Source: http://www.alca-ftaa.org/Wgroups/WGADCVD/english/031000.asp
Timestamp: 2018-06-21 00:27:28
Document Index: 326539040

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 3', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 51']

ALCA - FTAA - ZLEA - AD & SCM Compendium: Methodologies/Definitions - Threat of Injury
WTO Standard: A determination of threat of material injury shall be based on facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility. The change in circumstances which would create a situation in which the dumping or subsidies would cause injury must be clearly foreseen and imminent. (footnote omitted) In making a determination regarding the existence of threat of material injury, the authorities should consider, inter alia, such factors as:
(I) a significant rate of increase of dumped or subsidized imports into the domestic market indicating the likelihood of substantially increased importation;
(ii) sufficient freely disposable, or an imminent, substantial increase in, capacity of the exporter indicating the likelihood of substantially increased dumped or subsidized exports to the importing country's market, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports;
(iii) whether imports are entering at prices that will have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices, and would likely increase demand for further imports; and
(iv) inventories of the product being investigated.
No one of these factors by itself can necessarily give decisive guidance but the totality of the factors considered must lead to the conclusion that further dumped exports are imminent and that, unless protective action is taken, material injury would occur. (AD Agreement, Art. 3.4; SCM Agreement, Art. 15.4)
With respect to cases where injury is threatened by dumped or subsidized imports, the application of anti-dumping or countervailing measures shall be considered and decided with special care. (AD Agreement, Art. 3.5; SCM Agreement, Art. 15.8)
The cited WTO standards are applied. Article 9 of Decree 2121/94 is of supplementary application in this subject, as long as it does not contradict with the Agreement provisions. The competent implementing authority shall consider that there is a threat of material injury to a domestic industry when such threat is real and certain and when the injury is imminent.
The implementing authority should take into account the following circumstances, while not excluding other possibilities:
(1) an increase in the share of the imports under investigation in the domestic market even if there is not yet any material injury to the domestic industry;
(2) overproduction, excess capacity or accumulation of inventories of the product under investigation in the country of origin or export, which may possibly be exported to the Argentine Republic; and
(3) accumulation in the Argentine Republic of the product under investigation, even if they have not been sold in the country. (Decree No. 2121/94, Art. 9).
It must be shown to the satisfaction of the competent implementing authority that there is a causal link between the import of the product under investigation and the existence of threat of material injury to the domestic industry of the like product.
The existence of injury caused by unfair trade practices will be determined based on proof positive and will include an objective examination of:
1. Information on the entire industry of the product in question;
1.1 The volume of imported products subject to unfair international trade practices, to determine whether there has been a considerable increase in that volume, in absolute terms or in relation to the country's domestic production and consumption;
1.2 The prices of imports subject to unfair practices, to determine whether they are considerably lower than those of like products. Similarly, in order to determine whether the effect of such imports is to considerably lower prices or prevent the increase that would otherwise have occurred;
1.3 The impact or potential impact on national producers of products similar to the imported ones, considering all the relevant factors and economic indexes that affect production and sales, such as marked and potential decreases, market share, return on investment, use of installed capacity; factors that impact on domestic prices, the actual and potential negative effects on employment, wages, growth, raising capital, profits, and other elements considered relevant.
2. Information for determining the causal relationship between the imports and the alleged injury.
None of the factors discussed above will alone give rise to a final directive on injury to national production.
Determination of the existence of the threat of injury will be based on facts and not on mere allegations, conjecture, or remote possibilities. The threat of injury will be determined when such injury is imminent. For this purpose, the Technical Secretariat, in addition to evaluating the factors referred to in the preceding item, will consider, inter alia:
2.1 The possibility of a substantial increase in imports while the product in question is being imported at dumping prices or subsidized under such conditions as a supplier's contract or winning a bid.
2.2 An increase in the installed or used capacity in the exporting country.
The determination of the existence of a threat of material injury shall be based on facts and not merely on conjecture.
The change in circumstances which would create a situation in which the dumping (subsidies) would cause injury must be clearly foreseen and imminent. Art. 16; Art. 23.
In determining the existence of a threat of material injury, the following factors, among others, shall be considered:
1) a significant rate of increase of dumped (subsidized) imports, indicating the likelihood of substantially increased importation;
2) sufficiently freely disposable, or an imminent, substantial increase in, the capacity of the exporter indicating the likelihood of a significant increase in the export of the dumped (subsidized) product to Brazil, taking into account the availability of third-country markets to absorb any additional exports;
3) whether imports are entering at prices that will have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices, and would likely increase the demand for further imports;
4) inventories of the product being investigated;
5) in the case of countervailing duty investigation, nature of the subsidy or subsidies in question and the trade effects likely to arise there from. Art. 16-1; Art. 23-1.
No one of these factors by itself can necessarily give decisive guidance but the totality of the factors considered must lead to the conclusion that further dumped (subsidized) exports are imminent and that, unless protective action is taken, material injury may occur. (Dec. 1602/95 - Art. 16.2; Dec. 1751/95 - Art. 23.2).
The determination that there exists a threat of material injury must be based on facts, and not simply on allegations, conjecture or remote possibilities. Any change in circumstances whereby dumping or subsidies could be expected to cause injury must be clearly identified and imminent. In arriving at a determination that there exists a threat of material injury, the Commission will take into consideration the following factors, among others:
i) significant rate of increase in the importation of dumped or subsidized goods into the internal market, such as to indicate the probability that imports are growing substantially;
ii) sufficient freely available capacity on the part of the exporter, or an imminent and substantial increase in that capacity, to indicate the probability of a substantial increase in exports of dumped or subsidized goods to the Chilean market, taking into account the existence of other export markets that might absorb such an increase in exports.
iii) the fact that goods are being imported at prices that will have the effect of significantly lowering domestic prices, or restraining their rise, and the likelihood that this will create higher demand for further imports; and
iv) the size of inventories or stocks of the product under investigation.
