ARGENTINA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE EXPORT OF BOVINE HIDES AND THE IMPORT OF FINISHED LEATHER
Document: Report of the Panel
Date: 19 December 2000
Document codes: WT/DS155/R
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
Report of the Panel
The report of the Panel on is being circulated to all Members, pursuant to the DSU. The report is being
circulated as an unrestricted document from 19 December 2000 pursuant to the Procedures for the
Circulation and Derestriction of WTO Documents (WT/L/160/Rev.1). Members are reminded that in
accordance with the DSU only parties to the dispute may appeal a panel report. An appeal shall be
limited to issues of law covered in the Panel report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel.
There shall be no ex parte communications with the Panel or Appellate Body concerning matters
under consideration by the Panel or Appellate Body.
Note by the Secretariat: This Panel Report shall be adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) within 60 days after the
date of its circulation unless a party to the dispute decides to appeal or the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the
report. If the Panel Report is appealed to the Appellate Body, it shall not be considered for adoption by the DSB until after
the completion of the appeal. Information on the current status of the Panel Report is available from the WTO Secretariat.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1.1 On 23 December 1998 the European Communities requested consultations with Argentina
pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes (hereinafter the "DSU"), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
(hereinafter the "GATT 1994") regarding an alleged de facto export prohibition maintained by
Argentina on raw and semi-tanned bovine hides; an "additional VAT" of nine percent raised by
Argentina on the import of products into its territory; and an "advance turnover tax" based on the
price of the imported goods imposed on operators when importing goods into Argentina.
1
1.2 Consultations were held in Geneva 5 February 1999, but did not lead to a mutually
satisfactory resolution of the matter. On 31 May 1999, the European Communities requested the
Dispute Settlement Body (hereinafter the "DSB") to establish a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the
GATT 1994, and Article 6 of the DSU. The European Communities claimed that the export
prohibition maintained by Argentina violated Articles XI:1 and X:3 (a) of GATT 1994 and that the
"additional VAT" and the "advance turnover tax" were not in conformity with Article III:2 of
GATT 1994.
1.3 At its meeting on 26 July 1999, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of the
European Communities, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU. In document WT/DS155/3, the
Secretariat reported that the parties had agreed that the panel would have the standard terms of
reference. The terms of reference are the following:
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by
the European Communities in document WT/DS155/2, the matter referred to the DSB
by the European Communities in that document and to make such findings as will
assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in
those agreements."
1.4 Document WT/DS155/3, "," also reported that, on 31 January 2000, the Panel was constituted as
follows:
Chairman: H.E. Ambassador Roger Farrell
Members: Mr. Victor Luíz do Prado
Mr. Sándor Simon
1.5 The United States reserved its rights to participate in the panel proceedings as a third party,
and presented arguments to the Panel.
1.6 The Panel met with the parties 17 - 18 April 2000 as well as on 13 June 2000. It met wit the
third party on 18 April 2000. The Panel issued its interim report to the parties on 13 October 2000.
The panel issued its final report to the parties on 17 November 2000.
II. FACTUAL ASPECTS (MEASURES ON EXPORT OF BOVINE HIDES)
A. S
COPE OF THE CLAIM
2.1 The European Communities requested the establishment of a Panel (WT/DS155/2) claiming
that Argentina maintained a "de facto export prohibition on raw and semi-tanned bovine hides which
is implemented in particular through the authoriza tion granted by the Argentinean authorities to the

1 See WT/DS155/1.

Argentinean tanning industry to participate in customs control procedures of hides before export." The
European Communities requested "the panel to consider that this export prohibition constitutes a
breach of Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.
2.2 In the legal argument in its first submission, paragraph 71, "the European Communities
considers that Resolution 2235/962 which provides the tanning industry with the possibility to control
the exportation of hides and skins constitute an export restriction in the sense of Article XI as it allows
the tanning industry to enforce an export ban imposed by that industry on the
slaughterhouses("frigoríficos").
3 In paragraph 73 the European Communities continues: " The facts
set out above clearly show that the authorization leads to a de facto export ban from Argentina on
those bovine hides on which the Argentinean industry is interested in adding value, namely raw
hides."
2.3 In paragraph 1 of its oral statement, the European Communities claims that the measure in
question "effectively acts to restrict exports of raw bovine hides from Argentina." In its answer to
question 1 by the Panel, the European Communities states that "this dispute is about Argentinean
government restrictions on raw bovine hides."
B. T
HE PRODUCTS CONCERNED : PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING OF RAW AND SEMI -TANNED
HIDES
2.4 Bovine hides are a by-product of meat production. Each slaughter of a bovine animal results
in the "production" of one hide. The value of one hide is about 5-10 percent of the animal's value.4
2.5 Raw, untanned, hides are mostly treated with salt so as to prevent decay during storage or
during transport from the slaughterhouse to the tannery. Raw hides can also be dried or chilled to
obtain a similar preservation effect. These treatments are either undertaken by the slaughterhouses, or
the tanneries in cases where the tanneries pick up the hides from the slaughtering floor for processing.
2.6 Raw hides can be either "wholehides," or they can be split into "flesh split," i.e. the bottom
split or reticular layer of the hide and "grain split," i.e. the upper portion of the hide (outside of the
skin) which has been separated from the reticular or split layer.
2.7 Raw hides are usually purchased from slaughterhouses by specialised hides and skins traders,
to be sold on to tanneries, or directly by the tanneries. There are cases where meatpacking plants and
tanneries are integrated enterprises with the ability to process rawhides.
2.8 Leather tanning consists of several different operations and stages. Once they have entered a
tannery, hides first undergo the so-called "liming process": they are cleaned while hair, flesh and other
redundant fibres are removed from the hides' surface. During the subsequent process of tanning, raw
hides and skins are transformed, through interaction with a tanning agent, into a durable material that
serves as input for downstream sectors such as footwear,
5 clothing, upholstery, handbags and other
leather goods. During production, the hide undergoes several processes, each leading to a new stage

2 Resolución No 2235/96 of 27 June 1996 (hereinafter "Resolution 2235").
3 In their submissions, the European Communities translates the Spanish word "frigorífico" as
"slaughterhouse," while Argentina frequently refers to "meat-packing plant." For the purpose of this text, the
term slaughterhouse is used as meaning also "frigorífico" and "meat packing plant."
4 Argentina, in footnote 39 to paragraph 76 of its first submission argues of a value of 5-8 percent. A
study by UN/ECLAC quoted by Argentina in paragraph 19 of the first submission, as well as in reply to a
manufacturas en la Argentina: un cluster en desarticulación o un complejo desarticulado?" in the framework of
the project "A Natural Resource-Cluster Development Strategy: Growth, Distributive and Environmental
Implications," by Gustavo Lugones and Fernando Porta, page 7, July 1999.
5 Footwear accounts for 70 percent of the end-products for which raw hides are used.

of leather production. The tanning agent used for approximately 90 percent of world production, and
also in Argentina, is chromium (for shoe, upholstery and garment leather production). Chrome
tanning produces a type of semi-finished leather commonly referred to as "wet blue," due to its bluish
coloration. The remaining 10 percent are vegetable tanned leather, used for shoe sole leather, belts
and luggage.
2.9 Raw hides constitute the most important input in the leather production process. Generally,
the raw hides used represent 50 to 60 percent of the production cost of finished leather products.
C. PRODUCTION, PRICE, AND TRADE FIGURES OF RAW HIDES , SEMI-FINISHED AND FINISHED
LEATHER
1. Production figures for raw hides in Argentina
2.10 In the period from 1967-1971, Argentina had a cattle stock of about 49.8 million head. 6 The
number increased to a peak of 59 to 61 million head in 1977 7 and declined steadily until it reached
50 to 52 million head in 1988. It remained stable at that rate until today, where Argentina's bovine
livestock ranges between 49 and 51 million head, making Argentina one of the six largest cattle
breeding countries.
2.11 The cattle slaughter rate and raw hide production in Argentina was about 11.1 million in
1966, rose to about 16 million in 1978 and decreased to 11.27 million in 1998. Between 1992 and
1996, the slaughter rate averaged 11.6 million head, with variations between 11.8 million and 11.4
million head for that period.
2. Export figures for raw hides and semi-tanned (wet blue) leather
2.12 For the last five years, the export figures (in kg.) for raw salted hides from Argentina, as
provided by the parties, differ, except for the years 1998 and 1999.
Year Figures provided by Argentina Figures provided by the European Communities
1995 600900 387812
1996 298523 37557
1997 207027 1800
1998 3234 3234
1999 242875 242875
2.13 The ratio between slaughtered animals and exported raw hides is expressed in the table below.
The number of exported raw/salted hides is derived from the export figures expressed in kg., as
provided by Argentina, divided by 30.11 kg., which is the average weight of a raw hide. Both parties
acknowledge this weight. While the European Communities contests the Argentine figures from
1996-1998, it accepts them to show that on the basis of the figures provided by Argentina, since 1996
the export of raw bovine hides was lower than 1/1000 of annual production of hides.

6 Figures quoted from FAO - See Exhibit EC I-41.
7 The figures vary between from Exhibit EC I-20 (figures on slaughter, exports etc. provided by
Argentinean authorities) to Exhibit EC I-41 (figures from FAO).

Year Number of cattle
slaughtered
Number of raw/salted
hides exported
Ratio of hides exported
over hides produced
1996 12916716 9914 1/1303
1997 12794718 6875 1/1861
1998 11.280.949 107 1/105429
1999 (estimated,
Dec. missing
11800121 8066 1/1463
2.14 Argentina also provided the following export figures for wet blue hides (in kg.):
1995: 43521 kg.,
1996: 1087 kg.,
1997: 100297 kg.,
1998: 118689 kg.,
1999: 1034291 kg.
2.15 For 1999, exports of raw and wet blue hides corresponded to 0.78 percent of hide output.
2.16 Around 80-85 percent of the output of finished and semi-finished leather hides is exported.
3. Import figures for raw hides and semi-tanned (wet blue) leather
2.17 From 1995 onwards, Argentina has imported raw an d wet blue hides. The import figures for
raw hides (in kg.) provided by Argentina and the European Communities vary as follows:
Year Argentina European Communities
1995 64020 34020
1996 3488950 3471400
1997 1714761 1691661
1998 4983383 3617403
1999 1492107 1762000
2.18 Over the same period Argentina imported the following quantities of wet blue hides:
1995: 129514 kg;
1996: 667731 kg.;
1997: 950357 kg.;
1998: 3025609 kg.;
1999: 6401562 kg.
D. CONTEXT OF GOVERNMENT MEASURES REGARDING THE EXPORT OF RAW BOVINE HIDES IN
ARGENTINA
2.19 Before 1972, Argentina exported an important volume of hides to the rest of the world,
including the European Communities. Argentina was an important source of supply for tanners of the
European Communities. The average level of exports of raw bovine hides amounted to an average of

177000 tons a year in the period 1961-1970. As from 1971 the number of exported hides started to
decline (74000 tons).8
2.20 In May 1972, the government of Argentina im posed a prohibition of exports of raw (wet
salted) bovine hides9 with the stated purpose of "protect[ing] the adequate supplies of bovine hides to
the tanning industry."
2.21 In this period, export of raw hides decreased from 144000 tons in 1970 to 7.000 tons in
1978.10
2.22 In August 1979, following a Section 301 petition filed by the US Tanners Council, the United
States and Argentina reached an agreement, wherein Argentina committed itself to convert the export
prohibition into a 20 percent export tax and then gradually reducing that tax to zero by 1 October
1981.
2.23 Argentina implemented the first stage of this Agreement in 1979 by introducing the agreed
tax. At the same time, it imposed a minimum transaction price for the purpose of calculating the
export tax.
2.24 In 1981 Argentina failed to implement the tax reduction as foreseen in the agreement. The
US President terminated the agreement in 1982.
2.25 In the course of 1982 and 1984, when also export taxes were increased, export figures for raw
bovine hides continued to decrease from 8000 tons in 1979 (with an upsurge to 31000 in 1981, and a
downfall to 1000 tons in 1983) to 7000 tons in 1985.
2.26 In September 1985, a Resolution
11 by the Secretary of State for Industry of Argentina
introduced a "suspension" on exports of raw hides and semi-finished leather in order "to maintain the
volume of supply in raw materials adequate to the needs of the domestic market of the leather tanning
and manufacturing sector facilitating a smooth flow of supplies while avoiding any undue increase in
prices."
2.27 As from 1987 the Argentinean Government's statistics export of raw bovine hides, indicate
"0," which means that exports were less than 1000 tons.
2.28 In October 1990, the United States imposed a 15 percent countervailing duty on imports of
Argentinean leather.
12 Its authorities had found that a comparison of Argentinean and US hide prices
during the period in which Argentina maintained the aforementioned "suspension" on the export of
hides "clearly demonstrates that hide prices were consistently lower than US hide prices."13
2.29 In April 1992, the Argentinean Government replaced the export ban by a 15 percent duty14 on
the exports of raw bovine hides15 and bovine wet blue.16 The export tax is calculated upon the basis of

8 See Exhibit EC I-18, taken from FAO World statis tical compendium for raw hides and skins, leather
and leather footwear 1961-1982.
9 Decree No 2861/72.
10 Exhibit EC I-20 (Figures on slaughter, exports etc. provided by Argentinean authorities)
11 Resolution 321/85. This Resolution is also cited in the US decision imposing a countervailing duty;
see Exhibit EC I-6 (US notice on imposition of countervailing duties on imports into the US of leather from
Argentina), p. 40213 top of right hand column.
12 See Exhibit EC I-6, Op. Cit.
13 Ibid., at 40214 top of middle column.
14 Resolution MEOSP No: 537/92 of 29 April 1992 (See Exhibit EC I-7). The Resolution also
introduced a 15 percent additional tax, but this tax was later abolished.
15 With the exception of dried and pickled hides.

a reference price (Chicago quotation of Butt Branded Steer Hides) on the exports of raw bovine hides
and wet blue, and an "additional" tax of 15 percent on such exports. That additional tax was later
abolished and between 1993 and 1999, no additional export charges were levied.
2.30 Upon request of the Argentinean tanning industry on 17 February 1993, the Argentinean
Government authorized on 15 April 1993 through Resolution 771/93, the presence of representatives
of the Argentinean Chamber for the Tanning Industry (CICA) during customs controls of bovine raw
hides (tariff headings 4101.10/21/22/29/30) and wet blue hides (tariff headings 4104.10.100,
4104.21.00, 4104.22.00 and 4104.29.10) before export. The measure was originally foreseen to apply
only for 90 days, but was extended several times. 17 The authorization originally applied only to
products falling under the same customs position as those which were subject to the export tax, i.e.
raw hides and wet blue hides.
2.31 On 26 April 1994, upon its request, the system was extended to representatives of the
Association of Industrial Producers of Leather, Leather Manufactures and Related Products
("ADICMA") and the customs position on which the system applies was extended to also cover
finished leather and furs (all customs positions under 4104).
18 Since then, also persons appointed by
the member organisations of ADICMA, i.e. representatives from Argentinean leather producers and
leather goods producers, are allowed to be present when the goods concerned are presented for export.
2.32 In December 1994 the export duty was adapted to the Common Nomenclature of Mercosur. 19
A timetable for the progressive phasing out of the export duty was established. However, since then
this timetable was modified on various occasions, slowing down the phase-out.20
2.33 In fact, although the total abolition of the export duty by the end of 1999 had been announced
already in December 1994, 21 it was recently extended for (at least) another half year. 22 On
1 January 1998, the export tax was reduced to 10 percent. On 1 January 1999, the export tax was
reduced to 5 percent. That rate is currently still applied.
2.34 The one-before-last of the Resolutions perpetuating the authorization was Resolution 2235,
which refers to a fresh request
23 by ADICMA to continue the system.24
E. RESOLUTION 2235
2.35 Upon request by ADICMA, the National Customs Administration of Argentina issued on
27 June 1996 Resolution 2235. Annex II of the Resolution sets out the "operative rules" and resolves
as follows:
1. The entities listed in Annex III hereto may appoint members of their staff to
participate jointly with the ag ents involved in the inspection of goods classified under
the tariff headings listed in Annex IV.

16 With the exception of "flesh splits," which are the reticular layers of hides.
17 See Resolution 1650/93 of July 1993 (Exhibit EC I-12); Resolution 3208/93 of 20 December 1993
(Exhibit EC I-13); Resolution 1024/94 of 26 April 1994 (Exhibit EC I-14); Resolution 1380/94 of 31 May 1994
(Exhibit EC I-15); Resolution 3746/94 of 28 December 1994 (Exhibit EC I-16); Resolution No 2257/95 of
31 July 1995 (Exhibit EC I-17).
18 See Resolution 1024/94 of 26 April 1994 (Exhibit EC I-14).
19 See Decree 2275/94 (Exhibit EC I-8).
20 See for example Regulation MEOSP 722/95 of 21 December 1995 (Exhibit EC I-9).
21 See Resolution 2275/94 (Exhibit EC I-8).
22 See Resolution 20/99, (Exhibit EC I-10).
23 See first recital to the Resolution, which refers to Argentinean file number 412.739/96.
24 See first recital to the Resolution, which refers to Argentinean file number 437.872/96.

1.1 For this purpose, they shall inform this national administration of the
appointment of representative experts and draw up lists of those appointed, containing
particulars of each one's address, telephone and fax or telex numbers and the different
customs jurisdictions in which they will be involved in joint inspection activities.
They shall also keep those lists up to date.
1.2 The authorization hereby conferred shall be applicable in all customs
jurisdictions.
1.3 In the Buenos Aires and Ezeiza customs jurisdictions, if and when the final
export destinations for consumption or temporary export so require, staff may be kept
on a permanent basis to carry out these support tasks.
1.4 The same facilities may be authorized in the customs departments in the
interior of the country.
1.5 Final export destinations for consumption shall be checked in the case of
those for which the red channel (goods to declare) was selected as well as all
temporary export destinations.
1.6 Goods shall be inspected by the technical inspection and valuation unit, with
the possible support of the expert appointed by the respective entity, but this will be
done without holding up shipment operation if the expert is not present.
2.36 Annex III lists, among other leather-manufacturing industry organizations, also CICA and
ADICMA, as being involved in the inspection of goods classified under the tariff headings set out in
Annex IV.
25 The products covered by Annex IV include bovine hides and calf skins, semi-finished
leather and finished leather
2.37 Pursuant to a further request for prol ongation by ADICMA, Resolution 716/97 of
28 February 1997 determined that the authorizati on would continue to apply indefinitely. No
authorization similar to that contained in the Resolution exists for the export of any other product
from Argentina. Argentina explained that no other similar request from other entities or industries
had been made.
F. THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF RESOLUTION 2235/96
2.38 The export procedure for hides and the inspection of the goods (leather) by the Technical Unit
for Verification and Valuation (UTVV) as well as the participation of the chambers in that process are
not governed by any specific DGA resolution, but by the Customs Code (Law 22415), by Resolution
ANA 1284/95 (regulating export transactions declared through the MARIA Computer System – SIM)
and by Resolution ANA 125/97 and its modifying resolutions establishing the general procedures for
all exportation.
2.39 ADICMA staff are allowed to witness the ac tions of the customs officer inspecting goods
covered by Resolution 2235. Once Customs receives a notice of embarkation by the exporter or his
customs broker, it notifies ADICMA that a clearance operation will take place, indicating the place,
day and approximate time. ADICMA may be informed of this by a telephone call from the customs
inspector, but there are instances in which they ar e notified of the date and approximate time of the

25 Hereinafter, where the submissions speak of "ADICMA," "ADICMA representatives," "ADICMA
staff," or "tannery representatives," the groups of organizations authorized through Resolution 2235 are meant
by the parties.

clearance, the place, name of the exporter, identity of the means of transport, destination and
description of the goods by the exporter's own customs clearance agent.26
2.40 Once at the place of inspection, the ADICMA representative accompanies the inspector in
ascertaining that the exporter's declaration coincides with the goods to be cleared for export.
2.41 The inspection, classification and valuation of the goods declared are carried out by the
UTVV. It verifies that what is declared in the permit of shipment is real, that the tariff heading
indicated corresponds with the description of the goods and that the duties and charges proposed are
appropriate, and then cross-checks supplementary data, number of packages and their identity.
2.42 All of this is done by the inspecting officer, in the presence of the customs officer, exporter
27
or his customs clearance agent and the staff detailed by ADICMA to attend.
2.43 If the DGA determines that the merchandise has been correctly classified, the shipment goes
ahead. If the inspecting officer detects irregularities, shipment is not allowed. If there are
discrepancies in the amount, quality and/or value of the goods, the appropriate complaint will be
lodged with the Disputes Section or with the competent local customs office, pursuant to the rules.
2.44 If ADICMA representatives disagree with the decision of the customs officers, they may
submit a complaint subsequently or, if appropriate, file with a court charge on alleged criminal
offences. According to Resolution 2235, there must not be any delays as a result of ADICMA
participation in the inspection. Resolution 2235 does not provide that shipments can be stopped on
account of any possible objection from the ADICMA representatives who are present during the
inspection.
III. CLAIMS BY THE PARTIES
3.1 The European Communities requests the Panel to find that:
- the authorization granted to representatives of Argentina's tanning industry to participate in
customs control procedures of raw bovine hides before export, which is currently contained in
Resolution 2235 of the National Customs Administration (the "ANA") is inconsistent with
Article XI:1 of the GATT.
- the said authorization is inconsistent with Article X of the GATT.
3.2 Argentina requests the Panel to:
- find that the authorization granted to representatives of the tanning industry under Resolution
2235 neither has the characteristics nor gives rise to the consequences alleged by the
European Communities in its written submission and therefore cannot be deemed to infringe
the provisions of Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994;
- reject the allegations of the European Communities that Resolution 2235 is being
administered in a manner that is partial, not uniform and unreasonable in light of the
obligations arising from Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.

26 Copies of such faxes are contained in Exhibit ARG-XXVII.
27 Article 340 of the Argentinean Customs Code provides: "The exporter or, as appropriate, the
customs clearance officer acting on his behalf shall be present during the inspection of the goods. Failing this,
he shall forfeit the right to raise any objections to the outcome of the inspection determined by the customs
department."

IV. MAIN ARGUMENTS
A. VIOLATION OF ARTICLE XI:1 OF THE GATT 1994
4.1 The European Communities claims that Resolution 2235 provides the Argentine tanning
industry with the possibility to control the exportation of bovine hides and skins, thus allowing the
tanning industry to enforce an export ban imposed by that industry on the slaughterhouses.
Resolution 2235 therefore constitutes an export restriction in the sense of Article XI:1 of the GATT
1994. The European Communities argues that the measure cannot be justified on technical grounds
and pursues, in reality, a clear protectionist purpose as it discourages, in practice any slaughterhouse
from exporting.
4.2 The European Communities argues that the presence of the tannery representatives during the
inspection will allow them to obtain confidential business information. Exporters of raw hides will be
dissuaded from engaging in export transactions they know that thereby their domestic buyers will
receive business confidential information of that co mpany. What is more, the tanneries can use this
information – as they hold a dominating market position over the slaughterhouses - to dissuade the
slaughterhouses from exporting.
4.3 Argentina contests the European Communities' assertion that it is de facto imposing a
prohibition on exports of bovine hides. ADICMA representatives have no legal authority to restrict
exports pursuant to Resolution 2235. Argentina also contests that the presence of ADICMA
representatives imposes a prohibition by creating a chilling effect on exports of raw hides and semi
tanned hides. Argentina further states that the European Communities was not able to explain, even
upon request by the Panel in the second oral hearing, how the so called chilling effect took place at
the customs. In addition, Argentina explained that ADICMA representatives do not have access to
confidential information and all the information they do have access to is freely available and in the
public domain. Argentina also points out that the government officials are barred by criminal law
from divulging any confidential information to the ADICMA representatives. The EC has not been
able to provide a single example about any attempted export that was rejected, complicated or aborted
by the Argentinean customs authorities as a result of Resolution 2235. Argentina argues, moreover,
that the European Communities has failed to adduce evidence to support its claim that there was
price-collusion on the part of the tanning industry , noting that it was not aware of any complaint in
this regard to its competition authority. Argentina further states that the meat-producing industry has
a four-times higher turnover than the tanning industry, and the value of the raw hide represents only
5-8 percent of the value of the animal at the time of slaughter. Against this backdrop, it can hardly be
claimed that the tanneries could exert pressure on the meat packing plants.
4.4 As for the lack of exports of bovine hides, Argentina recalls that the meat-producing industry
has been in a state of economic decline over the past few years. Argentina also argues that, while its
own bovine hides are comparable to US hides in terms of quality, the prices quoted by the European
Communities relate to products at different stages of processing. According to Argentina, in the US,
the tanning industry receives and pays for a product that has already undergone some initial
processing, whereas in Argentina this is not the case. If Resolution 2235 did bring about the effects
alleged by the European Communities, those suffering from its effects would have challenged it under
relevant Argentinean law. According to Argentina, they did not do so.
1. Export prohibitions or restrictions maintained by a Contracting Party, made effective
through "other measures"
4.5 Article XI:1 GATT 1994 stipulates that export restrictions can be made effective not only
through quotas or licenses but also though "other measures." The European Communities claims
that it is irrelevant that the authorization contained in Resolution 2235 is not a formal prohibition or
quantitative restriction. As confirmed by numerous Panel decisions, Article XI:1 is comprehensive

and covers all measures restrictive of trade other than measures taking the form of customs duties and
charges.28 Moreover, in Guatemala-Cement the Appellate Body stressed that "[i]n the practice
established under the GATT 1947, a "measure" may be any act of a Member (…)." 29
4.6 The European Communities states that the resolution – to use the words of Article XI –
"makes effective" this export restriction, si nce it creates the possibility that the ADICMA
representatives obtain confidential business information.
4.7 Argentina argues that the participation of private sector representatives in the inspection of
raw bovine hide exports cannot contravene Article XI, which specifically refers to quantitative
restrictions attributable to government action. Nor is there any contravention in the form of a de facto
restriction.
4.8 Argentina maintains that "other measures" in the sense of Article XI:1 GATT 1994 cannot be
just any kind of measures. GATT/WTO practice lays down the requirements to be met by "other
measures" in order for a de facto prohibition to be proven. The authorization at issue is not
"mandatory" or "binding" in nature.
4.9 In the Japan – Semiconductors
30 case which the European Communities mentions, the Panel
considered that two criteria had to be fulfilled to find a violation of Article XI:1:
(a) that sufficient incentives or disincentives existed for non-mandatory measures to take
effect; and
(b) that the operation of the measures was essentially dependent on government action.
4.10 Only if both criteria were satisfied, the measures in question became "measures [which]
would be operating in a manner equivalent to mandatory requirements."31
4.11 Argentina states that when applying these criteria, mutatis mutandis to the case at hand, the
presence of representatives of ADICMA for the conduct of customs control procedures does not
imply a legal authority32 to impede customs clearance (Article 1.6 of Annex II to Resolution 2235 and
concordant legislation in the Customs Code).
4.12 The legal conditions of their presence (lack of legal authority to prohibit export) show that the
alleged de facto prohibition can in no way be carried out by this fact alone. Consequently, the first
requirement for proving a de facto prohibition in respect of "other measures" under Article XI:1, as
set out in the precedent relied upon by the European Communities, is not fulfilled.
4.13 An analysis of the second requirement of the Japan - Semiconductors case, namely whether
the operation of a measure designed to restrict exports is essentially dependent on government action.
In this respect, Argentina states that the achievement of the objective of the sole measure contested by
the European Communities, Resolution 2235, does not depend, in terms of enforcement of the
resolution, on any government action.

28 See Japan – Restriction on Imports of Certain Agricultural Products , March 22, 1988,
BISD 35S/163 ; Japan –Trade in Semiconductors, 4 May 1988, BISD 35S/116, Korea – Restrictions on Imports
of Beef, 7 November 1989, BISD 36S/286.
29 See Guatemala - Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Portland Cement from Mexico , Report by
the Appellate Body, AB-1998-6, WT/DS60/AB/R, 2 November 1998, at footnote 47 to paragraph 69, page 24;
30 See Japan - Trade in Semiconductors, Report of the Panel, L/6309, paragraph 108.
31 Ibid., paragraph 109.
32 As in indicated in Article 23(p) of the Customs Code and Article 1.6 of Annex II to RG 2235/96.

4.14 In other words, the resolution authorizes the voluntary participation of technical experts in the
goods inspection process, for the sole purpose of assisting the customs expert. But just as
representatives of the industry chambers are not legally entitled to prevent the customs clearance of
the goods, neither is the government legally entitled to compel them to participate in the inspection
process, so that the voluntary participation of the industry chambers in the inspection process can in
no way be considered to constitute the equivalent of what in the Semiconductors case was described
as a "coherent" system restricting sales.33
4.15 In short, Resolution 2235 authorizes the presence of technical experts of the industry, but that
authorization does not guarantee a specific effect with regard to private actors, 34 or with regard to the
exported products. Resolution 2235 applies no incentive or disincentive of any kind to prevent the
export of raw and semi-tanned hides: its text provides for none, either in its legal grounds or in the
operative part. As was mentioned above, the outcome of its implementation is also not dependent on
government intervention. It is merely an author ization to obtain technical support for inspection of
the export of all types of hides.
4.16 The European Communities disagrees with Argentina's analysis of the Semiconductors
Panel Report. Unlike in that case, the measure in question here is an obligatory government measure.
4.17 The European Communities states that the measure is of course a government measure, as it
was issued by the Argentinean government. Based on the Resolution, the Argentinean customs
authorities inform the ADICMA representatives when ever hides and skins are submitted to them for
inspection before export and invite them to be present.
4.18 Argentina states that the qualification of Resolution 2235 as a government measure is
irrelevant to these proceedings. Argentina never denied that the Resolution was an administrative act
of the Argentine Government and that it had the legal status of a governmental act. This has nothing
to do with meeting the requirements of Article XI:1. If we were not speaking of a governmental act,
the Panel would never have been established. The WTO dispute settlement mechanism does not deal
with the acts of private individuals.
4.19 The European Communities asserts that the measure is of an obligatory nature. Due to the
contested Resolution, anybody who wishes to export hides from Argentina, is obliged to accept that
ADICMA-representatives may be present when hides are inspected by the customs authorities. That
ADICMA is perhaps not obliged to be represented is irrelevant: the measure is mandatory, since the
potential exporter is forced to undergo the ADI CMA-presence if ADICMA chooses to be present.
The reasoning, which Argentina builds upon the Japan-Trade in Semiconductors Panel Report, is
therefore flawed, as the measure is obligatory by nature.
4.20 In reply to a question by the Panel, the European Communities further underlines that the
Resolution, which is a government measure, directly causes the restrictive effect on exports by
allowing the CICA/ADICMA presence; it is a conditio sine qua non for creating that effect. In a
similar manner to the Japan-Trade in Semiconductors Panel Report, Argentina violates Art. XI by
encouraging – through allowing the CICA/ADICMA presence –pressure by the tanneries on a
slaughterhouse. Also, Argentina violates Art. XI by providing the tanneries with confidential
information regarding that export transaction, wh ich in itself – as the slaughterhouses confirm –
restricts them in exporting freely. The EC finally notes that if Art. XI:1 could be circumvented by
WTO Members simply by giving private operators sensitive information and "letting them do the

33See Japan - Trade in Semiconductors, Op. Cit., paragraph 117.
34 Japan - Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper , WT/DS44/R, paragraph 10.46:
"In line with this observation of the Japan - Agricultural Products Panel, we consider that our analysis of the
alleged "measures" in this case must proceed in a ma nner that is sensitive to the context in which these
governmental actions are taken and the effect they have on private actors."

work", that provision could be rendered completely ineffective. The fact that exports of raw hides
from Argentina are marginal, especially in comparis on with years with comparable slaughter rates
before Argentina started its long series of measures prohibiting exports of hides, proves that Res.
2235/96 severely restricts exports.
4.21 Argentina responds that Resolution 2235 is in no way mandatory in terms of giving
ADICMA the authority to detain any shipment. If ADICMA does not have any authority to detain a
shipment, the fact that the potential exporters must accept the possible presence of ADICMA (" … the
potential exporter is forced to undergo CICA presence if CICA chooses to be present") is irrelevant
with respect to the obligatory nature of the measure.
4.22 For this obligatory nature to prove the existence of a "de facto ban" which fits the broad
definition of "other measures," there must be a dire ct relationship between the content of the rule and
the effect it is meant to achieve. In other words, the substantive content of the obligatory rule must be
relevant to the intended effect. If there is no such relationship, and if by its obligatory nature alone it
does not produce any effect on the market, the alleged obligatory nature of the measure is irrelevant in
establishing a violation of Article XI:1.
4.23 Even if one was to assume that the definition of "depending on government action," in the
meaning indicated by the European Communities, had any value in proving the restriction, and the
European Communities has not been able to demonstrate that it does, the fact is that even if the
measure were considered "obligatory," the requirement that it should have an effect, as set out in
Semiconductors, would remain. Argentina showed that there are exports, thereby disproving per se
the existence of the alleged ban. Therefore, the other requirement established by Semiconductors -the
effectiveness of the measure- is not fulfilled either in this case."
4.24 What is more, ADICMA's participation does not have any impact on exports, as proved by
the fact that when exports did increase, it was as a result of the "phase out" of export duties. If the
presence of the ADICMA per se had any influence on exports, the exports would not react to the level
of duty. Consequently, the questioned measure has no effect in achieving any kind of ban.
4.25 Two graphs were presented by Argentina, showing both intrazone and extrazone export trends
for salted hides and wet blue, as follows. This division was made based on the destination of exports,
considering that the duties were different for both zones until 1999.
4.26 Both zones show a high correlation between the levels of duties and the amounts of exports
for 1996, 1997 and 1999. That correlation is distinctly greater for 1999.
4.27 In intrazone trade it is observed that the reduction from 15 to 8 percent in duties translated
into a sizeable increase in exports, from $2.250 to $25.603.
4.28 Extrazone trade for 1996 and 1997 showed no significant changes in export quantities, duties
having been maintained at the same levels.
4.29 No correlation was seen between the variables studied for 1998 in both zones. It is worth
recalling that 1998 was an atypical year for the hide trade, having been severely affected and
influenced by the crisis in the Asian countries, which led to a contraction of trade and to price
volatility.
4.30 It is concluded that duties are a sufficiently suitable instrument for encouraging the processing
of raw materials on the domestic market, but we must also point out that they are not hampering salted
hide and wet blue exports, as such exports have indeed been taking place.

Intra-zone exports of salted and wet blue hides
Dollars
0
500.000
1.000.000
1.500.000
Exports
Duty
Exports 2.250 25.603 13.000 1.194.448
Duty 15 8 5 5
1996 1997 1998 1999
Source: INDEC
Extra-zone exports of salted and wet blue hides
Dollars
0
1.000.000
2.000.000
3.000.000
4.000.000
0
5
10
15
20
Exports
Duty
Exports 429.456 425.424 275.795 3.729.424
Duty 15 15 10 5
1996 1997 1998 1999
Source: INDEC

4.31 The European Communities state that exports of raw bovine hides and wet blue from
Argentina have never been subject to tax refunds. Quite to the contrary, bovine hides were, and still
are, subject to an export tax. However, Resolution ANA 771/93 of 15 April 1993, which for the first
time allowed representatives of the Argentinean tanning industry to be present at customs control of
hides before export, applied exclusively to raw hides and wet blue, not to crust and finished leather.
4.32 The justification given by Argentina for the measure is therefore absurd. One cannot
reasonably argue that an export control procedure on raw hides and wet blue only was introduced to
prevent fraud in the system of tax refunds for finished leather. In this context it is also important that
the CICA letter of 17 February 1993, requesting the measure, does not invoke such a justification at
all. It focuses on the fact that hides are a scarce material whose commercialisation – CICA argues – is
restricted in almost all other countries, and therefore argues that the most extensive export verification
system should be applied to them ("En atención a que el cuero es una materia prima atípica y escasa
siendo su comercialización restringida en casi todo s los países (…)") This is confirmed by the fact
that Resolution 771/93 does not mention the prevention of fraud in the systems of tax refunds as a
justification for its adoption.
2. Rationale for the enactment of the Resolution
4.33 The European Communities states that the authorization of representatives of the tanning
industry to be present during customs inspections of raw bovine hides designated for export leads to a
de facto export ban. The Argentine government is not only fully aware that the adoption and
maintenance of the Resolution leads to export restrictions, but it is clear that this restriction is the
rationale for the enactment of the Resolution.
4.34 The European Communities recalls that since the early 1970s, that is to say during over
20 years before the adoption of the measure, Argentina had maintained measures prohibiting or
restricting hide exports, consisting of an outright export prohibition between 1972 and 1979, an export
tax based on minimum prices between 1979 and 1985, and again an outright prohibition between
1985 and 1992.
4.35 In 1992-1993, after replacement of the export ban by a tax, the tanners became aware that the
export tax was insufficient to restrict exports and asked for authorization to be present at customs
clearance of hides before exports.
35 Therefore, the Argentinean tanning industry had requested to
participate in the inspections in order to obtain knowledge of any attempt by slaughterhouses to export
hides, instead of selling them to the domestic tanneries. The measure was continued as a result of
further requests by the Argentinean tanning industry. The tanning industry is interested in adding
value to the raw hides and wants to secure a cheap supply of raw hides. It is not a coincidence that the
original measure, Resolution ANA 771/93, applied to exactly the same products as those that were
subject to the export tax under Resolution MEOSP 537/92.
36 This fact makes clear that the aim of the
measure was simply to restrict exports.
4.36 The European Communities argues that Argentina has never concealed that the underlying
intention of these measures was to support its tanning industry by restricting foreign purchasers'
access to that industry's most precious raw material, i.e. bovine hides.

35 According to the European Communities, this is similar to what happened in 1979 when first after
pressure by the US the embargo was replaced by an export tax, which was then however nullified by the
introduction of a minimum price.
36 Namely positions 4101.10.00, 4101.21.00, 410 1.22.00, 4101.29.00, 4101.30.00, 4104.10.00,
4104.21.00, 4104.22.00, 4104.29.100; See Resolution 537/92 (Exhibit EC I-7) and Resolution 771/93 (EC I-11).

4.37 It is in this particular context that in 1993 CICA, the Chamber of the Argentinean tanning
industry, made a request to participate in the customs control of bovine hides before exports. 37 The
letter focuses on the fact that hides are a scarce material whose commercialisation was (as CICA
alleges) restricted in almost all other countries. Therefore, the letter argues that the most extensive
export verification system should be applied to them (" En atención a que el cuero es una materia
prima atípica y escasa siendo su comercialización restringida en casi todos los países (…)"). CICA
has always openly admitted that it was seeking to restrict exports of bovine hides. In 1996 the
Chairman of CICA openly declared in an interview with a specialised magazine that: " one cannot
allow total liberalisation of the hides market so that companies from other countries can buy up our
scarce raw material."38
4.38 The European Communities contends that slaughterhouses have repeatedly complained about
the fact that they are unable to export hides so as to benefit from the higher prices in the world market.
Recently, in a press release issued together with as sociated industries they complained not only about
the continued application of the export tax, but also about the privilege granted to the leather industry
to assist when (in particular) hides are offered for export.39
4.39 The European Communities argues that the fact that the leather tanning industry is the only
industry that has ever requested to participate in customs control before exports, only confirms that
the aim of the measure is to restrict exports. The Argentinean leather tanning industry is the very
industry for the benefit of which the export of its raw material has been squarely prohibited or
severely restricted between 1972 and 1992, and which has always been opposed to the free export of
it. Moreover, the industry's request was made not long after the last export prohibition was repealed.
This is surely not a coincidence.
4.40 Argentina states that the presence of technical experts from the tanning industry during the
inspection was authorized to give customs the benefit of professional advice for the correct
classification of goods. This reason given by ADICMA were set out in its note to the National
Customs Administrator: "This Association has asked to participate in the inspection of some leather
products under Chapters 41, 42, 64 and 94 in order to co-operate with the customs in endeavouring
to clarify and avoid the recurrence of certain irregularities affecting the industry through market
distortions, and the State through taxes foregone or the payment of undue refunds."
40
4.41 ADICMA's arguments are convergent with the interests of the State as encapsulated in the
preamble to Resolution ANA 125/97 modifying Resolution ANA 3023/93, which regulates export
controls and the resulting payments of benefits and collection of the duties generated by that
activity:"… It is deemed necessary to take steps to reinforce this National Administration's powers of
control with respect to export transactions which are accorded incentives. In that regard, it has been
considered useful to expand and adapt the guidelines laid down in the preamble to the
aforementioned resolution and amendments thereto, which established controls on the submission of
Export Applications for inputs, and that it is necessary to step up such controls to be effected on
selective inspections and on formalities to ensure the correct assessment of duties and payment of
benefits by including the guidelines set in current provisions … ."
4.42 The interest for the ADICMA representatives to be present is hence to have the assurance that
under no circumstance will raw or semi-tanned hides – essential inputs for the industry - leave the
domestic market without paying the corresponding export duty.

37 See copy of a letter provided in Exhibit ARG-XXXIII.
38 See Exhibit EC I-29, from "Leather Magazine," July 1996 p. 42, 2 nd column middle.
39 See Press release contained in Exhibit EC I-28.
40 Note from ADICMA to the National Customs Administrator dated 4 April 1994. Page 1 of National
Customs Administration File 412576/94; see Exhibit ARG-XXXIII.

4.43 For the Government, the presence of the tanning industry at the time of inspection is merely
one additional element whereby to ensure that its customs staff will make no mistakes in the
classification of products. This ensures that that export refunds are paid only to those exports that
qualify for them. Export refunds are granted in respect of tanned hides (i.e. hides to which value has
been added), 41 which means that the industry also has an interest in ensuring that unprocessed
products do not benefit from a refund to which they are not entitled. As is known, the refund
mechanism is used by States in pursuit of the general objective of adding value to raw material, which
is consistent with GATT-WTO obligations.
4.44 The State, in turn, also has an interest in paying only such refunds as are strictly appropriate
to the characteristics of the product, and it is in th e interests of the industry to ensure that those who
push back the production frontier by incorporating added value and technology to the raw material,
are the ones to benefit from the refunds rather than others. In the same way, the government is
interested in collecting export duties for export of raw and wet blue hides. Needless to say, these
unlawful acts may be committed both in exporting rawhides and wet blue, on which export duties are
due, and in exporting finished leather or semi-finished leather, which in certain cases are eligible for
refunds. In reply to a question by the Panel, Argentina states that since the effective date of
Resolution 2235, no complaints have been lodged regarding irregularities in which Argentina views
as evidence that the goal of avoiding fraud has been achieved.
4.45 Argentina asserts that the presence of ADI CMA representatives would furthermore lend
greater transparency to the goods inspection process and enables the different interests involved to be
represented.
4.46 In reply to questions by the Panel, Argentina stated that no measures similar to Resolution
2235 existed in other industries is explained by the fact that no other industry has requested
participation in the customs inspection of goods for export.
4.47 The European Communities argues that Argentina has failed to show any plausible
justification why leather industry representatives should be present during the customs inspections
concerned. The only justification, which Argentina puts forward in some detail, is that the measure is
aimed at preventing fraud in the systems of tax refunds. It states that these refunds apply to exports of
finished/tanned leather (cueros curtidos). Exports of raw bovine hides and wet blue have never been
subject to tax refunds. However, Resolution ANA 771/93 of 15 April 1993, which for the first time
allowed representatives of the Argentinean tanning industry to be present at customs control of hides
before export, applied exclusively to raw hides and wet blue, not to crust and finished leather.
4.48 The European Communities states that Argentina's justification for the measure is absurd. It
cannot reasonably be argued that an export control procedure on raw hides and wet blue only was
introduced to prevent fraud in the system of tax refunds for finished leather.
4.49 The CICA letter of 17 February 1993,
42 requesting the measure, does not invoke such a
justification at all. This is confirmed by the fact that Resolution 771/93 does not mention the
prevention of fraud in the systems of tax refunds as a justification for its adoption.
4.50 The fact that the presence of the tanning industry at customs control was also authorized later
on with regard to exports of finished leather and furs (Resolution 1024/94) does not change in any
way that their presence is completely unnecessary when raw hides or wet blue are offered for export.
4.51 The European Communities states that Argent ina has provided no evidence regarding the
exact products to which refunds apply. However, according to the evidence obtained, such tax

41 See Decree 1011/91, Exhibit ARG-XXXIV.
42 See letter from CICA, Op. Cit., Exhibit ARG-XXXIII.

refunds currently only apply to processed leather products (wallets, belts, clothes etc.) and to certain
types of finished leather. 43 There is no risk to confuse a raw hide or wet blue with those products. 44
Argentinean customs officials therefore do not need ADICMA representatives in order to ensure that
a raw hide would be wrongly classified as – e.g. - a wallet
45 and that a refund would be paid. During
the second meeting, the European Communities showed examples of inter alia raw hides and wet blue
on the one hand, and finished leather on the other hand, arguing that the various products can very
easily be distinguished.
4.52 Moreover, if there was really a risk that raw hides and wet blue would receive refunds unduly,
the Argentinean government would ensure the presence of experts by its own initiative, in order to
avoid undue payments, and not only act as a reaction to a request by industry. After all, the
Government is the first to become aware of fraud and is the only victim of it. Similarly, the
Argentinean government might have granted such a request only on condition that ADICMA experts
would be present at all transactions.
46
4.53 The European Communities argues that the Appellate Body has held that "[A]although it is
true that the aim of a measure may not be easily ascertained, nevertheless its protective application
can most often be discerned from the design, the architecture, and the revealing structure of a
measure."47 In the present case, the protective application in the sense of "export restricting nature" of
the measure can be discerned in particular from the very special historic context of the measure, its
exceptional nature and the absence of any reasonable objective for it.
4.54 Argentina states that the question of the need to hire independent experts never arose.
Besides, that would result in an additional cost to the economy. The authorization was never
questioned by any of the parties.
4.55 Argentina emphasizes that Resolution No. 2235/96 was enacted under the authority granted to
the National Customs Administration by Article 23(i) of the Customs Code (Law 22415) and was
therefore subject to the provisions of Articles 25 and 26 of the same Code which authorized members
of the public to lodge appeals against the Resolution. Pursuant to Article 26 of the Customs Code,
«citizens who claim an individual right or a legitimate interest may appeal to the State Secretariat for
Finance against the general rules referred to in Article 25
48 within a maximum of 10 days from the
day following their publication in the Official Journal (Boletín Oficial).

43 See Exhibit EC I-42 , which gives the relevant page of Argentinean Resolution 257/2000, published
in the Argentinean Official Journal of 29376 of 10 Apr il 2000. The European Communities notes that the list
does not include products under customs heading 4101. See also Exhibit EC I-43, which provides the
Argentinean nomenclature for customs heading 4202.
44 The European Communities argues that, similarly, even if it were true that refunds are available for
finished leather generally as Argentina seems to argue without however providing evidence, there is no risk to
confuse between raw hides and wet blue on the one hand and finished leather on the other hand.
45 The European Communities argue that, in the line of the previous footnote, i.e. if the refunds applied
to finished leather generally, even a piece of finished leather.
46 According to the European Communities, Argentina's answer to the question of the Panel is wholly
unconvincing; of course the Argentinean government could have granted the request only on the condition that
the ADICMA experts would be present in all cases.
47 See Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , Report by the Appellate Body on AB-1996-2,
WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, 4 October 1996, at page 29.
48 Article 25 of the Argentinean Customs Code provides: "The general rules enacted pursuant to
Article 23, paragraphs (i), (j), (k) and (l) shall enter into force on the day following their publication in the
Official Journal (Boletín Oficial), unless they specify a later date, and shall be binding on citizens, without
prejudice to their right to lodge the relevant appeals in particular cases where their individual rights are
affected".

4.56 Consequently, if the Argentine Meat Packer's Association (Asociación de Frigoríficos
Argentinos) or any exporter of raw or semi-tanned hides had considered Resolution 2235 and the
previous related texts to violate their rights, they could have lodged appropriate appeals to obtain the
repeal or amendment of the Resolution; in other words they were not all without any means of
defence. We do not see how the EC can contend that there is a de facto export ban when the parties
interested in doing so have not used the mechanisms available to them under national legislation to
request appeal of the regulations which, in theory and according to the EC's arguments, prevent them
from exporting raw and semi-tanned hides.
4.57 In that connection, Argentina wonders, why in the argument of the European Communities,
would there be any point in ADICMA's presence du ring customs control for the sole purpose of
obtaining data concerning the identity of the exporter when that data can be accessed by other means
already mentioned, such as the Exporters' Guide or on-line systems. Argentina also challenges the
European Communities to explain why ADICMA should be present at the verification of flesh split
exports, for example, when the presence merely serves to prevent exports of raw hides, as alleged by
the European Communities.
3. Alleged restrictive effect due to the presence of ADICMA representatives
4.58 The European Communities alleges that the mere fact that ADICMA representatives may be
present during export verifications creates the risk that the ADICMA representatives will be informed
of confidential information, including the name of the exporter. The European Communities states
that it has shown that ADICMA representatives in fact do get access to such information. As the
representatives from ADICMA have an interest in keeping the raw hides in the country for further
processing; they may also attempt to put pressure on the customs officials present not to approve or to
suspend approval of the export transaction. Any disagreement between customs officials and
CICA/ADICMA representatives may lead to a delay of the shipment. If this delay takes too long (say
several weeks or a month), this may affect the quality of the bovine hides which, although they are
treated (salted) to slow down decay, nevertheless continue to deteriorate after a while. The mere risk
that the CICA/ADICMA representatives may be tempted by (unnecessary) dilatory manoeuvres,
which may lead to the deterioration of the exported products, will also be a strong deterrent to avoid
export transactions. Foreign buyers and traders are also aware of such risks, and could therefore
refrain from buying Argentinean raw hides.
4.59 Argentina stressed that the so called chilling effect was never proved by the EC, and that no
example of its existence were provided. In light of the existence of exports of wet blue and raw hides,
the existence of which the EC acknowledges, the EC argument about the chilling effect appears
clearly contradictory.
 Argentina states that the presence of ADICMA representatives can under no
circumstances lead to the holding-up of a shipment, as Resolution 2235 does neither delegate legal
powers or State responsibility to ADICMA representatives. In reply to a question by the Panel,
Argentina explains that the export procedure for hides and the inspection of the goods (leather) by the
Technical Unit for Verification and Valuation (UTVV) as well as the participation of the chambers in
that process are not governed by any specific DGA resolution, but by the Customs Code (Law 22415),
by Resolution ANA 1284/95 (regulating export transa ctions declared through the MARIA Computer
System – SIM) and by Resolution ANA 125/97 and its modifying resolutions establishing the general
procedures for all exportation.
4.60 ADICMA is informed of the transaction on ly after it has been concluded between the
slaughterhouse and the foreign importer, which means that its role is of no consequence with regard to
the conclusion of such an export transaction. At that stage the deal has been done and ADICMA
cannot influence it in any way. Secondly, ADICMA has no legal authority to hold up a transaction.
The representatives merely witness the verification process. Signing of documents is only to attest to
this witnessing, yet does not signify approval of the verification or any legal obligation. The signing
occurs because the customs personnel prefer to have evidence attesting to the presence of those

representatives. In other words, it is completely irrelevant in terms of the completion of the customs
clearance procedure. In fact, Argentina notes that the European Communities has not cited a single
case where a consignment had been delayed or stopped in course of or following the proceedings.
4.61 In a later statement, Argentina maintains th at possible disagreement of ADICMA with the
customs decision is not evidenced in any specific official document connected with the shipment.
ADICMA merely witnesses the verification process and, as it is allowed to be present, may voice
possible disagreement in the form of a report to the Sub-Directorate General of Operations, which will
forward it to the inspection division. Notwiths tanding the foregoing administrative procedure,
ADICMA may also file a criminal suit.
4.62 Argentina notes that also the exporter or his representative may be present when the customs
controls for export are taking place. Only when present can the exporter challenge the decisions by
the customs officers.
4.63 The European Communities contends that it is irrelevant that legally speaking the
ADICMA-representatives can not formally impede that particular export shipment. What matters is
rather the fact that they may be present and may receive information concerning the exporter and the
export transaction, which they can then make available to all companies within ADICMA. This
setting provides a "chilling" effect on any slaughterhouse, since any attempt at export could
immediately be known by all the Argentinean tanneries – i.e. all his potential Argentinean buyers -
who have a collective interest in restricting hide exports.
4.64 As concerns the suggestion by the European Communities of dilatory manoeuvres that could
be attempted by the ADICMA representatives, Argentina replies that if this were ADICMA's
intention and if the customs officers were so vulnerable, then logically there would be no need to
exert this hypothetical pressure at the actual time of inspection when it could be applied through non-
customs mechanisms not requiring the authorization of Resolution 2235.
4. Alleged disclosure of confidential information to ADICMA representatives
4.65 The European Communities argues that the decision to whom a company, including a
slaughterhouse, sells its products should remain its business secret. The authorization granted to
representatives of ADICMA through Resolution 2235 to be present at the export controls is at odds
with that basic principle. Pursuant to the author ization, tanners and other hide-using industries, who
are working together through various institutions such as chambers of commerce or ADICMA have
access to confidential business information and could use this information in their business dealings
with the slaughterhouse concerned.
4.66 The measure provides the Argentinean tanning industry with the means of having immediate
and prior information about, and thus control over, any attempts to export raw bovine hides. The
Argentine tanning industry has expressed its intent to prevent bovine hides from being exported as it
has an interest in adding value to these raw materials through processing. In other words, those who
are collectively interested in keeping raw hides in Argentina as a cheap raw material would be
informed as soon as a slaughterhouse attempts to export.
4.67 The European Communities alleges that a dissuasive effect results from the de facto
availability of confidential business informati on to ADICMA representatives due to the Argentinean
government's measure, as a company will refrain from engaging in export transactions if it knows that
thereby its domestic buyers will receive business confidential information of that company. A
slaughterhouse that does not want its confidential business information disclosed (including all details
such as what it exports and at what price) to the representatives of the tanneries will not even attempt
to export. It is the resolution which – to use the words of Article XI – "makes effective" this export
restriction, since it creates the possibility that the ADICMA-representatives obtain this information.

4.68 The European Communities assert that ADICMA representatives get to see the documents
related to the export transactions and may receive a copy of them. They may also be invited by the
customs officials to sign the documents for appr oval. The European Communities claims that the
copy of a document provided 49 shows that all relevant information – product, quantity, destination,
price and in particular the name of the exporter – are present on the document which is seen by the
ADICMA representative when he signs it. In other words ADICMA is de facto provided insight in
essential trade information, which even under Argentinean law itself it should not have access to.
4.69 The European Communities states that the slaughterhouses have stressed that the violation of
their business secrets due to the measure is a problem for them, which hinders them in their exports. 50
The European Communities refers to a press release of 13 May 1999 by various chambers of the
Argentinean meat-producing industries, in which they request the Argentinean Minister for the
Economy to repeal existing tariff barriers as well as Resolution 2235 which the press release qualifies
as a "non-tariff barrier," "since the tanning industry participates in the scrutiny of customs operations
affecting trade in these products [raw or semi-tanned hides], thereby violating standards of statistical
and commercial secrecy ." The press release continues: " This situation has enabled the tanning
industry to become one of the few sectors (or the only one) receiving an indirect subsidy through
having a captive market for its raw material."
4.70 The European Communities stresses that, as put forward by the meat producers in the press
release above, even according to Argentinean law itself, the data which CICA/ADICMA obtain,
should be considered confidential.
51 Article 10 of that Law clearly provides that statistical
information must be kept secret, and cannot be published in a way that violates commercial or
business secrets, nor individualising the persons or entities to which it refers.
4.71 Argentina rejects the European Communities' assertion that the customs personnel provide
the ADICMA representatives with confidential information, i.e. a copy of the customs clearance
document. The document provided by the European Communities concerned a transaction of wet-
blue split exports by an ADICMA associated tannery where the disclosure of confidential information
was not an issue. Furthermore, the second pa ge of the document does not contain sensitive
information, and there is no evidence that the person signing the second page has seen also the first
page. In Argentina's view, the EC cannot prove the alleged access to confidential information or the
effects on trade which this hypothetical access might have. Argentina noted that the Law cited in
Exhibit EC I 55 does not correspond to this case, since it is intended to establish the National Institute
of Statistics and Censuses and lay down its rules. Firstly, it is not a law that regulates the publication
of data by customs. Secondly, Article 10 expressly excludes the following from statistical
confidentiality: "name or company name, address and branch of activity".
4.72 Argentina questions the evidentiary value of the press statement by the slaughterhouses. As
an explanation why the slaughterhouses have issued the release, Argentina suggests that it is in their
interest to have the 5 percent export duty eliminated and because, for reasons which have nothing to
do with an alleged and never proven chilling effect, they prefer that there should not be any witnesses
present when the goods are inspected.
4.73 In reply to a question by the Panel, Argentina asserts that in the course of its participation in
customs procedures, ADICMA representatives have access to the sale/export prices (f.o.b. value), the
country of destination, and the means of transportation; ADICMA representatives do not have access
to the identity of the exporter or the importer's name. Argentina further states that it is possible that
the dispatcher himself – the exporter's agent – could supply the ADICMA personnel with information

49 See Exhibit EC I-35.
50 See Exhibit EC I-28, Press release dated 13 May 1999 by the Argentinean meat and associated
industry.
51 See EC I-55, Argentinean law on official statistics.

not provided by the customs. In reply to a question by the Panel, Argentina explains that the exact
information to which the ADICMA representatives have access during the inspection is information
on destinations recorded after having been stamped by the first intervening DGA agent ("submitted").
This information does not include data pertaining to the customs clearance agent, the transporter and
the flag of the means of transport. In reply to a question by the Panel, Argentina denies that
ADICMA representatives would have access to the identity of the exporter and the name of the
importer (consignee) in course of their participation in the customs procedures.
4.74 The information to which the ADICMA represen tatives have access is information in the
public domain to which anyone may have access through an on-line systems operated by the DGA
and other private bodies. In reply to a question by the Panel, Argentina states that since May 1999,
the DGA no longer makes available on-line the name of the exporters and importers, and information
on prices. Neither is such information any longer furnished to private operators of on-line systems.
The information furnished by other private on-line systems to their clients is supplied by the business
chambers and associations of the various sectors of industry (e.g., the case of America Edita).
52 It is
possible to find the exporter's particulars in these other cases. All the systems mentioned are used by
subscribers, who become members by paying a subscription fee. The cost of access to such systems is
US$ 85 + VAT per month in the case of NOSIS and US$ 1900 for 12 months in the case of America
Edita.
4.75 In reply to a question by the Panel, Argentina specified that the following information was
accessible on-line: (i) the recorded destinations (documentation concerning permits of shipment,
import clearance, goods in transit); (ii) notices of embarkation (these are notices by which the customs
clearance agent informs the customs department that he is about to clear the merchandise); and (iii)
refund payments. In response to another question, Argentina stated that information on (i) the sale
price, (ii) the country of destination, (iii) the means of transportation, and (iv) tariff classification of
the product is available on-line.
4.76 Argentina asserts that disclosure of confidential information, which the European
Communities alleges, constitutes offences covered by Argentine criminal law, Chapter 3 "Violation of
Secrecy" and Chapter 9 bis "Illicit enrichment of civil servants or employees."
53 I f c o n f i d e n t i a l
information was divulged, administrative and judicial proceedings would have been instituted in
Argentina to prove that such offences had been committed, and the Argentine industries – concerning
which the European Communities can only produce press cuttings or notes which lack binding force54
- should be the ones most interested in instituting court proceedings if they had prima facie evidence
to back up such assertions.
4.77 Argentina maintains that the information requ irements to customs for all exporters and
importers of rawhides for the purposes of foreign trade transactions are the same. In reply to a
question by the Panel, whether the meat-packing plants have to provide the same information as for an
export transaction when selling to domestic tanners, Argentina asserts that domestic transactions by

52 Exhibit ARG-XLII.
53 See Argentine Criminal Code, Chapter 3 Violation of Secrecy, Article 157: "Any civil servant who
reveals facts, actions or documents required by law to be kept secret shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of
between one month and two years and specific disqualification from office for between one and four years."
Article 156: "Anyone who by reason of his status, office, employment, profession or trade, has knowledge of a
secret which could cause injury by being disclosed and reveals that secret without just cause, shall be punishable
by a fine of between one hundred and fifty thousand and fifteen million australes and special disqualification,
where appropriate, for six months to three years." Argentine Criminal Code, Chapter 4, Abuse of authority and
breach of professional duty by civil servants; Article 249: "Any civil servant who unlawfully […] shall be
punishable by a fine of between one hundred thousand and two million australes and special disqualification for
one month to one year.
54 See Exhibit EC I-27, Letter from the President of Asociación de Industrias Argentinas de Carnes to
Cotance (EC leather industry association); attached in Exhibit ARG-XIII.

the meat-packing plants are by nature different from export transactions. Consequently, the requisite
information is also different, such as that needed for tax purposes for instance. Neither do foreign
buyers have access to that information, as there is no official register in the domestic market
equivalent to customs, given the differing nature of the transactions. Nevertheless, that information
may be accessed via the respective chambers. Anyone wishing to know export prices or other export-
related data may obtain that information through the services that are publicly available.
4.78 The European Communities responds that Argentina makes an inconsistent argument. In its
first written submission, Argentina argued that the information in the customs file (i.e. quantity and
price of the goods, and in particular the name of the exporter) was confidential information, and that
contrary to what the European Communities had stated, the ADICMA-representatives had no access
to it. It stressed that the Argentinean customs officials would be prosecuted if they divulged such
sensitive information. At the 1 st meeting, the European Communities provided a document 55 which
shows that the ADICMA do have access to this information. Argentina appears to wish to attempt to
keep its old line, by arguing that the document provided by the European Communities would for
some unclear reason not be representative, and that the information is in fact not provided to the
ADICMA representatives. On the other hand, Argentina argues that the ADICMA-representatives
receive the same information that is also available on line, which includes the name of the exporter,
price, etc.
4.79 In view of the evidence which is supplied and the second statement of Argentina, it is clear
that the ADICMA representatives do obtain the information – which was qualified as business
confidential earlier on by Argentina itself – as a result of the measure.
4.80 Argentina explained that the Exhibit EC I-35 was not representative because it constituted a
copy of a customs declaration coming from an ADICMA Member and, moreover, the signature is on
the back, where none of the particulars listed by the EC appear.
4.81 The European Communities stresses that for purposes of analysing the contested measure
under the GATT, it is not relevant that the Argentinean government is also taking other measures
through which the same information is provided "on-line." The violation of Article XI GATT
resulting from Resolution 2235 does not cease to be a violation of that Article because there is also
another measure which partly has the same effect. Moreover, the fact that Argentina now also makes
the information available on-line only proves that Argentina's assertion that the contested measure is
necessary for transparency reasons is wholly unfounded.
4.82 At the second meeting, the European Communities provided documents which according to
them showed that since around May 1999, the Argentinean government was no longer providing the
name of the exporter. The European Communities underlined that Resolution 2235 provides only to a
certain group of industry information on any attempts which their suppliers would make to export.
4.83 In reply to a question by the Panel, Argentina stated that since May 1999, its "Dirección
General de Aduanas" no longer supplied the names of ex-/importers to "on-line" information systems.
5. Market power of tanneries vs. slaughterhouses and the alleged existence of a cartel
4.84 The European Communities contends that the disclosure of confidential information to
ADICMA representative regarding export transactions attempted by slaughterhouses allows the
tanneries to exert pressure on the slaughterhouses not to export. ADICMA representatives can
provide this information to all tanneries who in turn may (ab)use it in their business relations with the
slaughterhouse concerned, including by not buyin g from those slaughterhouses. The European
Communities states that each slaughterhouse is highly dependent on domestic tanners for the sale of

55 See Exhibit EC I-35, Op. Cit.

its hides and skins. Domestic tanners are in a position to exert market dominance on a slaughterhouse
by using their (collective) purchasing power. For this reason, the slaughterhouses do not even attempt
to sell abroad (even though they would obtain higher prices abroad). The European Communities
states that a slaughterhouse would indeed risk facing retaliatory measures from tanners, including
termination by tanners of contracts which would endanger the entire domestic sales of the
slaughterhouses. Bearing in mind that most of its sales are domestic, a slaughterhouse will not risk
undermining its domestic sales situation for the sake of exporting limited hide quantities even if in so
doing, for that limited quantity, it could obtain a higher price.
4.85 Even though the value of the skins accounts only for about 10 percent of the value of the
animal, the European Communities asserts that the threat of losing 10 percent of the proceeds of each
animal slaughtered can make the difference between running a profitable or a loss-making company.
Finding, immediately, foreign buyers for all hides which a slaughterhouse produces will in all
likelihood be impossible; it will cost time and effort, especially because once hides are "produced"
(i.e. removed from the animal when slaughtering) they have to be sold as soon as possible (even if
they can be preserved for some weeks, hides finally deteriorate). This does not prevent hides from
being exported (European Communities and US hides, for instance, are exported world wide
including to Argentina), but it is always safer for a slaughterhouse to have as wide opportunities as
possible to sell its hides (be it domestically or in export markets). The slaughterhouses are restricted
in their exports since they cannot freely choose to export part of their raw hides and sell the other part
domestically; as soon as a slaughterhouse exports one shipment of hides, however small, all
Argentinean tanners will know.
4.86 The European Communities also underlines that a hide represents 55 to 60 percent of the
production costs of leather. Therefore, the Argentinean tanners have a great interest in the
information which the ADICMA representatives obtain due to their presence, and in using it in their
business dealings with the slaughterhouse concerned in order to keep its hides to themselves, at a low
price.
4.87 The European Communities states that the Arge ntinean tanning industry is dominated by a
relatively small number of tanning groups. In 1996, the 10 largest companies (of around 150
tanneries) accounted for more than 70 percent of the country's leather exports.
56
4.88 The European Communities asserts that the effectiveness of the pressure by the tanneries can
be seen in the absence of any noticeable exports of raw hides. Like in the Japan-Semiconductor case,
the measure has as an effect to allow tanneries to put pressure on slaughterhouses not to export. This
possibility to exercise pressure and to foster uncertainty – in this case with regard to the possibility to
continue domestic sales, which is created by government – in this case the Argentinean one – was
condemned by that Panel as contrary to Article XI.
57
4.89 The European Communities states that the tanne ries are generally believed to engage in
market-restrictive practices. For instance, according to the Chairman of the association of
slaughterhouses " the reality is that the tanners rarely deviate from the prices established in a list
which is published on a weekly basis by a private operator, which clearly indicates that there is a
previous price-fixing agreement."58
4.90 Moreover, in an explanation of a draft law introduced in 1992 relating to the exportation of
raw hides, including raw bovine hides, Argentin ean (then) MP, Mr. Antonio T. Berhongaray, (now

56 See in Exhibit EC I-26, a list of exporters in "Leather Magazine," June 1997, as well as a list of the
biggest exporters published in "Supercampo," July 1999.
57 See Japan – Semiconductors, Op. Cit., paragraph 117.
58 See Exhibit EC I-27 Op. Cit..

