./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/W/78/Rev.1
7 April 2000
(00-1405)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Ad Hoc Group on ImplementationOriginal:  English
PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIE NCE IN APPLYING ARTICLE 2.4.2
PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIENCE WITH RESPECT TO
QUESTIONNAIRES AND REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
UNDER ARTICLES 6.1 AND 6.1.1
Paper by Turkey
Revision
The following communication, dated 20 March 2000, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Turkey.
_______________
I. PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIENCE IN APPLYING ARTICLE 2.4.2
Some of the issues raised by Australia in document G/ADP/AHG/W/71:
Application of the approach set out in article 2.4.2
Turkey is of the view that, all three approaches described in this Article establishes a
guidance with respect to dumping determination and ap plicable for all kinds of investigations.  Turkey
uses the approaches set out in Article 2.4.2 in every case where a determination of dumping shall be
made and a dumping margin shall be calculated, whether for a provisional or final measure or for
reviews.
Approach to the application of the de minimis  provision in Article 5.8
In Turkish practice, in an investigation, firstly , the most appropriate approach to be used for
dumping calculation in accordance with Article 2.4.2 is determined.  Subsequently, the margin of
dumping is calculated by using that approach.  If the resultant margin is de minimis , then the
investigation is terminated.  The Anti-Dumping Ag reement does not lay out any approach specifically
designed for the application of the de minimis provision in Article 5.8.
Turkey is of the opinion that, in case the transaction-to-transaction approach is used, all the
individual margins do not have to be below 2 per cent for the investigations to be terminated by
reason of  de minimis  rule.  In this situation, all individual margins are weight averaged and a single
dumping margin is found.  If only weighted average margin is below 2 per cent, the investigation isterminated with respect to the de minimis  provision in Article 5.8.G/ADP/AHG/W/78/Rev.1
Page 2
Calculation issues
If an export price falls outside the time covered by the period for the calculation of the
weighted average normal value, export prices are not immediately discarded.  In such cases, as an
option, the investigation period for dumping margin calculation can be changed with the consent ofthe producer/exporter, so as to cover all export prices falling outside the period.  Turkey has not
encountered exactly such a situation.  However, in one case, Turkey changed the period for dumping
calculations upon the request of producer/exporter so that it coincides with the producer/exporter's
financial accounting period.
II. PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIENCE WITH RESPECT TO
QUESTIONNAIRES AND REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION UNDERARTICLES 6.1 AND 6.1.1 (ITEMS 17, 18 AND 19)
Some of the issues raised by Japan in document G/ADP/AHG/W/72:
Turkey agrees with Japan that Member countries should grant extension of time periods for
replying to the questionnaires whenever practical and cause is shown.  However a balance must beestablished as to granting extensions and timely completion of the investigation.  This opportunity
should not be abused.
In Turkish practice, extension is granted in such a way that the interested parties are
motivated to participate as much as possible.
Turkey believes that in the evaluation of extension requests, provisions of Article 15 should
be taken into consideration.  Companies of developing countries subject to anti-dumping
investigations are usually medium-or small-sized, which have scarce resources in this respect, special
regard should be given to developing countries' companies.  Turkey, taking into consideration thespecial situation of such companies, grants additional extensions as long as it does not impede the
timely completion of the investigation.
As to the supplementary questionnaires, Turkey believes that these should not create a burden
on the producer/exporters.  Naturally, these kinds of supplementary questionnaires should not be as
extensive as the main questionnaire.
In one of the cases, it has been observed that in addition to the main questionnaire issued at
the beginning of the investigation, a set of supple mentary questions relating to cost of production
were sent to the producer/exporter.  The authority tried to verify the cost of production solely on the
basis of the responses to the supplementary questions without visiting the premises of the producers.
As can be imagined, these created extra burden on producers.  Turkey would like to know if suchpractice is viable with respect to the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
__________