. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/IG/W/37
13 June 2001
(01-2936)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Informal Group on Anti-CircumventionOriginal:  English
TOPIC 2 – WHAT IS BEING DONE BY MEMBERS CONFRONTED
BY WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE CIRCUMVENTION?
Questions Posed by HONG KONG, CHINA
Regarding the Paper by MEXICO1
The following communication, dated 11 June 2001, has been received from the Hong Kong
Economic and Trade Office.
_______________
This paper responds to the paper by Mexico in G/ADP/IG/W/31 which provides an empirical
case for further study by the Informal Group.  Without prejudice to Members’ position on the
consistency of national legislation and practices in the area of anti-circumvention, Hong Kong, Chinawould like to seek clarification on a number of points which should help us better comprehend the
underlying concern in the case put forward.
Questions on the Mexican example
1. How was the AC investigation initiated?  Was it initiated from a circumvention complaint or
was it self-initiated by the Mexican authorities?  Was there any evidence to show that enriched HFCS
was imported at dumped prices in the AC investigation?
2. When the Mexican authorities examined the inju ry issue during the original investigation, did
they find injury to the producers of HFCS-42, HFCS-55 and/or enriched HFCS?  If the Mexican
authorities examined injury only to the producers of HFCS-42 and 55, how was the imposition of AD
duties on enriched HFCS justified when injury determination, a requisite condition under the AD
Agreement for imposition of AD duties, had not been made on the product?
3. Were HFCS-55 and enriched HFCS targeted at different markets?  Were HFCS-55 and
enriched HFCS made by different domestic producers?  Did enriched HFCS exist at the time of the
original investigation?  Why hadn't enriched HF CS been included in the original AD petition and
order?  Was the exclusion of enriched HFCS in the AD investigation simply an omission or a
considered decision by the petitioning industry or the Mexican authorities?
4. We note that the Mexican authorities have concluded that all HFCS "belonged to the same
family" of products.  That being the case, why weren’t all of the HFCS considered as a single "like
product" in the original AD investigation?
5. It was reported that there was a significant increase in enriched HFCS imports after the
imposition of the provisional duties on HFCS-55.  How was the importation of enriched HFCS
                                                     
1 G/ADP/IG/W/31G/ADP/IG/W/37
Page 2
concluded to be circumventing the AD order on HFCS-55?  Did the Mexican authorities consider or
investigate whether factors other than the existence of the AD order might have contributed to the
increase in the imports of enriched HFCS?
6. Did the Mexican authorities consider the impact of imports of enriched HFCS specifically on
producers of enriched HFCS?
7. It is noted that in determining whether the mixing process in Mexico to obtain HFCS-55
constituted a negligible part of the overall production process, the Mexican authorities used the
investment in machinery and equipment  and the  research and development costs in installing
the mixing operations  as the criteria.  What would be the level of investment and research and
development costs that could be considered to be sufficient to reach a finding that the mixing
operation was not negligible?  Did the Mexican authorities consider any other criteria?
8. Mexico submits that it has afforded the interested parties a full and ample opportunity for
defence during the AC proceedings.  In this connect ion, we would appreciate it if Mexico could share
with us the types of arguments and evidence which were submitted by the parties.  To what extent had
the Mexican authorities considered the information which purportedly demonstrated that the increase
in imports of enriched HFCS and the setting up of mixing operations in Mexico presumed to
circumvent the AD measure were legitimate and/or normal business activities?
9. Mexico considers that “ in the absence of regulation of AD circumvention investigations
within the WTO, in Mexico the investigation authorit y conducts such investigations in keeping with its
own legislation, so that it generally has a remedy to cope with the practice ”.  We should be grateful if
Mexico could enlighten us as to whether it had considered initiating a fresh AD investigation on
enriched HFSC instead of an AC investigation.  If yes, what were the reasons for rejecting the
initiation of a fresh AD investigation as the “remedy”?
__________