RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/W/64/Rev.2
13 April 2000
(00-1478)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Ad Hoc Group on Implementation
DRAFT RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING
MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED IN PRELIMINARY
AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATIONS
Revision
The following sets forth (A) specific drafting suggestions concerning the text of the draft
recommendation made by Members at the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on Implementation in
October 1999, indicating as well support expressed for those suggestions by other Members, and
(B) comments made by Members at that meeting regarding the draft recommendation.  Where no
Member objected to drafting suggestions set forth in the previous revision, such suggestions havebeen incorporated into the draft text.
***************
(A) SPECIFIC DRAFTING SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE
DRAFT RECOMMENDATION MADE BY MEMBERS AT THE MEETING OF THE
AD HOC GROUP ON IMPLEMEN TATION IN OCTOBER 1999
The Committee notes that Article 7 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the
GATT 1994 provides that provisional measures may be applied only if a preliminary affirmative
determination has been made of dumping and consequent injury to a domestic industry.  Similarly,
Article 8 of the Agreement provides that price u ndertakings shall not be sought or accepted from
exporters unless the a preliminary affirmative determination of dumping and injury caused by such
dumping has been made.
The Committee considers that guidelines for the matters to be included in such preliminary
affirmative determination would be useful.  The Committee recognizes that Article 12.2 of theAgreement specifies the contents of the public notice of a preliminary affirmative determination.  This
recommendation concerning matters to be included in preliminary affirmative determinations is
without prejudice to the question of the contents of the public notice of such a determination.
In light of the foregoing considerations, the Committee recommends that, as a general rule, a
preliminary affirmative determination should include the following matters:
1. the name(s) of the domestic producers of the like product submitting the application, the
names of other domestic producers of the like product, and the names of the importers, the exporters
and  the foreign producers[, insofar as the investigating authorities have knowledge of them] ( Mexico,
EC)[, and insofar as necessary to describe the behaviour of the international market,] (Mexico)  of the
product under investigation.
2. information concerning the procedural background of the investigation, including the date
that the application was [received  accepted] ( Thailand,  India ) and the date of initiation.G/ADP/AHG/W/64/Rev.2
Page 2
3. the definition or description of the imported product to which the preliminary determination
applies, including the Customs classification of the product and the country(ies) of origin or export.
4. information concerning the domestic like product[, including reasons for the choice of
types/models selected for the establishment of normal value] ( Japan )(Brazil, Mexico - delete ) and
industry, including if relevant information regarding the exclusion of any related producers[, if any
such producer(s) have been excluded] ( Mexico ), [for the purposes of the injury determination in the
preliminary determination]. ( US)
5. information concerning the domestic market for the product.
6. the period of investigation for both the dumping and injury analysis.
7. information concerning the estimation of th e dumping margin, including, [subject to the
requirements of confidentiality,] ( Canada ) information concerning
(a) [ normal value , including the reasons for using or not using domestic prices, e.g. the
results of "sufficient quantity" tests, the resu lts of any "ordinary course of trade tests",
including methodology for calculating cost of production, the precise methodology
for calculating constructed normal values or prices to third countries;
(b) export prices , in particular if they have been considered unreliable, in  which case
information should be included on the methodology and the adjustments made toconstruct the export prices;
(c) comparison , including reasons for rejecting claims for adjustments, the reasons for
any deviation from the average-to-average rule [or the transaction-to-transaction rule]
(Japan ) and reasons for the choice of exchange rates; and
(d) other key issues , such, in a case sampling has been used, the justification for doing so,
as well as the justification for the selection of the sample] ( Japan )
[8. information concerning the evaluation of injury, including the evidence concerning:
(a) definition of the domestic industry, including the reasons for any exclusion of
domestic companies from its scope, [for the purposes of determination injury in the
preliminary determination] ( US) (Mexico - delete subparagraph (a) )
(b) preliminary findings on the price and/or volume effects of the dumped imports and
clear explanations on the finding of injury;
(c) preliminary evidence showing the consequent adverse impact of these effects on the
domestic industry;
(d) in the absence of evidence of the existenc e of material injury, evidence leading to a
preliminary finding of immediate threat of material injury, or of material retardation
of the establishment of the industry.
(e) information on why or why not the effects of imports were cumulatively assessed]
(Japan )
[8. information concerning the evaluation of injury, including the evidence concerning the factors
set forth in Article 3 of the Agreement, the analysis employed, and, when appropriate, the evaluation
of cumulation criteria established in Article 3.3.]  ( Brazil, Mexico ).G/ADP/AHG/W/64/Rev.2
Page 3
[8 Information concerning the evaluation of inju ry and concerning the causal relationship between
the dumped imports and any injury found.] ( US)
9. information concerning [the [preliminary]  (Mexico ) evaluation of ] (Brazil ) the causal
relationship between the dumped imports and any injury found [including the [preliminary] ( Mexico )
evaluation of the "other factors"] ( Brazil ), [in the sense of Article 3.5 of the Agreement ] (Mexico )
(US - delete ).
