-九游会旗舰厅

��ࡱ�>�� su��r�� @ ��j bjbjvv .jr<r<n#�� 8� � \��"�> > t t t ///�!�!�!�!�!�!�!$j$r�&�"�x//xx"��t t �$"$��x|�t �t �!�x�!��r� t��!t 2 `��*�� !h"<�"� �t'��t'�!��t'��!</�� }�///""�� (x�� report of the contact group thursday 24 march issue: zeroing the group is composed by delegates from (alphabetical order) argentina, canada, eu, japan and the united states. as an initial remark, the group would like to note that the issue of zeroing is one on which there is still a broad range of differing views. these go from those that maintain that zeroing should not be forbidden, except in very limited circumstances, to those that assert the exact opposite view, that is, that zeroing should be forbidden in all possible circumstances. at its initial meeting of 14 march, the group acknowledged that the constrained time limits in which it had to work as well as the technical complexity and political sensitivity of the subject matter would complicate its ability to produce useful input for the negotiating process in the near term on the basis of an open-ended discussion. therefore, it judged that one constructive approach might be to begin by seeking input from interested delegations according to a set of commonly agreed questions. these questions were divided in two �broad� categories: systemic questions, or questions based on the implications that the current case law could potentially have on the ada, if any, and the delegations� preferences on how to deal with this issue (i.e. negotiation or litigation) and the conditions under which they would negotiate if that was the chosen option, and, more specific questions on certain particular concepts as interpreted by the dispute settlement body. the group decided that only the first set of questions (attached below) would be presented to the delegations at this stage, given the limited amount of time available for discussions and exchange of views. the following delegations met with the group, on tue. 15 and wed. 16: china, friends of antidumping negotiations represented in the meeting by (alphabetical order) brazil, chile, hong kong china, japan, korea, norway, chinese taipei and thailand. the fan group made reference to its proposal contained in document tn/rl/w/215, as the appropriate way to address the issue of zeroing. following a request from the coordinator of the fan group, the group sent to that delegation, the questions by e-mail, so that their members had the chance of having their capitals involved in answering them. to date we have received written answers by colombia, hong kong china, korea, norway, chinese taipei and thailand. all the documents received are annexed to this present report. we also met with the delegations of turkey and new zealand. egypt did not meet with the group, but sent written comments instead. the comments that follow right below, are the reflections of those delegation�s views or comments with regard the subject in general, or our questions in particular. starting with the answers received to the questions posed by the group, some delegations indicated that there would be no implications because the current rules already prohibit zeroing. one delegation asserted that �there were no questions left unanswered by the ab�, and that �if there are, are minor�. some other delegations expressed that there were �still some areas� that would need clarification, while some other delegations said that clarification is really needed, and that clarification should be addressed in the ngr. some delegations expressed that zeroing should be prohibited in all instances in an ad procedure, that is, original investigations, imposition of ad measures and collection of duties, and reviews under art.11. in that regard, some delegations mentioned that the �codification� of the current case-law was the adequate strategy, while others expressed their preference for a �codification and clarification�, and others have plainly rejected the idea of simply codifying the rulings on this issue and indicated that negotiation is the proper procedure for addressing this issue. some delegations stated that the case-law is not binding, nor a necessary basis for the negotiations. one delegation expressed that it would have no problems in barring zeroing altogether in their system, indicating that their system was in accordance with the rulings by the ab. other delegations expressed that their investigating authority had doubts and that the extent of