RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/Q1/NOR/3
G/SCM/Q1/NOR/3
ORGANIZATION 19March 1997
(97-1123)
Original: English Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures
NOTIFICATION OFLAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5AND 32.6OFTHE AGREEMENTS
Replies ofNORWAY1toQuestions from
theUNITED STATES2andtheEUROPEAN COMMUNITY3
Thefollowing communication, dated 10March 1997, hasbeenreceived fromthePermanent
Mission ofNorway.
_______________
A. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
Ingeneral Norway hasovertheyears followed acautious linewithrespect totheuseoftrade
policy measures. Noanti-dumping orcountervailing duties havebeenimposed onimportations from
other GATT Members during thelastdecades, andthere arenopending cases.
Nevertheless, Norway hasasystemic interest intheareaoftradepolicy measures. Asasmall,
openeconomy, highly dependant onforeign trade, Norway isdependent onasystem which provides
predictability andtransparency. Thequestions received giveusapossibility tocontribute toreaching
those goals.
B. QUESTIONS FROM THE GOVERNMENT OFTHE UNITED STATES
(1) Could youplease explain what “special transport subsidies ”arereferenced insection 3
paragraph 3?
Answer
Section 3paragraph 3infinedescribes thesubsidies withrespect towhich theNorwegian
authorities could takeaction. Thewording “special transport subsidies ”refers tosubsidization granted
bytheauthorities oftheexporting country, granted ofshipping costs inconnection withtransport of
thegoods toNorway, i.e.fromtheexporting country tothepoint ofentry intheNorwegian customs
territory.
1G/ADP/N/1/NOR/3-G/SCM/N/1/NOR/3.
2G/ADP/Q1/NOR/1-G/SCM/Q1/NOR/1.
3G/ADP/Q1/NOR/2-G/SCM/Q1/NOR/2.G/ADP/Q1/NOR/3
G/SCM/Q1/NOR/3
Page2
(2) Canyouplease explain howsection 3paragraph 4willbeimplemented inpractice?
Answer
Section 3paragraph 4describes thesituation where Norway receives arequest fromanother
statetoimpose anti-dumping orcountervailing duties onathirdcountry product. Theprovision has
never beenapplied.
(3) Canyouplease explain paragraph 6?Specifically, howwilltheKingimpose duties onmore
thanonetypeofproduct? Does thisrefertothe“likeproduct ”asdefined inA-DArticle 2.6?
Answer
Thewords “oneormore types ofproducts ”inparagraph 6reflect theterm“likeproducts ”,
asdefined inArticle 2.6oftheA-DAgreement.
(4) Alsoconcerning paragraph 6,when canatemporary measure beputinplace?
Answer
Thewords “temporary measure ”inparagraph 6infinereflect theterm“provisional measures ”
ofArticle 7oftheA-DAgreement. Suchtemporary measures mustbeapplied inconformity withthe
Agreement.
(5) What provision hasbeenmade forreviews ofnewexporters asrequired byA-DArticle 9.5?
Answer
Nospecial provision hasbeenmade fornewexporters. However, theNorwegian Government
considers thatArticle 9.5isexplicit enough toprovide guidance forsuchreviews. Norwegian customs
authorities would thuscarry outareview according toArticle 9.5,forthepurpose ofdetermining
individual margins ofdumping foranyexporters orproducers whohavenotexported theproduct in
question during theperiod ofinvestigation, provided thatthese exporters orproducers canshow that
theyarenotrelated toanyoftheexporters orproducers whoaresubject totheanti-dumping duties
ontheproduct.
(6) Istheprovision forJudicial review found elsewhere intheNorwegian law?
Answer
There isnospecial provision forjudicial review inanti-dumping cases inNorwegian law.A
decision toimpose anti-dumping duties maybeappealed byinstituting legalproceedings intheordinary
courts oflaw.According toNorwegian law,acourt mayfindanadministrative decision invalid due
tolackoflegalcompetence. Seealsogeneral statement ofannex.
TheNorwegian Government isconsidering some further modification oftheCustoms Actof
10June1966, concerning expedited reviews. TheCommittee willbenotified ifsuchamendment is
made.G/ADP/Q1/NOR/3
G/SCM/Q1/NOR/3
Page3
ANNEX TOANSWERS
D. GENERALSTATEMENTONTHERELATIONSHIPBETWEENNORWEGIANLAWAND
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, ETC.
