RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/Q1/SGP/11
G/SCM/Q1/SGP/11
ORGANIZATION 15October 1997
(97-4463)
Original: English Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures
NOTIFICATION OFLAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5AND 32.6OFTHE AGREEMENTS
Replies ofSINGAPORE1toQuestions
from CANADA2andTURKEY3
Thefollowing communication, dated 13October 1997, hasbeenreceived fromthePermanent
Mission ofSingapore.
_______________
QUESTIONS FROM CANADA
Q1. Intheprevious question No.1from Canada (G/ADP/Q1/SGP/2-G/SCM/Q1/SGP/2, dated
10April 1997), thelastpartofthequestion wasinregard to"subsection 12(4) and26(4) -period
fortheconduct ofreviews". The answer provided bySingapore (G/ADP/Q1/SGP/8-
G/SCM/Q1/SGP/8), dated 27May 1997) doesnotappear toaddress thispartofthequestion.
However, Canada doesrecognize Singapore 'snotification ofitsapplicable regulations indocument
G/ADP/N/1/SGP/2/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/SGP/2/Suppl.1dated13May1997,inwhichregulation36
would appear toanswer thequestion regarding "the period fortheconduct ofreviews".
Accordingly, could Singapore confirm thatareview conducted bytheMinister shall normally
becompleted within 180daysfrom thedateofpublication ofthenotice ofinitiation ofthereview
butinnocaseshall itextend beyond oneyearfrom thatdate.
Response
Confirmed.
Q2. Subsection 7(1)ofSingapore 'sCountervailing andAnti-Dumping Duties Act1996
contemplates anegative preliminary determination. Under subsection 7(2),where suchanegative
preliminary determination ismade, thelawindicates thattheMinister may terminate the
investigation. CantheMinister stilldecide tocontinue theinvestigation ifanegative preliminary
determination hasbeenmade? Ifyes,under what circumstances, after having made anegative
preliminary determination, would theMinister continue theinvestigation?
1G/ADP/N/1/SGP/2-G/SCM/N/1/SGP/2 +Suppl.1
2G/ADP/Q1/SGP/9-G/SCM/Q1/SGP/9
3G/ADP/Q1/SGP/10-G/SCM/Q1/SGP/10.G/ADP/Q1/SGP/11
G/SCM/Q1/SGP/11
Page2
Response
Yes,under section 7(2)oftheAct,theMinister "may" stillcontinue acountervailing duty
investigation when anegative preliminary determination hasbeenmade under section 7(1)oftheAct.
Subsection7(2)isintendedtoimplementthespecificSCMAgreementprovisionthatrequirestermination
ofaninvestigation when theauthorities are"satisfied thatthere isnotsufficient evidence ofeither
subsidization orofinjury tojustify proceeding withthecase". Consequently, inorder toterminate
aninvestigation atthepreliminary stage, theMinister mustmake aspecific finding thattheMinister
is"satisfied"thatthereisinsufficientevidencetoproceed.Theremightbecircumstanceswhere,although
theMinister hasmade anegative "preliminary" determination, theMinister believes thatissues oflaw
orfactremain outstanding thatmustbefurther investigated before theMinister canbe"satisfied" as
required under theSCM Agreement. Thismight occur, forexample, where theMinister determines
thatverification (which hasnotyetoccurred atthetimeofthepreliminary determination) isrequired
toconfirm information provided inaresponse.
Q3. Further toSingapore 'sresponse toquestion No.1from Canada (seeG/ADP/Q1/SGP/6-
G/SCM/Q1/SGP/6, dated 25April 1997), relating towhether theterm"public body" encompassed
aprivate body, within themeaning ofArticle 1oftheWTO Subsidies Agreement, Canada remains
unclear how Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) oftheWTO Subsidies Agreement isprovided forunder
Section 2(2)(a)(i)-(v) ofthe"Countervailing andAnti-Dumping Duties Act1996" (No.33of1996);
assetoutinWTO document G/ADP/N/1/SGP/2-G/SCM/N/1/SGP/2 dated 27November 1996.
Under which paragraph ofSection 2(2)(a) would practices contemplated byArticle 1.1(a)(1)(iv)
oftheWTO Subsidies Agreement fall? Ifaprivate body weretoreceive funds from government,
orweretobeentrusted ordirected bygovernment tocarry outoneormore ofthetypeoffunctions
setoutinArticle 1.1(a)(1)(i)-(iii) oftheWTO Subsidies Agreement, would Canada becorrect
inassuming thatSection 2(2)(a)(i)-(v) ofthe"Countervailing andAnti-Dumping Duties Act1996"
(No.33of1996) issufficient tocapture suchpractices?