Secretary of State for Agriculture), referred to the existence of a pricing cartel.59 In his explanation of
his proposal, Mr. Berhongaray emphasises that there is a high degree of concentration in the tannery
market. More importantly, he notes that somewhat less than 10 companies gather each week to fix the
prices which they will pay the following week, and that these prices for raw hides are even published
in a bulletin which will be applied that follow ing week. In short, a member of the current
Argentinean government has, in the past, confirmed in an official parliamentary document related to
introducing new legislation that such a cartel exists.
4.91 The European Communities also quotes an editorial in the Argentinean newspaper "La
Nación" which, according to the European Communities, describes the Argentinean export
restrictions, including the introduction of the export tax, and adds (translation by the European
Communities): " Soon afterwards the screw was tightened even more: an ad hoc body of
representatives of the leather industry was created in order to - in conjunction with customs officers -
check all the shipments abroad of hides, so that any possible filtering through of non-processed goods
is blocked." (Poco después … procesar.")
60
4.92 Argentina argues that questions regarding the Argentinean hide market are not covered by
the claim based on Article XI of the GATT, which refers exclusively to prohibitions or quantitative
restrictions attributable to the conduct of a government, rather than that of the market.
4.93 Moreover, the European Communities does not provide any evidence to back its allegation of
a cartel. A mere note from the President of the Meat Packers' Association cannot be interpreted by the
Panel in such a way as to refute the established principle that the party asserting a fact must prove it.
With regard to the question of what may be called the "burden of proof," the Appellate Body has
confirmed that it is for the complaining party to esta blish the violation it alleges, and that it is for the
party asserting a fact to prove it. 61 In the present case, the European Communities has not fulfilled
that requirement, since a mere assertion by an interested party does not constitute sufficient evidence
of price fixing. Moreover, in that note submitted by the European Communities, the President of the
Argentine Meat Packers' Association ( Asociación de Frigorificos de la Argentina ) acknowledges:
"We have no concrete evidence of the existence of market agreements among tanners. "62
Furthermore, no complaints on the subject have been received by the National Commission for the
Protection of Competition from any of the parties most interested in the sale of raw hides. Argentina
considers that the allegations of "irregularities" in the national market for hides leather must be
rejected because they are unfounded and not supported by any evidence.
4.94 Argentina further questions whether the "journalistic" evidence produced by the European
Communities can be regarded as proof of the alleged incompatibility of the Argentine measure in
question with the WTO Agreements.
63 The European Communities cites only a single sentence from
the editorial, which clearly identifies itself with the interests of a particular sector, while avoiding any
reference to its main theme, namely opposition to the possible renewal of the legitimate duty being
applied to rawhide exports, which expired only six days later, on 30 June 2000. This sentence is
strikingly similar to those used by the European Communities in its submissions to the Panel with
reference to Resolution 2235 and offers no explanation of how that measure continues to operate "so
that any possible filtering through of non-processed goods is blocked." Once again in this case,

59 Exhibit EC I-36.
60 See Exhibit EC I-56; La Nación, "La exportación de cueros," 24 June 2000.
61 See footnote 37 referring to Argentina – Measures A ffecting Imports of Foot wear, Textiles, Apparel
and Other Items , WT/DS56/R, paragraph 6.35. See also Report of the Appellate Body in United States –
Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India , WT/DS33/AB/R, of 25 April 1997,
page 16.
62 See Exhibit EC I-27, Op. Cit.
63 With reference to the European Communities' quotation of the editorial in the newspaper "La
Nación," Argentina questions the European Communities' right to submit this piece of information, as this was
done outside the time-periods stipulated by the Panel.

through public declarations with scandalous embellishments having no basis in fact and without
making any administrative or judicial complaint, a particular sector is claiming to alert people to some
plot affecting both its own and the general interest. Argentina recalls that it is surprising if a powerful
sector of the Argentine economy such as the meat packing industry would fail to use the
administrative and judicial remedies within the reach of any ordinary citizen to demand the removal
of an allegedly unlawful restraint on the pursuit of its activities and merely engage in a few skirmishes
in the media, in parallel with the complaint whic h the European Communities has brought before the
WTO.
4.95 Argentina states that the Argentine tanning industry does not form a cartel. It is made up of
more than 150 enterprises. Moreover, Argentina emphasizes that the meat packing companies are for
the most part not small-scale producers and that they therefore have the same or greater negotiating
powers than the tanneries. The points made by the European Communities concerning the alleged
long-term unwritten agreements between the econom ic operators involved are irrelevant for the
purposes of this dispute.
4.96 The fact that the price of a raw hide represents no more than 10 percent of the value of the
animal at the time of slaughter is regarded by Argentina as an unrepresentative figure on which to
base the argument that it jeopardizes the meat packing business. Moreover, annual turnover in the
meat packing industry has exceeded 4,000 million pesos since 1997. The value of the tanning
industry's output does not exceed 1000 million pesos per year. In terms of turnover, therefore, the
meat industry is four times bigger than the tanning industry, and this gives an idea of the relative
potential capacity and importance of each. It should also be noted that the value of the meat packing
plants' output grew substantially (by 20 percent) in 1998, the first year of the contraction in the
tanning industry caused by falling international demand for hides, as reflected in the 17 percent drop
in total exports by the industry. Given such a disparity in turnover trends, it can hardly be claimed
that the tanneries could exert pressure on the prices of raw hides.
4.97 The falling livestock level of cattle in Argentina has strengthened the bargaining power of the
slaughterhouses vis-à-vis the tanneries.
4.98 Against this backdrop, Argentina questions why should it be necessary to believe in the
existence of a cartel of buyers of a product if the latter is in short supply. In circumstances in which a
powerful sector of the Argentine economy, the controller of a scarce resource, is faced with a sector of
less relative importance but with a fundamental need to secure the supply of its principal raw material,
it is hard to believe that the tanners would provoke a conflict with the meat packers, thereby
jeopardizing their relationship with their source of supply.
4.99 Argentina also challenges the effectiveness of an export restricting cartel, asserting that if the
tanners were to stop purchases of raw hides, all hides affected could simply be sold on the
international market since there is a relative scarcity of raw hides internationally as well.
4.100 With regard to the European Communities' comm ents about the existence of irregularities in
the setting of domestic prices, Argentina points out that in the market for hides/leather, it is not a
price-setter but, on the contrary, a price-taker.
4.101 Argentina states that in the case at issue, the burden of proof lies with the EC. The point has
not been reached where it should be shifted to Argentina. Argentina has refuted mere assertions by the
EC with facts: the EC said that "there are no exports" and Argentina provided figures to refute that
assertion; the EC said that the measure was obligatory, and Argentina explained the scope of
Resolution 2235; the EC claimed that there was no scarcity of raw material, and Argentina once
again provided import figures; and so it is that Argentina continually has to respond to arguments
which the EC puts forward and then modifies. When Argentina showed that there were exports, the
EC said that they only amounted to 1/1000 because the exports relevant to the case at issue were raw

hides exports. When Argentina presented the figures for the EC, the EC claimed that they were
inaccurate; when Argentina stated that the rules were applied in an impartial and reasonable manner,
the EC said that they violated business secrets without specifying which ones, and so forth.
6. Claim that export and price figures reflect the restrictive effect of the measure on
exports of raw bovine hides
4.102 The European Communities argues that the restrictive nature of the measure in question is
reflected in the negligible quantities of raw bovine hides exported from Argentina, even though the
competitive price and quality of Argentinean hides would suggest higher exports. The European
Communities points out that it does not claim that, in itself, the negligible amount of exports is
sufficient evidence to show that a restriction exists. However, in the particular context of the
challenged Argentinean measure the quasi-absence of exports of Argentinean raw bovine hides
constitutes further evidence that Resolution 2235 acts as an export restriction.
4.103 Argentina asserts that a scarcity of raw material in the domestic market exists. Raw-hide
producers could sell their products on the domestic market, and did not need to engage in the
establishment of a costly infrastructure for raw hide export. Also, Argentina contests the European
Communities claim that there are no exports of raw and wet-blue hides and maintains that the ratio of
raw hide production to exportation does not differ in Argentina significantly from figures obtained by
European Communities members States.
(a) Interpretation of figures of hide production in Argentina
4.104 The European Communities states that Argentina's production of raw bovine hides has
remained relatively stable since the 1970s. In the five-year period 1966-1970, the average slaughter
rate was about 12.6 million head. 64 The slaughter rate in a country corresponds to the production of
hides, as one slaughtered animal produces one hide. According to official statistics from the
Argentinean authorities, during 1992-1996 on average about 11,6 million head were slaughtered.
65 In
the last five years for which complete data are available (1994-1998), the average number of cattle
slaughtered in Argentina was about 12.7 million heads. Other data from the Argentinean Ministry of
Agriculture give even higher slaughter rates for that period and more recent years. 66 In 1995, it was
about 4 percent of the world's total production and made Argentina the world's 7th largest bovine hides
producer in that year. 67 The European Communities concludes that production of raw bovine hides
does hence not differ significantly from the period of 1966-1972, the year in which the first export
ban was introduced.
4.105 The European Communities contends further that according to the information received from
the Argentinean authorities, the average size of livestock in Argentina after 1992 (i.e. after the end of
the export "suspension") was not substantially different from that during 1966-1972 (before the
official export ban).
68
4.106 Argentina asserts that the leather market cannot be analysed separately from the other
variables affecting the leather production cycle. In as much as raw bovine hides are raw materials of
inelastic supply, being a by-product of meat production, their availability depends on livestock
inventories and slaughter rates. The slaughter rate in Argentina fell from 16 million heads per year in

64 See Exhibit EC I-20, Op. Cit.
65 Ibid., column 2.
66 See Exhibit EC I-22; cattle slaughter rate 1990-1999.
67 According to FAO statistics world production of bovine hides was estimated at 287.5 million pieces
in 1995. FAO World statistical compendium for raw hides and skins, leather and leather footwear, 1977-1995,
published in 1996. See Exhibit EC I-21.
68 See Exhibit EC I-20, Op. Cit., column 1.

1978 to 11.27 million in 1998. 69 This dramatic decline in slaughter is due to the loss of traditional
markets for Argentine meat products, as a result of subsidization policies and import restrictions
imposed by some buyers, certainly including the European Union.
4.107 These restrictions on access to the international market for meat made it necessary, on the one
hand, to adjust livestock slaughter rates to meet demand and, on the other, to develop a policy of
livestock resource protection combined with greater industrialization of the livestock sector, which
explains the measure introduced in 1972. Barriers to market entry and an over-supply of meat
triggered a drop in prices which led to a reduction in livestock inventories owing to the unprofitability
of livestock-related activities. The "stock" was depleted to such an extent that it even became
necessary to impose a temporary closed season on meat consumption with a view to replenishing the
resource and ensuring its survival.
4.108 Due to the crisis, the Argentine meat industry had to close meat packing plants and the
installed capacity by those that survived was under-utilized. This crisis, combined with subsequent
developments, has adversely affected the sector up to the present time. The use of installed capacity
was a mere 40 percent in July 1999.
70
4.109 Once the extreme circumstances that gave rise to the initial measures had been overcome, the
ban was removed and replaced by export duties within the framework of a resource management
policy combined with growing industrialization of the raw material, the clear objective being to
regulate management of the resource which, by its very nature, is exhaustible.
71 Thus, the preamble to
Resolution 537/92, under which the export duties were introduced, provides as follows: "[whereas]
there is a world-wide shortage of raw hides due to the fact that population growth and the rising living
standards of the world population far outstrip the natural increase in livestock. This scarcity of raw
material is especially acute in the Argentine Republic as a result of the dramatic decline in livestock
slaughter rates … [whereas] it is necessary to maintain a level of supply appropriate to the
requirements of the domestic market for raw and semi-finished hides …."
72 This combination of
measures adopted by Argentina served to create the right conditions for guaranteeing, within a
virtuous cycle of livestock herd replenishment, a supply of hides which, while safeguarding the
primary resource (bovine animals), enabled the leather industry to incorporate added value in its
production and to ensure long-term sustainability.
4.110 Furthermore, from the historical perspective, what the European Communities shows in its
Exhibit EC I-20, while claiming to prove that the ca ttle stock and the slaughter rate were maintained,
is in fact that, at the point in time when Argentina introduced the restriction on raw hide exports in
1972, a persistent decline of approximately 7.17 percent had been observed in that stock between
1967 and 1970.
73 The above-mentioned export restraint was combined with internal measures
designed to restrict meat consumption, 74 in response to a crisis situation in the industry which the
European Communities itself confirms.

69 Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Food.
71 United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products – WT/DS58/AB/R,
paragraph 128:" which acknowledges that living resources are just as "finite" as non-living resources."
72 See Resolution 537/92; Exhibit EC I-7and Exhibit ARG-V.
73 Percentage differences in stock cited by the European Communities in Exhibit EC I-20 (1967-1970).
74 See for 1970: Decree 1654/70 of the Ministry of Industry and Trade, prohibition on the preparation
or supply of meat on Thursdays and Fridays. Resolution 71/70 of the Ministry of the Economy and Labour,
temporary reduction of slaughter output for domestic consumption.
1971: Law 18949 on indicative sale prices and prohibition of domestic consumption; Law 19095
repealing the aforementioned law and implementing the prohibition on cattle meat with sanctions for non-
compliance; Decree 2358 suspending the prohibition (July) ; Decree 2885 reinstating the prohibition (August).
Exhibit ARG-X.

4.111 It is important to emphasize and reiterate that the Argentine tanning industry has for several
years been confronted with a shortfall in the supply of raw materials for processing. The industry's
tanning capacity has reached peaks of 16 million hides per year, a figure rising to 18 million if the
introduction of technology is taken into account, which contributes to greater efficiency in the
production process. Nevertheless, the domestic availability of raw ma terial does not exceed
11.27 million hides, owing to low livestock slaughter rates.
4.112 The problem of the scarcity of raw material in the Argentine market has also been noted by
the international publication Market News Service, which in its issue 3/2000 75 states that, in the case
of Argentina, owing to the 8.4 percent decrease in cattle stocks over the last five years and given a
relatively high level of per capita meat consumption by international standards, the current shortage of
raw hides for the industry is expected to continue. Specifically, this publication maintains that the
industry experienced a shortfall of one million raw hides per year over the last five years, in terms of
the quantity required to satisfy its production capacity.
(b) Interpretation of export figures from Argentina
4.113 The European Communities states that prior to 1972, Argentina exported an important
volume of hides to the rest of the world, including the European Communities. The level of exports
of raw bovine hides amounted to an average of 177.000 tons a year during the period of 1961-1970.
This shows that prior to the imposition of export restrictions, foreign purchasers were highly
interested in Argentinean products. The European Communities argues that as from 1971 the number
of exported hides started to decline.
76 The export ban introduced in 1972 led to a boom of the
Argentinean tanning industry and its export capacity. Nowadays, state-of-the-art Argentinean
tanneries export wet blue flesh splits, crust and finished leather to the whole world.77
4.114 The European Communities quotes official Argentinean figures 78 for the period 1996-1998,
which show negligible raw hides exports for the period from1996-1999, namely
1996: 37 tonnes
1997: 1.8 tonnes
1998: 3.2 tonnes
1999: 242 tonnes 79
4.115 Even considering of the higher export figures provided by Argentina in its first submission, 80
less than one per thousand of Argentina's annual hide production of raw bovine hides were exported
since 1996. The table shows, in the middle colu mn, how many bovine animals were slaughtered in
Argentina over the last four years.81 This figure which corresponds to the number of hides produced in

75 See Exhibit ARG-VIII.
76 See Exhibit EC I-18, taken from FAO World statistical compendium for raw hides and skins, leather
and leather footwear 1961-1982.
77 See Exhibit EC I-19, Op. Cit.
78 See Exhibit EC I-23. Produced by INDEC, the Argentinean statistical office.
79 The European Communities argues that in 1999, 120 tons of raw hides were destined for Uruguay,
where some Argentinean tanneries have invested.
80 In particular the figures provided in paragraph 70 of Argentina's first written submission and the
slaughter rates taken from Argentinean official figures and provided in Exhibit EC I-22. To calculate the
number of hides exported in 1996-1998, the export figures in kg. were divided by the average weight of
Argentinean wet salted hides. The latter figure was obtained by dividing the figure of 242875 kg for 1999, as
provided under paragraph 70 of Argentina's first written submission by 8066, the figure Argentina claims to
correspond to these 242875 kg, which results in 30.11 kg. This weight appears reasonable as experts consulted
by the EC confirmed that the average weight of an Argentinean hide is in the range of 28-35 kg.
81 The figure for December 1999, which is not yet available was estimated by taking the average of the
slaughter rate for the other months of that year.

Argentina, varied between 11.3 and almost 13 m illion. In the right column, the table shows how
many raw (i.e. only salted) hides were exported.
Year Total slaughtered Exported raw/salted*
1996 12916716 9914
1997 12794718 6875
1998 11280949 107
199982 11800121 8066
*(expressed in units)
4.116 Despite similar livestock and slaughter figures even though the export "suspension" was
formally terminated in 1992, there have been no or at the most negligible exports of raw bovine hides
since. In 1999, just over 240 tons of raw hides were exported, so less than 0.2 percent of the pre-
export restrictions level of exports of about 177000 tonnes. In earlier years in the recent period this
was even much less. Data provided by the Argentinean authorities confirm this.
83 The entries in the
column no 9, raw hides exports ("Exportacion Cueros Crudos"), all read "0" from 1992-1995.
4.117 The European Communities claims that even Ar gentina itself confirms in its answer to
question 29 of the Panel the absence of exports, where it states that Argentina's exports of raw hides
are "casi marginal."
4.118 This situation is reflected in the absence of any international quotation of prices of
Argentinean raw hides (and even wet blue grains).
84 The WTO/UNCTAD International Trade
Centre's bi-weekly "Market News Service," which is the world-wide reference for hides and leather
prices85 never mentions prices for these products.86
4.119 On the other hand, prices for crust and wet blue flesh splits, i.e. semi-tanned leather, -- which
can freely be exported from Argentina -- are always quoted. The only reason for this is that there is
no visible international trade in Argentinean bovine raw hides and wet blue grains.
4.120 Argentina contests the assertion that no prices for raw hides are quoted in the Market News
Service, and produces excerpts of 4 MNS-issues which, according to Argentina, quote prices of
Argentinean raw hides.
87 Moreover, it is possible to find prices listed in a variety of publications
including mass circulation national newspapers (e.g. La Nación).88
4.121 The European Communities comments on Argentina's reply to the assertion that none of
these issues "quote" any price for Argentinean raw hides by stating that all issues do quote prices for
wet blue splits ("W/b split"), natural crust and dyed crust from Argentina. Only the comments in the
margin of the bi-weekly price quotations refer to raw hides prices as part of the general information
on the situation in the domestic market.89

82 Estimated, figures for December are missing.
83 The data were provided in the context of the European Communities' investigation preceding the
launch of this Panel procedure. See Exhibit EC I-20, Op. Cit. column 8.
84 See for instance Exhibits EC I-23.
85 Also the Argentinean authorities consider this publication to be authoritative, since Resolution
537/92 (Exhibit EC I-7) refers to the "MNS" quotation of US hides as calculation basis for the export tax.
86 See e.g. Exhibit EC I-23.
87 See Exhibit ARG-XV
88 See Exhibit ARG-XIV.
89 For example, issues 20/1999 and 4/2000 do mention raw hide prices, but only as part of the general
comment on the internal market situation, and not as a commercial quotation, unlike what is the case for other
countries. For instance, the European Communities refers to the quotations for Australia, which are visible on

4.122 Argentina asserts that it does indeed export raw hides and wet blue. Over recent years, wet
blue exports have increased in value by 4027 percent and approximately 2400 percent in kilos (1995-
1999).90 Argentina provides the following export figures for wet-blue hides (in kg.):
1995: 43521 kg.,
1996: 1087 kg.,
1997: 100297 kg.,
1998: 118689 kg.,
1999: 1034291 kg.
4.123 Exports of untanned (raw and wet blue) hides for 1999 accounted for 0.78 percent of the
output: 94768 hides as against 12141366 animals slaugh tered. Salted bovine hides were computed at
a rate of 30 kg. each. Wet blue hides at 25 kg. and full grain wet blue flesh splits at 10 kg. each. In
1998, 121923 kg. of salted and wet blue hides were exported (7114 hides in total). In 1999, 1277166
kg. of salted and wet blue hides were exported (94768 hides in total).
4.124 Argentina states that these figures per se negate the Community's contention that there is a
"de facto ban" on exports, as Argentina is indeed present on the international market for raw hides and
wet blue.
4.125 The European Communities contests that exports of wet blue hides are of importance in the
present context: Wet blue hides have already undergone the first, and decisive, stage of tanning. Wet
blue is thus already in the possession of the tanneries. Usually, tanners have no interest in selling
their leather at the wet blue stage, since value can still be added through further processing (although
there may sometimes be reasons to sell wet blue), which explains why also export figures for wet blue
are low. In any event, export of wet blue is - in principle - under the exclusive control of the tannery
which produced it. Therefore, the export restrictive effect of the measure which the European
Communities contests – restraining slaughterhouses in their exports of raw hides – does not apply in
the same way to "wet blue" hides.
4.126 The European Communities argues that against the backdrop of export figures set out above,
and with the lowered export tariff of now 5 percent, Argentinean meat producers should export a far
higher number of hides than is presently the case, in particular as raw hide prices on export markets
are higher than those on the Argentinean market. The slaughterhouses could thus obtain a better price
abroad than in Argentina. The marginal export figures cannot be explained by a lack of infrastructure
by the slaughterhouses. As far as meat is concerned, the slaughterhouses are among Argentina's top
exporting industry: they are used to operating in international markets and have extensive
international contacts, be it in the US, the European Communities, the Far East etc…. Export is part
and parcel of their commercial mentality. Moreover, hides and leather traders are present on the
Argentinean markets. Argentina exports crust, finished leather and wet blue splits. This is mostly
done through the intermediary of traders. Leather traders also trade in hides, because both markets
are closely interconnected. As far as infrastructure is concerned, raw bovine hides do not need any
other infrastructure than, for example, wet blue splits (which are massively exported from Argentina).
Like wet blue splits, raw hides are usually shipped in containers by boat or by aircraft. In other
words, all necessary commercial and transport infrastructure for export of raw hides is present in
Argentina.
4.127 Argentina argues that the explanation for the low export figures of raw bovine hides is the
scarcity of raw material in the international leather market. As there is a strong domestic demand,
meat packers are able to make all their sales on the domestic market. Thus, for example, they feel no

the same pages as Argentina, where there are always specific commercial quotations of bovine wet salted hides
("W/s…").
90 See Exhibit ARG-XXIII.

need to set up the more costly infrastructure that would be required to prepare hides for export. Meat-
packing plants would also have to incur the costs of cleaning the hides prior to export which is done
when sold in the local market, at the tanneries. If meat packing plants were to run their own export
transactions, they would - in addition to selecting – and hence discarding hides – and preparing their
product - have to provide the staff and facilities for export operations, and incur the costs of customs
dispatchers, communications, brokerage, transportation, insurance, and so on.
4.128 Argentina maintains that the marketing of hides is not the same as the marketing of meat and,
moreover, in Argentina the packers who export meat represent only a very small proportion of the
total for this branch of industry, amounting to barely 10 percent of all operators. It is moreover not
true that salted hide exports require an infrastructure similar to that for hides in the wet blue state. On
the contrary, tanning facilities are required to go over from a salted hide to the wet blue state.
4.129 Argentina stresses that there are also meat packing plants exporting wet blue. This contradicts
the EC's argument that the tanneries manipulate the leather market and the meat packing plants
wishing to export are dissuaded from doing so.91
4.130 With respect to the difference in the cost of preparing hides for export as between the EU and
Argentina, it is not technically appropriate to compare figures corresponding to different cost
structures.
4.131 Argentina asserts that the absence of an international benchmark price is indicative of the
scant development of the market for that product. Foreign demand for Argentine hides is largely for
wet blue.
4.132 Argentina states that, moreover, export figures could not constitute non-compliance by
Argentina. There is no WTO obligation with regard to exporting a certain volume of goods.
(c) Price differential between Argentine and US hides
4.133 The European Communities contends that an export market of raw hides would exist in the
absence of the measure under dispute, as Argentinean raw hides are sold domestically at prices that
would make their export lucrative. National prices, as published in " Cuerecon – Informativo
quincenal de la industria del cuero" (an Argentinean bi-weekly newsletter on the hide market)92 show
that the average prices for US and Argentinean raw salted bovine hides for the period January 1994-
August 1999, expressed in US$/kg were as follows:
Year US
93 Argentina94 difference as percent
of US price
1994 1.77 1.23 30%
1995 1.79 1.20 33%
1996 1.69 1.20 29%
1997 1.71 1.28 25%
1998 1.34 1.13 15%
199995 1.34 0.77 43%

91 See Exhibit ARG XXVII.
92 The European Communities attaches one example of this newsletter as Exhibit EC I-25. It attaches
more detailed information on the prices as Exhibit EC I-31.
93 The US price is the FOB Central US price in dollar/kg of US Butt Branded Steer of less than 68 lbs.
(31 kg) on the Chicago Market
94 The Argentinean price is the FOB Buenos Aires price for salted "novillo" hides
95 Figures for January -August

4.134 Between January 1994 and August 1999 price differences between comparable US and
Argentinean hides represented an average of 32 percent of the US price.
4.135 It is important to note that during that same period the Argentinean export taxes on hides were
set at respectively 15 percent (1994-1997), 10 percent (1998) and 5 percent (1999) of the price of US
hides. Hence, even after application of the export tax, Argentinean hide prices remain attractive for
foreign purchasers.96 The export tax alone can also not be the reason for the quasi-absence of exports.
4.136 Argentina states that a price differential does indeed exist, but that it is due to different
degrees of processing of the products concerned. Butt Branded is a steer hide that has been degreased
and from which all unusable parts, such as feet, hooves, etc. have been removed. In other words, it is
a clean hide. Argentine salted hides, in the state in which they leave the meat packing plants for
tanning, are dirty, having been neither degreased nor trimmed. In other words, although the hides
concerned are of similar quality, each type reaches the tannery in a different condition. In Argentina,
tanners are responsible for cleaning, trimming and degreasing. This additional activity justifies the
difference in prices. United States tanners receive hides that have already been prepared and are
ready for tanning. Argentina emphasizes that it is not true that the meat-packing plant could sell at a
higher price on the international market, since the product that is easily sold on the domestic market is
not in the same state of processing as that required for sale on the external market, as we have been
explaining. Indeed, preparation for sale abroad involves at least a 20 percent cost increase. To this
must be added the cost of export infrastructure (customs dispatcher, communications, brokerage,
transportation, insurance, and so on).
4.137 The European Communities argues that Argentina's explanation of a difference in
cleanliness and in the level of processing of Argentinean and US hides is unconvincing. Argentina
further provides no evidence whatsoever for its assertion, which should therefore be rejected. The
Argentinean assertion is contradicted by a well reputed trade magazine, which in a 1996 Article -
annexed by the European Communities to its first written submission
97 - describes that the
slaughterhouses have a tradition in taking great care in washing and preparing the hides.
4.138 The price selected by the European Communities is moreover the price of a type of hide
which is qualified in Argentina -- quoted from the Argentinean newsletter for the tanning industry
(Cuerecon) -- as "buen desuello" (well flayed bovine)
98 which corresponds to the US Butt Branded
Steer hides. In an Argentinean book on tanning,99 this type of hide is described as follows : "well de-
fleshed, free of claws, ears, muzzles, horns, hoofs, with less than 25 cm. of tail, cleaned and
adequately salted, with clean salt, with or without brine." In other words, these hides are sold in the
same clean state as is the case for Butt Branded Steer hides.100
4.139 Moreover, the US in its 1990 investigation found that Argentinean and US hide quality was
comparable. The US authorities had been confronted with similar arguments as Argentina is now
again putting forward, but concluded that Argentina steer hides (novillos) and US butt-branded steer
hides, for both of which the European Communities has given prices in its first written submission,
were comparable.101
4.140 The European Communities refers to the reply by the United States to a question by the panel
as to whether the quality of US butt-branded steer hides are comparable with novillo hides. In its

96 As the European Communities has shown in its answer to question 3(c) of the panel; see also Exhibit
EC I-40.
97 See Exhibit EC I-30 at p. 25 left column.
98 See copies of "Cuerecon" under Exhibit EC I-25.
99 "Curtición de Cueros y Pieles" by Alberto M. Lacerca, Editorial Albatros, Buenos Aires.
100 See Exhibit EC I-32, at p. 37.
101 See Exhibit EC I-6, at p. 42014 (first and middle column) and page 40217.

reply, the US confirmed that an investigation by the Department of Commerce had found that the
quality of US and Argentine hides was comparable, and that the divergence in prices between US and
Argentine hides could not be explained by any quality differences.102 The United States further found
that the prices of US and Argentine hides were similar during periods in which there was no export
embargo, but that they diverged significantly (wit h Argentine prices declining) when the Argentine
export embargo was in place. The US also stated that after consulting various persons with expertise
in the leather industry, there was no reason to believe that differences in quality, cleanliness or level
of processing between US and Argentine hides have appeared since the time of that determination.
4.141 The European Communities continues that fina lly, Argentina itself uses the Butt Branded
Steer price as a reference price in order to determine the tax base for the application of its export tax
on bovine hides,
103 so it is very surprising that it now argues that one cannot compare its hides to
those hides. Argentina had not produced any eviden ce on the horrible state in which, according to its
assertions, hides are provided by the frigoríficos to the tanners. In fact, the evidence provided by
Argentina itself contradicts its position. The page from La Nación
104 submitted by Argentina does
give a price for the "buen desuello" category. In other words, contrary to what Argentina implies, that
type of hide is available on the Argentinean market. Furthermore, Argentina itself confirms that the
"buen desuello" quality is comparable to US Butt Branded Steer.105
4.142 Argentina asserts that the EC has confused several sources of information dealing with
different issues. Hence it states that Argentina maintained in paragraph 78 of its first written
submission that there is a difference in the degree of processing of the hides, which is true. But then it
links this to the content of paragraph 80 of the same submission which addresses the alleged absence
of raw hide prices on the Argentine market. In that paragraph, Argentina cites Annex ARG-XIV to
demonstrate that the mass circulation national daily La Nación does publish Argentine raw hide
prices. At no time, however, did Argentina maintain that the buen desuello hides appearing in La
Nación were those being referred to in paragraph 78. As the EC points out, buen desuello refers to the
state of the hides. The very name indicates this, as the term means that it is a hide that has been
properly removed from the animal. US Butt Branded Steer hides have also been properly removed.
4.143 Argentina also differs with the EC statement that the problem of exposure of hides to damage
caused by the environment in which the animals live (insects, thorny plants, barbed wire, walking
long distances, etc.) is a typical problem for the tanning industry world-wide. The particular
characteristics of cattle raising in Argentina aggravates these problems. There are basically two main
factors: firstly, cattle breeding in our country is "extensive," in other words the animals are much
more exposed to the above-mentioned problems; and secondly, while the implementation of
programmes to improve this situation has begun, results can only be expected in the longer term.
(d) Argument that the "shortfall" of raw hides leads to increased imports of raw and wet blue
hides
4.144 Argentina argues that the decline in the supply of raw hides in recent years, together with the
expansion of the tanning industry, led to greater demand for hides and thereby created an opening for
the import of salted and "wet blue" skins. This has compounded a previously existing situation of
insufficient supply, which neither the growing trend to resort to imports of untanned hides or crust nor

102 See Exhibit EC I-6, U.S. Department of Commerce's final countervailing duty determination,
published at 55 Fed. Reg. pp. 40212, 40214 (cols 1 and 2) and 40217 (Comment 3); October 2, 1990.
103 See Exhibit EC I-7
104 See Exhibit ARG-XIV.
105 See its answer to question 29, 4 th para : "El cuero del US Butt Branded Steer tambien ha sido bien
arrancado."

the existence of export duties on raw hides has managed to attenuate.106 The shortfall of raw materials
for the tanning industry is reflected by the statistics on the importation of hides.
Imports of Cattle Hides in kg./US dollars
Category 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Salted 64020 kg.
90265 USD
3488950 kg.
7571487 USD
1714761 kg.
3922164 USD
4983383 kg.
8953975 USD
1492107 kg.
2282672 USD
Wet blue 129514 kg.
502141 USD
667731 kg.
2656393 USD
950357 kg.
3607689 USD
3025609 kg.
12321641 USD
6401562 kg.
22235537 USD
Total 193534 kg.
592406 USD
4156681 kg.
10227880 USD
2665118 kg.
7529853 USD
8008992 kg.
21275616 USD
7893669 kg.
24518209 USD
Source: National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INDEC).
4.145 Wet-blue imports increased by 516 percent between 1997 and 1999, rising in value from US$
3 million to US$ 22 million. This category of hides has recorded the biggest increase.
4.146 Argentina concludes that 415361 wet blue hides and 49737 salted hides were imported in
1999, adding up to a combined total of 465098 hides. Compared with exports of 94768 hides, these
import figures give a clear idea of the industry's need for raw materials for processing, given their
scarcity on the domestic market.
4.147 The European Communities states that even if the domestic leather industry's demand
would indeed exceed the annual hide production, thus leading to imports, this would still not exclude
that in the absence of the contested measure, substantial exports should occur.
4.148 In the European Communities, for instance, as shown in Exhibit European Communities I-33,
the annual apparent consumption (i.e. production + im ports minus exports), which reflects the leather
industry's demand, is higher than the annual production of hides in the European Communities. For
example, in 1995, the European Communities produced 723900 tons of bovine hides, and imported
378000 tons from other sources, while still exporting about 153400 tons of bovine hides (or 20
percent of total European Communities production). This is a normal situation in an open economy,
where hide transactions are only based on the law of supply and demand.
4.149 Moreover, the fact that a WTO Member imports certain goods does not prove in any way that
that WTO Member is not at the same time applying WTO-illegal export restrictions to the same goods
which have been domestically produced. On the contrary, as shown by recent Argentinean import
statistics, part of these imports into Argentina come from the European Communities.
107 T h e
existence of exports of hides from Europe to Argentina proves that exports of hides from Argentina to
the rest of the world, including Europe, should not only be economically interesting, but also - in the
absence of the measure which European Communities contests – technically possible.
4.150 Raw hides exports from those member States are also infinitely higher than what Argentina
exports in terms of the percentage which they constitute of national production.
4.151 Argentina argues that it does not export raw bovine hides because its whole production of
raw bovine hides is processed in Argentinean tanneries. There is even a shortage of hides in the
country as a direct result of the shortage in livestock. This shortage is due to problems on meat export
markets, as a result of which the slaughterhouses do not work at full capacity.

Argentina: un cluster en desarticulación o un complejo desarticulado?" in the scope of proyect "Estrategia de
desarrollo de clusters en torno a recursos naturale s: su crecimiento e implicancias distributivas y
medioambientales", by Gustavo Lugones and Fernando Porta.
107 See Exhibit EC I-34.

4.152 The European Communities argues that even if a shortfall existed, this would still not
exclude the possibility of exports. The European Communities, with a high demand for raw hides,
still exports significant numbers. The theory that only the "surplus" of a certain raw material, that is
the amount exceeding the domestic users' processing capacity, should be exported does not reflect the
way free and open markets, as guaranteed by the abolition of export restrictions by Article XI and the
neutral application of customs rules under Article X, work. In free and open markets deals are struck
according to the law of offer and demand, and not on the basis of the nationality of the parties
involved. The European Communities does not claim here that all products or in particular all raw
materials of a particular country should be bought up by foreign purchasers. The point the European
Communities wants to make here is that there should be free competition, that is to say equal
competitive opportunities for all purchasers, be they foreign or domestic.
4.153 Moreover, when looking at the European Communities' annual apparent consumption of raw
bovine hides it would appear, at least in Argentina's logic, that there is an even more important
shortage of hides in the European Communities.
108 Nevertheless, the European Communities exports
a considerable amount of hides. Even if Argentina's argument that its internal demand is much higher
than its supply were true – it has provided no evidence thereof – it can therefore not explain the
negligible export quantities.
(e) Claim that ratio of production to export in Argentina is low
4.154 Argentina argues, that European Communities Members share of output to exports would be
similar to those of Argentina. The figures given in Exhibit ARG. XXIV show, for instance, that in
1998, the percentages of the output of hides and skins in kilos exported were the following: France
4.16 percent, Spain 1.54 percent and Ireland 4.51 percent, which is not too far removed from the
Argentine figure of 0.85 percent. Hence, in perspective with European Communities figures,
Argentine exports are not "negligible."
4.155 In the absence of any legal obligation whatsoever, what criterion of economic logic should
lead Argentina to slaughter its cattle stock in order to increase the international supply of hides?
4.156 The European Communities contests the figures provided by Argentina with regard to
France, Spain and Ireland. The statistics that the European Communities has at its disposal show
that:
109
- In 1999, France exported 38.719 tons of raw bovine hides (7.322 tons to non-EU
countries and 31.397 tons to European Communities Member States), while its 1999
production of raw bovine hides is estimated at 159.838 tons. In other words, in 1999
France exported about 20 percent of its hide production.
- In 1999, Spain alone exported 27603 tons of raw bovine hides (3083 tons to non-EU
countries and 24520 tons to other EU countries) while its 1999 production of raw
bovine hides is estimated at 72489 tons. In other words, in 1999 Spain exported
about 35 percent of its bovine raw hide production.
- In 1999, Ireland exported 46464 tons of ra w bovine hides (6190 tons to non-EU
countries and 40274 to EU Member States), while its 1999 production is estimated at
59340 tonnes. In other words, in 1999, Ireland exported more than 75 percent of its

108 In 1999, the EU tanners processed far more hides (965110 tons) than the EU produced (779735
tons). There is thus a serious "shortage" of hides in the EU, at least when one compares production figures with
consumption (about 190000 tons). Nevertheless, in 1999 the EU exported 17.2percent of its raw bovine hides
production.
109 See exhibit EC I-38.

raw bovine hides production (Ireland's capacity to tan bovine hides is rather limited as
there are only three relatively small tanneries which process bovine hides)
- In 1999, the 15 EU Member States altogether exported 134127 tons of raw hides to
non-EU Member States, while the 1999 EU 15 production of raw bovine hides is
estimated at 779735 tons. In other words, in 1999 the EU 15 exported about 17.2
percent of its raw bovine hide production.
4.157 That same year, the 15 EU Member States imported 319502 tons of raw hides from non-
European Communities Member States. Its apparent consumption (production -exports + imports)
was 965110 tons. Thus, in 1999, the EU tanners processed far more hides (965110 tons) than the EU
produced (779735 tons). There is thus a serious "shortage" of hides in the EU, at least when one
compares production figures with consumption. Nevertheless, in 1999 the EU exported 17.2 percent
of its raw bovine hides production.
4.158 The European Communities states that Argentina compares figures that cannot be compared
when comparing its own production of raw bovine hi des with its export of raw hides and wet blue.
The proper comparison to be made is between production of raw hides and export of raw hides. The
second page only concerns export figures (from France, Spain and Ireland) of raw hides only (and no
wet blue). Again, the proper comparison to be made is that between export of Argentinean raw hides
(less than 1/1000 of annual hide production) a nd French, Spanish and Irish exports of raw hides
(which are all several percent, as shown above).
4.159 Argentina disagrees with the approximation used by the EC in its submissions when it refers
to exports of Argentine bovine hides using export data based on raw hides and disregarding exports of
wet blue hides. This contradicts the very terms of reference established by the EC in its initial
complaint.
110
4.160 The figures put forward by Argentina when it refers to its exports of bovine hides concern
raw hides and wet blue, since this is consistent with the terms of reference of this Panel. We stress
that these figures clearly show that there is no de facto ban on the export of bovine hides in Argentina.
4.161 Argentina maintains that the EC 's attempt to divert the original complaint concerning the
alleged export restrictions on both types of hides constitutes an adjustment of the original complaint in
the light of the growing Argentinean exports of wet blue.
B. VIOLATION OF ARTICLE X:3 (A) OF THE GATT 1994
1. Allegation that Resolution 2235 commits Argentina to an administration of customs laws
which is not impartial, reasonable, and uniform
4.162 The European Communities claims that the authorization contained in Resolution 2235 is
inconsistent with GATT Article X:3(a), which stipulates that Members must administer trade
regulations in a uniform and impartial manner. The authorization - through Resolution 2235 - of
representatives of the Argentinean tanning industry to be present during the customs' export
verification procedures of raw hides, makes an impartial, reasonable, and uniform application of the
Argentinean customs law impossible, as the industry so authorized has an interest in having exclusive
access to raw material when that raw material is legitimately offered for export.
4.163 In its European Communities-Bananas ruling, the Appellate Body compared the language of
Article X:3(a) of the GATT with that of Article 1:3 of the WTO Import Licensing Agreement. The
panel noted that there were differences between both Articles, in that the latter provides that

110 Paragraph 10 of the first written submission and reply by the Community to question 1 of the Panel.

"the rules for import licensing procedures shall be neutral in application and
administered in a fair and equitable way."
4.164 The Appellate Body nevertheless attached no importance to this difference in wording:
"In our view, the two phrases are, for all practical purposes, interchangeable."111
4.165 These findings of the Appellate Body clearly indicate that Article X:3(a) is about basic
principles of fair, equitable, neutral and equal treatment in the application of laws, regulations and
(administrative) procedures related to trade in goods.
4.166 The European Communities avows that both the right contained in Resolution 2235 of
representatives of the Argentinean tanning industry to be informed whenever anybody attempts to
export, as well as the fact that representatives of ADICMA, an industry which has a strong interest in
keeping raw material in Argentina, may be present at the customs inspection results in a violation of
Article X, paragraph 3 a of the GATT, as since under such circumstances a " uniform, impartial and
reasonable" application of the Argentinean customs laws is impossible. The Argentinean government
is of course equally aware that Resolution 2235 has this effect
. This is underscored in particular by:
-- the fact that the industry allowed to participate is the only user of the raw material concerned,
and that the raw material in question concerned represents more than 50 percent of the
production cost of the finished product (leather);
-- the fact that this industry has always expressly and openly stated that it wants access of
foreign buyers to its domestic raw material be restricted, hence shown its partiality and
interest in the products concerned;
-- the fact that, until just before the introduction of that measure the export of the product
subject to that measure was squarely prohibited, and had been subject to open prohibitions
and restrictions during more than 20 years;
-- the fact that it does not take specific expertise to distinguish between products eligible for
refunds and raw hides or wet blue.
4.167 It cannot be considered "reasonable" that the interested industry is informed of all (attempts
at) exports by those from whom they wish and ef fectively managed to obtain the exclusive right to
purchase hides. The European Communities maintains that Argentina completely fails to explain why
the very peculiar situation that sellers must submit to the presence of representatives of their potential
domestic buyers when they export goods should be considered "reasonable."
4.168 As was noted above, the measure was introduced and expanded upon repeated requests of an
industry that (i) uses a certain raw material, namely hides, (ii) has an obvious interest in keeping this
commodity's market closed; and (iii) has expressed the view that one cannot allow for a liberalisation
of this market.
4.169 Given this context, allowing an industry to participate in customs control of a raw material in
which it has a vested interest can only be designed to allow that industry to have that procedure
applied to its advantage.
4.170 It is obvious that the participation of representatives of an industry which has a clear interest
in impeding the export of its raw material introduces a manifest element of partiality into a customs

111 Report by the Appellate Body on European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas, AB-1997-3, WT/DS27/AB/R, 9 September 1997, at paragraph 203 2nd subparagraph.

procedure. Legislation which unnecessarily allows certain interested private parties to take part in
customs procedures which can be turned to their commercial advantage by definition creates the risk
that there will be partial administration of those procedures.
4.171 The fact that the Argentinean government was apparently making certain information
available on-line does not detract from the fact that the presence of persons who are not a party to the
export transaction is incompatible with Article X:3(a).
4.172 The European Communities also argues that it cannot be considered reasonable when customs
formalities are applied in such a way that a representative of all potential Argentinean hide buyers,
any time when one of their suppliers would like to se ll abroad rather than to them, is allowed to see
and sign a document which contains the details of the export deal, including business confidential
information to which even under Argentinean law itself access should be legally restricted. In fact,
the immediate context of Article X:3 makes clear that the drafters of the General Agreement would
have considered this clearly unreasonable. This results from the fact that in Article X:1, last sentence,
it is stipulated that the obligations of that paragraph shall not require WTO Members to "disclose
confidential information which (…) would prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of particular
enterprises, public or private." The Argentinean measure therefore results in the opposite of what the
drafters of Article X considered important, i.e. protection of legitimate business secrets.
4.173 In reply to a question by the Panel, the European Communities elaborates its claim, that
Resolution 2235 is in violation of Article X:3(a), inter alia, because it entails an administration of
relevant customs rules which is not uniform in that for the particular products mentioned in the
Resolution a separate method of administration is introduced. The European Communities accepts
that for e.g. certain agricultural products special sanitary and phytosanitary checks at the border may
be indispensable and that to that extent the administration of customs procedures will not be uniform.
However, the obligation to administer trade regulations (in the sense of Article X:1) in a uniform
manner must be read in its context, which is to administer those regulations in a "uniform, impartial
and reasonable" manner. These words inform one another and clarify the meaning of the obligation.
The fact is that Resolution 2235 only applies to certain products, while for very many products
"reembolsos" exist. This means that the justificatio n given by Argentina for Resolution 2235 is not
valid. Therefore, in this case the non-uniform application of the Argentinean export procedures – i.e.
the fact that Argentina only gives a certain industry the right to be present, for certain products –
shows that the Decree violates Article X:3(a).
4.174 Moreover, the European Communities maintains that the three criteria of X:3(a) are
cumulative. So even if one considers that the fact that a certain method of administration of trade
laws in the sense of Article X:3(a) is not "uniform" is not a problem in itself, Resolution 2235
certainly is neither a reasonable nor impartial way of administering those export procedures.
4.175 Argentina contests the European Communities' interpretation of the last sentence of
Article X:1, since that sentence represents a waiver of the obligation to publish confidential
information, and not a ban on the publication of such information. The final sentence of paragraph 1
is an exemption from the obligation to publish. It is not an obligation. The Agreement has left it to
the discretion of Members to decide whether or not to publish the confidential information contained
in the laws, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rulings.
112
4.176 Argentina asserts that the ADICMA experts have no access whatsoever to the material
"offered for export." The experts intervene only when the deal to export the goods, i.e. the export
operation, has already been closed. Consequently, it is not clear how this could be in breach of the

112 The obligation to publish, combined with the exemption from such obligation in the case of
confidential information, is irrelevant for the purposes of determining the alleged unreasonable application of
RG 2235/96; see Argentina second submission B III 3.

obligation under Article X:3(a), even allowing for the legal interpretation put forward by the
European Communities.
4.177 The European Communities argues that Argentina misunderstands its the arguments. The
European Communities has never argued that the Resolution which it contests allows ADICMA-
representatives to be present during contractual negotiations, e.g. when a slaughterhouse would send a
fax to a potential foreign buyer. However, as ADICMA-representatives may be present when
Argentinean customs procedures related to exportation of goods are applied, they are present when
export regulations are being administered, which falls under Article X of the GATT, including
paragraph 3 thereof. The European Communities recalls that Article X:1 – to which Article X:3 refers
back - covers inter alia "requirements, restrictions or prohibitions on imports and exports" and that in
for instance European Communities-Bananas,
113 import licensing regulations were found to fall under
Article X, paragraphs 1 and 3.
4.178 Argentina argues that the European Communities has neither provided any evidence to show
that impartial application of customs rules is im possible in the presence of ADICMA representatives,
nor has it been able to explain what is "not reasonable" about industry participation in this procedure.
Argentina regards ADICMA participation as reasonable for the purpose of checking the quality and
tariff classification of the goods for export.
2. Applicability of Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 to Resolution 2235
4.179 Argentina maintains that the European Communities mistakenly applies the Article X:3(a) to
Resolution 2235 which is a substantive rule of specific nature. The Article, however is only
applicable to general rules. Moreover, Article X applies only between WTO Members, but not within
the territory of a Member State. In addition, Argentina points out that Article X:1 only authorizes the
exemption from the obligation to publish and does not mention an explicit obligation to protect
confidentiality, which would be protected indirectly by Article X:3(a) through Article X:1.
4.180 Argentina maintains that Resolution 2235 is not a general rule, but a substantive rule of a
specific nature, as it is directed towards a perfectly identifiable number of persons, the members of
ADICMA to whom it grants the authority to be present during export procedures. The specific nature
of the rule is also shown since it was issued only on the application of a party. This definition is
consistent with precedent
 , according to which:
"... If, for instance, the restraint was addressed to a specific company or applied to a specific
shipment, it would not have qualified as a measure of general application. However, to the
extent that the restraint affects an unidentified number of economic operators, including
domestic and foreign producers, we find it to be a measure of general application."114
4.181 The essential requirement, as recognized by the Appellate Body, is that it should be designed
to affect an unidentified number of persons. In the case at issue, the number of persons is perfectly
identifiable. Thus, Resolution 2235 is not covered by Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.

113 Report by the Appellate Body on European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas, Op. Cit., at paragraph 203.
114 Report of the Panel in " United States - Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-Made Fibre
Underwear," WT/DS/24/R, paragraph 7.65, confirmed by the Appellate Body, and Report of the Appellate
Body in European Communities - Measures Affecting the Importation of Certain Poultry Products ,
WT/DS69/AB/R, paragraph 113. "… if, for instance, the restraint was addressed to a specific company or
applied to a specific shipment, it would not have qualified as a measure of general application. However, to the
extent that the restraint affects an unidentified number of economic operators, including domestic and foreign
producers, we find it to be a measure of general application."

4.182 Argentina states that GATT Article X refers to the same rules of a general nature throughout
the text of the entire Article. The European Communities cannot argue that the alleged general rules
regulating Argentine exports (which it does not identify) are those set forth in paragraph 1 of
Article X, and that Resolution 2235 concerns the administration of those rules, and is consequently
covered by paragraph 3(a) of Article X. The difference between the paragraphs lies in the fact that
paragraph 1 of Article X refers to the publication of rules, while paragraph 3(a) refers to their
administration. The European Communities interpretation of Resolution 2235 as constituting a
particular method of administering export regulations is supported neither by the text of the
Resolution nor by the object and purpose pursued.
4.183 Argentina asserts that the scope of Article X of the GATT covers only the administration of a
rule, yet not its own substantive character. Article X:3(a), was not designed for situations where the
substantive content of a rule is questioned. In the case at issue, the European Communities merely
argued that the substantive content of Resolution 2235 was inconsistent, i.e. the authorization granted
by the Argentine State for the designated ADICMA representatives to be present during the customs
clearance of the goods. In other words, what the European Communities claims to be inconsistent is
the substantive content of the rule in question and not its administration.
4.184 In support of its arguments, Argentina quotes the Appellate Body:
115
"Article X relates to the publication and administration of "laws, regulations,
judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application," rather than to the
substantive content of such measures. In European Communities - Bananas , we
stated:
The text of Article X:3(a) clearly indicates that the requirements of "uniformity,
impartiality and reasonableness" do not apply to the laws, regulations, decisions and
rulings themselves, but rather to the administration of those laws, regulations,
decisions and rulings. The context of Article X:3(a) within Article X, which is
entitled "Publication and Administration of Trade Regulations," and a reading of the
other paragraphs of Article X, make it clear that Article X applies to the
administration of laws, regulations, decisions and rulings. To the extent that the
laws, regulations, decisions and rulings themselves are discriminatory, they can be
examined for their consistency with the relevant provisions of the GATT 1994."
Thus, to the extent that Brazil's appeal relates to the substantive content of the European
Communities rules themselves, and not to their publication or administration , that appeal
falls outside the scope of Article X of the GATT 1994. The WTO-consistency of such

115 Report of the Appellate Body in European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas , Op. Cit., paragraph 200: "The text of Article X:3(a) clearly indicates that the
requirements of "uniformity, impartiality and reasonable ness" do not apply to the laws, regulations, decisions
and rulings themselves, but rather to the administration of those laws, regulations, decisions and rulings. The
context of Article X:3(a) within Article X, which is entitled "Publication and Administration of Trade
Regulations," and a reading of the other paragraphs of Article X, make it clear that Article X applies to the
administration of laws, regulations, decisions and rulings. To the extent that the laws, regulations, decisions
and rulings themselves are discriminatory, they can be examined for their consistency with the relevant
provisions of the GATT 1994." Report of the Appellate Body on European Communities - Measures Affecting
the Importation of Certain Poultry Products , Op. Cit., paragraph VI.7: "Thus, to the extent that Brazil's appeal
relates to the substantive content of the European Communities rules themselves, and not to their publication or
administration, that appeal falls outside the scope of Article X of the GATT 1994. The WTO-consistency of
such substantive content must be determined by reference to provisions of the covered agreements other than
Article X of the GATT 1994."

substantive content must be determined by reference to provisions of the covered agreements
other than Article X of the GATT 1994."116
4.185 Argentina contends that Resolution 2235 is administered or applied in a uniform, impartial
and reasonable manner to all of the subjects covered by it. The European Communities has not
proven otherwise. The European Communities is taking an erroneous approach to the issue in
thinking that because other persons are not authorized to be present during customs clearance of the
goods, the rule is being administered in a partial, non-uniform and unreasonable manner. The fact is,
there is no reason for other persons to be present during clearance because the rule is not designed for
that purpose. The presence of the other interested parties, the exporter or the exporter's customs
agent, is governed by Articles 340 and 36 of the Argentine Customs Code.
117
4.186 In conclusion, if the European Communities considers that the rule is inconsistent because it
authorizes ADICMA to be present during customs clearance of the goods or because other persons
should be present, in other words because of its substantive content, its allegation should be examined
under other provisions of the Agreement, as stated by the Appellate Body. Only because the
European Communities doubts whether it can prove the alleged de facto ban on hides exports
(Article XI:1) does it erroneously resort to Article X:3(a), applying it to a situation for which it was
not designed.
4.187 Argentina argues further that Article X:3(a) does not deal with the application of laws,
regulations, decisions and rulings of a general nature within the territory of the member State, but
refers to the manner in which a Member applies its rules vis-à-vis other Members of the WTO.
4.188 In the present case, the European Communities makes an erroneous interpretation which is
totally at variance with the one it offered in the case brought by Chile in respect of dessert apples. In
that case, the European Communities maintained that the Article referred to the application of its
regulations relating to apple-exporting members, not to their application in an impartial manner within
its own territory. In the case cited, the European Communities argued that: "… the Chilean case was
based on a misinterpretation of Article X:3(a), whose correct meaning they gave as requiring in
substance that the administration of trade measures by the various administrations should not be
discriminatory among the contracting parties … The European Communities denied that the
Community surveillance measures were administered in a different manner with regard to imports of
Chilean apples and imports of apples originating in other contracting parties."
118
4.189 Argentina maintains that it applies Resolution 2235 in an impartial manner, as the resolution
allows ADICMA representatives to be present when hides were being exported to any destination, not
only the European Union.
4.190 The European Communities argues that Argentina's assertion that Article X:3 can only
apply in case trade regulations are applied differently to different WTO Members is unfounded. Such
a way of administering trade regulation certainly woul d fall foul of Article X:3 since it would clearly
not be "uniform." However, Article X:3 also prohibits partial and unreasonable ways of
administering trade regulations. Argentina's read ing of Article X:3 would deprive those words of

116 Report of the Appellate Body in European Communities - Measures Affecting the Importation of
Certain Poultry Products, Op. Cit., paragraph 115.
117 Article 340 of the Argentine Customs Code stipulates that: "the exporter or, where appropriate, the
customs agent acting as a representative of the exporter, must participate in the inspection of the goods … ."
118 "EEC - Restrictions on Imports of Dessert Apples - Complaint by Chile," 36S/132, paragraph 6.5.

meaning, which is contrary to the Appellate Body's constant case-law that a treaty interpreter must
give full meaning to all terms in a treaty, and cannot read parts of a treaty into redundancy.119
4.191 Argentina maintains that Article X:3(a) does not concern the application of the laws,
regulations, judicial decisions and administrative ru lings of general application within the territory of
the Member, but rather with the way in which the Member applies its rules in respect of the other
Members of the WTO.
4.192 Argentina submits that the European Communities itself had invoked the precedent of
Bananas III, in which it requests the Appellate Body to rule on two issues:
"The first issue is whether the requirements of uniformity, impartiality and
reasonableness set out in Article X:3(a) preclude the imposition of different import
licensing systems on like products imported from different Members …."
4.193 Argentina argues that the European Communities refers to different import licensing systems
on like products imported from different Members. It is not referring to different import licensing
systems for importers, but licensing systems which are different in respect of different Members of
the WTO. While it is true that the Appellate Body reversed the Panel's conclusion based on the
attribution of a minimum value as a precedent to the Interpretative Note of the Director-General, it is
also true that the Appellate Body did not rule against the argument that this was a form of
discrimination among Members, but reversed the Panel's conclusion based on the finding that the
question raised referred to the substantive content or administration of the rules that were supposed to
be examined in the light of the Article X:3(a) obligations. In this case, the Appellate Body defined
the import licensing regulations as being of substantive content, and having defined Article X:3(a) as
referring to the application of the laws, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rulings of
general application, the substantive content of the rule was not covered by the Article.
120 The
Appellate Body found in this legal reasoning suffic ient grounds for reversing the conclusion of the
Panel, which had amalgamated the concepts of "substantive content" and "administration."
4.194 Regarding the argument concerning confidential information, the European Communities
once again uses the kind of reasoning it used with respect to Article XI:1, applying the same
arguments to persuade the Panel that Argentina administered its laws, regulations, judicial decisions
and administrative rulings of general application badly, adducing that the immediate context of
paragraph 3(a) of Article X is paragraph 1 of that Article. Argentina agrees entirely with this
assertion, because paragraph 3(a) itself refers to the rules of general application mentioned in
paragraph 1.
4.195 Argentina does not agree with the idea that the confidential information in the last sentence of
paragraph 1 is relevant for the purposes of determining whether it administers Resolution 2235 in
conformity with paragraph 3(a) of Article X.
4.196 The European Communities is using the last sentence of Article X:1 wrongly, since that
sentence represents a waiver of the obligation to publish confidential information, and not a ban on
the publication of such information. Moreover, the publication referred to in paragraph 1 of Article X

119 See for instance the Report by the Appellate Body on Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation
of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products , WT/DS103/AB/R, WT/DS113/AB/R, 13 October 1999, at
paragraph 133.
120 "The context of Article X:3(a) within Article X, which is entitled 'Publication and Administration of
Trade Regulations', and a reading of the other paragraphs of Article X, makes it clear that Article X applies to
the Administration of laws, regulations, decisions and rulings … ." Paragraph 200 of the report of the Appellate
Body in European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, Op. Cit.

concerns laws, regulations, judicial decisions or administrative rulings of general application that a
WTO Member has put into force.
4.197 The final sentence of paragraph 1 is an exemption from the obligation to publish. It is not an
obligation. The Agreement has left it to the discretion of Members to decide whether or not to publish
the confidential information contained in the laws , regulations, judicial decisions and administrative
rulings. In any case, as far as publication is concerned, Argentina fulfilled all of its obligations under
Article X:1, which does not form part of these proceedings.
4.198 This obligation to publish, combined with the exemption from such obligation in the case of
confidential information, is irrelevant for the purposes of determining the alleged unreasonable
application of Resolution 2235.
4.199 The European Communities state that they agree with Argentina that the contested measure
is not one "of general application" but rather an instance of "administration" of the generally
applicable customs procedures for exports in Argentina within the meaning of Art. X:1. It is precisely
for that reason that the contested measure falls under Art. X:3(a).
4.200 According to the European Communities, the contested measure relates to the administration
of other laws, regulations and so forth in the sens e of Art. X:3(a) GATT, and is therefore properly
challenged by the European Communities under that provision. Argentina has confirmed that there
are various laws, regulations and so forth which apply to the exportation of goods from Argentina.
For instance, as Exhibit Arg-XXX it has provided a Resolution No. 1,284/95, providing rules on what
kind of export declarations must be made. Also it has provided Resolution No. 125/97 on customs
controls when products are exported.
4.201 The European Communities contend that the contested measure (Res. 2235/96) prescribes a
certain method of administration of such laws. It stipulates that for certain products, when an export
declaration has been made, ADICMA will be informed. It also stipulates that when those products are
checked by Argentinean customs officials, ADICMA-representatives may be present. In other words,
it provides for a certain way of administering the general customs procedures when certain products
are concerned.
4.202 The European Communities do not contest the fact that Argentina applies customs checks
before exports are allowed, which is a general measure falling within the scope of Art. X:1. The
European Communities contest that when this regulation on export checks is administered - i.e.
applied - to certain products (namely those mentione d in Res. 2235/96) it is administered in a way
which allows and enables ADICMA-representatives to be present.
4.203 The European Communities state that since Res. 2,235.96 has an export restrictive effect, they
challenge the substance of that measure under Art. XI. Since, for the products it covers, it makes an
impartial and reasonable application of Argentinean export procedures impossible, the EC properly
challenges that effect of the measure under Art. X:3.(a).
4.204 The European Communities consider that contrary to what Argentina argues, Article X:3 (a)
clearly applies to the administration of trade laws in the sense of Article X:1 within a WTO Member's
territory. That follows from the plain wording of Article X:3 (a). In fact it is hard to see where else a
WTO Member can administer its trade laws than within its own territory.
4.205 The European Communities state that contrary to what Argentina argues, Art. X :3(a) applies
to all unreasonable and partial methods of administering trade laws. Since the provision inter alia

obliges WTO Members to administer trade laws 121 "in a uniform . manner", it certainly prohibits
discriminatory application in an unreasonable and partial manner of trade laws.
4.206 According to the European Communities, it is however not limited to that situation. It is clear
from the wording of Art. X :3(a) that it enunciates three cumulative obligations ; trade laws must be
administered not only in a uniform manner, but also in an impartial manner, and in a reasonable
manner. Applying national export regulations to certain products in a partial and unreasonable manner
is a violation of Art. X :3(a), also if that is done with regard to exports irrespective of their
destination."
V. THIRD PARTY SUBMISSION BY THE UNITED STATES
5.1 In its third party submission, the United States makes observations on the purpose and scope
of Article XI GATT; and offers observations on some factual aspects of the dispute. It concludes that
the measure in question may well constitute a prohibited export restriction under Article XI of
GATT 1994.
5.2 An export restriction under the apparent circumstances of the present case, that is, potentially
intended to benefit domestic industry, either by bestowing a raw material price advantage on the
domestic industry, or by restricting the supply of the raw material to foreign competitors, is precisely
the trade distortion the Article XI seeks to prohibit. The US recalls that hides are a by-product of
meat production, and their supply is dictated by the demand for meat, not by the demand for hides. It
argues that when demand for hides is limited, the supply does not decline as it would normally do in
the case of non-by-products. Rather, supply continues, unaffected by demand, and the prices decline
to reflect the limited demand relative to supply. For this reason, restricting exports of hides from
Argentina could have enormous economic value to Argentine tanners: if there is a large supply of
hides produced by the meat industry and a limited demand by Argentine tanners, this will result in
low input costs for the Argentine tanners. Further, eliminating sales of Argentine hides to competing
tanneries outside of Argentina would keep world market prices of hides — the prices that the
Argentine tanners' competitors must pay — relativel y high. In other words, restricting exports of
hides from Argentina could bestow a substantial economic benefit on the Argentine tanning industry,
and could disadvantage its foreign competitors.
5.3 The 1950 Report of the Working Party on "The Use of Quantitative Restrictions for
Protective and Commercial Purposes,"
122 which examined the use of both import and export
restrictions, concluded that:
"the Agreement does not permit the imposition of restrictions upon the export of a
raw material in order to protect or promote a domestic industry, whether by
affording a price advantage to that industry for the purchase of its materials, or by
reducing the supply of such materials available to foreign competitors, or by other
means. However, it was agreed that the question of the objective of any given
export restriction would have to be determined on the basis of the facts in each
individual case."
5.4 Any export restrictions on Argentine hides, therefore, could potentially be a textbook example
of the kind of practice that Article XI:1 is intended to prevent.
5.5 As concerns the scope of GATT Article XI, the US observes that language of the provision is
broad, and prohibits export restrictions "made effective," not just through quotas and licenses, but also

121 By trade laws in this section are meant all laws, regulations etc. covered by Art. X:1.
122 GATT/CP. 4/33, Sales No. GATT/1950-3

through "other measures" of a contracting party. As the Panel in " Japan - Trade in Semiconductors"
noted,
"Article XI:1, unlike other provisions of the General Agreement, did not refer to
laws or regulations, but more broadly to measures. This wording indicated clearly
that any measure instituted or maintained by a contracting party which restricted
the exportation or sale for export or products was covered by this provision,
irrespective of the legal status of the measure."
5.6 In addition to not being limited to laws and regulations, Article XI:1 is also not limited to
measures that explicitly restrict exports, such as export quotas or licenses. Rather, it prohibits export
restrictions that are "made effective" by measures, whether or not those measures, by their literal
terms, prohibit or restrict exports.
5.7 Whether an export restriction is made effective through a measure can be a fact-intensive
inquiry, depending heavily on the context and the surrounding factual circumstances. In Japan -
Trade in Semiconductors , the Panel had to consider whether certain measures of the Japanese
government were export restrictions, even though they were not legally binding or mandatory. The
Panel examined the entire factual context of the measures, after noting that government-industry
relations vary from country to country and from industry to industry, and concluded that
" All these factors led the Panel to conclude that an administrative structure had been
created by the Government of Japan which operated to exert maximum possible
pressure on the private sector to cease exporting at prices below company-specific
costs. … These measures operated furthermore to facilitate strong peer pressure to
comply with requests by MITI and at the same time to foster a climate of uncertainty
as to the circumstances under which their exports could take place. The Panel
considered that the complex of measures exhibited the rationale as well as the essential
elements of a formal system of export control. . . . The Panel concluded that the
complex of measures constituted a coherent system restricting the sale for export of
monitored semi-conductors at prices below company-specific costs to market other
than the United States, inconsistent with Article XI:1."
123
5.8 The United States maintains that the factual and historical context of Argentina's measure
concerning the export of bovine hides, described in the European Communities' submission, strongly
suggests that this measure operates as a prohibited export restriction:
5.9 The United States notes that Article XI:1 does not prohibit all export restrictions, but only
export restrictions other than transparent and non-discriminatory means of taxes, duties, or charges.
In the present case, the Argentine authorities found that the export tax was insufficient to achieve its
purposes, and so conjoined it with some other non-tax measure apparently aimed at discouraging
exports. Those other measures are what Article XI:1 is aimed at eliminating. This is particularly true
in the case of export-restricting measures that are not, by their literal terms, export restricting, but
which have the purpose and effect of restricting exports.
5.10 The United States notes that, the presence of the hide exporter's domestic customers at the
export processing would, in the absence of strict and reliable procedures, raise a well-founded fear
that valuable commercial information could be compromised and/or misused by the domestic
customers. This alone could chill exports and constitute an export restriction. The protection of
confidential business information from disclosure is critical to the rights and obligations assumed
under the WTO. There is a wide recognition under the WTO Agreements that the threat of
compromising confidential information may prevent interested parties from benefiting from the rights

123 L/6309, adopted on May 4, 1988, 35S/116, 153-155, paragraph 117.

granted by the WTO 124. The United States points out, however, that the possible disclosure of
sensitive confidential information is only one aspect of this measure that might effect an export
restriction. Even if confidential information is protected, the right of notification and presence of the
tanners may still act as a strong disincentive to export.
5.11 The United States notes that this dispute, although presented in the context of a particular
export restriction, may raise concerns of a more systemic nature. Whether a Member can avoid
prohibitive restrictions under the WTO simply by putting the "fox in charge of the henhouse" (rather
than taking the specific prohibited action itself) is an issue that could apply as easily to import
restrictions as to export restrictions. The Pane l should consider the systemic implications of this
dispute as it undertakes its task.
5.12 As concerns the scope of Article XI:1, the United States further disagrees with Argentina's
interpretation of the standard developed in the Japan - Trade in Semiconductors dispute:
5.13 First, the United States contends that dispute at issue is very different from that presented in
the Semiconductors case, and it can be misleading to apply the criteria used in that dispute to this
dispute. While in Semiconductors, the focus was measures undertaken by the Japanese government
aimed at the producing/exporting entities, in the present case, the measure is directed, not at the
producer/exporters, but at their domestic customers who have the right to be notified of, and
participate in, the export processing of products that they apparently do not want exported.
Consequently, to apply correctly the first criterion of Semiconductors to this case, i.e. are there
reasonable grounds to believe that sufficient incentives or disincentives for non-mandatory measures
to take effect, the Panel should ask whether, given the apparent opposition of Argentine tanners to
hide exports and the long history of the restriction of such exports, a measure that notifies Argentine
tanners of hide exports and that gives them the right to participate in the export processing of those
hides would act effectively as a disincentive to exports, regardless of a legally binding effect.
5.14 With respect to the second criterion, i.e. that the operation of the measures was dependent on
Government action or intervention, the United States argues that the measure operates by virtue of
Government action, both because it results from government resolutions and because it is apparently
through government action that the Argentine tanners are notified of exports and are invited to
participate in their customs processing.
5.15 As concerns arguments on factual aspects of the case, the United States observes that it is not
dispositive whether or not the Argentine tanners have the legal ability to stop the particular export
they are asked to oversee. That the tanners are notified of any exports and will become privy to
information related to those exports (e.g., the identity of the hide seller) could itself effectively chill
export trade. Even if the particular export at issue cannot be stopped or made complicated in some
manner by the Argentine tanners, the same cannot be said about subsequent transactions.
5.16 Concerning the alleged purpose of the tanner representatives at export verification, it seems
curious that an industry association would put so much effort – first in obtaining the right to be
present, then in actually overseeing export processing – simply to ensure the accuracy of the
government's export statistics.

