|Free Trade Area of the Americas - FTAA||
Compendium of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws in the Western Hemisphere
WTO Standard: The decision whether or not to impose an anti-dumping duty in cases where all requirements for the imposition have been fulfilled, and the decision whether the amount of the anti-dumping duty to be imposed shall be the full margin of dumping or less, are decisions to be made by the authorities of the importing Member. It is desirable that the imposition be permissive in the territory of all Members, and that the duty be less than the margin if such lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury to the domestic industry. (AD Agreement, Art. 9.1)
The authorities shall provide opportunities for industrial users of the product under investigation, and for representative consumer organizations in cases where the product is commonly sold at the retail level, to provide information which is relevant to the investigation regarding dumping, injury and causality. (AD Agreement, Art. 6.12 and Subsidies Agreement 12.10)
Argentina | Bolivia | Brazil | Canada | Chile | Colombia | Costa Rica | Dominican Republic | Ecuador | El Salvador | Guatemala | Honduras | Jamaica | Mexico | Nicaragua | Panama | Paraguay | Peru | Saint Lucia | Trinidad & Tobago | United States | Uruguay | Venezuela
Argentina directly applies the standards of the WTO Agreements. The standards corresponding to Decree 2121/94 are cited, and to the degree that they do not contradict the provisions of the Agreement, they will be applied.
In making a determination, the Minister for the Economy and Public Works and Services shall take into account the interest of the public at large, including consumers, users and purchasers of inputs produced locally whose prices may rise as a result of the imposition of antidumping or countervailing duties. (Decree No. 2121/94, Art. 51). In preliminary or final determinations, the Minister for the Economy and Public Works and Services may impose antidumping or countervailing duties which are less than the amount of dumping or the margin of subsidy found to exist, if in the Minister's opinion such lesser duties are sufficient to eliminate the injury caused to domestic producers. (Id., Art. 50).
Following the opinion of the Committee on the Evaluation of Unfair Trade Practices, CONEPLAN, may determine that the antidumping or countervailing duty should be less than the margin of dumping or the amount of the subsidy if such lesser amount is adequate to remove the injury or threat of injury to national industry. Bi-ministerial Decision, Art. 39.
In exceptional circumstances, even though it has been proved that dumping and injury there from exist, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism and the Minister of Finance may determine, for reasons of national interest, to suspend the application of duties or price undertaking (commitments) or to apply at a different rate from that recommended.
In this case they must provide the reasons that form the basis of that decision. Art. 64-3.
In the event of a finding of material injury under section 42 of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), "persons interested", who have indicated an intention to make public interest representations under section 45 of the SIMA, are notified of the procedure for making the representations.
Based on the submissions, the Tribunal forms an opinion on whether there is a public interest concern worthy of further investigation.
If the Tribunal decides there is not public interest concern, it will issue reasons explaining why it came to that conclusion.
If it decides that there is a public interest concern that should be further investigated, it will issue a notice, including summary reasons and a schedule of the procedures that it will follow in conducting the investigation.
In its investigation, the Tribunal may issue questionnaires, receive submissions from parties and hold a public hearing.
If, after the investigation, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the duties should not be reduced or eliminated, it will issue reasons for its decision.
If, however, it is of the opinion that there is a public interest in reducing or eliminating the duties, it will issue a report to the Minister of Finance containing its opinion, with specific recommendations.
A copy of the report is published in the Canada Gazette.
Upon receipt of such a report of the Tribunal, the Minister of Finance must decide whether there should be any reduction in the duties.
A consideration of the public interest pursuant to section 45 of SIMA is made in accordance with the Tribunal's Guidelines for the Public Interest Investigation.
A "Person Interested" may make representations on issues of public interest to the Tribunal with respect to a specific inquiry.
A "Person Interested" is defined in the SIMA regulations (41) to include: producers, purchasers, sellers, exporters and importers of the subject goods or like goods to the subject goods, and persons acting on behalf of these groups, officials of the federal Bureau of Competition Policy and consumers and consumer associations.
While Canada does not have a provision for "lesser duty" consideration per se, a report made pursuant to subsection 45(1) of the SIMA (the Public Interest provision) can result in the reduction or elimination of antidumping duties, where this is considered to be in the public interest.
The measure recommended to the President by the Commission may not be greater than the margin of the price distortion found to exist by the Commission. (Decree 575, Title 2, Art. 15).
The investigations referred to in Decree 991/98 shall be conducted by the Colombian Foreign Trade Institute (INCOMEX) and they shall be in the general interest. Antidumping duties shall be imposed in the public interest, for the purpose of correcting and preventing damages, in the event of dumping.
They shall be applied across-the-board to all importers of goods subject to those duties.
The duties are imposed in regard to a country and, if applicable, more specifically to certain producers and exporters from that country.
The decision whether or not to impose an anti-dumping duty in cases where all requirements for the imposition have been fulfilled and the decision whether the amount of the anti-dumping duty to be imposed shall be the full margin of dumping or less, are decisions to be made by the authorities of the importing country or customs territory.
It is desirable that the imposition be permissive in all countries or customs territories Members, and that the duty be less than the margin, if such lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury to the domestic industry.
There is no provision for this matter but El Salvador applies the provisions of the WTO Antidumping Agreement.
In accordance with Article 88 of the Law, upon imposing a countervailing duty, SECOFI shall see to it that to the extent possible this measure avoids having a negative impact on other productive processes and on the consuming public.
Duties may be less than the margin of price discrimination or than the amount of the subsidy provided they are sufficient to discourage imports of goods in circumstances involving unfair international trade practices. (I/62).
In evaluating the case, the domestic economic interests and the public interest shall be taken into account, as well as the information submitted by the parties, including such information as is submitted by groups or associations of users and consumers.
It may be decided not to impose measures when it is concluded that they would use substantial injury to the domestic economy.
Trinidad and Tobago
Under U.S. law, public interest considerations are not taken into account in issuing antidumping duty orders.
If Commerce finds dumping and the ITC finds material injury to the domestic industry, an order will be issued in the full amount of the margin of dumping.
Continue to Countervailing
|countries||sitemap||a-z list||governmental contact points|