./.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/RL/W/80
10 April 2003
(03-1959)
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:  English
CLARIFICATIONS SOUGHT BY INDIA ON THE SUBMISSIONS
BY THE UNITED STATES (TN/RL/W/35) AND CANADA (TN/RL/W/47)
The following communication, dated 9 April 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of India.
_______________
CLARIFICATIONS SOUGHT BY INDIA ON THE  SUBMISSION  BY THE UNITED STATES
(TN/RL/W/35)
India thanks the United States for its submission TN/RL/W/35 which contains some useful
elements for further work by the Rules Group.  For a better understanding of some of the proposals
made in this submission India seeks the following clarifications from the United States.
The US has sought a specific mechanism for providing access to all memoranda adopted or
approved by the pertinent authority that explain the factual or legal bases for its determination or
provide pertinent findings and conclusions in support of that determination.  It is not clear what this
means.  Could the United States elaborate further on “access to all memoranda adopted”?  What is
sought to be covered by “all memoranda adopted”?
India has noted with interest the suggestion for making the verification procedure clearer.
However care needs to be exercised so that the detailed outline suggested by the United States does
not become yet another reason for resorting to facts available.  Certain procedural safeguards would
need to be built in to ensure that the investigating authorities do not at some stage take a view that all
the information detailed in the pre-verification outline was not furnished by the exporters and hencefacts available may be resorted to.  The detailed outline should be for purposes of making the
verification clearer and not for imposing more obligations on the exporter.
The suggestion for sharing of confidential information needs to be carefully considered. India
requests the United States to provide details of the Administrative Protective Order (APO) systemprevalent in that country.  Is the APO system generic in nature being applicable to the domestic
judicial process and not confined merely to anti-dumping/countervailing duty/safeguard
investigations?  India would also like to know why in view of the United States such procedures can
easily be administered and how the United States authorities enforce obligations regarding protecting
the confidentiality of information shared.TN/RL/W/80
Page 2
CLARIFICATIONS SOUGHT BY INDIA ON THE  SUBMISSION  BY CANADA (TN/RL/W/47)
In order to have a better understanding on some aspects of the proposals by Canada contained
in document TN/RL/W/47 India requests Canada to clarify the following:
According to Canada, in order to more closely parallel the scope of the injury investigation,
consideration should be given to amending Article 5 to require that, when examining an application
for the initiation of an investigation, authorities also consider information on factors other than
dumping that may be contributing to the injury bein g alleged.  It is not clear how an investigating
authority can be reasonably expected to know these “other factors” which are normally brought to the
knowledge of various interested parties during the course of an investigation and not at the time of
initiation of an investigation.  Is Canada suggesting that the petition itself contain information on“other factors” or is it the suggestion that the investigating authority should undertake a detailed
analysis of “other factors” prior to initiation of an investigation?
According to Canada the investig ating authorities could also be explicitly required to conduct
an “objective” assessment of the degree of industry support for an application and to refrain fromtaking any action that would have a foreseeable effect on the outcome of such a determination.  Could
Canada indicate the specific change it desires in Article 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement?  It is also
not clear as to what specific action Canada is referring to that could have a foreseeable effect on the
out- come of a standing determination.  C ould Canada elaborate further on this aspect?
Could Canada clarify why the existing provis ion of the Article 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement is considered an inadequate procedure as far as public hearings is concerned?
According to Canada there are numerous divergences between similar provisions of the ADA
and the ASCM.  Consideration should be given to addressing these divergences in these negotiationsso that, where appropriate, differences in similar provisions of the two agreements are eliminated.
Could Canada clarify whether any harmonisati on between Anti-Dumping Agreement and ASCM
should, in its view, be limited to the investigation procedure or it should extend to other issues?
Canada has suggested that consideration be given to whether, and under what conditions,
initiations of investigations could be made subject to a swift dispute settlement procedure under the
DSU.  Could Canada clarify whether its proposal would require an investigation to be suspended
during the course of DSU proceedings if the exporting country resorts to the such proceedings?
While discussing the problem of repeated dumping Canada has suggested that the underlying
trade distorting practices that cause trade remedy responses need to be examined. Could Canada
explain how any “underlying policy or practice” in the exporting country can be addressed in theAnti-Dumping Agreement framework?  Anti-Dumping Agreement provides for specific action against
dumping and not against any other underlying practice or policy that may be the cause of dumping.  Is
Canada seeking to expand the scope of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to provide for action to counter
practices and policies apart from dumping?
__________