Peru is a member of the WTO, and party to the following plurilateral WTO agreements: the Trade Facilitation Agreement and Fisheries Subsidies Agreement.

Peru is party to the following regional agreements:

• the Andean Community of Nations (CAN);
• the Pacific Alliance (PA); and
• the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

Peru is party to the following preferential agreements:

• Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Chile;
• Economic Complementation Agreement signed with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay (ACE 58);
• Trade Promotion Agreement with the United States of America;
• FTA with Canada;
• FTA with Singapore;
• FTA with China;
• FTA with the States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA);
• FTA with Korea;
• Protocol with Thailand;
• Trade Integration Agreement with Mexico;
• Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan;
• FTA with Panama;
• Trade Agreement with the European Union;
• FTA with Costa Rica;
• Partial Scope Agreement of Commercial Nature with Venezuela;
• FTA with Honduras;
• FTA with Australia; and
• Trade Agreement with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Peru is also party to the following preferential agreements due to come into force:

• FTA with Guatemala; and
• Economic and Commercial Deepening Agreement with Brazil.

The other trade agreements that impose legally binding obligations on Peru are the modifying Protocol to the Peruvian-Colombian Customs Co-operation Agreement as well as the Generalised System of Preferences.

Peru is negotiating the following preferential agreements:

• FTA with India;
• FTA with Turkey;
• FTA with Hong Kong;
• Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with Indonesia;
• FTA with El Salvador; and
• FTA with Nicaragua.

Recent rulings by the Tax Court concerning compliance with the direct shipment requirement outlined in various trade agreements signed by Peru have had a significant impact on importers. Over the past 12 months, customs agents have increasingly requested that importers provide the customs control document from a third country in cases of transhipment or storage. This document is essential to prove compliance with the direct shipment or direct transport requirement, as SUNAT may now demand such evidence to ensure tariff preference eligibility.

The National Superintendency of Customs and Tax Administration (SUNAT) has not yet implemented the provisional electronic application for a portion of the tariff quota, which would allow importers to request refunds of import duties for undue or excess payments of customs duties resulting from the subsequent use of tariff preferences subject to a tariff quota, as provided for in the Specific Procedure for the Application of Tariff Quotas, DESPA-PE.01.18 (v.1).

Currently, importers face operational challenges in seeking refunds when the tariff quota is exhausted, as SUNAT has not clarified the procedure required to consider the provisional electronic request for a portion of the quota.

SUNAT is the primary authority overseeing customs matters. Additionally, the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Tourism (MINCETUR) plays a role in issues related to rules of origin and the application of trade agreements.

Customs laws and regulations are enforced by several agencies:

• SUNAT;
• the Tax Court of the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF);
• the judiciary; and
• the Constitutional Court.

Peru does not have a legal instrumentcomparable to the EU’s Trade Barriers Regulation or Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974. However, it applies trade defence measures such as anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties against subsidies, and safeguards to address unfair trade practices.

In 2024, SUNAT has intensified its inspection of importers concerning the use of means of payment (bank transfers or the financial system) to pay suppliers in international transactions. Failure to provide evidence of payment through approved means has resulted in the following contingencies for importers:

• P52 infringement: A fine equivalent to 30% of the free on board (FOB) value may be imposed.
• Lack of financial documentation: If SUNAT has reasonable doubt about the declared value on the customs declaration, they may require additional financial documentation to verify the actual price paid.
• Limited refund options: Importers may face difficulties in claiming refunds for undue or excess payments related to the customs import declaration if they cannot adequately support their claims with documentation.

It is particularly important to note that if payment is made to a third party designated by the supplier, SUNAT must be notified of this designation in advance. Failure to provide such notification prevents the importer from accrediting the use of approved means of payment.

The commencement of operations at the Port of Chancay is driving significant developments in customs matters, including the creation of the Chancay Customs Office. However, regulations for establishing a special economic zone or free trade zone near the Port of Chancay – intended to support a free port model and promote regional trade – are still pending.

