Page 581 - MANUAL OF SOP

Manual of OP for Trade Remedy Investigations

applicant to submit all information that is reasonably available to it. Looking
at the purpose of the application, we are of the view 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. As the purpose of the application is to provide
an evidentiary basis for the initiation of the investigative process, it would
seem to us unnecessary to require an applicant to submit all information
reasonably available to it to substantiate its allegations. This is particularly
true where such information might be redundant or less reliable than,
information contained in the application."
24.4. Further in Mexico – Corn Syrup, (DS-132) the Panel distinguished, for the
purposes of Article 5.2, between information and analysis:

"Article 5.2 does not require an application to contain analysis, but rather
to contain information, in the sense of evidence, in support of allegations.
While we recognize that some analysis linking the information and the
allegations would be helpful in assessing the merits of an application,
we cannot read the text of Article 5.2 as requiring such an analysis in the
application itself."

III. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION & LIKE ARTICLES

24.5. In a WTO dispute EU – Footwear (China) (DS-405), the Panel has interpreted
Article 2.1

“The Panel stated that Article 2.1 does not contains requirements regarding
the methodology used to determine normal value, more specifically
regarding the selection of the analogue country in investigations involving
non-market economy countries”.

24.6. In a WTO dispute US – Orange Juice (Brazil) (DS-382), the Panel has
interpreted the term “dumping”.
“The only permissible interpretation of the definition of 'dumping' contained
in Article 2.1 of the AD Agreement, is based on an understanding that
'dumping' can only be determined for the 'product as a whole' and not
individual transactions.”

24.7. In a WTO dispute EC – Salmon (Norway) (DS-337), the Panel has explained
the obligation on part of investigation authority with regards to the PUC.

558