MEXICO - ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATION OF HIGH-FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP (HFCS) FROM THE UNITED STATES
Document: Request for Consultations by the United States
Date: 15 May 1998
Document codes: WT/DS132/1; G/ADP/D10/1
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: Mexico
Third parties: Jamaica, Mauritius, EU
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12  Anti-dumping

MEXICO - ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATION OF HIGH-FRUCTOSE
CORN SYRUP (HFCS) FROM THE UNITED STATES
Request for Consultations by the United States
The following communication, dated 8 May 1998, from the Permanent Mission of the United
States to the Permanent Mission of Mexico and to the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in
accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of Mexico
pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (the Anti-dumping
Agreement) regarding the anti-dumping investigation of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) grades 42
and 55 from the United States conducted by the Secretariat of Commerce and Industrial Development
(SECOFI) of the Government of Mexico, the 23 January 1998 notice of final determination of dumping
and injury in that investigation and the consequent imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on
imports of HFCS grades 42 and 55 from the United States.
On 27 February 1997, SECOFI published a notice initiating this anti-dumping investigation
on the basis of an application dated 14 January 1997, from the Mexican National Chamber of Sugar
and Alcohol Producers, an association of producers of sugar. The United States considers that this
application did not contain the information required under Article 5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement,
and that the determination by Mexico to initiate an investigation was inconsistent with the obligations
of Mexico under Articles 2, 4 and 5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. The United States also considers
that Mexico's public notice of initiation did not meet the requirements of Article 12 of the Anti-dumping
Agreement.
The United States considers that Mexico made a determination of threat of injury in contravention
of Articles 3 and 12 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, including by failing to evaluate all relevant
economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, and failing to determine
thatfurtherdumped exportswere imminent and that material injurywould occur unlessprotective action
were taken. Mexico also failed to consider the impact of dumped imports on the full range of operations
of the domestic industry producing the product determined to be the like product.
Mexico's application of provisional anti-dumping measures in this investigation exceeded the
time provided for in Article 7.4 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. Mexico's public notice imposing
definitive anti-dumping measures did not contain a decision, explanation and statement of reasons as
to whether the amount of the anti-dumping duty was the full margin of dumping or less, as required

by Articles 9 and 12 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. Moreover, in making its threat of injury
determination, Mexico failed to determine under Article 10.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement that
the effect of the dumped imports would, in the absence of the provisional measures, have led to a
determination of injury. Consequently, the United States considers Mexico's failure to release in an
expeditious manner the bonds posted by respondent U.S. exporters is inconsistent with Article 10.4
of the Anti-dumping Agreement.
The United States also considers that on numerous occasions throughout this investigation Mexico
failed to comply with the requirements of Article 6 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, including by:
failingtosatisfyitself as tothe accuracy of informationprovided toitbythe petitionerdomestic industry;
failing to provide respondent U.S. exporters with timely opportunities to review all of the information
relevant to the presentation of their cases and to prepare presentations on the basis of such information;
failing to inform the respondent U.S. exporters of the essential facts under consideration which formed
the basis for its decision whether to apply provisional measures; and not requiring all interested parties
providing confidential information to furnish non-confidential summaries thereof. Furthermore, in
contravention of Article 6.5, Mexico authorized a representative of the petitioner domestic industry
to inspect the confidential information provided by respondent U.S. exporters, without providing them
with advance notice of such disclosure and without obtaining the specific permission of the parties
submitting the confidential information.
In addition, the United States considers that Mexico did not calculate the margin of dumping
for respondent U.S.exporter Archer Daniels Midland Company in accordance with the requirements
of Article 2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.
The United States reserves its right to raise further factual claims and legal matters during the
course of consultations. We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing
a mutually convenient date for consultations.