RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/59  
 
26 July 2021  
(21-5816) Page: 1/24 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices   
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 28 APRIL 2021  
CHAIR: MS. MAARIT KEITANEN (FINLAND)  
1. The Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
28 April 2021. 
2. As the meeting was held only virtually via Interprefy, with no delegations joining the meeting 
in person , the Chair reminded Members of the different technic al arrangements for participating 
remotely as included in the "Technical Guide", a link to which had also been included in the airgram 
convening the meeting . 
3. The Committee adopted  the following agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/ADP/ 31: 
 
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  Argentina (G/ADP/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.11 - G/SCM/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.10) ........................  2 
1.1.2  Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.12 - G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.15 - 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.6 and G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.13 - G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.16 - 
G/SG/N/1/BR A/3/Suppl.7)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2 
1.1.3  Canada (G/ADP/N/1/CAN/4/Suppl.4 - G/SCM/N/1/CAN/4/Suppl.3)  ..............................  2 
1.1.4  Georgia (G/ADP/N/1/GEO/2)  ................................ ................................ ...................  3 
1.1.5 India (G/ADP/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.9)  ................................ ................................ ...........  3 
1.1.6  Peru (G/ADP/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.2 and 
G/ADP/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.3 - G/SCM/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.3)  ................................ .........................  3 
1.1.7  Saint Kitts and Nevis (G/ADP/N/1/KNA/1 - G/SCM/N/1/KNA/1)  ................................ ... 4 
1.1.8  Turkey (G/ADP/N/1/TUR/3/Suppl.4 - G/SCM/N/1/TUR/3/Suppl.4)  ................................  4 
1.2 Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with  
outstanding written questions  ................................ ................................ ...............................  4 
1.2.1  Bolivia, Plurinational State of (G/ADP/N/1/BOL/3 - G/SCM/N/1/BOL/3 -  
G/SG/N/1/BOL/2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  4 
1.2.2  Cameroon  (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 - G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4 
1.2.3  United Kingdom  (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1, 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.2 – and G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4 - 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/S uppl.4)  ................................ ..........................  5 
2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE  
NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  ................................ ........  5 G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.1 Costa Rica (G/ADP/N/1/CRI/3/Suppl.1 - G/SCM/N/1/CRI/4/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/1/CRI/4/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5 
2.2 Ghana (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  ................................  6 
2.3 Kenya (G/ADP/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SCM/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SG/N/1/KEN/2)  ................................ .. 6 
2.4 Liberia (G/ADP/N/1/LBR/1)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  6 
3 SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/335 AND G/ADP/N/342)  ................................ ................................ ...............  7 
4 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS: NOTIFICATIONS  ................  20 
5 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 21 
6 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  22 
7 EUROPEAN UNION – REGULATION (EU) 2017/2321 AND REGULATION (EU) 
2018/825 – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ...... 22 
8 OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 23 
9 DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................ . 23 
10 ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ ........................  23 
 
 
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  Argentina  (G/ADP/N/1/ARG/1/ Suppl. 11 - G/SCM/N/1/ARG/1/ Suppl. 10) 
4. No written or oral questions were posed regarding the notification of Argentina.  
1.1.2  Brazil ( G/ADP/N/1/BRA/ 3/Suppl. 12 - G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/ Suppl. 15 - 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/ Suppl. 6 and G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/ Suppl. 13 - 
G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/ Suppl. 16 - G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/ Suppl. 7) 
5. No written or oral questions were posed regarding the two legislative notifications of Brazil.  
6. With respect to  the legislative notification contained in document G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.12, 
Brazil  made a statement explaining that th is notification refers to a normative instruction issued in 
August 2020 which provides for the necessary adaptation of trade remedies  investigations to the 
COVID -19 pandemic , by specifically suspending  the execution of on -the-spot verification s.  
7. Concerning the legislative notification contained in document G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.13, 
Brazil explained that this notification refers to an Ordi nance issued in March 2020 which provides for 
the use of electronic means for notifications and communication s to interested parties in trade 
remedies  investigations in line with the COVID -19 pandemic .  
1.1.3  Canada ( G/ADP/N/1/CAN/4/Suppl.4 - G/SCM/N/1/CAN/4/Sup pl.3) 
8. No written or oral questions were posed regarding the notification of Canada.  
 
