G/ADP/Q2/ARG/3  
23 May 2014  
(14-3091)  Page: 1/10  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  Original: Spanish  
 
  ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF AN TI-DUMPING DUTY ACTIONS 
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY PERU1 
REGARDING THE SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT FROM ARGENTINA2 
The following communication, dated 16 May 2014, is being circulated at the request 
of the delegation of Argentina. 
_______________ 
  QUESTIONS 
ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATION BY ARGENTINA CONCERNING IMPORTS 
OF COPPER-BASED FUNGICIDES ORIGINAT ING IN PERU AND OTHER COUNTRIES 
Pursuant to Resolution SCE 48/13 of 11 Ap ril 2013, published in the Official Journal 
of the Argentine Republic on 18 April 2013, the Foreign Trade Secretariat of Argentina 
(SCEX) decided to initiate an  investigation into alleged dumping practices concerning 
exports of copper hydroxide-based fungicid es originating in Peru, Uruguay, Chile 
and the United States. 
In this regard, since Peru believes that compliance with the obligations provided 
for in the Anti-Dumping Agreement should be strictly monitored by this Committee, it would be grateful if the Government of Argentina could answer the following 
questions: 
RELEVANT ASPECTS OF ANTI-DUM PING RULES AND PROCEDURES 
Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides that, to determine the existence 
of dumping, the investigating authority shall make a fair comparison between the export 
price and the normal value and that due allowance shall be made in each case, on its merits, for differences which affect  price comparability, including differences 
in conditions and terms of sale, taxation , levels of trade, quantities, physical 
characteristics, and any other differences  which are also demonstrated to affect 
price comparability. 
In this investigation, SCEX ordered the initiation of the procedure considering normal 
value to be the price of the product under  investigation obtained by the applicant 
company, as per a quotation made to the Peruvian export company, for quantities far smaller than those that this company expo rts to Argentina (the price quotation was 
for 120 kg as opposed to 20,000 kg exported by the company). In this respect, 
the adjustments required under Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement were not 
made, thereby significantly affecting the price comparability for the purposes 
of calculating the dumping margin. 
                                               
1 G/ADP/Q2/ARG/2. 
2 G/ADP/N/252/ARG. G/ADP/Q2/ARG/3 
- 2 - 
  Furthermore, it should be noted that Ar ticle 6.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
provides that all interested parties in an an ti-dumping investigation shall be given notice 
of the information which the authorities require and ample opportunity to present 
in writing all evidence which they consider  relevant in respect of the investigation 
in question. 
In this regard, the Peruvian export company duly submitted the Exporter's 
Questionnaire within the time-limits stipulat ed by Argentine legislation, accompanied 
by extensive supporting evidence, which show ed that there was no margin of dumping 
for its exports to Argentina during the investigation period. 
It should be noted that the Exporter's Questionnaire and all the documentary evidence 
were submitted on 24 May 2013, that is, two months before the issuing 
of the preliminary determination of dump ing report dated 26 July 2013, in which 
the investigating authority stated that it had determined a dumping margin of 54.26% 
for exports of the product under investigatio n originating in Peru. On that occasion, 
the investigating authority stated that for the calculation of the normal value only 
the information submitted by the applicant was taken into account. 
On 5 July 2013, the investigating authority requested further information from 
the Peruvian company, which was submitted on 28 August 2013, that is, five months 
before the issuing of the report on the pr eliminary determination of injury to the 
domestic industry and its causal link with the dumping determined, dated 6 February 2014. This report did not take into account the information submitted by the 
company for the determination of the dumping margin, and as a result did not make 
the adjustments to the normal value that were requested by the Peruvian company. 
In view of the foregoing, would Argentina please explain the following: 
1. How did the investigating authority dete rmine that the application contained such 
information as is reasonably available to th e applicant regarding the prices at which the 
product exported to Peru is sold, if ba sed solely on the amounts of two invoices? 
2. How did the investigating authority exam ine the accuracy and adequacy of this 
information within the meaning of Arti cle 5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
to determine whether there was sufficient evid ence of dumping to justify the initiation 
of an investigation? 
Reply 
In relation to Peru's questions 1 and 2, it should  be noted that the article cited above establishes 
procedural obligations on both the party applying for the initiation of an investigation for alleged 
dumping and the competent investigating authority. 
