COLOMBIA – MEASURES CONCERNING IMPORTED SPIRITS REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
Document: REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
Date: 23 August 2016
Document codes: WT/DS502/6
Complainant: EU
Respondent: Colombia
Third parties: Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Mexico, Panama, Russia, Taiwan, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. III:2, III:1, III, XXIV:12, III:4, X:3(a)  GATT 1994

COLOMBIA – MEASURES CONCERNING IMPORTED SPIRITS
 REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
The following communication, dated 22 August 2016 , from the delegation of the European Union
to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

My authorities have instructed me to request the establishment of a panel pursuant to Articles 4
and 6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
("DSU") and Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994") with
respect to the discriminatory and other WTO -inconsistent treatment that Colombia accords,
without justification, to imported alcoholic beverages at national and d epartmental level. These
measures adversely affect exports of spirits from the European Union to Colombia. The spirits
covered under this dispute are classified under HS 22.08.
On 13 January 2016, the European Union requested consultations with Colombia, p ursuant to
Articles 1 and 4 of the DSU and Article XXII of the GATT 1994. The reque st was circulated on
18 January 2016 as document and , and a technical correction introduced
on 21 January 2016 as document and /Corr.1. The European Union
held consultations with Colombia on 8 and 9 March 2016 with a view to reaching a mutually
satisfactory solution. Unfortunately, the consultations failed to settle the dispute.
As a result, the European Union requests that a Pane l be established pursuant to Articles 4 and 6
of the DSU and Article XXIII of the GATT 1994 to examine this matter with the standard terms of
reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU, subject to the provisions of Articles 6.2 and 7 of the
DSU, and the other specific terms of reference set out in this Panel Request or otherwise agreed.
In the sections below, the European Union will identify the specific measures at issue and
summarize the legal basis and the reasons for the complaint. For ease of refer ence, it will do so by
grouping the measures at issue into two sets 1: measures relating to the application of
discriminatory taxation of imported spirits in Colombia form the first set of measures at issue;
other WTO -inconsistent measures relating to the i ntroduction and sale of spirits in the
departments form the second set of measures at issue.
1 DISCRIMINATORY TAXATION OF IMPORTED SPIRITS
1.1 Introduction
Discriminatory taxation of imported spirits is the first set of measures at issue. Under the
Colombian fiscal regime, all spirits are subject to a national excise tax on consumption, except in
departments or other regional or local subdivisions ("departments") exercising the so -called fiscal
monopoly over spirits. These departments levy instead a charge or "pa rticipation" (participación)
connected to the exercise of their fiscal monopoly. Both the tax and the charge are levied per
degree of alcohol. The amounts of the tax and of the charge increase for spirits containing more
than 35% ABV (alcohol by volume). I n addition, it appears that in certain departments

1 The European Union's complaint addresses each of those measures in its own right. A complaint is
brought individually for each measure, including when the measure at issue forms part of one "set".

