RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/IG/W/41
22 October 2001
(01-5173)
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?
Replies of the UNITED STATES to Follow-Up Questions from
HONG KONG, CHINA1
The following communication was received from the Permanent Mission of the United States
on 18 October 2001.
_______________
"Standing" of the domestic industry (Q.2)
Q1. According to Article 5.4 of the AD Agreement, an investigation authority has to observe
the standing requirements of the domestic industry in the initiation of an AD investigation.  Wenote that the US Commerce Department will entertain AC inquiry applications only from
entities which qualify as domestic interested parties under US law in connection with the AD
duty order alleged to be circumvented.  In this regard, we would be interested to know whether
the US investigating authority is required to a pply any quantitative assessment on the standing
of domestic interested parties making an application for an AC inquiry.  For instance, is the
application required to be supported by a certain percentage of the whole group of domestic
interested parties?
Reply
Under United States law an anticircumvention inqu iry is not a new investigation, but an inquiry
as to whether particular imported products are properly viewed as being included within the scope of
an existing antidumping duty order.  As such, no  separate industry support test is required or
appropriate.  The applicable regulations (19 CFR 351.225(c)(1)) do require, however, that an
application for such an inquiry be made by an interested party.
Self-initiation of an AC inquiry (Q.3)
Q2. It is noted that the US Commerce Department has self-initiated an AC inquiry only once
and that inquiry was pending as of October 2000.  Has there been any progress since
October 2000?
                                                     
1 G/ADP/IG/W/39G/ADP/IG/W/41
Page 2
Reply
At this time that anti-circumvention inquiry is still pending.  The information provided by the
producer in question is being analyzed, and a preliminary determination is expected shortly.
On-site investigations (Q.6)
Q3. As on-site investigations may be conducted by the US authorities, we would like to seek
further clarification on whether the US Commerce Department is required under US law to
observe the procedures for on-site investigations  outlined in Article 6.7 and Annex I of the AD
Agreement.
Reply
Any on-site investigation carried out in connection with an anti-circumvention inquiry would
be fully consistent with all provisions of the United States laws and regulations dealing with on-site
investigations.  Such laws and regulations are themselves fully consistent with all requirements of theAnti-Dumping Agreement.
Injury Determination of the US International Trade Commission (ITC) (Q.7)
Q4. We note that the US Commerce Department will notify the ITC of its intent to reach a
determination to include the product(s) subject to an AC inquiry within the scope of the AD
order.  We would like to know at what stage the ITC would be involved in the AC inquiry.  Tohave a better understanding of the role of the ITC in the inquiry process, could the US give
concrete AC inquiry cases to illustrate how th e ITC performs its analysis in determining
whether a "significant injury issue" exists?
Reply
Commerce notifies the ITC of all relevant affirmative preliminary circumvention
determinations.  The ITC, after being notified, may request consultations with Commerce regarding
the inclusion.  However, in the few instances in which Commerce has presented the ITC with its
affirmative preliminary determinations, including th e facts contained in those determinations, the ITC
has declined to request consultations.
Normal duration of an AC inquiry (Q.9)
Q5. Regarding the normal duration of an AC inquiry, we are interested in the possible
reasons for a relatively shorter timeframe in conducting an AC inquiry than that required for
an original AD investigation.  Is it because fewer parties could be qualified as interested parties
in an inquiry or because less time is needed /required for interested parties to present
information/views?
Reply
Although the time frame for an anticircumvention inquiry often is shorter than that for an
anti-dumping investigation, such an inquiry can last nearly as long as many investigations.  Normally
less time is needed for an anti-circumvention inqu iry because the focus of such an inquiry is much
more narrow.  Often, very few producers are involved, sometimes only one producer.  Further, theobject of such an inquiry is not a possibly broad range of merchandise, but only particular products
alleged to be circumventing an existing anti-dumping duty order.  Further, there is no need to gather,
verify, and analyze voluminous price and cost data in such an inquiry.  The question to be resolved isG/ADP/IG/W/41
Page 3
whether the products in question are properly viewed as being included within the scope of an order.
If they are determined to be circumventing and thus within the scope of an order, determinations of
the extent of any dumping of such products are made in subsequent annual reviews conducted for that
purpose.
__________