Thus, Article 5.2 states that " An application under paragraph 1 shall include evidence 
of (a) dumping, (b) injury within the meaning of Article VI of GATT 1994 as interpreted by 
this Agreement and (c) a causal link between the dumped imports and the alleged injury. 
Simple assertion, unsubstantiated by relevant ev idence, cannot be considered sufficient to meet 
the requirements of this paragraph. The applicatio n shall contain such information as is reasonably 
available to the applicant on the following: 
(i) the identity of the applicant and a descriptio n of the volume and value of the domestic 
production of the like product by the applicant. Where a written application is made on behalf of the domestic industry, the applic ation shall identify the industry on behalf 
of which the application is made by a list of all known domestic producers of the like 
product (or associations of domestic producers of the like product) and, to the extent possible, a description of the volume and value of domestic production of the like 
product accounted for by such producers; G/ADP/Q2/ARG/3 
- 3 - 
  (ii) a complete description of the allegedly du mped product, the names of the country 
or countries of origin or export in question, the identity of each known exporter or foreign producer and a list of known persons importing the product in question; 
(iii) information on prices at which the product in question is sold when destined for 
consumption in the domestic markets of the country or countries of origin or export 
(or, where appropriate, information on the prices at which the product is sold from the country or countries of origin or export to a third country or countries, or on the 
constructed value of the product) and information on export prices or, where 
appropriate, on the prices at which the product is first resold to an independent buyer in the territory of the importing Member; 
(iv) information on the evolution of the volume of the allegedly dumped imports, the effect 
of these imports on prices of the like product in the domestic market and the 
consequent impact of the imports on the domestic industry, as demonstrated by relevant factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry, 
such as those listed in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 3. " 
The first paragraph of the provision in question establishes the obligation upon those who apply for 
the initiation of an investigation to substantiate their claims with evidence sufficient for the 
purpose. However, the same provision qualifies this responsibility, since the evidentiary 
requirement has to be understood as being within the limits of what is reasonably available. 
On 11 September 2012, the firm TORT VALLS S.A applied for the initiation of an investigation 
for alleged dumping in operations involving the export to the ARGENTINE REPUBLIC of fungicides 
based on copper hydroxide, copper oxychloride or cuprous oxide that do not contain 
bromomethane (methyl bromide) or bromochloromethane, presented in forms or packaging different from those used in household applications, originating in the REPUBLIC OF CHILE, the 
REPUBLIC OF PERU, the ORIENTAL REPUBLIC OF URUGUAY and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
To meet the requirements of Article 5.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the applicant attached 
to its application evidence of normal value, togeth er with evidence relating to the export prices 
corresponding to each of the offending origins. All this on the understanding that the information 
in question was that which was reasonably available. In this connection, it should be noted on the form used to apply for the initiation of an investigation, in accordance with SECTION 1 of Resolution 293/08, the applicant attached  a sworn statement reading as follows: " In my 
capacity as legal representative of the firm whose data are recorded in this form, I declare that all 
the information supplied is complete and accurate… ". The statement continues: " In my turn, 
I promise that the Secretariat will be informed of any change in any or all of the data here 
recorded, and declare that I am aware that the information recorded may be verified by the 
technical personnel of the Competent Authority, subject to the company's consent ". 
Where Article 5.3 is concerned, the text can be understood to mean that the Investigating 
Authority is under an obligation to examine the information provided in the application 
and, moreover, determine " … whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation 
of an investigation ". 
As follows from the record of the proceedings relating to the investigation in question, once 
the applicant firm had made its presentation, th e technical services proceeded to examine all 
the information submitted.  
Thus, after an objective and impartial examination of all the evidence submitted by the applicant, 
the Investigating Authority found that it was sufficient to initiate an investigation for the reported 
origins: the REPUBLIC OF CHILE, the REPUBLIC  OF PERU, the ORIENTAL  REPUBLIC OF URUGUAY 
and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Accordingly, it is clear that the Authority fulfilled its 
obligations under the article cited by objectively examining all the evidence provided and was 
therefore in a position to decide to initiate the investigation in question. 
