RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/MDA/3
G/SCM/Q1/MDA/3
13 May 2002
(02-2630)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Replies of MOLDOVA to Questions
from the UNITED STATES1
The following communication, dated 7 May 2002, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Moldova.
_______________
Q1. Does Article 1 (“The area of application for this law”) of Moldova’s Law on Anti-
Dumping Measures, Countervailing Duties and Sa feguards alter the injury or causation
standards prescribed in Articles 5 or 29 (“Determ ination of injury”)?  What is the relationship
between the general provisions of the law in Articles 1 and 3 and the law’s more specific
provisions in Articles 5 and 29?
Reply
Article 1 “The area of application of the La w” of Moldova’s Law on Antidumping Measures,
Countervailing Duties and Safeguard (hereinafter referred to as Law) sets the scope of application for
the Law hereto.  This Article is not and should not be construed as to alter the injury or causation
standards prescribed in Articles 5 or 29 of the Law nor other specific provisions in the Law.  Article 1
sets the applicability area of the Law.  Every further specific provision in the Law shall not go beyond
the framework provided for in Article 1;
Q2. Do the terms “like or directly competing goods” in Article 1 and “like product” in
Article 2 refer to the same concept?  If not,  how is the concept of “directly competing goods”
applied in making a like product determination under the law’s anti-dumping and
countervailing duty provisions?
Reply
The basic concept of “like product” is understood in the same context throughout the
dumping, subsidy and safeguards measures provisions save for those situations, as in the safeguardsmeasures, where the text of the Agreement extends the concept by including the concept of “directly
competing goods”;
Q3. How is the “quality and reputation of the products [and] the existence of a brand name
or trademark” pertinent to like product determ inations as directed by Article 2?  Is the
                                                     
1 G/ADP/Q1/MDA/1-G/SCM/Q1/MDA/1G/ADP/Q1/MDA/3
G/SCM/Q1/MDA/3
Page 2
inclusion of these criteria in the like product definition meant to exclude the consideration of
other characteristics from the Moldovan  authorities’ like product analysis?
Reply
The criteria provided for in the definition of “like product” in Article 2 i.e “quality and
reputation of the products and the existence a brand name or trademark” shall not be interpreted as
preventing the IA from consideration of other characteristics provided these closely resemble those of
the product under consideration;
Q4. What public authority has Moldova designat ed as its “Investigating Authority” for
injury determinations?  Is the same authority the Investigating Authority for dumping margins
and countervailable subsidies?
Reply
Since the enforcement of the Law, Moldova has not introduced any preliminary or final
antidumping actions. As it was recognized within WTO, AD Agreement is difficult to administer for
the countries with economies in transition and therefore the lack of national institutional capacities
and funding has delayed the creation of national Investigation Authority.  Under such circumstances
the prerogatives of IA shall be provisionally exercised by the National Agency for Competitioncreated under Moldovan Law on Protection of Competition no. 1103-XIV of 30 June 2000.  The
Agency shall draft the mechanism for implementation of the Law ( e.g. drafting AD questionnaires,
guidelines and methodologies for dumping margins and injury calculations) as well as of the
necessary institutional framework.  In the initial stage, the Agency will carry out investigations for
both purposes establishment of dumping margins and countervailable subsidies and injurydeterminations;
Q5. Article 2 of the Moldova law (“law”) stat es, “Dumping (a dumping action) shall mean
introduction of a product to the market at a price, which is lower than its normal value, or
where the exports price of that product at the ti me of its exports from one country into another
is lower than the comparable prices registered in  normal trade transactions with like products,
intended for domestic consumption in the exporting country”.  Does this language contemplatetwo bases for determining dumping?  If so, please explain the difference between “normal
value” and “comparable prices registered in normal trade transactions with like products,
intended for domestic consumption in the exporting country”.
Reply
The question has been raised due to a translation error.  The “or” should be replaced in the
paragraph thereof with “if” and shall be read as  following: “Dumping shall mean introduction of a
product to the market at a price which is lower than its normal value if the  export price of that
product at the time of its export from one country into another is lower than the comparable prices
registered in normal trade transaction with like products, intended for domestic consumption in the
exporting country”.  There are no two basis for determining dumping;
Q6. Article 3(2) states, “A product should be considered dumped only where its export price
– at the time of its introduction to Moldova - is lower than the usual price charged in the
ordinary course of trade for  products intended for consumption at the domestic market of the
exporting country”.  Does the term “normal trade transaction” as used in Article 2 have the
same meaning as “ordinary course of trade” as us ed in Article 3(2)?  In Article 3(2), does “usualG/ADP/Q1/MDA/3
G/SCM/Q1/MDA/3
Page 3
price” differ from “comparable price” in Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of
Article VI of GATT 1994 (“AD Agreement”)?
