Brazil: Extension of the application of safeguards measures for more two years on the imports of desiccated coconuts
Description
On July 31, 2009 Brazil initiated a safeguard investigation on imports of coconuts desiccated.
On August 5th, 2010 Brazil made public through its Chamber of International Trade (CAMEX) its decision to extend the application of safeguards measures which had already been in force for over two years on the imports of desiccated coconuts. This product is classified under the code 0801.11.10 of Mercosur Common Nomenclature (NCM).
The measure establishes quantitative restrictions for two periods: in the first period (from September 1st, 2010 to August 31st, 2011), the restriction will be established at the level of 5.770 tons; in the second period (from September 1st, 2011 to August 31st, 2012) the restriction will be of 6.059 tons.
The measure does not apply to a number of developing countries* on the basis of Article 9.1 of the antidumping agreement of the WTO and it does not affect exports from the Mercosur countries.
* South Africa, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Qatar, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Cyprus, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Kuwait, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, El Salvador, United Arab Emirates, Ecuador, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Jordan, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Morocco, Mauritania, Mauritius, Myanmar, Mozambique, Moldova, Mongolia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan, Peru, Kenya, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Suriname, Thailand, Chinese Taipei, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, United Republic of Tanzania, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
The Decision to extend the measure was taken on the basis of the evidences of the process MDIC/SECEX 52100.002278/2009-33. It was concluded that the measure continues to be necessary to avoid or prevent serious prejudice.
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | No |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | No |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | No |
| Was such evidence identified? | No |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | No |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | No |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | No |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | No |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? | Yes |
Date Discovered: 29/07/2010
Implemented: Yes
Date of inception: 1 Sep 2010
Duration: 24 months
GTA Evaluation: Red
Source:
Fifth report on potentially trade restrictive measures, DG Trade, European Commission.
Resolution CAMEX nº 51, of 28 July 2010 - http://www.desenvolvimento.gov.br/arquivos/dwnl_1280429918.doc
WTO Documents:
G/SG/N/6/BRA/4 (REV)
G/SG/N/14/BRA/3
Government Response: The government issued the measure
- 457 reads
