RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/W/104
26 October 2000
(00-4468)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Ad Hoc Group on ImplementationOriginal:  English
DRAFT RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED
IN PRELIMINARY AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATIONS
Comments by Brazil
1. Based on the revision made by the Secret ariat to the document G/ADP/AHG/W/64/Rev.3, of
3 September 2000, Brazil hereby submits comments and suggestions about the above-referenced draft
recommendation.
2. Brazil will refer to the last four paragraphs of the secretariat’s document, which are not
numbered, as paragraphs 13, 14, 15, and 16 respectively.
3. Brazil believes that the objective of a Recommendation emanating from the Ad Hoc Group on
Implementation is to offer Members guidance for the implementation of the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
4. It is for this reason that Brazil does not agree to the proposal of inclusion of the sentence
between brackets in the 2nd chapeau.  Article 12.2 does not really “specify” aspects (details) such as
those present in the draft recommendation.  The language of the draft recommendation tends to
characterize the proposals that follow as “additional” obligations to the ones contained in Article 12.2.
5. Therefore, if the language in brackets is not kept, it would not be appropriate to begin the 3rd
chapeau with "Notwithstanding the foregoing considerations".  The 3
rd chapeau should become the
second sentence of the second chapeau, as follows: “The Committee recommends that, as a general
rule, a preliminary affirmative determination should include the following matters, whether in the
public notice or in a separate public report, clarifying the provisions of Art.12.2.”
6. With regard to the 4th paragraph, the text should finish after the words “domestic industry”.
The words "and of the preliminary injury" at the end of the sentence are redundant, since the
Recommendation already specifies that its object is precisely the Preliminary Determination.
7. On the 5th paragraph, the language in brackets introduces an imprecision.  A description of the
international market for the product is not always relevant for the investigation.  When an analysis of
the international market is deemed necessary by the investigating authority, such analysis should be in
the “others factors” (that could be causing injury to the domestic industry) analysis.
8. On paragraph 7, Brazil prefers alternative 7-2, modified as follows:
- Considering (i) that confidential informatio n treatment applies not only to information
provided for the purposes of dumping determination but also to information provided for
injury determination; and (ii) Japan’s proposal (14th paragraph of document
G/AD/AHG/W/64/Rev3), in which there is a general reference to the protection ofG/ADP/AHG/W/104
Page 2
confidential information, Brazil believes that the phrase "subject to the requirements of
confidentiality", proposed by Canada, could be deleted.
- Brazil considers that Mexico’s proposal in item (a) of this paragraph should be in item (c)
written as follows: "reasons for the definition of the types/models of product used forcomparison".  Such modification stems from the fact that there is not an independent selection
of types/models for the establishment of normal value.  In fact, the definition of the
types/models depends on the product that was exported and aims at guaranteeing a fair
comparison between the product that is sold in  the internal market of the exporting country
and the product under investigation.  If the investigating authorities changes the method
normally used to calculate the dumping marg in, an explanation should be given. Brazil
proposes the following language for item (c): “comparison , including the reasons for
rejecting claims for adjustments, the reasons for any deviation from the method normally
applied by the investigating authority, the reasons for the choice of exchange rates, and the
reasons for the selection of the types/models of product used for comparison”;
- Brazil considers relevant Japan's proposal in 7-1, where Members are required to describe the
criteria adopted when using “best information available” (Art. 6.8). Brazil proposes that this
is included in item (d), "other key issues".
9. Brazil suggests that paragraphs 8 and 9 are merged, in order to simplify what the various
Members are proposing.  The new paragraph could have the format below:
"information  concerning:
• the preliminary examination of injury;
• the preliminary examination of the ca sual relationship between the dumped
imports and any injury found; and
• the preliminary examination of the other factors,
including  the evidence concerning the factors set forth in Article 3 of the Agreement,
the analysis employed, and, when appropriate, the evaluation of cumulation criteria
established in Article 3.3 and, if relevant, the manner in which Article 6.8. (facts
available) was applied ."
