. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/ARG/10
G/SCM/Q1/ARG/10
19 June 2000
(00-2440)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  Spanish
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Replies of ARGENTINA ¹ to Questions
from KOREA2
The following communication, dated 8 June 2000, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Argentina.
_______________
Article 11.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreemen t stipulates that the authorities shall
review "the need for the continued imposition of the duties", upon request by any interested
party.  On the other hand, Article 6 of Resolution No. 826 (contained in document
G/ADP/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.4-G/SCM/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.4) seems to envision a review aimed at
assessing the adequateness of the rate of an existing anti-dumping duty in offsetting dumping
and at adjusting, if necessary, the rate, as well as a review of whether the continued impositionof the measure would be necessary to counteract dumping.  Is this understanding correct?  In
cases where the rate of the existing anti-dumping  duty is found, as a result of such a review, to
be insufficient to offset the dumping, are Ar gentina's pertinent authorities required under
pertinent laws and regulations to increase the ra te?  How does Argentina relate this provision of
Resolution No. 826 with Article 11.2 of the A-D Agreement?
Reply
The review envisaged in Article 6 of the law in question is intended to determine whether the
continued imposition of the measure is necessary to counteract dumping, or whether the injury would
be likely to continue or recur if the duty were removed or varied, and, furthermore, to determine
whether the existing measure is sufficient to counteract dumping and its damaging effects.
We should point out that the intention is not counteract dumping but to offset its effects to the
extent of removing the injury to the domestic industry, in application of the principle established in
Article 9.1 of the agreement.
The law in question does not require the Argentinian authorities to increase the duty if, on the
basis of a review, it is found to be insufficient to offset the dumping.  In such cases it is left to the
discretion of the implementing authority.
                                                     
¹ G/ADP/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.4-G/SCM/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.4.
2 G/ADP/Q1/ARG/9-G/SCM/Q1/ARG/9.G/ADP/Q1/ARG/10
G/SCM/Q1/ARG/10
Page 2
To date there have been no cases in Argentina in which an anti-dumping duty has been
adjusted as a result of a review finding that it was insufficient to counteract the damaging effect of
dumping.
However, we see nothing in Article 11.2 to prevent the implementing authority from adjusting
an anti-dumping duty if, on the basis of a review, it is found that the duty applied is insufficient to
offset the injury caused by dumping.
__________