Page 594 - MANUAL OF SOP

Relevant Wto Jurisprudence

other factors, the authorities will be unable to conclude that the injury they
ascribe to dumped imports is actually caused by those imports, rather than
by the other factors. Thus, in the absence of such separation and distinction
of the different injurious effects, the investigating authorities would have no
rational basis to conclude that the dumped imports are indeed causing the
injury which, under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, justifies the imposition
of anti-dumping duties. We emphasize that the particular methods and
approaches by which WTO Members choose to carry out the process of
separating and distinguishing the injurious effects of dumped imports from
the injurious effects of the other known causal factors are not prescribed by
the Anti-Dumping Agreement. What the Agreement requires is simply that
the obligations in Article 3.5 be respected when a determination of injury is
made” .
1
24.43. In a WTO dispute EC – Countervailing Measures on DRAM Chips (DS-299),
the Panel interpreted Article 15.2 concerning the methodology to be adopted.

“The Panel in EC – Countervailing Measures on DRAM Chips considered
that Article 15.2 of the SCM Agreement does not set forth any particular
methodology for examining price undercutting, as long as the methodology
chosen is reasonable and objective. The Panel stated that "[i]t appears that
every methodology has its strengths and weaknesses, but that, in the
absence of any prescribed methodology in the SCM Agreement, as long as
the methodology used is not unreasonable, the Panel cannot find against
it.”
24.44. In a WTO dispute China – Autos (DS-342), the Panel explained that as
per Article 3.2 [of the Anti-Dumping Agreement] and Article 15.2 [of the
SCM Agreement] there lies no responsibility on the investigation authority
to adopt a specific methodology for analyzing the effects of the dumped/
subsidized imports on the domestic industry prices.
“The Panel in China – Autos noted that "neither Article 3.2 [of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement] nor Article 15.2 [of the SCM Agreement] impose a
specific methodology on an IA [Investigating Authority] in analysing the
effects of subject imports on domestic industry prices. Panels and the
Appellate Body have previously recognized the margin of discretion that
an IA has in choosing a methodology for such an analysis. However, this
1 See Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from
Japan, (WTO Doc no. WTO/DS184/AB/R) adopted on 24 July 2001.

571