124 For instance, Article X of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994
(Customs Valuation) and Article 2.9 - 2.13 of the Agreement on Preshipment Inspection recognize the
importance of protecting confidential information from disclosure in the context of customs processing.
Article 2.14 of the latter agreement also recognizes the need for preshipment entities to avoid conflicts of
interest. More generally, Section 7 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
protect the rights of persons to prevent proprietary information from being "disclosed to, acquired by, or used by
others without their consent in a manner contrary to honest commercial practices."

5.17 The United States observes further that it is irrelevant that the tanners may be verifying
exports of their own products, as well as those of their suppliers. The point is that, as applied to their
suppliers, this measure could amount to an export restriction.
5.18 Concerning Argentina's argument that no domestic complaints over Resolution 2235 had been
launched, the United States argues that this is not probative of whether the Argentine measures are
export restrictions under the WTO. Argentine law might or might not prohibit actions that a WTO
panel might find to constitute prohibited export restrictions under Article XI. Further, there may be
many reasons for not bringing a formal complaint to Argentine authorities that have nothing to do
with the merits of the claim.
5.19 The United States argues that the lack of exports following the imposition of a measure may
well be probative of whether the measure constitutes an export restriction. This is particularly true
where there is an apparent strong interest in trade in Argentine hides, and where the economic
conditions appear favourable for such trade. In a similar manner, the Panel in Semiconductors
examined prices before and after the measures at issue in that case, to determine whether the measure
was having an impact on exports.
125
VI. FACTUAL ASPECTS (TAX MEASURES ON IMPORTS)
A. THE IVA
6.1 The IVA is a general value added tax system. It is regulated in:
-- the Law on the IVA ( Ley del Impuesto al Valor Agregado) (the "IVA Law") ;126
-- the Decree 692/98 implementing the IVA Law 127 (the "IVA Regulation"); and
-- the resolutions ( resoluciones) issued from time to time by the Administración Federal
de Ingresos Públicos - Dirección General Impositiva (the "AFIP-DGI").
6.2 The types of transactions subject to the IVA include, inter alia, the sale of goods within the
Argentine territory 128 and the definitive importation of goods into that territory. 129 In the case of
imports, the IVA is collected together with any applicable import duties. 130 In the case of internal
sales, the seller must charge the IVA to the purchaser 131 and then pay the amounts so collected to the
Treasury on a monthly basis, 132 after deducting therefrom any IVA paid on its own purchases and
imports during the same period.133

125 Japan - Trade in Semiconductors, Op. Cit., paragraph 119.
126 Ley del Impuesto al Valor Agregado No 23349 (B.O. of 15.4.97) (Exhibit EC – II.1), as last
amended by Law No 25239 of 31 December 1999 (Exhibit EC –II.3).
127 Decreto del Poder Ejecutivo 692/98 (B.O. of 17.6.1998).
128 Articles 1 a) and 4 a) and b) of the IVA Law.
129 Ibid., Articles 1 c). See also Article 2 of the IVA Regulation.
130 Article 27 of the IVA Law.
131 Ibid., Articles 37, 39 and 41.
132 Ibid., Article 27.
133 Ibid., Article 12.

6.3 The IVA rates applicable to both imports and internal sales are the following:134
Transaction Applicable rate
Generally applicable rate 21 %
Live bovine animals, meat and offal of bovines, and fresh fruits,
vegetables and pulses
10.5 %
6.4 Taxable persons whose annual sales do not exceed a certain amount may choose not to
register themselves with the tax authorities. 135 Non-registered taxable persons ( responsables no
inscriptos) are dispensed from making direct payments to the Treasury in respect of their internal
sales.136
6.5 The IVA Law confers to the AFIP-DGI the authority to regulate the "collection at the source"
(percepción en la fuente) of the IVA.137 On that basis, the AFIP-DGI has issued Resolutions 3431 138
and 3337, 139 which provide, respectively, for the "collection at the source" of the IVA on the
importation of goods and on certain internal sales.
B. ADVANCES ON THE IVA
1. Collection of the IVA on imports
6.6 Resolution 3431 provides that, where goods are definitively imported into Argentine territory,
the customs authorities must "collect" ( percibir) an additional amount, besides the ordinary IVA due
on that import transaction. This advance on the final IVA liability may be credited against the
ordinary IVA due on the subsequent re-sale of the good in cases in which the importer is a registered
taxpayer
 .140 Where the importer is a non-registered taxpayer, the additional amount cannot be
credited because non-registered taxpayers are dispensed from making direct payments to the Treasury
in respect of their internal sales. Currently, the advance on imports is collected at the following
rates:141
Live bovine animals, offal of bovines, and fresh
fruits, vegetables & pulses
Other goods
Registered Taxpayers 5 % 10 %
Non-registered
taxpayers
5.8 % 12.7 %

134 Ibid., Article 28.
135 Ibid., Article 29.
136 Where a registered taxpayer makes a sale to a non-registered one, it must charge, besides the IVA
due on that sale, an additional amount determined by assessing the applicable IVA rate on 50 percent of the net
sales price (cf. Articles 4, 30 and 38 of the IVA Law). That additional amount is assumed to represent the IVA
due on the subsequent re-sale of the goods by the non-registered taxpayer.
137 Article 27 of the IVA Law. See also Decree 2394 (B. O. of 11 November 1991), which empowers
the Administración Nacional de Aduanas to act as an agent for the "collection" of the IVA, Exhibit EC II.4.
138 Resolución General No 3431 of 19 November 1991 (hereinafter, "RG 3431"), Exhibit EC – II.5.
139 Resolución General No 3337 of 7 March 1991 (hereinafter, "RG 3337"), Exhibit EC – II.6.
140 RG 3431, Article 4.
141 RG 3431, Article 3.

6.7 The above rates are applied on the same base as the ordinary IVA, 142 so that the following
rates are charged at import:
Live bovine animals, offal of bovines, and fresh
fruits, vegetables & pulses
Other goods
Registered Taxpayers 15.5 % 31 %
Non-registered
taxpayers
16.3 % 33.7 %
6.8 The advance IVA is collected on all import transactions, with the following exceptions:143
− re-importation of goods exempt from import duties;144
− imports of goods intended for the private use or consumption of the importer;145
− imports of so-called bienes de uso, i.e. goods intended for use in the economic activity of the
importer,146 except in the case of imports made by non-registered taxpayers; and
− imports of live bovines, under certain conditions.
2. Collection of the IVA on internal sales
6.9 Resolution 3337 provides that where certain categories of persons sell goods to a registered
taxpayer they must collect ( percibir), besides the ordinary IVA, an advance amount. 147 For internal
sales, the advance amount, paid on account of the final IVA liability, may be credited by the
purchaser of the goods against the IVA due on the re-sale of the goods.
148
6.10 The applicable rate on all internal transactio ns subject to the advance IVA is currently at
5 percent.149 That rate is applied on the same tax base as the ordinary IVA. 150 Thus, the overall IVA
rates charged on internal sales are the following:
Transaction Applicable rate
Generally applicable rate 26 %
Sales of live bovine animals, meat and offal of bovines, and fresh fruits
and vegetables
15.5 %
6.11 The persons required to collect the advance IVA on internal sales (the agentes de percepción)
are:151

142 RG 3431, Article 3.
143 RG 3431, Article 2.
144 See also Article 26 of the IVA Law.
145 See also Article 8 a) of the IVA Law.
146 In accordance with Article 33 of the IVA Law, bienes de uso are those with a useful life of more
than two years for the purposes of the Impuesto a las Ganancias.
147 RG 3337, Article 1.
148 Ibid., Article 9.
149 Ibid., Article 2.
150 Ibid.
151 Ibid., Article 1.

− the central Government, including its autonomous agencies;152
− the companies listed in Annex I to Resolution No 18/97;153
− the exporters included in a list published in the Official Journal by the AFIP-DGI;154
− the markets of grains; and
− the consignatarios de hacienda and auctioneers.
6.12 By way of exception, no payment on accounts are made on, inter alia, the following internal
transactions:
− sales of bienes de uso;155
− sales to agentes de percepción;156
− sales to financial entities subject to Law No 21526 (such as e.g. commercial banks,
investment banks, mortgage banks and savings banks);157
− sales to non-registered taxpayers; and
− sales where the amount of the tax collected would be lower than Pesos 21,30.158
C. THE IG
6.13 The IG is an annual tax on income, which applie s to both natural and juridical persons. It is
regulated in:
-- the Law on the IG ( Ley del Impuesto de Ganancias) (the "IG Law"); 159
-- the Decree 1344/98 implementing the IG Law; 160 and
-- the Resolutions issued from time to time by the DGI - AFI.
6.14 The IG is levied on all sources of income, 161 including the profits derived from the sale of
merchandise and other movable property, both domestic and imported.162
6.15 Currently, the profits derived from the exercise of an economic activity by a juridical person
are taxed at the rate of 35 percent.163 In the case of natural persons, the rate increases in proportion to

152 Article 2 of Resolución General No 18 of 23 September 1997 (hereinafter "RG 18"), Exhibit
EC - II.7. RG 18 has replaced Resolución General No 3125 cited in Article 1 of RG 3337.
153 Ibid.; The European Communities states that these are, generally speaking, large companies.
154 Ibid.
155 Article 1 of RG 3337.
156 Ibid., Article 3. b).
157 Ibid., Article 3. c).
158 Ibid., Article 5.
159 Ley de Impuesto a las Ganancias, as codified by Decree No 649/97 (B. O. 6.8.97),Exhibit EC II-2,
as last amended by Law No 25239 of 31 December 1999, Exhibit EC II-3.
160 Decreto Reglamentario 1344/98 (B. O. 25.11.1998).
161 Articles 1 and 2 of the IG Law.
162 Ibid., Articles 2; 49; 52 a) b) c) d) and e); 58; and 65.

the amount of taxable income. 164 In both cases, the rate applicable is the same, irrespective of
whether the profits are obtained with the sale of domestic or of imported goods.
D. ADVANCES ON THE IG
1. Collection of the IG on imports
6.16 Resolution 3543165 provides that the customs authorities shall "collect" ( percibir) a certain
amount on account of the IG when goods are definitively imported into Argentine territory. 166 The
amount so collected can be credited against the IG due by the importer in the same fiscal period. 167
The advance IG is collected on all import transactions, with the following exceptions:
• the re-importation of goods exempt from import duties;168 and
• the importation of bienes de uso.169
6.17 The rate applicable is 3 percent. 170 By way of exception, in the case of imports for the
importer's own use or consumption, the rate is 11 percent.171
2. Collection of the IG on internal sales
6.18 Resolution 2784172 provides that certain taxable persons (the so-called agentes de retención)
must withhold and pay to the Treasury a certain amount when making a payment subject to the IG to
another taxable person. That amount can be subsequently deducted from the IG due by the person
receiving the payment.
6.19 The transactions subject to withholding include the internal sale of the following categories of
goods:173
− merchandise for resale, raw materials and materials;174
− processed goods;175
− goods in process;176
− livestock;177
− cereals, oleaginous, fruits and other agricultural produce;178

163 Ibid., Article 69.
164 Ibid., Article 90.
165 Resolución General No 3543, of 7 July 1992 (hereinafter, "RG 3543"), Exhibit EC II-8.
166 T h e Decreto Presidencial 1,076/92 (B. O. of 2 July 1992) authorizes the Agencia Nacional de
Aduanas to act as an agent for the collection of the IG, Exhibit EC II-9.
167 RG 3543, Article 8.
168 Article 2 of RG 3543.
169 Ibid.
170 Ibid., Article 4.
171 Ibid.
172 Resolución General No 2784 of 25 January 1988 (hereinafter, "RG 2,784"), Exhibit EC II-10.
173 Article 1 of RG 2784.
174 Article 52 a) of the IG Law.
175 Ibid., Article 52 b).
176 Ibid., Article 52 c).
177 Ibid., Article 52 d).

− depreciable movable property;179 and
− other goods falling within Article 65 of the IG Law;.
6.20 Monthly payments below Pesos 11242.70 are not subject to withholding. 180 In addition, no
IG is withheld if the amount that would have to be withheld is less than Pesos 3.75. 181 No equivalent
minimum threshold exists for IG advances on imports.
6.21 The agentes de retención are listed in Article 3 of Resolution 2784. That list includes most
forms of juridical persons. Natural persons are required to withhold the IG only where they make a
payment to a taxable person as a result of the exercise of an economic activity.182
6.22 The applicable withholding rates are 2 percent in the case of payments made to registered
taxpayers, and 4 percent in the case of payments made to non-registered taxpayers.183
VII. CLAIMS BY THE PARTIES
7.1 The European Communities requests the Panel to find that:
- the additional IVA on imports and the advance IG on imports are inconsistent with
Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994.
7.2 Argentina requests the Panel to
- find that the "payment on account" of the value-added tax (IVA) and the gains tax
(IG) are consistent with the first sentence of Article III:2 of the GATT 1994;
- alternatively, in the event that the Panel rejects the above petition, Argentina requests
that it find that the "payments on account" are a measure covered by the provisions of
Article XX:(d) of the GATT 1994.
VIII. MAIN ARGUMENTS
A. ARTICLE III:2 OF THE GATT 1994
8.1 The European Communities claims that tax rules enacted by Argentina in relation to the
country's value-added tax (the so-called IVA law) a nd the tax on gains (the so-called IG law) violate
Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994, in that they impose a higher tax burden on imported
products than on like domestic products.
8.2 Argentina contests the European Communities claim and argues that the IVA and IG laws
treat domestic and like imported products the same. These tax rules do not result in the levying of
additional taxes, but merely constitute advances which are deductible at the time of settlement of the
definitive tax liability. Therefore, imported products are not being subject to internal taxes in excess
of domestic products and no breach whatsoever of the obligation contained in Article III GATT 1994
can be established.

178 Ibid., Article 52 e).
179 Ibid., Article 58.
180 Article 15.3 of RG 2784.
181 Ibid., Article 16.
182 Ibid., Article 3 f).
183 Ibid., Article 14. 3.

2. Scope and applicability of Article III:2 of the GATT 1994
8.3 Argentina states that a distinction should be drawn between tax-related economic policy
measures and those that are typical tax administration tools.
8.4 The creation and structure of taxes fall into the first category – that of tax-related economic
policy – whereas measures to achieve efficient tax administration, minimizing tax collection costs,
reducing tax evasion, covering the informal sector and promoting horizontal tax equity are a natural
part of tax administration policy.
8.5 The first sentence of Article III:2 concerns all tax-related economic policy decisions that
could give rise to tax discrimination between imported and domestic products.
8.6 GATT/WTO precedents indicate that Article III:2 "does not impose an obligation on
contracting parties to adopt a specific tax system or specific taxation methods".
184
8.7 On that same aspect, "Under Article III:2, first sentence, WTO Members are free to choose
any system of taxation they deem appropriate provided that they do not impose on foreign products
taxes in excess of those imposed on like domestic products".
185
8.8 In other words, it emerges from both, the text of the first sentence of that Article and from its
context and the prevailing interpretation thereof, that it is intended exclusively to govern tax
differentials ("internal taxes or other internal charges … "), which, as has been stated, are dictated by
tax-related economic policy.
8.9 As regards the creation and structure of taxes, a discipline covered by Article III:2, the
Argentine regulations in question have the following features:
(a) In the case of the IVA, Article 45 of that Argentine Law (Text harmonized in 1997 and
amendments thereto) provides that there shall be no discriminatory treatment with regard to
rates or exemptions based on the domestic or foreign origin of goods.
(b) In the case of the IG, the Gains Tax Law contains no similar regulation as it is a tax that is
entirely unrelated to goods or products but in stead targets the net income of the natural or
legal persons subject to it.
8.10 The Argentine Republic believes that this Panel's terms of reference, which contain the
misnomer "Additional IVA on imports" in one cas e or speak of "Advance on IG" in another,
undoubtedly address measures to achieve efficient tax administration, in which connection WTO
Members have reserved for themselves a certain margin of discretion.
8.11 The European Communities state that the policy objectives of a tax measure are not
pertinent in assessing its consistency with Article III:2, first sentence. Those objectives may become
relevant only at a subsequent stage, in order to determine whether a measure that is incompatible with
Article III:2, first sentence, is nevertheless justified under Article XX of GATT.
8.12 This was confirmed by the Appellate Body in Japan – Liquor Taxes. 186 In assessing the
consistency of a tax measure with Article III:2, first sentence, it is necessary to address only two

184 Japan – Customs Duties, Taxes and Labellin g Practices on Imported Wines and Alcoholic
Beverages, BISD 34/S/83, paragraph 5.13, page 123.
185 Japan – Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS/8, paragraph 6.24, page 148.
186 Appellate Body Report in Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R,
WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996 ( Japan – Liquor Taxes), at pp. 18-19. See also the Appellate Body

issues, ie. first, whether the taxed imported and domestic products are "like"; and second, whether the
taxes applied to the imported products are "in excess" of those applied to the like domestic products.
8.13 It is well-established that Article III:2, first sentence, calls for a comparison of tax burdens,
and not merely of tax rates187. Thus, in assessing whether imported products are taxed «in excess of»
domestic like products, it is necessary to consider not only the applicable rates, but also any other
element of the tax which may have an impact on the fiscal burden imposed on the products, including
the rules for the collection of the tax. Indeed, if the distinction drawn by Argentina between
«substantive» tax measures and measures for the collection of the tax were upheld, it would become
extremely easy for WTO Members to circumvent the requirements of Article III:2.
188
(a) Applicability of Article III:2 of the GATT 1994 to advances on the IG
8.14 Argentina asserts that the IG is not a tax on products but one assessed on the income of
natural or legal persons, whether importers or local market operators (as it can be inferred from the IG
Law 189), and is therefore not covered by the disciplines of Article, III:2 which deal with taxes or other
charges on products.
8.15 In consequence, neither does Article III:2 cover IG payments on account effected at the time
of importation or when transactions take place on the domestic market.
8.16 Article 1 of General Resolution (DGI) No. 3543 states: "There is hereby established a
collection regime for the income tax, which shall be applied to transactions involving the final import
of goods".
8.17 It can be seen that the levy instituted by the above resolution represents, beyond all doubt, an
advance payment on the gains tax, and it bears repeating that this tax does not apply to specific
products but to certain gains. In other words, we must distinguish between the IG to which natural
and legal persons are liable, and the method of collecting that tax, involving the obligation to pay an
advance when goods are imported. Depending on the circumstances of the case, that advance
subsequently receives the treatment outlined in reply No. 45(e).

Report in Canada – Certain measures concerning Periodicals , WT/DS 31/AB/R, adopted 30 July 1997, at p.
21.
187 Panel Report on Japan – Customs Duties, Taxes and Labe lling Practices on Imported Wines and
Alcoholic Beverages , BISD 34S/83, at para. 5.8. See also the Panel report on US – Measures affecting the
Importation, Internal Sale and Use of Tobacco, DS44/R, adopted 4 October 1994, at para. 98.
188 Although it concerns GATT Article III:4, the following passage of the Panel report on United States
– Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (adopted 7 November 1989, BISD 36S/345, at para. 5.10) is also
pertinent here:
"In the Panel's view, enforcement procedures cannot be separated from the substantive
provision they serve to enforce. If the procedural provisions of internal law were not covered
by Article III:4, contracting parties could escap e the national treatment standard by enforcing
substantive law, itself meeting the national treatment standard, through procedures less
favourable to imported products than to like products of national origin."
189 Article 1: "All gains ( ganancias) earned by natural or legal persons are subject to the emergency
levy established by this Law. The persons referred to in the preceding paragraph who are resident in the country
shall pay tax on all their gains earned in the country or abroad, and may credit against the tax governed by this
Law the sums actually paid under analogous levies on their activities abroad, up to an amount not exceeding the
increased tax obligation resulting from inclusion of the gains earned abroad. Non-residents shall pay tax only
on their gains from Argentine sources, in accordance with the provisions of Title V. Undivided estates are
taxpayers on accordance with the provisions of Article 33."

8.18 In this regard the EC itself stated in paragraph 59 of its first written submission that "the IG is
an annual tax on income, which applies to both natural and juridical persons", and is regulated by the
IG Law, Decree 1344/98 and by the Resolutions issued by the AFIP-DGI.
8.19 Similarly, in paragraph 60 of its first written submission, the EC admitted that "the IG is
levied on all sources of income, including the profits derived from the sale of merchandise and other
moveable property, both domestic and imported"190.
8.20 On this basis and in accordance with the general legal principle whereby the principal issue
rules the subsidiary one, it is our view that if a tax – in this case the IG – is not covered by
Article III:2, then neither is the advance payment thereof (IG advances).
8.21 Argentina therefore refutes the notion that the IG advance is a tax separate from the IG
because if the IG did not exist, it would not be possible to collect advances against it.
8.22 This is consistent with the general criteria supporting advance payments, which are regimes
for withholding or levy collection at source, being precautionary tools based on presumed tax-bearing
capacity. This presumption is a crucial element in applying a precautionary tool, since tax evasion
inevitably occurs in a process comprised of all the stages in the production and marketing chain.
8.23 The fact is that no one imports or trades on the domestic market without hoping to make a
gain. If at the end of the period that gain does not materialize, in both cases (imports and domestic
market) the excess payment is refunded with interests.
8.24 It may be concluded from the foregoing that IG payments on account are in no way related to
products but affect the income ultimately accruing to an operator who trades in products".
8.25 The European Communities concurs with Argentina that the IG is not a tax applied to
products. However, the measure in dispute is not the IG, but rather the charge
191 in the form of an
additional financial cost imposed on importers by the payment on account on imports provided for in
Resolution No 3543. Those costs cannot be credited against the taxpayer's final IG liability and,
therefore, are taxes or charges "applied to products". Indeed, the Argentinean tax authorities do not
pay any interest to the taxpayer on the amounts that he has pre-paid. Interest is paid only on the
amounts pre-paid in excess of the final IG liability determined at the end of the one-year tax period
and only from the moment that those amounts are claimed.
8.26 Income taxes are not excluded per se from the scope of application of Article III:2. Ordinary
income taxes fall outside the scope of Article III:2 because they apply to all income, irrespective of
the source, rather than to income derived from the sale of goods only. For that reason, it is assumed
that they are not passed on into the prices of the products. That assumption, however, is not justified
in the case of the «advance» IG, which is collected whenever a product is imported. Moreover, the
financial costs imposed by the «advance» IG cannot be credited against the Impuesto a las Ganancias.

190 This was confirm by the EC in its answer 39 to the question of the panel dated 10/May/00. "The tax
measure in dispute is not the Impuesto a las Ganancias, which the EC agrees is not a tax applied to products.
Rather, tax measure at issue is the harge in the form of an additional financial cost imposed by the percepcion on
imports provided for in Resolución N° 3543"
191 The EC recalls that Article III:2 applies to "internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind". In
EEC - Programme of Minimum Import Prices, Licences and Surety Deposits for Certain Processed Fruits and
Vegetables" (BISD 25S/68, adopted on 18 October 1978, at para. 4.15), the Panel concluded that the "lost
interest" associated with the provision of an import deposit was a "duty or charge of any kind imposed on or in
connection with importation" in the sense of GATT Article II:1(b). By the same token, the financial costs
imposed by percepciones and retenciones are "internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind" within the
meaning of Article III:2.

8.27 The European Communities argues that Argentina, in its first submission had attempted to
justify the application of a higher rate on imports on the grounds that it was necessary to compensate
for the retenciones on account of the IG previously collected on domestic products 192. That argument
involves an admission on the part of Argentina that the costs imposed by the «advance» IG are passed
on into the price of the products and, therefore, that it is a tax on products covered by Article III:2.
8.28 Argentina rejects the conclusion drawn by the EC, saying that what it stated was that the IG
advance is based on the income that it is presumed will accrue to the importer when the goods are
marketed, as well as on the apparent tax-bearing capacity in the cases of taxpayers importing articles
for their personal use or consumption. In that context, Argentina refutes that the alleged cost arising
from the IG advance is passed on to the price of product.
8.29 The European Communities argues that the "taxable event" giving rise to the imposition of
that percepción, and consequently to the financial cost generated by that percepción, is not the accrual
of a profit. The obligation imposed upon the customs authorities to collect the percepción arises
whenever a product is imported, whether or not the import transaction concerned generates any profit.
Furthermore, the amount of the percepción is computed on the basis of the customs value of the
imported goods, and not of the profit margin obtained with the import transaction.
8.30 The mere fact that a tax on products may be credited against another tax is not sufficient to
exclude that tax on products from the scope of Article III:2. That interpretation would be open to
circumvention and lead to absurd results. Thus, for example, by applying the same logic, it could be
argued that the VAT on the sale of products is not a tax on products where, as it is generally the case,
it can be credited against the VAT on the provision of services.
8.31 The European Communities further argues that the profits generated by an import transaction
do not accrue to the importer, but to the foreign exporter. Yet, as confirmed by the explanations
provided by Argentina in response to Question 52, foreign exporters are not subject to the Impuesto a
las Ganancias. Furthermore, the subsequent resale of the imported goods by the importer is already
subject to a retención pursuant to Resolución 2784 on account of the profits earned by the importer on
that resale. Thus, Argentina cannot claim that the «advance» IG purports to tax the importer's profits.
8.32 The European Communities contends that in any event, the tax measure in dispute is not the
percepción as such, but rather the financial cost imposed by the percepción. That charge cannot be
credited by the taxpayer against the IG. For the EC, it is indisputable that it constitutes a tax on
products and not on income.
(b) Coverage of the advance systems by Article III:2 of the GATT 1994
8.33 Argentina asserts that in the case "Japan – Customs Duties, Taxes and Labelling Practices
on Imported Wines and Alcoholic Beverages" of 1987, the Panel noted that the first sentence of
Article III:2 prohibited the direct or indirect imposition of:
"internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied, directly
or indirectly, to like domestic products."
8.34 The Panel noted that the interpretation of this prohibition of discriminatory taxes was a strict
one.
8.35 It was also strictly applied in GATT practices, for example, prohibiting even a very small tax
differential (amounting to US$ 0.0002 per litre of imported petroleum) and ruling out a de minimis
standard based on an alleged minimum trade effect (see L/6175, paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.9). The Panel

192 See paragraphs 166-167 of Argentina's first Submission.

then found that the words "direct or indirect" and "internal taxes … of any kind" meant that in order to
decide whether there was tax discrimination, not only was it necessary to consider the applicable tax
rates but also the methods of taxation (e.g. different classes of internal taxes, direct taxation of
finished products or indirect taxation through taxes on the raw material used in the product at the
different stages of its production) and the rules on tax collection (e.g. tax bases).
8.36 Argentina states that the interpretation of Article III:2 must be limited to tax systems, rates
and bases of determination. This is the case since the only way to achieve discrimination is by the
setting of tax rate differentials or by applying the same tax rate on different tax bases, which would
ultimately amount to a different tax depending on whether the tax base is higher or lower in the
various cases.
8.37 The payments on account systems for the IG and IVA that are being questioned in this case
are not part of the method of taxation, but are tax administration and collection measures that in no
way alter the main tax liability, that is, that which arises from the tax law. WTO Members have
reserved for themselves a certain margin of discretion as concerns measures to achieve efficient tax
administration. Therefore, the payments on account instituted under these tax systems do not fall
within the ambit of Article III:2.
8.38 Argentina considers that the payments on account are not a method of taxation and that they
are tax administration measures that do not alter the main tax liability, it can hardly be considered that
their rate differentials are akin to the concept of "internal taxes" or "other charges" of any kind.
8.39 In addition, given that the payments on account are not taxes in themselves and in the light of
the applicable rate differentials, adequate mechanisms have been put in place to avoid any such
impact (for example, refund of credit balances and exemption mechanisms). The Tax Court of the
Nation stated in that connection:
" … it is obviously in keeping with the laws that those balances may be set off,
refunded or transferred, as those mechanisms make it possible to avoid imposing on
taxpayers in certain circumstances a burden heavier than that provided for under the
tax law itself
."193
8.40 Argentina argues that Article III does not prescribe a certain tax system which Members have
to apply.
8.41 While the European Communities agrees that Article III does not prescribe a certain tax
system and does not challenge the Argentinean IVA and IG laws per se, it argues that the payment on
account systems are covered by Article III.
8.42 The European Communities argues that if the distinction drawn by Argentina between
substantive" tax measures and " measures of tax administration" were upheld, it would become
extremely easy for WTO Members to circumvent the requirements of Article III:2.194

193 Ruling of the Tax Court of the Nation, Chamber "A," Case File No. 14.250 – I of 18 April 2000,
"Cía. Industrial y Comerical Sanjuanina S.A.."
194 Although it concerns GATT Article III:4, the following passage of the Panel report on United States
– Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (adopted 7 November 1989, BISD 36S/345, at paragraph 5.10) is also
pertinent here: "In the Panel's view, enforcement procedures cannot be separated from the substantive provision
they serve to enforce. If the procedural provisions of internal law were not covered by Article III:4, contracting
parties could escape the national treatment standard by enforcing substantive law, itself meeting the national
treatment standard, through procedures less favourable to imported products than to like products of national
origin."; Cf. the Report by the Appellate Body in Canada – Certain measures Affecting the Automotive
Industry, WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, at paragraph 142.

8.43 The European Communities professes that Argentina's extremely narrow interpretation of the
scope of Article III:2 finds no support in the wording of that provision. To the contrary, the wording
"directly or indirectly" and "internal taxes or charges of any kind" clearly indicate that it was the
drafters' intention to capture all possible forms of tax discrimination.
(c) Coverage of "lost interest" by Article III:2 of the GATT 1994
8.44 The European Communities states that Article III:2, first sentence, calls for a comparison of
tax burdens, and not merely of tax rates. In assessing whether imported products are taxed "in excess
of" domestic like products, it is necessary to consider not only the applicable rates, but also any other
element of the tax which may have an impact on the fiscal burden imposed on the products, including
the rules for the collection of the tax. As noted by the panel in Japan – Customs Duties, Taxes and
Labelling Practices on Imported Wines and Alcoholic Beverages,195
"[…] the wording ‘directly or indirectly' and ‘internal taxes … of any kind' implie[s]
that, in assessing whether there is tax discrimination, account is to be taken not only of
the rate of the applicable internal tax but also of the taxation methods […] and of the
rules for the tax collection […]."
8.45 The Panel mentioned as an example of the latter the application of "different basis of
assessment." That example, however, is by no means the only one. The mechanisms for the
pre-payment of taxes, such as the percecpiones or retenciones, constitute another obvious example of
"rules for the tax collection" which may give rise to discrimination prohibited by Article III:2, first
sentence.
8.46 The cost for a taxpayer of pre-paying part of the tax is not the same as the cost of paying the
tax in full at the end of the relevant tax period, even if the nominal amount to be paid is the same in
both cases. If the taxpayer were not required to pre-pay part of the tax, he would have the opportunity
to earn profits on that amount until the end of the relevant fiscal period. The loss of that revenue
represents an additional cost for the taxpayer, which must be taken into account for the purposes of
Article III :2.
196
8.47 The tax authorities can compensate that loss by paying interest on the amounts pre-paid. The
Argentinean authorities, however, do not do so. As a result, by requiring the pre-payment of part of
the IVA and the IG, they impose an additional cost on the taxpayers. To the extent that the
percepciones are collected at a higher rate on imports than on internal sales, that additional cost is
heavier on imported goods than on like domestic goods, in violation of Article III:2, first sentence.
8.48 The European Communities maintains that the "additional" IVA imposes a financial cost from
the importation, when the "additional" IVA is collected, until the moment where the imported goods
are resold internally and the "additional" IVA may be offset against the ordinary IVA collected by the
importer on that resale. In the case of the "advance" IG, the importer bears a financial cost from the
importation, when the "advance" IG is collected, until the liquidation of the Impuesto a las Ganancias
at the end of the one-year tax period.
8.49 The European Communities argues that this lost interest is covered by Article III:2. The
European Communities draws an analogy to the Panel report on EEC – Minimum Import Prices. 197
which it argues stands for the proposition that " lost interest " constitutes a "charge" for the purposes

195 Panel Report on Japan – Customs Duties, Taxes and L abelling Practices on Imported Wines and
Alcoholic Beverages, BISD 34S/83, at paragraph 5.8. See also the Panel report on US – Measures affecting the
Importation, Internal Sale and Use of Tobacco, DS44/R, adopted 4 October 1994, at paragraph 98.
196 See footnote 191.
197 Ibid.

of Article II.1 b) GATT. By the same token, "lost interest" must be considered as a "charge" also for
the purposes of Article III:2.
8.50 Argentina contests that the reference in Article III:2 to "internal taxes or other internal
charges" is related to the alleged "lost interest" argued by the European Communities. Argentina
questions the relevance of the European Communities' analogy from the 1978 case "EEC – Minimum
Import Prices for Certain Processed Fruits and Vegetables and states that this case was analysing the
application of Article II:1(b) of the General Agreement and not of Article III:2. In other words, the
above-cited case deals with bound import duties (Schedule of Concessions in Article II of the General
Agreement), while the present case pertains to national treatment as concerns domestic taxes
(Article III of that Agreement).
8.51 Argentina recalls that subsequent to the findings of the Panel in 1978, Members adopted the
Understanding on the Interpretation of Article II:1(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994 as part of the Agreements reached during the 1994 Uruguay Round. That Understanding
clarifies the scope of the terms "other duties or charges" applicable to imports by prescribing that
such measures must be recorded in the Schedules of Concessions, where it can be seen that they
represent duties or other charges to be collected by the State on imports. It states in this regard:
"In order to ensure transparency of the legal rights and obligations deriving from
paragraph 1(b) of Article II, the nature and level of any "other duties or charges"
levied on bound tariff items, as referred to in that provision, shall be recorded in the
Schedules of Concessions and annexed to GATT 1994 against the tariff item to which
they apply. (…)."
8.52 Argentina states that the Understanding reached by Members could hardly be referring to a
foggy notion of "lost interest" while demanding, for the sake of creating certainty, the presentation of
schedules showing charges applied to imports, other than duties.
8.53 Neither is there anything in the schedules actually submitted to indicate that Members wished
to equate that concept (lost interest) with the concept of other charges, as they do not contain a single
example of charges representing lost interest of any kind. What is more, none of the Schedules of
Concessions include charges that are anything but levies made by the State as a result of the
importation of goods into its territory.
8.54 The foregoing paragraphs confirm the strict interpretation that must be given to Article II:1(b)
of the General Agreement where it states "such products shall also be exempt from all other duties or
charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with the importation …." Lost interest cannot be
considered as similar to the duties or charges connected with importation; had that been the intent of
Members, they would so have agreed in the Uruguay Round and would have included it in the
Understanding on Article II:1(b) of the General Agreement.
8.55 Furthermore, the use of the verb to impose implies a specific and precise action intended to
create an obligation on the importer. In turn, the expression " the importation" specifies the cause of
the legal obligation, that is, the introduction of merchandise into the customs territory of a Member
State.
8.56 In the case "Japan – Customs Duties, Taxes and Labelling Practices on Imported Wines and
Alcoholic Beverages" of 1987, the Panel noted that the first sentence of Article III:2 prohibited the
direct or indirect imposition of
"internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied, directly
or indirectly, to like domestic products."

8.57 The Panel noted that the interpretation of this prohibition of discriminatory taxes was a strict
one.
8.58 It was also strictly applied in GATT practices, for example, prohibiting even a very small tax
differential amounting to US$ 0,0002 per litre of imported petroleum) and ruling out a de minimis
standard based on an alleged minimum trade effect (see L/6175, paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.9). The Panel
then found that the words "direct or indirect" and "internal taxes … of any kind" meant that in order to
decide whether there was tax discrimination, not only was it necessary to consider the applicable tax
rates but also the methods of taxation (e.g. different classes of internal taxes, direct taxation of
finished products or indirect taxation through taxes on the raw material used in the product at the
different stages of its production) and the rules on tax collection (e.g. tax bases).
8.59 In addition, Argentina states that even if lost interest could be considered to be covered by
Article III:2, it would have to be higher than that which domestic products themselves would have to
bear, as required by the rule being invoked by the European Communities (Article III:2).
8.60 Finally, it may be concluded that thus far the European Communities has produced no
precedent whatsoever that is applicable to this case and which supports the broad interpretation it
wishes to give to the scope of the terms " taxes … or other internal charges … of any kind " of
Article III:2, making it possible to consider the "lost interest" as falling under the national treatment
rule.
8.61 The European Communities contests that the Understanding on the Interpretation of
Article II:1(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 does purport to "clarify the
scope" of the notion of "other duties or charges." The Understanding merely provides that "other
duties or charges" must be recorded in each Member's schedule of concessions.
8.62 The European Communities also states that Argentina's view is refuted by the Understanding
on the Balance of Payments provisions of the GATT 1994 , which reads as follows in relevant part (at
paragraph 2):
Members confirm their commitment to give preference to those measures which have
the least disruptive effect on trade. Such measures (referred to in this Understanding
as " price-based " measures) shall be understood to include import surcharges, import
deposit requirements or other equivalent trade measures with an impact on the price of
imported goods. It is understood that, notwithstanding the provisions of Article II,
price-based measures taken for balance-of-payments purposes may be applied by a
Member in excess of the duties inscribed in the Schedule of that Member. (…)
[emphasis added]
8.63 If, as alleged by Argentina, the "lost interest" associated with making an import deposit was
not a "duty or charge of any kind" in the sense of GATT Article II, it would have been unnecessary to
include "import deposit requirements" among the "price-based measures" which Members are
encouraged to apply in place of quantitative restrictions, "notwithstanding the provisions of
Article II."
8.64 The additional IVA and the advance IG impose on importers of foreign products a heavier tax
burden than that placed upon the buyers of like domestic goods by the additional IVA and the IG
withheld on the internal sale of goods, respectively. As a result, imported products are taxed "in
excess of" like domestic products, contrary to the prohibition set forth in GATT Article III:2, first
sentence.

2. "Likeness" of imported products and domestically produced products
8.65 The European Communities asserts that the tax differentials at issue are based only and
exclusively on the type of taxable transaction, and not on the characteristics of the taxed products. In
other words, they are based on whether the taxed products are being imported or sold within
Argentina, and not on the physical characteristics or end-uses of the products. Therefore, the
European Communities states that it is not necessary to show that the products imported from the
European Communities are "like" domestic products in light of criteria such as their physical
characteristics or end uses, since imported products would be taxed differently from "like" domestic
products even by the narrowest definition of "like product."
198
8.66 The percepciones provided for in Resolutions No 3431 and No 3543 are collected exclusively
upon the importation of products. Accordingly, by definition, they apply only to imported products.
The mere fact that a product has Argentinean origin is not sufficient per se to confer upon that product
properties which make it "unlike" any imported product. In other words, even if a foreign product
were identical in all respects to a domestic product, the importation of that foreign product into
Argentina would still be taxed differently from the internal sale of the domestic product. Thus, even
by the narrowest definition of "like product," imported products would still be taxed differently from
"like" domestic products.
8.67 The European Communities states that GATT Article III is concerned with the protection of
competitive opportunities, and not with the protection of actual trade flows.
199 F o r t h a t r e a s o n ,
whether or not the products currently being imported into Argentina are "like" the products of
Argentinean origin is not dispositive. What matters is whether the products that might be imported
from the European Communities are "like" the Argentinean products.
8.68 A comparison with the situation at issue shows that the contested tax measure in Japan –
Liquor Taxes was of a different nature. 200 That measure did not distinguish on its face between
domestic and imported products, but instead between types of products. Specifically, Japan applied a
lower tax rate to shochu (whether Japanese or imported) than to vodka (again whether Japanese or
imported). It was therefore necessary to ascertain whether shochu was "like" vodka in light of criteria
such as their physical characteristics, end-uses, etc.
8.69 In contrast, in the present case the tax differentials in dispute are based exclusively on the
origin of the products, i.e. whether the goods are being imported into Argentine territory or sold
within that territory. While the tax rates on internal sales apply to both imported and domestic
products, the higher tax rates on imports apply, by definition, only to imported products.
8.70 Argentina contests the European Communities assertion that the products imported by
Argentina are necessarily and automatically on the basis of the definition of the "type of taxable
transaction," "like products" to the domestic products.
8.71 Additionally, as far as the European Communities' argumentation on "like products"
encompasses the IG tax, Argentina argues that the IG tax is not a product tax, so that Article III:2 does
not apply in the first place.

198 See Indonesia - Certain Measures affecting the Automotive Industry , WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R,
WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R, adopted 23 July 1998. The Panel noted, at paragraph 14.113, that "… [an] origin-
based distinction in respect of internal taxes suffices in itself to violate Article III:2, without the need to
demonstrate the existence of actually traded like products." See also the Panel report in Canada – Certain
Measures affecting the Automotive Industry , WT/DS139/R, WT/DS142/R, circulated to the Members on 8
February 2000, at paragraph 10.74.
199 See Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS8/AB/R,
WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, at p. 16 and the cases cited therein.
200 Ibid.

8.72 While Argentina agrees that the object of Article III of the GATT is to ensure equal
competitive opportunities on the domestic market for the imported product, it argues that the
European Communities overlooks the existence of one of the requirements considered necessary in
Article III:2, first sentence, for verifying that the competitive conditions have been altered or could
potentially be altered: that those competitive expectations exist between "like products."
8.73 Argentina states that the European Communities takes its definition of "like product" based
on the type of taxable transaction from the report of the Panel on " Indonesia – Certain Measures
Affecting the Automobile Industry."201 As concerns that report, Argentina comments that according to
GATT/WTO doctrine, expressly confirmed by the Report of the Appellate Body and the Panel in the
case "Japan – Alcoholic Beverages," a report adopted by a panel is only binding on the parties to the
dispute and does not constitute a definitive interpretation of the provisions of the GATT and/or the
WTO.202
8.74 Moreover, in that case Indonesia itself did not expressly question the likeness of the product
as defined by the European Communities. 203 In the present case, Argentina does question the
definition given by the European Communities, i.e. "the tax differentials at issue are based on the type
of taxable transaction, and not on the characteristics of the taxed products. More specifically, they are
based on whether the goods are being imported into Argentine territory or sold within that territory."
8.75 Argentina states that the definition of "like product," one of the two requirements for
establishing a violation of Article III:2, has been extensively dealt with in the GATT/WTO case law.
Thus, a basic criterion found throughout the case law is a "case-by-case" analysis of the definition. A
second element involves the existence of a set of criteria which contribute to that definition. A third
aspect is the acknowledged tendency, as of the GATT 1994, to circumscribe and narrow the concept
of likeness.
8.76 The requirement for a case-by-case analysis is in line with the need to interpret the various
definitions in the light of each of the Agreements which provide for this requirement. Consequently,
the scope of the concept of "like product" may be different under Article III:2 of the GATT 1994
compared to the scope of the definition in other agreements. This was corroborated in " Japan –
Customs Duties, Taxes and Labelling Practices on Imported Wines and Alcoholic Beverages ," where
the Panel did not deem it appropriate to apply the "very narrow definition" of "like product" contained
in Article 2 of the 1979 Anti-Dumping Agreement.204 Conversely, in "Japan – Alcoholic Beverages,"
which to some extent constitutes a more recent pronouncement and, furthermore, one more relevant to
the GATT 1994, the Appellate Body stated:
"… We believe that, in Article III:2, first sentence of the GATT 1994, the accordion
of "likeness" is meant to be narrowly squeezed."205

201 See WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS56/R, WT/DS59/R and WT/DS64/R.
202 Report of the Appellate Body on Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , Op. Cit., page 13." … the
conclusions and recommendations in an adopted panel report bound the parties to the dispute in that particular
case, but subsequent panels did not feel legally bound by the details and reasoning of a previous panel report…
We do not believe that the CONTRACTING PARTIES, in deciding to adopt a panel report, intended that their
decision would constitute a definitive interpretation of the relevant provisions of GATT 1947. Nor do we
believe that this is contemplated under GATT 1994."
203 Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry , Op. Cit.,, paragraphs 14.106 and
14.110: "Indonesia does not specifically argue that the complainants have not demonstrated the elements
necessary to establish a violation of Article III:2 (… like products)." In addition, the Panel emphasized that "…
Indonesia has submitted no evidence or argument to rebut the presumption of likeness …."
204 Japan – Customs Duties, Taxes and Labelling Practices on Imported Wines and Alcoholic
Beverages, BISD 34S/83, paragraph 5.6.
205 Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, Op. Cit., page 21.

8.77 Argentina contends that the tendency to narrow the definition of "like product" in the
GATT 1994 is consistent with the main body of obligations and disciplines agreed by the parties in
the framework of the Uruguay Round negotiations, and is moreover necessary to prevent any
unwanted restriction of the regulatory powers which the WTO Members have reserved to themselves
in the taxation field, for purposes other than protection of the domestic industry.
8.78 The second element, i.e. the characteristics of the product, meaning "… the product's end uses
in a given market; consumers' tastes and habits … the product's properties, nature," etc., 206 is and will
continue to be an essential criterion for defining a "like product." Among these criteria, there is none
which " per se" could exclude any other. Thus, the physical characteristics of the product may be
combined with the fact that it is or is not destined for end use in a domestic market. In any event, it is
by means of a case-by-case analysis that it is possible to confirm the definition of like product.
8.79 Argentina illustrates its argument by giving an example involving finished leather: an
importer may bring finished leather into the Argen tine market for marketing, in which case he/she
will make a payment on account in accordance with Resolution 3431. If the same importer were to
bring in the same finished leather, add value to it and then re-export it, he/she would not have to pay
any advance on account.207 Argentina argues that this example shows that a definition of like product
based on the national or imported origin of the same product with a nominal difference in the
applicable tax rate for the payment on account, is empirically incorrect. Moreover, a definition of
these characteristics also does not square with the system of payments on account which ultimately
are no more than advances tailored to a tax which is applied at an equal rate to imported and domestic
products and which also, as will be shown below, does not impose a heavier burden on imported
products.
8.80 Finally, a broad definition of like product, as chosen by the European Communities, is at
variance with the criterion considered by the Appe llate Body to be implicit in this concept in the
GATT 1994, would undermine the definition which has been worked out precisely to ensure
conditions of competition between imported and domestic products in a specific case and not in
general terms. It thus makes sense to examine whether a higher tax is applied to finished leather
imported for marketing in the domestic market, or to oil imported for the same purposes vis-à-vis
locally produced oil, if we follow the doctrine established in the Superfund case.
 208
8.81 In a situation where, as in the present case, there is an alleged infringement of Article III:2,
first sentence, " … likeness must be construed narrowly and on a case-by-case basis" 209 and not on the
basis of hypothesis. The European Communities definition means a departure from one of the
requirements clearly laid down in various precedents, e.g. " Canada – Periodicals," where it was
established that to determine a violation of Article III:2, first sentence, it is necessary to follow what
might be called a "two-track approach," that is, first to define "like product" and second, to prove that
the imported product is taxed in excess.
8.82 Argentina is aware that there are precedents in which, in the absence of tangible imports,
hypothetical bases have been used to define "like products." However, if the determination of "like
product" can be done simply by comparing the situation of products on the market, there is no point in
developing a hypothesis. Doing so could amount to a kind of non-application of the provisions of the
GATT 1994 to the concrete case. In other words, the determination of whether imported and
domestic products are like products calls for the application of legal rules, in this case Article III:2, to

206 Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry, Op. Cit., paragraph 14.109.
207 Decree 1439/96, Temporary Imports, see Exhibit ARG-XVI.
208 See United States – Taxes on Petroleum Products and Certain Imported Substances , L 6175; BISD
34/136.
209 See Canada - Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals , Report of the Appellate Body,
WT/DS31/AB/R, page 23.

the specific circumstances of the case. In this in stance, it is a matter of verifying whether the foreign
goods present on the Argentine market are competing with their "likes," or with products that are
"directly competitive" or "substitutable."
8.83 The precedents introduced by Argentina do not introduce into the text of Article III:2 a new
category of "types of products." Those precedents merely confirmed the various factors that must be
considered in order to define a "like product." Although some of those precedents addressed specific
aspects of the elements used to define "like products," such as the criteria of physical characteristics
used to evaluate similarity between shochu and vodka, as a whole they do underscore a series of key
criteria that are applicable in defining "like products." These include: " … the product's end-uses in a
given market; consumers' tastes and habits; and the product's properties, nature and quality."
210
8.84 These same criteria, Argentina argues, which could include the imported or domestic origin of
the product, are the ones that must be considered in defining a "like product." No single blanket
criterion can be made to prevail (domestic or imported origin) when it is not valid for meeting the
requirements of the specific case at hand. Argentina argues that the European Communities is
applying such a "blanket criterion" in the hope that by considering this to be a proven instance of like
products within the meaning of the first sentence of Article III:2, there will be dispensation from
having to prove the existence of "protection to domestic production," thereby preventing the other
party from benefiting under any possible de minimis criterion.
8.85 Furthermore, the European Communities is unable to specify even one example of an
imported "like" product which, when sold on the market in its final stage, must bear a higher tax for
being an import.
8.86 Finally, Argentina finds contradictions in th e European Communities' arguments in that on
the one hand it claims that imports are by definition subject to higher taxes and, on the other, it
ignores, for instance, the unquestionable fact of imports for re-exportation. This fact alone confirms
that the origin of the good is not enough to qualify it as a "like product," as in this case the origin of
the merchandise is irrelevant for the purposes of the customs treatment it receives. It is the product's
end-use that determines whether or not it is subject to a payment on account. In other words, it is only
by applying the methodology developed by the various GATT/WTO precedents that we can
determine whether this is a case of like product. Can rawhides imported for re-exportation, which are
not subject to payments on account, be considered a "like product" to rawhides intended for the
domestic market and liable to payments on account?
8.87 Argentina contends that imported or domestic origin is not enough to determine that one is
dealing with like products. Other elements must be considered: in this case the "end-use" which is
clearly among the criteria that pervade the concept of "like product." In other words, if the "end-use"
requirement is not fulfilled for both products – the domestic and the imported one – it is not a case of
"like products."
211 Otherwise put, if the end-use is different, there cannot be "like products," as the
concept of "like product" is particularly narrow in the sense of Article III:2, first sentence, on account
of the exemption from the burden of proof involved. In contrast, the notion of directly competitive or
substitutable products (both types of rawhide are substitutable for the purposes of their subsequent
processing) is much more fitting, since in this case, although the products fall into the same category,
if an infringement of Article III:2 were alleged, they would fall under the second sentence of that
same Article and it would be necessary to prove the intention to protect domestic industry, in which
case a "de minimis" standard would become operative.

210 See Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, Op. Cit., page 22.
211 Japan – Alcoholic Beverages, Op. Cit., paragraph 6.22, page 147, "In the view of the Panel the term
'like product' suggests that for two products to fall under this category they must share, apart from commonality
of end-uses, essentially the same physical characteristics."

8.88 Argentina considers that the broad definition of "like product" being used by the European
Communities in this case is inconsistent with the narrow interpretation that has been made in the
precedents cited, which Argentina regards as relevant. The second sentence of Article III:2 would
seem to cover more adequately the type of competition that exists between domestic and imported
products on the Argentine market.
8.89 If all these alternatives could not be proved empirically, the Panel's resort to a hypothesis
would be understandable. As there are indeed imports, specifically of the product at the origin of
these proceedings (the name of the Panel refers to "imports of finished leather," even though the
European Communities is now discussing all imports), a "case-by-case" analysis should be used to
define "like product."
8.90 Argentina argues that there is a wide range of situations envisaged under the different general
resolutions issued by the Tax Administration and the consequent rate differential existing for
payments on account. There are several regimes for payments on account depending on different
factors: such as certain categories of buyers, the amounts involved. This refutes the generalization
that the mere origin of the product generates a difference in the tax. It is indispensable for the
European Communities to be specific in regard to excessive payments on account in order to be able
to consider that the first requirement for determining a violation under Article III:2" first sentence has
been met. In other words, the difference in the rate for the "payment on account" does not serve to
define "like product" in general, as the imported or domestic origin does not automatically mean that
they can be considered "like."
8.91 The European Communities contests Argentina's view and states that the fact that some
import transactions (e.g. imports for re-exportation) are exempted from the IVA and some internal
sales are subject to different tax rates,
212 based on factors such as the type of product, 213 or the means
of payment,214 does not detract from the fact that the tax differentials in dispute in this case are based,
only and exclusively, on whether the goods are being imported or sold internally, and not on the
physical characteristics or end-uses of the taxed products, which renders an analysis of those factors
totally irrelevant, because it remains true that only imported products, and not domestic products, are
subject to Resolutions No 3431 and No 3543.
8.92 Whether or not imported products are taxed "in excess of" like domestic products that are
subject to other tax measures is a different issue to be considered subsequently under the second step
of Article III:2, first sentence. Argentina's argu ments, however, systematically confuse those two
issues.
8.93 The mere fact that, as argued by Argentina, some import transactions (e.g. imports for re-
exportation) are exempted from the IVA does not undermine the EC's position, because it remains
true that only imported products, and not domestic products, are subject to Resolutions No 3431 and
No 3543.
8.94 Furthermore, the end-uses that are relevant for a like product determination are not the end-
uses actually given to the product in a particular case but, rather, their objective end-uses. Whether I
use an egg for cooking an omelette or a fried egg, the egg is still the same and, therefore, «like». By
the same token, the fact that a piece of imported raw skin is re-exported from Argentina does not

212 The European Communities argues that Exhibit ARG – XXVI overstates the variety of systems of
"pagos a cuenta" of the IVA. Some of the Resolutions cited by Argentina (e.g. Nos 549, 3130, 3316, and 3469)
concern the provision of services and, therefore, are totally irrelevant for the purposes of this dispute.
Resolutions Nos 129, 212, 140, 4059 and 4131 concern the internal sale of goods, but have a very limited scope
of application and are not at issue in this dispute.
213 See for example, Resolutions 4131 and 4059.
214 See for example, Resolution 140.

make it "unlike" any piece of imported raw skin which is used within Argentina. The relevant issue
for a "like product" determination is whether imported eggs, or raw skins, can be put to the same end-
uses as the domestic products.
8.95 Argentina argues that the tax rates is the same in all cases, a blanket rate of 21 percent. What
differs are the rates for collection of advance taxes. However, the regime of "collection" and
withholdings" (payments on account) is irrelevant for the purpose of defining the taxable transaction
subject to the IVA. Moreover, the law itself does not allow for discriminatory treatment based on the
national or foreign origin of goods (Article 45, IVA Law). The withholdings or payments on account
are simply advance payments of one and the same tax, and not "additional" taxes whether it is the
IVA liability or the IG payable by the natural or physical person in the form of "payments on account"
against that tax.
8.96 As the "tax" at issue is simply an advance payments of one and the same tax, no product is
subject to a tax because of its origin. As the Argentine IVA is a single tax with a rate of 21 percent
that is identical for domestic and imported products, we fail to see the discrimination based on the
origin of the good.
8.97 If in the light of the various regimes for payments on account in place there is no definition of
"like products" in the narrow sense prescribed under Article III:2, first sentence, it is necessary to
consider whether the situation of competition between imported and domestic products on the
Argentine markets (in terms of the impact of "payments on account") would not be one involving
products (for example finished hides of European origin) that could be competitive or substitutes on
the market within the meaning of the second sentence of Article III:2.
8.98 The European Communities takes issue with Argentina's suggestion that imported and
domestic products are not "like" but simply "directly competitive or substitutable." The arguments
made by Argentina in order to deny that imported and domestic products are "like" would logically
have the consequence that they could not be considered as "directly competitive or substitutable"
either.
8.99 Argentina submits that the strict requirements of the first sentence of Article III:2 for the
determination of "like products" have not been met and that there is consequently no infringement
whatsoever of the obligation of national treatment.
3. Claim that imported products are taxed "in excess of" like domestic products
8.100 The European Communities asserts that the advances collected on imports according to the
rules relating to the IVA and IG laws impose an additional tax burden on imports. Although also
domestically produced products are subject to IVA and IG advances, due to the different applicable
tax rates and the different coverage of those additional IVA laws, imports are being disadvantaged
contrary to Article III:2, first sentence.
8.101 The European Communities does not allege that the overall rates of the IVA or the IG are
discriminatory. The European Communities does neither question Argentina's right to levy
percepciones and retenciones on account of those taxes. The European Communities' complaint is
concerned with the fact that the percepciones levied on imports are higher than those levied on the
internal sale of goods, with the consequence that importers bear a heavier fiscal burden than the
buyers of domestic goods.
8.102 The European Communities notes that, even if the additional IVA and the IG on imports
could be credited by the importers against their definitive tax liability under the IVA and the IG, the
discrimination would persist since importers would be required to "advance" larger amounts of money
to the Argentinean Treasury than purchasers of like domestic products.

8.103 Argentina argues that both the IVA law and the IG law treat imported and like domestic
products the same. The separate tax rules challenged by the European Communities merely constitute
advances which are deductible at the time of settlement of the definitive tax liability. Moreover, the
percepciones and retenciones are tax collection mechanisms which fall outside the scope of
Article III:2
(a) Claim that the advance IVA on imports results in a heavier tax burden than the advance IVA
domestic sales
8.104 The European Communities maintains that the following differences between the additional
IVA on imports and the additional IVA on internal sales have the consequence that imported products
are taxed "in excess of" like domestic products.
-- the generally applicable rate on imports by registered taxable persons is 10 percent
while the rate applicable on internal sales of goods to registered taxable persons is 5
percent.
-- the additional IVA on internal transactions does not apply to sales by non-registered
taxable persons, whereas the additional IVA on imports is levied also on imports by
non-registered taxpayers;
-- the additional IVA on internal sales is collected only upon the sales made by agentes
de percepción. In contrast, the additional IVA on imports applies to all importers.
-- the additional IVA on internal sales is not collected on sales to certain categories of
purchasers (including in particular the agentes de percepción and the main types of
financial entities), whereas, to repeat, the additional IVA applies to all importers; and
-- the additional IVA on domestic sales does not apply to sales below a certain amount,
while the additional IVA on imports is levied on all imports, irrespective of their
value.
8.105 Argentina's IVA law, through Resolution 3431, imposes an additional IVA tax on imports.
Even though there are also additional IVA taxes levied on domestic sales 215, the different applicable
tax rates and coverage of those additional IVA laws disadvantage imports compared to domestic
products, contrary to Article III:2, first sentence.
8.106 Even where the additional IVA on imports can be credited by the importers against their
definitive tax liability under the IVA, the discrimination persists since importers are be required to
"advance" larger amounts of money to the Treasury than purchasers of like domestic products.
8.107 Argentina states that the IVA Law does not discriminate between imported products and
domestic products when establishing the rates for the taxes concerned. Both for imported and
domestic products, the rates are up to 21 percent.
8.108 It is true that, in the case of imported products, the rates of the levies ( percepcíones) –
payments on account – are 5 percent and 5.8 percent in respect of live bovine animals, etc., depending
on whether or not the taxpayer is a registered taxable person, while the equivalent rates for levies or
withholding operations ( percepciones o retenciones ) - payments on account - in respect of other
goods are 10 percent and 12.7 percent, depending on whether or not the taxpayer is a registered
taxable person.

