RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/W/83
29 March 2000
(00-1274)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Ad Hoc Group on ImplementationOriginal:  English
PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIENCE IN APPLYING
ARTICLE 2.4.2
PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIENCE IN PROVIDING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDUSTRIAL USERS AND
CONSUMER ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION UNDER ARTICLE 6.12
Paper by New Zealand
The following communication, dated 28 March 2000, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of New Zealand.
_______________
This paper should be read in conjunction with New Zealand's previous paper
G/ADP/AHG/W/70.
PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIE NCE IN APPLYING ARTICLE 2.4.2
New Zealand determines which method to use to calculate dumping margins on a case by
case basis, depending on the information supplied by the companies involved.  Where possible,
however, the dumping margin is based on a transaction-to-transaction comparison of transactions
made at the same time.
This method is used as there is a greater degree of precision in identifying goods that are
being dumped and consequently a greater degree of precision in considering the injurious effects
caused by dumped goods.
New Zealand is fortunate in that the size of its market means that importers rarely receive
multiple shipments in any given month and ready access to Customs data allows shipments and the
documentation for these shipments to be easily identifiable and available.  Compared to many other
Member countries New Zealand is usually dealing with a small number of shipments and the
transaction-to-transaction comparison is a relatively straightforward exercise.G/ADP/AHG/W/83
Page 2
PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIENCE IN PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
INDUSTRIAL USERS AND CONSUMER ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION UNDER ARTICLE 6.12
The following are New Zealand's answers to the questions posed by Israel in its paper
G/ADP/AHG/W/73.
Q1. Are the industrial users and consumer organizations given the right to review and copy
the non-confidential versions of all documents submitted by the parties to the investigation?
(This is relevant only to Members who do not maintain a full public file of all documents
relating to the investigation.)
Reply
Yes, because New Zealand runs a public file system.
Q2. At what stage of the investigation do the Members provide opportunities for the
industrial users and consumer organizations to provide information?  Do they have a right to be
heard as well as submit written information?
Reply
Industrial users and consumer organisations can review and copy non-confidential versions of
documents at any stage of the investigation after initiation.  A submission can be accepted at any time
during the investigation, but would need to be submitted in time for verification and inclusion in the
Essential Facts Report.
Section 10(6) of the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act 1988 provides that the Secretary
of Commerce shall ensure that all interested parties to an investigation are given reasonable
opportunity to present in writing and orally all evidence relevant to an investigation.  It also provides
for interested parties to have access to all non-confidential information relevant to the presentation of
their case to enable them to prepare representations on the basis of that information.  The Act also
provides that, on request being made, parties can meet those parties with adverse interests in order to
present opposing views.
While the first two provisions are normal practice, little or no use has been made of the
hearing provision in the legislation.  Nevertheless if parties requested such a hearing the Ministry
would arrange for a meeting of those parties indicating a wish to meet, with an agenda proposed after
consultation with the relevant parties.  The Ministry would chair the meeting and a record ofproceedings would be included on the Public File.  As there is no legal obligation to attend such a
meeting, the absence of any party would not be prejudicial to its interests.
Q3. Are there Members who maintain a verifica tion procedure for verifying the factual
information submitted by these parties?
Reply
Depending on the relevance and nature of the information, New Zealand would verify the
information provided by these organisations.
Q4. Do those Members which do not include a public interest clause in their anti-dumping
regimes also provide an opportunity to industrial users and consumer organizations to provideG/ADP/AHG/W/83
Page 3
information and to what extent, if any, do thei r views have on the determinations made by the
Authorities?
Reply
New Zealand currently does not have a public interest clause in its legislation but views
industrial users and consumer organisations as interested parties and extends to them the same
opportunities as any other interested party to the investigation.
Q5. To what extent, do those Members who do include a public interest clause in their anti-
dumping regimes, consider, the information and comments received by the Industrial users and
consumer organizations in their final determinations.  It may be useful to provide specificexamples of cases where those comments actua lly had an impact on the final determination.
Reply
Not applicable.
Q6. Do Members affording opportunities for industrial users to comment also include the
suppliers of the raw material as parties who may also provide relevant information to the
Authorities?
Reply
New Zealand may view a supplier of raw materials as an interested party to an investigation
and accept submissions from them on matters related to the investigation.
Q7. Is there any distinction drawn between the preliminary and final determination in
respect to the relevance of the information provided by the users or consumers?
Reply
There is no distinction drawn between the preliminary and final determination in respect to
the relevance of the information provided by the users and consumers.
* * * * *
The following are New Zealand's answers to the questions posed by Canada in its paper
G/ADP/AHG/W/76.
(a) How do other members take into acco unt the “relevancy” of submissions from
consumers and downstream users?
Reply
New Zealand would take such submissions in to account when considering other causes of
injury.  In the abrasive disc case, for example, downstream users were consulted to form views on the
quality of the domestic product as this issue had been raised by importers.  Similarly in the hog bristle
paintbrush review, paintbrush retailers, brus hware manufacturers and paint manufacturers were
surveyed to establish whether the local industry was being injured by causes other than dumpedgoods.G/ADP/AHG/W/83
Page 4
(b) Are competition authorities, on behalf of consumers and downstream industries,
allowed/required to provide input?
Reply
Competition authorities can provide input to an investigation.  If the New Zealand
investigating authority is aware that the New Zealand Commerce Commission has completed an
investigation in to an industry, it will ask and receive a non-confidential version of its report.  This
provides useful information on the background and structure of the industry. If consumers or
downstream industries asked competition authorities to provide a submission to an investigation on
their behalf, it would be treated as a submission on behalf of an interested party.  The authority could
then be extended the same opportunities as any other interested party to the investigation.
(c) Can representations from these groups result in the reduction of anti-dumping
duties?
Reply
New Zealand operates a lesser duty rule.  The Minister determines a rate or amount of anti-
dumping duty, but in exercising that discretion "shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring that
the amount of anti-dumping duty in respect of the goods is not greater than is necessary to prevent the
material injury to an industry".
The facts of each case would establish whether or not a lesser duty should apply, but a
submission from an interested party could alert the investigators to issues of injury that were not
necessarily caused by the dumping.
__________