RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/62  
 
18 January 2023  
(23-0419) Page: 1/30 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices  Original: English  
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 26 OCTOBER 2022  
CHAIR: MR. JUAN CARLOS ESTRELLA (ECUADOR)  
1. The Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on  
26 October 2022.  
2. As the meeting was held in person as well as virtually via Interprefy, the Chair reminded 
Members of the different technical arrangements for participating remotely as reflected in the 
"Technical Guide", a link to which had also been included in the airgra m convening the meeting.  
3. The Chair reiterated his request to delegations to provide their up -to-date contact details by 
email to the Secretariat, so that it can update its contact details list, currently contained in document 
RD/ADP/3/Rev.18.  
4. The Committee  adopted  the following agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/ADP/37:  
 
1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION  ................................ ................................ .........................  2 
1.1 Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations not  
previously reviewed by the Committee (including supplemental notifications  
of existing provisions not previously reviewed)  ................................ ................................ ....... 2 
1.1.1  Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.18, and G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.19 - 
G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.21 - G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.12)  ................................ .......................  2 
1.1.2  Canada (G/ADP/N/1/CAN/4/Suppl.5 - G/SCM/N/1/CAN/4/Suppl.4 - 
G/SG/N/1/CAN/3/Suppl.3)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2 
1.1.3  Djibouti (G/ADP/N/1/DJI/1)  ................................ ................................ ....................  2 
1.1.4  United Kingdom (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1 /Suppl.12 - 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.12, G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14 -  
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13, and G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.15 - 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14 -  
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 3 
1.2 Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or  
regulations with outstanding written questions  ................................ ................................ ....... 3 
1.2.1  India (G/ADP/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.11)  ................................ ................................ ..........  3 
1.2.2  Saint Kitts and Nevis (G/ADP/N/1/KNA/1 - G/SCM/N/1/KNA/1)  ................................ ... 3 
2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE 
NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  ................................ ........  4 
A. WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY  
 REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS:  ................................ ................................ ..... 4 
2.1 Cameroon (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2 - G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2 – G/SG/N/1/CMR/2)  ..........................  4 
B. OUTSTANDING WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING  
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS POSED  
UNDER THIS AGENDA ITEM AT PREVIOUS COMMITTEE MEETI NGS:  ................................ . 4 G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.2 European Union (G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/EU/2/Suppl.2 and 
G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/Suppl.3 - G/SCM/N/1/EU/2/Suppl.3)  ................................ ............................  4 
2.3 Ghana (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  ................................  4 
2.4 Liberia (G/ADP/N/1/LBR/1)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  5 
3 SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  
(ARTICLE 16.4) (G/ADP/N/370)  ................................ ................................ .....................  6 
4 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS:  
NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  27 
5 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF  
THE INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  ................................ .......................  28 
6 CHAIRPER SON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF  
THE WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  ................................ ................................  28 
7 OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 28 
8 DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................ . 30 
9 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR  
TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6)  ................................ ................................ ..................  30 
 
1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
1.1  Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations not previously 
reviewed by the Committee (including supplemental notifications of existing provisions 
not previously reviewed)1 
1.1.1  Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.18 and G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.19 - 
G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.21 - G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.12)  
5. No written or oral questions regarding these notifications had been posed.  
1.1.2  Canada (G/ADP/N/1/ CAN/4/Suppl.5 - G/SCM/N/1/CAN/4/Suppl.4 - 
G/SG/N/1/CAN/3/Suppl.3 ) 
6. A written question regarding this notification had been posed and could be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CAN/20 - G/SCM/Q1/CAN/20 - G/SG/Q1/CAN/4 – Submitted by 
Hong Kong,  China  
7. A written answer to Hong Kong, China's written question had been subsequently provided, 
prior to the deadline, and could be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CAN/21 - G/SCM/Q1/CAN/21 - G/SG/Q1/CAN/5 – Reply to Hong Kong, China  
8. Canada  referred Members to the overvi ew of its legislative and regulatory amendments that 
it had given the previous day at the meeting of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures.  
1.1.3  Djibouti ( G/ADP/N/1/DJI/1 ) 
9. No written or oral questions regarding this notification had been posed.  
 
1 Relevant deadlines for written questions and written answers regarding the notifications of legislation 
reviewed in the October 2022  meeting can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/510 - G/SCM/W/587 - 
G/SG/W/256.  G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.1.4  United Kingdom (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.12 - 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.12, G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14 - 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13 and 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.15 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14 - 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14)  
10. Written questions had been posed regarding one notification2 and could be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GBR/7 - G/SCM/Q1/GBR/7 - G/SG/Q1/GBR/9 – Submitted by the United States  
11. Written answers to the United States' written question were subsequently provided, prior to 
the deadline, and could be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GBR/8 - G/SCM/Q1/GBR/8 - G/SG/Q1/GBR/10 – Reply to the United States  
12. The United Kingdom  referred to the detailed statement at the meeting of the Committee on 
Safeguards as regards the first two notifications that were fundamentally about the same legislation. 
In summary, these notifications introduced a new framework in which transition reviews and 
reconsiderations of transition reviews can be conducted. The United Kingdo m referred to this as the 
"call-in framework", under which the Secretary of State for International Trade could "call in", or 
take responsibility for, a transition review or reconsideration of such a review that had been initiated 
by the United Kingdom's i nvestigating authority, the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA), and that had 
not yet concluded. This framework sat alongside the default system in which the TRA issued a 
recommendation to the Secretary of State, which he either accepted or rejected. Turning to  the 
third notification, the United Kingdom also referred to its statement at the meeting of the Committee 
on Safeguards and explained that this legislation updated and clarified some of the existing 
legislation, including what the TRA should consider in t ransitional reviews and provisions concerning 
exemptions from the anti -dumping (AD) and countervailing (CV) measures transitioned over from 
the European Union.  
13. Canada  noted that it was currently reviewing the notifications and that it expected to submit 
written questions after this meeting.  
14. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions and statements.  
1.2 Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with 
outstanding written questions  
1.2.1  India (G/ADP/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.11)  
15. Written que stions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/IND/34 - G/SCM/Q1/IND/34 – Submitted by the United States  
16. Written answers to the United States' written question s had been provided and could be found 
in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/IND/35 - G/SCM/Q1/IND/35 – Replies to the United States  
1.2.2  Saint Kitts and Nevis (G/ADP/N/1/KNA/1 - G/SCM/N/1/KNA/1)  
17. Written questions regarding this notification had been posed and could be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/KNA/1 – G/SCM/Q1/KNA/1 – Submitted by the United States  
18. The Chair  noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting of 
April 2021.  
 
2 G/ADP/N/1/GBR /1/Suppl.13 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.12 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.12  G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 4 - 
 
  19. Saint Kitts and Nevis was not present at the time. Oral answers had not been provided at 
the meeting, nor had written answers be en received to date.  
20. The Committee took note  of the notifications, statements, questions and replies.  
2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE3 
A. WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED 
LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS:  
2.1 Cameroon (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2 - G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2 – G/SG/N/1/CMR/2)  
21. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CMR/5 - G/SCM/Q1/CMR/5 - G/SG/Q1/CMR/5 – Submitted by the United States  
22. Cameroon  was not present at the time. Oral answers had not been provided at the meeting, 
nor had written answers been received to date.  
B. OUTSTANDING WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY 
REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS POSED UNDER THIS AGENDA ITEM  AT 
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE MEETINGS:  
2.2 European Union (G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/EU/2/Suppl.2 and 
G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/Suppl.3 - G/SCM/N/1/EU/2/Suppl.3)  
23. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding th ese notification s and could be found 
in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/EU/15 - G/SCM/Q1/EU/15 – Follow -up questions from the Russian Federation  
24. The Chair  noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting of 
April 2022.  
25. The European Union  did not wish to take the floor on this agenda item.  
26. The Russian Federation  expressed its view that the amendments to the European Union's 
legislation on AD introduced by Regulation EU 2017/2321 and Regulation EU  2018/825 envisage 
discriminatory and WTO -inconsistent methodologies. The Russian Federation stated tha t the 
amendments introduced the concepts of "significant distortions" for adjusting the costs based on 
out-of-country data and "raw material distortions" for the non -application of the lesser duty rule, 
entailing double punishments in the situations at iss ue. Moreover, country reports were part of the 
instruments included in the amendments and the European Commission had discretion to select the 
countries subject to such reports. The Russian Federation referred Members to its previous 
statements at the Comm ittee meetings detailing its concerns. It called upon the European Union to 
observe WTO norms and to do this by refraining from using the new methodologies. It also noted 
that it looked forward to receiving written replies to its follow -up questions.  
2.3 Ghana  (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  
27. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in 
document:  
 
3 Relevant deadlines for written follow -up questions and written answers regarding the notifications of 
legislation reviewed in the October 2022  meeting can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/ 509 - 
G/SCM/W/58 6 - G/SG/W/25 5. G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 5 - 
 
  • G/ADP/Q1/GHA/3 - G/SCM/Q1/GHA/3 - G/SG/Q1/GHA/3 – Follow -up questions from the 
United States  
28. The Chair  noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting of 
April 2021.  
29. Ghana  was not present at the time. Oral answers had not been provided at the meeting, nor 
had written answers been received to date . 
2.4 Liberia (G/ADP/N/1/LBR/1)  
30. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/LBR/3 - G/SCM/Q1/LBR/3 – Follow -up questions from the United States  
31. The Chair  noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee me eting of 
October  2020.  
32. Liberia was not present at the time. Oral answers had not been provided at the meeting, nor 
had written answers been received to date.  
33. The Chair informed Members that, pursuant to the Committee's agreed procedures, in order 
for a ne w legislative notification to be placed on the agenda of the May 2023 meeting of the 
Committee, the notification should be circulated in all three languages by 20 March 2023. Shortly 
after this date, on 24 March 2023, the Secretariat would circulate the an notated draft agenda 
informing Members of all legislative notifications to be reviewed at the next Committee meeting 
in May 2023.4 
34. The Chair reminded Members that all unanswered written questions pertaining to new and 
previously reviewed legislative notifications reviewed at the meeting, as well as the subject 
notifications, shall, past the applicable deadlines, be automatically retained on the agenda of the 
next Committee meeting and on the agendas of subsequent Committee meetings until w ritten 
answers were submitted.  
35. The Chair noted that the new legislative notification of Iceland  circulated in document 
G/ADP/N/1/ISL/2 - G/SCM/N/1/ISL/2, as well as any other legislative notifications received and 
circulated by the applicable deadlines, wo uld be on the agenda for review at the regular meeting of 
the Committee in May 2023.  
36. The Chair expressed concern that some Members had yet to submit a notification on 
legislation, particularly where all that would be required was a nil notification. The Ch air encouraged 
Members that had not yet made a legislative notification to do so as promptly as possible.  
37. Concerning the revised list of competent authorities contained in document 
G/ADP/N/14/Add.57, the Chair invited Members that had not done so to submit  the information 
required by Article  16.5 of the AD Agreement and encouraged Members to review and update 
previously submitted information, where necessary.  
38. The United States  appreciated the fact that most Members had submitted a notification with 
their d omestic AD legislation or a one -time notification that they did not have an AD legislation. 
However, some countries which have not provided a notification of their legislative status have 
submitted trade policy review reports indicating that they have AD l aws in effect. In other words, 
the respective WTO Members have already gone through the effort of informing the WTO of their 
respective AD legislation status, albeit in another forum. The United States encouraged Members to 
review their respective situatio ns and make the appropriate notification promptly. The United  States 
added that the notification of AD laws, and any revisions to those laws, were a key element in 
maintaining transparency in the administration of the AD remedy. It encouraged all Members t o 
 
4 Relevant deadlines can be found in Section 1 of document G/ADP/W/ 510 - G/SCM/W/ 587 - 
G/SG/W/ 256. G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 6 - 
 
  submit future notifications promptly following the implementation of the relevant legislation and to 
think creatively as to how Members could improve compliance with notification requirements. The 
United States noted that timely and complete notification s enabled the WTO's negotiating arm to 
function properly. The information that Members committed to provide through existing notification 
obligations was necessary to improve the operation of WTO  agreements, Members' monitoring work 
in WTO committees, and their ability to negotiate meaningful outcomes.  
39. The United States mentioned the current proposal on Procedures to Enhance Transparency 
and Improve Compliance with Notification Requirements (JOB/GC/204/Rev.11 - 
JOB/CTG/14/Rev.11), which was last discussed a t the General Council's July meeting. The proposal 
had the support of over one -third of the WTO membership (31 co -sponsors). The effort called for an 
open, Member -driven process to identify and recommend improvements to notification practices, 
including co nstructive suggestions for process improvements and other actions that would 
streamline submission of notifications and improve Members' capabilities.  
40. The United States noted that the co -sponsors continued to see the benefits of advancing 
practical and tec hnical work aimed at improving Members' notification capabilities in the CTG bodies 
and enabling the WTO to function more effectively for the benefit of both the Members and traders. 
The United States thus encouraged the Committee to consider new approache s that would place no 
additional burdens on Members but would allow for timely and complete submissions of notifications.  
41. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions, and statements.  
3 SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/370)  
42. The Chair  recalled that a request and a reminder for submission of semi -annual reports for 
the first half of  2022 had been circulated in documents G/ADP/N/370 and supplement 1. Members 
taking no AD actions should submit a simple letter to that effect twice per year . This would not apply 
to those Members that had already submitted a one -time notification under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 
of the AD Agreement.  
43. The Chair reported that the use of the AD Portal remained extensive, and the Secretariat 
continued to provide all the necessary assistance through sessions tailored to the needs of each 
Member using the portal. The Chair announced that following this Committee meeting the Secretariat 
would present the new "Trade Remedies Data Portal", which was an online tool that pro vided 
enhanced access to the upgraded databases on AD and CV actions.  
44. The Chair noted that a number of Members have not yet responded to the request for 
semi-annual reports. This notification requirement applied to all Members, whether or not they had 
taken AD  actions during the period in question, except for the 53 Members that had already 
submitted a one -time notification.5 The Chair urged Members to comply with this important 
notification requirement.  
45. The Chair explained that while Members were free to raise at the Committee's meetings any 
questions that they wished regarding the actions reflected in the semi -annual reports , Members may 
agree that raising issues that were subject to dispute settlement proceedings may be better pursued 
in depth in other WTO dedicated fora.  
46. Indonesia  took the floor to express its general views and concerns on the continued application 
of AD me asures resulting from sunset reviews. Indonesia fully understood Members' right to use 
sunset reviews. Having observed how this mechanism was utilized, Indonesia, however, expressed 
its serious concern that AD measures were turning into long -lasting measur es, foreclosing 
quasi -permanently the access to markets and undermining the objective of tariff liberalization. In 
Indonesia's view, the sunset review mechanism had thus devolved from providing adequate and fair 
protection to affording an excessive measure  of protection to the domestic industries, which would 
be contrary to the promotion of global trade through the multilateral trading system that all Members 
had agreed to. Indonesia observed that so far, it had identified at least 78 cases in which 
AD meas ures were imposed for 20 years or more, of which 55 applied for 20 -30 years and the 
 
