./.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/RL/W/125
16 June 2003
(03-3193)
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:  English
COMMENTS BY AUSTRALIA ON THE UNITED STATES’ PAPER ON
CERTAIN MAJOR ISSUES UNDER THE ANTI-DUMPING AND
SUBSIDIES AGREEMENTS (DOCUMENT TN/RL/W/72)
The following communication, dated 13 June 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Australia.
_______________
Australia wishes to thank the United States for this latest contribution identifying additional
areas for clarification and improvement which was tabled at the February 2003 session of the
Negotiating Group on Rules.
• A number of these issues have not posed concerns in practice for Australian customs authorities.
However, Australia recognizes in a number of the is sues the United States has raised in this paper
that there may be a lack of clarity in the WTO Anti-Dumping and Subsidies Agreements in the
application and practice of provisions.  Those areas identified would be perishable/seasonal and
cyclical products; the “all others” rate; new shipper reviews; and critical circumstances.
• The United States notes that the “critical circumstances” provisions and the resultant retroactive
application of duties 90 days prior to a preliminary determination are of limited effectiveness.  Italso notes that consequential consideration should be given to clarifying the provisions to ensure
that any surges in imports prior to the imposition of provisional measures does not undermine theremedial effect of the measure.
• This issue, and particularly the problems that arise where there are import surges anticipating a
positive preliminary determination, emphasizes to us the market effect that anti-dumpingmeasures may have.  A number of WTO Members have noted the importance of the
confidentiality provisions in light of the “trade chilling” effect of a decision to initiate an anti-dumping investigation.  In some ways, this is the opposite effect of the situation which may arise
as described in the United States’ paper.  We therefore agree that this is an issue where some
examination is merited.
• On the issue of persistent dumping or subsidiza tion, the United States gives an example where
there are import surges from countries not co vered by anti-dumping measures immediately or
soon after measures have been applied to another members, thereby undercutting the remedial
effects of the measures.  The US suggests expedited procedures.  We would need to consider this
very carefully, particularly where there is an assertion that these imports are causing injury.  But
we understand the US’s underlying concerns which have also been raised by others, for example,
Canada (TN/RL/W/47) and our earlier comments on this paper (TN/RL/W/62).
• The second aspect which the US raises under the heading of “Persistent dumping/Subsidization”
is where anti-dumping measures are imposed on the same product in numerous countries inTN/RL/W/125
Page 2
almost a “domino” effect.  The US notes that this indicates that the exporter chooses to shift
export market.
• Australia has some concerns with this as an issue for the Group to discuss.  It raises a
number of aspects or at least presumptions which we do not consider should or could
address within the Group’s mandate.
• At the core of our concern is the need to distinguish between dumping and alleged
injurious dumping within an importing Member’s market (where there is a legitimate
and available remedy in the form of an anti-dumping proceeding).
__________