RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/MDA/1
G/SCM/Q1/MDA/1
8 April 2002
(02-1844)
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
Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES Regarding
the Notification of MOLDOVA1
The following communication, dated 4 April 2002, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the United States.
_______________
1. Does Article 1 (“The area of application for this law”) of Moldova’s Law on Anti-Dumping
Measures, Countervailing Duties and Safeguards alter the injury or causation standards prescribed inArticles 5 or 29 (“Determination of injury”)?  What is the relationship between the general provisions
of the law in Articles 1 and 3 and the law’s more specific provisions in Articles 5 and 29?
2. Do the terms “like or directly competing goods” in Article 1 and “like product” in Article 2
refer to the same concept?  If not, how is the concept of “directly competing goods” applied in making
a like product determination under the law’s anti-dumping and countervailing duty provisions?
3. How is the “quality and reputation of the products [and] the existence of a brandname or
trademark” pertinent to like product determinations as directed by Article 2?  Is the inclusion of these
criteria in the like product definition meant to exclude the consideration of other characteristics from
the Moldovan authorities’ like product analysis?
4. What public authority has Moldova designated as its “Investigating Authority” for injury
determinations?  Is the same authority the Investigating Authority for dumping margins and
countervailable subsidies?
5. Article 2 of the Moldova law (“law”) states,  “Dumping (a dumping action) shall mean
introduction of a product to the market at a price, which is lower than its normal value, or where the
exports price of that  product at the time of its exports from one country into another is lower than the
comparable prices registered in normal trade transactions with like products, intended for domestic
consumption in the exporting country”.  Does this language contemplate two bases for determining
dumping?  If so, please explain the difference between “ normal value” and “comparable pricesregistered in normal trade transactions with like products, intended for domestic consumption in the
exporting country”.
6. Article 3(2) states, “A product should be considered dumped only where its exports price – at
the time of its introduction to Moldova - is lower than the usual price charged in the ordinary course
                                                     
1 G/ADP/N/1/MDA/1-G/SCM/N/1/MDA/1-G/SG/N/1/MDA/1G/ADP/Q1/MDA/1
G/SCM/Q1/MDA/1
Page 2
of trade for  products intended for consumption at the domestic market of the exporting country”.
Does the term “normal trade transaction” as used in Article 2 have the same meaning as “ordinary
course of trade” as used in Article 3(2)?  In Article 3(2), does “usual price” differ from “comparable
price” in Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (“ADAgreement”)?
7. Article 2 of the law defines “fair value” as “the value that corresponds to the actually paid
price, or the price that could be paid for like products in  an arms-length commercial transaction by
consumers in the exporting country”.  Is “fair value” equivalent to  “normal value” in Article 2.1 of
the AD Agreement?  How does this relate to the term “normal value” as used in the definition of
“dumping”?  How will Moldova determine what prices “could be paid” for like products?
8. Article 4(5) of the law states that consideration shall be given to “evidence concerning the
correct cost breakdown, provided such cost breakdown has a tradition of usage”.  Does “tradition of
usage” have the same meaning as cost allocations “historically used by the exporter or producer” as
provided in Article 2.2.1.1 of the AD Agreement?
9. Article 5(1)(b) (Determination of injury) speaks of “the impact of the dumped imports on the
national industry” while the corollary provision for countervailing measures (Article 29(1)(b)
(Determination of injury)) states, “the consequent impact of these imports on the domestic industry”
(emphasis supplied).  Is the omission of the term “consequent” in the former intentional and, if so,what substantive effect is the omission meant to have?
10. Article 5(2) speaks of the “. . . like product of the national industry . . .” while the corollary
provision for countervailing measures (Article 29(2) ) states, “. . . like product of the Republic of
Moldova . . .”.  Is the difference intentional and, if so, what substantive effect is it meant to have?
11. Is the first sentence in Article 5(6) meant to refer to “paragraph 5” rather than “paragraph 6”?12. In the regional markets provisions, Articles 6(2)(a) (anti-dumping duties) and 30(2)(a)
(countervailing duties), the former states “manufacture” while the latter states “production”.  Are the
two meant to have different substantive effect and, if so, upon what basis?
13. The language relating to price undertakings in regional industry investigations used in
Articles 6(4) (anti-dumping duties) and 30(4) (countervailing duties) is different.  Are the two
provisions meant to have different substantive effect and, if so, upon what basis?
