WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/RL/GEN/49 
1 July 2005 
 (05-2838) 
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:   English 
  
 
PROPOSAL ON ISSUES RELATING TO EVIDENCE, PUBLIC NOTICE  
AND EXPLANATION OF THE DETERMINATIONS UNDER  
ARTICLES 6 AND 12 OF THE ADA 
 
Communication from Norway
 
 
  The following communication, dated 29 June 2005,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Norway.  
 The submitting delegation has requested that th is paper, which was submitted to the Rules 
Negotiating Group as an informal document (JOB(05)/ 132), also be circulated as a formal document. 
 
_______________ 
 
 1. Background  
1. The "Friends of Anti-dumping Negotiations" (F ANs), in document TN/RL/W/29, identified 
certain issues relating to Articles 6 and 12 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (her einafter referred to as "the Anti-dumping 
Agreement" or "the ADA"), and suggested that ther e is a need to clarify and improve these provisions 
to ensure that investigating authorities actively seek accurate, relevant and representative data and 
information, as well as giving interested parties full opportunity to present their facts and views during the course of an investigation. 
2. References to the need for further  clarifica tions and improvements in respect of evidence and 
explanations of the determinati ons under Articles 6 and 12 can also be found in a number of other 
submissions.
1 
3. This document presents a number of specific  pr oposals for clarification and improvement of 
Articles 6 and 12.  The proposals contained in th is document do not represent final positions in 
respect of the provisions referred to below, nor do th ey represent the total extent of proposals that we  
may wish to present in the future.  In particular we would foresee that proposals  relating to  other 
Articles of the ADA might result in the need for con sequential amendments to Article 12.  We thus 
reserve the right to present further additions and/or modifications in the course of the negotiations.   
2. Overview 
 
4. The proposals in this document relate in particular  to Articles 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.9, 6.13, 12.1, 
12.2 and Annex I of the ADA. In particular, Norway proposes 
                                                      
1 See e.g. Canada in TN/RL/W/47, JOB(04)/149 and TN/RL/GEN/21.  See also the United States in 
TN/RL/W/130, TN/RL/GEN/25 and JOB(04)/155. TN/RL/GEN/49 
Page 2  
 
 • To clarify and improve these provisions to ensure that investigating authorities fulfil their 
duty under Article 6 to actively seek accurate , relevant and representative evidence, and 
to conduct the investigation in an objective and unbiased manner; 
• To clarify and improve these provisions to ensure that interested parties are given full 
opportunity to present their facts and views during the course of an investigation, by strengthening their rights under Article 6 to defend their interests and by improving the 
notices under Article 12; 
• To strengthen the transparency of anti-dumping investigations, including providing 
greater and more timely access to the "file" or "record" for interested parties; 
• To make explicit the requirement for reas oned and adequate e xplanations for all 
determinations, to be set out in any disclos ure and in all notices under Article 12; and 
• Additional requirements for specific information th at must be set out in the public notices 
at each step. 
5. For ease of reference, the Annex to this docum ent sets out how the proposed amendments to 
the Anti-dumping Agreement may be presented as legal text. 
3. Proposals to ensure that the authorities fulfil their duty under Article 6 to actively seek 
accurate, relevant and representative evidence, and to give interested parties  full and 
timely opportunity to present their facts and views during the course of an investigation. 
 
6. Article 6, as currently written,  emphasizes  th e rights of interested parties to present their 
facts and views, and also implicitly requires  th at the authorities fulfil their duty to actively seek 
accurate, relevant and representative evidence.  We th us propose to set out more clearly in Article 6.1 
this  overarching responsibilit y of the authorities.  This element, together with the general requirement 
to conduct an investigation in an objective and unbi ased manner, has been stressed by panels, lastly 
the panel in " Mexico – Rice ", which stated: 
".... an investigating authority required to conduct an investigation in an objective and 
unbiased manner has to play an active role in  the search of the information it requires 
in order to make its determination."
2 
7. Article 6.2 provides that "all interested parties shall have a full opportunity for the defence of 
their interests".  In practical terms it is nece ssary for investigating au thorities to take certain 
affirmative steps to ensure that th is is effectively the case, particularly  for small and medium sized 
companies. 
8. The duty to ensure that all interested parties b ecome aware of the investigation, and thus can 
effectively defend their interests, lies squarely up on the investigating authorities.  They must make 
best efforts to reach out to all exporters, not just  those identified in the initial complaint of the 
domestic producers, and cannot assume that the government of the exporting Member or other 
interested parties will do this task for them.3   
                                                      
