. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/RL/GEN/128 
24 April 2006 
 
 (06-1906) 
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:   English 
  
CAUSATION (ADA ARTICLE 3.5;  ASCM ARTICLE 15.5) 
 
Communication from the United States
 
  
 The following communication, dated 20 April 2006,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the United States. 
 
 The submitting delegation has requested that th is paper, which was submitted to the Rules 
Negotiating Group as an informal document (JOB(06)/ 111), also be circulated as a formal document. 
 
_______________ 
 
 Issue
 
  The United States has submitted two previous  papers proposing that Members consider 
clarifying the provisions of Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) and Article 15.5 of 
the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) concerning the obligation of 
investigating authorities to demonstrate that ther e is a causal relationship between the dumped or 
subsidized imports under investigatio n and injury to the domestic industry.  In the first paper, the 
United States proposed that any clarification should  ensure "that any affirmative obligations are 
clearly set forth in the Agreement and are workable for authorities to implement".
1  In the second 
paper, which was submitted in July 2005 and discussed at the September 2005 session of the Negotiating Group on Rules (NGR), the United States provided a further explanation of why clarification of the causation obligation established by Article 3.5 of the ADA and Article 15.5 of the 
ASCM would be useful, and described several specific ways in which the obligation should be clarified.
2 
 
 In this paper, the United States presents for th e first time proposed textual amendments to the 
ADA and the ASCM reflecting its proposed clarificati ons.  The central objective of this paper is the 
same as that of the July 2005 paper – to clarify the existing causation obligation in a manner that is consistent with Members’ current  understandings and practice.  Th e proposed text indicates several 
refinements of the concepts identified in the July 2005 paper.  These refinements reflect our 
consideration of the discussions at the Septem ber 2005 NGR meetings and of other comments 
provided by Members.  In particular, the propo sed textual amendments attempt to specify 
affirmatively how investigating authorities can undert ake the non-attribution analysis contemplated by 
Article 3.5 of the ADA and Article 15.5 of the ASCM.  These affirmative obligations represent, in our view, a synthesis of numerous Members’ views on this  topic.  Additionally, in several other instances, 
the United States has responded to concerns of ot her Members by using more focused language to 
specify the nature of the additional clarifications it is proposing. 
                                                     
 
1 Communication from the United States, "Identification of Additional Issues Under the Anti-Dumping 
and Subsidies Agreements," TN/RL/W/98 (6 May 2003). 
2 Communication from the United States, "Causation (ADA Article  3.5; ASCM Article 15.5)," 
TN/RL/GEN/59 (13 July 2005). TN/RL/GEN/128 
Page 2  
 
  Proposed Text: 
 Anti-Dumping Agreement
 
 
3.5 It must be demonstrated that the du mped imports are, through the effects of 
dumping, as set forth in paragraphs 2 and 4, causing injury within the meaning of this 
Agreement.  The demonstration of a causal  relationship between the dumped imports 
and the injury to the domestic industry shall be based on an examination of all relevant evidence before the authorities.  The authorities shall also examine any 
known factors other than the dumped imports which at the same time are injuring the 
domestic industry.
;  As described in subparagraph 5.1, the authorities must not 
attribute to the dumped imports  and the injuries caused by these other factors must 
not be attributed to the dumped imports  .  Factors which may be relevant in this 
respect include, inter alia , the volume and prices of imports not sold at dumping 
prices, contraction in demand or cha nges in the patterns of consumption, 
trade-restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic 
producers, developments in technology a nd the export performance and productivity 
of the domestic industry. 
 
3.5.1  To make an affirmative determination that dumped imports are causing injury, the 
authorities must determine that the effects of the dumped imports are injurious 
notwithstanding the effects of the other known factors.  The authorities need not 
isolate or quantify the effects of either the dumped imports or the other known 
factors, either individually or collectively.  They also need not evaluate whether the 
effects of the dumped imports are more impor tant than the effects of the other known 
factors, either individually or collectively.  
 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  
 15.5 It must be demonstrated that the subsidized imports are, through the effects [footnote] of 
subsidies, causing injury within the meaning of this Agreement.  The demonstration of a 
causal relationship between the subsidized impor ts and the injury to the domestic industry 
shall be based on an examination of all rele vant evidence before the authorities.  The 
authorities shall also examine any known factors other than the subsidized imports which at 
the same time are injuring the domestic industry.
;   As described in subparagraph 5.1, the 
authorities must not attribute to the subsidized imports  and the injuries caused by these other 
factors must not be attributed to the subsidized imports .  Factors which may be relevant in this 
respect include, inter alia , the volume and prices of non-subsidized imports of the product in 
question, contraction in demand or changes in the patterns of consumption, trade restrictive 
practices of and competition between the forei gn and domestic producers, developments in 
technology and the export performance and productivity of the domestic industry. 
  15.5.1
 To make an affirmative determination that  subsidized imports are causing injury, the 
authorities must determine that the effects of the subsidized imports are injurious 
notwithstanding the effects of the other known factors.  The authorities need not 
isolate or quantify the effects of either the subsidized imports or the other known 
factors, either individually or collectively.  They also need not evaluate whether the 
effects of the subsidized imports are more important than the effects of the other 
known factors, either individually or collectively . 
 
__________