RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/LVA/1
G/SCM/Q1/LVA/1
11 April 2001
(01-1852)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS
UNDER ARTICLE 18.5 OF THE AGREEMENT
Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES
Regarding the Notification of LATVIA1
The following communication, dated 9 April 2001, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the United States.
_______________
1. Article 4(3) of Latvia’s Antidumping Law (“Latvian AD Law”) provides that an antidumping
investigation shall be conducted in accordance with the “Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers” of
Latvia, which apparently regulate the determination of the dumping margin, the determination of
injury, the acquisition of information, and investigation procedure in a Latvian antidumping
proceeding.  Are these regulations now in existence?  If so, will Latvia notify them to the WTO?
2. Article 7 of the Latvian AD Law provides that an antidumping investigation may be initiated
if “a complaint has been received from domestic producers who produce more than 50 per cent of the
like products produced by that portion of the domestic producers either supporting the application or
opposing it; or ... there is sufficient evidence of dumping, injury and their causal link.”  However, the
AD Agreement provides that an antidumping investig ation may only be initiated upon the filing of an
application by the domestic industry if both of these requirements are satisfied, among other things.
See Articles 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, & 5.8 of the AD Agreement.  To what extent is Article 7 of the Latvian Law
consistent with these provisions of the AD Agreement?
3. Article 9(1)(2) of the Latvian AD Law provides that an investigation shall not be initiated if
imports are negligible.  It then defines imports from a particular country as being negligible if they are
“less than 1 per cent of the total volume of the market of like products, unless the imports of the
products under investigation from several countries do not constitute more than three or more per cent
of the domestic market consumption of like products.”  To what extent is this provision consistent
with Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement, which provides that imports from a particular country willnormally be considered negligible if they are found to “account for less than 3 per cent of imports of
the like product” in the importing country, “unless countries which individually account for less than
3 per cent of the imports of the like product [in that country] collectively account for more than 7 per
cent of imports of the like product in the importing [country]”?  In particular:
(a) How is Article 9(2) of the Latvian AD Law consistent with the requirements of
Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement, particularly in situations where imports occupy
more than 33 per cent of the domestic market?  In such a situation, there may be cases
                                                     
1 G/ADP/N/1/LVA/2 + Suppl.1G/ADP/Q1/LVA/1
G/SCM/Q1/LVA/1
Page 2
in which imports from a particular country under investigation might account for less
than three per cent of total imports (and therefore be negligible under the WTO
standard) but nonetheless have more than one per cent of the Latvian market (and
therefore not be negligible under the Latvian standard).
(b) How is the second step of the negligibility test in the Latvian AD Law intended to
apply?  It appears from the language of the provision (as translated) that several
countries meeting Latvia’s one per cent negligibility test would not be considered
negligible if they accounted for less than 3 per cent  of the Latvian market in the
aggregate but that they would be considered negligible if they accounted for more
than 3 per cent  of the market in the aggregate.  Is this correct?
4. Article 13 of the Latvian AD Law provides that the State Bureau of Trade Defence (“SBTD”)
will issue questionnaires, including supplemental questionnaires, to interested parties in the
investigation.  The law does not, however, contain a specific time frame for the submission of
questionnaire responses.  How will the SBTD ensure that it provides these interested parties with the
30 day reply period required by Article 6.1.1 of the AD Agreement?
5. Article 33(5) of the Latvian AD Law provides that the Saeima (the Latvian Parliament) shall
“decide on the application of anti-dumping duties based on the information provided by the Cabinet of
Ministers” and that “[t]he procedures for the collection of antidumping duties shall be specified by the
Cabinet of Ministers.”  The Law does not otherwise specify how the Saeima and the Cabinet of
Ministers will be make their decisions with regard to whether antidumping duties will be imposed and
collected.  For example, the law does not specifically state that the Saeima will only impose adefinitive antidumping or countervailing duty if the imports in question are found to be dumped or
subsidized and are causing material injury to the domestic industry.  How will the Saeima and the
Cabinet ensure that their actions are consistent with the AD Agreements in this regard?
6. Article 39 of the Latvian AD Law permits the SBTD to keep an antidumping order in place
for more than five years from the date of its imposition if it finds that termination of the order “ may
cause a continuation or a recurrence of dumping or injury.”  How is this consistent with the language
of Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement, which provid es that an antidumping duty may only be kept in
place for more than five years from the date of its imposition if “expiry of the duty would be likely  to
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or injury”?
7. Article 40(4) of the Latvian AD Law provides that “[i]f the [SBTD] determines, as a result of
[a changed circumstances] review, that the antidumping duty is not necessary any longer, the Saeima
shall decide, pursuant to the recommendation of the Cabinet of Ministers, on the revocation of duty.”How will the Saeima and the Cabinet of Ministers make their decision with respect to revocation of
the duty?  For example, will they be able to keep  a duty in place after the SBTD has determined that
the duty is no longer necessary?
8. Article 45 of the Latvian AD Law permits the SBTD to “re-initiate” an antidumping
investigation to assess the effect of an antidumping duty on domestic prices, in cases in whichdomestic producers submit “substantiated evidence that antidumping duties applied have not caused
changes or have caused insufficient changes in th e resale prices or subsequent selling prices.”
Moreover, Article 45 appears to permit the SBTD to  increase the original dumping margins to offset
any “presupposed injury” found in the reinitiated investigation.  Where is this type of “reinitiated”
investigation authorized by the AD Agreement?
9. Articles 3.1., 3.2, and 3.4 and 3.7 of the AD Agreement provides that an investigating
authority must assess a number of specific factors when considering whether a domestic industry isG/ADP/Q1/LVA/1
G/SCM/Q1/LVA/1
Page 3
materially injured or threatened with material injury in an antidumping investigation.  For example,
the AD Agreement requires that an investigating authority consider the volume of the dumped
imports, the effect of dumped imports on prices in the domestic market for like products, and their
consequent impact on domestic producers of the same products when performing its dumpinganalysis.  See Article 3.1 of the AD Agreement.  In addition, the Agreement requires an investigating
authority to assess whether there has been a significant increase in dumped imports, whether there has
been significant price undercutting by the imports, whether imports have had price-suppressing or
depressing effects, and whether the imports have impacted the sales, profits, productions, or
employment of the domestic industry, among other things.  (See Article 3.2 & 3.4 of the AD
Agreement.)  The Latvian AD law does not contain similar language.  How does the law ensure that
the SBTD will consider these required factors in its injury, threat and material retardation analysesbefore imposing duties?
__________