. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/RL/W/100
6 May 2003
(03-2407)
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:  English
EGYPT’S PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON THE CONTRIBUTIONS SUBMITTED
IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE DOHA NEGOTIATIONS ON THE
AGREEMENTS ON ANTI-DUMPING AND SUBSIDIES AND
COUNTERVAILING MEASURES (TN/RL/W/72)
The following communication, dated 5 May 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Egypt.
_______________
Submission by the United States (TN/RL/W/72)
In this paper Egypt is providing its comments on the contribution submitted by the
United States in the framework of the negotiations conducted by the Negotiating Group on Rules.
(a) OVERALL WEIGHTED –AVERAGE DUMPING MARGINS
• The United States considers in its submission that Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement fails
to sufficiently define how investigating authorities should calculate the overall weighted
average dumping margins.  Also, the United States considers that Members have
interpreted this provision differently and have used different calculation methods as a
result thereof.  Consequently, the United States is of the opinion that Article 2.4.2 must beclarified by all Members in the framework of the negotiations on the AD Agreement.
• While it is true that investigating authorities have interpreted differently Article 2.4.2 of
the AD Agreement, Egypt does not believe that the Article is unclear.  The obligationsagreed upon by the Members during the Uruguay Round and set forth in the AD
Agreement have clearly been interpreted by the Appellate Body in EuropeanCommunities - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed-Linen from India
and, thus, do not require to be clarified as suggested by the United States.
(b) ALL OTHER RATES
• The United States considers that Article 9.4 needs to be clarified in order to ensure that
the “all-others” rate can be calculated using appropriate and reasonable methods.  Basedon the experience of the United States, in many investigations, there will not be any
margins, which are completely free of the use of facts available, and, thus, Article 9.4 will
not be applicable.
In such situations, Article 9.4 provides no guidance as to how the “all-others” rate should
be calculated.  In other words, it needs to be considered whether under some
circumstances it would be appropriate for calculated margins that incorporate minimal
facts available or minor adjustments to be used when calculating the “all-others” rate.TN/RL/W/100
Page 2
• Egypt believes that the question raised by the US with respect to the treatment of
cooperating non-sampled companies is pertinent but very limited in scope.  Egypt
supports the proposal of the United States, which is aimed at permitting the imposition of
duties based, to a small extent on facts available, on cooperating companies not included
in a sample.
• Since the proposal made by the US is still imprecise, Egypt requests the US to specify
in which circumstances it could be considered that only a limited amount of facts
available has been used in the an ti-dumping margin determination.
(c) NEWCOMER REVIEWS
• The United States questions the possible use of the newcomer reviews provided for in
Article 9.5 of the AD Agreement by companies already found to have been exporting
their products at injurious dumped prices in order to circumvent the anti-dumping
measures imposed on them.
• Egypt agrees with the United States that the newcomer provisions may, in certain
circumstances, be used by new companies related to companies subject to anti-dumping
and/or countervailing measures, to evade their obligation.
(d) PERSISTENT DUMPING / SUBSIDIZATION
• In its submission, the United States identify two of the consequences of persistent
dumping and subsidisation: (i) the replacement of dumped and/or subsidized imports by
dumped imports of other origins after measures have been imposed and (ii) the re-direction of dumped imports from one destination to another after the imposition of
measures.
• Egypt agrees with the United States that persistent dumping and subsidisation can have
particularly detrimental effects on the situation of industries targeted by these practices,
however Egypt would like the United States to indicate what could be the conditions for a
finding of persistent dumping or subsidisation.
• Also, since the proposal of the United States implies accelerated procedures in cases of
persistent dumping and subsidization, Egypt would be grateful if the United States
could specify how the rights of interested parties and due process could be
guaranteed in conditions similar to those currently guaranteed under the AD andSCM Agreements
.
• Finally, the United States refers in its proposal to "countries" and not "companies" found
to be dumping or subsidizing.  Does this imply that the United States considers that
findings of persistent dumping or subsidization would have to be reached for
countries taken as a whole?
__________