RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/W/70
G/SCM/W/79
25October 1995
ORGANIZATION(95-3269)
Original: Spanish Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures
REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYAUSTRALIA1CONCERNING
THE NOTIFICATION OFMEXICAN LAWS AND REGULATIONS2
Thefollowing communication, dated 15September 1995, hasbeenreceived fromthePermanent
Mission ofMexico.
___________________
AUSTRALIA
I. Anti-Dumping Duty Legislation ofMexico (G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1)
Reply toquestion 1.1
Article 133ofthePolitical Constitution oftheUnited Mexican States establishes thatthe
Constitution andthelawsenacted bytheCongress oftheUnion, andanytreaties thatareinaccordance
withtheConstitution, concluded bythePresident oftheRepublic withtheapproval oftheSenate, shall
betheSupreme Lawthroughout theUnion.
InMexico treaties areapplied directly, i.e.oncepromulgated, nofurther legislation isrequired
fortheir application. They become directly incorporated intodomestic law. Accordingly, the
1994 Anti-Dumping Agreement meets therequirement setoutinthepreceding paragraph andtherefore
hasbeenincorporated inourlegislation onunfair practices. Asregards order ofprecedence, itison
thesame levelastheForeign Trade Act,while theRegulations oftheForeign Trade Actranklower,
which means thatthe1994 GATT Agreements override theprovisions oftheRegulations.
Reply toquestion (b)
Under Article 133oftheConstitution, theAnti-Dumping Agreement (aninternational treaty)
andtheForeign Trade Act(issued under theConstitution) havethesamestatus. However, where there
isaninconsistency between them, theAnti-Dumping Agreement prevails, since Article 2oftheAct
states that"theprovisions ofthepresent Actarepublic policy andshallapply throughout theRepublic,
without prejudice totheprovisions ofinternational treaties oragreements towhich Mexico isaparty".
Accordingly, intheevent ofanyinconsistency between the1994GATT Agreements andtheForeign
Trade Act,orofanyomission inthelatter, theprovisions oftheAgreements would prevail. The
1G/ADP/W/8-G/SCM/W/16.
2G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1 andG/SCM/N/1/MEX/1.G/ADP/W/70
G/SCM/W/79
Page2
Regulations oftheForeign Trade Acthavelower status thanthe1994 GATT Agreements, andthe
latter therefore prevail overtheRegulations.
Reply toquestion (c)
Yes,Mexico plans toamend theForeign Trade ActanditsRegulations toalign them with
theAnti-Dumping Agreement inorder toeliminate certain inconsistencies andprovide forsome
institutions specified forintheAgreements.
Reply toquestion (d)
TheprovisionsoftheAgreementsmaybeinvokedadministrativelybytheinvestigatingauthority
during theadministrative investigation, andjudicial review willruleastowhether theinvestigating
authority applied theproper provisions.
Reply toquestion 2
TheMinistry willexamine thedegree ofsupport for,oropposition to,theapplication submitted
bydomestic producers ofthelikeproduct, todetermine whether producers accounting formore than
50percentoftotaldomestic output support theapplication fortheinitiation ofananti-dumping
investigation.
Reply toquestion 3
Theapparent contradiction between Articles 53oftheActand7.3oftheAgreement on
Implementation ofArticle VIoftheGeneral Agreement onTariffs andTrade, 1994 doesnotexist
forthefollowing reasons. Article 3oftheActestablishes thatwhere periods areexpressed indays,
thedaysshallbetaken tomean working days, whereas theperiods intheAgreement referred tocalendar
days. Theperiods inbothareverysimilar and,infact,theperiod inthedomestic legislation islonger
thantheoneintheAgreement. Thetwoaretherefore quite compatible.
Reply toquestion 4
Theapparent contradiction between Articles 57oftheActand7.3oftheAgreement on
Implementation ofArticle VIoftheGeneral Agreement onTariffs andTrade, 1994 doesnotexist
forthefollowing reasons. Article 3oftheActestablishes thatwhere periods areexpressed indays,
thedaysshallbetaken tomean working days, whereas theperiods intheAgreement referred tocalendar
days. Theperiods inbothareverysimilar and,infact,theperiod inthedomestic legislation islonger
thantheoneintheAgreement. Thetwoaretherefore quite compatible.
Reply toquestion 5
TheRegulations andtheAnti-Dumping Agreement arecompatible, since Article 2.4.1 ofthe
Anti-Dumping Agreement includes whatisprovided forinArticle 59oftheRegulations. They are
compatible inthattheyestablish thegeneral rulethattheexchange ratetobeusedistherateonthe
dateofsale. However, Article 58doesnotcontain theother provisions onrateofexchange contained
inArticle 2.4.1 oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement. Forthereasons setoutinreplies 1and2,the
investigating authority mustcomply withtheAnti-Dumping Agreement andmusttherefore apply the
provisions ofArticle 2.4.1.
Reply toquestion 6G/ADP/W/70
G/SCM/W/79
Page3
Article 8oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement onlyallows price undertakings designed toensure
thattheexporter revises hisprices orputsanendtodumped exports inorder toeliminate theharmful
effect ofdumping. Consequently, theinvestigating authority mustcomply withtheprovisions ofthe
Article forthereasons stated above, andcannot accept undertakings intheform ofquantitative
restrictions onexports.
Reply toquestion 7
TheinvestigatingauthoritywillhavetocomplywithArticle3.3oftheAnti-DumpingAgreement
forthecumulative assessment oftheeffects ofimports inthecases provided forinthatArticle.
Countervailing Duty Legislation ofMexico (G/SCM/N/1/MEX/1)
Reply toquestion 1
Thereplies toquestions 1-4and7alsoapply inthiscase.
Reply toquestion 2
Asexplained inthereply toQuestion 1,theSCM Agreement, andspecifically thedefinition
ofsubsidy inArticle 1,must becomplied withbytheinvestigating authority.
Reply toquestion 3
TheMexican authority willhavetocomply withtheprovisions oftheSCM Agreement and
theconditions inAnnex 2oftheAgriculture Agreement, forthereasons setoutinthereply to
Question 1.