./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/W/98
16 October 2000
(00-4253)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Ad Hoc Group on ImplementationOriginal:  English
PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIENCE WITH RESPECT TO
QUESTIONNAIRES AND REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
UNDER ARTICLE 6.1 AND 6.1.1
Paper from the United States
The following communication, dated 13 October 2000, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the United States.
_______________
Response to Papers by Japan, G/ADP/AHG/W/72 and G/ADP/AHG/W/86
INTRODUCTION
In the papers cited above, Japan has raised certain issues concerning the considerations to be
taken into account in deciding whether to extend the deadline for submission of a response to a
questionnaire beyond the minimum 30 days provided for under Article 6.1.1.  The United States notes
as a preliminary matter that the second sentence of Article 6.1.1, by invoking such undefined conceptsas “cause” and “practicability,” leaves considerable discretion to the investigating authority.  This is
warranted due to the fact that the circumstances of each investigation will differ.  For example, facts
which constitute cause for granting an extension for one producer/exporter in a particular
investigation may not constitute cause for granting a similar extension to another producer/exporter in
a separate proceeding.  Further, whether granting an extension is “practicable” may vary dependingon the requirements and constraints of scheduling, administrative resources and other factors.
The United States must also make the point, only mentioned briefly in the papers by Japan,
that there are factors which sometimes militate against granting an extension.  Japan has mentioned
that antidumping investigations may disrupt the market for exporters, foreign producers andimporters, which argues for the conclusion of investigations in a timely manner.  The United States
would add to this concept the point that, where foreign exporters or producers have engaged in
dumping which has caused material injury or threatens to cause material injury to a domestic industry,
that industry is entitled to prompt relief.  Exces sive extensions may delay relief from injury to an
industry which is lawfully entitled to and demonstrably deserving of such relief.
Thus, as Japan has observed, “there is an inherent tension in this area”.  Ultimately, an
investigating authority is left with the task of weighing all of the various circumstances of a particular
case in good faith, and determining whether it is practicable and in keeping with other relevant
considerations to grant an extension for responding to a questionnaire.  Thus, the United States does
not believe that it is possible to produce a list of causes for which an extension should “automatically”G/ADP/AHG/W/98
Page 2
be granted – and even an indicative list of causes which might “generally” warrant an extension is
likely to be of marginal use in light of the number and variety of considerations which may arise.
PRACTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
A general description of the practice of the United States with respect to questionnaires,
including a general discussion of the practice of the United States in granting extensions, is set forth
for the Ad Hoc Group in submission G/ADP/AHG/W/75.  The US Department of Commerce grants
an extension to the initial deadlines in almost every case, provided that the extension is requested in
writing in a timely manner.  Extensions may also be granted on deadlines for responding to
supplemental questionnaires.  In general, the US International Trade Commission works with
questionnaire respondents on a case-by-case basis and frequently allows reasonable extensions of timeif the time remaining to complete  investigative activities permits.
FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION
Because each case presents unique facts which may or may not justify an extension, it is
impossible to address every factor which may present itself to an investigating authority in every case.
However, a few of the many factors which an investigating authority may consider in a particular
case, as appropriate, are:
• the investigating authority’s own schedule, administrative resources and
statutory/regulatory deadlines;
• the fact that an extension is requested very shortly before the deadline, or the fact that
a prior extension has already been granted;
• the resources of the party being asked for information, and the extent of the
information requested;
• the extent to which the responding party demonstrates that it must incur unusual
burdens in searching for, identifying and/ or compiling information necessary to the
investigation;
• the existence of the circumstances discussed in Article 10.6;
• the fact that more than one request for information is outstanding simultaneously
requiring the attention of the same personnel;
• whether a party has been cooperative in providing requested information;
• the existence of unforeseen circumstances such as natural disasters;
• the fact that an extension may risk delaying completion of the investigation beyond
the deadlines set forth in Article 5.10.
__________