RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/W/75
18 October 1999
(99-4458)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Ad-Hoc Group on ImplementationOriginal:  English
PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIE NCE IN APPLYING ARTICLE 2.4.2
TERMINATION OF INVESTIGATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5.8 IN
CASES OF DE MINIMIS IMPORT VOLUME
PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIENCE IN CASES INVOLVING
CUMULATION UNDER ARTICLE 3.3
PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIENCE WITH RESPECT TO QUESTIONNAIRES
AND REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION UNDER ARTICLES 6.1 AND 6.1.1
PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIENCE IN PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
INDUSTRIAL USERS AND CONSUMER ORGANIZATIONS TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION UNDER ARTICLE 6.12
PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIENCE IN CONDUCTING
"NEW SHIPPER" REVIEWS UNDER ARTICLE 9.5
Paper by the United States
The following communication, dated 15 October 1999, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the United States.
_______________
AVERAGE-TO-AVERAGE VS. TRANSACTION-TO-TRANSACTION COMPARISONS
Article 2.4.2 of the Antidumping Agreement stat es that, during the investigation phase,
subject to Article 2.4, determinations of the existence of dumping margins will normally be based on
comparisons of weighted-average normal values with weighted averages of prices of comparableexport transactions, or by a comparison of indi vidual transactions.  These methodologies may be
abandoned in favor of a comparison of weighted-average normal values with individual export
transaction prices where there is a pattern of export prices which differ significantly among different
purchasers, regions or time periods, and where such differences cannot be taken into account by use
of average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction comparisons.  The requirements of Article 2.4.2have been incorporated directly into US law.
1
                                                     
1 19 U.S.C. § 1677f–1(d)(1).G/ADP/AHG/W/75
Page 2
Average-to-Average and Transaction-to-Transaction Comparisons
Since adoption of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Commerce has only employed the
average-to-average comparison methodology for comparable merchandise in investigations.  Thus,
Commerce has no recent experience with use of the transaction-to-transaction method, reflecting inlarge part the fact that Commerce’s regulations codify a preference for average-to-average over
transaction-to-transaction price comparisons.  The regulations state that, in an investigation,
Commerce will normally use average-to-average price comparisons, and that the
transaction-to-transaction method will only be used “in unusual situations.
2  In the Statement of
Administrative Action, which accompanied US legislation implementing the Uruguay Round, the
Administration stated,  “[the transaction-to-t ransaction] methodology would be appropriate in
situations where there are few sales and the merchandise sold in each market is identical or verysimilar or is custom-made.  However, given past experience with this methodology and the difficulty
in selecting appropriate comparison transactions, the Administration expects that Commerce will use
this methodology far less frequently than the average-to-average methodology.
3  Moreover, the
transaction-to-transaction method would be extremely difficult and time-consuming for Commerce,
thus delaying a final decision, and would requir e extremely burdensome amounts of information from
producers of the merchandise.  In fact, in Commerce’s experience, few parties have ever argued that a
transaction-to-transaction methodology would be preferable.4
Exceptions to the Average-to-Average Method
As discussed above, the Antidumping Agreement permits comparisons of individual export
transactions to weighted average normal values in an investigation where there is a pattern of
significant export price differences which cannot be accounted for by use of an average-to-average or
transaction-to-transaction methodology.  Under Commerce’s regulations, this exception to the normal
methods is referred to as the “targeted dumping” exception.5  Commerce’s regulations provide the
opportunity for domestic interested parties to make an allegation of targeted dumping.  In only a few
cases have parties alleged a pattern of price differences which might support invocation of the
exception.  However, in all such cases Commerce found that the allegation was insufficiently
supported by the facts, and did not satisfactorily explain why the alleged pattern of price differences
could not be taken into account using the average-to-average comparison methodology.6  Thus, since
adoption of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Commerce has not invoked the targeted dumping
exception in order to apply the transaction-to-average method in an investigation.
                                                     
2 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(c)(1).