215 See Resolution 3337.

8.109 However, these rates are only advances or payments on account to the Treasury, arising from
a single type of taxable transaction. It is therefore conceptually erroneous to add such levies to the
general rate of 21 percent (identical for imported and domestic products) and to conclude that
imported goods are actually subject to an IVA of 31 percent or 15.5 percent, in the case of live bovine
animals, etc.
8.110 What the European Communities calls an "additional" IVA is in fact a method of payment of
advances payable prior to final settlement of that tax. The European Communities thus gives a
distorted picture of the tax burden on importers, which is identical for both imported and domestic
products, i.e. up to 21 percent .
8.111 In short, Argentina maintains that it cannot be asserted that a static view of one part of the tax
assessment process, i.e. the point at which a payment on account is effected when the goods undergo
inward customs clearance, implies that at the time of final settlement of the tax liability, imported
products are subject to a heavier tax burden than domestic products.
8.112 Argentina argues that the advance collection of the IVA was in fact established to provide
equal treatment of imported and domestic products. Previously, imports were not subject to any
system of payment on account. Marketing transactions in the domestic market were as a rule
previously subject to the following payments on account, without prejudice to others applied in
particular cases:
• The retención (withholding) regime under Resolution 3125, superseded by
Resolution 18: (10.5 percent);
• the percepción (collection) regime under Resolution 3337: (5 percent).
8.113 Imports were not subject to any system of payment on account. In order to provide for
equivalent treatment for import transactions, therefore, Resolution 3431 was enacted, establishing a
single regime for imported products, for which the tax rate is currently 10 percent.
8.114 In view of the fact that import transactions can only be covered through a collection regime,
since foreign sellers are not liable to the levy and cannot therefore be made subject to withholding
operations, a tax rate of 10 percent was established for the collection and withholding regimes applied
in the domestic market.
8.115 Argentina emphasizes that collection (percepción) in customs does not impose a heavier tax
burden compared with domestically produced goods, bearing in mind that it does not establish a new
tax on imports but merely applies a system of payment in respect of the final import of movables
thereby according the same treatment as for domestic marketing operations, concerning which various
collection and withholding regimes had been duly established (Resolutions 3337, 4059, 4131, 18, and
129).
(i) Comparison of tax burden between imported and domestic products
8.116 Argentina maintains that the tax affects foreign and domestic products equally and there is
no additional cost to the former. Argentina illustrates this by way of making the following
comparison between imported leather and domestically produced leather:

Output of finished leather on the domestic market Imports of finished leather
Sale of raw or salted hides
Taxable price 30.00
IVA 21% 6.30
GR 4059 0.50
Sale of crust Imports
Taxable price 60.00 Taxable c.i.f. price 68.00
IVA 21% 12.60 IVA 21% 14.28
GR 18 6.30 GR 3431 6.80
Sale of finished leather Sale of imported leather by the importer
Taxable price 100.00 Taxable price 100.00
IVA 21% 21.00 IVA 21% 21.00
GR 3337 5.00 GR 3337 5.00
Payments on account made: Payments on account made
0.50
6.30 6.80
5.00 5.00
11.80 11.80
8.117 Argentina states that the domestic product "finished leather" bears a greater tax burden - in
terms of payments on account and withholding taxes - than the like imported product, if account is
taken of tax payments made at stages prior to the sale of the finished product (i.e. upon the sales of
the raw hides and semi-finished leather. Argentina elaborates that the example above shows the
various collection and withholding regimes applicable to the chain of production and marketing of
finished leather, for the imported product, as well as the same product manufactured on the domestic
market. On the domestic market, the finished product must bear payments on account totalling
$ 11,80 ($ 0,5 + $ 6,30 + $ 5). In turn, it can be seen that imported finished leather pays an identical
amount of $ 11,80 in the form of payments on account. In Argentina's view, the foregoing confirms
the fact that the importer does not bear a heavier tax burden.
8.118 Finally, if the alleged financial cost did exist, Article 45 of the IVA Law itself clearly states
that " … no discriminatory treatment based on the national or foreign origin of goods shall be
admissible in respect of rates or exemptions."
216 Although this is no more than the written expression
of a guideline that inspires the entire Argentine tax system, its express inclusion in a law is
tantamount to the unquestionable granting of a precise and clearly defined right. By virtue of that
right, which coincides with the obligation laid down under Article III of GATT 1994 (which also
forms part of the Argentine domestic legal system), any person may proceed against the State if that
person considers that the Public Administration is causing him injury in any way. Nevertheless, it is
highly significant that the importers who made IVA and IG payments on account amounting to
$ 11585015195.97 between 1992 and 1999 have not launched massive legal actions against the State
to claim redress for these differences.
8.119 Argentina also recalls that the method of payments on account was applied to imported
products subsequent to domestic products because its implementation had created an imbalance in
favour of imported goods.

216 See Exhibit EC II-1, page 86.

8.120 Argentina further points out that in its report adopted on 26 February 1955, 217 the Review
Working Party II on Schedules and Customs Administration , at the proposal of Germany, examined
the meaning of the words " internal taxes and other internal charges " in relation to taxes which are
levied at various stages of production. What was studied in particular in that case was whether the
rule of national treatment would allow a government to tax imported products at a rate calculated to
be the equivalent of the taxes levied at various stages of production of the like domestic product or
only at the rate of the tax levied at the last stage. Several representatives supported the former
interpretation as they believed that the opposite case would establish a discrimination against
countries which chose to levy taxes at various stages and in favour of those which levy a single
turnover tax on finished products. The United States, for its part, believed that the reference to
internal taxes covered only a tax levied on the fina l product competitive with the imported article. In
view of that discrepancy, the above-menti oned Working Group decided not to recommend the
insertion of an interpretative note, indicating that it was understood that the principle of equality of
treatment would be upheld in the event of a tax on imported products being challenged under the
consultation or complaints procedure of the Agreement.
8.121 Argentina argues that this decision indicates that it is the principle of equality that should
prevail when it comes to judging cases in which there are "cascading" internal taxes on domestic
products as opposed to a tax levied once on the imported product. If we extrapolate this to the case of
payments on account of internal taxes, it could be said with even greater justification that the same
principle must prevail in the analysis of consistency with Article III:2.
8.122 What was at issue in the study carried out by the members of: the Review Working Party II on
Schedules and Customs Administration was the optical illusion that could result from showing a
photograph taken only at one of the various marketing stages of a product and which therefore does
not reflect the tax liabilities affecting each of those stages which must be considered when analysing
the national treatment that should be given to the imported article.
8.123 The suggested use of the principle of equality to analyse the tax rate also applies to the study
of measures which by definition are of lesser impact, such as the rates of payment on account of
internal taxes, these being identical. If members recommended the use of the equality criterion in
studying the GATT/WTO–consistency of a tax levied on successive stages, in accordance with the
general principle of law whereby the principal issue rules the subsidiary one, the same rule of equality
must be used in examining the impact of the pa yments on account on competitive conditions on the
market.
8.124 This same principle was endorsed in a different context in recent WTO cases. In one
instance, the following is stated:
"though the statutory language as such may be prima facie inconsistent, such
inconsistency may be lawfully removed upon examination of other administrative or
institutional elements of the same law."
218
8.125 The European Communities, in response to the Panel's question 32, raises the possibility
that the taxpayers might try to pass on the additional financial cost imposed on them as a result of the
lost interest. Whether or not the cost resulting from lost interest can be passed on, depends on the
market situation. The same is true of the 21percent IVA as well.

217 See Guide to GATT Law and Practice, Vol. I, pages 144-147, updated 6 th Edition, 1995.
Interpretation and application of Article III:2, paragraph 4.2(d).
218 See United States, Sections 301 – 310 of the Trade Act of 1974; Report of the Panel, WT/DS152/R,
22 December 1999, page 313, paragraph 7.27.

8.126 The European Communities agrees that, in acco rdance with the GATT rules on border tax
adjustments,219 Argentina may be entitled to compensate for the costs imposed on domestic products
at prior processing stages. But the burden of proving that the rate differentials do not lead to
overcompensation lies with Argentina. The rate differentials identified by the European Communities
constitute prima facie evidence that imported products are taxed in excess of like domestic products.
Since Argentina contends that those differentials purport to compensate for the taxes previously borne
by the domestic products at previous manufacturing stages, it is for Argentina to prove that
assertion.
220 Moreover, the kind of evidence required to furnish that proof is available only to the
Argentinean tax authorities. In this regard, the European Communities recalls once again the
conclusion of the Working Party on Border Tax Adjustments that
"It was generally agreed that countries adjusting taxes should, at all times, be
prepared, if requested, to account for the reasons for adjustment, for the methods used,
for the amount of compensation and to furnish proof thereof."221
8.127 In the view of the European Communities, Argentina has failed to meet that burden of proof.
Indeed, Argentina has not produced any evidence showing that the rate differentials between imports
and internal sales correspond to the actual difference in costs borne by the products, or at the very
least to a reasonable estimate thereof.222
8.128 The European Communities states that Argentina's contentions are refuted by the fact that
rates on imports are always the same, irrespective of the degree of processing of the imported
products. Yet, upon Argentina's construction, the rates should logically be higher on imports of
processed products, since domestic processed products are likely to have been subjected to
percepciones or retenciones on more occasions than domestic primary products.
8.129 The purely hypothetical examples presented by Argentina do not prove Argentina's assertions.
It is sufficient to change some of the factual variables posited by Argentina in order to arrive at a
totally different result.
8.130 For example, if the manufacturer of semi-finished leather were an agente de
retención/percepcion, the example would have to be reformulated as follows:

219 Cf. Article II.2(a) of GATT and Working Party on Border Tax Adjustments, at paragraph 14.
220 See the Report of the Appellate Body in United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Woven Wool
Shirts and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/AB, at p.14.
221 Working Party on Border Tax Adjustments, paragraph 17.
222 In the case of cascade taxes or taxes on ingredie nts, it is a generally accepted practice to compensate
on the basis of average rates calcula ted for each category of product. See Working Report on Border Tax
Adjustments, at paragraph 16.

Domestic product Imported product
Sale of raw or salted hides
Taxed price 30
IVA (21%) 6.30
Relención R.G. 4,059 0.50
Sale of semi-finished leather
Taxed price 60 CIF price 68
IVA (21%) 12 IVA (21%) 14.28
Relención R.G. 18 exempt 223 Percepción R.G. 3431 (10%) 6.8
Percepción R.G. 3337 exempt 224
Sale of finished leather Sale of finished leather
Taxed price 100 Taxed price 100
IVA (21%) 21 IVA (21%) 21
Percepción R.G. 3337 5 Percepción R.G. 3337 5
Payments on account Payments on account
0.5 6.8
5 5
5.5 11.8
8.131 Argentina contests the reformulation of the numerical example given by the European
Communities which merely included the seller of se mi-finished leather as an additional withholding
agent. In the first place, Argentina wishes to clar ify that in the example originally given, the location
of the withholding/collection agents in the marketing chain was not a random matter but reflected the
place they occupy in actual economic fact.
8.132 Therefore, the appointment of withholding/collection agents is decided unilaterally by the Tax
Administration based on the fiscal interest attaching to the taxpayers for those purposes. It is
therefore unacceptable, for withholding/collection agents to be situated at any stage in the production
or marketing chain as the European Communities is s ubmitting. Instead they will be located at those
points where their activity is most efficacious for tax purposes.
8.133 Hence, in the example given by Argentina, the seller of rawhides acts as the collection agent
under Resolution 4059, while the seller of finished leather acts as the withholding agent under
Resolution 18 when he purchases semi-finished leather and as withholding agent within the meaning
of Resolution 3337 when he sells his product.
8.134 If a new withholding/collection agent were to be introduced into the example in the manner
put forward by the European Communities, that introduction would have to yield some tax benefit,
since, as explained before, the appointment of those agents is done exclusively by the Tax
Administration based on its fiscal interests.
8.135 Against this background, it is not clear what logic inspires the European Communities'
recasting of the example, as the only effect of introducing a new withholding/collection agent into a
chain in which other agents already exist in upstream and downstream stages is that of removing one

223 See Article 5. a) of RG 18.
224 See Article 3. b) of RG 3337

of the phases of the payments on account regimes, which is not in line with the fiscal interest which
the Fiscal Authority is always presumed to be pursuing.
8.136 Argentina therefore rejects the validity of the reformulation submitted by the European
Communities, as it does not simply represent a change in a variable that leads to a different result, but
the formulation of an example that it is designed to produce an outcome than runs counter to the fiscal
logic that underlies the mechanism of withholdings and collections.
(ii) Mechanism for the exemption from advance IVA collection on imports
8.137 Argentina asserts that exemption systems the mechanism envisaged in Resolution 17 has
been established to secure exemption from the collection regimes covering import transactions for
those cases where the directly collected tax revenue could result in overpayment in excess of a
taxpayers compliance with his respective tax liabilities. While there are several reasons why
payments on account can give rise to overpayment, Argentina contends that none of those reasons
stems exclusively from import transactions or domestic market transactions. By way of example, one
possible cause could be that the mark-up with which the taxable person operates is lower than the
added value assumed under the different collection or withholding regulations.
Example:
Import of merchandise worth $ 100
Taxable price $100
IVA 21% - Tax credit $21
Levy collected (GR 3431) 10% $10
Sale of the imported merchandise at $140
Taxable price $140
IVA 21% - Tax debit $29.40
On the import transaction the taxpayer pays in $21 as an IVA tax credit and $10 as the
collectable IVA levy.
Upon sale, the seller collects $29.40 from the buyer as the IVA tax debit.
Importer's sworn declaration:
Tax debit: 29.40
Tax credit: (21.00)
Tax for the period: 8.40
Levy collected/payment on account: (10.00)
Balance in favour of the importer: (1.60)
8.138 Resolution 17 establishes that if the amount of the IVA withholdings, collections and/or
payments on account are in excess of the final tax liability, the taxable person may request full or
partial exemption from the regimes for withholding, collection and payments on account. In reply to
a question by the Panel, Argentina asserts that the mechanism envisaged in Resolution 17 does apply
for the purposes of securing exemption from the collection regimes covering import transactions.
8.139 The exemption granted - whether full of partial – applies to all IVA payments on account
regimes. In consequence, the taxpayer cannot be exempted from only one specific payments on

account regime, instead that exclusion would cover all the IVA payment on account regimes
applicable to him.
8.140 Applications for such exemptions are processed by means of what Resolution 17 itself
describes in Article 5 as an "automatic computation" for determining eligibility under the regime. 225
Ultimately, this computation mechanism is no more than a composite of variables pertaining to the tax
situation of the taxpayer which takes the form of a mathematical formula for processing the
application.
226 The condition for requesting exclusion is that the taxpayer must have a tax balance in
his favour, which must be shown in the sworn decl aration covering the fiscal period immediately
preceding the filing date of that request. The condition to grant the exclusion is that the taxpayer has a
favourable tax balance in the month immediately preceding the date of the filing of the request. This
balance must be shown in the sworn declaration covering the fiscal period. The exemption is granted
for six tax periods (six months) and may be renewed at the end of that time. The exemption
mechanism is hence a legal precaution and is aimed precisely at avoiding a situation such as that the
rate differentials for different products - depending on whether the taxpayer is registered or non-
registered and/or whether the product is of the imported or domestic origin - generate a financial cost
that alters the competitive expectations of the respective goods. In the final analysis, this is no more
than a reaffirmation of the general principle established under Article 45 of the IVA Law mentioned
above.
8.141 Argentina notes, however, that the exemptio n mechanism from the advance IVA, but also
from the advance IG, are hardly used, as the number of situations in which the payments on account
actually generate a credit in favour of the taxpayer is virtually negligible. AFIP figures show that of
the entire universe of taxpayers, less than 2 percent request to be placed under the system of
exemption. This clearly shows that over 98 percent of importers have had no credit balances with the
tax authority as a result of their obligation to make payments on account.
227
8.142 The European Communities states that contrary to Argentina's contentions, the "exclusion"
mechanism provided for in Resolution 17 does not remedy the discrimination which is the subject of
the European Communities' claim. An importer may request to be "excluded" from percepciones only
where it can be anticipated that those pre-payments will exceed its tax liability at the end of the tax
period. Moreover, the exclusion is not granted in respect of all percepciones, but only to the extent
that it is anticipated that the percepciones will exceed the final tax liability.
8.143 The European Communities' complaint, however, is not concerned with those importers
which find themselves in a loss position at the end of the relevant fiscal period. It is concerned with
the extra financial cost imposed by the percepciones during the tax period. That cost is incurred
whether or not the importer is able to credit the full amount of the percepciones within the relevant
tax period.
(iii) Argument that the impact of a financial cost is limited to a maximum of 30 days
8.144 Argentina points out that the hypothesis of a financial cost affecting both products (domestic
and imported) is limited to a maximum time-frame of 30 days (this being the maximum period in
which an importer can be required to clear any credits or debits in his monthly position), and should
there be credit balances in favour of the taxpayer (importer or domestic market operator), automatic
exemption from the regime of payments on account can be immediately obtained.
8.145 The European Communities states that the financial cost may exceed 30 days if the importer
does not resell the imported goods within that time period, or if, (as illustrated by the example

225 See Article 5, RG 17.
226 The document, General Instruction 373/97, is attached as Exhibit ARG-XXII.
227 This argument has been made under the IVA and IG exemption mechanisms.

contained in Argentina's response to Question No 45 b), the ordinary IVA charged on the re-sale of
the goods is less than the combined amount of the ordinary IVA and the additional IVA collected
upon the importation of the goods. Argentina seems to derive the 30 day limit from the fact that,
where a taxpayer shows that it could not fully credit all IVA percepciones and retenciones within the
preceding one month tax-period, it is entitled to apply for an "exclusion" under Resolution17 for the
subsequent periods. That limit, however, would not apply in the case of the advance IG, which cannot
be credited until the end of the one-year tax period. In addition, the European Communities recalls
once again, however, that the prohibition of discriminatory taxes in Article III:2, first sentence, is not
qualified by a de minimis standard.
228
(iv) Existence of a differential between generally applicable rates – issue of whether the
differential is due to the tax collection method
8.146 The European Communities states that the generally applicable rate on imports to registered
taxable persons is 10 percent, while the rate applicable on internal sales of goods to registered taxable
persons is 5 percent.
8.147 Argentina maintains the application of different tax rates to import transactions does not
affect the final determination of the tax, since the levies imposed constitute payments on account
towards the tax, which have their domestic market equivalent in the respective withholding, collection
and payment-on-account regimes, like the one established under Resolution 4,059.
229 The nominal
difference in tax rates is due to the tax collection method, which is not covered by WTO disciplines.
Once the tax liability is settled, the same overall tax rates apply to imported and like domestic
products. While it is true that the advance IVA on imports has a different scope than that on domestic
sales, these differences are justified.230
8.148 In Part VI, paragraph B, of its written submission, Argentina has set forth all the reasons for
which it insists that payments on account do not constitute a "tax" in themselves but an advance
payment against a future tax, which is not in excess. It has also denied the existence of an additional
financial burden on imported products and furthermore it has pointed out the existence of a system of
reinsurance (an exemption mechanism for the IVA and its equivalent for IG, applicable to this case):
8.149 This assertion is supported by the following: the advance payments are neither taxes nor rates
additional to the taxpayer's fiscal liability but are advance payments that are direct, unrestricted and
deductible from the final tax liability.
8.150 The advance payments are part of a tax collection method or technique not subject to WTO
disciplines and recognized as such in the compared doctrine.
8.151 The rate differential of advance payments is dictated by tax collection policy considerations
and certainly not by an interest in protecting domestic industry. The rationale behind establishing
different rates (always based on a tax rate of 21 pe rcent) lies in the tax evasion loopholes observed in
the marketing chains of particular products. Accord ingly, these rates bear a relationship to the key
operational points of concentration of funds and where economic transactions can be gauged.
8.152 As already described above, those rates differ in terms of the marketing features of certain
goods, which means that the determination that in a specific case the amount (of the rate of the
payment on account) is different for the imported product – which is not the case – cannot be done in

228 See Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, Op. Cit., p. 23.
229 See Exhibit ARG-XX.
230 For an analysis of this argument, see the discussion below regarding the defence under
Article XX (d).

the abstract, but must entail an analysis of the specific "like product" or the imported product that is a
substitute or direct competitor.
8.153 To determine the rates for advance payments, the features of the transactions underlying the
payments have been considered. In that regard, specific cases have been selected involving
appreciable volumes of invoicing, as they perform a crucially important function of automatic
surveillance through formal channels, which in turn serves the purposes of "levying" various other
informal stages. This makes it possible to detect possible "upstream" and "downstream" tax evasion
and also revitalises tax collection (some examples of selected cases are: Legal Aid Funds,
Professional Bodies and Councils, Banking Entities – for payment of professional fees – rate:
14 percent; Entities forming part of lunch voucher systems – for the amount of each settlement – rate:
17 percent; Financial Entities – services provided abroad – rate 21 percent; Customs – for imports –
rate: 10 percent, among others).
(v) The additional IVA on internal transactions does not apply to sales by non-registered taxable
persons, whereas the additional IVA on imports is levied also on imports by non-registered
taxpayers
8.154 The European Communities asserts that the additional IVA on internal transactions does not
apply to sales by non-registered taxable persons, whereas the additional IVA on imports is levied also
on imports by non-registered taxpayers. In the case of sales by a registered taxpayer to a non-
registered taxpayer, the seller must collect, besides the IVA on that sale, an additional amount
equivalent, as a general rule, to 10.5 percent of the net sales price (50 percent of the generally
applicable IVA rate, i.e. 21 percent). No IVA is charged on the sales by a non-registered taxpayer to
another non-registered taxpayer. By contrast, the additional IVA is levied on imports by non-
registered tax payers at the rate of 12.7 percent
8.155 Argentina argues that while it is true that there is no payment on account on internal
transactions by non-registered taxable persons, in the case of imports the requirements laid down by
tax legislation make it practically impossible for a situation to arise where an operator importing
goods through customs is not legally required to register as a taxable person liable to the levy. Here,
the regime perpetuates an element which was found in earlier stages of Argentine tax history, but
which is today anachronistic because it cannot possibly occur in practice.
8.156 This difference in treatment was due to the fact that non-registered taxable persons did not
pay the tax and so registered taxable persons were unable to act as agentes de retención responsible
for withholding tax on the purchases they effected. In the case of a registered taxable person, on the
other hand, tax was withheld on the basis of a combined rate, i.e. a taxable base supplemented by an
added-value estimate equivalent to 50 percent of the transaction.
8.157 In this connection, Argentina mentions a statement by the then Minister for Public Revenue
and originator of the system, Carlos Miguel Tacchi,
231 to the effect that non-registered taxable persons
are subject to a higher tax rate for payments on account, which tends to cover the tax corresponding to
their stage, together with an additional amount under the regulations governing the levy. This is the
case because, in transactions effected by a registered taxable person with a non-registered person,
there is no differential tax treatment, since the tax law provides that the former must act as collection
agent (agente de percepción) for the latter, and is required to take in the increased tax payable by the
non-taxable person at the next stage.
8.158 In addition, Argentina notes that the status of non-registered taxable persons is a voluntary
one, since any individual can obtain the status of registered taxable person merely by applying to the

231 See his Article "Revolución Tributaria en la Argentina" Boletin DGI 500, August 1995, page 877.
et seq.

tax authority. In view of the above, the treatment indicated facilitates payment of the levy by means
of this assessment mechanism, while reducing the number of taxpayers subject to inspection.
8.159 In reply to a question by the Panel, the European Communities states that it is not aware of
the existence of any measure which would, as matter of law, prohibit the importation of goods by non-
registered taxpayers. The fact that Resolution 3431 lays down a different rate of percepción for
imports by non-registered taxpayers confirms that those imports are "legally possible." Argentina
itself does not argue that it is not "legally possible" for non-registered taxpayers to import goods.
Rather, Argentina contends that imports by non-registered tax payers are "practically" impossible.
Even if true, that proposition would be irrelevant. As recalled above, by now it is well-established
that "the prohibition of discriminatory taxes in Article III :2, first sentence, is not conditional on a
trade effects test nor is it qualified by a de minimis standard."
232 For that reason, even the mere
theoretical possibility of imports by non-registered taxpayers could be sufficient to establish a
violation of Article III:2, first sentence.
(vi) Situation of importers vis-à-vis entities that are not withholding agents in internal sales.
8.160 The European Communities argues that the additional IVA on internal sales is collected
only upon the sales made by agentes de percepción. In contrast, the additional IVA on imports
applies to all importers.
8.161 Argentina points out that the exemption of buyers who are required to act as withholding
agents from the levy collectable under Resolution 3337 was necessary as otherwise both collection
and withholding would occur in one and the same transaction, as the seller would have to collect the
levy from the buyer, who would in turn have to withhold the corresponding amount under
Resolution 18, on the payment to the seller.
8.162 The European Communities states that that retención, however, is withheld only on the
sales made to the so-called agentes de retención (which are the same as the agentes de percepción,
i.e. essentially big companies) 233 by any registered taxpayer 234 which is not itself an agente de
percepción/retención235.
8.163 It remains that the internal sales made by the agentes de percepción/retención are subject to a
lower percepción than the importation of goods. Furthermore, all internal sales not involving one
agente de percepción/retención as either the buyer or the seller are free from both the 5 percent
percepción and the 10.5 percent retención. Likewise, the internal transactions where both the buyer
and the seller are agentes de percepción/retención are exempted from those two taxes.
(vii) Situation of importers vis-à-vis certain categories of purchasers in internal sales
8.164 The European Communities states that the additional IVA on internal sales is not collected
on sales to certain categories of purchasers (including in particular the agentes de percepción and the
main types of financial entities), whereas the additional IVA applies to all importers.
8.165 Argentina states that financial entities governed by Law 21526 are excluded from the
collection system because they ensure that collection takes place with a high degree of efficiency and
security. It was therefore deemed unnecessary to include those financial entities, as they fall under
the control of the country's monetary authority (Cen tral Bank). Financial entities may only engage in
financial activities as their corporate purpose does not include trading. It may therefore be inferred

232 See Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, Op. Cit., p. 23.
233 RG No 18, Article 2.
234 Ibid., Article 4.
235 Ibid., Article 5 a).

that import operations effected by such entities would have to do with goods intended for use in their
economic activity ( bienes de uso ) and are therefore not subject to the tax collection regime under
Resolution 3431. The exemption of buyers who are required to act as withholding agents from the
levy collectable under Resolution 3337 was necessary as otherwise both collection and withholding
would occur in one and the same transaction, as th e seller would have to collect the levy from the
buyer, who would in turn have to withhold the corresponding amount under Resolution 18, on the
payment to the seller.
8.166 In response to Argentina's argument that the commercial resale of imported goods is not
within the " objeto social" of financial entities, the European Communities notes that neither is the
re-sale of domestic goods. Yet the internal purchase of goods by financial entities is specifically
excluded form the scope of Resolution 3337.
236 Even if Argentina's proposition was true it would be
irrelevant for the purposes of Article III:2, first sentence. The prohibition on tax discrimination set
forth in that provision is not conditional on a trade effects test, nor is it qualified by a de minimis
standard.237 For that reason, even the mere theoretical possibility of imports by financial entities
could be sufficient to establish a violation of Article III:2, first sentence.
(viii) Threshold amounts available for internal sales, yet not for imports
8.167 The European Communities asserts that the additional IVA on domestic sales does not apply
to sales below a certain amount, while the additional IVA on imports is levied on all imports,
irrespective of their value.
8.168 Argentina states that Article 5 of Resolution 3337 establishes that collection will take place
only when the amount to be levied is in excess of $ 21,30
238 per transaction, this stipulation having
been made for the sake of the reasonable, economical and practical management of the system of
collection.
8.169 No minimum amounts have therefore been set under the Resolution 3431 system of collection
as it is assumed that import transactions always involve large sums. Besides, samples of a value not
exceeding US$ 100 are subject neither to the payment of customs duties 239 nor to the system of
payments on account, which in fact indicates that ther e is a certain threshold that is also applicable to
imports.
8.170 In response to Argentina's arguments, the European Communities recalls that the prohibition
of discriminatory taxes in Article III:2, first sentence, "is not conditional on a trade effects test, nor is
it qualified by a de minimis standard."240
(ix) Equal treatment of imported and domestic products
8.171 Argentina states that marketing transactions in the domestic market were in the past as a rule
previously subject to the following payments on account, without prejudice to others applied in
particular cases:
-- The retención (withholding) regime under Resolution 3125, superseded by
Resolution 18: (10.5 percent);

236 See Article 3 c) of RG 3337.
237 See Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, Op. Cit., p. 23.
238 Exchange rate: $1 = US$1.
239 Article 560 of the Argentinean Customs Code: "Samples are objects representing a specific
category of finished goods, intended exclusively for exhibition or demonstration purposes with a view to
concluding trade transactions involving those goods that it is planned to produce, provided that the quantity of
samples for either purpose does not exceed what is usual in such cases."
240 See Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, Op. Cit, p. 23.

-- the percepción (collection) regime under Resolution 3337: (5 percent). Imports were
not subject to any system of payment on account.
8.172 In order to provide for equivalent treatment for import transactions, therefore,
Resolution 3431 was enacted, establishing a single regime for imported products, for which the tax
rate is currently 10 percent.
8.173 In view of the fact that import transactions can only be covered through a collection regime,
since foreign sellers are not liable to the levy and cannot therefore be made subject to withholding
operations, a tax rate of 10 percent was established for the collection and withholding regimes applied
in the domestic market.
8.174 The European Communities states that that retención, however, is withheld only on the
sales made to the so-called agentes de retención (which are the same as the agentes de percepción,
i.e. essentially big companies)
241 by any registered taxpayer 242 which is not itself an agente de
percepción/retención.243
8.175 The European Communities illustrates, in the ta ble below, that it remains that the internal
sales made by the agentes de percepción/retención are subject to a lower percepción than the
importation of goods. Furthermore, all internal sales not involving one agente de
percepción/retención as either the buyer or the seller are free from both the 5 percent percepción and
the 10.5 percent retención. Likewise, the internal transactions where both the buyer and the seller are
agentes de percepción/retención are exempted from those two taxes.
Imports by registered taxpayers
Imports by non-registered taxpayers
Percepción 10 %
Percepción 12.7 %
Sales by non-registered taxpayers244 Exempted
Sales to non-registered taxpayers245 Exempted
Sales by an agente de percepción/retención to another agente de retención/percepción246 Exempted
Sales by non-agentes de percepción/retención to an agente de retención/percepción247 Retención 10.5 %
Sales by an agente de retención/percepción to non-agentes de percepción/retención248 Percepción 5 %
Sales by a non-agente de percepción/retención to another non-agente de percepción/
retención249
Exempted
8.176 The mere fact that, under certain circumstances, imports are taxed at a lower rate than internal
sales is not sufficient to exclude a violation of Article III:2, first sentence, in accordance with the
well-established principle that more favourable treatment of imports in certain instances may not be
balanced against less favourable treatment of imports in other cases.250

241 RG No 18, Article 2.
242 Ibid., Article 4.
243 Ibid., Article 5 a).
244 Article 4 of RG 18.
245 Article 1 of RG 3337.
246 Article 3 b) of RG 3337 and Article 5 a) of RG 18.
247 Articles 2 and 8 of RG 18.
248 Articles 1 and 2 of RG 3337.
249 Article 1 of RG 3337 and Article 2 of RG 18
250Panel Report on United States - Measures affecting the Importation, Internal Sale and Use of
Tobacco, adopted on 4 October 1994, paragraph 98. In support of this conclusion, the Panel referred to the
"no-balancing" principle established with respect to Article III:4 by the Panel report on United States - Section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 , adopted on 7 November 1989, BISD 36S/345, 387. This principle was restated by

(x) De minimis qualification under Article III:2 of the GATT 1994
8.177 Argentina maintains that in case the panel accepts that "lost interest" is covered by
Article III:2, and it is accepted that those charges are higher than those affecting domestic products,
which Argentina refutes, then that concept should be governed by a de minimis criterion.
8.178 Argentina argues that all the precedents cited leading to the consolidation of the doctrine of
the exclusion of a de minimis criterion in analysing the first sentence of Article III:2 were cases where
what was at stake was the rate of internal taxes assessed on imported goods. In this case, the elements
of fact being studied are very different from those of the cases cited. Argentina assesses internal taxes
at rates identical for imported and domestic products. The higher charge being alleged by the
European Communities would comprise the difference in the interest supposedly foregone by an
importer for the brief period during which he was unable to set off the amount of his payment on
account against his tax debits for the period and the interest that would have accrued to a purchaser of
domestic goods.
8.179 Considering the borrowing rate indicated by the European Communities, which is
approximately 7 percent per annum in Argentina, in the light of the differential between the 10
percent IVA levied on imports and the 5 percent on the domestic market, that lost interest would be, at
the most, 0.029 percent of the amount of the levy or, otherwise expressed, 0.00029 percent of the
value of the imports. Argentina notes that this example does not reflect the fact that the local product
has already suffered said "lost interest" also in its previous processing stages.
8.180 The European Communities argues that the Appellate Body recalled in Japan – Liquor
Taxes that the first sentence of Article III:2 is not qualified (unlike the second sentence of that Article)
by a de minimis standard.
251 Accordingly, "even the smallest amount of ‘excess' is too much." 252 In
addition, the European Communities argues that that the effects of the tax differentials are far from
negligible. It may be estimated that in 1999 the financial costs imposed upon the importers by the
additional IVA and the advance IG amounted to 36 million pesos.
8.181 The European Communities also contests the figures put forward by Argentina and states that,
on the assumption that the financial cost imposed by the additional IVA is limited to 30 days, the
amount of the cost differential would be betw een 0.29 percent (and not 0.029 percent, as stated
erroneously by Argentina) and 0.58 percent of the percepción.
(b) Claim that the IG "collected" on imports imposes a heavier tax burden than the IG "withheld"
on domestic sales
8.182 The European Communities asserts that an advance IG is collected on all imports.
253 While
for domestic sales, a certain amount of the IG is withheld at source and can a be deducted from the
definitive IG,
254 the advance IG collected on imports imposes a greater tax burden than the IG
withheld on domestic sales. The European Commun ities notes that the IG on imports is paid by the
importer on top of the sales price invoiced by the foreign seller and has hence the effect of increasing
the cost of the goods to the importer, whereas the IG on internal sales is deducted from the price
charged by the seller and so does not increase the cost to the purchaser. The European Communities
states that Argentina has maintained during earlier consultations, that the advance IG on imports has
its domestic counterpart in the IG withheld on certain internal sales. As shown in the arguments

the Panel report on United States- Standards for Conventional and Reformulated Gasoline , Op. Cit, at
paragraphs 6.14-6.15.
251 See Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, Op. Cit., p. 23.
252 Ibid.
253 See RG 3,543.
254 See RG 2,784.

above, those two collection mechanisms, however, operate very differently and cannot be considered
to be equivalent.
8.183 The European Communities further argues that, even if the IG on imports and the IG on
internal sales were considered to be comparable, the following differences in rates and coverage
would still be sufficient to find that imported products are taxed "in excess of" like domestic products:
(1) the rate at which the advance IG is collected on imports (3 percent or 11 percent) is
higher than the withholding rate on internal sales (2 percent or 4 percent);
(2) the advance IG is collected on imports of goods for the importer's own use or
consumption. By contrast, in domestic transactions, no IG is withheld on payments
by natural persons, except where they are made as a result of the exercise of an
economic activity; and
(3) whereas the advance IG is collected on all imports, irrespective of their value, no IG
is withheld on internal sales below certain thresholds.
8.184 Argentina argues that the European Communities makes a simplistic analysis of the rates of
the percepciones (payments on account) applied to imports (3 percent and 11 percent), compared with
the withholding rates (retenciones) – payments on account – applied in the domestic market (2 percent
and 4 percent).
8.185 Argentina believes that the European Communities confuses the nature of the percepción
(payment on account) with the tax obligation based on the type of tax liability (gains) which is
assessed annually, but also disregards the fact that the annual cycle of IG assessment means that, in
the case of the domestic market, the taxpayer is liable to withholding ( retención) – payment on
account – on a monthly basis, whereas in the case of importers, customs effects the percepción
(payment on account) once only, i.e. when the goods undergo inward customs clearance.
8.186 In Argentina's view, in the case of the IG the European Communities once again makes a
static reading of the rates, disregarding what could be called the cycle of assessment of the tax, which
in the case of gains (ganancias) is the annual fiscal period.
8.187 Argentina notes that the 11 percent rate established under Resolution 3543 for imports of
goods intended for the importer's personal use or consumption was introduced in line with its
counterpart (Resolution 3,995), in order to extend the reach of the tax collection system by taking
account of the real tax paying capacity of taxable persons and to help improve horizontal equity by
achieving greater efficiency in combating tax avoidance, as emerges from the second and third recitals
of that Resolution.
8.188 Therefore, it is clear that the rate differential criticized by the European Communities (11
percent under Resolution 3543 and 4 percent under Resolution 2784) is based on the different uses for
which the goods are intended, as the first category of goods do not enter into a marketing chain and
will therefore not be subject to any other collection or withholding systems.
8.189 On the contrary, the 4 percent withholding provided for under Article 14.3.2 of
Resolution 2784 is applied to non-IG-registered income earners, that is, rather than being confined to
a single stage, it is applied to all but the final marketing stage of the product.
8.190 It may therefore rightly be insisted that the amounts in question, whether collected or
withheld, are tax payments on account. In the case of importers, the 3 percent payment on account,
which is applied to both registered and non-registered taxpayers, is no more than the average of the

rates levied on the internal market, which are 2 and 4 percent for registered and non-registered
taxpayers respectively.
8.191 The European Communities states that the justification offered by Argentina is misguided
as a matter of law because, as recalled before, Article III:2, first sentence, does not allow the
"balancing" of more favourable treatment in certain instances against less favourable treatment in
other cases. Moreover, the rationale for averaging the two rates is dubious, to say the least, since in
practice imports by non-registered taxpayers are likely to be relatively unimportant compared to those
made by registered taxpayers. The European Co mmunities wonders why Argentina does not apply
different rates to imports by registered and by non-registered importers, as it does in the case of the
additional IVA.
8.192 As regards the 11 percent rate applied to imports made for the importer's own use or
consumption, the European Communities states that Argentina's argument does not explain why the
internal sale of goods for the purchaser's own use or consumption is exempted from the retención
levied pursuant to Resolution 2784.
255
8.193 Argentina argues that the withholding system simplifies collection and control by reducing
the number of taxpayers subject to it. Bearing in mind that one premise of any tax system is
minimizing collection costs, it is clear that in the absence of a minimum amount below which the
withholding is not effected, the system would become inefficient for both the taxpayer and the tax
authority.
8.194 The absence of a minimum amount for collection under the regime for imported goods
established by Resolution 3543 similar to the $ 3.75 minimum established under its counterpart
Resolution 2784 for domestic products, can be explained by the following facts:
(a) The number of taxpayers subject to the Resolution 2784 regime is substantially
greater than that covered by the Resolution 3543 regime. If no minimum had been
set for the first aforementioned regime, the tax system would have become inefficient
and would not be fulfilling the premise of minimizing collection costs.
(b) As it is assumed that import transactions always entail larger sums, it was not
considered necessary to set minimum amounts. Furthermore, imported samples of a
value not exceeding a certain threshold are also not subject to IG.
8.195 The minimum monthly amounts not subject to withholding envisaged in Article 15 of
Resolution 2784 are justified in that the importation giving rise to the payment at customs constitutes
an instant taxable transaction which is completed once the operation is over. On the internal market
in contrast, account is taken of all taxable transactions taking place throughout each monthly period in
order to compute the withholding, in other words, a series of transactions take place, which justifies
the setting of the minimum amounts in question.
8.196 The European Communities states that while Argentina contends that the exemption of sales
below certain amounts is necessary to minimise collection costs. That objective, even if true, would
not exclude a violation of Article III:2, first sentence. In any event, there is no reason why that
objective could not be served by exempting also imports below the same threshold.

255 Natural persons are required to withhold the IG only where they make a payment to a taxable person
as a result of the exercise of an economic activity. See the European Communities' First Submission,
paragraphs. 68 and 96 (2), and Article 3 f) of RG 2784

8.197 As regards the withholding mechanism descri bed by Argentina, the European Communities
argues that the IG is not withheld on a monthly basis. The truth is that, in principle, the IG must be
withheld on each internal transaction at the moment when the payment is made.
8.198 Article 5 of Resolution 2784 provides in that respect that "La retención deberá ser practicada
correspondiente al concepto sujeto a retención."
8.199 Article 13, first paragraph, of Resolution 2784 further provides that "La retención deberá
8.200 Argentina appears to be alluding to the special method for calculating the amount of the
retención provided for in Article 13, second paragraph, of Resolution 2784 in connection with the
situation where an agente de retención makes several payments within the same calendar month to
the same person. The purpose of that method is to take into account that, in accordance with
Article 15.3 of Resolution 2784, monthly payments below a certain amount are exempt from
withholding.256
8.201 Article 13, second paragraph of Resolution 2784 suggests that while retenciones are withheld
on a transaction basis, those amounts already withheld must be taken into account by the agente de
retención in assessing the amount to be withheld in subsequent purchases.
8.202 The argument set out at paragraph 125 of Argentina's First Submission is not only inaccurate,
but also irrelevant. Indeed, far from accounting for the tax differentials at issue, the difference alleged
by Argentina would have the consequence of imposing yet another additional financial cost on
imports compared to internal sales.
8.203 The European Communities holds that Argentina's argument to show why importers cannot
benefit from a monthly allowance from the advance IG is not convincing. The mere fact that the
advance IG is collected upon the importation of the goods does not exclude the possibility of granting
a monthly allowance. As shown above, in principl e, the IG is withheld also on each single internal
transaction. Argentina does not explain why a method similar to the one provided for in Article 13,
second paragraph, of Resolution 2784 could not be applied by the customs authorities with respect to
imports.
8.204 In addition, the European Communities recalls, once more, that Article III:2, first sentence is
not qualified by any de minimis standard.
(i) Mechanism for the exemption from the advance IG collection on imports
8.205 Following its arguments relating to the exemption mechanism for the IVA, Argentina states
that the exemption mechanism in Resolution 2784
257 has been established to secure exemption from
the collection regimes covering import transactions for those cases where direct tax revenue could
give rise to overpayment in complying with the resp ective tax liabilities. In reply to a question by the
Panel, Argentina asserts that the mechanism envisaged in Resolution 2784 does apply for the purposes
of securing exemption from the collection regimes covering import transactions.
8.206 With respect to exemption from the IG withholding and collection regimes, Article 28 of
Resolution 2784 provides for the issue of a special non-withholding certificate, when the direct taxes
to be assessed in the fiscal period could give rise to a payment in excess of the tax liability.

256 See European Communities' First Submission, paragraph 67 and Article 15.3 of RG 2784.
257 See Exhibit EC II-10.

8.207 Circular 1277 for its part explained that gains tax non-withholding certificates issued in
accordance with Article 28 are a valid basis for the customs authority to waive the assessment of the
levy collectable under Resolution 3543. The application for exemption may be filed before final tax
liability is determined, provided that the rule – Article 28 of Resolution 2784 – does not stipulate as a
condition that the tax payer must have a tax balance in his favour.
8.208 To benefit under the provisions of Article 28 of Resolution 2784, a taxpayer must show that
the withholdings to which he is subject during the course of the tax period – annual – will give rise to
overpayment in the discharge of his tax liability. For those purposes, an examination is made of the
breakdown of IG payments on account made during the current tax period, projected gains for the
remainder of the period, and the possibility of absorbing losses and credit balances arising from the
sworn IG declaration for the preceding tax period. If at the time the gains tax liability is determined
the taxpayer is in a loss position and therefore owes no income tax, he may request the refund of the
amounts paid as "IG advances."
8.209 Argentina notes, however, that the exemption mechanism from the advance IG, but also from
the advance IVA, are hardly used, as the number of situations in which the payments on account
actually generate a credit in favour of the taxpayer is virtually negligible. AFIP figures show that of
the entire universe of taxpayers, less than 2 percent request to be placed under the system of
exemption. This clearly shows that over 98 percent of importers have had no credit balances with the
tax authority as a result of their obligation to make payments on account.
8.210 The European Communities states that contrary to Argentina's contentions, the "exclusion"
mechanism provided for in Article 28 of Resolution 2784 does not remedy the discrimination which is
the subject of the European Communities' claim.
258 An importer may request to be "excluded" from
percepciones only where it can be anticipated that those pre-payments will exceed its tax liability at
the end of the tax period. Moreover, the exclusion is not granted in respect of all percepciones, but
only to the extent that it is anticipated that the percepciones will exceed the final tax liability.
8.211 The European Communities' complaint, however, is not concerned with those importers
which find themselves in a loss position at the end of the relevant fiscal period. It is concerned with
the extra financial cost imposed by the percepciones during the tax period. That cost is incurred
whether or not the importer is able to credit the full amount of the percepciones within the relevant
tax period.
(ii) Mechanism for refunds in situations of actual overpayment of taxes
8.212 Argentina contends that in the event that the IG advances should exceed the tax liability
determined, the taxpayer may request the refund of the excess amounts paid as "IG advances" in
keeping with the provisions of Resolution 2224.
8.213 Argentina also notes that Resolution 1253/98 issued by the then Minister for the Economy,
Works and Public Services
259 set the interest rate (0.5 percent per month) payable by the Government
when the IG advances exceed the tax liability determined for the period. This interest is calculated as
of the filing date of the refund request by taxpayer.
8.214 The European Communities states that, for similar reasons than the exemption mechanism,
also the refund mechanism fails to dispose of the European Communities' claim. That mechanism
does not allow to claim the refund of the financial costs imposed by the percepciones during the tax
period. It allows only to request the refund of the amount by which the percepciones already paid
exceed the taxpayer's final liability at the end of the fiscal period. If the refund claim is accepted, the

258 The same argument is made above with regard to exemptions from the advance IVA.
259 See Exhibit ARG-XXXVII.

tax authorities will pay interest exclusively on the amount refunded from the moment where the claim
was filed. Yet, in order to avoid the discriminatory effects complained of by the European
Communities, the tax authorities would have to pay interest on the full amount of the percepciones
from the moment they are collected by customs.
(iii) De minimis qualification under Article III:2 of the GATT 1994
8.215 Argentina maintains that in case the panel accepts that "lost interest" is covered by
Article III:2, and it is accepted that those charges are higher than those affecting domestic products,
which Argentina refutes, then that concept should be governed by a de minimis criterion.
8.216 Argentina argues that all the precedents cited leading to the consolidation of the doctrine of
the exclusion of a de minimis criterion in analysing the first sentence of Article III:2 were cases where
what was at stake was the rate of internal taxes assessed on imported goods. In this case, the elements
of fact being studied are very different from those of the cases cited. Argentina assesses internal taxes
at rates identical for imported and domestic products. The higher charge being alleged by the
European Communities would comprise the difference in the interest supposedly foregone by an
importer for the brief period during which he was unable to set off the amount of his payment on
account against his tax debits for the period and the interest that would have accrued to a purchaser of
domestic goods.
8.217 The European Communities argues that the Appellate Body recalled in Japan – Liquor
Taxes that the first sentence of Article III:2 is not qualified (unlike the second sentence of that Article)
by a de minimis standard.
260 Accordingly, "even the smallest amount of ‘excess' is too much." 261 In
addition, the European Communities argues that the effects of the tax differentials are far from
negligible. It may be estimated that in 1999 the financial costs imposed upon the importers by the
additional IVA and the advance IG amounted to 36 million pesos.
8.218 The European Communities also contests the figures put forward by Argentina and states that,
the financial cost imposed by the advance IG amounts to 7 percent of the percepción.
4. The requirement of "protection" in the application of Article III:2 of the GATT 1994
8.219 Argentina argues that "protection of the domestic production" is -- together with the
existence of a "higher tax" -- a necessary requirem ent in order to ascertain an inconsistency of a
measure with Article III:2.
8.220 Argentina contends that the European Communitie s is correct in asserting that the Appellate
Body, in its report Japan - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , found that in order to establish a violation
of Article III:2, first sentence, it was not necessary for the complaining party to prove, as a separate
requirement, that the measure at issue is applied so as to afford protection to domestic production.
8.221 However, the Appellate Body clearly established that the first paragraph of Article III of the
Agreement informs paragraph 2 of that same Article. It then pointed out that "Article III:2, first
sentence does not refer specifically to Article III:1," and that "[t]here is no specific invocation in this
first sentence of the general principle in Article III:1 that admonishes Members of the WTO not to
apply measures 'so as to afford protection.'" It therefore concludes that "[t]his omission must have
some meaning." According to the Appellate Body, that meaning is "… simply that the presence of a
protective application need not be established separately from the specific requirements that are
included in the first sentence in order to show that a tax measure is inconsistent with the general
principle set out in the first sentence."

260 See Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, Op. Cit., p. 23.
261 Ibid.

8.222 Argentina notes that special attention should be paid here to two terms used by the Appellate
Body, namely, simply and separately. The Appellate Body says simply precisely because it is not
attempting to read into that omission an exemption from a requirement that clearly informs the entire
Article III. The word simply is underscoring the fact that there is nothing outside of the general rule,
nothing exceptional, but simply that it is not necessary to establish separately the existence of the
requirement of protection of domestic industry.
8.223 The Appellate Body used the adverb "separately" and not the adjective " separate." What the
Appellate Body was doing was describing the action of "establishing" with the adverb " separately"
rather than qualifying the noun " requirement" with the adjective " separate." In other words, the
analysis must be done jointly and not "separately." The Appellate Body is not talking about the
existence or otherwise of the requirement, but about the way in which its existence must be
determined, that is, jointly with the other "specific requirements" and not " separately." In other
words, the Appellate Body's pronouncement in no way implies that there is no need to demonstrate
the existence of the aforementioned element of protection.
8.224 Argentina argues that its contention is further clarified as the Appellate Body, in the same
case, goes on to state that " … this does not mean that the general principle of Article III:1 does not
apply to this [first] sentence [of Article III:2]." Immediately thereafter it adds: "[r]ead in their context
and in the light of the overall object and purpose of the WTO Agreement, the words of the first
sentence [of Article III:2] require an examination of the conformity of an internal tax measure with
Article III …"
8.225 In Argentina's view, this shows irrefutably th at the statement referred to by the European
Communities must not be interpreted outside the general context of section F. Interpretation of
Article III of that report, where it is repeatedly explained that the object being pursued by Members in
Article III is to prohibit the application of higher taxes in order to protect domestic industry.
Accordingly, on page 15 it is clearly established that "[t]he broad and fundamental purpose of
Article III is to avoid protectionism in the application of internal tax and regulatory measures. More
specifically, the purpose of Article III ‘is to ensure that internal measures not be applied to imported
or domestic products so as to afford protection to domestic industry'."
8.226 Subsequently, also on page 15, the Report again states "The Article III national treatment
obligation is a general prohibition on the use of internal taxes and other internal regulatory measures
so as to afford protection to domestic production."
8.227 The Appellate Body also cites, in the same case, the words of a delegate in the Tariff
Agreement Committee at the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Employment in the discussion as to whether to include in the GATT 1947
the national treatment clause from the draft Charter for an International Trade Organization: "That
purpose was to prevent the use of internal taxes as a system of protection."
8.228 But, as if that were not enough to establish the need to interpret the first sentence of
Article III: 2 in the context of the entire Article III and of the other WTO disciplines, on page 17 the
Appellate Body adds a quotation from the Panel report on the case Japan – Customs Duties, Taxes
and Labelling Practices on Imported Wines and Alcoholic Beverages , which says that the object and
purpose of Article III:2 was "promoting non-discriminatory competition among imported and like
domestic products [which] could not be achieved if Article III:2 were construed in a manner allowing
discriminatory and protective internal taxation of imported products in excess of like domestic
products." It can be seen that here again, the concept of protection appears together with that of
discrimination.
8.229 The preceding quotations do not cover all the occasions on which the Appellate Body made
this point in the case cited to by the European Communities. That is to say, in the case of Japan –

Alcoholic Beverages , the Appellate Body repeatedly reaffirms that the criterion for verifying the
inconsistency of a measure with Article III:2 clearly contains the element of protection of domestic
products.
8.230 This is the same interpretation that is given on page 125 of the Guide to GATT Law and
Practice (Sixth updated edition, 1995), where the report of the Panel on the case United States –
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is quoted as follows " … the purpose of Article III … is to ensure
that internal measures 'not be applied to imported or domestic products so as to afford protection to
domestic production' (Article III:1)." The same Guide (page 126) also quotes the 1992 Panel Report
United States – Measures Affecting Alcoholic and Malt Beverages as follows: " … with respect to the
application of the Article III rules which compare the tax treatment accorded to "like products": The
basic purpose of Article III is to ensure … 'that internal taxes and other internal charges, and laws,
regulations and requirements affecting the internal sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use of
products … should not be applied to imported or domestic products so as to afford protection to
domestic production'." Immediately thereafter the same Guide cites another statement by the Panel
affirming with the utmost clarity: "The purpose of Article III is thus not to prevent contracting parties
from using their fiscal and regulatory powers for pur poses other than to afford protection to domestic
production. Specifically, the purpose of Article III is not to prevent contracting parties from
differentiating between different product categories for policy purposes unrelated to the protection of
domestic production." Conversely, therefore, the protection of domestic production is an
indispensable requirement in determining consistency with Article III. The same Panel reaffirms this
in regard to that case by going on to state that "… it is necessary to consider whether such product
differentiation is being made 'so as to afford protection to domestic production'."
8.231 Further on, the Panel refers to the purpose of Arti cle III as being: "… to ensure that internal
taxes and regulations 'not be applied to imported or domestic products so as to afford protection of
domestic production'." As can be seen, there is no first sentence of Article III: 2 that diverges from
the general system of that Article which establishes the requirement of protection of domestic
production as an essential element in assessing the consistency of a measure with the Agreement in
general and with Article III in particular.
8.232 The European Communities contests Argentina's interpretation of Article III:2, and argues
that according to the Appellate Body, the first sentence of Article III:2 is an "application" of the
general principle embodied in Article III :1. For that reason, "if the imported and domestic products
are like products, and if the taxes applied to the imported products are in excess of those applied to
like domestic products, then it is inconsistent with Article III:1 first sentence."
262 In Japan – Taxes on
Alcoholic Beverages , the Appellate Body clarified that, although the general principle set forth in
Article III:1 informs also the first sentence of Article III:2, in order to establish a violation of
Article III:2, first sentence, it is not necessary for the complaining party to prove, as a separate
requirement, that the measure at issue is applied "so as to afford protection to domestic production."263
8.233 The European Communities recalls that the purpose of Article III is to provide equality of
competitive conditions for imported products. For that reason, it is not incumbent upon the
complaining party to prove that the tax measures in dispute are capable of having any particular
effect. In the words of the Appellate Body,
264

262 See Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, Op. Cit., at pp. 18-19.
263 See Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , Op. Cit., at pp. 18-19; see also the Appellate Body
report on European Communities – Regime for the Importation, sale and Distribution of Bananas , Op. Cit.,
paragraph 216.
264 See Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , Op. Cit., at p. 16; See also the Appellate Body report
on Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS75/AB/R, WT/DS84/AB/R, adopted 17 February 1999, at
paragraphs. 119 and 153.

"It is irrelevant that the ‘trade effects' of the tax differential between imported and
domestic products, as reflected in the volume of imports, are insignificant or even
non-existent; Article III protects expectations not of any particular trade volume, but
rather of the equal competitive relationship between imported and domestic
products."
8.234 The European Communities argues that Argentina's position brings to mind the so-called
"aims-and-effect" approach applied by the Panel in US – Malt and Alcoholic Beverages. 265 T h e
Appellate Body in Japan – Liquor Taxes, however, rejected that approach.266
8.235 The analysis conducted by the Appellate Body in Japan – Liquor Taxes confirms beyond
doubt that the presence of "protective application" is not a relevant criterion for a like product
determination.267 The European Communities adds that the presence of "protective application" is
neither relevant for determining whether imported products are taxed "in excess" of domestic
products. As recalled by the Appellate Body in Japan – Liquor Taxes "even the smallest amount of
"excess" is too much." The prohibition of discriminatory taxes in Article III :2, first sentence, is not
conditional on a trade effects test nor is it qualified by a de minimis standard."268
B. GENERAL EXCEPTION OF ARTICLE XX (D) OF THE GATT 1994
8.236 Argentina asserts that in case the Panel should consider the payments on account to be in
violation of Article III:2, they would be covered by the provisions of Article XX(d) of the
GATT 1994.
8.237 The European Communities states that Article XX(d) is a limited and conditional exception
from the substantive obligations contained in other provisions of the GATT.
269 As such, it must be
interpreted narrowly. 270 Moreover, in the view of the European Communities, Argentina has not
shown that the measure is necessary.
1. Paragraph (d) of Article XX of the GATT 1994
8.238 Argentina states that paragraph (d) of Article XX spells out two types of requirements for
justifying the existence of a measure. It must be "necessary" and intended to secure compliance with
"laws or regulations which are not inconsistent" with the General Agreement.
(a) "To secure compliance with laws or regulations which are not inconsistent with the provisions
of this Agreement"
8.239 Argentina first points out that the IVA and IG Laws are compatible with the General
Agreement and that they have not been contested by the European Communities. Similarly, the
regimes for the collection of advances established under Resolutions 3431 (collection of IVA

265 Panel report on United States – Measures Affec ting Alcoholic and Malt Beverages , BISD 39S/206,
at paragraphs. 5.23-5.26.
266 As confirmed by the Report of the Appellate Body on European Communities – Regime for the
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, Op. Cit., at paragraph 241.
267 See Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, Op. Cit., pp. 19-23.
268 Ibid., p. 23.
269 See United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Op. Cit., p. 22.
270 The Panel Report on United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna , circulated on 16 June 1994,
not adopted, DS29/R, recorded (at paragraphs. 5.26 and 5.38) that "the long-standing practice of panels has ...
been to interpret this provision [Article XX] narrowly, in a manner that preserves the basic objectives and
principles of the General Agreement. The Panel referred to the Panel Reports on Canada - Administration of the
Foreign Investment Review Act, BISD 30S/140, paragraph 5.20, and United States - Section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, BISD 36S/345, paragraph 5.27.

advances), and 3543 (collection of IG advances) as a tax collection method have not been questioned
by the European Communities and have specifically been accepted by it as consistent with WTO
obligations.
8.240 The "measures" ( Resolutions 3431 and 3543) were chosen by the Argentine State as tools
with which to avert illegal actions under the IVA and IG Laws, such as failure to pay the specified
tax. The rules on the collection of IVA and IG advances at customs were drafted in order to ensure
compliance with the respective laws.
8.241 Over and above the State's general interest in preventing tax evasion, the measures in question
are tools that establish an obligation to pay a percentage on account at the time of importation, that is,
an "advance payment" that covers the following stage of tax payment in the case of the IVA and that
of the payment on account against gains accruing in the future in the case of the IG. The payments on
account serve as a compulsory reserve that ensures compliance with the tax liability at the appropriate
time. Consequently, Resolutions 3431 and 3543 were specifically designed to ensure compliance
with the obligations imposed by the IG and IVA Laws. In the case of the IG, the objective is to
ensure payment of the due taxes to the tax authority based on gains obtained by natural or legal
persons on the basis of Article 1 of the IG Law. As for the IVA, the purpose is to ensure payment of
amounts due under the respective taxable transactions covered under Article 1 of the IVA Law (sales,
imports, services etc.), Articles 69 and 90 of the IG Law and Article 28 of the IVA Law, among
others.
8.242 The measures in question comply with the requirements of Article XX(d) inasmuch as they
were necessary to "secure compliance" with laws or regulations that are consistent with the General
Agreement. This is in line with what was established by the Panel on the case EEC – Imports of Parts
and Components, where it was stated that
"the main function of Article XX(d) would be to permit contracting parties to act
inconsistently with the General Agreement whenever such inconsistency is necessary
to ensure that the obligations that the contracting parties may impose consistently with
the General Agreement under their laws or regulations are effectively enforced."
271
Further on, the same Panel held that "Article XX(d) covers only measures related to
the enforcement of obligations under laws and regulations consistent with the General
Agreement."
8.243 The same Panel then went on to state
" … the general anti-dumping Regulation of the EEC does not establish obligations
that require enforcement, it merely establishes a legal framework for the authorities of
the EEC. Only the individual regulations imposing definitive anti-dumping duties
give rise to obligations that require enforcement, namely the obligation to pay a
specified amount of anti-dumping duties. The Panel noted that the anti-circumvention
duties do not serve to enforce the payment of anti-dumping duties."272
8.244 As has been mentioned above, with their rates different for imported products depending on
the case, the payments on account are ideal instruments for ensuring compliance with the obligations
arising from the IVA and the IG Laws. These are the "objectives of the laws and regulations" in the
same sense as in the case Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals.273

271 EEC – Regulation on Imports of Parts and Components. BISD 37S/132-199, paragraph 5.17.
272 Idem, paragraph 5.18.
273 See Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, Op. Cit., paragraph 5.9.

(b) The "necessary" character of the measure
8.245 Argentina states that it is incumbent on the party applying a measure under Article XX (d) to
assess the necessity thereof. This is so because no one else could be better placed to judge what is
necessary for implementing a tax administration function, such as ensuring tax collection.
8.246 Argentina argues that the rights and obligations of Members are "set forth and clarified" by
the panels on the basis of a definition of necessity as invoked by a Contracting Party.
8.247 To spell out the scope of the expression "necessary to secure compliance … ," the sequence
text, context and end objective of the Vienna Conv ention must be followed, rather than beginning by
adding to the text obligations not contained therein: "if an alternative measure which it could
reasonably be expected to employ and which is not inconsistent with other GATT provisions is
available to it."
8.248 With respect to the first aspect, the text of Article XX(d) in no way qualifies the content of
"necessary," nor does it attach any specific requirements such as determining "a reasonable
alternative" that could be used and which more over would not be "inconsistent" with GATT/WTO
provisions. By its very definition – as an exception – Article XX deals with "measures" that are
somehow inconsistent with the GATT.
8.249 It is hard to imagine that a government, faced with the choice of a measure "consistent" with
GATT/WTO rules and disciplines and which meets its need to ensure compliance with laws and
regulations, would willingly opt for an inconsistent alternative. Accepting such a line of reasoning as
a principle would mean assuming a lack of good faith on the part of a WTO Member by considering
that it would be prepared to use what is an exception – the Article XX justification – as a habitual
routine for flouting the obligations deriving from the General Agreement.
8.250 The context of paragraph (d) is conditioned by its chapeau, which establishes the conditions
for invoking an exception. That is, that it does not constitute a means of "arbitrary discrimination …
or a disguised restriction …." There can be no more precise context for determining the scope of the
requirement of "necessity" than that provided by the very chapeau to that article, in conjunction with
a textual interpretation of the relevant paragraph, in this case, paragraph (d), which immediately goes
on to specify the conditioning or qualifying element that sets the scope of the concept of "necessary"
measures; i.e. that they must be necessary to secure the observance of laws and regulations.
8.251 Argentina contends that it would not be appropriate for panels to begin evaluating the
alternatives that a country may have used in order to ensure observance of laws and regulations,
beyond what is textually required in subparagraph (d). Where does subparagraph (d) prescribe that
the government of a State must analyse an array of options, and choose the least restrictive? What is
the yardstick for defining what is less restrictive? Accepting this approach would mean supplanting
the sovereignty of governments by a panel's evaluation. To begin with, a panel cannot evaluate a
government's need, for various reasons, to adopt a tool that assures it of compliance with another rule.
In the second place, neither does it have a standard nor yardstick against which to judge necessity, as
the concept of necessity depends on various factors that no one can better evaluate than the country
taking the measure. Lastly, the role of the DSU pursuant to Article 3.2 is to clarify the provisions of
the agreements covered and not to create additional rights and/or obligations.
8.252 The test of necessity required under Article XX (d) cannot be made conditional upon a largely
relative test, given that the full range of alternatives available in a case could be very difficult to
determine, especially for a developing country. Such an approach would mean transforming a case
covered by the Article XX:(d) exception into a situation, at least in theory, which could always be
legally challenged as possible new available alternatives emerge. A certain degree of discretion must

therefore be allowed the Member invoking the exception in determining which measure is necessary
for securing observance of laws and regulations that are not inconsistent with the general agreement.
8.253 The European Communities argues that it is well established that, while it is for each
Member to define its policy goals ( in casu the desired level of enforcement of the tax measures), it is
the Panel's task to examine whether the measures applied by a Member are "necessary" to achieve
those goals. 274 Therefore Argentina's reasoning that the assessment of the necessity of a measure
should be left "basically" to the Member invoking Article XX (d) is clearly mistaken.
8.254 The relevant "test" is found in the Panel report in US – Section 337 , which held that a
Member cannot justify a measure as "necessary" in terms of Article XX (d) "if an alternative measure
which could be reasonably be expected to employ and which is not inconsistent with other GATT
provisions is available to it." 275 The same test was applied in Thailand – Cigarettes 276 and in US –
Gasoline,277 two cases concerning Article XX (b), which also includes the term "necessary."
8.255 Contrary to Argentina's assertions, the test enunciated in US – Section 337 does not read any
additional requirements into Articles XX(b) or (d). The ordinary meaning of "necessary" is
"unavoidable," "that cannot be dispensed with," "essential." 278 Therefore, it is plain that a measure
cannot be considered as "necessary" to achieve a certain objective if the same objective can be
attained through other means.
8.256 Argentina's view that it is enough to show that the measure is merely "intended" ("destinada")
to secure compliance ignores the ordinary meaning of the term "necessary" and effectively reads that
requirement out of Article XX(d).
8.257 In US – Gasoline , the Appellate Body criticised the Panel for importing the "necessity" test
provided for in Article XX(b) into Article XX(g), where the drafters chose not to use the term
"necessary" but instead the phrase "primarily aimed at." 279 The Appellate Body emphasised that, in
view of the different wording of the exceptions listed in Article XX,
"it does not seem reasonable to suppose that the WTO members intended to require, in
respect of each and every category, the same kind or degree of connection or
relationship between the measure and the state interest or policy sought to be
promoted or realized."280
8.258 The European Communities believes that Argentina makes the same mistake as the Panel in
US - Gasoline . It disregards the express wording of Article XX(d) and seeks to replace the
"necessity" test provided therein by a different test; more similar to that found in letters (c), (e) or (g)
of Article XX. Argentina's explanations may be relevant in order to show that the collection of
percepciones and retenciones is "necessary" to fight tax fraud. But they fail to explain why it is
necessary to collect them at higher rates on imported than on domestic products.

