Article 133: Imposition of Anti-Dumping Measures

  1.         COTED shall, after consideration of the available evidence and having been satisfied of the existence of dumped imports, injury caused by dumped imports or the threat of serious injury from dumped imports, authorise the Member State aggrieved to take anti-dumping action:

(a) if the parties alleged to be responsible for dumped imports refuse to co- operate within the time specified so as to frustrate or otherwise impede an investigation;

(b)        if there is a serious threat of injury or if injury has resulted.

  1.         In authorising the imposition of anti-dumping measures, COTED shall set the date, duration and conditions for the imposition of the measures as the case may require.
  1.         Anti-dumping action taken pursuant to this Article, shall be based on the calculated margin of dumping and may be applied as follows:

(a) if the evidence arising from definitive investigations of dumping proves the existence of dumping and that injury was caused by dumping, a Member State may impose anti-dumping duties sufficient to eliminate the margin of dumping.  COTED may authorise all affected Member States to impose similar anti-dumping duties for such time and under such conditions as COTED may prescribe;

(b) in the imposition of anti-dumping duties, the Member States imposing the measure shall not discriminate among the sources of all dumped imports based on country of origin or nationality of the exporters;

(c) an exporter whose exports are the subject of anti-dumping duties may request at any time the Member State imposing the duties to review the application of the duties against the relevant exports;

(d) if  an  applicant  for  review  of  anti-dumping  duties  applied  to  exports mentioned in sub-paragraph (c) is not satisfied that the competent authorities in the importing Member States have given adequate consideration to the request for review within 30 days of the receipt of the request,  the  applicant may  refer  the  request  to  COTED  which  shall recommend to the Member State maintaining the anti-dumping duty to take the appropriate action if it is satisfied that the application for review is justified;

(e) in the event that investigations have been concluded and the evidence proves that injury has been caused, a Member State may impose anti- dumping duties retroactively to account for the entire period during which provisional anti-dumping duties have been in force preceding the date of imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties. If, however, the definitive anti- dumping duties are higher than the provisional duties paid or payable or the amount estimated for the purpose of security, the difference shall not be collected.   If the definitive duties are lower than the provisional duties payable, or the amount estimated for the purpose of security, the difference shall be reimbursed or the duties recalculated as the case may require;

(f) if however the investigations reveal that injury was not caused by dumped imports as alleged, but the provisional measures have materially retarded exports of the Member State complained against, COTED shall, upon application by such State, assess the effects of the provisionally applied duties and determine the nature and extent of compensation which is warranted and require the Member State applying provisional measures to withdraw the measure and pay compensation in  accordance with its assessment;

(g) a Member State may accept a voluntary price guarantee from an exporter who is believed to be exporting dumped products, to raise the price of the export sufficiently to forestall a serious threat of injury or to eliminate injury caused by dumped imports;

(h) if a Member State has initiated investigations based on evidence of dumped imports and the Member State had imposed provisional measures, the Member State may, upon the receipt of a voluntary guarantee from the exporter referred to in sub-paragraph (g), promptly suspend the investigation and withdraw any provisional measures it may have imposed as appropriate.

  1.         COTED shall keep under review all anti-dumping measures imposed by the Member States and shall ensure that the Member States observe the conditions and the timetable for review and withdrawal of anti-dumping measures that it may have authorised.
  1.         The Member States undertake to co-operate in the establishment of harmonised anti- dumping legislation and procedures in accordance with the provisions of this Protocol.

Article 132: Co-operation by Competent Authorities and Interested Parties

  1.         Where an applicant for an investigation who receives information pursuant to dumping investigations requires verification of the information, the competent authority and the parties alleged to be responsible for dumped imports shall co-operate in allowing the applicant to carry out verifications in the offending Member State.
  1.         The results of any investigations carried out by a competent authority of a Member State aggrieved or by COTED shall be disclosed promptly to the competent authority and the parties alleged to be responsible for dumped imports in the offending Member State. A public notice of the conclusions of the investigations shall be issued by the Member State or by COTED, as the case may be.
  1.         The purpose of the disclosure referred to in paragraph 2 shall be to present the facts of the case and to allow the parties alleged to be responsible for the dumped imports to defend their interests.


