RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/IG/W/22
19 April 2000
(00-1611)
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?
Paper by the United States
The following communication, dated 19 April 2000, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the United States.
_______________
INTRODUCTION
In earlier submissions the United States has discussed the need for anticircumvention
measures, suggested some of the criteria or standards which may be used in determining whethercircumvention of an anti-dumping duty order exists , and presented several hypothetical examples of
circumvention.  Additionally, the United States has responded to questions raised concerning these
examples and, most recently, presented and described several examples of actual circumvention
inquiries conducted, including cases where circumvention was found to exist and cases where
circumvention was not found.
At the most recent meeting of the group it was agreed that, although a common understanding
on what constitutes circumvention has not yet been reached, it is appropriate to move on to the second
topic for discussion: what is being done by Members confronted with what they consider to be
circumvention.  Since the most rece nt submission of the United States presented several examples of
actual anticircumvention inquiries we have conducte d, we believe that the group’s discussion of this
topic may be aided by setting forth the procedures used by the United States in conductinganticircumvention inquiries.
ANTICIRCUMVENTION PROCEDURES OF THE UNITED STATES
1
An anticircumvention inquiry normally is initiated as the result of an application from the
appropriate US industry which properly alleges that circumvention is occurring and provides
information reasonably available to the requester to support such allegations.  Although rare,
anticircumvention inquiries also may be self-i nitiated by the US Department of Commerce
(“Commerce”).  Any interested party who submits an application for an anticircumvention inquiry
must serve copies of that request on all other intere sted parties who have been involved in the anti-
dumping proceeding at Commerce.  In making its  decision Commerce entertains submissions from
other interested parties in support of or opposition to an inquiry.  If a decision is made to initiate an
                                                     
1 The relevant statutory provisions governing anticircumvention are codified at 19 USC 1677, and the
regulatory provisions are in 19 CFR 351.225.G/ADP/IG/W/22
Page 2
inquiry, notice of that decision is published in the Federal Register.  The notice sets forth the legal and
factual basis for the decision to initiate and discusses any issues raised by interested parties.
Once a formal inquiry has been initiated, Commerce sends questionnaires seeking relevant
information.  The identity of recipients of the questionnaires depends upon the nature of the factual
allegations made.  If the issue concerns completion or assembly in the United States or a thirdcountry, Commerce sends questionnaires both to the producer(s) of the product in the country which
is the subject of the anti-dumping duty order and to the company or companies in the United States or
a third country which complete or assemble the product in question.  If the issue is one of minor
alteration of the product subject to the order or a later-developed product, normally questionnaires go
only to the producer(s) in the subject country.
The nature of the information sought varies, again, depending upon the nature of the alleged
circumvention.  In cases of completion or assembly other than in the subject country, information is
sought on the nature of the production process, including the cost of the process in each country
concerned and the value of the parts or components exported from the subject country and the value
of the parts added and processing performed in the United States or a third country, as well as the
value of the finished product.  Other information requested concerns the level of investment, the levelof research and development, and the extent of production facilities, as appropriate, either in the
United States or a third country.  Additionally, Commerce obtains information from appropriate
sources on the patterns of trade in the product(s) in question, whether the manufacturer or exporter of
the parts or components is affiliated with the entity which completes or assembles the merchandise in
the United States or a third country, and whether imports into the United States (or the third country)of the parts or components have increased after the initiation of the investigation which led to the anti-
dumping duty order in question.
If the inquiry concerns minor alterations in the merchandise, Commerce requests information
on the nature of the alteration, including the cost of such alteration, and any impact the alteration mayhave upon the uses for which the altered product is suited.  If the inquiry concerns later-developed
merchandise, Commerce seeks information on the physical characteristics of the later-developed
product, the expectations of the ultimate user of that product, its ultimate use, and whether it is sold
through the same channels of trade and advertised and displayed in a manner similar to the previous
product.
Commerce provides questionnaire recipients time to respond to anticircumvention
questionnaires comparable to that provided in initial anti-dumping investigations.  If responses to its
questionnaires are incomplete or unclear Commerce issues supplemental questionnaires, again
providing appropriate time for response.  Additionally, Commerce may conduct a verification of the
information provided in the responses.
Once Commerce receives and analyzes the relevant information it publishes a preliminary
determination in the Federal Register, setting forth its preliminary conclusions and detailed analysis
on all the issues raised by the inquiry.  Thereafter Commerce accepts briefs and rebuttal briefs from
the interested parties and, if requested by an interest ed party, conducts a formal hearing.  Additionally,
in those circumstances specified by law, Commerce must notify the International Trade Commission(“Commission”) of any intent to include the merchandise subject to the inquiry in the anti-dumping
duty order.  The Commission may thereafter request consultations with Commerce.  If, after
consulting with Commerce, the Commission believes that proposed inclusion of the merchandise
under the order presents a significant injury issu e, it may, within 60 days, provide Commerce with
written advice as to whether inclusion of the merchandise would be inconsistent with the affirmativeinjury determination upon which the order is based.  After considering all the issues raised by the
interested parties and any advice from the Commission, Commerce publishes in the Federal Register aG/ADP/IG/W/22
Page 3
final determination, setting forth its detailed conclusions and discussing the issues raised by the
participating interested parties.2
Throughout the anticircumvention inquiry Comm erce requires all parties making submissions
to provide copies to other interested parties,  including non-confidential summaries of business
proprietary information.  As in investigations and reviews, business proprietary information may bemade available to representatives of interested parties under administrative protective orders.  Further,
all interested parties are free to raise issues and submit information on a timely basis, regardless of
whether requested to do so by Commerce.  Finally, any anticircumvention decision by Commerce is
subject to challenge and review in US courts.
CONCLUSION
The foregoing summary of US anticircumvention procedures makes it clear that such
procedures closely parallel those in original investigations or reviews, and provide the same
procedural safeguards
3, designed to ensure accurate, well-founded conclusions and protect the rights
and interests of all parties.  We hope that this summary facilitates the discussions of the group.
__________
                                                     
2 US law provides that anticircumvention determinations, to the maximum extent practicable, be made
within 300 days after initiation of an inquiry.
3 US procedures for resolving routine questions as to whether particular merchandise is within the
scope of an anti-dumping duty order (as opposed to whether an order is being circumvented) typically aresignificantly shorter and less complicated.  The United States is aware that anticircumvention questionssometimes are addressed as scope, not circumvention issues.  We hope that the Informal Group eventually will
be able to address whether, and, if so, what, distinctions between the two are appropriate.