WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/AHG/W/188 
24 February 2011 
 (11-0968) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Working Group on Implementation Original:   English 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 5.3 – ACCURACY AND ADEQUACY 
 
Paper by Turkey  
 
 
 The following communication, dated 23 February 2011, is being circulated at the request of 
the delegation of Turkey.  
_______________ 
 
 
1. Introduction 
 Article 5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, provides: 
 
"The authorities shall examine the accura cy and adequacy of the evidence provided 
in the application to determine whether th ere is sufficient evidence to justify the 
initiation of an investigation." 
 The article which covers the justification of the initiation of an investigation addresses the 
accuracy and adequacy of the eviden ce provided in the application.  However, the Article is silent 
regarding what level of accuracy and adequacy is requested for the initiation of an investigation.  
This makes it very difficult to identify the elements of the accuracy and adequacy test to be applied by 
Members.   It will be useful to read this article in c onjunction with Article 5.2 of the AD Agreement to 
find the answer to the threshold question of what  level of evidence is needed to initiate an 
investigation. 
 
 Article 5.2 reads:  
"An application under paragraph 1 shall include evidence of (a) dumping, (b) injury 
within the meaning of Article VI of G ATT 1994 as interpreted by this Agreement and 
(c) a causal link between the dumped im ports and the alleged injury.  Simple 
assertion, unsubstantiated by relevant evide nce, cannot be considered sufficient to 
meet the requirements of this paragraph.  The application shall contain such 
information as is reasonably available to the applicant on the following:… " 
 It is clear that the legal expression "evidence" re ferred to in Article 5.3 is the same expression 
cited in Article 5.2 which comprises (a) dumping, (b) injury within the meaning of Article VI of 
GATT 1994 as interpreted by the AD Agreement and (c) a causal link between the dumped imports 
and the alleged injury.  G/ADP/AHG/W/188 
Page 2  
 
   In their assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence submitted in the application, Turkey 
believes that the authorities can also find guidance in  Article 2 (for the determ ination of dumping) and 
in Article 3 (for the determination of injury) of the AD Agreement.   The WTO jurisprudence has clarified that the sufficiency of evidence submitted in the 
application with respect to the existence of dumping,  injury and casual link is not the same as the level 
of information required in order to impose provisional or final measures.
1  Turkey is of the view that 
the quality of the evidence provided in the applicati on should be sufficient to allow the investigating 
authorities to see the esquisse of the full picture.  
 Further, subsequent to the filing of the appli cation, the authorities would evaluate its content 
in the light of Article 5.2 and may always request  the complainants to submit additional information 
to meet the adequacy requirement of Article 5. 3.  However, the AD Agreement does not put the 
investigating authorities under an obligation to complete the insufficient evidence on their own 
initiative.  The most important aspect of this procedur e is that once the investigating authorities reject 
an application under Article 5.3, such rejecti on would potentially be a problem under the relevant 
Member's national law but not under WTO law.  Ho wever, an investigation based on an application 
containing inadequate information may be challenged in the WTO dispute settlement system and be 
found to be inconsistent with the requirements of Article 5.3 of the AD Agreement.  This would lead 
to the unfortunate situation of investing considerab le resources into an investigation which would then 
be found to lack a sufficient basis because of the inaccurate and/or inadequate evidence contained in 
the application.  This underlines the importance of meeting the requirements of Article 5.3. 
 
2. The practice of Turkey under Article 5.3 
Turkey's legislation
 
 
 The Legislation on the Prevention of Unfair Competition in Imports provides: 
 
"An investigation shall be initiated where, consequent to an examination initiated 
either ex-officio or upon complaint, it is determined that sufficient evidence on 
dumped or subsidized imports and injury resulting therefrom exists" 
(Article 3/II-Decree On the Prevention of Unfair Competition in Imports). 
                                                      
1 Panel Report, US-Softwood Lumber V, para.7.80:  "We note that, although Article 5.2 does not 
define the term "dumping", Article 2 provides guidance regarding the meaning of that term for the purpose of the AD Agreement.  We agree with the findings of the Guatemala - Cement II  panel on this issue 255, which 
were also followed by the panel in Argentina - Poultry , that, in order to determine whether there is sufficient 
evidence of dumping, an investigating authority cannot  entirely disregard the elem ents that configure the 
existence of that practice as outlined in Article 2.256.  This does not, of course, mean that an investigating 
authority must perform a full-blown determination of dump ing in order to initiate an investigation.  Rather, it 
means simply that an investigating authority should ta ke into account the general parameters as to what 
dumping is when inquiring about the sufficiency of the ev idence.  The requirement is that the evidence must be 
such that an unbiased and objective investigating authority could determine that there was sufficient evidence of 
dumping within the meaning of Article 2 to justify initiati on of an investigation.  We will therefore follow the 
same approach in our analysis of Canada's claims. 
Panel Report, Guatemala-Cement II , para.8.35:  "..We do not of co urse mean to suggest that an 
investigating authority must have before it at the time it initiates an investigation evidence of dumping within the meaning of Article 2 of the quantity and quality that  would be necessary to support a preliminary or final 
determination.  An antidumping investigation is a proce ss where certainty on the exis tence of all the elements 
necessary in order to adopt a measure is reached gradua lly as the investigation moves forward.  However, the 
evidence must be such that an unbiased and objective investigating authority could determine that there was 
sufficient evidence of dumping within the meaning of Article 2 to justify initiation of an investigation."  G/ADP/AHG/W/188 
 Page 3 
 
