RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/IG/W/35
17 April 2001
(01-1946)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Informal Group on Anti-CircumventionOriginal:  English
TOPIC 2 – WHAT IS BEING DONE BY MEMBERS CONFRONTED
BY WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE CIRCUMVENTION?
Paper by New Zealand
The following communication, dated 17 April 2001, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of New Zealand.
_______________
The following are New Zealand’s replies to the circumvention scenarios presented at the last
meeting of the Informal Group on Circumvention.
Example 1:  Fibre and Tow
1. In the circumstances described, it is apparent that “tow” is clearly not covered by the
description of goods in the final determination and that only “fibre” is subject to anti-dumping duty.
It is also presumed that tow was not considered when the administering authority were considering
like goods.
2. In such circumstances, New Zealand would ask the industry producing tow to lodge a new
application covering those goods and proceed to conduct an investigation on that product.
3. This problem is similar to the circumstances encountered in the plasterboard case
(G/ADP/IG/W25 refers) where the description of goods did not cover a new good which was
imported.
Example 2:  Motor Cycles and Motor Cycle Parts
4. In a New Zealand situation this example w ould depend on the classification of the parts
shipments.  If they cannot be classified as a comp lete motor cycle using the Rules of Interpretation of
the Tariff of New Zealand, the parts themselves would not be covered by the dumping determination.
5. A new case would, therefore, need to be take n by the industry or industries making those
specific parts i.e. a battery maker would take a case against imports of batteries, a tyre maker against
tyres etc.  It may be that the motorcycle manufacturer only makes certain parts and buys the others in.
It could then only take action against the parts that it actually makes.
6. Any new case or cases on this basis would be subject to normal investigation documentation,
initiation and investigation practices.G/ADP/IG/W/35
Page 2
Example 3:  Mobile Phones
7. It is presumed that for origin purposes the phones in this case would be considered to be
goods that take the origin of country C.  In su ch circumstances, the domestic industry would need to
lodge a new case against imports from country C.
Example 4:  Steel Pipes
8. In the circumstances described, the steel pipes originating in country B and being exported via
country C would be considered to be "goods in transit" and would retain their country B origin.  The
original notice would therefore cover them for anti-dumping duty purposes.
9. Goods of country C origin i.e. steel pipes manufactured in country C would be subject to a
new investigation on lodgement of an applicat ion from the relevant domestic industry.
Example 5:  La ptop Computers
10. The goods would take the origin of country C.  The dumping determination only covers
country B, therefore the industry would need to make a new application for an investigation into the
goods originating in country C.
Example 6:  Chemical Composition Change
11. Again the circumstances of this case would see action revolve around whether or not the
"new" product was covered by the original determination.  If it were covered, then anti-dumping
duties would apply.  If it were not covered, then the domestic industry would have to make a new
application to cover the new product.
12. This case is similar to the plasterboard case (G/ADP/IG/W/25 refers) where a modification
was made to the size of plasterboard sheets.
General
New Investigations
13. In a number of the above examples, New Zealand practice would be to conduct a new
investigation into goods not covered by the original determination.  It should be noted that the time
limit for any investigation initiated in New Zealand is 180 days, or half the allowable limit for a
normal investigation under the WTO rules.  Such cases may, in some circumstances, be completed in
less time than other countries that conduct "circumvention" investigations.
Possible Fraud Action14. It should be noted that some of the above cases could be investigated by the New Zealand
Customs Service under section 211 of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 (Defrauding the Revenue ofCustoms), as anti-dumping duties are considered to be covered by that Act by way of the definition of
"duty" under that Act.
New Zealand Rules of Origin Position
15. New Zealand operates a preferential rules of origin regime for the following countries or
groups of countries:G/ADP/IG/W/35
Page 3
• Australia;
• Canada;
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern  Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the Channel
Islands (this preference only relates to a very limited range of motor vehicle parts);
• Less and least developed countries - the Generalised System of Preferences Scheme for
Developing Countries;  and
• Forum Island Countries - the SPARTECA Trade Agreement applicable to member island
countries of the Pacific.
The above countries and country groups have access to the Preferential Tariff as long as the
goods meet the preferential rules of origin, and provided that the tariff item under which the goods areclassified have a Preferential Tariff.
__________