WT/DS132/RW
Page A-1
ANNEX A
Contents Page
Answers of Mexico to Questions from the Panel A-2
Answers of the United States to Questions from the Panel A-24
Comments by the United States on new factual information submitted by Mexico A-26WT/DS132/RW
Page A-2
ANSWERS OF MEXICO TO QUESTIONS FROM THE PANEL
1. It seems that there are two questions to be answered with respect to the possible
changeover from use of sugar to use of HFCS by a particular consuming industry and a
particular consuming company.  First, whether such a switch is technically possible in the light
of the product in question and the manufacturing process, and second, the incentive to do so in
the short term and long term.  What evidence supports the conclusion that the predicted
increase in HFCS use by industries other than soft drink bottlers, over 400 per cent in 1997 over
their actual use in 1996, is likely?  Is there any information on the rate of increase of HFCS use
by these industries during the period of investigation?
The basis of Mexico's determination of the likelihood of increased imports included a
prospective analysis backed by the pattern observed in the period under investigation.  In addition,
this examination included estimates of the potential consumption of sugar likely to be switched as a
result of competition from dumped HFCS imports, so as to demonstrate that, even on the assumptionthat there was indeed an alleged restraint agr eement between soft drink bottlers and the sugar
industry, the potential demand from other consuming industries pointed to the existence of a likely
increase in dumped imports.
As part of its determination and in the context of  the analysis of the threat of injury factors
listed in Article 3.7 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, Mexico quantified the probable volume
of potential demand for HFCS that industries other than soft drink bottlers might generate, so as to
illustrate the convincing reasons for believing that in the immediate future there would be a
substantial increase in dumped imports.  Nevertheless, the United States of America (USA) boiled
down Mexico's entire determination to specifying the figures which, in its opinion, ought to beincluded in the analysis.  In particular, the crucial problem the USA identified in Mexico's
determination was the size of the rate of increase, which, according to its own calculations, would be
obtained from the estimate.
In its second written submission, Mexico rejected the USA's emphasis in demonstrating that
the calculations were incorrect and assertin g, from its own interpretation of the SECOFI
determination, that the determination was inconsistent with the terms of the Anti-DumpingAgreement.  In this regard, Mexico reiterates that the determination of the likelihood of increased
dumped imports should not be reduced to the results of a mathematical calculation and above all when
the calculation includes an estimate of future events.  Since the Anti-Dumping Agreement does not
establish quantitative parameters for compliance with the Agreement's provisions regarding asubstantial increase in imports or the assumed magnitude of the likelihood of the occurrence of afuture event, objecting to an investigating authority 's determination on the basis of the validity of one
figure goes beyond the provisions of the Agreement itself, and in no sense can obligations that do not
stem from the Anti-Dumping Agreement be imposed on Mexico.
Again, as part of the reply, Mexico would point out that the commercial interchangeability
and substitution of HFCS and sugar was amply an alysed by SECOFI in the course of the anti-
dumping investigation.  The investigating authority's conclusions and findings, as well as the basis for
arriving at the determination, were sufficiently documented in the record and established in the
original preliminary and final resolutions.
In particular, the evidence on the functions and applications of HFCS and sugar were
analysed in paragraphs 187 to 206 of the preliminary resolution1 and 400 to 422 of the original final
                                                     
1 "Preliminary resolution of the anti-dumping investigation into imports of high fructose corn syrup,
merchandise classified in tariff headings 1702.40.01, 1702.40.99, 1702.60.01 and 1702.90.99 of the GeneralWT/DS132/RW
Page A-3
resolution.  The evidence analysed by the investigating authority included more particularly:
specialized literature on sweeteners, opinions of technical and industrial experts, promotional
catalogues of HFCS producers and information obtained from industrial users in different production
sectors.
Similarly, from an analysis of the information provided by importers of HFCS originating in
the US on their sales lists, as well as informa tion from industrial users of HFCS and sugar, the
investigating authority concluded that the imports under investigation were competing on the Mexican
market for the same consumers as those of domestic sugar producers.
Specifically, on the basis of sales of imported HFCS by the three main importing firms, the
investigating authority found that they went to the following consumer sectors different from soft
drink bottlers:  food, juices and concentrates, non-carbonated beverages, wines and spirits, bread-
making, biscuits, sweets and pastry, pharmaceuticals and dairy products.
From the analysis of all the information descri bed, the investigating authority determined the
commercial interchangeability and substitution of HFCS for sugar in various industrial applications.Such substitution, which obviously varies depending on the product and production process, began
when HFCS started to be imported from the USA.
Again, the economic context predicted for 1997 was broadly in favour of increased use of
HFCS over both the long and the short term.  In the three years from 1994 to 1996, the position ofHFCS import prices relative to domestic sugar prices was marked by more and more undercutting.
Similarly, the tariff reductions on HFCS imports fr om the USA as a result of the North American Free
Trade Agreement, the absence of non-tariff barriers and the excess production capacity of the industry
in the USA made for greater incentives to use an abundant low cost substitute.  Obviously, for a
producer of goods using nutritional sweeteners, the lower production cost using HFCS compared tosugar was a crucial element in deciding which sweetener to use, since both products were
commercially interchangeable in the production process.
The likelihood of increased use of HFCS by industries other than soft drink bottlers is also
based on the sales performance of those industries observed in 1996, as can be seen from the
information supplied in exhibit MEXICO-39
2 - summarized in the following table - pertaining to the
analysis of sales of HFCS imports on the Mexica n market by two of the main importers, Almidones
Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V. and Arancia, C.P.C., S.A. de C.V., which together account for 81 per cent of
the imports investigated.3
                                                                                                                                                                    
Import Tariff, originating in the United States of Ameri ca, irrespective of the country of provenance", published
in the Official Journal of the Federation, 25 June 1997.
2 It should be noted that MEXICO-39 was supplied as an annex in the dispute settlement procedure
brought before the previous Panel, and hence the WTO Secretariat has that annex.
3 See paragraph 42 of the revised final resolution.WT/DS132/RW
Page A-4
High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS-42 and HFCS-55)/Wet Base
Import Sales
Market Segment/1996
Tons
IndustryAlmex Arancia, CPC. Total
Soft drinks 96,093,060 17,173,661 113,266,721
Other industries 18,711,717 37,984,593 56,696,310
Total 114,804,777 55,158,254 169,963,031
Source: Sales by importing firms:  written statement by Almidones Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V., sheet 1654 of
28 May 1997 and reply by Arancia CPC, S.A. de C.V., by sheet 2627 of 5 August 1997 to investigating
authority request UPCI.310.97.114 of 16 July 1997.
In addition, from information on sales of imported HFCS for 1994 supplied by Arancia Corn
Products, S.A. de C.V. (previously Arancia CPC, S. A. de C.V.) and information given in the previous
paragraph, it was found that from 1994 to 1996 HFCS sales to industries other than soft drink bottlers
showed a significant increase. Also, from January to December 1996, monthly sales of imported
HFCS by that enterprise to industries other than soft drink bottlers revealed a rise, particularly in the
second half of the year.  The sales pattern in th e two periods indicated showed increasingly larger
substitution and consumption of HFCS in those industries.
High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS-42 and HFCS-55)/Wet Base
Import Sales by Arancia CPC, S.A. de C.V.
Industry 1994 (kg.) 1996 (kg.) 1996/1994 (%)
Soft drinks 750,660 17,173,661 2,188
Other industries 17,555,457 37,984,593 116
  Food 3,855,744 10,045,261 161
  Beverages (not soft drinks) 3,561,994 12,611,743 254
  Marketing company 560 2,539 353
  Pharmaceuticals 91,404 150,070 64
  Milk products 1,151,560 4,296,570 273
  Bread-making and biscuits 8,894,195 10,878,410 22
Total 18,306,117 55,158,254 201
Source: Reply by Arancia CPC, S.A. de C.V., in sheet 2803 of 15 August 1997 to investigating authority
request UPCI.310.97.1325 of 28 July 1997 (includes changes as a result of in situ  verification of information on
23 to 26 September 1997).
The growing HFCS use and consumption in industries other than soft drink bottlers, as well
as the existence of consumption of sugar that could be replaced, revealed that, if the conditions under
which HFCS had been imported from 1994 to 1996 continued, an increased displacement of sugar inthose industries was imminent.  While the pace of such a substitution differed among industrial users,
from the outlook at the time of the investigation period there was no obstacle to prevent the situation
moving faster in the immediate future.WT/DS132/RW
Page A-5
High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS-42 + HFCS-55)/Wet Base
Import Sales by Type of Activity by Arancia CPC, S.A. de C.V.
