WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/Q2/MEX/1 
5 October 2006 
 
 (06-4768) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   English 
  
 
DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ON 
LIME AND CEMENT SACKS IMPORTED FROM BRAZIL 
 
Questions to MEXICO From BRAZIL
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 3 October 2006, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of Brazil.  
_______________ 
 
  On 27 July 2004, the Mexican investigating authority (Secretaría de Economia – Unidad de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales) opened an anti-dumping investigation against imports of lime 
and cement sacks originating in Brazil. On 11 Ju ly 2005, it published a pr eliminary determination 
establishing a 0% margin of dumping for the ma in Brazilian exporter, 19.33% for the secondary 
exporter and 29.11% for all others. On 25 Janua ry 2006, the Secretaría published the final 
determination, establishing a 19. 33% duty on imports of three ply cement sacks from the secondary 
Brazilian exporter and a 29.11% duty on all others, including the main Brazilian exporter. 
 Question 1
 
 
 During the on spot investigation, on 19 September, due to a technical difficulty, the main Brazilian exporter was able to fully provide the re quested information regarding monthly cost of 
production for only part of period of investiga tion (July-September 2003). For the preceding six 
months (January- June 2003), the firm made ava ilable a summary of inventory movements and input 
consumption data. Nevertheless, the main Brazilian e xporter stated that it was possible to fully verify 
the information contained in 7 of the 10 sales recei pts submitted by the Secretaría during the visit. 
  In its Final Determination, the Secretaría cons idered it was not "...possible to determine if the 
sales of the similar product codes [of the main Br azilian exporter] occurred under the ordinary course 
of trade" (Final Resolution, paragraphs 114 and 115). As a result, it decided to disregard all data for 
internal sales and costs provided by the firm and made  use of facts available to calculate the margin of 
dumping (Final Resolution, paragraph 116).   (a) Please explain whether Mexico considers (based on paragraphs 1 and 3 of Annex II 
of the ADA), that inconsistency on costs of production allows the authority to 
disregard not only that information, but all data related to the de termination of normal 
value. 
  (b) How the decision to disregard all data  provided by the main Brazilian exporter is 
consistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent, notably Article 6.8 and Annex II 
(paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7). 
 G/ADP/Q2/MEX/1 
Page 2  
 
  Question 2
 
  In its Final Resolution, the Secretaría states th at the decision to apply the facts available to 
calculate the margin of dumping of the main Brazilian exporter was ba sed on Article 64 of the 
Mexican Foreign Trade Act (Final Resolution, paragraph 151). 
 
 According to paragraph 350(d)(iv) of the "Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Beef and Rice" Appellate Body Report (WT/DS295/AB /R), adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body 
in December 2005, "... Article 64 of the Foreign Trade Act is inconsistent, as such, with Article 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, paragraphs 1,  3, 5, and 7 of Annex II thereto..." 
 
 Please explain how is the decision to apply the facts available to calculate the margin of 
dumping of the main Brazilian exporter of cement sa cks consistent with the Appellate Body Report 
and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
Question 3
 
  As mentioned above, the preliminary determin ation – establishing a 0% margin of dumping 
for the main Brazilian exporter – was significantly modified in the final determination with the 
decision to apply a 29.11% duty on the exports of the main Brazilian exporter. An important element 
of this reversal appears to be related to the decisi on to use the facts available, instead of the internal 
sales and cost data provided by the Brazilian company.  
  Does Mexico consider that the factual basis for the preliminary determination in the present 
case is different from the factual basis of  the definitive measure? Please explain. 
 
Question 4
 
  After the publication of the preliminary determin ation, the Secretaría did not make available 
to the interested parties additional information – e ssential facts – that formed the basis of the Final 
Resolution.  
 It should be recalled that, according paragra ph 8.228 of the "Guatemala – Definitive Anti-
Dumping Measures of Grey Portland Cement fro m Mexico" Panel Report , "...disclosure of the 
"essential facts" forming the basis of a preliminary determination is clearly inadequate in circumstances where the factual basis of the provi sional measure is significantly different from the 
factual basis of the definitive measure." 
 
 (a) Does Mexico consider that the disclosur e of information related to the preliminary 
determination of Anti-dumping in such circ umstances was sufficient to comply with 
Article 6.9? 
  (b) Can Mexico confirm that it made availabl e to the interested parties the essential facts 
under consideration, in accordance with Artic le 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement? 
If so, when and under what format? 
  c) Does Mexico consider that it was an e ssential fact, under Article 6.9, to inform the 
interested parties about the decision of  disregarding all data related to the 
determination of normal value s ubmitted by the Brazilian exporter? 
  G/ADP/Q2/MEX/1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Question 5  
  In the preliminary determination, the Secretar ía established that the price of the product under 
consideration was 8% above the export price of the like product sold by the domestic industry in the Mexican market, during the period of investigation (Preliminary Resolution, paragraph 208). In the 
Final Resolution, it states that the price of three ply cement sacks from Brazil was "...39% lower than 
the like product made in Mexico in 2002 (sic), 29% lower in 2002, 35% lower in 2003 and 36% lower 
in the first semester of 2004 (Final Resolution, paragraph 241, C).   Please explain the methodology used in the preliminary determination and in the final 
determination to obtain th e above mentioned results. 
 
__________