RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/W/310
G/SCM/W/318
ORGANIZATION 26March 1996
(96-1093)
Original: English Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures
REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYCANADA1
CONCERNING THE NOTIFICATION OFLAWS AND
REGULATIONS OFICELAND2
Thefollowing communication dated 21March 1996, hasbeenreceived from thePermanent
Mission ofIceland.
_______________
1. Articles 4and18ofRegulation No.351/1994 provide ashort definition ofsubsidies, andhow
theyaretobecalculated; however, thelegislation doesnotappear tocover several essential provisions
oftheSCM Agreement. Forexample, could Iceland please clarify:
(a) whether, inthecaseofacontradiction between itsdefinition ofsubsidy andthatin
detailed inArticle 1oftheSCM Agreement, thatthelatter willprevail;
(b) howspecificity istobecalculated, andwhynoneofthedetails ofArticle 2oftheSCM
Agreement isincluded inregulations;
(c) howIcelandic authorities willbeabletoterminate proceedings involving non-actionable
subsidies asdefined under PartIVoftheSCMAgreement, given thattherearenosuch
provisions intheIcelandic legislation, noranydefinition ofprohibited oractionable
subsidies asprovided forinPartIIandPartIIIoftheSCM Agreement?
Reply
Icelandadherestotheso-calleddualisticsystemintheapplicationofinternationallawtoIcelandic
domestic law. Inprinciple, Actsarerequired togiveinternational law,including treaty obligations,
direct legaleffects within theIcelandic legalsystem. Itisawellestablished principle incourt cases,
however, thatdomestic legislation must beinterpreted inaccordance withinternational lawand
international obligations which Iceland hasundertaken. Thisprinciple isfurther strengthened inthe
Regulation No.351/1994 onA-DandCVD measures, Article 1,paragraph 2,which specifically states
thatdueconsideration must begiven toprovisions ofInternational Agreements towhich Iceland is
aparty.
TheIcelandic A-DandSCM legislation -which predates theentry intoforce oftheWTO
Agreements -ispresently under review. TheIcelandic authorities arefullyrealize thatdiscrepancies
1G/ADP/W/230-G/SCM/W/240.
2G/ADP/N/1/ISL/1-G/SCM/N/1/ISL/1G/ADP/W/310
G/SCM/W/318
Page2
existbetween thelegislation andtheAgreements. Thenewlegislation willbefullycompatible with
theA-DandSCM Agreements.
TheIcelandic authorises areaware ofthelimited definition ofsubsidies intheRegulation in
comparison withrelevant provisions intheSCM Agreement. Thiswillbedulyamended inthenew
legislation soastoreflect these provisions intheAgreements. Inlightoftheabove thedomestic
legislation willinthemeantime beinterpreted totheextent possible inconformity withtheAgreements.
2. Article 21ofRegulation No351/1994 doesnotinclude theinitiation standards provided for
inArticle 5.4oftheA-DAgreement and11.4oftheSCM Agreement. CanIceland confirm thatit
willnotinitiate aninvestigation ifthecomplainants donotmeetthese standards?
Reply
With reference totheanswer tothefirstquestion, Article 21oftheRegulation would be
interpreted inlightofArticle 5.4oftheA-DAgreement andArticle 11.4oftheSCM Agreement.
Incasethere wasadirect conflict, theRegulation could besuspended oramended withshort notice
inorder toavoid suchaproblem.
3. CanIcelandpleaseclarifyifundertakings,asdescribedinArticle31ofRegulationNo.351/1994,
canonlybeaccepted afterapreliminary determination ofdumping and/or subsidy andinjury asrequired
inArticle 8.2oftheA-DAgreement andArticle 18oftheSCMAgreement? Furthermore, asprovided
forinArticle 11.5oftheA-DAgreement and21.3oftheSCM Agreement, areundertakings subject
tothefive-year limitdescribed inArticle 42ofRegulation No.351/1994?
Reply
Article 24oftheRegulation foresees apreliminary examination which should establish the
existence ofdumping orasubsidy andacausal linktoinjury before theinitiation ofaformal
investigation. According toArticle 31oftheRegulation, undertakings canbeentered intoduring an
investigation. Therequirement ofanaffirmative preliminary determination istherefore fulfilled since
theundertaking canonlytakeplace afterthepreliminary examination which serves thesame purpose
asanaffirmative preliminary determination.
4. AccordingtoArticle34ofRegulationNo.351/1994,provisionalmeasuresshallhaveamaximum
period ofvalidity of12months. HowdoesIceland reconcile thiswiththeprovisions ofArticle 7.4
oftheA-DAgreement andArticle 17.4oftheSCM Agreement whereby provisional measures shall
normally belimited toaperiod offourmonths?
Reply
Article 118oftheCustoms lawstipulates that“....Anti-dumping andcountervailing duties
maybeimposed temporarily ”buttheymaynotbeimposed foralonger duration than12months.
The12-month period represents amaximum duration, butthere isnoobligation tomake fulluseof
it.TheRegulation, Article 34,states thattheCommittee canrecommend suchanaction. Inapplying
thisArticle andinviewofArticle 1oftheRegulation, theuseofprovisional measures would notexceed
fourmonths. Iceland recognizes however thatthelanguage canbeimproved andwilltakethese
comments intoaccount intheinternal review.G/ADP/W/310
G/SCM/W/318
Page3
5. Arethereprovisions inIcelandic legislation forexpedited reviews fornewexporters asrequired
inArticle 9.5oftheA-DAgreement?
Reply
No. There ishowever nothing thatprecludes thisandsucharequest could begranted in
administrative proceedings.