Page 605 - MANUAL OF SOP

Manual of OP for Trade Remedy Investigations

24.68. In a WTO dispute EC – Fasteners (DS-397), the Appellate Body stated that
“Sampling” is the only exception to the determination of individual dumping
margins that is expressly provided for in Article 6.10.

“The second sentence of Article 6.10 allows investigating authorities to
depart from the obligation to determine individual dumping margins in cases
where the number of exporters, producers, importers, or types of products
is so large as to make such determinations impracticable. In such cases, the
authorities may limit their examination either: (i) to a reasonable number of
interested parties or products by using samples, which are statistically valid;
or (ii) to the largest percentage of the volume of exports from the country
in question that can reasonably be investigated. This limited examination is
generally referred to as "sampling", even where a statistically valid sample is
not used but the second alternative for limiting the examination is used.”

XV. ORAL HEARING

24.69. In a WTO Dispute Guatemala – Cement II (DS-156), Mexico argued that
because Guatemala's authority extended the period of investigation during the
investigation procedure and did not respond to requests for information from a
Mexican producer concerning the extension, the Mexican producer was not given
an opportunity to comment on the applicant's request for extension of the period
of investigation contrary to Article 6.2.

24.70. The Panel, agreed with this argument, interpreted the first sentence of
Article 6.2 as a fundamental due process procedure:

“Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement is a fundamental due process
provision. When a request for an extension of the POI comes from one
interested party, due process requires that the investigating authority
seeks the views of other interested parties before acting on that request.
Failure to respect the requirements of due process would conflict with
the requirement to provide interested parties with 'a full opportunity
for the defence of their interests', consistent with Article 6.2. Clearly, an
interested party is not able to defend its interests if it is prevented from
commenting on requests made by other interested parties in pursuit of
their interests. In the present case, the POI was extended pursuant to
a request from Cementos Progreso without seeking the views of other

582