 2 Panel Report in "Mexico – Definitive Anti-dumping  Measures on Beef and Rice" ("Mexico – Rice"), 
WT/DS295/R, at paragraph 7.185.   See also the Appellate Body in US – Wheat Gluten  at para. 53. 
3 This has been set out in detail in the Panel report in Mexico – Rice,  see inter alia  paras. 7.192 and 
7.199.  TN/RL/GEN/49 
 Page 3 
 
 
 9. It is generally recognized that small and me dium sized companies of the exporting country 
may have serious difficulties in defending their inte rests in an anti-dumping investigation.  Language 
skills and administrative resources to defend their in terests are often non-existent, and they often do 
not have the resources to employ necessary legal assistance.  Furthermore, questionnaires are normally in the language of the importing Member and may in many cases not be understood by the 
exporters.  Article 6.13  provides that "author ities shall take due account of the difficulties 
experienced by interested parties, in particular small companies, in supplying information requested, 
and shall provide any assistance practicable".   
10. Norway holds the view that the issues referre d to above, namely the numerous resource 
constraints that respondents are confronted with s hould be discussed, in order to provide a basis for 
the elaboration of further  improvements of the rele vant Article 6 provisions. In particular, there is a 
need to make the current Article 6.13 provision mo re operational to ensure that small and medium 
sized companies understand their rights, fully comprehend the information requirements of the questionnaires, receive operational guidance in f illing out the questionnaires and in providing the 
information requested, as well as understanding the c onsequences of not providing the information 
requested. 
11. Article 6.1 contains the general obligation of the authorities to set  out in detail the information 
they require from the interested parties.  The duty to explain to the respondents exactly what 
information is required is not furthe r defined in Article 6, albeit Annex II (6) provides to the interested 
party an opportunity to correct and explain th e information submitted.  We therefore suggest 
providing guidance to authorities on how to fulfil thei r obligation to set out in detail the information 
they require at all stages, while at the same ti me aiding respondents to provide accurate, required 
information in the questionnaire responses. 
12. There is also a need to strengthen the provisions  of Annex I to the ADA, to ensure that all 
verifications are preceded by a notice to the exporter concerned of the exact nature of information that 
the authorities wish to verify.  Currently some Members do not provide such notices, leaving the 
exporters or producers in the dark as to the need for verification and/or the information to be verified. 
13. Article 6.4 provides that interested parties sh all have the opportunity to see all information 
that is relevant to the presentation of their cases.  Currently access to "the file" is hampered in certain 
Members by the fact that an overview in the form of  a listing of the contents in the "file" is lacking, 
such that an interested party may not know  what is actually in "the file." Furthermore, it should be 
required that all information collected during the cour se of the investigation, whether it is used or not, 
be listed and contained in the case file.  The aut horities should be required to  keep an updated index 
of all information that is part of "the file", includ ing an index of all information withheld because of a 
justified need to preserve confidentiality 
14. In its submission TN/RL/GEN/13 the United States has raised a number of issues which we 
believe merit further discussion.  In particular th e U.S. addresses the issue that interested parties 
should not only have access to the information aut horities use, but additionally, to information the 
authorities do not use.  We would furthermore point to  the fact that the issue of access to the file or 
record is relevant and important for all parties affected  by an investigation.  Th is pertains in particular 
to the need of producers and exporters not directly involved in a particular investigation to have  
access to information which will have a bearing on their interests. Norway would welcome views on 
how to elaborate on further proposals to cater  to the situations described above. 
15. Lastly, Norway would highlight that Members va ry greatly with respect to  the extent of 
access they grant to the record, or file, in antidumpi ng investigations.  Overall, greater transparency is 
needed to ensure that interested parties have access to all relevant information so that they may defend 
their interests fully. Because of the considerable  differences between  the various systems, and TN/RL/GEN/49 
Page 4  
 
