COLOMBIA – ANTI‑DUMPING DUTIES
ON FROZEN FRIES FROM
BELGIUM, GERMANY AND THE NETHERLANDS
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY THE
EUROPEAN UNION
REPORT OF THE PANEL
BCI deleted, as indicated [[***]]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION.. 8
1.1 Complaint by the European Union. 8
1.2 Panel establishment and composition. 8
1.3 Panel proceedings. 9
2 FACTUAL ASPECTS. 10
3 PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS. 10
4 ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES. 11
5 ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES. 11
6 INTERIM REVIEW.. 11
7 FINDINGS. 11
7.1 Order of the Panel's analysis. 11
7.2 General principles regarding treaty
interpretation, the applicable standard of review, and burden of proof 12
7.2.1 Treaty interpretation. 12
7.2.2 Standard of review. 12
7.2.3 Burden of proof 12
7.3 Procedural background and overview of
the European Union's claims. 13
7.4 Claim under Article 2.4.2 of the
Anti‑Dumping Agreement: the use of simple averaging to determine
normal value and establish the existence of margins of dumping. 13
7.4.1 Introduction. 13
7.4.2 Overview of the methodology MINCIT
applied to determine the existence of margins of dumping. 14
7.4.3 Applicable requirements of
Article 2.4 and Article 2.4.2. 16
7.4.4 Evaluation. 18
7.4.4.1 Whether the
European Union's claim under Article 2.4.2 should be dismissed
on jurisdictional grounds. 18
7.4.4.2 Whether the normal values MINCIT
used for the challenged comparisons comply with Article 2.4.2. 21
7.4.5 Conclusion. 24
7.5 Claims under Articles 2.1 and 2.4
of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement: the "fair comparison"
requirement and the "article‑to‑article" comparison methodology. 24
7.5.1 Introduction. 24
7.5.2 Applicable requirements of
Article 2.1 and Article 2.4. 24
7.5.3 Scope of the European Union's
Article 2.4/2.1 claims. 25
7.5.4 Whether MINCIT's comparisons in
respect of three article‑pairs resulted in an unfair comparison between the
export price and normal value. 26
7.5.4.1 Main arguments of the parties. 26
7.5.4.1.1 The European Union. 26
7.5.4.1.2 Colombia. 27
7.5.4.2 Evaluation. 28
7.5.4.2.1 Relevance of article numbers for
the purpose of making a fair comparison. 28
7.5.4.2.2 Relevance of similarities
between three‑ and five‑digit numbers for the purpose of making a fair
comparison. 31
7.5.4.2.3 Interaction between MINCIT and
Agrarfrost 37
7.5.4.2.4 Issues concerning the weighted
average prices and quantity of the selected articles. 38
7.5.5 Conclusion. 38
7.6 Claims under Articles 1 and 9.3
of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the
GATT 1994. 38
7.6.1 Introduction. 38
7.6.2 Main arguments of the parties. 38
7.6.3 Evaluation. 39
8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION.. 40