Betekenis van:
ada

Voorbeeldzinnen

1. According to those parties this allegedly constituted a violation of Article 2(4) of the ADA.
2. Secondly, Article 6(10) ADA only sets out the general rule of exporters being allotted individual margins.
3. First, there is nothing in the wording of Article 6.10 ADA that precludes that exporters with representative domestic sales are also included in the sample.
4. Mofcom also claimed that, by using such information, the investigating authority had not displayed the ‘special care’ requested by the WTO ADA in threat of injury investigations.
5. The situation of the exporting country has to be addressed in conformity with the provisions of Article 15 of the ADA and the basic Regulation but not in the context of cumulation.
6. Furthermore, it is noted that no legal obligation is set neither by the basic Regulation nor by the ADA to make use of any PCNs in anti-dumping investigations.
7. Article 6.10 ADA provides, inter alia, that a sample of exporters can be chosen based on ‘the largest percentage of the volume of the exports from the country in question which can reasonably be investigated’.
8. Moreover, after the adoption of the basic Regulation, in the case Mexico-Beef and Rice, the WTO dispute settlement body has interpreted the relevant provision of the ADA as prohibiting reviews of such companies.
9. First, there is nothing in the wording of Article 6.10 ADA that precludes that exporters with representative domestic sales are also included in the sample. Second, the purpose of selecting a sample of exporting producers is to collect the highest possible representative data on the basis of which a dumping margin could be calculated.
10. One Chinese exporter argued that the Commission should, according to the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) of the WTO, have simply selected the exporters with the largest volume of export sales to the Community, without having regard to the volume of domestic sales.
11. However, Article 9(3) does not oblige the Institutions to use a review to investigate claims of dumping against companies for whom, during an original investigation, de minimis or no dumping was found. It merely foresees that these ‘may’ be investigated in any subsequent review carried out pursuant to Article 11of the basic Regulation. It is clear, however, that after the adoption of that provision, the WTO Appellate Body report, has established that doing so would violate the WTO ADA.