Article 131: Conduct of Investigations leading to Definitive Determination of Injury


  1.         Whenever COTED receives a request for investigation, referred to it under paragraph 9 of Article 126, COTED shall determine whether the information accompanying the request justifies the continuation of investigations and if it is satisfied, cause an investigation to be completed within 12 months but not longer than 18 months after the date of receipt of the request. If COTED is not satisfied that there is sufficient justification to initiate an investigation, it shall inform the applicant in writing of its refusal to investigate.
  1.         Investigations initiated either by a competent authority of a Member State or undertaken by COTED shall be terminated promptly whenever:

(a)        the margin of dumping is determined to be less than two per cent; and

(b) the volume of dumped imports from a particular country is less than three per cent of imports of the like product in the importing Member State, unless countries which individually account for less than three per cent of the imports of the like product into the importing Member State collectively account for more than seven per cent of the imports of the like product in the importing Member State,

and a public notice of the termination of investigations under this paragraph shall be made by the Member State terminating investigations or by COTED, as the case may be.

  1.         The Member States recognise that an investigation into the circumstances of alleged dumping based on a request by another Member State on behalf of a domestic industry will require the full co-operation of the competent authority and the parties alleged to be responsible for dumped imports, in the Member State from which such imports originated, all of whom shall provide relevant information in the time specified in this Article.
  1.         In the conduct of an investigation to determine the existence and effect of dumped imports, competent authorities of the Member States and the parties concerned shall observe the rights of the parties providing information with regard to confidentiality of any information provided and shall not disclose any such information without the prior written approval of the parties providing the information.
  1.         Where an industry within the CSME has suffered injury or faces the threat of serious injury based on evidence of dumped imports by third States, the competent authority for requesting investigation on behalf of the affected industry shall be COTED.
  1.         Nothing in this Article shall be construed so as to prevent an injured party or a Member State from initiating and proceeding with an investigation into alleged dumping having regard to the rights of such parties under international agreements to which they are signatories

Article 130: Provisional Measures

  1.         Provisional measures may be applied only if –

(a) an investigation has been initiated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 129, a public notice has been given to that effect and interested parties have  been  given  adequate opportunities to  submit information and make comments;

(b) a preliminary affirmative determination has been made of dumping and consequent injury to a domestic industry; and

(c) the authorities concerned judge such measures necessary to prevent injury being caused during the investigation.

  1.         Provisional measures may take the form of a provisional duty or preferably, a security – by cash deposit or bond – equal to the amount of the anti-dumping duty provisionally estimated, being not greater than the provisionally estimated margin of dumping. Withholding of appraisement is an appropriate provisional measure, provided that the normal duty and the estimated amount of the anti-dumping duty be indicated and as long as the withholding of appraisement is subject to the same conditions as other provisional measures.
  1.         Provisional measures shall not be applied sooner than 60 days from the date of initiation of the investigation by a competent authority.
  1.         The application of provisional measures shall be limited to as short a period as possible, not exceeding 120 days or, on decision of the authorities concerned, upon request by exporters representing a significant percentage of the trade involved, to a period not exceeding 180 days.  When authorities, in the course of an investigation, examine whether a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove injury, these periods may be 180 and 270 days, respectively.


Article 129: Initiation of Preliminary Investigations

  1.         If a domestic industry in a Member State has reason to believe that it is being injured or faces the threat of injury as a result of dumped imports, an application may be submitted in writing by the industry or on its behalf by an association representing the industry or by employees employed by the producers of the like product to the competent authority to initiate an investigation in order to verify the existence of dumped imports and injury caused or the existence of a serious threat of injury as the case may be.
  1.         The application shall be considered to have been made by or on behalf of the domestic industry if it is supported by those domestic producers whose collective output constitutes more than 50 per cent of the total production of the like product produced by that portion of the domestic industry expressing either support for  or  opposition to  the  request.   However, no investigation shall be initiated when domestic producers expressly supporting the request account for less than 25 per cent of total production of the like product produced by the domestic industry.
  1.         The authority shall examine the application and determine if an investigation is justified and if it is satisfied, it shall issue a public notice to that effect and request the concerned Member State, other interested Member States and the interested parties, all of which may be requested to and shall be afforded an opportunity to provide required information and comments.
  1.         A decision by the authority to initiate an investigation shall be considered a decision to initiate a preliminary investigation, the results of which shall be made available by a public notice.
  1.         Where a preliminary investigation provides sufficient evidence that dumped imports have entered into the commerce of the Member State and such imports seriously threaten or have injured a domestic industry, it may submit to the competent authority of the exporting Member State a request for consultations which shall be notified to COTED.
  1.         The purpose of the request for consultations shall be to establish whether imports have been dumped and injury has been caused or there is a serious threat of injury and if the injury or the serious threat thereof is directly the result of dumped imports.
  1.         Interested parties who have been requested to provide information shall be allowed 30 days from the date of submission of the application by or on behalf of a domestic industry under paragraph 2 to reply unless the authorities concerned agree to a later date.
  1.         For the purpose of this Part, “interested parties” shall include:

(a) an exporter or foreign producer or the importer of a product subject to investigation, or a trade or business association, a majority of the members of which are producers, exporters or importers of such product;

(b)        the government of the exporting Member State; and

(c) a producer of the like product in the importing Member State or a trade and business association, a majority of the members of which produce the like product in the territory of the importing Member State.

