Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 May 1968

Vol. 235 No. 3

Imposition of Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Bill, 1967: From the Seanad.

The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 13 may be taken together because they are related amendments.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:

Section 1: In subsection (1), page 3, line 5, "in whole or in part" inserted before "and" where it secondly occurs.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the word "produced" may mean merely one process or stage in the manufacture of goods as well as the whole process of production. It is linked with amendment No. 13 in section 21 (2) which enables the country of origin to be defined in orders imposing duties on the basis of any value added or any process carried out in that country in the manufacture of the goods.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 14 are related and may be taken together.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:

In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, the following subsection added to the section:

"(3) References in this Act to the country from which goods are exported are, in the case of goods exported to the State, references to the country from which they were consigned to the State and goods which in course of consignment from any country to the State pass through or are transhipped in any third country shall not on that account be regarded for the purposes of this Act as having been exported from that third country."

The purpose of this amendment is to remove an ambiguity about the meaning of the reference to the country from which the goods are exported, in section 23 (1). Goods might pass through a country other than the country of consignment by transhipment from that country. The country of consignment, however, is the country of export and not the country of transhipment.

That seems reasonable.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:

Section 2: in subsection (1), line 19, "excluding" deleted and "subject to a deduction for" substituted.

This is largely a question of drafting and making the thing clearer. The substitution of the phrase "subject to a deduction for" instead of the word "excluding" is thought to make the meaning clearer.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:

Section 7: in subsection (1), lines 14 to 24 deleted and the following substituted:

"dumped, and

(ii) the Commission considers it probable that the goods to which the request relates have been or are being dumped and that the dumping was or is injurious dumping,

or

(b) the Minister considers it probable that any goods have been or are being dumped, that the dumping was or is injurious dumping and that there are exceptional circumstances which warrant a request by him to the Commission to investigate whether those goods have been or are being dumped, and the Minister so requests,".

This amendment deals with two separate points. First, it meets a point raised in the Seanad by substituting the words "considers it probable" for "is of opinion". The objection to the wording "is of opinion" was that it appeared from this that the Commission had already prejudged the case against the importer. While neither the Minister nor the Commission will prejudge a case, they must, under the GATT code, consider it likely that an investigation would show that there is injurious dumping. This amendment makes it clear that the Minister or Commission has not prejudged the case but is acting on the probability that there was injurious dumping. It was argued that the original wording in fact covered this but I think this makes the position clearer and removes any doubt as to the procedure that is involved here.

The second effect of the amendment will be that the Commission must carry out an investigation at the request of the Minister once he considers it probable that injurious dumping is involved. Under the original wording, if the Minister came to the conclusion that there appeared to be injurious dumping, he would refer the matter to the Commission who would then again go through the same procedure and might conceivably come to a different conclusion. This seemed to be an undesirable situation and this amendment is designed to change it in the way I have indicated. In fact, another effect of the amendment should be to speed up the procedure in cases initiated by the Minister.

That seems all right.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:

Section 7: in subsection (2), line 28, "is of opinion" deleted and "considers it probable" substituted.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:

Section 9: in line 50, "and publishes in accordance with the procedure in section 8 the fact that such an authorisation has been given" added at the end.

This amendment was moved in the Seanad and I decided to accept it for what seemed to me to be fairly good reasons of public policy. It relates to a member of the Commission who has an interest in a particular matter that is being investigated informing the Minister of that interest and the Minister deciding, despite that, that it should not preclude his acting on the Commission in that particular case. This amendment provides that in such cases there would be publication of that decision.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:

Section 13: in subsection (1), lines 1 to 4, "If, during an investigation by the Commission under this Act in relation to goods of any kind, the Commission is of opinion that injurious dumping of goods of that kind may occur, the Commission may" deleted and "The Commission may, during an investigation by it under this Act in relation to goods of any kind," substituted.

There was objection to the phrase "may occur" on the grounds that it would prevent the Commission from recommending the imposition of a provisional duty if they are not of opinion that there would be further injurious dumping of the kind under investigation before the investigation is completed. This would prevent the imposition of a retroactive levy on a single large consignment of imports and would thus reduce the deterrent value of the retroactive levy. Such a levy can be imposed under section 20 only if a provisional duty has been imposed. In the circumstances, I think this amendment should enable the retroactive provision to be utilised, or at least the existence of it and the possibility of its being completed even in the case of a single large consignment being imported of dumped goods should act as a very great deterrent to make the operation of the retroactive provision more effective.

I think this is a very wise amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:

Section 13: in subsection (1), line 5, "estimated by it" inserted before "in" and in line 6 "estimated by it" deleted.

This is an amendment proposed in the Seanad and accepted by me. It is largely a drafting amendment to clarify the wording of the section and merely alters the placing in the centre of the words "estimated by it".

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:

Section 14: in subsection 2 (b), lines 32 and 33 deleted and the following substituted:

"(b) whenever the Minister is satisfied that goods of any kind have been dumped and that there is danger that they will continue to be dumped and that the".

Again this is a drafting amendment. The original wording did not specify who decided that dumping had taken place.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 10:

Section 17: in subsection (2), line 49, "in the order" inserted before "by".

These are drafting amendments clarifying the wording of the section. They merely alter the placing in the sentence of the words "in the order".

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11:

Section 17: in subsection (2), line 50, "in the order" deleted.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 12:

Section 20: in subsection (1) (a), lines 7 and 8, "relatively short periods" deleted and "a relatively short period" substituted.

Again, this is a drafting amendment but it has perhaps more importance than an ordinary drafting amendment. The present wording would preclude the imposition of a retroactive levy on a single large consignment of dumped exports. This amendment is in accordance with the GATT code.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 13:

Section 21: in subsection (2), page 11, the following new paragraph inserted before paragraph (d):

"() provisions directing that duty be charged if more than a specified proportion of the value of the goods was added in a specified country or if any process or a specified process or processes was or were carried out in a specified country,".

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 14:

Section 23: in subsection (1), line 36, "are goods exported from any country" deleted and "to determine the country from which the goods were exported" substituted.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendments reported and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn