RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/W/12
11July1995
ORGANIZATION(95-1928)
Original: English Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE NOTIFICATION
PROVIDED BYTHE GOVERNMENT OFKOREA OFLAWS AND
REGULATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 18.5OFTHE AGREEMENT
Thefollowing communication, dated 5July1995, hasbeen received from thePermanent
Delegation oftheEuropean Community.
_______________
Please findenclosed written questions oftheEuropean Community concerning thedumping
legislation ofKorea.
1. Itisnotclearfromthetextsavailable (inparticular Article 10(8) oftheCustoms Act,page4
ofthedocument) thatonlyareview having covered bothdumping andinjury willgenerate anew
five-year period ofapplication ofthemeasures. Isthisassumption, although inconsistent with
Article 11.3oftheWTO Code, correct?
2. From Article 4-6(5) oftheenforcement decree (page 11ofthedocument), itappears that
adjustments areoptional. Could theKorean authorities precise inwhich cases theyintend toavoid
making suchadjustments andconfirm thatsuchanapproach willnotapply tocases where itislikely
thatthegranting ofadjustments would eliminate differences affecting thecomparability ofprices?
3. From Article 4-8(3) oftheenforcement decree (page 13ofthedocument), itappears thata
non-confidential summary mayberequested, while theCode leaves nodiscretion andclearly states
thatauthoritiesshallrequiresuchsummaries.Isthisassumption,althoughinconsistentwithArticle6.5.1
oftheWTO Code, correct?
4. Could theKorean authorities explain themeaning ofArticle 4-8(5) oftheenforcement decree
(page 13ofthedocument) insofarasitrelates todifficulties toconduct aninvestigation?
5. Article 4-8(7) oftheenforcement decree (page 14ofthedocument) provides that"aparticular
reason" mayjustify thedecision torefuse access tonon-confidential information. Could theKorean
authorities bemore explicit onthisissue andexplain whatkindofextraordinary reason could justify
sucharestriction totherights ofdefence?
6. From Article 4-14(2) oftheenforcement decree (page 20ofthedocument), itappears that
requests forinterim reviews areadmissible atthelatest sixmonths before theexpiry dateofthemeasures
concerned. Does thismean thatevenincases where averyshort review could permit toconfirm that
adutyshould immediately berepealed, interested parties willhavetowaitfortheexpiry, sixmonths
later?