The sanctions regime under Peru’s General Customs Law operates on the basis of the principle of legality. For any act to qualify as a customs offence, it must be explicitly defined as such in a regulation with the status of law. Sanctions cannot be applied through an extensive or interpretive reading of the law.

Customs infringements are determined objectively and may result in administrative sanctions, which include fines, confiscation of goods, suspension or cancellation of, or disqualification from conducting, certain activities.

The Table of Customs Sanctions, approved by subordinate legislation, specifies the offender, defines the circumstances constituting an infringement, determines the corresponding sanctions, and outlines particular conditions for applying penalties as established in the General Customs Law.

SUNAT is the only body empowered to determine infringements and apply the penalties set out in the General Customs Law.

MINCETUR has the authority to impose sanctions regarding issues of origin and the application of trade agreements.

SUNAT and the Tax Court of the Ministry of Economy and Finance are the government bodies that administer or enforce the sanctions regime.

In addition, MINCETUR has authority regarding issues of origin and the application of trade agreements.

The following persons are subject to sanctions laws and regulations in Peru:

• foreign trade operators, such as:
1. the customs broker;
2. the bonded warehouse;
3. the carrier;
4. the international freight forwarder;
5. the international multimodal transport operator;
6. the free warehouse;
7. the express delivery service company;
8. the postal service company;
9. the beneficiary of material for aeronautical use; and
10. the guaranteeing and forwarding association under the Convention on Temporary Importation;
• intervening operators, such as:
1. the importer;
2. the exporter;
3. the beneficiary of customs procedures;
4. the passenger;
5. the manager or concessionaire of port, airport or international land terminal facilities;
6. the fixed-base operator;
7. the laboratory;
8. the seal supplier; and
9. in general, any natural or legal person intervening in a customs procedure or process, or in an operation related thereto, who is not a foreign trade operator;
• third parties linked to the customs operation or to another operation related thereto, who do not qualify as a foreign trade operator or intervening operator.

Peru does not have a register or list of sanctioned persons.

Peru does not maintain comprehensive sanctions or embargoes against countries or regions.

Peru does not maintain any other sanctions.

Peru does not apply or threaten to apply secondary sanctions.

Customs offences are determined objectively and can be sanctioned through fines, confiscation of goods, and suspension or cancellation of, or disqualification from conducting, certain activities.

There are no such sanctions licences.

Responsibility for committing customs infringements in Peru is objective; therefore, the subjectivity of the offender – such as malice or wilfulness – does not exempt them from liability. The mere occurrence of the infringing act is sufficient for sanctions to be applied. The Table of Penalties, approved by subordinate legislation, identifies offenders, specifies the circumstances constituting infringements, determines the corresponding penalties, and outlines the conditions for their application.

Penalties must be formally notified to the offending party via their electronic mailbox registered with SUNAT’s Online Operations system.

Peru does not adhere to sanctions imposed on third countries.

SUNAT, in Report No 000029-2024-SUNAT/340000, issued on 15 May 2024, determined that infringements are determined objectively and cannot be imposed based on presumptions. Specifically, regarding credit-based purchase and sale transactions, a P52 infringement has been committed when an importer, after the payment term has expired and upon SUNAT’s request, fails to submit documentation proving the use of approved means of payment, cannot justify the failure to provide such documentation, or submits documents that do not confirm the transaction was settled using approved means of payment.

Additionally, in Report No 000055-2024-SUNAT/340000, SUNAT determined that in international purchase and sale transactions subject to import for consumption, failure to notify SUNAT in advance of a third-party payment designation – under Article 5-A of the TUO of Law No 28194 (Banking Law) – constitutes a P52 infringement under the Table of Penalties. In such cases, the use of means of payment is not considered valid, leading to sanctions.

Changes to the Customs Sanctions Table are pending with regard to N63/N64 infringements, which address the failure to obtain or correctly include customs codes required for determining the proper calculation of taxes and surcharges. At present, customs agents are held responsible for these infringements when the direct dispatch requirement under Peru’s trade agreements is not met to secure tariff preferences.