10. Brazil supports the language of Paragraph 11, now 10, as it is currently drafted.11. Finally, Brazil agrees to the text of all paragraphs that are not hereby mentioned, as presently
drafted in document G/ADP/AHG/W/64/Rev3.
12. Attached is the Draft Recommendation, as it would read if the Ad Hoc Group accepted all
suggestions above.G/ADP/AHG/W/104
Page 3
Brazil's Proposal
The Committee notes that Article 7 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of
GATT 1994 provides that provisional measures may be applied only if a preliminary affirmative
determination has been made of dumping and consequent injury to a domestic industry.  Similarly,
Article 8 of the Agreement provides that price u ndertakings shall not be sought or accepted from
exporters unless a preliminary affirmative determination of dumping and injury caused by such
dumping has been made.
The Committee considers that guidelines for the matters to be included in such preliminary
affirmative determination would be useful. The Committee recommends that, as a general rule, apreliminary affirmative determination should include the following matters, whether in the public
notice or in a separate public report, clarifying the provisions of Art. 12.2:
1. The name(s) of the domestic producer(s) of the like product submitting the application, the
names of other domestic producers of the like product, and the names of the importer(s), the knownexporter(s) and  the known foreign producer(s) of the product under investigation.
2. Information concerning the procedural background of the investigation, including the date
that the application was received, the date that the application was accepted as properly documented,
and the date of initiation, as appropriate under each Members' practice.
3. The description of the product under investigation to which the preliminary determination
applies, including the tariff classification for Customs purposes of the product, and the country(ies) of
origin or export.
4. Information concerning the domestic like product and industry, including information
regarding any exclusion of producers for the purposes of defining the domestic industry.
5. Information concerning the domestic market for the product.6. The periods of data collection for both the preliminary dumping and preliminary injury
analysis, and an explanation of the selection of such periods, where appropriate.
7. Information concerning the estimation of the dumping margin, including, information
concerning
(a) normal value , including the reasons for using or not using domestic prices, e.g. the
results of "sufficient quantity" tests, the resu lts of any "ordinary course of trade tests",
including methodology for calculating cost of production, the precise methodologyfor calculating constructed normal values or prices to third countries;
(b) export prices , in particular if they have been considered unreliable, in  which case
information should be included on the methodology and the adjustments made to
construct the export prices;
(c) comparison , including the reasons for rejecting claims for adjustments, the reasons
for any deviation from the method normally applied by the investigating authority,
the reasons for the choice of exchange rates, and the reasons for the selection of the
types/models of product used for comparison; andG/ADP/AHG/W/104
Page 4
(d) other key issues , such, in a case sampling has been used, the justification for doing so,
as well as the justification for the selection of the sample and, when appropriate, the
manner in which Article 6.8 (facts available) was applied.
8. Information concerning:
• the preliminary examination of injury;
• the preliminary examination of the casual relationship between the dumped imports
and any injury found; and
• the preliminary examination of the other factors,
should include the evidence concerning the factors set forth in Article 3 of the Agreement, the
analysis employed, and, when appropriate, the evaluation of cumulation criteria established in Article
3.3 and, when appropriate, the manner in which Article 6.8. (facts available) was applied ."
9. Information concerning verification, if undertaken.
10. Information on the decision whether or not to impose provisional measures, including the
period of application of provisional measures, and the form and level of such measures.
11. Information concerning the continuation of the investigation, including such matters as time
frames for further procedures, submissions, hearings, the requirements for undertakings if offered, and
the name, telephone and telefax numbers and address of the investigating authority.
12. The authorities should, if they fail to include  any of the information referenced above in a
preliminary affirmative determination, explain in the preliminary affirmative determination why such
information was not included.
13. Information provided in preliminary affirma tive determination by the authorities should be
subject to the need to protect confidential information.
14. The public notice should explain the basis on which the figures used in preliminary
determinations were obtained, whether from questionna ire responses or other information sources, and
to what extent they have been verified.
15. This recommendation will be applicable only to preliminary affirmative determinations in
anti-dumping investigations initiated after the date of its entry into force.
__________