-九游会旗舰厅

��ࡱ�>�� hj����g��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �r��0bjbj�v�v4:�<�<�( ���������������������8#���77777kkkqssssss$��|!d��kkkkk���774�aaak��7�7qakqaa:,�7����p��g����^1 ]�0�;r�!k�!��!���kkakkkkk��akkk�kkkk���������������������������������������������������������������������!kkkkkkkkk� �: 20 march 2011 information requests to affiliated parties the chair�s fax of 4 february 2011 advised of my appointment as friend of the chair on the issue of �information requests to affiliated parties�. in carrying out this task, i met with brazil, canada, china, egypt, the eu, korea, new zealand, turkey, the united states and the fans group (brazil, hong kong china, japan, korea, norway, chinese taipei and thailand participated) as well as receiving additional written comments from korea and thailand. i asked members to provide their views as well as posed a series of ad hoc questions based on the chair�s draft text of 2007. i was also mindful of the proposals submitted by members to date. the issue turns on investigating authorities requesting an interested party to provide information in the possession of a third (affiliated) party and the implications for the interested party of that affiliated party not providing the requested information. many members agreed with the inclusion of the chair�s draft text on article 6.1new regarding it as an important addition to the current anti-dumping agreement as it establishes that investigating authorities have the right to request information which is necessary, including in relation to affiliated parties. views were divided on the chair�s 2007 draft text on article 6.8.1. some members agreed the chair�s 2007 draft text was a reasonable basis for future improvements to the anti-dumping agreement and that it was heading in the right direction. some members indicated that this provision needed to strike a balance between the obligations of investigating authorities and interested parties. some indicated that this issue was necessarily fact-specific and needed to be considered on a case-by-case basis. guidance would therefore be helpful in this regard. some considered that article 6.8.1 would not work as it was based on the assumption that investigating authorities were requesting information that is not necessary. some have also suggested that the treatment of information requests to affiliated parties provision should be moved to annex ii. a range of views centred on the two core areas relating to the definition of control and the use of facts available and non-cooperation. definitional aspects the chair�s 2007 draft text bases the test for determining whether interested parties are able to supply information in relation to affiliated parties on �control�. divergent views were expressed on the definition of control in footnote 31 to article 6.8.1. these can be broadly characterized as those seeing no need for inclusion of such a definition as the issue relates more to the consequences of information not being available to interested parties; those comfortable with the definition contained in the chair�s 2007 draft text; those seeking amendments to the definition to narrow the definition of control, including removal of the concept of �significant influence�; and those seeking amendments to the definition to widen the definition, including inter alia, non-legal relationships or the use of the term �related party� rather than �affiliated party� as the basis for a definition of control. some members that were of the view that the 2007 draft text was too restrictive, considered that it needed to also look at relationships where there are common interests beyond the notion of control, for example, where there is an exclusive distributor in the importing country. some considered that a definition of control should be based on ownership of a specific percentage