. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/EEC/19
G/SCM/Q1/EEC/19
15 October 1999
(99-4405)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Questions Posed by BRAZIL
Regarding the Notification of the EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES1
The following communication, dated 13 October 1999, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Brazil.
_______________
Questions on EC document G/SCM/N/1/EEC/2/Suppl.1
Q1. Article 27 of the Commission Decision No. 1889/98/ECSC dated 3 September 1998,
established that:
"In cases where the number of complainants, exporters or importers, types of product or
transactions is large, the investigation may be limited to:
(a) a reasonable number of parties, products or transactions by using samples which are
statistically valid on the basis of information available at the time of selection;  or
(b) the largest representative volume of the production, sales or exports which can
reasonably be investigated within the time available".
Could the EC clarify whether the reference to a large number of complainants would permit
the Commission, in its determination of injury, to analyse the situation of the domestic industry, as
defined in Article 16 of the SCM Agreement?  Would not the EC be restricting its analysis to a
sample of domestic producers (petitioners) of the like product, which would represent less than a
major proportion of total domestic production of the like product?  How would the EC explain thecompatibility of this practice with Article 16 of the SCM Agreement?
Q2. Article 30.4 of the Commission Decisi on No. 1889/98/ECSC dated 3 September 1998,
established that:
"Final disclosure shall be given in writing.  It shall be made, due regard being had to
the protection of confidential informati on, as soon as possible and, normally, not
later than one month prior to a definitive decision or the submission by the
Commission of any proposal for final action pursuant to Articles 14 and 15.  Where
the Commission is not in a position to disclose certain facts or considerations at that
                                                     
1 G/SCM/N/1/EEC/2/Suppl.1 and Suppl.2G/ADP/Q1/EEC/19
G/SCM/Q1/EEC/19
Page 2
time, these shall be disclosed as soon as possible thereafter .  Disclosure shall not
prejudice any subsequent decision which may be taken by the Commission but where
such decision is based on any different facts and considerations, these shall be
disclosed as soon as possible. "
Could the EC clarify the precise meaning of the last two phrases in the above article,
especially to what extent the presentation of esse ntial facts would not "prejudice" a decision by the
Commission?
Taking into consideration that the use of the expression "as soon as possible", is used without
any reference to the fact that the presentation of essential facts should be made before the final
determination, is it possible that a Member and interested parties would only be aware of the factsused in the final determination after the decisi on is taken?  Could the EC explain whether this
interpretation is correct?
Questions on EC document G/SCM/N/1/EEC/2/Suppl.2
In example No. 1 (ii) it is stressed that:"Where rebates vary on a seasonal basis, and the investigation establishes that this is
a regular procedure, the weighted-average amount should be used.   If, however, the
investigation showed that the ECU 20 per tonne rebate was to be maintained on a
permanent basis, this amount, and not the we ighted-average, should form the basis of
the subsidy amount, because this constitutes the actual benefit to the exporter on
current shipments."
If a compensatory measure was determined based on data from the second semester and the
result was a higher duty than the one based on calculations on data from the whole year underinvestigation, this would constitute a violation of Article 19 of the SCM Agreement.  Could the EC
clarify how this measure would not be in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the SCM
Agreement, which determine that the compensatory duty must be equal or less than the calculated
subsidy?
Could the EC clarify if, in the above hypothesis, the injury determination caused by imports
of the subsidized product will also be based on the second semester, a period in which there is adecrease of the imports under analysis?
__________