WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/Q3/COL/27
31 October 2003
(03-5808)
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Original:  Spanish
SUBSIDIES
Requests Pursuant to Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures
Questions Posed by ECUADOR
The following communication, dated 30 October 2003, has been received from the delegation
of Ecuador.
_______________
In accordance with new instructions from my Government, please find attached the request
for clarifications to the responses given by Colombia in document G/SCM/Q3/COL/23 concerning thecontinued extension of the transition period for Colombia's SIEX and Free Zone (ZF) subsidy
programmes.
I. DRAFT DECISION ON EXTENDING THE TRANSITION PERIOD FOR
COLOMBIA'S SUBSIDY PROGRAMMES
Clarifications relating to the replies given w ith respect to Colombia's compliance with its
obligations under the Decisions of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures dated13 December 2002, documents G/SCM/93 and G/SCM/94.
1. Concerning response No. 1:  Apparently, SIEX has been partially reformed, and Colombia's
response to question 1 does not fully explain the de jure  and the actual scope of Resolution 0011 of
2003.  Could Colombia explain in detail the basis for stating that "[b]y means of Resolution 11 of2003, Colombia is phasing out all of the components of the SIEX programme, including the deferred
payment of VAT …"?
2. Concerning response No. 1:  Articles two and three of Resolution 0011 refer to Article 173 (c)
of Decree-Law No. 44 of 1967.  However, this legisl ation having been revised, it appears that the
cited article in Resolution 0011 and the article appearing in Section 2 (Special Import ExportSystems) of the said Decree-Law do not fully coincide.  Could Colombia please clarify?
3. Concerning response No. 2:  Colombia states that the deferral of VAT does not confer a
benefit and has therefore ceased to be an export subsidy.  Could Colombia please explain whether or
not the deferral of payment of VAT come within the framework of Annex I(h), of Article 3.1(a) and
of the obligations of Members under Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Subsidies and CountervailingMeasures, especially bearing in mind that changing economic trends in no way affect the nature and
purpose of the measure which, de jure  and/or de facto, is in itself a prohibited subsidy?
__________