G/ADP/Q1/USA/28  
G/SCM/Q1/USA/28  
 
29 October 2015  
(15-5716)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  Original: English  
 
 NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS 
REPLIES TO QUESTIONS1 FROM THE SEPARATE CUST OMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, 
PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU REGARDING THE NOTIFICATION 
OF THE UNITED STATES2 
 
 The following communication, dated 27 October 2015, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the United States. 
 
_______________ 
 
 Question 1 
 
(Sec. 502): Consequences of failure to coop erate with a request for information in a 
proceeding.  
Article 7 of Annex II of the WTO Anti-Dumpi ng Agreement requires that if competent 
authorities have to base their findings on  information from a secondary source, they 
should, (1) do so with special circumspecti on, and (2) where practicable, check the 
information from other independent sources at their disposal. 
 In addition, (in Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice , 
DS 295), DSU jurisprudence states in par a. 289 that "the use of the term 'best 
information' for Article 7 means that informat ion has to be not simply correct or useful 
per se , but the most fitting or 'most appropriat e' information available in the case at 
hand. Determining that something is 'best'  inevitably requires, ..., an evaluative, 
comparative assessment as the term 'best' can only be properly applied where an 
unambiguously superlative status obtains."  
In this regard, could the United States plea se elaborate further on how these WTO rules 
will be observed under the new legislation? We are particularly interested in knowing 
what approaches the U.S. competent authorit ies are adopting under the new legislation 
to ensure that the information from secondary sources that is used is the best 
information available.  Reply 
 The United States thanks the delegation from Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu for its questions. The United States cannot elaborate further on how this new 
provision will be applied in future cases as it depends on the facts and circumstances the 
administering authority has before it on the administrative record. The United States will continue to conduct its proceedings in accordance with its WTO obligations under the Anti-dumping 
Agreement and consistent with U.S. law. The Unit ed States' proceedings will also continue to be 
conducted in a fair, open, and transparent manner.  Interested parties will, as always, have the 
                                               
1 G/ADP/Q1/USA/27-G/SCM/Q1/USA/27. 
2 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.20-G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.20. G/ADP/Q1/USA/28 • G/SCM/Q1/USA/28 
 
- 2 - 
 
  opportunity to submit comments on the administrative  record with regard to any application of this 
provision in a particular proceeding.   Question 2 
 
(Sec. 504): Particular  market situation. 
 
Concerning the addition of the provision on the effect of the exis tence of a "particular 
market situation" in Section 773(e), we woul d appreciate further clarification by the 
U.S. as follows:  
a. What is the definition of a "particular ma rket situation", and what is the criteria 
for determining its existence? 
b. If finished products are made in a country where a "particular market 
situation" is not determined to exist, yet the producers of such finished goods 
use parts and components imported from a third-party market where a "particular market situation" is determined to exist, in the view of the U.S., 
what will be the legal implications for th e specific producers with regard to the 
calculation methodology?  
Reply 
 
With respect to the first part of the question regarding the definition of "particular market 
situation," the United States notes that the term "particular market situation" appears in Article 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, but is  not defined. Similarly, the term "particular 
market situation" is referenced in 19 U.S.C. se c. 1677(15), 1677b(a), and 1677b(e) of the statute, 
but also is not defined. Because "particular market situation" is not defined in either the Anti-dumping Agreement or in U.S. law, the United States cannot provide a specific definition of 
"particular market situation" or elaborate on what criteria the United States might use for 
determining its existence in a future case. Again, as in the response to the first question, it will it depend on the facts and circumstances the administering authority has before it on the administrative record.  
 
With respect to the second part of this question, which asks about the legal implications for producers of finished products that use parts or inputs from a country where a "particular market 
situation" is determined to exist, once again, it will depend on the facts and circumstances the 
administering authority has before it on the administrative record.    
The United States will continue to apply its anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws in a fair, 
open, and transparent manner, and will provide the opportunity for all interested parties to submit 
comments on the administrative record.    
__________