CHILE – PROVISIONAL SAFEGUARD MEASURE ON MIXTURES OF EDIBLE OILS
Document: Request for Consultations by Argentina
Date: 22 February 2001
Document codes: WT/DS226/1; G/L/439; G/SG/D15/1
Complainant: Argentina
Respondent: Chile
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. XIX  GATT 1994Art. 2, 4, 6, 12  Safeguards

CHILE – PROVISIONAL SAFEGUARD MEASURE
ON MIXTURES OF EDIBLE OILS
Request for Consultations by Argentina
The following communication, dated 19 February 2001, from the Permanent Mission of
Argentina to the Permanent Mission of Chile and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is
circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
I have been instructed by my Government to contact you in order to request consultations
with Chile pursuant to Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
(GATT 1994), Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes (DSU) and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards (AS) in connection with the
imposition by the Chilean authorities of a provisional safeguard measure on imports of mixtures of
edible oils.
On 11 January 2001, by Decree No. 3 of the Ministry of Finance, Chile adopted a provisional
safeguard measure on imports of mixtures of edible oils, consisting of an ad valorem tariff surcharge
of 48 per cent on imports of mixtures of oils classified under tariff heading 1517.9000 of the Chilean
Harmonized Tariff.
Document , containing Chile's not ification of the initiation of the safeguard
investigation, was circulated on 19 January 2001. The notification of the recommendation by the
Chilean investigating authority to apply a provisional safeguard measure was circulated in the WTO
as document , dated 15 January 2001. The notification of the provisional measure
adopted was circulated in the WTO as document on 19 January 2001.
In the first place, Argentina regrets that Chile did not comply with its obligation to hold prior
consultations under AS Article 12, paragraph 4, immediately after the measure was taken.
Secondly, with the scant evidence available, it may be seen that the above-mentioned
notifications do not contain a precise definition either of the like or directly competitive product or of
the criteria used to determine it: reference is on ly made to the product that is the subject of the
measure.
Furthermore, there is no clear definition of the domestic industry affected which produces the
like or directly competitive product that is the subject of the provisional measure. Nor is it clear from
the document which investigating period was used to determine the behaviour of imports in
conditions such as to permit application of a measure in conformity with the AS.

With regard to the factors of injury or threat of injury that have to be analysed in accordance
with the AS, from an initial evaluation it is not poss ible to distinguish which industry is the subject of
this analysis: it appears that in some cases the information does not pertain to the same domestic
industry, which would not be consistent with the provisions of the Agreement concerning the
determination of serious injury or threat of serious injury. Likewise, and without prejudice to this, in
these determinations the implementing authority appear s to have omitted the analysis of some of the
factors mentioned in the AS without providing any reason for so doing.
With reference to the determination of threat of injury, document G/SG/N/7/CHL/5 states
that: "It is estimated that if this situation were to continue, imports of mixtures of oils would bring the
price payable to farmers down to US$154/ton. This scenario would lead to wholesale bankruptcy of
producers of rapeseed and closure of the sole extracting plant currently operating in the country, with
the ensuing disappearance of the crop from Chile. This would result in the following economic injury
for the domestic extracting industry …". This determination of threat of injury is not consistent with
the definition of the domestic industry indicated in the notification of initiation of the investigation
(document G/SG/N/6/CHL/5).
Again, the preliminary determination notified does not reveal the existence of clear evidence
of the causal link between the increased imports and the threat of serious injury to the domestic
industry.
Furthermore, the Chilean investigating authority likewise appears not to have evaluated
"factors other than increased imports [which] are causing injury to the domestic industry at the same
time …" (AS Article 4.2(b)).
Lastly, the notification in question does not specify the reasons why any delay could cause
irreparable damage to the domestic industry such th at "critical circumstances" could be considered to
exist. The notification confines itself to making a cross-reference to threat of injury, a situation
constituting a different determination based on another provision of the AS. Likewise, there is no
analysis of the existence of unforeseen developments (Article XIX of the GATT 1994).
In the light of the above considerations, Argentina considers that the provisional safeguard
measure imposed on imports of mixtures of vegetable oils to be incompatible with Chile's obligations
under Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards, in particular, but not
exclusively, Articles 2, 4, 6 and 12 of that Agreement.
We await your reply to this request and the setting of a mutually convenient date for holding
the consultations.