RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/CHL/3
G/SCM/Q1/CHL/3
5 December 2000
(00-5247)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  Spanish
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Replies to Questions Posed by BRAZIL1
Regarding the Notification of CHILE2
The following communication, dated 16 November 2000, has been received from the
Permanent Mission of Chile.
_______________
Q1. Art. 11 of Law 18.525 establishes that:
“(The Commission) shall report the opening  and subject of an investigation within
five working days after the complaint has been duly lodged, by means of a notice
published in the Diario Oficial.”
Could Chile clarify if the above timetable is  also applicable when opening a subsidies
investigation? In this case, when should the co nsultations of Article 13.1 of the SCM Agreement
be held?
Q2. Article 11 of Law 18.525 establishes that:
“...Within 30 days from the date of such notice, the Commission shall receive
whatever information interested parties wish to submit and request any reports itconsiders necessary.”
Bearing in mind Art. 6.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, which reads:“6.1. All interested parties in an anti-dumping investigation shall be given notice of
the information which the authorities requ ire and ample opportunity to present in
writing all evidence which they consider relevant in respect of the investigation in
question.
                                                     
1 G/ADP/Q1/CHL/1-G/SCM/Q1/CHL/1.
2 G/ADP/N/1/CHL/2-G/SCM/N/1/CHL/2.G/ADP/Q1/CHL/3
G/SCM/Q1/CHL/3
Page 2
6.1.1. Exporters or foreign producers receiving questionnaires used
in an anti-dumping investigation shall be given at least 30 days for
reply.15  Due consideration should be given to any request for an
extension of the 30-day period and, upon cause shown, such an
extension should be granted whenever practicable.”
_______________
15 As a general rule, the time-limit for exporters shall be counted from the
date of receipt  of the questionnaire, which for this purpose shall be deemed to have
been received one week from the date on which it was sent to the respondent or
transmitted to the appropriate diplomatic representative or the exporting Member,
or, in the case of a separate customs te rritory Member of the WTO, an official
representative of the exporting territory.”
as well as Article 12.1 of the SCM Agreement, could Chile clarify how Art. 11 of Law 18.525
does not violate the above mentioned provisions of the WTO Agreements?
Since the interested parties presumably do not receive the questionnaires at the date the
notice is published in the Diario Oficial , wouldn’t they have less time to respond to the
questionnaires than that established in the above-mentioned provisions of the WTOAgreements?
Q3. Art. 11, Law 18.525 establishes that:
“(...) Within a maximum period of 90 days from the date of publication of the
notice in the Diario Oficial, the Commission shall make a decision on the facts
under investigation on the basis of the information in its possession.”
Could Chile clarify if the above-referenced notice is the one concerning the opening of
the investigation (this is the only notice mentioned in Article 11)?
Could Chile clarify if the above-mentioned “dec ision” is the final determination in anti-
dumping or subsidies investigations?  What would then be the timetable for these
investigations?  Wouldn’t the timetable be so tight as to render completely ineffective the
participation of the foreign producers/exporters or of the governments of the exporting
countries?
When would the interested parties be informed of the “essential facts under
consideration” mentioned in Articles 6.9 of th e Anti-Dumping Agreement and 12.8 of the SCM
Agreement?
Q4. Article 11 of Law 18.525 also establishes that:
“Before delivering the decision referred to  in the preceding paragraph and at any
stage in the investigation, the Commission may request the President of the
Republic, through the Minister for Finance, to establish within a period of 60 days
provisional surcharges, anti-dumping or countervailing duties or minimumcustoms value...”
Since the time period refer red in the “preceding paragraph” is 90 days counting from
the publication of the public notice announcing the opening of the investigation, could ChileG/ADP/Q1/CHL/3
G/SCM/Q1/CHL/3
Page 3
clarify if its legislation allows for the application of provisional duties before 60 days from the
date of the opening of investigation?  In case of an affirmative answer, how would this provision
of the national legislation not violate Articles 7.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 17.3 of
the SCM Agreement?
Reply
Please find attached the reply from the Government of Chile to the written questions from
Brazil, circulated in document G/ADP/Q1/CHL/1–G /SCM/Q1/CHL/1.  These questions have arisen
in connection with the examination of the notification of amendments made to Chile's legislation
(Law No. 18,525) on the investigation and imposition of anti-dumping duties and countervailingmeasures, notified in document G/ADP/N/1/CHL/2–G/SCM/N/1/CHL/2, circulated on
14 March 2000.
_______________
Law No. 18,525 concerning "Rules on the importation of goods", which authorizes the
conduct of investigations concerning anti-dumping and countervailing duties, was notified to the
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
during the first half of 1995 and circulated in  document G/ADP/N/1/CHL/ 1–G/SCM/N/1/CHL/1.  It
was examined in July 1995 and Chile provided a written reply to the questions that were posed.
Since its examination in 1995 this Law has received a few slight amendments, but it was not
until 1999 that a substantial amendment was introduced, authorizing the national authority to conduct
investigations and apply safeguard measures.  Th is important change was notified to the Committee
on Safeguards and circulated in document G/SG /N/1/CHL/2 of 24 August 1999, which contains a
completely updated text of Law No. 18,525 incorporating all the legal amendments.
That updated notification on safeguard measures meant that the same Law notified in 1995 to
the Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices and on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures also had
to be updated.  That was done in document G/ ADP/N/1/CHL/2–G/SCM/N/1/CHL/2, circulated on
14 March 2000 and it was, in fact, that updated version that was examined at the meeting of 2 and3 November this year.
The introductory and explanatory part of the notification clearly sets out the situation
regarding the amendment of the Law, including the new power regarding safeguard measures, while
stressing that it "introduces no significant changes in anti-dumping or countervailing dutyinvestigations".
The questions posed by Brazil do not refer to the amendments notified on that occasion, but
enquire about the compatibility of certain articles in the said Law with the provisions of the
Anti-Dumping and SCM Agreements.
Chile was asked similar questions in the examination of this legislation in July 1995 before
those same Committees and the written replies that Chile gave are contained in the following
documents:G/ADP/Q1/CHL/3
G/SCM/Q1/CHL/3
Page 4
• G/ADP/W/99-G/SCM/W/108 to the United States.
• G/ADP/W/100-G/SCM/W/109 to Korea.
• G/ADP/W/156-G/SCM/W/163 to Australia;  Canada;  European Communities;
Hong Kong, China;   and Venezuela.
It is made clear in these replies that the Anti-Dumping and SCM Agreements, like all the
WTO Agreements, have been fully incorporated into Chile's legislation.  Consequently, with regard toprocedures and time-limits, the competent Chilean authority must directly apply the WTO
Agreements.
__________