domestically produced spirits destined for promotional use are exempt from the payment of the
charge or participation, whilst no such exemption is available for imported spirits.
1.2 Identification of the specific measures at issue
The first set of measures at issue, related to the discriminatory taxation of imported spirits in the
Colombian market, consists of two specific measures at issue. The documents that together
constitute or evidence the existence and content of those two measures at issue are listed in the
annex to this request for the establishment of a panel.
(1) The first measure at issue
The first measure at issue is the application by Colombia, including by the authorities of the
departments, of a set of facially origin -neutral taxes or charges, imposing higher rates on spirits
with an ABV of more than 35%, and lower rates on spirits with an ABV equal to or less than 35%.
The products that are taxed or charged at the higher rates are spirits, in cluding whiskey, gin,
vodka, aniseed vodka, liqueur and rum, whether imported or domestic, with an ABV of more than
35%. The products that are taxed or charged at the lower rates are spirits, including aguardientes
and rum, whether imported or domestic, with an ABV equal to or less than 35%.
All or most of the spirits that the European Union imports or aims to import into Colombia are
subject to the higher rate of the tax or charge, whilst all or most of the spirits that are produced
and sold in Colombia are subject to the lower rate.
All imported and domestic spirits at issue are either like (for instance, in the case of rum; or in the
case of aniseed vodka liqueur and aguardiente) or directly competitive or substitutable products in
the Colombian market. T hus, this fiscal regime results in the unjustified imposition of a higher
fiscal burden on like or directly competitive and substitutable imported spirits than the one applied
on domestically produced spirits, mostly rums and aguardientes.
(2) The second measure at issue
The second measure at issue is the exemption enacted by certain departments, in particular the
Department of Quindío, from the payment of the local charge or participation for spirits produced
by the local or official distillery that are de stined for promotional use. No such exemption is
available for imported spirits introduced in the same department, thereby placing imports at a
competitive disadvantage relative to domestic products, in particular those that are produced in
the department.
1.3 Summary of the legal basis of the complaint and reasons for this panel request
With respect to the first set of measures at issue, the European Union refers to paragraphs 1 and 2
of Article III, including the three related Notes and Supplementary Provis ions, as well as to
paragraph 12 of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994.
(1) The first measure at issue
The first measure at issue is inconsistent with Colombia's obligations under the second sentence of
Article III:2 of the GATT 1994, because Colombia applies d issimilar internal taxes or charges on
imported spirits and on directly competitive or substitutable domestic spirits, so as to afford
protection to the domestic production of spirits.
Colombia applies de facto higher internal taxes or charges on imported spirits than those applied
to domestically produced spirits in a manner so as to afford protection to domestic production,
contrary to the principles set forth in Article III:1 of the GATT 1994.
In the Colombian market, spirits, including whiskey, gin, vodka, aniseed vodka, liqueur and rum,
whether imported or domestic and irrespective of their degree of alcohol, are directly competitive
or substitutable products within the meaning of Article III:2, second sentence, of the GATT 1994.
However, all or most o f the spirits that the European Union imports or aims to import into

Colombia are taxed or charged at the higher rate, whilst all or most of the spirits that are
produced and sold in Colombia are taxed or charged at the lower rate. This is the case whether or
not the comparison is made with respect to all of the spirits at issue, or with respect to each spirit
considered individually. This dissimilar taxation has a detrimental impact on the competitive
conditions or opportunities for imported spirits in the Colombian market. The national consumption
tax and departmental participation charges do not apply in an even -handed manner, but rather
apply so as to afford protection to the domestic production of spirits in Colombia.
Furthermore, the first measure at i ssue did not exist on the date of the entry into force of the
GATT 1994 for Colombia, and in any event is both technically inconsis tent with the letter of
Article III and in fact inconsistent with its spirit. Thus, Colombia is obliged to take such reasonab le
measures, as are available to it to ensure observance of the provisions of the GATT 1994 by the
departments, including the repeal of existing legislation authorizing the departments to levy
internal charges in contravention of Article III of the GATT 19 94, as required by Article XXIV:12 of
the GATT 1994. In this respect, bringing the measure into conformity with Colombia's WTO
obligations (notably by removing the discrimination) would not result in a serious financial
hardship for the local governments o r authorities concerned or create serious administrative and
financial difficulties. In any event, Colombia has already had ample opportunity to eliminate the
inconsistent taxation gradually over a transitional period. This is all the more apparent since
Colombia had committed to remove the inconsistency of its regime on spirits with the national
treatment provisions of the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States,
of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, wh ich inco rporate Colombia's
GATT national treatment obligations, within a transitional period of two years from the date of
application of the Agreement, which ended on 1 August 2015.
In addition, the first measure at issue is inconsistent with Colombia's obligatio ns under the first
sentence of Article III:2 of the GATT 1994 because Colombia applies taxes or charges to imported
spirits that are in excess of those applied, directly or indirectly, to like domestic spirits within the
meaning of that provision. This is particularly the case with respect to rum; and with respect to
aniseed vodka liqueur and aguardiente.
(2) The second measure at issue
The second measure at issue is inconsistent with the first senten ce of Article III:2 of the
GATT 1994 because Colombia exe mpts from the departmental participation charge spirits
produced by the local or official distillery of the Department of Quindío, while imported like spirits
are not exempted from the participation charge. Hence, imported like spirits are subject, directl y
or indirectly, to internal charges that are in excess of those applied, directly or indirectly, to like
domestic spirits in contravention of Article III: 2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994. With respect to
the second measure at issue, Colombia has also failed to take such reasonable measures as may
be available to it to ensure observance of the provisions of the GATT 1994 by the regional and
local governments and authorities within its territories, as required by Article XXIV:12 of the
GATT 1994.
2 OTHER WTO INCONSISTENT MEASURES APPLIED TO IMPORTED SPIRITS
2.1 Introduction
Other WTO inconsistent measures applied to imported spirits constitute the second set of
measures at issue.
In addition to fiscal measures, Colombia subjects imported spirits to a number of unjustified
marketing restrictions connected to the administration and implementation of the so -called fiscal
monopolies over the introduction and sale of spirits ("the fiscal monopoly") in Colombian
departments. It is the European Union's understanding t hat, as of the date of this request for the
establishment of a panel, 30 out of the 32 Colombian departments (the two exceptions being the
departments of Casanere y San Andrés and Providencia) have decided, through a local "ordinance"
or similar legal instrument, to exercise the fiscal monopoly.
Colombian departments are empowered by the Political Constitution of Colombia of 1991 to
establish fiscal monopolies over the production, introduction and commercialization of spirits in the