3 Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (1994),
reprinted in Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Legislative History, Vol. VI, at 834.
4 In the only recent case which appeared to meet the criteria for use of the transaction-to-transaction
methodology, i.e., only a few sales of custom-made merchandise, Commerce found that the market for the
foreign like product was so different from the US market th at they could not properly be compared.  In that case,
Commerce compared export prices with constructed value under Article 2.2.  See Large Newspaper Printing
Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan , 61 Fed. Reg. 38,139
(1996).
5 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(f).
6 Commerce has rejected allegations of targeted dumping in the following cases: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Taiwan, 63 Fed. Reg. 10836,10837 (1998);  Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico, 61
Fed. Reg. 56608, 56610 (1996); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy,
61 Fed. Reg. 30326, 30329 (1996).G/ADP/AHG/W/75
Page 3
TREATMENT OF NEGLIGIBLE IMPORTS
United States law requires the US International Trade Commission (Commission) to
determine in every anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigation whether subject import
volumes are negligible.  A finding by the Commission that imports are negligible results intermination of the investigation with respect to those imports.
7  The general rule is that imports are
“negligible” if they account for less than 3 per cent of the volume of all such merchandise imported
into the United States in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available preceding filing
of the anti-dumping or countervailing duty petition, or, for investigations self-initiated by the US
Department of Commerce, initiation of the investigation.8
US law directs the Commission to determine negligibility on the basis of imports
corresponding to each domestic like product that it designates in an anti-dumping or countervailing
duty investigation.9  Consequently, should the Commission designate multiple domestic like products
in an investigation, it will make a separate negligibility determination for each domestic like product,
based on whether the imports corresponding to that domestic like product meet the 3 per cent test
(subject to the various exceptions discussed below).  In computing import volumes for its negligibilityanalysis, US law permits the Commission to make reasonable estimates on the basis of available
statistics.
10  Thus, if available US government import statistics concern a basket tariff provision that is
broader than the domestic like product desi gnated by the Commission, the Commission may
reasonably estimate a figure from the data available for the total imports corresponding to the
domestic like product.
US law contains two exceptions to the general 3 per cent rule for determining negligibility.
First, it states that imports will not be deemed negligible when countries, which individually account
for less than 3 per cent of total imports, collect ively account for more than 7 per cent of total
imports.11  This exception derives directly from the last sentence of Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement.
US law directs the Commission, in determining this aggregated volume, not to consider imports from
countries whose imports are ineligible for cumulation under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(ii).12  ( T h i s
concept is explained further in the accompanying US paper on cumulation.)
The second exception, which is applicable only to countervailing duty investigations,
establishes the negligibility thresholds for certain “developing countries” at 4 per cent (in lieu of 3 per
cent) and 9 per cent (in lieu of 7 per cent).13  This provision implements Art. 27.9 of the Agreement
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  The Office of the US Trade Representative designates the
“developing countries” eligible for this exception and publishes a list of these countries in the Federal
Register.14
US law additionally states that the Commission shall not treat imports as being negligible if it
should determine that there is a potential that the imports will imminently exceed the 3 or 7 per cent
thresholds.15  In such circumstances, the Commission will not make a determination of material injury
by reason of subject imports because the imports are currently negligible, but it will consider the
imports for purposes of considering whether there is threat of material injury.
                                                     
7 See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1), 1671d(d)(1), 1673b(a)(1), 1673d(b)(1).
8 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(i).
9 Id.
10 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(C).
11 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(ii).
12  See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(iii).
13  See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(B).
14  See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(36).
15  See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(iv).G/ADP/AHG/W/75
Page 4
When the Commission determines that it is appropriate to evaluate material injury or threat of
material injury by reason of subject imports on the basis of a regional industry, as opposed to a
national industry, US law states that the Commission is to base its negligibility analysis upon the
volume of imports exported for sale in the pertin ent regional market in lieu of the volume of all
subject merchandise imported into the United States.16
CUMULATION
When an anti-dumping or countervailing duty investigation involves subject merchandise
from several different countries, United States law requires the US International Trade Commission tocumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of subject merchandise from all countries in
making its determination of material injury by reason of subject imports if two basic conditions are
satisfied.
