Page 588 - MANUAL OF SOP

Relevant Wto Jurisprudence

6.5 of the Agreement, is about preserving confidentiality of information
that concerns one interested party vis-à-vis the other interested parties.”
24.25. In a WTO dispute EC – Fasteners (China) (DS-397), the Appellate Body
has explained the duty on part of investigating authority to keep any sensitive
information as confidential, given by any person if a good cause in this regard is
shown by the person for keeping such information as confidential.

“Article 6.5 does not limit the protection afforded to sensitive information
to the 'interested parties' expressly listed under Article 6.11 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement. The term 'parties to an investigation' refer to any
person who takes part or is implicated in the investigation. An investigating
authority is not relieved of its obligations under Article 6.5 merely because
a participant in the investigation does not appear on the list of 'interested
parties' in Article 6.11. Rather, once 'good cause' is shown, confidential
treatment of sensitive information must be afforded to any party who takes
part or is implicated in the investigation or in the provision of information to
an authority. Pursuant to Article 6.5 such parties include person’s supplying
information, persons from whom confidential information is acquired, and
parties to an investigation”.

24.26. In a WTO dispute Guatemala – Cement II (DS-156), the Panel stated that
there is a violation of Article 6.5.1 by failing to require the domestic producer to
provide reasons why certain information could not be made public.

“Although Article 6.5.1 does not explicitly provide that 'the authorities shall
require' interested parties to provide a statement of the reasons as to why
summarization is not possible, any meaningful interpretation of Article 6.5.1
must impose such an obligation on the investigating authorities. Article
6.5.1 imposes an obligation on investigating authorities to require parties
that indicate that information is not susceptible of summary to provide a
statement of the reasons why summarization is not possible”.

24.27. In a WTO dispute Argentina – Ceramic Tiles (DS-189), the Panel
enunciated the conditions under which the investigating authorities may resort to
facts available:

“An investigating authority may disregard the primary source information
and resort to the facts available only under the specific conditions, where a
party:

565