RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/IG/W/11
20 October 1998
(98-4056)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Informal Group on Anti-CircumventionOriginal:  English
TOPIC 1 – WHAT CONSTITUTES CIRCUMVENTION?
Paper by New Zealand
The following communication, dated 12 October 1998, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of New Zealand.
_______________
Circumvention of anti-dumping measures may occur where, following the imposition of anti-
dumping measures, importers seek to evade the scope and the application of the anti-dumping notice.
In New Zealand, this evasion can be covered by the existing order imposing anti-dumping duties,
provided that the goods concerned are still like goods and where the country of origin or export does
not change.  Where the evasion is based on fraudulent behaviour it can also be dealt with under the
relevant legislation, such as the Customs and Excise Act.  In all other cases, New Zealand would dealwith evasion of anti-dumping duties through a new investigation.
New Zealand has experienced three cases where circumvention has been an issue.  The
circumstances of each of these cases are described below:
Sugar from Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands
In November 1988, anti-dumping duties were imposed on imports of refined sugar from
Malaysia, Thailand and Germany.  Prior to the completion of this investigation imports of sugar from
Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Papua Ne w Guinea also started to appear in the market-
place.  The same exporters and importers were involved in importing from the second set of countries
as were involved in the first case.  Accordingly, in September and October 1988, the New Zealandindustry lodged another application with the Ministry to initiate investigations into the dumping of
sugar from these new sources of supply.  This second investigation was initiated in December 1988
and completed in June 1989 with anti-dumping duties being imposed on imports from the
Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark.
This is an example of circumvention of the original anti-dumping duty by way of switching
suppliers or "country hopping".  In recognition of the fact that different countries were involved,
New Zealand conducted a new investigation, ba sed on a new application by the New Zealand
industry.G/ADP/IG/W/11
Page 2
Plasterboard from Thailand
In June 1989 the New Zealand manufacturer of plasterboard lodged an application for the
initiation of an investigation against various sizes of standard and foil-backed plasterboard from
Thailand.  The investigation was initiated and the like goods defined as:
Standard or foil—backed plasterboard having nominal dimensions of 9 mm. or
9.5 mm. thickness, by 1,200 mm. width by 2,400 mm. to 3,600 mm. length.
After a period of time, importers began to avoid the anti-dumping duties on some plasterboard
by varying the lengths of board so that they were  outside the description of the final notice, i.e.
lengths shorter than 2,400 mm. and longer than 3,600 mm.  In particular, lengths of board measuring
4,800 mm. in length were being imported and cut in half to supply the market with the most popular
length board of 2,400 mm.
The New Zealand industry lodged a new applicati on for an investigation and this was initiated
and conducted into the following goods:
Plasterboard of nominal dimensions of 9 mm. or 9.5 mm. thickness and lengths of
less than 2,400 mm. and greater than 3,600 mm.
An anti-dumping duty was imposed on these goods at the same level as that applying to the
first investigation.
Imports then started appearing in the market-place for goods with a thickness of 10 mm.  This
particular board competed directly against the board of 9 mm. or 9.5 mm. thickness and the
New Zealand industry lodged a further application, which was initiated in October 1996.  The
definition of the goods in this case was:
Standard plasterboard with dimensions falling between a thickness of 8.75 mm. to
10.25 mm. of any length or width (not including plasterboard subject to anti-dumping
duty under other notices)."
This finally captured all plasterboard that co mpeted directly with the goods made by the
New Zealand industry.
This is an example of circumvention of the original and subsequent anti-dumping duty by
way of importing goods slightly different from those stipulated in the final notice.  In order to deal
with this situation, New Zealand conducted a new investigation, based on a new application by the
New Zealand industry.
This illustrates some of the difficulties that can arise in trying to define like goods.
Hog bristle paint brushes from China
In January 1988, an investigation was initiated into the dumping of hog bristle paint brushes
from the People's Republic of China.  A final notice was issued in May 1988 imposing an anti-
dumping duty on the paint brushes.
Since the final notice, reviews of the continue d need for the anti-dumping duties have been
carried out in 1992 and 1997.  The 1997 review resulted in a reassessment of the level of anti-
dumping duty.G/ADP/IG/W/11
Page 3
From time to time shipments of brushes allegedly from countries other than the People's
Republic of China have been examined by the New Zealand Customs Service and have been found to
be of Chinese origin.  Such shipments have been dealt with under the provisions of the Customs and
Excise Act.  This is an example of how efforts to evade duty by claiming another origin have been
resolved through use of the appropriate legislation.
Conclusion
The above cases give examples of what coul d be considered as circumvention by way of
country hopping, the minor alteration of the goods, and transhipment via another country or customs
fraud.  All have been dealt with under a framework encompassing the current rules as laid out in
various WTO Agreements, and did not require the use of special anti-circumvention rules.
__________