G/ADP/Q1/EU/4  
G/SCM/Q1/EU/4  
 
23 October  2017 
(17-5701) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Pra ctices  
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  Original: English  
 
 NOTIFICATIO N OF LAWS AND REGULA TIONS  
UNDER ARTICLE 18.5 OF THE AGREEMENT  
REPLY TO QUEST IONS1 POSED BY THE UNITED STATES REGARDING  
THE NOTIFICATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION2 
The following communication, dated 20 October  2017, is being circulated at the request  of the 
Delegation of the European Union . 
 
_______________  
 
 
The United States thanks the European Union for its notification of "Regulation (EU) 
2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8 June 2016)" (Regulation) 
and poses the following qu estions:  
 
Question 1  
 
The Regulation throughout refers to goods entered or released "for free circulation" and 
goods entered for "consumption." It is unclear if there are meaningful differences 
between the goods encompassed by these terms. Please explain a ny differences 
between the terms "for free circulation" and "for consumption".  
 
Question 2  
 
Article 2 paragraph 5 of the Regulation states that, "[c]osts shall normally be calculated 
on the basis of records kept by the party under investigation, provided t hat such records 
are in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the country 
concerned and that it is shown that the records reasonably reflect the costs associated 
with the production and sale of the product under consideration ." (e mphasis added). 
Please explain whether the Commission requires the submitting party to show or 
demonstrate that GAAP -compliant records reasonably reflect the costs associated with 
the production and sale of the product under consideration in its initial su bmission or if 
the Commission would notify the submitter of any specific concerns and allow an 
opportunity to provide additional information.  
 
Question 3  
 
Article 5 paragraph 3 of the Regulation states that the Commission shall, "as far as 
possible" examin e the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the complaint 
to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to initiate an investigation. Please 
explain the purpose and meaning of the phase "as far as possible," which does not 
appear in the Art icle 5.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.  
 
                                                
1 G/ADP/Q1/EU/ 1. 
2 G/ADP/N/1/EU/3 . G/ADP/Q1/EU/4 • G/SCM/Q1/EU/4  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Question 4  
 
Article 8 paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Regulation appear to contain conflicting information. 
Specifically, paragraph 5 states that, "[w] here undertakings are accepted, the 
investigation shall be terminated. The Commission shall terminate the investigation in 
accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 15(3)"; whereas 
paragraph 6 states that, "[i]f the undertakings are accepted, the investigation of 
dumping and injury shall normally be completed." Please explain whether investigations 
are terminated, in whole or in part, if an und ertaking agreement is accepted.  
 
Question 5  
 
Article 9 paragraph 3 of the Regulation notes t hat the Commission may be assisted in an 
investigation of possible circumvention by customs authorities. Please explain what 
types of data can be shared between customs authorities and the Commission and how 
any business proprietary or confidential data ar e protected from disclosure. Under what 
authorities or instruments, such as a memorandum of understanding or other 
agreement, is the sharing of data between the Commission and customs authorities 
allowed? Is the use of any shared information in a circumven tion proceed ing limited to 
that proceeding?  
 
Question 6  
 
Article 11 paragraph 2 of the Regulation notes that an expiry review can be initiated on 
the Commission's own initiative. Please explain the evidence required for an initiation 
on the Commission's ow n initiative and how that evidence and information would be 
collected. This paragraph also explains that, for expiry reviews initiated following a 
request by or on behalf of the Union producers, the request for an expiry review must 
contain sufficient evid ence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a 
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Is the evidence collected by the 
Commission to support the initiation of an expiry review on its own initiative subject to 
the same standa rd? Is the evidence on which the ex officio  initiation is based provided 
to interested parties at the time of initiation (akin to the provisions of the matters set 
out in a review request)? If so, what form does this disclosure take?  
 
Question 7  
 
Please ex plain whether the "interim review" referenced in Article 11 paragraph 3 of the 
Regulation covers all imports from the subject country or only those from certain 
exporters.  
 
Question 8  
 
Article 17 paragraph 4 of the Regulation states that, "[w]here it is de cided to sample 
and there is a degree of non -cooperation by some or all of the parties selected which is 
likely to materially affect the outcome of the investigation, a new sample may be 
selected." In cases where the level of non -cooperation by only some p arties selected 
leads to the selection of a new sample, would the Commission seek to replace all 
previously selected parties or would it seek to select substitutes for only those sampled 
parties found to be non -cooperative? Please explain whether companies  selected in the 
first sample would be eligible for selection in the repeat sample, if they had been 
deemed cooperative. Also, please explain whether any non -cooperation that leads to the 
selection of a new sample has any impact on the rate assigned to non -selected 
cooperative companies in the event of an affirmative final finding of dumping and injury.  
 
Reply  
 
On 1 November 2016, the EU notified Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dum ped imports from countries not members 
of the European Union. This was ci rculated under G/ADP/N/1/EU/3. The EU provided a clarification 
regarding that notification on 18 April  2017(G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/Suppl.1).  
 G/ADP/Q1/EU/4 • G/SCM/Q1/EU/4  
 
- 3 - 
 
  The EU clarified that the legislation notified on  1 November is a codified version of the EU's Basic 
Anti-dumping Regulation which incorporates modifications previously notified to the WTO 
Anti-dumping Committee (reference G/ADP/N/1/EU/1/Rev.1 /Suppl.4 dated 10 April, 2014).  
 
The codification of the Basic  Anti-dumping Regulation was the sole reason for the adoption and 
publication of the regulation in June 2016 and there were no changes o f substance contained 
therein.  
 
__________