RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/W/496
22 February 2002
(02-0927)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE BY MINISTERS
Review by the SCM Committee of the Provisions of the Agreement on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures Regarding Countervailing Duty Investigations
Communication from the United States
The following communication, dated 22 February 2002, has been received from the
Permanent Mission of the United States.
_______________
Questions from the United States to Braz il and India  on G/SCM/W/464 and G/SCM/W/465
FACTS AVAILABLE  - BRAZIL
Introduce provisions on use of “facts available”  such as those in Annex II of the AD Agreement
1. Could Brazil please explain what its experience has been with countervailing duty
investigations?
2. Could Brazil please explain why it sees the need to introduce more detailed “facts available”
provisions for the SCM Agreement?
FACTS AVAILABLE – INDIA
Clarify that all verifiable and timely submitte d information should be taken into account and
that if a portion of information is not verifiable  or timely submitted, facts available may be used
for that  portion of the information
3. To what extent would India’s proposal require a change to the ASCM?  If a change to the
agreement is not required, please explain, in India’s view, how this proposal should be effectuated.
4. If this proposal were adopted, what would prevent responding companies from selectively
providing information?G/SCM/W/496
Page 2
REVIEW PROCEDURES – BRAZIL
Introduce provision for assessment of degree of support for review requests
5. Does Brazil agree that the SCM Agreement currently allows for a review procedure under
Article 21 upon request by less than the degree of support required in Article 11?
6. To what extent would Brazil’s proposal require a change to the ASCM?  If a change to the
agreement is not required, please explain, in Brazil’ s view, how this proposal should be effectuated.
Introduce provision for notification of Me mbers whose products are subject to review
7. Why are the existing provisions of the ASCM inadequate to address Brazil’s concerns?
Introduce provision for prior consultation with  affected Members before initiating a review,
and during its course
8. Brazil states that there is no explicit obligation that Members subject to a review be offered
consultations prior to and during the review process.  Could Brazil please explain, therefore, whether
this proposal would require a change to the ASCM?  If a change to the agreement is not required,
please explain, in Brazil’s view, how this proposal should be effectuated.
Introduce detail in Article 19.3 concerning expedited review of new exporters
9. Could Brazil please explain what types of detail should be added to Article 19.3 and the
reasons for these additions?
REVIEW PROCEDURES – INDIA
Review need for continued imposition of measure upon submission of positive information
concerning procedural mistakes or manifest  error of appreciation by authorities
10. To what extent would India’s proposal require a change to the ASCM?  If a change to the
agreement is not required, please explain, in India’s view, how this proposal should be effectuated.
11. Could India please specifically explain precisely what types of information and under what
instances such a review should be conducted?
Clarify Article 21.2 to provide for automatic adjustment of countervailing duties for schemes
withdrawn
12. To what extent would India’s proposal require a change to the ASCM?  If a change to the
agreement is not required, please explain, in India’s view, how this proposal should be effectuated.
13. Could India please explain what is meant by an automatic adjustment?  Would such an
adjustment for schemes withdrawn be contingent upon review and verification?
14. If the subsidy under an existing programme is increased, or if a new programme is introduced,
should there be an upward adjustment of the c ountervailing duty?  If not, please explain why.G/SCM/W/496
Page 3
DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND INJURY ANALYSIS – INDIA
Clarify "major proportion of the total domestic production" and clarify whether defining
domestic industry as those who supported the petition cannot be construed as impermissible
interpretation of the major proportion requirement.
15. No questions.
In determining likeness of products, account should be taken of differentiated nature of
products even where they have closely resembling characteristics inter alia through
consideration of price comparison substitu tability and whether in direct competition.
16. To what extent would India ’s proposal require a change to the ASCM?  If a change to the
agreement is not required, please explain, in India’s view, how this proposal should be effectuated.
17. Does India agree that there may be certain investigations in which it would be unproductive
for the authorities to use price as a criteria in de termining the like product because the price of the
allegedly unfairly traded/subsidized import would, by its very nature, be suspect and therefore
incapable of providing a fair comparison?
18. Does India believe that once an authority determines that certain products are identical or
closely resemble one another, this ends the authority’s like product analysis, or does it believe anauthority must proceed, in addition, to consider price, substitutability, and whether the products are in
direct competition?
__________