Article 2.2 Of The Anti-Dumping Agreement

5.9 An anti-dumping procedure does not interfere with customs clearance procedures. An anti-dumping measure applies only in the circumstances of Article VI of the GATT of 1994 and as a result of investigations opened (1) and conducted in accordance with the provisions of this agreement. The following provisions govern the application of Article VI of the 1994 GATT, to the extent that measures are taken within the framework of anti-dumping provisions or regulations. Brazil considers that the investigating authorities must at least assess the role, relevance and relative weight of The article 3.4 factors in determining the harm suffered. Therefore, the findings of the investigating authorities on each of these factors are necessarily „relevant“ within the meaning of Article 6.4. Brazil argues that the investigating authorities should not be left to decide on their own what information is „relevant“ under Article 6.4 and that they accuse themselves of defending the interests of the parties under Article 6.2. In addition, Brazil argues that Article 6 is a „basic due process provision“ that aims to ensure that interested parties can defend their own interests during the investigation process, rather than being informed of relevant information after the investigation is completed, and its outcome is reflected in the final provision required by Article 12.2.26. since the commitments under Articles 6.2 and 12.2 are different obligations with respect to the different periods of anti-dumping investigation. 3.3 When imports of a product from more than one country are subject to simultaneous anti-dumping investigations, investigating authorities can only make a cumulative assessment of the impact of these imports if: (a) the margin of dumping determined in relation to imports from each country is greater than de minimis in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 8, and the volume of imports from each country is not negligible and (b) a cumulative impact assessment imports, given the conditions of competition between imported products and the conditions of competition between imported and similar domestic products.

7.2 Provisional measures may take the form of a provisional duty or, preferably, a guarantee, by cash contribution or by borrowing, at the provisionally estimated anti-dumping duty level, which is not greater than the provisionally estimated dumping margin. Withholding on the calculation is an appropriate interim measure, provided that the normal duty and the estimated amount of the anti-dumping duty are indicated and as long as the retention of the calculation is subject to the same conditions as the other interim measures. 53. The European Communities argues that the obligation under Article 3.4 of the anti-dumping agreement to take into account each of the factors listed in this provision differs from other obligations under the anti-dumping agreement to disclose or publish information on the consideration of a particular factor by an investigating authority. In this case, the panel found that the „growth“ review was „implicit“ insofar as it was conducted as part of the review of other factors clearly identified in the protocol (including in the interim regulation). According to the European Communities, the implicit examination of a factor avoids a formalistic approach to Article 3.4, without rendering inoperative the material requirement for consideration of each factor. Furthermore, the European Communities considers that there is no rule set out in Article 17.6, point (i), of the anti-dumping agreement, or elsewhere in the covered agreements, which prevents panels from determining whether a factor has been properly assessed on the basis of the assessment of other factors.