RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/Q1/KOR/5
G/SCM/Q1/KOR/5
21April 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-1723)
Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices Original: Spanish
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures
NOTIFICATION OFLAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5AND 32.6OFTHE AGREEMENTS
Questions from MEXICO
toKOREA1
Thefollowing communication, dated 10April 1997, hasbeenreceived from thePermanent
Mission ofMexico.
____________
Mexico would liketoasktheKorean Government thefollowing questions withregard tothe
notification ofitsCustoms ActanditsDecree oftheCustoms Act.
1. Where there isaconflict between theWTO Agreements andtheCustoms Act,howwillitbe
resolved bythecompetent Korean authority?
2. Article 10,paragraph 4,oftheCustoms Actstates thatwhere theundertakings, asreferred
toinparagraph (3),areaccepted, theMinister ofFinance andEconomy shallhavetheinvestigation
suspended orterminated without taking anyprovisional measures orimposing anyanti-dumping duty;
provided that,iftheMinister ofFinance andEconomy deems theinvestigation tobenecessary, or
theexporter requests tocontinue theinvestigation, theinvestigation maybecontinued. Under what
circumstances maytheKorean investigating authority deem itnecessary topursue ananti-dumping
investigation evenwhen ithasaccepted theundertaking ofanexporter torevise hisprices ortocease
exporting atthedumping price?
3. Paragraph (7)ofArticle 10oftheCustoms Actstates thattheMinister ofFinance andEconomy
may,ifnecessary, conduct areview, ontheimposition oftheanti-dumping dutyandontheundertakings,
asreferred toinparagraph (3),andtakemeasures which arenecessary fortheimposition ofthe
anti-dumping duty: Could Korea explain themeaning of"measures which arenecessary forthe
imposition oftheanti-dumping duty" andwhere itwould apply?
1G/ADP/N/1/KOR/2.
./.G/ADP/Q1/KOR/5
G/SCM/Q1/KOR/5
Page2
4. Paragraph (8)ofArticle 10oftheCustoms Actestablishes thatananti-dumping dutyoran
undertaking shallloseitseffect afterfiveyears fromtheimposition oftheanti-dumping duty, orthe
enforcement oftheundertakings, andifitscontents aremodified asaresult ofthereview ofdumping
andindustrial injury, asreferred toinparagraph (7),itshallloseitseffect afterfiveyears from the
dateoftheenforcement ofsuchamodification. Does thismean thatthereview bothofdumping and
ofindustrial injury isnecessary fortheeffect ofthemeasure tobeextended, oristhereview ofonly
oneofthese factors sufficient?
5. Paragraph (9)ofArticle 4-4oftheDecree oftheCustoms Actestablishes thepossibility for
theTrade Commission torequest theMinister ofFinance andEconomy topropose theundertakings
laiddown inparagraph (3)ofArticle 10oftheCustoms Act.Towhom would theMinister ofFinance
andEconomy propose these undertakings? Intheevent thatthisproposal isputtoexporters, does
Korea consider thatthisproposal caninfluence exporters infavour ofassuming anundertaking? If
so,would suchameasure notgoagainst thespirit ofArticle 8.1oftheAnti-Dumping Code? How
doesKorea seektoreconcile thisprovision ofitslegislation withwhatissetoutinArticle 8.1ofthe
Anti-Dumping Code?
6. Inaccordance withparagraph (7)ofArticle 4-8oftheDecree oftheCustoms Act,inorder
foraparty tohaveaccess todocumentary evidence andmaterial submitted fortheinvestigation, the
request willhavetobemade inwriting, indicating thematerial which theparty intends toreview and
thereasons fortherequest, andunless thereisareason, access shallnotbedenied. Could Korea explain
whatwould bethepossible reasons fordenying aninterested party access tothepublic record ofa
dossier? Inaddition, Article 6.1.2 oftheAnti-Dumping Code clearly states that,withtheexception
ofconfidential information, evidence submitted byaninterested party shallbemade available promptly
toother interested parties participating intheinvestigation. From theabove, itisclear thatKorean
legislation contradicts theprovisions oftheAnti-Dumping Code andthatthislegislation restricts the
rightofdefence oftheinterested parties. How doesKorea seektoreconcile these provisions?
./.