RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/W/40
G/SCM/W/48
26July1995
ORGANIZATION(95-2172)
Original: Spanish Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE NOTIFICATIONS PROVIDED BY
THE GOVERNMENT OFTHE UNITED STATES OFLAWS
AND REGULATIONS UNDER ARTICLES 18.5
AND 32.6OFTHE AGREEMENTS
Thefollowing communication, dated 14July,hasbeenreceived fromthePermanent Mission
ofVenezuela.
_______________
Iamforwardingherewith,forinformationandappropriateaction,theGovernmentofVenezuela's
questions concerning thenotifications oflawsandregulations onanti-dumping practices andsubsidies
andcountervailing measures provided bytheGovernment oftheUnited States (documents
G/ADP/N/1/USA/1.Suppl.1 andG/SCM/N/1/USA/1.Suppl.1).G/ADP/W/40
G/SCM/W/48
Page2
QUESTIONS FROM VENEZUELA FOR THE UNITED STATES OFAMERICA
CONCERNING THE LAW ONANTI-DUMPING AND
COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
I. Application bydomestic industry
(Articles 11.3and11.4oftheSubsidies Code andArticles 5.3and5.4oftheAnti-Dumping
Code; Section 212,1and2,4,D,i)
Anapplication forananti-dumping orsubsidy investigation canbeconsidered onlyifitis
supported bythose domestic producers whose output constitutes more thanfiftypercent(50%) ofthe
totalproduction ofthelikeproduct. Theauthorities must verify thatalltherequirements forthe
introduction ofanapplication have beensatisfied andtothatendmust examine theaccuracy and
truthfulness oftheevidence provided.
Why istheUnited States legislation more laxthantheagreements oftheWorld Trade
Organizationandwhydoesitnotexpresslyobligetheauthoritiesresponsibleforinitiatinganinvestigation
toexamine thetruthfulness andaccuracy oftheevidence provided.
How aretheauthorities abletorelyonthisrequirement having been metinthecaseof
information obtained from other bodies andnotverified bytheauthorities inquestion?
II. Injury caused bysubsidized ordumped imports
(Article15.5oftheSubsidiesCodeandArticle3.5oftheAnti-DumpingCode,Section212,b,1
and2,a,1,B)
Whywithreference totheinjury caused tothedomestic industry isitstated thatsuchinjury
iscaused byimports ofmerchandise, when thereference should properly betoimports ofdumped
orsubsidized merchandise?
III. Request forrevocation ofduties
(Article 11.2 oftheAnti-Dumping Code andArticle 21.2 oftheSubsidies Code;
Section 220,b,3,A)
According totheagreements oftheWorld Trade Organization, itistheresponsibility ofthe
authorities toreview theneedfortheimposition oftheduty. However, anyinterested party mayrequest
areview, inwhich caseitmust submit positive evidence.
TheAmerican legislation requires theinterested partyseeking revocation ofanorder topersuade
theauthorities thatthere arechanged circumstances sufficient towarrant suchrevocation. Isitnot
sufficient fortheauthorities toreceive positive information demonstrating theneedforareview?
V. Duration ofduties
(Article 11.3 oftheAnti-Dumping Code andArticle 21.3 oftheSubsidies Code;
Section 220,d,3)
Under theagreements oftheWorld Trade Organization, anydutymust beterminated after
notmore thanfive(5)years.
HowisitthatinSection 220,d,3theauthorities aregranted therighttodecide ontheduration
oftheduties imposed when theyaffect current imports andtheabove-mentioned five(5)-year periodG/ADP/W/40
G/SCM/W/48
Page3
hasalready elapsed? Isitperhaps aquestion ofnewduties? Forthatitwould benecessary toinitiate
anewinvestigation.
VI. Captive industry
(Articles 4.1,3.1,3.4and3.6oftheAnti-Dumping Code andArticles 16.1, 15.1, 15.4and
15.6oftheSubsidies Code; Section 222,b,2,iv)
Theabilitytodivideupthemarket,forexamplebyintroducingtheconceptof"captiveindustry",
facilitates thedetermination ofinjury andthemargin ofdumping.
Why doestheAmerican legislation introduce anexception totheideaofdomestic industry
byincluding "captive industry"?
VII. Costadjustments inthestart-up stage
(Article 2.2.1.1 oftheAnti-Dumping Code; Section 244,f,1,C,iii)
Theinvestment inmarketing mustbesubsumed intheselling costs. Inaccordance withthe
Anti-Dumping Code, boththeproduction costs andtheselling costs areadjustable when thegoods
areproduced byenterprises inthestart-up stage.
Whyinconnection withthistypeofadjustment doestheAmerican legislation mention only
production costs? Thelegislation would appear toexclude from thecosts which needtobeadjusted
inrelation togoods produced byenterprises inthestart-up stage those resulting fromtheinvestment
inmarketing, which should beincluded asselling costs.
II. Faircomparison forthecalculation ofthemargin ofdumping inreview proceedings
(Articles 2.4and18.3oftheAnti-Dumping Code; Section 229,f,1,C,iii)
Inorder todetermine themargin ofdumping itisnecessary tomake afaircomparison by
comparing theweighted average normal value withtheweighted average oftheexport prices ofthe
goods inquestion orbycomparing normal value andexport prices onatransaction-to-transaction basis.
Thesame method should beusedinreview proceedings.
Why isamethod different from thatstipulated intheWTO agreements used inreview
proceedings intheanalysis todetermine themargin ofdumping?