28 A decision on the consequences of the 1947 GATT exit was probably not necessary, as a contracting party of the 1947 GATT, which had commenced litigation against a party that had withdrawn from the GATT in 1947 before the dispute was resolved, could continually re-start the dispute as soon as both parties became members of the WTO. However, Article 18.3 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, the agreement on the application of Article VI of the 1994 GATT, Appendix 1A of the WTO agreement, abbreviated 1, and Article 32.3 of the WTO Subsidies Agreement, the Subsidies Agreement and Countervailing Measures, provides that their rules apply only to investigations and audits initiated following applications for a WTO member after they come into force. Therefore, when one country initiated a national investigation or review before withdrawing from the anti-dumping or subsidy code (or a request from the industry concerned was filed but no investigation had been opened), another country was unable to challenge the findings of the investigation under the WTO anti-dumping or subsidy agreement. It was therefore important to ensure that such disputes were resolved under the old regime. Sales of the similar product in the domestic market of the exporting country or sales in a third country at prices below the unit (fixed and variable) of production, plus administrative, commercial and general costs, cannot, because of price, be made during normal commercial transactions and can only be ignored when establishing the normal value if the authorities (3) find that these sales are made for an extended period (4) period (4). (5) and at prices that do not cover all costs within a reasonable time. Where prices below unit costs at the time of unit sale are above the average per unit head applied for the survey period, these prices are considered cost coverage within a reasonable time. Article 9 sets out the general principle that the institution of anti-dumping duties is optional, even if all conditions are met, and specifies that the application wants a “less tariff” rule. Under a lower law rule, the authorities apply duties below the dumping margin, but which is appropriate to eliminate harm. Article 9.3 provides that anti-dumping duties must not exceed the dumping margin calculated during the investigation. In order to ensure that anti-dumping duties above the dumping margin are not collected, Article 9.3 provides for procedures to determine the effective duty owed or to reimburse excessive duties paid under a member`s tariff system, usually within twelve months of the application and under no circumstances more than eighteen months. Section 9.4 establishes rules for calculating the amount of tariff to be imposed on exporters who have not been subject to individual review during the investigation. Article 9.5 provides for expedited reviews for the calculation of individual dumping margins for exporters or producers entering the importing member`s market.
For questions related to U.S. customs legislation and U.S. tariffs, see the Law Library`s U.S. Customs Law Research Guide. For questions about customs legislation and tariffs for non-U.S. businesses, see the Law Library`s Customs Legislation Research Guide. It must be shown that dumped imports are prejudiced within the meaning of this agreement because of the effects of dumping in paragraphs 2 and 4. Evidence of a causal link between dumped imports and harm to domestic industry is based on a review of all relevant evidence before the authorities. The authorities also examine all known factors, with the exception of dumped imports, which simultaneously violate domestic industry, and violations caused by these other factors should not be attributed to dumped imports.