RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/W/326
G/SCM/W/334
ORGANIZATION 12April 1996
(96-1287)
Original: English Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures
QUESTIONS POSED BYTHE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
CONCERNING THE NOTIFICATION PROVIDED BYTHE PHILIPPINES1OFLAWS
AND REGULATIONS UNDER ARTICLES 18.5AND 32.6OFTHE AGREEMENTS
Thefollowing communication, dated 27March 1996, hasbeenreceived fromthePermanent
Delegation oftheEuropean Commission.
_______________
Countervailing dutylegislation
1. On9October 1995, thePhilippines notified Section 302oftheirTariffs andCustoms Code
which "embodies thecountervailing dutylaw".
2. Nochanges havebeenmade tothislawsince thePhilippine 'saccession totheTokyo Round
Codes in1985.
3. Apart fromthefactthatthelegislation hasremained intact since 1985(i.e.thechanges tothe
Subsidies Agreement brought about bytheUruguay Round havenotbeenincorporated inPhilippines
law)thetextofSection 302isinitself extremely concise andtherefore inappropriate fortheconduct
ofcountervailing investigations.
4. Section 302refers tofuture promulgation of"allrulesandregulations" necessary tocarry out
functions under thatsection. Suchrulesandregulations (ifanyexist) donot,however, seem tohave
beennotified totheWTO.
5. Itistherefore notpossible fortheCommunity tofully exercise itsright toexamine the
compatibility ofPhilippine lawonSubsidies withtheWTO legislation atthisstage.
6. Under whatruleswould thePhilippines conduct countervailing investigations? Howdothey
intend tocomply withtheprocedural requirements oftheWTO Subsidies Agreement?
7. Howcanparties involved inacountervailing procedure (exporters, importers) know whattheir
rights andobligations are?Forexample, howdothePhilippine authorities ensure, thattheUruguay
Roundprovisionsonconfidentiality,standingofcomplaints,assessmentofinjury,retroactivity,collection
ofprovisional duties andcalculation ofsubsidy amounts willbeadhered to?Furthermore, whatrules
would theyapply todetermine thenon-actionable nature ofgreen Subsidies?
1G/ADP/N/1/PHL/1 andG/SCM/N/1/PHL/1.
./.G/ADP/W/326
G/SCM/W/334
Page2
Anti-dumping legislation
Q.1 Could thePhilippines clarify whether Republic ActNo.7843 isactually inforce?
Q.2 InthePhilippines, itappears thatinvestigations canbeinitiated based onevidence of"reason
tobelieve" (e.g.anewspaper article) oftheexistence ofdumping andinjury. Howdoesthiscomply
withtheprovisions ofArticle 5oftheWTO Agreement withregard tothecontents ofcomplaints?
Q.3 Does thePhilippines publish anotice announcing theinitiation ofaninvestigation?
Q.4 Onwhatbasisunder theAgreement doesthePhilippines justify requiring theimporter/exporter
toprovide evidence ofnormal value within 15daysofthereceipt ofthepetition andresort to"available
data" ifsuchinformation isnotforthcoming?
Q.5 Before theestablishment ofaprima faciecaseofdumping, howdoestheAgreement permit
thePhilippines towithhold customs release ofimported products unless a"bond" isfiled?
Q.6 Article 7oftheAgreement saysthatbonds cannot berequired within 60daysofinitiation.
How doesthePhilippines implement thisprovision?
Q.7 Inrelation tonormal value, whyhavethePhilippines notincorporated thedetailed provisions
oftheAgreement, particularly inrelation tosalesataloss,constructed value andfaircomparison?
Q.8 TheWTO Agreement states thattheinvestigation period shallbeatleastsixmonths. What
isthepractice ofthePhilippines?
Q.9 Forimports made subsequent totheinvestigation, thedumping margin appears tobecalculated
onapershipment basis withrevised normal values? Could thePhilippines givemore precise details
ofhowthissystem operates?