While no one of these factors may necessarily be enough by itself to establish a definitive trend, they may, when taken together, lead to the conclusion that further exports are imminent, at dumped or subsidized prices, and that, in the absence of protective measures, material injury will result.
In cases where dumped imports are found to threaten injury, the imposition of antidumping measures must be examined and decided with particular care. (Supreme Decree No. 16, Ministry of External Relations, published in the Diario Oficial on May 17, 1995).
The threat of damages shall be determined to exist whenever such a threat is imminent.
To this end, INCOMEX shall give consideration to the following factors, in addition to others referred to in the previous article of this Decree:
(1) The possibility of a substantial increase in imports, provided that the goods in question are imported at the dumping or subsidized price, as a consequence of a supply contract or a contract awarded subsequent to competitive bidding, among others; or
(2) An increase in the surplus installed or used capacity of the exporting country. (Decree 299, Chap. 5, Art. 14).
It is suggested that the last paragraph of the compendium be deleted, since it is not pertinent to this subject.
A determination of a threat of material injury shall be based on facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility.
The change in circumstances which would create a situation in which the dumping would cause injury must be clearly foreseen and imminent (the endnote is omitted).
In making a determination regarding the existence of a threat of material injury, the authorities should consider, inter alia, such factors as:
(i) a significant rate of increase of dumped imports into the domestic market indicating the likelihood of substantially increased importations;
(ii) sufficient freely disposable or an imminent, substantial increase in capacity of the exporter indicating the likelihood of substantially increased dumped exports to the importing country's market, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports;
No one of these factors by itself can necessarily give decisive guidance but the totality of the factors considered must lead to the conclusion that further dumped exports are imminent and that, unless protective action is taken, material injury would occur.
With respect to cases where injury is threatened by dumped imports, the application of anti-dumping measures shall be considered and decided with special care.
The determination of material harm or injury shall be based on definite proof and not mere allegations, conjecture, or remote possibilities, and shall comprise an objective examination of:
1. The volume of imports of unfairly traded goods and their impact on the prices of identical or similar products in the domestic market.
An analysis shall be done to determine whether a considerable increase in the imported goods has occurred in absolute terms or with respect to national production or consumption.
In determining the impact of such an increase on the prices of identical or similar goods in the domestic market, it will have to be ascertained whether the imports of unfairly traded goods have a selling price that is lower, and whether their effect has been to substantially lower the prices of locally produced goods or to prevent a price increase which might otherwise have occurred.
2. The effects of such imports on the domestic producers of such goods. An evaluation will have to be performed of all of the economic factors and indicators that might have an impact on domestic production such as an actual and potential reduction in sales, market participation, benefits and profits, production volume, productivity, return on investment, or capacity utilization; the factors that may have an effect on domestic prices; the margin of dumping; actual and potentially adverse effects on cash flow, inventory, employment, wages and salaries, growth, borrowing capacity, and investment.
This list is not exhaustive and none of these factors taken individually or in combination would be sufficient to justify a determination of material injury or the threat thereof.
In determining the existence of the threat of material harm or injury the country's or the exporter's export capacity, the likelihood of lower domestic prices as a result of such imports, the existence of underutilized capacity, and the increase in inventories held by national producers shall be taken into consideration.
Nevertheless, the threat of injury will require material evidence based on facts not allegations, conjecture, or remote possibilities, and the injury must be imminent.
A determination of a threat of injury shall be based on facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibilities and shall include an examination of the following factors:
(a) a significant rate of increase of dumped or subsidized imports into the Paraguayan market indicating the likelihood of substantially increased importations;
(b) sufficient freely disposable or an imminent, substantial increase in capacity of the exporter indicating the likelihood of substantially increased exports, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports;
(c) whether imports are entering at prices that will have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices, and would likely increase demand for further imports; and
(d) inventories of the product being investigated.
None of these factors by itself can necessarily justify a decision, but the totality of the factors considered must lead to the conclusion that further dumped or subsidized exports are imminent and that, unless protective action is taken, material injury would occur.
In determining whether a U.S. industry is threatened with material injury, the ITC is required to consider all relevant economic factors including:
(1) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, the nature of the subsidy and whether imports are likely to increase;
(2) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports into the U.S., taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb additional exports;
(3) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports;
(4) whether the imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports;
(5) inventories of the subject merchandise;
(6) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the exporting country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products;
(7) in any investigation which involves imports of both a raw agricultural product and any product processed from such raw agricultural product, the likelihood that there will be increased imports by reason of product shifting, if there is an affirmative injury determination by the Commission with respect to either the raw agricultural product or the processed agricultural product (but not both);
(8) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product; and
(9) any other demonstrable adverse trend that indicates the probability that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise.
The ITC is required to consider these factors as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of the dumped/subsidized imports would occur unless an order is issue or an undertaking concluded.
A finding of threat of material injury may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition.
A determination of threat of injury shall be made only when a particular situation may become a situation of actual injury.
Consequently, the determination shall not be based on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility. (1992 Law, Art. 13).
The Commission shall determine threat of material injury "when it considers that the threat is real and certain and that the injury is imminent", taking into account the following factors (1993 Regulations, Art. 51):
The nature of the subsidy (if applicable);
Production capacity increases or idle capacity, provided that there are sufficient indications that such increases may result in an increase of exports to Venezuela);
Accelerated increases in the share of the domestic market;
Inventory build-up in Venezuela, or in the country of origin "with the likelihood that they will be exported to Venezuela";
Product substitution capability;
Evidence of a trend toward an increase in exports to Venezuela;
Any other factors deemed relevant by the Commission.