Within this context, after examining the information/documentation attached to the application for 
the initiation of an investigation, the Technical Office concluded that, at this stage of the G/ADP/Q2/ARG/3 
- 4 - 
  proceedings, it constituted sufficient evidence of  dumping for the Authority, provided the injury 
and causal link requirements were met, to decide to open an investigation. 
Accordingly, as noted in the Feasibility Report on the Initiation of an Investigation 
of 20 November 2012 (Pt II, p. 240), approved by the Authority on 29 November 2012 
(Pt II, p. 258), " VI.- TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF THE I NFORMATION, VI.A.- ELEMENTS FOR 
THE DETERMINATION OF THE NORMAL VALUE ", the evidence of normal value considered 
for the REPUBLIC OF PERU consisted of " Current prices of the product forming the subject 
of the investigation quoted on the domestic market of the REPUBLIC OF PERU, submitted 
confidentially with the corresponding public  summary consisting of Tables 1/A and 1/B 
(Pt I, pp. 35/36 and 70/74) ", which is consistent with the requirements of the provisions 
applicable, in particular with Articles 5.2 and 5.3 of the Agreement, thus enabling the Investigating 
Authority, after completion of the relevant analysis by the Technical Office, to decide on 
the initiation of an investigation , in accordance with the regulations in force. 
Finally, within the context of Resolution 293/ 08, the applicant company attached to its 
presentation the "Final Act" in which it is noted that the technical services, 
the TRADE SECRETARIAT and the NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE COMMISSION, involved with the application for an investigation for unfair trading practices in the form of dumping believed that 
"… the basic qualitative and quantitative information of Resolution No. 293/08 was complete. ". 
3. Which Article of the Anti-Dumping Agr eement did Argentina use as a basis for not 
taking into account all of the information provided by the Peruvian exporter when 
establishing its preliminary dumping report, especially since the report states that 
"the processing and analysis of all the do cumentation in the record at this stage 
of the investigation have provided elements  in support of a pre liminary determination 
of a margin of dumping ... ", and a review of the report shows that no account 
whatsoever has been taken of the inform ation in question? Similarly, why, 
in the evidence submitted dated 6 Se ptember 2013, was it stated that " the preliminary 
determination report will be based on  the information received to date " when this was 
not the case? 
Reply 
The procedure for handling the investigation in question was governed by Decree No. 1393/08, 
which implements the Agreement on Implementati on of Article VI of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade 1994, incorporated into Argentina's domestic legal system by Law No. 24.425. 
This Decree establishes the procedural rules to be followed by both the interested parties and the Investigating Authority. In this connection, it is worth noting that the investigations are 
structured in three phases: Initiation, Preliminary Determination and Final Determination, in each 
of which it is necessary to complete various formalities, subject to time-limits laid down in the regulations. 
First of all, some observations are called for rega rding the importance of respecting the prescribed 
time-limits in administrative proceedings, in order to make it quite clear to the consulting party that the Argentine Investigating Authority always acted within the framework of the governing legislation. 
Article 80, paragraph 2 of Decree No. 1393/08 on investigations for alleged dumping states that 
"… the procedure for the application of anti-dumping and countervailing duties for which this 
Decree provides shall be governed suppletively by the National Law on Administrative Procedures 
No. 19.549 and the Regulations on Administrative Procedures – Decree 1759/72 T.O. 1991. 
In this suppletive application, special attention shall be paid to observance of the time-limits 
laid down in this decree. ". 
Law No. 19.549 establishes the general principles governing proceedings initiated in the Argentine 
public service. In particular, Article 1(e)(1) of the Law stipulates that " (e) – Concerning 
time-limits: (1) – They shall be mandatory for the interested parties and for the public service ". 
Clearly, this provision establishes an obligation upon both the interested parties and the Authority 
to complete all the formalities within the time-limits laid down for each stage of the proceedings. 
Although this general principle, applicable to anti-dumping investigations, is diluted by G/ADP/Q2/ARG/3 
- 5 - 
  the opportunity available to the parties to request extensions, the latter are not unlimited, 
as established by Article 6.1.1 in fine  of the Anti-Dumping Agreement which, in this connection, 
states: " Due consideration should be given to any request for an extension of the 30-day period 
and, upon cause shown, such an extension should be granted whenever practicable. ". 
