RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/Q1/MUS/3*
G/SCM/Q1/MUS/3*
ORGANIZATION 23December 1996
(96-5357)
Original: English Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures
NOTIFICATION OFLAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5AND 32.6OFTHE AGREEMENTS
Replies ofMAURITIUS1
toquestions posed bytheUNITED STATES2andHONG KONG3
Thefollowing communication, dated 4December 1996, hasbeenreceived fromthePermanent
Mission ofMauritius.
_______________
Questions fromtheUnited States
1. What provision hasbeenmade forconducting reviews ofnewexporters asprovided forunder
A-DArticle 9.5?
2. What provision hasbeenmade forterminating orreviewing orders asprovided forunder A-D
Article 11.3?
3. Isjudicial review available asrequired under A-DArticle 13?
4. Howwill“thereasonable amount foradministrative, selling, andgeneral costs andprofits ”
5(b)(G/ADP/N/1/MUS/2, page3)bedetermined?
Questions fromHong Kong
1. Mauritius 'notification contains itslatest domestic legislation onanti-dumping.
(a) What isthelegal status oftheWTO A-DAgreement (theAgreement) inMauritius?
Does ithavetheforce oflaw?
*Thisdocument cancels andreplaces document G/ADP/Q1/MUS/3-G/SCM/Q1/MUS/3 dated
18December 1996. English only.
1G/ADP/N/1/MUS/2
2G/ADP/Q1/MUS/1-G/SCM/Q1/MUS/1.
3G/ADP/Q1/MUS/2-G/SCM/Q1/MUS/2.G/ADP/Q1/MUS/3
G/SCM/Q1/MUS/3
Page2
(b) AretheA-Dofficials ofMauritius required, legally orotherwise, toobserve the
provisions oftheAgreement intheconduct ofA-Dproceedings, ortoconsult them,
forexample ontheinterpretation ofdomestic legislation?
2. Numerous provisions oftheAgreement arenotfeatured inMauritius 'legislation, orthe
codification maynotbeadequate. Notable examples areasfollows:
- sufficient domestic sales (Article 2.2andFootnote 2)
- establishment ofcosts (Articles 2.2.1 and2.2.2)
- Notion offaircomparison andrelevant provisions (Article 2.4)
- exchange rates (Article 2.4.1)
- comparison methodology (Article 2.4.2)
- on-site verification (Annex I)
- sampling (Article 6.10)
- dutyforexporters andproducers notselected insampling (Article 9.4)
(a) Intheabsence ofexplicit domestic provisions reflecting theabove Agreement provisions,
howwillMauritius ensure compliance withtheAgreement?
(b) WillMauritius contemplate further legislative steps toensure theconformity ofits
legislation andadministrative procedures withtheprovisions oftheAgreement, in
accordance withArticle 18.4?
3. What judicial review procedures hasMauritius putinplace inobservance ofitsobligations
under Article 13(Judicial Review) oftheAgreement?
4. What isMauritius 'policy andlawfortheimplementation ofWTO Panel Reports?
Answer
Ihavethehonour torefertothequestions addressed toMauritius bytheUnited States and
Hong Kong attheregular meeting onAnti-Dumping Practices heldon21October lastandtosubmit
initsregard, thefollowing information.
First, itmustbeclearthatthereisnoanti-dumping legislation inMauritius. However, inthe
wakeofrecommendationsmadeduringtheTradePolicyReviewofMauritiusinOctober1995,Mauritius
drew upinterim administrative procedures foranti-dumping action. These werenotified totheWTO
inaspiritoftransparency,on13November1996,andhavebeenerroneouslyinterpretedasanti-dumping
legislation.
Asitmaybeseenfromthefirstparagraph ofthenotification, these administrative procedures
which donothavealegal basis aretheoretical innature, being based largely ontheAgreement on
theImplementation ofArticle VIofGATT 1994. These measures wereinstituted onatrialbasisand
havenever beenconcretely implemented. Thereason isthatatthetimethese measures were being
drawn up,itwasbelieved thatMauritius would receive technical assistance fromtheWTO tobeable
toestablish theappropriate infrastructure forimplementation ofthese procedures. Such assistance
hasnotbeenforthcoming.
Forthesamereason asstated above, ithasnotbeenpossible forMauritius todraftanti-dumping
legislation sofar.Itcannot besaidwithcertainty when suchlegislation would beready asthiswouldG/ADP/Q1/MUS/3
G/SCM/Q1/MUS/3
Page3
again depend ontheavailability oftechnical assistance. Thishasbeenrequested atamultilateral as
wellasatabilateral level.
Inviewoftheabove, itisclearthatthequestions asked bytheUnited States andHong Kong
donotapply tothecurrent situation inMauritius. Wearetherefore appreciative thattheUnited States
haswithdrawn itsquestions inthisregard. Withrespect tothequestion asked byHong Kong onwhether
theWTO Agreement hasforce inlawinMauritius, Iwishtoconfirm thatthisisnotthecaseatpresent.
However, itmaybenoted thatMauritius, withthehelpoftheWorld Intellectual Property
Organization, hasalready drafted legislation onintellectual property withaviewtobringing existing
legislation inconformity withtheTRIPS Agreement. Hence, theGovernment ofMauritius isready
toadopt appropriate anti-dumping legislation incompliance withtheUruguay Round Agreement.