First Half of 1996
Industry Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jan-Jun
Soft drinks 197,886 253,205 297,640 85,190 189,010 113,045 1,135,976
Other industries 2,084,590 1,667,870 1,574,600 2,398,176 3,786,474 4,091,382 15,603,092
  Food 404,140 454,203 576,250 779,099 1,263,684 1,179,876 4,657,252
  Beverages (not soft drinks) 862,710 526,347 625,205 702,072 1,022,605 1,571,091 5,310,030
  M a r k e t i n g  c o m p a n y 0 0 00000
  Pharmaceuticals 11,075 18,530 13,535 13,705 10,550 4,200 71,595
  Milk products 175,735 115,910 25,010 292,165 546,525 470,735 1,626,080
  Bread-making and biscuits 630,930 552,880 334,600 611,135 943,110 865,480 3,938,135
Total 2,282,476 1,921,075 1,872,240 2,483,366 3,975,484 4,204,427 16,739,068
Source: Reply by Arancia CPC, S.A. de C.V., in sheet 2803 of 15 August 1997 to investigating authority
request UPCI.310.97.1325 of 28 July 1997 (includes changes as a result of in situ  verification of the information
on 23 to 26 September 1997).
High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS-42 + HFCS-55)/Wet Base
Import Sales by Type of Activity by Arancia CPC, S.A. de C.V.
Second Half of 1996
Industry Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jul-Dec
Soft drinks 836,400 1,490,815 1,993,597 2,512,333 4,461,440 4,743,100 16,037,685
Other industries 3,125,040 2,769,807 3,673,645 4,378,471 4,487,479 3,947,059 22,381,501
  Food 1,254,105 728,547 984,840 856,635 834,970 728,912 5,388,009
  Beverages (not soft drinks) 1,039,915 1,195,295 965,965 1,460,551 1,739,784 900,203 7,301,713
  Marketing company 0 0 0 0 1,120 1,419 2,539
  Pharmaceuticals 1,960 14,365 0 32,460 16,350 13,340 78,475
  Milk products 398,160 383,500 349,350 441,770 559,805 537,905 2,670,490
  Bread-making and biscuits 430,900 448,100 1,373,490 1,587,055 1,335,450 1,765,280 6,940,275
Total 3,961,440 4,260,622 5,667,242 6,890,804 8,948,919 8,690,159 38,419,186
Source: Reply by Arancia CPC, S.A. de C.V., in sheet 2803 of 15 August 1997 to investigating authority
request UPCI.310.97.1325 of 28 July 1997 (includes changes as a result of in situ  verification of the information
on 23 to 26 September 1997).
High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS-42 + HFCS-55)/Wet Base
Import Sales by Type of Activity by Arancia CPC, S.A. de C.V.
1996
Industry Jan-Jun Jul-Dec Jan-Jun/Jul-Dec
(%)
Soft Drinks 1,1135,976 16,037,685 1,312
Other Industries 15,603,092 22,381,501 43
Food 4,657,252 5,388,009 16
Beverages (not soft
drinks)5,310,030 7,301,713 38
Marketing company 0 2,539 n/a
Pharmaceuticals 71,595 78,475 10
Milk products 1,626,080 2,670,490 64
Bread-making and
 biscuits3,938,135 6,940,275 76
Total 16,739,068 38,419,186 130
Source: Reply by Arancia CPC, S.A. de C.V., in sheet 2803 of 15 August 1997 to investigating authority
request UPCI.310.97.1325 of 28 July 1997 (includes changes as a result of in situ  verification of the information
on 23-26 September 1997).WT/DS132/RW
Page A-6
2. There is no reference in paragraph 57 of the redetermination to the degree of technical
substitutability of HFCS for sugar in bread- making.  Nor is there any information on the
proportionate use of HFCS and sugar in bread-making in exhibit MEXICO-20.  Bread accounts
for 86 per cent of the projected volume of sugar consumption in 1997 that SECOFI concludescould be substituted for by HFCS.  Could Mexico point to any evidence in the record on the
actual use of HFCS in bread-making in Mexic o?  Could Mexico indicate specifically where in
the redetermination this information, if any, was considered?
First of all it is necessary to point out that exhibit MEXICO-20 does contain information on
the use of HFCS and sugar in the bread-making industry.  It includes, in particular, the data on the
enterprises Marinela de Occidente, S.A. de C.V., Productos Marinela, S.A. de C.V., and PanificaciónBimbo, S.A. de C.V.  Secondly, as evidence of the actual use of HFCS in the bread-making industry
in Mexico, the Panel is referred to the information contained in exhibit MEXICO-39 which shows
imported HFCS sales in 1996 by the main importers mentioned in the reply to question 2.  The
information notes that, in 1996, enterprises in the bread-making industry that consumed HFCS in
Mexico were, among others, the following:
Sales of High Fructose Corn Syrup Originating in
the United States of America
1996
Name of Client Sales by Arancia
kg.Sales by Almex
kg.
Bimbo de Baja California, S.A. de C.V. 189,420 -
Bimbo de Chihuahua, S.A. de C.V. 47,320 -
Bimbo de Occidente, S.A. de C.V. 78,685 -
Bimbo de Puebla S.A. de C.V. 24,080 -
Bimbo de San Luis Potosi S.A. de C.V. 17,640 -
Bimbo de Yucatan, S.A. de C.V. 92,960 -
Bimbo del Centro S.A. de C.V. 18,200 -
Bimbo del Norte, S.A. de C.V. 98,825 -
Bimbo del Pacifico, S.A. de C.V. 37,520 -
Bimbo del Golfo, S.A. de C.V. - 41,630
Bimbo del Noroeste, S.A. de C.V. - 56,500
Continental de Alimentos, S.A. 110,440 -
Complementos Alimenticios, S.A. - 59,780
Marinela de Baja California S.A. de C.V. 632,320 -
Marinela de Occidente S.A. de C 663,145 190,120
Marinela del Norte, S.A. de C.V. 409,488 220,545
Marinela del Sureste S.A. de C.V. 140,030 41,930
Panificacion Bimbo, S.A. de C.V. 421,480 -
Panificadora el Panque, S.A. de C.V. 1,680 -
Paniplus S.A. de C.V. 445,920 -
Paniplus de Occidente, S.A. de C.V. - 28,290
Productos Lamar, S.A. de C.V. - 71,030
Productos Marinela, S.A. de C.V. 2,124,905 223,906
Suandy Mexico, S.A. de C.V. 91,000 -
Tia Rosa, S.A. de C.V. 506,935 78,140
TOTAL 6,151,993 1,011,871
Source: Exhibit MEXICO-39, reply by Arancia CPC, S.A. de C.V., in sheet 2803 of 15 August 1997 to
investigating authority request UPCI.310.97.1325 of 28 July 1997 and reply by Almidones Mexicanos, S.A. de
C.V., in sheet 2770 of 13 August 1997 to investigating authority request UPCI.310.97.1193 of 16 July 1997.WT/DS132/RW
Page A-7
Again, in relation to the last part of the question, it should be noted that, although
paragraph 57 of the revised final resolution failed to mention the degree of substitution of HFCS for
sugar in the bread-making industry, the explicit reference to that information is made in
paragraphs 122 and 123 of the revised final resolution.  It should also be noted that the information on
the use of HFCS in the bread-making industry was considered in the analysis described inparagraph 53 of the resolution.
3. Could Mexico clarify what is meant, in paragraph 144 of the redetermination, by the net
financial burden as a percentage of overall cost of financing?  Specifically, could Mexico explain
what elements make up the numerator, what is netted out of the numerator, and what elements
make up the denominator.
Mexico wishes to clarify that in paragraph 144 of the revised final resolution SECOFI did not
state that the net financial burden corresponds to a percentage of the overall cost of financing, but that
the investigating authority said:
"144 What is more … the industry's net financial burden viewed as a percentage of
the overall cost of financing remained unchanged in 1996 compared to 1995"
(Emphasis added)
In this respect it is important to note that, in keeping with Mexican accountancy rules, the
overall cost of financing
4  is defined as the sum of:  (1) the interest on an enterprise's loans;  (2) the
profit or loss from foreign exchange fluctuations5;  and (3) the result of the monetary position known
as Repomo .6
Since interest, foreign exchange fluctuations and the monetary position have a direct impact
on the amounts paid for debt use, it is necessary to add them in accordance with the following formula
cif =  i ± gpc ±  repomo
Where cif is the overall cost of financing, i represents the net interest of the period, gpc is equal to the
period's foreign exchange profits or losses and repomo  is the difference between  monetary assets and
monetary liabilities, as multiplied by the period's rate of inflation7;  as will be seen, the arithmetical
sign ± means in fact that the variables in the equation are net variables.
As for i, it is a net variable because it represents the balance of the financial revenue and
expenses account8;  gpc is a net variable because it involves the profits or losses  from foreign
currency operations and repomo  represents the net inflationary profits or losses due to maintaining
monetary positions of credits with creditors and debts with debtors, in Mexican pesos.
Because of this, SECOFI calculated the industry's net financial burden as the sum of the overall cost
of financing of 48 sugar mills9 and not as a percentage, as can be seen from the following equation:
                                                     
4 Paragraph 116 of Bulletin B-10 of the Generally Accepted Accountancy Principles (GAAP)
MEXICO-22.
5 For further details see paragraphs 122 to 139 of GAAP Bulletin B-10.  MEXICO-22.
6 For further details see paragraphs 140 to 155 of GAAP Bulletin B-10.  MEXICO-22.
7 Monetary assets means cash, customers, accounts payable, amounts realisable, i.e., liquid assets.
Monetary liabilities means suppliers, loans, creditors, the circulating part of long-term liabilities and similar
accounts of a circulating nature.
