* [Reproduced from GATT Document L/6657 of March 22, 1990. The EEC comments on the Panel Report are reproduced from the letter of March 15, 1990, and are also found in GATT Document L/6676.]

1/ Official Journal of the European Communities (C.J.) 1987, No. L 167 (26 June 1987), p.9. This Regulation entered into force on 27 June 1987.

1 O.J. 1984, No. L 201 (30 July 1984), p.l.

2 Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2176/84 and of its successor. Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2423/88 is entitled “General provisions on duties”.

3 O.J. 1988, No. L 209 (2 August 1988), p.l. This Regulation entered into force on 5 August 1988.

4 O.J. 1988, No. L 209 (2 August 1988), p.13.

1 See, e.g.. Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3205/88 of 17 October 1988, ibid., pp.37-38, paragraph 11.

1 Japan noted that, in the case of the investigation of plain paper photocopiers, one of the complainants included Rank Xerox, a company which produced finished products using parts imported from Japan and which was related to Fuji Xerox Co. Ltd. See Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3205/88, O.J. No. L 284 (19 October 1988), p.37, paragraph 8.

2 The reference periods in these six investigations were as follows: electronic typewriters: electronic weighing scales: hydraulic excavators: plain paper photocopiers: ball bearings: *serial impact dot matrix printers: 1 January 1987-31 July 1987 1 January 1987-31 July 1987 1 January 1987-30 September 1987 1 April 1987-31 January 1988 1 December 1987-31 May 1988 1 July 1988-31 December 1988.

1 Japan pointed out in this respect that only foreign capitalized companies were defendants in proceedings under Article 13:10.

2 In the case of electronic typewriters the duties per unit assembledin the EUC varied between 21,82 and 56,14 ECU; in the case of electronic weighing scales the duty imposed was 65,63 ECU per unit assembled, and in the case of plain paper photocopiers the duties varied between 28 and 225 ECU.

1 A resolution including this recommendation had been adopted by the European Parliament on 6 October 1988.

1 The second sentence of Article 13:4(a) provides that the obligation to pay anti-dumping or countervailing duties is incurred in accordance with Directive 79/623/EEC.

2 Council Directive 79/623/EEC of 25 June 1979 on the harmonization of provisions paid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to customs debt. O.J. 1979, No. L 179 (17 July 1979), p.31. Part A of Title 1 of this Directive provides how a customs debt is incurred on importation.

1 Council Directive 79/695/EEC of 24 July 1979 on the harmonization of procedures for the release of goods for free circulation, O.J. 1979, No. L 205 (13 August 1979), p.19.

1 Council Regulation (EEC) No. 802/68 on the common definition of the concept of origin of goods O.J. 1968, No. L 148 (28 June 1968), p.l

2 The EEC noted that such a case had recently arisen regarding certain photocopiers assembled in the United States.

3 Japan referred in this context to document ADP/W/174.

1 Japan provided the Panel with information on a case in which a request for a refund of duties applied under Article 13:10 had been rejected by the EEC Commission.

1 The EEC considered that support for the view that enforcement measures have the same nature as the measures they aim to enforce could be found in the reasoning of the Panel Report in the dispute regarding measures by the EEC on animal feed proteins, BISD 25S/49.

* See infra, paragraphs 3.86-3.89 for the views of the EEC on the reasons why measures under Article VI could not adequately deal with the problem of “circumvention” of anti-dumping duties.

1 BISD IS/59

1 Ibid. , p. 60

1 O.J.1989, No. L 33 (4 February 1989), p.23.

2 International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures, done in Kyoto, 13 March 1973, entered into force on 25 September 1974.

1 Japan referred in this respect to the Panel Report on section 337 of the United States Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, L/6439, paragraphs 3.10 and 5.9.

2 Japan referred in this connection to the Panel Report on the administration of the Canadian Foreign Investment Review Act, BISD 30S/140, Daraaraoh 5.20.

1 Or its predecessor. Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2176/84.

1 BISD 30S/140, paragraph 5.20.

2 L/6439, paragraph 3.60

1 Ibid.. paragraph 5.27. 2

2 Australia referred in this respect to the Report of the Panel onComplaints on Swedish Anti-Dumping Duties, BISD 3S/81, paragraph 15

1 BISD 30S/107.

1 L/6439, paragraph 5.26.

2 Idem.

1 John Jackson, World Trade and the Law of GATT (Indianapolis; Bobbs Merill, 1969), p.743.

1 This rule provides that: “Any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete and unfinished provided that, as imported the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished (or falling to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this Rule), imported unassembled or disassembled.“

1 Hong Kong referred in this context to discussions at the meeting of the Committee in June 1988.

1 BISD, IS/59

1 Report of the Group of Experts on Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties, BISD 8S/145; Report of the Working Party on Other Barriers to Trade, BISD 3S/222.

2 BISD 8S/149.

3 BISD 3S/223.

4 The Working Party had added that this conclusion would not apply in a case of mere transhipment: “It is of course understood that where goods are merely transhipped through a third country without entering into the commerce of that country, it would not be permissible to apply anti-dumping duties by reference to prices of like goods in that country.” Idem.

1 BISD 8S/148.

1 Section 781 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

2 Section 781(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

3 Section 781(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

4 See e.g. Articles 2:4, 3:2 and 4:l(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Code.

1 H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. 602 (1988).