 because parties often do not have adequate access to  information, we propose that Members initiate a 
discussion on how the ADA might be improved to ensure more uniform and transparent  access to information. 
16. Specifically, the situation would be consid erably improved from the point of view of 
enhancing due process, if the ADA were to requi re that interested parties have access to all 
information and evidence, including confidential information, throughout an investigation. 
17. The confidential information is very often of crucial importance to an investigation and 
interested parties must, therefore, be able to access th is information if they are to defend their interests 
adequately.  Consequently, allowing access to co nfidential information - subject to protection 
requirements - is essential to balance the competing, bu t equally legitimate interest s, of the parties that 
submitted the information and the rights of due pro cess of other parties in the investigation. To 
implement such a requirement, Members would need to  have in place adequate systems for protecting 
confidential information that is on the record.    
18. Norway would therefore welcome Members views on this particular aspect of the issue of 
"access to the file or record". 
19. To improve the situation we propose the following amendments: 
• Set out more clearly in Article 6.1 the overarching responsibility of authorities to actively 
seek accurate, relevant and repr esentative evidence, and to con duct the investigation in an 
objective and unbiased manner. 
• Extend the time period in Article 6.1.1. for replying to questionnaires to 45 days. 
• Provide in Article 6.1 that authorities shall make best efforts to identify all foreign 
exporters or producers. 
• Provide in Article 6.6 that the authorities shall set out in detail the information they 
require at all stages and assist the respondent s in providing accurate, required information. 
• Amend Article 6.13 to include a requirement  that authorities respond in a timely manner 
to all requests for clarifications of the questionnaire, and provide assistance in identifying the information that is needed.   
• Further, provide that authorities shall, without delay, upon receipt of responses to 
the 
questionnaires, request clarifications or a dditional information, where needed for the 
investigation.  The authorities shall engage in a process with the exporters and producers 
to ensure that the compani es fully understand the information required and are given 
ample opportunity to provide it.  If evidence or  information is not accepted, the supplying 
company shall be informed forthwith of th e reasons therefore, and shall have an 
opportunity to provide further evidence or information or explanations within a reasonable period. 
• Clarify, strengthen and make mandatory th e provision in paragraph 7 of Annex I 
regarding pre-verification notices. 
• Require that investigating authorities keep an updated index of all info rmation that is part 
of "the file" or "record", including an i ndex of all information withheld because of a 
justified need to preserve confidentiality.  TN/RL/GEN/49 
 Page 5 
 
 
 4. Disclosure 
20. Article 6.9 currently provides that  
"The authorities shall, before a final dete rmination is made, inform all interested 
parties of the essential facts under considerati on which form the basis for the decision 
whether to apply definitive measures.  Such disclosure should take place in sufficient 
time for the parties to defend their interests." 
Disclosure under Article 6.9 is currently not subject to any explicit procedural requirements in respect 
of timing or content.  There can also be more than  one disclosure, which is implicit in the requirement 
of disclosure after verification visits as set out in Ar ticle 6.7.  This can also occur as a result of the 
obligation of the investigating authorities to set out forthwith the reason for not accepting any 
information or evidence in paragraph 6 of Annex II. 
21. While, for obvious reasons, there is a need for inte rested parties to be informed of all the facts 
under consideration that will form the basis for the d ecision, to be able to contest and correct that 
information, there is also a need for them to be informed of the assessment by the authorities of those 
facts, the methodologies the authorities will apply and the legal interpretations the authorities will 
base themselves on.  Consequently, we believe that there is a need to strengthen the requirements for 
the disclosure preceding a decision where  pr ovisional or definitive duties are imposed. 
22. We have noted with interest the suggesti on made by the United States in TN/RL/GEN/25. 
While we are opposed to any requirement to take a provisional measure, we are equally in favour of 
the element of that paper emphasising that inte rested parties should, during the course of an 
investigation, be informed and be allowed to comment on all essential matters of fact and law that will 
play an essential role in any determination made by  the authorities. This is a vital component of 
procedural fairness. We would therefore inv ite Members to further the discussion on how the 
Agreement could be improved by giving speci fic input to elements mentioned above.  
5. Proposal to make explicit the requirement for reasoned and adequate explanations for 
all determinations, to be set out in any disclosure and in all notices under Article 12. 
23. Any decision to impose a definitive anti-dumping measure must take into account the 
comments received in response to a provisional measure  (if such a measure has been taken), and must 
also include an explanation of any changes made in  the facts relied on, basis for determination or 
other methodological changes or analyses.4 
24. There is a distinction between a legal duty to explain a determination and the authorities’ 
discretion in fact finding.  Under the ADA, the authorities must establish the facts properly and 
evaluate them in an unbiased and objective manner.   
25. Panels show great deference to the authorities in respect of fact finding.  Panels cannot, and 
do not, undertake "de novo" reviews of the facts in an anti-dumping case.  Rather, as also set out in Article 17.6(i) of the ADA, panels  determine "whether the authorities’ establishment of the facts was 
proper and whether their evaluation was unbiased and objective". Such a requirement, however, 
                                                     