8 Point 5.1 of the first updated document in GAAP Bulletin B-10.  MEXICO-22.
9 See MEXICO-14.WT/DS132/RW
Page A-8
cfn ind = Σ cf n
n=1
Where cfn ind represents the sugar industry's net financial burden, cifn is the overall cost of financing
each sugar mill n, which is shown on the corresponding statement of interest, immediately after the
operating profit or EBIT.  Hence, the net financial burden is not a quotient or a percentage, for which
reason there are no numerators or denominators in the calculations of any of the variables in the above
equation.
4. It appears from paragraph 17 of Mexico's second submission that SECOFI chose to
exclude production for export markets when cons idering changes in production volumes.  The
redetermination refers, at paragraph 129, to th e fact that the production volume oriented
toward the domestic market declined by 2 per cent in 1996 with respect to 1995, but does not
refer to the absolute increase in produc tion.  Could Mexico explain why?  How can
consideration only of production oriented to the domestic market be justified in light of the fact
that the productivity of the industry included production for both the domestic and export
markets?
Mexico wishes to clarify that in paragraph 129 of the revised final resolution, SECOFI
analysed the pattern of domestic sugar production oriented towards the domestic market in terms of
volume (percentage variation) and in relation to apparent domestic consumption (ADC).  In other
words, it is the proportion of the domestic market that corresponded to domestic sugar production and
not the part intended for the export market.10
Where:
The percentage share of domestic production oriented to the domestic market in apparent
domestic consumption = [ ((domestic sugar production – sugar exports) / ADP)* 100]
ADP = (domestic sugar production + domestic HFCS production + sugar imports + HFCS
imports – sugar exports)
If the share of domestic sugar production intended for the export market had been included,
the factors making up apparent domestic consumption would not total 100 per cent, since sugar
exports were deducted in calculating domestic consumption of sweeteners.  Furthermore, Mexicoconsiders that when a share of domestic production is intended for the export market, the marketperformance of the domestic industry will be shown by production oriented to the domestic market.
It is important to mention that SECOFI did not fail to evaluate domestic sugar exports, since
the Ministry examined it as another of the factors with an impact on the situation of the domestic
industry, so that paragraph 130 of the revised final resolution said that, in view of the loss of domesticsales, the industry was obliged to increase its exports of sugar.
Again, it is important to point out that SECOFI did not deny the increase in total domestic
sugar production, nor did it deny the increased employment, resulting in increased productivity in the
sugar industry.11  However, the increased productivity is explained by the increase in domestic sugar
                                                     
10 See paragraph 129 of the revised final resolution "… the share of apparent domestic consumption
declined by 4 percentage points with respect to the level in 1995;  this loss of market share for the sugar industry
was not limited to the period under investigation, since it changed from a share of apparent domestic
consumption of 98 per cent in 1994 to 93 per cent in 1996.  In absolute terms as well, the production volumeoriented to the domestic market declined by 2 per cent in 1996 with respect to 1995".
11 See paragraphs 131 and 135 of the revised final resolution.WT/DS132/RW
Page A-9
production as a result of dynamic exports, which does not detract from the loss of market share for
domestic sugar.
5. Mexico's conclusion that the soft drink industry will supply the entirety of HFCS
consumption allowed under the restraint agreement, 350,000 tons, from domestic productionimplies an increase of 128 per cent in HFCS use by soft drink bottlers.  What is the evidence to
support this projected level of HFCS use?  This increase refers to domestically produced HFCS.
Does this not suggest that the problem is not HFCS imports, but simply increasing use of HFCS
per se ?
First, it should be noted that the consideration that all of the consumption permitted under the
alleged restraint agreement would be supplied by domestic production was not a conclusion reachedby Mexico but a working hypothesis.  Under this hy pothesis, it could be established that, even if the
alleged restraint agreement was not strictly complied with and the consumption level to which bottlers
were allegedly confined was not supplied by imports (as had traditionally been the case) but by
domestic production, an increase in imports would have proved necessary to satisfy the growing
demand by industries other than bottlers.
In fact, as Mexico established in its second written submission with regard to the USA's
assertions in its first submission, that hypothesi s could be discarded.  The information that Mexico
considered in respect of the alleged agreement and supplied by the parties did not establish the source
of supply nor did it indicate a requirement to comply strictly with the level of consumption orpenalties in the event of non-compliance.  Nevertheless, Mexico considered as a hypothesis, for the
purpose of determining the existence of a likelihood of increased imports, that both conditions might
exist, so as not to overestimate the demand for further imports.
Indeed, a consumption level limited to 350,000 tons for soft drink bottlers could be supplied
by imports, whereas the demand from other industries would have to be met by domestic production.
Actually, the decision as to which HFCS is to supply a particular industry or enterprise would depend
on the importer-producer in terms of costs, prices and commercial agreements with his customers.
The fact is that, regardless of the decision, domestic production, even if it worked at 100 per cent
capacity, would not be enough to supply total demand.  As an example, it should be noted that, from
January to September 1997, imports stood at nearly 260,000 tons wet base, even though the anti-
dumping investigation had been initiated in January 1997 and domestic HFCS production wasoperating to the full.
Again, with the information available to it, Mexico was able to estimate that annual domestic
HFCS production for 1997 had not exceeded 250,000 tons, which in terms of the alleged restraint
agreement alone left 100,000 tons to be supplied by imports, plus additional demand by industries
other than soft drink bottlers.  Nevertheless, Mexico made both of these restrictive assumptions so as
not to overestimate the likelihood of increased imports, in other words, that the limit on consumption
by bottlers would be strictly complied with and that consumption would be supplied by domestic
production.
                                                                                                                                                                    
"131. … the sugar industry's productivity, measured as the ratio of production to the number of workers
employed, improved during the period under investigation by 6 percentage points compared to 1995."
"135.  It is also significant that the behaviour of wages, inventory and productivity in the sugar industry
can be explained by the condition in which the sugar industry was found during the period under investigation,
since it needed to improve its production levels in order to meet internal demand, maintain a stock of inventory
so as not to generate charges, and be able to export its surplus."WT/DS132/RW
Page A-10
The increased use of HFCS by soft drink bottlers is to be seen in the growing trend in sales to
such users during the period of investigation, namely January–December 199612, as well as in the
information available in the investigation's administ rative record on HFCS consumption forecasts for
such users that are based on the estimated performance of soft drinks production and, hence, on
demand for sweeteners, particularly HFCS.  This is supported by two attached studies (MEXICO-23)by recognized specialists in the sweetener industr y on the outlook for HFCS demand in Mexico by the
soft drinks industry, and they form part of the administrative record of the anti-dumping investigation.
Mexico rejects the scenario estimated for 1997 which suggests that the problem lies in
increased use of HFCS per se  and not in imports.  In fact, Mexico considered in its estimate that part
of HFCS consumption would be met by domestic production and not only by imports.  This does not
imply that the increase in imports stemming from greater use can be qualified as negligible or that itsadverse effects on the domestic industry can be minimized.  It should be emphasized that greater use
of HFCS supplied by domestic production, while it would gradually displace the use of the sugar, the
effects would differ from those of dumped impor ts.  Furthermore, domestic HFCS production and
sugar would compete on a basis that was not distorte d by unfair practices and, therefore, at higher
prices, whereas the reason for the increase in imports is attractive dumping prices on the Mexicanmarket, which may have the effect of speeding up substitution and increasing demand for further
imports.  The momentum of the substitution and the price effects of greater HFCS use differ
significantly as between domestically produced HFCS and HFCS obtained from dumped imports.
6. In paragraph 162 of the redetermination, Mexico refers to the 4.6 times ratio of total
liabilities to book capital as a negative indication of the condition of the industry.  Could Mexico
explain what the benchmark is against which it is  concluded that this particular ratio is high?
In conducting its financial analysis, SECOFI cons idered that borrowing capacity relates to the
additional debts an enterprise may contract without running the risk of failing to pay off a loan, inother words, lenders can recover their loans only when the borrower's repayment capacity is
equivalent to or higher than the sum of repayments of principal and payment of interest.
In view of the above, it is important for every enterprise to maintain a suitable balance
between debt and capital in order to ensure that the capital or the viability of the organization are not
at risk, i.e. enterprises must make sure that they do not borrow beyond their payment capacity.
Broadly speaking, financial leverage ratios measure the protection of creditors against the
probable insolvency of a borrowing enterprise, as we ll as the enterprise's ability to obtain financing
for investment.  In fact, leverage ratios show what is the enterprise's capital structure, and therefore
allow us to understand the link between that capital structure and the operating risk associated with a
leveraged enterprise.
If the leverage is significantly high, this means that to continue financing itself at similar
levels, economic viability will depend on stable growth  in expected income;  otherwise, the enterprise
is likely to become insolvent in repaying its co mmitments to creditors or perhaps it may incur net
losses.
This reasoning is fully applicable to the ratio of total liabilities to book capital.  However, this
ratio reveals a further situation:  the autonomy of shareholders over their investment depends on the
level of borrowing;  in other words, as this ratio rises, the shareholders' net investment value falls
proportionately, which gradually leads to lost decision-making ability regarding the financing strategyto be followed.
