RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/SGP/15
G/SCM/Q1/SGP/15
25 September 1998
(98-3714)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Replies to Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES1
Regarding the Notification of SINGAPORE2
The following communication, dated 21 September 1998, has been received from the
Permanent Mission of Singapore.
_______________
Question 1
What is the legal relationship between the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties
Regulations 1997 and the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1996?  Have any
changes or amendments been made to the Act?  Are the regulations and the Act the sole sources
of legal authority for imposing anti-dumping and countervailing duties?
Answer
The Act contains the main framework of the law on countervailing and anti-dumping
measures, and the Regulations contain details on methodology, procedure or time limits which have
not been prescribed in the Act.  The Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1996 and the
Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Regulations 1997 bring Singapore's law and practice up to date
with the Agreement on the Implementation of Arti cle IV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994 and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  The Act and the
Regulations are the sole sources of legal authority for imposing countervailing and anti-dumping
duties.
Question 2
The regulations address cumulation of goods from more than one country for purposes
of determining injury in countervailing duty investigations.  In a separate provision, the
regulations address cumulation of goods from more than one country in anti-dumping
investigations.  Do the regulations contemplate cumulation of imports subject to simultaneous
anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations, and if so, under what circumstances?
                                                     
1 G/ADP/Q1/SGP/14-G/SCM/Q1/SGP/14
2 G/ADP/N/1/SGP/2-G/SCM/N/1/SGP/2 and Suppl.1G/ADP/Q1/SGP/15
G/SCM/Q1/SGP/15
Page 2
Answer
No, the Regulations do not contemplate cumulation of imports subject to simultaneous anti-
dumping and countervailing duty investigations.
Question 3
Under the Act, an interested party has a right of review by the Anti-Dumping Tribunal
of any final determination or review;  however, because this tribunal is appointed by the
Minister for Trade and Industry who also determines the tribunal's renumerations, conditions
of appointment, and rules of procedure, it is unclear whether this tribunal is "independent ofthe authorities responsible for the determin ation or review in question", as required by
Article 13 of the A-D Agreement and Article 23 of the SCM Agreement.  How do the regulations
clarify this issue?
Answer
Section 30(12) states that for the purposes of section 30, the "Minister" means the Minister for
Law whereas the legal authority for implementing the rest of the Act and Regulations is the Minister
for Trade and Industry.  The Tribunal is thus appointed by an authority which is independent of the
authorities responsible for the determination or review in question.
Question 4
Under section 39(2) of the Regulations, for purposes of a five-year "extension review"
the Minister will specify the peri od within which any interested parties may present views on
the termination of imposition of duties.  What period will normally be specified for purposes of
expression of such views?
Answer
Regulation 39(1) requires that the Minister provide a notice of the impending termination of
the imposition of countervailing and anti-dumping duties at least six months prior to the end of thefive-year period.  Section 39(2) of the Regulations states that the Minister shall specify in that notice
the period within which any interested party may present views on the termination.  The time-period
for expressions of such views is not specified.  However, in the spirit and object of the A-D and SCM
Agreements, interested parties would have ample opportunity to present in writing all relevant
evidence.  Due consideration would be given to any request for an extension of the period, and uponcause shown, such an extension may be granted wherever practicable.
Question 5
Under paragraph (3)(5), the Minister for Trade and Industry ("Minister") may permit
an amendment to the petition to the preliminary determination if he is satisfied that
"exceptional circumstances" exist to justify such action.  What kinds of circumstances does
Singapore anticipate it would deem exceptional?
Answer
Regulation 3(5) is drafted to strictly limit the amendments to petitions.  First, pursuant to
regulation 3(5)(a) any amendment must be made before a preliminary determination.  In addition, the
amendment will only be accepted if "exceptional circumstances exist to justify the amendment".G/ADP/Q1/SGP/15
G/SCM/Q1/SGP/15
Page 3
Question 6
Paragraph (8)(g) indicates that public notice of an initiation of an investigation will
include the proposed time limits for such investigation.  Will these proposed time limits also
include time limits regarding interested parties' comments, as required by Article 12.1.1(vi) of
the A-D Agreement and Article 22.2(vi) of the SCM Agreement?
Answer
Yes, the public notice of an initiation of an investigation will include proposed time limits
regarding interested parties' comments.
Question 7
Paragraph (9)(1) states that the Minister may issue questionnaires to any relevant party
in an investigation to obtain information he considers necessary for making a determination
under the Act.  Does Singapore anticipate instances when it would not issue questionnaires to
producers and exporters?  If so, what alternat ive means will Singapore employ to provide notice
to all interested parties of the information required to be submitted, as mandated by Article 6.1
of the A-D Agreement and Article 12.1 of the SCM Agreement?
