RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/W/336
G/SCM/W/344
ORGANIZATION 12April 1996
(96-1294)
Original: English Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE NOTIFICATIONS PROVIDED
BYTHE PHILIPPINES1OFLAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5AND 32.6OFTHE AGREEMENTS
Thefollowingcommunication,dated3April1996,hasbeenreceivedfromthePermanentMission
ofAustralia.
_______________
Questions from Australia
1. Thenotified legislation differs from theWTO Anti-Dumping andSubsidies Agreements in
anumber ofaspects andalsodoesnotcontain much ofthedetail inthose agreements.
WillthePhilippines berevising itslegislation orissuing regulations? Ifnot,areother
arrangements inplace togiveguidance totheadministering authorities regarding the
provisions oftheWTO Agreement andwhatwould betheirstanding inajudicial review?
(Some ofthose areas ofdivergence arecommented onbelow.) Dothecommon
procedural provisions foranti-dumping andcountervailing setoutinSection 301for
anti-dumping alsoapply toSection 302forcountervailing?
2. What aretherequirements forpetitions foranti-dumping andcountervailing
investigations? Does thePhilippines envisage thatmany cases would beinitiated ex
officio ?
3. Inviewoftheperiods involved, could thePhilippines clarify whether the"prima facie"
determination isinrespect ofinitiation rather thanpreliminary determination assetout
under Article 7oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement. Section 301(a) (page 2)refers tothe
"determination ofaprima faciecaseofdumping". Does thisinclude thedetermination of
injury andcausal linkaswellasdumping?
4. Could thePhilippines confirm thatSection 301(a) (pages 2and3)allows orrequires the
imposition ofanti-dumping measures prior toapreliminary affirmative determination and
thatSection 302(a) (pages 1and2)alsoallows theimposition ofcountervailing measures
prior toapreliminary affirmative determination.
5. Does thesecond paragraph ofSection 301(b)(1)(page 3)preclude theuseofsalesofthe
likeproduct intheexporting country when thatisnotthecountry oforigin?
1G/ADP/N/1/PHL/1-G/SCM/N/1/PHL/1.
./.G/ADP/W/336
G/SCM/W/344
Page2
6. Under thefourth paragraph ofSection 301(b)(1)(page 3),whatisconsidered tobea"fair
comparison" andhowcanthenormal value becaused tobeunreliable because ofan
association orarrangement between theexporter andtheimporter? Under thesame
paragraph, whatisthebasis forchoosing theapproach thatresults in"thehigher of
values"? Moreover canmethods other thanthose setoutinArticles 2.1and2.2ofthe
Anti-Dumping Agreement (such astheuseofasurrogate country andtheimported costs
oflikeproduct intotheproducing country) beusedtodetermine normal values in
circumstances other thanthose setoutinthesecond AdNote toGATT Article VI:I?
7. Does theterm"like article" (Section 301(O)(5), page8)mean thesame as"like product"
under theAnti-Dumping Agreement ordoesitalsopotentially include other competitive
products (seealso(Sections 301(b)(3)(d)(i) and301(E), pages 4and5respectively)?
What isthescope oftheterm“kindorclass”usedinthefirstparagraphs of
Section 301(a) and(b)(1)(pages 2and3)?Isitthesame as"like article"?
8. How willtheexistence andlevels ofmargins ofdumping bedetermined under
Section 301(b)(2)(page 3)?
9. What guidance willbeprovided totheinvestigating authorities beyond
Section 301(b)(3)(page 4)onthequestion ofthedetermination ofinjury andcausal link?
10. Onwhatbasis would thePhilippines collect duties onimports made prior tothedateof
application asisapparently mandatory under Section 301(E)(page 5)?
11. Areexporters consider tobeincluded under Section 301(G)(page 5)("protestee") andwill
theybeafforded thesame rights asother interested parties under theAnti-Dumping
Agreement?
12. What timeperiods willexporters andproducers begiven torespond toquestionnaires?
Arethe"memoranda" referred tointhefinalparagraph ofSection 301(b)(3)(page 4)
different from questionnaire inviewoftheshort timeperiod allowed forresponse by
interested parties?
13. Willprovision bemade forexporter specific measures, price undertakings andresidual
ratesofduty?
14. Could thePhilippines advise whether Section 301(1)(pages 5and6)limits therights of
interested parties tohavejudicial review ofalltheadministrative actions relating tofinal
determinations andreviews apart from thecalculation oftheamount ofanti-dumping duty.
What isthecomparable situation forcountervailing?
15. Onwhatbasis hasthePhilippines specified inSection 301(O)(2) (page 7)theminimum
levels ofcotsandprofits? Would theactual costs incurred (andprofits made) beaccepted
iftheywere abletobeverified, eventhough theywere lessthanthespecified minimum
levels?
16. Does "significant share" inSection 301(O)(3) (page 7)indefining "domestic industry"
havethesame meaning as"major proportion" intheAnti-Dumping Agreement? What
levelofsupport ofthedomestic industry would berequired forinitiation ofan
investigation?