shareholdings and/or voting power; or should be based on international accounting standards. some also indicated that a definition of control should not be limiting and should depend on the circumstances of each case, particularly as there may be no legal relationship between an interested party and an affiliated party. some considered that footnote 31 should not reach a conclusion of control but rather provide guidance on possible criteria. views also differed on whether control should be defined in relation to a related party, rather than affiliated party. in this regard, some members referred to the different definition of control in the footnote to article 4.1 in the context of �related party�. some considered that the different definition in the first sentence of footnote 31 to article 6.8.1 could have legal significance including in the context of the agreement as a whole. some preferred the term �related party� as it incorporates a broader kind of relationship including non-legal relationships. some considered that members were already using the wto customs valuation agreement (which refers to related party). some were of the view that it would not make sense to have a reference to related party as interested parties would have control over related parties and the purpose of article 6.8.1 was to deal with situations where there was not control. some noted that it was difficult to prove non-control rather than a controlling relationship. other definitional aspects of the chair�s 2007 draft text were raised. some considered the terms �best efforts� and �reasonable steps� as ambiguous and/or subjective; and that this language juxtaposed against an obligation created legal uncertainty. some saw merit in the use of such soft terms as the thrust of article 6.8.1 was to provide guidance on what both investigating authorities and interested parties must do to ensure balance in the provision. it was also suggested that this language could be better expressed through an explanation of what is required of both interested parties and investigating authorities. some suggested that this language was linked to the references to facts available and non-cooperation so if the term �best efforts� was removed, then the sentences relating to facts available and non-cooperation would also need to be removed. facts available and non-cooperation this brings me to the references in article 6.8.1 to facts available and non-cooperation. it may be useful to go through the chair�s 2007 draft text. that text indicates the efforts to be made by both interested parties and investigating authorities and the sequencing, if you like, of the various steps involved. first, an interested party must substantiate that it does not control another party. in addition, an interested party must use its best efforts to obtain requested information. some members indicated that this is important as usually a dialogue between the interested party and the investigating authority contributes to evidence of best efforts undertaken by the interested party. next, the investigating authorities, having requested the information, need to consider �the importance of the information�, which the authorities reasonably consider may be necessary (as provided in article 6.1new). this indicates that the investigating authorities then need to make a decision on whether to maintain the request � either in the same form or modified � and if so, are obliged to take �reasonable steps� to support the interested party�s efforts. some suggested that this could involve directly sending a questionnaire or other written requests to the affiliated party. where the affiliated party does not supply the necessary and important information, the chair�s text provides that the investigating authorities may base their determinations on facts available but not deem the interested party to be