The first condition is that the investigations involving the different subject countries must be
simultaneously filed or self-initiated.  This requirement is satisfied if: (1) all petitions giving rise to
the investigations were filed on the same day; (2) all the investigations were self-initiated by the
Department of Commerce on the same day; or (3) all pertinent petitions were filed on the same day
that the other investigations were self-initiated.
17
The second condition is that the subject imports must compete with each other and with
domestic like products in the United States market.18   In assessing whether subject imports compete
with each other and with the domestic like product, the Commission generally has considered four
factors: (1) the degree of fungibility between th e subject imports from different countries and the
domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer requirements and other qualityrelated questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets of subject
imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar
channels of distribution for subject imports from different countries and the domestic like product;
and (4) whether the subject imports from different countries are simultaneously present in the US
market.
US law provides four exceptions in which subject imports are not subject to cumulation.
First, imports as to which the Department of Commerce has made a negative preliminary
determination of dumping or subsidy are not subject to cumulation unless Commerce subsequently
makes an affirmative final determination with respect to those imports before the Commission makes
its final determination.  Second, imports from any c ountry with respect to which the investigation has
been terminated may not be cumulated.  Third, imports from beneficiary countries under theCaribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) ar e partially exempted from cumulation.  These
imports may be cumulated only with imports fro m other CBERA beneficiary countries.  Fourth,
pursuant to the US-Israel Free Trade Agreement, imports from Israel may not be cumulated with
imports from other countries unless the Commission first determines that the domestic industry is
materially injured by reason of such imports from Israel.
19
In making determinations of threat of material injury by reason of subject imports, the
Commission has the discretion to cumulate subject imports from different countries.  To be eligible
for cumulation, the subject imports must meet the same requirements with respect to simultaneous
                                                     
16  See  19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(D).
17  See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i).
18  Id.
19  See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(ii).G/ADP/AHG/W/75
Page 5
filing or self-initiation and to competition that are applicable to cumulation for material injury
analysis.  Additionally, the four exceptions to cumulation for material injury analysis are also
applicable to cumulation for threat.20  Factors the Commission may consider in determining whether
to exercise its discretion to cumulate for purposes of threat analysis include whether the subject
imports have similar pricing patterns and whether their volumes are increasing at similar rates.
QUESTIONNAIRES/REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
Article 6.1 of the Antidumping Agreement requires that interested parties in an investigation
be given notice of the information which is required, and ample opportunity to present in writing all
evidence which they consider relevant to the investigation.  Article 6.1.1 requires that exporters andproducers be given thirty days to reply to a questionnaire.  Additionally, upon good cause shown
authorities should, whenever practicable, grant requests for extension of the thirty day response
period.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) seeks information necessary for an investigation
in the form of a questionnaire directed to foreign producers or exporters.  Although the questionnaire
is modified to meet the information requirements spec ific to each case, the standard form of the initial
questionnaire, including special questionnaires for parties in countries with non-market or
hyper-inflationary economies can be downloaded from the Internet at
http://www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/library.htm.
Similarly, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) seeks information
pertinent to its investigation of material injury or threat of material injury by reason of subject imports
by directing questionnaires to domestic producers, importers, and purchasers, as well as to foreign
producers.
US Department of Commerce Procedures
Upon initiation of an investigation, Commerce transmits to all known foreign producers and
exporters of the subject merchandise a questionnaire, typically based upon the standard form
questionnaire, as modified to fit the particular case.21  Commerce’s regulations require that all
questionnaires specify: the time limit for the respon se; the information to be provided; the form and
manner in which the information should be provided; and that failure to submit requested information
in the form and manner requested and by the date specified may result in the use of facts otherwise
available.22  The questionnaire also specifies the name and telephone number of the Commerce
official in charge of the investigation to whom all questions should be directed.  It also states that,
should a party have difficulties in responding to a questionnaire in the form and manner requested, theparty should contact Commerce as soon as possible in order to discuss the difficulties; Commerce’s
regulations specify that parties should contact Commerce regarding such difficulties within 14 days of
receipt of the initial questionnaire.
