Page 591 - MANUAL OF SOP

Manual of OP for Trade Remedy Investigations

than the "non-dumped" MIPs. To the extent that we have found that the
'non-dumped' MIPs calculated by the investigating authority were greater
than the relevant normal values, greater than what they should have been or
derived through the application of a flawed methodology, the investigating
authority's finding that the 'non-injurious' MIPs were less than the 'non-
dumped' MIPs rested on a flawed factual basis. Thus, in imposing the MIPs
on the investigated parties at the level of the 'non-injurious' MIPs, the
investigating authority did not act consistently with the obligation to ensure
that antidumping duties must be collected in the 'appropriate amounts',
within the meaning of Article 9.2 of the AD Agreement."
X. INJURY MARGIN

24.35. In WTO Dispute EU – Footwear (China) (DS-405) the panel has laid down
the following-

“while Article 9.1 clarifies that WTO Members may choose to impose
anti-dumping duties at levels below the margin of dumping, neither this
provision nor Article 3.1 of the Agreement prescribes the basis on which the
lesser duty level will be calculated: "We agree with the European Union, and
'of a duty at a level adequate to remove the injury is clearly contemplated by
Article 9.1, this does not limit the basis on which an investigating authority
may choose to apply a duty less than the full amount of the margin of
dumping. Even assuming that, as in this case, an investigating authority's
stated basis for application of a lesser duty is to impose a duty at a level
adequate to 'eliminate the material injury to the industry caused by the
dumped imports without exceeding the dumping margins”.
24.36. In WTO Dispute China – GOES (DS-414): The first paragraph of Article
3 is an ‘overarching provision’ on the determination of injury and causation,
while the subsequent paragraphs of Article 3 stipulate, in detail, an investigating
authority’s obligations in determining the injury to the domestic industry caused by
dumping.

XI. INJURY ANALYSIS

24.37. In a WTO dispute Thailand – H-Beams (DS-122), the Appellate Body has
interpreted Article 3 in the following manner-

568