World Trade Organization Organisation Mondiale du Commerce Organización Mundial del Comercio

(Question 3: Page 61, paragraph 74, 75)

(An anti dumping measure on 1,1,1,2 Tetrafluoroethane or R 134a of all types from Japan)

(1) The Indian Regulatory Authorities (The Directorate General of Anti Dumping and Allied Duties (DGAD)) initiated investigations into this product on 19 August 2009. A preliminary determination was made on 19 February 2010. On 30 July 2010, DGAD issued a public notice to extending the investigation for another 6 months, to 18 February 2011. Despite the time frame set by DGAD, it came to its final determination on 10 May 2011, more than 20 months after the initiation. According to Article 5.10 of the Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (herein after referred to as " the AD Agreement"), "[i]nvestigations shall, except in special circumstances, be concluded within one year, and in no case more than 18 months, after their initiation." However, DGAD made the final determination more than 20 months after the initiation. Could India explain how this practice is consistent with Article 1 and Article 5.10 of the AD Agreement, which precludes WTO members from imposing anti dumping duties without conducting an investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement?

(2) Article 5.10 of the AD Agreement stipulates that "investigations shall, except in special circumstances, be concluded within one year". Neither in the notice of extension issued on 30 July 2010 nor in the final determination issued on 10 May 2011 did DGAD explain explicitly what "special circumstances" existed in this case. Could India give the "special circumstances" which prevented the investigation from concluding within one year?

(3) In its final determination issued on 10 May 2011, DGAD states that "pursuant to the orders dated 6 January 2011 of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court and orders dated 3 February 2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the subject investigation continued beyond the maximum time limit prescribed under the AD Agreement i.e. 18 February 2011". Could India explain how this practice is consistent with the WTO Agreements?

(4) Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement stipulates that "the authorities shall, before a final determination is made, inform all interested parties of the essential facts". In this case, neither the Government of Japan nor those Japanese companies identified as interested parties had been informed of the essential facts before the final determination, which prevented them from defending their interests as is guaranteed under the AD Agreement. This means that, the Government of Japan and the Japanese companies involved were deprived of an opportunity to defend their interests. Could India explain how this practice is consistent with the AD Agreement?

Reply: Japan had also raised these questions in the Committee on Anti Dumping Practices. India has very recently provided responses which have been circulated vide WTO document G/ADP/Q2/IND/5 dated 22 August 2011.

(An anti dumping measure on Polyvinyl Chloride Paste Resin (PVC Paste Resin) from Japan)

(5) The Indian Regulatory Authorities (DGAD) initiated an investigation into this product on 3 November 2009. A preliminary determination was made on 11 June 2010. Since then, there had been no announcement from DGAD until the Embassy of Japan in India received a disclosure of the essential facts on 27 April 2011, which indicated the intention of DGAD to issue its final determination on 2 May, two working days after the disclosure of the essential facts and the last day before the investigation would have exceeded 18 months. On 2 May 2011, DGAD made its final determination. Article 5.10 of the AD Agreement stipulates that "investigations shall, except in special circumstances, be concluded within one year". In this case, DGAD did not issue a notice of extension as it had done for the investigation into 1,1,1,2 Tetrafluoroethane or R 134a of all types. Could India explain the "special circumstances" which prevented the investigation from concluding within one year? In addition, please explain why there was no public notice of extension in this case while DGAD had issued one for the investigation of 1,1,1,2 Tetrafluoroethane or R 134a.

(6) Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement stipulates that the disclosure of the essential facts under consideration "should take place in sufficient time for the parties to defend their interests". Could India explain how the above practice is consistent with the AD Agreement?

(7) According to the public notice on the imposition of provisional measures issued on 26 July 2010," the anti dumping duty imposed under this notification shall be effective up to and inclusive of 25th January 2011." In spite of this notice, Indian customs continued to collect a provisional anti dumping duty even after 25th January 2011. Article 7.4 of the AD Agreement stipulates that "[t]he application of provisional measures shall be limited to as short a period as possible, (...), to a period not exceeding six months". Could India explain how this practice is consistent with the AD Agreement?

(8) In this case, the imports from Japan turned out to be negligible, 0.19 per cent of the total imports, in the final determination. In the preliminary determination, DGAD recommended the imposition of an anti dumping duty on the imports from Japan, and the Ministry of Finance issued a notice to impose US$111.63/MT in anti dumping duty. Article 10.3 of the AD Agreement stipulates that "[i]f the definitive duty is lower than the provisional duty paid or payable, (…), the difference shall be reimbursed." Could India ensure that the duties collected will be promptly reimbursed?

Reply: Japan had also raised these questions in the Committee on Anti Dumping Practices. India had provided responses which were circulated in WTO document G/ADP/Q2/IND/5 dated 22 August 2011.

(Sunset Review of Anti dumping duties on Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) 1900 series from Japan)

(9) The Indian Regulatory Authorities (DGAD) made the final determination of the second sunset review of this product on 30 June 2010, and recommended an extension of the anti dumping duty to the Ministry of Finance. However, even though one year has passed, the Ministry of Finance has not yet published the extension notification. Could India indicate when the Ministry of Finance will publish the notification? In addition, please explain why the Ministry of Finance could not publish it for such a long period.

(10) In this case, it is not clear whether the anti dumping duty was collected or not during the period from the final determination by DGAD to the notification of the Ministry of Finance. Could India clarify this?

Reply: Though the DGAD had made recommendation in the sunset review for continuation of anti dumping measures, the Ministry of Finance did not impose measures and confirmed to this effect on 21 April 2011. Accordingly the anti dumping duty on styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) has been terminated with effect from 27 June 2010. This has been informed by India in the semi annual report for period 1 July–31 December 2010.

(ix) Technical regulations and standards

(a) Standards