 
4 See Guatemala—Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Grey Portland Cement from Mexico , 
WT/DS156R at paras. 8.226-230 17 Nov. 2000 (disclosure of essential facts underlying preliminary 
determination insufficient under Art. 6.9 where basis for final determination differed from preliminary determination and mere access to file not sufficient disclosu re of essential facts because Art. 6.9 intends to make 
access to essential facts easy—parties should not have to  sort through all facts to  find essential facts). TN/RL/GEN/49 
Page 6  
 
 presumes that the authorities have taken significant e fforts to establish all the relevant facts.  This 
implies that a detailed inves tigation must be conducted. 
26. The factual basis for analysing whether the authorities’ evaluation was unbiased and objective 
is the public notice, and where relevant,  the  acco mpanying report, that is published by the authorities 
under Article 12.2.  The current requirement that th e findings and conclusions reached on all issues of 
fact and law be set out "in sufficient detail"
 should be clarified to give the necessary guidance.   
27. Panels and the Appellate body have struggled with what "sufficient detail" requires, and have 
adopted a test that is very similar to that employ ed under the Agreement on Safeguards, i.e. to require 
that there be in the published report or  notice a reasoned and adequate explanation  of the 
determinations of the authorities on all pertinent issues of fact and law.5 
28. To provide better guidance to authorities as to  what is required under Article 12.2, and to 
assist interested parties in understa nding the basis for the determinations, we propose to make explicit 
the requirement of a reasoned and adequate expl anation of all determin ations (findings and 
conclusions) reached on all issues of fact and law relied upon by the authorities in the investigation.6  
This will codify the interpretation of current Artic le 12.2 that has been applied by Panels and the 
Appellate Body.  Consistent with the proposal  above regarding required disclosures, such a 
requirement should also be applicable to all disclosures required under Article 6.9. 
6. Proposed additional precise requirements fo r information that must be set out in the 
public notices at each step. 
 
29. The FANs have presented a number of proposed  modifications to other Articles of the ADA 
that entail consequential amendments to Article 12.   Additionally Canada, in  TN/RL/GEN/21, made a 
number of important proposals to clarify and improve  Article 12.  We would refer to the attached 
Annex and the draft text relating to Article 12 for an illustration of proposals that have already been 
introduced into the negotiations.  We would point out  that the proposals summarized in Article 12 of 
                                                      
5 The "reasoned and adequate" language has been use, in particular, in examining claims concerning 
sunset reviews under Article 11.3.  The Appellate Body stated that a determination under that provision is 
WTO-consistent if it "rests upon a sufficient factual basis to allow [t he authorities] to draw reasoned and 
adequate conclusions”. (See US – OCTG Sunset Rewiews , para 322.  See also US – Corrosion Resistant Steel , 
paras. 54 and 55).  The Panel in US – OCTG  Sunset Reviews  concluded that the US determination "can not be a 
determination supported by reasoned and adequate conclusions based on the facts before an investigating 
authority.” (para 7.93, see also para. 7.95).  The panel in US - OCTG AD Measures  reached a similar conclusion 
(panel report, para.7.80; see also para. 7.74. Similar language has been employed by Panels reviewing injury determinations (see  inter alia  Mexico – Corn Syrup at para. 7.132; EC – Bed Linen (Article 21.5 – India ) and 
US – Softwood Lumber VI) . ).  In Mexico – Rice , the panel indicated that an authority is entitled to "draw[] 
certain inferences” from the facts, "provided it offers a well reasoned explanation .” 
In US – DRAMS Countervailing Duties , circulated 27 June 2005 (not yet adopted), the Appellate Body 
examined the meaning of Articles 12.2, 19.1 and 22.5 of the SCM Agreement  regarding the investigating 
authorities duty to provide a "reasoned and adequate explanation” in the "published determination” as to how the facts support the factual findings; how the factual findings support the determinations made; and why the 
authorities "chose to discount” alternative explanations of  the facts (para. 186).  The Appellate Body’s reasoning 
focused on the authorities’ duty to provide a " determination ” that is " based ” on evidence, as well as the duty to 
provide " reasons ” for the decision, and the " basis ” for the determination.  This ruling has potential significance 
for the authorities’ duty to explain under the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the language that the Appellate 
Body relied upon also appears in Articles 2,3, 6.5 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  In particular, the 
public notice requirements in Article 22.5 of the SCM Agreement  and Article 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement  are almost identical.  This suggests that the ordi nary meaning of these provisions requires a similar 
"reasoned and adequate explanation” in the published determination 
6 The FANs already made a similar proposal in respect of injury determinations (see proposal no. 6 in  
JOB(04)/183, TN/RL/GEN/28).  TN/RL/GEN/49 
 Page 7 
 