13
                                                     
12 See MEXICO-39.
13 This is because creditors will not want the enterprise to borrow more, for they must protect their
interests.WT/DS132/RW
Page A-11
In view of these considerations, in paragr aph 162 of its revised final resolution, SECOFI
stated that in 1996 the domestic industry showed a rati o of total liabilities to book capital of 4.6 times,
in other words, the sugar industry's debt was at le ast 3.6 times higher than shareholders' investment in
the industry.  This reveals that shareholders technically lost their investments to creditors and lostautonomous decision-making powers.
In short, Mexico is of the view that the very significance of the leverage ratios obtained gives
enough of an idea to appreciate when a debt level is unmistakably high.  Mexico recognises that
SECOFI did not compare the resulting debt to book capital ratio with the average in other industries.
However, a ratio of 4.6 times (460 per cent) for the industry in 1996 showed a debt level that is
excessive.
Further considerations
Mexico considers it of the utmost importance to expatiate on the significance, in terms of the
present procedure, of the concepts of overall cost of financing and financial leverage, since theyinvolve, on the one hand, net payments by the sugar industry for the use of debts in its operations, and
on the other, the industry's capital structure and the risk it runs.
In this respect, it should be borne in mind that the debt level has a direct impact on the
amount of the financial burden, for which reason, as already pointed out, the industry must in futurebe able to generate stable income and operating prof its at least for an amount identical to its financing
cost, so as not to incur losses.  What is more, it must generate profits that can guarantee its economic
viability.
In this connection, Mexico recognizes that an enterprise with low debt levels should increase
the debt in order to back investment for higher prof its.  However, this means that it has to cope with
greater payments for interest, foreign exchange fluctuations and a better monetary situation, which
will increase its overall cost of financing.  It can be deduced from this that the outstanding issues for
deciding to increase borrowings and the overall cost  of financing are:  how risky is it to borrow more
and how far can it be done?, and how is the risk of insolvency viewed in the light of the decision to
change the existing capital structure for one that is more leveraged?
14  From this it can be inferred that
the decision to increase the debt is not a straight forward decision and involves a thorough-goinganalysis to define an enterprise's financial strategy.
7. Can Mexico reconcile the substitution rates provided in the Almex market survey and
by the consultants GEA that are set out in exhibit MEXICO-20 with the substitution rates relied
on by SECOFI in exhibit MEXICO-21?  What  is the evidence for the conclusion that
manufacturers of products other than soft drinks who had not in the past used HFCS would do
so in 1997 in the amounts implied by the figures  in exhibit MEXICO-21, i.e., in the case of
marmalade, 35 per cent of total predicted 1997 sugar consumption, or 6,900 tons.  In particular,
why would this occur when the price differenti al between sugar and HFCS was projected to
lessen, slightly, as compared to 1996, a year in which such volumes of HFCS were not consumedby industries other than soft drink bottlers?
The substitution rates set out in exhibit MEXICO-21 derive in part from the substitution rates
established in the Almex market survey and in part from the evidence available on the use of HFCS in
products included in the sugar consuming sectors, as explained in the following table:
                                                     
14 It should be borne in mind that capital structure is defined as a percentage mixture of own capital and
total liabilities, because 100 per cent of the investment is accounted for by total assets.WT/DS132/RW
Page A-12
Industry Degree of substitution
mentioned in exhibit
MEXICO-21Degree of
substitution
mentioned in the
Almex surveyComments
Bread 100% 100% Nominally, it was decided to use the same
percentage substitution for bread-makingas indicated by Almex, althougheffectively a degree of substitution of50% was relied upon.
Juices and
concentrates100% 100% The Almex survey concerns non-
carbonated beverages – i.e. beverage
industries other than the soft drinkbottlers.
Marmalades 70% 33% In this case, the degree of substitution
relied upon was the degree to whichHFCS had already been used instead ofsugar in accordance with the information
supplied by the company Mermeladas
Mago, S.A. de C.V.  Reducing the 70%by half, a degree of substitution of 35%was in fact used, which is lower than theaverage degree of substitution of otherproducers of marmalades such as
Frexport, S.A. de C.V.
Canned fruit 52% 3% In this case, the degree of substitution
relied upon was the degree to whichHFCS had already been used instead ofsugar in accordance with the informationsupplied by the company Confituras La
Florida, S.A. de C.V.  Reducing the 52%
by half, the degree of substitution used inreality was 26%.  It should be pointed outthat in the case of Almex, it concerns theheading "Canned fruit".  The reference inexhibit MEXICO-21, is to "fruit in syrup"
from the food segment.  This segment
also contains products such as orangesegments, grapefruit segments, pineapplecubes, papaya cubes, melon cubes andmango slices, which correspondgenerically to canned fruit, and already
showed a rate of substitution of 100%
according to the information supplied bythe company Industrias Citrícolas deMontemorelos, S.A. de C.V.
Milk products 50% 0-50% In the case of Almex, the milk products
heading corresponds to yoghurt.  In this
case, the degree to which HFCS had
already been substituted for sugar inaccordance with the information suppliedby the companies Chantilly, S.A. de C.V.,Helados Bing, S.A. de C.V. and HeladosHolanda, S.A. de C.V. was considered to
provide evidence to suggest that the rate
could average about 25%.WT/DS132/RW
Page A-13
Industry Degree of substitution
mentioned in exhibit
MEXICO-21Degree of
substitution
mentioned in the
Almex surveyComments
Biscuits 10% 0-10% The degree of substitution relied upon
was the maximum that could be reachedaccording to the Almex survey, since theinformation supplied by the companiesFabrica de Galletas La Moderna, S.A. de
C.V. and Gamesa, S.A. de C.V.
confirmed that that degree had alreadybeen attained.
Sweets 50% 0-5% 36.  With respect to sweets, the
information relied upon was that suppliedby the company Anderson Clayton & Co.,S.A. de C.V., which showed a degree of
substitution of 100% for liquid caramel.
However, in view of the wide range ofproducts that could be considered in thisindustry, it was in fact decided to use adegree of substitution of 25%.
The elements supporting Mexico's conclusion that industries other than soft drink bottlers that
had not used HFCS would do so in 1997 are as follows:
Imports of HFCS from the United States increased significantly during the second half of
1996 as compared to the first half of the year, spurred on by the growing margin of price undercutting
by competitors on the Mexican market with respect to domestically produced sugar.
This increase in sales of imported HFCS took place in an economic context marked by the
recovery of domestic demand.  In other words, industrial users already using HFCS were taking
advantage of the increase in demand by using a substitute supplied at a price significantly lower thanthat of sugar used by their competitors.
This meant that those already using HFCS benefited from a reduction in the cost of sweetener
inputs, ranging from 43 to 56 per cent, on average, with respect to the sugar consumed by the other
producers.  This cost advantage inevitably meant that  they were more competitive with their goods on
the market than those that did not use HFCS or, altern atively, that they could increase their profits, or
both.
Persistence of these conditions would clearly mean that eventually, the industrial producers
that did not consume HFCS would lose their market sh are, or else suffer a loss of profitability.  If
dumped HFCS imports were to continue competing on the market, undercutting sugar prices, the
expansion of the customer base resulting from the demonstration effect of users already utilizing
HFCS would accelerate substitution of HFCS for su gar in production operations, even assuming that
the rate of substitution of a given industry constituted a technical limitation.
This is corroborated by the behaviour of industrial users during 1996.  Exhibit MEXICO-39
shows that during the second half of 1996, importers considerably expanded their customer base in
practically all of the industries other than the soft drink bottling industry.
In other words, many companies which did not consume HFCS during the months from
January to June 1996 began to use it in their production operations starting in July of that year.  In the
specific case of the HFCS import sales of Arancia CPC, S.A. de C.V., the number of industrial usersWT/DS132/RW
Page A-14
other than soft drink bottlers that began to use HFCS in the second half of 1996 rose to 48 enterprises.
In fact, the increase in imported HFCS sales by th at company in the above-mentioned sectors between
the first half and the second half of the year was 43 per cent.
These facts, added to what was already said by Mexico in its first and second written
submissions concerning the economic context foreseen for 1997, support the determination that the
substitution of HFCS for sugar in industries ot her than the soft drink bottling industry would
accelerate if competition from dumped imports continued.  The repercussions of this substitution on
sugar consumption were assessed by using an estimate, based on an accepted methodology, of what
could reasonably be expected in the immediate future if the incentives to use HFCS in the different
production operations remained unchanged.
The reason for the conclusion that in 1997 the increase in the use of HFCS would accelerate
in this way considering the predicted evolution of pr ices, in addition to the considerations set forth in
the reply to question 1, lies in the fact that for that year the pre-market phase could already be
considered to have ended (i.e. a potential demand had already been created and the necessary
conditions for market expansion had been met).  It should be recalled that an embryonic market hadalready begun to form before 1994, but the process had been interrupted by the sharp fall in
consumption in 1995, and it was only in the second half of 1996 that the market growth recovered its
momentum.  Thus, by the end of 1996 it was reasonable to expect a significant growth in demand for
1997, especially considering that the economic context was far more favourable for the industry than
during the three preceding years.
