G/ADP/Q1/MUS/7  
G/SCM/Q1/MUS/7  
G/SG/Q1/MUS/2  
 
18 October 2023  
(23-7013) Page: 1/6 
Committee 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 QUESTIONS1 POSED BY THE UNITED STATES  
REGARDING THE NOTIFICATION OF MAURITIUS2 
The following communication , dated  and received on 17 October 2023, is being circulated at the 
request of the delegation of Mauritius . 
 
_______________  
 
Mauritius thanks the United States for its questions on the Trade (Anti -Dumping, Countervailing and 
Safeguards Measures) Act 2022, and pr ovides the following responses:  
 
Question 1  
In Article 2, the 7 percent negligibility threshold deviates from the 9 percent threshold 
contemplated at Art. 27.10(b) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures (SCM Agreement). Can you please elaborate why Mauritius opted to deviate 
from the higher threshold?  
Reply : 
The 7 percent negligibility threshold was mistakenly inscribed. It will be amended to reflect 9 percent 
threshold in line with Art. 27.10 (b) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
(SCM Agreement).  
Question 2  
Article 3 defines a particular market situation (PMS) as instances where (1) prices are 
artificially low; (2) there is significant barter trade; (3) as a result of government 
intervention pr oduction costs are not representative of actual costs; (4) the product sold 
in the exporting country is a by -product or a waste product in that country, yet constitutes 
a primary product in Mauritius; or (5) there are non -commercial processing 
arrangements . 
• Please describe the criteria or methodology Mauritius will use to evaluate each 
of the five instances above to determine if a PMS exists. For example, what 
methodology will Mauritius use to evaluate whether prices are artificially low, 
what is considered  significant barter trade, what criteria will Mauritius use to 
evaluate whether production costs are representative of actual costs, etc.?  
Reply : 
There are no pre -determined criteria or methodologies that apply to any of these five instances and 
such will  be determined based on the facts pertaining to the particular investigation. However, as a 
 
1 G/ADP/Q1/MUS/ 6 - G/SCM/Q1/M US/6 - G/SG/Q1/MUS/ 1 
2 G/ADP/N/1/MUS/ 4 - G/SCM/N/1/MUS/ 4 - G/SG/N /1/MUS/2  G/ADP/Q1/MUS/7 • G/SCM/Q1/MUS/7 • G/SG/Q1/MUS/2  
 