However, customs agents have proposed legislative reforms to shift the responsibility to importers, arguing that importers are the parties contracting international transport and maintaining direct communication with suppliers.

The export of certain products is prohibited or restricted in Peru to preserve human life and health, public morals, natural resources, the environment, and historical and cultural heritage. Restrictions also serve to comply with international conventions signed by Peru, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

SUNAT is the administrative authority responsible for export controls.

SUNAT, the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, and the Ministry of Culture are the government agencies that administer and enforce export controls.

Prohibited exports include:

• wild fauna species, vicunas, guanacos and their hybrids;
• leather, skins and fur articles manufactured from wild animals, as prohibited by the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation;
• wild orchid species;
• cedar and mahogany woods;
• maca in its natural state; and
• specimens of camu camu (myrciaria dubia), cat’s claw (uncaria tormentosa and uncaria guianensis) and pijuayo (bactris gasipaes);

The export of certain organic chemicals, products containing asbestos and archaeological, and certain historical and artistic objects, is also prohibited. Also, exports of alpacas and llamas are subject to quotas determined by the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, with the purpose of guaranteeing the conservation of the genetic material of such species, while promoting the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the Andean areas, the peasant communities and the agricultural companies involved in this activity.

Additionally, the export of goods considered part of Peru’s “Cultural Heritage of the Nation” is strictly prohibited and overseen by the Ministry of Culture.

Export authorisation for “chemical inputs and controlled goods” falls under the responsibility of SUNAT.

Peru does not maintain any lists of persons subject to restrictions.

SUNAT publishes a reference list of tariff subheadings corresponding to restricted export goods and prohibited export goods.

Peru does not maintain any other type of export control.

Exporting restricted goods without the required authorisation incurs a fine for the exporter. Additionally, confiscation of restricted or prohibited goods applies where appropriate.

• The Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation grants authorisations to export certain plants and animals.
• The Ministry of Culture grants authorisations to temporarily export cultural goods belonging to the nation.
• SUNAT grants authorisations to export chemical inputs and controlled goods.

Peruvian law imposes objective responsibility for export violations. Exporters are liable for infringements if they submit a customs export declaration for restricted goods without the required documentation, or with incomplete or non-compliant documentation.

For prohibited goods, the sanction is the confiscation of the merchandise.

Peru does not have any reporting requirements related to export controls.

In Report No 016-2024-SUNAT/340000, SUNAT clarified that for exports carried out under the EXW Incoterm, where a customs agent is involved, the sender remittance guide required to move goods into a temporary warehouse must be issued by the customs agent. This clarification aligns with the Payment Voucher Regulations approved under Superintendency Resolution No 007-99/SUNAT and resolves ongoing disputes between exporters and customs agents regarding responsibility for issuing the guide.

A significant regulatory proposal aims to:

• replace the current simplified restitution of customs duties equivalent to 3% of the FOB export value with a drawback system based on actual customs duties paid on imported inputs used in the production of exported goods; and
• align with the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.

However, this proposal faces strong opposition from exporters’ associations.

In accordance with the provisions of Supreme Decrees No 189-2024-EF and No 197-2024-EF, the simplified restitution of customs duties will be reduced to 1% and 0.5% of the FOB export with effect from July 2025.

The relevant authorities are the National Institute for the Defence of Competition and the Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) and MINCETUR.

SUNAT is the entity in charge of collecting anti-dumping and countervailing duties and safeguard measures applicable to imports of merchandise.

The Commission on Dumping, Subsidies and Elimination of Non-Tariff Trade Barriers of INDECOPI allows Peruvian companies to request a review. Also, such reviews can be conducted regularly by INDECOPI.

It is possible for national companies to present requests on an ad hoc basis, which are analysed by INDECOPI. Additionally, INDECOPI’s Commission on Dumping, Subsidies and Elimination of Non-Tariff Trade Barriers carries out periodic reviews.

INDECOPI’s Commission on Dumping, Subsidies and Elimination of Non-Tariff Trade Barriers allows participation by non-Peruvian companies and foreign governments in the review process.

