.e. without good cause having been shown by the applicant.
19. Both Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article 10 of the Customs Valuation
Agreement because Colombia has not treated information that is by nature confidential or
information which was provided on a confidential basis by a party for the purposes of
customs valuation, as such and because Colombia disclosed such information without
specific permission of the party submitting it. In particular, Colombia published information
of clients, price and volume per transaction for the exports made during the investigation
period by one party, which is by nature confidential and whose confidentiality has not been
waived.
20. Article 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Colombia did not require the applicant
to furnish non-confidential summaries of confidential information provided by it and which
provide sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the
information submitted in confidence. If the applicant claimed that the information was not
susceptible of summary, Colombia failed to require that a stateme nt of reasons in support
of that claim be provided.
21. Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Colombia did not sufficiently inform all
interested parties of the essential facts under consideration which form the basis of the
decision to impose definitive anti-dumping measures, including the essential facts underlying
the determinations of the existence of dumping and the calculation of the margins of
dumping and the determination of injury. This precluded the possibility of interested parties
to def end their interests, in particular to assess whether Colombia’s conclusions were
supported by evidence and whether they reflected an objective examination of evidence.
22. Articles 12.2 in conjunction with 12.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because Colombia
did not disclose, in a public notice, essential information on dumping and injury and failed
to provide in sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and
law considered material by the investigating authority, as well as all relevant information on
the matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to the imposition of final measures.
Colombia also failed to provide a public notice or a separate report with the relevant
information on the matters of fact and law and the reasons which have led to the imposition
of final measures, in particular the reasons for the rejection of relevant arguments or claims
in relation to this sample transaction during the investigation.
23. Colombia’s anti-dumping measures on the products under investigation also appear to be
inconsistent with Articles 1, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 11.1 and 18.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement
and Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of the breaches of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement described above.
As a result of these i nconsistencies, Colombia 's measures, also appear to nullify or impair the
benefits accruing to the European Union, directly or indirectly, under the covered agreements.
The European Union reserves the right to address additional measures and claims under other
provisions of the covered agreements regarding the above matters during the course of the
consultations.
The European Union looks forward to receiving Colombia 's reply to this request and to finding a
mutually convenient date for the consultations.