. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/ADP/Q2/IND/6 
5 September 2011 
 (11-4330) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   English 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
 
Questions Posed by THAILAND Regarding the  
Semi-Annual Report from INDIA1 
  
 The following communication, dated 1 September 2011, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of Thailand. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
 Thailand thanks India for its Notification and poses questions with regard to the investigations 
on Polyvinyl Chloride Paste Resin (PVC Paste Resi n) originating in or exported from China, Japan, 
Korea, Malaysia, Russia, Chinese Taipei and Thailand.   This case is listed on page 11 of the semi-
annual report dated 19 April 2011.  Thailand may have subsequent qu estions as it further examines 
the case.  
 
Question 1 
 
 Article 5.10 of the AD Agreement stipulates th at "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 Picture Tubes orig inating in or exported from Malaysia, Thailand, 
China and Korea (No. 14/8/2007-DGAD).  Could India explain the "special circumstances" which 
prevented the investigation from concluding the case  within one year?  In addition, please explain 
why there was no public notice of extension whil e the DGAD issued one for the investigations 
mentioned above.  
Question 2 
  The DGAD initiated the investigation on PV C 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 pa rties may submit their comments at the latest by 
27 April 2011, only one day after receiving the discl osure of the essential facts.  On 2 May 2011, the 
last day before the investigation exceeded 18 m onths, the DGAD issued its final determination.  
  Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement stipulates that the disclosure of the essential facts under consideration "should take place in sufficient time fo r the parties to defend their interest".  Given the 
duration between the date of issue of the disclosur e of the essential facts (21 April 2001) and the due 
date for interested parties to offer their comme nts (27 April 2001), how would such duration which 
                                                      
1 G/ADP/N/209/IND. G/ADP/Q2/IND/6 
Page 2  
 
  includes the mailing period be sufficient for the interested parties to defend their interest?  
Alternatively, electronic means could have been de ployed in parallel with the traditional means to 
provide the 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? 
 Question 3  
 According to the public notice of the imposition of provisional measures issued on 
26 July 2010, "the anti-dumping duty imposed under 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 months". Could India explain how this practice is consistent with the AD 
Agreement?   
__________