. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/RL/GEN/65/Rev.1 
28 September 2005 
 (05-4296) 
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:   English 
  
PROPOSAL ON DUMPED IMPORTS 
 
Communication from Brazil;  Chile;  Hong Kong, China;  Israel;  Japan;
 
Korea, Rep. of;  Mexico;  Norway;  Pakistan;  Peru;  Singapore;  the Separate  
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu;  and Thailand  
 
Revision  
  The following communication, dated 16 September 2005, is being circulated at the request of the Delegations of Brazil;  Chile;  Hong Kong, China;   Israel;  Japan;  Korea, Rep. of;  Mexico;  
Norway;  Pakistan;  Peru;  Singapore;  the Sepa rate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu;  and Thailand. 
  The submitting delegations have requested that this paper, which was submitted to the Rules 
Negotiating Group as an informal document (JOB(05) /188/Rev.1), also be circulated as a formal 
document.  
_______________ 
 
 1. In a previous submission to the NGR
1, some Members noted that although it is established in 
Article 3.1 of the Antidumping Agreement (ADA)2 that a determination of injury for the purposes of 
Article VI of GATT 1994 shall be based on pos itive evidence and shall involve an objective 
examination of the volume of the dumped impor ts, some Members understand that such concept 
might mean the total volume of imports from the country under investigation .  
 2. We believe that this interpretation might lead to  serious distortions in the application of anti-
dumping measures. Moreover, this particular view  contradicts the interpretation regarding the 
coverage of dumped imports  provided in the Panels Argentina ─ Poultry  and EC ─ Bed linen .  Like 
other Members
3 that have raised dumped imports as a potential issue for negotiations, we consider 
that Article 3.1 would benefit from clarificati on regarding the definition of dumped imports.  
Jurisprudence  
3. In Argentina ─ Poultry , the Panel was called to clarify the meaning of the term “dumped 
imports”.  In a finding that was not reviewed by the Appellate Body, the Panel4 ruled:  
 
                                                      
1 TN/RL/W/29 
2 “3.1. A determination of injury for purposes of Article VI of GATT 1994 shall be based on positive 
evidence and involve an objective examination of both (a) the volume of the dumped imports and the effect of the 
dumped imports on prices in the dome stic market for like products, and (b) the consequent impact of these imports 
on domestic producers of such products.” 
3 Venezuela (TN/RL/W/132) and USA (TN/RL/W/130) 
4 WT/DS241/R TN/RL/GEN/65/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
 7.300  We consider that a determination of dumping is made with reference to a product from 
a particular producer/exporter.  If a particular  producer/exporter has been found not to have 
dumped, then we see no basis for including that  producer/exporter's imports  in the category of 
"dumped imports".  We note that the term "dum ped imports" was interpreted by the panel in 
EC ─ Bed Line n, and by the subsequent panel reviewi ng India's recourse to Article 21.5 of the 
DSU regarding the EC's implementation of th e results of the original proceeding. 
[...] 7.302  In the implementation proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU, the panel “agree[d] 
fully” with the preceding observation of the EC ─ Bed Linen panel and in turn found that: 
"the question of which imports are to  be considered dumped is readily 
answered ─ 'dumped imports' are all imports  attributable to producers or 
exporters for which a margin of dumping greater than de minimis is 
calculated.  This was the decision of the original Panel in this dispute, 
rejecting the argument that the imports attributable to a single producer found to be dumping should be divided into two categories – 'dumped' and 
'not-dumped' sales transactions." 
7.303  We agree with the findings of the EC ─ Bed Linen and the EC ─ Bed Linen 
(Article 21.5 ─ India) panels, and with the abovementioned observation by the EC ─ Bed 
Linen panel.  On the basis of the ordinary meaning of the text, we find that the term "dumped 
imports" refers to all imports attributable to  producers or exporters for which a margin of 
dumping greater than de minimis has been calculated.  The term "dumped imports" excludes 
imports from producers/exporters found in the course of the investigation not to have 
dumped. 
4. We understand that the wording of Article 3. 1 of the ADA must be improved in order to 
clarify that “dumped imports” shall be construed to  comprise all imports attributable to producers or 
exporters for which a margin of dumping greater than de minimis has been calculated. 
Proposed approach 
5. We suggest the inclusion of a footnote (footnot e 10, following the current footnote numbering 
of the ADA) to Article 3.1 in order to clarify that: 
 
10.  Dumped imports shall not include imports from producers/ 
exporters: a) found not to have dumped; and b) for whom the 
investigating authorities have determined that the margin of dumping is de minimis . 
 
__________