5 All such notifications are contained in the G/ADP/N/193  series of documents.  G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 7 - 
 
  remaining 23 measures for more than 30 years. Indonesia stated that it was suffering from this 
excessive protection and urged Members to apply AD measures only to the exten t necessary and 
not open -endedly.  
47. China  shared Indonesia's concerns regarding sunset reviews which it had expressed in the 
past. Long -lasting AD measures created trade barriers for certain products. China opposed the abuse 
of trade remedy measures and indi cated that it would provide more detailed statements on sunset 
reviews when responding to the semi -annual reports of specific Members.  
48. The Committee reviewed the semi -annual reports for the first half of 2022. No Member raised 
questions or made comments co ncerning the reports of Argentina ; Colombia; Costa  Rica; Dominican 
Republic; ; the member States of the Eurasian Economic Union (Armenia; Kazakhstan; Kyrgyz 
Republic; and the Russian Federation); El Salvador; the member States of the Gulf Cooperation 
Counc il "GCC" (Bahrain, Kingdom of; Kuwait, the State of; Oman; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; Qatar; 
and United Arab Emirates);  Ghana; Indonesia; Japan; Malaysia; Mexico; New  Zealand; Pakistan; 
Peru; Philippines; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Türkiye; and Uruguay.  
49. On the semi -annual report of Australia , Indonesia  raised serious concerns about AD actions 
taken by Australia on the importation of A4 copy paper from Indonesia. In April 2017, Australia 
imposed AD duties on the importation of A4 copy paper from Indonesia. Thr ee out of four 
Indonesian  companies were affected by this imposition, while the fourth one was exempted due to 
a de minimis  dumping margin.  
50. Indonesia stated that in March 2018, it had requested the establishment of a panel by the 
Dispute Settlement Body i n this matter (DS529). In that dispute, it claimed that the 
Australian  AD authority had acted inconsistently with, among others, Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the 
AD Agreement as regards the calculation of the margin of dumping for two affected Indonesian 
producers. Indonesia explained that following the panel's rulings and recommendations, in 2021, 
Australia surprisingly initiated two parallel investigations against the same product from Indonesia. 
The first being an original AD investigation on imports from  the one Indonesian company that 
previously had been exempted from the AD duties and the second investigation concerning a sunset 
review of one Indonesian company on whose imports AD duties were still being imposed.  
51. Indonesia mentioned that in the first ca se, Australia was now imposing a 25.5% AD duty, 
while in the second case, Australia significantly increased the dumping margin of an Indonesian 
producer from 12.6% in the original investigation to 59.7% in the sunset review investigation. 
Indonesia opined that this would undoubtedly foreclose access of Indonesian A4 copy paper to the 
Australian market on which the share of Indonesian products had drastically decreased due to the 
imposition of the original AD duties.  
52. Indonesia questioned Australia on the so called "timing adjustment" made for the 
determination of normal value of Indonesian producers. In Indonesia's view, "timing adjustments" 
constituted normal value construction under Article 2.2 of the AD Agreement. It also opined that 
"timing adjustment" wa s not required under Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement because Australia 
calculated the margin of dumping in the sunset review using the weighted average domestic sales 
and weighted average export sales.  
53. Indonesia noted that despite Australia stating in its reports that the COVID -19 pandemic 
contributed to the injury of the Australian domestic industry during the period of investigation (POI) 
for both original investigation and sunset review, Australia concluded differently in that it determined 
that the inju ry to the Australian domestic paper industry was caused by imports from Indonesia. 
Notwithstanding this, Indonesian exports of A4 copy paper to Australia drastically decreased by 
over 72% from around 28,000 tons in 2017 to approximately only 7,800  tons in 2021. Indonesia, 
therefore, believed that it was unreasonable to attribute any harm of the Australian domestic 
industry to imports of A4 copy paper from Indonesia. Indonesia looked forward to a positive response 
from the Australian delegation, particularly  as regards the consistency of the measures with 
Article  3.5 of the AD Agreement. It also noted that it reserved its right to undertake all necessary 
actions to protect and safeguard its legitimate interests as provided by the WTO rules.  
54. Australia  requeste d a copy of Indonesia's statement, given that it didn't have advance notice 
of the matter. It indicated its willingness to hold a bilateral meeting on this matter later in the week.  G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 8 - 
 
  55. Australia explained that it wished to distinguish between the two investig ations so as not to 
confuse the different investigations as well as the subject matter of the dispute settlement case. The 
first investigation related to a fresh investigation, which was initiated on 2 June 2022 in respect of 
a single Indonesian exporter, Tjiwi Kimia, following an application from the Australian industry. A 
statement of essential facts was published on the Anti -Dumping Commission's website on 
27 July 2022. The Government of Indonesia and the Indonesian exporter made submissions during 
this investigation, which the Commissioner of the Anti -Dumping Commission considered in preparing 
his report to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emission Reduction, who is the decision -maker in 
Australia's AD system. The Commissioner provided his report to  the Minister on 26 September 2022 
and the Minister took a decision on 17 October 2022 to accept the recommendations of the 
Commissioner and to apply AD duties on A4 copy paper exported by this single Indonesian exporter, 
all of which was published on the website on 20  October 2022. Under Australia's AD system, 
interested parties may seek  "merits review" within 30 days and judicial review within 28 days of the 
Minister's decision. Australia reiterated that this was a fresh investigation concerning a single 
Indonesian exporter that was not subject to the measures that had been the subject of the dispute 
settlement case.  
56. Australia then turned to the second measure that Indonesia had referred to. Australia 
explained that this concerned a continuation or sunset review and that the Minister for Industry, 
Energy and Emission Reduction had decided, on 30 March 2022, to extend the application of 
AD measures on imports of A4 copy paper from certain exporters in Indonesia. Australia noted that 
the dispute settlement ca se concerned two Indonesian exporters and not the measure that was in 
place for certain other Indonesian exporters as well as the "all others" category of exporters. 
Australia clarified that the measure that was in place did not apply to the two Indonesian  companies 
that were the subject of the dispute settlement case. Nor did the measure that was being examined 
under the continuation review related to the fresh original investigation that was just described. As 
stated earlier, on 30 March 2022, the Ministe r made a decision to extend that measure, and under 
Australia's system, interested parties could seek merits review within 30  days of the decision being 
published and they do so by lodging an application with Australia's independent Anti -Dumping 
Review Pan el. On 26 May 2022, the Anti -Dumping Review Panel announced that it had initiated a 
review of the decision to continue the measures. Interested parties had the opportunity to make 
submissions. On 25 July 2022, the Anti -Dumping Review Panel provided its rep ort to the Minister 
for Industry, Energy and Emission Reduction and on 29 August 2022 the Minister accepted the 
recommendations and affirmed the decision to continue the measures on certain exporters from 
Indonesia. Interested parties were able to apply fo r judicial review of that decision within 28 days 
of its publication.  
57. On the semi -annual report of Brazil , the United States  addressed the investigation by Brazil 
on imports of hard empty gelatine capsules from the United States as reported in Brazil's 
semi-annual report covering the first semester of 2022. The United States expressed its interest in 
this investigation and observed that United States' respondents had fully cooperated and participated 
in this investigation. These respondents had significant concerns regarding Brazil's preliminary 
determination in this investigation. These concerns were outlined in the various sets of comments 
filed by them on the record of the investigation. The United States urged Brazil to take the comments 
submitted by the  respondents into consideration, in particular their arguments and positions 
concerning standing, injury, causal link and public interest, and to issue a final determination that 
would be consistent with both Brazilian law and the AD Agreement.  
58. Brazil  stated that it had taken good note of the United States' intervention. It assured the 
United States that its investigating authority strictly followed the multilateral trading rules regarding 
trade remedies processes. Interested parties could rest assured that  their due process rights were 
observed in all investigations, including in this review, and that all appropriately submitted briefs 
and evidence would be taken into consideration by Brazil.  
59. On the semi -annual report of Canada , China  stated that Article 2. 4 of the AD Agreement 
requires the investigating authority to ensure that "a fair comparison shall be made between the 
export price and the normal value. This comparison shall be made at the same level of trade". In 
addition, Article 2.2.2 of the AD Agreem ent requires that the amount for profits shall be based on 
actual data pertaining to production and sales in the ordinary course of trade. China stated that it 
had received some complaints in this regard from Chinese mattress manufacturers that participate d 
and fully cooperated in an AD investigation conducted by the Canada Border Services Agency 
(CBSA). In the final determination of this AD investigation, published on 5  October 2022, the CBSA G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 9 - 
 
  did not accept the claim from a responding company that, in orde r to ensure a fair comparison, the 
CBSA should only use its domestic sales at the wholesale level in determining normal value, and 
disregarded the obvious differences between wholesale and retail levels as regards average 
transaction volume, unit price lev el, sales activities conducted by the company and the respective 
inputs, services and corresponding costs and expenses. Instead, the CBSA used a method by which 
only certain retail transactions were used as the basis to establish the profit margin for the purpose 
of constructing the normal value.  
60. According to China, this method was problematic because the CBSA used the respondent's 
unique product codes (UPCs) to conduct its so -called "2 sales+" test. Due to the fact that all domestic 
wholesale and some of t he retail sales had unique product codes, and given that these codes were 
encoded for each single customer, only a limited amount of domestic sales were made to two or 
more customers using the same product codes – either because they were sold from stock, or 
because the products concerned were sold in small quantities, for which reason assigning a unique 
product code was impractical. In any event, this method entailed that the CBSA excluded the vast 
majority of the respondent's domestic sales, including all  wholesale transactions. Under this method, 
only a few high -priced retail sales were used in calculating the profit margin, which only accounted 
for a minority of the company's domestic sales and could not reflect the company's actual operating 
condition a nd the market situation. The normal value calculated using "cost + profit" was therefore 
disproportionately high.  
61. In China's view, when determining the profit margin, the investigating authority was obliged 
to use data pertaining to the production and sale  of like products in the "ordinary course of trade" 
and should not, without reasonable justification, exclude certain transactions from the calculation 
by determining them as being in an "abnormal course of trade". Furthermore, China noted that 
paragraph 3  of Article 2.2.2 of the AD Agreement stipulates that when "any other reasonable 
method" is used, "the amount for profit so established shall not exceed the profit normally realized 
by other exporters or producers on sales of products of the same general c ategory in the domestic 
market of the country of origin". While in this case the CBSA might not have used any other method 
beyond those stipulated in paragraphs i) and ii) of Article 2.2.2, the issue remained that the company 
claimed that the CBSA establis hed a profit margin that was far removed from any realistic profit 
margin that could be achieved by any exporter or producer in this industry. This was why the Chinese 
responding company complained that the CBSA's practice in this case violated the require ment of a 
"reasonable determination of the margin of profit" under Article 2.2 of the AD Agreement, and 
therefore violated the requirement of a "fair comparison" under Article 2.4.  
62. Canada  appreciated if China could share its comments in writing after the m eeting. It 
mentioned that AD investigations were conducted in an independent and arms -length manner by 
the CBSA and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) and that any measures taken 
pursuant to an investigation were fully consistent with Canada' s obligations under the AD Agreement 
and the GATT 1994.  
63. On the semi -annual report of China , Japan  expressed its concerns regarding the final 
determination made in April 2017 and the continued imposition of AD duties on imports from Japan 
of vinylidene chloride -vinyl chloride copolymer resin. Japan stated that it had repeatedly expressed 
its concerns i n its submissions on the effect of the dumped imports on prices. Japan regretted that 
AD measures were imposed in April 2017 and a sunset review was initiated in April 2022. Article  11.3 
of the AD Agreement stipulates that any AD measure shall be terminate d on a date not later than 
five years from its imposition unless the authorities determine the substantial necessity to continue 
the measure, namely that the termination of the AD duty would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and in jury. Japan requested early termination of the AD measures which 
were, in its view, improperly continued for a long period.  
64. Japan also referred to the final determination made in August 2015 and the continued 
imposition of AD duties regarding imports from Japan of dispersion unshifted single -mode 
optical  fiber. Japan had repeatedly expressed its concerns in its submissions and at the public 
hearing as regards the calculation of the dumping margin. Japan regretted that AD measures were 
imposed in August 2015  and the third sunset review was initiated in January 2022. Article 11.3 of 
the AD  Agreement stipulates that any AD measure shall be terminated on a date not later than 
five years from its imposition unless the authorities determine the substantial necessi ty to continue 
the measure, namely that the termination of the AD duty would be likely to lead to continuation or G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 10 - 
 