1 Relevant deadlines for written follow -up questions and written answers regarding the notifications of 
legislation reviewed in the April 2021  meeting can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/ 507 - 
G/SCM/W/ 582 - G/SG/W/ 252. G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.1.4  Georgia  (G/ADP/N/1/ GEO/2) 
9. Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ GEO/1 - G/SCM/Q1/GEO/1  – Submitted by the United States.  
10. Georgia  provided o ral answers to the written questions posed  by the United States.  
11. The United States  looked forward to receiving written responses to its written questions . 
12. Written answers to the United States' written que stions were subsequently provided and can 
now be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GEO/2 – G/SCM/Q1/GEO/2 – Replies to the United States  
1.1.5  India (G/ADP/N/1/ IND/2/Suppl.9 ) 
13. No written or oral questions were posed regarding th e notification of India.  
14. India stated that the amendment to its rules had been notified to the WTO on 4 January 2021. 
The notification pertained to the amendments to its Anti -Dumping ("AD") r ules, namely, "Customs 
Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti -dumping Duty o n Dumped Articles and for 
Determination of Injury) Amendment Rules, 1995" to change the anti -circumvention provision and 
make other miscellaneous changes. The amendment was made effective from 2 February 2020. The 
changes were made to strengthen the anti -circumvention measure by making them more 
comprehensive and wider in scope so as to address situations of circumvention. Certain other 
changes were made to clarify  the scope of this rule. The amendment proposes to enhance the rule 
to prevent circumvention of AD duties and to bring the law at par with the Antidumping Agreement  
("AD Agreement").  
1.1.6  Peru (G/ADP/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.2 and  
G/ADP/N/1/PER/2/S uppl.3 - G/SCM/N/1/PER/2/S uppl.3) 
15. Written questions regarding the two notification s were posed and can be found in document s: 
• G/ADP/Q1/ PERU /30 - G/SCM/Q1/ PER/30 - Submitted by the United States and were posed 
with respect to the notification contained in document G/ADP/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.2 - 
G/SCM/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.2.  
• G/ADP/Q1/ PER/31 - G/SCM/Q1/ PER/31 – Submitted by the United States and were posed 
with respect to the not ification contained in document G/ADP/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.3 - 
G/SCM/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.3.  
16. Peru provided oral answers  to the written questions posed  by the United States .  
17. In addition, Peru explained that with respect to the legislative notification contained in 
document G/ADP/N/1/Suppl.2, its law No. 31089 entitled "Law Combatting the Circumvention of 
Antidumping  and Countervailing Measures " is still in the process of implementation and  the 
regulation of the law is being developed .  
18. With respect to the legislative notification contained in document G/ADP/N/1/Suppl.3, Peru 
stated that the Supreme Decree No. 136 -2020-PCM was amended with the aim of strengthening the 
implementation of  its trade remedies regulations and optimizing the proceedings of investigati ng 
dumping and subsidization practices. It noted that the Supreme Decree No. 006 -2003-PCM 
established Regulations - pursuant to the AD Agreement, the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Counterv ailing Measures and the Agreement on Agriculture  - amended by the Supreme Decree 
No. 004-2009-PCM approving provisions with the aim of preventing and correcting distortions of 
competitions in the market caused by dumping and subsidies .  
19. The United States  looked forward to receiving written responses to its written questions . G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 4 - 
 
  20. Written answers to the United States' written questions were subsequently provided and can 
now be found in document s: 
• G/ADP/Q1/ PERU /32 - G/SCM/Q1/ PER/32 - Replies  to the United States  
• G/ADP/Q1/ PERU /33 - G/SCM/Q1/ PER/33 - Replies  to the United States  
1.1.7  Saint Kitts and Nevis ( G/ADP/N/1/ KNA/1 - G/SCM/N/1/ KNA/1) 
21. Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/KNA/1 – G/SCM/Q1/KNA/1 – Subm itted by the United States  
22. Saint Kitts and Nevis  was not present at the time . Oral answers were not provided at 
the meeting, nor had written answers been received to date .  
1.1.8  Turkey (G/ADP/N/1/TUR/3/Suppl.4 - G/SCM/N/1/TUR/3/Suppl.4)  
23. No written or oral quest ions were posed regarding th e notification of Turkey.  
24. The Committee took note  of the notifications, statements, questions, and answers.  
1.2 Review  of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with 
outstanding written questions  
1.2.1  Bolivia, Plurinational State of ( G/ADP/N/1/BOL/3 - G/SCM/N/1/BOL/3 - 
G/SG/N/1/BOL/2 ) 
25. Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ BOL/4 - G/SCM/Q1/ BOL/4 - G/SG/Q1/ BOL/1 – Submitted by the United States  
26. The Chair  noted that these questions have been pending since the Committee meeting of 
October 2020.  
27. Written answers to the United States' written questions were provided and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/BOL/5 – G/SCM/Q1/BOL/5 – G/SG/Q1/BOL/2 – Replies to the United States  
28. A written follow -up question was posed regarding this notification and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/BOL/6 – G/SCM/Q1/BOL/6 – G/SG/Q1/BOL/3  
 