274 Panel Report on United States – Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 , BISD 36S/345, paragraph
5.25 et seq.; Panel Report on Thailand – Restrictions on Importation and Internal taxes on Cigarettes , BISD
37S/200, paragraph 72 et seq.; and Panel Report on US – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional
Gasoline, WT/DS2/R, at paragraph 39.
275 Panel report on US – Section 337, at paragraph 5.26.
276 Panel report on Thailand – Cigarettes, Op. Cit., paragraph 5.26.
277 Panel report on US – Gasoline, WT/DS2/R, Op. Cit., paragraph 6.24.
278 Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition.
279 See US – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Report by the Appellate Body,
WT/DS2/AB/R, at p. 16.
280 Ibid., at pp. 17-18.

8.259 Argentina considers that the rate differential questioned by the European Communities is
justified given the varying degrees of tax avoidance existing across the various sectors of the
economy. Thus, a 10 percent rate is applied in the import sector while withholding agents apply a
10.5 percent rate in their transactions with their suppliers and a 5 percent rate for transactions with
their purchasers.
8.260 In response to a question by the Panel, Argentina explains why, in its view, it is necessary
within the meaning of Article XX(d) for Argentina to collect a 3 percent advance IG compared to a
withholding rate of 2 percent in the case of internal sale and to use an advance IVA rate of 10 percent
on imports by registered taxable persons and a rate of only 5 percent on internal sales to registered
taxable persons.
8.261 Argentina states that the context of the introduction of the payment on account systems was
tax evasion and the need for fiscal balance. These systems have enabled Argentina to effectively
collect taxes and secure compliance with the tax obligations stemming from the IVA and IG Laws.
8.262 Argentina maintains that the measures have been highly effective:281
1. The 30 percent of overall IVA collection (total IVA tax take for 1999:
$ 21894964000; tax take from payments on account: $ 6703655000) was possible
thanks to the withholding and collection regime. This percentage testifies to the
importance of the regime, in particular considering that revenue from payments on
account are spread over the tax period.
2. The 48 percent of overall gains tax revenue was the result of the regimes for
withholding and collection at source (overall IG tax revenue: $ 9239968000; tax
revenue from withholdings and levies collected: $ 4507305000).
8.263 The existing rate differences applicable to import transactions and domestic transactions
result from the fact that imported goods represent a considerable proportion, while on the internal
market, to obtain the same product, the raw material undergoes a series of processes and changes.
8.264 Argentina explains that here are 19 payment on account regimes existing on the domestic
market, some of which apply to the different marketing stages of one and the same product, by
assessing the different payments on account at the various stages in the chain. Collection at customs
on the other hand is a one-off operation and therefore justifies rates of payment on account that
presupposes the incorporation of added value, generally of up to 50 percent.
8.265 The European Communities points out that Argentina's argument that the rate differential is
necessary to compensate for the fact that domestic products have been subjected to percepciones and
retenciones at previous stages of production is misplaced in the context of Article XX. Indeed, if true,
it would exclude a violation of Article III:2, first sentence, and therefore would make it unnecessary
for Argentina to invoke Article XX.
8.266 Argentina further argues that there is a high degree of centralization of formal transactions
and that the customs posts are therefore of crucial importance in collecting advance payments that will
ensure transparency in subsequent transactions. The rationale behind the rate differentials arises from
the generic difference between import and domestic market transactions. On the internal market,
given the wide geographical spread of transactions, it is possible to apply lower rates which then add
up to equal and/or surpass the rates applied to import transactions. The reason for applying the 10
percent advance IVA rate and a 3 percent IG rate at customs was set due to the heavier concentration
of transactions, since it has a multiplier effect with respect to tax collection, given that it acts as an

281 See Exhibit ARG-XXXIX

incentive to formalise subsequent transactions in th e chain of payment. This is the rationale behind
the higher rates that are applied at Customs.
8.267 The European Communities contests Argentina's argument and states that from the fact that
the collection of taxes on imports is easier, it does not follow logically that it is "necessary" to collect
higher taxes on imports. If anything, the implicati on to be drawn from that proposition would be the
opposite, namely that the tax rates on internal sales should be higher than on imports, so as to
compensate for the fact that more internal sales escape taxation.
8.268 Argentina recalls that the application of different rates under the withholding or collection
regimes does not affect the determination of final tax liability, as those amounts represent payments
on account against the tax.
8.269 Argentina argues that both at the time when it was decided to introduce the payments on
account regime and subsequent thereto, in the light of its performance, there was no other reasonable
alternative available to Argentina that could have enabled it to achieve the level of compliance with
the IVA and the IG Laws that are now being witnessed. What is more, even in Argentina's present
fiscal situation, there are no other alternatives. This is borne out as well by the numbers given in the
forms in Exhibit ARG-XXXIX, from which the following conclusions may be drawn:
1. The percentage of IVA payments on account collected on domestic market operations
is 82 percent (total take from payments on account: $ 6703655,000; payments on
account on the domestic market: $ 5514068000 and at customs: $ 1189586000) and
18 percent on import transactions.
2. The percentage gains tax take from withholdings and levies collected is
$ 4507305000, with the domestic market accounting for $ 4091227000 (90 percent)
and import transactions for $ 416078000 (10 percent).
8.270 At the present rate of 10 percent, payments on account at customs yield an average income of
around US$ 100 million per month in the case of th e IVA. The IG equivalent is approximately
34 million per month. Hence, a one-point difference in the rate of collection of any of the two
payments on account (IVA and IG) means a monthly tax revenue loss of 14 million pesos from two
taxes under which payments on account represent 30 percent and 48 percent of the overall tax take as
explained earlier.
8.271 The European Communities notes that the percepciones on imports are pre-payments of the
final tax. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the loss of tax revenue due to a reduction of the
percepciones would be definitive. Moreover, Argentina does not explain why raising the rates
applicable to internal sales could not compensate loss of tax revenue.
8.272 Argentina asserts that the payments on account help to improve collection as they account
for practically 50 percent in the case of the IG.
8.273 In other words, the various regimes for withholding and/or collection are indispensable to
securing observance of tax laws and are at the same time an efficacious means of averting tax evasion.
This is so because the existence of those regimes helps to cover marginal sectors of the economy as
those assessed for withholdings and/or levies are obliged to declare all their transactions, precisely
because those payments are in the nature of advances.
8.274 The European Communities recalls that the "additional IVA" does not purport to "enforce"
the "ordinary" IVA due on the importation (which is fully paid upon importation, together with any
applicable customs duties, and cannot be evaded unless the goods are smuggled into Argentina), but
instead the "ordinary" IVA due on the subsequent re-sale of the imported goods. That re-sale is an

internal transaction. Therefore, Argentina's argument that the "control mechanisms" referred to
cannot be applied by Customs is totally irrelevant. The European Communities argues that Argentina
has not provided evidence that the "ordinary" IVA due on the re-sale of imported goods is more
frequently evaded, or easier to evade, than the "ordinary" IVA on the internal sale of domestic goods.
Indeed, Argentina cannot provide that evidence becau se the only difference between the two types of
transactions is the origin of the goods sold.
8.275 Argentina stresses that the initial rates were lower than those now in force under the various
payment on account regimes and that the rates were successively increased in order to narrow the gap
between actual and potential tax collection. The effect is reflected by the fact that with the successive
increases in the rates for payments on account, final tax revenue also increased, which means that the
increases made it possible to tap the informal sectors of the economy. If those untaxed informal
sectors did not exist, the increase in the payments on account rates would not have led to an increase
in the final tax take, as those payments on account are credited against the final settlement of the tax.
8.276 Argentina also points out that in fact, since the institution of the payments on account regimes
at customs (1991 and 1992), not only have imports increased steadily, but in proportional terms, their
growth has also outstripped sales on the domestic market.
8.277 With respect to small local buyers, a higher rate would not have the same multiplier effect of
lending greater transparency to downstream operations because, coming almost at the end of the
marketing chain, there is the risk that payments on account could give rise to overpayment in the
discharge of tax liability. An increase in the rate would therefore lead to a greater number of
applications for exemption and that could open the way to informal transactions with the consequent
reduction in tax collection.
8.278 The European Communities recalls that exclusions are granted only to the extent that the
final liability exceeds the amount paid by way of percepciones and retenciones. Therefore, while
higher percepción and retención rates may result in an increase in the number of exclusions, they will
not lead per se to a loss of "advance" tax revenue. In any event, importers also re-sell the imported
goods to small local buyers. Argentina's argument does not explain why those re-sales are subject to a
higher percepción rate than the sales of domestic goods to small local buyers.
8.279 Argentina underlines that in those cases where there is an equivalent on the domestic market,
a rate of payment on account is applied equal to or greater than that levied at customs. Such is the
case of the withholding agents under Resolution 18, which, being equivalent to customs as far as the
concentration of formal transactions is concerned, must withhold 10.5 percent on transactions with
their suppliers, pursuant to that regulation. What is more, in other activities where there is a similarly
high concentration of transactions, such as payments of certain professional fees, a 14 percent rate is
withheld (Resolution 3316/91).
8.280 Therefore, the financial impact represented by each percentage point in the rate of collection
is considerable (for the Argentine economy is US$ 14 million). Argentina states that it has
demonstrated above that it cannot be argued that as the tax rate is a single one, the final fiscal income
will be the same.
8.281 Argentina wishes to clarify in that regard that in the context of high tax evasion, the rate of
payment of account set for imports obliges importers to declare their subsequent transactions, which
means that if that rate is reduced, the overall tax rate would fall because, in the absence of an
incentive to be open about their subsequent transactions, these taxpayers would not declare them,
thereby not subjecting them to the tax.
8.282 Argentina therefore rejects the European Communities claim that a reduction of the rate of
payment on account would not affect the definitive tax take.

8.283 Argentina also notes that a reduction in the rate of payment on account would spawn another
financial problem, given that Argentina's tax accounts are reviewed on a quarterly basis by the IMF
and the revenue from the payments on account helps to achieve the targets set.
8.284 In other words, ensuring revenue of US$ 14 million for each point of payment on account at
the close of a quarter in which there is a specific IMF deficit commitment (with the possibility of
failure to comply and the need to request a waiver) is not the same as making an evaluation for a
longer fiscal period, such as a year, when the obligations assumed do not envisage that possibility.
8.285 Besides, it has been observed that increasing the 5 percent rate of IVA payments on account
would not increase final tax revenue, for recent years have seen a steady increase in the number of
requests for exemptions, from which it may be inferred that an increase in the rate would trigger an
increase in such requests rather than an increase in revenue.
8.286 To a question by the Panel why Argentina cannot refund the lost interest allegedly resulting
from the tax differential, Argentina replies that none of the rules governing any payments on account
regimes provides for interest refunds. This is so because the normal mechanics of the tax, consisting
of a chain of tax debits and credits, eventually can cel out any financial costs. This results from the
fact that the National Tax Authority does not reclaim interest from the withholding and/or collection
agents on the sums withheld or collected and held by them for a period of around 15 days.
Furthermore, even if there were lost interest, it would be virtually impossible to quantify it, since that
would require an evaluation of the rate of interest foregone by the taxpayer and which depends on a
range of factors (the time-lapse between each payment on account and its corroboration in the sworn
declaration, etc.). If interest had to be paid, th e resulting cost to the Government of verifying the
appropriateness and of subsequent quantification would be exorbitant enough to cause the failure of
the payments on account system.
8.287 In reply to the question by the Panel why an increase in the rate for domestic transactions
would not result in more (i) "advance" revenue (ii) "final" revenue, Argentina states that an increase
in the rate of payments on account for domestic market transactions would elicit a larger number of
applications for exemption, which would certainly undermine the purpose of the payments on account
regimes as the original taxpayers targeted by them are excluded from the system. Accordingly, the
statistics from the collection agency (Exhibit ARG-XLV) show a steady rise in the number of
exemptions granted, from 2,322 in 1997 (the system of exemptions began operating in October 1997)
to 9,000 for 1998 and 10,746 for 1999. These figures illustrate that a rate increase would only lead to
a higher number of exemptions, with the following twofold negative impact: (1) loss of advance tax
collection and (2) loss of control over compliance with tax liability by means of the payments on
account mechanism, with the consequent upsurge in informal transactions, ultimately diminishing tax
revenue.
8.288 In response to the question by the Panel why there have been more and more requests for
exclusion from the advance IVA, particularly for domestic transactions rather than import
transactions, Argentina states that domestic market transactions are subject to a greater number of
payments on account regimes, which explains why domestic market operators seek exemptions, given
the greater possibility of overpayment in discharge of their tax liability.
8.289 The European Communities, in comments on Argentina's replies, states that Argentina has
provided no evidence that the increase in the number of exclusions is linked to an increase in the
percepción or retención rates. The increase shown may be the result of other factors (e.g. increase in
the number of taxpayers as a result of the success of the system of percepciones and retenciones and
the other measures taken by Argentina to fight tax evasion; greater familiarity of the taxpayers with
the exclusion system, etc.) The European Communities further argues that Argentina has not
provided any evidence that exclusions are more frequently requested, in relative terms, in the "internal
sector" than in the "import sector" (assuming that it is feasible to draw such a distinction). Argentina

merely assumes that they must be so because the retenciones and percepciones on internal
transactions are higher. That assumption, however , has been disputed by the European Communities
in this case. In any event, as explained above, an increase in the number of exclusions does not have
to translate into a loss of "advance" tax revenue.
8.290 Argentina asserts that even accepting the EC's argument that the increase may be the result of
other factors, it is obvious that, if these factors persist, an increase in percepción rates could only lead
to an increase in the number of exclusions.
8.291 Likewise, since advance IVA cannot be collected from those taxpayers who have obtained an
exclusion, the greater the number of taxpayers excluded, the smaller the amount collected by way of
advance IVA.
8.292 The European Communities takes issue with the ar gument that "collecting a tax such as the
IVA is not the same in the case of a taxpayer who has a habitual relationship with the tax authorities
based on regular operation on the domestic market, and in that of an importer, who may only
occasionally generate a taxable transaction, i.e. when he decides to effect the inward customs
clearance of merchandise is not persuasive. The European Communities argues that most importers
are also involved in making internal sales. Acco rdingly, it is misleading to say that importers have
only "occasional" contacts with the tax authorities, while those persons making internal sales have a
"habitual" relationship with those authorities. Taxpayers subject to the IVA on imports are, as a
general rule, the same as those subject to the IVA on internal sales. What is more, most imports are
made by registered taxpayers, which therefore are well known to the tax authorities. Indeed,
according to Argentina, it would be "practically impossible" that a non-registered taxpayer may ever
be subject to the additional IVA on imports.
8.293 The European Communities finds it moreover difficult to understand why an importer could
be interested in not charging the ordinary IVA when it resells the merchandise, since that is the easiest
way for that importer to credit the ordinary IVA paid on the import transaction.
8.294 Overall, the European Communities asserts that Argentina has not demonstrated that the
measures are justified under Article XX (d). In particular, Argentina, has not shown that the rate
differentials are "necessary."
2. Relationship of the "chapeau" of Article XX of the GATT 1994 to the content of
paragraph (d)
8.295 Argentina argues that if a measure is intended to secure observance of a WTO-consistent law
or regulation, as in the present case, it is inappropriate to add to the concept of necessary measures
further additional obligations that go beyond a literal interpretation of the text.
8.296 Neither the "reasonableness" of the measure nor its being the "least inconsistent" with the
GATT 1994 are concepts that have to do with the requirements laid down in the various
subparagraphs of Article XX, but must instead be examined in the light of the prescriptions in the
chapeau, which address "not so much the questioned measure or its specific contents as such, but
rather the manner in which that measure is applied."
282
8.297 Argentina believes that in setting the requiremen ts for invoking any of exceptions (a) to (j)
("arbitrary discrimination … or a disguised restriction …"), the chapeau to Article XX establishes the
standard that must be met by the various exceptions envisaged in the subparagraphs. In other words,
if the requirements of the chapeau are satisfied, this should mean that the measure is being applied in

282 "United States - Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline , Report of the Appellate
Body, WT/DS2/AB/R, p. 22.

a "reasonable" manner. This is consistent with the statement by the Appellate Body that "… the
purpose and object of the introductory clauses of Article XX is generally the prevention of 'abuse of
the exceptions …'. In other words, the measures falling within the particular exceptions must be
applied reasonably …." 283 The evaluation of the reasonableness of the application of a specific
measure must be done by matching it against the standard set in the chapeau to Article XX and not
against the requirements that must be met for a measure to be in line with any of the subparagraphs.
8.298 A contrary interpretation incorporating into th e legal framework of the rule in a particular
subparagraph of Article XX an additional criterion of "reasonableness" beyond that established in the
chapeau (which is applicable to all the exceptio ns) would be adding a double requirement for
invoking each of the subparagraphs in Article XX. Accepting this criterion, which is based on Panel
interpretations of the GATT 1947, which did not examine the chapeau to Article XX in the light of
the Vienna Convention as did the Appellate Body in the Gasoline Case, would lead to the formulation
of a criterion of reasonableness for each subparagraph, considering that they deal with completely
different situations and are already inspired by the provisions of the chapeau.
8.299 For example, what would be the standard for defining "reasonableness" or a "less
inconsistent" alternative in subparagraph (e) " … products of prison labour," or in (f) "national
treasures … "? Would it be the same standard as for (g) "natural resources … "? Creating conditions
of reasonableness different from those of the chapeau for each subparagraph would generate an
unlimited caseload and would add requirements to each exception not envisaged in the Agreement.
8.300 The test of "reasonableness" is foreseen in the chapeau and, according to the Appellate Body,
is much stricter than matching the exception with a specific subparagraph of Article XX. If that "test"
can be adequately done based on compliance with the requirements of the chapeau ("arbitrary
discrimination … or a disguised restriction … "), for which purposes the objectives of the measure
take on crucial importance, it is inappropriate again to require additional "reasonableness" for each
subparagraph. What is appropriate is examining whether the exception matches the type addressed in
each subparagraph.
8.301 In addition, if the criterion of reasonableness were considered to be applicable to each
subparagraph, what could then be defined as reasona ble for a developing country such as Argentina,
when it establishes a payment on account mechanism to improve tax collection and meet the targets
established with the IMF in a context of high levels of tax evasion such as prevailed in the early
1990s?
8.302 The overriding reason why the Argentine Republic established the withholding and collection
regimes at the root of this dispute is, without any doubt, tax evasion. The payments on account
mechanisms established under Resolutions 3431 and 3543 are aimed at ensuring compliance with the
IVA and the IG Laws, thereby guaranteeing tax revenue for the tax authorities and preventing tax
evasion. In this connection, the doctrine supporting payments on account first of all analyses the
definition of tax evasion, for the sake of greater clarity.
8.303 Tax evasion arises from the difference between potential and effective tax revenue. It
becomes much more acute in unstable economic situations. The facts therefore show that the problem
is much more pronounced in developing countries. Indeed, these latter countries often lack a
reasonable degree of political and economic stability and are likely to display many of the features
that lend themselves to tax evasion (e.g. an informal economy, inflation, an inequitable tax system,
tolerance of failure to comply with regulations, lack of simple and precise rules, inefficient tax
administration, corruption, low levels of education, a disregard for tax-paying obligations, etc.). In
the Argentine Republic, tax evasion is an entrench ed social ill that is sometimes accentuated by
cyclical factors. That scourge reached alarming proportions in the 1990s. Argentina quotes Vito

283 Ibid., p. 22.

Tanzi: "In countries where the average tax backlog is high for the entire system and where inflation
and the initial level of taxation are also high, the loss of tax revenue as a proportion of national
income can be extremely high … ." 284
8.304 The modern trend among tax administrations is to differentiate their action depending on the
situation with which they have to deal, that is whether there is a high or a low level of compliance
with tax liabilities. In the first case, the admini stration must focus on restraint, while in the second,
the focus is on precautionary measures. Specifically in the case of precautionary action, rules and
regulations that enable it to achieve its targets must support the administration.
8.305 It is unquestionably of great utility for them to include a system of presumptions as an
instrument for determining certain fiscal obligations, given that presumption implies that on the basis
of an unquestionable, proven fact from which reasonable inferences can be made, and whose
existence is not in doubt, an affirmation can be made as to the probable existence of another fact that
is inferred, presumed and well-founded.
8.306 The regimes for withholding and collection at source are precautionary instruments based on
presumptions reflecting both the tax-bearing capacity of those concerned and the established fact that
tax evasion is inevitable in a process comprised of all the stages of the production and marketing
chain. They also simplify and reduce the cost of tax administration.
8.307 In instituting a comprehensive network of agents for withholding and collection at source in
Argentina, an analysis was made of the main operational channels in the various sectors of the
economy, making it possible to detect possible "upstream" and "downstream" tax evasion, in turn
giving greater flexibility to tax collection by improving the flow of funds. In that connection, the
customs is of crucial importance as an agent of collection as it is an important focal point where
economic traffic can be gauged and where business transactions are concentrated, thus making it
possible to lend transparency to business dealings and avoid "downstream" tax evasion. Argentina
discussed the importance of levy collection in customs in detail in its replies to questions 56 and 57.
8.308 In the light of the foregoing, it cannot be concluded that those regimes are intended to alter
the competitive conditions for imported goods on the Argentine market nor that the design of the
specific instruments (the timing of payments) and the rates established are such as to have that effect
(so much so that ultimately the only European Communities claim is lost interest, which, as far as
Argentina is concerned, is not covered by Article III:2).
3. Justification of the advance IVA and IG under the "chapeau" of Article XX of the
GATT 1994
(a) "Arbitrary or unjustifiable" discrimination
8.309 Argentina argues that for the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX(d) to apply, it must
first be determined whether the measure is being applied in a manner that would constitute a means of
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail.
8.310 The adjectives "arbitrary" and "unjustifiable" are predicated upon the idea that if a case of
discrimination exists, it could be "not arbitrary" or "justified." In other words, discrimination could be
present in a "measure" which it is being sought to justify under Article XX, and could be consistent
with it, provided that it does not constitute "the abuse of the exception provided for in Article XX."

284 "Macroeconomic policies and taxation levels in developing countries," paper prepared for the
"Twentieth Symposium on Public Finances," Córdoba, Argentina, September 1997.

8.311 Argentina states that this reasoning has been well circumscribed by the Appellate Body:
" … the fundamental theme is to be found in the purpose and object of avoiding abuse
or illegitimate use of the exceptions to substantive rules available in Article XX."285
8.312 If by definition the invocation of Article XX indicates the existence of some kind of
discrimination, it is when we attempt to define the "abuse" that the qualification of that
discrimination, i.e. arbitrary or unjustifiable, becomes important.
8.313 Argentina considers that in examining whether the first requirement of the chapeau has been
met, one must begin by analysing the content of the concept of discrimination. In its broad sense,
discrimination may be defined as "a failure to treat equally."
286 In its narrow sense and as far as the
chapeau to Article XX is concerned, according to WTO precedents, discrimination would be applying
different treatment to countries where the same conditions prevail.
8.314 In the present case, all countries exporting goods to Argentina receive the same treatment
under the payments on account mechanism. Discrimination arises when a different treatment is given
under equal conditions, as might have been presumed from the different time-frames given in the
"Shrimp" case to the three complaining Members 287 to adapt their fishing methods, by comparison
with the time allowed to other WTO Members.
8.315 In the same case, it was clear which were the "Members" amongst which the same conditions
prevailed. The aforementioned Panel stated:
" … the US measure at issue applies to all Members seeking to export to the United
States … shrimp retrieved mechanically from waters where sea turtles and shrimp
occur concurrently. We consider those Members to be 'countries where the same
conditions prevail', within the meaning of Article XX. We further note that some of
those countries have been ... and are subject to an import ban. Consequently,
discriminatory treatment is applied to shrimp from non-certified countries."288
It was also established at the time that
" … the US administration currently has to apply the import ban, including on TED-
caught shrimp, as long as the country concerned has not been certified. In addition,
certification is only granted if comprehensive requirements regarding use of TEDs by
fishing vessels are applied by the exporting country concerned, or if the shrimp
trawling operations of the exporting country take place exclusively in waters in which
sea turtles do not occur."
289
8.316 It was precisely this double standard that the Panel considered to be "unjustifiable
discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail."290
8.317 Given the conditions under which payments on account are applied, that is, without
discrimination by origin, Argentina believes that it is incorrect to argue that discrimination could arise
between Argentina and the European Communities.

285 United States - Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, page 25.
286 Black's Law Dictionary. Revised Fourth Edition, 1968, page 553.
287 See United States – Import Prohibition of Shrimp and Certain Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/R,
paragraph 7.31, page 286, " … India, Pakistan and Thailand, have been given substantially less notice than the
other countries … initially affected countries, before being forced to comply with TEDs requirements."
288 Ibid., paragraph 7.33.
289 Ibid., paragraph 7.48.
290 Ibid., paragraph 7.49.

8.318 Argentina asserts that the country applying the measure must necessarily be excluded from
the definition of Member, otherwise the entire Article XX would become redundant and useless. This
has been well established in various precedents by the finding that
"an interpreter is not free to adopt a reading that would result in reducing whole
clauses or paragraphs of a treaty to redundancy or inutility."291
8.319 In this context, the interpretation of who are Members between which discrimination could be
possible is also reaffirmed in other precedents, where it was stated that
"the exclusion order was 'not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination against countries where the same conditions
prevail', because it 'was directed against imports … from all foreign sources and not
just from Canada'."292
8.320 Along these same lines, in the case Tuna I, it was stated
"The United States action of 31 August 1979 had been taken exclusively against
imports of tuna and tuna products from Canada, but similar actions had been taken
against imports from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru and then for similar
reasons, the Panel felt that the discrimination of Canada in this case might not
necessarily have been arbitrary nor unjustifiable."
293
8.321 In sum, Argentina professes that the application of the payments on account mechanism to
imports from all origins does not discriminate between countries where the same conditions prevail,
that is, between all WTO Member countries exporting to Argentina.
8.322 The European Communities argues that the tax differentials, even if assuming that they
were "necessary," do not meet the requirements of the "chapeau." The chapeau is not only concerned
with "arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination" between exporting countries, but extends also to
discrimination between the importing country and the exporting countries, as accepted by the
Appellate Body in US – Gasoline.294
8.323 In arguing that Article XX would become re dundant, since by definition a violation of
Article III presupposes that kind of discrimination, the European Communities asserts that Argentina
overlooks, the understanding of the Appellate body on this question which is that the "nature and
quality of the discrimination [in the chapeau] is different from the discrimination … which was
already found to be inconsistent with one of the substantive obligations of the GATT 1994."295
8.324 Argentina argues that the finding in US – Gasoline , which was later cited in Shrimp, was
applicable to the specific case in which the parties had a common interpretation of the field of
application of the standards set forth in the chapeau to Article XX. This was corroborated by the
Appellate Body in Gasoline, where that Body did not see the need "… to make a ruling at variance
with the common understanding of the participants." 296

291 See United States –Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline , Op. Cit., page 23.
292 United States – Imports of Certain Automotive Spring Assemblies, BISD 30S/107, paragraph 55.
293 United States –Prohibition of Imports of Tuna and Tuna Products from Canada , BISD 29S/91,
paragraph 4.8.
294 See US – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline , Op. Cit., pp. 23-24. See also the
Report of the Appellate Body on United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products ,
WT/DS58/AB/R, paragraph 150.
295 Ibid., paragraph 150.
296 United States - Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Op. Cit. page 24.

(b) Disguised restriction
8.325 Argentina believes that the other requirement arising from the chapeau to Article XX, i.e.
that the measure is not applied in a manner which would constitute a "disguised restriction," must be
studied jointly with the condition that the measure must not be a means of "arbitrary or unjustifiable"
discrimination. It has already been clarified, according to Argentina, that such discrimination is
neither present nor taking place between countries where the same conditions prevail. In addition, the
payments on account are not intended to restrict international trade. Their basis and purpose is to
combat tax avoidance and to ensure tax revenue by compelling the taxpayer concerned to make an
advance payment of the tax at a point where there is a high concentration of transactions. The system
was hence designed to ensure tax collection and place foreign goods on an equal footing with
domestic products for the purposes of IVA treatment.
297
8.326 What is more, there is an objective interest in increasing trade, considering that increased
trade means increased tax collection. If it were a disguised restriction on international trade, the aim
of ensuring tax collection would also be thwarted. Argentina states that figures provided to the Panel
prove precisely the opposite: trade increased and so did tax collection as a consequence.
298 It would
be preposterous to think that the whole design of this system, which was aimed at improving tax
collection in the framework of agreements with the IMF, could have included a "disguised" element
that would restrict trade, the very source of the tax revenue that it set out to increase.
IX. THIRD PARTY SUBMISSION BY THE UNITED STATES
9.1 The United States limits its third party submission to the question whether the advance
payment of income taxes is within the scope of Article III:2.
9.2 The United States argues that Article III:2, by its express language, applies to "internal taxes
or other internal charges" that are "applied ... to...products." This language indicates that only taxes
on a physical product itself come within the scope of Article III:2. Other types of taxes, such as taxes
on income, are outside the scope of Article III.2.
9.3 Article III:2, first sentence, is violated when a higher tax is imposed on an imported product
than is imposed on a like domestic product. There is no requirement for a showing that this
differential application of taxes provides protection to the domestic product.
9.4 The United States argues that the negotiating history of Article III:2 demonstrates that the
paragraph does not apply to income taxes. During discussions in Sub-Committee A of the Third
Committee at the Havana Conference, which considered Article 18 of the Charter (on national
treatment), it was stated that the sub-committee on Article 25 [XVI] "had implied that exemptions
from income taxes would constitute a form of subsidy permissible under Article 25 [XVI] and
therefore not precluded by Article 18." It was agreed that "neither income taxes nor import duties
came within the scope of Article 18 [III] since this Article refers specifically to internal taxes on
products."
299 Moreover, the negotiating history makes clear that the reference in Article III:2 to
"directly or indirectly" is not a reference to indirect taxes, as that term is used in the Illustrative List of
Export Subsidies.300 Rather, it means an indirect method of imposing a tax on a product:

297 Recitals of Resolution 3.43: "The regime to be implemented aims to accord the aforementioned
marketing transactions equal treatment with those covered by the regime of collection established under
RG 3.337 (domestic market),"
298 See Exhibit ARG XXI.
299 E/CONF.2/C.3/A/W/32, p.1-2; statement repeated in Havana Reports, p. 63. paragraph 44. See also
E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.13, p.1. cited in Analytical Index of the GATT, volume 1, 1995, at 144.
300 The distinction between taxes on a product and taxes that are not on a product is set forth in
footnote 58 of Annex I, "Illustrative List of Export Subsidies" to the Agreement on Subsidies and

9.5 In initial discussions at the London session of the Preparatory Committee, it was suggested
that while this phrase in the US Draft Charter referred to "taxes and other internal charges imposed on
or in connection with like products," the rapporteurs in the Working Party on Technical Articles had
used the phrase ‘directly or indirectly' instead, owing to the difficulty of obtaining the exact
equivalent in the French text. In later discus sions in Commission A at the London session of the
Preparatory Committee, it was stated that the word "indirectly" would cover even a tax not on a
product as such but on the processing of the product.
301
9.6 The text of Article III:2, reinforced by its negotiating history, clearly demonstrates that the
Article deals only with internal taxes imposed upon goods (including taxes imposed on the processing
of goods). It does not apply to income taxes.
9.7 As to question whether the "advance" IG violat es Article III:2 by imposing a higher tax on
imported products than upon like domestic products, the United States argues that a tax that is
imposed on products is within the scope of Article III:2, regardless of whether the taxing authorities
of a government subsequently permit the proceeds of the tax on products to be credited by the
taxpayer against its income tax liability. The crediting of the proceeds of a tax on products against
income tax liability does not convert the tax on products into an income tax. If the tax is imposed on
imported products in a manner that violates Article III:2, that violation is not cured by applying the
proceeds thereof against the liability for an income tax that is itself beyond the reach of Article III:2.
9.8 The United States suggests that in order to determine whether a tax violates Article III:2, the
Panel must first determine whether a withholding scheme imposes a tax upon products or upon
income. If the withholding is upon income, then no further examination is warranted under
Article III:2. If, however, the tax is imposed up on products, then the Panel should decide whether
there is a violation of Article III:2.
9.9 The United States points out that its examination of the written submissions by the European
Communities and Argentina has not provided sufficient information for the United States to opine on
whether the "advance" IG is, in fact, a tax on produc ts, within the scope of Article III:2, or whether it
is a withholding of income tax, outside the scope of Article III:2. The United States offers the
following observations concerning income tax w ithholding, in general, and how the "advance" IG
compares with normal income tax withholding practice.
9.10 The United States states that it is normal for tax authorities to impose a withholding tax on
income at the source in order to secure compliance with income tax rules. Back up withholding
generally applies to broad categories of transactions. A taxpayer can generally credit the back up
withholding against its net income tax liability by filing a tax return; if the back-up withholding
exceeds the taxpayer's net income tax, the excess is refunded. Back-up withholding is intended to
enforce net-basis taxation of residents; therefore such systems generally provide an exemption for
persons who are not taxpayers in that country. The Argentine "advance" IG does not seem to be a
back-up withholding mechanism because it is imposed on the purchaser of the product, not the person
who would be subject to tax on the payment.

Countervailing Measures. Footnote 58 defines "direct taxes" as "taxes on wages, profits, interests, rents,
royalties, and all other forms of income, and taxes on the ownership or real property." By contrast, "indirect
taxes" are defined as "sales, excise, turnover, value added, franchise, stamp, transfer, inventory and equipment
taxes, border taxes and all taxes other than direct taxes and import charges." While these definitions are legally
applicable only to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, this footnote embodies generally
accepted distinctions between taxes imposed on a produ ct ("indirect taxes") and taxes imposed on income
("direct taxes").
301 Proposal by UK, EPCT/C.II/11; discussion at EPCT/C.II/W.5, p.5; EPCT/A/PV/9 p.19;
EPCT/W/181, p. 3, cited in Analytical Index of the GATT, Volume 1, 1995, at p. 141.

9.11 Secondly, the United States observes that the "advance" IG is also unlike withholding taxes
imposed on non-residents. Most countries impose substantive ("final") withholding tax on non-
residents. Non-residents generally cannot be forced to file a return and pay tax on a net basis; if a
country fails to collect tax when the payment is made, tax is unlikely ever to be paid. These taxes
generally are imposed on investment income and ot her types of determinable income; payments for
products generally are not subject to withholding taxes. Argentina imposes final tax on non-residents
with respect to dividends, interest, royalties, service fees, rents and certain capital gains.
9.12 As noted before, the "advance" IG is imposed on the purchaser, not the person selling the
products. The "advance" IG may be closest in theory to collection mechanisms that are intended to
prevent a company from being left without cash to pay its taxes. However, these types of taxes are
relatively rare, and generally apply to payments between the company and its shareholders, which
might be suspected of colluding to avoid taxes. If the "advance" IG is, indeed, a tax on income, rather
than a tax on products, then it should logically apply to all payments that reduce the amount of cash
available for the payment of taxes. In addition, Argentina requires a corporation to make periodic
payments of estimated income tax, which should alleviate any concerns about non-payment.
X. INTERIM REVIEW
302,303
A. BACKGROUND
10.1 In letters dated 25 October 2000, the European Communities and Argentina requested an
interim review by the Panel of certain aspects of the interim report issued to the parties on 13 October
2000. Neither party requested an interim review meeting. As agreed by the Panel, both parties were
permitted to submit further comments on the other party's interim review requests. The parties
submitted such further comments on 2 November 2000.
10.2 Neither party requested that the Panel further review its findings with respect to the European
Communities' claims under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. Accordingly, the interim report findings
of the Panel with respect to that issue shall become the final findings of the Panel. The requests and
comments regarding Articles X:3(a), III:2, first sentence, and XX(d) of the GATT 1994 are addressed
in that order below.
B. CLAIM UNDER ARTICLE X:3(A) OF THE GATT 1994
10.3 Argentina raises questions concerning our conclusion that Resolution (ANA) No. 2235/96
(hereafter "Resolution 2235") is a rule of general application. According to Argentina, it applies only
to ADICMA representatives and not generally. Only those specific persons are permitted to be
present during the Customs clearing process. Therefore, the measure cannot be considered a rule of
general application. The European Communities has responded that Argentina has incorrectly
interpreted the Appellate Body's findings in European Communities – Measures Affecting the
Importation of Certain Poultry Products
304. The European Communities also disagrees with certain
aspects of the Panel's analysis in this regard. According to the European Communities, it is the
administered substantive measure which must be a rule of general application, but not the
administrative measure itself, the latter being the issue under Article X:3(a).

302 Pursuant to Article 15.3 of the DSU, the findings of the final panel report shall include a discussion
of the arguments made at the interim review stage. This Section of our report is therefore part of our findings.
303 Unless otherwise indicated, references to paragraphs and footnotes in this Section are to the interim
Panel report and bracketed references to paragraphs and footnotes are to the Final Panel report.
304 Appellate Body Report on European Communities – Measures Affecting the Importation of Certain
Poultry Products (hereafter "European Communities – Poultry"), adopted on 23 July 1998, WT/DS69/AB/R.

10.4 First, we must note a point of disagreement with the European Communities characterization
of a part of the findings. We did not find that only the Customs rules on classification and export
duties were subject to Article X:1, while the administrative measure contained in Resolution 2235 was
subject to Article X:3(a). What we stated was that the rules on Customs classification and export
duties, among others, were the substantive rules that should be examined if necessary under other
provisions of the GATT 1994. In contrast, Resolution 2235 is an administrative measure applying
those substantive rules and must therefore be applied in accordance with Article X:3(a). However, we
are of the view that such administrative provisions must also be published in accordance with Article
X:1. We think the European Communities has seen a dichotomy between Articles X:1 and X:3(a) that
does not exist, particularly in light of the reference to Article X:1 contained in Article X:3(a). The
language of the Appellate Body findings in European Communities – Poultry was not limited to
Article X:1.
10.5 Second, the above observation being made, we agree with the underlying premise of the
European Communities' point. To read Article X:3(a) the way suggested by Argentina would render
it virtually meaningless, particularly with respect to the term "uniformly". The distinction drawn by
the Appellate Body in European Communities – Poultry was between rules of general application and
a claimed requirement to publish information with respect to "specific transactions".
305 That is simply
not an issue here. Resolution 2235 is not a transaction-specific provision. Rather there is a general
right to be present accorded to ADICMA and that is generally applicable to all exports of bovine
hides.
10.6 On this last point, Argentina states that the thrust of its arguments is that Resolution 2235
refers only to ADICMA representatives and that this is an identifiable operator and therefore too
specific. However, the exports are not those of ADICMA but of bovine hides exporters. It is the
latter as exporters who have the right to receive application of the Customs laws, regulations,
decisions or rulings in a manner that is uniform, impartial and reasonable. It is the obligation to such
exporters which is accorded by Article X:3(a), not to unrelated entities permitted to observe the
transaction. We decline to alter our findings with respect to this issue.
10.7 With respect to the issue of confidentiality of information, Argentina argues that there is no
duty under Article X to maintain confidentiality of information. Furthermore, Argentina states that
this question of confidentiality was not within the terms of reference of the Panel, having only
allegedly been raised by the European Communities in its first oral statement and thereafter.
10.8 With respect to the question of the terms of re ference, we are of the view that the issue is
properly within the terms of reference. The European Communities claimed that Resolution 2235 was
inconsistent with the requirements of Article X:3(a). Thus, a measure and treaty provision were
clearly defined and the basis of the claim was summarized (i.e., admission of ADICMA personnel to
the Customs clearance process).
306 It is then up to the parties to argue as to the basis for interpretation
of the specific terminology of that treaty provision and how it applies to the facts at hand. This was
the case here. Indeed, we note that the European Communities argued that mere presence of
ADICMA representatives was inconsistent with Argentina's obligations contained in Article X:3(a).
The Panel did not agree that the obligation extended so far with respect to the specific facts of this
dispute but instead focussed on the issue of release of confidential information. Clearly these issues
of detailed argumentation are not required to be stated in the request for establishment of a panel and
therefore included in the terms of reference. We decline to change our findings in this regard.
10.9 With respect to the broader question of confidentiality under Article X, we agree with
Argentina that Article X:1's language to the effect that release of confidential information is not
required does not give rise to a substantive obligation to protect confidential information. The

305 Ibid., at para. 109.
306 See WT/DS155/2.

European Communities argued at one point that such was the case. We did not agree with the
European Communities' arguments because, in our view, they were beside the point. The question
here is what is required by the specific standards contained in Article X:3(a) in the light of the facts of
this dispute. In deciding whether it is partial or unreasonable in the context of these facts for
Argentina to provide confidential business information to ADICMA in contravention of the
obligations of Article X:3(a), it is irrelevant that Article X:1's rules regarding publication do not
establish an independent obligation to protect confidential information. We decline to change our
findings in this regard.
10.10 Argentina argues that the Panel did not establish a standard for confidentiality. Argentina
argues that simply because ADICMA had access to information that was not strictly necessary for its
role regarding product classification, it does no t follow that such information was therefore
confidential. Furthermore, Argentina disagrees with the Panel's reference to the definition of
confidential business information used in the Antidumping Agreement. Finally, according to
Argentina, the Panel did not follow the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention.
10.11 With regard to the first two points, which we think must be considered together, we discussed
precisely why we found the release of the information unreasonable. It was a two step process. First,
was the information confidential and, second, was its release unreasonable? We confirm our
reference to the language in Article 6.5 of the Antidumping Agreement (and Article 12.4 of the
Agreement on Subsides and Countervailing Measures, which is identical, as the European
Communities correctly points out). This definition seems logical and general in nature and it made
sense in the context of the specific question before us. The information, such as pricing and the
identity of the exporters, is confidential, for example, because it could be used by the downstream
industry, made up of ADICMA members, when negotiating for the purchase of hides from the
frigoríficos.
307 It is unreasonable to give such information to customers and can be considered partial
to them if there are no safeguards to prevent its abuse. The fact that such information was released to
the downstream domestic industry in a process which did not, in itself, need such information showed
why such release was unreasonable. However, the fact that the information was released did not go to
the definition of whether it was "confidential".
10.12 With respect to the method of treaty interpretation, we disagree with Argentina's assertion that
our analysis is not in accord with the Vienna Convention. It is true that we did not specifically cite or
quote the Vienna Convention, but that is not necessary. Recitation of such treaty provisions is not
required or desirable at every step. It is well accepted at this point that WTO treaty interpretation
should follow the general guidance provided in the Vienna Convention. In our view, there was no
need here to note a specific passage from the Vienna Convention. We simply proceeded in this
section and the others contained in the findings to apply the rules. Part of the rules are that the various
WTO Agreements can provide the context for interpreting terms. It is also important to recognize that
a specific term can mean different things in different places as, for instance, is the case with respect to
the term "like product".
308 However, we do not think that is the case here. We examined every
instance in the WTO Agreements where the term "confidential" was used. We found most to be
lacking in any definition, but none inconsistent with the use of the term in the Antidumping
Agreement. Thus, for purposes of this specific dispute we found the definition contained in Article
6.5 of the Antidumping Agreement provided a useful reference, but only a reference. We then
proceeded to review what we considered to be confidential business information in this case. We
decline to change our findings in this regard.

307 We note that such information arguably could be used by ADICMA members to the detriment of
their foreign competitors who are also purchasing hides from the frigoríficos.
308 See the Appellate Body Report on Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , adopted on 1 November
1996, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, at p. 21.

C. CLAIM UNDER ARTICLE III:2, FIRST SENTENCE, OF THE GATT 1994
10.13 With respect to footnote 456 (476), the European Communities refers to the Panel Report on
United States – Import Measures on Cert ain Products from the European Communities .309 I n t h a t
report, the panel found that the additional interest charges associated with the lodging of additional
bonds intended to secure the payment of increased customs duties were inconsistent with Article
II:1(b), second sentence, of the GATT 1994. 310 The European Communities contends that, according
to our approach, the panel in United States – Certain Products should have considered these charges
as part of the customs duties and therefore find them in violation of Article II:1(b), first sentence. We
note that the majority on that panel considered that the WTO compatibility of the additional bonding
requirement had to be determined by reference to, inter alia, Article II:1(b), first sentence. While it is
arguable then that the WTO compatibility of the ad ditional loss of interest could likewise be assessed
under Article II:1(b), first sentence, we take no position on whether that would be the correct analysis
with respect to the issue presented in United States – Certain Products . We consider that we have
correctly interpreted and applied Article III:2, first sentence, to the issue presented in the case before
us. We do not, therefore, see a reason to change our findings.311
10.14 The European Communities recalls that the 12.7 percent rate payable under RG 3431 by non-
registered taxable persons is not creditable and requests us to reconsider para. 10.202 (11.202) with
this point in mind. There is, in our view, no need to do so. We have highlighted the non-creditability
of the 12.7 percent rate in paras. 10.109 (11.109), footnote 453 (473) and para. 10.202 itself. The use
of the term "pre-payment" in connection with the 12.7 percent rate has been addressed in para. 10.109.
10.15 The European Communities has identified a technical error in para. 10.203 (para. 11.203).
10.16 The European Communities has commented on paras. 10.220-10.222 (11.220-11.222), saying
that our reasoning did not dispose of Argentina's defence. We disagree. Moreover, we have stated
clearly that internal sales by agentes de percepción/retención to agentes de percepción/retención are
subject neither to the 5 percent rate under General Resolution (DGI) No. 3337/91 nor to the 10.5
percent rate under General Resolution (AFIP) No. 18/97. Nowhere do we suggest that such
transactions are subject to pre-payment at a rate of 10.5 percent. Footnote 488 (508) does not say so.
It simply addresses Argentina's argument that, without an exemption from the pre-payment
requirement, the transactions in question would be subject to collection and withholding.
10.17 Concerning footnote 498 (518), the European Communities refers to the 1970 Working Party
report on Border Tax Adjustment for the proposition that so-called cascade taxes qualify for border
tax adjustment. We are not persuaded by the European Communities that there is a need to discuss
the aforementioned Working Party report in footnote 498. In contrast, we considered it appropriate to
refer to the Working Party II report on Schedules and Customs Administration because that report
specifically addresses the legal issue raised by Argentina's counter-argument. The European
Communities' also requests that we drop the reference to the Appellate Body's findings in United

309 Panel Report on United States – Import Measures on Certain Products from the European
Communities (hereafter "United States – Certain Products"), under appeal, WT/DS165/R.
310 Ibid., at para. 6.62.
311 In response to the European Communities' comment, it may further be noted that it is not
inconsistent to say, as we have, that the loss or payment of interest in the present case does not, in itself,
constitute a charge, but that General Resolution (DGI) No. 3431/91 (hereafter "RG 3431") and General
Resolution (DGI) No. 3543/92 (hereafter "RG 3543") qualify as charges. Similarly, it is not inconsistent to say
that the loss or payment of interest in the present case is incidental to the pre-payment of the IVA and IG
required by RG 3431 and RG 3543, but that RG 3431 and RG 3543 are not "incidental to" the IVA Law and IG
Law. Indeed, it would be counter-intuitive, in our view, to conclude otherwise.

States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" 312 on the grounds that that case dealt with
direct taxes and is therefore irrelevant. However, the Appellate Body opinion in United States – FSC
included pertinent reasoning on the implications of Members' choices of world-wide or territorial
taxation systems and it is useful, in our view, to note this. Had Argentina supplied sufficient evidence
to support its assertion in this regard, we would have addressed this issue in depth. We therefore
decline to make the changes requested by the European Communities.
10.18 Regarding footnote 519 (539), the European Communities asserts that it did make a claim
concerning the fact that imports for importers' own use or consumption are subject to pre-payment of
the IG at a rate of 11 percent, whereas internal sales transactions are taxed at rates of either 2 percent
or 4 percent. Since the European Communities has not been able to point to any statements or
arguments which we might have overlooked or misunderstood, we are not persuaded to change our
view. It is clear to us that the complaining party bears the risk of a lack of clarity and specificity in
setting out and supporting its claims. 313 Unlike with other claims made by the European
Communities, it is simply not clear from para. 96 of the EC First Written Submission or from any
subsequent EC submissions that the European Communities makes a claim regarding the two rate
differentials in question (i.e. 11 percent vs. 2 percent and 11 percent vs. 4 percent). 314 B u t t h e
European Communities has not only failed to spell out such a claim in clear and unambiguous terms,
it has also failed to present specific arguments to substantiate such a claim. In those circumstances, it
is not possible for us to proceed to make findings in respect of this purported EC claim. Footnote 519
therefore remains unchanged but for a correction of a typographical error and a small stylistic change.
10.19 Argentina requests that the Panel reconsider its finding and conclusion in para. 10.161
(11.161) regarding the applicability of Article III:2, first sentence, to RG 3543. We see no need to
accede to Argentina's request. As we stated in our findings, while RG 3543 is an aspect of a direct tax
(the IG), it nevertheless is an internal charge applied to products for purposes of Article III:2, first
sentence. Simply because the IG is not challenged and allegedly not inconsistent with Article III:2,
first sentence, does not alter this fact. We wish to note, however, that it does not follow from our
conclusion that RG 3543 is inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, that Argentina cannot
require the pre-payment of the IG on imports. Argentina merely needs to do so in a manner consistent
with Article III:2, first sentence.
10.20 Argentina further requests modification of our conclusion in para. 10.228 (11.228).
Argentina argues that, were it to provide for a minimum pre-payment threshold also in RG 3431, such
a provision would be a dead letter owing to the fact that any individual effecting imports in the (small)
amount concerned would be a final consumer with a status not covered by RG 3431. Even ignoring
the fact that Argentina is presenting a new argument here, we note that Argentina has provided no
evidence in support of its statement that all individuals importing goods in the relevant amount would
be final consumers.
315 It is not obvious to us why import transactions of a specified value would
necessarily involve final consumers as importers.
10.21 Argentina requests a similar modification of our conclusion in para. 10.271 (11.271). We do
not, however, see a reason for doing so. While Argentina's comments in this regard are less than clear
and lack specific references, it seems to us that they relate to the absence of a monthly pre-payment
allowance in RG 3543. Argentina again is presenti ng a new argument, namely that making available

312 Appellate Body Report on United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"
(hereafter "United States – FSC"), adopted on 20 March 2000, WT/DS108/AB/R.
313 We nevertheless note that we have evaluated all of the European Communities' claims thoroughly
and in good faith. See, for example, footnote 492 (512) as well as paras. 10.201 (11.201)and 10.208 (11.208) of
this report.
314 The European Communities does not argue, in its comments on the interim report, that it is making
a claim in respect of only one of the two rate differentials in question.
315 See also the last sentence of para. 10.226 (11.226) of this report.

a monthly pre-payment allowance also to importe rs would be administratively burdensome since,
according to Argentina, such an allowance would only apply to small enterprises, which it alleges are
not regular importers. Regarding the alleged administrative burden, we refer to our considerations in
para. 10.226 (11.226), which, mutatis mutandis, would appear to be relevant in the present context as
well.316
D. DEFENCE UNDER ARTICLE XX(D) OF THE GATT 1994
10.22 In response to comments by the European Communities on para. 10.305 (11.304), we felt
appropriate to remove part of the last sentence thereof and to clarify our understanding and
assessment of the European Communities' position in the new para. 11.306 and the new footnote 564.
Even ignoring the fact that we disagree with the European Communities' characterisation of its own
statement, summarised at para. 8.258 (8.258), as "at best ambiguous", we note that our findings and
conclusion in the relevant section of our report do not depend on it.
10.23 The European Communities has requested us to reconsider our interpretative approach to
Article XX. Specifically, the European Communities requests that we find, on the basis of paras.
10.316-10.331 (11.316-11.331), that the contested measures are not necessary within the meaning of
Article XX(d).317 We have carefully considered the European Communities' comments, but remain
unconvinced, in light, inter alia , of the Appellate Body report on United States – Standards for
Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline 318, that we should follow the approach proposed by the
European Communities. Notwithstanding this, we felt that the European Communities' comments
warranted a clarification of certain aspects of our findings. Accordingly, we converted para. 10.304
into the new footnote 560, made changes to paras. 10.303 (11.303), 10.306-10.307 (11.306-11.307),
10.312-10.313 (11.312-11.313), 10.315 (11.315), 10.322-10.324 (11.322-11.324) and 10.330
(11.330), including, where appropriate, to the footnotes accompanying those paragraphs, and added
new footnotes (562, 565-566).
10.24 In light of comments made by the European Communities and seeing that it was not essential,
we decided to delete footnote 542.
10.25 Regarding the European Communities' comment on footnote 543 (560), we considered that
no change was called for. It should be noted, nonetheless, that we have found it convenient to
combine its content with that of the new footnote 560. It may be mentioned in this context that,
contrary to what the European Communities suggest s, we do not consider anything other than the
actual measures before us, i.e. RG 3431 and RG 3543, to be the "measures" which we must look at in
our analysis under Article XX.
319
10.26 The European Communities also asserts that we disregard the fact that the nature and quality
of the discrimination to be considered in an analysis under the chapeau is different from the
discrimination at issue in an analysis under Article III. This is not the case, as is evident from para.
10.315 (11.315). Our approach and examination are, moreover, fully consistent with the Appellate

316 We further note that Argentina has, in any event, failed to explain and support its assertion that a
monthly pre-payment allowance would apply only to small enterprises and that small enterprises are not regular
importers.
317 The European Communities has requested changes to paras. 10.313-10.314 (11.313-11.314),
without, however, explaining what it wishes the Panel to change. We therefore decline to make changes, but
refer to our comments on Argentina's request for changes to footnote 551 (570).
318 Appellate Body Report on United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline
(hereafter "United States – Gasoline"), adopted on 20 May 1996, WT/DS2/AB/R.
319 In accordance with the approach followed by the Appellate Body in United States – Gasoline , we
evaluate those provisions of RG 3431 and RG 3543 which, taken together, give rise to inconsistencies with
Article III:2, first sentence. See the Appellate Body Report on United States – Gasoline, supra, at pp. 13-14.

Body's view that "[t]he provisions of the chapeau cannot logically refer to the same standard(s) by
which a violation of a substantive rule has been determined to have occurred."320
10.27 Argentina points out, regarding footnote 551 (570), that it has made statements in the course
of these proceedings which it considers the Panel should reference in the footnote. Those statements
do not appear to us to be directly relevant to the issue under consideration in footnote 551. It should
be noted, however, that we have taken due account of the statements referred to by Argentina,
including the fact that Argentina is a developing country Member, in our assessment of whether RG
3431 and RG 3543 fall within the terms of Article XX(d).
321 In light of Argentina's comments, we
nevertheless deemed it appropriate to clarify our posit ion by modifying footnote 551 in relevant part,
but maintain our overall conclusion in para. 10.331 (11.331).
10.28 Finally, the old footnote 545 was brought forward and now is footnote 561.
10.29 The Panel has also corrected several typographical errors and made a number of minor
stylistic changes.
XI. FINDINGS
A. CLAIM UNDER ARTICLE XI:1 OF THE GATT 1994
1. Measure at issue and overview of the parties' arguments
11.1 The European Communities has alleged that certain measures imposed by Argentina restrict
the export of bovine hides from Argentina. Accord ing to the European Communities this is contrary
to Argentina's obligations under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. Article XI:1 provides as follows:
No prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges, whether made
effective through quotas, import or export licences or other measures, shall be
instituted or maintained by any contracting party on the importation of any product of
the territory of any other contracting party or on the exportation or sale for export of
any product destined for the territory of any other contracting party.
11.2 The European Communities has argued that the measure in ques tion, Resolution (ANA)
No. 2235/96
322, operates as a de facto restriction on exports. Resolution 2235 provides as follows:
Resolution No. 2235/96 of the IAANA
Hides (Export). Approval of Rules Concerning the Participation of
Certain Private Entities in the Inspection Process
…
HAVING REGARD TO the request in file No. 412739/96, submitted by the
Association of Industrial Producers of Leather, Leather Manufactures and
Related Products (ADICMA), and
WHEREAS:
In a submission made in 1993, the Argentinean Tanning Industry Association
requested the restoration of its role in the inspection of hides destined for
export;

320 Appellate Body Report on United States – Gasoline, supra, at p. 23 (emphasis added).
321 See paras. 11.299-11.307 of this report.
322 Hereafter "Resolution 2235".

Resolution No. 771/93 authorized officials appointed by the above-mentioned
Association to participate jointly with customs personnel in the inspection of
hides classified under the tariff headings set out in Annex IV hereto;
Resolutions Nos. 1650/93, 3208/93, 1024/94, 1380/94, 3746/94, 2257/95 and
134/96 extended the validity of Resolution No. 771/93 and expanded the list
of the institutions involved;
The arguments put forward and the experience acquired provide reasonable
grounds for granting the request made in the above-mentioned file, by making
continued use of the services provided by the experts for a reasonable period
of time so that the results obtained can be evaluated and a decision taken on
the desirability or necessity of a further extension of those services;
It is considered appropriate to enact a regulation unifying the provisions in
force;
By virtue of the powers conferred by Article 23(i) of Law 22415,
Wherefore,
The National Customs Administrator
Resolves:
Article 1. To approve the rules contained in Annexes I, II, III and IV which
form an integral part of this Resolution, relating to the participation of certain
private entitities in the inspection of hides destined for export operations.
Article 2. To repeal Resolutions Nos. 771/93, 1650/93, 3208/93, 1024/94,
1380/94, 3746/94, 2257/95 and 134/96.
…
ANNEX II [TO RESOLUTION 2235]
Operative Rules
1. The entities listed in Annex III hereto may appoint members of their
staff to participate jointly with the ag ents involved in the inspection of goods
classified under the tariff headings listed in Annex IV.
1.1 For this purpose, they shall inform this national administration of the
appointment of representative experts and draw up lists of those appointed,
containing particulars of each one's address, telephone and fax or telex
numbers and the different customs jurisdictions in which they will be
involved in joint inspection activities. They shall also keep those lists up to
date.
1.2 The authorization hereby conferred shall be applicable in all customs
jurisdictions.
1.3 In the Buenos Aires and Ezeiza customs jurisdictions, if and when
the final export destinations for consumption or temporary export so require,
staff may be kept on a permanent basis to carry out these support tasks.

1.4 The same facilities may be authorized in the customs departments in
the interior of the country.
1.5 Final export destinations for consumption shall be checked in the
case of those for which the red channel (goods to declare) was selected as
well as all temporary export destinations.
1.6 Goods shall be inspected by the technical inspection and valuation
unit, with the possible support of the expert appointed by the respective
entity, but this will be done without holding up shipment operation if the
expert is not present.
11.3 The measure in question was first implemented pursuant to a request of CICA 323. Currently,
it is implemented through the presence of representatives of ADICMA 324 in the export process. As
explained by Argentina, the actual export clearance process works in the following manner:325
11.4 When Customs receives a notice of embarkation by the exporter or his customs clearance
agent, it notifies ADICMA that a clearance operation will take place, indicating the place, day and
approximate time. ADICMA may be informed of this by a telephone call from the customs inspector,
but there are instances in which it is notified of the place, date and approximate time of the clearance
by the exporter's own customs clearance agent.
11.5 The inspection, classification and valuation of the goods declared are carried out by the
Technical Inspection and Valuation Unit (UTVV). It verifies whether what is declared in the permit
of shipment is correct, whether the tariff heading indicated corresponds to the description of the goods
and whether the duties and charges proposed are appropriate and also cross-checks supplementary
data, the number of packages and their identity. All of this is done in the presence of the customs
officer, the ADICMA representative and the exporter or his customs clearance agent. The exporter or
his customs clearance agent must be present during the inspection of the goods, failing which the
exporter forfeits the right to raise any objections to the outcome of the inspection determined by the
customs department.326
11.6 If the inspecting officer determines that the merchandise has been correctly classified, the
shipment goes ahead. If, on the other hand, the inspecting officer detects irregularities, shipment is
not allowed. To the extent that there are discrepancies in the amount, quality and/or value of the
goods, a complaint is lodged either with the Disputes Section of the customs department or with the
competent local customs office.
11.7 Where ADICMA representatives disagree with the decision of the inspection officers, they
may submit a complaint subsequently or, if appropriate, file criminal charges with a court. According
to Argentina, shipments are not stopped on account of any possible objection from ADICMA
representatives. Pursuant to Resolution 2235, there must not be any delays as a result of the failure of
ADICMA representatives to participate in the inspection.
11.8 The European Communities has acknowledged that the Argentinean government is not
overtly limiting exports except pursuant to certain export taxes which are not the subject of the
European Communities' complaint. Instead, it is alleged that the Argentinean government has

323 CICA is the Argentinean Chamber for the Tanning Industry (Cámara de la Curtidora Argentina).
324 ADICMA is the Association of Industrial Producers of Leather, Leather Manufactures and Related
Products ( Asociación de Industrias del Cuero, sus Manufacturas y Afínes ). CICA itself is a member of
ADICMA.
325 See paras. 2.38-2.44 of this report.
326 See Article 340 of Argentina's Customs Code.

knowingly put in place a system which necessarily results in improper export restrictions. The
European Communities has presented a number of arguments describing how these alleged export
restraints operate, but we think they can best be summarized in the following manner by a series of
questions which we will address:
(a) Does the mere presence of ADICMA constitute an export restriction?
(b) If not, does the alleged fact that ADICMA, by virtue of its presence, has access to
business confidential information constitute an export restriction?
(c) If not, does the alleged fact that ADICMA has access to business confidential
information constitute an export restriction if taken together with the alleged fact that
the tanners form a cartel in the Argentinean market?
11.9 The European Communities has provided evidence supporting their allegations which we will
examine in due course as we assess the merits of the arguments. We note specifically that the core of
the factual case presented by the European Communities is the allegation of low levels of exports of
bovine hides from Argentina in light of higher world prices that cannot be explained in any manner
other than export restrictions. The European Communities has also cited the long history of export
restrictions on bovine hides and argued that the current measures must be reviewed in light of that
history.
11.10 Argentina has disputed all the claims made by the European Communities. Argentina has
argued that there are in fact exports of bovine hides and that the export levels are not all that different
from other countries, including some members of the European Communities.
327 According to
Argentina, the representatives of ADICMA are there to promote accurate, efficient and effective
export clearance. The Argentinean government had problems with misclassification of exports in
particular. This led to an underpaying of the required export duties as well as an overpaying of certain
export "refunds" available on processed hides.
328 Argentina has emphasized that ADICMA
representatives do not have the authority to prohibit or even slow down exports.329 Argentina has also
stated that ADICMA representatives have access to no information that is not otherwise available
through on-line services, i.e., is in the public domain.
2. Burden of proof
11.11 The relevant rules concerning burden of proof, while not expressly provided for in the DSU,
are well established in WTO jurisprudence. The general rule is set out in the Appellate Body report
on United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses , wherein it is stated
that:
[I]t is a generally-accepted canon of evidence in civil law, common law
and, in fact, most jurisdictions, that the burden of proof rests upon the
party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of
a particular claim or defence. If that party adduces evidence sufficient
to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts
to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to
rebut the presumption.330

327 See paras. 4.155-4.158 of this report.
328 See paras. 4.42-4.48 of this report.
329 See paras. 4.61-4.66 of this report.
330 Adopted on 23 May 1997, WT/DS33/AB/R, at p. 14 (hereafter " United States – Shirts and
Blouses"). In our view, the rule set forth in this statement applies to claims of any kind, i.e. legal and factual
claims.