territory of their juri sdiction. Departments exercising the fiscal monopoly hold exclusive control
over the supply and/or trade in spirits in their jurisdiction, and can regulate the introduction,
distribution and production of spirits. The European Union understands that, osten sibly, one of the
purposes of the monopoly is fiscal, i.e. to secure departmental income.
Each department exercising the fiscal monopoly decides which spirits may be produced in its
territory and who may produce them. In some cases, the department owns a l ocal or official
distillery that produces spirits. In other cases, the department authorizes third parties to produce
spirits within the department through a concession contract with the producer in question.
Departments exercising the fiscal monopoly can also conclude exchange contracts (" convenios de
intercambio") with other departments for the production of spirits that will be introduced and sold
in its territory.
Once a department establishes the fiscal monopoly over the introduction or sales of spirit s in the
territory of its jurisdiction, the introduction or marketing of any imported spirits in that department
is made subject to an authorization or license ("authorization"). Without an authorization, traders
cannot introduce imported spirits into the territory of the department. Authorizations are granted
through a multiplicity of legal instruments (contracts of introduction, permits, etc.). In the majority
of cases, the authorization to introduce spirits is subject to the conclusion of a contract of
introduction (convenio de introducción) with the department. Introduction contracts are concluded
with the departments for a period of several months to a number of years. These contracts are
concluded in accordance with the conditions and requirements stip ulated in departmental
ordinances, tax codes, resolutions, circulars or other instruments. In concluding those contracts,
however, the departments enjoy significant discretion, including as regards the clauses the
contract contains. In addition, prior to g ranting an authorization or concluding an introduction
contract, the departments carry out a study or analysis of the economic and/or fiscal suitability
("conveniencia económica y rentística") of granting the authorization or concluding the contract.
While the content of introduction contracts appears to differ per department in some respects,
they contain certain typical clauses, such as the authorization to introduce spirits in the
department, lists of products, minimum introduction quota s (the obligatio n to sell a
pre-established volume or value of imported spirits), minimum prices at which imported spirits can
be sold, the amount of the participation charge that is owed, additional charges, the obligation to
contract an insurance policy to guarantee inter alia the payment of the charges (or value of the
contract) for the duration of the contract, and stipulate sanctions and/or fines for lack of
compliance with the terms and conditions of the contracts. Traders are bound to accept such
clauses and stipulations before spirits can be introduced and commercialized.
Furthermore, before imported spirits can be marketed in the department, importers must pay the
consumption tax, at importation, to the Fondo-Cuenta, and later declare and pay the participation
charge to the department where they are introduced, in an amount equivalent to the difference
between the consumption tax already paid and the amount of the participation charge that is due,
if this is higher than the consumption tax. In this way, the consump tion tax paid on importation
constitutes an advance payment of the participation charge. In addition, a strip stamp must be
affixed to imported spirits. These requirements do not apply to spirits produced in the department
in question.
Once introduced int o a department, imported spirits cannot circulate freely between the
departments.
The requirement to obtain authorization to introduce imported spirits in the departments, as well
as the operation and application of introduction contracts and the requirem ents to pay the
participation charge in advance and affix strip stamps, place imported spirits at a competitive
disadvantage in the Colombian market in comparison with domestically produced spirits, in
contravention of Colombia's obligations under the GATT 1994, as detailed below.
2.2 Identification of the specific measures at issue
The second set of measures at issue relates to the introduction of spirits in the departments
exercising the fiscal monopoly, and consists of the following seven additional measures at issue.