the clarifications / amendments should cover the three methodologies in art.2.4.2 of the ada. with respect to how broadly or narrowly should this issue be addressed in the context of the ada -that is the number of provisions that should be covered-- delegations seem to identify art.2.4.2 as the primary target for the amendments. notwithstanding this, other delegations have also identified the provisions of arts. 9 and 11 as others to which it would be necessary to apply modifications in order to reflect the changes to be introduced. in general, delegations expressed their views on the topics proposed by the group, but also referred to some topics of their interest following their own initiative. among the topics that were raised by the delegations, were: one delegation expressed that this particular issue should not be dealt with under an �all or nothing approach�, and that the 2007 text recognized that fact. the scope of amendments to art.2.4.2: for some delegations only the third methodology (weighted-average-to-transaction) should be clarified in the context of targeted dumping. for others, certain aspects of the three methodologies required clarification, including with respect to the time-period for calculations. the issue was raised in this context by some delegations, that the mathematical equivalence �if zeroing were to be prohibited�that would result between the first and third methodologies was a strong argument in favour of the need for clarification. other delegations explained that this third methodology would be an exception to the two main methodologies, for target sales, and that in that context, zeroing could be allowed under the �limited universe� scenario of calculating dumping margins only for certain periods, regions or purchasers. another delegation stated that the concept of limited universe would pose the question of whether to use all sales or only those of the limited universe as the denominator. other delegations noted that it would be appropriate to consider adding �product type� to the customer, region, and time period categories in the second sentence of article 2.4.2. some delegations expressed their interest about a lack of clarity on certain aspects related to the utilization of transaction-to-transaction comparisons, favouring its consideration as �an exception�, and not as a �defalult� methodology. for other members, this is a �main or default� methodology, and its utilization would require that non-dumped volumes and operations are excluded from the injury assessment. other delegation commented that this methodology would be prone to abuses in the selection of transactions, and that would therefore support its deletion from art.2.4.2. the relationship between the different systems applied by members: one delegation mentioned that members use different systems for calculating margins of dumping (dmg) and for collecting ad duties, and commented on different aspects that should be considered in that particular light. among them were: whether reference prices used in prospective systems as benchmarks were calculated based on the exporter�s normal value (nv) or margin of dumping (dmg); reviews: while �as mentioned�some delegations support a prohibition of zeroing in all instances, some delegations have expressed that, if the utilization of the methodology is warranted in original investigations (that is, not forbidden), then it should also be available in reviews as well. refunds: one delegation, by making reference to a proposal submitted by that delegation some time ago, restated its preference for having the particular issue of refunds also clarified. for that member in particular, refund calculations could be made on an importer or transaction specific basis. finally, the group recognizes that the approach used for addressing the issue of zeroing with delegations has left a number of important aspects unaddressed, as recognized in the opening paragraphs. this was necessary given the controversial nature of the topic, the wide gap that still seems to prevail among delegations on some of them, and the cross-cutting nature of the topic itself, whose implications are not restricted to one single stage of an ad proceeding, but span throughout the different stages involved in it. 12. irrespective of the contact group�s focus on a limited set of questions, as explained, this has not prevented delegations from commenting on those more specific aspects that they deemed of importance in that respect, and we are reporting on those comments as a matter of transparency. needless to say, further discussions on many of the aspects identified by some delegations �as well as others�would require a more thorough discussions. page 1 ./05?