WORLD TRADE WT/DS132/1
G/ADP/D10/1
ORGANIZATION 15May1998
(98-1935)
Original: English
MEXICO -ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATION OFHIGH-FRUCTOSE
CORN SYRUP (HFCS) FROM THE UNITED STATES
Request forConsultations bytheUnited States
Thefollowing communication, dated 8May1998, fromthePermanent Mission oftheUnited
States tothePermanent Mission ofMexico andtotheDispute Settlement Body, iscirculated in
accordance withArticle 4.4oftheDSU.
_______________
Myauthorities haveinstructed metorequest consultations withtheGovernment ofMexico
pursuanttoArticle4oftheUnderstandingonRulesandProceduresGoverningtheSettlementofDisputes
andArticle17.3oftheAgreementonImplementationofArticleVIoftheGATT1994(theAnti-dumping
Agreement) regarding theanti-dumping investigation ofhigh-fructose cornsyrup (HFCS) grades 42
and55fromtheUnited States conducted bytheSecretariat ofCommerce andIndustrial Development
(SECOFI) oftheGovernment ofMexico, the23January 1998notice offinaldetermination ofdumping
andinjury inthatinvestigation andtheconsequent imposition ofdefinitive anti-dumping measures on
imports ofHFCS grades 42and55from theUnited States.
On27February 1997, SECOFI published anotice initiating thisanti-dumping investigation
onthebasis ofanapplication dated 14January 1997, from theMexican National Chamber ofSugar
andAlcohol Producers, anassociation ofproducers ofsugar. TheUnited States considers thatthis
application didnotcontain theinformation required under Article 5oftheAnti-dumping Agreement,
andthatthedetermination byMexico toinitiate aninvestigation wasinconsistent withtheobligations
ofMexico under Articles 2,4and5oftheAnti-dumping Agreement. TheUnited States alsoconsiders
thatMexico 'spublic notice ofinitiation didnotmeettherequirements ofArticle 12oftheAnti-dumping
Agreement.
TheUnitedStatesconsidersthatMexicomadeadeterminationofthreatofinjuryincontravention
ofArticles 3and12oftheAnti-dumping Agreement, including byfailing toevaluate allrelevant
economic factors andindices having abearing onthestateoftheindustry, andfailing todetermine
thatfurther dumped exports wereimminent andthatmaterial injury would occur unless protective action
weretaken. Mexico alsofailed toconsider theimpact ofdumped imports onthefullrange ofoperations
ofthedomestic industry producing theproduct determined tobethelikeproduct.
Mexico 'sapplication ofprovisional anti-dumping measures inthisinvestigation exceeded the
timeprovided forinArticle 7.4oftheAnti-dumping Agreement. Mexico 'spublic notice imposing
definitive anti-dumping measures didnotcontain adecision, explanation andstatement ofreasons as
towhether theamount oftheanti-dumping dutywasthefullmargin ofdumping orless,asrequired
./.WT/DS132/1
G/ADP/D10/1
Page2
byArticles 9and12oftheAnti-dumping Agreement. Moreover, inmaking itsthreat ofinjury
determination, Mexico failed todetermine under Article 10.2oftheAnti-dumping Agreement that
theeffect ofthedumped imports would, intheabsence oftheprovisional measures, haveledtoa
determination ofinjury. Consequently, theUnited States considers Mexico 'sfailure torelease inan
expeditious manner thebonds posted byrespondent U.S.exporters isinconsistent withArticle 10.4
oftheAnti-dumping Agreement.
TheUnitedStatesalsoconsidersthatonnumerousoccasionsthroughoutthisinvestigationMexico
failed tocomply withtherequirements ofArticle 6oftheAnti-dumping Agreement, including by:
failing tosatisfy itselfastotheaccuracy ofinformation provided toitbythepetitioner domestic industry;
failing toprovide respondent U.S.exporters withtimely opportunities toreview alloftheinformation
relevant tothepresentation oftheircases andtoprepare presentations onthebasisofsuchinformation;
failing toinform therespondent U.S.exporters oftheessential factsunder consideration which formed
thebasisforitsdecision whether toapply provisional measures; andnotrequiring allinterested parties
providing confidential information tofurnish non-confidential summaries thereof. Furthermore, in
contravention ofArticle 6.5,Mexico authorized arepresentative ofthepetitioner domestic industry
toinspect theconfidential information provided byrespondent U.S.exporters, without providing them
withadvance notice ofsuchdisclosure andwithout obtaining thespecific permission oftheparties
submitting theconfidential information.
Inaddition, theUnited States considers thatMexico didnotcalculate themargin ofdumping
forrespondent U.S.exporter Archer Daniels Midland Company inaccordance withtherequirements
ofArticle 2oftheAnti-dumping Agreement.
TheUnited States reserves itsrighttoraisefurther factual claims andlegalmatters during the
course ofconsultations. Welookforward toreceiving yourreply tothepresent request andtofixing
amutually convenient dateforconsultations.
__________