RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/IG/W/12
26 October 1998
(98-4163)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Informal Group on Anti-CircumventionOriginal:  English
TOPIC 1 – WHAT CONSTITUTES CIRCUMVENTION?
Paper by Canada
The following communication, dated 23 October 1998, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Canada.
_______________
At the meeting of the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention, held on 29 April 1998,
Members were asked to provide examples of real cases of alleged circumvention that they may have
encountered.
It should first be noted that Canadian legislation does not provide for any anti-circumvention
measures including a definition thereof or any remedial actions for cases of alleged circumvention.
One form of circumvention which has been encountered by Canada has been changes in the
location of production.  Under Canadian practice, g oods subject to a finding are defined, in part, as
originating in or exported from a particular country.  In some cases where anti-dumping measures
have been put in place, exporters have elected to move production or shift point of export of the
subject goods to a third country not covered by the original finding and continue dumping practices.The goods exported to Canada from the new source of supply are not covered by the finding.
In instances of this nature Canada has in some cases reacted with the initiation of a new
investigation concerning the goods imported from the new country of supply if there was reasonable
evidence of dumping, injury to domestic industry and a causal linkage.  In some cases theseinvestigations have been initiated by the anti-dumping authorities on the basis of "special
circumstances" pursuant to Article 5.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Ex officio  initiations of this
nature have occurred infrequently and only in circumstances where the domestic industry had
previously supplied the authorities with a written application supported by evidence of dumping and
injury and a causal linkage in respect of the exporter of the subject goods from the original country ofexport and that an investigation had confirmed the existence of injurious dumping.  In addition, the
authorities only proceed in this manner where the same exporters are involved and the goods exported
from the new country are like goods to those covered by the original finding.
In this regard, Canada would suggest that special circumstances referred to in Article 5.6 may
be of relevance to future consideration in this Group under item 2(3) of framework for discussions
(G/ADP/W/404) which asks "to what extent can circumvention be dealt with under the relevant WTO
rules".
__________