non-cooperative. views were divided in particular on the last sentence of article 6.8.1 relating to not deeming an interested party to be non-cooperative. some members considered that this last sentence is problematic, unnecessary and undermines the concept of facts available (by suggesting that there is either full cooperation or non-cooperation when there may be partial cooperation). it should therefore be deleted. some also considered that it suggests introducing a type of �adverse� facts available into the anti-dumping agreement (which would have serious consequences for the agreement as a whole) and would undermine the current balance in the last sentence of paragraph 7 of annex ii in relation to facts available. this therefore needed to be avoided. on the other hand, some members wanted the last sentence retained as they considered it balances and is intricately linked to the previous (i.e. third) sentence of article 6.8.1 relates to �facts available�. in this regard, some members considered that it guarded against the use of �adverse� facts available. by virtue of this, they argued that should the last sentence be deleted, then the third sentence would also need to be deleted given its reference to facts available. it was also suggested that the two sentences could be combined to remove the explicit reference to �facts available�. those seeking the deletion of the last (fourth) sentence saw the deletion of the third sentence as removing a necessary procedural step. it would therefore leave the investigating authorities at the point where they were unable to take reasonable steps to support the interested party�s efforts to obtain the information. in other words, article 6.8.1 needed to be coherent internally. some also suggested that the third sentence should be deleted as the right to facts available is already established under article 6.8 and annex ii. some suggested the text of the third sentence could be improved to include that the investigating authorities may nonetheless use other sources reasonably available to complete or replace the necessary information. this would avoid the need for the reference to facts available and the inclusion of the last (fourth) sentence. others suggested that the third and fourth sentences could also be combined to indicate that despite the cooperation of interested parties, the authorities may not use information which is less favourable to the interested party than if it did cooperate. some also suggested that there needed to be a confidentiality assurance included in the provision which could also encourage cooperation. finally, i hope that i have accurately summarised the full range of views expressed by members. as you can see, these were very fruitful and considered discussions. thank you mr chairman for the opportunity to serve as a friend of the chair on this issue.     9  ����������v�)a�� n�"�"w$x$�0��͹ͨͨͨͨ���r�r�a�a�a͗͗�p� h\{�h�hocjojqj^jaj h�j�h�hocjojqj^jaj h=t�h�hocjojqj^jaj&h6%h�ho6�cjojqj]�^jaj h�ho6�cjojqj]�^jaj h��h�hocjojqj^jaj&h�\h�ho6�cjojqj]�^jajh�hocjojqj^jaj&h�~"h�ho5�cjojqj\�^jaj h�ho5�cjojqj\�^jaj9� � � v�������� o� "x$s%e(�����������������������gd��gd=t� & fgd�j� & fgd=t�gd�j�gd�|�$a$gd�~"$a$gd�\e(�*,�.�/�0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0��������������� d��gd-pgd4�gd�u��0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0����������h�d&jh�d&u h��h�hocjojqj^jaj 21�h:p&/~��/ ��=!��"��#��$��%����� ��j ���������666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>666666666666666666666666666�66266666666�666666666666hh66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666�62���� 0@p`p������28�� 0@p`p������ 0@p`p������ 0@p`p������ 0@p`p������ 0@p`p������ 0@p`p��8x�v~ ojpjqj_hmh nhsh thf`��f &/~ck�e d��cj^j_hajmh sh th $a ���$ ؞���k=�w[sobi���b 0nf�h����3�\`�?�/�[���g��\�!�-�rk.�s�ի�..���a濭?��pk!