WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/RL/W/20
10 October 2002
(02-5473)
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:  English
QUESTIONS FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
ON DOCUMENTS TN/RL/W/6 AND TN/RL/W/10
The following communication, dated 9 October 2002, has been received from the Permanent
Delegation of the European Commission.
_______________
The EC considers the proposals made by a number of countries in TN/RL/W/6 and
TN/RL/W/10 as a useful contribution to beginning a comprehensive discussion on anti-dumping in
the Negotiating Group on Rules.  The proponents of TN/RL/W/6 and TN/RL/W/10 list a total of
23 issues covering most of the operative articles of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) which they
seek to clarify and improve.  Many of the items identified in the submissions are listed in the form of
questions mostly asking whether clearer definitions or the inclusion of additional criteria into thecurrent text of the ADA would not be appropriate.  Although illustrative examples are given for most
of the items it would be useful to know the underlying rationale for raising a particular issue and the
direction in which the proponents wish to go.  The EC understands that the submissions are meant to
be a contribution for identifying possible areas for negotiations.  However, by means of the questions
below the EC would like to invite the proponents of the two aforementioned submissions to expand
on their proposals.  The EC thinks that this would considerably contribute to having a meaningful and
guided discussion on the two contributions.
TN/RL/W/6
Q1. Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade
Do the proponents have any views on whether the "reasonable period of time" in
Article 2.2.1. ADA should be identical with the "investigation period on dumping"?
Q2. Constructed Value
Would the issue raised also encompass the question as to whether there should be more than
the 4 methods set out in Art. 2.2.2?  Are there already any thoughts as to the introduction of a
hierarchy of methods under Art. 2.2.2 and, if so, what hierarchy?
As far as each of the 4 methods set out in Article 2.2.2 is concerned, do the proponents
envisage to add further criteria beyond the existing ones as interpreted by panel and AB reports?
Q3. Cyclical Markets
Could the proponents expand on which precise parameters should guide investigating
authorities in setting the investigation period for perishable goods or goods in a rapidly growing
manufacturing sector?TN/RL/W/20
Page 2
Q4. Prohibition of Zeroing
Does this proposal go beyond the ruling of the AB in Bed linen  on zeroing?  Should the
prohibition of zeroing also cover the method set out in the last sentence of Article 2.4.2?  If so, whatwould be the difference between the first method described in the first sentence of Article 2.4.2 and
the method set out in this last sentence?
Q5. Cumulative assessment of Injury
The example given seems also to raise the question of the "product concerned".  What is the
view of the proponents on the relationship between the issue of cumulation and the issue of theproduct concerned?
Q6. Causal Relationship between Dumping and Injury
Could the proponents explain whether they have already any preliminary ideas as to the
practical implementation of the AB doctrine of "separate and distinguish"?  Should there be a
quantitative analysis?  How should such methodologies work in practice?
Q7. Threat of Material Injury
Which factors other than those contained in Article 3.4 and declared applicable by the AB
should be listed for a finding of threat of material injury under Article 3.7 ADA?
Q8. Threshold under Article 5.8
Do the proponents already have a precise idea as to the appropriate levels for de minimis  and
negligibility margins?
Q9. Facts Available
Which precise clarifications beyond Annex II to the ADA and the panel/AB doctrine do the
proponents have in mind?
Q11. Sunset of Anti-Dumping Orders
Which additional criteria can make sunset reviews more practical? Is the absence of imports
in the proponents' view always a reason to automa tically terminate measures in a sunset review?
Q12. Public Interest
What are the proponents' ideas as to how a public interest test should be tailored?  Should it
only be a procedural requirement to collect certain information or should it also encompass a test withsubstantive criteria to be taken into account by investigating authorities?  If so, are there already any
ideas as to possible substantive criteria?
TN/RL/W/10
Q1. Definition of product Under Investigation/Consideration and Like Product
Given the complexity of today's markets, what kind of "appropriate criteria" do the
proponents have in mind in order to determine the product scope?TN/RL/W/20
Page 3
Q2. Definition of Domestic Industry
What would - in the view of the proponents - constitute a major proportion of the domestic
industry?
Q4. Initiation Standards
What are the proponents' ideas on making the current initiation standards as interpreted by
panels and the AB stricter short of requiring the same standards as for the imposition of measures?
Q5. Determination of Normal Value - Affiliated parties and Their Transactions
Are the proponents suggesting the inclusion of a single threshold for shareholding above
which transactions between affiliated parties should be discarded?  How could - in the proponents'
view - "positive evidence showing that the transfer price between affiliated parties is unreliable" look
like?
Q6. Injury Determination
What kind of additional guidance do the proponents envisage that can be given beyond the
vast body of panel and AB decisions on this issue?
Q7. Price Undertakings
Given the complexity of today's business reality, how workable can precise criteria for
rejecting undertakings be in the proponents' opinion?  How do developing country interests come intoplay here other than through the link to Article 15 second sentence ADA?
Q8. Reviews
Do the proponents consider the recurrence anal ysis as carried out by many investigating
authorities when it comes to reviews an appropriate methodology?  If not, what other methodology
would be more appropriate?
Q9. Constructed Export price; methodology for construction
Do the proponents disagree that the current rules on level of trade adjustments ensure in most
cases a fair comparison between normal value and CEP?
__________