. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/JPN/10
G/SCM/Q1/JPN/10
28 August 1998
(98-3330)
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 of JAPAN1
to Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES2 and CANADA3
The following communication, dated 24 August 1998, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Japan.
_______________
QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES
Q1. Paragraph 4(2) of the Guidelines seems to i ndicate that the output of the like product “by
producers who are not included in 'domestic pro ducers'” for purposes of defining the domestic
industry because they are related parties “shall be included into the calculation of the total
domestic production of the product concerned”.  If such related party output is included in the
total domestic production of the subject product, please clarify from what  the related party output
is excluded or if such output only is included for purposes of calculating total apparentconsumption.
Reply
Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement prescrib es that "the term 'domestic industry' shall
be interpreted as referring to the domestic producers as a whole of the like products or to those of them
whose collective output of the products constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production
of those products".
Paragraph (i) of Article 4.1 further prescribes that "when producers are related to the exporters
or importers or are themselves importers of the allegedly dumped product, the term 'domestic industry'
may be interpreted as referring to the rest of the producers".
The Cabinet Orders relating to Countervailing Duty and Anti-Dumping Duty and the Guidelines
provide that when "the output of the like products by domestic producers (excluding the related
producers referred to in Article 4.1(i) of the Agreem ent)" constitutes not less than half of "the total
domestic production of those produc ts (including the production by the related producers)", the
producers of like products are recogn ized as the "domestic industry".
                                                     
1 G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2-G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2 & Suppl.2
2 G/ADP/Q1/JPN/8-G/SCM/Q1/JPN/8
3 G/ADP/Q1/JPN/9-G/SCM/Q1/JPN/9G/ADP/Q1/JPN/10
G/SCM/Q1/JPN/10
Page 2
Paragraph 4(2) of the Guidelines clarifies by  way of precaution that the related producers are
not included in the "domestic producers" and that the output of the like products produced by the related
producers is included in "the total domestic production of those products".
Q2. Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines provides that “the Minister of Finance shall promptly send
questionnaires to the interested parties ... and ex plicitly indicate in th e Questionnaire in each
investigation case, the deadline for replying to  the questionnaire”.  Please clarify how the
Guidelines conform with Article 6.1 of th e A-D Agreement and Article 12.1 of the SCM
Agreement generally, and specifically regarding the time frame for exporters or foreign producers
to reply to the questionnaire.
Reply
Regarding the deadline for responses to questionnaires, consistent with Article 6.1 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and Article 12.1 of the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement,
interested parties are given at least 37 days (seven days for receipt of a questionnaire and 30 days for
replying to it) for submitting the response in any in vestigation.  If the interested parties provide a
sufficient reason for extending the deadline, an extension is granted.
Q3. Please clarify why the sample application fo r the “Modification of an Undertaking due to
Changes in Circumstances” for Countervailing Duty has a different standard for consideration of
threat of material injury (i.e. page 20 of the Gu idelines, Paragraph 2-2(iv) states “the undertaking
is clearly foreseen and critical”) than that of any of the other relevan t sample applications,
particularly the sample application for the similar modification of an Anti-Dumping Duty (i.e.,
page 35 of the Guidelines, Paragraph 2- 2(iv) states “the undertaking is clearly foreseen and
imminent”).
Reply
The difference in standards originates in the prov isional nature of the English translation of the
Japanese text.  The term "critical" should be ch anged to "imminent" as the correct translation.
QUESTION FROM CANADA
Q. Please explain the nature and role of th e Special Duty Group of the Customs Tariff
Council referenced in Section 6(2).
Reply
The Special Duty Group is one of the sub-groups  within the Customs Tariff Council which is
organized pursuant to Article 22 of the Customs Tari ff Law.  It consists of experts in the areas of
finance, industry and international trade, etc.
The Minister of Finance shall refer to the Council a decision to impose anti-dumping duty or
countervailing duty, etc. and decisions to terminate or  modify these measures.  In such situations, the
Special Duty Group is in charge of inve stigation and deliberation on these matters.
This Council system secures circumspection a nd objectivity in making a decision of those
measures.
__________