G/ADP/Q1/BRA/22  
G/SCM/Q1/BRA/22  
17 April 2014  
(14-2401)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  Original: Spanish  
 
  NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 
OF THE AGREEMENTS 
QUESTIONS POSED BY PERU REGARDING THE NOTIFICATIONS OF BRAZIL1 
The following communication, dated 15 April 2014, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Peru. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Peru would like to thank Brazil for its notification of Decree No. 8.058 of 26 July 2013 regulating the administrative procedures relating to the investigation and application of anti-dumping 
measures, and in that connection would like to ask the following questions. 
 i. DECREE No. 8.058 of 26 July 2013, document G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3 
of 20 September 2013 
 1. Paragraph 6 of Article 37 in Section I of Decree 8.058 states that the application for the 
initiation of an investigation shall contain "all information needed to determine the injury 
to the domestic industry related to the domest ic producers expressly stating support for the 
application." Given that Article 41 of the Decree stipulates that the filed application shall be examined within a period of 15 days from th e date of filing, could you please explain how 
DECOM checks that the information contained in the application is the information that 
is needed and verifies its accuracy and adequacy to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation in accordance with Article 5.3 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement, bearing in mind th at this time-period is even shorter than 
in Brazil's previous legislation (20 days)? 
2. The sole paragraph of Article 38 in Section I of Decree No. 8.058 states that simple 
assertion shall not be considered sufficient to meet the requirements of that article (since 
the application must include evidence of dumping, injury to the domestic industry, and the 
causal link between the dumped imports and th e alleged injury). Could you please explain 
what steps are taken by the investigating authority to verify the truth of the information 
provided by the applicant for the investigation when that information has to be checked 
against information from the other producers of the investigated product, and those producers fail to comply with the investigating authority's requests? 
3. Article 44 in Section III of Decree 8.058 states that in exceptional and duly justified 
circumstances, SECEX may initiate an investigation of its own initiative, provided it has sufficient evidence of the existence of dump ing, injury, and a causal link between the 
dumped imports and the alleged injury. What criteria does the investigating authority 
examine to determine that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the initiation 
of an investigation without the application from the domestic industry? 
4. Paragraph 7 of Article 65 in Section V of Decree 8.058 provides that the preliminary 
determination in an investigation shall be prepared within a period not exceeding 120 days 
based on the evidence submitted within a peri od of 60 days from the date of initiation 
                                               
1 G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.9, G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.10, and G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3. G/ADP/Q1/BRA/22 • G/SCM/Q1/BRA/22 
- 2 - 
  of the investigation. How does the investigating authority guarantee compliance with 
Article 6.2 and 6.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agr eement whereby all parties to the proceedings 
shall have a full opportunity for the defence of their interests and to see the relevant information in order to prepare arguments in their defence, in cases where the documents 
issued by the investigating authority contain inconsistent and contradictory information that 
it has not corrected or clarified? 
5. In relation to that same article, could you please explain the mechanisms used by the 
investigating authority to correct an omission or an error it may have made in ordering the 
initiation of the investigation, so as to guarantee compliance with Article 6.2 and 6.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, without ordering an extension of the time-period of 60 days for 
issuing the preliminary determination? 
ii. Ordinance No. 3 of 7 February 2013,  document G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.9 
of 20 September 2013  
 
6. Regarding Article 5 of Ordinance No. 3 of 7 February 2013, does the "restricted version" 
mentioned in that article correspond to the non-confidential summary that the parties are required to furnish under Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement? 
7. Regarding Article 6 of Ordinance No. 3 of 7 February 2013, what kind of information does 
the Brazilian authority record in the so-called "restricted case files"? How does the Brazilian authority ensure confidential treatment, where applicable, of information of this nature submitted by the interested parties in the framework of the investigations, as provided for 
in Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement? 
iii. Ordinance No. 21 of 22 May 2013, do cument G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/suppl.10 
of 20 September 2013 
 
8. Article 2 of Ordinance No. 21 of 22 May 2013 states that in order for parties other than 
exporters, producers, importers and th e government of the exporting country 
to be considered interested parties in the proceedings, they must file the corresponding 
request within 20 days of the date of publication of the initiation of the investigation. Article 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement states that "[t]hroughout the anti-dumping investigation all interested parties shall have a full opportunity for the defence of their 
interests." (…) Given that a deadline has been established for parties other than exporters, producers, importers and the government of the exporting country to take part in the proceedings, how does the Brazilian authority safeguard the right of these other parties 
to defend their interests throughout the anti-dumping investigation as stipulated 
in Article 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement? If they were not considered "interested parties" in the investigation procedure, what effect would this have on the rights of these 
other parties? For example, would they have access to the information on the record, and 
would they be able to participate in the hearings, formulate requests, or make comments on the evidence submitted by the "interested parties"? 
9. According to Article 5, paragraph 2 of Ordina nce No. 21 of 22 May 2013, powers of attorney 
and certifications of signature in foreign languages must be notarized and legalized by the 
corresponding Brazilian diplomatic or consular representation, and protocolled accompanied by the respective translations to Portuguese done by a sworn translator in Brazil, after the 
legalization of the document. Could Brazil please explain why the translation of the 
documents has to be done by a sworn translator in Brazil? Would a simple translation not suffice? 
 
__________