G/ADP/Q2/ARG/2  
17 April 2014  
(14-2400)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  Original: Spanish  
 
  ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF AN TI-DUMPING DUTY ACTIONS 
QUESTIONS POSED BY PERU REGARDING THE 
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT FROM ARGENTINA1 
The following communication, dated 15 April 2014, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Peru. 
 
_______________ 
  
ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATION BY ARGENTINA CONCERNING IMPORTS 
OF COPPER-BASED FUNGICIDES ORIGINAT ING IN PERU AND OTHER COUNTRIES 
 
Pursuant to Resolution SCE 48/13 of 11 April 2013, published in the Official Journal 
of the Argentine Republic on 18 April 2013, the Foreign Trade Secretariat of Argentina (SCEX) decided to initiate an investigation into alleged dumping practices concerning exports of copper 
hydroxide-based fungicides originating in Peru, Uruguay, Chile and the United States. 
 In this regard, since Peru believes that compliance with the obligations provided for in the Anti-Dumping Agreement should be strictly monitored by this Committee, it would 
be grateful if the Government of Argent ina could answer the following questions: 
 1  RELEVANT ASPECTS OF ANTI-DUM PING RULES AND PROCEDURES 
Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides  that, to determine the existence of dumping, 
the investigating authority shall make a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value and that due allowance shall be made in each case, on its merits, for differences which affect 
price comparability, including differences in conditions and terms of sale, taxation, levels of trade, 
quantities, physical characteristics, and any other differences which are also demonstrated to affect price comparability.  
In this investigation, SCEX ordered the initiation of the procedure considering normal value 
to be the price of the product under investigat ion obtained by the applicant company, as per 
a quotation made to the Peruvian export company, for quantities far smaller than those that this 
company exports to Argentina (the price quotation was for 120 kg as opposed to 20,000 kg 
exported by the company). In this respect, the adjustments required under Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement were not made , thereby significantly affecting the price 
comparability for the purposes of calculating the dumping margin. 
 Furthermore, it should be noted that Article 6. 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides that 
all interested parties in an anti-dumping investigation shall be given notice of the information 
which the authorities require and ample opportunity to present in writing all evidence which they 
consider relevant in respect of the investigation in question.  
In this regard, the Peruvian export company duly  submitted the Exporter's Questionnaire within 
the time-limits stipulated by Argentine legislation, accompanied by extensive supporting evidence, 
                                               
1 G/ADP/N/252/ARG. G/ADP/Q2/ARG/2 
- 2 - 
  which showed that there was no margin of dumping for its exports to Argentina during 
the investigation period.  It should be noted that the Exporter's Questionnaire and all the documentary evidence were 
submitted on 24 May 2013, that is, two months before the issuing of the preliminary determination 
of dumping report dated 26 July 2013, in which the investigating authority stated that it had determined a dumping margin of 54.26% for exports of the product under investigation originating 
in Peru. On that occasion, the investigating authority stated that for the calculation of the normal 
value only the information submitted by the applicant was taken into account.  On 5 July 2013, the investigating authority requ ested further information from the Peruvian 
company, which was submitted on 28 August 2013, that is, five months before the issuing 
of the report on the preliminary determination of injury to the domestic industry and its causal link with the dumping determined, dated 6 February 2014. This report did not take into 
account the information submitted by the compan y for the determination of the dumping margin, 
and as a result did not make the adjustment s to the normal value that were requested 
by the Peruvian company. 
 
2  QUESTIONS 
In view of the foregoing, would Ar gentina please explain the following: 
 
1. How did the investigating authority determine that the application contained such 
information as is reasonably available to the applicant regarding the prices at which the product exported to Peru is sold, if based solely on the amounts of two invoices? 
 
2. How did the investigating authority examine the accuracy and adequacy of this information within the meaning of Article 5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to determine whether there was 
sufficient evidence of dumping to justify the initiation of an investigation? 
 3. Which Article of the Anti-Dumping Agreement did Argentina use as a basis for not taking into account all of the information provided by the Peruvian exporter when establishing 
its preliminary dumping report, especially since the report states that " the processing and analysis 
of all the documentation in the record at this st age of the investigation have provided elements 
in support of a preliminary determination of a margin of dumping ... ", and a review of the 
report shows that no account whatsoever has been taken of the information in question? 
Similarly, why, in the evidence submitted dated 6 September 2013, was it stated that "the preliminary determination report will be based on the information received to date " when this 
was not the case? 
 4. The above notwithstanding, and on the assu mption that the information and documentation 
submitted by the Peruvian co mpany may not have been " ideal", how does the investigating 
authority explain its decision to omit this information and documentation, when paragraph 5 
of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement stipulates that this should not justify the authorities disregarding information, provided that the interest ed party has "acted to the best of its ability"? 
 
5. Considering that the Peruvian export company submitted, inter alia , the Exporter's 
Questionnaire, additional written clarification and further evidence, why does Argentina 
not consider the information submitted by that company to have been provided "to the best 
of its ability"? What is the scope of this concept for the Argentine authority? Similarly, pursuant to Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, which "best information available" did Argentina use to formulate the preliminary determinations of dumping margin and injury? 
 
6. Does Argentina believe that it granted the Peruvian export company the right of defence, as provided for in Article 6.2 of the Anti-Dumpi ng Agreement, insofar as it did not take into 
account the information from that company when determining the margin of dumping? 
 
__________