WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/RL/W/54
6 February 2003
(03-0800)
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:  English
THIRD SET OF QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES ON
PAPERS SUBMITTED TO THE RULES NEGOTIATING GROUP
The following communication, dated 5 February 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the United States.
_______________
Introduction
As mandated by the Ministers in Doha, negotiations on WTO Rules are aimed at clarifying
and improving disciplines under the Agreements on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994
and on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, while preserving the basic concepts, principles and
effectiveness of these Agreements and their instruments and objectives, and taking into account the
needs of developing and least developed participants.  Consistent with this mandate, we believe it isessential that these negotiations be designed to ma intain the strength and effectiveness of the trade
remedy laws.
The United States submits the following questions, which we hope will help to ensure that the
Ministers’ mandate will be fulfilled.  The United States reserves the right to submit additional
questions at a later date on these papers and on additional papers submitted to the Group.
TN/RL/W/6
1. With respect to the issue of cyclical markets, the submission argues that “rapidly growing
manufacturing sectors” face problems similar to those of perishable goods.  How do the proponents
define “rapidly growing manufacturing sector”?  How specifically is their situation similar toperishable agricultural goods?  Are the proponents suggesting different antidumping disciplines for
these two types of products?
2. On the subject of facts available, the submission asks whether more “stringent rules” should
be developed for determining when “facts available”  should be used in an investigation.  Is the
submission referring to the general use of “facts available” or only when “adverse inferences” are
used?  How might an administering authority create incentives for cooperation by responding parties
if adverse “facts available” is not an option?   What sources of information should be used by
Members when exporters do not cooperate?
3. The submission suggests that a provision should be introduced requiring consideration of the
“public interest” in conducting anti-dumping investigations.  Would all Members be required to use
the same “public interest” criteria?  How much flexibility should a Member have in defining its own
public’s interests?TN/RL/W/54
Page 2
TN/RL/W/28/Rev.1
1. Proponents state that one of their objectives is to “avoid excessive burdens on respondents”.
What is the proponents’ definition of  “respondents”?  Should avoiding excessive burdens on
members of the domestic industry be considered in assessing whether this objective is satisfied withrespect to discussion of information-gathering activities pertaining to the application and to the
determination of material injury?
2. Under the objective of enhancing transparency, predictability and fairness, the proponents
discuss arbitrary interpretations and applications and their effect on predictability and fairness, but do
not mention transparency.  Do proponents agree that improving transparency in antidumping and
countervailing duty proceedings will reduce arbitrary interpretations and applications?
TN/RL/W/29
1. The United States requests clarification with respect to the issue of the definition of “dumped
imports”.  Is it the purpose of this proposal to suggest that the Agreement be clarified to ensure thatthe term “dumped imports” is defined on a company-specific basis, rather than in terms of the total
imports subject to the investigation?  Do the proponents contend that if a de minimis  dumping margin
is calculated for imports from a particular producer, then those imports should not be considered to be
dumped imports for purposes of the injury determination?
2. Proponents raise the issue of sufficient quantity of sales for determining normal value, and
whether such quantities should be measured with respect to the product under investigation as a
whole, or “categories” of such product.  Proponents state that a goal of the negotiations should be to
avoid methodologies which decrease the use of home market sales or increase the use of constructed
value.  For clarification, is it proponents’ view that application of this test to all home market salesduring the period of investigation under consideration (sometimes referred to as “the foreign like
product”), rather than to sub-categories of such merchandise, would be less likely to result in use of
constructed value?  What is the basis for this view?
3. In proposing discussion of a definition of “association or compensatory arrangement” under
Article 2.3, to what extent do proponents believe that the definition of “related parties” in Article 4.1
could serve as a useful basis for this new definition?  In proponents’ view, would any changes berequired?
4. With respect to the so-called “lesser-price” provision of Article 8.1, in proponents’ view is
there a technical distinction between this provision and the “lesser duty” provision of Article 9.1?
5. In the view of proponents, what standard shou ld be applied in determining the sufficiency of
public notices and determinations?  Would the proponents agree that Article 12 addresses the content
of public notices, and that issues concerning how an investigating authority is to conduct its
substantive analysis (e.g., determination of dumping and injury) are addressed in other articles of the
Agreement?
6. While the United States concurs that the same general standards of transparency should apply
to public notices and explanations of initiations as for preliminary and final determinations, do
proponents agree that the sufficiency of such public notices and explanations must be weighed with a
view to the limited information available to invest igating authorities at such an early stage in the
investigation?
7. The Committee on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 has adopted a
recommendation on the period of data collection for anti dumping investigations which appears toTN/RL/W/54
Page 3
parallel the proposal on that topic advanced by the proponents (See, G/ADP/6 (May 16, 2000)).  Does
the proponents’ suggestion differ from this recommendation?
__________