  recurrence of dumping and injury. Japan requested early termination of the AD  measures which 
were, in its view, improperly continued for a lon g period.  
65. In addition, Japan raised concerns regarding the final determination from December 2020 and 
the continued imposition of AD duties on imports from Japan of polyphenylene sulphide. In response 
to the AD investigation initiated in May 2019, the rele vant Japanese exporters and their affiliated 
subsidiaries registered to present in writing all evidence during the investigation. Subsidiary 
suppliers were not named as producers or exporters in the notice of the final determination although 
they were cons idered as companies subject to the investigation by the Chinese investigating 
authority throughout the investigation proceedings. This unclear statement caused confusion among 
the parties concerned. Japan considered that the entities named as exporters in the public notice 
included the affiliated subsidiary suppliers which effectively responded to the investigation as they 
were considered to be a single entity and the same AD duty rate should be applied. Japan requested 
the Chinese investigating authority t o clarify this point.  
66. China  responded that it had consistently opposed the abuse of trade remedies which not only 
provide excessive protection to domestic industries but also distort the normal international trade 
order. China considered that trade remedy measures were to be applied in an objective, prudent 
and restrained manner and that they were not supposed to last for an unreasonable or unnecessary 
long period. The Chinese investigating authority carried out reviews strictly in accordance with its 
domes tic regulation and the WTO rules and had provided ample opportunities to the governments 
and enterprises of the exporting countries to express concerns and submit necessary information, 
thus making determinations on the basis of all the information and com ments provided by the 
stakeholders. Most of the trade remedy measures imposed by China terminated after five or 
ten years. If Japan had any concerns or specific issues, China invited Japan to participate in the 
proceedings and to fully cooperate with the i nvestigating authorities.  
67. Moreover, China stated that it had taken note of Japan's concerns regarding the AD measures 
on imports of polyphenylene sulphide. In May 2019, China's Ministry of Commerce had initiated an 
AD investigation concerning these product s originating in Japan. In November 2020, the 
investigating authority made a final determination and imposed AD duties. The duties for 
Japanese  companies ranged from 25.2% to 60.1%. Since then, the investigating authority has not 
received any concerns from  the interested parties. The investigation was conducted fully in line with 
the WTO rules and China's domestic regulations. All interested parties had the opportunity to 
cooperate and present information or comments during the investigation. All comments w ere taken 
into account during the investigation and in the final determination. Among the Japanese exporters 
that participated in the proceeding more than one had affiliated subsidiaries and the particular facts 
differed for each. China remained open to fu rther discussion of this issue and noted that Chinese  law 
and regulations enabled Japan to submit a new claim with relevant evidence on this issue.  
68. On the semi -annual report of Egypt , Türkiye  referred to the AD investigation initiated against 
imports from Türkiye of automotive batteries. Following the petition for an AD investigation against 
imports of automotive batteries originating in or exported from Türkiye, the Ministry of Trade and 
Industry of Egypt initiated an investigation on 7 July 2022. Regarding the petition and initiation of 
the investigation, the Government of Türkiye submitted its written views on 12  September 2022. As 
Türkiye stated in its written submission, subject merchandis e imports from Türkiye increased 
by 27% in 2019, decreased by 11.1% in 2020 and increased by only  2.2% in 2021 compared to 
2018. Likewise, consumption in Egypt increased by 33% in  2019, decreased by 1.58% in 2020 and 
increased by 7.3% in 2021 compared to 2 018. Based on these figures, Türkiye considered it to be 
clear that the trend in imports from Türkiye followed the trend in the subject merchandise 
consumption in Egypt. Furthermore, since almost all economic indicators of the petitioner (namely, 
sales vol umes, market share, production, capacity utilization, profitability, employment, wages, 
productivity, investments and inventories) displayed a positive trend during the injury period, injury 
claims of the petitioner were groundless.  
69. Türkiye explained that on 17 December 2014, Egypt had initiated a safeguard investigation 
against the very same product. However, according to its notification to the WTO - dated 
10 December 2015 - the investigating authority had decided to terminate the investigation on 
grounds  of public interest. Türkiye believed that since the domestic industry's production volume 
could not meet the market demand, the application of any AD duty would only increase the subject 
merchandise's price, which would again be contrary to the public's i nterest. Taking into account the G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 11 - 
 
  abovementioned points, Türkiye expected Egypt to terminate the investigation without any 
measures.  
70. Türkiye also addressed Egypt's expiry review of AD duties imposed on steel rebar (bars, rods 
and coils). Türkiye drew attent ion to the protectionist approach of the complainants regarding the 
subject merchandise since 2010. In that year, the complainants lodged a petition for the initiation 
of an AD investigation on the subject merchandise and the investigating authority decide d to initiate 
an investigation on 13 October 2010. The investigation was terminated without any definitive 
measure on 1 June 2011. The investigating authority initiated a safeguard investigation on 
28 November 2012, after a petition lodged by the domestic industry, and applied a provisional 
measure for a period covering 6 months. However, the authority again decided to terminate the 
investigation without any definitive measure on 21 November 2013.  
71. On 14 October 2014, less than a year after the previous inve stigation, the investigating 
authority initiated another safeguard investigation for the very same merchandise and 
simultaneously introduced a provisional measure to be applied for 200 days. At the end of this 
period, the investigating authority decided to  impose definitive measures which were terminated on 
13 October 2017.  
72. Starting from 16 March 2016, Egypt decided to implement a Conformity and Assessment 
Programme on some products which also covered the subject merchandise. This system also posed 
difficul ties on Turkish subject merchandise exporters and prevented them from exporting their goods 
to Egypt. Thereafter, according to the final decision announced by the investigating authority in 
December 2017, an AD measure was put into effect on 7 December 201 7. 
73. Most recently, the Ministry decided to extend the validity of the Ministerial Decree No. 1535 
of 2017 on the imposition of definitive AD duties on the imports of steel rebar (bars, rods and coils) 
originating in or exported from China, Türkiye and Ukrai ne for a twelve -month term pending the 
completion of the review procedures and initiated an expiry review in June 2022.  
74. According to Türkiye, these developments clearly showed that for more than 10 years, the 
complainants were trying to maintain a closed m arket by continuously submitting petitions. 
Furthermore, Türkiye was convinced that there was no injury caused by imports from Türkiye to the 
domestic industry. For this reason, it expected that Egypt terminates the review without any 
measures.  
75. Ukraine  commented regarding the initiation by Egypt of the expiry review of the definitive 
AD measures on steel rebar originating, in particular, in Ukraine. Ukraine stated that due to the 
Russian invasion, about 40% of the production facilities of Ukrainian metallur gical industries were in 
the occupied territories and that Ukraine had temporarily lost control over certain steel plants and 
enterprises of related industries, some of which were completely destroyed and could not be 
restored. ArcelorMittal Kryvyi Rih, a major Ukrainian steel producer of the product concerned, was 
also under constant fire, which affected the capacities, production, cost of production and export 
potential. Ukrainian producers operated in an environment that obviously could not cause or thre aten 
to cause material injury to the domestic industry of Egypt. Ukraine, therefore, believed that Egypt 
should terminate the expiry review on steel rebar originating in Ukraine given that the expiry of the 
duties would not be likely to lead to the continu ation or recurrence of dumping and injury.  
76. In response to Türkiye's first set of comments, Egypt  stated that on 7 July 2022 it had initiated 
an AD investigation concerning imports of electric lead -acid accumulators of capacity of 36 up 
to 90 amp-hour origi nating in or exported from Türkiye  based on a properly documented request 
submitted by the domestic industry. The investigating authority had received the replies of the 
cooperating parties on the questionnaires, was analysing the replies and comments and would then 
conduct verification visits to the domestic industry and the cooperating exporters. Egypt emphasised 
that all facts, comments and submissions would be reflected in the essential facts report that would 
be issued during the investigation.  
77. Concern ing the expiry review of the definitive AD duties imposed on steel rebar raised by 
Türkiye and Ukraine, Egypt indicated that a decision on the initiation of an AD investigation would 
only be taken after examining the accuracy and adequacy of the data submi tted by the complainant. 
Egypt noted that some of the aforementioned investigations were terminated without imposing G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 12 - 
 
  definitive measures, as in 2011 when the AD investigation was terminated because the authority 
found that there was no causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the 
domestic industry, and in 2013 when the safeguard investigation was terminated due to the absence 
of serious injury. Egypt also emphasized that the imposition or termination of AD or safeguard duties 
was ba sed on the text of the trade remedies agreements and aimed at ensuring fair competition 
between the domestic and the imported products, but not at preventing imported products from 
accessing to the Egyptian market or maintaining a closed market.  
78. Moreover, Egypt commented that it had initiated the expiry review of the definitive AD duties 
imposed on imports of the product under review in accordance with the provisions of the 
AD Agreement and the Executive Regulations implementing Law No. 161/1998 and based o n a 
properly documented request submitted by the domestic industry prior to the expiry of the definitive 
AD duties, including preliminary evidence that the termination of the imposed duties would likely 
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and inj ury. Egypt observed that all facts, comments 
and submissions would be reflected in the essential facts report that would be issued during the 
investigation.  
79. On the semi -annual report of the European Union , the Russian Federation  was deeply 
concerned about the extension of AD measures on imports of cold -rolled flat steel products of 
Russian origin following an expiry review. The Russian Federation remarked that during the review, 
the European Union imposed a ban on almost all imports of Russian cold -rolled s teel products subject 
to AD measures. This notwithstanding, the European Union concluded that dumping was likely to 
recur if the measures were terminated. The Russian Federation affirmed that it was at a loss as to 
how likely dumping could coexist with an import ban and criticized that the European Union saw no 
reason to question its conclusions. The European Union had reasoned that uncertainty as to scope 
modulation and duration justified disregarding the effect of sanctions. The Russian Federation asked 
whether this decision signalled that the European  Union intended to lift its bans in the near future, 
and added that this question was rhetorical. Contrary to what had been stated by the 
European  Commission about sanctions being temporary, it was clear that  they were actually long -
lasting. Sanctions were first introduced eight years ago and they remained in place. The 
Russian  Federation submitted that speculations about the uncertainty of sanctions were therefore 
phony and hypocritical. The Russian  Federatio n reminded the European Union that AD measures 
were not a political tool and were subject to strict WTO rules that had to be observed. It called on 
the European Union to refrain from mixing AD and political measures, to respect the WTO rules and 
to withdra w its AD  measures on Russian cold -rolled steel immediately.  
80. Japan  commented on the European Union's final determination made in November 2015 and 
the continued imposition of the AD duty regarding grain -oriented flat -rolled products of 
silicon -electrical st eel. Japan had repeatedly requested the exclusion of Japanese products from the 
scope of the product under investigation. Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement stipulates that any 
AD measure shall be terminated on a date not later than five years from its impos ition unless the 
authorities determine the substantial necessity to continue the measure, namely that the termination 
of the AD duty would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The 
European Union must apply Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement in a strict manner and perform 
appropriate reviews in accordance with the WTO Agreement. Japan regretted that in  January 2022 
the European Union's authority decided to continue to impose AD measures. Japan requested early 
and immediate ter mination of these AD measures in accordance with the AD Agreement and to take 
the Japanese steel industry's views into consideration, so that the measure would not be extended 
improperly for a long period.  
81. Indonesia  drew the attention of the European Union  to the AD investigation on imports of fatty 
acid products. Indonesia noted that one of the sampled European companies sent a letter to the 
authority stating its opposition to the imposition of AD measures on imports of fatty acid from 
Indonesia. Subsequen tly, the complainant filed a letter stating its decision to withdraw the 
complaint. Indonesia believed that the withdrawal of the AD complaint by the complainant on 
24 August 2022 meant that no complainant existed in the investigation and any injury examin ed by 
the authority in this investigation would not represent the European Union's fatty acid industry. 
Therefore, the European Union would have no basis to continue the investigation.  
82. Indonesia recalled that Article 5.4 of the AD Agreement required standi ng to justify the 
investigation. The withdrawal of the complaint meant that the present investigation no longer 
represented the European domestic industry of fatty acid as defined by Article 5.4 of the G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 13 - 
 