�֧��6 _rels/.rels���j�0 ���}q��%v/��c/�}�(h"���o� ������=������ ����c?�h�v=��ʌ��%[xp��{۵_�pѣ<�1�h�0���o�r�bd���je�4b$��q_����6l��r�7`�������0̞o��,�en7�li�b��/�s���e��е������pk!ky���theme/theme/thememanager.xml �m � @�}�w��7c�(eb�ˮ��c�aǡҟ����7��՛k y,� �e�.���|,���h�,l����xɴ��i�sq}#ր���� ֵ �!�,�^�$j=�gw���)�e� & 8���pk!����ptheme/theme/theme1.xml�yoo�6��w toc'vu�ر�-m�n�i���p�@�i}��úa��m�a[�إ�4�:lя�gr��x^�6؊�>$��������� !)o�^�r�c$�y@�����/�yh*��񄴽)�޵��߻��udb�`}"�qۋ�jח���x^�)i`n�e���p)���li�v[]�1m<������o�p��6r�=���z�gb�ig��u��s�eb���o������r�d۫����qu �g��z����o~ٺlap�lx�pt0��� [}`j�����za��v�2�f���i�@�q�v�֬5\|��ʜ̭n��le�x�ds���jcs����7����f���� ��w��� �ն�7����`���g� ș��j���j|��h(�k��d-���� dx��ij�؇(��x$(� �:��;�˹!� i_�t��s 1�������?e��?������?zbϊm���u/������?�~����xy����'���y5�g&΋/����ɋ�>���g�m�ge���d�����3vq%'#q�����$�8��k�����)f�w9:ĵ�� x}r�x����w���r�:\tzag�*�y8i�j�br��c|xż�ǿ�i u3kg�nd1�nib�s��� ��r��u���k>v�.el m2�#'�f��i ~�v� �vl�{u8��z��h� �*���:�(w�☕ ~��j��t�e\o*�thg��hy��}kn��p�*ݾ˦���tѽ�9/#��a7�qz��$*c?���qu��n��w�n��%��o��i�4 =3ڗp�� ����1�p�m \\9���������mؓ�2a�d�]�;yt�\����[x������]�}wr��|�]��g-��� ew� �)6-r��cs�j�� i�d �dїa�μiqbj#x�꺃 6k���#��a�sh��&ʌt(q�%��p%m��&]�casl=�x�������\p�1�mh�9�m��v�dda��av�b��[݈fj�íp|8� քa�v^��f �h��n���-� �"�d>�z���n��nj� �ة�>�b���&����2��v����kyϼ���d:����,agm��\nz��i�ù��.uχyc�6�omf��3o�r��$��5�����nh�t[xf64�t,ќ���m0�e)`#�5�xy�`�פ;��%�1�u�٥m;���r>qd ����d�cp�u�'��&le�/p���m���%]�����8fi��r�s4�d 7y\�`�j�n���ί�i� r���3u�~7 ���׸#��m� q�bid����������i*�l6�9��m�y&�����i���he��=(k&�n!v��.k�e�ld�ĕ�{d ����veꦚde��nɵ��e�(�mn9ߜr�6����&3(��a����/d��u�z�<�{ˊ�y��ȳ����v���)�9�z[��4^n��5���!j��?��q�3�ebo�c����m ����m<�.�vp�����iy�f���z�y_p�[�=al-�y�}nc͙���ŋ4vfa��vl����'s���a�8�|�*u�{��-�ߟ0%m0�7%����<���ҍ���pk! ѐ��'theme/theme/_rels/thememanager.xml.rels��m �0���wooӻ�&݈э���5 6?$q�� �,.�a��i����c2�1h�:�q��m��@rn��;d�`��o7�g�k(m&$r(.1�r'j��њt���8��v�"��aȼ�h�u}��|�$�b{��p����8�g/]�qasم(����#��l�[������pk-!����[content_types].xmlpk-!�֧��6 _rels/.relspk-!ky���theme/theme/thememanager.xmlpk-!����p�theme/theme/theme1.xmlpk-! ѐ��'� theme/theme/_rels/thememanager.xml.relspk]� �(:���� �0�0e(�0�@�  @��������� ��0�( � ��b �s ���� ?��h��0�( � �gn���#�#�&�&�'�'8(:(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(� � � � .(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(333�  �( g�(�������������sq�2������������� �����^��`���ojqjo(��������^��`���ojqj^jo(o��p���^�p`���ojqj^jo(����@ ���^�@ `���ojqj^jo(�������^�`���ojqj^jo(o������^��`���ojqj^jo(��������^��`���ojqj^jo(��������^��`���ojqj^jo(o��p���^�p`���ojqj^jo(���h���^�h`���ojqj^jo(����8���^�8`���ojqj^jo(o�����^�`���ojqj^jo(����� ���^�� `���ojqj^jo(����� ���^�� `���ojqj^jo(o��x���^�x`���ojqj^jo(����h���^�h`���ojqj^jo(�������^�`���ojqj^jo(o������^��`���ojqj^jo(��sq�2 g�(������������                  .�-p�\?�6%fc�~"e#�d&c\,jo1�sjdkem�hoo_� h�>p&.t`rt0u4}�y}&/~�j�\{� y���oo��!�4�t�!��"�a�=t�_��&��|�0;��j�!����u��q��0��(�(�@�hj @��{�(�@��unknown������������g��* ��times new roman5��symbol3.� �* ��arial7.���{ @�calibri;���[sosimsun?1� courier new;��wingdingsa���� b�cambria math q���h���f���f��� }"i }"i!�?!%),.:;>?]}������    & 0 2 3 : !6"000 0 0 0000006�:�>�@�d�z�\�^����� � �����=�@�\�]�^���$([{���  0 0 000000y�[�]����;�[�����������2u(u(3����h�� $p�����������������������!�2!xx��� 20 march 2011 hotel kiplingwdn  �������oh�� '��0��������  < h t `lt|��20 march 2011hotel kiplingnormalwdn2microsoft office word@f�#@v��a��@�2^��@�2^�� }"����՜.�� ,��0� x`t|�� ����� manotel saiu(  ���� !"#$%����'()* ,-./0123456����89:;<=>����@abcdef��������i����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������root entry�������� �f@wh��k�data ������������1table����&�!worddocument����4:summaryinformation(������������7documentsummaryinformation8��������?compobj������������u������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ���� �f#microsoft office word 97-2003 �ĵ� msworddocword.document.8�9�q
网站地图