./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/W/119
12 September 2001
(01-4287)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Ad Hoc Group on ImplementationOriginal:  English
TERMINATION OF INVESTIGATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5.8 IN CASES
OF DE MINIMIS  IMPORT VOLUME
The following communication, dated 11 September 2001, has been received from the
Permanent Delegation of the European Commission.
_______________
Under EC anti-dumping legislation, injury shall normally be regarded as negligible if imports
concerned represent a market share below 1 per cent, unless such countries collectively account for
3 per cent or more of the Community consumption.  This rule is applied cumulatively to that
contained in Article 5(8) of the WTO Anti-Dumpi ng Agreement, i.e. that the volume of dumped
imports from a particular country shall be regarded as negligible if it is found to account for less than3 per cent of imports of the like product in the importing Member, unless such countries collectively
account for more than 7 per cent of import of the like product in the importing Member.
Consequently, proceedings with respect to imports falling below the aforementioned thresholds shall
either not be initiated or be terminated.
The differences in wording between the WTO and the EC rules reflect the EC consideration
that the de minimis  determinations are part of the injury investigation, a corner stone of which is the
assessment and consideration of market shares of imports under investigation.
In any event, the EC applies both WTO and EC rules in parallel for all anti-dumping
proceedings.  In practice, this means that, in all proceedings, ‘de minimis’  determinations will be
made under the two sets of rules (EC and WTO), for both the general rule and, if applicable, thecumulation rule.  If imports are found to be below the ‘de minimis’  thresholds under either set of
rules, proceedings are terminated with respect to these imports.  The same is done at initiation stage,
i.e. proceedings are not initiated for imports below the de minimis thresholds, based on the available
evidence.
In this respect, the following is important to note:
• The relevant thresholds are established on the basis of actual volume and for the period of
investigation, i.e. the period of time over which the dumping assessment is made.
• As a general rule, the most reliable source of information should be used.  In this respect,
preference is given to verified data from co-operating parties, unless low co-operation leads to the
use of other data, for instance EC or third countries trade statistics.
• The WTO ‘de minimis’  rules refer to a share of imports concerned in total imports, while the
Community rules are based on shares of domestic consumption, with a different threshold.G/ADP/AHG/W/119
Page 2
Practice shows that very few cases have been terminated because the WTO rules were
determinant.  In practice, the EC rules on “de minimis”  lead to more cases being terminated than the
WTO rules and therefore appear to be more suited to the size and structure of the Community market.
Finally, the “de minimis”  rules do not automatically apply in interim and expiry reviews.  In
fact, in this kind of proceedings there may still be a likelihood of recurrence of injury (and thus
grounds for the renewal of measures) despite import volumes being below ‘ de minimis ’ thresholds
unless such ‘ de minimis ’ level of imports are found to exist independently of the anti-dumping
measures, e.g. if domestic production capacity had been significantly reduced in comparison with
domestic and third country sales.
Examples demonstrating practical treatment of differences in ‘de minimis’ levels as per the WTO
anti-dumping Agreement and the EC  basic anti-dumping Regulation
In Microdisks from inter alia Canada and Thailand  (terminated at definitive stage on
4 March 1998), imports from Thailand were found to account for less than 1 per cent of total
Community consumption, thus below the ‘ de minimis ’ thresholds.  Imports from Canada were found
to account for 1.58 per cent of Community consumption, but for less than 3 per cent of total imports.
Consequently, the imports from Canada were ‘ de minimis ’, based on the relevant threshold of
Article 5.8 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, even though they were above the ‘ de minimis ’
Community threshold.  The proceeding was thus terminated with respect to both Canada and
Thailand.
In Hot rolled coils from inter alia, Iran (terminated at definitive stage on 5 February 2000),
imports from Iran were found to account for less than 1 per cent of Community consumption.
However, these imports accounted for 3.2 per cent of total imports and were thus above the threshold
under the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. In this cas e, EC legislation prevailed and the proceeding
was terminated without the imposition of measures in respect of Iran.
In Malleable fittings from inter alia Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(terminated at definitive stage on 18 August 2000), imports from Croatia and Yugoslavia were found
to be below 1 per cent of Community consumption.  They were also below 3 per cent of total imports.
Imports were below ‘ de minimis ’ under both the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and the EC
legislation.
In Hairbrushes originating inter alia in Hong Kong  (terminated at provisional stage, on
9 May 2000), imports originating in Hong Kong were found to be below 1% of consumption.  They
were also below 3 per cent of total imports. Imports were below ‘ de minimis ’ under both the WTO
Anti-Dumping Agreement and the EC legislation.
In Certain cathode-ray colour television picture tubes originating inter alia in the People’s
Republic of China (terminated at definitive stage on 17 October 2000), imports originating in the PRC
were found to be below 1 per cent of the Community consumption.  They were also below 3 per cent
of total imports.  Imports were below ‘ de minimis ’ under both the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement
and the EC legislation.
__________