. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/Q2/PER/5 
29 October 2008 
 
 (08-5244) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   Spanish 
  
 
RESOLUTION INITIATING THE ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATION 
OF IMPORTS OF PORTLAND CEMENT FROM 
THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 
 
 
Questions to PERU from the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
 
   The following communication, dated 27 October 2008, is being circulated at the request of the delegation of the Dominican Republic. 
 
_______________ 
   The delegation of the Dominican Republic wish es to place on record its concern with regard 
to the resolution initiating the anti-dumping investig ation of imports of Portland cement from the 
Dominican Republic, issued on 26 October 2007 by the Dumping and Subsidies Commission of the 
INDECOPI, under number 116-2007/CDS-INDECOPI.   According to this delegation, the Resolu tion (supplemented by Report No. 021 2007/CDS-
INDECOPI) was issued without taking in to consideration the following provisions inter alia  of the 
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994: 
 
• Article 2.4, relating to determination of dumping, 
 
• Article 3.4 and 3.7, relating to determination of injury, 
 
• Article 5.3, relating to determinati on to initiate an investigation, and 
 
• Article 5.8, to the extent that the applica tion for initiation submitted by the domestic 
industry was not rejected. 
  As regards determination of dumping, this  delegation notes that the comparison between 
export price and normal value was made without pe rforming the necessary adjustments for differences 
in volumes, and that the initiating Resolution (and/or  the Report) provides no details whatsoever of 
the investigating authority's calculation of adjustment  for the alleged differences in the level of trade. 
  We note that in making its determination of injury, the investigating authority considered 
none of the Article 3.4 factors, whereas there are WTO precedents showing that, even in threat of 
injury determinations, not only the Article 3.7 factor s are to be taken into account but also those in 
Article 3.4.  Moreover, we are puzzled by the fact s that led the investigating authority to find that 
there was a sufficient freely disposable capacity of the exporter within the meaning of Article 3.7(ii). 
 G/ADP/Q2/PER/5 
Page 2  
 
   We consider that in initiating this investigati on, the investigating authority failed to comply 
with the provisions of Article 5.3 of the Anti-Du mping Agreement by relying on evidence of dumping 
and injury that was not "sufficient" to justify in itiation.  By initiating an investigation in a manner 
inconsistent with Article 5.3, Peru has al so violated Article 5.8 of the Agreement. 
 
 We have the following questions for Peru as re gards the procedure followed by INDECOPI in 
this case:  
(a) Please explain in detail how the investigating authority calculated the normal value 
for the purposes of the Article 5.3 determination; 
(b) With regard to the adjustments that had to be performed for the purposes of making a 
fair comparison pursuant to Article 5.3: 
• What differences did the investiga ting authority consider required 
adjustment? 
 
• What was the factual basis for determini ng that the adjustment to be made for 
differences in the level of trade amounted  to 35 per cent of the domestic sales 
price (excluding VAT)?  Please specify wher e this factual basis is to be found 
in the Initiating Resolution (and/or Re port No. 021-2007/CDS-INDECOPI). 
 
(c) Please provide a detailed explanation of the analysis made to determine that there 
existed a "sufficient freely disposable capacity" of the exporter. 
(d) What period of time was the Dominican exporter given to respond to the Exporter's 
Questionnaire? 
__________