WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/RL/W/55
10 February 2003
(03-0845)
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:  English
POSITION PAPER TO BE PRESENTED BY THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT
ON THE DOHA DECLARATION CONCERNING THE NEGOTIATIONS
ON THE ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT
The following communication, dated 6 February 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Egypt.
_______________
Egypt wishes to express its views on the papers that have been presented by various WTO
Members to the Negotiating Group on Rules with respect to the Agreement on Implementation of
Article VI of the GATT 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the AD Agreement) further to the Doha
Declaration.
Introduction
In the context of Doha Declaration concerning the negotiations on the AD Agreement, Egypt
would firstly like to make the following points:
1. It appears to Egypt that a number of Members are proposing a large number of unnecessary
changes to the actual substance and character of th e AD Agreement.  It appears to Egypt that these
Members are proposing such changes because they consider that some Members are misusing the AD
Agreement in its present form in order to restrict fair trade between WTO Members.  In support of
their argument, these Members have repeatedly pointed to the substantial recent increase of anti-
dumping actions initiated by “new Members” and consider this as a sign that the AD Agreement is
being overused and misused in order to overly protect domestic industries.  These Members claim thatthe growing and unnecessary use of anti-dumping measures has created trade disruption affecting
long-term international trade and has offset the benefits of trade liberalization.
In response to these claims, Egypt contends that there are many alternate explanations for the
recent increase in anti-dumping actions, such as, incr eased trade or the elimination of less transparent
trade barriers caused by the implementation of the Agreement on Customs Valuation.  Egypt
considers that trade disruption is a result of the practice of dumping itself and of its negative effect on
a country’s domestic economy.  It is the dumping itself and not the measures taken by an Authority to
prevent dumping that are trade disruptive.  Egypt c onsiders that the recent increase in the number of
anti-dumping actions taken by new Members is not a sign of over-use or misuse of the AD Agreement
but a clear indication that new Members (most of which are developing countries) are beginning to
exercise their rights in order to prevent the entry of injurious dumped imports into their markets and
ensure that fair trade results.
2. Egypt considers that any proposal to substantially alter or change the substance or character
of the present AD Agreement through the use of more complex and stringent rules regarding the
conduct of anti-dumping investigations will not pr event a Member from misusing the AD AgreementTN/RL/W/55
Page 2
if it truly wishes to do so.  In this regard, Egypt considers that, unlike new users, traditional users of
anti-dumping instruments, which have access to additional and more complete resources would not be
negatively affected by overly complex rules.
3. The European Community in a submission on the AD Agreement (TN/RL/W/13) dated
July 2002 stated that negotiations on paragraph 28 of the Doha Declaration should aim to simplify and
clarify certain provisions of the AD Agreement to take into accounts the needs of developing
countries.  Egypt considers that anti-dumping investigations are already complex, resource-intensive,
time-consuming and costly and that many of the proposals put forward by various WTO Members
under paragraph 28 of the Doha Declaration are not “ clarifications ” or “ improvements ” of the
disciplines under the AD Agreement. Rather, these proposals are unnecessarily complex
modifications and amendments of the actual content and substance of the AD Agreement.  Oneparticular example of this tendency to reinforce the obligations imposed on WTO Members, is the
proposal by certain WTO Members to render the application of the lesser duty rule mandatory.  In the
AD Agreement it is clearly stated that the application of the lesser duty rule in an anti-dumping
investigation is discretionary.  Egypt considers that many “new users” of anti-dumping action, such as
Egypt, are developing countries and have limited resources and experience to carry out anti-dumpinginvestigations.  Expecting these “new users” to  adhere to the excessively complex rules being put
forward by certain WTO Members would impose an unreasonable and unnecessary burden on them in
terms of resources and ability and would negatively affect their rights under the AD Agreement.
Furthermore, many developing country Members have not yet began exercising their rights
under the AD Agreement and it is likely that these countries will also be unreasonably burdened if
they are obliged to carry out investigations in compliance with the excessively complex rules being
proposed by certain WTO Members.
