. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/Q2/THA/2 
2 December 2010 
 (10-6496) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   English 
  
 
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THAILAND
1 
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
 
Replies to Questions posed by JAPAN2 regarding the  
notification of THAILAND  
 
  The following communication, dated 26 November 2010, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of Thailand.  
_______________ 
 
  Thailand thanks Japan for its questi ons regarding semi-annual report dated 
23 September 2010 on the  changed circumstances review on Flat-H ot-rolled Steel in Coils and not in 
Coils originating in Japan and other 13 countries in page 5 of the report.  In this regard, Thailand 
would like to reply as follows: 
 
Question 1   According to the Thailand's national legisl ation, how many days are provided to the 
interested parties to comment on essenti al facts after the disclosure of them? 
  In this case, the Embassy of Japan in Thailand received the letter from the Thailand's 
AD committee on Friday, 4 June 2010 and the deadline to comment was Monday, 7 June 2010.  The Government of Japan was given only on e working day to comment on it, while the 
Thailand's AD committee issued the document, the Non-Confidential Disclosure of the Essential 
Facts for the Final Determination of Change  in Circumstances Review concerning the Anti-
Dumping Margins on Flat Hot-rolled Steel in Coils Originating in 14 countries in 31 May 2010.  
Japan wonders why it took four days for the Th ailand's AD committee to no tify the Embassy of 
Japan in Thailand of the Essential Facts . 
 Reply
 
  The Department of Foreign Trade (DFT) has conducted the investigation in accordance with 
the Thai Anti-dumping and Countervailing Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and
 the ADA under WTO 
Agreement by informing all interested parties of the essential facts for the Final Determination of 
Change in Circumstances Review concerning the Anti-Dumping Margins on Flat Hot-rolled Steel in 
Coils and not in Coils originating in 14 countries before a final determination was made.  In this 
regard, the DFT provided the confidential disclos ure to the fully cooperating respondents and made 
available a non-confidential disclosure version to a ll interested parties, including the embassies of all 
subjected countries based in Thailand, for comments.   In this case, the cooperating Japanese exporters 
                                                      
1 G/ADP/N/202/THA.   
2 G/ADP/Q2/THA/1.   G/ADP/Q2/THA/2 
Page 2  
 
  were able to provide comments and re quest for hearing within sufficient time to defend their interests.  
In this regard, the DFT took into account all rele vant comments received from all interested parties 
when making the final decision.  
Question 2  
 
 In the Non-Confidential Disclosure of the Essen tial Facts for the Final Determination of 
Change in Circumstances Review concerning the Anti-Dumping Margins on Flat Hot-rolled Steel 
in Coils Originating in 14 countries , there are six Japanese "known Producers/Exporters" 
identified by the AD committee of Thailand.  So far, it is confirmed that two of them received 
the Essential Facts.   Did Thailand's AD committee sent the Essential Facts  to remaining four 
Japanese "known Producers/Exporters"?  If not, please explain why. 
 
Reply
 
 
 The DFT sent the confidential and the non-confidential disclosures of the essential facts for 
the Final Determination of Change in Circumst ances Review concerning the Anti-Dumping Margins 
on Flat Hot-rolled Steel in Coils and not in Coils directly to the two Japa nese exporters who had 
cooperated in the proceedings.  As for the rema ining exporters who had not cooperated in the 
investigation, the Thai investigating authority wished  to make sure that all interested parties in the 
subjected countries would be informed of the es sential facts.  Therefor e, the non-confidential 
disclosures of the essential facts were forwarded to these non-cooperatives through their embassies 
based in Thailand.    
Question 3 
 
 According to the Thailand's national legisl ation, how many days prior to the public 
hearings the notice for hearings is sent?   In this case, the Thailand's AD committee  sent the notice of hearings to Japanese 
companies which cooperated on the investigation on ly 48 hours before it took place even though 
the flight from Japan to Thailand takes more than  six hours.  Japan wonders if it is customary 
for Thailand to send such a short notice.  
Reply
 
  According to the Anti-dumping and Counterva iling Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and in compliance 
with the ADA, all interested parties have the ri ght to be heard orally in the anti-dumping 
investigation.  All interested parties may also re quest a hearing after receiving essential facts for final 
determination provided that such a request  is made within the deadline set.   
  However, with a tremendous amount of inform ation and the number of  parties involved in 
this case, as well as the limited time frame of the re view proceedings, some parties might feel that 
they had a rather short period of time available to  respond on the essential facts for final determination 
in this case.  The Thai investigating authority took these matters into account and put its best effort to 
complete the review proceedings in full compliance with the ADA.  Despite the limitations, several 
interested parties, including one cooperative Japanes e exporter, were able to make their requests for 
oral hearing within the due date, and the hear ing sessions were properly arranged by the Thai 
investigating authority before the final determin ation was made.  For these reasons Thailand believed 
that the interested parties had been given a suffici ent amount of time to respond to the disclosure of 
essential facts in this review. 
__________