trade relations with countries that will eventually be affected, especially if Peru’s consolidated tariff level in the WTO of 30%, is surpassed.

If safeguards are applied, they will be in force for three years extendable to three more. This timeframe is shorter than the eight-year period allowed by GATT rules. In summary, the decision to apply safeguards has much more political room for maneuvering than decisions about antidumping.

# _4. Other Aspects of Peru’s Experience_

<u>Information Available.- Sources from the investigating authority and from the users of</u> the mechanisms coincide that one of the hindrances to the agility of dumping investigations is the lack of availability of complete statistical data. While Customs statistics are available, information concerning production statistics is less accurate and in some cases the data available in ministries of production is incomplete, outdated and unreliable. Data verification consumes valuable time and effort by the Commission, which often must decide on the basis of the best information available.

<u>Application Costs.-</u> The use of advisors is not a formal requirement to submit an application for a dumping or safeguards investigation. In practice, companies tend to commission the preparation of their cases to law firms or economists specialized in this field, not only to submit the file but also to closely track its evolution. It is estimated that on average, these specialists charge a fee that ranges from US$ 10,000 to 15,000 per case.

However, there are also companies that do not resort to external services to support their cases. In 1999, a small company managed to get provisional duties applied, and later definitive ones of 120% and 734% for dumping caused by imports of “bodyboards” for surfing and recreation, “kickboards” for swimming pools and fins from the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan. The company was able to support every point on its application, even opposing China’s claim to be treated as a free market economy.

A particular aspect of Peru’s procedure is the fee paid by the company for submitting an investigation application. Compared to other countries where this process is free, charging a fee could be regarded as a barrier to making applications. However, the amount fixed at 80% of a UIT, equivalent to US$ 925 to date, is very low. The businessmen contacted have said that they agree with the fee, and some even said they were in favor of charging a fee, as a way of “contributing” to the costs of investigation. An anecdotic case is that of a businessman who, when interviewed on this topic, said that if he did not win the case, he would at least get a useful study on his product at very low cost.

<u>Representativeness of the applying company.- Both the Agreement and the Regulation</u> are based on the criteria that applicants should represent at least 25% of the domestic industry affected. Peruvian legislators have preferred to keep this minimum level as they understand that raising it would give an advantage to large companies.

<u>Elusion of Duties.-</u> Elusion cases that wrongly specify the tariff item, or origin or other technical description of the product, can be reported by the applicant or by a CDS selfinitiated investigation. This entity must ensure that the imported product that has been penalized with antidumping duties pays them independently of the tariff item through 18