WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/RL/GEN/152 
5 October 2007 
 (07-4264) 
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:   English 
  
ASSESSMENT OF DUMPING 
 
Proposal from Egypt
 
  
 The following communication, dated 4 October 2007, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Egypt. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
The discussions that have previously taken place on this issue
1 within the Negotiating Group 
as well as the reasoning and findings set forth in re ports of panels and of the Appellate Body have 
assisted Egypt in identifying some of the elements th at require further clarification within the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.  As a relatively new user of the anti-dumping instrument, Egypt has not yet been confronted with some of th e questions that may be arising when assessing the level of dumping 
in initial investigations and/or for anti-dumping dut y collection purposes.  However, it considers that, 
for the common benefit of interested parties and investigating authorities, these questions must be 
addressed and settled within these negotiations.  
 The present proposal aims at establishing clear rul es in relation to the assessment of the level 
of dumping under some of the comparison methodologi es provided for in Article 2.4.2, in refund 
proceedings or when determining the final lia bility for payment of anti-dumping duties under 
Article 9.3.  Also, it is intended to confirm that  exporting producers and investigating authorities can 
agree that the price of all export transactions made under price undertakings is to  be made at or above 
an agreed undertaking price in line with Article 8.1. 
 
Weighted average normal value to prices of individual export transactions comparisons - 
Targeted dumping  
 
 Pursuant to Article 2.4.2, a dumping margin may be determined by comparing a normal value 
established on a weighted average basis with prices of individual export transactions if a pattern of 
export prices is found to differ significantly among di fferent purchasers, regions or time periods and 
an explanation is provided as two why these differen ces cannot be taken into account appropriately by 
the use of a weighted average-to-weighted aver age or transaction-to transaction comparison.  
  Egypt proposes to refer to the weighted aver age normal value-to-transaction export prices 
comparison methodology in a new sub-paragraph 3 under Article 2.4, since it is an alternate to the 
weighted average-to-weighted average or tran saction-to-transaction comparison methodologies set 
forth in Article 2.4.2.  Also, it recommends that the circumstances in which investigating authorities 
can resort to this alternate methodology be clearly defined.  In addition to the circumstances referred 
to in the current version of Article 2.4.2, Egypt c onsiders that investigating authorities should have the 
possibility of using the weighted average norma l value-to-transaction export prices comparison 
methodology, when it is established that only certain  product types are dumped or are subject to more 
                                                     
 
 1 In particular with respect to TN/RL/ GEN/8, TN/RL/GEN/126 and TN/RL/GEN/147. TN/RL/GEN/152 
Page 2  
 
  severe dumping than other product types.  In such circumstances, in order to address "targeted 
dumping", investigating authorities should have th e right to limit their comparison to the export 
transactions found to be made at prices that are signi ficantly different.  Finally, in line with the current 
wording of Article 2.4.2, investigating authoriti es should be required to justify their use of the 
weighted average normal value-to-transaction export prices comparison methodology.  
 
Transaction-to-transaction comparisons  
 
 The transaction-to-transaction comparison methodol ogy has been used by some investigating 
authorities typically when confronted with a relativ ely small number of export transactions.  In such 
cases, the comparison of export transactions was made only with some comparable normal value 
transactions.  This comparison methodology can be par ticularly useful to investigating authorities of 
Members with small domestic markets.   Egypt proposes to insert a footnote x under Artic le 2.4.2 to clarify that, in a transaction-to-
transaction comparison, investigating authorities are entitled to limit their analysis to a limited number 
of transactions.  If investigating authorities were to be required to examine all export and normal 
value transactions, there would be no or very lim ited differences between the weighted average-to-
weighted average and transaction-to transaction methodologies.  In line with the chapeau of 
Article 2.4, in order to ensure that the transaction- to-transaction methodology is not used to artificially 
inflate the level of dumping, investigating auth orities must be required to select comparable 
transactions in a fair and objective manner.  
 
When using the transaction-to-transaction me thodology and limiting their comparison to a 
limited number of transactions, investigating authorit ies cannot assume that the transactions that were 
not considered are dumped for the purpose of the injury assessment under Article 3 or under 
Article 5.8.  Also, if only some product types were  considered for the establishment of the level of 
dumping, investigating authorities shall not have the right to impose an anti-dumping measure on all product types.  As proposed in footnote xxx, the sc ope of the anti-dumping measure shall, in such a 
case, be limited to the product types that were c onsidered for the establishment of the margin of 
dumping.  
 
Refunds and retrospective assessment of anti-dumping duties 
 
 The Appellate Body recently found that inves tigating authorities are required to take into 
account all export sales made by the exporter or fo reign producer with a view to calculating the 
"ceiling" for the total amount of anti-dumping duties that can be levied.
2  In particular, the Appellate 
Body noted that " the concept of dumping relates to the pric ing behaviour of exporters or foreign 
producers; it is the exporter, not the importer, that engages in practices that result in situations of 
dumping".  
 