Thus, in spite of the fact that the price forecasts for HFCS suggested that there would be a
slight variation with respect to 1996, the margin of price undercutting by HFCS imports with respect
to sugar would continue to be sufficiently high to constitute an economic incentive that would
strengthen the increase in consumption by the en terprises using HFCS, and would hence increase the
pressure on competitors that continued to consume su gar, obliging them in the short term to adjust to
the conditions of competition imposed by their rivals.  This in turn, would put pressure on the
domestic sugar industry to reduce its prices for those users so as to make them competitive with
HFCS prices.  However, since the magnitude of th e adjustment that would be needed to compete on
an equal footing implied a significant decline in sugar prices, the only realistic option would be
substitution, and the resulting displacement of sugar from the market.
8. Could Mexico please clarify what is meant by "grados de sustitución" in the table
"Consumo real de azúcar por sector" in exhibit MEXICO-21.  Do those figures not indicate the
proportions in which the surveyed companies actu ally used HFCS and sugar in their production
operations in 1996?  If so, on what basis can it be concluded that other companies both can and
will, in 1997, switch from using sugar to using su gar and HFCS in the same proportions in their
own production operations.  It appears that the survey information in exhibit MEXICO-20 is
from companies that already use HFCS in thei r production operations.  How can conclusions
about the likely rate of use of HFCS by companies that have not in the past used HFCS be
justified on the basis of information provi ded by companies that already use HFCS.
The degrees of substitution ( grados de sustitución ) mentioned in exhibit MEXICO-21 refer,
as explained in the reply to question 7, to the extent to which industrial users could substitute HFCS
for sugar in their production operations, calculated on the basis of the percentage of substitution
already used in certain sectors and the extent to which it was technically feasible to substitute sugar
consumption for a given product or in a given sector.
Thus, we are not speaking of volumes of sugar actually displaced, but of potential sugar
consumption likely to be substituted for by dumped imports;  otherwise the situation of the domestic
sugar industry would have been one of injury rather than threat of injury.WT/DS132/RW
Page A-15
The basis for concluding that companies that had not used the imported product would in fact
use it in the immediate future is the unquestionable economic benefit they would derive from using an
input that was cheaper because it was imported at dumped prices, given that it had already proven to
be commercially interchangeable with sugar.
The issue of whether the use of HFCS by the new companies entering the market would
match the rate at which other companies use HFCS basically depends on the specific production
operations and products concerned.  Conditions can vary substantially from one sector or one product
to another within a given industry.  However, at the level of each consumer industry there are
common conditions of competition which would impl y that new HFCS users would try at least to
equal the average rate of use prevailing in the market in order to maintain their competitive position.
Obviously, not all of the industrial users would substitute HFCS for sugar at the same time, at
the same rate, or to the same extent.  That is wh y Mexico estimated that the potential consumption of
sugar under threat would amount to 33 per cent of estimated consumption for industries other than
soft drink bottlers in 1997 (i.e. the proportion of potential consumption of other industries liable to
substitution was 334.2 thousand tons in the subtotal covering other industries in the real sugarconsumption table by sector:  1,015.1 thousand tons.  However, according to the information in the
investigation's administrative record, in 1996 HFCS consumption by industries other than soft drink
bottlers (108,523 tons), including domestic production and imports already stood at 11 per cent of
sugar consumption in those sectors in 1996 (974.9 thousand tons), so that the additional increase in
the estimated share for Mexico for 1997 was 22 per cent.
9. The information in exhibit MEXICO-19 indicates that HFCS-55 is used predominantly
in the soft drink bottling industry, while HFCS-42 is used predominantly in other industries,
such as baking, beverages other than soft drinks, processed foods, and milk products.
According to the data in paragraphs 39 and 44  of the redetermination, imports of HFCS-55
increased far more rapidly from 1995 to 1996 than did imports of HFCS-42 (increase of 179 per
cent as compared with 5 per cent), and imports of HFCS-55 accounted for the vast majority of
imports in 1996, 81 per cent.  Does Mexico's predic ted increase in usage by industries other than
soft drink bottlers not imply that these trends and levels in the distribution of imports between
HFCS-55 and HFCS-42 will be reversed in 1997?  What is the evidence to suggest such a
reversal is likely?  Mexico's oral response to  this question seemed to indicate that those
companies that already use HFCS-55 to manufacture products other than soft-drinks wouldincrease their purchases of HFCS-55.  However, since these producers are only a subset of all
manufacturers of products other than soft dr inks, this would imply an even larger rate of
increase in their purchases than the over 400 per cent calculated as the increase in HFCS
consumption by all producers of products other than soft drinks.  Could Mexico clarify?  In
addition, Mexico referred to the information in exhibit MEXICO-20 to support its statement
that manufacturers of products other than soft drinks used HFCS-55 in their products.  This
seems to conflict with the information in exhibit MEXICO-19.  Could Mexico reconcile this
apparent conflict in the evidence?
The information contained in exhibit MEXICO-19 indicates that in the United States market,
although HFCS-42 is used predominantly in industries other than soft drink bottlers, those industries
also consume HFCS-55, although to a lesser degree.  Similarly, while soft drink bottlers consume
mainly HFCS-55, they also use HFCS-42.
This does not contradict the information contained in exhibit MEXICO-20 referred to in the
oral reply, in which it was stated that industrial users other than soft drink bottlers also use HFCS-55.
The point of what Mexico said in its oral response with respect to the performance of HFCS-42
imports in 1996 as indicated by the Panel was to stress that the predicted increase in HFCS
consumption by industries other than bottlers w ould not be limited exclusively to HFCS-42, butWT/DS132/RW
Page A-16
would also include HFCS-55.  Nor does this mean that all of the increase in imports would be
attributable to companies from industries other than the soft drink bottlers already using HFCS-55.
Similarly, the figures available to the investigating authority on HFCS consumption in
Mexico for 1996 are consistent with the information contained in exhibit MEXICO-19.  That exhibitshows that, of total HFCS consumption by industr ies other than soft drink bottlers, 61 per cent
concerned HFCS-42 and 39 per cent concerned HFCS-55, while in the case of soft drink bottlers,
84 per cent of HFCS consumption concerned HFCS-55 and 16 per cent concerned HFCS-42.
At the same time, the slower growth and smaller share of HFCS-42 imports in the 1996 total
was explained by the fact that the product was already manufactured domestically.  In that year, sales
of HFCS-42 produced domestically amounted to 54,207 tons while sales of locally producedHFCS-55 totalled 4,254 tons.  This is because prac tically the only company to manufacture HFCS in
Mexico in 1996 was Almex, which did not have the necessary facilities for producing HFCS-55, but
only HFCS-42, while Arancia CPC did not begin its production until December of that year.
Distribution of HFCS Consumption in Mexico by Origin and Grade
1996
Industry HFCS-42 HFCS-55 Total 42-Total
(%)55-Total
(%)
Domestic
Soft drinks
Other industries
Total12,200
42,007
54,2071,002
3,252
3,25213,202
45,258
45,25892
93
938
7
7
Imported
Soft drinksOther industriesTotal12,073
23,99536,068130,621
39,269169,269142,694
63,264205,9588
381892
6282
Total
Soft drinks
Other industries
Total24,273
66,002
90,275131,623
42,521
174,143155,896
108,522
264,41816
61
3484
39
66
Source: Replies of Arancia CPC, S.A. de C.V., (in sheet 2627 of 5 August 1997 and sheet 2803 of
15 August 1997) to investigating authority requests UPCI.310.97.1194 and UPCI.310.97.1325 of 16 and
28 July 1997 respectively (with changes resulting from the in situ  verification as from 23-26 September 1997);
and letter from Almidones Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V., (in sheet 1654 of 28 May 1997) and reply of13 August 1997 (folio 2770) to investigating authority request UPCI.310.97.1193 of 16 July 1997.
In fact, it is important to note that HFCS-42 is used as an input in manufacturing HFCS-55
either by using a chromatographic separation tower to enrich the HFCS-42 until the required gradeWT/DS132/RW
Page A-17
has been attained, or by physically mixing HFCS-42 with an enriched form of HFCS, generally
HFCS-90, to obtain HFCS-55.  In any case, the producer must determine which proportion of
HFCS-42 production is intended for the market and which proportion to be consumed in the
manufacturing of HFCS-55.
During 1996, 97 per cent of Almex's production of  HFCS-42 went to domestic market sales,
while 3 per cent was used to manufacture HFCS-55, which was produced only in the month of
December of that year using the above-mentioned mixing process. Of its sales of domestically
produced HFCS-42, 77 per cent went to other industries, while the remaining 23 per cent went to soft
drink bottlers.
Bearing this in mind, the predicted increase in the use of HFCS by industries other than the
soft drink bottlers would in fact imply an investment in the distribution of imports in 1997 as
compared to 1996, assuming that the source of supply for the allegedly restrained consumption by the
bottlers was domestic production, since local producers would not have enough HFCS-42 to meet the
demands of the market (other industries and soft drink bottlers) and to produce, in addition, HFCS-55.