11.12 In application of this rule, once we have satisfied ourselves that the party who asserts the
affirmative of a particular claim or defence has succeeded in raising a presumption that its claim is
true, it is incumbent on us to assess the merits of all the arguments made and the admissibility,
relevance and weight of all the factual evidence submitted with a view to establishing whether the
party contesting a particular claim has successfully rebutted the presumption raised. Should this
assessment reveal that the arguments and the factual evidence adduced by the parties remain in
equipoise, we must, as a matter of law, find against the party who bears the burden of proof.
11.13 Thus, it is for the European Communities as the complaining party to submit arguments and
evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that Argentina acts inconsistently with its obligations under
Articles XI:1.
331 If the European Communities succeeds in raising such a presumption, our task
becomes a matter of weighing the evidence available to us to determine whether, on balance, we are
convinced that Argentina has imposed measures incompatible with the provisions of the GATT 1994.
11.14 This dispute presented some difficulties for th e Panel with respect to developing the facts.
Whenever there is an assertion of a de facto restriction on trade, the importance of the factual analysis
becomes accentuated. We have asked the parties an extensive series of questions in an attempt to
understand the functioning of the market and the measur e at issue in this dispute. We felt that there
were facts of which we were not aware and which might be of importance and, therefore, we have not
been fully satisfied that we have had a truly comp rehensive view of some aspects of the situation.
Ultimately, the burden of proof in any dispute rests with the complainant to support the claims made.
3. Nature of the claim before the Panel
11.15 The European Communities claims that Argentina maintains an export restriction which is
"made effective" through Resolution 2235. The European Communities recognizes that nothing on
the face of Resolution 2235 restricts exports of bovine hides. The European Communities maintains,
rather, that Resolution 2235 constitutes a de facto restriction.
11.16 Argentina has responded that the participation of the private sector representatives in the
inspection of raw bovine hide exports cannot contravene Article XI, which specifically refers to
quantitative restrictions attributable to government action. Nor, in Argentina's view, is there any
contravention here in the form of de facto government restrictions. Argentina argues that "other
measures" in the sense of Article XI cannot be just any kind of measures. GATT/WTO practice
provides that the requirements of Article XI be met by authorization for private action that is
mandatory or binding in nature and those requirements are not met here.
11.17 There can be no doubt, in our view, that the disciplines of Article XI:1 extend to restrictions
of a de facto nature.
332 It is also readily apparent that Resolution 2235, if indeed it makes effective a

331 The question of burden of proof raised here applies likewise to our analyses with respect to
Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 and Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994. In contrast, as regards
Article XX of the GATT 1994, invoked by Argentina as an affirmative defence with respect to the Article III:2
allegations, the burden of proof rests with Argentina.
332 See the Panel Report on Japan – Trade in Semi-Conductors , adopted on 4 May 1988, BISD
35S/116, at paras. 105-109. In other contexts, see the Appellate Body Report on European Communities –
Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (hereafter "European Communities – Bananas "),
adopted on 25 September 1997, WT/DS 27/AB/R, at paras. 232-234, citing European Economic Community –
Imports of Beef from Canada, adopted on 10 March 1981, BISD 28S/92; Spain – Tariff Treatment of Unroasted
Coffee, adopted on 11 June 1981, BISD 28S/102, and Japan – Tariff on Imports of Spruce-Pine-Fir (SPF)
Dimension Lumber, adopted on 19 July 1989, BISD 36S/167.

restriction, fits in the broad residual category, specifically mentioned in Article XI:1, of "other
measures".333
11.18 Furthermore, and notwithstanding Argentina's assertion to the contrary, Resolution 2235 is, in
our view, a legally binding governmental measure. 334 It is well-established in GATT/WTO
jurisprudence that only governmental measures fall within the ambit of Article XI:1. This said, we
recall the statement of the panel in Japan – Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and
Paper to the effect that:
[P]ast GATT cases demonstrate that the fact that an action is taken by private parties
does not rule out the possibility that it may be deemed governmental if there is
sufficient governmental involvement with it. It is difficult to establish bright-line
rules in this regard, however. Thus, that possibility will need to be examined on a
case-by-case basis.335
11.19 We agree with the view expressed by the panel in Japan – Film. However, we do not think
that it follows either from that panel's statement or from the text or context of Article XI:1 that
Members are under an obligation to exclude any possibility that governmental measures may enable
private parties, directly or indirectly, to restrict trade, where those measures themselves are not trade-
restrictive.336
11.20 Finally, as to whether Resolution 2235 makes effective a restriction, it should be recalled that
Article XI:1, like Articles I, II and III of the GATT 1994, protects competitive opportunities of
imported products, not trade flows. 337 In order to establish that Resolution 2235 infringes
Article XI:1, the European Communities need not prove actual trade effects. However, it must be
borne in mind that Resolution 2235 is alleged by the European Communities to make effective a de
facto rather than a de jure restriction. In such circumstances, it is inevitable, as an evidentiary matter,
that greater weight attaches to the actual trade impact of a measure.
11.21 Even if it emerges from trade statistics that the level of exports is unusually low, this does not
prove, in and of itself, that that level is attributable, in whole or in part, to the measure alleged to
constitute an export restriction. Particularly in the context of an alleged de facto restriction and
where, as here, there are possibly multiple restrictions, 338 it is necessary for a complaining party to
establish a causal link between the contested measure and the low level of exports. 339 In our view,

333 RG 2235 neither establishes a "quota" nor sets up a regime of "export licences".
334 We note that, even though the measure merely authorizes presence, it is still binding in the sense
that it gives a right to be present to a private entity, ADICMA, which right cannot be retracted at the discretion
of the government.
335 Panel Report on Japan – Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper (hereafter
"Japan – Film"), adopted on 22 April 1998, WT/DS44/R, para. 10.56.
336 As we understand it, Article XI:1 does not incor porate an obligation to exercise "due diligence" in
the introduction and maintenance of governmental measures beyond the need to ensure the conformity with
Article XI:1 of those measures taken alone.
337 See the Appellate Body Reports on Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (hereafter " Japan –
Alcoholic Beverages II"), adopted on 1 November 1996, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, at
p.16; Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, adopted on 17 February 1999, WT/DS75/AB/R, WT/DS84/AB/R,
at paras. 119-120 and 127.
338 For example, it will be recalled that in the present case there is an export duty on raw hides which
has not been challenged.
339 The Appellate Body in European Communities – Measures Affecting the Importation of Certain
Poultry Products similarly required of the complaining party in that case a demonstration of a causal
relationship between the imposition of an EC licensing procedure and the alleged trade distortion. See the
Appellate Body Report on European Communities – Measures Affecting the Importation of Certain Poultry
Products (hereafter "European Communities – Poultry "), adopted on 23 July 1999, WT/DS69/AB/R, at paras.

whatever else it may involve, a demonstration of causation must consist of a persuasive explanation of
precisely how the measure at issue causes or contributes to the low level of exports.
4. Mere presence of tanners' representatives as an export restriction
11.22 The European Communities acknowledges that the representatives of the tanning industry do
not have the de jure ability to halt bovine hide exports. However, according to the European
Communities, having such representatives presen t during the export clearance process in itself
restricts exports in the context of the facts of the case. The European Communities has advanced
several reasons why this might be so. The European Communities refers to the GATT dispute of
Japan – Semiconductors for the proposition that there can be export restrictions without overt actions
by the government to physically stop exports. According to the European Communities, in that case it
was sufficient for the government to set up a system where peer pressure was used to discourage
exports. In the present case, the European Communities urges that Argentina be found to have
violated Article XI by encouraging – as a consequence of allowing CICA/ADICMA presence – that
pressure be applied by the tanneries on a frigorífico not to export. In this case it is not peer pressure
from other exporters of hides. Rather, frigoríficos will be inhibited by the more powerful pressure
from customers who might refuse to buy hides domestically from a frigorífico found to be exporting
hides.
11.23 The European Communities also asserts that by participating in the process, the tanners can
pressure Customs officials to prevent shipments of hides. The European Communities further argues
that the ADICMA representatives can operate to delay shipments for weeks or even months and that
such delays can be very harmful commercially. Indeed, delays can result in unacceptable physical
deterioration of the products.
11.24 The European Communities has argued that the extraordinarily low levels of shipments of
bovine hides from Argentina serves to support these allegations. The European Communities argues
that export statistics demonstrate that a mere 1/1500 of Argentina's production of bovine hides are
exported raw and that this is extraordinarily low particularly in light of the price differential between
Argentinean domestic prices and those available on the international market. The European
Communities cites information from an investigation by the United States International Trade
Commission as well as some other evidence for the proposition that Argentina's domestic raw hide
prices are 30 percent lower than what would be available in the export market. Even the 15 percent
export duty (which has declined to 10 percent and is scheduled to decline further to five percent)
would not make up for this differential. The European Communities claims that the quality levels are
comparable and also would not account for the price differential. The European Communities notes
that the frigoríficos are active exporters of meat and that there is thus no lack of knowledge or
expertise which should operate to inhibit them from taking advantage of these higher international
prices.
11.25 Argentina has responded that there are in fact exports of bovine hides, so it remains unproved
by the European Communities that there is any such pressure mechanism in effect. Moreover,
according to Argentina, the European Communities' assertions do not make sense. Hides represent
only about ten percent of the value of a slaughtered animal. They are only by-products. It is illogical
that frigoríficos would be intimidated by the mere presence of an ADICMA representative with
respect to the export of something of only residual value to them. There is no leverage. Furthermore,
even if the tanners did refuse to buy hides domestically from frigoríficos that exported, the exporters
would, according to the European Communities' own arguments find ample international customers
for their products. In such a case, all of that frigorífico's hides could be exported and it would not be
reliant on the domestic tanning industry. Again, there is no pressure mechanism.

126-127. While this interpretation related to a claim under the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, it is
not apparent why the logic should be any different in the case of a claim under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.

11.26 Argentina has responded to the other arguments of the European Communities by stating that
it would be contrary to Argentinean law for Customs officials to prevent exports pursuant to the
pressure of ADICMA. As for ADICMA causing dela ys of shipments, Argentina cites the lack of
either legal authority or factual evidence for such occurrences.
11.27 With respect to the export levels, Argentina has challenged the data presented by the
European Communities. Argentina disagrees that it has an extraordinarily low level of exports,
claiming that its exports of raw hides are not di ssimilar from EC member States' exports to non-EC
markets. Furthermore, according to Argentina, th ere is demand in Argentina for more hides than can
be produced by the domestic industry and, therefore, the local supply is absorbed almost completely
rather than exported. Argentina also claimed that there are significant quality differences that
explained the discrepancy in prices. Furthermore, the cost of exporting could be as much as 20
percent higher than selling locally, according to Argentina.
11.28 The European Communities has advanced severa l theories as to why the presence alone of
ADICMA representatives might result in export restrictions. However, the European Communities as
complainant cannot rely on mere theories alone. This should not be construed to mean that a
complaining party may not establish the existence of an export restriction largely on the basis of
circumstantial evidence. It clearly may. However, in our view, a panel cannot, consistently with its
obligation to make an objective assessment of the matter before it, draw inferences from the
circumstantial evidence placed on record, unless that evidence clearly and convincingly sustains the
complainant's suggested conclusion.
340
11.29 We are not persuaded by the circumstantial evidence presented to us by the European
Communities. This evidence simply does not lead to the conclusion that there is a restriction on
exports by reason of the mere presence of ADICMA personnel. It seems to us that the exports of
hides from Argentina may be lower than what could normally be expected. This is particularly so in
light of the evident price premium that frigoríficos could obtain by exporting even taking into account
the export duties. We recognize that there almost certainly are higher costs in exporting rather than
selling domestically, although the 20 percent cited by Argentina may be too high. There may also be
some quality differences, but we do not think the evidence supports Argentina's contention that the
differences are dramatic. Thus, we are of the view that, overall, there would be some, albeit
undefined, price premium to the frigoríficos for exporting which may not be consistent with the low
levels of exports. But that is not enough to show that there are export restraints or, if there were, that
this measure in dispute is the way in which such export restriction is "made effective".
11.30 For example, there is no evident reason why ADICMA needs the right to be present at the
Customs inspection of specific export shipments for it to be able to exert pressure on Customs
officials. ADICMA and the individual tanners themselves also could attempt to influence the
decisions of Customs officials from outside the Customs house, i.e. without being present during the
Customs inspection of export shipments of raw hides.
11.31 It must be stated, in addition, that if an attempt on the part of ADICMA to put pressure on the
Customs officials in charge of a particular in spection were successful, those officials would act
unlawfully under Argentinean law.
341 However, absent evidence to the contrary, it cannot simply be
presumed that Customs officials bow to possible pressure from ADICMA. Even disregarding that, if

340 For an analogous approach to the proper weight to be given to circumstantial evidence see the
judgement of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Corfu Channel Case (Merits), Judgement of 9 April
1949, ICJ Rep. 1949, p. 18. We recognize that there are distinctions between that case and the present dispute.
In the Corfu Channel case, the question was whether circumstantial evidence could support a finding with
respect to a factual aspect of the case rather than a legal conclusion as here. However, as that factual point was
so central and led so directly, if established, to the legal conclusion, we believe the reference is useful.
341 See paras. 4.61-4.62 of this report.

we were to find that Argentina violates Article XI:1 on the basis that uncondoned, unlawful conduct
by its Customs officials would have a trade-restrictive effect we would be engaging in a most
expansive reading of Article XI that is not justified by either the text of that Article nor the
GATT/WTO jurisprudence that has developed with respect to it. 342
11.32 It is clear from the foregoing that, for it to carry weight, the European Communities' argument
that ADICMA representatives may attempt to put pressure on Customs officials must be buttressed by
sufficient factual evidence. The European Communities, however, has not submitted any such
evidence. Furthermore, in reply to a question of the Panel, the European Communities stated that it
was not aware of any instances where a specific export shipment was unjustifiably refused clearance
by Customs officials.343
11.33 On the basis of the above considerations, we are unable to accept the European Communities'
argument that the mere presence of ADICMA representatives during Customs inspections constitutes
an export restriction because those representatives may attempt to exert pressure on the Customs
officials in charge. We also do not agree that there is an inherent "chilling effect" on the exporter in
this factual situation that rises to the level of an export restriction under Article XI.
11.34 The European Communities' other argument in support of its claim is that export shipments
may be delayed in the event of disagreement between the Customs officials performing the inspection
and the ADICMA representatives acting in accordance with their support function. The European
Communities refers to delays of several weeks or one month as being particularly harmful. The
European Communities does not explain, however, why a disagreement over product classification
should give rise to a delay of several weeks. We note in this respect that it is the sole legal
responsibility of Customs officials to carry out the Customs clearance. Whether or not ADICMA
representatives agree with the decisions reached has no legal relevance.
344 We note further, based on
information supplied by Argentina, that in case of disagreement ADICMA representatives cannot hold
up the export shipments in question, but may only initiate administrative or criminal proceedings.
Furthermore, we must add that the European Communities has not adduced any evidence which
would show that disagreement between Customs officials and ADICMA representatives have ever
occurred. In reply to a question of the Panel as to whether the European Communities had any
evidence of instances where export shipments were unduly delayed by Customs officials, the
European Communities stated that it had no knowledge of such instances.345
11.35 We agree that it is unusual to have representatives from a downstream consuming industry
involved in the Customs process of export clearance. As noted above, it seems to us that the levels of
exports of raw hides from Argentina may be low. The European Communities has stated the matter to
us in the form of a rhetorical question – what other purpose could these downstream industry
representatives have in this government process of export clearance than restricting exports?
However, it is up to the European Communities to pr ovide evidence sufficient to convince us of that.
In this instance, we do not find that the evidence is sufficient to prove that there is an export
restriction made effective by the mere presence of tanners' representatives within the meaning of
Article XI.

342 For instance, as an additional matter, the European Communities would also need to prove that this
private action was attributable to the Argentinean government under the doctrine of state responsibility, but
because the initial factual point has not been established, we do not need to reach that issue here.
343 EC reply to Panel Question 6.
344 Argentina has acknowledged that Customs officials in practice like to have evidence, in the form of
a signature, attesting to the presence of ADICMA representatives. Argentina has, however, stated that such
signatures are not relevant for purposes of Customs cl earance. In any event, the European Communities has not
argued that this practice gives rise to delays in Customs clearance.
345 See paras. 4.60 and 4.63 of this report.

5. Presence of tanners' representatives along with access to information as an export
restriction
11.36 The European Communities argues that ADICMA and its members have access to certain
confidential business information of the frigoríficos. The European Communities alleges that a broad
range of information is made available to the tanners through ADICMA. This includes prices,
quantities, destination and, most significantly, the identity of the exporter. The European
Communities offered as evidence a two page document
346 the first page of which shows the name of
the exporter and the second of which was signed by an ADICMA representative. The European
Communities also referred to a statement made by the frigoríficos complaining that their commercial
secrets were being compromised as a result of Resolution 2235.347
11.37 According to the European Communities, the frigoríficos, like any businesses, do not want to
give up confidential business information to their customers. This results in an inhibition to export in
light of the sensitivity of information made available and the parties to whom it is provided.
11.38 Argentina denies that confidential business information of the frigoríficos is being provided to
the tanners. Argentina states that the document with the ADICMA signature is not relevant to the
dispute. It is an ADICMA document rather than a government document and it deals with exports of
wet blue splits from a tannery rather than raw hides from a frigorífico. Argentina also stated that it
was a two-sided document and argued that a signature on the second page does not mean that the
person signing it saw any allegedly confidential information on the first page.
11.39 With respect to the press statement by the frigoríficos, Argentina simply questions its
probative value. In response to a direct question from the panel, Argentina argues that ADICMA no
longer has access to the name of the exporter or importer.
348 However, FOB price information as well
as the country of destination and the means of transport are available. According to Argentina, these
data are available through on-line services and are in the public domain. ADICMA does not have
access to them by reason of the measure in question.
11.40 Obviously, there is a disagreement between the parties as to exactly what information is made
available to the tanners and under what conditions. With respect to the identity of the exporter, we
have seen a document
349 that is related to the export of products from tanners. While we note that this
document addresses exports of downstream products and not hides shipped by frigoríficos, we also
recognize that it seems to be a document generated generally with respect to Resolution 2235.
Argentina argued that this was not an "official" document. However, it was signed by an Argentinean
Customs official on the bottom of the first page, so we fail to see the significance of Argentina's point
in this regard. Finally, Argentina argued that this was a two-sided document and that the ADICMA
representative signed only the second page, thereby not proving that he had actually seen the first
page.
350 Even though we have some concerns with Argentina's explanations, we nonetheless must
note that, in our view, this single exhibit is not sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion that the
identities of the exporters have actually been revealed in specific instances.
11.41 As for the other information, it does appear to be made available to ADICMA, but not
necessarily by reason of this measure. The European Communities has argued that this does not

346 Exhibit EC I.35.
347 Exhibit EC I.28.
348 Argentina acknowledges that such information may have been available as recently as May 1999,
but that it was no longer being provided by Customs.
349 Exhibit EC I.35.
350 We note that it is difficult to see why the ADICMA representative would sign a document on its
empty second page apparently in attestation of the information on the first page which he allegedly has not seen.
Nonetheless, we must acknowledge that there was no direct evidence presented to us to contradict Argentina's
assertion.

justify the release of confidential information pursuant to Resolution 2235 because that information is
improperly made available elsewhere. The question here is whether this measure results in an export
restraint contrary to Article XI. It cannot be the case that exporters will feel inhibited by this measure
letting ADICMA be present and having access to certain confidential business information when that
information is not actually confidential because it is otherwise available. There can be no export
inhibition from this measure in this regard.351
11.42 That leaves us with only the question of the identity of the exporter. Argentina has argued
that its Customs laws are balanced in that the exporters themselves can be present during the Customs
process. Thus, it seems clear to us as a general matter (as opposed to specific instances, of which we
have no definitive proof) that in exercising their right to be personally present, the exporters will, at
least potentially, give up the confidentiality of thei r identity. Does the revelation of this information
along with the presence of ADICMA personnel result in prohibited export restrictions? Again, we are
in the situation described in the previous Section where we are drawing inferences from
circumstantial evidence. The question is whether such circumstantial evidence clearly and
convincingly leads us to the conclusion proposed by the complainant and, effectively, no other. Even
if we were to assume that information, including the name of the exporter, is released during the
Customs clearance process, we are not convinced that this has resulted in an export restriction in this
case. In the absence of additional evidence, we re main unconvinced that releasing such information
in and of itself necessarily leads to export restrictions. Indeed, it is often an affirmative public
relations goal of companies to describe their export activities. If an exporter does not want its name
revealed for some purposes, confidentiality may be appropriate as a matter of Customs practice, but
we will address that subsequently. Just the fa ct of presence of ADICMA personnel as well as the
potential for revelation of the name of an exporter cannot suffice to prove that there is an export
restriction.
11.43 We are not convinced by the evidence before us that the presence of the tanners'
representatives along with the alleged access to information results in a chilling effect on exporters
resulting in an export restriction. There must be some other proven allegation as to why such
revelation of information leads to a conclusion of an export restriction for us to find a violation of
Article XI on these grounds. We address the further allegations of the European Communities in this
regard in the next Section.
6. Presence of tanners' representatives, access to confidential information and abuse of
such information as an export restriction
11.44 The European Communities has argued that, in fact, the Argentinean tanners do abuse the
information to which they have access. According to the European Communities, there is a reason for
the frigoríficos to be concerned about the release to their domestic customers of their confidential
business information, particularly the name of the exporters. The European Communities alleges that
there is a cartel of tanners operating in the Argentinean market and that this cartel has as one of its
objects the stifling of exports of its raw materials, bovine hides.
11.45 The European Communities has supported these allegations by introducing several pieces of
information. Among these are a trade magazine article describing the structure of the Argentinean
tanning industry as being concentrated.
352 Also, a statement has been provided from the president of
the association of frigoríficos to the effect that price collusion is taking place. 353 The European
Communities also point in particular to an explanation offered by a member of the Congreso de la
Nación regarding a draft law introduced in 1992 to the effect that there was a pricing cartel among the

351 We note that this conclusion is distinct from the issue of whether it is reasonable to reveal such
information as a part of the Customs process. That will be dealt with in Section XI.B.3(c) of this report.
352 Exhibit EC I.26.
353 Exhibit EC I.28.

tanners.354 The European Communities points out that the member who provided this explanation is
now Argentinean Secretary of State for Agriculture. The European Communities also provided a
copy of a recent newspaper editorial referring to these restrictions.355
11.46 The European Communities also argues that the Panel must take into account the historical
context for the measures in question. The European Communities notes that in 1972 Argentina
imposed a prohibition on exports of raw (wet salted) bovine hides with the stated objective of
"protect[ing] the adequate supplies of bovine hides to the tanning industry".
356 In 1979, following a
Section 301 petition filed with the U.S. government by the U.S. Tanners council, Argentina
committed itself to convert the export prohibition into an export tax which was to have been phased
out within a certain time-frame. In 1985, Argentina introduced a "suspension" on exports of raw
hides and semi-finished leather in order "to maintain the volume of supply in raw materials adequate
to the needs of the domestic market of the leather tanning and manufacturing sector facilitating a
smooth flow of supplies while avoiding any undue increase in prices". 357 In 1992, the "suspension"
was replaced by an export duty of 15 percent on the exports of raw bovine hides and bovine wet blue
as well as an additional tax which was later abolished. 358 In 1993, Argentina authorized the presence
of CICA representatives during customs inspectio n of raw bovine hides and wet blue bovine hides
destined for export. 359 This authorization applied to the same products that were subject to the
aforementioned export duty. Finally, in 1994, Argentina for the first time authorized ADICMA
representatives to participate in the customs inspection not only of raw hides and wet blue hides
destined for export, but also of products destined for export which fall under customs position 4104,
which includes finished leather and furs.
360
11.47 According to the European Communities, in li ght of both the current cartelized tanning
industry and the stated goals of the industry as they have been implemented historically, there is a
great incentive for the frigoríficos not to export their products and risk losing their domestic
customers. The European Communities argues that the measure in question, Resolution 2235,
provides the means for making effective these export restrictions.
11.48 Argentina responds to the European Communities' allegations by claiming that the European
Communities has provided no specific evidence to support the allegations. A self-serving statement
by the frigoríficos does not suffice to prove anything. The frigoríficos do not even provide any
evidence themselves of the allegations they are making. Argentina points out that no complaints have
been received by the Argentinean competition au thority. Furthermore, the European Communities'
allegations are not logical. The tanners and the frigoríficos have essentially equal bargaining power,
particularly in light of the fact the value of the raw hides is only about 10 percent of the value of the
slaughtered animal. Because hides are a mere by-product for the frigoríficos, that is the real reason
they have not paid much attention to exporting; the risks and costs are not worth the rewards in an
ancillary line of business. Furthermore, the frigoríficos have larger overall sales than the tanners,
hardly making them presumptively subject to pressure from the tanners not to export their raw hides.

354 Exhibit EC I.36.
355 Exhibit EC I.56. Argentina contested the Pane l's decision to accept this exhibit because it was
submitted after the deadlines set out in the working procedures and without the necessary showing of good
cause. However, we were informed that the article in question was only published after the passing of the initial
deadlines. In light of this and considering the paucity of probative information provided in this dispute, we
considered it appropriate to accept the exhibit. Also, Argentina had the opportunity to comment on the
article and did so.
356 Decree No. 2861/72.
357 Resolution No. 321/85 (Exhibit EC I.6).
358 Resolution (MEyOSP) No. 537/92 (Exhibit EC I.7).
359 Resolution (ANA) No. 771/93 (Exhibit EC I.11).
360 Decree No. 2275/94 (Exhibit EC I.8).

11.49 We begin by noting that it is possible that there is a cartel operating among the tanners. It is
possible that they collude to set prices. But this leads to another question. Namely, it is not at all
clear what the relationship is between an alleged price cartel (operating either vertically or
horizontally – the European Communities has been vague about this) and the alleged export
restrictions. Indeed, even assuming we are looking at a vertically operating cartel (i.e., an agreement
by cartel members not to pay more than a certain price for raw materials) imposed on the suppliers of
raw hides, there is no direct link to a quantitative export limitation resulting therefrom. More
analytical steps are needed to move from one to the other (e.g., the price cartel has created and
enforced a surplus domestic supply of hides by restricting exports) and each step would need to be
supported by some evidence. The allegations by a parliamentarian (even one who is now a Secretary
of State) and the various mentions in newspaper articles do not serve to prove that there is a cartel
operating, much less how it operates and why such operation leads to export restrictions.
11.50 It is the case, as we have discussed above, that the levels of exports of hides from Argentina
seem to be unusually low. It also seems that the price of hides in Argentina is lower than the world
price and does not seem to correlate to the low level of exports. However, this is not enough. As we
also discussed, in situations where circumstantial evidence is used, it must lead clearly and
convincingly to the conclusion sought. Reasonable alternatives must be eliminated. It is simply not
sufficient for the European Communities to assert that there is no ratio legis for Resolution 2235 other
than for it to be designed to restrict exports. The European Communities must prove it and, in our
view, it has not.
11.51 In our view, it is possible that a government could implement a measure which operated to
restrict exports because of its interaction with a private cartel. Other points would need to be argued
and proved (such as whether there was or needed to be knowledge of the cartel practices on the part of
the government) or, to put it as mentioned above, it would need to be established that the actions are
properly attributed to the Argentinean government under the rules of state responsibility. But we have
not reached that stage here. It may be the case that it will be difficult for one Member to prove that
there is a cartel operating within the jurisdiction of another Member. Nonetheless, we cannot ignore
the need for sufficient proof of a party's allegations simply because obtaining such proof is difficult.
11.52 The evidence before us is quite thin. We have a newspaper article and opinion piece, a press
release from the frigoríficos and a statement by a member of the Congreso de la Nación . Such
evidence would certainly not support a case in a domestic court. While it may be an open question
whether the same quantum of evidence is necessary to support such allegations in a WTO dispute
under Article XI of the GATT 1994, surely the difference cannot be that great. What is clear is that
whatever level of proof may be required, it was not reached here. And we note again that there is no
obligation under Article XI for a Member (Argentina in this instance) to assume a full "due diligence"
burden to investigate and prevent cartels from functioning as private export restrictions.
11.53 It remains a possibility that individual tanners might abuse the information obtained through
participation in the Customs process. However, as the European Communities has implicitly
acknowledged in the way its argument has been presented, only collective action can result in an
export restriction. If one tanner misuses the information, a frigorífico may always sell to another.
361
We must also emphasize that the European Communities has also not provided sufficient evidence to
support a claim even of a chilling effect which results in a restriction on exports due to the potential
for individual tanners to abuse information.
11.54 As we discussed above, the European Communities must prove that this measure is taken to
make an export restriction effective. Indeed, it is entirely possible to conclude that such an export
limiting cartel could operate wholly independently of this measure. The European Communities

361 With respect to abuse of the information in a manner other than imposition of export restrictions, we
will deal with that possibility in the Section XI.B.3 of this report.

would have had to prove that there was a causal relationship rather than a coincidental one here. Even
if we were to agree that there were a cartel operating in this industry, there is simply no proof that
Resolution 2235 is what is causing (or making effective) the export restriction.
11.55 Thus, in conclusion, we do not find that the evidence is sufficient to prove that there is an
export restriction made effective by the measure in question within the meaning of Article XI of the
GATT 1994.
B. CLAIM UNDER ARTICLE X:3(A) OF THE GATT 1994
1. Measure at issue and overview of the parties' arguments
11.56 Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 provides as follows:
Each contracting party shall administer in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner
all its laws, regulations, decisions and rulings of the kind described in paragraph 1 of
this Article.
11.57 Article X:1 of the GATT 1994, as referenced by Article X:3(a), provides as follows:
Laws, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general
application, made effective by any contracting party, pertaining to the classification
or the valuation of products for customs purposes, or to rates of duty, taxes or other
charges, or to requirements, restrictions or prohibitions on imports or exports or on
the transfer of payments therefor, or affecting their sale, distribution, transportation,
insurance, warehousing inspection, exhibition, processing, mixing or other use, shall
be published promptly in such a manner as to enable governments and traders to
become acquainted with them. Agreements affecting international trade policy which
are in force between the government or a governmental agency of any contracting
party and the government or governmental agency of any other contracting party shall
also be published. The provisions of this paragraph shall not require any contracting
party to disclose confidential information which would impede law enforcement or
otherwise be contrary to the public interest or would prejudice the legitimate
commercial interests of particular enterprises, public or private.
11.58 The European Communities' claim under Article X:3(a) relates to Argentina's Resolution
2235, i.e. the same Resolution which the European Communities is challenging under Article XI:1.
The European Communities argues that the presence of "partial and interested" representatives of the
tanning industry makes an impartial application of the relevant customs rules impossible.
362 T h e
European Communities also considers that it is not "reasonable" within the meaning of Article X:3(a)
that the interested industry is informed of all attempts at exports by those from whom they wish to
obtain the exclusive right to purchase hides.
363 The European Communities argued that the
Argentinean administration of its laws also was not "uniform". According to the European
Communities it was improper for Argentina to construct a special set of procedures for administering
its export laws for only one type of product. Other products are subject to export duties or are eligible
for export "refunds". In light of this, hides should not be singled out.
11.59 Argentina considers that the European Communities' claim under Article X:3(a) should fail.
First, Argentina notes that the European Communities has failed to explain what is not reasonable
about industry participation in the customs procedures at issue.
364 The law was impartial because the

exporter has a right to be present as well. Also, the law was not administered in a non-uniform
manner because other industries in a similar position could obtain such treatment, but no such
requests had been received. Moreover, Argentina argues that, in any event, Article X:3(a) only
applies where a Member applies its trade rules vis-à-vis other Members. Thus, Argentina could only
be found to be violating Article X:3(a) if, for instance, Resolution 2235 required industry presence
only when hides were exported to the European Communities. 365 The Resolution, however, governs
exports of bovine hides to all countries.
2. How Article X:3(a) relates to other provisions of the GATT 1994
(a) General
11.60 Regarding the relationship of Article X:3(a) to other provisions of the GATT 1994, the
Appellate Body has made the following statement:
The context of Article X:3(a) within Article X, which is entitled "Publication and
Administration of Trade Regulations", and a reading of the other paragraphs of
Article X, make it clear that Article X applies to the administration of laws,
regulations, decisions and rulings. To the extent that the laws, regulations, decisions
and rulings themselves are discriminatory, they can be examined for their consistency
with the relevant provisions of the GATT 1994.
366
11.61 Thus, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that in our analysis we focus on the administration of
the Customs laws of Argentina. We must not look at issues which would constitute violations of the
"substantive" provisions of the GATT 1994. In this dispute, those involved allegations of
inconsistency with Article XI and have already been examined.
(b) Article X:3(a) and MFN
11.62 Argentina has argued that Article X:3(a) only applies in situations when there is
discrimination in treatment with respect to, in this case, exports to two or more Members. Argentina
cites the European Communities' appeal in European Communities – Bananas , wherein Argentina
notes that the European Communities appealed on the issue of:
[W]hether the requirements of uniformity, impartiality and reasonableness set out in
Article X:3(a) preclude the imposition of different import licensing systems on like
products imported from different Members.367
11.63 According to Argentina, the European Commun ities has not demonstrated that there is such
differential treatment taking place. Indeed, there is none according to Argentina as can be seen from
an examination of Resolution 2235. It is completely neutral on its face and in its application. It
applies equally to exports destined to any Member.
11.64 The European Communities responded that there is no requirement that Article X:3(a) apply
only in situations where there is non-MFN treatment. Indeed, such a requirement would be counter to
the point that Article X does not apply in situations where there is a violation of a substantive
provision of the GATT 1994. The European Communities also stated that it could, in any event, be
argued that such non-MFN application of Cust oms laws and regulations could be considered

365 See paras. 4.187-4.188 of this report.
366 Appellate Body Report on European Communities – Bananas , supra, at para. 200 (emphasis in the
original). See also the Appellate Body Report on European Communities – Poultry , supra, at para. 115,
wherein the Appellate Body emphasized that to the exte nt Brazil's appeal related to the substantive content of
the EC rules rather than to their publication or administration, it fell outside of Article X.
367 European Communities – Bananas, supra, at para 199.

inconsistent with the requirement of Article X:3(a) that such application be "uniform", but to make
that the only basis for a complaint would effectively nullify the other requirements of impartiality and
reasonableness.
11.65 In our view, in the appeal of the European Communities in European Communities –
Bananas, the European Communities was not arguing to the Appellate Body in that case that
Article X:3(a) was limited to situations where there was non-MFN application of Customs laws and
regulations. The European Communities was actually arguing exactly the opposite and claimed that
the error was to read an MFN requirement into Article X:
According to the European Communities, the Panel distorted the interpretation of this
provision in such a way that the Article is now equivalent to a repetition on the most-
favoured-nation ("MFN") provision in Article I:1 of the GATT 1994.
368
11.66 In fact, the Appellate Body agreed with the position of the European Communities in this
regard.369 Furthermore, this is precisely what Argentina has argued when it claims that Article X:3(a)
does not apply in this case because it is a substantive rule which must be addressed exclusively under
the substantive provisions of the GATT 1994.
11.67 In our view, there is no requirement that Article X:3(a) be applied only in situations where it
is established that a Member has applied its Customs laws and regulations in an inconsistent manner
with respect to the imports of or exports to two or more Members.
11.68 Furthermore, Article X:3(a), by its terms, calls for a uniform, impartial and reasonable
administration of trade-related regulations. Nowhere does it refer to Members or products originating
in or destined for certain Members' territories, as is explicitly contained in other GATT 1994 Articles
such as I, II and III. Indeed, Article X:1 requires the prompt publication of trade-related regulations
"so as to enable governments and traders to become acquainted with them." Similarly, Article X:3(b)
requires Members to provide for domestic review procedures relating to customs matters to which
normally only private traders, not Members would have access. 370 These references undercut
Argentina's argument that Article X can only apply in situations where there is discrimination
between WTO Members.
(c) Substantive rules versus administration
11.69 Argentina has argued that the European Communities has no grounds for alleging a violation
of Article X:3(a) because the European Communities essentially is challenging the substance of a
regulation and not its administration. According to Argentina, this is explicitly contrary to the
Appellate Body's holdings in European Communities – Bananas and European Communities –
Poultry. According to Argentina, Resolution 2235 is a substantive rule that is not subject to
Article X:3(a) as such.
11.70 We are not persuaded by Argentina's arguments in this regard. In our view, Argentina has
attempted to stretch the Appellate Body finding that Article X is not applicable when the alleged
inconsistency involves the substance of another GATT 1994 provision, to argue that Article X cannot
be referred to when challenging the substance of any measure. Of course, a WTO Member may
challenge the substance of a measure under Article X. The relevant question is whether the substance
of such a measure is administrative in nature or, instead, involves substantive issues more properly
dealt with under other provisions of the GATT 1994.

368 Ibid., at para. 32.
369 Ibid., at para. 201.
370 In fact, Article X:3(b), in its second sentence, uses the word "importer".

11.71 If the substance of a rule could not be challenged, even if the rule was administrative in
nature, it is unclear what could ever be challenged under Article X. First, there is no requirement in
Article X:3(a) that it apply only to "unwritten" rules. Again, this would be contrary to that provision's
own language linking it to Article X:1. Second, such an approach would also likely run counter to the
other aspect of the Appellate Body's holding in European Communities – Poultry regarding Article X,
to the effect that it applies to rules of general application and not to specific shipments. 371 Looking
only to individual Customs officers' enforcement actions, rather than measures such as Resolution
2235, as Argentina implies, would almost certainly require a review of a specific instance of abuse
rather than the general rule applicable.372 This would effectively write Article X:3(a) out of existence,
which we cannot agree with.373
11.72 Thus, we are left with a situation where we have a written provision, Resolution 2235, and we
need to determine whether this Resolution is substantive or administrative. In our view it is
administrative in nature and therefore properly subject to review under Article X:3(a). Resolution
2235 does not establish substantive Customs rules for enforcement of export laws. Argentina has
pointed out that those are contained primarily in the Customs Code (L aw No. 22415), Resolution
(ANA) No. 1284/95 and Resolution (ANA) No. 125/97.
374 Rather, Resolution 2235 provides for a
means to involve private persons in assisting Customs officials in the application and enforcement of
the substantive rules, namely, the rules on classification and export duties. Resolution 2235 does not
create the classification requirements; it does not provide for export refunds; it does not impose export
duties. It merely provides for a certain manner of applying those substantive rules. This measure
clearly is administrative in nature.
(d) Laws of general application
11.73 Argentina has also argued that Article X should not apply in this case because it only relates
to laws of general application and does not apply to the handling of specific shipments of products.
This question arises because Article X:3(a) refers specifically to the method of application of
measures identified in Article X:1. Article X:1, in turn, states that it applies to "laws, regulations,
judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application . . ." According to Argentina,
Resolution 2235 only refers to the right of ADICMA representatives to be present at the time of
particular shipments and only those shipments are thus affected. It is, according to Argentina, a very
shipment-specific regulation.
11.74 We cannot agree with Argentina in this regard. In our view, Resolution 2235 provides for a
right generally for ADICMA representatives to be present. Whether they actually are present in any
given instance is not relevant to our consideration. We are examining the existence of that right to be
present along with corollary factors such as access to information.
11.75 As noted in the previous Section, we have another difficulty with Argentina's argument. It
would seem that any rule of "general application" would be deemed a substantive rule by Argentina
based on its use of that term elsewhere in its arguments. This would then leave a situation where any
rule of general application could not come under Article X because it would involve substantive rules
rather than administrative ones. On the other hand an administrative rule, as that would appear to be

371 In European Communities – Poultry , the Appellate Body further stated that Article X is relevant
only to measures "of general application" and not to th e particular treatment of each individual shipment. See
the Appellate Body Report on European Communities – Poultry, supra, at paras. 111 and 113.
372 We make this statement arguendo and do not imply agreement with Argentina's implicit assumption
of no violation in such instances.
373 See the Appellate Body Reports on United States – Standards of Reformulated and Conventional
Gasoline (hereafter " United States – Gasoline "), adopted on 20 May 1996, WT/DS2/AB/R, at p. 23; Japan –
Alcoholic Beverages II , supra, at p. 12; Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear , adopted on
12 January 2000, WT/DS121/AB/R, at para. 81.
374 Even some of these provisions arguably are procedural in nature.

defined, could not be a rule of general application. This also would render Article X effectively a
nullity, which obviously cannot be the case.
3. Is Resolution 2235 uniform, impartial and reasonable?
(a) General
11.76 Having decided that Resolution 2235 is properly subject to the provisions of Article X:3(a),
we must next test it against the requirements that the Customs laws of Argentina be applied in a
manner that is uniform, impartial and reasonable. In applying these tests, it is important to recall that
we are not to duplicate the substantive rules of the GATT 1994. Thus, for example, the test generally
will not be whether there has been discriminatory treatment in favor of exports to one Member
relative to another. Indeed, the focus is on the tr eatment accorded by government authorities to the
traders in question. This is explicit in Article X:1 which requires, inter alia, that all provisions "shall
be published promptly in such a manner as to enable governments and traders to become acquainted
with them." (emphasis added). While it is normal that the GATT 1994 should require this sort of
transparency between Members, it is significant that Article X:1 goes further and specifically
references the importance of transparency to individual traders.
11.77 Thus, it can be seen that Article X:3(a) requires an examination of the real effect that a
measure might have on traders operating in the commercial world. This, of course, does not require a
showing of trade damage, as that is generally not a requirement with respect to violations of the
GATT 1994. But it can involve an examination of whether there is a possible impact on the
competitive situation due to alleged partiality, unreasonableness or lack of uniformity in the
application of customs rules, regulations, decisions, etc.
(b) Uniformity
11.78 The European Communities has argued that it was improper for Argentina to introduce a
system which constructs a separate way of administering its export rules with respect to only one type
of product. To the extent that Argentina has tried to justify Resolution 2235 by referring to its
provision of export tax refunds for certain pro cessed products derived from hides (and the need to
distinguish these from the hides themselves), the European Communities notes that there are many
products for which such tax refunds exist. However, only in this sector do representatives of the
domestic downstream industry have the ability to participate in the Customs processes.
11.79 Argentina has responded that the only reason that there are no systems in place with respect to
other products is that no other industries have requested such a right. Therefore, the potential exists
elsewhere; it is merely that it has been exercised in this sector.
11.80 The first question in this regard is to define what the term "uniform" means in Article X:3(a).
The dictionary provides the following definition:
Of one unchanging form, character, or kind; that is or stays the same in different
places or circumstances, or at different times.
375
11.81 The term "uniform" appears in the GATT 1 994 only with respect to administration of
Customs laws. Article VII:2(b) provides that when assessing Customs valuation on the basis of
"actual value" variations may exist based on quantities provided that such prices are uniformly related
to quantities in other transactions.

375 The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II, Oxford (1993), at p. 3488.

11.82 In addition to the term appearing in paragraph 3(a) of Article X, it also appears in paragraph 2
of that Article requiring uniform practices for certain changes in applying Customs laws. Finally,
Ad Article I, paragraph 4, provides for uniform practices in re-application of tariff classifications and
imposition of certain new classifications at the time of the provisional applications of the GATT 1947.
11.83 It is obvious from these uses of the terms that it is meant that Customs laws should not vary,
that every exporter and importer should be able to expect treatment of the same kind, in the same
manner both over time and in different places and with respect to other persons. Uniform
administration requires that Members ensure that their laws are applied consistently and predictably
and is not limited, for instance, to ensuring equa l treatment with respect to WTO Members. That
would be a substantive violation properly addressed under Article I. This is a requirement of uniform
administration of Customs laws and procedures betw een individual shippers and even with respect to
the same person at different times and different places.
11.84 We are of the view that this provision should not be read as a broad anti-discrimination
provision. We do not think this provision should be interpreted to require all products be treated
identically. That would be reading far too much into this paragraph which focuses on the day to day
application of Customs laws, rules and regulations. There are many variations in products which
might require differential treatment and we do not think this provision should be read as a general
invitation for a panel to make such distinctions.
11.85 In our view, there is no evidence that Argentina has applied Resolution 2235 in a non-uniform
manner with respect to hides. All hides exports are uniformly subject to the possibility of ADICMA
representatives being present. Indeed, the European Communities' complaints are about Resolution
2235's application across the board. The difficulties of Argentina's administration of its Customs laws
pursuant to Resolution 2235 are adequately dealt with under the other provisions of Article X:3(a).
(c) Reasonableness
11.86 As a preliminary matter, we note that Article X:3(a) provides that the administration of
Customs laws, regulations and rules must be uniform, impartial and reasonable. Normally, we would
address these three considerations in the order they appear in the treaty text. However, we note that in
this instance the three requirements are legally independent in that Customs laws regulations and rules
must satisfy each of the three standards. This gives us some freedom in the manner of discussing
them. In the present instance, the requirement of reasonableness, we believe, turns on the question of
information flows and whether it is reasonable to allow persons access to certain information which is
irrelevant to the stated purpose of the legislation in question. In our view, the requirement of
impartiality in this instance turns on the question of who has access to such information by reason of
their presence in the Customs process. Although the requirements of reasonableness and impartiality
are distinct in nature, both relate to the question of information flows in this case. We will deal first
with the requirement of reasonableness as that is most directly related to the question of access to
information. Our analysis of the requirement of impartiality flows logically from that.
11.87 The European Communities has argued that it is unreasonable for Argentina to apply its
Customs formalities in a manner such that Argentinean hide buyers are able to see and sign a
document containing details of the export deals of their customers, including business confidential
information. The European Communities further argues that the context of Article X:3 makes it clear
that this is unreasonable. The European Commun ities notes that the last sentence of Article X:1
stipulates that the obligations of that paragraph shall not require WTO Members to "disclose
confidential information which . . . would prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of particular
enterprises, public or private." The European Communities asserts that no particular expertise is
required to distinguish between raw or salted hides on the one hand and more processed products on
the other. Furthermore, if specialized expertise were necessary, Argentina should train its own
officials adequately rather than relying on the sporadic presence of ADICMA representatives. If it

were necessary to have ADICMA representatives present to combat fraud, such presence should be
mandatory rather than permissive. Finally, the European Communities notes that irregularities in the
administration of the export tax regime or refund programs for processed products were not cited in
the original request by CICA (one of the ADICMA member groups) for permission to be present.
11.88 Argentina has responded that the last sentence of Article X:1 cannot be read as a prohibition
as the European Communities reads it. Rather, it is an exemption from the obligation to publish
otherwise contained in Article X:1. Furthermore, the information to which the European
Communities refers is not business confidential info rmation. It is the same information which is
available in the public domain through on-line serv ices both from the Argentinean government and
private services. Argentina contests the document that the European Communities has produced
showing a signature, in that the document was that of a tanner, not a hide supplier, and therefore is of
no relevance to the European Communities' claims. In response to a question from the Panel,
Argentina has stated that the name of an exporter of a particular shipment is no longer provided either
publicly or to the ADICMA representative. In contrast to the European Communities' claims,
Argentina asserts that having ADICMA present is very much in the interest of fair and transparent
Customs processes. It helps combat tax fraud. To ensure proper enforcement, ADICMA
representatives must be present because their only recourse is to bring a complaint against the
government for any irregularities and presence is required in such instances.
11.89 The European Communities countered by stating that a procedure which allows the
representatives of an industry that has actively sought and in part obtained bans on exportation of its
raw material, bovine hides, into the heart of the export clearance process is inherently unreasonable
regardless of what information is provided on-line in Argentina.
11.90 In considering this requirement, we first turn to the stated objective for Resolution 2235
offered by Argentina. Argentina stated that it required assistance in the classification of bovine hides
when exported in order to ensure there were no mistakes or fraud regarding the proper payment of
export duties and awarding of export "refunds". While a manifestly WTO-inconsistent measure
cannot be justified by assertions of good intentions, we consider it reasonable in this instance to
accept for purposes of analysis the proffered explanation in light of all the facts of the dispute.
11.91 In our view, the analysis of this issue with respect to reasonableness then will turn on the
information that is supplied to ADICMA representatives and its direct relevance to the product
classification question. We agree with the European Communities that it is unreasonable to allow
ADICMA representatives into the Customs clearance process in light of the access to information that
it affords. The explanation offered by Argentina for this presence raises serious questions. We do not
see why ADICMA must have access to such information, which by its nature is confidential
376 and
which is made available to it as a participant in the Customs clearance process for the purposes of
proper classification377, in order to combat fraud and mistakes with respect to assessment of export
duties and awarding of export "refunds".378

376 In this regard, we refer to Article 6.5 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the Antidumping Agreement), which provides that information
could be considered by its nature confidential:
… for example, because its disclosure would be of significant competitive advantage to a
competitor or because its disclosure would have a significantly adverse effect upon a person
supplying the information or upon a person from whom that person acquired the information.
377 We note that we are dealing here with the question of administration of Customs laws rather than
effecting an export restriction pursuant to a measure. We recall that under Article XI, we stated that if certain
information were in the public domain, even arguably improperly, it could not be as a result of the measure in
question that such an alleged export restriction was being implemented by reason of such information. Here the

11.92 To provide some specific examples, ADICMA representatives should not be able to see the
pricing information of the suppliers to ADICMA's members. This is information which ADICMA
members could use to their commercial advantage in negotiations with the frigoríficos. We should
note in this regard that Argentina bases its export duties on prices of hides quoted in the United States.
Thus, even if we were to consider it reasonable for the tanners to be involved in the export clearance
process, there would be no reason whatever for them to see the prices as these would be irrelevant to
the assessment of export duties. We also see no need for them to be made aware of the destination or
quantities involved as these data are irrelevant to the tasks ADICMA representatives are involved in.
11.93 We think it is particularly important for the reasonable administration of Argentina's export
laws that the tanners not be provided the name of exporters. Argentina claims that this is no longer
possible. However, as it was part of the European Communities' claims and was unarguably possible
as recently as May of 1999 that such written information was supplied to ADICMA, we consider it
necessary to specifically find that it is unreasonab le for such information to be provided to ADICMA
or its members. However, this question goes beyond just supply of the name in writing. Argentina
has stressed in its arguments under all three conditions of Article X:3(a) that the process is balanced
because the exporters may be present during the Customs process. However, it necessarily follows
that exercising this right would reveal the identity of the exporter. While it could be argued that the
exporter could send a representative or agent and may thereby conceal his identity, imposing such a
burden with respect to an exporter's own products would be unreasonable.
11.94 Therefore, we must conclude that a process aimed at assuring the proper classification of
products, but which inherently contains the possibility of revealing confidential business information,
is an unreasonable manner of administering the laws , regulations and rules identified in Article X:1
and therefore is inconsistent with Article X:3(a).
(d) Impartiality
11.95 The European Communities has argued that the presence of ADICMA representatives makes
the application of Argentinean laws in an impartial manner impossible. That is, there is an inherent
conflict of interest in having such persons present that cannot be solved by merely having further
safeguards in place. The European Communities' contention is that there is no legitimate purpose for
private persons from the domestic downstream industry to be involved in the customs clearance
process, so their mere presence must render the process partial to them over Argentinean exporters of
hides. Implicitly, the European Communities argues that, even if there is not an actual conflict of
interest in their presence, there is at least a pote ntial conflict of interest in that it puts ADICMA and
its members into a position where they could abuse their presence or any information obtained
thereby. Given this potential conflict of interest inherent in the measure, it cannot be considered an
impartial application of the general Customs laws.
11.96 The European Communities notes that the tanning industry has campaigned for many years
for export restrictions on their raw materials, i.e., hides. In fact, they have been successful in these
endeavours. In light of these positions, it must be considered a partial administration of Customs laws
to let them participate in the export clearance process.

issue is different because we are directly addressing what information is actually made available pursuant to this
measure. The fact that such information might be made available elsewhere by the government is not relevant
to the question of information potentially released by this measure.
378 We note that we make no explicit ruling on whether Argentina is correct in saying that it needs
expert advice in classification. In this regard, we do not think that the mere presence of ADICMA, or any other
private persons, is in and of itself unreasonable. (See the discussion in the next Section regarding
"impartiality"). We further note, however, that it remains unclear to us why the tanners are the only industry
that has the right to send representatives to participat e in the Customs clearance of their suppliers' exports and
for which the Argentinean government requires such expertise.

11.97 Argentina responds that there is no partiality involved in this situation because the hides
exporters also have the right to have a representative present. Thus, there is a balance of interests
which is the essence of impartiality. ADICMA representatives are not there to stop shipments and
have no authority to do so. This is a matter of transparency and efficiency in customs administration,
not partiality.
11.98 The only private parties that have a contractual legal interest in the product and transaction
are the exporter (and his agent) and the foreign buyer. The government also has a relevant legal
interest in the transaction based on the sovereign right to regulate and tax exports. In contrast with
this, the ADICMA representatives have, outside of the measure in question itself, no legal relationship
with either the products or the sales contract. ADICMA, in fact, represents an adverse commercial
interest in that the exports are not in its members' interests as such exports potentially drive up the
costs of hides. Furthermore, ADICMA members are competitors of the foreign buyers of the hides.379
11.99 Much as we are concerned in general about the presence of private parties with conflicting
commercial interests in the Customs process, in ou r view the requirement of impartial administration
in this dispute is not a matter of mere presence of ADICMA representatives in such processes. It all
depends on what that person is permitted to do. 380 In our view, the answer to this question is related
directly to the question of access to information as part of the product classification process as
discussed in the previous Section. Our concern here is focussed on the need for safeguards to prevent
the inappropriate flow of one private person's confidential information to another as a result of the
administration of the Customs laws, in this case the implementing Resolution 2235.
11.100 Whenever a party with a contrary commercial interest, but no relevant legal interest
381, is
allowed to participate in an export transaction such as this, there is an inherent danger that the
Customs laws, regulations and rules will be applied in a partial manner so as to permit persons with
adverse commercial interests to obtain confidential information to which they have no right.
11.101 While this situation could be remedied by adequate safeguards, we do not consider that such
safeguards presently are in place. Therefore, Resolution 2235 cannot be considered an impartial
administration of the Customs laws, regulations and rules described in Article X:1 and, thus, is
inconsistent with Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.
C.
CLAIMS UNDER ARTICLE III:2, FIRST SENTENCE, OF THE GATT 1994
1. Factual aspects
11.102 The European Communities' comp laint is in respect of certain mechanisms maintained by
Argentina for the collection of its value-added tax (hereafter the "IVA") and income tax (hereafter the
"IG"). The European Communities considers that certain features of these mechanisms are
inconsistent with Argentina's obligations under the GATT 1994.

379 In this regard, we take note of Article 2:14 of the Agreement on Preshipment Inspection. This
agreement deals specifically with the role of private persons in certain Customs transactions and specifically
recognizes the problem of conflicts of interest.
380 In this regard, we recall that we are not dealing under this Article with export restraints. We already
decided in the previous Section that the allegations of such restraints within the meaning of Article XI imposed
through RG 2235 remain unproved. Thus, any chilling effect with respect to the exports themselves has not
been established.
381 Again, we note that there is, arguably, a "legal interest" created by RG 2235 itself. However, that is
the measure in question and should not be seen to self-generate a legal relationship that would not otherwise
exist.

11.103 A brief description is provided below of the IVA and IG as well as of some of the relevant
mechanisms for their collection.382 Additional factual aspects are introduced as necessary in Sections
XI.C.2-6 of this report.
(a) Value-added tax (IVA)
(ii) The IVA
11.104 The IVA (Impuesto al Valor Agregado) is a general value-added tax. Its principal legal basis
is the Law on the IVA383.
11.105 The types of transactions subject to the IVA include, inter alia , the sale of goods inside
Argentina's territory and the definitive importation of goods into its territory. With respect to imports,
the IVA is collected together with any applicable import duties. With respect to internal sales, sellers
must charge the IVA to the purchasers and then pay the amounts so collected to the tax administration
on a monthly basis, after deducting therefrom any IVA paid on their own purchases and imports
during the same period.
11.106 The IVA is applied to both imports and internal sales at a general rate of 21 percent
ad valorem.384
11.107 Taxable persons whose annual sales do not exceed a certain amount may choose not to
register themselves with the tax authorities. 385 Non-registered taxable persons are not directly liable
to pay the IVA in respect of their internal sales. Thus, no IVA is charged on sales by non-registered
taxable persons to other non-registered taxable persons. However, where registered taxable persons
make sales to non-registered ones, the former are directly liable for the tax payable by the latter on
their subsequent re-sales. Accordingly, registered taxable persons must collect not only the IVA due
on their sales to non-registered taxable persons, but also an additional amount which is assumed to
represent the IVA due on the subsequent re-sales by non-registered taxable persons. That additional
amount is calculated by applying the relevant IVA rate to 50 percent of the net sales price of the
goods in question.
386 Where the applicable IVA rate is 21 percent, the additional amount is therefore
equivalent to 10.5 percent of the net sales price.
(iii) Pre-payment of the IVA
11.108 The Directorate-General of Taxes ( Dirección General Impositiva ) has issued, inter alia ,
General Resolutions (DGI) No. 3431/91 387 and No. 3337/91 388, which provide, respectively, for the
collection at source of the IVA on the importation of goods and on certain internal sales of goods.
Pre-payment of the IVA on imports
11.109 RG 3431 provides that when goods are definitively imported into Argentinean territory, the
Directorate-General of Customs ( Dirección General de Aduanas ) must collect from importers not
only the IVA due on the import transaction itself, but also an additional amount. Where the importer
is a registered taxable person, that additional amount collected represents a pre-payment of part of the

382 See also paras. 6.1 et seq. of this report.
383 Law No. 23349/97 (Exhibit EC II.1), as last amended by Law No. 25239/99 (Exhibit EC II.3)
(hereafter the "IVA Law").
384 Lower rates apply to transactions involving certain specified products, including live bovine
animals, offal of bovines as well as fresh fruit and vegetables.
385 See Article 29 of the IVA Law.
386 See Articles 4, 30 and 38 of the IVA Law.
387 Exhibit EC II.5 (hereafter "RG 3431").
388 Exhibit EC II.6 (hereafter "RG 3337").

IVA liability which arises once the imported goods are re-sold in Argentina. The pre-payment made
can be credited at the time of settlement of the definitive IVA liability. 389 Where the importer is a
non-registered taxable person, the additional amount to be paid is assumed to represent a pre-payment
of the full IVA which is payable on the re-sale of the imported goods. That pre-payment cannot be
credited because, as already mentioned, non-registered taxable persons are not directly liable to pay
the IVA in respect of their internal sales.
11.110 The pre-payments on imports are collected at the following general ad valorem rates390:
- imports by registered taxable persons: 10 percent
- imports by non-registered taxable persons: 12.7 percent
11.111 As a general rule, all import transactions are subject to pre-payment of the IVA in accordance
with RG 3431. No pre-payment is collected, howe ver, on certain import transactions, including the
following391:
- re-importation of goods exempt from import duties392;
- imports of goods intended for the private use or consumption of the
importer393;
- imports of so-called bienes de uso, i.e. goods intended for use in the economic
activity of the importer, except imports by non-registered taxpayers; and
- imports of live bovines, under certain conditions.
Pre-payment of the IVA on internal sales
11.112 RG 3337 provides that when certain categories of persons sell goods in Argentina to a
registered taxable person, they must collect from their purchasers the IVA due on the particular sales
transactions as well as an additional amount. 394 That additional amount collected on internal sales
represents a pre-payment of part of the IVA liability which arises once the goods are re-sold in
Argentina.
395 The pre-payment made can be credited at the time of settlement of the definitive IVA
liability.396
11.113 The persons required to collect the pre-payment on internal sales, the so-called collection
agents ( agentes de percepción ), are appointed by the tax administration on the basis of its fiscal
interests. Those persons include, e.g., large companies of the private sector.

389 See Article 4 of RG 3431.
390 See Article 3 of RG 3431 . Lower rates apply to import transactions involving certain specified
products, including live bovine animals, offal of bovines as well as fresh fruit and vegetables. The European
Communities does not challenge those rates.
391 See Article 2 of RG 3431.
392 See also Article 26 of the IVA Law.
393 See also Article 8 a) of the IVA Law.
394 See Article 1 of RG 3337.
395 See Article 9 of RG 3337.
396 Ibid.

11.114 The pre-payments on internal sales are collected at the following ad valorem rate:
- sales to registered taxable persons397: 5 percent
11.115 By way of exception, no pre-payments are collected on the following internal sales by agentes
de percepción:
- sales to other agentes de percepción398;
- sales to financial entities subject to Law No. 21526 (such as commercial
banks, investment banks, mortgage banks and savings banks)399;
- sales to non-registered taxable persons; and
- sales which give rise to a pre-payment of the IVA of less than Pesos 21.30
per transaction400.
(b) Income tax (IG)
(i) The IG
11.116 The IG ( Impuesto a las Ganancias ) is a tax on income, which applies to both natural and
juridical persons. Its principal legal basis is the Law on the IG401.
11.117 The IG is levied on all sources of income 402, including the profits derived from the sale of
domestic and imported goods.403 The IG must be paid to the tax administration on an annual basis.
11.118 The profits derived from the exercise of an economic activity by a juridical person are taxed
at a rate of 35 percent. 404 With respect to natural persons, the rate increases in proportion to the
amount of taxable income.405 In both cases, the rate applicable is the same irrespective of whether the
profits are obtained from the sale of domestic or imported goods.
(ii) Pre-payment of the IG
11.119 The Directorate-General of Taxes ( Dirección General Impositiva ) has issued, inter alia ,
General Resolutions (DGI) No. 3543/92 406 and No. 2784/88 407, which provide, respectively, for the
collection at source of the IG on the importation of goods and the withholding at source of the IG on
certain internal sales of goods.

397 See Article 2 of RG 3337.
398 See Article 3 b) of RG 3337.
399 See Article 3 c) of RG 3337.
400 See Article 5 of RG 3337.
401 As codified by Decree No. 649/97 (Exhibit EC II.2) and last amended by Law No. 25239/99
(Exhibit EC II.3) (hereafter the "IG Law").
402 See Articles 1 and 2 of the IG Law.
403 See Articles 2; 49; 52 a) b) c) d) and e); 58; and 65 of the IG Law.
404 See Article 69 of the IG Law.
405 See Article 90 of the IG Law.
406 Exhibit EC II.8 (hereafter "RG 3543").
407 Exhibit EC II.10 (hereafter "RG 2784").

Pre-payment of the IG on imports
11.120 RG 3543 provides that when goods are definitively imported into Argentinean territory the
National Customs Administration (Administración Nacional de Aduanas) must collect from importers
a certain amount on account of the IG. The amount collected represents a pre-payment of part of
importers' definitive IG liability for the same tax period. The pre-payments made can be credited at
the time of settlement of the definitive IG liability.408
11.121 The pre-payments on imports are collected at the following ad valorem rates:
- imports in general409: 3 percent
- imports for the importers' own use or consumption410: 11 percent
11.122 As a general rule, all import transactions are subject to pre-payment of the IG in accordance
with RG 3543. No pre-payment is collected, howe ver, on certain import transactions, including the
following:
- re-importation of goods exempt from import duties411; and
- importation of bienes de uso412.
Pre-payment of the IG on internal sales
11.123 RG 2784 provides that certain persons must withhold and pay to the tax administration a
certain amount on account of the IG when making payments for certain categories of goods sold to
them by taxable persons. The amount withheld represents a pre-payment of part of the sellers'
definitive IG liability for the same tax period. The pre-payments made can be credited at the time of
settlement of the definitive IG liability.
11.124 The persons required to withhold the IG on inte rnal sales, the so-called withholding agents
(agentes de retención ), are appointed by the tax administration on the basis of its fiscal interests.
Those persons include, e.g., most forms of juridical persons.
413 Natural persons are required to
withhold the IG only where they make payments to taxable persons as a result of the exercise of an
economic activity.414
11.125 The transactions subject to withholding include the internal sale of the following categories of
goods415:
- merchandise for resale, raw materials and other materials416;
- processed goods417;
- goods undergoing processing418;

408 See Article 8 of RG 3543; Argentina's reply to Panel Question 55.
409 See Article 4 of RG 3543.
410 See ibid.
411 See Article 2 of RG 3543.
412 See ibid.
413 See Article 3 of RG 2784.
414 See Article 3 f) of RG 2784.
415 See Article 1 of RG 2784.
416 See Article 52 a) of the IG Law.
417 See Article 52 b) of the IG Law.

