. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/RL/W/51
5 February 2003
(03-0764)
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:  English
QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE UNITED STATES' PAPER
ON BASIC CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE
TRADE REMEDY RULES
The following communication, dated 5 February 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Japan.
_______________
Japan would like to thank the United States for its paper on Basic Concepts and Principles of
the Trade Remedy Rules (TN/RL/W/27) and would appreciate a response to the following commentsand questions related to Anti-Dumping (AD).  We reserve our right to submit additional comments
and questions at a later stage.
1. Questions related to the primary objective of the AD Negotiations under the Doha Mandate
Q1. The first paragraph of the US paper implies that the focus of the negotiations on anti-dumping
should be “preserving the basic concepts, principles and effectiveness” of the AD Agreement.  The
language cited by the United States simply provides context.  The objective of the negotiations is to
clarify and improve the disciplines under the AD Agreement while preserving the basic concepts,
principles and effectiveness of the agreement.  Would the United States agree that the language it cites
is intended to place the clarification and improvement of the AD Agreement in context?
Q2. The United States asserts in section B of its submission that trade remedies were provided to
ensure that the balance struck was not nullified.  However, part of the balance struck was to ensure
that trade-liberalizing measures were not negated by actions of the Contracting Parties in, for
example, the application of anti-dumping measures.  It is in this context important to note that trade
distortions  occur not only as a result of dumping or subsidization, but also from inappropriateapplication of AD/CVD measures.  Thus, would the Un ited States agree that the anti-dumping rules
are intended both to discipline injurious dumping and to discipline the application of anti-dumping
measures?
Q3. The United States indicates in section C.1. of its paper that anti-dumping measures are
necessary to help create a level playing field.  In the United States’ view, is it necessary to impose
duties in excess of those necessary to eliminate the injurious effects of the dumping in order to have a
level playing field?  If so, could the United States explain why?  To maintain a level playing field
among Members, in the view of the United States, isn’t it necessary to clarify provisions of the AD
Agreement to ensure uniform application of rules?
Q4. If the United States is concerned about “adding to or diminishing the rights and obligations of
Members “ in the dispute settlement context, could the United States agree that one way, perhaps the
best way, of addressing this concern is to clarify the rules so that they are less susceptible toTN/RL/W/51
Page 2
inappropriately broad or narrow interpretation, ra ther than weakening the ability of the dispute
settlement mechanism?
2. Questions related to government involvement
Q5. Referring to section C of the United States paper, is it the US contention that dumping would
not take place absent “inappropriate government involvement”?  If so, given that the existing AD
Agreement includes no mechanism for distinguishing pricing practices resulting form “inappropriate
government involvement” from those based on normal business decisions, would the United States
not consider that the AD Agreement should be improved in this respect?  Is it the United States’ view
that the finding of “inappropriate government involvement” should be an element that has to be
proved in order to impose anti-dumping measures?
Q6. The United States, in Section C of its paper, indicates that the trade distorting practices are the
root cause of unfair trade.  The United States also argues in said section that government policies can
create “sanctuary markets” that allows producers to earn high profits in the domestic market and,
therefore, dump their product in export markets.  Coul d the United States agree that the existence of a
sanctuary market or other trade distorting practice causing dumping be an element that has to be
proved in order to impose anti-dumping measures?
Q7. Over the past decade, various US exporters, su ch as those in food industry, chemical industry
and so on, have been subject to anti-dumping measures, whereas the US did not challenge many of thecases in the WTO dispute settlement.  Is it the US Government’s policies that triggered  the trade
distorting practices in these industries, which were subject to imposition of anti-dumping duties by the
governments of importing countries?
__________