23  Finally, the questionnaire states that requests for extensions of
the specified deadlines must be requested in writing.
                                                     
20  See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(H).
21 Commerce sends questionnaires to all known foreign producers and exporters of the subject
merchandise unless there is a large number of exporters or producers involved in the investigation or review, inwhich case Commerce may limit its examination to 1) a st atistically valid sample of the exporters or producers;
or 2) those exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise from theexporting country that can reasonably be examined.  See Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended.
22 19 C.F.R. § 351.301(c)(2)(ii).
23 19 C.F.R. § 351.301(c)(2)(iv).G/ADP/AHG/W/75
Page 6
Commerce’s questionnaire is typically divided into five parts, designated as sections A
through E.  Section A requests information concerning the investigated company’s corporate structure
and business practices, the merchandise under investigation or review, and the quantity and value of
sales of the merchandise in all markets.  Section B requests a listing of the sales transactions, whichare used to determine the normal value of the foreign like product.  In investigations, Section C
requests a listing of the US sales transactions for the relevant period of investigation (POI) in order to
determine the export price or constructed export price.  In administrative reviews, Section C requests
US sales information and information on entries fo r the relevant period of review (POR).  Unlike
Sections A through C, Sections D and E do not apply in every case.  Section D requests information
regarding the cost of production and constructed value, and Section E requests information regarding
the cost of further manufacturing in the United States.
In accordance with Article 6.1.1 of the Agreement, Commerce’s regulations provide that a
respondent will have at least 30 days to respond to the full initial questionnaire.
24  However,
Commerce usually requests that section A (general information) be submitted sooner.  Information
requested in this section related to the overall corporate structure, as well as the volume and value ofthe respondent’s sales.  Commerce asks for informa tion in this section early in the investigation in
order to identify parties who do not need to co mplete the rest of the questionnaire (for example
because they had no sales to the United States during the period of investigation, or because they
merely acted as resellers for other producers) and to determine whether the home market is the proper
market for determining normal value under article 2.2 of the Agreement.  Sections B and C requestinformation about prices and appropriate adjustments in the home market (or third country) and in the
United States, respectively.
Responses to the initial questionnaire often reveal areas where Commerce requires
clarification or further information.  Such informa tion is sought through supplemental questionnaires.
The content of supplemental questionnaires varies greatly from case to case, and the deadline for
responding to such questionnaires also varies.  However, as with initial questionnaires, reasonable
requests for extensions of the deadlines for supplemental questionnaires may be granted if requested
in writing.
In addition to the information requested through questionnaires, parties may submit any other
information which they consider relevant to the investigation.  Under Commerce’s regulations, thedeadline for such information is seven days prior to the verification of factual information, which
occurs sometime after the preliminary determination in an investigation.
25  Further, regardless of the
stage of the investigation, if Commerce permits one party to submit information, Commerce’s
regulations give all other parties ten days to provide information to rebut, clarify or correct the
information submitted by the party.  In order to ensure that all submitted information comes to the
attention of the correct personnel at Commerce, the regulations provide very specific instruction about
where documents must be filed, the format of submitted documents, and the number of copies which
must be submitted.26
Commission Procedures
1.  Preliminary Phase of the Investigation:  The Commission issues separate questionnaires in the
preliminary and final phases of its investigation.  In the preliminary phase, after careful review of the
petition and other information available at the time, the staff drafts questionnaires to solicit from US
                                                     
24 19 C.F.R. § 351.301(c)(2)(iii).
25 19 C.F.R. § 351.301(b)(i).
26 19 C.F.R. § 351.303.G/ADP/AHG/W/75
Page 7
producers, US importers, and foreign producers the information required by the Commission in order
to make its preliminary determination.
