WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/LTU/5
G/SCM/Q1/LTU/5
23 October 2002
(02-5823)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Replies to Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES1
Regarding the Notification of LITHUANIA2
The following communication, dated 22 October 2002, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Lithuania.
_______________
Q1. Article 2.15(1) of Anti-D umping Law of the Republic of Lithuania (“the AD Law”)
defines “interested parties” as “(1) Lithuanian producers (potential producers including) of the
like product …”.  How does Lithuania intend to identify “potential producers” and whatprocedural rights will they have?
Reply
The meaning of “potential producers” is determined for a possible situation where the injury
will be determined as material retardation for the establishment of the new corresponding domestic
industry.  For example, there could be the situati on when a producer/producers, who invested his/their
capital into establishing of a certain new domestic industry in Lithuania, cannot start the production
because of unawares-increased import of particular dumped product.  Thus, the interested parties, who
can prove (by providing appropriate documents) their readiness to start the production of the products
that are going to be products under investigation, will be called as “potential producers”.
In those cases, where dumped import retard establishing of a new domestic industry in
Lithuania, the “potential producers” will be considered as the domestic producers and they will have
the same rights as those intended for domestic producers in the AD Law.
If there is a case, where the industry of the product concerned is already established in
Lithuania and there are domestic producers, whose quantities of production and real material injury
are subject to establishment as it is provided for in the AD Law, the “potential producers” will not be
considered as the “domestic producers”.  In this particular case the “potential producers” will have the
same procedural rights as any other interested party except domestic producers, exporters and
importers (i.e. they are allowed to familiarize with not confidential information concerning theinvestigation, to supply any reasonable information, comments, arguments and evidence).  The
opinion and arguments of those “potential producers” could be taken into account considering
national State interests.
                                                     
1 G/ADP/Q1/LTU/2–G/SCM/Q1/LTU/2
2 G/ADP/N/LTU/1G/ADP/Q1/LTU/5
G/SCM/Q1/LTU/5
Page 2
Q2. Article 10.3 of the AD Law states that “Where the investigation may not be initiated on
the application of the domestic industry, the investigation may be initiated on the application by
the ministry/ministries to whose sphere of govern ment production of the product in question
has been assigned or on the application lodged  by the associations representing the domestic
industry.”  Under what conditions may another ministry present an application to conduct an
anti-dumping investigation?
Reply
Article 10.3 of the AD Law states that the investigation may be initiated on the application by
the ministry/ministries, but only “by way of exception”, i.e. where the investigation may not be
initiated on the application by the domestic industry.  The meaning of words “by way of exception” in
the AD Law is the same as the meaning of “in special circumstances” in Article 5.6 of the AD
Agreement.  Thus, normally the application to initiate an anti-dumping investigation should be lodged
by the domestic producers or on behalf of the domestic producers.
In cases, where the application requesting initiation of an investigation lodged by the
domestic producers or on behalf of the domestic producers does not meet the requirements laid down
in Article 11 of the AD Law, and the applicant cannot present enough essential evidence due to some
substantial reasons, the ministry to whose sphere of supervision the production of the product inquestion has been assigned can supplement the application and submit necessary evidence to the
investigating authority. In that context, in case of “special circumstances”, the domestic producers
may appeal to the appropriate ministry for assistance to submit essential evidence, also for expression
of its (i.e. the ministry’s) opinion on the expediency of an initiation of an anti-dumping investigation.
Of course, in this case as well as in other cases, the Institution making a decision to initiate
the investigation should have sufficient evidence of dumping, injury and causal link to justify it.
Q3. Article 11.1(1) of the AD Law requires only that the application provide the identity of
the applicant and its contact information.  Article 11.1(2) of the AD Law permits the applicant
to solicit the support of other domestic producers, each of which must specify the volume and
value of its production, when the applicant does not represent a sufficient percentage ofproduction.  It is not clear whether the applicant must provide its volume and value data in the
application, particularly if it meets the production criteria specified in Article 9.1 of the AD
Law?  Please describe how these provisions are consistent with and meet the requirements of
Article 5.2(i) of the AD Agreement.
Reply
The requirement of Article 11 that the applicant shall provide the volume and value data of its
production is laid down in the following manner.
In accordance with the provision of Article 10.1 an investigation shall be initiated upon the
receipt of an application on behalf of the domestic industry, and the application shall be considered to
be lodged on behalf of the domestic industry if the collective output of the applicant and the producers
of the like product expressing support for the application constitutes the proportion of production
established in Article 9.1.  Article 11.2 states that in addition to information specified in Article 11.1,the application shall be accompanied by other documents, justifying the application.  This means that
the applicant, seeking the investigation to be initiated, must provide the data of its production.  Then
Article 11.1 requires that an application shall include evidence of injury to the domestic industry.