Generally, itisusual todistinguish between monistic anddualistic states. Inmonistic states,
treaties which bindthestatearedeemed totakeimmediate effect asinternational rulesoflaw.Indualistic
states, suchasNorway, aspecial actofimplementation is,inprinciple required inorder forthetreaty
toapply aspartofdomestic law.However, suchspecial actsofimplementation arenotnecessary if
domestic legislation isalready inharmony withtheobligations ofthetreaty.
Themethods forimplementing treaties innational lawareusually called “transformation ”,
“incorporation ”and“ascertainment ofnormative harmony ”.Transformation entails thereproduction
ofatreaty inlegislation, intheform ofatranslation withthose adaptions thatmaybenecessary.
Incorporation entails thelegalenactment ofatreaty asapartofthenational lawinitsoriginal form
andlanguage; “embodiment ”could beusedasajointconcept onbothtransformation andincorporation.
Ascertainment ofnormative harmony entails ascertaining thatthenational lawisinharmony withthe
treaty.
Itshould beadded thatneither customary international lawnortheWTO Agreements inquestion
giveanyindication astowhich ofthesemethods ofimplementation should beapplied bytheindividual
state.
TheWTO Agreements onAnti-Dumping andonSubsidies andCountervailing Measures are
implemented intoNorwegian internal lawbyanembodiment-technique, i.e.bothtransformed and
incorporated intodomestic law. TheNorwegian legislation which isnotified indocument
G/ADP/N/1/NOR/2-G/SCM/N/1/NOR/2 of16June1995, andtheamendments notified indocument
G/ADP/N/1/NOR/3-G/SCM/N/1/NOR/3 of8December 1995thusrepresent allatranslated andvery
condensed version ofthemain provisions oftheAgreements.
Theso-called presumption principle isalsoofrelevance. TheNorwegian notification states
thatthenational legislation wasdrafted “(...)ontheunderstanding thattheapplicable Norwegian
lawsandregulations shall beinterpreted andimplemented inawaywhich doesnotcontradict the
corresponding rules under theWTO Agreements. ”Theexpression reflects thatprinciple; Norwegian
lawisthusinterpreted andapplied bybothadministration andthecourts -under thepresumption that
itisconsistent withpublic international lawandtheobligations oftreaties towhich Norway isaparty.
Asstated inthelastparagraph ofthenotification of16June1995, theNorwegian Government
hasconsidered certain adjustments oftherulesconcerning anti-dumping andcountervailing dutycases.
Thelegislation nowincludes anincorporating clause, which hasbeeninforce asfrom1January 1996.
Theclause states thatthecompetence oftheNorwegian authorities shallbeexercised inconformity
withtheWTO Agreements.
Thewording oftheNorwegian legislation nowrequires thatthecompetence oftheKing(i.e.
thegovernment), shallbeexercised inconformity withtheWTO Agreements. Theruleprescribes
thatthepublic authorities, incasutheGovernment, theMinistry ofFinance orthecustoms officials,
mustexercise theirpowers within thelimitations setforth bytheAgreements. Ifpublic authority is
exercisedcontrarytowhatisrequiredintheAgreements,thedecisioninquestionmaybefoundunlawful.G/ADP/Q1/NOR/3
G/SCM/Q1/NOR/3
Page4
Theimportance ofthislimitation isshown when adecision isappealed intheordinary courts
oflaw.According toNorwegian law,acourt mayfindanadministrative decision invalid i.a.incases
where thedecision contains error orisincomplete. Adecision mayalsobefound invalid duetolack
oflegalcompetence. Furthermore, asstated inthenotification, adecision maybefound invalid because
ofmisuse ofpowers, theinfringement ofprocedural requirements orfactual error.
Thus, thecompetence oftheactual administrative bodyisinprinciple acondition ofvalidity.
Ifthedecision isfound invalid bythecourt, thecustoms duties thathavebeencollected, mustberepaid.
Thepublic administration mayalsobeordered topaycompensation fortheinjury caused byaninvalid
decision.