Repyl
The question has been raised due to a translation error.  The term “normal trade transaction”
as used in Article 2 has the same meaning as “ordinary course of trade” used in Article 3 (2);
Q7. Article 2 of the law defines “fair value” as  “the value that corresponds to the actually
paid price, or the price that could be paid for like products in an arms-length commercial
transaction by consumers in the exporting count ry”.  Is “fair value” equivalent to “normal
value” in Article 2.1 of the AD Agreement?  How does this relate to the term “normal value” as
used in the definition of “dumping”?  How will Moldova determine what prices “could be paid”
for like products?
Reply
The question has been raised due to a translation error.  The term “fair value” defined in
Article 2 is equivalent to “normal value” as defined in Article 2.1 of AD Agreement.  The Moldovan
Law sets forth the term “to be paid” meaning the price not actually paid but agreed between parties to
the contract to be paid in the future.
Q8. Article 4(5) of the law states that consid eration shall be given to “evidence concerning
the correct cost breakdown, provided such co st breakdown has a tradition of usage”.  Does
“tradition of usage” have the same meaning as  cost allocations “historically used by the
exporter or producer” as provided in Article 2.2.1.1 of the AD Agreement?
Reply
The term “tradition of usage” referred to in Article 4 (5) has the same meaning as the cost
allocation “historically used by exporter or producer” as provided in Article 2.2.1.1 of AD
Agreement.
Q9. Article 5(1)(b) (Determination of injury) speaks of “the impact of the dumped imports
on the national industry” while the corollary provision for countervailing measures (Article
29(1)(b) (Determination of injury)) states, “the consequent impact of these imports on the
domestic industry” (emphasis supplied).  Is the omission of the term “consequent” in the former
intentional and, if so, what substantive effect is the omission meant to have?
Reply
The question has been raised due to a translation error. Article 29 (1) (b) of Law does not
contain the term “ consequent ” at all.
Q10. Article 5(2) speaks of the “. . . like pro duct of the national industry . . .” while the
corollary provision for countervailing measures (A rticle 29(2)) states, “. . . like product of the
Republic of Moldova . . .”.  Is the difference intentional and, if so, what substantive effect is it
meant to have?G/ADP/Q1/MDA/3
G/SCM/Q1/MDA/3
Page 4
Reply
The difference referred to in the question hereto is not intentional.  The legislator has put the
same meaning in both terms.
Q11. Is the first sentence in Article 5(6) meant to refer to “paragraph 5” rather than
“paragraph 6”?
Reply
The first sentence in Article 5 (6) of the Law contain a typographical error and does indeed
refer to paragraph 5.
Q12. In the regional markets provisions, Articles 6(2)(a) (anti-dumping duties) and 30(2)(a)
(countervailing duties), the former states “man ufacture” while the latter states “production”.
Are the two meant to have different substantive effect and, if so, upon what basis?
Reply
The question has been raised due to a translation error.  In the Law the term “production” is
used for in both Article 6 (2)(a) and Article 30 (2) (a) of the Law.
Q13. The language relating to price undertakings in regional industry investigations used in
Articles 6(4) (anti-dumping duties) and 30(4) (countervailing duties) is different.  Are the two
provisions meant to have different substantive effect and, if so, upon what basis?
Reply
The two provisions relating to price undertakings referred to in Articles 6 (4) and 30 (4) of the
Law are meant to have similar effect.
Q14. The standard for determining negligible import volume in Article 7(6) is framed in
terms of the market share of the imports in the Republic of Moldova.  How is this consistentwith Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement, which fram es negligibility analysis in terms of percentage
of total imports, rather than in terms of market penetration?  Does Moldova use in this analysis
the percentages specified in Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement?
Reply
The Moldovan standard applicable for de minimis  is more favourable to exporters and an
internal checking procedure of the IA will ensure that in extreme cases of very high import
penetration from a small number of countries, the AD Agreement provisions are not infringed by
relying on the Moldovan provision alone.  Where the imports from a Member account for more than1 per cent market share but for less than 3 per cent of total imports the proceedings will be terminated
on the basis of the relevant threshold of AD Agreement and if the imports from a certain Member are
found to account for less than 1 per cent of market share but the total imports volume account for
more than 3 per cent the proceedings will be also terminated.
