./.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/MEX/2
G/SCM/Q1/MEX/2
6 October 2003
(03-5244)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATIONS OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLE 18.5 AND ARTICLE 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Questions posed by the UNITED STATES
Regarding the Notification of MEXICO1
The following communication, 2 October 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the United States.
_______________
1. Please explain under what circumstances fore ign counsel to a respondent company would be
considered a “legal representative” of the responden t company, within the meaning of Article 51 of
the Decree amending, supplementing, and repealing various provisions of the Foreign Trade Act (the
“Decree”).
2. Please clarify whether interested parties will be required to furnish non-confidential
summaries of confidential information, as required by Art. 12.4.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures (“ASCM”).
3. Article 51 of the Decree appears to include within the term “legal representative” the
members of the board of directors of an interested party, as well as in-house counsel for those parties.
Article 80 of the Decree provides that confidential information shall be made available to “legal
representatives” of interested parties.  How is this apparent requirement for interested parties to turn
over confidential information to members of  the board of directors or in-house counsel of theircompetitors consistent with ASCM Article 12.4?
4. Articles 57 and 59 of the Decree decrease th e amount of time previously available to the
authority to complete investigations.  What provis ions, if any, permit the Administering Authority to
extend these deadlines?
5. Does the revision of Article 86 of the Decree require the administering authority to inform the
competent Mexican authority of possible “monopolistic practices” discovered during a countervailing
duty investigation?  Does it require the administer ing authority to inform competent foreign antitrust
authorities?  If so, how is this provision consistent with Art. 12.4 of the ASCM, prohibiting disclosureof confidential information without the specific permission of the party submitting it?  What
information would the administering authority prov ide to the competent authority in such a case?
6. Articles 39 (II) and 42 of the Decree refer to “threat of injury”.  How is this consistent with
Footnote 45 of the ASCM, which refers to “threat of material injury”?
                                                     
1 G/SCM/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.1 (24 April 2003)G/ADP/Q1/MEX/2
G/SCM/Q1/MEX/2
Page 2
7. Article 39 (III) of the Decree refers to “[r]etardation of the establishment of a domestic
industry.”  How is this consistent with Footnote 45 of the ASCM, which refers to “material
retardation”?
8. How are the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 40 of the Decree, addressing the
situation where all producers of the domestic like product are related parties, consistent with
Articles 15.1 and 16.1 of the ASCM?
9.(a) With respect to cumulation, Article 15.3 of the ASCM requires that the investigations of the
different countries be simultaneous, and also requires an analysis by the authority as towhether cumulation is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition between the
imported products and between the imported and domestic products.  Article 43 of the
Decree, concerning cumulation, does not contain any such provisions.  How will Mexico
ensure that  Article 43 of the Decree is applied consistently with Article 15.3 of the ASCM?
(b) Is the cumulation provision set out in Article 43 mandatory or discretionary?
__________