Page 592 - MANUAL OF SOP

Relevant Wto Jurisprudence

“Article 3 as a whole deals with obligations of Members with respect to
the determination of injury. Article 3.1 is an overarching provision that
sets forth a Member's fundamental, substantive obligation in this respect.
Article 3.1 informs the more detailed obligations in succeeding paragraphs.
These obligations concern the determination of the volume of dumped
imports, and their effect on prices (Article 3.2), investigations of imports
from more than one country (Article 3.3), the impact of dumped imports
on the domestic industry (Article 3.4), causality between dumped imports
and injury (Article 3.5), the assessment of the domestic production
of the like product (Article 3.6), and the determination of the threat of
material injury (Articles 3.7 and 3.8). The focus of Article 3 is thus on
substantive obligations that a Member must fulfil in making an injury
determination”.

24.38. In a WTO dispute Egypt – Steel Rebar (DS-211), the Panel confirmed the role
of Article 3.1 and explained the relationship between paragraph 5 and paragraphs
2 and 4 of Article 3.

“It is clear that Article 3.1 provides overarching general guidance as to the
nature of the injury investigation and analysis that must be conducted by an
investigating authority. Article 3.5 makes clear, through its cross-references,
that Articles 3.2 and 3.4 are the provisions containing the specific guidance
of the AD Agreement on the examination of the volume and price effects of
the dumped imports, and of the consequent impact of the imports on the
domestic industry, respectively….”
24.39. In a WTO dispute Egypt – Steel Rebar (DS-211), Turkey claimed that because
the period of investigation for dumping ended on 31 December 1998, and most
of the injury found by the investigating authorities occurred in the first quarter of
1999, the investigating authorities had failed to demonstrate that dumping and
injury occurred at the same point in time and that there was a link between the
imports that were specifically found to be dumped and the injury found, violating
Articles 3.5 and 3.1.

“The Panel disagreed and stated that-"[N]either of the articles cited in this
claim [Articles 3.1 and 3.5], nor any other provision of the AD Agreement,
contains any specific rule as to the time periods to be covered by the injury
or dumping investigations, or any overlap of those time periods. In fact, the

569