Monitoring the cases raised at the WTO Dispute Settlement Body can significantly help acceding countries to reduce the negative implications and increase the benefits of joining the organization. This report reviewed one of the most recent decisions made by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body which can be of great significance to our country.

The case concerns complaints made by the European Union, Japan and the United States in 2012 against a number of measures affecting the importation of goods from these countries by Argentina. The restrictive measures facing importers in Argentina included import licensing procedures. The Argentine Government, on the one hand, required the importers of most goods to register a so called “Advance Sworn Import Declaration” prior to the actual importation of the goods concerned; and on the other, made the approval of imports or accruing of certain benefits, subject to the fulfillment of a number of trade-related requirements (TRRs), which included offsetting the value of imports with, at least, an equivalent value of exports; limiting imports in terms of value or volume; increasing local content in domestic production; investing in Argentina; and refraining from repatriating profits (in the case of foreign investors). The claimants maintained that the so called “Advance Sworn Import Declaration” procedure systematically and based on non-transparent reasons delayed or even prevented the importation of goods; and that compliance with the above mentioned TRRs definitely delayed or impeded the passage of goods through the border, therefore harming their enterprises.

The case is relevant for Iran as a WTO acceding country, in that due to the instability of trade policies and the frequent manipulation of regulations governing imports, the adoption of trade restrictive measures is not uncommon in most acceding countries, and once joined to the World Trade Organization, they must expect such complaints be raised against them in the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, if this routine is not changed. One other important lesson in this case is that in determining the restrictive nature or outcome of trade measures, the WTO does not necessarily concentrate on detailed import and export statistics and data. Indeed, the WTO Panels and the Appellate Body have both repeatedly emphasized that in holding any given measure as unlawful, they do not necessarily rely on quantitative criteria; and where the available quantitative data does not confirm that trade is restricted, they rather focus on qualitative criteria such as changes in market conditions and expectations of enterprises.