WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/ADP/Q2/IND/4 
24 June 2011 
 (11-3120) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   English 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
 
Questions Posed by JAPAN Regarding the  
Semi-Annual Report from INDIA1 
  
 The following communication, dated 22 June 2011,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Japan. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
  Japan has questions with regard to the original investigations on 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane or 
R-134a of all types originating in or exported from Japan and China, P.R., and on Polyvinyl Chloride 
Paste Resin (PVC Paste Resin) originating in or expo rted from Japan;  China, P.R.;  Korea, Rep. of; 
Malaysia;  Russia;  Separate Customs Territory  of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu;  and 
Thailand.  These cases are listed on page 7 of the semi-annual report dated 19 April 2011.
2  Japan may 
have subsequent questions as it further examines the cases.  
 
1. 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane or R-134a of all types 
 Question 1 
 
The Indian Regulatory Authorities (Directorate General of Anti Dumping & Allied Duties 
(DGAD)) initiated the investigation of this produc t on 19 August 2009.  A preliminary determination 
was made on 19 February 2010.  On 30 July 2010, DGAD issued a public notice to extend the 
investigation by another 6 months, to 18 February 2011.  Despite this time frame set by DGAD, it 
made the final determination on 10 May 2011, more than 20 months after the initiation. 
 According to Article 5.10 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (herein af ter referred to as th e "AD Agreement"), 
"[i]nvestigations shall, except in special circumst ances, be concluded within one year, and in no case 
more than 18 months, after their initiation." Howeve r, DGAD made the final determination more than 
20 months after the initiation.  Could India explain how  this practice is consistent with Article 1 and 
Article 5.10 of the AD Agreement, which precludes WTO members from imposing anti-dumping duties without conducting an investigation in accord ance with the provisions of the Agreement?  
 
Question 2 
 
Article 5.10 of the AD agreement stipulates that  "investigations shall, except in special 
circumstances, be concluded within one year".  Neither in the notice of extension issued on 
30 July 2010 nor in the final determination issu ed on 10 May 2011 did DGAD explain explicitly what 
                                                      
1 G/ADP/N/209/IND. 
2 G/ADP/N/209/IND. G/ADP/Q2/IND/4 
Page 2  
 
  "special circumstances" existed in this case.  C ould India explain the "special circumstances" which 
prevented the investigation from concluding within one year?   Question 3 
 
In its final determination issued on 10 May 2011, DGAD states that "pursuant to the orders 
dated 6 January 2011 of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court and orders dated 
3 February 2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the subject investigation has been continued beyond 
the maximum time limit prescribed under the Rules and WTO Agreement i.e. 18 February 2011". Could India explain how this practice is consistent with the WTO Agreements?  
 
Question 4 
 
Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement stipulates th at "the authorities shall, before a final 
determination is made, inform all interested parti es of the essential facts".  In this case, neither the 
Government of Japan nor the Japan ese companies identified as interest ed parties had been informed 
of the essential facts before the final determina tion, which prevented them from defending their 
interests guaranteed under the AD agreements.  This  means that, the Government of Japan and the 
Japanese companies involved were deprived of an oppor tunity to defend their interests.  Could India 
explain how this practice is consis tent with the AD Agreement?   
 2. Polyvinyl Chloride Paste Resin (PVC Paste Resin) 
 
Question 5 
 
The Indian Regulatory Authorities (DGAD) initia ted the investigation of this product on 
3 November 2009.  A preliminary determination wa s made on 11 June 2010.  Since then, there had 
been no announcement from DGAD until the Embassy of  Japan in India received disclosure of the 
essential facts on 27 April 2011, which indicated  the intention of DGAD to issue the final 
determination on 2 May, two working days after the disclosure of essential facts and the last day 
before the investigation exceeded 18 months.  On 2 May 2011, DGAD made the final determination.  
 
Article 5.10 of the AD Agreement stipulates that  "investigations shall, except in special 
circumstances, be concluded within one year".  In  this case, DGAD did not issue a notice of extension 
while it did for the investigation of 1,1,1,2-Tetraf luoroethane or R-134a of all types.  Could India 
explain the "special circumstances" which preven ted the investigation from concluding within one 
year?  In addition, please explain why there was no public notice of extension while DGAD issued 
one for the investigation of 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane or R-134a. 
 Question 6 
 
Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement stipulates th at the disclosure of the essential facts under 
consideration "should take place in sufficient time fo r the parties to defend their interest".  Could 
India explain how the practice above is consistent with the AD Agreement?  
 
Question 7 
 
According to the public notice of the imposition of provisional measures issued on 
26 July 2010," the anti-dumping duty imposed under th is notification shall be effective up to and 
inclusive of the 25 January 2011."  In spite of th is notice, Indian customs continue to collect a 
provisional anti-dumping duty up even now.  Article 7.4 of the AD agreement stipulates that "[t]he 
application of provisional measures shall be limited to as short a period as possible, (...), to a period  G/ADP/Q2/IND/4 
 Page 3 
 
 
  not exceeding six months".  Could India explain how this practice is consistent with the AD 
Agreement?   Question 8 
 
In this case, the imports from Japan turned out to be negligible, 0.19 per cent of the total 
imports, in the final determination.  In the preliminary determination, DGAD recommended the 
imposition of an anti-dumping duty on the imports from  Japan, and the Ministry of Finance issued the 
notice to impose US$111.63/MT in anti-dumping duty.  
Article 10.3 of the AD Agreement stipulates that "[i]f the definitive duty is lower than the 
provisional duty paid or payable, (…), the diffe rence shall be reimbursed."  Could India clarify 
whether the duties collected will be promptly reimbursed?  
 
 
__________