- livestock419;
- grains, oilseeds, fruit and other products of the earth, excluding forestry
products420;
- depreciable movable property421; and
- other goods falling within Article 65 of the IG Law;.
11.126 The pre-payments on internal sales are withheld at the following ad valorem rates422:
- sales by registered taxable persons: 2 percent
- sales by non-registered taxable persons: 4 percent
11.127 By way of exception, no pre-payments are withheld on the following internal sales:
- sales which give rise to monthly payments of Pesos 11,242.7 or less423;
- sales which give rise to a pre-payment of the IG of less than Pesos 3.75424.
2. Overview of the parties' arguments and analytical approach followed425
11.128 Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994 provides as follows:
2. The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the
territory of any other contracting party shall not be subject, directly or indirectly, to
internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied, directly
or indirectly, to like domestic products.
11.129 The European Communities claims that RG 3431 and RG 3543, which provide for the
pre-payment of part of the IVA and IG upon importation of goods, are inconsistent with Article III:2,
first sentence. According to the European Communities, the pre-payments on imports required by
RG 3431 and RG 3543 exceed the pre-payments to be made on internal sales of goods, with the
consequence that importers bear a heavier financial cost than buyers of like domestic goods. The
European Communities notes that its complaint is concerned with that additional financial cost
imposed on importers and is not meant to question Argentina's right to require the pre-payment of
taxes.
11.130 Argentina rejects the European Communities' claims. Argentina recalls that the IVA Law and
IG Law treat imported and domestic products alike. The measures challenged by the European
Communities do not, according to Argentina, create additional taxes, but rather provide for the
pre-payment of the IVA and IG. Argentina submits that RG 3431 and RG 3543 are tax administration

418 See Article 52 c) of the IG Law.
419 See Article 52 d) of the IG Law.
420 See Article 52 e) of the IG Law.
421 See Article 58 of the IG Law.
422 See Article 14.3 of RG 2784.
423 See Article 15.3 of RG 2784.
424 See Article 16 of RG 2784.
425 It should be noted that notwithstanding the fact that the present case is entitled , the European Communities'
claims under Article III:2, first sentence, are not limited to finished leather, but rather extend to imported
products in general. See the European Communities' request for the establishment of a panel (WT/DS155/2).

and collection measures and that, as such, they fall outside the scope of Article III:2. Argentina notes,
moreover, that the pre-payments made pursuant to RG 3431 and RG 3543 can be credited at the time
of settlement of the definitive tax liability arising from the IVA Law and IG Law. Argentina
considers that imported products are thus in any event not subject to internal taxes in excess of those
applied to like domestic products.
11.131 We consider that, for a measure to infringe Article III:2, first sentence, an affirmative
conclusion must be reached in respect of each of the following three requirements:
(i) the measure must qualify as an internal tax or other charge of any kind
applied, directly or indirectly, to imported and domestic products;
(ii) the taxed imported and domestic products must be like; and
(iii) imported products must be subject, directly or indirectly, to internal taxes or
charges in excess of those applied, directly or indirectly, to like domestic
products.
11.132 Our examination of the European Communities' claims under Article III:2, first sentence,
addresses these requirements in turn. Prior to beginning that task, however, we need to consider
Argentina's contention that, for a complaining party to establish a case under Article III:2, first
sentence, it must demonstrate, as a necessary requirement, the presence of a protective application of
the contested measure.
11.133 Argentina acknowledges that the A ppellate Body, in its report on Japan – Alcoholic
Beverages II , found that, for purposes of a claim under Article III:2, first sentence, a complaining
party does not need to establish, as a separate requirement, that the challenged measure is applied so
as to afford protection to domestic production. However, according to Argentina's reading of that
report, the Appellate Body did not imply that ther e is no need to show the presence of a protective
application. Rather, what the Appellate Body report says, in Argentina's view, is that the existence of
a protective application must be determined together with the other specific requirements contained in
Article III:2, first sentence, rather than separately. Argentina considers that this must be so
considering that the Appellate Body stated that th e first paragraph of Article III informs the second
paragraph.
11.134 The European Communities disagrees with Argentina's interpretation of the Appellate Body
report on Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II. In its view, it is clear from the report that there is no need
for a complaining party to prove, as a separate requirement, the presence of a protective application of
the challenged measure. Nor is there a need, ac cording to the European Communities, to show the
presence of a protective application for purposes of a "like products" determination or a determination
of whether imported products are taxed in excess of like domestic products.
11.135 In its report on Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, the Appellate Body addressed the omission of
a specific reference in Article III:2, first sentence, to Article III:1
426 in the following terms:

426 Article III:1 provides as follows:
1. The contracting parties recognize that inte rnal taxes and other internal charges, and
laws, regulations and requirements affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase,
transportation, distribution or use of products, and internal quantitative regulations requiring
the mixture, processing or use of products in specified amounts or proportions, should not be
applied to imported or domestic products so as to afford protection to domestic production.
(note omitted)

This omission must have some meaning. We believe the meaning is simply that the
presence of a protective application need not be established separately from the
specific requirements that are included in the first sentence in order to show that a
tax measure is inconsistent with the gene ral principle set out in the first sentence .
However, this does not mean that the general principle of Article III:1 does not apply
to this sentence . To the contrary, we believe the first sentence of Article III:2 is, in
effect, an application of this general principle.427
11.136 Argentina attaches great importance to the high lighted portion in the above statement. It
appears to us that Argentina essentially argues that since, according to the Appellate Body, the general
principle of Article III:1 applies to Article III:2, first sentence, and since the presence of a protective
application need not be established separately from the specific requirements included in Article III:2,
first sentence, this must mean that the presence of a protective application must be established
together with the specific requirements of Article III:2, first sentence.
11.137 We are unable to agree with Argentina's interpretation of the Appellate Body's statement. As
we understand it, the presence of a protective application need be established neither separately nor
together with the specific requirements contained in Article III:2, first sentence. The quoted passage
from the Appellate Body report in Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II makes clear that Article III:2, first
sentence, is, in effect, an application of the general principle stated in Article III:1. Accordingly,
whenever imported products from one Member's territory are subject to taxes in excess of those
applied to like domestic products in the territory of another Member, this is deemed to "afford
protection to domestic production" within the meaning of Article III:1. It follows that, in applying
Article III:2, first sentence, recourse to the general principle of Article III:1 is neither necessary nor
appropriate.
428 The only requirements that need to be demonstrated by the complaining party are
those contained in Article III:2, first sentence, itself.429
11.138 In light of the foregoing, we conclude that there is no requirement to establish, separately or
otherwise, the presence of a protective application in order to show an infringement of Article III:2,
first sentence.

427 Appellate Body Report, supra, at pp. 18 and 19 (emphasis added).
428 We find further support for our view in the following statement made by the Appellate Body in its
report on European Communities – Bananas, supra, at para. 216:
Article III:4 does not specifically refer to Article III:1. Therefore, a determination of whether
there has been a violation of Article III:4 does not require a separate consideration of whether
a measure "afford[s] protection to domestic production".
While this statement relates to Article III:4 of the GATT, which is not at issue in the present case, it
nevertheless provides useful clarification for purposes of analysing Argentina's argument in respect of
Article III:2, first sentence. It clearly emerges from this statement that not only is there no requirement
separately to establish the presence of a protective a pplication, but that there is not even a requirement
separately to consider whether there is a protective application.
429 We note Argentina's contention that the GATT 1947 panel reports on Japan – Customs Duties,
Taxes and Labelling Practices on Impo rted Wines and Alcoholic Beverages (hereafter " Japan – Alcoholic
Beverages I"), adopted on 10 November 1987, BISD 34S/83; United States – Section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930 (hereafter "United States – Section 337"), adopted on 7 November 1989, BISD 36S/345, and United States
– Measures Affecting Alcoholic and Malt Beverages (hereafter " United States – Malt Beverages "), adopted on
19 June 1992, BISD 39S/206, lend support to its view that the presence of a protective application must be
established for purposes of a claim under Article III:2, first sentence. See paras. 8.228 et seq. of this report.
Since all of the aforementioned reports pre-date the Appellate Body reports on Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II
and European Communities – Bananas and since those Appellate Body reports directly address the issue before
us, we see no need to further consider the GATT 1947 reports in this regard.

3. Applicability of Article III:2
11.139 As indicated, we commence our analysis of the European Communities' claims with an
inquiry into whether the contested measures, i. e. RG 3431 and RG 3543, fall within the ambit of
Article III:2. For Article III:2 to apply to those m easures, they must, in our view, (i) constitute taxes
or other charges of any kind, (ii) constitute internal measures and (iii) apply, directly or indirectly, to
imported and domestic products. We examine each of these requirements below.
(a) Tax measures
11.140 Neither party disputes that the IVA and the IG are taxes. It is also common ground that
RG 3431 and RG 3543 are mechanisms for the collection of those taxes. The parties disagree,
however, on whether the mechanisms used by Argentina for collecting those taxes are subject to the
disciplines of Article III:2.
11.141 The European Communities considers that the mechanisms for the pre-payment of the IVA
and IG fall within the scope of Article III:2. It consistently refers to these mechanisms as "taxes" or
"tax measures". The European Communities notes that the wording of Article III:2, in particular the
terms "directly or indirectly" and "internal taxes or charges of any kind", clearly indicates that it was
the drafters' intention to capture all possible forms of tax discrimination. According to the European
Communities, it is not appropriate, therefore, to draw a distinction between "substantive" tax
measures, such as the IVA and IG, and "measures of tax administration", such as the measures at
issue in the present case. Otherwise it would be extremely easy for Members to circumvent the
prohibition contained in Article III:2, thereby defeating its object and purpose.
11.142 Argentina considers that the contested collection mechanisms are not covered by Article III:2.
According to Argentina, those mechanisms can hard ly be considered to be akin to the concept of
"internal taxes" or "other charges of any kind". Argentina argues that RG 3431 and RG 3543 are not
taxes in themselves. They constitute tax administration and collection measures which do not alter
the definitive tax liability arising from the relevant tax law, i.e. the IVA Law or IG Law. Argentina
contends that tax collection methods are not covered by WTO disciplines. Argentina therefore is of
the view that Members enjoy a margin of discretion with respect to measures designed to achieve
efficient tax administration.
11.143 We consider that RG 3431 and RG 3543 are proper ly viewed not as taxes in their own right,
but as mechanisms for the collection of the IVA and IG. What is special, however, about RG 3431
and RG 3543 as mechanisms for the collection of the IVA and IG is that they provide for the
imposition of charges. We recall that Article III:2 covers "charges of any kind " (emphasis added).
The term "charge" denotes, inter alia, a "pecuniary burden" and a "liability to pay money laid on a
person…"
430. There can be no doubt, in our view, that both RG 3431 and RG 3543 impose a
pecuniary burden and create a liability to pay money. 431 Moreover, the charges provided for in
RG 3431 and RG 3543 represent advance payments of the IVA and IG. RG 3431 and RG 3543 in
effect impose on importers part of their definitive IVA and IG liability. 432 It is clear to us, therefore,
that the charges in question qualify as tax measures. As such, they fall to be assessed under
Article III:2.

430 The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. I, Oxford (1993), p. 374.
431 See e.g. Articles 1, 3 in fine, and 5 of RG 3431 and Articles 1 and 5 of RG 3543. While it is true
that payments made pursuant to RG 3431 and RG 3543 may be credited against the definitive liability arising
from the IVA Law and IG Law, this does not detract from the fact that those collection mechanisms create a
financial liability. Argentina has acknowledged this in stating that RG 3543 "… establishes … the obligation to
effect an IG payment on account". See Argentina's Second Oral Statement, p. 7.
432 We recognize that Argentina has stated that this is a presumed liability in that at the time
pre-payments of the IVA and IG are made in accordance with RG 3431 and RG 3543, the definitive liability
under the IVA Law and IG Law has not yet been determined. This fact does not alter our analysis.

11.144 With regard to Argentina's argument that RG 3431 and RG 3543 are measures designed to
achieve efficient tax administration and collection and as such do not fall under Article III:2, it should
be noted that Argentina has provided no support for this argument, except to say that it is up to
Members to decide how best to achieve efficient tax administration. We agree that Members are free,
within the outer bounds defined by such provisions as Article III:2, to administer and collect internal
taxes as they see fit. 433 However, if, as here, such "tax administration" measures take the form of an
internal charge and are applied to products, those m easures must, in our view, be in conformity with
Article III:2.434 There is nothing in the provisions of Article III:2 to suggest a different conclusion. If
it were accepted that "tax administration" measures are categorically excluded from the ambit of
Article III:2, this would create a potential for abuse and circumvention of the obligations contained in
Article III:2. It must be stated, moreover, that the applicability of Article III:2 is not conditional upon
the policy purpose of a tax measure. 435 On that basis, we cannot agree with Argentina that charges
intended to promote efficient tax administration or collection a priori fall outside the scope of
Article III:2.
(b) Internal measures
11.145 We turn first to the pre-payment of the IVA established by RG 3431. Neither party to these
proceedings has disputed that RG 3431 is an internal measure within the meaning of Article III:2, first
sentence. We see no reason to take a different view. RG 3431 applies to definitive import
transactions, but only if the products imported are subsequently re-sold in the internal Argentinean
market.
436 In other words, RG 3431 provides for the pre-payment of the IVA chargeable to an
internal transaction.437 It should also be pointed out that the fact that RG 3431 is collected at the time
and point of importation438 does not preclude it from qualifying as an internal tax measure.439 We also
agree with the parties that RG 3337 may be regarded as the domestic equivalent of RG 3431. 440
RG 3337 applies to sales transactions involving domestic and (internally re-sold) imported goods.441
11.146 As concerns, next, the pre-payment of the IG established by RG 3543, the European
Communities considers that RG 3543 is an internal tax measure subject to Article III:2. The
European Communities argues, however, that there is no collection mechanism equivalent to RG 3543
which governs internal sales transactions. More specifically, the European Communities contests that

433 We recall, however, that other provisions of the GATT 1994, such as Article X:3(a), may constrain
Members' freedom of action in this regard.
434 Members of course retain the right to invoke exceptions, such as those set forth in Article XX of the
GATT 1994.
435 See the Panel Reports on United States – Taxes on Petroleum and Certain Imported Substances ,
adopted on 17 June 1987, BISD 34S/160, at para. 5.2.4, EEC – Regulation on Imports of Parts and
Components, adopted on 16 May 1990, BISD 37S/132, at para. 5.6.
436 Import transactions intended for private use or consumption by the importer are specifically
excluded from the scope of application of RG 3431. See Article 2.1 of RG 3431. See also Article 5 thereof.
437 This becomes clear also from Article 3 in fine of RG 3431.
438 See Article 1 of RG 3431.
439 The Note Ad Article III provides that:
Any internal tax or other internal charge … which applies to an imported product and to the
like domestic product and is collected or enfor ced in the case of the imported product at the
time or point of importation, is nevertheless to be regarded as an internal tax or other internal
charge … and is accordingly subject to the provisions of Article III.
440 Argentina notes that one of the recitals of RG 3431 specifically states that " [t]he regime to be
implemented aims to accord the aforementioned marketin g transactions equal treatment with those covered by
the regime of collection established under General RG 3337 (domestic market)". See para. 8.325 of this report
and accompanying footnote.
441 See Articles 1 and 4 of RG 3337, which latter incorporates by reference Article 5 of the IVA;
Argentina's reply to Panel Question 44.

the withholding mechanism established by RG 2784 can be viewed as such. The European
Communities notes that the pre-payments made by importers pursuant to RG 3543 are assessed on top
of the sales price invoiced by the foreign sellers and thus have the effect of increasing the price of
goods for importers. In contrast, under the withholding mechanism set forth in RG 2784, the
pre-payments to be made by the seller are deducted from the price charged by the seller and hence do
not increase the price of goods for purchasers.
11.147 Argentina contests that RG 3543 falls within the scope of Article III:2, but nevertheless is of
the view that RG 2784 is the internal analogue of RG 3543.
11.148 It should be noted that RG 3543 applies only to sales transactions involving the definitive
importation of goods and that it is assessed at the time and point of importation. 442 Again, this does
not, per se, remove RG 3543 from the scope of Article III:2, first sentence. 443 The parties disagree,
however, on whether RG 2784 is the domestic equivalent of RG 3543. We note that RG 2784 applies
to both domestic and (internally re-sold) imported products. 444 It does not apply to the definitive
importation of goods.445 The different scopes of application of RG 3543 and RG 2784 are consistent,
in our view, with Argentina's contention that RG 2784 is the domestic analogue of RG 3543.
11.149 Another difference between RG 3543 and RG 2784 is that RG 3543 envisages a collection
regime and defines the purchaser as the taxable person, whereas RG 2784 establishes a withholding
regime and defines the seller as the taxable person. Regarding these differences, we note as relevant
the following statement by the GATT 1947 panel in Japan – Alcoholic Beverages I:
… Article III:2 does not prescribe the use of any specific method or system of
taxation. … [T]here could be objective reasons proper to the tax in question which
could justify or necessitate differences in the system of taxation for imported and for
domestic products.
446
11.150 Applying the same reasoning to the present case, it is clear that the fact that RG 3543 creates
a collection regime and not a withholding regime does not establish, in itself, that RG 2784 is not
equivalent to RG 3543. The use of a different method of taxation may be justified by objective
reasons. In this regard, it seems logical to us to collect pre-payments of an income tax from the sellers
of a product, as indeed RG 2784 envisages. As we understand it, RG 3543 does not do so, inter alia,
because foreign sellers are not normally subject to income taxation in Argentina.
447 In those
circumstances, Argentina apparently saw fit to adjust for the adverse competitive effect of RG 2784
on domestic products by collecting pre-payments from importers in accordance with RG 3543.
11.151 The European Communities alleges that there is yet another difference between RG 3543 and
RG 2784, namely that the collection regime established by RG 3543 has the effect of raising the price
of a good for the purchaser, whereas the withholding regime established by RG 2784 does not
produce such an effect. In making this assertion, the European Communities assumes that domestic
sellers are unable partially or wholly to shift forward to their domestic purchasers the tax burden
resulting from RG 2784. Conversely, the European Communities assumes that foreign sellers are able
to prevent importers from shifting backward part or all of the tax burden imposed by RG 3543. We
find these assumptions inconsistent. Absent evidence to the contrary, we do not see why, as a general
matter, foreign sellers should be able to avoid bearing part or all of the tax burden but domestic sellers

442 See Articles 1, 2, 3 and 5 of RG 3543.
443 See the Note Ad Article III.
444 Argentina's reply to Panel Question 54.
445 See Article 1 f) of RG 2784.
446 Panel Report on Japan – Alcoholic Beverages I, supra, at para. 5.9.
447 Argentina's reply to Panel Question 53; see also para. 8.114 of this report.

should not or why domestic purchasers should be able to avoid bearing part or all of the tax burden
but importers should not.448
11.152 We find it more plausible and consistent to proceed on the assumption that, if the tax
burdens449 imposed by RG 3543 and RG 2784 are the same , then the price effects of RG 3543 and
RG 2784 should be the same. Thus, depending on the market situation, RG 3543 and RG 2784 should
either cause the prices of like imported and domestic products to rise to the full extent of the tax
burden imposed, to some extent or not at all, if the tax burden is fully absorbed by foreign and
domestic sellers.
11.153 It is apparent from the foregoing considerat ions that the differences between RG 3543 and
RG 2784 do not preclude those mechanisms from being compared for purposes of an analysis under
Article III:2. To the contrary, in our assessment, the transactions caught by RG 3543 may properly be
seen as the cross-border equivalent of the transactions subject to RG 2784. Whether a cross-border
transaction involves a foreign producer and an importer or a foreign trader and an importer, an
analogous internal transaction would or could be governed by RG 2784.
450 We further regard as
relevant the fact that RG 3543 specifically refers to RG 2784 and declares its provisions applicable as
a subsidiary matter.451
11.154 For these reasons, we find that RG 3543 establishes a mechanism for the collection of the IG
at the border which is equivalent in nature to the IG withholding mechanism established by RG 2784.
In accordance with the Note Ad Article III, we therefore conclude that RG 3543 is an internal measure
within the meaning of Article III:2.
(c) Measures applied to products
11.155 Neither party has expressed the view, as far as the pre-payment of the IVA is concerned, that
RG 3431 does not apply to goods. In our view, there can be no doubt in this respect.452
11.156 Regarding the pre-payment of the IG, the European Communities considers that RG 3543
establishes a tax on products and not on income. The European Communities notes that those
payments must be made whether or not the underlying import transactions generate any profit and that
the amount to be paid is computed on the basis of the customs value of the imported goods rather than
the profit margin obtained with the import tr ansactions. While the European Communities
acknowledges that the IG itself is not a tax on products but on income, the mere fact that the
pre-payments of the IG may be credited against the definitive IG liability does not, in the European
Communities' view, convert RG 3543 into an income tax outside the scope of Article III:2.
11.157 Argentina submits that the IG is not a tax on products and is therefore not subject to the
provisions of Article III:2. According to Argentina, if the IG is not covered by Article III:2, then
neither is a mechanism providing for its pre-payment such as RG 3543. Argentina further argues that
the pre-payment of the IG provided for in RG 3543 is in no way related to products as such but to the
presumed tax-bearing ability of a taxable person or the presumed income accruing to a taxable person

448 We note that the European Communities has not presented any evidence which would establish that
the supply elasticity of foreign sellers is significantly greater than that of domestic sellers and/or that the demand
elasticity of importers is significantly smaller than that of domestic purchasers.
449 In using the term "tax burden" here and hereafter, we are mindful that RG 3543 and RG 2784 (and
likewise RG 3431 and RG 3337) are not taxes in themselves, but are aspects of broader tax systems. We use the
term "tax burden" merely for the sake of brevity of expression.
450 The mere fact that some equivalent transactions are not subject to RG 2784 or are subject to
different rates does not, in our view, detract from the comparability of RG 3543 and RG 2784. In fact, such
differences may constitute infringements of Article III:2, first sentence.
451 See Article 9 of RG 3543.
452 See Articles 1 and 3 of RG 3431 and Article 1 of RG 3337.

who trades in products. Argentina submits that no-one imports goods without hoping to make a
profit. Argentina also notes that the pre-payments to be made are calculated on the basis of the
customs value simply because this is the only yardstick available at the time the pre-payments must be
made.
11.158 We note that the provisions of RG 3543 clearly state that they apply to goods. 453 Moreover,
the amount to be collected pursuant to RG 3543 is determined by "applying the tax rate … to the
normal price defined for the application of import duties, to which are added any import-related
charges"454. In other words, the pre-payments to be made are measured in terms of the (import duty-
adjusted) price of the product itself. This assessment is unaffected by Argentina's explanation that
RG 3543 uses the product price as a proxy for future income or tax-bearing ability. 455 F o r t h e s e
reasons, we find that RG 3543 is a tax measure which is "applied to products" within the meaning of
Article III:2.
11.159 Argentina argues that, if the IG does not fall within the scope of Article III:2, neither does the
collection regime established by RG 3543. We note that both parties concur that the IG is an income
tax. We agree. We also agree that income taxes, because they are taxes not normally directly levied
on products, are generally considered not to be subject to Article III:2. 456 It is not obvious to us,
however, how the fact that the IG is an income tax outside the scope of Article III:2 logically leads to
the conclusion that RG 3543 does not fall within the ambit of Article III:2, even though RG 3543 is a
tax measure applied to products. Not only do we see nothing in the provisions of Article III:2 which
would preclude the applicability of these provisions to RG 3543 merely because of the latter's linkage
to the IG. Were we to accept Argentina's argument, it would also not be difficult for Members to
introduce measures designed to circumvent the disciplines of Article III:2.
11.160 It should be pointed out, in addition, that the Appellate Body faced a similar issue in Canada
– Periodicals. At issue in that dispute was an excise tax imposed by Canada on advertisements in
split-run periodicals. The tax was applied to the value of advertising carried by each issue of a split-
run magazine. Canada maintained that the tax was a measure pertaining to advertising services and
therefore not within the purview of the GATT 1994. The Appellate Body acknowledged that both the
editorial and the advertising content of periodicals could be viewed as having services attributes, but
observed that they nevertheless combined to form a physical product. It then went on to conclude that
the GATT 1994 was applicable to the contested tax, reasoning that that tax "clearly applies to goods --
it is an excise tax on split-run editions of periodicals"
457. Consistently with the Appellate Body's
approach in Canada - Periodicals , we attach significance to the fact that RG 3543 is a tax measure
which "clearly applies to goods". Merely that it is a measure pertaining to the IG does not remove it
from the purview of Article III:2.
11.161 In light of all our considerations in Secti on XI.C.3, we find that RG 3431 and RG 3543 are
internal tax measures applied to products. We therefore come to the overall conclusion that the
provisions of Article III:2 apply to RG 3431 and RG 3543.

453 See Articles 1 and 4 of RG 3543.
454 Article 4 of RG 3543.
455 It should be noted in this regard that, in Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals
(hereafter " Canada – Periodicals "), adopted on 30 July 1997, WT/DS31/AB/R, at p. 20, the Appellate Body
found that the tax at issue applied to goods, notwithstanding the fact that it was measured in terms of advertising
carried by each issue of a split-run magazine, i.e. not in terms of the price of the magazine itself.
456 See the Working Party Report on Border Tax Adjustments, adopted on 2 December 1970, BISD
18S/97, at para. 14.
457 Appellate Body Report on Canada – Periodicals, supra, at p. 20.

4. Likeness of imported and domestic products
11.162 The question we now turn to is whether the imported and domestic products subject to the
collection mechanisms at issue in the present case ar e "like" within the meaning of Article III:2, first
sentence.
11.163 The European Communities notes that the rates applicable under those mechanisms are based
exclusively on whether the taxed products are imported or sold within Argentina and not on their
physical characteristics or end-uses. The European Communities considers, however, that the mere
fact that a product has Argentinean origin is not sufficient per se to confer upon that product
properties which make it "unlike" any imported product.
11.164 The European Communities notes further that, under the current collection mechanisms, even
if a foreign product were identical in all respects to a domestic product, the importation of the foreign
product would still be taxed differently from the internal sale of the domestic product. Thus, even
using the narrowest definition of the term "like product", imported products would be taxed
differently. It is therefore not necessary, according to the European Communities, to show that
products imported from the European Communities are like domestic products in light of criteria such
as their physical characteristics or end-uses. The European Communities considers, moreover, that
whether or not the products currently imported into Argentina are like the products of Argentinean
origin is not dispositive. What matters is whether the products that might be imported from the
European Communities are like Argentinean products. The European Communities maintains that the
panel report on Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry
458 supports its
position.
11.165 Argentina argues that the Appellate Body has established in Canada – Periodicals that for
purposes of an Article III:2, first sentence, analysis it is necessary first to define the products which
are "like". Argentina argues that such a "like products" determination must be made on a case-by-
case basis rather than in abstract terms. This is particularly important, in Argentina's view, in cases
where there are imports so that a "like products" determination can be made by comparing actual
products sold on the Argentinean market rather than hypothetical products. Argentina further submits
that likeness can only be established by specific reference to the well-established criteria for defining
likeness. Argentina considers that the European Communities has not done any of the above and has
not identified even one specific example of like products. Regarding the panel report on Indonesia –
Automobiles, Argentina notes that Indonesia in that case did not challenge the definition of likeness
proffered by the complaining parties.
11.166 Specifically with regard to the measures at issue, Argentina contests that imported products
covered by RG 3431 or RG 3543 are subject, by virtue of their origin, to higher pre-payment of the
IVA or IG than like domestic products. In suppor t of its argument Argentina refers to Decree No.
1439/96
459, according to which products which are imported with a view to processing in Argentina
and subsequent re-exportation are not subject to an y pre-payment of the IVA or IG. Argentina also
recalls the multiplicity of regimes for the collection of the IVA, which vary depending on such factors
as the categories of buyers or the amounts involved. In the view of Argentina, it is not possible,
therefore, without discussing specific products, to conclude that the different collection mechanisms
treat imported products less favourably.
11.167 It is well to recall at the outset that the Appellate Body, in its report on Canada – Periodicals,
stated that "… Article III:2, first sentence, normally requires a comparison between imported products

458 Panel Report on Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry (hereafter
"Indonesia – Automobiles"), adopted on 23 July 1998, WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R.
459 Exhibit ARG-XVI (hereafter "Decree 1439").

and like domestic products …" 460 The Appellate Body, in the same report, further noted that a
determination of likeness for purposes of Article III:2, first sentence, must be made by reference to
relevant factors including the products' end-uses in a given market, consumers' tastes and habits and
the products' properties, nature and quality
11.168 In the case before us, the European Communities has neither compared specific products nor
addressed the criteria relevant to determining lik eness. The European Communities considers that it
is not incumbent upon it to do so. We agree. In circumstances such as those confronting us in this
case no comparison of specific products is required. 461 Logically, no examination of the various
criteria relevant to determining likeness is then called for either.
11.169 We consider that in the specific context of a claim under Article III:2, first sentence, the
quantum and nature of the evidence required for a complaining party to discharge its burden of
establishing a violation is dependent, above all, on the structure and design of the measure in issue. 462
The structure and design of RG 3431 and RG 3 543 and their domestic counterparts RG 3337 and
RG 2784 are such that the level of tax pre-payment is not determined by the physical characteristics or
end-uses of the products subject to these resolutions, but instead is determined by factors which are
not relevant to the definition of likeness, such as whether a particular product is definitively imported
into Argentina or sold domestically as well as the characteristics of the seller or purchaser of the
product.463 It is therefore inevitable, in our view, that like products will be subject to RG 3431 and its
domestic counterpart, RG 3337. The same holds true for RG 3543 and its domestic counterpart,
RG 2784.464 The European Communities has demonstrated this to our satisfaction, and, in our view,
this is all it needs to establish in the present case as far as the "like product" requirement contained in
Article III:2, first sentence, is concerned.465

460 Appellate Body Report on Canada - Periodicals, supra, at p. 20.
461 This should not be construed to mean that we disagree with the appropriateness, in different factual
circumstances, of the approach outlined by the Appellate Body in Canada – Periodicals.
462 As the Appellate Body has stated in United States – Shirts and Blouses, supra, at p. 14:
In the context of the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement, precisely how much and precisely
what kind of evidence will be required to establish such a presumption will necessarily vary
from measure to measure, provision to provision, and case to case.
463 In our view, the mere fact that a product is of non-Argentinean origin or that it is being definitively
imported into Argentina does not, per se, distinguish it - in terms of its physical characteristics and end-uses -
from a product of Argentinean origin or a product which is being sold inside Argentina. Nor does likeness turn
on whether the sellers or purchasers of the products under comparison qualify as registered or non-registered
taxable persons or as agentes de percepción under Argentinean tax law.
464 This view is unaffected by the fact that, according to the Appellate Body, the term "like products",
as it appears in Article III:2, first sentence, is to be construed narrowly and on a case-by-case basis. See the
Appellate Body Report on Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, supra, at pp. 19-20.
465 We consider that the European Communities can challenge RG 3431 even if no trade involving like
imported products actually exists. As the Appellate Body has noted in its report on Japan – Alcoholic
Beverages II , supra, p. 16 (footnote omitted): " [Article III] protects expectations not of any particular trade
volume but rather of the equal competitive relationship between imported and domestic products". Thus,
Article III provides protection not only to those EC producers who are actually contesting the Argentinean
internal market, but also to those who are planning on co ntesting it or are preparing to do so. As to whether like
products can exist, we confine ourselves to noting that, in our view, the European Communities, like other
Members, is a potential producer and exporter of a wide range of products which are like Argentinean products,
even considering the narrow definition of likeness appropriate in the context of Article III:2, first sentence.

11.170 This view is consistent with that adopted by the panel in Indonesia – Automobiles. That panel
was of the view that:
… an origin-based distinction in respect of in ternal taxes suffices in itself to violate
Article III:2, without the need to demonstrate the existence of actually traded like
products.466
11.171 Argentina submits that it is not correct that imported products are automatically subject to
higher pre-payment of the IVA and IG than like domestic products. In support, Argentina cites the
example of Decree 1439 on temporary imports, in respect of which importers are not liable to pre-pay
the IVA. We note that imports for re-exportation are not destined for consumption in Argentina. 467
As such, they may not be subject to the provisions of Article III:2. The example of temporary imports
may therefore be irrelevant. We do not decide this issue here because, even assuming Article III:2
applied to such imports, this would not detract from the European Communities' claim that like
products are governed by RG 3431 and RG 3337.468
11.172 Argentina further points out that there are vari ous resolutions governing internal sales which
establish regimes for the collection at source of the IVA and that no general statement may therefore
be made to the effect that the origin of a product determines its level of tax pre-payment. We recall
that the resolutions at issue in the present dispute are RG 3431, which deals with import transactions,
and RG 3337, which deals with domestic sales transactions. The fact that special regimes may apply
in certain cases does not alter our conclusion with respect to whether like products fall under RG 3431
and RG 3337.
469
11.173 It follows from the preceding considerations that like products will be subject to the
resolutions referred to by the European Communiti es, i.e. RG 3431 and RG 3337 (with respect to
collection at source of the IVA), on the one hand, and RG 3543 and RG 2784 (with respect to
collection at source of the IG), on the other hand. We therefore conclude that the "like products"
requirement contained in Article III:2, first sentence, is not fulfilled in the present case.
5. Comparison of tax burdens imposed
11.174 It will be recalled that the third and last step in an inquiry under Article III:2, first sentence,
involves a comparison of the tax burdens imposed on imported and like domestic products. If the tax
burden on imported products is in excess of the tax burden on like domestic products, there is an
infringement.
11.175 We first turn to analyse the tax burdens imposed by the tax pre-payment mechanisms at issue
in the present case. Thereafter, we proceed to an examination of the European Communities' claim
that those mechanisms impose a greater tax burden on imported products than on like domestic
products. This examination is conducted separately for the pre-payment of the IVA and the
pre-payment of the IG.

466 Panel Report on Indonesia – Automobiles , supra, at para. 14.113. See also the Panel Reports on
Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef , under appeal, WT/DS161/R,
WT/DS169/R, at para. 627 (with respect to Article III:4 of the GATT 1994) and United States – Import
Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities , under appeal, WT/DS165/R, at para. 6.54
(with respect to Article I:1 of the GATT 1994).
467 See Articles 1 and 3 of Decree 1439.
468 The fact that the imported products caught by Decree 1439 are not destined for consumption in
Argentina would not, in our view, render them "unlike" imported products subject to RG 3431 or domestic
products subject to RG 3337.
469 We note that Argentina has not argued that any of those special regimes has superseded RG 3431 or
RG 3337 in their entirety.

(a) Tax burdens imposed
11.176 The European Communities submits that, even if the pre-payments of the IVA and IG may be
credited against the definitive tax liability under the IVA Law and IG Law, taxable persons are still
required to "advance" money to the Argentinean tax authorities. The European Communities points
out in this regard that the cost for taxable persons of pre-paying part of the IVA or IG is not the same
as the cost of paying those taxes in full at the end of the relevant tax period, even if the nominal
amount to be paid is the same in both cases. The European Communities asserts that, if taxable
persons were not required to pre-pay part of the tax, they would have the opportunity to earn interest
on the amount pre-paid until the end of the relevant tax period. According to the European
Communities, the loss of that revenue represents an additional financial cost for taxable persons. The
European Communities considers that that additional cost is higher for importers than for buyers of
domestic goods since the collection mechanisms applicable to imports provide for higher collection
rates.
11.177 The European Communities argues that the addi tional cost resulting from the pre-payment of
the IVA and IG must be taken into account for purposes of an Article III:2 analysis. In support, the
European Communities refers to the GATT 1947 panel report on EEC – Programme of Minimum
Import Prices, Licences and Surety Deposits for Certain Processed Fruits and Vegetables
470, which,
in its view, stands for the proposition that "lost interest" constitutes a charge for purposes of
Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994. The European Communities considers that, by the same token,
"lost interest" must be considered as a charge also for purposes of Article III:2.
11.178 Argentina recalls that the overall rates of the IVA and IG are the same for imported and
domestic products and that the measures challenged by the European Communities merely provide for
the pre-payment of the IVA and the IG. In Argentina's view, it is not correct to take a static view of
the tax assessment process and to focus only on the point in time at which the pre-payments of the
IVA and IG are effected. Argentina notes that those pre-payments are creditable at the time of
settlement of the definitive IVA and IG liability. Argentina considers that the IVA and IG do not
therefore impose a heavier tax burden on imported products than on like domestic products.
11.179 As regards the European Communities' allegation that importers must bear a greater financial
cost as a result of the fact that the collection mechanisms applicable to imports provide for higher
collection rates, Argentina considers that this additional financial cost is an opportunity cost
associated with importation. Argentina argues that if purchasers decide to import a product rather
than buy it on the local market, they must bear certa in opportunity costs. Argentina asserts that the
import-related financial cost in the present case, i.e. the lost interest, is no different, for instance, from
the cost of hiring a customs agent to carry out the customs clearance of goods. Domestic goods do
not bear that cost, but, in Argentina's view, this is no basis for considering that there is discrimination.
11.180 Argentina disputes, in any event, that "lost interest" is covered by Article III:2. In its view,
"lost interest" cannot be considered as an "internal tax or other internal charge of any kind" within the
meaning of Article III:2. Argentina also questions the relevance of the European Communities'
analogy from the panel report on EEC – Fruits and Vegetables , noting that that case involved the
application of Article II:1(b). Argentina further po ints out that there is nothing in the Understanding
on the Interpretation of Article II:1(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 or in
Members' actual Schedules of Concessions to indicate that Members wished to equate the concept of
"lost interest" with the concept of "other charges".

470 Panel Report on EEC – Programme of Minimum Import Prices, Licences and Surety Deposits for
Certain Processed Fruits and Vegetables (hereafter " EEC – Fruits and Vegetables "), adopted on 18 October
1978, BISD 25S/68.

11.181 Article III:2, first sentence, stipulates that imported products must not be "… subject, directly
or indirectly, to internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied, directly
or indirectly, to like domestic products". It is apparent that the application of this Article calls for a
comparison of "taxes" or "charges" imposed on imported products with "taxes" or "charges" applied
to like domestic products. What is less apparent is under what aspect those taxes or charges are to be
compared.
11.182 In this regard, it is necessary to recall the purpose of Article III:2, first sentence, which is to
ensure "equality of competitive conditions between imported and like domestic products" 471.
Accordingly, Article III:2, first sentence, is not concerned with taxes or charges as such or the policy
purposes Members pursue with them, but with their economic impact on the competitive opportunities
of imported and like domestic products. It follows, in our view, that what must be compared are the
tax burdens imposed on the taxed products.
11.183 We consider that Article III:2, first sentence, requires a comparison of actual tax burdens
rather than merely of nominal tax burdens. Were it otherwise, Members could easily evade its
disciplines. Thus, even where imported and like domestic products are subject to identical tax rates,
the actual tax burden can still be heavier on imported products. This could be the case, for instance,
where different methods of computing tax bases lead to a greater actual tax burden for imported
products. In this regard, the GATT 1947 panel in Japan – Alcoholic Beverages I has stated that:
… in assessing whether there is tax discrimination, account is to be taken not only of
the rate of the applicable internal tax but also of the taxation methods (e.g. different
kinds of internal taxes, direct taxation of the finished product or indirect taxation by
taxing the raw materials used in the product during the various stages of its
production) and of the rules for the tax collection (e.g. basis of assessment).
472
11.184 It may thus be stated, in more general terms, that a determination of whether an infringement
of Article III:2, first sentence, exists must be made on the basis of an overall assessment of the actual
tax burdens imposed on imported products, on the one hand, and like domestic products, on the other
hand.
11.185 With this in mind, we now turn to examine the actual tax burdens which RG 3431 and
RG 3543 impose on imported products. We recall that under RG 3431 imports are subject, upon
importation, to pre-payment of the IVA at a rate of 10 percent or 12.7 percent ad valorem. Under
RG 3543, the IG must be pre-paid on imports at a rate of 3 percent or 11 percent ad valorem. In both
cases, the amount thus paid may be credited at the time when the taxable persons must settle their
definitive liability under the IVA Law and IG Law.473
11.186 Argentina is correct, in our view, in pointing out that a factual situation such as the one before
us calls for a dynamic view of the taxation process. Thus, taking a dynamic view, it is apparent that
RG 3431 and RG 3543 do not give rise to net tax payments, given that the amounts paid are creditable
against the definitive liability under the IVA Law and IG Law. However, this does not mean that no
actual tax burden is imposed by RG 3431 and RG 3543. As a matter of fact, an actual tax burden
does arise.
11.187 The actual tax burden which arises from RG 3431 and RG 3543 may take one of two forms,
depending on the factual circumstances of each case. First, in situations where taxable persons have
disposable working capital to finance the pre-payment of the IVA or IG, they are forced, on account
of the pre-payment requirement, to forego interest on that working capital in the interval between the

471 Appellate Body Report on Canada – Periodicals, supra, at p. 18.
472 Panel Report on Japan – Alcoholic Beverages I, supra, at para. 5.8.
473 The collection rate of 12.7 percent is not creditable. See the parties' replies to Panel Question 33.

tax pre-payment and its crediting. Alternatively, in situations where taxable persons do not have
disposable working capital to finance the pre-paym ent of the IVA or IG, they need to raise the
necessary capital and pay interest on it in the interval between the tax pre-payment and its crediting.
11.188 It is clear to us that both of these situations give rise to a financial burden, an opportunity
"cost" in one case and a debt financing "cost" in the other. 474 Likewise, it is readily apparent that that
financial burden is incidental to and directly caused by RG 3431 and RG 3543. 475 For these reasons,
it is properly regarded as an integral part of the actual tax burden imposed by RG 3431 and
RG 3543.476 As such, it falls squarely within the scope of Article III:2, first sentence.
11.189 We therefore conclude that, even in a dynamic perspective, both RG 3431 and RG 3543
impose actual tax burdens on the products governed by them.
11.190 Before proceeding to analyse the European Communities' claims that imported products are
subject to an actual tax burden which exceeds that imposed on like domestic products, it is necessary
once again to draw attention to the direct caus al link between the tax pre-payments specifically
envisaged in RG 3431 and RG 3543, on the one hand, and the incidental financial burden in the form
of interest foregone or paid, on the other hand. Thus, to the extent that, pursuant to RG 3431 and
RG 3543, higher nominal pre-payment rates apply to imported products than to like domestic
products, this necessarily implies that a heavier actual tax burden is imposed on imported products.
11.191 In view of the fact that Argentina does no t compensate importers subject to RG 3431 and
RG 3543 for all or part of the interest lost or paid, 477 it is sufficient, for purposes of establishing
violations of Article III:2, first sentence, for the European Communities to demonstrate that imported

474 We recall that no a priori statements are possible as to who b ears that financial burden. Depending
on the market situation, the taxable person may have to bear that burden and suffer lower profit margins.
Alternatively, where the market situation allows a taxable person to sell a product at a higher price, the burden
may be borne by the purchaser of the product. Regardless of who bears the burden, it has an immediate impact
on the competitive opportunities of the products affected.
475 We note that if RG 3431 and RG 3543 were to cease to exist, so would those tax burdens. It should
be noted in this context that we do not agree with Argentina that the extra financial burden in the form of
interest lost or paid is a "cost" necessarily associated with all import transactions in the same way as certain
inherently import-related costs, such as customs clearance-r elated costs or certain freight and insurance costs. It
is important to recall in this regard that the pre-payment mechanisms established by RG 3337 and RG 2784, i.e.
those governing internal sales transactions, impose the same type of financial burden on the purchasers or sellers
involved in these transactions.
476 We note the European Communities' view that the interest lost or paid by importers constitutes, in
itself, an "internal tax or other internal charge of any kind" within the meaning of Article III:2, first sentence. In
favour of its argument, the European Communities refers to the report of the GATT 1947 panel in EEC - Fruits
and Vegetables. It is true that in that case, which dealt with Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1947, the panel found
that lost interest and other related costs were "other duties or charges of any kind imposed on or in connection
with importation" within the meaning of Article II:1(b). See EEC – Fruits and Vegetables , supra, at para. 4.15.
Even considering the fact that the aforementioned panel did not deal with Article III:2, first sentence, we
consider that our approach is not inconsistent with that panel's finding. The interest charges and costs at issue in
EEC – Fruits and Vegetables were connected to the lodging of a security, which in turn was required to
guarantee a minimum import price established for tomato concentrates. In our view, those were factual
circumstances which are quite unlike those prevailing in the present case. In the present case, the loss or
payment of interest is incidental to the pre-payment of the IVA and IG envisaged in RG 3431 and RG 3543. In
EEC – Fruits and Vegetables , the loss of interest was not incidental to the payment of the applicable customs
duty – which would have been a situation under Article II :1 analogous to that in the present case. Instead, the
loss of interest arose as a consequence of the measure establishing the minimum import price, which, in legal
terms, was distinct from the customs duty. In light of the foregoing, we see no need to make findings on the
merits of the European Communities' argument.
477 Argentina's reply to Panel Question 81(a). Argentina's argument that compensating importers for
the interest lost or paid would be too costly is addressed in Section XI.C.6 below, where we consider
Argentina's defence under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.

products are subject to higher nominal pre-payment rates than like domestic products or are subject to
pre-payment when like domestic products are not.
(b) Pre-payment of the IVA
(i) Claims by the European Communities
11.192 The European Communities has made several specific claims to the effect that, pursuant to
RG 3431, import transactions are subject to higher pre-payment of the IVA than internal sales
transactions or are subject to such pre-payment when internal sales transactions are not. Those claims
are examined below individually, together with those of Argentina's counter-arguments which are
specific to each of the European Communities' claims. Argentina has also made a number of broad
counter-arguments in respect of the European Communities' claims. For the sake of convenience and
economy of effort, those counter-arguments of a broad nature are addressed separately in
Section XI.C.5(b)(ii) of our findings. It follows from this that, should we conclude in this Section that
one or other of the European Communities' claims is justified, that conclusion cannot be considered
definitive until and unless we have reached the further conclusion that Argentina's broad counter-
arguments are not sustainable.
Lower pre-payment rates applicable to internal sales to registered taxable persons
11.193 The European Communities notes that RG 3431 establishes a generally applicable
pre-payment rate for imports by registered taxable persons of 10 percent.
478 The European
Communities points out that, on the other hand, pursuant to RG 3337, internal sales of goods to
registered taxable persons are subject to pre-payment at a lesser rate of 5 percent.479
11.194 Argentina points out that internal sales transactions may be subject to either collection at
source in accordance with RG 3337 or withholding pursuant to General Resolution (AFIP)
No. 18/97480. RG 18 establishes a withholding rate of 10.5 percent. 481 Argentina further points out
that, previously, no pre-payment of the IVA had to be made on imports. Argentina notes that
RG 3431 was enacted to ensure equal treatment of imports and internal sales.
11.195 We note that imports governed by RG 3431 are subject to pre-payment of the IVA at a rate of
10 percent, whereas, in accordance with RG 3337, internal sales of like products by agentes de
percepción to registered taxable persons are subject to pre-payment of the IVA at a lower rate of 5
percent.
11.196 Even recognizing that a heavier tax burden is imposed on internal sales transactions which are
governed by RG 18 (which provides for a withholding rate of 10.5 percent) than on import
transactions falling under RG 3431 (which provides for a collection rate of 10 percent) and involving
like products, this would not be inimical to the European Communities' claim. The provisions of
Article III:2, first sentence, are applicable to each and every import transaction. It is well established
that the fact that some imported products receive more favourable tax treatment than like domestic
products cannot successfully be invoked as justification for less favourable tax treatment of other
imported products.
482

478 See Article 3 a) of RG 3431.
479 See Article 2 of RG 3337.
480 Exhibit ARG-XVIII (hereafter "RG 18").
481 See Article 8 (a) of RG 18. Import transactions are not subject to withholding.
482 See the Panel Report on United States – Measures Affecting the Importation, Internal Sale and Use
of Tobacco (hereafter "United States – Tobacco"), adopted on 4 October 1994, DS44/R, at para. 98. For reports
with respect to Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, see the Panel Reports on United States – Section 337 , supra, at
para. 5.14; United States – Gasoline, adopted on 20 May 1996, WT/DS2/R, at para. 6.14.

11.197 In light of the foregoing, we conclude that RG 3431, by providing for higher pre-payment
rates for imports by registered taxable persons than for internal sales subject to RG 3337, is
inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence.
No pre-payment on internal sales to non-registered taxable persons
11.198 The European Communities points out that no pre-payment of the IVA is due in the case of
internal sales to non-registered taxable persons, whereas the IVA must be pre-paid in the case of
imports by non-registered taxable persons.
11.199 Argentina acknowledges that no pre-payment of the IVA is due in cases of internal
transactions between non-registered taxable persons. Argentina asserts, however, that it cannot
possibly occur in practice that non-registered taxable persons are habitual importers, because
registration is compulsory for those taxable persons whose income from transactions exceeds a
specified limit. Argentina further argues that the status of "non-registered taxable person" is a
voluntary one, since any individual can obtain the status of "registered taxable person" by applying to
the tax authority.
11.200 As concerns sales by registered taxable persons to non-registered taxable persons, Argentina
recalls that registered taxable persons must act, in such transactions, as agentes de percepción for non-
registered taxable persons and collect an additional amount which corresponds to an estimate of the
IVA which is payable by non-registered taxable persons on the re-sale of the products purchased.
Argentina considers that there is therefore no discrimination between non-registered taxable persons
who purchase from foreign sellers and those who purchase from domestic registered taxable persons.
Argentina further notes that the aforementioned sp ecial collection mechanism facilitates payment of
the IVA and reduces the number of taxable persons subject to inspection.
11.201 We understand the European Communities' claim to be based on a comparison of the
pre-payment required with respect to import transactions, on the one hand, and the pre-payment
required on either of two types of internal sales transactions, on the other hand.
483 Those two types
are (i) internal sales by non-registered taxable persons to non-registered taxable persons and (ii)
internal sales by registered taxable persons to non-registered taxable persons.
11.202 Regarding the first comparison, we note that internal sales by non-registered taxable persons
to non-registered taxable persons are not subject to the IVA and consequently not to any pre-payments
of it either. 484 In contrast, pursuant to RG 3431, th e IVA must be pre-paid on imports by non-
registered taxable persons at a rate of 12.7 percent. 485 That pre-payment cannot be credited against
the IVA. 486 As concerns the second comparison, we note that, in the case of internal sales by
registered taxable persons to non-registered taxable persons, the purchasers must make an additional,
i.e. non-creditable, IVA payment of 10.5 percent.
487 On the other hand, as already mentioned, the
IVA must be pre-paid on imports by non-registered taxable persons at a rate of 12.7 percent. It is
apparent from the foregoing that, in both situations, imported products are subject to a heavier tax
burden than like domestic products.

483 E.g., EC reply to Panel Question 33.
484 Parties' replies to Panel Question 33.
485 See Article 3.2 b) of RG 3431.
486 See Article 4 of RG 3431 as well as the parties' replies to Panel Question 33. As a result, to the rate
of 12.7 percent must be added to the rate of 21 percent, which is chargeable pursuant to the IVA Law. Since our
terms of reference do not encompass the IVA Law, we base our examination on the rate applicable under
RG 3431.
487 This rate is in addition to the regular IVA rate of 21 percent. See Articles 4, 30 and 38 of the IVA
Law; Argentina's reply to Panel Question 33. RG 3337 does not apply to sales transactions between agentes de
percepción and non-registered taxable persons. See Article 1 of RG 3337.

11.203 Argentina submits that it cannot possibly occur in practice that non-registered taxable persons
are habitual importers, because registration is compulsory for those taxable persons whose income
from transactions exceeds a specified limit. It should be noted, first, that Article III:2 applies to all
imported goods and not only to those imported by habitual importers. We further note that Argentina
does not argue that it is legally impossible for non-registered taxable persons to import goods. 488
Moreover, even assuming it were true, as a factual matter, that there are presently no or only few non-
registered taxable persons who import goods, this would not, per se, warrant the conclusion that such
persons could not import goods in the future. Likewise, the fact that the rate of 12.7 percent may not
have had a significant trade effect thus far, would not, in line with general practice under Article III:2,
first sentence, be fatal to the European Communities' claim. 489 For all these reasons, we are not
convinced by Argentina's argument.
11.204 Argentina further points out that any individual can obtain the status of a registered taxable
person by applying to the tax authorities. While this may be correct, 490 we fail to see how the
possibility of obtaining the status of a registered taxable person could prevent imports by non-
registered taxable persons from being subject, as a matter of law, to a heavier tax burden than like
domestic products purchased by non-registered taxable persons.
11.205 As regards, finally, Argentina's assertion that the collection of an additional amount of IVA
by registered taxable persons on their internal sales to non-registered taxable persons facilitates
payment of the IVA and reduces the number of taxpayers subject to inspection, we note that it is not
obvious to us, in the absence of specific information on this point, why Argentina nevertheless
considers that all imports by non-registered taxable persons warrant such inspection. In any event,
nothing in the terms of Article III:2, first sentence, justifies a departure therefrom on the basis that
doing so is in the interest of efficient tax administration.
491
11.206 We therefore conclude that RG 3431, by requiring the pre-payment of the IVA on imports by
non-registered taxable persons when no pre-payment of the IVA or additional IVA payment of equal
amount is required on internal sales to non-registered taxable persons, is inconsistent with
Article III:2, first sentence.
No pre-payment on internal sales by non-agentes de percepción
11.207 The European Communities argues that the pre-payment of the IVA is required only on
internal sales made by agentes de percepción , whereas the IVA must be pre-paid with respect to
essentially all import transactions.
11.208 As we understand it, the European Communities' cl aim is in respect of the fact that internal
sales transactions involving sellers other than agentes de percepción are not within the purview of
RG 3337,492 whereas the IVA must be pre-paid, pursuant to RG 3431, on essentially all import
transactions493 and regardless of the "status" of the foreign seller. More specifically, it appears to us
that the European Communities' broad claim arises out of the fact that no pre-payment is required on
(i) internal sales transactions involving registered taxable persons as both sellers and purchasers494 and

488 Argentina's reply to Panel Question 46.
489 See the Appellate Body Report on Canada – Periodicals, supra, at p. 18.
490 See Article 29 of the IVA Law; Exhibit ARG-XXXVIII.
491 Parties' replies to Panel Question 30.
492 See Article 1 of RG 3337.
493 Pursuant to Article 2 of RG 3431, certain categories of import transactions do not fall within the
scope of RG 3431. Our findings do not extend to those exempt categories, nor are our findings affected by the
existence of those categories.
494 Internal sales by registered taxable persons to agentes de retención are subject to withholding at a
rate of 10.5 percent in accordance with RG 18. We consid er that those transactions are not within the scope of

(ii) internal sales transactions between non-registered taxable sellers and registered taxable
purchasers495.496
11.209 Argentina has not specifically addressed this claim by the European Communities. 497
Argentina has explained, however, that collection at source regimes inter alia serve as means of
preventing tax evasion in that they involve adversarial-style checks between agentes de percepción
and tax debtors. 498 While with respect to imports it is the Directorate-General of Customs which
serves as agente de percepción , for internal sales transactions Argentina appoints certain persons,
often large companies, to act as agentes de percepción.
11.210 It is not incumbent upon us to speculate why Argentina chose not to appoint other persons as
agentes de percepción and for what reasons it did not see fit to subject to IVA pre-payment internal
sales by non-agentes de percepción. It is sufficient to note that we are not aware, and have not been
made aware, of any reason why it would not be po ssible, as a matter of Argentinean law or as a
factual matter, for non- agentes de percepción to be involved in internal sales transactions as sellers.
As a further consideration, we add that, in the context of an inquiry under Article III:2, first sentence,
the mere fact that a domestic product is sold by a non- agente de percepción does not, in our view,
render a product which is otherwise like an imported product "unlike" that product.499
11.211 In light of the foregoing, we can only conclude that Argentina, by requiring the pre-payment
of the IVA in the case of imported products when like domestic products sold by a non- agente de
percepción are not subject to any pre-payment of the IVA, acts inconsistently with its obligations
under Article III:2, first sentence.500
No pre-payment on internal sales to certain financial entities or agentes de percepción/retención
11.212 The European Communities submits that no pre-pa yment of the IVA is required on internal
sales to certain categories of purchasers, including in particular the financial entities governed by Law
No. 21526 and agentes de percepción/retención , whereas the IVA must be pre-paid with respect to
essentially all import transactions.
11.213 Argentina argues that the financial entities governed by Law No. 21526 are excluded from the
collection mechanism established by RG 3337 because they ensure that collection takes place with a
high degree of efficiency and security and also fall under the control of Argentina's Central Bank.

the European Communities' claim in view of the fact th at import transactions are subject to collection at source
at a rate of 10 percent.
495 Pursuant to Article 4 of RG 18, internal sales transactions involving non-registered taxable persons
as sellers are not subject to withholding.
496 There is no need for us to consider internal sa les transactions between registered or non-registered
taxable sellers, on the one hand, and non-registered taxable purchasers, on the other hand. We have already
addressed these transactions under the previous sub-heading.
497 We note that Argentina has not disputed that internal sales transactions involving non- agentes de
percepción as sellers are not subject to collection at source. The exception of transactions falling under RG 18
has already been acknowledged.
498 Argentina's First Written Submission, at para. 128.
499 See also the Panel Reports on United States – Gasoline , supra, at para. 6.11; United States – Malt
Beverages, supra, at para. 5.19. These panels held that differential regulatory or tax treatment of imported and
like domestic products cannot be maintained, consistently with Article III, on the basis that the characteristics
and circumstances of the producers of those products are different. The same logic must apply, in our view, to
cases where tax distinctions between like imported and domestic products are based on the characteristics and
circumstances of the sellers or purchasers of those products.
500 Regarding the scope of this conclusion, it should be stated, as previously explained, that it applies
only to import transactions subject to RG 3431. It sh ould further be recalled that this conclusion has been
reached on the basis of a consideration of certain type s of internal sales transactions only, namely those
involving registered or non-registered taxable persons as sellers and registered taxable persons as purchasers.

Argentina further submits that the corporate purpose ( objeto social ) of financial entities does not
include trading. In Argentina's view, it may thus be inferred that any imports effected by such entities
would involve goods intended for use in their economic activity ( bienes de uso), which goods are not
subject to RG 3431, i.e. the collection mechanism a pplicable to import transactions. With regard to
the exemption from RG 3337 of agentes de retención , Argentina asserts that this is necessary as
otherwise both collection at source and withhold ing of the IVA would occur in one and the same
internal sales transaction.501
11.214 We first consider the European Communities' claim in respect of financial entities. RG 3337
excludes from its scope of application financial entities governed by Law No. 21526 as modified. 502
By contrast, financial entities of the same kind are not specifically excluded from the provisions of
RG 3431.
11.215 According to Argentina, financial entities are not subject to RG 3337 because they do not
cause significant collection problems and are under the supervision of the Central Bank. Even if true,
this does not justify imposing a greater tax burden on products imported by financial entities than on
products purchased domestically by the same entities. To the contrary, this constitutes an
infringement of the provisions of Article III:2, first sentence.
11.216 Regarding Argentina's contention that, in view of their corporate purpose ( objeto social ),
financial entities could not import and re-sell goods, we note that Argentina has not submitted any
evidence establishing that financial entities are legally barred from engaging in cross-border trading of
goods.
503 Moreover, we fail to see, and Argentina has not explained to us, why the same rationale, if
it had any legal basis, should not apply in the same way to internal purchase and re-sale transactions
involving financial entities. We cannot, therefore, accept this argument.
11.217 Furthermore, it is not convincing for Argentina to argue that any import transactions
undertaken by financial entities would involve goods intended for use in those entitities' economic
activity (bienes de uso ), which transactions are not governed by RG 3431. 504 In our understanding,
internal sales transactions involving the same category of goods ( bienes de uso ) are not subject to
RG 3337 either.505 Yet RG 3337 specifically exempts financial entities from its purview, whereas
RG 3431 does not.
11.218 The foregoing leads us to the conclusion that, by subjecting products imported by financial
entities to a heavier tax burden than domestic products bought by those entities, Argentina is in breach
of Article III:2, first sentence.
11.219 We now turn to examine the European Communities' claim concerning the exemption from
RG 3337 of internal sales by agentes de percepción to agentes de percepción/retención. Pursuant to
Article 3 b) of RG 3337, agentes de percepción/retención which buy from agentes de

501 Argentina notes that sellers would have to collect the pre-payment of the IVA from their purchasers,
who would in turn have to withhold, pursuant to RG 18, the corresponding amount on their payments to the
sellers.
502 Article 3 c) of RG 3337.
503 Argentina's reply to Panel Question 35.
504 See Article 2.3 of RG 3431.
505 See Article 1 of RG 3337.

percepción/retención are not required to pre-pay the IVA. 506 On the other hand, importers are
generally liable to pre-pay the IVA under RG 3431.507
11.220 Argentina points out that the exemption for purchases by agentes de percepción/retención is
necessary to avoid a situation where one and the same internal sales transaction is subject to both
collection and withholding at source. For present purposes, we need not decide whether this
exemption is indeed necessary.508 Article III:2, first sentence, prohibits the imposition of different tax
burdens on imported and like domestic products. The identity and circumstances of the persons
involved in sales transactions cannot, in our view, serve as a justification for tax burden
differentials.509
11.221 Moreover, nothing in Article III:2, first sentence, provides any basis for subjecting imported
products to heavier tax burdens than like domestic products on the grounds that this is dictated by the
details of a particular tax system. This should not be construed to mean that Members are not free, in
principle, to choose and implement any kind of product tax system. They clearly are. 510 However,
that choice must be consistent with the disciplines of Article III:2, first sentence.511
11.222 We therefore conclude that RG 3431 is inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, by
subjecting imported products to a heavier tax burden than like domestic products subject to RG 3337
and purchased by agentes de percepción/retención.
Minimum pre-payment threshold for internal sales
11.223 The European Communities asserts that no pre-payment of the IVA is required on internal
sales below a certain amount, while the IVA must be pre-paid by importers irrespective of the value
of import transactions.
11.224 Argentina argues that the minimum pre-payment threshold for internal sales transactions set
out in Article 5 of RG 3337 serves the reasonable, economical and practical management of the
collection mechanism established by RG 3337. Argentina submits that no minimum threshold exists
for pre-payments resulting from import transactions as there is an assumption that such transactions
always involve large sums of money. According to Argentina, this is so because of the quantities
and/or cost involved in cross-border transactions. Argentina considers that small import transactions
would be hardly worth importers' while, since importation requires a specific type of business
structure. Argentina further points out that no pre-payment of the IVA is required for samples of a
value not exceeding US$100, which, in Argentina's view , shows that there is a certain threshold also
for imports.

506 See also Article 5 (a) of RG 18, according to which sales by agentes de retención are not subject to
withholding.
507 Pursuant to Article 2 of RG 3431, certain categories of import transactions do not fall within the
scope of RG 3431. Our findings do not extend to those categories, nor are our findings affected by the existence
of those exempt categories.
508 We simply note that, at least as a matter of logic, it does not follow from Argentina's argument that
it would not be possible to subject such an internal transaction to tax pre-payment at least once, whether in the
form of collection at source or in the form of withholding.
509 See the Panel Reports on United States – Gasoline , supra, at para. 6.11; United States – Malt
Beverages, supra, at para. 5.19. See also footnote 499 of this report. The disciplines of Article III:2, first
sentence, are of course subject to whatever exceptions a Member may justifiably invoke.
510 See the Appellate Body Report on United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"
(hereafter "United States – FSC"), adopted on 20 March 2000, WT/DS108/AB/R, at para. 179.
511 It should again be mentioned here that the disciplines of Article III:2, first sentence, are subject to
whatever exceptions a Member may justifiably invoke.