 
 the Annex  do not represent final or prioritized positions, nor do they represent the total extent of 
proposals that may be presented in the future. TN/RL/GEN/49 
Page 8  
 
 ANNEX 
Summary of proposed changes to current text of ADA 
(For ease of reference we reproduce below the current text of the relevant Articles of 
the  AD Agreement, with the proposed ch anges included.  Additions are underlined
, 
while deletions are presented with strikethroughs.)  
 
Article 6 - Evidence 
 
6.1 Authorities shall conduct an investigation in  an objective and unbiased manner.  Authorities 
shall actively seek all eviden ce necessary for the good con duct of the investigation .  All interested 
parties in an anti-dumping investigation shall be given notice7 of the information which the authorities 
require and ample opportunity to present in writing all evidence which they  the authorities  consider 
relevant in respect of the investigation in question. 
6.1.1 Exporters or foreign producers receiving questionnaires used in an anti-dumping  
investigation shall be given at least 30   45 days for reply.8  Due consideration should be  given 
to any request for an extension of the 30  45-day period and, upon cause shown, such an 
extension should be granted whenever practicable. 
 
..... 
 6.4 The authorities shall whenever practicable
 provide timely opportunities for all interested 
parties to see all information  that is not confidentia l as defined in paragraph 5, and that is before the 
authorities in an anti-dumping investigation, a nd to prepare presentations on the basis of this 
information. Authorities shall make available to a ll interested parties an updated list of all such 
information  contained in the file or the record of  an anti-dumping investigation, including a list of all 
information withheld because of confidentiality.  
 
New 6.5.2. (changing current 6.5.1)  The authorities shall require interested parties providing confidential information to furnish a public vers ion of the document containing the confidential 
information.  The public version of the document will be identical to the version containing the 
confidential information except that the confidential information will be redacted and replaced with a 
non-confidential summary thereof.  These summaries shall be in sufficient detail to permit a 
reasonable understanding of the substance of the info rmation submitted in confidence.  In exceptional 
circumstances, such parties may indicate that such information is not susceptible to summary.  In such 
exceptional circumstances, a statement of the reas ons why summarization is not possible must be 
provided.  
 The current text of 6.5.2 will remain the same , but the paragraph will be renumbered as 6.5.3. 
 
                                                     
 
 7 New footnote to be inserted:  Authorities shall make best efforts  to identify the exporters and/or 
producers concerned, including through, inter alia,  checking customs declarations, through requests to industry 
associations in the exporting Member, through industry publications in the exporting Member and any other 
means reasonably available to them.  
 8 Existing footnote no. 15:   As a general rule, the time-limit for exporters shall be counted from the date 
of receipt of the questionnaire, which for this purpose shall be deemed to have been received one week from the 
date on which it was sent to the respondent or transmitted to the appropriate diplomatic representative of the exporting Member or, in the case of a separate customs te rritory Member of the WTO, an official representative 
of the exporting territory.  TN/RL/GEN/49 
 Page 9 
 
 
 6.6 Except in circumstances provided for in paragraph  8, t The authorities shall during the course 
of an investigation satisfy them selves as to the accuracy of  all  the information supplied by interested 
parties9 upon which their findings are based.  Without delay after receipt of responses to the 
questionnaires, the authorities shall set out in writi ng any requests for clarifications or additional 
requirements for information from the interested party concerned .  If evidence or information is not 
accepted, the supplying party shall be informed forthw ith of the reasons therefore, and shall have the 
opportunity to provide further evidence or informa tion or explanations within a reasonable period.  
 