Answer
Under section 34(1) of the Act, all interested parties in a countervailing or anti-dumping duty
investigation or review have to be given notice of the information required by the Minister andopportunities to present all evidence they consider relevant.  Regulation 44(1) requires the Minister to
specify in detail the information required from any interested party and the form in which that
information is required, as soon as practicable after the initiation of an investigation or review.
Hence, although regulation 9(1) does not make it mandatory for the Minister to issue questionnaires,
the Singapore authorities have to abide by section 34(1) of the Act and regulation 44(1) of the
Regulations.  Therefore, the Singapore authorities do not envisage a situation where questionnaires
will not be issued.
Question 8
Paragraph (11)(1) does not specifically state that the notice will be public.  Will the
notice of a preliminary determination be made public, as required by Article 12.2 of the A-DAgreement and Article 22.3 of the SCM Agreement?
Answer
Yes, sections 7 and 21 of the Act require such notice to be published.
Question 9
Will the notice of an affirmative preliminary determination of dumping under
paragraph 11(2)(c) include a discussion of th e methodology used in the establishment and
comparison of the export price and normal value, as required by Article 12.2(iii) of the A-D
Agreement?G/ADP/Q1/SGP/15
G/SCM/Q1/SGP/15
Page 4
Answer
Regulation 11(1) states that a notice of a preliminary determination under section 7 or 21 of
the Act shall set forth in sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact andlaw considered material.  Regulation 11(2)(c) states that the notice shall contain the amount of
countervailable subsidy or margin of dumping, if any, found to exist and the basis for such
determination.
Question 10
Paragraph 12(2)(b) indicates that in anti-dumping investigations the application of
provisional measures shall not exceed six months or, where exporters representing a significant
percentage of subject imports so requests, nine months.  Article 7.4 of the A-D Agreement
requires that provisional measures shall not exceed four months, or six months where exporters
representing a significant percentage of subject imports request extension.  How does
paragraph 12(2)(b) comply with Article 7.4?  Does Singapore make a determination in all anti-dumping investigations as to whether duty less than the margin of dumping is sufficient to
eliminate the injury?  Is this done in both the provisional and final stag es of each anti-dumping
investigation?
Answer
Regulation 12(2)(b) is in line with Article 7.4 of the A-D Agreement.  Article 7.4 generally
limits the application of provisional measures "to as short a period as possible, not exceeding four
months or …, upon request by exporters representing a significant percentage of the trade involved, to
a period not exceeding six months".  However, Article 7.4 also indicates that these periods may beextended to "six and nine months, respectively" where, during the course of the investigation, the
authorities "examine whether a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove
injury …".
Section 14(2)(b) of the Act requires that the amount of the anti-dumping duty to be imposed
shall be equal to the dumping margin or "if the Minister determines that a lower anti-dumping duty
will be sufficient to eliminate the injury …, shall be such lower duty".  Consequently, Singaporeconsiders whether a "lesser duty" would be sufficient to eliminate injury in every investigation.
The Act contemplates that the "lesser duty" rule will only apply to final determinations.
Specifically, Section 21(1)(a) requires a preliminary determination of the amount of the dumping
margin.  Furthermore, section 22(3) of the Act requires that, if provisional measures are appropriate,such measures shall take the form of a provisional duty or a security equal to the amount of the
estimated dumping margin determined.  Consequently, the "lesser duty" rule is not applicable at the
preliminary stage.
Question 11
Paragraph (13) does not provide for a time-p eriod for the domestic industry to present
an allegation for critical circumstances in an  anti-dumping or a countervailing investigation.
Does Singapore intend to make such a finding  without an allegation from the petitioning
industry?  Will interested parties be permitted to submit information and comment regardingwhether critical circumstances exist prior to the Minister's finding.G/ADP/Q1/SGP/15
G/SCM/Q1/SGP/15
Page 5
Answer
Singapore believes that the application of "critical circumstances" applies only in
extraordinary circumstances.  The standard for the application of such retroactive duties is strictly
adhered to in section 9(8) and section 23(8) of the Act.  As the Singapore law provides notice that the
government might take in a final determination, all interested parties have the ability to comment
during the course of the investigation as to whether such action is appropriate.
Question 12
Paragraph (14) does not specify what action(s) Singapore will take if a violation of the
price undertaking has occurred.  How does Singapore intend to act in this regard?  Will
interested parties be permitted an opportunity to respond if Singapore determines that a
violation has occurred, or determines to terminate the price undertaking?
Answer
Section 25(9) to (13) of the Act provide the actions that will be taken if there is a
determination that there is a "material violation".  The procedures to be followed in making such a
determination will be specifically included in the terms of any undertaking.  Generally, it is
anticipated that any alleged material violation of an undertaking will be brought to the attention of theparty promptly in writing, providing a reasonable period to respond.
Question 13
Paragraph (22)(b) states that the Minister shall allocate the countervailable subsidy to
those goods with which the countervailable subs idy is associated.  Upon what factors will
Singapore rely in making this determination?
