RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/W/494
22 February 2002
(02-0908)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE BY MINISTERS
Review by the SCM Committee of the Provisions of the Agreement on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures Regarding Countervailing Duty Investigations
Communication from Australia
The following communication, dated 21 February 2002, has been received from the
Permanent Mission of Australia.
_______________
Australia submits the following questions seeking clarification of certain aspects of the
Brazilian and Indian proposals (G/SCM/W/464 and G/SCM/W/462 respectively).  These questions
are without prejudice to whether Australia endorses any conclusions which may be drawn in relation
to the review of countervailing duty investigations.
Topic 2:  Facts available
• Introduce provisions on use of “facts availa ble” such as those in Annex II of the AD
Agreement (Brazil) (paras 9-11 of G/SCM/W464)
Does Brazil consider that “facts available” should be used by investigating authorities where a
firm has provided data but the investigating authorities may not accept the adequacy of the
information?
Does Brazil consider that “facts available” en ables the investigating authorities to reject all
information provided?
What constitutes “necessary information” (Article 12.7)?  For example, if, by law,
information cannot be revealed to third parties, would statements by interested parties constitute
“necessary information”?
• Clarify that all verifiable and timely submitted information should be taken into account,
and that if a portion of information is not verifiable or timely submitted, facts available may
be used for that portion of the informatio n.  (India) (paras 29-30 of G/SCM/W/462)
How would India define a “reasonable period”?G/SCM/W/494
Page 2
Topic 4:  Review procedures
• Introduce provision for assessment of degree of support for review requests (Brazil) (paras
16-18 of G/SCM/W/464).
How does Brazil interpret the provision in Article 21.2, “the authorities … on their own
initiative…” shall review the need for the continued imposition of a countervailing duty?
How does Brazil interpret Article 21.2 where “any interested party … submits positive
information substantiating the need for a review”?
What would constitute “positive information”?
Does Article 21.2 prevent Members whose products are subject to countervailing duties from
requesting a review?
• Introduce provision for notification of Me mbers whose products are subject to review
(Brazil) (paras 16-18 of G/SCM/W/464).
Does Brazil consider that Article 21.4 does not provide for the procedures set down in
Article 12, particularly as regards notification of Members once an application for a review has been
received?
Does Brazil notify interested parties of review proceedings?
• Introduce provision for prior consultation with  affected Members before initiating a review,
and during its course (Brazil) (paras 16,18 of G/SCM/W/464).
How would the consultations proposed by Brazil fit within the timeframes set for a review?
• Introduce detail in Article 19.3 concerning expe dited review of new exporters (Brazil) (para
19 of G/SCM/W/464).
What specific provisions would Brazil include in Article 19.3 in regard to expedited reviews
for new exporters?
• Review need for continued imposition of measure upon submission of positive information
concerning procedural mistake or manifest err or of appreciation by authorities (India)
(paras 25-26 of G/SCM/W/462).
The last sentence of paragraph 25 of G/SCM/W/462 refers to opportunities other than judicial
remedies.  Is India recommending that the SCM Committee should decide that the investigatingauthorities shall review the need for a countervailing duty where an interested party submits positive
evidence of a procedural mistake or error, or shoul d the investigating authorities carry out the review?
If India is recommending a role for the SCM Committee, does India consider that the SCM
Committee would have the factual evidence in order to make an assessment of whether or not a
countervailing duty should apply?  Does India consider that the SCM Committee could enforce or
impose its findings on the importing Member?
Is India suggesting that the same investigating authority review the need for a countervailing
duty or would it be an independent source of review?G/SCM/W/494
Page 3
• Clarify Article 21.2 to provide for automatic adjustment of countervailing duties for
schemes withdrawn (India) (paras 27-28 of G/SCM/W/462).
Could India explain more precisely its proposal?  What does “automatic” mean?  What
administrative processes would need to be in place?  What would be the standard or basis of evidencetaken by authorities to automatically adjust the countervailing duty?
Topic 5:  Definition of domestic industry and injury analysis
• Clarify “major proportion of the total dome stic production”, and clarify whether defining
domestic industry as those who supported the petition cannot be construed as impermissibleinterpretation of the major proportion requi rement (India) (paras 3-5 of G/SCM/W/462).
Does India consider that the definition of “domestic industry” contained in the SCM
Agreement should be in harmony with the definition in the Anti-Dumping Agreement?
How does India define “major proportion”?
• In determining likeness of products, account should be taken of differentiated nature of
products even where they have closely resembling characteristics, inter alia  through
consideration of price comparison, substitu tability and whether in direct competition
(India) (paras 6-8 of G/SCM/W/462).
Does India consider that its position as set out in paragraph 7 of G/SCM/W/462 goes beyond
the commonly accepted understanding of like goods for dumping purposes?
__________