10. information concerning verification, if undertaken..
11. information on the decision whether or not to impose provisional measures, including [the
period of application of provisional measures, and]  ( Korea ) (Thailand, Mexico - delete ) the form
and level of such measures.
12. information concerning the continuation of the investigation, including such matters as time
frames for further procedures, submissions, hearings, the requirements for undertakings if offered, andthe name, telephone and telefax numbers and address of [a contact person
 the investigating
authority].( Mexico )
[The authorities should, if they fail to include any of the information referenced above in a preliminary
affirmative determination, explain in the preliminar y affirmative determinati on why such information
was not included.] ( Japan)  (Brazil  - delete if revert to a more general list )
[Information provided in preliminary affirmative de termination by the authorities should be subject to
the need to protect confidential information.] ( Japan )
[The public notice should explain the basis on which the figures used in preliminary determinations
were obtained, whether from questionnaire responses or  other information sources, and to what extent
they have been verified.] ( Japan )
[This recommendation will be applicable only to preliminary affirmative determinations in anti-
dumping investigations initiated after the date of its entry into force.]  ( Mexico )
(B) COMMENTS MADE BY MEMBERS AT THE MEETING OF THE AD HOC GROUP
ON IMPLEMENTATION IN OCTOBER 1999 REGARDING THE DRAFT
RECOMMENDATION
1. Brazil  commented that paragraph 4 concerned the like product in the importing country and
the domestic industry, and therefore concepts relevant to normal value calculations should not be
included.  Mexico  expressed support for this view, and also suggested that paragraph 8(a) could be
deleted, as it was redundant of paragraph 4 with respect to the definition of domestic industry.
2. Brazil  observed that this recommendation was intended to reflect a minimum list of matters
to be included in preliminary affirmative determinations, and therefore the level of detail should notbe too high.  The EC, Mexico , and Thailand  expressed support for this view.  While Brazil  agreed
with the delegate of Japan that accurate prelimin ary determinations were needed, the recommendation
should not be too burdensome   Brazil , Mexico  and Thailand  commented that while they generally
agreed with the details set forth in the suggested text under paragraphs 7 and 8, they preferred a more
general formulation, rather than a more exhaustive list of matters to be taken into consideration.Mexico  noted that if a detailed list was agreed upon, care would be necessary to ensure that the
translations accurately reflected the intention of Members.  Thailand  commented that too much detail
might impose unnecessary burden on investigating authorities, and suggested that a more general
formulation might recognize that more detailed information could be made available if requested,G/ADP/AHG/W/64/Rev.2
Page 4
Brazil  noted that not all elements of Article 2 of the Agreement were included in the suggested text of
paragraph 7, which might be interpreted as meaning that such elements need not be addressed in a
preliminary determination, and that the same lack of complete correspondence with the text of the
Agreement was true with respect to the suggested text of paragraph 8.
3. Japan  commented that since the elements in the proposed text of paragraphs 7 and 8 reflected
the requirements of the Agreement, it should not be burdensome to include them in the preliminary
determination.
4. Canada  observed that it was important to include the need to respect the requirements of
confidentiality, in particular pointing to the detailed text suggested in paragraph 7, which concerned
information much of which was likely to be confidential.
5. The United States  commented, with respect to paragraphs 8 and 9, that its proposed text for
paragraph 8 reflected a concern that the existing draft text seemed to split the question of injury fromthe question of causation and consideration of volume and price effects.  In the United States' view,
causation should not be reflected as something separate from the requirements of Article 3.2 and 3.4
of the Agreement.  Therefore, the United States' proposal would collapse paragraphs 8 and 9 into one
text, to be consistent with structure of the Agreement in Articles 3.2 and 3.4.
6. Regarding paragraph 11, Mexico  noted that the maximum periods for application of
provisional measures are established in Article 7.4, and therefore it was not necessary to set this out in
a preliminary determination.  Thailand  expressed support for this view, and in addition noted that an
investigating authority might wish to modify the period of application of a provisional measure,
within the maximum periods provided for in Article 7.4 of the Agreement, and that the preliminary
determination should not limit flexibility in this regard.
7. Regarding paragraph 12, Mexico  noted that its practice is not to disclose the names of
individuals involved in an investigation, in order to protect their anonymity.
8. With respect to the suggested text regarding th e date from which recommendation applies, the
United States  commented that the Group did not and could not create legal obligations, but was
simply discussing, and recommending, guidelines for implementation for Members.  This would notaffect the binding legal nature of the Agreement, a nd could not change the language or meaning of the
Agreement.  To include this kind of clarification might suggest that the Group believes that these
recommendations do have some sort of legal status, and they do not.  Therefore, the United States
considers that it is not appropriate to put such a statement in the recommendation.  The delegate of
Thailand  expressed support for this position.  In Thailand's view, a recommendation by the Group,
even if adopted by the Committee, is not a lega l interpretation of the Agreement, but a common
understanding, so don't see the need for the suggested  text.  In any event, however, Members should
be urged to comply with recommendations adopted by the Committee, as soon as possible.
__________