As with the Commerce Department, questionnaires are sent to all US producers except in
cases involving an unusually large number of firms; in such cases, they may be sent to the largest
producers in the industry or to a representative sample of firms. Similarly, questionnaires generally
are mailed to all importers of the product in question, particularly all those importing from the
country(ies) subject to investigation. If the number of importers is unusually large, questionnaires may
be sent only to the largest importers or to a representative sample. Foreign producer questionnaires are
sent only to producers from the subject country(ies).27  Foreign producer questionnaires typically are
sent to the firms through counsel as soon as counsel are identified to staff or, if the firms are not
represented, the questionnaires are mailed directly.
US producer questionnaires generally consist of four parts. The first part asks a number of
general questions relating to the organization and activities of the firm and whether it supports or
opposes the petition, and why. The second part requests data on capacity, production, inventories,
commercial shipments, export shipments, intern al consumption, company transfers, employment,
hours worked, wages paid, and purchases. Part three of the questionnaire involves financial data,
including income-and-loss data on the product in question; data on capital expenditures, research and
development expenses, and asset valuation; and questions regarding the impact of imports on capital
and investment. The fourth and final part of the producer questionnaire requests sales price28 and other
price-related information and solicits allegations of lost revenues and lost sales attributable to thesubject imports (if not included in the petition).
Importer questionnaires generally consist of three parts. As in the US producer questionnaire,
the first part relates to the organization and activities of the firm. The second part requests data on
imports of the product in question; the quantity and value of commercial shipments, export shipments,internal consumption, and company transfers of such imports; and inventories of imports. The third
part of the importer questionnaire solicits data on sales prices for subject imported merchandise and
other price-related information similar to that requested in the producer questionnaire.
Foreign producer questionnaires are composed of three parts. The first two parts consist of
general questions about the firm's operations in the country in question and in the United States. The
third part requests data on the firm's capacity, production, home-market shipments, exports to theUnited States and other markets, and inventories of the subject merchandise.
2.  Final Phase of the Investigation:  Information solicited by questionnaire in the final phase of
the Commission’s investigation follows roughly th e same format as during the preliminary phase.
After careful review of the entire record from  the preliminary phase of the investigation, and
particularly the views of the Commission on issues affecting data collection (such as domestic like
product), the staff drafts questionnaires to solicit from US and foreign producers, US importers, and
US purchasers, the information required by the Commission in order to make its final determination.
The draft questionnaires are circulated to the parties for comment before they are mailed.  Party
comments are filed with the Secretary to the Commission and served on the other parties to the
                                                     
27 The staff may also send a telegram requesting similar information to the US embassy in the subject
country(ies), particularly if the foreign producers are not represented by counsel.
28 Sales prices generally are requested for certain narrowly defined products which are a subset of the
product in question. Prices may be requested on an f.o.b. and/or delivered basis, and on a spot, contract, or bid
basis. They usually are requested on a quarterly basis, but depending on industry practice, may be solicited on a
daily, weekly, monthly, or annual basis.G/ADP/AHG/W/75
Page 8
investigation.29  The staff reviews and incorporates the comments, as appropriate, and forwards the
questionnaires to the Commission for approval.
Questionnaires are sent to all US producers, US importers, and foreign producers that
reported production or imports of the merchandise in question in the preliminary phase of theinvestigation, and to any additional firms the staff has reason to believe, on the basis of the record in
the preliminary phase, may be producing or importing.  The basic structure of these questionnaires is
essentially the same as that of the questionnaires used in the preliminary phase, although product
breakouts may be somewhat different, certain questions may be added or dropped, and the time period
for which data are collected is more current.
