Page 582 - MANUAL OF SOP

Relevant Wto Jurisprudence

“Articles 2.1 and 2.6 did not have to be interpreted to require an investigating
authority have defined the product under consideration to include only
products that are ‘like’ ".

24.8. In a WTO dispute EC – Fasteners (China) (DS-397), the Panel has explained
the scope of Article 2.1 and 2.6 with regards to the PUC.

“The mere fact that a dumping determination is ultimately made with
respect to "a product" says nothing about the scope of that product. There
is certainly nothing in the text of Article 2.1 that can be understood to
require any consideration of 'likeness' in the scope of the exported product
investigated. "While Article 2.1 establishes that a dumping determination
is to be made for a single 'product under consideration', there is no
guidance for determining the parameters of that product, and certainly no
requirement of internal homogeneity of that product.”
IV. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY STANDING

24.9. In a WTO dispute China – Broiler Products (DS-427), the Panel has
interpreted Article 4.1 of the AD Agreement.

“Panel held that there is no hierarchy between the two domestic industry
definitions provided for in Article 4.1. However, the Panel stressed that,
given the link between the definition of domestic industry and the
substantive provisions governing the injury determination, "the investigating
authority must establish total domestic production in the same manner it
would conduct any other aspect of the investigation, by actively seeking
out pertinent information and not remaining passive in the face of possible
shortcomings in the evidence submitted.”

24.10. In a WTO dispute Argentina – Poultry (DS-241), the Panel stated that the
term domestic industry should be interpreted in a specific manner. The following
was an observation of Panel:

“Article 4.1 provides that the term 'domestic industry' 'shall' be interpreted
in a specific manner. This imposes an express obligation on Members to
interpret the term 'domestic industry' in that specified manner. Thus, if a
Member were to interpret the term differently in the context of an anti-
dumping investigation, that Member would violate the obligation set forth
in Article 4.1”.

559