}��$ % , 3 xj� � � 1;o��g�� ٸٸ٣��ففٍu�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�h�v�h�6�mh sh hxd�h�>*mh sh hz&�h�>*mh sh h�v�h�mh sh hw$4h�mh sh (h^�h�cjojqj^jajmh sh hz&�h�6�mh sh ht?�h�>*mh sh h q}>*mh sh h�mh sh h�5�mh sh h q}5�mh sh ht?�h�5�mh sh )/0?@$ % w��hp$ &f �peƀۼ�f.a$gd� 7$8$h$gd�l$ &feƀۼ�f.a$gd�$a$gd�$a$gd�n i ��wx� � � � � � ��e�l$ &feƀۼ�f.a$gd�$�8^�8a$gd�$�h^�ha$gd�l$ &feƀۼ�f.a$gd�$a$gd�� pq��]�l$ &feƀۼ�f.a$gd�$a$gd�l$ &feƀۼ�f.a$gd� p�� 7g��p t!u!�!"6"a"�"�"�"�"�"�"�"m#�#6%=%[&b&�)�)�)�)*m ��袖��z��z�z�h�/mh sh h�)�5�mh sh h�/h�)�mh sh hxd�h�5�mh sh h�/h�mh sh h�)�mh sh h�v�h�5�mh sh h q}h�mh sh h�v�h�>*mh sh h q}mh sh h�mh sh h�v�h�mh sh h�v�h�6�mh sh -q�� ]q$�h^�ha$gd�l$ &feƀۼ�f.a$gd�$a$gd�l$ &feƀۼ�f.a$gd��&'��yq$a$gd�l$ &feƀۼ�f.a$gd�$�h^�ha$gd�l$ &feƀۼ�f.a$gd�'��]�l$ &feƀۼ�f .a$gd�$a$gd�l$ &feƀۼ�f .a$gd��g$!�el$ &feƀۼ�f��a$gd�l$ &feƀۼ�f��a$gd�$!m#6%�el$ &feƀۼ�f��a$gd�l$ &feƀۼ�f��a$gd�6%[&�'�'�ey$�8^�8a$gd�l$ &feƀۼ�f��a$gd�l$ &feƀۼ�f��a$gd��'�)�)n p q s t v w y z [ \ g h i ��$a$gd�$�d]�da$gd q}$�h^�ha$gd�l$ &feƀۼ�f.a$gd�m n o q r t u w x z [ \ ] c d e f h i j ��̻��h_p0jmhnhu h��0jjh��0juh��h� h��cjajmh sh h\u�jh\u�uh!orh�mh sh i j �$�h^�ha$gd�,1�h��. ��a!��"��#��$��%��d@��dnormalcj_hajmhnhshthda@��ddefault paragraph fontri��rtable normal�4� l4�a�(k��(no list4@�4� header ��p#4 @4� footer ��p#.)@�.� page numberb'�!b "y]0comment referencecjaj<2< "y]0comment textcjaj4��a4"y]0 char2mhnhshth@j12@ "y]0comment subject5�\�*�ba*"y]0 char15\h�rh "y]0balloon textcjojqj^jajf��f"y]0 char$cjojqj^jajmhnhshthj# j��/0?@$%wx��p q � � ��&'��g$m6[��!�!n#p#s#[#\#g#k#�0��0��0��0��0�� 0��0�� 0��0�� 0%��0��0��0�� 0%��0�� 0��0�� 0��0�� 0��0�� 0��0�� 0��x�0��x� 0��x�0��x� 0��x�0�� 0 ��0��x� 0�� 0��x� 0��x� 0��x� 0��x� 0��x�0��x� 0 ��x�0��x�0��n{00-n{00-�@0��l{00 ��-�@0�� 0`- m j #w� q'�$!6%�'i j !"$i !��8�@��0�( � ��b �s�� ?��2�<��!�<�$�!�<��y�<�,�!�<��n�<�|�!�<�t�y�<��y�<��v�<��v�<��^{�<�d^{�<�d�v�<��v�<�$^{�<��v�<�d��<��tu�<��q#�<�|w#�<��w�<��t�<��t�<��w�<�$��<�l�w�<��w�<��"=��y=�d #=��y=�\�y=�"=��y=��w=�6x=��v =�\" =�� "=�, "=�<" =��!=�ąy=��y=��y=�<�"=�\�u=�d�y=�ċy=��y}}��ooww~��g g q [ [ b b i i y y � � � � � � !!��k# !"#$%&'()* ,-./01��uu||��o o z ` ` g g o o � � � � $$��k# !"#$%&'()* ,-./0192*�urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags�place�b1*�urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags�country-region�8*�urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags�city�2121212121212122121212122121221212122121212122�/2n#n#p#p#q#q#s#t#v#w#y#z#h#k#z��1#l#n#n#p#p#q#q#s#t#v#w#y#z#h#k#3333330@x�� m#n#n#p#p#q#q#s#t#v#w#y#z#h#k#n#n#p#p#q#q#s#t#v#w#y#z#h#k#�3> 8��tu xa��2rs$n��akp�x��h��^��`��ojqjo(�h�h��h��^��`��ojqj^jo(�h�ho�h�p��p^�p`��ojqjo(�h�h��h�@��@^�@`��ojqjo(�h�h��h��^�`��ojqj^jo(�h�ho�h��^��`��ojqjo(�h�h��h��^��`��ojqjo(�h�h��h��^��`��ojqj^jo(�h�ho�h�p��p^�p`��ojqjo(�h�h��h��^��`��ojqjo(�h�h��h�p��p^�p`��ojqj^jo(�h�ho�h�@��@^�@`��ojqjo(�h�h��h��^�`��ojqjo(�h�h��h��^��`��ojqj^jo(�h�ho�h��^��`��ojqjo(�h�h��h��^��`��ojqjo(�h�h��h�p��p^�p`��ojqj^jo(�h�ho�h� �� ^� `��ojqjo(�h�h�� ^��`��h�h. ��^��`��h�h.� �p�l��p^�p`�l��h�h.� �@��@^�@`��h�h.� ��^�`��h�h.� ��l��^��`�l��h�h.� ��^��`��h�h.� ��^��`��h�h.� �p�l��p^�p`�l��h�h.h��^��`��ojqjo(�h�h��h��^��`��ojqj^jo(�h�ho�h�p��p^�p`��ojqjo(�h�h��h�@��@^�@`��ojqjo(�h�h��h��^�`��ojqj^jo(�h�ho�h��^��`��ojqjo(�h�h��h��^��`��ojqjo(�h�h��h��^��`��ojqj^jo(�h�ho�h�p��p^�p`��ojqjo(�h�h��3> �ak2rstu �� /�x"�5c_p q}��)�\u��0k#�@�j�j#�@��unknownuser01��g��z ��times new roman5��symbol3&��z ��ariala&�trebuchet ms;��|�i0�batang��5&��z!��tahoma?5� �z ��courier new;��wingdings"1��d @d @��4d<#<#p2�q��hp ��?��t?��;draft of the report due to the plurilateral meeting on& & & & & user01kreier��oh�� '��0��, <h dp| ��<draft of the report due to the plurilateral meeting on��user01normal.dotkreier2microsoft word 10.0@f�#@ c�~��@{�*��@{�*��d ��՜.�� ,��04hp�� mision de argentina@<#� <draft of the report due to the plurilateral meeting on��title !"#$%��'()* ,-��/0123456789:;<=>?@a��cdefghi��klmnopq��t��root entry�� f`��*��v�data ��&1table��.�'worddocument��.jsummaryinformation(��bdocumentsummaryinformation8��jcompobj��j�� fmicrosoft word document msworddocword.document.8�9�q