Although each and all of the presentations made  by the exporting company, like the requests 
made by the Authority, are represented in the corresponding Preliminary Determination Report, the last request made to SALDECO prior to the preparation of the Technical Report on 
the Preliminary Determination stage is reproduced below in order to demonstrate the existence, 
in this case, of the conditions required by Article 6.8, as well of those set out in Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement, for the Argentine Authority to proceed on the basis of the facts available. 
Thus, once the Resolution initiating the investigation had been issued and published, the fact was 
notified to all the interested parties, this under Article 13 of Decree No. 1393/08 and Article 6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Peruvian  exporter was notified through Note DNGCE 
No. 780/13 (Pt III, p. 511) of 30 April 2013 and was also sent the Questionnaire for 
the Producer/Exporter in which it was expressly informed that: " For all purposes, refusal to provide 
the information requested, delay in providing it beyond the time-limit laid down or impeding in 
any way the investigation will authorize the FOREIGN TRADE SECRETARIAT to make preliminary 
or definitive findings on the basis of the facts available. ". 
On 5 July 2013, through Note DNGCE No. 2402/13, with reference to the information attached 
in File No. S01: 0109357/2013, requests were made to the Peruvian exporter concerning: 
1. "Section A – General Information 
1.1. Provide the information requested in items (1) to ( 7) bearing in mind that they 
are not included in the presentation made. 
1.2. Complete Annex III "List of Importers of the Product under Investigation in 
the Argentine Republic and Third Countries" with those importers located in third countries, other than the Argentine Republic. Also attach the 
corresponding public summary of the annex, which can be done by indicating 
the number of importers for each country. 
1.3. Provide the information relating to the company requested in Annex V 
"Information on the Market of the Produc er/Exporter" bearing in mind that that 
relating to Company Production, Utilization of Installed Capacity and Changes 
in Stocks has been marked s/d (no data). 
2. Section B – Exports to the Argentine Republic 
2.1. You are requested to supplement the public summary of Annex VIII submitted 
by enclosing one that contains the totals in absolute amounts of each numerical field of the annex for the entire investigation period. 
3. Section C – Sales Made on the Domestic Market and to Third Countries 
3.1. Certify the list of sales operations carried out on the domestic market 
(Annex IX) for the period examined by public accountant and have it authenticated by the professional counc il, college or body authorized for the 
purpose, as indicated in Section C (7), Annex IX. 
3.2. You are requested to supplement the public summary of Annex IX submitted 
by enclosing one that contains the totals  in absolute amounts of each numerical 
field of the annex for the entire investigation period. G/ADP/Q2/ARG/3 
- 6 - 
  4. Section D – Structure of Production Costs and Constructed Value 
4.1. Complete and attach Annex XI "Cost Structure of the Goods Subject 
to Investigation on the Domestic Market" and Annex XII "Monthly Unit Costs of the Goods Sold on the Domestic Market". Note that the cost structures will 
have to be certified by a public accountant and authenticated by 
the professional council/college, as required in Section D (1). (…) 
Without prejudice to the requests made herein, the Competent Authority may seek further 
information and/or clarifications once the whole of the information pertaining to the company has 
been provided and examined. 
Finally, it should be noted that the information supplied in each of the presentations made by the 
firm you represent will be examined in the corresp onding stage of the proceedings, provided that 
the legal and formal requirements of the legislation in force are met. 
A period of FIFTEEN (15) calendar days from receipt of this [Note] is laid down for the purpose 
of compliance with the above stipulations …". 
The Note also asked for the enclosure of a digi tal version of the information provided in the 
presentation and subsequent presentations, as requested under the heading "Objectives and Scope" in the Exporter's Questionnair e (Pt XIII, p. 870 and Pt XIV, p. 914). 
It is important to re-emphasize that this Note was the last to be sent before the production of the 
Report on the Preliminary Determination of the Ma rgin of Dumping, dated 26 July 2013. This is in 
keeping with Article 21 of Decree 1393/08 which states that: 
"By at the latest ONE HUNDRED (100) days after the initiation of the investigation the 
Undersecretariat will proceed to issue a preliminary determination of the existence of dumping 
or subsidy, using the evidence available at that stage ". 
