MEXICO –  PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE ON ELECTRIC TRANSFORMERS
Document: Request for Consultations by Brazil
Date: 4 January 2001
Document codes: WT/DS216/1; G/L/429; G/ADP/D30/1
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: Mexico
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. 2, 3, 3.4, 3.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 6.8, 7.1, Annex II  Anti-dumping

MEXICO – PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE
ON ELECTRIC TRANSFORMERS
Request for Consultations by Brazil
The following communication, dated 20 December 2000, from the Permanent Mission of
Brazil to the Permanent Mission of Mexico and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is
circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
Upon instruction from my authorities and pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII.1 of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement), I hereby wish to convey
the request of the Government of Brazil for consultations with Mexico regarding Mexico's
17 July 2000 provisional anti-dumping measure on electric transformers having a power of more than
10,000 KVA, classified under tariff line 8504.23.01 of the General Import Law, exported from Brazil
eléctricos de potencia superiores a 10,000 KVA, me rcancía clasificada en la fracción arancelaria
Brasil").
Brazil considers that the above-referenced determination and the resulting provisional
measures are inconsistent with Mexico's oblig ations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 for the following reasons:
1. Mexico violated Articles 5.2, 5.3 and 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because it initiated
the anti-dumping investigation without evidence of dumping as defined under Article 2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, of injury as defined under Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, and of causation of injury. In particular, the petitioner did not provide evidence
of firm offers, sales or of imports of the subject merchandise during the period of
investigation. Without such evidence, SECOFI did not have factual grounds to find that here
was "sufficient evidence" of dumping and injury "to justify the initiation of an investigation".
2. Mexico violated Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because it did not terminate the
investigation "promptly" when presented with evidence that it was factually impossible to
find dumping or injury during the period of investigation because there were neither firm
offers, nor sales, nor imports of the subject merchandise.
3. Mexico violated Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by using "best
information available" in a manner inconsistent with the requirements established in those
provisions.

4. Mexico violated Article 7.1(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because it imposed
provisional measures pursuant to an investigation that was not initiated in accordance with
Article 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
5. Mexico violated Article 7.1(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because it imposed
provisional measures without a valid prelimin ary determination of dumping, as defined in
Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Firs t, Mexico ignored evidence that there were
neither firm offers nor sales of the subject merchandise during the period of investigation.
Without firm offers or sales of the subject merchandise, it is impossible to analyze and find
dumping. Second, Mexico disregarded cost information submitted by the respondents for use
as normal value without meeting the condition set out in Article 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement for using "best information available" that an "interested party refuses access to,
or otherwise does not provide, necessary information within a reasonable period or
significantly impedes the investigation". Furthermore, having disregarded the respondents'
information, Mexico did not comply with Annex II, paragraph 7, of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement in using information presented by the petitioner as the "best information
available". Mexico made no attempt to "check the information from other independent
sources at their disposal" to ensure its accuracy and relevance.
6. Mexico violated Article 7.1(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because it imposed
provisional measures without a valid preliminary determination of injury , as defined under
Articles 3.4 and 3.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. First, Mexico ignored evidence
presented by the respondents and other interested parties that the subject merchandise was not
imported into, nor sold to, Mexico during the period of investigation. Second, Mexico did not
properly consider evidence presented regarding the factors set forth in Article 3.7 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, but simply assumed that evidence was false without meeting the
condition established in Article 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement for using "best
information available". Furthermore, Mexico accepted information presented by the
petitioner as the "best information available" without meeting the conditions established in
Annex II, paragraph 7, of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
In light of the DSU provisions governing this matter, including Article 4.3 thereof, as well as
Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, my authorities look forward to receiving in due course
the reply of Mexico to this request. Brazil is ready to consider with Mexico mutually convenient
dates to commence consultations in Geneva.
The Government of Brazil reserves the right to raise additional factual or legal points related
to the aforementioned measure during the course of the consultations.