 
   
 " The General Directorate shall examine the a ccuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided 
in the complaint to determine wh ether there is sufficient evidence to  justify the initiation of an 
investigation " (Article 19/VI- The Regulation on the Prev ention of Unfair Competition in Imports). 
 
 As it is seen from the abovementioned articles, Turkey's legislation, like the AD Agreement, 
does not contain details of the analysis with resp ect to the accuracy and ad equacy of the evidence 
presented in the application.  Turkey's practice
 
 
 In its practice, the Turkish authorities follow the relevant provisions of the AD Agreement 
and the national legislation while evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence provided in the application.  When the application is received, it is examined in the light of Article 5.2 of the 
AD Agreement and the relevant provisions of the nati onal legislation.  Once it is determined that the 
application includes the evidence mentioned under Artic le 5.2, the authorities check the accuracy and 
adequacy of that evidence .  In this process, the " general parameters " are checked to determine 
whether the evidence submitted is sufficient.   As for the sufficiency, Turkey takes into c onsideration financial re ports submitted in the 
application provided such reports have been cer tified by a chartered accountant.  Since certified 
financial statements reflect the situation of the relevant company, it is not difficult to detect 
contradictions, if any.  Besides, Turkey gives serious consideration to the consistency of the 
information given -which requires checking the referen tial integrity of the application.  In addition to 
this, figures of production, domestic sales, export sal es and inventories are checked.  In this regard, 
balance of inventories based on simple form ula (beginning inventory+production = domestic 
sales+export sales+ending inventory) is applied.  On the other hand, after the initiation of the 
investigation, the domestic industry is required to update the injury factors cited in Article 3.4 based 
on the investigation period.  All of the informati on submitted to the investigating authority regarding 
injury is verified at the premises of the domestic industry.  If any correction is needed, it is done by the investigating authority.  Significant considerati on is also given to the c onsistency of the general 
information and product-specific info rmation submitted in the applicati on.  Due consideration is given 
to each application depending on the facts of each app lication.  For example, if the applicant produces 
only the product under consideration, the accuracy and adequacy check will be done easily.  However, 
if the applicant produces not only the product under consideration, the accuracy and adequacy test 
will be carried out in more detail.  Specific in formation such as production volume, sales volume and 
sales value, cost of production, selling price, prof its, employment, etc., con cerning other products is 
also required from the applicant.  The accuracy of the information pertaining to the product under 
consideration is checked against the information pe rtaining to the other products produced by the 
applicant.  These two sets of information are exp ected to be in conformity with one another. 
  With respect to the issue of standing, the information submitted by the applicant is also 
checked for its accuracy and adequacy .  This checking includes two steps.  The first step is to check if 
there is any missing producer(s) in the application.  This is done on the basis of the databases of the 
Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Tu rkey and associations of producers.  The second 
step is to check the accuracy of the production figures of the cited domestic producers in the 
application and those of missing producer(s) dete rmined by the investigating authority.  
The production figures of the other producers mentione d in the application are mostly based on the 
estimated figures of the applicant.  In this regard, supporting or opposing views regarding the 
application and the exact production figures are requested from all of the domestic producers.  G/ADP/AHG/W/188 
Page 4  
 
   With respect to the dumping allegation, if th e normal value is based on domestic invoices and 
export price is based on export invoices, the investig ating authority requests the applicant to provide 
original invoices, not copies thereof.  Invoice date, terms of sale, name of purchaser, sales 
quantity/volume, sales value, tax -if included- s hould be clear in the invoices.  Besides domestic 
invoices, the normal value may be verified on the b asis of sector-specific price lists published by the 
domestic producers or relevant associations or ins titutions.  In this process, internet and other 
secondary sources are also used to check the accuracy  and adequacy of the information submitted.  
The accuracy of the export price is also checked from the customs data. 
 
3. Conclusion 
 Turkey would like to emphasize once more that the amount and quality of information to be 
provided in the application is not as high as the amount  and quality of information needed in order to 
impose provisional or definitive measures.  Turkey is  of the view that the quality of the evidence 
should be sufficient enough to meet the prima facie  requirements of the AD Agreement to see the 
esquisse of the full picture.  It should be kept  in mind that an investigation initiated upon an 
application in accordance with Articles 5.2 and 5.3 in  no way means that a measure will be taken at 
the end of the investigation.  To maintain the c ontrary would mean to act in a prejudiced manner. 
  
__________