1. Initial complaint is about items x, y, z. Duty is imposed on items x and y. Upon sunset review, can duty be imposed on z also?

http://www.thehindubusinessline.in/2005/01/26/stories/2005012602180900.htm DS244 The Panel observed: "We believe it is appropriate to point out that original investigations and sunset reviews are distinct processes with different purposes, and that the text of the antidumping Agreement distinguishes between investigations and reviews". It noted that the determination to be made in a Sunset Review to be different in certain fundamental respects from the nature of the determination to be made in an original investigation. It noted that in a Sunset Review the authorities are called upon to merely focus their inquiry on the "likelihood of continuation or recurrence" of dumping and injury in the event the measure were no longer imposed. In contrast, in an original investigation, the authorities should investigate the existence of dumping, injury and causal link between the two so as to impose anti-dumping measures. Having highlighted the fundamental qualitative differences in the these two processes, the Panel also noted "that it would not be surprising to us that the textual obligations pertaining to each of the two processes may differ. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds244_e.htm Sunset review ADA Art. 11.3 (continuation of dumping and injury): The Appellate Body made some general observations with regard to such a determination: (i) the second condition of Art. 11.3 involved a prospective determination on the part of the investigating authorities, requiring a forward-looking analysis of what would be likely to occur if the duty were terminated; (ii) as to the standard of "likely", a positive determination may be made only if the evidence demonstrated that dumping would be "probable" (not possible or plausible) if the duty were terminated; and (iii) Art. 11.3 does not prescribe any particular methodology to be used by investigating authorities in making a likelihood determination. ADA Arts. 11.3 and 2.4 (fair comparison): The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding and concluded that the United States violated Art. 11.3 by relying on dumping margins calculated in previous reviews using the "zeroing" methodology. While there is no obligation under Art. 11.3 for investigating authorities to calculate or rely on dumping margins in determining the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, they must calculate dumping margins in conformity with Art. 2.4 should they choose to rely upon margins in making their likelihood determination. ADA Arts. 11.3 and 6.10 (individual dumping margins): The Appellate Body concluded that the United States was not in violation of Arts. 6.10 and 11.3 by making a "likelihood" determination in a sunset review on an order-wide basis. The Appellate Body observed that Art. 11.3 does not expressly state that a likelihood determination must be separately made for each known producer (or on a company-specific basis), and that Art. 6 (which is relevant and applies to Art. 11.3 investigations by virtue of the cross reference in Art. 11.4) is also silent on this matter. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds244sum_e.pdf http://federation.ens.fr/ydepot/semin/texte0708/CAD2007ANT.pdf http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/us_sunset.htm The duty cannot be imposed on z as apart of the review proceedings. It shall be constrained to continuing or discontinuing the imposition on x and y.

Interesting read : US According to its established procedures for conducting sunset reviews, the DOC normally will determine that dumping is likely to continue or recur if dumping continued at any level above de minimis [0.5 percent] after the issuance of the order or the suspension agreement, as applicable; imports of the subject merchandise ceased after issuance of the order or the suspension agreement, as applicable; or dumping was eliminated after the issuance of the order or the suspension agreement, as applicable, and import volumes for the subject merchandise declined significantly. Thus, the only conditions that normally would warrant a no likelihood finding are conditions that are extremely unlikely given rational economic behavior. The foreign exporter would have to increase his U.S. price so that it is no longer dumping according to the DOCs slanted methodologies and then find customers willing to purchase the same or greater volume than it sold previously at lower prices. This chain of events plainly violates established properties of a normal demand curve. The sunset review process in the United States is broken. As a result, antidumping measures that distort trade and impose real costs on interests throughout the economy are allowed to continue well beyond their legal justification. It is imperative that U.S. policymakers fix this problem. Automatically terminating antidumping measures after five years with provisions for expedited re-imposition if the legal thresholds are met could go a long way toward improving the system. <http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/shell-games-fortune-tellers-sun-doesntset-antidumping-circus> http://www.junhe.com/uploadpic/news/2011819122343583.pdf

2. Provisional duty lapses before issue of notification imposing definitive anti dumping duty. Can the duty be collected for the interregnum period? Answers the exact question: http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/print_story.php?newsid=7510 (a) This is case law decided by Delhi Tribunal on Customs n Duties:http://indiankanoon.org/doc/529586/?type=print [The appellant-importer has challenged the final findings dated 4th February, 2003 by the Designated Authority and the impugned notification issued on 1st May, 2003 under Section 9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act imposing antidumping duty with effect from 2nd May, 2002 and has prayed for holding that the final anti-dumping duty shall have only prospective effect, seeking modification of the notification on that basis.] 3. Definitive (final) anti dumping duty is more than the provisional duty. Can the difference be demanded from the importer? AGREEMENT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE VI OF THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE. Article 7 Price Undertakings

5. Authorities of an importing country may require any exporter from whom undertakings have been accepted to provide periodically information relevant to the fulfilment of such undertakings, and to permit verification of pertinent data. In case of violation of undertakings, the authorities of the importing country may take, under this Code in conformity with its provisions, expeditious actions which may constitute immediate application of provisional measures using the best information available. In such cases definitive duties may be levied in accordance with this Code on goods entered for consumption not more than ninety days before the application of such provisional measures, except that any such retroactive assessment shall not apply to imports entered before the violation of the undertaking. The judgement in an exactly opposite case http://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j4nvhdlglbmvdzx_j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vj3krobmziww http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=32 04

4. Imported product is warehoused without payment of duty. During the warehousing period, anti dumping duty is imposed, and is extant at the time of clearance. Is it applicable to these goods? It is. No cases to the contrary. 5. Conversely, there is anti dumping duty at the time of import, but the goods are warehoused without payment of import duties. There is no anti dumping duty at the time of clearance of goods from the warehouse. Is the duty applicable to these goods? Logically none. No precedent available. 6. Above two questions will the answers be the same for countervailing duty?

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1261610/ 7. (For above 4 questions, see also applicability of SC in Kiran Spinning Mills case.)

8. Disputes on Zeroing: http://www.vvgb-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/VermulstZeroing%20Under%20the%20WTO%20Anti-Dumping%20Agreement.pdf One page summaries. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds141sum_e.pdf http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds264sum_e.pdf http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds294sum_e.pdf

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds322sum_e.pdf http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds335sum_e.pdf http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds344sum_e.pdf http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds350sum_e.pdf http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds382sum_e.pdf http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds383sum_e.pdf http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds402sum_e.pdf http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds404sum_e.pdf Undecided cases: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds420_e.htm http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds422_e.htm http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds429_e.htm Might be relevant: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds343sum_e.pdf http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds322sum_e.pdf http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds219sum_e.pdf http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds179sum_e.pdf