WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/W/133
13 March 2002
(02-1323)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Working Group on ImplementationOriginal:  English
IMPLEMENTATION –RELATED ISSUES REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE AT ON ANTI-DUMPING PRACTICES AND ITS
WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION
Replies from Brazil to Questions from European Communities,
Canada and the United States
The following communication, dated 11 March 2002, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Brazil.
_______________
In this document, Brazil provides answers to  questions posed by Members in documents
G/ADP/AHG/W/129 (European Communities), G/ADP/AHG/W/130 (Canada) and
G/ADP/AHG/W/131  (the United States).  These questions refer to the proposals circulated by Brazil
in document G/ADP/AHG/W/127, specifically in connection with “Special and Differential
Treatment for Developing Countries Members” (Article 15).
(a) EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (G/ADP/AHG/W/129):
"Lesser price" commitment with respect to undertakings (similar to "lesser duty" rule)
based on the undercutting margin could be considered a constructive remedy for Members that
do not use a "lesser duty" rule.
Q1. Could Brazil please clarify whether this wo uld mean that the "lesser duty" rule which is
applied on a general basis by a developed country Member would not be considered as a
"constructive remedy" within the meaning of Article 15 second sentence?
Q2. Could Brazil please explain why it refers to the undercutting margin as a basis for the
"lesser price" commitment?
Q3. Does Brazil consider that there are also othe r possibilities than undercutting to establish
the non-injurious price level for the purposes of an undertaking?
Reply
Brazil has suggested two examples of constructive measures that could be explored by
developed country Members (DCs):
- “lesser price” commitments; and
- in the case of Members that not use a “lesser duty” rule, the application of lesser duty.G/ADP/AHG/W/133
Page 2
Brazil considers that the obligation for developed country Members to explore constructive
remedies relates to the principle of special and differential treatment for developing country Members.
In this sense, the application of  the “lesser duty” rule by DCs in all anti-dumping
investigations (on imports from developed and developing countries), although a constructive remedy,could not be considered as a procedure that materializes the principle of special and differential
treatment embedded in Article 15.  For this reason, Brazil has suggested that, in the case of DCs that
do not use the “lesser duty” rule, the selective application of lesser duty to developing country
Members could be considered as a constructive measure to be explored in the context of Article 15.
The reason why Brazil refers to the undercutting margin as a basis for the “lesser price”
commitment is that, in the case where it is inferior to the margin of dumping, it would be perfectlyenough to eliminate injury, as set forth in paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the ADP.
(b) CANADA (G/ADP/AHG/W/130):
Q. In its paper, Brazil proposes that, “… invest igating authorities shall take the initiative to
explore such constructive measures before the imposition of the preliminary duties”.  With
respect to price undertakings, how would this proposal be reconciled with Article 8.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, which specifies that “[p]rice undertakings shall not be sought or
accepted from exporters unless the authorities of the importing Member have made a
preliminary affirmative determination of dumping and injury caused by such dumping.”
Reply
Brazil’s proposal is that the investigating authorities shall take the initiative to explore
constructive measures before preliminary duties are applied, but after a preliminary determination ismade, in conformity with the present pertinent provision of the  AD Agreement.
(c) UNITED STATES (G/ADP/AHG/W/131):
Q1. Does Brazil agree with India’s understanding of the relationship between the two
sentences of Article 15, namely that “the second sentence of Article 15 read in the context of the
first sentence suggests a possible way in which ‘the special regard’ could be given by developedcountry members to developing country members when considering the application of anti-
dumping measures”?
Q2. Does Brazil agree with India's suggestion th at "an examination of whether imposition of
anti-dumping duties would affect the essential in terests of developing countries needs an inquiry
which is specifically economic in character”?  If so, what measures and standards of economic
impact would Brazil propose using for this purpose?  If not, what is Brazil's understanding of
the relevance of the phrase "where they would a ffect the essential interests of developing
country Members" in the second sentence of Article 15?
Reply
The first and second sentences of Article 15 establish clear obligations for developed
countries (special regard and exploration of constructive remedies).  Brazil also considers that the
fulfilment of the second obligation does not necessarily imply that the first obligation has beenfulfilled.
With regard to the second question posed by the United States, the Brazilian Government
considers that both developed and developing country Members would greatly benefit from furtherG/ADP/AHG/W/133
Page 3
discussion on the technical feasibility and, in the appropriate forum, the political convenience of
establishing specific criteria to assess whether a particular AD duty would affect the “essential
interests“ of developing country Members.
Q3. Brazil has proposed that “investigating auth orities shall take the initiative to explore
such constructive measures before the imposition of the preliminary duties”.  Please explain
how this proposal should be made compatible with Article 8.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,
which states that “price undertakings shall not be sought or accepted from exporters unless the
authorities of the importing Member have made a preliminary affirmative determination of
dumping and injury caused by such dumping”.
Reply
As mentioned above, Brazil’s proposal is that the investigating authorities shall take the
initiative to explore constructive measures before preliminary duties are applied, but after a
preliminary determination is made, in conformity with the present pertinent provision of the ADP
Agreement.
Q4. To what extent would Brazil’s proposals require a change to the Anti-Dumping
Agreement?
Reply
Brazil does not consider that its proposal require any change to the AD Agreement.  It simply
intends to clarify the meaning of Article 15 and suggests ways to make its provisions operational.
__________