G/ADP/Q1/BHR/9, G/SCM/Q1/BHR/9  
G/SG/Q1/BHR/11, G/ADP/Q1/OMN/1  
G/SCM/Q1/OMN/1, G/SG/Q1/OMN/1 
G/ADP/Q1/SAU/3, G/SCM/Q1/SAU/3  
G/SG/Q1/SAU/5  
 
5 April 2016  
(16-1906)  Page: 1/2  
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 
QUESTIONS POSED BY THE UNITED STATES REGARDING THE NOTIFICATION OF THE  
KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN, SULTANATE OF OMAN, AND KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA1 
 
The following communication, dated 2 April 2016, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the United States.   
_______________ 
  The United States thanks the Kingdom of Bahrain, Sultanate of Oman, and Kingdom of 
Saudi Arabia for their notifications of the "Rules of Implementation of the Common Law on 
Anti-Dumping, Countervailing and Safeguard Me asures (Amended) ("Rules"), and poses the 
following questions
2: 
 
Question 1  
Article 7(1) of the Rules states that the Technica l Secretariat shall, upon receipt of a properly 
documented complaint regarding dumping or subsidization and before proceeding to initiate an investigation, notify the government of each country concerned. Please explain how soon after it is determined that an application is properly docu mented that the Technical Secretariat will make 
this notification.  
 Question 2 
 
Article 14(3) of the Rules states that interested parties participating in an investigation "shall have fair opportunities, whenever practicable and upon written request, to see information related to 
the investigation." Has the Gulf Cooperation Council's (GCC) authority published procedures 
concerning when and to whom such written requests are to be directed?  Question 3 
 
How does the GCC implement the requirement of Ar ticle 6.9 of the Agreement on Implementation 
of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs  and Trade 1994 (AD Agreement) and Article 12.8 
of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) that the authority 
inform all interested parties of the essential facts under consideration before making a final determination? 
 
                                               
1 G/ADP/N/1/BHR/3/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/BHR/2/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/1/BHR/3/Suppl.1 (dated 
16 February 2016); G/ADP/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/ 1/OMN/3/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1 (dated 
5 February 2016); and G/ADP/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.1-G/S CM/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.1 
(dated 20 January 2016). 
2 For the sake of efficiency, the Un ited States suggests that committee review for these questions be 
conducted in the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices. G/ADP/Q1/BHR/9 • G/SCM/Q1/BHR/9 • G/SG/Q1/ BHR/11 • G/ADP/Q1/OMN/1 • G/SCM/Q1/OMN/1 
• G/SG/Q1/OMN/1 • G/ADP/Q1/SAU/3 • G/SCM/Q1/SAU/3 • G/SG/Q1/SAU/5 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Question 4 
 
Article 27(5) of the Rules explains that to determine normal value "[w]hen there are no sales of the like product in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country, or 
when such sales do not permit a proper comparison because of the particular market situation or 
the low volume of the sales in the domestic mark et of the exporting country, the normal value of 
the like product shall be established on the basis of  the cost of production in the country of origin 
plus a reasonable amount for administrative selling  and general costs as well as for profit margin, 
or on the basis of export price, in the ordinary course of trade, to an appropriate third country, 
provided that this price is reasonable."   
How does the authority determine which method (i.e., costs or sales to a third-country) should be 
used to determine normal value? Could the author ity use a mix of the two methods? If so, please 
explain how it would determine the appropriate me thod for determining normal value for various 
products or sales.  
 Question 5 
 
Article 31(1)(b)(iii) of the Rules, pertaining to price effects analysis in antidumping investigations, directs the authority to examine "[w]hether the effect of such imports is to prevent price 
increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree." By contrast, 
Article 53(1)(b), pertaining to price effects analysis in countervailing duty investigations, directs 
the authority to examine whether the imports are "[p]reventing the like products prices from 
increase, which would otherwise have occurred, if such imports does [sic] not exists." 
 
a. Does the different wording (in English) of these provisions indicate that the price 
effects analysis is different in antidumping investigations than in countervailing duty 
investigations? 
b. If an applicant seeks imposition of both antidumping and countervailing duties on a 
specific product from an individual country, does the authority perform a single injury analysis or distinct injury analyses for the antidumping and countervailing duty 
investigations? 
c. What is the meaning of the phrase "does not exist" in Article 53(1)(b)? Is the authority 
required to hypothesize that the subsidized imports have exited the market? 
 
 
__________