G/ADP/Q1/CHL/6  
G/SCM/Q1/CHL/6  
G/SG/Q1/CHL/4  
 
22 October 2013  
(13-5808)  Page: 1/5  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Committee on Safeguards  Original: Spanish
 
 
  NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER  
ARTICLES 18.5, 32.6 AND 12.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS  
REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONS POSED BY THE UNITED STATES1 
REGARDING THE NOTIFICATION OF CHILE2 
The following communication, dated 18 October 2013, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Chile.  
_______________ 
  
General
3 
 1. Article 8 of the Regulations states th at the National Commission created under 
Article 9 of Law No. 18.525 (hereinafter "the Commission") may invite persons or 
institutions to attend Commission meetings  when at least three Commission members 
vote to invite them. However, it is not cl ear in what capacity these invitees operate 
(e.g. to provide additional information, to clarify information on the record, to present 
new evidence relevant to the case, to vote  on matters before the Commission, etc.). 
Could Chile please clarify the status and role  of these invitees to Commission meetings? 
In addition, when such invitees attend Commission meetings, will a summary of the 
meeting be placed on the official case record? 
 Reply 
 
Within the framework of an investigation, the purpose of invitees attending Commission meetings 
under Article 8 of the Regulations is for advisors of the institutions represented or experts in the matters under investigation to provide the Commission with additional information or clarifications 
relevant to the case under investigation. Invitees do not have the right to vote or take part in 
discussions, but their statements are included in Commission meeting minutes.  
A copy of all the minutes of the Commission meetings relevant to a case is included in the public 
record of the investigation.   
                                               
1 G/ADP/Q1/CHL/5-G/SCM/Q1/CHL/5-G/SG/Q1/CHL/3. 
2 G/ADP/N/1/CHL/2/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/CHL/2/Suppl .1-G/SG/N/1/CHL/2/Suppl.2 (dated 13 May 2013). 
3 For the sake of efficiency, the United States suggests that a committee review for the "General" 
question be conducted in the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices. G/ADP/Q1/CHL/6 • G/SCM/Q1/CHL/6 • G/SG/Q1/CHL/4 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Safeguards 
 2. Articles 14 and 17 of the Regulations se t out timelines for conducting the initial 
portions of safeguard investigations, star ting with the filing of an application. 
The timelines indicate that the competent author ities have up to 20 days to consider the 
application and publish the initiation through a notice, and up to 90 days in which to complete an investigation. Article 24 of  the Regulations further provides that the 
competent authorities have up to 30 days from  initiation of the investigation to make 
a recommendation for a provisional measure. However, the Regulations do not appear 
to specify time periods for making determin ations of serious injury, or for making 
decisions on whether to apply a safeguard measure. 
 
a. Please provide a typical schedule of even ts for an investigation, beginning with 
the day on which the application is filed to the day on which a safeguard would 
be expected to take effect, if imposed.  
Reply 
 
Schedule for a safeguard investigation: see figure 1.  
b. Please also explain whether the time pe riod for making a recommendation for 
a provisional measure would overlap with the 90-day period for making a serious injury determination. 
Reply 
 
The 30 days from initiation of the investigation for making a recommendation for the application of 
a provisional measure are part of the 90 days for completing the investigation. It should be noted 
that a serious injury determination is twofold: firstly, a preliminary determination that increased imports have caused or are threatening to cause serious injury, as required by the reasoned 
decision regarding provisional measures; and secondly, completion of the investigation and the 
possible recommendation of the application of a final measure.  
c. Please clarify whether these are working days or calendar days. 
Reply 
 
Unless it is specifically stated that they are calendar days, all time periods referred to in the 
Regulations are working days.  
 3. Article 24 of the Regulations states "{ w}here the interested party has requested 
the application of a provisional measure at the same time as requesting the initiation of 
an investigation, the Commission shall rule on  that request in the same act as that in 
which it rules on the initiation of the inve stigation". In this situation, given that 
interested parties (outside of the applican t) are not notified of the existence of 
an application until initiation, how will the Ch ilean authorities ensu re that interested 
parties are given ample opportunity to defend their interests on the issue of the application of provisional measures? In ot her words, how will the Chilean authorities 
ensure that their actions are consistent wi th the requirements in Article 3.1 of the 
WTO Agreement on Safeguards?  
Reply  
 
According to the Agreement on Safeguards, provisional measures may be adopted during the course of an investigation in critical circumstances where delay would cause damage to the 
domestic industry which it would be difficult to repair. In particular, with regard to the 
recommendation and application of provisional measures, all of the pertinent requirements of Articles 2 to 7 and 12 (including the notification  requirement under Article 12.4) have been met, 
in accordance with Article 6 of the Agreement on Safeguards, under which interested parties may 
defend their interests. Furthermore, as estab lished by Article 39 of the Regulations, parties 
affected by provisional measures may request a full  refund of the amount paid, if a decision is G/ADP/Q1/CHL/6 • G/SCM/Q1/CHL/6 • G/SG/Q1/CHL/4 
 
- 3 - 
 
  finally taken not to apply definiti ve measures, or a refund of the difference, if the amount of the 
definitive measures applied is lower.  4. Article 25 of the Regulations states "A t any stage of the investigation, whether 
ex officio or at the request of the inte rested party, the Commission may recommend 
to the President of the Republic, through the Ministry of Finance, that the provisional measures be modified or repealed". 
 
a. Please confirm that parties would be able to provide comments prior to any 
modification of duties. 
Reply 
 
The process for modifying a provisional measure is governed by the criteria set out in the reply 
to Question 3 . 
 