Thus, if all of the domestic HFCS production were distributed to the bottlers in the same
proportions as the bottlers had consumed HFCS during 1996, 85 per cent of the 350,000 tons of the
alleged restraint agreement would be HFCS-55 and 15 per cent would be HFCS-42.  Likewise,
according to this scenario, the potential sugar consum ption liable to substitution with  HFCS in 1997
corresponding to industries other than the bottling industry, i.e. 334.2 thousand tons according toexhibit MEXICO-21, would have to be supplied by imports and, if distributed in line with HFCS
consumption by those industries in 1996, 39 per ce nt of the imports would be HFCS-55 and 61 per
cent would be HFCS-42.
However, as Mexico stated in its reply to question 5, the hypothesis that the consumption
limited by the alleged restraint agreement would be supplied through domestic production alone could
be dropped in a less stringent scenario, thereby possibly balancing the distribution of imports as
between HFCS-42 and HFCS-55.
10. If one adds together the share of the market  accounted for by imports of HFCS from the
United States and Mexican production of sugar  in 1994 and 1996, the total is not 100 per cent.
For 1994, it is 99.7 per cent, while for 1996, it is 98 per cent.  Could Mexico answer thefollowing:
(a) What makes up the remainder of the 100 per cent?  Sugar imports?  Imports of
HFCS from other sources?  Domestic production of HFCS?  What per cent of
the market was accounted for in 1994 and 1996 by each of these elements?
The market is made up 100 per cent of domestic production for the domestic sugar market,
domestic production of HFCS, sugar imports and HF CS imports, based on the calculation of apparent
domestic consumption.
ADC = (domestic sugar production + domestic HFCS production + sugar imports + HFCS
imports - sugar exports)
The percentages of each one of these elements are set forth in the annexed table entitled
"Apparent Domestic Consumption" (MEXICO-24), wh ich shows that the different shares add up to
100 per cent of the market.WT/DS132/RW
Page A-18
(b) Does the remainder of the 100 per cent consist of the same elements in 1994 as in
1996?
Apparent domestic consumption was calculated on the basis of the same factors.  However, it
should be noted that in 1994-1995, no HFCS was produced in Mexico, which is why it does not form
part of domestic consumption for those years.
(c) If domestic production of HFCS is in cluded in the total market, could Mexico
explain why, given that all Mexican producers of HFCS were excluded from the
industry as related parties?
For the purposes of defining the relevant domestic industry, Mexico excluded Arancia and
Almidones Mexicanos, since these companies were the main importers of HFCS from the United
States and had benefited directly from the dumped HFCS imports.  However, since domestic
production of HFCS formed part of the demand, SECOFI included it in its calculation of apparent
domestic consumption so as not to overestimate the relative shares of imports and of the domestic
production of sugar.
(d) Regardless of what makes up the rema inder of the market, the share of the
market attributable to these other elements increased from 1994 to 1996, from
0.3 per cent to 2 per cent, an increase almost equal to the increase in HFCS
imports from the United States.  Did Mexico take this into account in itsanalysis?
The share of the market attributable to the remaining elements making up apparent domestic
consumption other than imports of HFCS from the United States and production for the domestic
sugar market grew from 0.74 per cent in 1994 to 2.21 per cent in 1996.  However, it should be notedthat, although the remaining elements (sugar impor ts, HFCS imports from countries other than the
United States and domestic HFCS production) increased their market shares, the share of dumped
HFCS imports in domestic consumption increased to a greater extent, rising from 1.68 per cent in
1994 to 4.44 per cent in 1996.
15
Similarly, while the market share of production for the domestic market fell by 4.22 per cent
in 1996 as compared with 1994, the share of HFCS imports from the United States increased by 2.76per cent and the share of the remaining elements gained 1.47 per cent during the same period.
On the basis of the above, the Panel will be able to confirm that Mexico took account of all
the factors making up 100 per cent of the market for sweeteners, and that while the market share of
the other elements (sugar imports, HFCS imports from sources other than the United States anddomestic HFCS production) increased, the increase  in the share of HFCS imports from the
United States was greater;  in other words, the loss in market share suffered by domestically produced
sugar is attributable more to the investigated  imports than to the other elements making up
consumption.
11. Could Mexico please explain how it derived the 50 per cent figure by which it discounted
the projected volume of sugar consumption in  1997 and 1998 that could be substituted for by
HFCS?  A simple average of the substitution ra tes set out in exhibit MEXICO-20 yields a result
of approximately 30.  A simple average of the substitution rates used in exhibit MEXICO-21
yields a result of approximately 62.  What is the basis for the 50 per cent discount rate?
In estimating the likelihood of an increase in imports considering the effects of the alleged
restraint agreement, Mexico took account of the info rmation available in the administrative record of
                                                     
15 See MEXICO-24.WT/DS132/RW
Page A-19
the investigation concerning the use of HFCS in various sectors, supplied by the industrial users, as
well as the degrees of substitution provided by the main HFCS importer for the period investigated.
However, the information supplied both by the users and the importer was either limited to very
specific products or, in some cases, covered very broad sectors, so that it was decided to calculate a
simple average of the percentage of utilization of  the products contained in each group for which data
had been provided by the industrial users, and then to calculate an average of the different groups.
The percentage obtained through this procedure was 52.31 per cent, which it was decided to
round off to 50 per cent.  It was thought that this 50 per cent discounting of the percentages used in
the calculation of potential consumption would reflect the variations within each sector and between
sectors.
Rate of Utilization of HFCS by industrial users other than soft drink bottlers in 1996
No. Product Segment HFCS (%) Average
1 Jumex (can) Juices 63.00
2 Jumex  (bottle) Juices 56.00
3 Jumex  (minibrik) Juices 53.00
4 Jumex  (tetrabrik) Juices 58.00
5 Ami Juices 68.00
6 Sonrisa  juice Juices 100.00
7 Confruta  juice Juices 100.00
8 Nectars Juices 100.00
9 Uncarbonated beverages Juices 100.00 77.56%
10 Caribe Cooler  (peach) Wines 50.00
11 Caribe Cooler  (lemon) Wines 50.00
12 Caribe Cooler (mandarin) Wines 50.00
13 Caribe Cooler  (grapefruit) Wines 50.00
14 Caribe Cooler (strawberry) Wines 50.00
15 Caribe Cooler  (tropical) Wines 50.00
16 Presidencola Wines 50.00
17 Cubaraima Wines 50.00
18 Sidra Valle Redondo Wines 50.00
19 Sidra Campanario Wines 50.00 50.00%
20 Uncarbonated beverages Other beverages 25.00
21 Pau-pau Other beverages 64.00
22 Chupifruit Other beverages 68.00
23 Chocoloco Other beverages 97.00
24 Natural syrup Other beverages 50.00 60.80%
25 Marmalades Food 41.00
26 Ketchup Food 96.00
27 Liquid caramel Food 100.00
28 Marmalades Food 8.03
29 Fruit jellies Food 16.10
30 Canned fruit Food 52.00
31 Topping Food 100.00
32 Glazes Food 100.00
33 Cajeta DIF c/ nut Food 29.75
34 Babar  pastry cream Food 27.79
35 Grape jelly 51 Food 44.69
36 Raspberry marmalade 340 Food 53.26
37 Blueberry marmalade 340 Food 51.30WT/DS132/RW
Page A-20
No. Product Segment HFCS (%) Average
38 Cherry marmalade 340 Food 40.93
39 Peach marmalade 340 Food 53.30
40 Peach marmalade 510 gr. Food 46.99
41 Raspberry marmalade 142 Food 36.80
42 Raspberry marmalade 510 gr. Food 49.05
43 Strawberry marmalade 340 Food 38.58
44 Strawberry marmalade 40 gr. Food 40.67
45 Blueberry marmalade Food 35.48
46 Apricot marmalade 340 Food 46.70
47 Apricot marmalade 510 gr. Food 50.27
48 Peach marmalade 142 gr. Food 35.07
49 Strawberry marmalade 440 gr. Food 14.90
50 Orange marmalade 142 gr. Food 39.28
51 Pineapple marmalade 340 gr. Food 48.44
52 Blackberry marmalade 142 gr. Food 36.46
53 Strawberry marmalade 142 gr. Food 26.73
54 Strawberry marmalade 510 Food 38.33
55 Orange marmalade 440 Food 27.94
56 Orange marmalade 510 gr. Food 50.65
57 Pineapple marmalade 142 Food 35.38
58 Blackberry marmalade 510 gr. Food 48.75
59 Strawberry pie filling Food 20.61
60 Pineapple pie filling Food 27.83
61 Nut pie filling Food 11.02
62 Multi strawberry  filling Food 20.61
63 Tamarind for drinks 52 kg. Food 21.73
64 Marmalade Food 43.70
65 Orange segments Food 100.00
66 Grapefruit segments Food 100.00
67 Pineapple cubes Food 100.00
68 Papaya cubes Food 100.00
69 Melon cubes Food 100.00
70 Mango slices Food 100.00
71 Salads Food 100.00
72 Crystallized fruit Confectionery 9.32
73 Marmalades Food 70.00
74 Glaze Food 46.00
75 Sweet syrup Food 99.00 51.73%
76 Trompadita Bakery products 1.75
77 Trompada (long) Marve Bakery products 2.63
