INTRODUCTION

Peru appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, Peru – Additional Duty on Imports of Certain Agricultural Products (Panel Report). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Guatemala with respect to a measure taken by Peru affecting imports of certain agricultural products.

In its request for the establishment of a panel, Guatemala identified the measure at issue in this dispute as the additional duties imposed by Peru on imports of a number of agricultural products (certain types of milk, maize, rice, and sugar). As described by Guatemala, these duties are determined using a mechanism known as the “Price Range System” (PRS) (Sistema de Franja de Precios), which operates on the basis of: (i) a floor price and a ceiling price, respectively reflecting averages of international prices over a recent past period of 60 months for each of the specified products; and (ii) a cost, insurance, and freight (c.i.f.) reference price, reflecting the average international price over a recent past period of two weeks for each of the specified products. An additional duty is applied if the reference price of the specified product is lower than the floor price. If the reference price is above the floor price but below the ceiling price, no additional duty is applied. If the reference price exceeds the ceiling price, the applicable tariff is reduced.

The factual aspects of this dispute are set forth in greater detail in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3, 7.30 to 7.42, and 7.97 to 7.167 of the Panel Report.

Guatemala claimed before the Panel that the additional duties imposed as a result of Peru's PRS are inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture because they constitute variable import levies and minimum import prices, or similar border measures. Moreover, Guatemala claimed that the duties at issue are duties or charges inconsistent with the second sentence of Article II:1(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994). Guatemala also claimed that Peru had acted inconsistently with Articles X:1 and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 respectively by: (i) failing to publish certain essential elements of the measure at issue; and (ii) administering the PRS in a manner that is not reasonable.