G/ADP/Q1/BRA/44  
G/SCM/Q1/BRA/44  
G/SG/Q1/BRA/13  
 
6 May 2019 
(19-3078) Page: 1/5 
Comm ittee on Anti -Dumping Practices  
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
Committee on Safeguards  Original: English  
 
  
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER  
ARTICLES 18.5, 32.6  AND 12.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS  
REPLIES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE UNITED STATES1 REGARDING  
THE NOTIFICATION OF BRAZ IL2 
The following c ommunication, dated  28 April 2019, is being circulated at the requ est of the 
delegation of Brazil . 
 
_______________  
 
 
Question 1  
 
Please provide the following additional details on Brazil 's electronic administrative procedure:  
 
(a) How long has the Department of Trade Remedies (DECOM) been using the Decom Digital 
System (DDS) for its trade remedy proceedings?  
(b) Does DECOM still maintain hard copy records for cases that were concluded prior to the 
implementation of DDS? If so, can interested par ties still access those records? If so, how?  
(c) Does DECOM still maintain a reading room where interested parties can access case files?  
(d) Does DECOM maintain hard copy records for any of its current/on -going trade remedy 
proceedings?  
 
Reply  
 
(a) The Decom Digital System (DDS) was implemented on 31 July 2015 for anti-dumping 
administrative processes  regulated by Decree No. 8058, of 2013. Such implementation was 
foreseen in Ordinance No. 58 of 2015.  
 
With the entry into force of Ordinance No. 30, of  2018, the DDS started to be used for 
administrative proceedings concerning subsidies and countervailing measures and global 
safeguards  regulated by Decrees No. 1751, of 1995, and No. 1488, of 1995.  
 
(b) The Under -Secretariat of Trade Remedies and Public I nterest (SDCOM)3 still maintains hard 
copy records for cases that were concluded prior to the implementation of DDS. It must be 
noted that all hard copy records were digitalized in 2018.  
 
Access to those records can be requested by the interested party or their duly authorized 
representatives through the electronic address "pedidosdevista@mdic.gov.br ". 
 
                                                
1 G/ADP/ Q1/BRA/ 40-G/SCM/ Q1/BRA/ 40-G/SG/ Q1/BRA/ 9 (dated 2 9 March  2019).  
2 G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.10 -G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.13 -G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.4  (dated 
30 January  2019).  
3 SDCOM succeeded DECOM in the new structure of the Ministry of Economy, established by Decree 
No. 9745 of 8 April 2019.  G/ADP/Q1/BRA/44 • G/SCM/Q1/BRA/44 • G/SG/Q1/BRA/13  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Interested parties who wish to have access to already closed cases but who were not qualified 
as representatives in the course of the administrative process  or whose enabling documents 
have expired must regularize their representation in order to access the files.  
 
(c) SDCOM does not maintain a reading room where interested parties can access case files. 
Instead, interested parties requesting access to the case files concluded prior to the 
implementation of DDS  are requested to schedule an appointment to withdraw an electronic 
copy of the files at the Ministry of Economy.  
 
Administrative proceedings conducted through DDS  may be remotely consulted by interest ed 
parties according to the procedures set forth in Ordinance No. 30, of 2018. In addition, 
scanning equipment and access to the World Wide Web are available to representatives of 
interested parties at the Ministry of Economy, from 10 am to 5 pm . 
 
(d) SDCO M does not maintain hard copy records of its on -going electronic administrative 
procedures, and access to case files is granted to interested parties exclusively through DDS.  
 
Question 2  
 
In Article 2, paragraph 2, Brazil states that interested parties to trade remedy proceedings "shall 
participate in the course of investigations through a duly authorized representative recognized by 
DECOM ". Paragraph 3, however, notes that "intervention " in trade remedy proceedings of 
representatives that are not authorize d shall be accepted for specified actions, including the 
submission of questionnaire response and comments on product models, et al . Please clarify this 
apparent inconsistency or further explain whether "participation in the course of investigations " and 
"interventions " include different and/or distinct activities . May interested parties to Brazilian trade 
remedy proceedings submit questionnaire responses and/or otherwise participate without a duly 
authorized representative? If so, please explain any limita tions on the rights of parties to participate 
or specific activities that require an authorized representative.  
 
Reply  
 
There is no inconsistency in the provisions of Ordinance No 30, of 2018 or any limitation on the 
rights of parties to participate in the  course of the investigations conducted by the Brazilian 
investigating authority.  
 
The general rule is that interested parties to trade remedy investigations may only participate in the 
course of  investigations through a duly authorized representative recognized by DECOM.  
 
However, solely in the case of the acts listed in paragraph 3 of Article 2, intervention in trade defence 
proceedings by representatives that are not authorized shall be accepte d, given that such 
representatives regularize their conditions within the time limit established in the notice of initiation 
of the investigation. Failure to do so will cause the acts of such representatives to be considered 
non-existent.  
 
