Page 590 - MANUAL OF SOP

Relevant Wto Jurisprudence

“There does not exist a requirement in the Agreement to carry out
investigations in the territory of other Members for verification purposes.
Article 6.7 of the AD Agreement merely provides for this possibility. While
such on-site verification visits are common practice, the Agreement does not
say that this is the only way or even the preferred way for an investigating
authority to fulfil its obligation under Article 6.6 to satisfy itself as to the
accuracy of the information supplied by interested parties on which its
findings are based."
24.32. The Panel in EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings, rejected the argument that Article
2.4 required the investigating authority to base the adjustment on a visual/physical
inspection of the working activities and practices in the packaging area at the
company's premises. The Panel stated that it viewed verification as an essentially
"documentary" exercise that may be supplemented by an actual on-site visit,
which is not mandated by the Agreement. According to the Panel, "[a]n essentially
documentary approach to verification – which focuses upon documented support
for claims for adjustment – seems to us to be entirely consistent with the nature of
an anti-dumping investigation. (Article 6.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, which
deals with verification visits, states that "authorities shall make the results of any
such investigations available, or shall provide disclosure thereof … to the firms to
which they pertain and may make such results available to the applicants." This
supports our view that the nature of verification exercise is primarily documentary)

IX. NON INJURIOUS PRICE

24.33. In Specific the Agreement on Anti-dumping does not discuss Non- injurious
Price. It only determines the principle of Lesser Duty Rule. i.e. Article 9 provides:

“…It is desirable that the imposition be permissive in the territory of all
Members, and that the duty be less than the margin if such lesser duty
would be adequate to remove the injury to the domestic industry”.

24.34. Panel Report, EC – Salmon (Norway), para. 7.727, the panel found that the
investigating authority did not act consistently with the obligation in Article 9.2 to
ensure duties were collected in the "appropriate amounts":

"We recall that the MIPS established by the investigating authority were
based on the 'non-injurious' MIPs, because these were found to be lower

567