./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/USA/20
G/SCM/Q1/USA/20
8 November 1999
(99-4820)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Questions from the EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
Regarding the Notification of the UNITED STATES1
The following communication, dated 2 November 1999, has been received from the
Permanent Delegation of the European Commission.
_______________
ADEQUACY OF RESPONSE
§ 351.218 (e)(1)(ii)(A) stipulates that the ' Secretary normally will conclude that respondent
interested parties have provided adequate response to a Notice of Initiation where it receives
complete substantive responses (…) from respondent interested parties accounting (…) for more than
50 per cent (…) of the total exports of subject merchandise to the US (…). '  The corresponding level
for domestic interested parties appears to be di fferent.  According to § 351.218 (e)(1)(i)(A), the
'Secretary normally will conclude that domestic in terested parties have provided adequate response to
a Notice of Initiation where it receives a complete substantive response (…) from at least one
domestic interested party  (emphasis added).'
§ 351.218 (e)(2)(i) provides that a full sunset review is only carried out if there is an adequate
response as defined above from both domestic interested parties and respondent interested parties.We note that there is an imbalance in the extent of co-operation necessary from domestic interested
parties and respondent interested parties in order to carry out such a full review.
Could the United States explain why apparently different standards have been chosen for
domestic interested parties and respondent interested parties in order to carry out a full review?
INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
§ 351.218 (d)(3)(iii) requires a respondent interested party which wishes to submit a
substantive response to file, inter alia , the following information:
'(A) That party's individual weighted average dum ping margin (…) from the investigation and
each subsequent completed administrative review (…);
                                                     
1 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.5-G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.5G/ADP/Q1/USA/20
G/SCM/Q1/USA/20
Page 2
(B) For each of the five calendar years (…) preceding the year of publication of the Notice of
Initiation, that party's volume and value (…) of exports of subject merchandise to the
United States;
(C) As applicable, for the calendar year (…) preceding the year of initiation of the dumping
investigation, that party's volume and value (…) of exports of subject merchandise to the
United States;
(D) For each of the five calendar years (…) preceding the year of publication of the Notice of
Initiation, on a volume basis (…) that party's percentage of the total exports of subject
merchandise (…) to the United States; (…)
In addition, § 351.218 (d)(3)(ii) requires, inter alia , the following information:
(H) A summary of the Department's findings regarding duty absorption, if any (…;)
(I) A description of any relevant scope clarification or ruling, including a circumvention
determination, or changed circumstances determination issued by the Department (...). '
We note that on the basis of the aforementioned provisions, a respondent interested party has
to provide information which can relate to a period dating back up to 20 years.
Could the United States explain the relevance of such 'historical' information for a finding as
to whether or not there is a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury?
Could the United States explain how they apply in this context the provisions of Article 6.13
of the WTO A-D Agreement?
TIME LIMIT FOR A SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE TO A NOTICE OF INITIATION
§ 351.218 (d)(3)(i) stipulates that a complete substantive response to a Notice of Initiation has
to be submitted to the Department not later than 30 days after the date of publication.  It appears that
this time limit also applies to respondent interested parties.
We also note the information requirements set out in § 351.218 (d)(3)(ii) and (iii), which are
substantial – so substantial, in fact, that they are tantamount to a questionnaire.
Articles 11.4 and 6.1.1 of the WTO A-D Agreement stipulate that an exporter shall have 37
days to reply to a questionnaire. In these circumstances, could the United States explain why exporters
are only given 30 days in order to file a substantive response?
__________