RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/W/22/Rev.2
10 February 1999
(99-0484)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Ad Hoc Group on Implementation
DRAFT RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING
THE PERIOD OF DATA COLLECTION FOR A DUMPING INVESTIGATION
Revision
The following revised recommendation contains (A) specific drafting suggestions made by
Members at the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on Implementation in October 1998, and (B) comments
made by Members at that meeting regarding the draft recommendation.
*************
(A) SPECIFIC DRAFTING SUGGESTIONS MADE BY MEMBERS AT THE MEETING
OF THE AD HOC GROUP ON IMPL EMENTATION IN OCTOBER 1998
The Committee notes that although the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the
GATT 1994 refers to the period of data collection for dumping investigations when it refers to the
"period of investigation", it does not establish any specific period of investigation,1  nor does it
establish guidelines for determining an appropria te period of investigation, for the examination of
either dumping or injury.
The Committee considers that guidelines for determining what period or periods of data
collection may be appropriate for the examination of dumping and of injury would be useful.  The
Committee also recognizes, however, that it is impor tant that national investigating authorities retain
flexibility in order to be able to take account of the particular circumstances of a given investigation in
setting the period of data collection for both dumping and injury, to ensure that it is appropriate ineach case.
In light of the foregoing considerations, the Committee recommends:
1. As a general rule:
(a) the period of data collection for dumping determinations should be no less than six
months;
1
[(a) the period of data collection for dumping determinations should be twelve months,
and in any case no less than six months;1  ](Brazil, EC )
                                                     
1 Footnote 4 of the Agreement does provide that, for purposes of determining whether sales below cost
may be treated as not being in the ordinary course of trade, the "extended period of time" within which suchsales are made "should normally be one year but shall in no case be less than six months".  Thus, for purposes of
investigating sales below cost, data covering a pe riod of at least six months must be collected.G/ADP/AHG/W/22/Rev.2
Page 2
(b) the period for investigating sales below cost, and the period of data collection for
dumping determinations, should be the same period in a particular investigation;
[(b) the period for investigating sales below cost, and the period of data collection for
dumping determinations, should be the same period in a particular investigation; ]
(USA )
(c) the period of data collection for injury determinations should be three years;[(c) the period of data collection for injury determinations should be at least three years;]
(USA, Thailand, Indonesia )
[(c) the period of data collection for injury determinations should be no less than three
years;] ( Brazil )
(d) the period of data collection for both dumping and injury determinations should
include the most recent data available; and
(e) Members should, if possible, consider the views of interested parties concerning the
appropriate specific periods in a particular investigation.
[(e) Members should, if possible,  consider the views of interested parties concerning the
appropriate specific periods in a particular investigation.] ( Japan, EC, Thailand,
Indonesia )
[(e) When possible, Members should, if possible,  consider the views of interested parties
concerning the appropriate specific periods in a particular investigation.] ( Thailand )
2. In establishing the specific periods in a particular investigation, Members should consider the
availability of data, and particularly accounting data, in the records of the firms from which
information will be sought, such firms' practices concerning financial reporting periods, the
characteristics of the product in question, including seasonality and cyclicality, and the existence of
special order or customized sales.
3. In establishing the specific periods in a particular investigation, Members should consider
linking the period of investigation to the date of initiation in order to ensure that the most recent
available data are sought.
4. In order to increase transparency of proceedin gs, investigating authorities should explain the
selection of a particular period for data collection if it differs from that provided for in this
recommendation; from that provided for in national legislation, regulation, or established national
guidelines; or from that selected in other cases.
*************
(B) COMMENTS MADE BY MEMBERS AT THE MEETING OF THE AD HOC GROUP
ON IMPLEMENTATION IN OCTOBER 1998 REGARDING THE DRAFT
RECOMMENDATION.
1. The delegate of Canada suggested that the substance of footnote 4 of the Agreement be fully
incorporated in the text of section 1(a).G/ADP/AHG/W/22/Rev.2
Page 3
2. The delegate of the United States commente d, with respect to the suggested changes to
section 1(a), that the Agreement only refers to a six month period.  She also noted that the reference to
financial reporting periods seemed to ignore the possibility of reporting for calendar years.
Regarding section 1(e) of the draft recommendation, the United States' practice is to apply a standard
period of investigation, which may be changed in response to a specific request from a party, on therecord in a specific case.  Given this practice, the United States would not want the recommendation
to be seen as requiring investigating authorities to solicit parties' views on the period of investigation
in every case.
3. The delegate of Japan noted, with respect to the suggested change to section 1(e), that even in
the absence of a specific rule, parties' views should be considered.  In addition, he stated his
understanding that this section only referred to consid eration of parties' views, and did not require that
those views be implemented.
4. The delegate of Argentina noted that domestic legislation might specify periods of
investigation, which would have to be considered.  Of course, investigating authorities would face
situations where a departure from general rules or practice might be necessary.  He noted that
Members might face investigations involving numerous small and medium enterprises with differing
financial periods, which could not all be taken into account in establishing a period of investigation.
5. The delegate of Thailand commented that the draft recommendation, even if adopted, could
not set strict rules – it must allow for flexibility on the part of investigating authorities.  With respect
to section 1(e) of the draft recommendation, he sugge sted that it might be better as a general rule to
investigate for financial reporting periods, which would show the trends for the companies concerned,
rather than require adjustments to data for purposes of comparison.
6. The delegate of New Zealand observed that while his delegation was generally satisfied with
the draft recommendation, in light of the discussion, it would clearly have to be considered further.
7. The delegate of Colombia noted that the second paragraph of the chapeau clearly recognized
the need for investigating authoritie s to retain flexibility.  She also noted that section 4 of the draft
recommendation seemed to recognize the need for a case-by-case decision-making process, againindicating that authorities would maintain flexibility.  Finally, she commented that section 1 of the
draft recommendation established a general rule, but that flexibility was clearly intended to be
maintained.
8. The delegate of the European Community commented that the question of considering parties
view on the period of investigation raised practical questions, since the EC's practice was to issue
questionnaires at the time of initiation.  After questionnaires were issued, the period of investigation
could not be changed at the wish of exporters.
__________