  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/Q1/PER/27 
G/SCM/Q1/PER/27 
20 April 2004 
 (04-1756) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Original:   Spanish 
 
 
 
NOTIFICATIONS OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 18.5  
AND ARTICLE 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS 
 
Responses to Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES1 
Regarding the Notification of PERU2 
 
  The following communication, dated 16 April 2004,  is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Peru.  
_______________ 
 
 
1. Question
 
  We note Peru’s statement that it "does not analyze support for or opposition to a 
petition".  Could Peru please clarify how its response is consistent with Article 5.4 ADA and 
Article 11.4 SCM?  Is it Peru’s view that Ar ticle 5.5 of the ADA and Article 11.5 of the SCM 
render meaningless Article 5.4 of the ADA and Article 11.4 of the SCM, respectively?  If not, would Peru please describe the obligations which it believes are imposed by Article 5.4 of the ADA and Article 11.4 of the SCM, and the acti ons Peru takes to fulfil those obligations? 
 
Response to Follow-Up Question 4 : 
 
 Article 5.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement a nd Article 11.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures provide for the applicati on for initiation of an investigation to be made 
by or on behalf of the domestic industry, and re quires examination of the degree of support for, or 
opposition to, the application.  Peru's Supreme Decree No. 006-2003-PCM is more rigorous still in 
that the party filing the application must itself account for ( represente ) 25 per cent of the domestic 
industry, which is consistent with Article 5.4 of the ADA and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement. 
 
 We also consider that examination of th e degree of support for, or opposition to, the 
application prior to the initiation of an investiga tion appears to fall short of the requirements of 
Article 5.5, which stipulates that the authorities are to avoid any publicizing of the application before 
initiating an investigation. 
 
2. Follow Up to Question 6a :3 
 
 Peru indicates that a party may request a hearing to present its arguments "if this is 
deemed necessary".  The significance of this phrase is unclear.  Will a hearing be granted 
                                                      
1 G/ADP/Q1/PER/26 – G/SCM/Q1/PER/26. 
2 G/ADP/N/1/PER/2 – G/SCM/N/1/PER/2. 
3 G/ADP/Q1/PER/25 – G/SCM/Q1 /PER/25 (2 December 2003). G/ADP/Q1/PER/27 
G/SCM/Q1/PER/27 Page 2 
 
 
automatically upon request, or is the right to request a hearing subject to a judgment of 
"necessity" by Peruvian officials?     If the latter, by what standard will such necessity be judged?   
 
 Also, what opportunities are parties provided to comment on arguments raised by other 
parties at hearings? 
 
Response to Follow-Up Question 6a : 
  In Peru, proceedings involve a mandatory h earing to be conducted within the evidentiary 
period, whether or not on a party's request.  Once th e essential facts have been notified the parties may 
request a second hearing, which is granted on the mer its of the request.  If the parties request a hearing 
other than those mentioned above, the Commissi on will assess whether there is good cause for such a 
hearing according to the circumstan ces and complexity of each case. 
  The parties may submit their comments on arguments raised by other parties either at the hearing itself, or subsequently in writing.  3. Follow Up To Question 8
:2 
  In the view of the United States, the application of provisions of Article 29 imposing monetary fines on parties to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings pursuant to 
Article 29 may be inconsistent with several provisions of the ADA and the SCM.  Does Peru 
have any plans to amend Article 29? 
 
Response to Follow-Up Question 8
: 
 
 Peru has no plans to amend Article 29. 
 4. Follow Up To Question 9
:2 
 
 In the event that documents are submitte d in a language other than Spanish, are 
interested parties required to provide a transl ation of the entire document, or merely the 
relevant sections?  
 Response to Follow-Up Question 9
: 
  Only the relevant part.  
5. Additional Question
: 
 
 Articles 37 and 38 discuss access to confidential  and non-confidential information.  Are 
there any circumstances under which interested parti es may be given access to confidential data 
and information submitted by another party?    
Response
: 
  Under no circumstances is information classified as confidential made available to other parties to the proceedings.  G/ADP/Q1/PER/27 
 G/SCM/Q1/PER/27 
 Page 3 
 
  
 Are there any circumstances in which int erested parties would be denied access to 
non-confidential information?    
Response
: 
  No.  
 How is non-confidential information not published in the Official Journal, such as the 
non-confidential version of the application submi tted on behalf of the domestic industry, made 
available to interested parties? 
 
Response
: 
 
 The Delegation of the United States is kindly requested to clarify its question. 
 
6. Additional Question : 
 
 Is the document of Essential Facts specifi ed in Article 28 a common document shared 
with all parties?  How does the administering au thority disclose the underlying basis for each of 
its decisions and complete details of the ma rgin calculation for each respondent, without 
compromising the confidentiality of respondent’s data? 
 
Response : 
 
 Yes, this is a document shared with all parties. 
  If confidential information has been used in  conducting the analysis, only the non-confidential 
summary of such information is included in the document notified to the parties. 
 
__________ 
 
 