Thus, considering that the initiation of the investigation was ordered by Resolution ex SCEX No. 48 
of 11 April 2013, published in the Official Journal of 18 April 2013, it is clear that the investigation 
was already at the time-limit specified by the legislation for the production of the Report on the Preliminary Determination of the Margin of Dumping. 
Therefore, it must be reiterated that the Invest igating Authority found itself obliged to use the 
information presented by the applicant under Arti cle 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement since the 
Peruvian producer/exporter failed to provide information within a reasonable period, so that it could be examined and, if appropriate, taken into account in the preliminary stage, which again 
goes to show that the information supplied at the time was incomplete and, consequently, that 
the Authority lacked consistent information that could have been taken into account in calculating the margin of dumping. 
Consequently, regarding the claim "… shows that no account whatsoever has been taken of the 
information in question ", it is important to remember that in preparing the corresponding reports 
the Investigating Authority must consider consistent information with respect to which there are 
no pending clarifications that could give rise to errors or distortions in the analysis. This approach 
finds support in Article 6.6 of the Agreemen t on Implementation of Article VI of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, according to which "… the authorities shall during 
the course of an investigation satisfy themselves  as to the accuracy of the information supplied 
by interested parties upon which their findings are based. ". 
Thus, if certain information supplied does not satisfy the above parameters, it cannot be used 
as a basis for calculation immediately after being supplied, but rather only after the particulars 
needed by the Investigating Authority to correct any errors and omissions detected have 
been provided. 
To proceed otherwise would mean considering information which far from making a valuable 
contribution to the investigation, would produce erroneous and unsubstantiated results, G/ADP/Q2/ARG/3 
- 7 - 
  thus preventing the Authority from making a proper analysis based on consistent information that 
would make it possible to obtain objective, reasonable and realistic results. 
Moreover, in the above-mentioned Note it was pointed out that "… it should be noted that the 
information supplied in each of the presentations made by the firm you represent will be examined 
in the corresponding stage of the proceedings, pr ovided that the legal and formal requirements 
of the legislation in force are met". 
4. The above notwithstanding, and on the assumption that the information 
and documentation submitted by the Peruvian company may not have been " ideal ", how 
does the investigating authority explain its decision to omit this information 
and documentation, when paragraph 5 of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
stipulates that this should not justify the au thorities disregarding information, provided 
that the interested party has "act ed to the best of its ability"? 
Reply 
As indicated in the preceding paragraphs, to which reference should be made, the impossibility 
of using the information provided by the company for calculating the margin of dumping in 
the Preliminary Determination stage of the investigation was based exclusively on the continued existence of errors and omissions in th e information supplied by the exporter. 
As pointed out, the Argentine Authority relied, in the Preliminary Determination stage, on the facts 
of which it was aware, as provided for in Arti cle 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, owing to 
the deficiencies identified in the presentations made by the producer-exporter. The firm in question was duly notified of this in the above-mentioned Note DNGCE No. 780/13 (Pt III, p. 511) 
of 30 April 2013. Moreover, it should be reiterated that in the Questionnaire for the 
Producer/Exporter, it was expressly stated on page 2 under the heading " NOTIFIES ": 
"That [he], in his capacity of owner/legal representative of the firm whose particulars are 
recorded below, declares on oath that all the information set out in these pages conforms with 
reality and undertakes immediately to inform th e SECRETARIAT OF FOREIGN TRADE of any change 
in any or all of the data recorded herein. 
 That, for all purposes, refusal to provide the information requested, delay in providing 
it beyond the time-limit laid down or impeding in any way the investigation will authorise the FOREIGN TRADE SECRETARIAT to make preliminary or definitive findings on the basis of the facts available."  
Moreover, on page 3 of the aforemention ed Questionnaire, under the heading " INSTRUCTIONS ON 
COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE PR ODUCER/EXPORTER - OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ", 
it is indicated that " All the information supplied is subject to possible verification by the Competent 
Authority. If it is not possible to verify the re plies satisfactorily, or if they are incomplete 
or supplied after the time-limit has expired, de terminations will be made based on the best 
information available. ". 
Thus, the Authority complied with paragraph 1 of Annex II where it is stated that " The authorities 
should also ensure that the party is aware that if information is not supplied within a reasonable 
time, the authorities will be free to make determinations on the basis of the facts available, including those contained in the application for the initiation of the investigation by 
the domestic industry. ". 