The documents that together constitute or evidence the existence and content of the second set of
measures at issue are listed in the annex to this request for the establishment of a panel.
(1) The third measure at issue
The third measure at iss ue consists of the existence and administration of the requirement to
obtain an authorization to introduce spirits into the territory of the department. This authorization
takes the form of, inter alia, a permit or a contract of introduction to be conclude d by the importer
with the relevant department. The authorization is generally made subject to the prior conclusion
of a study of economic or fiscal suitability by the department.
The authorization is granted only if the criteria of economic and fiscal sui tability are satisfied, as
decided on a discretionary basis by each department. As a result, the granting of the
authorization, or the conclusion of the contract, is not based on the fulfilment of any clear
predefined criteria, but left to the discretion o f departmental authorities. In fact, no criteria for the
authorization, or for economic and fiscal suitability, are specified in the legislation of Colombia, in
the local ordinances of the departments, or in any relevant legal instruments. Departmental
authorities have availed themselves of this discretion to refuse entry of certain imported spirits on
arbitrary grounds incompatible with the GATT 1994, such as the need to protect local producers
from competition, or to unreasonably delay or decline the exte nsion of introduction contracts, so
as to afford protection to domestic production in Colombia. The European Union seeks review of
this measure "as such", and additionally seeks review of the application of the third measure in
individual cases (that is, "as applied"), as distinct measures.
(2) Fourth to seventh measures at issue
The following terms and conditions, as stipulated in departmental ordinances, tax codes,
resolutions, circulars or other instruments, or implemented by the departments through con tracts
of introduction, constitute additional four measures at issue in this dispute:
a. the requirement to contract an insurance policy (póliza de seguro) to guarantee, inter alia, the
payment of the departmental charges for the duration of the contract (or value of the
contract), regardless of whether the spirits in question will actually be introduced in the
department;
b. the possibility for departments to impose sanctions and fines, or to revoke the contract of
introduction, because of an alleged lack of com pliance with contractual obligations such as
minimum introduction quotas, minimum prices, or the payment of the departmental charges
regardless of whether the spirits are actually introduced in the department;
c. minimum introduction quotas, i.e. the obligat ion to sell a pre -established volume or value of
imported spirits in the territory of the department; and
d. minimum prices, i.e. the obligation to sell imported spirits at prices no lower than the
minimum sale prices fixed by the Colombian or departmental au thorities and which would, in
some or most cases, be benchmarked on the prices of the competing local or official distillery
owned by the department.2

The European Union seeks review of the fourth to seventh measures "as such", and additionally
seeks review of their application in individual cases (that is, "as applied"), as distinct measures.
(3) Eighth measure at issue
The eighth measure at issue consists of the requirement to advance the payment of the
departmental charge or participation at the moment of importation of spirits, in the amount
corresponding to the national consumption tax. The payment corresponding to the national tax
must be done to the Fund -Account for Taxes on Consumption of Foreign Products ( Fondo-Cuenta
de Impuestos al Consumo de Pr oductos Extranjeros; " Fondo -Cuenta"). The Fondo-Cuenta is a
fund overseen by the National Federation of Departments which collects the payments of the
consumption tax and transfers the collected revenue to the respective department and Bogotá DC