This exception i s prescribed in Ordinance No 30, of 2018, because, in certain cases, the 
regularization process of representatives demands the translation and notarization of documents, 
which may take longer than the time limits provided for parties to carry out the acts foreseen in 
paragraph 3 of Article 2 of this Ordinance.  
 
The establishment of a time limit in the notice of initiation of the investigation for the regularization 
of representatives is necessary because the investigating authority must be able to organize the 
procedures of the investigations, such as conducting the analysis of questionnaire responses, issuing 
deficiency letters, arranging on -the-spot verifications and so on. If an interested party fails to 
regularize its representation within the deadline e stablished, the acts listed in paragraph 3 of 
Article  2 will be considered non -existent. However, should the interested party regularize its 
representation afterwards, it may still participate in the investigation, retaining its rights as an 
interested par ty (i.e., having access to the files of the investigation and submitting comments or 
other information, except those acts whose submission deadlines have already expired at the 
moment the interested party regularizes its representation).  
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/44 • G/SCM/Q1/BRA/44 • G/SG/Q1/BRA/13  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Nevertheless, in absolutely no case will a document submitted by a non -authorized representative 
be considered in a trade remedy investigation conducted by Brazil.  
 
Question 3  
 
Article 4 states that "All procedural acts " in Brazilian trade remedy proceedings "shall be digitally 
signed by means of digital certificates issued under ICP -Brasil ". Paragraph 1 of Article 4 further 
states that "the representative of the interested party should follow the guidelines established by 
the National Institute of Information Technolog y at http://www.ita.gov.br  to acquire an ICP -Brasil 
standard digital certificate ".  
 
(a) Are interested parties to Brazilian trade remedy proceedings which are located outside of Brazil 
(e.g., foreign respondents and/o r their representatives, government officials of respondent 
countries, or exporters) able to obtain a digital certificate and use the DDS? If so, is the 
process for doing so the same as under the guidelines?  
(b) Are foreign respondents required to have loc al counsel or a "duly authorized representative " 
that is physically located in Brazil to obtain access to the DDS?  
(c) Can members of the general public register for and use the DDS?  
 
Reply  
 
(a) Foreign interested parties in trade remedies procedures cond ucted by SDCOM are able to 
obtain digital certificates linked to their passport numbers, according to the guidelines 
established by the National Institute of Information Technology 
(http://www.iti.gov.br/certificado -digital/58 -certificado -digital/87 -como -obter ). Thus, in 
order for foreigners not domiciled in Brazil to acquire a digital certificate, they must attend 
one of the hundreds of Registration Authorities l ocated in Brazil, with their passport and other 
documents required by ICP -Brazil.  
 
(b) One of the main purposes of the Brazilian investigating authority with the implementation of 
DDS in 2015 was to ensure increased transparency and greater stakeholder par ticipation in 
trade remedies procedures.  
 
In this sense, it is not mandatory for foreign respondents to have a representative located in 
Brazil to obtain access to the DDS, since the interested parties can consult the records and 
submit documents online through the system from anywhere in the world, without the burden 
of personally attending SDCOM 's premises.  
 
(c) The Brazilian investigating authority does not maintain public records of trade remedies 
administrative procedures. There are only two types of  case files in trade remedy 
investigations conducted by Brazil: (i) the non-confidential case file, whose access is restricted 
to SDCOM, the interested parties  as defined in the applicable legislation and their duly 
authorized representatives ; and (ii) the confidential case file , whose access is limited to 
SDCOM . It is important to emphasize that only SDCOM investigators have access to 
confidential information submitted by the parties  through the DDS. Interested parties and 
their duly authoriz ed representatives can only access non -confidential case files  in the DDS.  
 
In this sense, members of the general public cannot register for or use the DDS. They may 
acquire information on each case conducted by the Brazilian investigating authority solely  
through the comprehensive public notices (i.e., public notices of initiation, preliminary and 
final determinations) published in the Brazilian Federal Government Official Gazette.  
 
Question 4  
 
Article 7, paragraph 2 states that "The disclosure of confiden tial information by mistake of 
classification of the document is {sic} sole responsibility of the party that submitted it ".   
 
(a) Are there any penalties under Brazilian law associated with the wrongful disclosure of 
confidential data? For example, what w ould happen if a party disclosed confidential data in a 
document that was incorrectly classified?  G/ADP/Q1/BRA/44 • G/SCM/Q1/BRA/44 • G/SG/Q1/BRA/13  
 
- 4 - 
 
  (b) What would happen if DECOM inadvertently disclosed confidential data in a document 
generated by DECOM (e.g., a preliminary or final determination or esse ntial facts document)? 
How would DECOM be held accountable?   
(c) Would any violation concerning the wrongful disclosure of proprietary information be treated 
the same regardless of whether the document was filed electronically or in a hard copy paper 
forma t?  
 
