. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/USA/11
G/SCM/Q1/USA/11
14 January 1999
(99-0101)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Replies to Questions Posed by the EUROPEAN COMMUNITY1
Regarding the Notification of the UNITED STATES2
The following communication, dated 11 January 1999, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the United States.
__________
Question 1
The United States states:  “The Commission will evaluate the adequacy of interested
party responses on a case-by-case basis.  The Commission will take into account several
considerations in evaluating the adequacy of  interested party responses.”  Could the
United States clarify whether the considerations listed on pages 12-13 of the notification bear
the same weight in evaluating adequacy and wh ether the list of considerations is exclusive
(page 12)?
Response
As the Commission stated in its Notice of  Final Rulemaking (NOFR), “both the
considerations examined and the weight accorded may vary from review to review.”  Consequently,the list of considerations the Commission examines in considering adequacy vary depending on the
circumstances of each review and may, in appropriate circumstances, encompass considerations not
expressly listed in the NOFR.  Moreover, the considerations the Commission examines are not
assigned a fixed weight.
Question 2
Could the United States explain how quantity-based production or import data will be
used in evaluating the adequacy of responses (page 12)?
Response
In its notice of institution, the Commission reque sts quantity-based commercial shipment data
from domestic producers, US import and US shipment data from importers, and production and US
export data from foreign producers.  Based on data obtained from these responses and on available
information concerning total production of the domestic like product and total imports and/or
                                                     
1 G/ADP/Q1/USA/9-G/SCM/Q1/USA/9
2 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.3-G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.3G/ADP/Q1/USA/11
G/SCM/Q1/USA/11
Page 2
production of subject merchandise, the Commission attempts to calculate the percentage of total
domestic production that is represented by the domestic interested parties that submitted adequate
individual responses to the notice of institution and the percentage of subject imports or foreign
production or exports to the United States of the subject merchandise that is represented byrespondent interested parties that submitted adequate individual responses to the notice of institution.
The Commission examines this data, together with other considerations, in evaluating the adequacy of
aggregate interested party responses.
Question 3
The Rules impose a 15 page limit for comments on adequacy.  Can the United States
comment on the compatibility of this page limit with the rights of defence of the interested
parties?
Response
As the Commission stated in its NOFR, comments under 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(b) are designed
to be a succinct expression of views on a single issue and are not intended to be briefs on the merits.
(Briefs on the merits in five-year reviews are not subject to page limits.  See 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(d)(1)
(comments in expedited reviews); 19 C.F.R. § 207.65 (prehearing briefs in full reviews).)
Consequently, the Commission concluded in the NOFR that a 15-page limit on comments foradequacy was appropriate.  Only one of the nine parties to submit comments on this provision
objected to the concept of imposing page limits on comments for adequacy, and two endorsed the
15 page limit ultimately adopted by the Commission.
Question 4
The Commission states that it will verify domestic and respondent interested party
information in appropriate circumstances and as staffing resources permit.  Could the
United States clarify what constitutes appropriate circumstances?
Response
The Commission has not yet circulated questionnaires pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 207.63 in any
five-year review, and is still developing procedures for information collection and verification.  It will
likely consider such factors as the number of countries and firms and the nature of possible data
discrepancies in determining whether circumstances are appropriate to conduct domestic interested
party and respondent interested party verifications. The Commission will also consider the staffingresources available to it.
Question 5
Could the United States clarify whether “i nterested party” in a five-year review of
countervailing duty orders includes the government of exporting companies?
Response
Under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(9)(B), which is applicable to five-year reviews as well as to
investigations arising from original anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty petitions, the term
“interested party” encompasses “the government of a country in which [subject] merchandise is
produced or from which such merchandise is exported.”
__________