WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/Q1/ISR/14 
G/SCM/Q1/ISR/14 8 August 2006 
 
 
(06-3807) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Original:   English 
 
 
 
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER  
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS 
 
Follow-up Questions by the UNITED STATES 
 
Regarding the Notification of ISRAEL1 
 
 
Q1. In the event of a conflict between Israel’s in ternational obligations and its domestic law, 
which takes precedence in the administration  and judicial review of trade levies? 
 
Reply  
 Since Israel is a member of the WTO, Israeli anti dumping officials are required to observe the provisions of the Anti Dumping Agreement (herei nafter –ADA) when such provisions are not in 
contravention with the existing domestic legislation.  According to the Israeli legal system in the case 
of a direct conflict between the ADA and the Tr ade Levies Law- 1991 (hereinafter- the Law), the 
provisions of the domestic legislation would override . It should be noted however, that according to 
Israeli principles of jurisprudence it is presumed that  the Israeli legislature enacts laws which are in 
conformity with principles of international law.  Th erefore the Israeli court will in fact interpret the 
Trade Levies Law in conformity with the AD Agreement. 
 
Follow-up Question
 If Israeli law as written conflicted with the provisions of the 
Antidumping Agreement so that it was not poss ible to interpret the Trade Levies Law in 
conformity with the ADA, how would the admini stering authority and Israeli courts resolve the 
conflict? 
 
Q12.  Please explain how Section 29 ITLL compli es with the requirements set forth in 
Articles 7.1 and 7.3 of the AD Agreement and Articles 17.1 and 17.3 of the SCM Agreement.     (a) Please provide information as to wh ether Israel has previous experience 
applying provisional measures prior to 60 days from the date of initiation.   
  (b) What is the maximum period for wh ich provisional measures may remain in 
effect?   
  (c) Are provisional measures set at the rate of the dumping margin?   
 
 (d) Does Israel have discretion to apply the lesser duty rule?      
 
                                                     
 
1 G/ADP/N/1/ISR/3 and G/SCM/N/1/ISR/3 (24 January 2006) 
 G/ADP/Q1/ISR/14 
G/SCM/Q1/ISR/14 Page 2 
 
 
  Reply
 
(a) Since Israel's accession to the WTO no provisional measures have been adopted 
prior to 60 days from the date of initiation. 
 
(b) In accordance with Article 29 (c) of the Law, a provisional measure may be 
imposed for a period of six months and up to nine months upon decision of the 
Commissioner if such a request has been submitted by the exporters representing a 
significant percentage of the exports to Israel.  Provisional measures are set at the rate of the estimated rate of the anti dumping duty. 
 
(c) Pursuant to Article 32.19(b) of the Law,  if a duty that is lower than the dumping 
rate is found to be sufficient to prevent mate rial injury to the domestic industry, the 
anti dumping duty shall be set at the rate required to prevent said injury.  
 Follow-up Question 12(b)
 If an exporter has not  requested an extension to nine months, 
please clarify whether six months is the maximum time permitted by the ITLL for provisional measures to remain in effect.  Please describe Israel’s procedure in this regard prior to the adoption of the ITLL and explain in what way, if any, adoption of Article 29(c) and other relevant provisions of the ITLL will change this procedure?  If the maximum period for provisional measures expires and the final determin ation has not yet been issued, please confirm 
that provisional antidumping duties will cease to  be collected until a final determination is 
issued.  Please identify any other provisions of Israeli law or regulations that guide the 
administering authority’s use and collection of provisional duties. 
 
13. Please explain the effect of the “temporary  guarantee” (Section 29 ITLL) on the overall 
provisional measures.  
 
 (a) Were the final determination to result in a lower rate than established in the 
preliminary determination, what is the process for refunding overpayment of 
provisional measures?   
 
 (b) Will interest be paid on the overpaid funds? 
 
Reply
 
 (a) In Israel, a provisional measure takes the form of a temporary guarantee which is 
deposited with the customs authority.  Pursua nt to Article 32.23(a) of the Law if the 
final duty is a lower rate than established in the preliminary determination the 
guarantee shall be forfeited only in the amount of the duty and the difference shall be returned. 
  (b) The difference as stated above is returned  with the addition of linkage (to the cost 
of living index) differe ntials and interest. 
 
