WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/ADP/Q2/IND/9 
25 April 2012 
 (12-2192) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   English 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
 
Replies to Questions Posed by NORWAY1 Regarding 
the Semi-Annual Report from INDIA2 
  
 The following communication, dated 23 April 2012,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of India. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Questions A 
 
 WTO document G/ADP/N/216/IND contai ns India's semi-annual report under the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) Article 16.4 for the period 1 January-30 June 2011.  The 
report includes in respect of Norway and caustic so da the information "Final Findings issued on 
30.6.2011".  The Indian "Final Findings" docume nt deposited with the Secretariat contains a 
"recommendation" but no information as to what the Indian authorities might have decided.  
We presume that there is a distinct difference between "final findings" by the investigating authorities and the decision by the appropriate In dian authority on the basis of a final finding.  
Norway as an interested party has not been informed of any decision taken by Indian 
authorities.   Could India please explain why the "Final Findings" was notified under an obligation concerning final actions, when the "Final Findings" document only contains a 
recommendation? 
  Does India distinguish between recommendati ons and decisions in respect of the result 
of anti-dumping investigations?  
 Could India inform Norway of the present status as to the final result of the 
investigation on caustic soda? 
 
Reply 
  The final findings in the investigation relati ng to caustic soda from Norway were issued by 
the Investigating Authority on 30 June 2011.  This was reflected in India's semi-annual report for the 
period January-June 2011 under column no 8 under th e heading 'others' and not under the heading 
'final measures'.   
                                                      
1 G/ADP/Q2/IND/8. 
2 G/ADP/N/216/IND. G/ADP/Q2/IND/9 
Page 2  
 
   In this case, Central Government imposed anti-dumping duty on 23 August 2011 and this was 
accordingly reflected in India's semi annual report for the period July-December 2011.     India does distinguish between recommendation i.e.  the result of investigation carried out by 
the Designated Authority and decision i.e. the imposition of measures or action by the Central 
Government on the recommendation sent by the Designated Authority in respect of the anti-dumping 
investigations.    
Questions B 
 
 Article 16.4 of the ADA stipulates that "Members shall report without delay" to the 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices "all preliminary or final an ti-dumping actions taken".   
  Could India please explain India's practice in relation to this obligation?  
 Has India fulfilled its obligation to inform the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
without delay  of the final outcome of the investigation on caustic soda from Norway?  If so, 
please explain your view.  
Reply 
  India is in general compliance with its obligatio ns under Article 16.4.  It seems that in this 
particular case, final findings were notified in September 2011 due to some administrative reasons. 
 
Question C 
 
 We note from WTO document G/ADP/N/223 that Members are invited to submit their 
annual reports for the period 1 July-31 Dece mber 2011 not later than 27 February 2012.  
  When could we expect to receive India's report for the last six months of 2011? 
 
Reply 
  India's semiannual report for the period July-D ecember 2011 has already been circulated vide 
document number G/ADP/N/223/IND. 
 
Questions D 
 
 Article 6.9 of the ADA stipulates that "The authorities shall, before a final determination is made inform all interested part ies of the essential facts under consideration" 
and "Such disclosure should take place in suff icient time for the parties to defend their 
interests." In this respect we have questions reg arding the right to respond to the preliminary 
disclosure and regarding reasonable time for providing such responses. 
 
 What is the minimum time allowed by India to interested parties in order for them to 
defend "their Interest" by providing a response to a preliminary disclosure?  
  Would in India's view a period for collecting comments from Friday at 7:02 PM (i.e. 
after business hours) to the following Tuesday at 5:00 PM, i.e. two working days, seem 
reasonable in this respect?    Does India allow an extension of the time limit for comments by interested parties as 
Norway requested, or is the practice not to an swer such requests, as Norway has experienced?  G/ADP/Q2/IND/9 
 Page 3 
 
 
   Why did India not provide Norway as an in terested party, extended time to respond to 
the preliminary disclosure on caustic soda?    Could India please explain how its practice is consistent with Article 6.9 of the ADA?  
 Reply 
 
 As per Article 6.9 of the ADA, there is an  obligation to inform all essential facts under 
consideration by the investigating authority to the interested parties before a final determination is 
made.  It is not clear what Norway alludes to as "preliminary disclosures".  In our understanding there 
is nothing like "preliminary disclosures" in Article 6.9.  The disclosures are issued as per Article 6.9 
which contain the essential facts.    Article 6.9 does not lay down the timelines for the parties to give their comments.  The Authority  grants sufficient time to the interested  parties to comment on the disclosures taking into 
account the fact that the Authority gives ample oppor tunities to all interested parties during a year 
long process of investigation on multiple occasions such as after the initiation notification;  
preliminary findings;  oral/public hearing and at the time of issue of disclosure.    The extension of time is decided with respect to  the facts and circumstances of the particular 
case.   Questions E   We note that India according to its most recent notification has introduced antidumping 
measures on caustic soda against a number of count ries, including China, EU, Indonesia, Iran, 
Japan, Saudi Arabia, Korea, Qatar and USA.  And we  have seen the final findings in respect of 
imports from Norway, Thailand and Chinese Taipei.  This is a fairly wide range of countries.  
  Has India introduced anti-dumping measur es on imports of caustic soda from all 
countries which have shipped this product to India?   
 Is it the intention of India to seek antidum ping measures on all caustic soda imports, 
since it abolished its actions under the WTO Agreement on Safeguards in 2010? 
 
Reply 
 
 The Investigating Authority takes a view regarding any anti-dumping action based on an 
application that is duly substan tiated alleging dumping of a product from the specified sources that 
cause injury to the domestic industry.  The anti-dum ping  investigations are conducted in accordance 
with the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t and domestic laws con cerned and not with a 
pre-meditated intent.  
 
__________