78 Huesito (vanilla flavour) Bakery products 2.63
79 Huesito  (special) Bakery products 10.13
80 Base betunada  (strawberry) Bakery products 6.86
81 Base betunada  (lemon) Bakery products 6.86
82 Base bombom Bakery products 5.40
83 Base betunada  (export) Bakery products 6.86
84 Base chiocolina Bakery products 5.37
85 Base (chocolate) Bakery products 5.49
86 Base deportigrillo Bakery products 7.14
87 Base Garrillas Bakery products 7.03WT/DS132/RW
Page A-21
No. Product Segment HFCS (%) Average
88 Base Glorias Bakery products 7.88
89 Base Laura Castellanos Bakery products 5.38
90 Base Laura (chocolate) Bakery products 5.39
91 Base Marcela  (chocolate) Bakery products 6.86
92 Base Magdalenas Bakery products 7.87
93 Base Malvavisco Bakery products 5.40
94 Base Rosalia Dif. Bakery products 5.27
95 Base Sandwich  (lemon) Bakery products 7.86
96 Base  (vanilla) Bakery products 7.63
97 Base Wond  (vanilla) Bakery products 7.63
98 Base Wond  (export) Bakery products 7.63
99 Granel Azucena Bakery products 8.25
100 Granel Animalitos Bakery products 5.51
101 Granel Alejandrinas Bakery products 4.67
102 Granel Azucena Lyconsa Bakery products 8.38
103 Granel Animalitos Bakery products 10.12
104 Granel Barra de Coco Bakery products 5.64
105 Granel Bing  (chocolate) Bakery products 5.56
106 Granel Club Crema Bakery products 2.51
107 Granel Esmeraldas Bakery products 5.60
108 Granel Grageas  (chocolate) Bakery products 4.94
109 Granel Grageas  (vanilla) Bakery products 7.89
110 Granel Jarochas Bakery products 5.61
111 Granel María Bakery products 8.76
112 Granel Mordisko Bakery products 2.10
113 Granel Minigalleta  (chocolate) Bakery products 3.85
114 Granel Marianitas Bakery products 5.52
115 Granel Pescaditos Bakery products 2.77
116 Granel Rikis Ajonjolí Bakery products 5.85
117 Granel Rikis Bakery products 2.40
118 Granel Rikis (butter) Bakery products 1.99
119 Granel Tostada Bakery products 9.29
120 Marías Bakery products 8.63
121 Animalitos Bakery products 6.31
122 Sabrosas Bakery products 2.53
123 Sw. Emperador ch. Bakery products 11.03
124 Sw. Emperador v. Bakery products 8.15
125 Sw. Emperador n. Bakery products 7.47
126 Populares Bakery products 10.00
127 Ricanelas Bakery products 14.83
128 Pancrema Bakery products 3.91
129 Arco Iris Bakery products 5.27
130 Maravillas Bakery products 3.83
131 Frutana Bakery products 10.00
132 Mamut Bakery products 6.93
133 Ovaladas Bakery products 6.11
134 Flipy Bakery products 6.63
135 Delicias Bakery products 4.75
136 Marinas betunadas Bakery products 4.83
137 Grageitas Bakery products 3.89WT/DS132/RW
Page A-22
No. Product Segment HFCS (%) Average
138 Barra de coco Bakery products 9.15
139 Sw. de merengue Bakery products 8.39
140 Roscas de canela Bakery products 4.52
141 Chokis Bakery products 2.45
142 Hawaianas (pineapple) Bakery products 4.09
143 Dóro Bakery products 6.08
144 Chocolatines Bakery products 9.69
145 Zoo Bakery products 14.00
146 Flups v. Bakery products 6.44
147 Flups ch. Bakery products 6.38
148 Flor de naranjo Bakery products 7.00
149 Marías  (chocolate) Bakery products 8.51
150 Gansito Bakery products 22.05
151 Submarino  (strawberry) Bakery products 52.15
152 Submarino  (vanilla) Bakery products 52.14
153 Pingüinos Bakery products 35.69
154 Chocorroles (2) Bakery products 36.56
155 Strawberry roll Bakery products 41.23
156 Napolitano Bakery products 2.73
157 Triki trakes Bakery products 33.96
158 Plativolos Bakery products 7.40
159 Pipucho Bakery products 6.59
160 Minipríncipe Bakery products 6.25
161 Toffee rolls Bakery products 13.37
162 KG Bakery products 15.20
163 Polvoron  (chocolate) Bakery products 22.63
164 Shok  (vanilla) Bakery products 8.80
165 Shok  (chocolate) Bakery products 6.61
166 Pancakes with raisins Bakery products 0.88
167 Pancakes with nuts Bakery products 0.91
168 Mantecadas  (4) Bakery products 0.74
169 Cinnamon rolls (6) Bakery products 3.50
170 Glass  rolls (6) Bakery products 3.27
171 Cinnamon rolls (2) Bakery products 3.51
172 Glass  rolls (2) Bakery products 3.26
173 Panquecitos  (2) Bakery products 2.29
174 Triki trakes Bakery products 16.20
175 Principe Bakery products 6.30
176 Plativolos Bakery products 10.20
177 Chocorroles  (2) Bakery products 30.30
178 Strawberry rolls Bakery products 31.10
179 Toffee rolls Bakery products 13.40
180 KG Bakery products 14.90
181 Rocko Bakery products 5.20
182 Hit Bakery products 15.30
183 Sponch Bakery products 19.00
184 Pingüinos Bakery products 22.10
185 Submarinos Bakery products 52.50
186 Napolitano Bakery products 1.70
187 Gansito Bakery products 11.20WT/DS132/RW
Page A-23
No. Product Segment HFCS (%) Average
188 Pipucho Bakery products 41.50
189 Dalmata Bakery products 2.10
190 Cakes Bakery products 17.00
191 Cake "8" Bakery products 19.15
192 Rosca de reyes Bakery products 21.77 10.30%
193 Whipped cream Milk products 100.00
194 Media crema Milk products 100.00
195 Helado Milk products 17.90
196 Yoghurt helado Milk products 36.00 63.48%
TOTAL 52.31%
12. The information in exhibit MEXICO-20 for 1997 shows almost no increases in the rate
of usage of HFCS over that reported by the same companies for 1996.  Could Mexico reconcile
this with its projection of a signific ant increase in the use of HFCS in 1997?
Indeed, the information contained in exhibit MEXICO-20 for 1997 as compared to 1996 does
not show any increases in the rate of usage of HFCS.  This can be explained by the fact that during the
period concerned, the anti-dumping investigation initiated in January 1997 was still under way, and
this made consumers more cautious and prevented su bstitution from taking place or at least slowed it
down.  However, the fact that the rate of usage remained the same does not mean that a greaterquantity of HFCS was not being used in absolute terms to the detriment of domestically produced
sugar, since imports had already increased.
At the same time, Mexico's estimate as to the probability of an increase in imports was not
supported by the real performance of the market in 1997 alone, but also by the fact that based on theinformation available for the period under analysis it was reasonable to predict that such increase
would take place in the near future if the circumstances remained the same.  Thus, one cannot
compare what actually happened in reality with what was likely to happen, since each situation
involved different factors.  Obviously, any estimate of what is likely to happen in the future, seen with
the benefit of hindsight in the light of what happened in reality, particularly when there are a numberof elements which significantly alter the course of events, could turn out to be erroneous and even
meaningless.WT/DS132/RW
Page A-24
ANSWERS OF THE UNITED STATES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE PANEL
13. Could the United States please specify the portions of the original panel determination
referred to in paragraph 9 of the United States’ oral submission?
1. Paragraph 9 of the Oral Statement of the United States was based on paragraphs 24-27 of the First
Written Submission of the United States.  In that discussion, the United States cited paragraphs 7.177
and 7.178 of the original Panel Report in support of the proposition that the Panel found that
SECOFI’s original determination did not provide any analysis to support the conclusion that there was
a likelihood that users other than soft drink bottlers would substantially increase their importation of
HFCS.
14. In paragraph 5 of its oral statement, the United States seems to express concern that
SECOFI failed to focus on 1997 data in its an alysis.  Does the United States contend that
SECOFI was obligated to base its determination on 1997 data?  If so, on what basis in the AD
Agreement does the United States makes this contention?
2. The concern that the United States expressed in paragraph 5 of its Oral Statement simply
repeats a concern that the Panel expressed in its original report.  In its original determination, as in its
redetermination, SECOFI relied on the fact that HFCS imports were higher in January-September
1997 than in January-September 1996 in finding that there was a likelihood of increased importation.
Because the January-September 1997 data do not reflect the operation of the restraint agreement –which was not announced until September 1997 – the Panel concluded that this data did not support
SECOFI’s conclusion, under Article 3.7(i) of the AD Agreement, that substantial increases in HFCS
imports were likely after September 1997.  As the Panel stated in paragraph 7.176 of its original
report:
"Mexico’s references to the increasing trend of HFCS imports suggest that somehow
SECOFI concluded that such imports would have continued increasing by inertia,
given the significant increases recorded during the period of investigation and
through September 1997, even if they were not demanded in significantly increased
quantities by soft-drink bottlers, the leading consumers of imported HFCS.  Mexico
points out that the alleged restraint agreement was made after the period of
investigation, and thus any limitation on imports started from the already significantly
increased levels that had been reached.  However, the question for purposes ofanalysis is not the level of imports already reached, but the likelihood of increased
imports."(Emphasis in original).