..... 
 
6.13 The authorities shall take due account of any di fficulties experienced by interested parties, in 
particular small companies, in supplying inform ation requested, and shall provide any assistance 
practicable.  In particular the authorities sh all respond in a timely manner to questions for 
clarifications of the questionnaire, and provide assist ance in identifying the info rmation that is needed.  
 
..... 
Article 12 -- Public Notice and Explanation of Determinations 
 
12.1 When the authorities are satisfied  that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an 
anti-dumping investigation pursuant to Article 5, th e Member or Members the products of which are 
subject to such investigation and other interested parties known to th e investigating authorities to have 
an interest therein shall be notified and a public notice shall be given.  
 
(Explanatory note: The particular elements of  the provisions are non-exhaustive and may be 
adjusted and expanded on the basis of input from Members).  
 
12.1.1 A public notice of the initiation of an in vestigation shall contain, or otherwise make 
available through a separate report10, adequate information on the following: 
 
(i) a description of the product under investigation to which the initiation applies, 
including its tariff classification for customs purposes, the name of the 
exporting country or countries involved, and the names of the known 
exporters and foreign producers of  the product under investigation ;11 
 
(ii) the date of initiation of the investigation; 
 (iii) the names of all individual domestic producers of the like product who 
support the application, and the volume and value of each such producer’s 
domestic production of the like product;12 
   (iii) the basis on which dumping is alleged in the application;  
                                                     
 
 9 Deletions suggested by FAN’s in TN/RL/W/93, page 4 (proposal no. 3.2 in TN/RL/GEN/20).  The 
word "all” is not explicitly mentioned in the original proposal but emphasizes the point made in the explanation 
to the proposal that all the information, including "facts available” should be verified.  
10 Existing footnote no. 23:   Where authorities provide information and explanations under the 
provisions of this Article in a separate report, they shall ensure that such report is readily available to the public. 
11 Changes suggested by Canada in TN/RL/GEN/21 and JOB(04)/149. 
 12 Consequential amendment to the proposal by FAN’s in JOB(04)/152, proposal 1-3 that amends 
Article 5.2(i). We are aw are that the issue of confidentiality might be relevant in this respect. TN/RL/GEN/49 
Page 10  
 
 (iv) a summary of the factors on which the allegation of injury and the existence 
of causal link is based; 
   (v) the address to which representations by interested parties should be directed; 
 
  (vi) the time-limits allowed to interested parties for making their views known, 
and any other information relevant to the continuation of the investigation 
including next steps and related time-frames13. 
 
  (vii) whether the authorities may consider limiting their examination in 
accordance with paragraph 10 of Artic le 6, and any procedures in that 
respect.14 
 
12.2 Public notice shall be given of any preliminar y or final determination, whether affirmative or 
negative, of any decision to accept an undertaking pursu ant to Article 8, of the termination of such an 
undertaking, and of the termination of a definitiv e anti-dumping duty.  Each such notice shall set 
forth, or otherwise make available through a separate report, in sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law cons idered material by the investigating authorities. 
The authorities shall provide a reasoned and adequate  explanation for all findings and conclusions 
made, including an explanation of how each  relevant factor has been evaluated.  All such notices and 
reports shall be forwarded to the Member or Me mbers the products of which are subject to such 
determination or undertaking and to other interest ed parties known to have an interest therein. 
 
(Explanatory note: The particular elements of  the provisions are non-exhaustive and may be 
adjusted and expanded on the basis of input from Members).  
  12.2.1 A public notice of the imposition of provis ional measures shall set forth, or otherwise 
make available through a separate report, su fficiently detailed explanations for the 
preliminary determinations on dumping and injury  and shall refer to the matters of fact and 
law which have led to arguments being accepted or rejected.  Such a notice or report shall, 
due regard being paid to the requirement fo r the protection of confidential information, 
contain in particular: 
 
(i) the names of the suppliers, or when  this is impracticable, the supplying 
countries involved the name of the exporting country or countries involved, 
and the names of the known exporters  and foreign producers of the product 
under investigation ;15 
 
