./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/W/112
5 April 2001
(01-1723)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Ad Hoc Group on ImplementationOriginal:  English
PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIENCES IN PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
INDUSTRIAL USERS AND CONSUMER ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION UNDER ARTICLE 6.12
Paper by Israel
The following communication, dated 3 April 2001, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Israel.
_______________
Following the discussion at the last meeting in October 2000 we would like to raise the
following points:
1. The Group’s discussion  has been useful in clarifying certain issues which have been raised
concerning the public interest test in internal discussions held between the various government offices
in Israel involved in administering anti dumping proceedings.
2. We would like to reiterate the fact that we did not intend to imply in our previous paper
G/ADP/AHG/W/101 that the lesser duty rule was ma ndatory but rather a desirable option as the
Agreement itself states.
3. Some Members cited the fact that while their systems do incorporate a mandatory “lesser duty
rule”, the public interest test was only discretionary . It seems clear from that discussion that while the
lesser duty rule is practiced by a number of Members, the public interest test is not as widespread.
There were various reasons given for this.  One delegation stated that the balance between variousinterests is already expressed in AD Agreement and there is no need for a further public interest
standard to be applied.
Another Member stated that that the application of the lesser duty rule is more precise (though
there are different approaches in calculations) than a public interest test. There is reason to believethat introducing such a test would increase uncer tainty as to the final determination in an anti
dumping procedure due to the various interests which would have to be taken into account.
Does such flexibility preclude the inclusion of the public interest test into the system? As was
described by the delegate from the European Communities despite the difficulties their ADRegulations do contain a public interest test.
In fact the provision in Article 21 of the European Communities’  AD  Regulation actually
links the opportunities for consumer and industrial user  to provide information  to the “Community
interest” which must be taken into account prior to the imposition of a duty.G/ADP/AHG/W/112
Page 2
4. The question we would like to raise following the Group’s discussion  brings us back to our
original topic related to Article 6.12 which obligates the Members to ensure that opportunities are
provided for industrial users and consumers “to provide information which is relevant to the
investigation regarding dumping, injury and causality.” What is the purpose behind this provision?
Are the consumers and downstream users expected to  contribute only to issues involving the margin
of dumping and the injury caused to the domestic industry? Would it not be reasonable to expect their
comments to involve aspects of the investigation concerning the possible impacts of a duty on the
downstream users and consumers? Their comments might possibly relate to the impact on price,
competition or sufficiency of supply as a result of a duty. If this is so, then it maybe correct to say that
the Agreement does in fact  envision that Members will  consider other interests  beyond those
expressly mentioned in the Agreement.
5. An additional question which may be useful to discuss is what exactly is meant by the phrase
“the public interest”? This phrase may include political interests, foreign policy considerations and
even environmental interests  but it also includes ec onomic factors other than the injury caused to the
domestic industry. The impact of the duty on unemployment in other sectors other than the domestic
industry, possible price increases for downstream users and for the consumers are purely economicfactors. Assessment can be more effectively carried out of such economic factors, when sufficiently
substantiated, than when attempting  to evaluate other “public interests” which are not easily
quantifiable.
This is a difficulty which may  pose serious questions as to how a Member could effectively
carry out the public interest test.
We would be interested to learn the views of Members in what they consider to be included in
the “public interest” and their methods by which to evaluate such interests.
__________