Q15. What factors are taken into consideration in determining the “national interest” to
proceed with an investigation under Articles 7(7)  or 31(9) when the comp laining party wishes to
withdraw the complaint?  In such an event, is the Investigating Authority required to initiate an
investigation under Articles 7(8) or 31(10), respectively?G/ADP/Q1/MDA/3
G/SCM/Q1/MDA/3
Page 5
Reply
The criteria taken into consideration by IA in determining the “national interest” are set forth
in Article 23 of the Law. According to paragraph 1 of Article 23 “…In such an examination, the need
to eliminate the trade distorting effects of injurious dumping and to restore effective competition shall
be given special consideration…”.  According to Ar ticle 23 of Law “A determination pursuant to this
Article as to whether the national interest calls for intervention shall be based on an appreciation of
all the various interests taken as a whole, including the interests of the domestic industry and users
and consumers; and a determination shall be made only where all parties have been given the
opportunity to make their views known pursuant to para graph (2).” In the event described in  Article 7
(7) or 31 (9) of the Law, the IA is entitled to ini tiate the investigation under Article 7(8) or 31 (10),
respectively if the provisions of Article 23 of the Law are met.
Q16. Please confirm that notices of initiation under Articles 7(10) and 31(12) contain the
content prescribed by Article 12.1.1 of the AD Agreement and Article 22.2 of the Agreement onSubsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”), respectively.
Reply
Notice of initiation under Articles 7 (10) and 31 (12) of Law have the content prescribed by
Article 12.1.1 of AD Agreement and Article 22.2 of  SCM Agreement.  The terms “summary of
information concerned” and “provide that all relevant information is to be communicated to IA” set
forth in the respective Articles of the Law are intended to cover all the requirements prescribed by the
AD Agreement and SCM Agreement.
Q17. Article 8(3) of the law provides that inte rested parties must make a showing that “they
are an interested party likely to be affected by  the result of the proceeding and that there are
particular reasons why they should be heard”.  What standards will Moldova apply in
determining whether to hear a particular interested party?  How is this requirement consistent
with Article 6.1 of the AD Agreement (“all interested parties shall be given . . . ample
opportunity to present in writing all evidence wh ich they consider relevant. . . .”) and Article 6.2
of the AD Agreement (“all interested parties shal l have a full opportunity for a defense of their
interests”)?
Reply
The standards for assessing when to hear an interested party shall be set forth in the IA
Moldovan regulation to be drafted pursuant to Article 6.1 of AD Agreement shortly.  The provisions
of Article 6.2 and 6.3 of AD Agreement are mirrored in Article 8(4) of Law and therefore consistent
with AD Agreement.
Q18. Articles 8(5) and 32(5) of the law allow in ternal documents prepared by the authorities
of the Republic of Moldova to be excepted from disclosure.  Please explain how this provision is
consistent with Article 6.4 and 6.9 of the AD Agreement, and with Article 12.3 and 12.8 of the
SCM Agreement.
Reply
The term “authorities of Republic of Moldova” in these Articles refer to all the authorities of
Republic of Moldova except for the IA.G/ADP/Q1/MDA/3
G/SCM/Q1/MDA/3
Page 6
Q19. Is a “provisional” affirmative determination under Article 9(1) (Provisional
anti-dumping measure) the same thing as a “preliminary” affirmative determination under
Article 7 of the AD Agreement?
Reply
The question has been raised due to a translation error.  The “provisional” affirmative
determination under Article 9 (1) has the meaning of “preliminary” affirmative determination under
Article 7 of AD Agreement.
Q20. Is the article concerning “duration, reviews, and refunds” in anti-dumping proceedings
properly to be referenced as “Article 13" ra ther than “Article 11”?  Subparagraph (3) of this
provision requires for certain anti-dumping reviews that the particular request “contain
sufficient evidence substantiating the need fo r such an interim review”.  The provision in
Article 37(6) concerning countervailing duty proc eedings, which is otherwise identical, contains
no such language.  Why are the two provisions different?
Reply
The question has been raised due to a translation error.  The request “contain sufficient
evidence substantiating the need for such an interim review” in paragraph (3) of Article 13 isprecisely mirrored in Article 37 (6) in the original version.
Q21. Article 13 (4) of the law states, “The review shall be initiated where a new exporter or
producer can show that it is not related to an y of the exporters or producers in the exporting
country which are subject to the anti-dumping measures on the product, or where it candemonstrate that it has entered in to an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant
quantity to the Republic of Moldova.”  Does this mean that a new exporter that is related to
prior exporters, and which would therefore oth erwise not be eligible for such a new exporter
review, may nevertheless have such a review if the new exporter can demonstrate that it has
entered into an irrevocable contractual obligati on to export a significant quantity to the
Republic of Moldova?  Please describe the purpose of this provision.