- 2 - 
 
  point of reference under point 1, prices may be benchmarked to international and/or regional prices 
for the same product, including for raw materials and components  used to produce such product, 
although the simple fact that the price may be lower than the benchmark price will not automatically 
lead to a decision of a particular market situation.  
As regards point 2, if there is barter trade, either of the like produ ct or any raw materials and/or 
components used to produce such like product, the Investigating Authority will have to determine 
to which extent such barter trade takes place and whether it has a significant impact on the costs 
and prices of the final produ ct. 
As regards point 3, the Investigating Authority will determine whether government intervention has 
affected prices of the like product or any raw materials and/or components used to produce such 
like product. This may include, for example, the provisio n of raw materials, components, goods, 
services or land for less than adequate remuneration, and based on the question as to how pervasive 
such government intervention is.  
As regards point 4, the question will be regarding the allocation of costs. Where c osts are allocated 
on the net realisable value methodology, and if the product is regarded as a by - or waste product in 
the exporting country, thus attracting a low allocation, yet the product is regarded as a prime product 
in Mauritius, Mauritius reserves  the right to reject the allocation methodology of the producer and 
use a different basis of allocation that would be appropriate in light of the Mauritian designation of 
the product exported to Mauritius.  
For the final point, where non -commercial process ing arrangements exist, the Investigating 
Authority may try to ascertain what the cost of commercial processing arrangements are or ought 
to be, and could then substitute this cost for that in the actual cost of production.  
However, it bears repeating that  there are no hard and fast rules related to any of these points and 
that the Investigating Authority will be guided by the facts of each case.  
Question 3  
Articles 7 through 10 describe the composition of Mauritius' trade remedy authority 
stating that the Authority shall consist of a Chairperson; a Vice -Chairperson; a 
representative of the Ministry responsible for the subject of commerce; a representative 
of the Ministry responsible for the subject of industry; a law officer designated by the 
Attorney -Gener al; and a representative of Customs, and that the Authority shall meet at 
least once a month. It also indicates that the Authority can appoint staff to serve as 
investigators. Please explain who conducts Mauritius' trade remedy investigations, and 
who has the final say in deciding whether duties are imposed. For example, does the staff 
conduct the actual investigations and then make a recommendation regarding the 
imposition of duties to the six members of the Authority? What role do the six members 
of the A uthority have in trade remedy investigations?  
Reply : 
The staff of the Investigating Authority will conduct the trade remedy investigations. Following the 
investigations, they will make a recommendation to the Investigating Authority which consists of the 
six members as provided for in Part II of the Act. The Authority will examine the recommendation 
and take decisions on whether to impose any trade remedy measures. The decision will be submitted 
in terms of recommendation to the Minister responsible for Int ernational Trade. The final decision 
rests on the Minister.  
Question 4  
Article 21 states that Mauritius can use an alternative methodology to calculate normal 
value in instances where the exporter of an investigated product is an exporter from a 
non-market  economy country. Does Mauritius maintain a list of countries it considers to 
be non -market economies? If so, which countries does Mauritius consider non -market 
economies? What criteria does Mauritius use to determine if a country is a market 
economy or a non-market economy?  G/ADP/Q1/MUS/7 • G/SCM/Q1/MUS/7 • G/SG/Q1/MUS/2  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Reply : 
Mauritius does not maintain a list of non -market economies. However, it considers non -market 
economies to be economic systems in which the government exercises a high degree of control on 
economic activities and in decision makin g processes. Some of the criteria that would be considered 
are the degree of state control in production, distribution, allocation of resources, pricing of goods 
and services, amongst others.  
Question 5  
Article 33(4)(a) refers to a non-attribution analysis of "the volume and prices of imports 
of the products in question not sold at dumped or subsidized prices". We note that while 
this Article tracks the language of Art. 3.5 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article 
VI of the Gene ral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (ADA Agreement) ("the volume 
and prices of imports not sold at dumping prices  …"), it does not seem to comport 
precisely with the concept in Article 15.5 of the SCM  Agreement, which refers to " … the 
volume and prices of non -subsidized imports …". Is the reference to "imports … not sold 
at … subsidized prices" intended to refer to imports that are not subsidized?  
Reply : 
Yes, it refers to imports that are not subsidized in line with Art 15.5 of the  SCM Agreement.  
Question 6  
Article 33(4) uses the word "shall", suggesting that examination of all of factors listed in 
that article must be considered in a non -attribution analysis in every investigation, 
whether or not relevant to the particular investig ation. Is that your intent?  
Reply : 
The factors listed in Art 33 (4) are important elements that would be considered in a non -attribution 
analysis. In the event that any factor is not relevant for a particular investigation, its non -inclusion 
would need to be explained/justified in the investigation.  
Question 7  
Article 52(3) states that the initiation of a safeguard investigation shall be effective on 
the date notified to the official Gazette.  
a. Please confirm that this notification would also specify the per iod of time parties 
have to submit comments or other documentation.  
Reply : 
The Notification has to  contain the information stated in Art 52(2). Art 52(2) (f) provides that the 
notification shall state "the proposed schedule for the investigation ". This includes the period of time 
which parties have to submit comments or other documentation.  
b. Please prov ide a web URL, if applicable, for the Mauritius official Gazette.  
Reply : 
The web address of the Gazette is : https://govmu.org/EN/Pages/PublicNotice.aspx  
Question  8 
Article 53 states that once a safeguard investigation has been initiated, the Authority will 
provide the full text of the written safeguard application "to any interested party" upon 
request. Please confirm that any information which is by nature confid ential, or which is G/ADP/Q1/MUS/7 • G/SCM/Q1/MUS/7 • G/SG/Q1/MUS/2  
 
- 4 - 
 
  provided on a confidential basis, will not be disclosed without permission from the 
providing party, as required by Article 3(2) of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
Reply : 
Confidential information with respect to the application will not be  disclosed unless permission is 
granted from the providing party.  
Question 9  
Article 59 states that the Authority shall establish and maintain a register relating to each 
investigation or review and that the register shall be available for consultation to the 
general public at the offices of the Authority at all times during the course of the 
investigation or review.  
a. Will Mauritius make the register available electronically to the public and/or 
interested parties to a proceeding, or will the register only be available in hard -
copy format for in -person viewing at your offices?  
Reply : 
The register will be in hard copy format for in -person viewing at the Office of the Investigating 
Authority office.  
b. Will the register for a particular investigatio n or review be available to the public 
after the investigation or review is over or is the register only available while the 
investigation or review is on -going?  
Reply : 
The register will only be available when the investigation or review is ongoing.  
Question 10  
Article 78(1) states that the Authority shall "draw up a time frame for the investigation 
which shall, except owing to circumstances beyond its controls, be followed so as to not 
cause injustice to any party." Please describe how the A uthority intends to notify parties 
of any changes or extensions to the time frame.  
Reply : 
Any changes or extension in the time frame will be notified to the interested parties by official letters.  
Question 11  
Article 78(2) states that interested parties t hat intend to participate in a safeguard 
investigation have 20 days from the date of the initiation of the investigation to "make 
itself known" to the Authority. Article 80 states that parties have 30 days after initiation 
to submit written comments for co nsideration for the preliminary determination.  
a. Please confirm whether parties can register as interested parties and later submit 
written comments within the 30 day period.  
Reply : 
Yes, parties can register as interested parties and later submit comments wi thin the 30 -day period.  
b. Please describe the procedure, if any, available to parties interested in requesting 
additional time to submit written comments.  G/ADP/Q1/MUS/7 • G/SCM/Q1/MUS/7 • G/SG/Q1/MUS/2  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Reply : 
 