In accordance with the provisions of Supreme Decree No 006-2003-PCM, once an investigation is initiated – whether at the request of national companies or ex officio – the Commission on Dumping, Subsidies and Elimination of Non-Tariff Trade Barriers of INDECOPI (the “Commission”) conducts its investigative actions within a period of 12 months, or in exceptional cases, up to 18 months.

Within 30 days of the request being submitted, the Commission is required to take one of the following actions: (i) resolve to initiate the investigation by issuing the corresponding resolution; (ii) grant the applicant a period of 15 days to address any outstanding requirements; or (iii) reject the request as inadmissible, also issuing the respective resolution.

The period for submitting evidence or allegations concludes six months after the resolution initiating the investigation is published. This does not affect the power of the Technical Secretariat and the Commission to request additional information at any stage of the procedure. If justified reasons exist, the Commission may extend the evidentiary period by a maximum of three additional months.

Within 21 working days following the conclusion of the evidentiary period, the Commission issues a document outlining the “essential facts” that will form the basis of its final decision. This document is notified to the parties involved in the procedure within five working days. The parties may submit their comments on the essential facts within seven working days from the day after they receive the notification.

Once the deadline for receiving comments has expired, the Commission issues its final decision within 21 working days. If the Commission considers that there is insufficient evidence of dumping, subsidisation, injury, threat of injury, or causal relationship, it will declare the request unfounded and terminate the investigation. Conversely, the Commission may impose an anti-dumping duty or countervailing duty only if it verifies the existence of dumping or subsidisation, injury or threat of injury, and the causal relationship between the dumped or subsidised imports and the damage to the national industry.

Anti-dumping or countervailing duties will remain in effect as long as the circumstances that caused the damage or threat thereof persist, but for no longer than five years. This period may be extended if an examination procedure, known as a “sunset review”, is initiated before the measures expire.

INDECOPI publishes resolutions in the official newspaper El Peruano, including those that initiate investigations or examinations, establish provisional or definitive anti-dumping or compensatory duties, modify or eliminate such duties, and suspend or terminate investigations or examinations.

There are no jurisdictions on which Peruvian authorities cannot or will not impose anti-dumping or countervailing duties or safeguards.

After a minimum period of 12 months following the publication of the resolution that closes the investigation, the Commission may, at the request of any interested party or ex officio, examine whether there is a need to maintain or modify the anti-dumping duties or definitive compensatory measures in place. In evaluating such requests, the Commission determines whether sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances that would justify reviewing the imposed duties.

Additionally, an examination procedure for the expiration of anti-dumping or countervailing measures (a “sunset review”) may be initiated before the measures’ period of imposition or the deadline established in the most recent review expires.

A reconsideration appeal may be filed with the same authority that issued the act being challenged, provided it is supported by new evidence relating to facts already discussed during the investigation stage. The deadline for filing a reconsideration appeal is 15 working days from the day after the notification of the act or the publication date of the Commission’s resolution in El Peruano, as applicable. The Commission must resolve the reconsideration appeal within 30 working days of its submission.

An appeal may be filed when the challenge arises from a different interpretation of the evidence presented or from questions of pure law. The appeal must be submitted to the same authority that issued the contested act, which will then escalate the matter to the hierarchical superior. At this stage, no new investigative actions or evaluations of facts outside those considered during the investigation are permitted.

The deadline to file an appeal is 15 working days from the day after notification of the act or the date the Commission’s resolution is published in El Peruano, as applicable. Once the appeal is filed, the Commission will grant it and submit the case file to the INDECOPI Court within a maximum of 10 days. The Court must resolve the appeal within six months, although this period may be extended by an additional two months if necessary.