  AD Agreement, read together with Article 4.1 of the AD  Agreement. Indonesia therefore demanded 
clarification from the authority as to why the investigation had not yet been terminated.  
83. Morocco  was deeply disappointed about the initiation, on 17 November 2021, of an 
investigation with regard to the importation  of certain products from Morocco. Morocco's concerns 
presented in April 2022 at the meeting of this Committee had not been taken into account. Morocco 
stated that the calculation methodology for dumping had not been explained as regards the use of 
adminis trative fees and manufacturing costs. The European Commission refused to take into account 
the manufacturing costs of the enterprise concerned for the calculation of the constructed normal 
value. No issues were found as regards the manufacturing price and this price should be used for 
constructing normal value. Morocco also reiterated its concerns regarding the determination of 
causality. It considered that there was no causal link between insignificant imports from Morocco 
accounting for 1.8% of the Europe an market and the harm suffered by European Union producers. 
The main conclusion of the European Commission with regard to underselling and price depression 
was flawed due to an erroneous methodology. Morocco considered that the determination should be 
revised in view of the information provided by Moroccan produces and exporters.  
84. China  noted that according to the European Union's 2020 annual report on trade defence 
activities, the European Union had initiated 11 new investigations, concluded 11 investigati ons, 
initiated 9 expiry reviews and concluded 15 such reviews with the decision to extend duties for 
another five years. At the end of 2021, the European Union had 109 definitive AD measures in force. 
Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement stipulates that any de finitive AD duties shall be terminated at a 
date no later than five years from its imposition unless the authorities determine that the expiry of 
the duty would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. China believed 
that all Members should adhere to the basic principles and spirit of the multilateral rules, strictly 
apply Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement and perform this obligation in good faith.  
85. China noted the views expressed by some Members, including by the European Union,  at the 
previous Committee meetings that the sunset review determinations were based on case -specific 
assessments. But in practice, the assessment in sunset review investigations was quite subjective, 
in particular when there was no dumping or injury while  the measures were in force. Whether to 
maintain the measures depended more on the willingness of the investigating authorities than on 
the facts establishing the possibility that dumping or injury would recur. As to interested parties' 
willingness to resp ond and participate in sunset reviews, China believed that the key issue was not 
whether the investigation was transparent or whether the investigating authorities had imposed 
additional burdens on the responding parties. The interested parties had to make  a cost -benefit 
assessment as to whether they were prepared to invest considerable resources to participate in a 
review given that the chance of termination was almost zero. Even if the investigation was 
transparent, the process was quite burdensome for th e responding party. China believed that 
AD measures which existed for too long would become trade barriers and hindered the domestic 
industry's innovation and competitiveness and caused excessive distortion to the global trading 
order. China, thus, called on all Members, including the European Union, to tighten the regime of 
sunset review investigations in order to avoid excess protection of domestic industries and distortion 
of the global trading order. China also proposed further clarification and improve ment of the rules 
on sunset reviews in future negotiations so as to improve the predictability of AD measures and to 
protect the legitimate interests and rights of interested parties.  
86. The European Union  stated that it would respond to the questions and int erventions made by 
Japan, Indonesia, Morocco and China.  
87. With respect to Japan's remarks, the European Union noted Japan's reference to Article 11.3 
of the AD Agreement which was also mentioned by China in its intervention. The European Union 
concluded in the review at issue that the conditions for the extension of the measure for an additional 
five years were met. The manner in which the European Union conducted expiry reviews accorded 
with the WTO standards and also the standards of the European Union's d omestic legislation that, 
in turn, fully complied with the WTO rules. In expiry reviews, if the investigation concludes that the 
conditions are met, and in the case at hand that was true for imports from several countries, then 
the European authorities mus t extend the measure by an additional five years. The European Union 
emphasized that nothing in the AD Agreement precluded the extension of measures for consecutive 
five-year periods under such circumstances. Japan would have had the possibility to seek ju dicial 
redress in the European courts or the exporters could have requested an interim review in case of 
alleged changes in circumstances. In the specific review at issue, the European Union affirmatively G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 14 - 
 
  determined that dumping and injury would likely con tinue or recur and for this reason it extended 
the measure.  
88. Turning to Indonesia's comments, the European Union took note of the points raised. It had 
also received a number of submissions in the investigation. As the investigation was still ongoing, 
the European Union could not detail the specifics of that case but it would recall pertinent provisions 
in the Basic AD Regulation of the European Union. According to its Article  9.1, when a complaint is 
withdrawn, proceedings may be terminated unless such term ination would not be in the Union's 
interest. The term "may" in this provision indicated that the proceedings may or may not be 
terminated. In addition, the additional public interest test, a requirement to which the 
European  Union attached great importanc e, was also relevant in cases involving the withdrawal of 
the complaint. Accordingly, the European Commission must assess whether the termination would 
be in the interest of the Union. In cases of withdrawn complaints, the European Commission 
publishes a r egulation with an assessment of the conditions for termination of the investigation. The 
European Union did not comment on the specifics of the case at issue but from a procedural point, 
the European Commission had received a number of presentations and su bmissions from interested 
parties further to the withdrawal and the letter of opposition that Indonesia had referred to in its 
statement. The European Commission had immediately published a note in the file and this note had 
put on notice all parties that the proceeding would be continued until further notice. All deadlines 
would continue to apply as established in the notice of initiation until the European Commission has 
taken a decision. As the investigation was thus ongoing, the European Commission woul d issue a 
disclosure within the statutory deadlines and at that point the interested parties, including Indonesia, 
would have ample opportunity to comment on this issue.  
89. With respect to Morocco's intervention, the European Union stated that on 15 July 2022  it had 
published a regulation setting forth the provisional measures for imports of aluminium road wheels 
originating in Morocco with duties ranging between 8% and 16%. As this was an ongoing 
investigation, the European Union could not provide further det ails but on 17 October 2022 the 
European Commission received documents with final information and it was ensuring that interested 
parties, including the Government of Morocco, had the opportunity to submit arguments as part of 
this investigation. The Europ ean Union encouraged the Moroccan  authorities to submit their 
comments on these documents which the European Commission would take into due consideration 
and reflect in the final regulation.  
90. Further on the issues raised by Morocco, the European Union comme nted, first, that there 
were two companies that participated in the investigation but that one of these companies was 
located in a special area in Morocco and that it did not provide comprehensive responses. This 
impacted the use of Moroccan data on which the Government of Morocco had the possibility to 
submit comments. The European Commission took these comments into account when determining 
provisional measures and it encouraged the Government of Morocco again to provide specific 
comments concerning this matter. With regard to the second comment about the potential injury to 
the European industry, the preliminary investigation found a 17% decrease for the Union  industry 
between 2018 and September 2021. The steepest drop was 24% in 2020 due to the pandemic and 
the impact on the automotive industry. That notwithstanding, an uptick of 8% ensued between 2020 
and September 2021, indicating that the volume of imports from Morocco more than doubled. 
Furthermore, the Union industry lost market shares and therefore incurred losses. In conclusion, 
injury had been caused by imports from Morocco.  
91. On China's remarks, the European Union stressed that it fully supported free trade and trade 
liberalization. AD measures would be extended following an expiry review, provided specific 
conditions were met. There was no mandatory maximum period in the AD Agreement that stated 
that measures could not be prolonged by any given number of additional five -year terms. 
Incidentally, the European Union had very recently addressed a Chine se anti -subsidy case against 
the European Union on potato starch. The measures in this case were imposed in 2011 which shows 
that China itself extended measures in this case at least twice. As regards cooperation, China raised 
an important point. The entir e AD system is based on cooperation, and it is of utmost importance 
that all parties in the proceedings, that is, exporters, the domestic industry, and governments, 
cooperate in the investigations. In the expiry review raised by China, there was a very hig h degree 
of non -cooperation or very limited cooperation. In such situation in which exporters and the 
government do not cooperate, it was very difficult for an authority to assess the facts and to have 
information on file to conclude that there was no like lihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping 
and injury for which reason the measure should not be extended. When using facts available because G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 15 - 
 
  exporters did not cooperate, and despite the European Union being a very prudent user of that 
instrument, it was undeniable that it was very difficult to have elements on the file that would justify 
the termination of the proceedings. The questionnaires in expiry reviews were aiming to collect the 
minimum amount of information required to have information necessa ry to assess whether dumping 
and injury were likely to continue or recur and therefore the investigating authority was also very 
lenient in terms of deadlines. The European Union could only encourage Chinese exporters to actively 
participate in these proce edings. It was simplistic reasoning to suggest that companies would not 
cooperate because the costs outweighed the benefits given that it was likely that the measure would 
be extended. Given that the system was very much reliant on the full cooperation by the parties, 
the European Union could only urge China and its exporters to cooperate, to become involved, and 
to actively participate in expiry review investigations. If the conditions were met, the European Union 
would not hesitate to terminate the measur es because it was also in favour of free – but also 
undistorted – trade.  
92. The Russian Federation  took the floor, attesting that it was impressed by the speaker of the 
European Union and affirming that it would use this opportunity to speak frankly in this C ommittee 
given that the European Union continued to shun any engagement with the Russian  interventions. 
It then asserted that everyone could agree that all Members were here for free trade but that such 
statements were contradicted in practice. The Russian  Federation had successfully challenged 
European measures on ammonium nitrate that had been in place for 25 years. Over time, the 
Russian industry realized that there was no point in participating because the results were 
predetermined by the European Comm ission. As such, the Russian  Federation was fully in agreement 
with China's analysis. The truth was that the European Union extended measures if it wished to do 
so and that it obviously abused the rules. The Russian Federation raised this on numerous occas ions, 
twice per year, in addition to its questions on the European Union's "significant distortions" 
methodology. The Russian Federation stated that the most astonishing was the European Union's 
call for participation and submission of information in expir y reviews while at the same time it had 
banned all imports of Russian  steel products. The European Union itself could place on the record its 
own regulation. There would be no recurrence of dumping given the European ban.  
93. On the semi -annual report of India , Australia  stated that it would appreciate a clarification 
from India on a particular review on low ash metallurgical coke and if India could apprise Australia 
of the stage that the investigation was in and what type of review was being undertaken by Indi a. 
94. Japan  expressed its concerns regarding India's AD measures on electrogalvanized steel, and 
in particular regarding the product scope. Despite repeated interventions by Japan, AD measures 
were imposed in October 2020. Japan requested early termination of  the AD measures which were, 
in its view, improperly continued for a long period.  
95. India remarked that it had noted the issue raised by Australia and that India would liaise with 
capital and inform Australia of the status of the investigation.  
96. On the semi -annual report of Israel , Türkiye  observed that on 19 May 2022, Israel had 
initiated a re view investigation of the AD measures against Turkish exports of low voltage copper 
cables. Türkiye had submitted its views to the investigating authority on 16 June 2022 regarding the 
initiation of the investigation and the complaint.  
97. Türkiye stated that according to Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement, the aim of the review 
investigation was to determine if the expiry of the AD duties would likely lead to the continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and injury. Nevertheless, in the original investigation, despi te many injury 
factors showing positive trends for the complainant and without providing a concrete justification, 
the Ministry determined that the complainant suffered injury due to imports from Türkiye.  
98. The original investigation had certain shortcomings  in terms of disregarding the continuous 
decrease in Turkish imports and the upwards trend in the economic indicators of the complainant. 
Moreover, the investigation did not conclude within 18 months. Most of these deficiencies appear to 
have been carried over into the new review investigation concerning the extension of the measures.  
99. First of all, the figures concerning economic factors, such as production, sales, market shares, 
profit, prices, employment, wages etc., were kept confidential and the complai nant did not provide 
indexed data. Furthermore, the information concerning certain important economic factors, such as G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 16 - 
 
  productivity, return on investments, capacity utilization, cash flow and inventories, were neither 
cited nor given in indexed format in t he complaint. In addition, as the decision regarding the findings 
of the investigating authority also did not provide any economic factor or trade data in general, it 
was nearly impossible for Türkiye to comment on the injury allegations, compromising Türk iye's 
right to defend its interests according to Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement.  
100.  Finally, the assessment of causality and other factors, such as increasing imports from other 
countries, was deficient and fell short of the requirements of Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement. Türkiye 
urged the Israeli authorities to act consistently with the relevant provisions of the AD Agreement 
and expected Israel to terminate the investigation without extending the measures.  
101.  Israel  stated that it had taken note of the intervention and asked for a written copy for 
follow -up. The investigation was currently ongoing for which reason the colleagues from capital 
attended verification visits and thus could not be present at this meeting. Israel also pointed out the 
excellent cooperation with the industry.  
102.  On the semi -annual report of the Republic of Korea , Australia  expressed its interest in 
Korea's AD investigation into imports of aluminium hydroxide from Australia and China. Australia 
appreciated the open exchange of information between the Korean Trade Commission and the 
Australian Embassy in Seoul. The public hearing was held towards the end of September at which 
the Australian exporter participated. Given the continuing close interest in this investigation, 
Australia appreciated if Korea could provide an update on any developments, including the next 
stage of the investigation.  
103.  Japan  referred to the AD measures on stainless steel bar, imposed in July 2004. On 
22 January  2021, the measur e was extended for another five years following the fourth sunset 
review. On 30  November 2020, a WTO panel report was issued concerning the extension of the 
AD measure following the third sunset review. The panel found that the extension measure was 
incons istent with the AD Agreement, and it thus recommended that Korea bring its measure into 
conformity with the AD Agreement. Japan considered that in light of the panel's determination, the 
fourth extension measure at issue lacked any basis. While Korea shoul d have terminated the 
imposition of AD duties in the fourth sunset review, it decided to extend the measure for a 
fourth  time. 
104.  Japan opined that the determination did not explain why the lack of competitive relationships 
and export incentives in the third sunset review, assessed by the panel, did not equally apply in the 
fourth sunset review. The authority did not reasonably explain why injury was likely to recur as a 
result of the termination of the AD duty. Therefore, Korea should reassess the competitive  
relationships, etc. by appropriately considering the panel's determination. Japan requested early 
termination of the AD measure which was, in its view, improperly continued for a long period.  
105.  Korea  explained that the Korean Trade Commission was conducting  the current 
AD investigation on aluminium hydroxide in a fair and transparent manner consistent with the 
AD Agreement and relevant domestic laws, including Korea's Customs Act. It afforded all interested 
parties their legal rights and the opportunity to p articipate in the investigation in accordance with 
the AD Agreement and domestic laws and regulations.  
106.  In case of Australia, meetings were held on 29 April and 27 September and presentations 
were made regarding the assessment of the preliminary dumping dut ies. The investigation was 
currently ongoing and the final determination was expected for 20 December. Korea was willing to 
provide relevant information in an expeditious and transparent manner upon request by interested 
parties, such as the Australian Emb assy in Korea.  
107.  Regarding the details of Japan's intervention, Korea asked for a written copy of that statement 
that it could transmit to its capital.  
108.  Ukraine  referred to the initiation of an expiry review regarding imports by Korea of ferro silico 
manganes e originating in or exported from, inter alia , Ukraine. Ukraine mentioned that every day 
the main manufacturing plant of the Ukrainian industry, the Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant, was under 
severe attacks by Russian troops. Those forces assaulted infrastructure  and facilities. Companies 
faced difficulties producing and exporting the products. That was why Ukraine asked the G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 17 - 
 