 It is submitted that, if this approach w as to be followed in the framework of refund 
proceedings in prospective duty-collection systems or  for the determination of the final liability for 
payment of anti-dumping duties in retrospectiv e duty-collection systems, it could be overly 
burdensome for investigating authorities and exporting producers and could lead to unfair results for 
the latter.  For example, on the basis of the princi ple spelled out by the Appellate Body, investigating 
authorities would be required to take into acco unt all export transacti ons and not only those 
concerning the importer who filed a request for refund.  In practical terms, in order to make sure that 
the duty collected did not exceed the "ceiling" for the total amount of anti-dumping duties that can be 
levied, investigating authorities would be forced to initiate a partial interim review.  Moreover, this 
                                                      
 2 United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews, WT/DS322/AB/R, paragraphs 155 
and 156.   TN/RL/GEN/152 
 Page 3 
 
 
  approach could lead to unfair results, insofar as i nvestigating authorities would be required to offset 
the dumping margins of the different importers when  determining the amount of duty to be refunded 
to a given importer.   Thus, it seems appropriate to Egypt to amend Ar ticle 9.3, with a view to including a provision 
providing that, in the framework of importer-specifi c refunds, investigating authorities are allowed to 
calculate a margin of dumping on the basis of the e xport transactions relating to the specific importer.  
 
Undertakings 
  Article 8.1 provides, in part, that "Price increases under such undertakings shall not be 
higher than necessary to eliminate the margin of dumping".  For administration and monitoring 
purposes, exporting producers and investigating authorities often agree that the price of all export transactions be equal to or above the price at whic h the injurious effects of dumping was found to be 
eliminated during the most recent investigation.  Egypt is of the opinion that the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement should stipulate, in a proposed footnote xx to  Article 8.1, that such practice is consistent 
with this Article.  This proposed amendment would not prevent exporting producers from which a 
price undertaking was accepted from requesting a revi ew under Article 11.2 if they consider that the 
margin of dumping that was used as a basis for the determination of the agreed undertaking price has 
since varied.   Proposed Amendments to Articles 2, 8 and 9 
 
In view of the foregoing, it is proposed to amend Articles 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 8.1, 9.1 and 9.3 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement as follows:  Articles 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 
 
2.4.2 Subject to the provisions governing fair comparison in paragraph 4, the existence of 
margins of dumping during the investiga tion phase shall normally be established on 
the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of prices of all comparable export transactions or by a comparison of normal 
value and export prices on a transaction-to-transaction basis
x.  A normal value 
established on a weighted average basis may be co mpared to prices of individual 
export transactions if the authorities find a pattern of export prices which differ 
significantly among different purchasers, regions or time periods, and if an 
explanation is provided as to wh y such differences cannot be tak en into account 
appropriately by the use of a weighted average -to-weighted average or 
transaction -to-transaction comparison.  
______________________ 
x The establishment of margins of dumping by a comparison of normal value and export prices 
on a transaction-to-transaction basis may imply the selection of a limited number of 
comparable transactions.  In cases where the authorities resort to a selection of transactions, 
such selection shall be made in a fair and objective manner.  Export transactions not 
considered for the establishment of the margin of dumping shall not be deemed to be dumped.           
 
2.4.3. If the authorities find a pattern of export prices, which differ significantly among 
different purchasers, regions, time periods or  product types, the existence of margins 
of dumping may be established on the basis  of a comparison of a normal value 
established on a weighted average basis with  prices of individual  export transactions. 
In such circumstances, the authorities may limit their comparison to individual export 
transactions made to purchasers, regions or  time periods or of product types found to 
be significantly different.  Authorities s hould provide an explanation as to why the TN/RL/GEN/152 
Page 4  
 
  methodologies provided for in paragraph 4.2 of Article 2 were not appropriate to 
address dumping practices found to be targeting certain purchasers, regions, time 
periods or product types.   
 
Article 8.1 
 
8.1     Proceedings may19 be suspended or terminated w ithout the imposition of provisional 
measures or anti-dumping duties upon receipt of satisfactory voluntary undertakings from any 
exporter to revise its prices or to cease exports to  the area in question at dumped prices so that 
the authorities are satisfied that the injurious effect of the dumping is eliminated.  Price 
increasesxx under such undertakings shall not be higher than necessary to e liminate the margin 
of dumping.  It is desirable that the price incr eases be less than the margin of dumping if such 
increases would be adequate to remove the injury to the domestic industry. 
______________________ 
19 The word "may" shall not be interpreted to allow the simultaneous continua tion of proceedings with 
the implementation of price undertakings except as provided in paragraph 4. 
 
xx Authorities may require that the price of each import transactions made pursuant to an undertaking 
be equal to or above the agreed undertaking price.  
 
Articles 9.1 and 9.3.4  
 
9.1 The decision whether or not to impose an anti-dumping duty in cases where all requirements 
for the imposition have been fulfilled, and the decision whether the amount of the anti-dumping duty to be imposed shall be the full margin of dumping or less, are decisions to 
be made by the authorities of the importing Member
xxx.  It is desirable that the imposition be 
permissive in the territory of all Members, and that the duty be less than the margin if such 
lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury to the domestic industry. 
______________________ 
xxx In cases where margins of dumping are established by comparing selected normal values and export 
prices on a transaction-to-transaction basis, the margins of dumping so obtained shall only be used to 
establish the anti-dumping duty applicable to those selected types of the product under consideration.   
 
9.3.4 In determining the final liability for paymen t of anti-dumping duties or whether and to what 
extent a reimbursement should be made, the aut horities may rely on the margin of dumping 
calculated on the basis of the export trans actions relating to the importer concerned.  
 
 
__________