29. Bolivia  stated that the question posed by the United  States ha s been transmitted to capital 
and that it would provide a reply as soon as possible.   
30. The United States  looked forward to receiving a written response to its written question.  
31. Written answer to the United States' written question was subsequently  provided and can now 
be found in document : 
• G/ADP/Q1/BOL/ 7 – G/SCM/Q1/BOL/ 7 – G/SG/Q1/BOL/ 4 – Replies to the United States  
1.2.2  Cameroon  (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1  - G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1  - 
G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 ) 
32. Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document:  G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 5 - 
 
  • G/ADP/Q1/CMR/3  - G/SCM/Q1/CMR/3  - G/SG/Q1/CMR/3 – Submitted by the United States  
33. The Chair  noted that these questions have been pending since the Committee meeting of 
October 2014.  
34. Cameroon  thanked the United Stat es for its interest in its notification. It stated that it is 
currently reviewing the written questions and that relevant authorities in capital are collecting the 
necessary information to respond to the written questions very soon. Cameroon indicated its 
availability for further bilateral exchange, if requested.  
35. The United States  looked forward to receiving written responses to its written questions.   
36. No written answers have been received to date . 
1.2.3  United Kingdom  (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1 , 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/ Suppl. 2 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/ Suppl. 2 – and 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/ Suppl. 4 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/ Suppl. 4 - 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/ Suppl. 4) 
37. Written questions regarding these three legislative notifications were posed and can be found 
in documents:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ GBR/1 - G/SCM/Q1/ GBR/1 – G/SG/Q1/GBR/1  - Submitted by the United States 
and were posed with respect to the notification contained in document G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1 - 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1 – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1  
• G/ADP/Q1/ GBR/2 - G/SCM/Q1/ GBR/2 – Submitted by the United States and were posed 
with respect to the notification contained in document G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.2 - 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.2.  
• G/ADP/Q1/GBR/ 3 - G/SCM/Q1/GBR/ 3 – G/SG/Q1/GBR/ 3 – Submitted by the United States 
and were posed with res pect to the notification contained in document 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl. 4 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl. 4 – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4 .  
38. The Chair  noted that these questions have been pending since the Committee meeting of 
October 2020.  
39. Written answers  to the United St ates' written questions were provided and can be found in 
documents:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ GBR/4 - G/SCM/Q1/ GBR/4 – G/SG/Q1/GBR/4  – Replies to the United States  
• G/ADP/Q1/ GBR/5 - G/SCM/Q1/ GBR/5 – Replies to the United States  
• G/ADP/Q1/ GBR/6 - G/SCM/Q1/ GBR/6 – G/SG/Q1/GBR/6  – Replies to the United States  
40. The Committee took note  of the notifications, statements, questions, and answers.  
2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION  – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  
2.1 Costa Rica  (G/ADP/N/1/ CRI/3/ Suppl. 1 - G/SCM/N/1/CRI/4/ Suppl. 1 - 
G/SG/N/1/CRI/4/ Suppl. 1) 
41. A written follow -up question was posed regarding this notification and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CRI/17 - G/SCM/Q1/CRI/17 - G/SG/Q1/CRI/11  – Submitted by the United States  G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 6 - 
 
