./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/IG/W/24
22 May 2000
(00-2076)
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?
Questions Posed by HONG KONG, CHINA
Regarding the Paper by the UNITED STATES1
The following communication, dated 17 May 2000, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the United States.
_______________
The following questions are submitted without prejudice to Members’ position on the
consistency of national legislation and practices in the area of anti-circumvention with the WTOAgreements.
1.. According to the procedures described in W/ADP/IG/W/22, an anti-circumvention enquiry
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”.  Could the US give us some more concrete ideas on what sort of
information is normally required to be included in the application?  Does the allegation ofcircumvention need to be substantiated by relevant evidence?  Would the US authorities examine the
accuracy and adequacy of the information and evidence (if required) provided in the application to
determine whether there is justification to  initiate an anti-circumvention enquiry?
2.. Would the US authorities examine the "standing" of the domestic industry which files a
circumvention complaint?
3.. Under what specific circumstances would the US Department of Commerce self-initiate an
anti-circumvention enquiry?  Has the Department of Commerce ever self-initiated an anti-
circumvention enquiry?  If so, what was the factual situation that led to self-initiation?
4.. Would the US notify the government of the country which is the subject of the AD order or
the government of the relevant third country regarding the initiation of an anti-circumvention enquiry?
Would these governments be regarded as interested parties and be given opportunities to present
evidence which they consider relevant in respect of the anti-circumvention enquiry?
5.. According to the procedures described in the paper, the Department of 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 US or a third country, and whether imports into the US (or the
                                                     
1 G/ADP/IG/W/22G/ADP/IG/W/24
Page 2
third country) of the parts or components have increased after the initiation of the investigation which
led to the AD duty order in question”.
What are these "appropriate sources"?  Could the US provide us with more concrete ideas?
6.. In the course of an anti-circumvention enquiry, would the US carry out on-site investigations
in the country which is the subject of the AD duty order or the third country to verify information
provided in the questionnaires?
7.. What are the "circumstances specified by law" in which the Department of Commerce must
notify the International Trade Commission of its intent to include the product(s) subject to the anti-
circumvention enquiry within the scope of the AD order?
8.. Under the procedures described in W/ADP/I G/W/22, if the International Trade Commission
believes the proposed inclusion of the merchandise within the scope of the AD order presents a
"significant injury issue", it may provide the Department of Commerce with written advice as to
whether the inclusion of the merchandise would be inconsistent with the original affirmative injurydetermination.  What is meant by a "significant injury issue"?  What analysis is performed in
determining what a “significant injury issue” is?  What is the weight of the Commission’s advice in
the Department of Commerce’s conclusion?
In the example on steel wire rope previously provided by the US
2, will the authorities
examine injury to producers of wire rope or will they examine injury to producers of wire strand?  If
the US authorities examine injury only to producers of wire rope, how can the US justify the
extension of AD duties to a product for which no injury determination has ever been made?
9. What is the normal duration of an anti-circumvention enquiry?  How does that compare with
the normal duration of an original investigation?
10. We note in general that the US authorities have emphasized that their anti-circumvention
procedures closely parallel those in original AD investigations or reviews, and provide the same
procedural safeguards to ensure accurate, well-founded conclusions and protect the rights and
interests of all parties.  We would be interested to know if there are any differences between an anti-
circumvention enquiry and an original investigation.  If yes, what specifically are these differences?Could the US provide more details in this respect?
__________
                                                     
2 G/ADP/IG/W/20