./.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/MEX/4
G/SCM/Q1/MEX/4
15 October 2003
(03-5468)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATIONS OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLE 18.5 AND ARTICLE 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Questions posed by the UNITED STATES
Regarding the Notification of MEXICO1
The following communication, dated 2 October 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the United States.
_______________
1. Article 31 of the Decree amending, supplementin g, and repealing various provisions of the
Foreign Trade Act (the “Decree”), addresses, among other things, the use of third country prices as abasis for normal value.  Please explain how the requirement only to use the “highest” such price in
determining the normal value is consistent with the requirement of Article 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement (ADA) that the third country price be “comparable” to the export price.
2. The term “highest” price as used in Article 31 could be read to imply that a single third
country price will be selected as the basis for normal value to be compared with the weighted average
export price.  We note in this regard that Article 40 of  Mexico’s Regulations under the Foreign TradeAct
2 states:
As a general rule, both the normal value and the export price shall be calculated on
the basis of the weighted average figures obtained for the period of the investigation.
When the normal value is determined on the basis of the prices to which Article 31 ofthe Act refers, they shall be weighted according to the proportion of each transaction
relative to the total volume of sales in the country of origin or export to a third
country, as appropriate.
If amended Article 31 calls for use of a single price, does this reflect a view by Mexico that an
individual-to-average comparison is authorized whenever third country prices are used?  How is thisconsistent with Article 2.4.1?  Has Article 40 of the regulations been rescinded?  If amended
Article 31 does not call for use of a single price as a basis for normal value, i.e. if the referenced
“highest” price is actually an average of prices, how will that average be constructed?
3. Please explain under what circumstances foreign counsel to a respondent company in a
Mexican anti-dumping proceeding would be considered a “legal representative” of the respondent
company, within the meaning of Article 51 of the Decree.
                                                     
1 G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.2
2 See G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1, at p. 13G/ADP/Q1/MEX/4
G/SCM/Q1/MEX/4
Page 2
4. Article 51 of the Decree appear to include within the term “legal representative” members of
the board of directors of interested parties as well as in-house counsel for those parties.  Article 80 of
the Decree provides that confidential information shall be made available to “legal representatives” of
interested parties.  How is this apparent requirement for interested parties to turn over confidentialinformation to the members of the board of directors or in-house counsel of their competitors
consistent with Article 6.5 of the ADA?
5. Please clarify whether interested parties will be required to furnish non-confidential
summaries of confidential information, as required by Art. 6.5.1 of the ADA.
6. Articles 57 and 59 of the Decree decrease th e amount of time previously available to the
authority to complete investigations.  What provis ions, if any, permit the Administering Authority to
extend these deadlines?
7. Does the revision of Article 86 of the Decree require the administering authority to inform the
competent Mexican authority of possible “monopolistic practices” discovered during an anti-dumpinginvestigation?  Does it require the administerin g authority to inform competent foreign antitrust
authorities?  If so, how is this provision consistent with Art. 6.5 of the ADA, prohibiting disclosure of
confidential information without the specific permi ssion of the party submitting it?  What information
would the administering authority be required to provide to the competent authority in such a case?
8. Articles 39 (II) and 42 of the Decree refer to “threat of injury”.  How is this consistent with
Footnote 9 of the ADA, which refers to “threat of material injury”?
9. Article 39 (III) of the Decree refers to “[r]etardation of the establishment of a domestic
industry”.  How is this consistent with Footnote 9 of the ADA, which refers to “material retardation”?
10. How are the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 40 of the Decree, addressing the
situation where all producers of the domestic like product are related parties, consistent with
Articles 2.6 and 4.1 of the ADA?
11. (a) With respect to cumulation, Article 3.3 of the ADA requires that the investigations of
the different countries be simultaneous, and also requires an analysis by the authorityas to whether cumulation is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition
between the imported products and between the imported and domestic products.
Article 43 of the Decree, concerning cumulation, does not contain any such
provisions.  How will Mexico ensure that  Article 43 is applied consistently with
Article 3.3 of the ADA?
(b) Is the cumulation provision set out in Article 43 mandatory or discretionary?
__________