Reply
The question has been raised due to a translation error.  The “or” placed between the two
conditions set forth in Article 13 (4) shall be substituted by “and”.  Both criteria have to be met in
order to initiate a review pursuant to Article 13 (4) of the Law.
Q22. What is the purpose of the “reinvestigati on” proceeding described in Article 15?  Is the
“reinvestigation” simply a review of the dumping margin conducted pursuant to Article 9.3 of
the AD Agreement?  Or does the “reinvestigation ” also encompass a reinvestigation of material
injury?  If so, please explain the standards for any reinvestigation of material injury.
Reply
Article 15 (1) of the Law provides: “where the national industry submits sufficient
information showing that anti-dumping measures have led to no movement, or insufficient movement,in resale prices or subsequent selling prices in the Republic of Moldova, the investigation may be
reopened to examine whether the measure has had effects on the above mentioned  prices”.  This
provision describes the purpose of the reinvestigation proceedings.  Normally the reinvestigation of
the dumping margin pursuant to Article 15 (1) looks at the movement of the export price whereG/ADP/Q1/MDA/3
G/SCM/Q1/MDA/3
Page 7
normal value from the original investigation will be used for the dumping calculation.  The
calculations look only at the amount of dumping and have no reference to the injury determination.
The reinvestigation pursuant to Article 15 of the Law is the review referred to in Article 9.3 of ADA
Agreement.
Q23. Articles 17(2) and 41(2) contain various req uirements for decisions imposing final anti-
dumping and countervailing duties.  These provisions, however, make no reference to reporting
in “sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law considered
material by investigating authorities” as se t forth in Article 12.2 of the AD Agreement and
Article 22.3 of the SCM Agreement, or to reporting “the reasons for the acceptance or rejection
of relevant arguments or claims” as set forth in Article 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement and Article22.5 of the SCM Agreement.  How does Moldova implement these requirements?
Reply
The language of Article 12 of AD Agreement is not accurately reflected in Articles 17 (2) and
41 (2) of the Law, although by “…description of the product and a summary of the material facts and
considerations relevant to the dumping and injury determinations” referred to the Law the legislator
intended to cover the provision “sufficient detail th e findings and conclusions reached on all issues of
fact and law considered material by IA” referred to in Article 12 of AD Agreement.  During
investigations the IA will check as to make sure whether the AD Agreement provisions are notinfringed by relying on the Moldovan provision.
Q24. What provisions exist in Moldovan law for the domestic judicial, arbitral or
administrative review of anti-dumping or countervailing duty measures contemplated by
Article 13 of the AD Agreement and Article 23 of the SCM Agreement?  What steps have beentaken to ensure such review is independent of the authorities responsible for anti-dumping and
countervailing duty determinations?
Reply
The standard for the judicial review prescribed  in Article 13 of AD Agreement is set forth in
the Civil procedure Code of Republic of Moldova, specifically in Chapter 33/3 which was approvedby Law no. 942 of 18.07.96. Pursuant to Article 278/6 of  the Code “Economical courts are specialized
courts for the settlement of economical disputes according to the code hereof and other legislative
acts”. According to Article 278/11 which sets forth the competence of the court “Economical court of
Republic of Moldova shall hear the requests made by economical agents on examination of some
normative and individual acts of public administrative bodies and other bodies which contravene thelegislation in force, as being null and void.”  The economical agents can prevail themselves of these
provision in order to defend their legitimate rights considered infringed by the acts approved by the
IA. The Economical Court is part of judicial power which is separated from executive and legislative
powers in Republic of Moldova according to its Constitution.
Q25. Does Moldovan law permit confidential information to be disclosed pursuant to a
protective order, as authorized by footnote 17 to Article 6.5 of the AD Agreement and
footnote 42 to Article 12.4 of the SCM Agreement?
Reply
There is no such a provision in Moldovan Law that would permit confidential information to
be disclosed pursuant to a protective order, as authorized by footnote 17 to Article 6.5 of ADG/ADP/Q1/MDA/3
G/SCM/Q1/MDA/3
Page 8
Agreement and footnote 42 to Article 12.4 of SCM Agreement.  The limits of the merely disclosure
permission are set forth in Article 21 (5) of the Law.
Q26. If an interested party makes a request for disclosure of essential facts under Articles 22
and 46 of Moldovan law, will the Moldovan authoritie s grant it as a matter of right?  If not, how
does Moldova implement the requirements of Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement and Article 12.8
of the SCM Agreement?
Reply
Any request for disclosure under Articles 22 and 46 of Moldovan Law will be granted to an
interested party as a matter of right.
__________