Reply  
 
(a) First of all, it is important to emphasize that, when a Party uploads a file, they have to  select 
whether that specific file is restricted or confidential. Based on this classification, the DDS will 
direct the document to the corresponding case file. If an information is classified as 
confidential, then it will automatically go to the confident ial case file of a specific investigation 
and only SDCOM investigators will have access to it.  
 
If a party incorrectly identifies their confidential document as "restricted " when uploading it 
to the DDS, other parties will be able to see such information, as soon as SDCOM makes it 
available for download. SDCOM investigators are not allowed to change the confidentiality 
classification  given by an interested party to their documents when it uploads the file. If such 
interested party notices that the document has been incorrectly classified, they can request 
its removal from the case file. Such removal will be duly documented by SDCOM at the 
restricted case file and the incorrectly classified confidential document will no longer be 
available to the other intere sted parties.  
 
Since interested parties to trade remedy investigations conducted by Brazil only have access 
to the restricted case file of the investigation and therefore cannot access confidential 
information uploaded by other parties, the only confidential information they can make public 
is their own, reason why there are no penalties foreseen for such parties in the event of an 
incorrect document classification.  
 
(b) Brazilian public servants are subject to administrative, civil and criminal l iability in case of 
violation of the duty of professional secrecy and confidentiality.  
 
In this sense, according to item VIII of Art. 116 of Law No. 8,112 of 11 December  1990 
(Provides for the legal status of civil servants of the Federal Government, munic ipalities and 
federal public foundations), it is the duty of the public servant to keep secrecy of office -related 
information. Failure to comply with this obligation implies dismissal, according to item IX of 
Art. 132 of the aforementioned Law.  
 
Furthermor e, a public servant who affects another person due to the disclosure of confidential 
information may be held responsible under civil law, having the obligation to indemnify the 
injured party, pursuant to Art. 927 of the Brazilian Civil Code (Law No. 10,406  of 
10 January  2002).  
 
Finally, under Art. 325 of the Brazilian Penal Code (Law No. 2,848 of 7 December  1940) 
violation of professional secrecy is punishable with imprisonment for a period from six months 
to two years, or with a fine, if the disclosure doe s not constitute a more serious crime. If the 
violation results in damage to the Public Administration or to others, the public servant can 
be condemned to a period of two to six years of imprisonment, in addition to a fine.  
 
(c) Brazilian law does not dis tinguish between the violation of confidential information in the scope 
of physical or electronic files. In this sense both cases of violation should be treated equally.  
 
Question 5  
 
Articles 10 and 11 discuss regular maintenance of DDS, and what happens i n instances when the 
system is unavailable .  
 
(a) Has DECOM experienced any prolonged outages of the DDS system since it was implemented? 
If so, how did DECOM handle these outages?  
(b) Were case deadlines extended?  G/ADP/Q1/BRA/44 • G/SCM/Q1/BRA/44 • G/SG/Q1/BRA/13  
 
- 5 - 
 
  (c) Are parties able to utilize alternative filing methods when the DDS is down? For example, if 
the DDS is unavailable, do parties have the option to make hard copy submissions to DECOM?  
 
Reply  
 
(a) Yes, mostly at the beginning of DDS 's implementation.  
 
Whenever a party reports a problem with DDS, the Ministry 's IT team analyzes whether there 
is actually a problem with the system and, until the problem is solved, all deadlines are 
automatically extended to the first working day following the solution of t he problem, pursuant 
to Article 12 of Ordinance No. 41, of 2018.  
 
In a few critical cases, the deadline for the conclusion of the investigation had to be extended 
as well, to make sure that interested parties were able to submit and have access to 
informat ion within the timelines established in accordance with the Brazilian regulations.  
 
(b) Since the implementation of the DDS, the System has experienced some periods of 
unavailability, but in no case has there been any loss to the parties concerned as regar ds the 
exercise of their right to defence . 
 
In all situations in which the period of unavailability of DDS coincided with the expiry of 
deadlines, SDCOM registered the granting of extension for the first working day after the 
system normalization, pursuant  to Article 12 of Ordinance No. 30 of 2018.  
 
(c) According to Art. 1 of Ordinance No. 30, dated 8 June 2018, the proceeding of administrative 
processes, the notification of acts, the constituting of case files, and the transmission of 
pleadings conducted b y SDCOM, in accordance with Decrees No. 1488, dated 11 May 1995, 
No. 1751, dated 19 December 1995, and No. 8058, dated 26 July 2013, shall be made only 
through DDS . 
 
This is, in fact, one of the reasons why Ordinance No. 30 of 2018 explicitly provides for the 
extension of deadlines. In this sense, although the Brazilian investigating authority does not 
accept alternative filing methods when the DDS is down, it grants additional time for interested 
parties to submit documents to the electronic case files, un der the terms and conditions set 
forth in Articles 11 and 12 of said Ordinance.  
 
__________