2 Minimum prices may be statutorily imposed, ex. Ordinance 674 if 2011 of the Department of Caldas,
or Ordinance 216 of 2014 of the Department of Cundinamarca, or based upon a discretionary decision of the
department as, for example, in the case of some contracts of introduction between distributors and the
Departments of Antioquia, Santander or Valle del Cauca.

in propor tion to the consumption of spirits in each department and Bogotá DC. The advance
payment to the Fondo-Cuenta is required even if imported spirits are destined for consumption in a
department exercising the fiscal monopoly over spirits and will need to be d eclared again in the
department of destination, where the difference between the national consumption tax and the
amount of the participation must be declared and levied before the product can enter the market
in that department. By contrast, the departmen tal charge is levied on spirits produced in the
relevant department only at the time of exiting the facility, and no advance payment is required.
Through the payment of the consumption tax to the Fondo-Cuenta, importers are required to
advance the payment of the departmental charge for a considerable time interval before the
participation charge is actually triggered by the declaration for entry of the imported spirits into
the department in question ("departmentalización").
(4) Ninth measure at issue
Finally, the ninth measure at issue in this dispute consists of the requirement imposed by the
departments that importers, or producers and distributors introducing imported spirits from other
departments, affix the departmental strip stamps to imported spirits . The strip stamps are
distributed, and the affixing authorized, by the Fiscal Secretary in the department. The strip
stamps attest that the local charge or participation has been paid and is a pre -requisite for the
spirits in question to be marketed in th e territory of the department. Such a requirement is not
imposed on like spirits produced in that department.
2.3 Summary of the legal basis of the complaint and reasons for this panel request
For the second set of measures, the European Union refers to the t ext of paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of
Article III and the three related Notes and Supplementary Provisions , as well as to paragraphs
1 and 3 of Article X and paragraph 12 of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994.
Each of the measures at issue in the second set, as embo died and developed in the instruments
listed in the annex to this request and as applied by the Colombian or departmental authorities, is
inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. With respect to each of those measures, Colombia
has also failed to take such reasonable measures as may be available to it to ensure observance of
the provisions of the GATT 1994 by the regional and local governments and authorities within its
territories, as required by Article XXIV:12 of the GATT 1994.
Spirits, includin g whiskey, gin, vodka, aniseed vodka, liqueur and rum, whether imported or
domestic, and irrespective of their alcohol content, are like product s within the meaning of
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. Each of the measures at issue included in the second set takes the
form of laws, regulations or requirements that affect the sale and distribution of spirits in the
Colombian departments, modifying the conditions of competition in the Colombian market to the
detriment of imported products. Each of those measure s contravenes Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994 because they provide less favourable treatment for imported spirits than for like
domestic spirits. Each of them is also applied to imported or to domestic products so as to afford
protection to domestic product ion in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles set for th in
Article III:1 of the GATT 1944.
To further clarify, the third measure at issue treats imported spirits less favourably than like
domestic spirits because it conditions their sale and di stribution on the departmental market on
the grant of an authorization (that may take the form of an introduction contract), preceded by a
prior study of economic and fiscal feasibility. These requirements are not imposed on the sale and
distribution of li ke domestic spirits, in particular those produced in the relevant department. The
third measure at issue further accords less favourable treatment to like imported spirits because of
the discretionary use of the authority to grant, conclude or extend autho rizations or introduction
contracts, the absence of clear predefined criteria for doing so, and repeated instances of
unreasonable and arbitrary refusals to do so, at times even expressly justified by the need to
protect domestic producers from competition. The fourth to ninth measures at issue treat imported
spirits less favourably than like domestic spirits because they consist in the imposition of terms,
conditions and requirements on the sale and distribution of imported spirits on the departmental
market which are not imposed on like domestic spirits, in particular on those produced in the
relevant department.

