CONFIDENTIAL
Australia
9. In this case again I was required to start because we were the first complainant. I pointed out that, when dumping cash securities were required, the bases on which these were calculated were not always reasonable (at least in Hong Kong's case), although information on the levels was made available and it was therefore possible to consider those and to put forward additional evidence if this seemed to he necessary. Of perhaps more importance was the fact that the Tariff Board could take a long time to produce its findings which led to uncertainty as to whether a conclusive finding of dumping would be made and, if so, at what level dumping duties would finally be applied. I added that, on the whole, our experience was that the Tariff Board's investigations were very fair.
10. This complaint, especially as regards the time during which provisional assessments could be applied, was echoed by the .K. (Mather, Board of Trade), the S and Sweden. Propus also added that the word "detriment in the Australian legislation did not appear to be the same as "injury" in Article VI and in the Code.
11.
Bateman (Australia) began his reply by pointing out that Australian industry was for the most part small and vulnerable. Dumping cash securities formed an essential- element in their system of protection against dumping. These were not imposed on an arbitrary basis but only after full investigation, including investigation overseas. In each case the level of the cash security imposed was the difference between the assessment of "nɔrmal value" decided after investigation and the invoice price. On the other hand it was always open to any exporting country to present evidence and to seek a reassessment, It was unfortunately the case that Tariff Board hearings, which always investigated the situation in creat detail, took some time to complete. However, cash securities were refunded if dumbing was not found. The Australiens also agreed to provide in writing answers to certain detailed questions on their legislation put by the U.S.
12. The representative of the FEC Commission at that point intervened to say that the statements by South Africa and Australia that their industries were small and developing were not strictly relevant to anti-dumping questions and should be dealt with by other measures. Australia had participated in drawing up the nti-Dumping Code, but had not yet accepted it. In urging the Australian Government to accept the Cole he would point out that, although the concept of injur was dealt with in Article VI of the GATT and Article 3 of the Code, neither of these provisions definitively determined injury. Governments were, therefore, to a large extent still masters in their own houses in the determination c injury.
CONVIDE TIAL
/Austria