In the final phase, purchaser questionnaires are sent to all significant purchasers of the
product in cases involving as many as 50 consuming firms. In cases involving a larger number of
consumer firms, questionnaires may be sent only to the largest purchasers, or if virtually all of the
consumer firms are small, a representative sample may be taken.  Purchaser questionnaires generally
consist of at least four parts. As in the US producer and importer questionnaires, the first part relates
to the organization and activities of the firm. The second part requests data on the quantity and/orvalue of purchases of the product manufactured in the United States, in each of the subject countries,
and in the nonsubject countries as a group. Part three asks a number of questions about the
characteristics of the market for the product in question and the firm's purchasing practices. The
fourth part consists of a series of questions related to competition between the domestic product and
both subject and nonsubject imports, and product comparisons in terms of price, quality, service,delivery, and other factors of sale. In some cases a fifth part requests actual purchase prices for
specific types of domestic and subject imported products.
Producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaires are mailed approximately one week after
notification by Commerce of its preliminary de termination. Foreign producer questionnaires are
issued soon afterwards, often through counsel representing the producers.
INDUSTRIAL USERS AND CONSUMERS
Article 6.12 of the Antidumping Agreement requir es authorities to provide opportunities for
industrial users and consumer organizations to submit relevant information in investigations regardingdumping, injury and causality.  US law explicitly provides industrial users and consumer
organizations with numerous opportunities to comment on matters relevant to a particular
determination of dumping or injury.
30  Under the bifurcated system of the United States, the US
Commerce Department (Commerce Department or Department) determines whether imports are
being sold at less than fair value, while the US International Trade Commission (Commission)determines whether a domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, threatened with
material injury, or the establishment of an industry is materially retarded by reason of imports sold at
less than fair value.
Department of Commerce
In anti-dumping proceedings administered by the Commerce Department, industrial users of
the subject merchandise and representative consumer organizations can submit factual information
and written arguments on relevant anti-dumping matters subject to the Department’s standard filing
requirements.  Industrial users and consumers may provide comments to rebut, clarify or correct
                                                     
29  See Commission rule 207.20 (19 C.F.R. § 207.20).
30 Section 777(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.G/ADP/AHG/W/75
Page 9
information previously filed by interested parties in a proceeding31 and they may submit specific
written arguments in case and rebuttal briefs.32  They may also submit publicly available information
valuing factors which the Department uses to calculate normal value in anti-dumping proceedings
involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries.33  Commerce Department anti-dumping
regulations also contain the explicit requirement that industrial users and consumers must be providedan opportunity to submit comments on proposed agreements suspending anti-dumping duty
investigations.
34  Finally, the Department ’s regulations require that industrial users or consumers who
wish to participate in sunset reviews must file a substantive response to the notice initiating the sunset
review within 30 days after the notice is published in the Federal Register .   They may also make
other submissions in sunset reviews, should they decide to do so.35
Industrial users and consumers may request business proprietary treatment of the information
contained in their submissions.36  If the Department agrees to grant a submitter’s  request for business
proprietary treatment, the information contained in the submissions will be released only to certain
persons in accordance with the terms of a valid administrative protective order issued by the
Department.37
The Statement of Administrative Action, which accompanied US legislation implementing
the Uruguay Round, states that submissions and comm ents by industrial users and consumers should
focus on matters within the purview of the Departme nt’s statutory authority to investigate and review
dumping.38  The Department made it clear in the preamble accompanying its final regulations
implementing the Uruguay Round that industrial users and consumers are not limited to commentingonly on the existence or the amount of dumping a nd may, for example, also comment on the scope of
an investigation.
39  In fact, the preamble reiterates the Department’s intent that all persons, including
interested parties, industrial users, and consumer groups should be included on scope service lists and
be notified of scope rulings.40
Finally, throughout an investigation or revi ew, the Department may also request that
industrial users or consumers provide additional information if needed.
US International Trade Commission
The Commission’s regulations also provide for the submission of factual information from
industrial users and consumers. The Commission’s regulations expressly accord industrial users and,when merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer
organizations, the ability to participate as parties in anti-dumping investigations.