Additionally, the authorization requirement (the third measure at issue) also contravenes
Article X:3 (a) of the GATT 1994. The requirement to ob tain an authorization for imported spirits
to enter the territory of a department exercising the fiscal monopoly over spirits, as embodied and
developed in the instruments listed in the annex to this request and as applied by the Colombian
or departmental authorities, falls within the scope of "laws, regulations and administrative rulings
of general application" made effective by Colombia, pertaining to taxes or other charges, or to
requirements, restrictions or prohibitions on imports, or affecting the sal e and distribution of
imports, within the meaning of Article X:1 of the GATT 1994. This requirement is administered in
an opaque manner that lacks uniformity, impartiality and reasonableness, as evidenced by the
level of discretion the authorities have in order to grant or refuse the authorization, and by various
communications or official letters addressed to operators that justify the refusal to grant or extend
the authorization on arbitrary or unjustified grounds, such as the need to protect local produc tion
from competition. Each such refusal individually, as well the overall administration of the
authorization requirement (including through the contracts of introduction), amounts to partial and
unreasonable administration contrary to Colombia's obligati ons u nder Article X:3(a) of the
GATT 1994.
The eighth measure at issue, which does not equally apply to domestic spirits, imposes a higher
tax burden on imported spirits than the one borne by domestic spirits, because of the considerable
time interval betw een the advance payment to the Fondo-Cuenta and the moment in which
payment of the departmental charge would be due if imported spirits were treated equally to
spirits produced in the relevant department. This contravenes Colombia's obligations under
Article III:2, first and second sentences, of the GATT 1994, including the related Notes and
Supplementary Provisions. In this respect, as already explained above, in the Colombian market,
spirits, including whiskey, gin, vodka , aniseed vodka, liqueur and rum, whether imported or
domestic and irrespective of their degree of alcohol, are directly competitive or substitutable
products within the meaning of Article III:2, second sentence, of the GATT 1994. Moreover, certain
domestic or imported spirits are like pro ducts within the meaning of Article III:2, first sentence, of
the GATT 1994. This is particularly the case with respect to rum; and with respect to aniseed
vodka liqueur and aguardiente.

The measures at issue described above nullify or impair the be nefits accruing to the
European Union directly or indirectly under the covered agreements3.
The EU asks that this request be placed on the agenda for the meeting of the Dispute Settlement
Body scheduled for 2 September 2016.

3 In addition, the European Union especially refers the Panel to the fact that, under the Trade
Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the
other part ("Trade Agreement"), Colombia committed to remove the inconsistency of its regime on spirits with
the national treatment provisions under the Trade Agreement, which incorporate Colombia's GATT obligations,
by 1 August 2015. Colombia has not fulfilled that obligation (Trade Agreement, Joint Declaration of the Parties
concerning certain measures covered under Title III (Trade in Goods), paragraph (b), and Article 21,
paragraph 1).

