RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/AUS/2
G/SCM/Q1/AUS/2
13 August 1999
(99-3435)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Replies to Questions posed by CANADA1
Regarding the Notification of AUSTRALIA2
The following communication, dated 11 August 1999, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Australia.
_______________
Q1. Paragraph 1 of Article 15 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
requires a determination of injury to be made with respect to the domestic market for likeproducts which is defined in footnote 46.
In view of the foregoing can Australia explain how section 269T(A4) is consistent with the
Agreement when it provides when like goods are close processed agricultural goods, the
industry in respect of those goods includes persons producing the raw agricultural goods from
which the processed goods are derived?
Reply
Section 269T(4A) does not extend the scope of what is a like good, rather it clarifies the
meaning of producer of a like product, where that product is a “close processed agricultural good”.
This provision has been in the legislation since 1992 and was not affected by the amendments made in1998.
Q2. Subsection 269TACB(2) provides five methods for the Minister to compare normal
values and export prices but does not seem to indicate which method will normally be used.
What circumstances determine the application of each method?
Reply
Unlike some other administrations, Australia does not have an order of preference for
determining what method of comparison will be used.  Nor does Australia prescribe in its regulationswhat method to use.  Rather the method is left to the discretion of the investigating team.  The method
the team chooses will be based on a number of factors, including the availability of the information
obtained and the volume of that information.
                                                     
1 G/ADP/Q1/AUS/1-G/SCM/Q1/AUS/1
2 G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2G/ADP/Q1/AUS/2
G/SCM/Q1/AUS/2
Page 2
However, Australia is keen to bring some regula rity to the process and in order to determine
what is the best practice among members, has placed an item of the Ad Hoc Group’s agenda.
Australia is currently preparing a discussion paper on this topic.
3. Subsections 269ZJ(5) and (6) both provide that where a person will not agree to the
inclusion in the public file of some information or will not provide a non-confidential summary
of the information, the CEO may disregard the information unless it is demonstrated that the
information is correct.  Can Australia explain what is meant by "unless it is demonstrated that
the information is correct"?  Would the inform ation be used without the existence of a non-
confidential summary?
Reply
Australia's legislation reflects the wording of A-D Article 6.5.2 and SCM Article 12.4.2.  If
information is not provided in a non-confidential version, Customs has discretionary powers whether
or not to use that information, unless it can be demonstrated that the information is correct.
Information can be used, even though a non-confidential version has not been supplied,
provided that it can be demonstrated that the informa tion is correct. No test is set out in the legislation
to determine what meant by “correct”. However the information must be demonstrated to be correct.
This would require, as referred to in A-D Article 6.5.2 and SCM Article 12.4.2 that information from
other sources is available which can be used to test the accuracy of the information provided under
subsection 259ZJ(5) and (6).
4. Article 5.6 of the WTO Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI states:
"If, in special circumstances, the authorities concerned decide to initiate an investigation
without having received a written application by or on behalf of a domestic industry for
the initiation of such an investigation, they  shall proceed only if they have sufficient
evidence of dumping, injury and a causal link, as described in paragraph 2, to justify the
initiation of an investigation".
Is there a provision in Australia's legislation restricting Minister-initiated investigation to
"special circumstances"?  If so, what are these circumstances.
Reply
A-D Article 5.6 does not define what is a “special circumstance” and neither does the
Australian legislation.
Section 269TAG however allows the Minister to initiate an take anti-dumping investigation
on his or her own initiative.  Under section 269TAG(5), the Minister is required to ensure that such an
initiation is consistent with Australia's WTO obligations.
5. In decisions taken by the Minister to:
- reject the CEO's report concerning the continuation of anti-dumping measures (Article
269ZHG);
- reject the CEO's report concerning the review of anti-dumping measures (Article 269ZDB);
- reverse the Trade Measures Review Officer's decision on whether or not a reviewable
decision should be referred ba ck to the CEO for reinvestigation (Article 269ZZL); andG/ADP/Q1/AUS/2
G/SCM/Q1/AUS/2
Page 3
- reject the CEO's decision upon reinvestigation of a Ministerial decision (Article
269ZZM(1)).
will the Minister, in giving public notice of such decisions, disclose the basis for the decisions?
Reply
The public notice advising of the Minister’s rejection of recommendations from either the
Trade Measures Review Officer or the CEO must set out the reasons for the decision, including all
material findings of fact or law. Alternatively the material findings of fact or law may be contained in
a separate report. If so, the notice must set out the manner in which copies of the report can beobtained.
__________