RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/W/72
5 October 1999
(99-4117)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Ad Hoc Group on ImplementationOriginal:  English
PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIENCE WITH RESPECT TO
QUESTIONNAIRES AND REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
UNDER ARTICLE 6.1 AND 6.1.1
Paper from Japan
The following communication, dated 4 October 1999, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Japan.
_______________
Introduction
1. The WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement ("Agreemen t") does not contain a provision specifying
in what situation a request for an extension of the deadline for replying to a questionnaire should be
granted or how long the extension should be.  The only guidance provided by the Agreement is that a
request for an extension, "upon cause shown, … should be granted whenever practicable
(Article 6.1.1)."  Consequently each investigating authority has discretion in deciding extension
requests.  The importance of addressing this issue stems from its potential for arising in every anti-
dumping investigation and influencing the participation of interested parties to an investigation.Clarification of this issue would also make anti-dumping proceedings more transparent without
unduly depriving investigating authorities of discretion.  Further, an opportunity to respond fully and
accurately to questionnaires is essential if participation of interested parties in an anti-dumping
proceeding is to be meaningful and determinations by investigating authorities are to be based upon
rational, fact-based decisions.
The relevant Japanese law does not contain such a specific provision either.  However, in
practice the Japanese investigating authorities receive a request, which demonstrates "cause", for an
extension of deadline for replying to a questionnaire pursuant to the Agreement, the authorities
provide sufficient period to the interested parties.  For example, in a recent investigation, the Japaneseinvestigating authorities provided the interested party/parties who had requested an extension with a
30 day extension period.
2. If an investigating authority conducts an investigation without such flexibility, and the
authority therefore does not grant an extension or grants only an insufficient extension of the deadlinefor replying to a questionnaire, such a result could prove exceedingly burdensome for interested
parties.  In this situation, interested parties ma y resign to participate in the investigation by not
replying to the questionnaire or by not replying completely, and, in consequence, the investigating
authority may apply "facts available".  However, all Member countries should avoid such situations
because the Agreement directs Member countries to grant an extension whenever practicable and the
participation of interested parties is important if an investigation is to be accurate.G/ADP/AHG/W/72
Page 2
3. Japan recognizes that there is an inherent tension in this area.  On one hand, because anti-
dumping investigations can be disruptive to everyday business, it is important for subject exporters,
foreign producers, and importers, that anti-dumping investigations are concluded in a timely manner.
On the other hand, it is equally important that anti-dumping investigations are conducted fairly and
that its results are accurate.  Therefore, while investigating authorities may properly insist that
interested parties reply to detailed questionnaires,  the authorities should provide sufficient time for
interested parties to respond to them.  Consequently, an investigating authority should strike a balance
between the need for prompt investigations and the ne ed for fair and accurate results.  Of course, this
may depend on how much information is being requested and the degree of detail being sought.
4. As it is crucial to strike a balance among these considerations, sufficient time for replying to
questionnaires should be given to the interested parties.  Because Article 6.1.1 of the Agreementprovides only general guidance regarding an extension of deadline for replying to a questionnaire, it
should be useful to discuss situations that meet the "cause" and "practicable" requirements for an
extension as well as the appropriate period of an extension.
Discussion:  In what situation an extension should be granted
Based on the considerations outlined above, Japan proposes to discuss in what situation an
extension should be granted, and offers the following situations as ideas of "cause" where an
investigating authority receives a request for an extension of a deadline for replying to a questionnaire
and whether or not an extension should be granted.  The following list of situations is not exhaustive.
(1) "Cause" for which an extension should automatically be granted.
• If a subject company receives an additional questionnaire, the company should be given a
supplemental period for replying to the additional questionnaire.  For example, in case the
additional questionnaire is a heavy burden to the company as well as the original one, anextension should generally be the same term set for the original one.
• Where data is requested for a period that includes (all or part of) the period for replying to a
questionnaire, the deadline should be extended and the extension should commence on the datefollowing the end of the period for which data is being requested.
(2) "Cause" for which an extension should generally be granted.
• If the term for replying to questionnaires includes holidays, an extension should generally be
granted for the same term as the holiday at issue.
• If a subject company faces signficant demands on its administrative resources, for example,
because of a general meeting of stockholders, an audit of accounts or multiple anti-dumping
investigations, an extension should generally be granted.
• If a questionnaire is unusually burdensome because of the nature of the subject product (for
example, numerous types and models), the size of subject company (for example, smallcompanies with little or no computerized databases), an extension should generally be granted.
(3) Additional extensions
Even after an extension has been granted, if "c ause" is shown, additional extensions should be
granted whenever practicable.G/ADP/AHG/W/72
Page 3
(4) Situations in which an investigating authority does not grant an extension or does not give the
full extension term requested by subject exporters or foreign producers.
If an investigating authority rejects a request for an extension of the deadline for replying to a
questionnaire or does not give the full extension term requested by subject exporters or foreignproducers and the interested party requests the investigating authority to explain why the request for
an extension was denied or the full extension term was not given, the investigating authority should
provide the interested party with the reason for the rejection of the extension request.
(5) In situations (1), (2), (3) or (4) above, an investigating authority should provide a response to
the interested party promptly.
Question
To aid a discussion on this proposed topic, Japan believes it would be useful to understand
each Member country's practice regarding the extension of deadlines for replying to questionnaires,
and specifically how investigating authorities have handled the issues of "cause" and "practicable"referenced in Article 6.1.1.  It would also be usef ul to understand how the investigating authorities of
Member countries decide the period of an extension.  Japan believes that such a discussion would be
important from the viewpoint of investigating authorities and interested parties.
__________