WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/RL/GEN/59 
13 July 2005 
 (05-3103) 
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:   English 
  
 
CAUSATION (ADA ARTICLE 3.5;  ASCM ARTICLE 15.5) 
 
Paper from the United States
 
  
 
 The following communication, dated 6 July 2005, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of the United States.   The submitting delegation has requested that th is paper, which was submitted to the Rules 
Negotiating Group as an informal document (JOB(05)/ 146), also be circulated as a formal document. 
  
_______________ 
 
Issue
 
 
 In an earlier paper, the United States propo sed that Members consider clarifying the 
provisions of Article 3.5 of the ADA and Article 15.5 of the ASCM concerning the obligation of 
investigating authorities to demonstrate that ther e is a causal relationship between the dumped or 
subsidized imports under investigati on and injury to the domestic industry.  That paper indicated that 
any clarification should ensure "that any affirmativ e obligations are clearly set forth in the Agreement 
and are workable for authorities to implement."1 
  In this paper, the United States further explai ns why clarification of the causation obligation 
established by Article 3.5 of the ADA and Article 15. 5 of the ASCM would be useful.  It proposes 
clarifications that would describe the obligation in a manner that is clear and workable to investigating 
authorities. 
 Discussion
 
  Under Article 3.5 of the ADA, investigating au thorities are required to demonstrate that there 
is a causal relationship between the dumped imports  and the injury to the domestic industry by 
conducting an examination of the factors set forth in Articles 3.2 and 3.4 of the ADA.  The third 
sentence of Article 3.5 states that "[t]he authoriti es shall also examine any known factors other than 
the dumped imports which at the same time are inju ring the domestic industry, and the injuries caused 
by these other factors must not be attributed to the dumped imports."  Article 3.5 goes on to list 
several particular factors "which may be relevant" to the examination of known factors other than 
dumped imports.  Article 15.5 of the ASCM has ess entially the same language as Article 3.5 of the 
ADA.  
                                                     
 
1 Communication from the United States, "Identification of Additional Issues Under the Anti-Dumping 
and Subsidies Agreements," TN/RL/W/98 (6 May 2003), at 2. TN/RL/GEN/59 
Page 2  
 
  In United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Cert ain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan , 
the Appellate Body stated that, under Article 3.5 of the ADA, when dumped imports and other known 
factors are injuring the domestic industry at the same time, authorities "must appropriately assess the 
injurious effects of those other factors.  Logical ly, such an assessment must involve separating and 
distinguishing the injurious effects of the other factors from the injurious effects of the dumped 
imports."
2  The Appellate Body did not specify a method that authorities must, should, or could use to 
perform this assessment.  Instead, it emphasized that "the particular methods and approaches by which 
WTO Members choose to carry out the process of se parating and distinguishin g the injurious effects 
of dumped imports from the injurious effects of the other known causal factors are not prescribed by 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement ."3  The Appellate Body reaffirmed this statement in European 
Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast  Iron Tubes or Pipe Fittings from Brazil.4   
 
 As the Appellate Body has acknowledged, th e ADA and the ASCM do not provide detailed 
instructions or practical guidance for authoriti es concerning implementation of the non-attribution 
concept.  Nor, as noted above, has the Appellate Body provided such guidance as to how authorities 
should undertake non-attribution analysis.  Given this  lack of guidance, it is important that Members 
clarify the nature of the non-attribution analys is required under Article 3.5 of the ADA and 
Article 15.5 of the ASCM, drawing on their prac tical experience pertaining to antidumping and 
countervailing duty investigati ons.  Several Members, includi ng India and the Friends of 
Antidumping Negotiations (FANs), have identified causation and the non-attribution analysis as 
matters in need of clarification.5  
 
 The United States believes that clarification of the non-attribution language in Article 3.5 of 
the ADA and Article 15.5 is warranted to provide  clear and practical guidance to authorities on 
appropriate and workable methods to satis fy the requirements of these provisions. 
 
Proposal  
  The United States proposes that the Members shou ld consider clarifying Article 3.5 of the 
ADA and Article 15.5 of the ASCM.
6   These clarifications should embody the following principles: 
 
• They should affirm that an authority is not required to determine that dumped or subsidized 
imports are the sole cause of injury to the domestic industry.  This would ratify Members’ 
current understandings and practice. 
 • They should affirm that, when authorities assess the effects of known factors other than 
dumped or subsidized imports, they are not require d to quantify the effects of these factors.  
The ADA and ASCM do not currently require authorities to quantify such effects.
7  
  
                                                     
 
2 WT/DS184/AB/R, para. 223 (adopted 23 August 2001). 
3 Id., para. 224. 
4 WT/DS219/AB/R, para. 189 (adopted 18 August 2003). 
5 Second Submission of India (Anti-Dumping Agreement), TN/RL/W/26 (17 Oct. 2002); 
Anti-Dumping, Illustrative Major Issues, TN/RL/W/6 (26 April 2002). 
6 These clarifications may involve amendments to Articles 3.5 and 15.5.  They may additionally or 
alternatively encompass creating annexes to the ADA an d the ASCM that elaborate upon the non-attribution 
concept. 
7 Moreover, we are not aware of any reliable methodology for doing so.  As the FANs have observed in 
a recent paper, "[i]t might be difficult, in most cases, to quantify precisely the degr ee to which dumped imports 
have contributed to the injury being experienced by the domestic industry relative to the effects of other 
factors."  Second Submission of Proposals on the Determination of Injury, TN/RL/GEN/38 (23 March 2005).  TN/RL/GEN/59 
 Page 3 
 
 
 • They should affirm that, when authorities examine known factors other than dumped or 
subsidized imports, they are not required to weigh the effects of these factors against the effects of the dumped or subsidized imports.  Authorities are not required to conduct such an 
analysis now, so this clarification would also ratify current understandings and practice.
8 
 
• They should clarify that the non-attribution concept should not preclude domestic industries 
from obtaining relief when dumped or subsidized imports have made a material contribution 
to a domestic industry’s injury, notwithstanding th at the industry may also be simultaneously 
injured by factors other than dumped or subsidized imports.  The authority must, however, fully consider the known factors other than dumped or subsidized imports that may be 
causing injury. Consequently, any clarification should indicate that an authority has conducted a satisfactory non-attribution analys is when it: (1) examines known factors other 
than dumped or subsidized imports; and (2) provides a reasoned explanation that, 
notwithstanding these other factors, the dumped or  subsidized imports have made a material 
contribution to the injury or threat of injury experienced by the domestic industry.  Examples of ways in which an authority can perform a satisfactory non-attribution analysis include 
providing an explanation that any injury caused by known factors other than dumped or 
subsidized imports is different in nature, differe nt in degree, or different in timing than the 
injury caused by dumped or subsidized imports.
9 
 
• They should clarify that an authority is not required: (1) to use any particular analytical 
method as long as it provides a reasoned explanatio n that the dumped or subsidized imports 
have made a material contribution to the overall injury; or (2) to isolate the effects of other 
known factors. 
 
__________ 
 
 
                                                      
8 Indeed, while Articles 3.2 and 3.4 of the ADA, and Articles 15.2 and 15.4 of the ASCM, require an 
authority to provide a detailed assessment of the effects of  dumped or subsidized imports, there is no provision 
requiring an authority to provide a comparable assessment of the effects of other known causes. 
9 There are various analytical methods that auth orities may reasonably employ in this regard.  
Depending on the circumstances, these can include, but are not limited to, "trends analysis" and/or econometric 
modelling, but, as stated above, it should be clarified that no particular analytical method is required.