. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/ADP/Q2/IND/7 
7 November 2011 
 (11-5657) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   English 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
 
Replies to Questions Posed by THAILAND1 Regarding the  
Semi-Annual Report from INDIA2 
  
 The following communication, dated 24 October 2011, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of India. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Question 1   Article 5.10 of the AD Agreement stipulates that "investigations shall, except in special 
circumstances, be concluded within one year".  In  this case, the Indian Regulatory Authorities 
(DGAD) did not issue a notice of extension while it did for some other investigations, such as, 
the investigations on Potassium Carbonate from the US, Russia and Thailand (No. 14/6/2007-DGAD) and on Cathode Ray Colour Television Pi cture Tubes originating in or exported from 
Malaysia, Thailand, China and Korea (No. 14/8/ 2007-DGAD).  Could India explain the "special 
circumstances" which prevented the investigation fr om concluding the case within one year?  In 
addition, please explain why there was no public notice of extension while the DGAD issued one 
for the investigations mentioned above. 
 
Reply 
  As regards the publication of notification regard ing extension of period of investigation, there 
is no requirement under Article 5.10 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement to publish the time extension 
notification.    As regards the special circumstances in the PV C Paste Resin case are concerned, there were 
certain issues that were brought to the notice of th e DGAD for the first time by the user industry such 
as of significant volatility in the prices of the in puts and as well as prices of the "product under 
consideration" during the period of investigati on;  whereupon the DGAD decided to undertake a 
month-wise analysis to determine dumping and c onsequent injury resulting into change in the 
methodology in the computation of not only the dumping margin but also the injury margin.  This necessitated calling for fresh information/data from th e participating interested parties and hence the 
time extension for six months was sought and allowe d by the competent authority to complete this 
investigation. 
                                                      
1 G/ADP/Q2/IND/6.   
2 G/ADP/N/209/IND. G/ADP/Q2/IND/7 
Page 2  
 
  Question 2 
  The DGAD initiated the investigation on PVC Paste Resin on 3 November 2009.  A 
preliminary determination was made on 11 June 2010. Since then, there had been no notification from the DGAD until the Embassy of Thailand in India received a disclosure of the 
essential facts on 26 April 2011, which indicated that interested parties may submit their 
comments at the latest by 27 April 2011, only one day after receiving the disclosure of the 
essential facts.  On 2 May 2011, the last day before the investigation exceeded 18 months, the 
DGAD issued its final determination.   
 Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement stipulates th at the disclosure of the essential facts under 
consideration "should take place in sufficient ti me for the parties to defend their interest".  
Given the duration between the date of issue of the disclosure of the essential facts (21 April 2001) and the due date for interested parties to offer their comments (27 April 2001), how would such duration which includes the ma iling period be sufficient for the interested 
parties to defend their interest?  Alternatively,  electronic means could have been deployed in 
parallel with the traditional means to provide th e interested parties with a better opportunity to 
express their views
.  Could India explain how its practice is  in compliance with Article 6.9 of the 
AD Agreement? 
 
Reply 
 
 The Disclosure statement dated 21.4.2011 was pr omptly sent to the interested parties 
participating in the inve stigation.  Besides, the Disclosure  statement was also sent by E-mail 
dated 21 April, 2011 to the interested parties in cluding to the Royal Thai  Embassy in India.  
 
Question 3 
  According to the public notice of the imposition of provisional measures issued on 
26 July 2010, "the anti-dumping duty imposed und er this notification shall be effective up to 
and inclusive of the 25 January 2011".  In spite of this notice, the Indian Customs continue to 
collect a provisional anti-dumping duty even up to 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 not exceeding six mont hs".  Could India explain how this practice is 
consistent with the AD Agreement?   
Reply 
  In the case of PVC paste resin, the provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed vide Notification no. 77/2010 – Customs dated 26 July  2010.  Final findings were issued by the 
Investigating Authority on 2 May 2011.  Defi nitive anti-dumping duty has been imposed vide 
Notification no. 66/2011 – Customs dated 26 July 2011 on exports from PR China, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Chinese Taipei, Russia and Tha iland with effect from the date of imposition of 
provisional duty, that is 26 July 2010.  This is  as per the provisions of Article 10 of Anti-dumping 
Agreement.   
 
 Rule 21 of India's Anti-dumping Rules contain provisions for refund of duty where the provisional anti-dumping duty is not confirmed in th e final determination or where the amount of 
definitive anti-dumping duty recommended is  less than the provisional duty.   
  
__________