Interested parties can officially write to the Investigating Authority to request additional t ime to 
submit written comments.  
Question 12  
Article 81 describes the procedures for the preliminary determination. Paragraphs (5) and 
(6) state that the preliminary determination shall be submitted to the WTO Committee on 
Safeguards and provided to all par ticipating interested parties. Will the copy of the 
preliminary determination also be published in Mauritius' official Gazette? Where are 
Mauritius' Gazette notices published? Please provide the URL.  
Reply : 
A copy of the preliminary notice will be published in the Mauritius Gazette, while both a copy of the 
notice and the preliminary report will also be published on the Ministry 's trade portal.  
URL: https://govmu.org/EN/Pages/PublicNotice.a spx 
Ministry 's trade portal: https://www.mauritiustrade.mu/en  
Question 13  
Article 86(3) states that the Authority shall publish a decision not to impose a definitive 
safeguard measure in the official Gazette. Please confirm whether Mauritius intends to 
also notify the WTO  Committee on Safeguards of any decision to not impose a definitive 
safeguard measure.  
Reply : 
The WTO Committee o n Safeguards will be informed of the decision not to impose a definitive 
safeguard measure.  
Question 14  
Article 93 states that the Authority shall examine whether a duty less than the full 
dumping or subsidy margin shall be adequate to remove the injury to  the domestic 
industry. Will Mauritius automatically examine lesser duty in every investigation, or does 
a lesser duty analysis need to be requested by an interested party in order to be 
examined?  
Reply : 
The lesser duty rule will be examined in every investigation regardless of whether there is a request 
by an interested party.  
Question 15  
Article 94, paragraphs (8) and (9), state that the Authority may apply a residual 
antidumping duty rate for imports from exporters and producers not known to the 
Authority at the time the final determination was made, and that this rate shall not exceed 
a rate higher than the difference between the highest normal value and the lowest export 
price established for exporters and producers examined during the investigatio n. 
Article 94, paragraphs (8) and (10) state that the Authority may apply a residual 
countervailing duty rate for imports from exporters and producers not known to the 
Authority at the time the final determination was made, and that rate shall not exceed the 
sum of the highest subsidy amounts found in respect of each subsidy programme . G/ADP/Q1/MUS/7 • G/SCM/Q1/MUS/7 • G/SG/Q1/MUS/2  
 
- 6 - 
 
  A. With respect to antidumping proceedings under Article 94, paragraph (8) and (9), 
why is the residual/All Others rate a punitive rate? In general, Article 9.4 of the 
AD Agreem ent provides rules that limit the amount of antidumping duty of non -
examined companies to either (1) the weighted -average margin of dumping of 
individually examined exporters or producers; or (2) in the case of prospective 
normal value system to the differ ence between weighted -average normal value of 
selected exporters and producers and the exports prices of exporters or producers 
not individually examined. How is the application of the residual/All Others rate 
set forth in Article 94, paragraph (8) and (9)  consistent with Article 9.4 of the 
AD Agreement?  
Reply : 
Art 9(4) of the Anti -Dumping Agreement applies to exporters that have indicated their willingness 
to be included in a sample, but that were not selected. For such exporters, Mauritius will apply 
Art 9(4) of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, that is, the margin will be determined as the weighted 
average of those exporters that did cooperate, subject to the additional rules in Article 9(4).  
Art 94 (9) applies to exporters that have not cooperated in the inv estigation and for which facts 
available will be applied. Paragraph 7 of Annex II to the Anti -Dumping Agreement provides that 
where parties do not cooperate, "this situation could lead to a result that is less favourable to the 
party than if the party did cooperate." Arti cle 94(9) merely indicates the worst case scenario and in 
each investigation the facts available will be considered to determine what the actual residual duty 
will be.  
B. With respect to countervailing duty proceedings under Article 94, paragr aph (8) 
and (10), why is the residual/All Others rate a punitive rate? Article 19.4 of the 
SCM Agreement provides that " No countervailing duty shall be levied on any 
imported product in excess of the amount of the subsidy found to exist, calculated 
in terms of subsidization per unit of the subsidized and exported product." How is 
the application of the residual/All Others r ate set forth in Article 94, paragraphs 
(8) and (10), which contemplates that the residual/All Others rate of non -
examined companies could equal " the sum of the highest subsidy amounts found 
in respect of each subsidy programme,"  consistent with Article 19 .4 of the 
SCM Agreement?  
Reply : 
Art 94 (10) provides that the residual countervailing duty rate shall not exceed the highest margin 
of subsidy rate found in respect of each subsidy, that is, the facts available. Although the method of 
calculation of the r esidual countervailing duty rate has not been elaborated in the legislation, it will 
be calculated in terms of subsidization per unit in line with Art 19.4 of the SCM Agreement.  
__________