Response
Article 1.1(1)(a)(iv) oftheSCM Agreement comprises twolimbs -first,payments toa"funding
mechanism" andsecond, a"private body" entrusted ordirected tocarry outthefunction ofgiving
thesubsidies. Thewords "financial contribution bythegovernment" insection 2(2)(a) includes a
government payment toafunding mechanism. Similarly, appropriate cases involving private bodies
would becovered bythewords "public body" insection 2(2)(a).
QUESTIONS FROM TURKEY
Q1. CouldthecompetentSingaporianauthoritiesexplaintheproceduresandprovidethetimeline
ofthefollowing anti-dumping investigative processes?
- Application
- Initiation
- Preliminary determination
- Hearing(s)
- Written submission(s) from parties
- Disclosure ofessential facts
- Final determinations
- Public notice ofdeterminationsG/ADP/Q1/SGP/11
G/SCM/Q1/SGP/11
Page3
Response
- Thedecision onwhether toinitiate aninvestigation shallbemade within 30daysfrom
thedateofreceipt ofananti-dumping dutypetition.
- Apreliminary determination shallbemade within 90daysfromthedateofpublication
ofthenotice ofinitiation ofinvestigation.
- Upon issuance oftheDraft Final Report (which willcontain allessential factsunder
consideration thatcanbemade available onanon-confidential basis), interested parties
willbeinformed oftheirright torequest ameeting. Interested parties willalsobe
informed oftheirrighttosubmit written comments ontheDraft Final Report andthe
deadline forsubmitting suchcomments.
- Afinaldetermination shallbemade within 180daysfrom thedateofpublication of
thenotice ofpreliminary determination.
- Thepreliminary andfinaldeterminations willbepublished intheGazette immediately
afterthedeterminations aremade.
Q2. CouldthecompetentSingaporianAuthoritiesexplain,ifitispossibletoreviewanti-dumping
duties forindividual firms according totheprovisions ofArticle 26oftheCountervailing and
Anti-Dumping Duties Act1996 (No.33of1996) andArticle 36oftherelevant Regulation?
Response
Pursuant tosection 26oftheCountervailing andAnti-Dumping Duties Act1996 and
Regulation 36oftheCountervailing andAnti-Dumping Duties Regulations 1997, theMinister may
review, interalia,whether thedumping margin haschanged substantially, andwhether theimposition
ofanti-dumping dutyisnolonger necessary. Inmaking suchadetermination, theMinister mayconsider
itnecessary toreview thedumping margins ofcompanies exporting thesubject goods toSingapore.
Q3. Would thecompetent Singaporian authorities explain, ifitispossible toinclude allthe
exporter firms (some ofthem have notapplied forareview) incaseofnoevidence ondumping
(inconnection with Article 11.4oftheA-DAgreement andArticle 6oftheA-DAgreement
regarding evidence andprocedure) forthenon-applicant exporter firms?
Response
Under theWTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, ananti-dumping dutyshallremain inforce only
aslongasandtotheextent necessary tocounteract dumping which iscausing injury, andinterested
parties havetherighttorequest authorities toexamine whether thecontinued imposition oftheduty
isnecessary tooffset dumping, whether theinjury would belikely tocontinue orrecur ifthedutywere
removed orvaried orboth. Authorities mayalsoreview duties ontheirowninitiative where warranted.
Inordertodeterminewhetherthecontinuedimpositionofthedutyisnecessarytooffsetdumping,
andwhether theinjury would belikely tocontinue orrecur ifthedutywere removed orvaried or
both, theMinister mayconsider itnecessary toobtain information notonlyfrom theexporter firms
requesting thereview, butalsoanyotherexporter firmknown tohaveexported thesubject goods during
theperiod ofreview.G/ADP/Q1/SGP/11
G/SCM/Q1/SGP/11
Page4
Question
Ifsuchareview investigation isconsidered asaninvestigation initiated withrespect to
theprovisionsofArticle11.2oftheA-DAgreementthen,wouldtheSingaporianAuthoritiesexplain
theprocedure ofobtaining information ondumping inrelation toArticle 6oftheA-DAgreement
regarding evidence andprocedure ondumping?
Response
Informationondumpingisgatheredthroughquestionnairesissuedbytheinvestigatingauthorities
totheexporter firms under review. Theprocedure canbefound inRegulation 9oftheCountervailing
andAnti-Dumping Duties Regulations 1997.