Article 8 states, that determination of injury shall involve an examination of the impact of the imports
of the product in question on the domestic industry, which in its own turn shall include an evaluationG/ADP/Q1/LTU/5
G/SCM/Q1/LTU/5
Page 3
of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry.
One of such indices is the output of the domestic producers of the like product.
Therein, the applicant seeking to prove that he is acting on behalf of the domestic industry
and that he suffers an injury due to dumped imports must provide the volume and value data of its
production.  This fully meets the requirement of Article 5.2(i) of the AD Agreement that the
application shall contain a description of the volume and value of the domestic production of the like
product by the applicant.
Q4. Article 38 of the AD Law discusses the procedures for appeal of an administrative
determination. Article 38.3 of the AD Law states th at the “filing of an appeal with the Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court shall not suspend the validity of the decisions made by the
Institution, unless the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court establishes otherwise”.  What
mechanism does the Vilnius Regional Administrati ve Court use to “suspend the validity of the
decisions”?  What happens in subsequent reviews  while a preceding case is subject to judicial
review?  Is there appeal beyond the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court?
Reply
The statement of Article 38.3 “Filing of an appeal with the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court shall not suspend the validity of the decisions made by the Institution (in this case Ministry ofEconomy, hereinafter Institution ), unless the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court establishes
otherwise” means that the decision made by the Institution normally shall not be suspended at the
moment of lodging a complaint.  The Court adopts a ruling regarding the Institution's decision – either
rejecting the complaint or meetin g the complaint revoking the decision of the Institution (or a part
thereof), or obliging the Institution to remedy the violation – only after the hearing of the case.
According to the Republic of Lithuania Law on Administrative Proceedings (Article 71.2) the
Vilnius Regional Administrative Court is entitled, upon a motivated petition of the participants in the
proceedings or upon its own initiative, to take measur es with a view to securing a claim if failure to
take them may impede the enforcement of the court decision or render the decision unenforceable.
One of such measures, which could be used by Court in cases of the decisions of the Institution, may
be the suspension of validity of contested act.
The decisions of the Vilnius Regional Administ rative Court, adopted when hearing the cases
in the first instance, may be appealed against to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania within
fourteen days from the pronouncement of the decision.
The decision, ruling or order of the Lithuanian Supreme Administration Court shall become
effective on the day it is made and shall not be subject to appeal by cassation.
Q5. Article 39.2 of the Anti-Dumping Law appears to require only notices of affirmative
determinations and not negative determinations.  How does Lithuania intend to implement therequirement of Article 12.2 of the AD Agreement which requires public notice of any
preliminary or final determination, whether negative or affirmative?G/ADP/Q1/LTU/5
G/SCM/Q1/LTU/5
Page 4
Reply
Article 39 of the AD Law requires publishing of all resolutions adopted by the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania and decisions made by the Institution during the investigation same as theinformation relating to the facts and motives on the basis whereof appropriate proposals are submitted
to the Government.  It means that the determinations have to be published irrespective of whether they
are affirmative or negative.  Regarding the negative determinations, Article 39.2(3) of the AD Law
obliges to publish the decision of the Institution to terminate the investigation.  The Institution makes
the decision to terminate the investigation in case of negative determinations by Article 17.2 of this
Law or in withdrawal by the applicant of the application for the initiation of investigation and a
determination by the Institution that completion of the investigation and refusal to impose the anti-dumping duty is in the national State interest (by Article 17.3 of the AD Law).  In addition to that,
Article 39.7 of the AD Law determines the additiona l requirements for decision to terminate the
investigation without proposing to the Government to impose the anti-dumping duty.
In Article 12.2 of the AD Agreement it is stated th at public notice shall be given in case (i) of
any decision to accept an undertaking pursuant to Article 8, (ii) of the termination of such an
undertaking, and (iii) of the termination of a definitive anti-dumping duty.  The aforementioned
decisions shall also be published in accordance with the AD Law:
(i) the decision to accept or reject a price undertaking, including a decision to accept the
undertaking and suspend the investigation – pursuant to Article 39.2(2);
(ii) the decision to terminate a price undertaking shall be published as it repeals the prior
decision to accept the undertaking which was mandatory published;
(iii) the decision to terminate the application of the anti-dumping duty after the review
shall be adopted by the Government’s resolution.  As it is defined in Article 39.1,
resolutions adopted by the Government implementing this Law shall be published;
Thus, in opinion of the Lithuanian side, the provisions of the AD Law are in compliance with
the provisions of the AD Agreement.
__________