PERU - ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON BIODIESEL FROM ARGENTINA REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY ARGENTINA
Document: REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY
Date: 5 December 2018
Document codes: WT/DS572/1; G/L/1285; G/SCM/D122/1; G/ADP/D129/1
Complainant: Argentina
Respondent: Peru
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2(iii), 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 6.5, 9.3, 18.1, 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. 1.1(a), 1.1(a)(1)(iii), 1.1(b), 10, 12.4, 14(d), 15.1, 15.4, 15.5, 19.1, 19.4, 32.1, 32.5  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. VI:1, VI:2, VI:3, VI:5(a)  GATT 1994Art. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

PERU - ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
ON BIODIESEL FROM ARGENTINA
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY ARGENTINA
The following communication , dated 29 November 2018, from the delegation of Argentina to the
delegation of Peru, is circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body in accordance with Article 4.4 of the
DSU.

My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Republic of Peru , pursuant to
Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
("DSU"), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Tr ade 1994 ("GATT 1994"),
Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("SCM Agreement") and
Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade 1994 ("Anti -Dumping Agreement") , with respect to Peru's measures imposing
anti-dumping duties and countervailing duti es on imports of biodiesel (B100) originating in
Argentina, as established in Resolution No. 189-2016/CDB-INDECOPI of 19 October 20161 and
Resolution No. 011-2016/CDB-INDECOPI of 25 January 20162, and the underlying investigations
and their respective init iation notices .3 Peru's measures appear to be inconsistent with Peru's
obligations under the following provisions of the GATT 1994, the Anti -Dumping Agreement and the
SCM Agreement:
1. Article 5.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because Peru initiated the anti-dumping investigation
without there being evidence of dumping in the application filed by the domestic industry;
2. Article 5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because Peru does not appear to have examined the
accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the appli cation to determine whether it was
sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation;
3. Article 5.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because Peru did not reject the application under
paragraph 1, did not terminate the investigation promptly, and did not satisfy itself that there was
sufficient evidence of dumping to justify proceeding with the investigation;
4. Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article 12.4 of the SCM Agreement, because
information which was by nature confidential and/or which was provided on a confidential basis by

1 Resolution No. 189-2016/CDB-INDECOPI, published in the Official Journal El Peruano of
25 October 2016, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of biodiesel (B100) originating in the
Argentine Republic, as confirmed by Resolution No. 0145-2018/SDC-INDECOPI, published in the Official
2 Resolution No. 011-2016/CDB-INDECOPI, published in the Official Journal of 28 January 2016,
providing for the application of definitive countervailing duties on imports of biodiesel (B100) originating in the
Argentine Republic, as confirmed by Resolution No. 0144-2018/SDC-INDECOPI, published in the Official
3 The anti-dumping investigation was initiated by Resolution No. 50-2014/CFD-INDECOPI of
20 April 2015, published in the Official Journal El Peruano of 26 April 2015. The anti-subsidy investigation was
initiated by Resolution No. 081-2014/CFD-INDECOPI of 21 July 2014, published in the Official Journal
El Peruano of 28 July 2014.
WT/DS572/1 • G/L/1285 • G/SCM/D122/1 • G/ADP/D129/1

the parties was not treated as such by Peru, and was disclosed without specific permission of those
parties;
5. Article 2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because Peru failed to determine the margin of
dumping by comparison with the cost of production in the country of origin plus a reasonable amount
for administrative, selling and general costs and for profits;
6. The first sentence of Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because, when constructing
the cost of production in the country of origin, Peru included costs not associated with the production
and sale of the product under consideration . Furthermore, with regard to the second sentence of
Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Peru failed to consider all available evidence on the
proper allocation of costs when calculating an amount for administrative, selling and general costs;
7. Article 2.2.2(iii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:1(b)(ii) of the GATT 1994, because
Peru failed to use a reasonable method to calculate the amount for profit;
8. Article 2.2 and Article 2.2.2(iii) of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, inte rpreted in the light of
Article VI:1(b)(ii) of the GATT 1994, because Peru failed to ensure that the margin determined for
profit did not exceed the profit normally realized by other exporters or producers on sales of products
of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin;
9. Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 9.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because Peru
imposed anti-dumping duties in excess of the margin of dumping that it should have established
under Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
10. Article 18.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because Peru took definitive action against the
alleged dumping practice in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the GATT 1994, as
interpreted by the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
11. Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement, interpreted in the light of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iii) and (iv) and
Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement, by considering that the Government of the Argentine Republic
entrusts private bodies to make a purchase for more than adequate remuneration , and,
consequently, Article 19.4 of the SCM Agreement and Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 , by levying a
countervailing duty in excess of the alleged subsidy granted;
12. Article 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article 15.1 and 15.4 of the
SCM Agreement, because Peru failed to make a determination of injury based on positive evidence
and involving an objective examination;
13. Article 15.1 and 15.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement, because Peru failed to conduct an objective examinatio n, based on positive evidence,
of other factors that may have caused injury to the domestic industry and, consequently, attributed
the injury caused by other factors to the allegedly subsidized and dumped imports;
14. Articles 10, 19.1 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement, because Peru imposed a countervailing duty
not in accordance with the provisions of that Agreement;
15. Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization ,
Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article 18.4 of t he Anti-Dumping Agreement, because Peru
failed to take all necessary steps to ensure that the imposition of the countervailing duties and
anti-dumping duties on biodiesel (B100) originating in Argentina was in accordance with the
provisions of those Agreements;
16. Article VI:5 of the GATT 1994, because Peru imposed both anti-dumping and countervailing
duties on the same product to compensate for the same situation of alleged dumping and
subsidization.
Peru's measures appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Argentina, directly or indirectly,
under the cited Agreements.
WT/DS572/1 • G/L/1285 • G/SCM/D122/1 • G/ADP/D129/1

Argentina reserves the right to address, during the course of the consultations, further factual claims
and legal issues und er other provisions of the WTO Agreement regarding the above matters ,
including any amendment, replacement, extension, implementation measures or other related
measures.
Argentina looks forward to Peru's response to this request with a view to arranging a mutually
convenient date and place for the consultations.