  Korean  authorities to take into account the current reality on the ground in Ukraine where 
Russian  military actions deprived the right of the  Ukrainian industry to participate effectively in the 
investigation and impeded its ability to prepare and submit requested information in accordance with 
the AD Agreement. Moreover, Ukraine noted that it was unlikely that its industry would increase its 
production and export in such an amount that it would be able to cause or threaten to cause material 
injury to Korea's domestic industry or that its exports would lead to the continuation or recurrence 
of dumping and injury.  
109.  Korea  asked Ukraine to provide a  written copy of its statement that its capital could review.  
110.  On the semi -annual report of Morocco , Egypt  raised the issue of the AD duties on imports of 
machine -made carpets from Egypt, China and Jordan. The investigation was initiated on 
31 December 2020  and the final determination was made on 29 June 2022, imposing AD duties. 
While acknowledging that the measures had already been imposed, Egypt looked forward to the 
reconsideration of that decision. Despite the fact that the Egyptian exporters had fully cooperated 
during the proceedings, the Moroccan Government disregarded important data from the Egyptian 
exporters. The Moroccan Government used like product types in the normal value determination and 
incorrectly calculated constructed normal value under A rticle 2.2 of the AD  Agreement, using 
domestic sales for all product types in the domestic market without regard to whether these products 
were alike and compatible in terms of costs. The normal value of some products that were not sold 
on the domestic mar ket had been calculated on the basis of all product types sold on the domestic 
market, including articles that did not belong to the product under investigation as well as high value 
products. Certain flaws led to inflated normal value and thus exaggerated  the dumping margin. Cost 
data was mostly ignored and disregarded in the normal value determination. The investigating 
authority claimed that the company was unable to establish the methodology used in calculating 
costs, focusing on insignificant clerical errors of some cost elements found during the verification 
visit. Moreover, the Moroccan  Government did not conduct a fair comparison as required by 
Article  2.4 of the AD  Agreement. The authority made some adjustments to the normal value and 
export price u sing two different methodologies for reason of alleged data inaccuracies. It also 
disregarded certain adjustments to the normal value which led to an excessive margin of dumping.  
111.  Further, the authority resorted to the use of best information available but did not inform the 
Egyptian company accordingly, contrary to the requirements on the use of facts available. In this 
regard, Egypt referred to the WTO panel report in EC – Salmon (Norway)  that clarified the obligations 
contained in paragraph 1 of Annex II of the AD Agreement. That provision sets out the obligation of 
the investigating authority to inform any interested party of the information that must be provided 
during the proceedings and of the consequences if requested information was not provided. Dur ing 
the verification visit, the company ensured that all furnished data were accepted and duly explained 
and that the information was submitted in accordance with the requirements imposed by the 
investigating authority. Moreover, Morocco disregarded the re quest from the Egyptian Government 
and the company to be afforded an opportunity to be heard which deprived them from defending 
their interest, contrary to the requirements of Article  6.2 of the AD Agreement.  
112.  Finally, Egypt stated that the economic factors  and indicators affecting the domestic industry 
showed an improvement and thus suggested that there was no threat of imminent material injury 
resulting from dumped imports, especially any imports of Egyptian origin. Moreover, any threat of 
injury would be attributed to factors other than dumped imports and Egyptian exports could not be 
held responsible given their continued increase in price. Based on the above, Egypt requested 
Morocco to reconsider its decision to impose measures on imports from Egypt.  
113.  Türkiye noted that following the petition for an AD investigation concerning imports of 
galvanized wire from Türkiye, the Minister of Industry and Commerce of Morocco initiated an 
investigation on 9 March 2022. Regarding the petition and initiation of the inv estigation, the 
Government of Türkiye submitted its written views on 12 April 2022. However, the Ministry 
calculated margins ranging between 21% and 61% for Turkish exporters in its preliminary 
determination. Türkiye also submitted its views on the prelimi nary determination on 
10 October  2022. As pointed out in its written briefs during the investigation and in its interventions 
during previous Committee meetings, Türkiye had serious concerns regarding the initiation of this 
investigation. Primarily, there was a large temporal gap between the time -period covered by the 
data justifying the initiation and the date of the actual initiation of the investigation. The investigation 
was initiated in March 2022 with data regarding the year 2020. On the other hand, t he Ministry 
chose to specify the dumping period as the entire year of 2021 and the injury period covering the G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 18 - 
 
  time period from the beginning of 2017 to the end of 2021. However, it had no data regarding the 
alleged dumping, imports, alleged injury or alleg ed causal link for the year 2021. By initiating the 
investigation without the data for the year 2021, the Ministry violated Article 6.2 of the 
AD Agreement since it did not provide full opportunity to the parties to defend their interests. In the 
prelimina ry report, the Ministry stated that it chose a more recent period for the injury period. 
However, changing the injury period after the initiation would not justify the temporal gap between 
the initiation date and the evidence on which the initiation was ba sed. According to Türkiye, the 
investigation should not have been initiated by the Ministry at all with the data present in the petition 
since there were 14 months between the initiation date and the end of the injury period provided 
for in the petition. F urthermore, as Türkiye had stated in its written comments, it believed that the 
Ministry failed to demonstrate any causal link between imports from Türkiye and the alleged injury. 
Moreover, Türkiye believed that the Ministry failed to examine other factors  that may have caused 
injury to the domestic industry. Given the aforementioned, Türkiye expected this investigation to be 
terminated immediately.  
114.  With regard to Egypt's comments, Morocco  stated that the investigating authority based its 
conclusions on obj ective data and ensured that the investigation procedure was flexible and 
transparent, safeguarding the rights of all stakeholders in the investigation. The authority took into 
account all information and data furnished by the Egyptian parties and adopted a clear and legitimate 
approach in its final determination using the data verified at an on -site verification visit. Morocco 
noted that following that visit the investigating authority found significant discrepancies between the 
data provided in the initia l responses and what was found during the on -site visit.  
115.  In response to Türkiye's statement, Morocco took the view that as concerns the POI and the 
injury period, the choice of the relevant time -period was in line with the legislation in force given 
that t his was the most recent period for which data was available. Domestic producers did not have 
more recent data available, also due to the significant injury suffered. With regard to the causal link, 
Morocco indicated that various factors were examined, incl uding imports, in order to ensure that 
injury was attributed to dumped imports and the authority was able to conclude that an increasing 
degree in injury was the result of an influx in dumped imports. The assessment revealed that no 
factors other than incr eased imports from Türkiye contributed to the injury. As a result, the authority 
was able to establish the causal link between imports from Türkiye and the injury suffered by 
domestic producers.  
116.  On the semi -annual report of South Africa , the European Union  mentioned the recent practice 
of the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) in the AD investigation on frozen potato 
chips from Belgium, Netherlands and Germany. ITAC had initiated this investigation on an ex officio  
basis without any explan ation concerning the special circumstances supporting its decision. 
Moreover, the evidence provided for the initiation decision was insufficient. In particular, the 
evidence of dumping was flawed since ITAC used actualized normal values from previous 
investigations, which did not even correspond to the current investigation period and which also 
raised serious concerns in terms of breach of confidentiality rules. At the preliminary stage, dumping 
margins for some exporters appeared to be inaccurate. It was of serious concern to the 
European  Union that for purposes of the preliminary determination ITAC rejected the information 
duly submitted by two cooperating exporters. Their duty rates needed to be revised taking into 
account the information that they had p rovided. ITAC's explanations justifying the rejection of the 
entire questionnaire responses were clearly deficient and contrary to paragraph  3 of Annex  II of the 
AD Agreement. ITAC could not simply reject the entire questionnaire reply and use best facts 
available for the preliminary determination when the exporters' information was verifiable and 
appropriately submitted.  
117.  As regards injury, the European Union opined that the domestic industry did not seem to 
suffer material injury caused by the allegedly du mped imports. The analysis of other factors was 
insufficient. Important elements, such as the impact of the pandemic, lock -downs, the significant 
increase in production costs, all of which had an impact on the domestic industry, had not been 
analysed. The European Union requested that the concerns and arguments submitted as part of the 
investigation, and as reiterated at the meeting, would be taken into account during the remainder 
of the investigation and that the WTO rules be respected.  
118.  South Africa  stated that it had taken note of the concerns raised by the European Union and 
that it would appreciate if any additional information with regard to these concerns could be 
submitted in order to enable a follow -up with the investigating authority.  G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 19 - 
 
  119.  On the semi -annual report of Ukraine , Ukraine  delivered a statement regarding the current 
situation in Ukraine and the effect of the war on Ukraine's ability to fulfil its rights and obligations 
within the WTO. Ukraine urged Members to take into account the current rea lity of the 
Russian  Federation's war against Ukraine, as the situation in the Ukrainian economy had changed 
dramatically and such change was of long -term character. The full -scale Russian  invasion of Ukraine 
had already resulted in heavy destruction of Ukr aine's infrastructure and economy. Vital production 
facilities of the Ukrainian industries were located in the occupied territories or remained under 
constant fire. The Russian invasion of Ukraine affected capacities, production, the cost of production 
and export potential. These circumstances deprived Ukrainian  industries and other interested parties 
of the full opportunity to defend their interests during AD investigations and of the benefits stemming 
from other provisions of the AD  Agreement. Ukraine, ho wever, reaffirmed its commitments to fulfil 
its rights and obligations under the AD Agreement.  
120.  Ukraine appreciated the decisions by Chinese Taipei, Canada, the European Union and the 
United Kingdom to suspend definitive AD measures and believed that these measures would be 
allowed to lapse. Ukraine expressed its gratitude to all Members that stood with Ukraine in these 
terrifying times in response to the Russian Federation's blatant violation of the fundamental 
principles of international peace and security  and its breach of international law. Ukraine also 
appreciated the support it had received from the global community and was deeply grateful to all 
Members that stood with Ukraine during these unprecedented times. Ukraine believed that they 
could isolate t he Russian Federation from the multilateral trading system.  
121.  The European Union  thanked Ukraine for complying with its notification obligations under the 
WTO rules during the unprecedented circumstances caused by the brutal, unprovoked and illegal 
invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation which the European Union continued to condemn in 
the strongest possible terms.  
122.  The European Union could only admire the efforts of the Ukrainian authorities in a situation 
where, amongst others, Kyiv, the Ukrainian Capital, was under constant fire from Russian missile 
attacks on non -military targets and where the Russian Federation illegally occupied part of Ukrainian 
territory. The European Union affirmed that it stood firmly by Ukraine and its people in t his 
unparalleled crisis and that it would provide further political, financial, humanitarian and military 
assistance for as long as needed, as the European Commission's President von der Leyen had 
declared recently.  
123.  The United Kingdom  thanked the Ukrainian  authorities for the semi -annual report and noted 
Ukraine's efforts to comply with its WTO obligations despite the invasion of its territory by the 
Russian Federation. The United Kingdom remarked that, as Ukraine had identified, there were severe 
effects o f this illegal invasion on Ukraine's ability to fully participate in the work of this Committee 
and the United Kingdom underscored the serious violations of international law and the 
United  Nations' Charter committed by the Russian Federation. It added tha t President Putin's illegal 
annexation of regions in Ukraine marked the new low in the Russian Federation's flouting of 
international law. Russian actions would have prolonged impact on the global economy and had 
global consequences jeopardizing prospects for peace.  
124.  The United Kingdom and the international community had made it clear to President Putin that 
his attack on the Ukrainian people needed to stop and that he must withdraw from Ukraine and 
restore regional and global stability. The United Kingdom v owed that it would continue to stand with 
Ukraine.  
125.  Canada  thanked Ukraine for the semi -annual report on AD measures and for the account on 
the circumstances affecting its participation in the multilateral trading system. Canada condemned 
the Russian Federa tion's most recent missile strikes against civilian infrastructure in cities across 
Ukraine in the strongest possible terms. The Russian Federation's unprovoked and unjustifiable 
invasion of Ukraine was not only a blatant violation of international law and  the rules -based 
international system, it was also a constant threat to Ukraine's participation at the  WTO. Canada 
pledged that it stood in unwavering support for Ukraine's right to defend itself against the 
Russian  Federation's war of aggression.  
126.  The United States  also thanked Ukraine for its semi -annual report and commended its 
compliance with the WTO agreements and its rules. The United States made clear that it continued G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 20 - 
 
