RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/USA/14
G/SCM/Q1/USA/14
14 October 1999
(99-4410)
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
Questions Posed by Argentina Regarding the
Notification of the United States1
The following communication, dated 7 October 1999, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Argentina.
_______________
1. The supplementary information provided by the United States states that the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (URAA) requires that the Department of Commerce initiate a sunset review of each
order or suspended investigation not later than 30 days before the fifth anniversary of publication of
the order or suspension agreement in the Federal Register.  Bearing in mind that the full sunset reviewtakes 240 days, in addition to the number of days required by the International Trade Commission,
can the measure still be applied during the review period?  If so, under what circumstances?
2. In Section 351.218 - "Sunset reviews under Section 751(c) of the Act", referring to
substantive responses to a notice of intent to initiate a sunset review, a time-limit of 30 days from the
publication of the notice of initiation in the Federal Register is set for interested parties to submit
substantive responses.  Can interested parties request an extension of the deadline for submitting
substantive responses?
If not, how is that consistent with Article 6.1.1 of the Agreement on Anti-Dumping and
Article 12.1.1 of the SCM Agreement which state that  "due consideration should be given to any
request for an extension of the 30-day period and, upon cause shown, such an extension should be
granted whenever practicable"?  We should like to point out that the Section in question is applicable
to reviews as provided for in Article 11.4 of the Agreement on Anti-Dumping and Article 21.4 of theAgreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
3. Section 351.218 also states that the Department will make its determination of the adequacy
of responses of interested parties on a case-by-case basis.  What criteria does the Department use to
formulate those determinations?  Since determination of inadequate responses rules out participationin the review, does the Department of Commerce request the party to improve its presentation?  If not,
is there an administrative mechanism which allows for appeals against determination of inadequate
substantive responses?
4. Under the heading "Full sunset review upon ad equate response from domestic and respondent
interested parties", it is stated that even where the Department carries out a full sunset review, "onlyunder the most extraordinary circumstances will the Department rely on a countervailing duty rate or
                                                     
1 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.4 and Suppl.5-G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.4 and Suppl.5.G/ADP/Q1/USA/14
G/SCM/Q1/USA/14
Page 2
dumping margin other than those it calculated and published in its prior determinations" and under no
circumstances will it "calculate a net countervailable subsidy or dumping margin for a new shipper".
What "most extraordinary circumstances" could necessitate the application of a countervailing
duty rate or dumping margin other than those calculated and published previously?  If, during the fullsunset review, a dumping margin or subsidy total is obtained other than those calculated and
published previously, will the anti-dumping or countervailing duty rates be adjusted?  Or, would it be
necessary to conduct simultaneously a full sunset review and a changed circumstances review?  If
both types of reviews have to be carried out, would they both have to be requested by the interested
parties or could the designated authority conduct the changed circumstances review?
5. The Act states that "the Department will verify factual information relied upon in making its
final determination normally only in a full sunset review … and only where needed.  The Department
will conduct verification normally only if, in its preliminary results, the Department determines that
revocation of the order or termination of the suspended investigation, as applicable, is not likely to
lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy or dumping … and the Department's
preliminary results are not based on countervailing duty rates or dumping margins as applicable,determined in the investigation or subsequent reviews".
Does the Department not verify the information presented in substantive responses which
give rise to summary sunset reviews?  How does this provision line up with Article 6.6 of the
Agreement on Anti-Dumping and Article 12.5 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures which provide that except in cases where interested parties refuse access to information theauthorities will satisfy themselves as to the accuracy of the information supplied by interested parties
upon which their findings are based?
6. Bearing in mind that reviews must begin at least 30 days before the fifth anniversary of the
assessment of the anti-dumping or countervailing measure, and considering that the review periodexceeds 30 days, could the measure continue to be applied until the end of the investigation period
(page 7, paragraph 6 - " Substantive response to a Notice of Initiation ")?
7. Does the fact that sunset reviews are initiated automatically mean that the review is initiated
without sufficient reasons to justify it?  Does it always take place as a matter of course?
8. In a sunset review of countervailing duty rates, why is an expedited sunset review conducted
when the government of the exporting country does not respond or fails to file a complete substantive
response although shippers may have responded? (page 18(b))
9. What happens if the Government of the exporting country responds but shippers do not?  Is
the same procedure followed as for the reverse situation?
10. Why, in the case of expedited sunset review s, is the matter generally concluded with the
possible continuation or recurrence of the dumping measure? (page 18(c))
11. What is meant by the Secretary possibly relying on subsidy or dumping margins other than
those it calculated and published in its prior determinations?  Are these determinations the results of
administrative reviews?  (page 18(2)(i))
12. What happens when imports of the origin involv ed in the investigation are not recorded but
the domestic producer shows interest in the follow-up to a review?
13. Please specify the indicators used to evaluate the possibility of a dumping measure recurring.G/ADP/Q1/USA/14
G/SCM/Q1/USA/14
Page 3
14. In the subsection " Adequacy of response to a Notice of Initiation " (page 8, paragraph 6) it is
stated that "the determination of adequacy is committed to the Department's (and, separately, the
International Trade Commission's) discretion".  However, paragraph (e)(4) provides guidelines by
which the Department determines whether the responses of interested parties to the Notice ofInitiation are adequate.  Is this not contradictory?
15. Why is it that when a respondent interested party does not provide complete responses to the
initial Notice of Initiation, the Department considers that as a waiver of participation without giving
the party the opportunity to correct the shortcoming?G/ADP/Q1/USA/14
G/SCM/Q1/USA/14
Page 4
Questions Regarding the Notification of the United States
(G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.4 a nd G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.4)
1. In Section 351.510, why are indirect taxes and import charges included in the calculation of
subsidies?
2. Section 351.511 – "Provision of goods or services."  Why is so much leeway for discretion
given to the Secretary to establish comparison prices in order to determine whether there is "less than
adequate remuneration"?  (Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2))
3. Section 351.516 – Price preferences for inputs used in the production of goods for export.
Why is so much leeway for discretion given to the Secretary to establish comparison prices in order to
determine whether there is "less than adequate remuneration"?
4. Section 351.525 – "Calculation of ad valorem  subsidy rate and attribution of subsidy to a
product".  It is stated that in cases where shipping expenses are taken into consideration, appropriate
adjustments may be introduced, what are these adjustments and why are they not explained, if only byway of example?
5. Section 351.301(d), point 7.  Please explain what is meant by the fact that if the Government
authority "establishes to the Secretary's satisfaction that the alleged subsidy or subsidy program has
been notified, the Secretary will terminate the investigation of the notified subsidy"?
6. Section 351.512.  What is hidden behind the word "reserved" in square brackets?
7. Section 351.521.  What is hidden behind the word "reserved"?  Why are they notified in this
manner?
__________