WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/RL/GEN/118 
21 April 2006 
 (06-1859) 
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:   English 
  
DURATION OF REVIEW INVESTIGATIONS 
 
Communication from Egypt
 
  
 The following communication, dated 20 April 2006,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Egypt. 
  The submitting delegation has requested that th is paper, which was submitted to the Rules 
Negotiating Group as an informal document (JOB(06)/ 101), also be circulated as a formal document. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
The present proposal serves to clarify Egypt’s pos ition with regard to the various submissions 
that have been made by Members on the durati on of reviews conducted under Articles 9 and 11.  
 
As a first observation, Egypt would like to reite rate its concerns with regard to the proposals 
of some Members to provide for the automatic e xpiry of anti-dumping measures on a given date and a 
mandatory “grace period” after the expiry of measures.
1  Egypt is similarly concerned about the 
proposed introduction of a list of specific requirement s that investigating authorities would have to 
assess in the course of a sunset revi ew and the suggested prohibition of ex oficio  sunset reviews.2  
Although Egypt understands that anti-dumping measur es should normally be allowed to lapse at the 
end of a five-year period unless a sunset review investigation has been initiated and that sunset 
reviews should be carried out so as to allow all inte rested parties to demonstrate whether or not the 
expiry of the measures in force would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, it considers that, wher e warranted, Members should be allowed to extend these measures.  
Domestic industries, in particular in developing country Members, are generally not in a position to 
withstand the injurious effects of dumped imports  after the expiry of anti-dumping measures.  
 
Strict time limit for review investigations 
 
In the past, interim and sunset review investig ations carried out pursuant to Articles 11.2 and 
11.3 respectively, have, in an important number of  cases, taken far longer than  12 months although, 
pursuant to Article 11.4, these should be “ carried out expeditiously and s hall normally be concluded 
within 12 months of the date of initiation of the review ”.  The same is true for new-comer reviews that 
should normally be “ carried out on am accelerated basis, co mpared to normal duty assessment and 
review proceedings”.   Egypt considers that review investigations are generally less complex than 
initial investigations and may therefore be c oncluded within a shorter period of time.  
 
                                                     
 
 1 See, in particular, document TN/RL/W/204. 
 2 See, in particular, document TN/RL/GEN/61. TN/RL/GEN/118 
Page 2  
 
  Egypt is of the opinion that the introduction of specific time-limits for review investigations 
would increase the efficiency and pred ictability of the review mechanisms
3. Based on its experience 
and the practice of other Members, Egypt proposes mandatory time limits of 12 months for interim 
and expiry review investigations and of 9 months for new-comer review investigations.  Even though 
Egypt is open to discussing the appropriate time limi ts within which review investigations should be 
completed, it considers that those it is proposing to  introduce would maintain the balance between the 
rights and interests of interested pa rties and investigating authorities.  
 
Possibility to amend anti-dumping duties within the scope of sunset reviews 
  It is generally considered that there are onl y two possible outcomes to a sunset review: the 
expiry of the measures in force or their expiry.  Th is implies that if investigating authorities conclude, 
within the scope of a sunset review, that the anti-dumping measures in place could be significantly 
decreased - or should alternatively be increased – in order to remove the injurious effects of dumping, 
they will most likely recommend that the anti-dumpi ng duties in force at the same level.  Egypt 
considers that Members should be explicitly granted the right to amend  anti-dumping duties further to 
sunset reviews, where warranted.  
 It may be argued that Article 11.1, which states that “ an anti-dumping duty shall remain in 
force only as long as and to the extent necessary to counteract dumping which is causing injury ” 
enables Members to amend the level of existing measur es further to an expiry review or that interim 
review investigations may be conduc ted together with expiry review where it is claimed that the level 
of the existing measures is to be amended.  Noneth eless, since it considers that the current version of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement could be clarified with respect to this matter, Egypt proposes to amend 
Article 11.3 in order to explicitly allow for the am endment of anti-dumping measures further to sunset 
review investigations.  Proposed amendments to Articles 9.5, 11.3 and 11.4 
 
In view of the foregoing, it is proposed to amend Articles 9.5, 11.3 and 11.4 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement be amended as follows:  
- Article 9.5 
 
If a product is subject to anti-dumping duties in  an importing Member, the authorities shall 
promptly carry out a review for the purpose of  determining individual margins of dumping for 
any exporters or producers in the exporting c ountry in question who have not exported the 
product to the importing Member during the period of investigation, provided that these 
exporters or producers can show that they are not  related to any of the exporters or producers 
in the exporting country who are  subject to the anti-dumping duties on the product.  Such a review shall be initiated and carried out on an accelerated basis, compared to normal duty assessment and review proceedings in the importing Member and shall in no case exceed 9 
months .  No anti-dumping duties shall be levied on imports from such exporters or producers 
while the review is being carried out.  The authorities may, however, withhold appraisement 
and/or request guarantees to ensure that, should such a review result in a determination of 
dumping in respect of such producers or e xporters, anti-dumping duties can be levied 
retroactively to the date of the initiation of the review.  
 
                                                      
 3 The imposition of shorter time limits for review investigations was also suggested in documents 
TN/RL/W/10 and TN/RL/W/138.  TN/RL/GEN/118 
 Page 3 
 
 
  - Article 11.3 
 
Notwithstanding the provisions of  paragraphs 1 and 2, any de finitive anti-dumping duty shall 
be terminated on a date not later than five years from its imposition (or from the date of the 
most recent review under paragraph 2 if that review has covered both dumping and injury, or 
under this paragraph),  unless the authorities determ ine, in a review initiated before that date 
on their own initiative or upon a duly substantiate d request made by or on behalf of the 
domestic industry within a reasonable period of time prior to that date, that the expiry of the 
duty would be likely to lead to continua tion or recurrence of dumping and injury.22  The duty 
may remain in force pending the outcome of su ch a review and may be amended thereafter, 
due account being taken of th e provisions of paragraph 1 .” 
 - Article 11.4  
The provisions of Article 6 regarding eviden ce and procedure shall apply to any review 
carried out under this Article.  Any such review  shall be carried out expeditiously and shall 
normally
 be concluded within 12 months of the date of initiation of the review. 
 
__________ 
 
 
                                                      
 22 When the amount of the anti-dumping duty is assessed on a retrospective basis, a finding in the most 
recent assessment proceeding under subpar agraph 3.1 of Article 9 that no duty is  to be levied shall not by itself 
require the authorities to terminate the definitive duty.