5. Considering that the Peruvian export company submitted, inter alia , the Exporter's 
Questionnaire, additional written clarificat ion and further evidence, why does Argentina 
not consider the information submitted by th at company to have been provided "to the 
best of its ability"? What is the scope of this concept for the Argentine authority? 
Similarly, pursuant to Article 6.8 and Anne x II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, which 
"best information available" did Argent ina use to formulate the preliminary 
determinations of dumping margin and injury? G/ADP/Q2/ARG/3 
- 8 - 
  Reply 
In this respect, for the sake of brevity, please  refer to the observations made above regarding 
the lack of complete information and documentation from the Peruvian exporter, it being recalled that the Investigating Authority found itself obliged to use the information supplied by the 
applicant under Article 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement since the Peruvian Producer/Exporter 
failed to complete the exporter's questionnaire within the reasonable time-limit necessary for it to be taken into account in the preliminary stage. 
This notwithstanding and as follows from the record of the proceedings, listed below are all 
the presentations made by and requests ad dressed to the exporter SALES Y DERIVADOS 
DEL COBRE S.A (SALDECO) between the last Note prior to production of the Preliminary Determination report and the present: 
 On 9 May 2013 by file S01:0097016/2013 the firm introduced itself and established its 
legal status. 
 On 21 May 2013 by file S01:0106309/2013 the fi rm submitted financial statements for 
2011 and 2012. 
 On 24 May 2013 by file S01:0109357/2013 the fi rm submitted its reply to the exporter's 
questionnaire (incomplete). 
 On 14 June 2013 by file S01:0125486/2013 the firm supplied invoices for sales on the 
domestic market. 
 On 5 July 2013 by Note DNGCE No. 2402/13 it was sent the Note on Errors and 
Omissions relating to the presentations made by the firm on the basis of the 
above-mentioned Producer/Exporter Questionnaire. 
 The firm replied to the Errors and Omissions Note with successive partial presentations 
made by means of: 
 Files S01:0159026/2013 of 30 July 2013 with which it enclosed General Information, 
items 1 to 7, Annex III with Public Summary, new Annex V, new Public Summary of Annex VIII, new Public Summary of Anne x IX and confidential Annexes XI and XII 
uncertified; 
 File S01:0171722/2013 of 13 August 2013 with  which it enclosed Annexes VIII, IX, 
XI and XII certified by public accountant, and file S01:0173939/2013 of 15 August 2013 in which it again enclosed a Public Summary of Annexes VIII and 
IX and Public Summaries of Annexes XI and XII; and 
 File S01:0185179/2013 of 28 August 2013 with which it enclosed SALDECO's copper 
purchases in Peru in confidential form and new Annex XI with its corresponding 
public summary, as there was an error in the previous version. 
 Subsequently a new Errors and Omissions Note was sent out with the following requests: 
1. Section B – Exports to the Argentine Republic 
1.1. Please enclose documentation in support of the adjustments for domestic 
freight, packaging costs, commission s and drawback, as required by 
the Exporter's Questionnaire. 
2. Section C – Sales Made on the Domestic Market and to Third Countries 
2.1. Please enclose documentation in support of the adjustments for domestic 
freight and insurance and packaging costs. G/ADP/Q2/ARG/3 
- 9 - 
  The Note also mentioned that: 
"Without prejudice to what is requested herein, the Competent Authority may seek further 
information and/or clarifications once the whole of the information pertaining to the company has been provided and examined. 
Finally, it should be noted that the informatio n supplied in each of the presentations made 
by the firm you represent will be examined in  the corresponding stage of the proceedings, 
provided that the legal and formal requirements of the legislation in force are met. " 
 The firm replied to this Errors and Omissions Note with successive partial presentations 
made by means of: 
 File S01:0279960/2013 of 18 December 2013 enclosing documentation in support 
of drawback; 
 File S01:0017861/2014 of 28 January 2014 enclosing documentation in support 
of domestic freight and insurance for sales made on the domestic market (partial) and the methodology for calculating packaging costs; 
 File S01:0023128/2014 of 5 February 2014 enclosing more documentation in support 
of domestic freight and insurance for sales made on the domestic market; 
 File S01:0031201/2014 of 14 February 2014 in which it corrected the methodology 
for calculating packaging costs, and File S01:0038886/2014 of 25 February 2014 
enclosing documentation in support of the adjustment for commissions; and 
 File S01:0048916/2014 of 12 March 2014 enclosing new Annex XI and its public 
summary, following the detection of a typi ng error, and documentation in support 
of the adjustment for commissions. 