By Cassation Ruling No 79-2023 LIMA, published on 10 January 2024 in the official newspaper El Peruano, the Supreme Court of the Judiciary established as binding precedent that the legal nature of anti-dumping duties, as set forth in the original text of Article 46 of Supreme Decree No 006-2003-PCM, does not constitute a fine. Consequently, such duties are deductible for income tax purposes, provided that the Agreement Relating to the Application of Article VI of the General Agreement on Customs Tariffs and Trade of 1994 does not determine that the party engaging in dumping has committed an infringement. The payment of anti-dumping duties is justified as a surcharge or levy ordered by INDECOPI solely for the purpose of remedying the damage caused to domestic industry by the practice of dumping.

With this binding precedent in place, importers are not subjected to double penalties through the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing duties. They are only impacted by the payment of these duties, which are deductible as a cost or expense when determining income tax in Peru.

It is important to emphasise that Supreme Court precedents are binding on all judges across all levels who are responsible for administering justice in tax matters. Such cases must be resolved in accordance with Article 148 of the Political Constitution of Peru. As the supreme legal norm, it binds all individuals and authorities and allows judicial review of administrative resolutions to ensure they have been issued in accordance with the law, determining their validity or nullity.

Within the framework of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, case DS614 is currently ongoing. Argentina has requested consultations with Peru regarding various compensatory measures imposed on imports of biodiesel originating from Argentina. As a result of these consultations, it is anticipated that over the next 12 months, Peru will evaluate the revocation of countervailing duties applied to biodiesel (B1000) imports originating from Argentina. These measures remain in force until 29 January 2026, as provided in Resolution No 265-2021/CDB-INDECOPI.

Article 70 of the Political Constitution of Peru guarantees the inviolability of private property. This right also applies to foreigners, with the sole exception of certain categories of property, such as mines, water, and fuel, located within 50 kilometres of national borders. The right to property is a cornerstone of Peru’s economic system, which is based on a social market economy and promotes free competition, as enshrined in Articles 58 and 61 of the Constitution. Private property thus serves as the foundation of Peru’s economic model.

Additionally, Article 63 of the Constitution expressly ensures that national and foreign investments are treated under the same conditions. Article 70 further stipulates that the state may only expropriate property through judicial proceedings, in accordance with legal mandates, and after paying appropriate compensation. Such compensation must include reparation for any damages incurred, and the amount can be contested within the same judicial expropriation process.

To bolster the legal framework for promoting private investment and fostering an environment conducive to increased foreign investment flows, investors are provided access to multilateral, bilateral, and domestic mechanisms that guarantee and protect their investments. In April 1991, the Peruvian Congress ratified the Constitutive Agreement of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) of the World Bank. Significant investments, particularly in the mining and financial sectors, are currently being developed under MIGA’s coverage. Peru has also ratified the Constitutive Agreement of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), enabling disputes related to investments with the state to be submitted to this arbitral court.

At the bilateral level, Peru has signed agreements for the promotion and protection of investments with 28 countries across Europe, Asia, and the Americas. These agreements are embedded within trade agreements, such as FTAs with investment chapters, as well as agreements for the promotion and protection of investments (APPRIs). Negotiations are ongoing to finalise similar agreements with 23 additional countries.

Furthermore, under the protection of the Peruvian Constitution and the Framework Law for Private Investment (Legislative Decree No 757), the state grants legal stability guarantees to foreign investors and the companies in which they invest. These guarantees are formalised through agreements governed by the general contract provisions of contract law as outlined in the Civil Code. By signing such agreements, the state ensures investors’ stability in key areas, including labour contracting regimes, export promotion, and the income tax regime, among others.

In matters concerning mining and hydrocarbons, the Ministry of Energy and Mines is the competent authority. The State Co-ordination and Response System in International Investment Disputes (SICRECI) is composed of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, which serves as the co-ordinator of SICRECI, the special commission, and the public entities that sign treaties, agreements, and contracts establishing international dispute settlement mechanisms between investors and the recipient state.

