WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/Q1/MEX/7 
G/SCM/Q1/MEX/7 16 March 2004 
 
(04-1143) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Original:   English 
 
 
 
NOTIFICATIONS OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE 18.5 AND ARTICLE 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS 
 
Questions posed by the UNITED STATES  
Regarding the Notification of MEXICO1 
   The following communication, dated 11 March 2004, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of the United States. 
 
_______________ 
 
  On 24 April 2003, the Secretariat circulated a notification of laws  and regulations under 
Article 18.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement a nd 32.6 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures received from the Permanent Mission of Mexico
2  On 2 October 2003 the 
United States submitted questions re garding the notification of Mexico.3  These questions sought 
further explanation of a number of provisions cont ained in the relevant notification.  For various 
reasons, including a delay in translation of the ques tions, Mexico explained that it was not able to 
provide responses at the time of the Autumn 2003 meetings of the Committee on Anti-Dumping 
Practices.4  The United States anticipates having the opport unity to review Mexico’s answers at the 
Spring 2004 meeting.   For convenience, we repeat below our qu estions posed in document G/ADP/Q1/MEX/2 - 
G/SCM/Q1/MEX/2:  
1. Article 31 of the Decree amending, supplementi ng, and repealing various  provisions of the 
Foreign Trade Act (the "Decree"), addresses, among other things, the use of third country prices as a 
basis for normal value.  Please explain how the requ irement only to use the "highest" such price in 
determining the normal value is c onsistent with the requirement of Article 2.2 of the Antidumping 
Agreement (ADA) that the third country price be "comparable" to the export price. 
 
2. The term "highest" price as used in Article 31 could be read to imply that a single third 
country price will be selected as the basis for normal value to be compared w ith the weighted average 
export price.  We note in this regard that Article 40 of  Mexico’s Regulations  under the Foreign Trade 
Act states: 
 
                                                     
 
1 G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.2- G/SCM/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.1 
2  G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.1 
3  G/ADP/Q1/MEX/2 - G/SCM/Q1/MEX/2 and  G/ADP/Q1/MEX/4 - G/SCM/Q1/MEX/4. 
4 Mexico did provide oral answers to the questions posed in G/ADP/Q1/MEX/4 - G/SCM/Q1/MEX/4 
in a special meeting of the Comm ittee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures on 8 December 2003, 
although it stated that those answers should only be cons idered preliminary.  The United States looks forward to 
receiving the final written re sponses to those questions. G/ADP/Q1/MEX/7 
G/SCM/Q1/MEX/7 Page 2 
 
 
 As a general rule, both the normal value a nd the export price shall be calculated on 
the basis of the weighted average figures obtai ned for the period of the investigation.  
When the normal value is determined on the basis of the prices to which Article 31 of 
the Act refers, they shall be weighted acco rding to the proportion of each transaction 
relative to the total volume of sales in the country of origin or export to a third 
country, as appropriate.
5 
If amended Article 31 calls for use of a single price, does this reflect a view by Mexico that an 
individual-to-average comparison is authorized whenever third country  prices are used?  How is this 
consistent with Article 2.4.1?  Has Article 40 of the regulations  been rescinded?  If amended 
Article 31 does not call for use of a single price as a basis for normal value, i.e. if the referenced 
"highest" price is actually an average of pr ices, how will that average be constructed? 
 3. Please explain under what circumstances foreign counsel to a respondent company in a Mexican anti-dumping proceeding would be consider ed a "legal representative" of the respondent 
company, within the meaning of Article 51 of the Decree. 
 4. Article 51 of the Decree appear to include w ithin the term "legal representative" members of 
the board of directors of interested parties as well as in-house counsel for those parties.  Article 80 of 
the Decree provides that confidential information sha ll be made available to "legal representatives" of 
interested parties.  How is this apparent requireme nt for interested parties to turn over confidential 
information to the members of the board of dir ectors or in-house counsel of their competitors 
consistent with Article 6.5 of the ADA?  5. Please clarify whether interested parties will be required to fu rnish non-confidential 
summaries of confidential information, as required by Art. 6.5.1 of the ADA. 
 
6. Articles 57 and 59 of the Decree decrease the amount of time previously available to the authority to complete investigations.  What provisi ons, if any, permit the Administering Authority to 
extend these deadlines?  7. Does the revision of Article 86 of the Decree re quire the administering authority to inform the 
competent Mexican authority of possible "monopolis tic practices" discovered during an anti-dumping 
investigation?  Does it require the administering authority to inform competent foreign antitrust 
authorities?  If so, how is this provision consistent  with Art. 6.5 of the ADA, prohibiting disclosure of 
confidential information without the specific permi ssion of the party submitting it?  What information 
would the administering authority be required to pr ovide to the competent au thority in such a case? 
 
8. Articles 39 (II) and 42 of the Decree refer to "thr eat of injury".  How is this consistent with 
Footnote 9 of the ADA, which refers to "threat of material injury"?   9. Article 39 (III) of the Decree refers to "[r] etardation of the establishment of a domestic 
industry".  How is this consistent with Footnote 9 of the ADA, which refers to "material retardation"? 
 
10. How are the provisions of the third paragr aph of Article 40 of the Decree, addressing the 
situation where all producers of the domestic like  product are related parties, consistent with 
Articles 2.6 and 4.1 of the ADA?  
11. (a) With respect to cumulation, Article 3.3 of the ADA requires that the investigations of 
the different countries be simultaneous, and also requires an analysis by the authority 
                                                     
 
5 See G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1, at p. 13.  G/ADP/Q1/MEX/7 
 G/SCM/Q1/MEX/7 
 Page 3 
 
 
 as to whether cumulation is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition 
between the imported products and between  the imported and do mestic products.  
Article 43 of the Decree, concerning cumulation, does not contain any such provisions.  How will Mexico ensure that  Article 43 is applied consistently with 
Article 3.3 of the ADA? 
    (b) Is the cumulation provision set out in Article 43 mandatory or discretionary?  
__________