Follow-up Question 13
  If provisional measures continue to be collected between the end 
of the six (or nine) month period and the final determination, under what circumstances will these funds be returned?  Please describe Israel’s pr ocedure in this regard prior to the adoption 
of the ITLL and explain in what way, if any, adoption of the ITLL will change this procedure.  
Once the investigating authority determines that  there has been an overpayment (i.e. that the 
amount of provisional duty collected exceeded th e margin of dumping finally determined), is 
there a deadline by which the collecting authority must refund such an overpayment with interest? 
  G/ADP/Q1/ISR/14 
 G/SCM/Q1/ISR/14 
 Page 3 
 
 
  14. Section 30.(b) ITLL states that “[t]he Commissioner may invite  a notified party to also 
present its claims orally, as submitted in writing.”  (Emphasis added.)   a. Please explain whether a notified party has the right to request a hearing, and 
the means by which a notified party may make such a request. 
  b. If the opportunity for a hearing is so lely at the discretion of the Commissioner, 
please explain the criteria used to determ ine which notified parties will receive 
an invitation to participate in an oral presentation.  
 
Reply
 
 (a) As opposed to the hearings conducted by the Advisory Committee, the notified 
parties have no guaranteed right to a heari ng before the Commissioner.  In practice, 
the Commissioner does allow for interested parties, who so request, to meet with 
him and present their claims orally.   
  (b) The Commissioner in all investigatio ns meets with the domestic industry and 
importers to allow them to present their case orally. 
 
Follow-up Question 14(a)
 How is an interested party inform ed that it will be allowed to 
meet with the Commissioner upon request?  Given that the Commissioner meets in all 
investigations with the domestic industry and importers, why is a request required from other interested parties, such as exporters?  Follow-up Question 14(b)
 Please clarify the procedures in place for the Commissioner’s 
meeting with the domestic industry and importers .  Do respondents and other interested parties 
receive notice of the meeting and an opportunity to  present their views?  If not, are they given 
some other opportunity to review and rebut the information presented by the domestic 
industry?  Is a record of the meeting part of th e administrative record of the investigation?  
What explanation must the Commissioner give for any decision not in conformity with the views of the advisory committee, and is such a decision judicially reviewable?   Please describe Israel’s 
procedures with respect to meetings with the Commissioner prior to the adoption of the ITLL 
and explain in what way, if any, adoption of the ITLL will change this procedure. 
 
Q22.  Section 32.18(a) of the ITLL specifies “the tr ade relationship between Israel and foreign 
countries” as a factor the Minister of Finance sh all take into account in determining whether to 
accept the advisory committee’s re commendations.  Could Israel please elaborate on how this 
provision is applied?  
Reply
 
 Firstly, it should be clarified that according to Article 32.18(a) of the Law it is actually the Minister of Industry, Trade and Labour and not the Finance Minister, who is authorized to consider 
whether to impose a duty taking into account Israel's trade relations with foreign countries.  To date 
the Minister has always followed the recommendati ons of the advisory committee so it would be 
difficult to elaborate on this provision at this point in time.     
 
   G/ADP/Q1/ISR/14 
G/SCM/Q1/ISR/14 Page 4 
 
 
  Follow-up Question 22
  If the Advisory Committee recommended imposing duties on 
imports of a product from multiple countries, would the Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor 
have discretion to determine to apply the duties to  only a subset of those countries?  Can the 
Minister also take into account non-economic i ssues in relations between Israel and a country 
that is the source of dumped or subsidized pr oducts?  Please describe the considerations taken 
into account prior to the adoption of the ITLL and explain in what way, if any, adoption of the ITLL will change these considerations.  
 
Q23. Please identify the criteria Israel examin es in determining whether to impose a lesser 
duty pursuant to Section 32.19(b) of the ITLL.  
Reply
 
 The authorities in all cases determine the level of the duty required to prevent injury to the 
domestic industry.  If the margin of dumping is above that level, the lesser duty is imposed.   
 
Follow-up Question 23  Please clarify whether Israel considers a lesser duty in every 
investigation.  If so, how is that reflected in the preliminary and final determinations?  If not, 
what conditions must be present for Israel to undertake a lesser duty examination?  Please 
explain what factors Israel analyzes and what me thodology it uses in determining “the level of 
the duty required to prevent injury to the do mestic industry.”  Please describe Israel’s 
procedure and methodology in this regard prior to the adoption of the ITLL and explain in 
what way, if any, adoption of the ITLL will change this procedure.   
 
 
__________