41  As parties, such
entities can submit written information and argument to the Commission which is relevant to an
investigation concerning material injury and causality.  They may also participate at Commission
conferences and hearings.  The Commission will consider the information and arguments submittedby industrial users and consumers in its investigation of whether a domestic industry is materially
                                                     
31 19 C.F.R. § 351.312(b), citing,  19 C.F.R § 351.301(c)(1).
32 19 C.F.R. § 351.312(b), citing,  19 C.F.R. § 351.309(c) and (d).
33 19 C.F.R. § 351.312(b), citing,  19 C.F.R. § 351.301(c)(3).
34 19 C.F.R. § 351.208(f)(3).
35 19 C.F.R. § 351.218(d)(3)(vi).
36 19 C.F.R. § 351.312(c).
37 19 C.F.R. § 351.312(c).
38 Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, 103d Cong., 2nd Sess. (1994), reprinted
in Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Legislative History, Vol. VI, at 871.
39 Preamble to the US Department of Commerce’s Final Rule on Antidumping Duties, 62 Fed. Reg.
27295, 27343 (19 May 1997).
40 Id., see also ,19 C.F.R. § 351.225(d) and (n).
41 19 C.F.R. § 201.11(a).G/ADP/AHG/W/75
Page 10
injured or threatened with material injury, or whether the establishment of a domestic industry is
materially retarded, by reason of subject imports.
NEW SHIPPER REVIEWS
Consistent with Article 9.5 of the Antidumping Agreement, US law provides that a so-called
“new shipper” may obtain its own individual weighted-average dumping margin on an expedited basis
if it is a producer or exporter that (1) did not, during the period of the original investigation, export to
the US (or sell for export) merchandise now subject to the anti-dumping duty order; (2) is not
affiliated with any exporter or producer that exported (or sold for export) such merchandise during
that period; and (3) provides in its request for a new shipper review all of the requisite informationthat must be submitted to the US Commerce Department under US anti-dumping regulations.
Contents of Requests for New Shipper Reviews
An exporter or producer must request a new shipper review in writing, and the information
that must be contained in the request under US anti-dumping regulations differs depending on
whether the exporter is also the producer of the exported subject merchandise.  For example, if the
requester is both the exporter and the producer of the subject merchandise, the new shipper must
certify in its request that it did not export such merchandise to the United States (or, in the case of a
regional industry, did not export for sale in the region concerned) during the period of investigation.42
However, if the requester is only the exporter and not the producer of the subject
merchandise, its request must contain both the certification discussed above and a certification from
the producer or supplier of the subject merchandise that the producer or supplier did not export the
subject merchandise to the United States (or, in the case of a regional industry, did not export for salein the region concerned) during the period of investigation.
43
Regardless of whether the prospective new shipper is both the exporter and producer of the
subject merchandise, or only the exporter, in its request the new shipper must also certify that, since
the investigation was initiated, it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported
subject merchandise to the United States (or in the case of a regional industry, who exported for sale
in the region concerned) during the period of invest igation, including those not individually examined
during the original investigation.44
If the new shipper making the request is located in a non-market economy (“NME”) country,
it must also certify that its export activities are not controlled by the central government.45
Documentation Required With Requests
The prospective new shipper must provide with its request documentation establishing the
date on which its subject merchandise was first entered or withdrawn for consumption in the
United States or, if the requestor cannot establish the date of first entry, the date on which therequestor first shipped the subject merchandise for export to the United States.
46  The volume of that
                                                     
42 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(b)(2)(i).
43 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(b)(2)(ii).
44 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A).
45 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B).
46 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A).G/ADP/AHG/W/75
Page 11
and subsequent shipments must be provided, along w ith the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated
customer in the United States.47
Occasionally a request may not contain all of the information required under US anti-
dumping regulations.  In those instances, Commerce notifies the requester of the request’sdeficiencies and provides an opportunity for the requester to supplement its original submission, so
long as the supplemental information is submitted by a specific deadline.  If the supplemental
information is not submitted by that deadline, the request may be rejected in its entirety.
