RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/W/22/Rev.4
20 March 2000
(00-1119)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Ad Hoc Group on Implementation
DRAFT RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING
THE PERIOD OF DATA COLLECTION FOR A DUMPING INVESTIGATION
Revision
The following sets forth (A) specific drafting suggestions concerning the text of the draft
recommendation made by Members at the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on Implementation in
October 1999, indicating as well support expressed for those suggestions by other Members, and
(B) comments made by Members at that meeting regarding the draft recommendation.  Where no
Member objected to drafting suggestions set forth in the previous revision, such suggestions have
been incorporated into the draft text.
*************
(A) SPECIFIC DRAFTING SUGGESTIONS MADE BY MEMBERS AT THE MEETING
OF THE AD HOC GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION IN APRIL 1999
The Committee notes that although the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the
GATT 1994 refers to the period of data collection for dumping investigations when it refers to the
"period of investigation", it does not establish any specific period of investigation,1 nor does it
establish guidelines for determining an appropria te period of investigation, for the examination of
either dumping or injury.
The Committee considers that guidelines for determining what period or periods of data
collection may be appropriate for the examination of dumping and of injury would be useful.  The
Committee also recognizes, however, that it is impor tant that national investigating authorities retain
flexibility in order to be able to take account of the particular circumstances of a given investigation insetting the period of data collection for both dumping and injury, to ensure that it is appropriate in
each case.
In light of the foregoing considerations, th e Committee recommends that with respect to
[original] ( USA, Japan ) investigations [conducted
 to determine the existence of dumping and
consequent injury pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of the Agreement] ( Brazil, Hong Kong, China ) -
1. As a general rule:
(a) the period of data collection for dumping investigations [normally]  (Brazil ) should be
twelve months, and in any case no less than six months;1
                                                     
1 Footnote 4 of the Agreement does provide that, for purposes of determining whether sales below cost
may be treated as not being in the ordinary course of trade, the "extended period of time" within which suchsales are made "should normally be one year but shall in no case be less than six months".G/ADP/AHG/W/22/Rev.4
Page 2
(b) the period for investigating sales below cost, and the period of data collection for
dumping investigations, [normally]  (Brazil ) should be the same period in a particular
investigation;
(c) the period of data collection for [material] ( EC) injury investigations [normally ]
(Brazil ) should be at least three years;
(d) the period of data collection for both dumping and injury investigations should
include the most recent [reliable] ( USA ) data available before the initiation of the
investigation; and
[(e) Members should, if possible, consider the views of interested parties concerning the
appropriate specific periods in a particular investigation.] ( Mexico )
[(e) Members should consider the views of interested parties concerning the appropriate
specific periods in a particular investigation.] ( Japan, Cuba )
2. In establishing the specific periods in a particular investigation, Members should consider the
availability of data [including where relevant accounting data ]( USA ) in the records of the firms from
which information will be sought, such firms' practices concerning financial reporting periods, the
characteristics of the product in question, including seasonality and cyclicality, and the existence ofspecial order or customized sales.
4
3. In order to increase transparency of proceedings, investigating authorities should include in
public notices or in the separate reports provided pursuant to Article 12 [of the Agreement] ( Mexico ),
an explanation of the reason for the selection of a ( Cuba ) particular period for data collection if it
differs from that provided for in this recommendation;  from that provided for in national legislation,
regulation, or established national guidelines; or from that selected in other cases  the period most
often selected in other recent similar cases. ( Brazil )
*************
(B) COMMENTS MADE BY MEMBERS AT THE MEETING OF THE AD HOC GROUP
ON IMPLEMENTATION IN OCTOBER 1999 REGARDING THE THIRD REVISION
OF THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION.
1. The delegate of Brazil commented that the su ggestion to delete the word "normally" from
sections (a), (b), and (c) of the draft recommendation reflected the fact that the entirety of section 1 of
the draft recommendation expressed a general  rule, which made repeated reference to "normally"
unnecessary and redundant.
2. The delegate of the European Community comm ented, as a matter of record with respect to
section (c) of the draft recommendation, that it should be understood that whatever period of data
collection is used, material injury is not required to be found for the entire period, but should at least
be established towards the end of the period.
3. The delegate of the United States noted, with respect to section (d) of the draft
recommendation, that the reference to "data available before the initiation of the investigation" did not
preclude the collection of data from a period after the initiation of the investigation.  The delegates of
Mexico and Argentina  expressed support for this view.G/ADP/AHG/W/22/Rev.4
Page 3
4. The delegate of Mexico reiterated the comment, made at the meeting of the Group in April
1999 with respect to section (c) of the draft recommendation, that Members should take into account
the situation of newly established or created enterprises, where three years of data may not exist.
5. The delegate of Brazil expressed concern over the suggested inclusion of the word "reliable"
in section (d) of the draft recommendation, observing that this section of the draft recommendation is
focussed on the need to seek recent  data in establishing the time-period for which data is collected.
The reliability of the data is, of course, important, but cannot be determined in advance of its
collection.  The point of section (d) of the draft recommendation was to provide that as a general rule,
the most recent data, including data for the period just prior to initiation, should be collected.  Its
reliability would then, of course, be assessed during the course of the investigation.  The delegates of
Canada, Hong Kong, China , and Mexico  expressed support for the concern expressed by Brazil.  The
delegate of Hong Kong, China noted, in addition, that since the draft recommendation was proposing
a general rule for the period of data collection, it was not necessary to include the concept of thereliability of the data in defining the time period for which data would be collected.  The delegate of
India noted that Article 5.3 of the Agreement required an examination of, inter alia , the accuracy of
the evidence provided in the application.  The dele gate of the United States commented that the
suggested inclusion of the word "reliable" was intended to reflect a concern that useable and complete
data be collected.
__________