Page 610 - MANUAL OF SOP

Relevant Wto Jurisprudence

24.84. In WTO Dispute Guatemala – Cement II (DS-156) stated the following
regarding disclosure statement:

“The Panel having found that Guatemala's failure to disclose the "essential
facts" forming the basis of its final determination was in violation of Article
6.9.”

24.85. The interested parties submit their response to the disclosure and the
final position of the Authority taken therein. The Authority examines these final
submissions of the parties and comes out with final findings.

24.86. The Article 5.8 on Anti-Dumping Agreement, prescribes the criteria how an
application under Anti-Dumping Agreement shall be rejected and an investigation
shall be terminated promptly as soon as the authorities concerned are satisfied that
there is not sufficient evidence of either dumping or of injury to justify proceeding
with the case. There shall be immediate termination in cases where the authorities
determine that the margin of dumping is de minimis, or that the volume of dumped
imports, actual or potential, or the injury, is negligible. The margin of dumping
shall be considered to be de minimis if this margin is less than 2 percent, expressed
as a percentage of the export price. The volume of dumped imports shall normally
be regarded as negligible if the volume of dumped imports from a particular
country is found to account for less than 3 per cent of imports of the like product
in the importing Member, unless countries which individually account for less than
3 percent of the imports of the like product in the importing Member collectively
account for more than 7 percent of imports of the like product in the importing
Member.

“The Panel in Mexico – Corn Syrup (DS132) found that "Article 5.8 does
not impose additional substantive obligations beyond those in Article 5.3
on the authority in connection with the initiation of an investigation. That
is, if there is sufficient evidence to justify initiation under Article 5.3, there
is no violation of Article 5.8 in not rejecting the application." The Panel in
Mexico –Steel Pipes and Tubes made the same observation regarding the
relationship between Article 5.3 and Article 5.8.In Guatemala – Cement
II, the Panel rejected the argument that Article 5.8 applies only after an
investigation is initiated, stating: "[I]f the drafters intended that Article
5.8 apply only after initiation, the reference to promptly terminating
an investigation would have sufficed. By referring to the rejection of an

587