The Private Investment Promotion Agency (PROINVERSION), representing the Peruvian State, is authorised to enter into legal stability agreements that stabilise guarantees applicable to investors and companies receiving such investments. To qualify, investors must make contributions to the capital of a company incorporated or to be incorporated in Peru, amounting to no less than USD10 million in the mining and hydrocarbon sectors, or USD5 million in any other economic sector. These investments must be executed within a maximum period of two years. Legal stability agreements have a validity term of ten years, except for those involving concession contracts governed by Supreme Decree No 059-96-PCM, where stability is upheld for the duration of the concession.

Transactions and investors are covered by investment security measures under the following circumstances:

• when they are governed by international investment agreements, such as FTAs or investment promotion and protection agreements concluded between governments; or
• when they fall under agreements signed by the Peruvian government with specific investors, through legal stability agreements.

These agreements incorporate international mechanisms for the settlement of investment disputes and provide guarantees of protection for investments in contracts and concessions that include such mechanisms.

An international investment dispute arises when an investor believes that the state has failed to fulfil its obligations regarding their investment. The Peruvian state may consent to resolve such disputes at the international level, rather than locally, as provided for in international investment agreements and in certain contracts and agreements signed with individual investors.

There are no items and/or parties that are exempt from review.

In cases where an investment dispute leads to an adverse decision, the state may be required to pay compensation to the affected investor, as well as comply with the orders issued by the arbitration tribunal. International investment arbitration is costly, demanding significant financial, time, and human resources from the state. Beyond the substantial cost of the proceedings, such decisions can also impose considerable compensation obligations on the state.

It is important to note that, in Peru, the entity responsible for adopting the disputed measure may bear the cost of the arbitration process and any resulting compensation. In addition to the financial burden of an unfavourable ruling, there is a broader negative impact on the investment climate, which can deter future investments and undermine economic confidence.

The payment of the registration fee to the Arbitration Court, along with the fees of lawyers and experts who participate in the proceedings, forms part of the financial costs incurred in investment security reviews or filings.

On 17 May 2024, the Special Commission representing the state in international investment disputes, formed under SICRECI, reported that the ICSID had issued the final award in the international arbitration case Kaloti Metals & Logistics, LLC v The Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/21/29). The case was initiated under the Peru-United States Trade Promotion Agreement. In its ruling, the Arbitration Court rejected all claims filed by the investor, concluding that the claimant had failed to prove ownership or control of an investment in Peru. The court found that this constituted a lack of jurisdiction under the terms outlined in the Trade Promotion Agreement. The court ordered the claimant to reimburse the Peruvian state for the full costs of its defence, including 100% of the fees for lawyers and experts.

On 20 May 2024, the Special Commission also announced that the ICSID General Secretariat had issued its final award in the arbitration initiated by Freeport-McMoran Inc. on its own behalf and on behalf of Sociedad Minera Cerro Verde S.A.A. against the Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/21/29), under the Peru-United States Trade Promotion Agreement. This award marks a significant victory for Peru, as the court determined that the state had fully complied with its obligations under the 1998 Stability Agreement and the Investment Chapter of the Peru-United States Trade Promotion Agreement. This decision sets a critical precedent for interpreting the scope of stability agreements under the General Mining Law and the exclusion of tax measures as outlined in the Trade Promotion Agreement.

During the next 12 months, the ICSID Court should be resolving the following disputes between the Peruvian State and foreign investors: Concesionaria Angostura Siguas, S.A. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/24/43); Freeport-McMoRan Inc. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/20/8); Gasoducto Sur Peruano S.A. En Liquidación v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/24/29); Metro de Lima Línea 2 S.A. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/17/3); Gas Natural de Lima and Callao S.A. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/24/9); TV Azteca S.A.B de C.v and Azteca Comunicaciones Perú S.A.C. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/23/37); Operadora Ecológica del Titicaca S.A.C. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/23/11); Bank of Nova Scotia v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/22/30); Autopista del Norte S.A.C. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/18/17); Upland Oil and Gas LLC (USA) and Upland Oil and Gas LLC (Perú) v PeruPetro S.A. (ICSID Case No ARB/22/19); Enagás Internacional S.L.U. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/21/65); VINCI Highways SAS and VINCI Concessions SAS v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/21/60); Metro de Lima Línea 2, S.A. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/21/57); Concesionaria Peruana de Vías– COVINCA, S.A. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/21/45); APM Terminals Callao S.A. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/21/28); Telefónica S.A. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/21/10); Quanta Services Netherlands B.v v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/21/1); Lupaka Gold Corp. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/20/46); Desarrollo Vial de los Andes S.A.C. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/20/18); and Odebrecht Latinvest S.à.r.l. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/20/4).

