i.

Concept of Anti- Dumping

1. It is respectfully submitted that the law on anti- dumping is contained in Article VI of the
GATT, 1994 and is a full fledged law. Dumping is defined in the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (The Anti-Dumping Agreement) as the
introduction of a product into the commerce of another country at less than its normal
value. Under Article VI of GATT 1994, and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, WTO
Members can impose anti-dumping measures1, if, after investigation in accordance with
the Agreement, a determination is made

a) that dumping is occurring,

b) that the domestic industry producing the like product in the importing country
is suffering material injury, and
c) that there is a causal link between the two.2

ii. No investigation for determination of dumping was conducted

2. Article 2 contains substantive rules for the determination of dumping. Dumping is

calculated on the basis of a “fair comparison” between normal value (the price of the
imported product in the “ordinary course of trade” in the country of origin or export)
and export price (the price of the product in the country of import). Article 2.1 of
ARTICLE VI OF THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE 1994
reads as under:

“Determination of Dumping: For the purpose of this Agreement, a product is to be

considered as being dumped, i.e. introduced into the commerce of another country at
less than its normal value, if the export price of the product exported from one
country to another is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade,
for the like product when destined for consumption in the exporting country.”
There is no evidence of any such determination.
3. Further, from the economic data mentioned in exhibits 1 and 2, nowhere is the export
price or normal value of the concerned product mentioned. Economic determinants
like landed value, and the like which are not even synonymous to the concepts of
export price and normal value have been used for the purpose of economic analysis.

1
Bo Sodersten & Geoffrey Reed, International Economics 358 (MACMILLAN PRESS LTD 2004)
2
Available at https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/adp_info_e.htm. Retrieved on 9th January, 2017 at
4:14 p.m.
 iii. The present Commission does not have jurisdiction to handle this
investigation
4. The extensive and detailed procedural requirements relating to investigations focus on
the sufficiency of petitions (through minimum information and “standing”
requirements) to ensure that meritless investigations are not initiated, on the
establishment of time periods for the completion of investigations, and on the
provision of access to information to all interested parties, along with reasonable
opportunities to present their views and arguments. Additional procedural
requirements relate to the offering, acceptance, and administration of price
undertakings by exporters in lieu of the imposition of anti-dumping measures.3
5. Article 5 includes initiation and conduct of investigations, Article 6 sets forth detailed
rules on the process of investigation, Article 7 includes the requirement that
authorities make a preliminary affirmative determination of dumping, injury, and
causality before applying provisional measures, Article 16 establishes the Committee
on Anti-dumping Practices, and sets forth requirements for Members to notify without
delay all preliminary and final actions taken in anti-dumping investigations,
and notify semi-annually all actions taken during the relevant reporting period.4
6. Article XIX of GATT, 1994 does not include any provision on anti- dumping. To
establish a case of dumping, Article VI of GATT, 1994 has to be invoked which the
respondents have failed to do. Hence, this Honorable Commission does not have
jurisdiction to handle this investigation.
7. It is also contended by leading manufacturers and exporters of the product concerned,
namely, Pueblo Faro Metal Corp, True Metal Corp, Pacific Metal Corp, Pueblo
Faro, that the claim made by Puerto Sombra regarding dumping of unwrought
aluminum in its territory is false as the reason for low price of this product is the
ample and easy supply of raw material in Pueblo Faro.
It is well known that manufacturers of the product concerned in Pueblo Faro
are backward integrated. All manufacturers have their own bauxite mines in
Pueblo Faro. Due to ample and easy supply of ore (raw material), the cost of
production of the product concerned is low in Pueblo Faro. That is the reason
that the prices of the product concerned exported from Pueblo Faro are low.
The exporters from Pueblo Faro are not dumping the product concerned in

3
Available at https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/antidum2_e.htm. Retrieved on 9th January, 2017 at
5:14 p.m.
4
Ibid.
 Puerto Sombra. However, if the domestic industry is concerned with dumping
of the product concerned, it should approach the anti-dumping commission in
Puerto Sombra. The present Commission does not have jurisdiction to handle
this investigation.5
Hence, in the light of the above submission, provisional safeguard duty should be
withdrawn and this investigation should be terminated immediately.

5
Para 7 (ii) (c) of the MOOT PROPOSITION, p. 25.