  42. A written  answer to the United States' follow -up question was provided and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CRI/18 - G/SCM/Q1/CRI/18 - G/SG/Q1/CRI/12  – Replies to the United States  
2.2 Ghana (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  
43. Written follow -up questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GHA/3 - G/SCM/Q1/GHA/3 - G/SG/Q1/GHA/3 – Submitted by the United States  
44. Ghana2 thanked the United States for its interest in its legislation and its written follow -up 
questions. It stated that these questions have been sent to capital and written answers would be 
submitted as soon as possible.  
45. The United States  looked forward to rec eiving written responses to its written questions .  
46. No written answers have been received to date . 
2.3 Kenya (G/ADP/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SCM/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SG/N/1/KEN/2)  
47. Written follow -up questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/KEN/6 - G/SCM/Q1/KEN/6 - G/SG/Q1/KEN/5 and G/ADP/Q1/KEN/6/CORR.1 – 
G/SCM/Q1/KEN/6/CORR.1 – G/SG/Q1/KEN/5/CORR.1  – Submitted by the United States  
48. The Chair  noted that these questions have been pending since the Committee meeting of 
October 2020.  
49. With respect to the follow -up questions by the United States , Kenya  explained that it was still 
awaiting comprehensive responses from capital and that it would provide them to the United States 
and to the Secretariat in due course. It added that Kenya's Trad e Remedies Agency was still under 
formation and that this process had taken longer than anticipated, mainly due to challenges posed 
by the COVID -19 pandemic. Kenya indicated that Members would be notified as soon as the new 
agency is ready and operational.  
50. The United States  looked forward to receiving written responses to its written questions . 
51. No written answers have been received to date . 
2.4 Liberia (G/ADP/N/1/L BR/1)  
52. Written follow -up questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in 
docum ent: 
• G/ADP/Q1/LBR/3 - G/SCM/Q1/LBR/3 – Submitted by the United States  
53. The Chair  noted that these questions have been pending since the Committee meeting of 
October 2020.  
54. Liberia was not present at the time . Oral answers were not provided at the meeting, nor 
had written answers been received to date .  
55. The Chair informed Members that, pursuant to the Committee's agreed procedures, in order 
for a new legislative notification to be placed on the agenda of the October  2021 meeting of the 
 
2 Due to technical difficulties encountered by the delegation of Ghana to virtually join the meeting, this 
statement was read on Ghana's behalf by the Chairperson, upon the request of the delegation of Ghana.   G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Committee, the notification should be circulated in all three languages by 1 3 September  2021. 
Shortly a fter this date, the Secretariat will circulate a document informing Members of all legislative 
notifications to be reviewed at the next Committee meeting in October  2021. 
56. The Chair reminded Members that pursuant to paragraph 8 of document G/ADP/W/284/Rev.1 , 
all unanswered written questions pertaining to new legislative notifications reviewed at the meeting, 
as well as the subject notifications, shall automatically be retained on the agenda of the next 
Committee meeting and on the agendas of subsequent Commi ttee meetings until written answers 
are submitted.  
57. The Chair noted that the new legislative notification from Colombia , as well as any other 
received and circulated by the applicable deadlines3, would be on the agenda for review at the 
regular meeting of the Committee in October 2021.  
58. The Chair expressed concern that some Members had yet to submit a notification on 
legislation, particularly where all that would be required is a nil notification. The Chair encouraged 
Members that had not yet made a legislat ive notification to do so as promptly as possible.  
59. Concerning the revised  list of competent authorities contained in document 
G/ADP/N/14/Add.54, 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 i nformation, where necessary.  
60. The United States  appreciated  the fact that most Members have submitted a notification with 
their domestic A D legislation or a one -time notification that they do not have an AD legislation. 
However, some countries which have not provided a notification of their legislative  status have 
submitted T rade Policy Review reports indicating that they have AD laws in effe ct. 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 situations and make  the appropriate notification promptly. It added  that the 
notification of AD laws and any revisions to those laws are a key element in maintaining transparency 
in the administration of the AD remedy. It encouraged all Members to submit future notifications  
promptly following the implementation of the relevant legislation. In addition, it stated that timely 
and proper submission of notifications would impact the efficient functioning of the Committee and 
the WTO more broadly. The United States informed Membe rs that at the most recent Council on 
Trade in Goods meeting, the co -sponsors of JOB/CTG/14/REV.4 - ''Procedures to Enhance 
Transparency and Strengthen Notification Requirements Under WTO  Agreements'' expressed their 
intent to relaunch outreach to Members as work continues to refine the proposal and address 
outstanding Members' concerns. While notification reporting by some Members had improved, 
overall, these efforts have yielded limited and insufficient results. It noted that part of the inability 
to meet  notification commitments results from capacity constraints that can be supported through 
technical assistance, but there may also be procedural changes that can improve the operation and 
effectiveness of notification requirements. The United States welcom ed ideas and comments as it 
works to hone the proposal, balancing benefits with obligations, and seeks ways to reinforce the 
fundamental principle of transparency that is at the core of the WTO and is critical to helping restore 
its negotiating function.  
61. The Committee took note  of the notifications, statements, questions, and answers.  
3 SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) (G/ADP/N/335 
AND G/ADP/N/342)  
62. The Chair  recalled that a request and a reminder for submission of semi -annual reports  for 
the second half of  2020 had been circulated in documents G/ADP/N/350 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 .  
 
