G/ADP/AHG/W/196  
 
11 April 2013  
(13-1890)  Page: 1/4  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Working Group on Implementation 
 Original: English  
 
ARTICLE 5.3 – ACCURACY AND ADEQUACY 
PAPER BY JAMAICA 
The following communication, dated 11 April 2013, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Jamaica. 
_______________ 
 
 1  INTRODUCTION 
In response to the call of the Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices on 24 October 2012 for papers 
on topics for discussion at the Working Group on Implementation Meetings including the accuracy 
and adequacy test set forth in Article 5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Jamaica is pleased to submit the following paper describing the practice  of the Anti-dumping and Subsidies Commission, 
Kingston, Jamaica in this regard. Jamaica thanks the Members for the guidance that has been 
afforded by this Committee’s delib erations and for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.   
 
2  ARTICLE 5.3 OF THE ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT 
Article 5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (“ADA”) establishes the legal standard for the initiation 
of an investigation: 
 
The authorities shall examine the accuracy an d adequacy of the evidence provided in 
the application to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation. 
Investigating authorities in meeting the evidenti ary threshold requirements of Article 5.3 must 
have regard and be guided by Article 5.2. This  Article specifies the type of information and 
evidence that is to be submitted in an application by or on behalf of the domestic industry for the 
initiation of an investigation. However, an application that complies with the requirements of 
Article 5.2, may not meet the threshold standard that the evidence is sufficient to justify the 
commencement of an investigation. 
 
The purpose of the application is to provide the evidentiary basis for the initiation of an investigation. Therefore the information and evidence contained in the application must meet the legal standard for initiation. The application is to contain information that is reasonably available to 
the applicant on the relevant matters that are necessary to substantiate the allegations of 
dumping, injury and causation. Simple assertions or statements of conclusion unsubstantiated by 
facts or relevant evidence are not sufficient for the purposes of Article 5.2. 
 
Article 5.3 does not specify the nature or process that the examination by the investigating authority is to take. The test in Article 5.3 is whether an objective and unbiased investigating 
authority, looking at the facts before it, could properly have determined that there was sufficient 
evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation.
1 Investigating authorities can gather additional 
information through research or other means to meet the standard of sufficiency.2 
                                               
1 Panel Report, Guatemala – Ce ment II, at paragraph 8.31. 
2 Panel Report, Guatemala – Ce ment II, at paragraph 8.62. G/ADP/AHG/W/196 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Article 5.8 of the ADA also refers to the legal standard. It requires investigating authorities to 
reject an application where the authorities are satisfied that there is not sufficient evidence of either dumping or of injury.  
3  JAMAICAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
The domestic legal framework in Jamaica for the administration of anti-dumping measures is the 
Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1999 (“the Act or CDDSA”) and companion 
Regulations
3 which incorporate and give effect to the provisions of the ADA. 
 Under the Act, the Anti-dumping and Subsidies Commission (“the Commission”) was established as the investigating authority with responsibility for administering trade remedies in compliance 
with Jamaica’s international obligations under the ADA. Section 4 of the Act provides that the 
Commission shall carry out on its own initiative or on the request of any person, investigations in relation to the dumping of goods [or the giving of a subsidy affecting goods] and to make such 
reports and recommendations in relation to such goods as it considers necessary. 
 There is no express reference to the accuracy and adequacy test in the CDDSA; however it forms 
part of the practice adhered to by the Commission. The relevant provision that sets forth the legal 
standard for initiation is found in Section 22 of the CDDSA:  
(1) Subject to this section, where the Commission receives a written complaint in 
respect of the dumping or subsidizing of goods, the Commission shall, within forty-five 
days after receipt of such complaint, carry out an investigation into the matter if the 
Commission is satisfied that- 
(a) the complaint is properly documented; 
(b) there is evidence that the goods have been or are being dumped or 
subsidized; and 
(c) the evidence discloses a reasonab le indication that the dumping or 
subsidizing of the goods has caused, is causing or is likely to cause material injury. 
(2) The Commission shall not carry out an investigation pursuant to subsection (1) 
unless the Commission has determined, on th e basis of an examination of the degree 
of support for, or opposition to, the application expressed by the domestic producers of like goods, that the complaint has been made by or on behalf of those producers. 
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the complaint shall be considered to have 
b e e n  m a d e  b y  o r  o n  b e h a l f  o f  t h e  d o m e s t ic producers if it is supported by those 
domestic producers whose collective output constitutes more than fifty per cent of the 
total production of the like goods produced by that portion of the domestic industry 
expressing either support for or opposition to the complaint. 
(4) An investigation shall be initiated where the domestic producers expressly 
supporting the complaint pursuant to subsection (2) account for more than twenty-
five per cent of total production of like  goods produced by the domestic industry. 
Section 23 of the Act is also relevant, and provides that: 
(1) Where the Commission receives a written complaint or intends to initiate an 
investigation in respect of the dumping [or subsidizing] of goods, the Commission 
shall, in writing, within forty-five days thereafter- 
                                               
3 The Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) (Determi nation of Fair Market Price, Material Injury and 
Margin of Dumping) Regulations 2000.  G/ADP/AHG/W/196 
 