  to condemn the Russian Federation's unwarranted and illegal war of aggression again st Ukraine. The 
actions of the Russian Federation contravened the principles and values of the WTO. Respect for 
WTO Members' sovereignty was crucial to maintaining open and predictable markets and facilitating 
international trade. The United States called upon all  Members of this organization to condemn the 
Russian Federation's war of aggression and its attempt to acquire territory by force.  
127.  Australia  stated that it would like to add its voice to the statements made by the 
European  Union, Canada, the United  Kingdom and the United States. Australia also expressed its 
appreciation for Ukraine's notification of its semi -annual report and its efforts to comply with WTO 
obligations and its commitment to that. It noted with concern Ukraine's inability under the 
AD Agreement to participate fully in responding to AD actions. Australia, too, condemned the 
Russian  Federation's unilateral, illegal, and immoral aggression against the people of Ukraine. The 
invasion was a gross violation of international law, including th e Charter of the United  Nations. 
Australia expressed its commitment to continue to stand with the people of Ukraine.  
128.  Japan  also appreciated Ukraine's efforts to comply with its notification obligations and wished 
to address the situation in Ukraine. The illegal annexation of areas that had been forcibly put under 
temporary control by the Russian Federation and its aggression against Ukraine was nothing but an 
attempt to acquire a territory by force which violated international law, including the Charter of the 
United Nations. Japan declared that such attempts were invalid and went diametrically against the 
principles of the ru le of law in the international community. Japan also condemned the 
Russian  Federation's missile attacks against civilian infrastructure in cities across Ukraine. Japan 
strongly urged the Russian Federation to stop the aggression, withdraw immediately its f orces from 
the territory of Ukraine and respect Ukraine's internationally recognized borders. Japan would 
continue to press for strong sanctions against the Russian  Federation and to support Ukraine in 
cooperation with the international community.  
129.  The Republic of Korea  thanked Ukraine for its semi -annual report and appreciated its efforts 
to comply with the WTO obligations. It strongly condemned the armed invasion of Ukraine by the 
Russian Federation as a violation of the principles of the Charter of the Un ited Nations. Korea 
underlined that Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected. Korea considered 
as illegitimate the occupation and annexation of four regions of Ukrainian territory.  
130.  The Russian Federation  was disappointed that this meeting was, once again, damaged by 
political interventions based on unreliable and hugely biased assessments of the 
Russian  Federation's special operation in Ukraine. In the Russian Federation's view, a very small 
group of Members preferred to shift the f ocus away from trade issues to political discussions in order 
push their political interests. Instead of doing so, they could have better responded to the questions 
and statements of the delegations, such as those of the Russian  Federation. The Russian Fed eration 
opined that these Members probably had nothing to say and nothing to respond in defence of their 
position; that was why they preferred to spend the time of Members speaking about issues which 
were well beyond the mandate of this Committee. The Russ ian Federation recalled that Rule 27 of 
the Rules of Procedure prescribed that delegates shall avoid repetition of statements on issues that 
had already been raised before. The positions on the situation in Ukraine had been voiced multiple 
times and they h ad not changed and were, in fact, unrelated to Ukraine's semi -annual report on 
AD actions.  
131.  The Russian Federation stated that the previous speakers denied the accession of four new 
regions to the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation reminded them tha t this decision was 
based on the results of the referenda that yielded unequivocal results in favour of an accession and 
that were carried out in accordance with the principle of self -determination of the people enshrined 
in Article 1 of the Charter of the  United Nations. The Russian Federation regretted that since then, 
the civil population and infrastructure in these regions had been under constant attack by 
Ukrainian  military forces. According to the Russian Federation, it was quite encouraging that the 
Ukrainian representative today acknowledged this by stating that the enterprises on those territories 
were under constant attack. Indeed, they were under attack from the West and from Ukraine and 
these attacks targeted civil populations and infrastructure in Russian -speaking regions. Repression 
based on national identity was the intrinsic feature of what the Russian  Federation referred to as the 
"Kyiv regime" and this was apparently supported, both technically and financially, by many of the 
states whose de legations had intervened earlier.  G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 21 - 
 
  132.  The Russian Federation reminded Members that these issues were outside the WTO's mandate 
and that all events and questions with respect to the operation in Ukraine had already been discussed 
extensively in the United Natio ns which was the appropriate forum for those matters. It referred 
interested delegations to the respective clarifications made by the Russian Federation in the 
United  Nations.  
133.  Ukraine  took the floor to state that it condemned the aggression by the Russian Federation 
against Ukraine and called upon all countries to refuse to engage with that country. This aggression 
called into question the WTO for as long as its troops remained in Ukraine. Ukraine would take all 
actions necessary to protect its essential se curity interests, restore the security and predictability in 
the multilateral trading system and preserve the careful balance of rights and obligations of 
WTO Members.  
134.  On the semi -annual report of the United Kingdom , China  recalled that it had expressed 
substantial concerns over the United Kingdom's application of some of the European Union's trade 
remedy measures. China believed that this practice was inconsistent with WTO rules and infringed 
on the legitimate interests of the relevant Members. The Europea n Union and the United Kingdom 
were independent Members of the WTO. It was clearly inconsistent with the WTO rules that the 
United Kingdom - an independent WTO Member - maintained and applied another Member's trade 
remedy measures after Brexit without any WTO-compliant investigations. The United Kingdom 
needed to strictly abide by the WTO rules and its rights and obligations incurred under the WTO and 
terminate the continued application of the European  Union's trade remedy measures. China noted 
that the Uni ted Kingdom had commented that these measures were established based on 
investigations covering the entire territory of the European Union, including the United Kingdom at 
that time. Thus, in the United Kingdom's view, the measures could be maintained post  Brexit. China, 
however, observed that these measures were established as a result of investigations covering the 
entire territory of the European Union and were based on the European Union's trade remedy 
legislation, using information and data from the Eu ropean Union's 28 Member States at that time. 
The bases of these measures differed fundamentally from those imposed by the United Kingdom 
after Brexit. As the United Kingdom was no longer a Member State of the European Union, it 
obviously lacked the requis ite legal and factual bases and it was inconsistent with the WTO rules to 
continue to apply these measures on the territory of the United Kingdom. It was the European Union, 
not the United Kingdom, that adopted these measures as an independent WTO Member. The 
United  Kingdom was only covered by these measures as long as it was a Member State. Therefore, 
the United Kingdom had no right to continue to apply these measures after Brexit, let alone to 
conduct transitional reviews as regards these measures. In add ition, China was deeply concerned 
regarding the method used and the manner in which the transitional reviews were conducted. China 
noted that the investigation period for some transitional reviews seriously exceeded the review 
period specified in Article 1 1.4 of the AD Agreement. For example, the investigation period for the 
transitional review on AD measures regarding wire rods extended for nearly 24 months and the 
investigation period for the AD measures regarding the glass fibre amounted to 21 months. 
Moreover, as of this date, the United Kingdom's investigating authority had made no final 
determination nor indicated any expected timeline for the determinations in those reviews. The 
schedule of the transitional reviews was not only inconsistent with the W TO rules but also created 
additional long -term uncertainty. It affected the business of exporters and importers and impaired 
their economic interests and legitimate rights. China urged the United  Kingdom to take actions to 
correct these issues and to bring  its measures and the investigations into conformity with the WTO 
rules.  
135.  The Russian Federation  referred to the continued application by the United Kingdom of its 
AD measures on imports of cold -rolled steel products of Russian origin following a transition  review. 
Like the European Union, the United Kingdom imposed import bans while the review was ongoing. 
However, the ban did not affect the United Kingdom's decision to recommend the extension of the 
measure by five years. No explanation was given as to the  effects on Russian  domestic and export 
markets and the sanctions' inability to prevent dumping. In what the Russian Federation 
characterised as another rhetorical question, it asked whether it should expect that the 
United  Kingdom withdraw its import ban soon. It then opined that it seemed that the answer would 
be the same as in case of the European Union. Therefore, the Russian  Federation called on the 
United  Kingdom, too, to respect the WTO rules and to terminate its measures immediately.  
136.  The United King dom stated that it did not intend to engage with the statement from the 
Russian Federation but that it had taken note of China's comments regarding the transition reviews. G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 22 - 
 
  The United Kingdom referred to its statements on this topic made during previous mee tings of this 
Committee since October 2020.  
137.  On the semi -annual report of the United States , Japan  raised two issues. First, it expressed 
concern over the June 2021 to May 2022 administrative review of the AD duty order on glycine from 
Japan. Japan had subm itted a written brief concerning the June 2020 to May 2021 administrative 
review in April this year, requesting that the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) 
appropriately calculate the price difference in the review based on a fair comparison in a ccordance 
with Article VI, paragraph 1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement and taking into 
consideration the approval and registration system related to pharmaceutical products and the fact 
that there were two different grades of glycine. Japan regretted that without considering these facts, 
an importer -specific assessment rate was preliminarily decided in July 2022. Japan reiterated its 
request that the United States' authority investigate and determine immediately in a manner that 
accords  with the AD Agreement, taking the Japanese views into consideration.  
138.  Second, Japan voiced concern over the prolonged application by the United States of 
AD measures on Japanese products. It noted that the United States currently had 19 measures in 
force a gainst Japanese products. The longest measures were applied for more than 43 years, and 
18 measures were in force for more than 5 years. Sunset reviews regarding imports of certain gray 
Portland cement and cement clinker as well as imports of certain steel  concrete reinforcing bar were 
initiated during the period covered by this semi -annual report.  
139.  Japan referred to Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement that stipulates that any AD measure shall 
be terminated on a date not later than five years from its impositio n unless the authorities determine 
the substantial necessity to continue the measure, namely that the termination of the AD duty would 
be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The United States must 
apply Article 11.3 of t he AD Agreement in a strict manner and perform appropriate reviews in 
accordance with the WTO Agreement. Japan explained that it did not consider that old measures 
were no longer valid solely on the ground that they were old. However, Japan would request t he 
United States to make determinations in sunset reviews, without simply assuming the likelihood of 
dumping or recurrence of injury, but after carefully examining that these circumstances existed. 
Japan requested appropriate examination of both the proced ural aspects and the content of the 
claims made by interested parties. It encouraged early termination of these AD measures which 
have been applied for a long period.  
140.  The Russian Federation  was deeply concerned about the AD investigation by the United Stat es 
with respect to imports of emulsion styrene -butadiene rubber of Russian origin. As part of this 
investigation, the USDOC decided to continue examining whether the Russian Federation remained 
a market -economy country for purposes of its AD laws. To recal l, in its previous review of the market -
economy status in October 2021, the USDOC found no grounds to justify a change in that status for 
the Russian Federation. After an unexpectedly short period, in May 2022, the USDOC started a fresh 
review, which was n ow conducted as part of the investigation at hand. In this regard, the 
Russian  Federation inquired as follows: First, in 2012, when it acceded to the WTO, the 
Working  Party found no need to include in its report any special provisions relating to AD procee dings 
with respect to Russian products. No special commitments in this respect were included in the report. 
Second, the WTO rulebook did not allow for any deviation from the strict comparison of the export 
price and the normal value obtained in the domesti c market. There were a limited number of 
exceptions, none of which applied in the circumstances of the Russian  Federation. Therefore, in case 
of Russian products there were no grounds in the WTO rules to apply the methodologies which were 
provided for in t he United States' legislation for investigations concerning non -market economies. 
The Russian Federation was also convinced that the USDOC had all necessary information on the 
record for an objective and unbiased analysis to establish that the Russian econ omy had not 
undergone any transformations that could justify any changes in its market -economy designation. 
The Russian Federation hoped that the United States would not make any decisions that may violate 
the WTO rules.  
141.  China  raised two concerns. The firs t concern related to anti -circumvention (AC) inquiries that 
the USDOC had frequently initiated in recent years. According to statistics, from 1997 to 
October  2020 the USDOC had initiated a total of 48 AC inquiries, which surpassed the number of all 
other W TO Members. China stated that if the USDOC made a positive determination, the products 
subject to an AC inquiry would be included in the AD and CV duty order. In other words, the products 
would be subject to high AD and CVD duties without any AD and CVD in vestigation. This had created G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 23 - 
 
