. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/W/476
15 January 2002
(02-0186)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  Spanish
IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES REFERRED
 TO THE COMMITTEE BY MINISTRIES
Questions Posed by COLOMBIA to BRAZIL1 and INDIA2
COLOMBIA
The following communication, dated 11 January 2002, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Colombia.
_______________
Colombia considers promoting an in-depth discussion on the proposals presented by India and
Brazil with regard to the implementation of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
to be a matter of the utmost importance.
It also feels that the Committee should at this stage analyse the implications of these
proposals and their scope and consequences, without in any way prejudicing the positions which
member countries may take on them in the future.
Questions on the proposals with regard to Article 14
Taking these points into consideration, Colombia submits the following questions on the
proposals with regard to Article 14.
1. We understand that the objective of one of the proposals is to banish all doubts concerning the
explicit requirement to establish a method for calculating the amount of a subsidy.  If this is indeedthe objective, we should like to ask whether it would be pursued by means of an interpretative
decision reiterating the scope of this requirement, as outlined in Article 14, or whether a development
in relation to Article 22, specifically paragraphs four and five, is also envisaged.
2. With regard to the suggestion that a subsidy s hould be calculated exclusively on the basis of
the benefit to the recipient rather than the cost to the government, we have considered the scope of
this provision, particularly in the face of the idea of deducting the expenses incurred in order to obtain
the benefit or of deducting the amount required to offset the export taxes.  Although the definition of a
subsidy in Article 1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures includes a reference
to a "financial contribution by a government", it is  also true that Part V of this Agreement mentions
the issue of the repercussions of subsidised imports on domestic products.
                                                     
1 G/SCM/W/464.
2 G/SCM/W/462.G/SCM/W/476
Page 2
One way to deal with this issue would at first seem to be by way of a clarification in
Article 14 that these concepts should not be used to calculate the amount of a subsidy. Our question is
as follows:  if the objective is to quantify the countervailing duty with greater accuracy and bring it
closer into line with its economic impact on the destination market, would it not be more effective to
amend Article 19.2 to establish a mandatory provision limiting the countervailing duty to the injury?If this is not the case, what then are the reasons for the alternative put forward by the proponents
limiting the countervailing duty to the benefit and not to the amount required to eliminate its impact
on the domestic market?
Comments on the " de minimis " proposal
We do not consider a legal interpretation favouring the imposition of countervailing duties in
the event of a subsidy being " de minimis " and based on the lack of a specific related provision in
Article 19 of the Agreement to be feasible.  In our opinion, this would result in members being in
clear breach of their obligations under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
For the above reasons, rather than amending Article 19, we would suggest that the proponents
consider an interpretative decision (Article IX.2 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WorldTrade Organization) reiterating the scope of Article 11.9.
__________