  1.         A request for investigations to be undertaken by the competent authority of a Member State or by COTED shall include but shall not necessarily be limited to the information indicated in the Illustrative List set out in Annex III(b). If, however, an aggrieved Member State is satisfied that the offending party had not made satisfactory efforts to afford consultations, to provide requested information or otherwise unreasonably impede an investigation which has been initiated , the competent authority of the Member State aggrieved may impose on a provisional basis anti-dumping measures and may refer the request for investigation to COTED. A public notice of the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures shall be issued by the Member State which has imposed such measures.


Article 127: Determination of Injury

  1.         For the purpose of this Part, injury shall, unless otherwise specified, be taken to mean material injury to a domestic industry, threat of material injury to a domestic industry or material retardation of the establishment of such an industry.
  1.         A determination of injury within the meaning of paragraph l shall be based on positive evidence and involve an objective examination of:

(a) the volume of the dumped imports and the effect of such imports on prices in the domestic market for like products; and

(b)        the consequent impact of the dumped imports on domestic producers of such products.

  1.         In making a determination regarding the existence of a threat of material injury, the competent authorities shall consider, inter alia:

(e) a significant rate of increase of dumped imports into the domestic market indicating the likelihood of substantially increased importation;

(b) sufficient freely disposable, or an imminent, substantial increase in, capacity of the exporter indicating the likelihood of substantially increased dumped exports to the importing Member’s market taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports;

(c) whether imports are entering at prices that will have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices, and would likely increase demand for further imports; and

(d)        inventories of the product being investigated.

Article 126: Determination of Dumping

  1.         For the purpose of this Part, a product is to be considered to be a dumped import where it is introduced into the commerce of another country at less than its normal value if the export price of the product exported from one Member state to another Member State is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like product when destined for consumption in the exporting Member State.
  1.         When there are no sales of the like product in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country or when, because of the particular market situation or the low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the margin of dumping shall be determined by comparison with a comparable price of the like product when exported to an appropriate third country, provided that this price is representative, or with the cost of production in the country of origin plus a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and general costs and for profits.
  1.         In cases where there is no export price or where it appears to the authorities concerned that the export price is unreliable because of association or a compensatory arrangement between the exporter and importer or a third party, the export price may be constructed on the basis of the price at which the imported products are first resold to an independent buyer, or if the products are not resold to an   independent buyer, or not resold in the condition as imported, on such reasonable basis as the authorities may determine.
  1.         A fair comparison shall be made between the export price and the normal value. This comparison shall be made at the same level of trade, normally at the ex-factory level, and in respect of sales made at as nearly as possible the same time. Due allowance shall be made in each case, on its merits, for differences which affect price comparability, including differences in conditions and terms of sale, taxation, levels of trade, quantities, physical characteristics, and any other differences which are also demonstrated to affect price comparability. In the cases referred to in paragraph 3, allowances for costs, including duties and taxes incurred between importation and resale, and for profits accruing, should also be made. If in these cases price comparability has been affected, the authorities shall establish the normal value at a level of trade equivalent to the level of trade of the constructed export price, or shall make due allowance as warranted under this paragraph.  The authorities shall indicate to the parties in question what information is necessary to ensure a fair comparison and shall not impose an unreasonable burden of proof on those parties.
  1.         In the case where products are not imported directly from the country of origin but are exported to the importing Member from an intermediate country, the price at which the products are sold from the country of export to the importing Member shall normally be compared with the comparable price in the country of export. However, comparison may be made with the price in the country of origin, if, for example, the products are merely transshipped through the country of export, or such products are not produced in the country of export, or there is no comparable price for them in the country of export.
  1.         For the purpose of this Part , “like product” shall be interpreted to mean a product which is identical, i.e., alike in all respects to the product under consideration, or in the absence of such a product, another product, which, although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the product under consideration.