The Price Band System, approved by Supreme Decree No 115-2001-EF, remains an important trade policy instrument used to stabilise import costs and domestic prices for selected agricultural products, such as goods derived from maize, sugar, rice, and dairy. The system sets upper and lower limits (the “Band”) for international prices of each imported product. If international prices fall below the lower limit of the Band, additional variable duties are applied; conversely, tariff reductions are implemented when international prices exceed the upper limit.

Legislative Decree No 668 establishes measures to guarantee freedom of both foreign and domestic trade, recognising these as fundamental for the country’s development. It also ensures that national and foreign investment receive equal treatment.

The preparation of mandatory technical regulations is the responsibility of the respective ministries within the central government, each operating within its area of competence. Although there is no uniform process for drafting such regulations, ministries must rely on available scientific and technical evidence when formulating proposed regulations.

Peru’s prohibition on the importation of pork and pork products from regions of the European Union, Asia, Africa, and the Americas affected by African swine fever was implemented through Directorial Resolution No 051-2019-MINAGRI-SENASA-DSA. This measure indirectly promotes domestic production of pork and its derivatives.

The development of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures follows a structured process. It begins with a risk analysis, which includes a questionnaire and an on-site visit. If the results are favourable, a draft measure is prepared outlining the requirements. The draft measure is then notified to the WTO for a consultation period. Following this, a resolution is issued, and the measure is published as an approved standard in the Official Gazette, with a final notification sent to the WTO.

The SPS measures issued by the three institutions in charge are based on international standards, guidelines, and recommendations developed by competent global organisations. These include the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), and the Codex Alimentarius.

The Peruvian Price Band System, approved by Supreme Decree No 115-2001-EF, is a trade policy instrument designed to stabilise import costs and domestic prices for a selected group of agricultural products, including derivatives of maize, sugar, rice, and dairy.

Maritime transportation of hydrocarbons is reserved, up to 25%, for vessels of the Peruvian Navy for reasons of national security and defence.

The alcoholic beverage Pisco, classified under subheading 2208.20.21.00 of the Peruvian Customs Tariff, benefits from a preferential rate under the Selective Consumption Tax (ISC), which is lower than the rate applicable to other similar alcoholic beverages.

In relation to the acquisition of private property, foreigners are prohibited from possessing or acquiring, directly or through intermediaries, mines, lands, forests, bodies of water, fuels, or energy sources located within 50 kilometres of national borders. Exceptions may only be made with authorisation granted through Supreme Decree No 162-92-EF.

On 2 September 2024, in Official Gazette of the Andean Community No 5540, the Court of Justice of the Andean Community published the Judgment of the Preliminary Interpretation Process No 200-IP-2022. The case concerned a dispute between Distribuidora Deportiva Puma S.A.C. (representing the PUMA brand) and the National Superintendency of Customs and Tax Administration (SUNAT) over adjustments to the customs value of merchandise bearing the PUMA brand, specifically regarding international advertising and marketing expenses paid to PUMA AG.

The court concluded that, in cases involving international advertising and marketing expenses, competent authorities must assess each situation individually. This evaluation must consider the principles of trade facilitation, international commerce, and the factual elements of the sale and importation of goods. It also requires reviewing contractual and legal obligations stipulated in relevant documents to determine whether the price actually paid or payable reflects the reality of the transaction and avoids arbitrariness.

Furthermore, the court clarified that local advertising conducted by the importer independently should not be added to the customs value. With this judgment, the Court of Justice of the Andean Community has established an important precedent for the interpretation of customs valuation rules.