  significant uncertainty among WTO Members. China stated that unlike the mature and normative 
system of multilateral rules in the areas of AD and CVD, AC inquiries fell into a grey area that 
garnered much less consensus. The AC  regulations of most Members were not as detailed as those 
for AD and CVD investigations. This led to excessive discretion for investigating authorities. The 
lawful rights and interests of interested parties were left unprotected. Against this backdrop, Ch ina 
requested the United States to clarify the following issues.  
142.  First, China inquired whether under the United States' AC law, the AC petitioner would need 
to meet the standing requirement that the AD/CVD petitioner would need to satisfy. The reason for 
asking this question was that the USDOC had initiated an AC inquiry on solar cells and modules from 
Viet Nam, Thailand, Malaysia and Cambodia based on a petition from one small domestic module 
producer, representing a miniscule portion of the domestic produ ction. The petition was opposed by 
the vast majority of domestic producers, including all solar developers and proponents of climate 
change policies. The petitioner did not appear to be sufficiently representative of the United States' 
domestic industry. C hina asked whether in order to protect the petitioner, it was worthwhile to 
seriously hamper the downstream industries that accounted for tremendous employment 
opportunities, to disrupt the normal trading order and hinder international joint efforts addres sing 
climate change.  
143.  Second, China inquired whether under United States' AC law the petitioner had to establish 
that the products subject to the AC inquiry materially injured or threatened material injury to the 
domestic industry. In the AC inquiry into al uminium foil, self -initiated by the USDOC, a large portion 
of aluminium foil under consideration was ultra -thin foil which was used in food and medical 
packaging. Such ultra -thin foil was not produced in the United States. China wondered how the 
USDOC coul d establish that the domestic industry would be materially injured by a product that they 
did not produce. China asked who would be protected by this AC inquiry in the absence of injury. It 
also asked about the significance of this AC inquiry apart from er ecting import restrictions.  
144.  Finally, China inquired whether the United States' AC law constituted an exception from the 
WTO requirements on AD/CVD given that AC inquiries had little to do with standing or inquiry 
requirements.  
145.  The second concern that China  raised related to sunset reviews. China recalled the repeated 
concerns expressed by Members at the regular meetings of this Committee in recent years. China 
reminded the United States once again to reflect seriously on the numerous AD measures maintained 
by the United States for an extended period of time. It noted that the United States had submitted 
its semi -annual report for the first half of 2022 on 17 October, just one week before this meeting. 
According to this report, the United States still maintai ned 17 AD measures against Chinese products 
that began in the last century. Among them, five measures on potassium permanganate, barium 
chloride, iron construction castings, petroleum wax candles and tapered roller bearings began in the 
1980s and have been  in place for 35 years or more.  
146.  China was not the only victim of what China called "sun never sets" AD measures imposed by 
the United States. The AD measure by the United States against prestressed concrete steel wire 
strand from Japan began in 1978 and ha s a history of 44 years. Several other United States' 
measures also began in the 1980s, such as those on carbon steel butt -weld pipe fittings from Brazil 
and Japan; iron construction castings from Canada; brass sheet and strip from France, Germany, 
Italy a nd Japan; certain welded carbon steel pipes from India, Thailand and Türkiye; and in -shell 
pistachios from Iran.  
147.  According to Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement, any definitive AD duty shall be terminated on 
a date not later than five years from its impositi on, unless the authorities determine that the expiry 
of the duty would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. For China, 
it was hard to believe that for decades the exporters would persist in exporting to the United States 
at prices lower than the normal values and that they may still be causing injury to the domestic 
industries decades later. China urged the United States once again to systematically adjust its 
unreasonable substantive and procedural rules on sunset reviews as soon as possible, and to carry 
out its sunset reviews in a manner consistent with, inter alia, Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement. 
China also took this opportunity to call on the Membership to actively consider further clarifying and 
improving the rules o n sunset reviews in future Rules  Negotiations, in order to reduce the excessive 
use of market -distorting trade remedy measures which hindered fair competition and impaired the 
interests of all parties.  G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 24 - 
 
  148.  The United States  stated that with regard to the Russi an Federation's intervention, for reasons 
that were self -evident, the United States would not be responding to any of the questions raised. 
On Japan's comments regarding glycine, there was very little the United States could say regarding 
the issues raised  by Japan given that this was an ongoing proceeding. The United  States encouraged 
parties to participate or to continue to participate in that process.  
149.  On the issue of prolonged measures that Japan had raised, the United States recalled that it 
had previously stated that it did not see any basis for Japan's chronic complaints. The expiry 
proceedings conducted by the United States were consistent with the obligations under the 
AD Agreement. The purpose of these proceedings was to allow administering a uthorities to examine 
whether dumping and injury would be likely to continue or recur if the measures were removed. As 
Japan was aware, and as the European Union stated in its response as well, the expiry process was 
evidence -based. Participation by Japane se companies in expiry proceedings was helpful, both in 
terms of the relevant information to be provided and the arguments to be made by interested parties. 
Furthermore, and as the European Union actually suggested in its response, data did matter. Many 
measures involving Japanese exports had in fact been terminated. Since the commencement of 
expiry reviews, there had been 73 measures reviewed involving Japan. Of those, 52 – or 71% – had 
resulted in the termination of the measure. For six of the oldest 10 m easures that remained in effect, 
the Japanese industry had failed to meaningfully participate in the sunset review proceeding. Lack 
of respondents' participation (and the consequent lack of evidence provided by respondents) limited 
the information provided  to the investigating authorities. In other words, Japanese producers 
themselves may have been partly responsible for the result. In many of the expiry processes that 
involved imports from both Japan and other Members, respondents of other Members meaningf ully 
participated in the review when Japanese respondents did not and the former made relevant 
arguments as to why the measures should be terminated for their specific country, and the measure 
was then terminated. In light of this, the United States sugges ted that Japan enquire within its own 
industries as to why there was a lack of interest in participating in the process, particularly given 
the fact that participation was a vital element for the termination of measures applied with respect 
to goods from o ther Members, as well as goods from Japan.  
150.  With regard to China's questions, the United States did not consider that there was much to 
add in terms of sunset reviews. It was very similar to the points Japan made, and participation was 
a key element in the process and the United States encouraged Chinese respondents to act 
accordingly. For the anti -circumvention points that were made, the United States was surprised that 
China believed that 48 inquiries over a 23 -year period was a lot, given the pervasivenes s of 
circumvention that companies engaged in around the world, a fact that was known through Members' 
discussions in the Informal Group on Anti -circumvention. The 48 inquiries were actually a symptom 
of a much larger problem on both circumvention and duty evasion that all Members should be 
concerned about and that they were working to address in their specific forum. In terms of whether 
the petitioner needed to meet a standing requirement to make an anti -circumvention allegation, the 
United States explained  that this was not the case; any interested party could make an allegation 
of circumvention, including other respondents, and this had happened in previous cases where 
respondents themselves had alleged that other respondents were engaging in circumvention . As to 
whether the injury standard needed to be met in anti -circumvention inquiries, the United States 
explained that in each case there was an AD duty order in place with a dumping and injury finding. 
The AC inquiry concerned the question of whether that  specific order was being circumvented. In 
that sense, no separate injury finding needed to be made because that determination had already 
been made for that order. The AC  inquiry focused on whether the product was circumventing the 
existing order which wa s unrelated to the injury finding.  
151.  China  was disappointed that the United States still refused to reflect on and improve its sunset 
review mechanism despite the concerns repeatedly expressed by China and other Members and that 
it unfairly shifted the respo nsibility on the exporting companies that were trapped in the 
United  States' AD measures for a long time. China explained why the companies from China, Japan 
and other Members were so reluctant to participate in United States' sunset reviews and offered th e 
following facts for consideration. According to its recent semi -annual report, the United States 
conducted 107 sunset reviews in the first half of 2022, while only four AD measures were terminated 
during the same period. In other words, there was only a 3.7% chance of a "sunset" to occur. 
Looking back, the United States' past record was even worse. In the previous three semi -annual 
reports, the United States reported 233 sunset reviews, but only three  measures were terminated, 
and the average chance for a  "sunset" was only 1.3%. Considering that the United States currently 
maintained nearly 500 AD measures, and no more than five were terminated each year, even if the G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 25 - 
 
  USDOC did not initiate any new investigations, it would take at least one century for the remaining 
measures to lapse.  
152.  To China, it was concerning that the United States' AD review legislation and practice created 
a vicious circle. Under the overly strict "sunset" standard, only very few cases could successfully 
lapse; and the extremely low "su nset" rate would, in turn, disincentivize foreign producers and 
exporters from participating, further reducing the probability of termination. Such a dynamic would 
increasingly hamper the effectiveness of reviews of existing measures by the United  States' 
investigating authority and retain too many unnecessary AD measures for a prolonged time. 
Consequently, the United States' domestic industries would be excessively protected at the cost of 
unfairly infringing upon the interests of United States' importers,  consumers and foreign exporters.  
153.  China fully understood the complexity of the issues related to sunset reviews. It expressed its 
willingness to invite the United States and all Members to reflect on the sunset review system and 
its rules together with an open mind in order to improve the sunset review practices, clarify relevant 
multilateral rules in future Rules Negotiations, ensure a free and fair international trading order and 
safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of all parties. China added th at it did not intend to 
criticize unduly the United States' sunset reviews legislation or practice. It merely sought to raise 
this as an example to illustrate the need for joint efforts by all Members to improve the multilateral 
AD rules. China hoped that Members would take action as soon as possible, attempting to make one 
small step forward in the Rules Negotiations, which may be a giant leap for this Organization and 
the multilateral trading system.  
154.  The United States  responded by stating that there was n ot much more to say in addition to 
what it had already said. According to the United States, China seemed confused with the 
evidence -based process that the United States has and the importance of providing evidence on the 
record that could be taken into co nsideration.  
155.  On the semi -annual report of Viet Nam , Malaysia  provided comments on 
two AD investigations initiated by Viet Nam. The first investigation concerned some types of table 
and chair products and was initiated on 1 September 2021. Malaysia reiterat ed its views submitted 
to the authority of Viet Nam during the investigation based on the notice received from the Ministry 
of Industry and Trade on 30  September 2022 regarding the decision to impose provisional AD duties 
in this investigation. Malaysia co mmented that there were no detailed findings as to whether there 
was a causal link between imports of the subject merchandise from the investigated countries and 
material injury suffered by the domestic industry in Viet Nam. Malaysia also noted the absence  of 
any detailed assessment on material injury suffered by the domestic industry in Viet Nam based on 
an examination of factors, such as volume effects, profitability, and other economic and financial 
factors. Malaysia requested the authority of Viet  Nam t o clarify its notice of 30 September 2022 on 
the imposition of provisional AD duties. Malaysia observed that there was no absolute or sudden 
increase in imports of the subject merchandise originating in Malaysia. Moreover, the imports did 
not contribute to  the material injury of the domestic industry in Viet Nam. Malaysia believed that 
demand and supply were based on the quality, design and varieties offered by the Malaysian 
furniture manufacturers and that their products differed from those produced by the  producers in 
Viet Nam. The petitioner was incorrect in alleging that the sudden increase in imports was also 
sourced from Malaysia. Also, Malaysia noted that the production capacity of the domestic industry 
in Viet Nam was always low and could not meet lo cal consumption, thus prompting demand for 
products from other markets, including Malaysia. Further, Malaysia reiterated that the claims made 
by the petitioner on price effects, namely on price undercutting, price depression and price 
suppression, were uns upported by evidence. In light of these statements and the submissions made 
by Malaysia and its exporters, Malaysia urged Viet Nam to terminate the AD investigation against 
producers or exporters of tables and chairs from Malaysia. In addition, Malaysia re quested that the 
determinations be made available to interested parties in an English language document because 
otherwise Malaysia had difficulties understanding the findings and translation was time -consuming.  
156.  Second, Malaysia referred to the AD investiga tion on some types of welding materials 
originating in Malaysia, China and Thailand, initiated on 18 March 2021. Malaysia noted that on 
15 August 2022, the remedies authority of Viet Nam published the final determination on 
AD measures for welding material  effective from 20 August 2022 for a period of five years and 
imposing AD duties of 14.11% - 34.37% on imports of solid steel welding wire from Malaysian 
exporters. In this relation, Malaysia asserted that the disclosure of detailed information on dumping,  
material injury and causal link was not made available at the earliest possible stage. Malaysia G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 26 - 
 
  recalled that Article 6.4 of the AD Agreement required authorities to provide timely opportunity for 
all interested parties to see all information that is rele vant to the presentation of their cases. 
Article  6.9 mandated the disclosure of essential facts to all interested parties. Malaysia noted that 
Viet Nam only disclosed the dumping determination by way of a publication notifying the essential 
facts on 27  July 2022. Interested parties were required to submit their comments within 7 days by 
3 August  2022. Malaysia was concerned that the procedure adopted by the trade remedies authority 
of Viet Nam did not provide timely opportunities for interested parties to d efend their interests and 
included insufficient information to permit a reasonable understanding of the measures. The 
Malaysian exporters were prevented from making an appropriate analysis of the measure and a 
proper presentation of their case. Moreover, a s the document was published in the Vietnamese 
language, Malaysia needed a longer time -period to be able to provide comments. Subsequently, 
within less than two weeks, on 15 August 2022, Viet Nam published the final determination imposing 
AD measures on im ports of welding material. There was no disclosure of the details of the 
determination, for which reason Malaysia urged the authority of Viet Nam to expedite the disclosure 
notice of essential facts concerning the findings of the dumping determination, inc luding the 
elements related to the dumping calculation, material injury and causal link.  
157.  Indonesia  drew the attention of this Committee to the imposition of AC measures by Viet Nam 
on imports of cane sugar from Indonesia and certain other WTO Members. This  AC measure was 
preceded by the imposition of AD and CV duties on imports of cane sugar from Thailand on 
16 June 2021. Vietnam initiated an AC investigation on 21  September 2021 and notified the WTO 
accordingly in its semi -annual report for the period July -December 2021 (G/ADP/N/364/VNM) as 
well as January -June 2022 (G/ADP/N/370/VNM).  
158.  Indonesia had serious concerns regarding the imposition of AC measures. In the regulation 
imposing those measures (Decision No. 1514/QD -BCT), Viet Nam applied AC duties which were 
composed of an AD duty (42.99%) and CV duty (4.65%) on imports of cane sugar from Indonesia. 
Indonesia sought clarification from Viet Nam on how the imposition of AD duties as well as 
CVD duties was justified under relevant WTO Agreements. Indonesia r eferred to Article  1 of the 
AD Agreement that states that "[a]n antidumping measure shall be applied only under the 
circumstances provided for in Article VI of GATT 1994 and pursuant to investigations initiated and 
conducted in accordance with the provisio ns of this Agreement". Indonesia inquired about Viet Nam's 
justification for omitting an AD investigation and nonetheless imposing an AD duty of 42.99%. In 
addition, one of the mandatory requirements was evidence of injury to Viet Nam's domestic sugar 
industry. However, the facts established by the Vietnamese authority showed a significant increase 
in net profit, revenue, return on assets, price, and other economic indicators of the Vietnamese 
domestic sugar industry during the POI.  
159.  Based on the facts above , Indonesia took the view that Viet Nam's domestic sugar industry 
was extraordinarily healthy. Therefore, Indonesia requested clarification on two matters. First, it 
inquired about the basis for Viet Nam's determination of injury to the domestic industry i n light of 
the fact that economic indicators showed significant improvements during the POI. Second, it 
wondered about the consistency of the injury determination with Article 3 of the AD  Agreement. 
Indonesia thus requested Viet Nam to provide explanations  and justification for the measures taking 
into account the AD Agreement. Indonesia reserved its right to take all necessary actions to protect 
and safeguard its legitimate interests as provided under the WTO  rules.  
160.  Viet Nam  explained that on 1 August 2022, pursuant to the final determination in compliance 
with the law and regulations, the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Viet Nam issued Decision 
No. 1514/QD -BCT on the imposition of anti -circumvention measures on some cane s ugar products 
imported from five ASEAN countries, including Cambodia; Indonesia; Lao, People's Democratic 
Republic; Malaysia and Myanmar. First, the final determination established that the use of sugar 
materials originating in Thailand for the production and export of products under investigation into 
Viet Nam by companies from Cambodia; Indonesia; Lao, People's Democratic  Republic; Malaysia 
and Myanmar constituted acts of circumvention of the AD and CV  measures currently imposed on 
sugar cane products fro m Thailand. Second, there was injury to the domestic industry due to the 
effect of a rapid increase in imports from the five ASEAN countries. According to economic indicators, 
the effectiveness of the AD and CV measures on cane sugar products from Thailand  was undermined 
as a result of the sugar imports from the five countries at issue. Consequently, Viet Nam's authority 
imposed AC measures on some sugar  cane products imported from these countries. As to Malaysia's 
comments, given that they raise complicat ed issues, Viet Nam requested a written copy for its 
authority to revert with explanations.  G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 27 - 
 
