WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/Q1/MEX/19 
G/SCM/Q1/MEX/19 5 June 2007 
 
(07-2295) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Committee on Subsidies and  Countervailing Measures Original:   Spanish 
 
 
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 18.5 
AND ARTICLE 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS 
 
Replies to the Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES
1 
Regarding the Notification of MEXICO2 
   The following communication, dated 25 May 2007, is being circulated at the request of the delegation of Mexico. 
 
_______________ 
 
  Before replying to the questions posed by the Un ited States, Mexico wishes to clarify that the 
expression " cuotas compensatorias " is not equivalent to " derechos compensatorios ".  " Cuotas 
compensatorias " is in fact the generic term used in Mexican legislation to describe both 
countervailing duties (" derechos compensatorios ") and anti-dumping duties (" derechos 
antidumping ").  We will take the necessary steps to  correct this translation problem. 
 
Question 1
 
 
 The amended language of Article 53 of the Foreign Trade Act (the Act) reads in part, 
"The time-limit given to the interested parties shall be counted from the date of receipt of the questionnaire, which for this purpose shall be deem ed to have been received five days from the 
date on which it was sent to the respondent or  transmitted to the appropriate diplomatic 
representative of the Government of the exportin g country ...".  Please confirm that, consistent 
with Article 6.1.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the Agreement), the time -limit shall apply from the date on which 
the questionnaire was sent to the respondent , not merely to the exporters' Embassy. 
 
Reply
 
 
 Mexico confirms that, as set out in Footnot e 15 to the Anti-Dumpin g Agreement, the time-
limit will be counted from the date on which the qu estionnaire is sent to the respondent or transmitted 
to the appropriate diplomatic representative of the exporting Member or, in the case of a separate 
customs territory Member of the WTO, an official  representative of the expo rting territory.  The time-
limit for exporters to whom the questionnaire is sent will therefore be counted from the date on which 
the questionnaire is sent to the exporters, not from the date on which it is sent to the Embassy. 
 
                                                      
1 G/ADP/Q1/MEX/16 – G/SCM/Q1/MEX/16. 
 
2 G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.4 - G/SCM/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.3 - G/SG/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.3. 
 G/ADP/Q1/MEX/19 
G/SCM/Q1/MEX/19 Page 2 
 
 
  Question 2
 
 
 Article 64 of the Act has been amended as follows:  "The Ministry shall determine a 
countervailing duty on the basis of the margin of price discrimination or subsidization obtained, 
on the basis of the best information available, from the facts available , in the following cases ..." 
(emphasis added). 
 
 (a) Please explain the distinction between "t he best information available" and "the 
facts available". 
 
 (b) Please clarify how the use of such information will be consistent with Article 6.8 
and Annex II of the Agreement. 
 
Reply  
 
 Mexico considers the two concepts to be equi valent.  In that context, in administrative 
procedures, Mexico uses the best information fro m the universe available, for the reasons set out 
below.   It is our understanding that Article 6.8 of  the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides that 
recourse may be made to the "facts available" in the terms of Annex II thereto.
3  Mexico is of the 
opinion that the provisions of this Annex leave no doubt that what is appropriate is to use the best information from the universe available.  In that re gard, we consider Article 6.8 of this Agreement, 
which provides that determinations may be made on the basis of the facts available, to mean that, in 
accordance with Annex II, such determinations must  draw on the best information from the universe 
available. 
  This obligation is laid down in the WTO Agre ements and reflected in Mexico's Foreign Trade 
Act.  In support of this, it should be noted th at paragraph 7.238 of the final Panel report in Mexico - 
Beef and Rice  (WT/DS295/R), established the following: 
 
 "7.238 … This effectively prevents the author ity from being able to undertake the inherently 
comparative evaluation of this evidence available in a case at hand that is needed to meet the 
requirement that the facts available to be used are the " best" information that is available .  
This, in our view, requires the authority to use those data which are most appropriate and best 
suited to replace the missing data. ..." (footnote omitted) (underlining added). 
 
 Similarly, paragraph 289 of the Appellate B ody report on this same case (WT/DS295/AB/R) 
states:   "289. … First, the facts to be employed are expected to be the "best information 
available".  …" 
 
                                                     
 
 
3 Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement is entitled "BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN 
TERMS OF PARAGRAPH 8 OF ARTICLE 6" and ev en though there is no such Annex to the 
SCM Agreement, we see no reason why a different standard should apply to subsidies.  G/ADP/Q1/MEX/19 
 G/SCM/Q1/MEX/19 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Question 3  
 
 Article 68 of the Act now states, "Final countervailing duties may  be reviewed annually 
at the request of a party …" (emphasis added).  Please confirm that any such reviews requested 
by parties will be conducted, and will be complete d promptly, consistent with Articles 9.3 and 
11 of the Agreement.  If the investigating auth ority has discretion not to initiate a review, 
notwithstanding such a request, does the authority have an obligation to explain the reasons why?  What reason, if any, would be considered to justify the authority's decision to decline to conduct a review after such a request? 
 
Reply
 
  Article 68 should be read as a whole and inte rpreted accordingly.  Thus, in order to 
understand the meaning of this Article, the missing part of the phrase must also be taken into 
consideration, as follows:  "Final countervailing or  antidumping duties may be reviewed annually at 
the request of a party, or ex officio by the Ministry at any time ...".   Article 68 therefore establishes that an annual review of a countervailing or an anti-dumping 
duty may be conducted either at the request of a party or ex officio.  Thus, if an interested party duly 
requests an annual review of countervailing or anti-dumping duties, the Mexican investigating 
authority would conduct such a review under the te rms of the relevant Articles of the Anti-Dumping 
and SCM Agreements.   The above is confirmed by Article 52 of the Foreign Trade Act, which, given that it forms 
part of Chapter I "Common Provisions Relating to Pr oceedings", is applicable to annual reviews and 
provides in general terms that, within 25 days of the submission of a request (in this case, for an 
annual review), the investigating authority is required to:  
I. Accept the request and initiate the review; II. Ask the requesting party for further evidence or information to justify the review;  or 
III. Reject the request when it fails to  comply with the relevant provisions. 
 
 In this respect, when a request for a review has been properly submitted, it cannot be rejected 
by the investigating authority.  The investigating au thority does not have discretion to reject a request 
for an annual review when the request is accompanied by adequate  supporting information and data.  
By way of an example, an applicant for an administ rative review is required to be an interested party 
and to submit positive information substantiating the need for the review , in accordance with 
Article 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
__________