WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/RL/W/132
11 July 2003
(03-3772)
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:  Spanish
CONTRIBUTION BY VENEZUELA ON VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE
ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT AND THE AGREEMENT ON
SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES WHICH
MAY REQUIRE CLARIFICATION AND IMPROVEMENT
The following communication, dated 10 July 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Venezuela.
_______________
The contents of this contribution do not fully reflect Venezuela's views and position on all the
provisions of the Anti-Dumping (AD) and S ubsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)
Agreements which might require clarification and improvement.  Although some of the topics and
substantive provisions of the Agreements mentioned in this communication have been referred to inother contributions by Members, certain possibly new elements which should help to complete the
identification of provisions requiring clarification and improvement are provided.
1. SUBJECT : CUMULATION CRITERIA IN ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
IMPORTS.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS:  Article 5.8 ADA.
OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS RELATING TO THE SAME PROVISIONS:  In the
TN/RL/W series, documents numbered 4 India, 45 co-sponsors, 56 Egypt, 59 Australia, 64 Brazil,
83 co-sponsors and 122 Australia.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM:  In Article 5.8 of the ADA the investigating
authority is permitted to assess imports cumulatively without the establishment of criteria applicable
in those investigations in which both Member and non-Member countries are involved.
CLARIFICATION:   In this latter case, can imports of all origins be cumulated whether or
not they are from WTO Member countries?  We consider it important to clarify this provision since
the results of the investigation may vary depending on the interpretation made by the competent
authority.
2. SUBJECT:   DEFINITION OF DUMPED IMPORTS.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS:   Article 3.1 of the ADA.
OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS RELATING TO THE SAME PROVISIONS:  In the
TN/RL/W series, documents numbered 4 India, 56 Egypt, and 59 and 121 Australia.TN/RL/W/132
Page 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM:  We consider that Article 3.1 clearly indicates that
the imports which must be taken into account in determining injury are those which are being
dumped, so that for the purpose of analysing the trend in dumped imports and their impact on prices
in the domestic market for like products and on the variables of the domestic industry producing like
products, an authority may not include imports not shown to have been dumped, since if there is nodumping the imports cannot cause injury.
CLARIFICATION:   Although it seems to us that the Agreement is clear in this respect, to
avoid situations such as those described in the example, it may be desirable to include a note to the
Article explaining that dumped imports are thos e coming from or originating in a country or
enterprise for which a positive, more than de minimis margin of dumping has been determined.
3. SUBJECT:   TIMELY AVAILABILITY OF RELEVANT INFORMATION.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS:  Articles 12.3 of the ASCM and 6.4 of the ADA.
OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS RELATING TO THE SAME PROVISIONS:  In the
TN/RL/W series, documents numbered 35 United States and 43 Australia.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM:   Article 12.3 of the ASCM and Article 6.4 of the
ADA stipulate that the authorities must provide the parties with timely opportunities to examine non-
confidential information for the purpose of preparing presentations.
CLARIFICATION:  It would be helpful to give a definition of the term "timely", in order to
clarify the period of time involved and establish a fixed interval, so as to guarantee due process for the
parties involved and transparency throughout the proceeding, thereby avoiding different
interpretations of the same provision by the competent authorities of each Member.
4. SUBJECT:  LEVEL OF DETAIL IN DETERMINATIONS
RELEVANT PROVISIONS:  Articles 22 of the ASCM and 12 of the ADA.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM:  Article 22 of the ASCM and Article 12 of the ADA
stipulate that the authorities must include in their determinations sufficient details about the decisionsadopted, without defining or specifying what may be regarded as "sufficient details".
CLARIFICATION:   Laying down guidelines with respect to the level of detail required
would certainly help to improve understanding of  the determinations made by the competent
authority.
5. SUBJECT:  INITIATION AND PUBLICIZATION OF THE APPLICATION.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS:   Articles 5.5 of the ADA and 11.5 of the SCMA.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM:   It would be helpful to clarify the way in which
Articles 5.5 of the ADA and 11.5 of the ASCM are implemented.  These Articles relate to the
obligation upon the authority not to publicize the application of a domestic producer before having
decided to initiate an investigation, together w ith the obligation to notify the Government of the
exporting Member before proceeding to initiate an investigation.   This conflict is even more obviousin the case of a subsidy investigation, since once an application has been accepted and before an
investigation is initiated, an invitation for consultations must be issued.TN/RL/W/132
Page 3
CLARIFICATION:   It should be made clear how the obligation to notify the Government of
the exporting Member can be reconciled with the obligation to avoid publicizing the application
concerned.
6. SUBJECT:   INFORMING THE PARTIES OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS:  Articles 6.9 of the ADA and 12.8 of the ASCM require that
parties be informed of the essential facts that form the basis for the definitive decision.
CLARIFICATION:  There is no indication of the period of time necessary for the parties to
make their comments in defence of their interests nor is there an indicative list of the elements which
the communication should contain.  It may therefore be desirable to address these aspects with a viewto standardizing the criteria and avoiding significant differences between one investigation and
another, depending on the Member concerned.
__________