3. As the United States indicated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of its Oral Statement and paragraph 29
of its First Written Submission, one reason that the analysis of the restraint agreement in SECOFI’s
redetermination is inadequate is because it fails to address these concerns of the Panel.  As the Panelpreviously recognized, the fact that imports of HFCS increased prior to September 1997,
predominantly because of increased purchases by soft drink bottlers, cannot serve as a basis for
finding that purchasers other than soft drink bottlers are likely to substantially increase imports after
September 1997.
15. Based on the reported 75 per cent increase of imports in January-September 1997 as
compared to the same period in 1996, it might be  extrapolated that total imports for 1997 would
increase by 75 per cent over total imports for 1996, to a level of 338,000 tons.  This is
approximately the same level of imports predicted by SECOFI for 1997.  Similarly, it appears
that under the alleged restraint agreement, soft-drink bottlers could purchase 350,000 tons of
HFCS, presumably all from imports, which would again be an increase of about 74 per centWT/DS132/RW
Page A-25
from 1996 levels.  Putting aside the question of who would purchase these imports, does the
United States maintain that the level of 1997 imports per se  would not support a conclusion that
there was a likelihood of substantially increased imports?  That is, is the United States’
objection to SECOFI’s conclusion of substant ially increased imports based on the projected
level of imports or on the methodology used on the projection?
4. The United States has not made any arguments, ei ther in the original Panel proceedings or the
current proceedings, that any particular increase in import level or penetration can or cannot be
substantial per se .  The United States argues that SECOFI ’s methodology is not fact-based and, hence,
could not serve as the basis for SECOFI’s conclusion that substantially increased imports are likely.
As the United States argued in paragraph 7 of its First Written Submission, the facts found by
SECOFI sufficiently contradict its conclusions on redetermination so as to suggest that SECOFI
cannot on its record provide a basis for finding a threat of material injury.
5. The original Panel decision, as well as Article 3.7(i) of the AD Agreement, obligated SECOFI to
examine whether substantial increases in HFCS imports were likely notwithstanding the restraint
agreement.  SECOFI attempted to satisfy the Panel’s concern by focusing on users other than soft
drink bottlers.  SECOFI projected that soft drin k bottlers would obtain from Mexican production all
quantities of HFCS that they were permitted to use under the restraint agreement, and that all Mexican
HFCS production capacity would be used to supply soft drink bottlers.  Redetermination, para. 58.
6. SECOFI projected that imports of HFCS by purchasers other than soft drink bottlers would
increase from approximately 62,000 tons in 1996 to 350,000 tons in 1998.  As the United States
indicated at paragraphs 11 through 24 of its Oral Statement, as well as in responses to questions thePanel asked orally at the Meeting on February 20 and February 21, the methodology that SECOFI
used to project this increase must be rejected because it is not based on data reflecting either actual
HFCS purchases by users other than soft drink bottlers or the actual rates at which these users
substituted HFCS for sugar during SECOFI’s period of investigation and because it is not consistent
with historical trends.
16. Does the United States consider its arguments under Article 12 to constitute an
independent claim of violation of the AD Agreement?  In this regard, could the United States
please comment on the findings of the Panel in European Communities - Anti-Dumping Duties on
Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India , WT/DS141/R, circulated 30 October 2000 (appeal
on other issues pending) at paragraphs 6.257 and 6.259.
7. The United States considers its arguments under Article 12 to constitute an independent claim of
violation of the AD Agreement.  We note that in its original decision, this Panel concluded that
Mexico acted inconsistently with the substantive requirements of Article 10.2, when it applied
dumping duties retroactively, and with the notice requirements of Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2.  See Panel
Report, paras. 7.194 - 7.198.  Nevertheless, we believe it is within a Panel’s discretion to decide, as amatter of judicial economy, not to reach the question of whether there has been an Article 12 violationwhen it has found a violation of a related substantive obligation.  This appears to have been the basis
for the Bed Linen  decision.  However, we would disagree with the Bed Linen  Panel to the extent that it
was suggesting that Article 12 is not an independen t obligation under the AD Agreement or that there
will always be an overlap between a Member’s substantive obligations and its obligations under
Article 12.  The United States considers the transparency obligations created by Article 12 to becritical to the effective operation of the AD Agreement.WT/DS132/RW
Page A-26
COMMENTS BY THE UNITED STATES ON NEW FACTUAL INFORMATION
SUBMITTED BY MEXICO
1. Mexico 39
1. At several points in its responses to the Panel’s questions, Mexico refers to material from
exhibit MEXICO-39 in the original Panel proceedings.  Because Mexico had never previously
referred to this information during the current proceeding, MEXICO-39 is "new information" for
purposes of this Article 21.5 proceeding.
2. The MEXICO-39 material concerns import sales data from Arancia CPC, S.A. de C.V., one
of two importers of HFCS from the United States  during SECOFI’s period of investigation.  Mexico
contends that this material shows that Arancia’s sa les of HFCS to users other than soft drink bottlers
were increasing throughout SECOFI’s period of investigation, particularly during 1996.
3. It is noteworthy that Mexico never referenced the MEXICO-39 material in either of its two
written submissions or during the meeting with the Panel.  Instead, in all of its previous submissions,
Mexico has attempted to demonstrate the accuracy of SECOFI’s projections of likely purchases of
HFCS by users other than soft drink bottlers.  Indeed, SECOFI’s redetermination clearly relied on
these projections, rather than any material concerni ng actual purchasing patterns, in finding that the
restraint agreement "would not eliminate the likelih ood" of further increased imports of HFCS.  See
SECOFI Redetermination, paras. 55-59.  Conseque ntly, Mexico’s current reliance on MEXICO-39 is
another example of Mexico attempting to defend SE COFI’s redetermination on the basis of reasoning
not discernible from, or even consistent with, the determination itself.
4. In any event, Mexico’s characterization of the material from MEXICO-39 is inaccurate.5. The MEXICO-39 material does not show, as SECOFI contends, that Arancia’s sales to
purchasers other than soft drink bottlers increased sharply during 1996.  The monthly sales data
included after paragraph 4(viii) of Mexico’s response do not show steadily increasing sales during the
course of the year to non-soft drink bottlers.  Instead, these data indicate sharp fluctuations in sales
volumes from month to month.  Thus, Arancia’s sales to purchasers other than soft drink bottlers
during June 1996 were greater than its monthly sales to such purchasers for four of the six subsequentmonths.
6. Although MEXICO-39 reflects that Arancia increased its sales to purchasers other than soft
drink bottlers from 1994 to 1996, the rate of increase in such sales is far smaller than the 2188 per
cent increase in sales to soft drink bottlers during the same period.  Additionally, this increase is froma small base: Arancia’s 1994 sales to HFCS users other than soft drink bottlers were under 20,000
tons.  By contrast, SECOFI projected that thes e users would purchase 350,000 tons of HFCS in 1998.
The 1994 to 1996 increase is also far smaller than the over 400 per cent increase in sales to purchasers
other than soft drink bottlers SECOFI projected from  1996 to 1998 in an effort to show that overall
imports would increase notwithstanding the restraint agreement.
7. Finally, Arancia was neither the sole nor even the principal importer of HFCS from the
United States.  The MEXICO-39 material included in Mexico’s response indicates that the other
importer, Almex, was responsible for 67.5 per cent of  all HFCS imports in 1996.  Almex’s sales were
much more heavily oriented to soft drink bottlers than Arancia’s.  There is consequently no basis forconcluding that Arancia’s data are representative of all HFCS importers.WT/DS132/RW
Page A-27
2. "Rate Of Utilization" Chart
8. After its response to question 11, Mexico has submitted a chart purporting to demonstrate
how it derived the 50 per cent figure by which it discounted the amount of projected sugar
consumption in 1997 and 1998 that could be substituted for HFCS.  Because Mexico has neverpreviously disclosed this material, this chart is also new factual information.
9. Mexico claims that the chart demonstrates that SECOFI derived the 50 per cent figure by
taking a simple (not weighted) average of actual utilization rates in various sectors.  Absent data --
which Mexico does not provide -- concerning the volume of HFCS used by the each of the industries
listed in the chart, there is no basis for concludi ng that Mexico’s technique of computing a simple
average of utilization rates provides reliable information concerning the actual average rate ofutilization.  In this regard, it is noteworthy th at the chart contains no information showing actual
HFCS usage in the production of bread, which SECOFI predicts will account for 86 per cent of the
consumption of HFCS in the near term.
10. Although Mexico maintains, at least for purpos es of its answer to question 11, that the 50 per
cent rate reflects the rate that HFCS was actually  substituted for sugar, the redetermination and its
answer to question 6 suggest that SECOFI viewed the 50 per cent figure differently.  The
redetermination and Mexico’s answer to question 6 suggests that the 50 per cent figure was simply a
figure SECOFI arbitrarily chose to reduce theoretical substitution rates that were unrealistically high.
We maintain that the redetermination and the an swer to question 6, rather than the answer to
question 11, indicate the true derivation and purpose of the 50 per cent figure.
__________