  161.  With respect to semi -annual reports that the Committee had not previously reviewed due to 
late submission and circulation, neither comments were made, nor questions  were posed by any 
Member.  
162.  The Committee took note  of the semi -annual reports, the statements made, the questions 
posed, and the answers provided.  
4 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS: NOTIFICATIONS  
163.  The Chair  referred to the notifications of prelimi nary and final AD actions submitted by 
Members since the Committee's last meeting listed in documents G/ADP/N/369, 371, 372, 373, 
374/Rev.1 and 375. During this period Argentina; Armenia; Australia; Brazil; Canada; 
European  Union; India; Indonesia; Kazakhs tan; Republic of Korea; Kyrgyz Republic; Mexico; 
New Zealand; Pakistan; Russian Federation; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; Türkiye; United  Kingdom; 
United States; Uruguay and Viet Nam notified preliminary and/or final AD  actions, which were listed 
in these documents. Since document G/ADP/N/375 was circulated, Argentina; Australia; Brazil; the 
European Union; India; Kazakhstan; Mexico; Morocco; Pakistan; Russian Federation; South Africa; 
Türkiye; and Viet Nam have  submitted such a notification, which would ap pear in the next list of 
actions circulated by the Secretariat . 
164.  The Chair  drew attention to the continued apparent lack of full compliance with this notification 
requirement. These reports were a key element of the required transparency concerning Members'  
AD actions, and the Committee could not effectively carry out its monitoring and discussion functions 
if Members did not fulfil their obligations in this regard. The Chair strongly urged all Members taking 
AD actions to provide these notifications of prel iminary and final actions, regularly, consistently and 
in a timely fashion. The minimum information format for these notifications adopted by the 
Committee in October 2006 and revised in October 2009 (document G/ADP/2/Rev.2), contained 
important guidance a s to the kinds of actions that should be notified and the information that should 
be provided.  
165.  Brazil  referred to the notification made by South Africa  in document G/ADP/N/374/Rev.1 of 
its measures on Frozen bone in portions of fowls of the species gallus domesticus from, among 
others, Brazil. Brazil noted the provisional suspension of the AD duty. It believed that the 
investigation and the measure had technical flaws and that the duty should not have been applied 
in the first place. The suspension was, how ever, a second -best solution that Brazil welcomed. It 
hoped that this suspension, which was so far provisional, would be confirmed as definitive.  
166.  South Africa  did not take the floor.  
167.  The Chair noted that some Members were still submitting the same ad hoc n otifications 
pertaining to certain AD actions via different means, i.e. electronically, by fax and post. In certain 
instances, certain Members, while submitting new ad hoc notifications, also tended to resubmit 
previously notified actions and in some cases  provided electronic links that did not correspond to the 
notification the Member submits. In addition, some of these notifications were not submitted to the 
Centre of Registration and Notification (CRN) directly, but to the Rules Division Secretariat whic h 
had to resend it to CRN for registration. The Chair reminded all Members that a given ad hoc 
notification, as in case of all other notifications, should be sent electronically and only once to CRN 
with a copy to the Secretary of the Committee and that an y previously submitted notifications should 
not be resubmitted. The Chair also requested Members, instead of providing electronic links to 
general websites, to attach directly the relevant document containing the action they wish to notify 
in WORD or PDF f ormats. Members were also able to consult presentation audios and interactive 
presentations made by the Secretariat at the 2015 workshop on notifications, which have been made 
available on the AD webpage on the WTO  website. The Chair stressed the need to a void any 
confusion, repetition or duplication as these notifications were the source of necessary information 
contained in Annex D of the Committee's annual report.  
168.  The Committee took note  of the notifications and statements made.  G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 28 - 
 
  5 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON T HE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
169.  The Chair  stated that the meeting of the Informal Group on Anti -Circumvention was not held. 
As for the Committee spring meeting of 2023, the approach agreed in the spring of 2015 would be 
applied in deciding whether the Informal Group would meet.  
170.  No statements  were made by any Member.  
171.  The Committee took note  of the report made.  
6 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  
172.  The Chair recalled that the Working Group on Implementation held a hybrid meeting on 
27 April 2022 back -to-back with the April Committee meeting at which the Group discussed issues 
relating to (i)  the order and application of tests for determining the ordinary cour se of trade and 5% 
test; (ii)  the determination of the viability of domestic sales in dumping margin calculations; (iii)  the 
application of the "arm's length sales test" on domestic sales to related parties and the treatment of 
affiliated parties in dumpin g calculations; and (iv) duty assessment. Mr Wolfgang Mueller of the 
European Union served as discussant and circulated a roadmap of issues to officials before the 
meeting to assist delegations in their work. A good discussion took place at which represent atives 
of many investigating authorities shared their practices and asked questions to each other about 
their experiences.  
173.  The Chair reminded Members that the Working Group would hold a meeting on 
27-28 October  2022 to discuss issues relating to (i) defini ng the product under investigation and like 
products; (ii)  product comparisons in dumping margin calculations; and (iii) sunset review 
investigations. Mr  Burak Güreşci of Türkiye, serving as discussant, circulated an outline of issues for 
discussion in doc ument RD/ADP/WGI/17.  
174.  Finally, the Chair stated that the topics and discussant for the next meeting of the 
Working  Group had not yet been determined by Members and that he would be contacting Members 
in order to identify the next topics and a discussant to assist at the spring meeting of the 
Working  Group.  
175.  The Committee took note  of the report made.  
7 OTHER BUSINESS  
176.  The Chair  encouraged Members that had issues to raise with other Members under other 
business to give sufficient notice to the Members concerned p rior to the meeting in order to ascertain 
whether or not an answer could be obtained at the meeting.  
177.  The Chair indicated that he had two statements to make. First, the Chair referred to the 
election of the Committee's new Vice -Chair. The Chair recalled tha t the Committee had decided at 
its meeting in April 2022 that once he had taken office, he would conduct the necessary consultations 
with Members with respect to the election of the Committee's Vice -Chair. The Chair reported that 
he had started these infor mal consultations, but that for the time being he was not in a position to 
propose a name for the election of a new Vice -Chair.  
178.  Second, the Chair remarked on the ongoing consultations at the level of the General Council 
(GC) and the Council for Trade in Go ods (CTG) regarding WTO reform. The Chair noted that a number 
of delegations at the recent GC meeting had raised the issue of improving the operation of 
WTO Committees as an area for potential work. The Chair of the GC in his closing remarks also 
emphasize d that in parallel with the formal and informal conversations in the GC, each subsidiary 
body should be tasked to see what has been done and explore ways to improve their daily functioning 
and better deliver on their respective mandates. He also encouraged  the subsidiary bodies that had 
already started such discussions to continue to do so.  G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 29 - 
 
  179.  In the same vein, the Chair of the CTG had convened an informal session of that Council on 
14 October 2022 to report on his consultations concerning MC12 implementation issues, including 
the issue of improving the functioning of the different Committees under the auspices of the CTG. 
At the end of that meeting, the Chair of the CTG proposed two concrete and immediate suggestions, 
to which there were no objections, that co uld be used to prepare for future discussions. The Chair 
quoted them one by one:  
"The first suggestion would be to request the Chairpersons of the 14 CTG's subsidiary bodies 
to prepare a report, under their own responsibility and with the Secretariat's ass istance, 
describing the concrete actions their Committees have adopted over the past years to improve 
their work, as well as the proposals for improvements that have been submitted. This will 
provide an opportunity for each Chair to present an overview of the history of past negotiations 
or attempts to improve the daily work of their Committee. We can then request the Secretariat 
to compile this information for our consideration, and then have an informal meeting where 
we will also invite those 14 Chairpers ons of the subsidiary bodies.  
The second suggestion that was proposed by several delegations, and that was also subjacent 
in my report, was to organize an information session, including the use of Interprefy to allow 
for participation from Capitals, to lea rn more about the electronic tools that are currently being 
used by some Committees (for example, e Agenda, Trade Concerns Database, the 
Notifications Portal, and e -Ping). We will work on the format with the Secretariat. This would 
provide an opportunity t o explore whether we can get inspiration to expand the use of these 
tools to other Committees, if there are possible improvements that can be introduced to them, 
and also whether there are plans for improvements in the context of the modernization of the 
Secretariat that were launched by the Director General."  
180.  The Chair stated that on 20 October 2022, the Chair of the CTG had invited all 14 Chairs of 
the different CTG subsidiary bodies to a meeting at which he reported back on the outcome of the 
meeting hel d with Members on 14 October 2022 and to exchange views on the issue. At the meeting 
on 20 October 2022 and as confirmed by a communication to all 14 Chairs received from the Chair 
of the CTG, the Chairs of the CTG subsidiary bodies have been requested to prepare the two factual 
reports under their own responsibility. The Chair indicated that he would prepare these reports with 
the help of the Secretariat and under his own responsibility as the Chair of the Committee.  
181.  The Chair explained that the first repo rt concerned the WTO response to the pandemic and 
should describe the activities that the Committee has undertaken in the context of the pandemic 
over the past two years, if any. If no work had been done in the Committee, then this should be 
stated briefly . 
182.  The second report concerned the current functioning of the Committees, which was one of the 
issues that Members would like to discuss under the umbrella of the WTO reform. This report should 
describe the concrete actions that the Committee has adopted ov er the past years to improve its 
work, as well as the proposals for improvements that have been submitted, even if they were not 
successful. This would provide an opportunity for each Chairperson to present an overview of the 
reforms that have already been  introduced and where the Committee currently stands. This exercise 
should only focus on past actions and discussions. Since this was meant to be a stocktaking and 
information gathering exercise to allow for a fact -based discussion among Members, all Chair s were 
requested to refrain at this stage from including recommendations or an assessment of what needed 
to be improved – this would be for Members to take up, should they so choose. The Chair mentioned 
that once he had provided his factual report to the C TG, any Member that may have new ideas about 
the operation of this Committee would be welcome to raise them for consideration in this forum.  
183.  The United States , the European Union  and the United Kingdom  each requested that the draft 
reports be shared with M embers within the Committee before submitting the final versions of the 
reports to the CTG.  G/ADP/M/62  
 
- 30 - 
 
  184.  The Chair indicated that he would circulate the two draft reports before submission to the 
CTG, recalling that these documents remained reports prepared under his o wn responsibility as the 
Chair of the Committee.6 
185.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8 DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
186.  The Chair recalled that by decision of the Committee, its two regular meetings take place in 
the spring and the autumn of each year, in the last week of April and the last week of October, 
respectively. For the next spring meeting, the last week of April 2023 would  coincide with Eid El Fitr 
which followed the Holy Muslim month of Ramadan. The United Nations would observe Eid on 
24 April 2023, and the WTO Secretariat would not schedule any official meetings that day. To ensure 
a full five -day work week for the Rules Committees, the next regular meeting of the Committee, 
along with the meetings of the Informal Group on Anti -Circumvention and the Working Group on 
Implementation, would thus exceptionally be held in the week of 1 May 2023.  
9 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE T O THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(ARTICLE 18.6)  
187.  The Committee adopted  its 2022 Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods.7  
__________  
 
 
 
 
6 G/L/1447 – G/ADP/30 and G/L/1448 – G/ADP/31.  
7 G/L/1436 – G/ADP/29.