ANNEX
Colombia's legal regime on spirits is regulated through, inter alia, the following instruments:
 Colombian Constitution of 4 July 1991;
 Law no 14 of 6 July 1983;
 Law no 223 of 20 December 1995, as amended by Law no 788 of 27 December 2002 and
Law no 1393 of 12 July 2010.
 Implementing Decrees, inter alia:
- Decree no 1640 of 10 September 1996;
- Decree no 2141 of 25 November 1996;
- Decree no 3071 of 23 December 1997;
- Decree no 1150 of 8 May 2003;
- Decree no 1222 of 18 April 1986;
- Decree no 4692 of 21 December 2005; etc.
 Local Ordinan ces, including the Departmental Tax Codes (" Estatutos de Rentas ") and
Resolutions ("Resoluciones") or Circulars, inter alia:
- Ordenanza no 22 of 16 December 2012 (Amazonas);
- Ordenanza no 62 of 19 December 2014 and Decision of 31 December 2014
(Antioquia);
- Ordenanza no 5E of 8 May 2011 (Arauca);
- Ordenanza no 253 of 23 January 2015 and Circular no 0019 of 29 December 2014
(Atlántico);
- Ordenanza no 11 of 19 August 2006, Ordenanza no 17 of 10 August 2011 and
Resolución 1641 of 2014 (Bolívar);
- Ordenanza no 54 o f 8 November 2004 , Ordenanza no 22 of 28 December 2012,
Ordenanza no 57 of 8 February 2013, Ordenanza 2 of 8 May 2013 and Resolución
no 989 of 22 December of 2014 (Boyacá);
- Ordenanza no 77 of 29 December 2009, Ordenanza no 12 of 27 January 2010 and
Resolución no 9797 of 24 December 2014 (Cauca);
- Ordenanza no 674 of July 2011, Ordenanza no 710 de of May 2013 and Circular no
19 of 22 December 2014 (Caldas);
- Compiled departmental tax code of 6 May 2015 compiling all amendments to the
basic Ordenanza no 35 of 25 November 2004 and Decree no 1103 of 29 December
2014 (Caquetá);
- Ordenanza no 66 of 28 December 2012 and Resolución 005098 of 24 December
2014 (Cesar);
- Ordenanza no 21 of 24 December 2004, Ordenanza no 7 of 31 December 2012 and
Resolución 248 of 29 December 2014 (Córdoba);
- Ordenanza no 216 of 3 June 2014 and Resolución no 4975 of 29 December 2014
(Cundinamarca);

- Ordenanza no 37 of 2009 (Chocó);
- Ordenanza no 55 of 25 November 2009 (Guainía);
- Ordenanza no 14 of 3 March 1997, Ordenanza no 14 of 2003, Ordenanza no 31 of
31 July 2006 and Resolución no 791 of 30 December 2014 (Huila);
- Ordenanza no 466 of 31 July 2001 and Ordenanza no 508 of 8 May 2003 (Meta);
- Ordenanza no 28 of 21 December 2010 and Resolución no 1093 of 22 December
2014 (Nariño);
- Ordenanza no 14 of 19 December 2008 (Norte de Santander);
- Ordenanza no 195 of 26 June 1997, Ordenanza no 469 of 29 January 2006 and
Ordenanza no 498 of 27 May 2007 and Resolución no 1419 of 22 December 2014
(Putumayo);
- Ordenanza no 24 of 23 August 2005 and Ordenanza no 43 of 26 November 2008
and Resolución no 11656 of 22 December 2014 (Quindío);
- Ordenanza no 11 of 12 August 1983, Ordenanza no 23 of 20 October 2005,
Ordenanza no 9 of 18 July 2006 and Ordenanza no 8 of 17 July 2008, and Circular
no 4 of 22 December 2014 (Risaralda);
- Ordenanza no 1 of 22 April 2010, Ordenanza no 77 of 23 December 2014 and
Circular no 2 of 5 January 2015 (Santander);
- Ordenanza no 130 of 2 December 2014 (Sucre);
- Ordenanza no 26 of 30 December 2009 (Tolima);
- Ordenanza 397 of 18 December 2014 and Certificación no 162898 of 5 January
2015 (Valle del Cauca);
- Ordenanza no 08 of 1996 (Vaupés);

 Certificaciones of the Fiscal Support Directorate of the Ministry of Finance ( Dirección de
Apoyo Fiscal del Ministerio de Hacienda ) indexing the annual rates of the participación for
inflation, inter alia, Certificación no 5 of 17 December 2014 and Certificación no 3 of
21 December 2015.

 Contracts of introduction ("convenios de introducción").
 Letters to ope rators issued by departmental authorities in relation to the introduction or
commercialization of spirits.
 Any additional measures that prolong, replace, amend, implement, extend or apply the
measures at issue, as well as other related measures adopted by Colombia at national,
regional, local or departmental level.