참가학생 여러분들의 Clarification Request에 대해 출제자 측에서 보내주신 답변을 올려드립니다.

 1) Whether they don't need to discuss the calculation of the normal value. If that's true, whether it is enough to discuss the procedural issues/legality; 

Response: In terms of substantive issues, they do need to discuss the methodology for the establishment of the normal value, i.e. to what extent the application of facts available was legal and which elements were illegal. The procedural issues need to be discussed separately.

 2) Whether they should assume that there is no flaws with Maruya's claculation of dumping and injury marins; 

Response: If the question is about mathematical flaws/errors in the dumping margin calculation, it can be assumed that there were no errors. If, however the question is about legal flaws, and methodological errors resulting in legal inconsistencies, it cannot be assumed that there were no flaws because the essence of the exercise lies in finding those legal flaws. In the injury context, the focus of the question is on the assessment of injury and not the injury margin calculation. 

3) Whether there is no need for sales data to confirm the appropriateness of Maruya's calculation including adjustment of some expenses for Shakya's exporters. If that's true, whether it is enough to discuss the procedural issues/legality. 

Response: The transaction-specific data is not necessary and per the question, in the hypothetical AD investigation, the data underlying the calculation and the detailed calculations were not disclosed. Hence, the focus should be on the substantive and procedural issues because here procedural issues are triggering substantive problems as well. The aim of the exercise is to motivate the students to assess the fundamental legal inconsistencies and they can obtain guidance from existing WTO disputes.