Page 616 - MANUAL OF SOP

Relevant Wto Jurisprudence

that Article 89D permitted the investigating authority to conduct an expedited
review if, inter alia, the respondent made a showing that its volume of exports
during the review period was representative. The Appellate Body summarised the
core provisions of Article 9.5 as follows:

"Article 9.5 requires that an investigating authority carry out an expedited
review of a new shipper for an exporter that (i) did not export the subject
merchandise to the importing Member during the period of investigation,
and (ii) demonstrated that it was not related to a foreign producer or
exporter already subject to anti-dumping duties."
XVIII. ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION:

24.102. In United States - Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports
of Colour Television Receivers from Korea (“DS89”), the provision for anti-
circumvention investigation by US was challenged, however Korea later withdrew
the request.

24.103. In the above dispute Korea pointed out that Article VI.1 of GATT
1994 defines dumping as the introduction of products of one country into the
commerce of another country at less than normal value, and Article 2.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement defines it as a situation in which the export price of the
product exported from one country to another is less than the comparable price
for the like product in the exporting country. Thus if another country becomes the
exporting country, dumping should be separately determined. Korea argued that by
effectively considering exports from Korea and exports from Mexico and Thailand
as identical through its circumvention concept, the United States misinterpreted the
basic concept of dumping established throughout the GATT and the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.

24.104. Further, Korea stated that the US action was a violation of Article VI
of GATT 1994 and Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to initiate an anti-
circumvention investigation as an extension of existing anti-dumping measures
without initiating a new dumping (and injury) investigation.

24.105. Korea argued that the US authorities violated Articles 3.1, 3.6, 4.1 and
5.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

24.106. Finally, Korea took issue with the fact that the United States linked
the revocation review with the anti-circumvention investigation. Korea stated

593