WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/Q2/ARG/1 
17 October 2008 
 
 (08-4997) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   Spanish 
  
 
ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATION BY ARGENTINA CONCERNING 
IMPORTS OF ZIP FASTENERS FROM PERU AND CHINA 
 
Questions to ARGENTINA from PERU
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 15 October 2008, is being circulated at the request of the delegation of Peru.  
_______________ 
 
 Question 1
 
  Pursuant to Article 6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA), which stipulates that "[a]ll interested parties in an anti-dumping investigation shall be given notice of the information which the 
authorities require [so as] to present in writing all evid ence which they consider relevant in respect of 
the investigation in question", the Peruvian expor t firm submitted the Exporter's Questionnaire within 
the time-limits stipulated by Argentine legisl ation, duly completed a nd accompanied by extensive 
documentary support.  The evidence it provided showed  that there was no margin of dumping for its 
exports to Argentina. 
 
 The Exporter's Questionnaire and all th e documentary evidence was submitted on 
24 July 2008, that is, 60 days before the compet ent Argentine authority established its preliminary 
report and more than 30 days before the author ity made a request for additional information. 
  In view of the foregoing, would Argentina please explain: 
 
(a) What domestic legal provisions did the Argentine authority use as a basis for 
disregarding the Peruvian firm's abunda nt information when it established its 
preliminary report on the margin of dumping?  Especially since the report states that "the processing and analysis of all the doc umentation in the record has provided 
elements in support of a preliminary determ ination of margins of dumping ... ", and a 
review of the report showed us that no account whatsoever had been taken of the 
documentation in question. 
(b) Whether this undermines the provisions of Article 6 of the ADA, since the Article 
stipulates that interested parties may pr esent all evidence they consider relevant, 
which the authority must take into account, and if the authority did not, would this 
impair the exporters' right of de fence in this investigation? G/ADP/Q2/ARG/1 
Page 2  
 
  Question 2
 
  When it determined an erroneous and non-exis tent margin of dumping allegedly produced by 
Peru's exports to Argentina, the authority took ABSOLUTELY NO
 account of the Peruvian export 
firm's statements attached to the Exporter's Qu estionnaire, the documentary evidence supplied, or 
even the additional information provided in a timel y fashion, in response to the two requests made. 
 
(a) Which Article of the ADA did the Governme nt of Argentina use as a basis for not 
taking into account all of the information provided by the Peruvian exporter in establishing its preliminary report?  Similarl y, why does the preliminary report by the 
Directorate of Unfair Competition of Argentina's Ministry of the Economy and 
Production specify that the information will not be taken into account until the final 
stage of the investigation? 
(b) The above notwithstanding, and on the hypothetical assumption that the information 
and accompanying documentation may not have been " ideal ", how does the 
Argentine authority explain its approach, gi ven that paragraph 5 of Annex II to the 
ADA stipulates that this should not justify the authorities disregarding such information, provided that the interested pa rty has "acted to the best of its ability
"? 
(c) Considering that the Peruvian exporter submitted, inter alia , the Exporter's 
Questionnaire, additional written clarifica tion, and further evidence, how does the 
Government of Argentina understand the phrase "acted to the best of its ability"?  
How far does this notion extend? 
(d) What analysis did the competent investig ating authority conduct?  Which "best 
information available" did it use?  Especially  in view of the fact that the authority 
itself stated in its preliminary report " ... the processing and analysis of ALL THE 
DOCUMENTATION  in the record at this stage of th e investigation ... ", only to make 
the following contradictory statement in the very same report:  " ... at the time of 
writing this report, further clarification was sought from the exporter/producer Corporación Rey S.A.  in Note DCD No. S01:0112490/2008 of 10 September 2008 
and, therefore, the information supplied will not be taken into account at this stage in 
the investigation ... ". 
Question 3
 
 
 According to Article 6.1.2 of the ADA, " ... evidence presented in writing by one interested 
party shall be made available promptly to other inte rested parties participating in the investigation".  
Article 6.4 provides that "[t]he authorities shall ( ... ) provide timely opportunities for all interested 
parties to see all information that is relevant to the presentation of their cases, that is not confidential 
as defined in paragraph 5, and that is used by th e authorities in an anti-dumping investigation, and to 
prepare presentations on the basis of this informat ion".  Despite the above provision, the Argentine 
authority failed to make public RELEVANT normal value information submitted by the complaining 
parties, although the preliminary margin of dump ing would be substantially altered thereby. 
  We should also point out that the report in itiating the anti-dumping investigation, issued on 
28 January 2008, specified, on the basis of the information provided by the complaining party, 
a per unit normal value – in relation to the produc ts under investigation from the Republic of Peru 
(i.e., zip fasteners) – of US$0.0971 for polyester zi p fasteners and US$0.2172 for metal zip fasteners, 
that is, an average normal value of 0.1571 in US$/unit and an f.o.b. export price of 0.0810 in US$/unit, with a margin of dumping calculated at 93.95 per cent. 
  G/ADP/Q2/ARG/1 
 Page 3 
 
 
   Notwithstanding the above, the authority, in its preliminary report on the margin of dumping, 
defined an estimated margin of dumping of approxi mately 485 per cent, based on an invoice placed 
on record by the Argentine applicants in August 2008, after the submission of the Exporter's Questionnaire which included evidence of th e adjustments invalidating the initial margin of 
93.9 per cent. 
 
(a) What criteria did the Argentine authority use to accept a belatedly submitted item of 
evidence without in any way examining its ad equacy, especially in view of the fact 
that the record contained evidence to the contrary? 
(b) Which Articles of the ADA or of Argentine legislation did the Argentine authority 
use as a basis in order to refrain from advi sing the parties of the submission of such 
an important document, which quadrup les the initial margin of dumping? 
(c) Is there any explanation why the Peruvian  exporter has been denied the right of 
defence? 
 
__________