5.7. Evidence of dumping and injury shall be taken into account simultaneously (a) in deciding whether or not to initiate an investigation and (b) thereafter, in the course of the investigation, from a date at the latest on which provisional measures may be applied in accordance with this Agreement. On 21 May 2007, Argentina requested the Dispute Settlement Body for authorization to suspend concessions pursuant to Article 22(2) of the DSU. On 1 June 2007, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, the United States requested that the matter be referred to arbitration because it objected to Argentina`s proposed suspension of concessions. At its meeting on 4 June 2007, the DPO decided to refer the matter to arbitration. On the 21st. In June 2007, the parties jointly requested the arbitrator to stay the arbitration in accordance with Article 22(6) until one of the parties subsequently requested its resumption. In accordance with the joint request of the parties, the arbitrators suspended the arbitration until one of the parties subsequently requested its resumption. The arbitrators also took note of the parties` agreement that if one of the parties decides to request the resumption of arbitration, that party will notify the other party 30 days in advance before making such a request. All WTO Members (off-site link) are Parties to this Agreement, whose full name is “Agreement on the Application of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994”. It entered into force on 1 January 1995. According to the Doha Ministerial Declaration, negotiations on the anti-dumping agreement are currently under way.
The agreement has no expiry date. Negotiations are expected to be concluded by 1 January 2005. The rules set out in the Convention on the Taking of Evidence stipulate that as soon as government authorities initiate an investigation, they must make the full text of the written request available to all known exporters. All interested parties will have access to non-confidential information and will have the opportunity to meet with parties with adverse interests so that opposing views can be expressed and rebuttal arguments can be made. Before definitively establishing the existence of dumping, government authorities must inform all interested parties of the essential facts to be examined and give them sufficient time to defend their interests. A complaint under the Agreement will be dismissed and an investigation will be terminated without delay if government authorities conclude that there is insufficient evidence of dumping or injury. The Agreement provides that, except in special circumstances, investigations shall be concluded within one year and shall in no case continue for more than 18 months after their initiation. 3.7 The determination of a threat of material injury must be based on facts and not just on distant allegations, presumptions or possibilities. The change in circumstances that would lead to a situation in which dumping would cause injury must be clearly foreseen and imminent. (10) In determining whether there is a risk of material harm, the authorities should take into account, inter alia, the following factors: 7 July. In May 2015, the Russian Federation requested consultations with the European Union on the “cost adjustment methods” used by the European Union to calculate dumping margins in anti-dumping investigations and reviews. 3.5 It shall be demonstrated that the dumping effects referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 are causing injury within the meaning of this Agreement as a result of the dumping effects referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4.
The demonstration of a causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the domestic industry is based on the examination of all relevant evidence before the authorities. The authorities shall also examine all known factors other than the dumped imports that are simultaneously causing injury to the domestic industry and the injury caused by these other factors should not be attributed to the dumped imports. Factors that may be relevant in this context include, but are not limited to, the volume and prices of imports not sold at dumped prices, declining demand or changing consumption patterns, trade-restrictive practices and competition between foreign and domestic producers, technological development and export performance, and productivity of the domestic industry. (i) a significant increase in dumped imports on the domestic market, indicating the likelihood of a significant increase in imports; 6.10.2. Where the authorities have restricted their investigation in accordance with this paragraph, they shall nevertheless establish an individual dumping margin for each exporter or producer not originally selected which provides the information necessary in sufficient time to allow that information to be taken into account during the investigation, unless the number of exporters or producers is so large that the individual investigations could impose an excessive burden on the authorities and prevent them; the timely completion of the investigation. Voluntary responses should not be discouraged. An anti-dumping measure shall be applied only in the circumstances provided for in Article VI of GATT 1994 and on the basis of investigations initiated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement(1). The following provisions govern the application of Article VI of the GATT 1994 to the extent that measures are taken under anti-dumping laws or regulations. 2.4.2 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 on fair comparison, the existence of margins of dumping at the investigation stage shall normally be established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average of the prices of all comparable export transactions or a comparison of normal value and export prices on a transaction-to-transaction basis.
A normal value established on the basis of the weighted average may be compared with the prices of the different export transactions if the authorities find that export prices differ significantly between different buyers, regions or periods and if an explanation is given as to why these differences cannot be adequately taken into account using a weighted average with the weighted average or a comparison between individual transactions. . . .