4. Egypt considers that it is important for investig ating authorities to be able to complete their
tasks within the framework of the AD Agreement. The drafters of the AD Agreement have purposely
left open several options in certain situations in orde r to enable investigating au thorities to adapt to the
specificity of the cases before them.  Any proposal or recommendation by a Member under
paragraph 28 of the Doha Declaration should not create a new obligation in setting an unreasonable or
unnecessary burden on an investigating authority when conducting an anti-dumping investigation.
5. Egypt also notes that there is a very adequate mechanism for ensuring that Members do not
misuse the AD Agreement.  That mechanism is the Dispute Settlement Understanding and the Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB).  Under Article 17 of the AD Agreement, Members have the right to request
consultations with respect to any matter affecting the operation of the AD Agreement and if the
consultations fail to achieve a mutually agreed solu tion then the Member may refer the matter to the
DSB, which will appoint a panel to examine the ma tter.  Therefore, Egypt considers that further
complex rules will not prevent the misuse of the AD Agreement.  In the event that a Member
considers that an anti-dumping proceeding is or has been conducted in violation of the AD
Agreement, that  Member is entitled to have recourse to the dispute settlement mechanism.
Scope of the Negotiations to be Carried out on the AD Agreement as a result of the Doha
Declaration
After careful review of the above-mentioned papers, submitted by various WTO Members,
Egypt finds it necessary to recall the scope of the negotiations to be carried out on the AD Agreement.
The relevant paragraph of the Doha Declaration reads as follows:
“28. In the light of experience and of the increasing application of these instruments by
Members, we agree to negotiations aimed at clarifying and improving disciplines under theTN/RL/W/55
Page 3
Agreements on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures, while preserving the basic concepts, principles and effectiveness of these Agreements and
their instruments and objectives, and taking into account the needs of developing and least-developed
participants.  In the initial phase of the negotiations, participants will indicate the provisions,
including disciplines on trade distorting practices, that they seek to clarify and improve in thesubsequent phase.(…). ”(emphasis added)
Egypt submits that the sole purpose of the negotiations is to take stock of the experience
gathered by Members in the use of the AD Agreement and to identify those areas where “ clarification
and improvement ” would be required.
Indeed, paragraph 28 of the Doha Declaration makes it clear that negotiations are not aimed at
amending the current rules.  Rather, the negotia tions must strive after simplifying the current
discipline in those areas where problems have been encountered by Investigating Authorities.
Contrary to the position adopted by some Members, the terms “ clarifying and improving ” necessarily
imply that the AD Agreement shall not be substant ively changed either by the introduction of new
rules or by an interpretation of the current rules wh ich would alter the nature of the present rights and
obligations.
As a matter of fact, Egypt considers that the introduction of new rules in the AD Agreement
at this point in time would be counter-productive and would defeat the objective pursued in the Doha
Declaration.
In Egypt’s view, it is of utmost importance to first achieve consolidation of and a common
understanding on the current rules and discipline among Members before engaging into any
substantial revision of the AD Agreement.  It should be borne in mind that many Members, in
particular developing countries, have only recently implemented the AD Agreement and are startingto develop a practice in compliance therewith.  The efforts required by this process should not be
underestimated nor compromised by the adoption of more complex discipline.
Egypt is concerned that some Members might have lost sight of the true nature of the
negotiations that Members agreed to initiate in Doha.  Indeed, many of the papers that have been
circulated thus far contain proposals that go far beyond “ clarification and improvement ” but rather
constitute proposals for more complex rules and discipline than those agreed upon during the Uruguay
Round. An example of such a proposal for more complex rules is the mandatory application of the
Lesser Duty Rule (TN/RL/W/7).
For the reasons spelled out above, Egypt considers that the proposals for amendments that
have been circulated fall outside the scope of the Doha mandate and furthermore would hamper theestablishment by developing countries of a solid practice in compliance with the Uruguay Round
obligations.  Quite clearly, the introduction of more complex rules and discipline at this point in time
where consolidation among Members is not yet achieved would be counter-productive and would
negatively affect their rights under the Agreement.
__________