b. In instances where Chile will modify or  repeal provisional measures, will the 
rationale for making such a decisi on be disclosed to the parties? 
Reply 
 
The minutes of Commission meetings contain all of the decisions taken by the Commission as well as the rationale for these decisions. The minutes are included in the public record of the investigation and are available for consultation on the Commission website ( http://www.cndp.cl ). 
 
c. Through this Article, could provis ional measures also be increased? 
Reply 
 
Yes. 
 
d. If provisional measures are reduced as a result of this modification, could Chile 
please confirm that any duties paid in  excess of the revised measure would 
be refunded? 
Reply 
 
As indicated in the reply to Question 3, interested parties affected by provisional measures may 
request a refund upon conclusion of the invest igation, but only of the difference between the 
amount of the provisional measure and the amount of the final measure.  
5. Article 26 of the Regulations refers to the issuing of a "reasoned resolution" that 
the requirements for applying a measure ha ve been met and identifies certain types 
of findings and reasoned conclusions to be in cluded therein. Please  explain whether this 
"resolution" equates to the "report" referred to at the end of Article 3.1 of the 
WTO Agreement on Safeguards, and whether th is report or resolution will contain the 
"findings and reasoned conclusions on all pert inent issues of fact and law" as required 
by Article 3.1 of the Safeguards Agreemen t. Please also explain whether the same 
answer would apply in the case of a "rea soned resolution" under Article 31 of the 
Regulations regarding an extension of a sa feguard measure. If the required report 
is separate from the resolution, please explain how the report will be released 
to parties. 
 Reply 
 The resolution setting forth the findings and reasoned conclusions does indeed correspond to the report referred to in Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards. Likewise, the reasoned resolution referred to in Article 31 of the Regulations is th e same as that mentioned in Article 26 of the 
Regulations. All of the above is set out in the minutes of the respective Commission meeting, 
which are available for public consultation on its website.  G/ADP/Q1/CHL/6 • G/SCM/Q1/CHL/6 • G/SG/Q1/CHL/4 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Anti-Dumping 
 6. Article 40 of the Regulation states  "Investigations for the application 
of anti-dumping and countervailing duties sh all be conducted in accordance with the 
rules and procedures laid down in Law No. 18.525, the Agreement on Implementation 
of Article VI of the GATT 1994, the Ag reement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures, the GATT 1994, and these Regulation s". In case of a discrepancy between 
these Regulations and the aforementioned Agreements, which will hold precedence? 
 Reply 
 
The international agreements in question are also incorporated into Chilean laws, which 
complement and develop Law No. 18.525. In th e event of a discrepancy between these legal 
provisions and the Regulations, the law will hold precedence. 
 
7. Article 55 of the Regulations states in pa rt that "In the case of exporters of the 
product subject to investigation, questionnaires shall be deemed to have been received 
one week after the date on which they were se nt to the respondent or transmitted to the 
appropriate diplomatic representative of th e exporting country". Please confirm that 
Chile will send questionnaires directly to  known exporters of subject merchandise. 
Reply 
 
Questionnaires are indeed also sent directly to known exporters.  
8. Article 64 seems to indicate that the Pres ident of the Republic either affirmatively 
confirms or vetoes every proposed anti -dumping and countervailing duty measure, 
or may have the option to modify the proposed measure. Please confirm this 
understanding of Article 64 and describe the procedures that would be followed if the 
President were to modify the proposed measure.  Reply 
 This understanding of Article 64 is correct. Pursuant to Article 10 of Law No. 18.525, the President of the Republic determines the goods to which anti-dumping duties and countervailing 
duties will apply, as well as their amount and their duration (which may not exceed one year), 
after receipt of the report by the National Commission in charge of investigating the existence of distortions in the prices of imported goods. Wi th regard to the amount of the duty, the President 
may apply the amount proposed by the Commission or a lower amount, but not a higher one. 
Furthermore, the President may not include new pr oducts or extend the periods of application 
recommended by the Commission.  G/ADP/Q1/CHL/6 • G/SCM/Q1/CHL/6 • G/SG/Q1/CHL/4 
 
- 5 - 
 
   
__________ 
 Figure 1: Schedule  for a safeguard  investigation1 
Submission  of application   
(day 1) 
ST checks application  
is complete   
(days 1 to 10) 
Official submission  of application  
(day 15) TS returns application  
(day 10) 
TS forwards application  to Commission  
(day 11) TS certifies conformity  of application  
(day 10) Is application   
in conformity  with 
requirements?  
TS notifies applicant  
of decision  
(day 30) Deadline for 
recommending  provisional  
measure (*)  
(day 30) 
TS closes case 
Notes: 
1 : The time periods indicated  are the maximum  authorized.
TS: Technical  Secretariat
OJ: Official JournalNo
Yes 
Yes No
α α 
Public hearing  Publication  of provisional  
measure in OJ Publication  of notice of 
initiation of investigation  in OJ 
(day 1) Timelines  prior to initiation  
of investigation  Timelines  subsequent  to initiation  
of investigation  
Does the President  of the 
Republic decide to apply 
the measure?  
Decision terminating  
investigation  (90 day) 
Does the Commission  
recommend  a definitive  
measure?  
Does the President  
of the Republic 
decide to apply the 
measure?  Notice of termination  
of investigation  in OJ 
Publication  of definitive  
measure and notice 
of termination  of investigation  
in OJ Yes
No 
No
Yes No  YesDoes the 
Commission  decide to initiate 
an investigation?  
Publication  of notice of initiation 
of investigation  in OJ  
(day 20)