The realities of the situation are illustrated, for ex ample, by the fact that Annex IX (information 
concerning the Producer/Exporter's sales on the domestic market), which is of undeniable 
relevance for the purpose of calculating the margin of dumping and which forms part of the 
Exporter's Questionnaire, was not submitted on time and in due form during the preliminary stage. 
It is worth noting that the Argentine Republic has adopted a two-pronged system for examining 
cases of trade protection. Thus, in dumping investigations whereas the FOREIGN TRADE 
UNDERSECRETARIAT (SSCE) is responsible for determining the existence of dumping, it is the NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE COMMISSION (CNCE) that  is charged with determining the existence 
of injury to the domestic industry  and, where appropriate, its causal link with the dumped imports 
investigated, the investigation being pursued in two parallel proceedings. 
This having been clarified and insofar as Peru's question also inquires about the determination 
of injury and about the "best available information" used by Argentina in making it, it should 
be noted that, as indicated in File CNCE No. 41/12 of 6 September 2013, " the CNCE's technical 
team will base its Technical Report preceding the Preliminary Determination (ITDP) on the information received to date ". 
In this context, and in this stage of the investigation (preliminary), in conformity with Article 6.8 
and Annex II of the ADA the information supplied by the different companies accredited as parties to the investigation in progress up to the aforementioned 6 September 2013 was considered, together with the official data relevant to the preparation of the various sections that formed part 
of the Technical Report preceding the Preliminary Determination  (ITDP). That report served as the 
basis for the Board of Directors of the CNCE to carry out its Preliminary Determination of injury and, together with the Preliminary Report on the Margin of Dumping, establish a causal link. 
That is to say, there was complete compliance with the provisions of Article 6.8 and Annex II 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, insofar as the determination was based on the best information 
available at the time it was issued. G/ADP/Q2/ARG/3 
- 10 - 
  It should be noted that in a subsequent phase of the investigation the Essential Facts Report will 
be drawn up; this will contain all the information deemed to be relevant at the time of the final determination. Thus, the report in question will include, in addition to the aspects considered 
in the ITDP, information relating to the domestic and international markets, the offering and 
production of evidence, the updating of imports and, where appropriate, the reports on 
any verifications carried out. Within this framework, as stated in Article 6.9 of the ADA, "The authorities shall ... inform all interested pa rties of the essential fa cts under consideration 
which form the basis for the decision whether to apply definitive measures. ". 
6. Does Argentina believe th at it granted the Peruvian export company the right 
of defence, as provided for in Article 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, insofar as 
it did not take into account the informat ion from that company when determining 
the margin of dumping? 
Reply 
As already noted, in all the stages through which the investigation passed (Initiation 
and Preliminary), the Argentine Authority set forth, in reports, minutes, opinions and resolutions, 
all the issues of fact and law that influenced it in arriving at its determinations. 
Thus, from the initiation of the investigation, the known parties having been notified, the duly 
accredited interested parties not only came forward to submit information and documentation 
and to inspect the record of the proceedings but al so requested all the extensions they considered 
necessary to defend their interests. 
In this connection, it should be noted that during the investigation forming the subject of the 
consultation, the record of the proceedings was permanently at the disposal of the interested 
parties so that they could inspect the documentation and corroborate its contents; moreover, they were granted all the extensions requested pursuant to the provisions of the rules applicable, 
in particular Articles 6.2 and 6.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, as previously described. 
For these reasons it is not possible to shar e the views expressed by the representatives 
of the Republic of Peru since, as has been shown, the Argentine Authority proceeded, in all 
respects, in accordance with the applicable legislation; in particular, the Investigating Authority 
cannot be blamed for not having granted the right of defence to the parties involved when it is 
the Peruvian exporter that has so far failed to su pply the requested information on time and in due 
form, even though granted the extensions for which it applied.  
__________