Page 606 - MANUAL OF SOP
P. 606

Relevant Wto Jurisprudence

                     interested parties in respect of that request, hence the Ministry failed
                     to provide Cruz Azul with 'a full opportunity for the defence of [its]
                     interests', contrary to Guatemala's obligations under Article 6.2 of the
                     AD Agreement.”

               24.71.  In a WTO Dispute Guatemala – Cement II (DS-156), the Panel rejected
               Mexico's claim that Guatemala's authority was in violation of Articles 6.1, 6.2 and
               6.9 by changing its injury determination from a preliminary determination of threat
               of material injury to a final determination of actual material injury during the course
               of the investigation, without informing the Mexican producer of that change, and
               without giving the producer a full and ample opportunity to defend itself.

                     "As for Article 6.2, we note that the first sentence of that provision is very
                     general in nature. We are unable to interpret such a general sentence
                     in a way that would impose a specific obligation on investigating
                     authorities to inform interested parties of the legal basis for its final
                     determination on injury during the course of an investigation, when the
                     express wording of Article 12.2 only imposes such a specific obligation
                     on investigating authorities at the end of the investigation."

               24.72.  In a WTO Dispute Egypt – Steel Rebar (DS211), the Panel emphasized
               the  liability of investigation  authority  to  Article 6.2  of  the  Anti-Dumping
               Agreement.

                     “The language of Article 6.2 creates an obligation on the [investigating
                     authorities] to provide opportunities for interested parties to defend their
                     interests." The Panel further considered that the "[f]ailure by respondents
                     to take the initiative to defend their own interests in an investigation
                     cannot be equated, through WTO dispute settlement, with failure by an
                     investigating authority to provide opportunities for interested parties to
                     defend their interests".



               24.73.  In a WTO Dispute EU – Footwear (China) (DS-405), the panel elaborated on
               the right of an interested party to be heard.

                     "While interested parties must be provided with liberal opportunities to
                     defend their interests, this right does not entitle them to participate in
                     the investigation as and when they choose".




                                                 583
   601   602   603   604   605   606   607   608   609   610   611