14. The standard for determining negligible import volume in Article 7(6) is framed in terms of
the market share of the imports in the Republic of Moldova.  How is this consistent with Article 5.8 of
the AD Agreement, which frames negligibility analysis  in terms of percentage of total imports, rather
than in terms of market penetration?  Does Moldova use in this analysis the percentages specified in
Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement?
15. What factors are taken into consideration in determining the “national interest” to proceed
with an investigation under Articles 7(7) or 31(9) when the complaining party wishes to withdraw the
complaint?  In such an event, is the Investigating Authority required to initiate an investigation under
Articles 7(8) or 31(10), respectively?
16. Please confirm that notices of initiation under Articles 7(10) and 31(12) contain the content
prescribed by Article 12.1.1 of the AD Agreement and Article 22.2 of the Agreement on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”), respectively.G/ADP/Q1/MDA/1
G/SCM/Q1/MDA/1
Page 3
17. Article 8(3) of the law provides that interested parties must make a showing that “they are an
interested party likely to be affected by the result of the proceeding and that there are particular
reasons why they should be heard”.  What sta ndards will Moldova apply in determining whether to
hear a particular interested party?  How is this requirement consistent with Article 6.1 of the ADAgreement (“all interested parties shall be given . . . ample opportunity to present in writing all
evidence which they consider relevant. . . .”) and Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement (“all interested
parties shall have a full opportunity for a defence of their interests”)?
18. Articles 8(5) and 32(5) of the law allow intern al documents prepared by the authorities of the
Republic of Moldova to be excepted from disclosure.  Please explain how this provision  is consistent
with Article 6.4 and 6.9 of the AD Agreement, and with Article 12.3 and 12.8 of the SCM Agreement.
19. Is a “provisional” affirmative determination under Article 9(1) (Provisional anti-dumping
measure) the same thing as a “preliminary ” affirmative determination under Article 7 of the AD
Agreement?
20. Is the article concerning “duration, reviews, and refunds” in anti-dumping proceedings
properly to be referenced as “Article 13" rather th an “Article 11”?  Subparagraph (3) of this provision
requires for certain anti-dumping reviews that the particular request “contain sufficient evidence
substantiating the need for such an interim review”.  The provision in Article 37(6) concerning
countervailing duty proceedings, which is otherwise identical, contains no such language.  Why arethe two provisions different?
21. Article 13 (4) of the law states,  “The review shall be initiated where a new exporter or
producer can show that it is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the exporting country
which are subject to the anti-dumping measures on the product, or where it can demonstrate that it hasentered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Republic of
Moldova.”  Does this mean that a new exporter that is related to prior exporters, and which would
therefore otherwise not be eligible for such a new exporter review, may nevertheless have such a
review if the new exporter can demonstrate that it has entered into an irrevocable contractual
obligation to export a significant quantity to the Republic of Moldova?  Please describe the purpose of
this provision.
22. What is the purpose of the “reinvestigation ” proceeding described in Article 15?  Is the
“reinvestigation” simply a review of the dumping margin conducted pursuant to Article 9.3 of the AD
Agreement?  Or does the “reinvestigation” also encompass a reinvestigation of material injury?  If so,
please explain the standards for any reinvestigation of material injury.
24. Articles 17(2) and 41(2) contain various requirements for decisions imposing final anti-
dumping and countervailing duties.  These provisions, however, make no reference to reporting in
“sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law considered
material by investigating authorities” as set forth in Article 12.2 of the AD Agreement and
Article 22.3 of the SCM Agreement, or to reporting “the reasons for the acceptance or rejection ofrelevant arguments or claims” as set forth in Article 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement and Article 22.5 of
the SCM Agreement.  How does Moldova implement these requirements?
24. What provisions exist in Moldovan law for the domestic judicial, arbitral or administrative
review of anti-dumping or countervailing duty measures contemplated by Article 13 of the AD
Agreement and Article 23 of the  SCM Agreement?  What steps have been taken to ensure such
review is independent of the authorities responsible for anti-dumping and countervailing duty
determinations?G/ADP/Q1/MDA/1
G/SCM/Q1/MDA/1
Page 4
25. Does Moldovan law permit confidential information to be disclosed pursuant to a protective
order, as authorized by footnote 17 to Article 6.5 of the AD Agreement and footnote 42 to Article
12.4 of the SCM Agreement?
26. If an interested party makes a request for disclosure of essential facts under Articles 22 and 46
of Moldovan law, will the Moldovan authorities grant it as a matter of right?  If not, how does
Moldova implement the requirements of Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement and Article 12.8 of the
SCM Agreement?
__________