- 3 - 
 
  (a) where the complaint is properly documented, inform the complainant, 
and, in the case of subsidized goods, the government of the country of export, 
that the complaint was received and that is properly documented; or 
(b) where the complaint is not properly documented, inform the complainant 
that the complaint was received and that additional information and material 
are needed. 
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), th e date on which the Commission receives 
the additional information and material referred to in subsection (1) (b) shall be 
deemed to be the date on which the complaint was received. 
Sections 22 and 23 of the Act refer to the term “properly documented” which is defined in 
Section 2 to mean that: 
 
(a) the complaint – 
 
(i) alleges that the goods have been dumped [or subsidized], specifies the 
goods, the country of origin or export  of such goods and alleges that the 
dumping [or subsidizing] has caused, is causing or is likely to cause, material 
injury; 
 
(ii) states in reasonable detail the facts on which the allegations referred to in sub-paragraph (i) are based; and 
 
(iii) makes such other representations as the complainant deems relevant to the complaint; and 
 
(b) the complainant provides- 
 
(i) such information as is available to him to prove the facts referred to in 
paragraph (a) (ii); and 
 
(ii) such other information as the Commission may reasonably require him to 
provide. 
 4  THE PRACTICE OF THE COMMISSION 
The Commission is mindful that industries are not familiar with the terminology and investigative 
processes. Public education is of paramount importance to the Commission’s mandate.   
In order to assist industry with filing a complaint the Commission provides an Application Kit and 
other documents to inform industry of the information that is required in a complaint, give instructions for submission of data and provide guidance on terminology and the application and investigation process. 
 
The Application Kit identifies and describes the type  of evidence that is to be submitted in the 
application. For example, for dumping, the application is to provide information on the normal 
value for the goods in the domestic market in the country of origin. Supporting evidence can be in 
the form of price lists or invoices. Export price information is also to be provided with adjustments being made for costs incurred on exportation such as port charges, transportation costs from the 
factory to port, ocean freight and insurance. For injury, information and evidence are requested on 
price effects, such as price undercutting and pric e suppression and on the economic impact of the 
allegedly dumped products on the industry includ ing information on sales, market share, output, 
productivity and return on investments. 
 
On receipt of the written application by or on behalf of Jamaican industry, the Commission sends a written response to the industry acknowledging receipt and indicating whether the submission or 
filing requirements have been complied with  and whether complete documents have been 
received. The Commission has forty-five calendar days to assess the complaint and make a decision as to whether to initiate an investigation. The forty-five days commence on receipt of the 
complaint. G/ADP/AHG/W/196 
 
- 4 - 
 
  The Commission then assesses, using a detailed checklist approach, the content of the application 
to ascertain whether it is properly documented. The Staff informs the complainant either that the complaint is properly documented or if not, a deficiency letter is sent indicating that additional information is required for the application to be properly documented. The correspondence also 
indicates that the accuracy and adequacy of the ev idence presented is assessed thereafter as part 
of the Commission’s decision to initiate an investigation. If additional information is required the forty-five days will start on receipt of the additional information. The Government of the exporting 
country is notified after the Commission determines that the complaint is properly documented 
and before proceeding to initiate an investigation.  The Commission is mindful that the application is to contain such information that is reasonably 
available to the Applicant. However, this has to be balanced against the other requirement that 
there be sufficient evidence in the application to justify the initiation of an investigation. Some applicants for example, find it difficult to obtain market information in other jurisdictions in order 
to derive a normal value, and may understandably argue that this information is not reasonably 
available to them. There are also other applican ts that are able to utilise the services of 
consultants to do market research in other jurisdictions to obtain this information. 
 
The Commission will then assess the accuracy and adequacy of the information and evidence alleged in the complaint to the standard required for initiation. Information that resides only within the hands of the producer, exporter or importer cannot be accurately verified at this stage of a 
matter. Various methods and sources are used to  determine the accuracy of the information. 
Information and data are obtained from relevant government agencies. This includes customs and import statistics, product information and standards. The data is used to verify the volume of 
imports, the identity of the importer, exporter  and where available the foreign producer. Tariff 
classification headings identified on the import documentation can also help to identify the product. Requests for information are treated as confidential. The Commission also determines the 
standing of the complainant and examines the re quests for confidential treatment and the non-
confidential summaries submitted.  For initiation, an examination of the evidence is conducted to determine whether the goods have 
been or are being dumped and whether the eviden ce discloses a reasonable indication that the 
dumping has caused, is causing or is likely to cause material injury. The Commissioners review the record of the investigation and the reports of the Staff and meet to discuss and deliberate on 
whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication of dumping, injury and causation. The Staff 
discusses and submits its analysis to the Commissioners. The Staff conducts analysis on the elements based on the information and evidence  presented in the complaint and also on the 
additional evidence obtained by the Staff. A decision is then made by majority on whether to 
initiate an investigation in accordance with the legal standard for initiation.  5  CONCLUSION 
The Commission is cognisant of the challenges complainants face in finding the information 
required to complete an application. This has to be balanced with the legal standard for initiation and the type of evidence that is required to commence an investigation. The evidence has to 
provide a reasonable indication such that an objective and unbiased investigating authority, 
looking at the facts before it, could properly have determined that there was sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation.  
 
 
__________