./.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/RL/W/106
8 May 2003
(03-2464)
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:  English
QUESTIONS FROM INDIA ON AUSTRALIA'S PAPER ON
'GENERAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION
OF THE NEGOTIATING GROUP ON RULES ON THE
ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT'1
The following communication, dated 7 May 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of India.
_______________
India thanks Australia for its submission on 'General contribution to the discussion of the
Negotiating Group on Rules on the Anti Dumping Agreement' (TN/RL/W/85) and wishes to ask the
following questions for clarification without prejudice to India's position on the subjects.
Lesser Duty Rule
1. Article 9.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement does not envisage situations in which the
application of the lesser duty rule would not be desirable.  In Australia's view how can this be
reconciled with non-application of the lesser duty rule in certain situations?
2. How should systematic and persistent dumping  be defined and what  methodology should be
followed for establishing that there is systematic and persistent dumping?
3. The Anti-Dumping Agreement concerns itself with dumping in an importing country.  There
is no reference in the Anti-Dumping Agreement to di sruption in world markets.  In Australia's view
how should disruption in world markets be defi ned and what methodology should be followed for
establishing it ?
Duty Absorption1. In Australia's view, is duty absorption addressed by an existing provision of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement?  If yes, could the relevant provision be indicated?
2. What should be the content of information on which non-movement or insufficient movement
of selling prices of dumped goods would be established?
3. How will the export price level that should have been expected after the imposition of anti-
dumping duty be determined?
4. The non-movement or insufficient movement of selling prices of dumped good would,
presumably, require a comparison with selling prices prior to the imposition of the anti-dumping duty.
                                                     
1 TN/RL/W/85TN/RL/W/106
Page 2
Price for which period, prior to the imposition of the anti-dumping duty, should be considered for
such comparison?  Would this involve taking into consideration factors that may affect price
comparability between two different time periods?
5. What will constitute "insufficient movement" of selling prices of dumped good?  In
Australia's view what should be the minimum increase in selling price for reaching a conclusion
against duty absorption?
6. As anti-absorption proceedings are likely to result in increased duty, in Australia's view what
would be the incentive for exporters to co-operate in such proceedings, apart from the possibility of
resort to facts available?
7. How will it be ensured that deficiency in movement of selling price is not on account of
factors apart from absorption?  Will the burden of proof be on the exporters to establish that
deficiency in movement of selling price is on account of factors other than absorption?
8. How soon after the imposition of an anti-dumping duty can an anti-absorption proceeding be
initiated?
9. Anti-absorption would involve a comparison between products manufactured and sold at
different time periods.  This could result in goods identical or like to those sold during the original
period of investigation, no longer being currently sold.  How should this issue be addressed?
10. How will it be ensured that lack of movement of selling price is not due to currency
fluctuation?
11. If it is established that there was no movement or insufficient movement of selling prices of
dumped good, will the investigating authority determine an enhanced rate of anti-dumping duty?
__________