. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/W/512
29 May 2002
(02-2954)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
IMPLEMENTATION RELATED ISSUES REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE BY MINISTERS
Follow-Up Questions from the UNITED STATES to BRAZIL and INDIA
on Tiret 80 Proposals (G/SCM/W/464, G/SCM/W/465)
The following communication, dated 28 May 2002, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the United States.
_______________
FACTS AVAILABLE – INDIA
Clarify that all verifiable and timely submitted information should be taken into
account and that if a portion of information is not verifiable or timely submitted, facts available
may be used for that portion of the information
The Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures does not include language
supporting India’s proposal, and India’s proposal – to the extent that it is intended to mirror the
language of Annex II of the Anti-dumping Agreement –  does not contain a provision that verifiedinformation should be taken into account only when it can be used “without undue difficulties.”  We
remain concerned that if India’s proposal were adopted, the selective provision of information by the
exporter under investigation could result in a calculat ed rate of subsidization lower than the actual
rate.
Moreover, the mandated use of a limited amount of company information will not necessarily
result in a more accurate subsidy calculation.  If, as is often the case in a subsidy calculation, one
number (i.e. the subsidy amount) must be divided by another (i.e. the sales amount), if only one
number is “verified,” its use does not necessarily lead to a more accurate calculation.  This is true for
two reasons.  First, the accuracy of the subsidy calculation will be entirely contingent upon theselection of the value to be used for the second number, which is unknown.  Second, other completely
different information, such as the subsidization rate found for the same programme in another
investigation or review, may provide a more reasonable basis to approximate the actual rate of
subsidization.
REVIEW PROCEDURES – BRAZIL
Introduce detail in Article 19.3 concerning expedited review of new exporters
It is our understanding that Article 19.3 covers  exporters who had exports during the period of
investigation, but whom were not actually investigated.  (This is in contrast to “new shippers” –
exporters who did not export during the period of investigation, but did export after the period ofG/SCM/W/512
Page 2
investigation.)  Under US regulations, exporters not covered by the original investigation may request
an expedited review.  For such reviews, US re gulations provide that, under certain conditions,
information from the original period of investigation may be used.
Is Brazil’s proposal with respect to exporters that exported during the period of investigation,
but were not covered by the original investigation, or does Brazil’s proposal cover exporters that did
not export during the period of investigation?
REVIEW PROCEDURES – INDIA
Clarify Article 21.2 to provide for automatic adjustment of countervailing duties for
schemes withdrawn
It is our understanding that this proposal woul d only apply to verified programmes that were
subsequently terminated and would not apply to verified programmes for which the subsidy level was
increased.  Therefore, any adjustment under this proposal would only result in the downward
adjustment of a countervailing duty and would never result in the upward adjustment of acountervailing duty.  It would be helpful if an expl anation could be provided as to why the adjustment
under this proposal should necessarily only work to lower a countervailing duty.
__________