This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

270502Z May 05

UNCLAS PRETORIA 002082 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR AF/EPS; AF/S TCRAIG 
USDOC FOR 4510/ITA/IEP/ANESA/OA/J DIEMOND 
COMMERCE ALSO FOR HVINEYARD 
TREASURY FOR OWHYCHE-SHAW 
DEPT PASS USDA FOR FAS TPOMEROY, RHENDERSON AND HWETZEL 
DEPT PASS USTR FOR FLISER, PCOLEMAN, AND CMOORE 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD EAGR ECON SF
SUBJECT: ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON U.S. POULTRY 
 
REF:  (A) STATE 98082, (B) 2004 PRETORIA 2504 
 
(U) This cable in sensitive but unclassified.  Not for 
internet distribution. 
 
¶1. (SBU) Deputy Econ Chief and Agricultural Counselor raised 
reftel points with three officials of ITAC, the 
International Trade Administration of South Africa, on May 
26: Nomonde Maimela, Chief Commissioner; Carina Grove, 
Director:  Trade Remedies 1; and Niki Kruger, Senior lawyer. 
The U.S. Embassy officers asked that the anti-dumping duties 
be allowed to expire; underlined their unfair discrimination 
against U.S. exports to the benefit of other countries, such 
as Brazil; and pointed out flaws in the methodology used to 
calculate the duties, noting the unhelpful signal this would 
send to other countries. 
 
¶2. (SBU) The South Africans confirmed that they had received 
a petition from the South African domestic poultry industry 
to extend the anti-dumping duties.  ITAC did not expect a 
decision on the extension until later in the year.  (Note: 
As noted in reftel B notice of the sunset review, the date 
of expiry of the duty is listed as December 27, 2005.) The 
South Africans also responded that it would be very helpful 
if the U.S. companies affected, namely Tyson Foods and Gold 
Kist, would respond fully to the questions contained in the 
sunset review documents that ITAC will send out to concerned 
parties in the next few months, if ITAC decides to initiate 
a review.  In particular, they recommended that the U.S. 
companies provide ITAC with factual information about prices 
on their poultry exports to other countries as well as on 
their pricing for sales in the U.S. market to make their 
case that they are not dumping and would not be dumping. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) It will not help their case if the U.S. companies 
do not submit any information, as that will leave ITAC in 
the position of hearing only from the petitioners seeking 
the continuation of the anti-dumping duties. The best 
prospect for getting the anti-dumping duties to expire, or 
reduced, is for U.S. companies to provide ITAC with 
information to show their prices are fair.  They are open to 
information from any U.S. companies, not just Tysons Food 
and Gold Kist.  This would provide ITAC with arguments ITAC 
can factor into its written recommendation to the DTI 
Minister on deciding the case. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Ms. Maimela pointedly advised, however, that the 
companies not argue questions about methodology. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Comment:  There is no change in ITAC's views about 
the methodology used in South Africa's analysis of the 
issue.  ITAC's position is the same today as it was in 
September 2001 when then USTR Ambassador Zoellick and then 
Trade and Industry Minister Alec Erwin discussed this issue 
in a digital videoconference.  Companies will not help, but 
hurt, their case by contesting the methodology.  On the 
positive side, Maimela did indicate an open mind about 
receiving more information regarding market prices.  ITAC 
has generally treated companies that cooperate by providing 
information more favorably than those who ignore requests 
for information. 
 
FRAZER