11.225 We note that Article 5 of RG 3337 provides for a minimum pre-payment threshold. Where a
taxable transaction gives rise to an amount of pre-payment which is equal to or below the
pre-payment threshold amount, no pre-payment is collected. 512 No such minimum pre-payment
threshold is set forth in RG 3431.
11.226 We are unable, in the context of an inquiry under Article III:2, first sentence, to accept
Argentina's argument that the minimum pre-payment threshold, which is available only for domestic
products, is appropriate for purposes of the "reasonable", "economical" and "practical" administration
of the collection of the IVA. Nothing in Article III:2, first sentence, suggests that Members need not
adhere to its provisions where doing so would compromise administrative efficiency.
513 E v e n
assuming such an argument could be accepted in principle, we are not persuaded that the
administrative constraints cited by Argentina apply only to domestic products. Moreover, Argentina
has not demonstrated that import transactions "always" involve large amounts of money so that no
minimum pre-payment threshold is necessary.
11.227 Notwithstanding Argentina's assertion to the contrary, it is immaterial, in our view, that
samples of a certain money value are not subject to RG 3431. 514 Even if that assertion were correct,
the fact remains that the minimum pre-payment threshold set out in Article 5 of RG 3337 extends to
products other than samples. As a result, with respect to imported products which are not samples,
the differential treatment and the attendant tax burden differential persist.
11.228 On that basis, we conclude that, by providing for a minimum pre-payment threshold
exclusively for the benefit of domestic products, Argentina imposes on imported products falling
under RG 3431 a greater tax burden than on like domestic products, which is contrary to Article III:2,
first sentence.
(ii) Broad counter-arguments by Argentina515
Adjustment for prior-stage pre-payment
11.229 Argentina asserts that imported products do not bear a greater tax burden than like domestic
products if account is taken of pre-payments of the IVA made at marketing stages prior to the sale of
the finished domestic products. Argentina maintains that the total amount of pre-payments of the IVA
borne by domestic finished products is equal to or greater than the pre-payment of the IVA collected
on imported finished products at the time of importation.
516 Argentina argues that it may be deduced

512 Article 5 of RG 3337 does not provide for a minimum transaction value threshold, as suggested by
the European Communities. It is nevertheless clear to us that the European Communities' claim relates to
Article 5 and the minimum pre-payment ("tax") threshold provided for therein. Since the European
Communities has specifically referred us to Article 5 and has cited the correct threshold amount and since
Argentina has not raised any objection to our consideration of this claim and has in fact built its defence on the
assumption that the European Communities' claim concerns Article 5, we find that we may proceed with our
examination of this claim. Argentina's rights of defence have not, in our view, been impaired as a result of the
European Communities' error.
513 Parties' replies to Panel Question 30.
514 We note in this regard that Argentina has not submitted direct documentary evidence supporting its
assertion that samples not exceeding a certain value are not covered by the provisions of RG 3431.
515 The broad counter-arguments grouped together here are not in the nature of affirmative defences,
but are brought forward by Argentina in an attempt to rebut the European Communities' claims in respect of
RG 3431. We have already found in Section XI.C.5(b)(i), albeit not definitively, that the European
Communities has succeeded in establishing that RG 3431 is inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence. It is
therefore up to Argentina to demonstrate that its broad counter-arguments rebut the European Communities'
claims and that we should therefore modify our earlier findings of violation.
516 For a numerical example presented by Argentina, see para. 8.116 of this report.

from the report of the Working Party II on Schedules and Customs Administration 517 that such
"domestic" prior-stage pre-payments of the IVA mu st be taken into consideration for purposes of an
analysis under Article III:2.
11.230 The European Communities agrees that Argent ina may be entitled to compensate for the
financial costs imposed on domestic products at prior processing stages. The European Communities
notes, however, that what could be compensated for is not the amount of the pre-payments of the IVA
at prior domestic processing stages, but only the additional financial cost imposed on taxable persons
in the form of lost interest. The European Communities further submits that Argentina has not
provided evidence showing that the different rates applied to imports and internal sales correspond to
the actual difference in costs borne by imported and like domestic products or, at least, to a reasonable
estimate thereof. The European Communities adds that the rates on imports do not vary depending on
their degree of processing. According to the European Communities, the rates should be higher on
imports of processed products, since domestic products are likely to have been subjected to
pre-payments on more occasions than unprocessed products.
11.231 We note that both parties to these proceedings consider that Argentina may, in principle,
impose on imported products a tax or other charge equivalent to and not in excess of the taxes or other
charges levied internally at the various stages of production of the like domestic product. It is not
necessary for us to take position on this legal issue in the present case.
518 Even assuming that the

517 Report of the Working Party II on Schedules and Customs Administration, adopted on 26 February
1955, BISD 3S/205.
518 We simply note that this issue was specifically addressed, but not resolved, by the Working Party II
on Schedules and Customs Administration. The relevant passage of the Working Party's report reads as follows:
The delegate for Germany proposed the insertion of the following interpretative note
to paragraph 2:
"the words 'internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those
applied, directly or indirectly, to like domestic products', as employed in the first
sentence of paragraph a, shall be construed to denote the overall charge,
including the charges borne by like domestic products through being subjected to
internal taxes or other internal charges at various stages of their production
(charges borne by the raw materials, semi-finished products, auxiliary materials,
etc. incorporated in, and by the power consumed for the production of, the
finished products)."
The Working Party considered the significance of the phrase "internal taxes or other
internal charges" in relation to taxes which are levied at various stages of production, and in
particular whether the rule of national treatment would allow a government to tax imported
products at a rate calculated to be the equivalent of the taxes levied at the various stages of
production of the like domestic product or only at the rate of the tax levied at the last stage.
Several representatives supported the former interpretation, while the representative of the
United States, on the other hand, thought the reference to internal taxes covered only a tax
levied on the final product competitive with the imported article. Against the latter view it was
argued that that interpretation would establish a discrimination against countries which chose
to levy taxes at various stages and in favour of those which levy a single turnover tax on
finished products. Some other representatives were of the opinion that the equivalent of the
taxes on the final product and on its components and ingredients would be permitted, but not
taxes on power consumed in manufacture, etc. In view of these differences of opinion, the
Working Party does not recommend the insertion of an interpretative note, it being understood
that the principle of equality of treatment would be upheld in the event of a tax on imported
products being challenged under the consultation or complaint procedure of the Agreement.
See the Working Party II Report on Schedules and Customs Administration, supra, para. 10. We also
note that the Appellate Body report on United States – FSC may have implications for the ability of a Member

parties' view were legally correct, we consider that Argentina has not presented argument and
evidence sufficient for us to modify our earlier findings in respect of RG 3431.
11.232 Argentina has not adduced any evidence which would establish that the interest lost or paid
due to the collection at source of the IVA on imported products is equivalent to the cumulative
interest lost or paid due to the collection or withholding at source of the IVA on like domestic
products at the various stages of their production.519
11.233 Moreover, Argentina has not supplied a convincing explanation of why imports are subject to
a flat rate of collection notwithstanding the varying degrees of processing of imported products. 520 In
our view, Argentina's assertion that the rate differentials adjust for prior-stage tax burdens borne by
domestic products implies that the amount of adjustment should normally be greater (and hence the
rates of collection higher) for imported products with a high level of processing than for imported
products with a low level of processing. This is because, in the case of imported products with a high
level of processing, like domestic products may reasonably be assumed to have undergone a greater
number of production and processing stages and thus to have given rise to a greater number of
pre-payments of the IVA than domestic products with a low level of processing.
11.234 In light of the foregoing, we cannot accept Argentina's argument that imported products
covered by RG 3431 are not subject to greater tax burdens than like domestic products, if account is
taken of prior-stage tax burdens borne by like domestic products.
Exemption mechanism
11.235 Argentina submits that General Resolution (AFIP) No. 17/97
521 establishes a mechanism for
the exemption of taxable persons from the various mechanisms for the collection or withholding at
source of the IVA. According to Argentina, such exemption is automatically granted in cases where
those collection regimes could give rise to pre-payments of the IVA which exceed a taxable person's
definitive tax liability under the IVA Law.
522 Argentina argues that the exemption mechanism is
aimed precisely at avoiding a situation where the rate differentials challenged by the European
Communities generate a financial cost which alters the competitive opportunities of imported and
domestic products.
11.236 The European Communities argues that RG 17 does not remedy the discrimination which is
the subject of its complaint. The European Communities submits that importers may be granted an
exemption from the requirement to pre-pay the IVA only in situations where it can be anticipated that
they will find themselves in a loss position at the end of the relevant tax period. The European

with a territorial system of taxation to assess excess taxes to account for processes undertaken on the imported
product when outside the importing Member's jurisdictio n, which processes might be accounted for if a world-
wide system were utilised.
519 Nor has Argentina produced any evidence demonstra ting that equivalence is achieved at least by
reasonable approximation, which might be appropriate in situations where the calculation of the exact amount of
adjustment would be overly difficult or administra tively burdensome. For the proposition that account may be
taken, for purposes of border tax adjustment, of the fact that the calculation of the exact amount of adjustment
may be difficult in some cases, see the Working Party Report on Border Tax Adjustments, supra, at para. 16.
520 It should be recalled that the European Communities' complaint concerns only the general collection
rates provided for in Article 3 of RG 3431. The European Communities does not challenge the special and
lower collection rates also laid down in Article 3 of RG 3431. Those special rates apply to import transactions
involving certain specified products, including live bovine animals, offal of bovines as well as fresh fruit and
vegetables.
521 Exhibit EC II.7 (hereafter "RG 17").
522 Argentina notes that overpayment might arise, for example, because the mark-up with which a
taxable person operates is lower than the added value presumed under the different collection regimes. See
Argentina's reply to Panel Question 45(b).

Communities' complaint is concerned, however, with the extra financial cost caused by the
pre-payments of the IVA during the tax period.
11.237 As a factual matter, the first thing that should be noted is the limited availability of the
exemption mechanism envisaged in RG 17. 523 In order for taxable persons to benefit from the
mechanism, they must be able to demonstrate an actual tax balance in their favour in the month
immediately preceding the date of an application for exemption. 524 In other words, taxable persons
must already have made pre-payments of the IVA in excess of their definitive tax liability to be able
to avail themselves of the mechanism.
11.238 As regards the benefit of the mechanism, either full or partial exemption may be granted from
the pre-payment of the IVA, depending on the circumstances of each case.525 Exemptions are granted
only for the tax period following the date of the application for exemption. Argentina has confirmed
that exemptions cannot be granted for tax periods prior to the date of application. 526 As we
understand it, this means that pre-payments made in excess of actual tax liability cannot be recovered.
11.239 On the basis of the above, it is clear to us that the exemption mechanism benefits only a
limited class of taxable persons and then only for the future. Moreover, where exemptions are
granted, they do not compensate for actual excess pre-payments of the IVA and the lost interest
associated with such overpayments. In such circumstances, we fail to see how the exemption
mechanism provided for in RG 17 could be said to prevent RG 3431 from infringing Article III:2, first
sentence, even for those importers who meet the relevant eligibility criteria. A fortiori, RG 17 cannot
provide legal cover for Argentina with respect to the class of importers who do not satisfy its
eligibility criteria.
11.240 We cannot, therefore, accept Argentina's argument based upon the exemption mechanism set
forth in RG 17.
Magnitude and duration of the tax burden differentials
11.241 Argentina argues that the tax burden differential challenged by the European Communities is
de minimis.527 According to Argentina, the present case is very different from the cases in which it
has been established that Article III:2, first sentence, does not contain a de minimis exception.
Argentina submits that all those previous cases were based on tax rate differentials, whereas, in the
present case, the IVA Law provides for identical tax rates for imported and domestic products.
Argentina further argues that the impact of the lo ss of interest alleged by the European Communities
is limited to a maximum of 30 days.
11.242 The European Communities submits that the Appellate Body has confirmed in Japan –
Alcoholic Beverages II that Article III:2, first sentence, is not qualified by a de minimis standard. The
European Communities also questions the correctness of Argentina's contention that the impact of the
lost interest is limited to 30 days, stating that the impact may last longer than 30 days in cases where,
for instance, an importer does not re-sell the imported goods within that time-period.
11.243 With respect to the permissibility of tax burden differentials, the Appellate Body stated in
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II that:

523 In reply to Panel Question 45(a), Argentina has confirmed that the exemption mechanism envisaged
in RG 17 is available to importers.
524 See Article 2 of RG 17.
525 See Article 5 of RG 17.
526 Argentina's reply to Panel Question 77.
527 For the parties' quantitative estimate of one par ticular tax burden differential see paras. 8.179 and
8.181 of this report.

Even the smallest amount of "excess" is too much. "The prohibition of
discriminatory taxes in Article III:2, first sentence, is not conditional on a 'trade
effects test' nor is it qualified by a de minimis standard."528
11.244 In light of this statement, we disagree with Argentina's argument that the tax burden
differential resulting from RG 3431 and RG 3337 is consistent with Article III:2, first sentence,
because the magnitude of the differential is de minimis . Nor are we convinced by Argentina's
contention that the tax burden differentials in the present case are qualitatively different from those at
issue in earlier GATT/WTO cases.529
11.245 As regards Argentina's assertion that the tax burden differential is limited to a 30-day period,
we find it unnecessary to decide whether Argentina is correct as a factual matter because, even if the
impact of the tax differential were limited to a 30-day period, this would not remove or justify any of
the violations of Article III:2, first sentence, we have found earlier. The terms of Article III:2, first
sentence, prohibit tax burden differentials irrespective of whether they are of limited duration.
Moreover, since we have found above that even the smallest tax burden differential is in violation of
Article III:2, first sentence, it would be inconsistent for us to allow tax burden differentials on the
basis that their impact is limited to a 30-day period.
11.246 In light of the foregoing, we do not accept Argentina's arguments based on the magnitude and
duration of the tax burden differentials.
Provisions of domestic law
11.247 Article 45 of the IVA Law provides:
For the purposes of this law, no discriminatory treatment based on the national or
foreign origin of goods shall be admissible in respect of rates or exemptions.
11.248 Argentina maintains that in view of the existe nce of Article 45 it cannot be said that the
regime for the pre-payment of the IVA discriminates against imported products. According to
Argentina, the provisions of Article 45 coincide with those of Article III:2. Argentina argues that, by
virtue of Article 45, any person may proceed against the State if that person considers that the public
administration is causing him injury in any way. Ar gentina finds it highly significant, therefore, that
importers subject to the mechanism for the pre-payment of the IVA have not launched massive legal
actions against the State to claim redress for the tax burden differentials alleged by the European
Communities.
11.249 The European Communities argues that the mere existence of a domestic remedy against tax
discrimination would not be sufficient, per se, to exclude a violation of Article III:2. The European
Communities also submits that the right of a Member to bring a matter before a panel is not subject to
the prior exhaustion of local remedies. The European Communities further notes that it is by no
means certain that Article 45 provides an effective remedy. In the view of the European
Communities, the wording of Article 45 is differen t from Article III:2 and, in any event, Argentina
makes a reading of Article 45 which is at variance with the well-established interpretation of
Article III:2.
11.250 We are not persuaded that the reference to "this law" in Article 45 necessarily implies a
linkage to RG 3431. Article 45, by its own terms, relates only to the rates or exemptions provided for
in the IVA Law. The text of Article 45 makes no reference to the collection mechanism foreseen in

528 Appellate Body Report on Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, supra, at p. 23 (footnote omitted).
529 We recall in this regard that it is immaterial for purposes of the legal assessment of RG 3431 that,
pursuant to the IVA Law, the same ultimate tax rates apply to imported and like domestic products.

RG 3431. Moreover, Argentina has stated that, under Argentinean law, there is a difference, at least
in matters of taxation, between a law ( ley), such as the IVA Law, and a resolution ( resolución), such
as RG 3431. 530 For these reasons, unlike Argentina, we do not find it significant that importers
subject to, and feeling discriminated by, RG 3431 have apparently not initiated legal proceedings
pursuant to Article 45.531
11.251 Even if Article 45 implied a linkage to RG 3431, it should be borne in mind that we have
found that, as a matter of fact, RG 3431 discriminates against imports, notwithstanding the provisions
of Article 45. The existence of a linkage to RG 3431 could not affect this finding, unless Article 45
would set aside the provisions of RG 3431 to the extent of a conflict between the provisions of
Article 45 and RG 3431. Argentina has not, however, addressed the legal consequences, under its
domestic law, of possible incompatibilities between the IVA Law and RG 3431. We therefore see no
need to consider this point further.
11.252 For these reasons, we are unable to accept Argentina's argument that any inconsistencies of
RG 3431 with Article III:2, first sentence, are "cured" by Article 45.
(iii) Conclusions
11.253 As we are unable to accept Argentina's broad counter-arguments, we confirm the conclusions
we have reached in Section XI.C.5(b)(i) regarding the European Communities' claims that imported
products falling under RG 3431 are subject to a tax burden which exceeds that imposed on like
domestic products.
11.254 It follows, therefore, that, by maintaining RG 3431, Argentina is acting inconsistently with its
obligations under Article III:2, first sentence.
(c) Pre-payment of the IG
(i) Claims by the European Communities
11.255 The European Communities has also made a number of claims to the effect that, pursuant to
RG 3543, import transactions are subject to higher pre-payments of the IG than internal sales
transactions involving like products or are subject to such pre-payments when internal sales
transactions involving like products are not. Argentina has presented counter-arguments which are
specific to each of the European Communities' claims. In addition, Argentina has advanced several
broad counter-arguments. Our approach to examining the European Communities' claims in respect
of RG 3543 parallels that we have followed for RG 3431 in respect of the pre-payments of the IVA.
Accordingly, should our examination in this Section l ead us to the conclusion that one or other of the
European Communities' claims is justified, that conclusion does not become definitive until and
unless we have reached the further conclusion, in Section XI.C.5(c)(ii) below, that Argentina's broad
counter-arguments are not sustainable.

530 According to Argentina, at least in tax matters, laws are enacted by the national legislature, the
Congreso de la Nación , whereas resolutions are promulgated by administrative agencies. See Argentina's
Second Oral Statement, at pp. 6-7.
531 It may be noted that, to the extent Argentinean law requires the institution of legal proceedings to
ensure the conformity of RG 3431 with Article III:2, first sentence, this could in itself fall short of the
unconditional and full compliance required of Members. See e.g. the Panel Report on Argentina – Measures
Affecting Imports of Footwear, T extiles, Apparel and Other Items , adopted on 22 April 1998, WT/DS56/R, at
para. 6.68.

Lower pre-payment rates applicable to internal sales by registered taxable persons
11.256 The European Communities points out that the rate at which the IG must be pre-paid, which is
either 3 percent or 11 percent, is higher than the withholding rate on internal sales, which is either
2 percent or 4 percent.
11.257 Argentina argues that the collection of the IG on imports at a rate of 3 percent corresponds to
the average of the withholding rates applicable to internal sales transactions, which are 2 percent and
4 percent.
11.258 We recall that, pursuant to RG 3543, imports are subject to pre-payment of the IG at a rate of
3 percent.
532 As regards internal sales transactions, the IG is to be pre-paid at a rate of 2 percent in the
case of sales by IG-registered taxable persons and at a rate of 4 percent in the case of sales by non-IG-
registered taxable persons.533
11.259 It is readily apparent that the 3 percent rate applicable to imports exceeds the 2 percent rate
applicable to like domestic products sold by IG-registered taxable persons. While it is true, as
Argentina points out, that the rate for imports corresponds to the average of the rates for internal sales,
the fact remains that the rate applicable to imports is higher than that applicable to like domestic
products sold by IG-registered taxable persons.
534
11.260 It must be acknowledged that the 3 percent rate applicable to imports is lower than the 4
percent rate applicable to like domestic products sold by non-IG-registered taxable persons. Such
reverse discrimination is, however, of no avail to Argentina. Article III:2, first sentence, is applicable
to each individual import transaction. It does not permit Members to balance more favourable tax
treatment of imported products in some instances against less favourable tax treatment of imported
products in other instances.
535
11.261 We therefore conclude that RG 3543, by subjecting imports to a tax burden which exceeds
that imposed on like domestic products sold by IG-registered taxable persons, fails to satisfy the
requirements of Article III:2, first sentence.
No pre-payment on internal sales of goods destined for the purchaser's own use or consumption
11.262 The European Communities points out that the IG must be pre-paid on imports of goods for
the importer's own use or consumption. The European Communities further points out that where
natural persons purchase domestic goods, they are not required to withhold the IG on their payments
to taxable sellers, unless those payments result from the exercise of an economic activity on the part
of those natural persons.
536

532 See Article 4 of RG 3543. Article 4 also provides that definitive imports of goods intended for use
or consumption by the importer are subject to a collection rate of 11 percent. The collection rate of 11 percent is
addressed under the next sub-heading.
533 See Article 14.3 of RG 2784.
534 It should again be recalled in this context that the identity and circumstances of the persons involved
in sales transactions cannot, in our view, serve as a justification for tax burden differentials. See the Panel
Reports on United States – Gasoline , supra, at para. 6.11; United States – Malt Beverages , supra, at para. 5.19.
See also footnote 499 of this report.
535 See the Panel Report on United States – Tobacco , supra, at para. 98. For reports with respect to
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, see the Panel Reports on United States – Section 337 , supra, at para. 5.14;
United States – Gasoline, supra, at para. 6.14.
536 Argentina has not submitted specific arguments in respect of this claim by the European
Communities.

11.263 It should be recalled that, pursuant to RG 3543, the IG must be pre-paid at a rate of 11 percent
in the case of definitive imports of goods intended for use or consumption by the importer. 537 I n
contrast, RG 2784 provides that natural persons are required to withhold the IG only where they make
payments for internal purchases resulting from an economic activity on their part. 538 In other words,
internal sales of goods intended for use or consumption by natural persons are not subject to
withholding at source of the IG.
11.264 We are not aware, in the context of an examination under Article III:2, first sentence, of any
justification which could be offered in support of this discriminatory exemption of the aforementioned
type of internal sales transactions from the requirement to pre-pay the IG. We therefore conclude that
RG 3543, because it requires the pre-payment of the IG on definitive imports of goods intended for
use or consumption by the importer when no such pre-payment is required on internal sales of like
domestic goods intended for use or consumption by a natural person, does not conform to the
requirements of Article III:2, first sentence.539
Minimum pre-payment threshold and monthly pre-payment allowance for internal sales
11.265 The European Communities notes that the IG must be pre-paid pursuant to RG 3543 with
respect to essentially all import transactions, irresp ective of their value. The European Communities
points out that under RG 2784, on the other hand, no IG is withheld on internal sales (i) when the
amount of IG which would have to be withheld does not reach a certain threshold amount and (ii)
when the purchaser's monthly payments do not exceed a certain amount.
11.266 Argentina argues that the number of taxable persons subject to RG 2784 is substantially larger
than the number of taxable persons subject to RG 3543. According to Argentina, if no minimum
withholding amount had been fixed, the withholdin g mechanism would have become inefficient and
would not have helped minimise collection costs. Argentina further contends that import transactions
always involve large sums of money and that it was therefore not considered necessary to set
minimum amounts. Argentina further points out that, in any event, imported samples of a value not
exceeding a certain threshold are also not subject to collection at source of the IG.
11.267 With respect to the minimum monthly amounts which are not subject to withholding under
RG 2784, Argentina submits that importers must pre-pay the IG once, namely when the goods
undergo inward customs clearance. Argentina argues that, in contrast, in the case of internal sales
transactions, the taxable person is liable to withholding on a monthly basis and hence account is taken

537 See Article 4 of RG 3543.
538 See Article 3 f) of RG 2784.
539 In our view, the European Communities does not challenge the fact that imports for importers' own
use or consumption are subject to pre-payment of the IG at a rate of 11 percent, whereas internal sales
transactions are taxed at rates of either 2 percent or 4 percent, depending on whether the sales are made by IG-
registered or non-IG-registered taxable persons. The European Communities' submissions on this issue, taken
as a whole, do not suggest that the European Communities makes such a claim. Those submissions do not, in
any event, contain specific arguments supporting and substantiating such a claim. See EC First Written
Submission, at para. 96; First Oral Statement, at pa ras. 53-55; Second Written Submission, at paras. 103-105.
We therefore refrain from making findings in respect of these rate differentials. It should nonetheless be pointed
out that Argentina has presented arguments to justify one of these rate differentials. See paras. 8.187-8.189 of
this report. With respect to Argentina's argument that that differential is justified in light of the tax-bearing
ability of the taxable persons concerned, we simply recall that we have previously expressed the view that it is
not permissible under Article III:2, first sentence, to impose different tax burdens on imported and like domestic
products on the basis of the circumstances or characteristics of the purchasers or sellers of those products. As
concerns Argentina's argument that the differential is beyond question in view of the different uses for which the
goods in question are intended, we limit ourselves to noting that, in our view, it is not the actual use to which a
product is put by its user which is relevant for purposes of a "like products" determination under Article III:2,
first sentence, but the potential end-uses of the products as such.

of all transactions taking place during each monthly period, which justifies the setting of the minimum
amounts.
11.268 We note that RG 2784 provides for a minimum pre-payment threshold. 540 Where a taxable
transaction gives rise to an amount to be withheld which is below that amount, no withholding is to be
effected. No such minimum pre-payment threshold is set forth in RG 3543. We further note that
RG 2784 provides for a monthly pre-payment allowance. Monthly payments for internal sales
involving the same seller and purchaser and not exceeding a specified amount are not subject to
withholding.
541 Again, no such "tax"-exempt threshold amount is envisaged in RG 3543 for import
transactions in like circumstances.
11.269 We begin our analysis with the minimum pre-payment threshold. According to Argentina,
the threshold laid down in RG 2784 is necessary for purposes of efficient tax administration. No such
threshold exists under RG 3543, according to Argentina, because the number of taxable persons
subject to it is substantially smaller and because import transactions always involve large sums of
money. We are unable to accept these arguments. Neither by its terms nor by implication does
Article III:2, first sentence, permit the imposition of different tax burdens on imported and like
domestic products on the grounds that they are in the interest of administrative efficiency.
542 By the
same token, Argentina's statement that domestic traders outnumber importers, even if true, would not
provide a justification for discriminating against imported products. Finally, we must note that
Argentina has not demonstrated that import transactions "always" involve large amounts of money.
11.270 We next turn to the monthly pre-payment allowance for internal sales. Argentina submits that
these allowances are warranted in the case of internal transactions as they relate to situations where a
series of transactions take place during each monthly period. Conversely, according to Argentina,
import transactions are instantly "taxable" upon importation. We are not persuaded by this argument.
Like import transactions, internal sales transactions are subject to pre-payment on a "per transaction"
basis.
543 This is true, in our understanding, even where a series of transactions involving the same
seller and purchaser is undertaken within the same month. 544 We therefore fail to see a fundamental
difference between internal sales transactions and import transactions in this regard. In any event, it is
clear to us that, by granting a monthly pre-payment allowance to certain domestic sellers based upon
sales transactions with a particular purchaser, which allowance is not available to importers of like
products, Argentina acts inconsistently with its obligations under Article III:2, first sentence.
545
11.271 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that RG 3543 violates Article III:2, first sentence, by
denying imported products the benefit of a minimum pre-payment threshold and a monthly
pre-payment allowance when such benefits are available to like domestic products.

540 See Article 16 of RG 2784.
541 See the introductory paragraphs of Articles 13 and 15 of RG 2784 as well as Article 15.3 of
RG 2784.
542 Parties' replies to Panel Question 30.
543 See Article 5 of RG 2784. We note that Argentina does not explain how its contention that internal
sales transactions are subject to withholding on a mo nthly basis can be reconciled with the provisions of
Article 5 of RG 2784. See Argentina's First Written Submission, at para. 125. If it were true that internal sales
transactions are subject to withholding on a monthly ba sis whereas import transactions are subject to collection
at source on a "per transaction" basis, this could, in our view, add to the existing tax burden differential with
respect to imported and like domestic products. Since our overall conclusion on the European Communities'
claim in respect of the monthly pre-payment allowance for internal sales is not affected by whether or not the IG
is withheld on internal sales transactions on a monthly basis, we need not pursue this issue further.
544 See Article 13 of RG 2784.
545 See the Panel Reports on United States – Gasoline , supra, at para. 6.11; United States – Malt
Beverages, supra, at para. 5.19. See also footnote 499 of this report. It should also be noted that Argentina has
not explained why it would not be possible to make available to all importers a monthly pre-payment allowance
equivalent to that provided for in RG 2784.

(ii) Broad counter-arguments by Argentina546, 547
Exemption mechanism
11.272 Argentina points out that Article 28 of RG 2784 establishes a mechanism for the exemption of
taxable persons from the various mechanisms for the collection or the withholding at source of the IG.
Argentina notes that Article 28 provides for the issuance of a special certificate of non-withholding in
situations where the pre-payments of the IG in the relevant tax period could exceed the definitive tax
liability arising from the IG Law. Argentina submits that Article 28 is designed to prevent the rate
differentials challenged by the European Communities from generating a financial cost which alters
the competitive opportunities of imported and domestic products.
11.273 The European Communities considers that Article 28 does not remedy the discrimination
which is the subject of its complaint. The European Communities recognizes that importers may be
granted an exemption from the requirement to pre-pay the IG in situations where it can be anticipated
that they will find themselves in a loss position at the end of the relevant tax period. The European
Communities' recalls, however, that its complaint is concerned with the extra financial cost caused by
the pre-payments of the IG during the tax period.
11.274 Argentina has confirmed that the exemption m echanism set forth in Article 28 of RG 2784
applies to both imported and domestic goods.
548 In our understanding, the availability of the
exemption mechanism is conditional upon a showing by the taxable person that the pre-payments of
the IG to be made in the course of the annual tax period could exceed the definitive tax liability under
the IG Law. Applications for exemption may be file d before the definitive tax liability is assessed.
549
If the Argentinean tax authorities determine that an overpayment situation could arise, an exemption
from the requirement to pre-pay the IG is granted. 550 Exemptions are valid for the tax period during
which the application for exemption is filed and also cover part of the following tax period.
11.275 In light of the foregoing, we consider that, by virtue of Article 28, an eligible importer can to
some extent prevent overpayment situations from arising. As an incidental effect, the importer who is
granted an exemption can also avoid the discriminatory tax burden resulting from RG 3543.
However, Argentina has not clearly explained to us what, if any, remedy is available to an importer
who files an application for exemption only after having made a certain number of pre-payments of
the IG. In our view, Argentina could avoid a violation of Article III:2, first sentence, only to the
extent that pre-payments already made are refunded with appropriate interest.
551 Even disregarding

546 It should be borne in mind, in accordance with what we have previously said in Section
XI.C.5(b)(ii), that the broad counter-arguments grouped together here are not in the nature of affirmative
defences.
547 It appears to us that Argentina does not contend that the discriminatory tax burden imposed on
importers by RG 3543 adjusts for prior-stage pre-payments borne by the like domestic product. We understand
Argentina to argue that the interest lost or paid by taxable persons as a result of the pre-payment of the IG, as
envisaged in RG 2784, cannot be passed on to the next processing or marketing stage. See Argentina's reply to
Panel Question 32; Argentina's Second Oral Statement, p. 8. In those circumstances, we fail to see a rationale
for adjustment for prior-stage pre-payment of the IG. We therefore do not address this counter-argument here.
In any event, our considerations on the same argument in respect of the pre-payments of the IVA envisaged in
RG 3431 would be equally applicable. See Section XI.C.5(b)(ii) above.
548 Argentina's reply to Panel Question 45(a). Argentina's reply is consistent with the provisions of
Article 9 of RG 3543. Argentina further refers to Circular 1277. See para. 8.207 of this report.
549 Argentina has stated that this is subject to the condition that Article 28 of RG 2784 does not
stipulate as a condition that the taxable persons must have a balance in their favour. See Argentina's reply to
Panel Question 45(c). No such stipulation is evident on the face of the currently applicable Article 28.
550 Exemptions do not extend to pre-payments to be made on the basis of the income of employees.
See Argentina's reply to Panel Question 78.
551 Argentina has referred to General Resolution (DGI) No. 2224 (hereafter "RG 2 224"), according to
which taxable persons may apparently request the refund of excess pre-payments. Argentina has not made

this open issue, the fact remains that Article 28 is a priori of no avail to those importers who cannot
demonstrate a possible overpayment situation in the course of a given tax period.
11.276 We are therefore not persuaded, even basing ourselves on assumptions most favourable to
Argentina, that Article 28 ensures the conformity of RG 3543 with Article III:2, first sentence.
Refund mechanism
11.277 Argentina notes that, in case the pre-payments of the IG made in the course of the tax period
exceed the definitive tax liability arising from the IG Law, the taxable person may request the refund
of the excess payments pursuant to Resolution 2224. Argentina further points out that the actual
overpayments are refunded with interest in accordance with Resolution (MeyOySP) No. 1253/98 552.
Argentina submits that, like the exemption mech anism provided for in Article 28, the refund
mechanism serves to prevent the rate differentials challenged by the European Communities from
generating a financial cost which alters the competitive opportunities of imported and domestic
products.
11.278 The European Communities points out that the refund mechanism does not provide for the
refund of the financial costs caused by the pre-payments of the IG during the tax period. It only
allows the refund of the amount by which the pre-payments of the IG made during the tax period
exceed the taxable person's definitive tax liability under the IG Law. The European Communities
considers therefore that the refund mechanism fails to dispose of the European Communities'
complaint.
11.279 We note that, notwithstanding our request, Argentina has not provided us with documentary
evidence regarding the refund mechanism, which it claims is set out in RG 2224. From Argentina's
submissions, it appears that RG 2224 envisages the possibility to request the refund of the
pre-payments of the IG made in situations where taxable persons have made actual pre-payments in
excess of their definitive tax liability under the IG Law. According to Argentina, where a refund is
granted, not only are the full amounts of the excess payments refunded, but interest is paid on those
amounts in accordance with Resolution 1253.
553 This interest is calculated as of the date of filing of a
refund request.554
11.280 Even disregarding the lack of documentary support for Argentina's argument, we are not
persuaded, on the basis of Argentina's submissi ons, that the refund mechanism precludes RG 3543
from infringing Article III:2, first sentence. It is sufficient to note in this regard that the refund
mechanism is apparently available only to taxable persons, including importers, who are in a situation
of actual overpayment of the IG, but not to all others. Moreover, those importers who are granted a
refund receive interest only as of the date of filing of their refund request and not as of the date on
which they have made the pre-payments of the IG. They thus do not appear to be compensated for the
full amount of interest lost or paid as a result of the pre-payments of the IG made in excess of their
definitive IG liability.

clear, however, how RG 2224 relates to the provisions of Article 28 and, in particular, whether a taxable person
can be granted an exemption under Article 28 and at the same time receive a refund of pre-payments already
made. We note that Argentina has not submitted to us RG 2224.
552 Exhibit ARG-XXXVII (hereafter "Resolution 1253").
553 Argentina's reply to Panel Question 45(e). Resolution 1253 sets the interest rate payable at 0.5
percent per month.
554 Argentina's reply to Panel Question 45(e).

11.281 In light of the foregoing, we do not accept Argentina's argument based upon the refund
mechanism.
Magnitude of the tax burden differential
11.282 Regarding Argentina's argument that the magnitude of the tax burden differential resulting
from RG 3543 and RG 2784 is de minimis , we note that our considerations relating to the same
argument in respect of the pre-payments of the IVA envisaged in RG 3431 and RG 3337 are equally
applicable here.
555 Accordingly, we disagree with Argentina's argument in respect of the magnitude
of the tax differential.
(iii) Conclusions
11.283 As we are unable to accept Argentina's broad counter-arguments, we confirm the conclusions
we have arrived at in Section XI.C.5(c)(i) regarding the European Communities' claims that imported
products falling under RG 3543 are subject to a tax burden which exceeds that imposed on like
domestic products.
11.284 It follows, therefore, that, by maintaining RG 3543, Argentina is acting inconsistently with its
obligations under Article III:2, first sentence.
6. Defence under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994
(a) Overview of the parties' arguments and analytical approach followed
11.285 Article XX of the GATT 1994 reads in relevant part:
Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner
which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between
countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on
international trade, nothing in this Agr eement shall be construed to prevent the
adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures:
…
(d) necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations which are
not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, including those relating to
customs enforcement, the enforcement of monopolies operated under paragraph 4 of
Article II and Article XVII, the protection of patents, trade marks and copyrights, and
the prevention of deceptive practices;
11.286 Argentina asserts that, should we find that the contested mechanisms for the collection of the
IVA and IG are inconsistent with the provisions of Article III:2, first sentence, those mechanisms
would nevertheless be justified under the provisions of Article XX of the GATT 1994. More
particularly, Argentina submits that those mechanisms fall within the terms of Article XX(d).
11.287 The European Communities considers that Arge ntina has failed to demonstrate that the
mechanisms at issue satisfy the requirements of Article XX(d). The European Communities also
argues that Article XX must be interpreted narrowly.

555 See Section XI.C.5(b)(ii) above. A short summary of the parties' arguments relating to this issue
can also be found in that Section.

11.288 We note that a measure found to be inconsistent with one or several of the substantive
obligations of the GATT 1994 must withstand a two-tiered analysis in order for it to be justified under
Article XX. Specifically, that measure must:
(i) fall within the scope of one of the recognised exceptions set out in paragraphs
(a) to (j) of Article XX in order to enjoy provisional justification and
(ii) meet the requirements of the introductory provisions of Article XX, the so-
called chapeau.556
11.289 In examining Argentina's affirmative defence un der Article XX(d), we first analyse whether
the contested measures fall within the terms of paragraph (d) of Article XX. If such is the case, we
proceed to an analysis of the same measures under the chapeau of Article XX.
(b) Provisional justification under paragraph (d) of Article XX
11.290 It is apparent from the text of paragraph (d) of Article XX that it is incumbent upon Argentina
to demonstrate three elements. Those three elements are:
(i) the measures for which justification is claimed secure compliance with other
laws or regulations;
(ii) those other laws or regulations are not inconsistent with the provisions of the
GATT 1994; and
(iii) the measures for which justification is claimed are necessary to secure
compliance with those other laws or regulations.
11.291 Accordingly, our analysis proceeds in three steps.
(i) Existence of measures which secure compliance with other laws or regulations
11.292 Argentina contends that the contested mechanisms for the collection at source of the IVA and
IG, i.e. RG 3431 and RG 3543, were put in place in order to avert actions which are illegal under the
terms of the IVA Law and IG Law, such as failure to declare or pay the IVA or IG. Argentina argues,
therefore, that those mechanisms were specifically designed to secure compliance with the IVA Law
and IG Law respectively.
11.293 The European Communities does not contest that RG 3431 and RG 3543 are measures which,
inter alia, secure compliance with the IVA Law and IG Law respectively.
11.294 We agree with the parties in this respect. As regards RG 3431, the fact that pre-payments
made in accordance with it are creditable at the time of settlement of the definitive IVA liability
creates an incentive for importers to declare the re-sale of the imported products to the tax authorities,
which re-sale is taxable under the IVA Law.
557 RG 3543, on the other hand, helps secure compliance
with the IG Law inasmuch as the pre-payments for which it provides reduce evasion of the IG
resulting from failure to declare taxable income.

556 See the Appellate Body Report on United States – Gasoline, supra, at p. 22.
557 It will be recalled that the pre-payments are collected upon importation in anticipation and on
account of the re-sale of the imported products. Failing declaration of the re-sale transaction, importers lose the
pre-payments made upon importation.

11.295 We therefore conclude that RG 3431 and RG 3543 serve to secure compliance with the IVA
Law and IG Law respectively.
(ii) Consistency with the GATT 1994 of those other laws or regulations
11.296 Argentina asserts that the IVA Law and IG Law are consistent with its obligations under the
GATT 1994.
11.297 The European Communities does not question the consistency with the GATT 1994 of either
the IVA Law or the IG Law.558
11.298 We continue, therefore, on the basis that the IVA Law and the IG Law must be presumed to
be consistent with the GATT 1994.
(iii) Necessity of the measures taken to secure compliance
11.299 Argentina contends that Members invoking Article XX(d) are entitled to a certain degree of
discretion in determining whether a measure is "n ecessary". Argentina considers that the Member
taking a measure is best placed to assess whether that measure is necessary. Argentina also argues
that paragraph (d) of Article XX does not say that a Member must evaluate a number of alternative
measures which would ensure the observance of its laws and then choose the least trade-restrictive
among them.
11.300 The European Communities argues that it is our task to examine whether Argentina's
measures are "necessary" to achieve Argentina's desired level of enforcement of the IVA Law and IG
Law. The European Communities considers that the relevant test for assessing the necessity of a
measure can be found in the report of the GATT 1947 panel on United States – Section 337 . The
European Communities notes that that panel held that a Member cannot justify a measure as necessary
in terms of Article XX(d) "if an alternative measure which [that Member ] could reasonably be
expected to employ and which is not inconsistent with other GATT provisions is available to it".
559
11.301 Argentina asserts that, even if the European Communities' interpretation were correct, the
contested mechanisms for the collection of the IVA and IG upon importation of goods are the only
measures reasonably available to it for securing compliance with the IVA Law and IG Law.
Argentina notes that tax evasion is an entrenched so cial ill in Argentina. According to Argentina, in
such a situation, a government's primary focus must be on the prevention of tax evasion rather than its
repression. Argentina contends that the aforementioned mechanisms are preventative in nature.
Argentina points out in this regard that the credit able pre-payments of the IVA and IG ensure the
settlement of the definitive tax liability at the appropriate time and that the mechanisms concerned
also make it possible to detect, and thus reduce, tax evasion by rendering transparent the business
dealings of taxable persons.
11.302 The European Communities considers that Argentina's submissions may be relevant for
purposes of demonstrating that the contested mechanisms are necessary to fight tax fraud. The
European Communities notes, however, that those submissions fail to explain why it is necessary to
impose a heavier tax burden on imported products than on like domestic products.
11.303 It must be stated, as a preliminary matter, that the question which we must examine here is
whether the contested measures are "necessary" to secure compliance with the IVA Law and the IG

559 Panel Report on United States – Section 337, supra, at para. 5.26.

Law.560 At this point in our analysis, we look at the relationship of Argentina's claimed policy
objective of securing compliance with the IVA Law and the IG Law and the general design and
structure of RG 3431 and RG 3543.561
11.304 Having clarified this point, it should be recalled, next, that the parties are in disagreement
over the correct interpretation to be given to the term "necessary" as it appears in Article XX(d). For
the European Communities, a measure can be said to be necessary only if no alternative measure
which is consistent with the GATT 1994 is reasonably available to a Member. Argentina, on the other
hand, rejects this approach as overly restrictive of a Member's right to invoke the exception set forth
in Article XX(d). We see no need to resolve this interpretative issue.
11.305 We are satisfied that Argentina has adduced argument and evidence sufficient to raise a
presumption that the contested measures, in their general design and structure, are "necessary" even
on the European Communities' reading of that term. Argentina stresses the fact that tax evasion is
common in its territory and that, against this background of low levels of tax compliance, tax
authorities cannot expect to improve tax collection primarily through the pursuit of repressive
enforcement strategies (e.g. aggressive criminal prosecution of tax offenders). In those
circumstances, Argentina maintains, tax authorities must direct their efforts towards preventing tax
evasion from occurring in the first place. According to Argentina, this is precisely what RG 3431 and
RG 3543 are designed to accomplish.
562
11.306 The European Communities does not dispute that, in the circumstances of the present case,
collection and withholding mechanisms are necessary to combat tax evasion.563 Nor has the European
Communities submitted other arguments or evidence which would rebut the presumption raised by
Argentina in respect of the "necessity" of RG 3431 and RG 3543.564

560 The Appellate Body stated in United States – Gasoline that " [t]he chapeau of Article XX makes it
clear that it is the "measures" which are to be examined under Article XX(g), and not the legal finding of
[violation]". See the Appellate Body Report on United States – Gasoline , supra, at p. 16. While this statement
refers to Article XX(g), the Appellate Body's reasoning relies on the chapeau, which applies equally to
Article XX(g) and Article XX(d). The Appellate Body's reasoning must therefore also extend to Article XX(d).
Accordingly, we do not consider it appropriate to examine under Article XX(d) whether the less favourable tax
treatment accorded to imported products as a result of the application of RG 3431 and RG 3543 is "necessary".
It should be noted that the GATT 1947 panel in United States – Section 337 considered that "what [had] to be
justified as "necessary" under Article XX(d) [was] each of the inconsistencies with another GATT Article found
to exist". See the Panel Report on United States – Section 337 , supra, at para. 5.27. While the approach
adopted by the panel in United States – Section 337 could be seen to be based on the view that the "necessity"
test set forth in Article XX(d) gives rise to a somewhat different Article XX analysis than, for instance, the
"relating to" test contained in Article XX(g), we see no need to dwell upon this point, since the Appellate Body
has outlined, in the more recent United States – Gasoline case, what, in its view, is the correct and general
approach to interpreting and applying Article XX.
561 See the Appellate Body Report on United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp
Products (hereafter "United States – Shrimp"), adopted on 6 November 1998, WT/DS58/AB/R, at para. 149.
562 In our view, the presumption raised by Argentina of the existence of a relationship of necessity
between Argentina's declared objective of securing compliance with the IVA Law and IG Law and the general
design of RG 3431 and RG 3543 is not affected by the inconsistency of these measures with Article III:2, first
sentence.
564 It is true that the European Communities disputes that the higher rates applied to imported products
pursuant to RG 3431 and RG 3543 are "necessary" in order to secure compliance with the IVA Law and IG
Law. See e.g. EC First Oral Statement, at paras. 79, 82 and 84. We consider that this contention goes to the
question of whether Argentina makes improper use of the exception set out in Article XX(d) and not to the
question of whether RG 3431 and RG 3543, in light of their general design and structure, fall within the terms of
Article XX(d). We therefore address the justifiability of applying higher rates to imported products when we
appraise RG 3431 and RG 3543 under the chapeau of Article XX. This approach is in accordance with that

11.307 In light of the foregoing, we conclude that, in view of their general design and structure,
RG 3431 and RG 3543 are "necessary" measures within the meaning of Article XX(d).
11.308 Since it has thus been established that RG 3431 and RG 3543 satisfy all of the requirements
set forth in Article XX(d), we further conclude that they enjoy provisional justification under the
terms of Article XX(d).
(c) Consistency with the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX
(i) Interpretation and application of the chapeau
11.309 Argentina argues that the pre-payment of the IVA and IG is intended to combat tax evasion
and not to restrict trade. Argentina submits that, since increased trade means increased tax collection,
the contested collection mechanisms cannot possibly be regarded as constituting a "disguised
restriction on international trade".
11.310 Regarding the chapeau's additional requirement that those mechanisms not be a means of
"arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail",
Argentina notes that the use of the terms "arbitrary " and "unjustifiable" indicates that there could be
discrimination which is "not arbitrary" or "justifiable". Argentina further is of the view that the
aforementioned requirement is concerned with discrimination between exporting countries, but not
with discrimination between the importing country and exporting countries. Argentina argues that the
fact that the Appellate Body in United States – Gasoline found otherwise does not detract from its
view. According to Argentina, the Appellate Body did so only because, in that specific case, the
parties had a common interpretation of the requirement in question.
11.311 The European Communities considers that the chapeau is concerned with discrimination
between the importing country and exporting countries. The European Communities recalls that the
Appellate Body accepted this interpretation in United States – Gasoline and that the Appellate Body
later confirmed it in United States – Shrimp. The European Communities submits that the fact that a
violation of Article III presupposes discrimination between an importing country and an exporting
country does not make Article XX redundant since the discrimination at issue in the chapeau is of a
different kind than that at issue in Article III.
11.312 It is well to recall at the outset that the fundamental purpose of the chapeau of Article XX is
to avoid abuse or misuse of the particular exceptions set forth in Article XX, in the present case of the
exception set forth in Article XX(d).
565 Accordingly, whereas our focus was on the general design and
structure of RG 3431 and RG 3543 when we examin ed whether these measures fall within the terms
of Article XX(d), our focus here is on whether their application constitutes a misuse of that
exception.566

followed by the Appellate Body in United States – Gasoline. See the Appellate Body Report on United States –
Gasoline, supra, at pp. 19 and 25-29.
565 See the Appellate Body Report on United States – Gasoline, supra, at pp. 22 and 25.
566 By its terms, the chapeau refers to the manner in which a contested measure is "applied". The
chapeau thus clearly covers individual acts of applicatio n of a contested measure. We consider, moreover, that,
where a measure itself requires certain action inconsistent with the standards contained in the chapeau, that
measure will, of necessity, be applied in a manner inconsistent with the standards contained in the chapeau. It
may be noted in this connection that, in our understanding, in United States – Gasoline , the Appellate Body did
not so much focus on the manner in which the baseline requirements were applied in specific instances. Rather,
the Appellate Body's concern appears to have been with the question of whether the United States could
"impose" and apply, as a matter of law (i.e. in its Gasoline Rule), a statutory baseline requirement on foreign
refiners and an individual baseline requirement on domestic refiners. The Appellate Body addressed the

11.313 The chapeau sets forth three standards which a particular measure must meet. 567 Those
standards are cumulative in nature. As a result, if the measure for which justification is claimed fails
to meet one of them, the measure ipso facto fails to satisfy the requirements of the chapeau. The order
in which the standards are examined is therefore immaterial. In the present case, we consider it
appropriate to analyse first whether the application of RG 3431 and RG 3543 constitutes a means of
"unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail".
11.314 According to the Appellate Body, the phrase "u njustifiable discrimination between countries
where the same conditions prevail" is sufficiently broad to encompass not only discrimination
between exporting Members, but also discrimina tion between exporting Members and the importing
Member in question.568 To this we would add that, in our view, the phrase "discrimination between
countries where the same conditions prevail" is also broad enough to encompass discrimination
between products of the territories of those countries.569
11.315 Since we have already found that RG 3431 and RG 3543 give rise to discrimination between
imported products and like domestic products, the only remaining issue is whether the discrimination
resulting from the application of RG 3431 and RG 3543 is "unjustifiable".570 It is important to bear in
mind that the standard of "unjustifiable" discrimination is different in nature and quality from the
standard of discrimination contained in Article III:2, first sentence. 571 As Argentina correctly points
out, the prohibition on unjustifiable discrimination in the application of a measure by necessary
implication leaves room for justifiable discrimination. On the other hand, this does not imply that
some discrimination is always justifiable. Whether or not any discrimination is justifiable, in a given
instance, and if so, to what extent, must be ascertained by way of analysis of the specific
circumstances of each case.

justifiability of this regulatory differentiation under the chapeau. See the Appellate Body Report on United
States – Gasoline, supra, at pp. 25-29.
567 The chapeau provides that the measure in question must not be applied in such a manner as to
constitute (i) a means of "arbitrary … discrimination betw een countries where the same conditions prevail", (ii)
a means of "unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail" or (iii) a
"disguised restriction on international trade".
568 See the Appellate Body Reports on United States – Shrimp , supra, at para. 150; United States –
Gasoline, supra, at pp. 23-24. We do not share Argentina's view that the Appellate Body adopted this
interpretation of the phrase "discrimination between c ountries where the same conditions prevail" on the sole
basis that, in that specific case, the parties had a common understanding of it. The Appellate Body also
observed in United States – Gasoline that the term "countries" in the chapeau was textually unqualified. See
United States – Gasoline, supra, footnote 46. And in United States – Shrimp , the Appellate Body stated that, in
United States – Gasoline, it had "accepted" the assumption of the parties that discrimination within the meaning
of the chapeau could also occur between the importing country and exporting countries. See United States –
Shrimp, supra, at para. 150.
569 It may be pointed out, in addition, that there is nothing in the chapeau to suggest that it does not
cover "discrimination" in respect of internal taxation.
570 Argentina has not been able to convince us that, in the present case and for purposes of applying the
chapeau, "the same conditions [do not] prevail" between Argentina and the European Communities. In
particular, the fact that Argentina is a developing country Member which has to contend with low levels of
compliance with its tax laws, does not, in our view, provide a justification for discriminating against imported
products under the facts of the present case. It should be recalled, moreover, that the Appellate Body in United
States – Gasoline - a case which also involved discrimination between imported and like domestic products - did
not specifically examine and make a finding on whether the "same conditions prevail [ed]" between Brazil and
Venezuela, on the one hand, and the United States, on the other hand. See the Appellate Body Report on United
States – Gasoline, supra, at pp. 25-29. We therefore do not see a need to further examine this element.
571 See the Appellate Body Report on United States – Shrimp , supra, at para. 150; United States –
Gasoline, supra, at p. 23.

(ii) Justifiability of discrimination
11.316 Argentina submits that the rates applicable to import transactions pursuant to RG 3431 and
RG 3543 are warranted because Customs represents a point where there is a high concentration of
formal transactions. Argentina notes that in cases where there is a comparable concentration of
formal transactions in the internal market, Argentina applies rates equal to or higher than those
applied at Customs. Argentina refers to the exam ples of RG 18, pursuant to which the IVA is to be
withheld at a rate of 10.5 percent, and of General Resolution No. 3316/91, which envisages a 14
percent withholding on payments of certain professional fees.
11.317 Specifically with respect to the pre-payment of the IVA, Argentina submits that any lowering
of the 10 percent rate applicable to import transactions would undermine the goal of combating tax
evasion and would lead to a loss of net tax revenue. Argentina argues that this is so because a
reduction of the current rate would lessen the incentive for importers to declare their subsequent
internal re-sale transactions, which transactions could therefore not be subjected to taxation.
Argentina asserts that a one percentage point reduction of the 10 percent collection rate for imports
would translate into a monthly tax revenue loss of US$10 million. Argentina points out in this regard
that the revenue raised from the various mechanisms for the pre-payment of the IVA and IG is used to
comply with certain quarterly deficit commitments Argentina has made vis-à-vis the International
Monetary Fund (IMF). Argentina maintains that a reduction of the rate currently applicable to
imports would jeopardise Argentina's meeting those deficit targets.
11.318 Argentina further argues that an increase in th e 5 percent rate for the pre-payment of the IVA
on internal sales by agentes de percepción to small local buyers would not further reduce tax evasion.
According to Argentina, a rate increase would not make transactions at subsequent marketing stages
more transparent, since the aforementioned transactions tend to take place almost at the end of the
marketing chain. Argentina contends that, for that reason and also because of the greater number of
pre-payment mechanisms applying to internal sale s transactions, there would be a risk that higher
rates for the pre-payment of the IVA would give rise to a situation of overpayment of the IVA.
Argentina argues that an increase in the rate would therefore ultimately lead to a higher number of
exemptions granted under RG 17, with the consequence that there would be more informal
transactions and, as a result, a net decrease in tax revenue collected. Argentina points out that, even at
the current rate, there has in recent years been a steady increase in the number of exemptions granted.
11.319 The European Communities argues that from the fact that the collection of pre-payments is
easier for imports it does not follow that it is necessary to collect those pre-payments at rates which
are higher than those applicable to internal sale s. The European Communities further submits that it
is not clear why the collection of pre-payments of the IVA on imports at a rate of less than 10 percent
would constitute a "disincentive" to declare subsequent transactions. The European Communities
notes in this regard that it is difficult to understand why importers could be interested in not charging
the IVA on their re-sales, since that would seem to be the easiest way for them to credit the IVA paid
on their import transactions. The European Communities also wonders why the collection of
pre-payments of the IVA on internal sales by agentes de percepción to local buyers at a rate of only 5
percent does not create a "disincentive" to declare subsequent transactions. On this point, the
European Communities maintains that Argentina ha s not provided evidence demonstrating that the
payment of the IVA is more frequently evaded when imported goods are re-sold by importers than
when domestic goods are re-sold by "domestic" sellers.
11.320 The European Communities also disputes that an increase in the 5 percent rate for the
pre-payment of the IVA on internal sales by agentes de percepción to small local buyers would
produce the revenue loss predicted by Argentina. The European Communities submits that, while an
increase in the collection rate may result in an increase in the number of exemptions, this would not
necessarily reduce the revenue collected through the mechanism for the pre-payment of the IVA. The
European Communities recalls in this regard that exemptions are granted only in cases where the

pre-payments made exceed the definitive liability under the IVA law. The European Communities
points out, in addition, that the increase in the number of exemptions granted in recent years may be
the result of factors which are unrelated to the rate at which the pre-payments are collected, such as
greater familiarity of taxable persons with the exemption mechanism. The European Communities
also notes that Argentina has not provided evidence which would show that exemptions are more
frequently requested, in relative terms, by "domestic" sellers than by importers.
11.321 In response to a question of the Panel regarding why Argentina cannot refund the additional
loss of interest suffered by importers, Argentina submits that it would be virtually impossible to
quantify the interest lost, since this would require an analysis of a range of factors, such as the time-
lapse between each payment on account and its corroboration in the tax statement. Argentina notes,
furthermore, that the resulting cost to the government of verifying the appropriateness of a refund and
of the quantification of the interest lost would be exorbitant, so much so that it would cause the failure
of the various mechanisms for the pre-payment of the IVA and IG. 572
11.322 We commence our examination by recalling that it is not the rate differentials 573 per se which
render RG 3431 and RG 3543 inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, but rather the fact that
importers must forego or pay more interest than th eir "domestic" counterparts in the interval between
the pre-payment of the IVA and IG and its crediting against the definitive tax liability arising from the
IVA Law and IG Law. Therefore, it is not the rate differentials themselves which require justification
for purposes of our analysis under the chapeau of Article XX but the extra tax burden imposed on
importers as a result of those rate differentials.
11.323 For purposes of assessing the justifiability of that extra tax burden, it is important to recall our
earlier finding that RG 3431 and RG 3543 fall within the terms of Article XX(d) because they are
necessary to secure compliance with the IVA Law and the IG Law respectively. The justifying
protection of Article XX(d) does not and cannot extend beyond that limited purpose. Argentina has
not argued that the extra tax burden imposed on importers in the form of interest lost or paid
specifically serves to secure compliance with the IVA Law or IG Law. It is apparent, in our view,
that it does not serve that specific purpose.
11.324 The question then becomes whether the extra tax burden imposed on importers in the form of
interest lost or paid is nevertheless justifiable because it is unavoidable for the operation of RG 3431
and RG 3543, which, in our view, fall within the scope of protection of Article XX(d).
11.325 We note in this regard that one alternative course of action available to Argentina would be to
reimburse importers for the additional interest foregone or paid. Similarly, Argentina could provide
for the additional interest lost or paid to be cred itable against the tax liability arising from the IVA
Law and IG Law. Whichever way compensation of importers is achieved, it would not, in our view,
call into question the usefulness of RG 3431 or RG 3543 as measures for securing compliance with
the IVA Law or IG Law. We do not therefore consider that the extra tax burden imposed on
importers in the form of interest lost or paid is unavoidable.
11.326 Argentina argues that compensating importers would not be an option because it would be
virtually impossible to quantify an importer's additional loss or payment of interest. We do not find
this argument convincing. It is true that relevant market rates for determining the interest lost or paid
are subject to change over time and that the level of those rates tends to vary depending on the length
of the term for which capital is invested or borrowed. It does not follow, however, that compensation
is therefore impossible. Even if it were administratively too difficult to use actual market rates as a

572 Argentina's reply to Panel Question 81.
573 For the sake of ease of reference, we hereafter treat internal sales transactions as being subject to
pre-payment of the IVA and IG at a "zero rate" when those transactions are not subject, in certain
circumstances, to any pre-payment of the IVA and IG.

basis for calculating the additional loss or payment of interest (which has not been demonstrated to
the Panel), it would still be possible, in our view, to use other appropriate rates 574, such as average
market rates575.576 We also agree that for purposes of quantification of the additional interest lost or
paid it is necessary to determine the time-period between the pre-payments of the IVA and IG and
their subsequent crediting, which period may vary from transaction to transaction.577 In this regard, it
seems to us that it should be possible, for example, for Argentina's customs authorities and/or the
importers themselves to keep records regarding the date of the pre-payments of the IVA and IG.
11.327 Argentina submits, in addition, that compensation of importers for the extra tax burden in the
form of interest lost or paid would result in an excessive administrative cost for the government,
which would cause the failure of RG 3431 and RG 3543. It must be acknowledged that compensation
would entail some administrative cost for th e government. However, so do the exemption
mechanisms provided for in RG 17 (with respect to the pre-payment of the IVA) and RG 2784 (with
respect to the pre-payment of the IG) as well as the refund mechanism set forth in RG 2224 (with
respect to the pre-payment of the IG). Argentin a has not shown why compensating importers for the
additional loss or payment of interest would be significantly more administratively burdensome than
the operation of such mechanisms. In any event, Argentina could, in our view, alleviate the
administrative burden, for instance by requiring importers to supply supporting documentation for
purposes of claiming compensation.
578 Moreover, we consider that the increase in net tax revenue
which Argentina claims RG 3431 and RG 3543 make possible by far exceeds the administrative cost
which would result from the compensation of importers. 579 We are therefore not persuaded by

574 It is worth noting that the same "appropriate interest" standard is also used, in similar context, in
footnote 59 to item (e) of Annex I to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. According to
that footnote, "… Members recognize that deferral [specifically related to exports of direct taxes paid or
payable by industrial or commercial enterprises] need not amount to an export subsidy where, for example,
appropriate interest charges are collected".
575 Such average rates could be calculated for various terms of investment or borrowing. It should be
pointed out in this connection that the Working Party on Border Tax Adjustment found that, for purposes of
border tax adjustment and in cases where the calculation of the exact amount of adjustment was difficult, it
could in principle be administratively sensible and sufficiently accurate to calculate the average taxation of
categories of products rather than the actual tax levied on a particular product. See the Working Party Report on
Border Tax Adjustment, supra, at para. 16. We believe that the same reasoning applies to the calculation of the
appropriate interest rate in the present case.
576 We consider that Resolution 1253 confirms that compensation along these lines is possible.
Resolution 1253 lays down a particular rate - 0.5 percent per month - for the interest payable by the Argentinean
government, as of the filing date of a refund request, in cases where the pre-payments of the IG made result in
overpayment of the IG. See Argentina's reply to Panel Question 45(e). In referring to the example of
Resolution 1253, we do not, however, pronounce on the appropriateness of the interest rate laid down in
Resolution 1253.
577 It may be noted here that, in our understanding, the relevant compensation period must be
determined as well for purposes of interest payments pursuant to Resolution 1253. It appears from Argentina's
reply to Panel Question 45(e) that interest accrues from the date of filing of a refund request until the date of the
actual refund. Thus, the relevant compensation period will be different depending, inter alia , on the date of
filing of a refund request.
578 In particular, as already mentioned, importers cl aiming compensation could be required to provide
evidence regarding the date of the various pre-payments made pursuant to RG 3431 and RG 3543.
579 Argentina has repeatedly stated, for instance, that thanks to the various regimes for the pre-payment
of the IVA, Argentina has been able to significantly increase its tax revenue, which it attributes, inter alia, to the
fact that the pre-payment regimes have made it possible also to tax informal sectors of its economy. See Exhibit
ARG-XXI; Argentina's First Oral Statement, at paras. 56, 57 and 67; and para. 8.275 of this report. It should
also be pointed out in this context that, according to information supplied by Argentina for 1999, some 30
percent of the overall collection of the IVA was possible thanks to the various regimes for the pre-payment of
the IVA. The percentage of pre-payments of the IVA collected on import transactions is 18 percent (amounting
to $1,189,586,000). As concerns the IG, of the overall IG revenue collected in 1999, 48 percent were the result
of the regimes for the pre-payment of the IG. The percentage of pre-payments of the IG collected on import
transactions is 10 percent (amounting to $416,078,000). See Exhibit ARG-XXXIX.

Argentina's argument that compensating importers for the additional interest lost or paid would result
in an excessive administrative cost and would cause the failure of RG 3431 and RG 3543.
11.328 Lastly, we turn to Argentina's assertion that no changes to the current pre-payment
mechanisms are possible, as this could preclude Argentina from meeting its deficit commitments to
the IMF. In support of its assertion, Argentina has referred us to an Economic Policy Memorandum
and a Technical Memorandum, which Argentina says are part of an agreement with the IMF. 580
However, in neither Memorandum is there a statement to the effect that Argentina is under an
obligation to impose a discriminatory tax burden on importers. Nor do we see a requirement in those
Memoranda which would bar Argentina from compensating importers for the discrimination suffered.
Furthermore, Argentina has in any event not presented argument and evidence sufficient for us to find
that it would be impossible for Argentina to meet its deficit targets if it were to compensate importers
for the additional interest lost or paid. It should also be recalled in this context that Argentina has not
invoked Article XX(d) on the basis that RG 3431 and RG 3543 are necessary to secure compliance
with IMF commitments, but on the basis that they are necessary to secure compliance with the IVA
Law and IG Law.
581 For these reasons, we do not consider that, in the present case, Argentina's
commitments to the IMF provide a justification for not compensating importers.
11.329 Another course of action available to Argentina would be to eliminate the rate differentials
themselves. Argentina rejects this course of action as not viable. Argentina argues, in essence, that
any narrowing of the current rate differentials would have as an inevitable consequence that tax
evasion could not be combated as effectively be cause there would be less transparency on taxable
transactions. Argentina has not fully convinced us that the extra tax burden imposed on importers is
justifiable on this basis. In particular, we have not been provided with persuasive evidence in support
of Argentina's assertion that the elimination of the rate differentials would lead to more tax evasion.
In any event, we note this option only as an alternative, since we have already found that Argentina
could act consistently with Article III:2, first sentence, even while maintaining the existing rate
differentials, by compensating importers for the additional interest lost or paid.
582
11.330 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the application of RG 3431 and RG 3543
results in "unjustifiable discrimination" within the meaning of the chapeau of Article XX, inasmuch as
these measures impose on importers an extra tax burden in the form of interest lost or paid. Having
reached this conclusion, it is unnecessary for us to proceed to an examination of the other standards
contained in the chapeau.
11.331 We therefore conclude that RG 3431 and RG 3543 do not meet the requirements of the
chapeau of Article XX. For that reason, and even though RG 3431 and RG 3543 fall within the terms
of Article XX(d), we do not accept Argentina's claim of justification under Article XX as a whole.
XII. CONCLUSIONS
12.1 In light of our findings in Section XI.A, we conclude that it has not been proved that
Resolution (ANA) No. 2235/96 is inconsistent with Argentina's obligations under Article XI:1 of the
GATT 1994.
12.2 In light of our findings in Section XI.B, we conclude that Resolution (ANA) No. 2235/96 is
inconsistent with Argentina's obligations under Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.

580 Argentina's reply to Panel Question 57; Exhibit ARG-XL.
582 We note that the European Communities does not argue that Argentina cannot, consistently with
Article III:2, first sentence, maintain the current rate differentials. See paras. 8.25 and 8.47 of this report. The
European Communities argues, rather, that Argentina cannot maintain the extra tax burden imposed on
importers in the form of interest lost or paid.

12.3 In light of our findings in Section XI.C, we conclude that General Resolution (DGI)
No. 3431/91 is inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994.
12.4 In light of our findings in Section XI.C, we conclude that General Resolution (DGI)
No. 3543/92 is inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994.
12.5 In light of our findings in Section XI.C, we conclude that General Resolutions (DGI)
No. 3431/91 and 3543/92, although they fall within the terms of paragraph (d) of Article XX of the
GATT 1994, fail to meet the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX and are therefore not justified
under Article XX as a whole.
583
12.6 In light of the above and in accordance with Article 3.8 of the DSU, we further conclude that
there is nullification or impairment of the benefits accruing to the European Communities under the
GATT 1994.
12.7 We recommend that the Dispute Settlement Body request Argentina to bring Resolution
(ANA) No. 2235/96 as well as General Resolutions (DGI) No. 3431/91 and 3543/92 into conformity
with its obligations under the GATT 1994.
Argentina from continuing to require the pre-payment of the IVA and IG with respect to the importation and the
internal sale of goods. However, Argentina must ensure that the requirement to pre-pay the IVA and IG does
not discriminate against imports.