G/ADP/Q1/BRA/26  
G/SCM/Q1/BRA/26  
 
10 November 2014  
(14-6565)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  Original: English  
 
  
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS 
QUESTION POSED BY THE UNITED STATES  
REGARDING THE REPLIES OF BRAZIL1 
The following communication, dated 7 November 2014,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the United States.  
_______________ 
  
The United States thanks Brazil for its replies to questions
2 regarding its notifications3 and poses 
the following follow-up questions4: 
 
Question 1 
 
In response to Question 3 regarding Brazil's home market viability test, Brazil states it requests information regarding the cost of production in all of its investigations; therefore, it is always 
possible to use constructed value whenever necessary. Does this mean in all instances where 
Brazil determines the home market is not viable, it will use constructed value as the basis for normal value instead of attempting to make price-to-price comparisons using sales in an 
alternative third country market? 
 
Question 2 
 
In its response to Question 5, Brazil states it is the understanding of the Brazilian authority that 
sales to other companies under tolling arrangements should be considered outside the ordinary course of trade. Please explain further why Brazil  considers these sales to be outside the ordinary 
course of trade and whether other factors surrounding the circumstances of these sales 
(e.g., price, whether the title passes to the comp any performing the tolling services, etc.) are 
considered.   
Question 3 
 In response to Question 12, Brazil states that interested parties have an opportunity to request a 
hearing within the five month period following the initiation of the investigation. Is there a deadline 
by which the hearing must take place? For example, does the hearing also have to take place within five months of initiation or does the hearing just need to be requested within this timeframe? If a hearing is requested within the initial five month period, should it not be held later 
in the investigation (e.g., after verification or after the Statement of Essential Facts for the final 
determination has been released), when ther e is a more fulsome administrative record? 
                                               
1 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/24 – G/SCM/Q1/BRA/24 (dated 1 October 2014). 
2 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/21 – G/SCM/Q1/BRA/21 (dated 7 April 2014). 
3 G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3 (dated 20 September 2013) and G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Corr.1 (dated 
27 September 2013). 
4 For the sake of efficiency, the Un ited States suggests that committ ee review for this question be 
conducted in the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices. 
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/26 • G/SCM/Q1/BRA/26 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
Question 4  In response to Question 13, Brazil states that as general guidance, the cut-off date for 
respondents to submit information for consideration in the preliminary determination is the due 
date of the respondent's original questionnaire response (including any granted extensions). Please clarify whether, in those instances wher e a supplemental questionnaire is issued and the 
respondent provides a timely response, the respon dent's replies to the supplemental questionnaire 
will be considered in the administrating authority's preliminary determination or will the administrating authority use facts available for the preliminary determination. Please explain what steps the administrating authority is taking to ensure its preliminary determinations are made on 
the basis of the actual data submitted by the re spondents and not facts available due merely to 
the expedited case timelines under DECOM's new antidumping regulations.  
Question 5  
 
In response to Question 15, Brazil states that, in determining whether or not to impose provisional 
duties, CAMEX considers the information provided in DECOM's preliminary report as well as 
information provided by interested parties to GTIP . We further understand that, under Brazil's new 
anti-dumping regulations, Brazil can decide not to impose provisional duties even in instances 
where DECOM finds dumping, injury to the dome stic industry, and a causal link between the 
dumping and the injury. Please explain in further detail the roles of DECOM, GTIP, and CAMEX in 
determining whether provisional duties are imposed in antidumping investigations.  
Question 6 
 It is our understanding from Brazil's responses to questions 20 and 21 that requests for 
redeterminations may be limited to instances where the anti-dumping duty was based on lesser 
duty or the domestic industry provides eviden ce that the effectiveness of an anti-dumping 
measure has been compromised as a result of the manner in which it was applied (e.g., per-unit duty versus ad valorem  duty). Is this understanding correct? How would a redetermination work in 
instances where the anti-dumping duty is based on lesser duty for some, but not all, of the 
respondents? Would the redetermination result in a new anti-dumping duty rate for all respondents? Further, after a definitive duty has been put in place, what factors does the 
administrating authority consider in determining whether it is appropriate to change the type of 
duty (e.g., change from a per-unit duty rate to an ad valorem  duty rate)? 
 
__________