RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/W/109
G/SCM/W/118
ORGANIZATION 20October 1995
(95-3181)
Original: English Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures
REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE GOVERNMENT OFCANADA1
CONCERNING THE NOTIFICATION OFAUSTRALIAN LAWS AND REGULATIONS2
Thefollowing communication, dated 5October 1995, hasbeenreceived fromthePermanent
Mission ofAustralia.
_______________
Q.1 Inregard totheCustoms Act,Article 269TAC(8) ontheNormal Value ofGoods, arethe
provisions foradjustments forprice comparability duetodifferences in"theterms andcircumstances
ofthesales" meant toaddress suchfactors aslevels oftrade, quantities, physical characteristics, and
other differences which arealsodemonstrated toaffect price comparability, asprovided forinArticle
2.4oftheAgreement onImplementation ofArticle VI?
Answer 1
Under 269TAC(8) thedomestic salesprice oflikegoods mustbeadjusted toaccount forall
differences intheterms andcircumstances ofdomestic andexport sales. Theadjustments aremade
toensure thatanydifferences willnotaffect thecomparison between normal value andexport price.
Australianlegislationiscastinbroadtermsandthereforedoesnotcontainadefinitivelist.269TAC(8)(b)
provides specifically foranadjustment tobemade for"physical differences". Other factors suchas
levels oftrade, quantities andother differences areconsidered asdifferences inthe"terms and
circumstances ofthesales".
Q.2 Could Australia clarify whether industrial users orconsumer organisations willbeallowed
toprovide relevant information inaninvestigation, asrequired byArticle 6.12oftheAgreement on
Implementation ofArticle VI?
Answer 2
Australian legislation doesnotinclude reference toindustrial usersandrepresentative consumer
organisations inthedefinition ofinterested parties in269T(1). Thatdefinition isincluded asseveral
provisions require thatthose interested parties becontacted andadvised atcertain stages ofaninquiry,
asfollows:
- atinitiation ofaninvestigation -aninitiation notice invites interested parties tolodge
submissions,interestedpartiesmayapplyforanextensiontolodgesubmissions(269TC);
1G/ADP/W/27-G/SCM/W/34
2G/ADP/N/1/AUS/1-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/1.G/ADP/W/109
G/SCM/W/118
Page2
- whenadecisiontoterminateapreliminaryinvestigationisoverturned-interestedparties
mayapply tohavepreviously lodged submissions considered infurther investigation
(269TF);
- atinitiation ofareview -anotice toinitiate areview must include aninvitation to
interested parties tolodge submissions (269ZB(2));
- attheendofaninvestigation -interested parties affected byafinding ordecision must
begiven notice (269ZI(3)); and
- during aninvestigation -submissions from interested parties aretobeputonpublic
record. Interested parties attention must tobedrawn totheexistence of,andmay
examine, thepublic record (269ZJ ).
Neither 269T(1), noranyother provision, excludes anyparty from making asubmission to
aninvestigation.
Although industrial users andrepresentative consumer organisations arenotincluded within
thedefinition of“interested parties ”,theyarenotprecluded fromresponding tothepublic notification
oftheinitiation ofaninvestigation, orofafinalfinding inquiry where apositive preliminary finding
hasbeenmade. When industrial users and/orrepresentative consumer organisations doprovide a
submission oranyother information relevant totheinvestigation, theauthorities arebound by
administrative lawprinciples tohaveregard tosuchinformation.
Inmaking apreliminary finding theComptroller must (under 269TD(1)) takeintoaccount
"anysubmissions received andanyother matters" considered relevant.
Similarly, under subsections 7(6)and8A(7) oftheAnti-Dumping Authority Act1988, theAnti-
DumpingAuthorityisrequired,whendecidingontherecommendationstomakeinitsreportsconcerning
thepublication ofadumping dutynotice oracountervailing dutynotice orthecontinuation ofsuch
notices orofanundertaking, to"have regard toallthesubmissions" itreceives.
Therefore, relevant submissions made byindustrial users orconsumer organisations mustbe
considered ininvestigations bytheAustralian authorities.
Q.3 Forthepurposes ofthedefinition of"countervailable subsidy", Section 269TAAC(6) excludes
asubsidy withrespect towhich theMinister issatisfied thatitisasubsidy described inparagraph
(a),(b)or(c)ofArticle 8.2oftheSCM Agreement. Where theMinister isnot/not satisfied thata
subsidy, which hasbeendulynotified byaMember asnon-actionable under Article 8.3oftheSCM
Agreement isan"excluded subsidy", cananinvestigation beinitiated withrespect tothatsubsidy, or
doesAustralian lawrequire thattheprocedures inArticle 8.4and8.5oftheSCMAgreement beinvoked
toobtain aruling thatthesubsidy inquestion is,infact,acountervailable subsidy?
Answer 3
Thedetermination ofwhether asubsidy isanexcluded (non-actionable) subsidy (under
269TAAC(6)) willbefacilitated bythenotification andreview processes under Articles 8.3and8.4
oftheSCM Agreement. Ofcourse Australia willactinaccordance withitsrights andobligations in
respect ofdeterminations under Articles 8.4and8.5.Inparticular thiswilltakeintoaccount theoutcome
ofcurrent discussion onArticle 8.5about procedures governing thearbitration body. While Australian
legislation doesnotpreclude thepossibility ofacountervailing dutyinvestigation simply because aG/ADP/W/109
G/SCM/W/118
Page3
subsidy programme hasbeennotified under Article 8.3,given thatsuchanotification mustbemade
inadvance ofimplementation, thiswould seem tohavelimited practical significance. However itis
clearfrom theSCM Agreement thattheoretically suchaninvestigation canbecarried outbefore the
issue ofwhether theconditions ofArticle 8.2aremethasbeendecided inaccordance withArticles
8.4and8.5.
Q.4 DoesAustralia intend toinclude provisions initslegislation toimplement DSBpanel decisions,
andifnot,whatwillbethelegal basis fortheadoption ofapanel decision?
Answer 4
There arenoplanstoinclude provisions indomestic lawtoimplement recommendations flowing
from theadoption ofDSBpanel reports inrespect oftheADandSCM Agreements orindeed other
Agreements under theWTO. TheWTO Agreement isnotincorporated intoAustralian domestic law.
Should there beapanel report adopted inrespect ofAustralian measures, thenitwould beuptothe
Australian Government todecide howitshould dealwiththesituation. Thiswould depend inlarge
partonthenature ofthecaseinquestion andmaynotnecessarily require legislative amendment.