Page 617 - MANUAL OF SOP

Manual of OP for Trade Remedy Investigations

that it was arbitrary and illogical for the United States to respond quickly to
the request for an anti-circumvention investigation while delaying for a year its
response to Samsung’s request for a revocation review. Korea further stated that
it was unreasonable for the United States to investigate the alleged circumvention
without first verifying the justification of the anti-dumping order. Further, Korea
argued that the attempt to link the results of the anti-circumvention investigation
with the revocation determination constituted a further breach of the proper
procedural sequence. That is, a decision by the US authorities to revoke the anti-
dumping order against Korean color televisions would remove the legal basis for
the anti-circumvention investigation. Thus extending the review period by making
the above-mentioned linkage constituted a violation of Article 11.1 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement which requires the immediate termination of the anti-
dumping order in the absence of dumping which is causing injury.

24.107. On the request of the petitioners, the US anti-circumvention inquiry
was terminated. Before termination, the US Department of Commerce found that
Samsung had substantial production facilities in Mexico, and several feeder plants
established and operated by Korean suppliers unrelated to Samsung. From these
facilities, Samsung produced color televisions sold throughout North, Central and
South America, and these televisions entered the United States duty-free under
NAFTA tariff preference provisions, implying that they met NAFTA’s rules-of-origin
requirements.

24.108. At the DSB meeting on 22 September 1998, Korea announced that it
was definitively withdrawing the request for a panel because the imposition of anti-
dumping duties was revoked by the US.

XIX. GENERAL ISSUES

24.109. The issues discussed in this Chapter are clarificatory in nature.
Therefore, no jurisprudence has been added.

XX. COUNTERVAILING DUTY INVESTIGATIONS

24.110. In Brazil – Aircraft, ( DS-46), para 7.26, the WTO Panel considered
that the object and purpose of the SCM Agreement are to impose multilateral
disciplines on subsidies that distort international trade:

594