Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products (WT/DS207): Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU

Summary

INTRODUCTION

On 23 October 2002, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report, in Chile –Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products (“Chile – Price Band System”). At the DSB meeting of 11 November 2002, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Chile informed the DSB of its ongoing consultations with Argentina to find a mutually agreeable solution and that it would require a “reasonable period of time”, pursuant to the terms of Article 21.3, to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute.

On 6 December 2002, Chile notified the DSB that consultations with Argentina had not resulted in agreement on the reasonable period of time for implementation, and therefore, Chile requested that such period be determined by binding arbitration, in accordance with Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. By joint letter dated 16 December 2002, Chile and Argentina requested that I serve as arbitrator. They also indicated in that letter that they had agreed to extend the deadline for the completion of the arbitration until 90 days after the date of appointment of the Arbitrator. They agreed further that, notwithstanding this extension of the 90-day period of time stipulated in Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, the arbitration award would be deemed to be an award under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. My acceptance of the designation as Arbitrator was conveyed to the parties by letter dated 17 December 2002.

Written submissions were received from Chile and Argentina on 27 January 2003, and an oral hearing was held on 17 February 2003. Chile and Argentina each submitted additional documentation during the oral hearing. Neither raised any objection to the submission of such documentation by the other party. The parties were permitted to file written comments on each other's submissions by Thursday, 20 February. Both parties submitted comments, but raised no objection to my consideration of the new documentation. That documentation has accordingly been included in the record of this arbitration.