. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/Q2/BRA/1 
16 October 2006 
 
 (06-4990) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   Spanish 
  
 
ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES IMPOSED ON PVC IMPORTED 
FROM MEXICO 
 
Questions Posed by MEXICO to BRAZIL
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 13 October 2006, is being circulated at the request of the delegation of Mexico.  
_______________ 
 
  With regard to the anti-dumping measures imposed by Brazil on Mexican exports of PVC in the last 5-year review, we deem it important to co nvey some of our concerns to the representatives of 
the Brazilian Government in order to have more in formation on the matter and, if possible, reach a 
mutual understanding. 
 
 On 30 December 1992, the Ministry of Developm ent, Industry and Foreign Trade (Ministry) 
of the Federative Republic of Brazil published in Br azil's Official Journal the final determination 
imposing definitive duties of 16 per cent and 18 per cent respectively on imports of polyvinyl chloride 
(PVC) from the United States of America (USA) and Mexico for a period of five years. 
 
 On 22 December 1998, the Ministry published the final determination of the 5-year review in 
which it decided to continue applying the defi nitive duties for another five years.  On 
15 December 2003, the Brazilian Ministry published in  the Official Journal the decision to initiate the 
second 5-year review and on 13 December 2004, in  Circular SECEX No. 85, issued the final 
determination of the procedure deciding to revoke the anti-dumping duties imposed on Mexico
. 
 
 Nevertheless, on 14 and 21 Dece mber 2004, the Brazilian companies Braskem and Solvay  
lodged an administrative appeal against Circular SECEX No. 85, contesting the revocation of the anti-
dumping duties on Mexican exports.  Consequently, it was determined that the methodology used to 
compare prices prescribed in paragraphs 148 to 150 of Decision DECOM No. 28 was correct and it 
was also pointed out that if export prices from the United States and Mexico to other countries, 
(deemed inappropriate) had been used, the result woul d probably have been that the injury would not 
have recurred because there was no undervaluation of pr ices.  It was therefore reiterated that, if the 
anti-dumping duty had been eliminated, there would ha ve been no recurrence or continuation of the 
injury.  Nevertheless, even if there was no recu rrence or continuation of the injury, anti-dumping 
duties were applied because the pric es indicated that there was a possibility of the dumping recurring 
or continuing.   In other words, there had been dumping and even  if there had been no injury, it was decided 
to protect Brazilian producers.  G/ADP/Q2/BRA/1 
Page 2  
 
   These anti-dumping duties consisted of a minimum reference price of US$1,050.20/ton, 
which is updated quarterly in the light of the av erage ICIS-LOR prices for the last month of the 
quarter.   Mexico's chief arguments are therefore the following: 
 
1. Mexico considers that determinations by an investigating authority should be based on factual 
evidence and on a prospective analysis in order to  substantiate the continuation or recurrence 
of dumping or injury.  However, it appears that  in its disclosure of the essential facts, the 
Brazilian investigating authority did not include  information on the future evolution or 
estimates of trends in the prices and volume of  the imports under examination and neither did 
it take into account the prospective situati on of Brazil's PVC industry if the anti-dumping 
duties were eliminated.  In this connection, in asmuch as the investigating authority decided to 
eliminate the anti-dumping duties, on the basis of essential facts, considering that it did not have any additional elements as a result of th e administrative appeal made by the Brazilian 
company and taking into account the fact that the methodology used to determine injury had 
been confirmed, could the Government of Br azil explain what factual basis was used to 
change its decision to revoke the anti-dumping duties on Mexican exports? 
 2. Simply as a question of transparency, it is not clear to us whether the document disclosing the 
essential facts contains all the factual circum stances used by the Brazilian investigating 
authority or only a part thereof.  Conseque ntly, we would like to know how the arguments 
submitted by the Mexican exporter were evaluated. 
 3. Likewise, Mexico would like to know how the Brazilian investigating authority became 
certain that Mexico's freely available capacity  was intended for the Brazilian market, bearing 
in mind that Mexico's major export markets ha ve traditionally been th e United States, the 
United Kingdom, Chile and the Dominican Republic. 
 
__________