RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/KOR/17
G/SCM/Q1/KOR/17
22 October 2001
(01-5171)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES Regarding
the Notification of KOREA1
The following communication was received from the Permanent Mission of the United States
on 18 October 2001.
_______________
Recognizing that the notification of Korea, G/ADP/N/1/KOR/5, represents a renumbering of
provisions and a modification of translation, the United States appreciates the opportunity to reviewKorea’s anti-dumping legislation.
1. Article 60.2(4) of the Decree and 12.3 of the Regulation provides that the Trade Commission
may reject the application if it fails to achieve the degree of industry support required to initiate under
Article 5.4 of the AD Agreement.  Please confir m that the Trade Commission must reject such an
application.
2. Article 60.3 of the Decree states that the Trad e Commission will “notify” the government of
the supplying country and the suppliers of initiation of an investigation, but does not require that they
be provided with a copy of the application.  Please confirm that Korea will provide these parties with
the full text of the written application, as required by Article 6.1.3 of the AD Agreement.
3. Articles 60.3 and 71 of the Decree do not require that the public notice of initiation contain all
of the information enumerated in Article 12.1.1 of  the AD Agreement.  Please confirm that public
notices of initiation will contain all of the information required.
4. Article 69 of the Decree permits the retroactive imposition of provisional measures up to
90 days prior to the preliminary determination as provided for under Article 10.6 of the AD
Agreement.  However, Article 69 does not appear to require a finding that the massive dumped
imports are likely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of the definitive anti-dumping duty to be
applied.  In what way does Korea intend to comply with the obligation to make such a finding?
5. Article 69 of the Decree does not specifically provide for an opportunity to comment on the
massive dumped imports prior to application of retroactive provisional measures, as required by
Article 10.6(ii) of the AD Agreement.  Please confirm that Korea intends to provide such an
opportunity to comment.
                                                     
1 G/ADP/N/1/KOR/5G/ADP/Q1/KOR/17
G/SCM/Q1/KOR/17
Page 2
6. Article 69 of the Decree applies retroactive provisional measures to “imported products,” as
opposed to products that entered for consumption as required under Article 10.6 of the AD
Agreement.  Please confirm that Korea does not intend to apply retroactive provisional measures totransshipped merchandise not entered for consumption.
7. Article 71 of the Decree does not require that the public notices of preliminary and final
determinations contain all of the information enumerated in Article 12.2 of the AD Agreement.
Please confirm that public notices of preliminary and final determinations will contain all of the
information required.
8. Please describe the manner in which Korea will inform all interested parties of the essential
facts under consideration which form the basis for the decision whether to apply definitive measures,
as required by Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement.
9. The notified legislation does not describe the procedures for on-the-spot investigations
pursuant to Article 6.7 and Annex I of the AD Agreem ent.  Under what circumstances, if any, does
Korea intend to conduct such on-the-spot investigations?  Could Korea describe the procedures which
will be used in such cases?
10. Article 56 of the Act states that anti-dumping duty orders and undertakings “lose effect” after
five years, “except in cases where the expiry date is determined separately by the Ordinance of the
Minister of Finance and Economy.”  Please describe the circumstances under which such an expiry
date will be determined.  Will such an expiry date be longer than or shorter than five years?  What
standards and procedures will be applied in determ ining whether to determine such a separate expiry
date?
11. Article 70.1(2) of the Decree appears to provides that a five-year review may be carried out
“where there is a chance that an injury to the domes tic industry is caused by the termination of the
anti-dumping duty or the undertaking.”  Please confirm that, in accordance with Article 11.3 of the
AD Agreement, prior to maintaining an order longer than five years Korea will determine that expiry
of the duty would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
12. In circumstances in which there is a “special relationship or compensatory arrangement”between the supplier and the importer, Article 58.4 permits Korea to use the first resale price to a
purchaser without such a relationship.
(a) The notified legislation does not define the term “special relationship.”  What criteria
does Korea apply to identify such a relationship?
(b) Article 10.7 of the Regulations requires Korea only to use a resale price to a
purchaser without such a relationship after considering “appropriate profits.”  Could
Korea describe how it identifies “appropriate profits”?
13. The notified legislation does not require Korea to ignore fluctuations in exchange rates, and
allows exporters at least 60 days to adjust export prices to reflect sustained movements in exchange
rates during the period of investigation, as required by Article 2.4.1 of the AD Agreement.  In what
way will Korea conform its practice to this provision?
14. Article 58.6 provides that “if any interested party demands price adjustments referred to in
Paragraph 5 because of a difference in physical characteristics or quantity and condition of sales,
he/she shall establish the fact that that difference directly affects the market price or on the
manufacturing costs.”G/ADP/Q1/KOR/17
G/SCM/Q1/KOR/17
Page 3
(a) Does this provision reflect a view by Korea that the burden for establishing
entitlement to an adjustment rests with the party claiming the adjustment and not with
the authority?
(b) Could Korea describe, and provide concrete examples of, the type of evidence
required to establish that a difference in quantity and conditions of sale “directly
affects the market price”?  How does Korea distinguish the effect on market price
caused by those factors from the effect on market price caused by dumping?
15. Article 10.1(1) of the Regulations does not identify the time period for finding prices in the
ordinary course of trade, as set forth in Article 2.2.1, fn. 4 of the AD Agreement.  What is the time
period for such an analysis under Korean law?
16. The notified legislation does not describe the judicial, arbitral or administrative tribunals or
procedures maintained for the purpose, inter alia , of the prompt review of certain anti-dumping
administrative actions as required by Article 13 of the AD Agreement.  Could Korea describe such
tribunals or procedures under its law?  What controls does Korea have in place to ensure the
independence of such tribunals or procedures from the authorities making the determination?  Could
Korea provide concrete examples of such tribunals or procedures in this area?
__________