Answer
Regulation 22(b) requires that when calculating the countervailable subsidy, the Government
shall allocate the countervailable subsidy to those goods with which the countervailable subsidy is"associated".  In making this determination, Singapore generally will consider whether the
countervailable subsidy is, in law, "tied" to certain goods.  In this regard, Singapore will consider the
law, regulation, and other official documents that establish the legal authority to grant the subsidy.
Question 14
Paragraph (29)(3) indicates that in calculating the costs of production and constructed
value actual data of the producer or exporter in the exporting country shall be used.  Does the
term "exporting country" as used in paragraph (29)(3) have the same meaning as "country of
origin" under Article 2.2.2(i) of the A-D Agreement?
Answer
Article 2.2.2(i) through Article 2.2.2(ii) of the A-D Agreement are specifically implemented
into the regulation 29(4).  Regulation 29(4)(a) specifically uses the term "country of origin" inconformity with Article 2.2.2(i).  Furthermore, "exporting country" is defined in Section 2 of the Act
to include country of origin.G/ADP/Q1/SGP/15
G/SCM/Q1/SGP/15
Page 6
Question 15
Paragraph 40(2) compels an importer seeking a refund review to first inform the
Minister and the Director-General of Customs and Excise of such request no later than the timeof entry of subject goods into Singapore "in such form as may be required".  How will
Singapore implement this provision?  Will impo rters be put on notice in a timely manner?
Answer
The intention of Section 40(2) is simply to provide notice to Singapore Customs that the
importer intends to contest the applicable anti-dumping duty.  The importer simply notes in writing onthe entry form that refund review is contemplated.  This will put Customs on notice that it should not
finalize the duties on such entries.
Question 16
Paragraph (40)(7) states that where the margin of dumping in a refund review is found
to be less than the anti-dumping duty paid by an importer, the difference shall be refunded.
Does Singapore intend normally to make refunds within the 90 day time-period described in
Article 9.3.2 of the A-D Agreement?
Answer
Yes.
Question 17
Paragraph (41) will the Minister impose deadlines upon interested parties for the
written submissions of information described in paragraph (41)(1)?  Will interested parties be
provided with the opportunity to submit information and written comments in defence of their
interests and for rebuttal and clarification of information and comments submitted by others?
Answer
Yes.
Question 18
Paragraph (43)(6) indicates that where the Minister decides not to conduct verification
he may request an interested party to submit "statements from independent auditors as to
accuracy and completeness of the factual information submitted".  Will such auditors'
attestations be limited to financial statements?  If not, what other kinds of information does
Singapore envision an independent auditor would attest to?
Answer
The SCM Agreement (Article 12.5) and the A-D Agreement (Article 6.6) require that the
authorities "satisfy themselves as to the accuracy of the information supplied by interested parties …".In this regard, the Agreements authorize "on-the- spot" investigations (or verifications) to ensure
accuracy.  In general, Singapore's experience indicates that the "on-the-spot" verifications can be
disruptive and costly for respondents and petitioners.  Also, such "on-the-spot" verifications can be
time-consuming and costly for the investigating Government.  Consequently, regulation 43(6)G/ADP/Q1/SGP/15
G/SCM/Q1/SGP/15
Page 7
contemplates alternative methods to verify information presented to the Government.  For example,
the submission of original documents to support the factual information submitted is included as one
alternative.  Also, the regulation indicates that "statements from independent auditors as to the
accuracy and completeness of the factual information submitted" by the respondent or petitionermight be used as another alternative.  Such a certificate of accuracy and completeness would not be
limited to the financial statements.  Rather, such cert ificates could relate to any relevant information
submitted to the Government.
Question 19
Singapore's regulations do not address importation of subject merchandise through
intermediate countries.  However, section 40 of Singapore's Act does provide that where
merchandise is not imported directly into Si ngapore but indirectly through an intermediate
country, such merchandise will be considered to have originated in the country of origin, and
the provisions of Singapore's Act will apply.  Does this mean that Singapore will always
compare the export price to comparable prices  in the country of origin?  If so, how does
Singapore intend to comply with Article 2.5 of the A-D Agreement, which states that the export
price of subject merchandise will normally be compared price of the merchandise sold in the
intermediate country (exporting country), unless certain circumstances exist, in which case the
export price may be compared to the comp arable price in the country of origin?
Answer
Section 40 of the Act deals with transhipment.  Section 40 states that "where goods are not
imported into Singapore directly from the country of origin, but exported to Singapore from an
intermediary country, the provisions of this Act and any regulations made thereunder shall be fullyapplicable and the transaction, for the purposes of this Act and those regulations, shall be regarded as
having taken place between the country of origin and Singapore".  Article 2.5 of the WTO Agreement
allows the export price to be compared with the comparable price in the country of origin if the
products are merely transhipped through the country of export.  Thus, Section 40 of the Act is in
compliance with Article 2.5 of the Agreement.
__________