(ii) a description of the product under investigation, including its tariff 
classification  which is sufficient  for customs purposes; 
 
(iii) the margins of dumping established an d a full explanation of the reasons for 
the methodology used in the establishment and comparison of the export 
price and the normal value under Article 2, including information regarding 
normal values (including whether nor mal values were based on sales in the 
home market, sales to a third market or constructed normal value), export 
prices, and - if appropriate - any adjustments made16; 
                                                      
13 Similar changes have been suggested by Canada in TN/RL/GEN/21 and JOB(04)/149. 
14 Consequential amendment to the proposals in respect of limited examinations, see TN/RL/W/181. 
15 Similar changes suggested by Canada in TN/RL/GEN/21 and JOB(04)/149. 
16 Similar changes suggested by Canada in TN/RL/GEN/21 and JOB(04)/149.  TN/RL/GEN/49 
 Page 11 
 
 
  
(iv) considerations relevant to17 the injury determination as set out in Article 3, 
and the facts upon which it is based ; 
 
(v) the main reasons leading to the determination;  
 
(vi) the periods for data collection for the dumping and injury analysis, and an 
explanation of the rationale for the selection of such periods;18 
 (vii) the names of all known domestic producers of the like product, and the 
volume and value of each such produ cer’s domestic production of the like 
product, identifying which producers s upport the application to initiate an 
investigation , and, if relevant, in formation regarding any exclusion of 
producers for the purposes of defi ning the total domestic production 
industry ;19 
 
(viii) the right of exporters to offer price undertakings as well as information 
regarding the applicable rules and pr ocedures to be followed in requesting 
consideration of price undertakings, including any procedural deadlines;20 
 
(ix) the considerations which led to the u se of a limited examination according to 
paragraph 10 of Article 6, the pro cedure used to select the producers or 
exporters included , and an explanation of the choice of companies or 
products; 21 
 
(x) information concerning the verification of information used by the 
authorities, if undertaken;22 and 
 
(xi) information relevant to the continuatio n of the investigation, including next 
steps in the process, and related time frames, and information concerning 
contact to whom representations by interested parties should be directed23. 
 
12.2.2 A public notice of conclusion or suspensi on of an investigation in the case of an 
affirmative determination providing for the im position of a definitive duty or the acceptance 
of a price undertaking shall contain, or otherwise make available through a separate report, all relevant information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to the 
imposition of final measures or the acceptance of  a price undertaking, due regard being paid 
to the requirement for the protection of confiden tial information. In particular, the notice or 
report shall contain the information described in  subparagraph 2.1, as well as the reasons for 
the acceptance or rejection of relevant argum ents or claims made by the exporters, the 
                                                      
 17 Consequential amendment to the proposals in respect of injury determinations, (see JOB(04)/183, 
TN/RL/GEN/28) to give effect to the changes proposed to Article 3. 
 18 Consequential amendment to give effect to the changes proposed to Article 2.4.  (This suggestion in 
modified form has been advanced by Canada in Job(04)/149 and TN/RL/GEN/21.)  
 19 Consequential amendment to give effect to the changes proposed to Article 4.1, and to the changes 
proposed for Article 5.2(i) (in JOB(04/152) and Article 12 .1.1(iii).  (This suggestion in modified form has been 
advanced by Canada in Job(04)/149.)  
20 Consequential amendment to the proposal by  FAN’s cf. TN/RL/W/1 18 (fourth element), 
incorporated into Article 8.2.  (This suggestion in modified form has been advanced by Canada in Job(04)/149.) 
21 We refer to the proposals on limited examinations  in TN/RL/W/181. 
22 Changes suggested by Canada in TN/RL/GEN/21 and JOB(04)/149. 
23 Changes suggested by Canada in TN/RL/GEN/21 and JOB(04)/149. TN/RL/GEN/49 
Page 12  
 
 producers of the exporting Member
 and importers24. and the basis for any decision made 
under subparagraph 10.2 of Article 6.25 
   
__________ 
 
 
                                                     
 
24 We note that  FANs have elaborated proposals relating to lesser duty and public interest and that 
specific provisions  concerning thes e issues would be reflected in th e provisions. Of Article 12.2.2.   
25 This provision has been moved to Article 12.2.1 (ix) as amended.