RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/AHG/W/33
21October 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-4580)
Original: English Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
AdHocGroup onImplementation
TOPIC 5*-ARTICLE 5.5"NOTIFICATION OFEXPORTING MEMBER"
Paper byNorway
Thefollowing communication, dated 16October 1997, hasbeenreceived fromthePermanent
Mission ofNorway.
_______________
1. Introduction
Inthemeeting oftheAdHocGroup onImplementation ("the Group") on29-30 April 1997
Norway agreed tomake asummary ofthepoints withrespect toTopic 2concerning notifications under
Article 5.5. Itisnotentirely clear from theMinutes contained inG/ADP/AHG/R/2 whatprecisely
wasmeant tobeincluded inthesummary. AstheMinutes suggest that"such apaper could serve
asthebasis forfurther discussions atasubsequent meeting" (para. 6),theNorwegian delegation has
interpreted theintention tobethatthepaper ought togobeyond thevarious arguments putforward
asthese arealready welldocumented intheMinutes. Thepaper therefore seeks toindicate apossible
basis foraconsensus or,atleast, forbringing thediscussion astepforward.
2. Discussion
Theproposal byIndiasuggested theusefulness ofaminimum timepriortothedateofinitiation
fornotification totheGovernment oftheexporting Member. Seven dayswassuggested assucha
minimum leadtime. Members underlined theneedforflexibility inanyguidelines onthispoint to
allow fordifferent domestic procedures.
3. Contradiction orexception?
Assome Members pointed out,Article 5.5maybeseentocontain anelement ofcontradiction.
Ontheonehand, anypublicizing oftheapplication fortheinitiation ofaninvestigation shallbeavoided
unless adecision hasbeenmade toinitiate aninvestigation (firstsentence). Ontheother hand, there
isanobligation tonotify theGovernment oftheexporting Member concerned after a"properly
documented application" hasbeenreceived (second sentence).
4. Thearguments putforward intheGroup seemtosuggest thatthesecond sentence ofArticle 5.5
should bereadasanexception totherulelaiddown inthefirstsentence. Theexceptional nature of
therequirement inthesecond sentence isunderlined bythefactthatitisintroduced withthequalifier
"However,-". Insupport ofthisviewitwaspointed outintheGroup 'sdiscussion thatadistinction
*Seedocument G/ADP/W/401 fordescriptions ofthenumbered topics.G/ADP/AHG/W/33
Page2
should bemade between thenotification ofthereceipt ofanapplication andthenotification ofthe
application itself.
5. Toclarify theintention ofthenegotiators, oneMember underlined theneedtoreadArticle 5.5
inconjunction withArticle 12.1which contains therequirement forpublic notice. Other Members
agreed anditwassuggested thatadistinction should bemade between twodifferent notification
requirements i.e.(1)anotification under Article 5.5totheeffect thatanapplication hadbeenreceived
andthataninvestigation might beinitiated; and(2)anotification under Article 12.1toexporting
Members andother interested parties aswellasapublic notice upon initiation ofaninvestigation.
Thedistinction would appear toclarify theissue oftiming (andpurpose).
6. Timing
Thesecond sentence ofArticle 5.5determines thatthetiming ofthenotification totheexporting
Member shallbe"after" thereceipt ofaproperly documented application and"before" proceeding
toinitiate aninvestigation. Theinterpretation presented inparas. 4and5above would suggest that
anotification under Article 5.5,tobemeaningful, would havetotakeplace before theformal decision
toinitiate aninvestigation hasbeentaken (asaseparate notification andapublic notice isrequired
atthelaterstage).
7. Thisviewwould seemtobecorroborated bytheindications thatthepurpose ofthenotification
under Article 5.5istoinform theexporting Member thatanapplication hasbeenreceived, i.e.not
thatadecision toinitiate aninvestigation hasbeentaken. India'spaper alsofocuses onthepurpose
ofanotification under Article 5.5. According toIndia thenotification would firstly enable the
Government oftheexporting Member toalerttheexporters tobeprepared andsecondly provide the
opportunity foreffective utilization oftheprovisions ofArticles 17(consultation) and15(developing
countries).
8. There would thusseemtobearguments infavour ofmaking thenotification earlier rather than
later. Therequirement fora"properly documented application" mustallthesame beaddressed. The
situation callsforflexibility andpragmatism. Itwasargued intheGroup 'sfirstmeeting thateven
though domestic procedures donotalways include adetermination thatanapplication is"properly
documented", itought tobepossible tomake apragmatic judgement astowhen thisisinfactthecase.
9. Effective notification
TheGroup alsodiscussed thepracticalities concerning thenotification withaview toits
effectiveness: whoshould benotified where andhow? Some Members practised notification tothe
diplomatic representation initsowncapital. Oneproblem withsuchapractice isthattheexporting
Member might nothavealocalrepresentation. Other Members raised theideaofacontact point for
"competent" or"appropriate" authorities (which according tooneMember might notbethesame).
Thiswould involve putting together alistofcontact points which would involve some amount ofwork,
butcould facilitate things thereafter.
10. Preliminary conclusions asabasis fordiscussion
Forthepurpose ofmoving thediscussion forward itissuggested, onthebasisoftheGroup 's
firstdiscussion, that:
- Article 5.5,second sentence, should beunderstood asanexception tothefirstsentence;
- Toclarify itspurpose, Article 5.5should bereadinconjunction withArticle 12.1;G/ADP/AHG/W/33
Page3
- Thenotification under Article 5.5should bedone before "theprocedural action by
which aMember formally commences aninvestigation asprovided forinArticle 5"
(seefootnote 1ofADA).
Ifagreement could bereached ontheabove legalinterpretations, itmight beeasier toarrive
ataconsensus inthequestion ofleadtimeforthenotification asdiscussed byIndia initspaper, and
thequestion ofwhoshould benotified where andhowastouched upon inpara. 9above.