Timing of Requests and Reviews
An exporter or producer may request a new shipper review within one year of the date on
which the subject merchandise was first entered or shipped for export to the United States.48
Upon receipt of a properly documented and complete request, the Department will initiate a
new shipper review in the calendar month immediately following the anniversary month49 or the
semiannual anniversary month50 if the request for the review is made during the six month period
ending with the end of the anniversary month or  the semiannual anniversary month (whichever is
applicable).51
Period of Review
Generally, the period of review in a new shipper review will be either six or twelve months,
depending on whether the review was initiated in  the month following the semi-annual or annual
anniversary month.52  However, we may expand the period of review where necessary to include an
entry and sale to an unaffiliated customer.  For example, a new shipper might request a review based
on a sale to an affiliated party who resold the merchandise after entry into the United States.  Toconduct the review we must include the sale to the unaffiliated party, which may have occurred after
the normal period of review.  In such a case, we might expand the period of review to include the sale
to the unaffiliated party, provided that the necessary expansion would still permit timely completion
of the review.
New Shipper Review Procedures
The Commerce Department publishes in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of a new
shipper review no later than the last day of th e month following the anniversary month, or the
semi-annual anniversary month (whichever is applicable).53  The Department then normally issues
questionnaires within 30 days of the date of publication of the initiation notice.54  The Department, at
its discretion, may verify information received in response to the questionnaires, but is not required todo so.
55
                                                     
47 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(B) and (C).
48 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(c).
49 The anniversary month is the calendar month marking the annual anniversary of the anti-dumping
duty order.
50 The semiannual anniversary month is the calendar month that is six months after the anniversary
month marking the annual anniversary of the anti-dumping duty order.
51 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(d).
52 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(g).
53 19 C.F.R. § 351.221(c)(i).
54 19 C.F.R. § 351.221(c)(ii).
55 19 C.F.R. § 351.307(b)(1)(iv).G/ADP/AHG/W/75
Page 12
Upon initiating a new shipper review, the Department directs the US Customs Service to
suspend liquidation of any unliquidated entries of the subject merchandise from the relevant exporter
or producer, and to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the
review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise.56
Preliminary results of a new shipper review are normally issued within 180 days after the date
on which the review was initiated57 and final results are issued within 90 days after the date on which
the preliminary results are issued.58  (However, if the Department concludes that a particular review is
extraordinarily complicated, it may extend the 180-day period to 300 days, and the 90-day period to
150 days).59
Concurrent Reviews
If there is a request for a new shipper review while another new shipper review, an
administrative review, an expedited anti-dumping review, a changed circumstances review (or a
request for any of these types of reviews) is in progress, and covers merchandise from the same
producer or exporter, the Department may undertake one of several options after consulting with therequesting exporter or producer.   It may:  1) rescind, in whole or in part, the new shipper review
already in progress; 2) decline to initiate, in whol e or in part, the newly-requested new shipper review;
or 3) where the requester seeking the new shipper review agrees in writing to waive the normal time
limits of new shipper reviews, conduct concurrent reviews, in which case all of the other provisions
applicable to new shipper reviews would be applied.   The regulation is designed to avoid duplication
of reviews, while maintaining a qualified exporter’ s right to the special procedures provided new
shippers.
Recission of New Shipper Reviews
The Department also has authority to rescind a new shipper review, in whole or in part, if:(1)  the prospective new shipper withdraws its request for review within 60 days after the
review is initiated;  or
(2)  the Department determines that there has not been an entry and sale to an unaffiliated
customer in the US of subject merchandise, and that expanding the normal period ofreview to include such a sale or entr y would likely prevent the Department from
being able to complete the review within the time limits prescribed by US anti-
dumping duty regulations. 
The Department must publish a notice in the Federal Register when it rescinds a new shipper
review.60
__________
                                                     
56 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(e).
57 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(i)(1), citing , 19 C.F.R. § 351.221(b)(4).
58 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(i)(1),  citing , 19 C.F.R. § 351.221(b)(5).
59 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(i)(2).
60 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(f).