Page 580 - MANUAL OF SOP

RELEVANT WTO JURISPRUDENCE CHAPTER 24

I INTRODUCTION

24.1. The Appellate Body in the US – 1916 Act (DS- 136) rejected the
argument that, based on the history of Article 1, "the phrase 'anti-dumping
measure' refers only to definitive anti-dumping duties, price undertakings
and provisional measures."

24.2. The Appellate Body stated the following:

"the ordinary meaning of the phrase 'anti-dumping measure'
seems to encompass all measures taken against dumping. We
do not see in the words 'an anti-dumping measure' any explicit
limitation to particular types of measures."

II. APPLICATION

24.3. The WTO Panel in the US- Lumber V, (DS-264) considered that
an application need only include such reasonably available information
on the relevant matters as the applicant deems necessary to substantiate
its allegations of dumping, injury and causality, and not all information
available to the applicant:

"We note that the words 'such information as is reasonably
available to the applicant', indicate that, if information on certain
of the matters listed in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv) is not reasonably
available to the applicant in any given case, then the applicant is
not obligated to include it in the application. It seems to us that the
'reasonably available' language was intended to avoid putting an
undue burden on the applicant to submit information which is not
reasonably available to it. It is not, in our view, intended to require an

557