3 Relevant deadlines can be found in Section 1  of document G/ADP/W/ 507 - G/SCM/W/ 582 - 
G/SG/W/ 252. G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 8 - 
 
  63. The Chair noted that a number of Members had 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 51 Members that had already 
submitted a one -time notification.4 The Chair urged Members to comply with this important 
notification requirement.  
64. The Chair explained that while Members are free to raise at the Committee's meetings any 
questions that they wish regarding the actions reflected in the semi -annual reports, Member s may 
agree that raising issues that are subject to dispute settlement proceedings may be better pursued 
in depth in other WTO dedica ted fora.  
65. The Chair recalled that the Rules and the IT Divisions have been cleaning up and redesigning 
the existing trade remedies databases and are developing a facility to enable Members to submit 
their semi -annual reports on -line. The new interface cons ists of a series of fields to be completed 
with all the required information and is enabled with smart features. It has been programmed to try 
to catch the most common types of reporting errors, so that data problems will be minimized by the 
time the repor t is submitted. This interface has been designed to be as user -friendly and useful for 
Members as possible with the hope that all these efforts would lead to significant improvements in 
the quality and accessibility of trade remedies information.  
66. The Chai r recalled that, in October 2020, the Secretariat announced the soft launch of this 
new online portal for submission of antidumping semi -annual reports, provided a presentation of the 
prototype, and Members were provided with access to start testing the ne w platform. In addition, in 
December 2020, the Secretariat conducted several virtual sessions in the requested WTO languages 
for the benefit of all Members. The official launch of the portal took place as scheduled in 
January  2021 and it became fully funct ional and accessible to Members to input their data pertaining 
to the semi -annual report covering the second half of 2020 and to submit that semi -annual report 
through it . 
67. The Chair thank ed all delegates who ha d attended the training sessions, who tested t he new 
platform prior to its official launch, as well as those who ha d submitted their semi -annual reports 
via the platform. As this is a new system, Members submit ted their WORD paper version of the semi -
annual report covering the second half of 2020 via email to the Secretariat - as they have done for 
previous semi -annual reports - and were also encouraged to start doing so through the platform. 
This would familiarize Members with the platform and its fields and make it easier to use it to submit 
their ne xt semi -annual report covering the first half of 2021, without the need to submit a WORD 
copy of the document via email , if they so wished . 
68. The Chair announced that  up until the date of the meeting , 80 users have so far registered to 
access and use the pla tform, 18 draft semi -annual reports were worked on , 10 were submitted 
through the portal, and 29  Members have been using it.  
69. The Chair explained that t he Secretariat ha s been receiving very useful feedback from 
Members who have been using the new portal. Like any new system, without Members testing it 
and providing feedback, the Secretariat will never be able to fix any teething problems nor will it be 
able to detect any new bugs that may need fixing in coordination with its IT Division. To allow for a 
systemic feedback process, the Chair  invite d all Members that have submitted their semi -annual 
reports covering the period July -December 2020 in WORD format to enter the dat a included in those 
semi-annual reports in the respective fields of the platform. The Chair assured that the AD Portal 
Team w ould be at the Members' disposal to help figure out any issues they may face  while using the 
platform . Introducing this additional information into the system will provide a better picture of any 
problems that may need correction. To be included in this feedback process, Members  were 
encouraged to enter the data by 31 May 2021. On 4 June 2021, the Secretariat w ould be sending 
out a qu estionnaire to all registered users  to receive their feedback, better understand any issues 
or hurdles faced and pave the way for further improvements to be introduced to the portal. The 
questionnaire would  also include a query as to whether the Member usi ng the system needs an 
additional training session by the Secretariat, based on that Member's experience in using the 
system.   
 
4 All such notifications are contained in the G/ADP/N/193  series of documents.  G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 9 - 
 
  70. The Chair stated that with regards to the new revamped database , for the Secretariat to 
successfully clean up and migrate all the  data included in the old AD database and subsequently to 
make it accessible to all Members, the Chair conveyed the Secretariat 's plea for Members' 
cooperation. As the Secretariat is cleaning up and verifying such data manually for all Members as 
of 1995 a s well as sending out  to Members specific queries/requests for information that may run 
into hundreds of pages, the Secretariat would highly appreciate receiving responses from Members 
to these queries as soon as possible, especially as some of those queri es have been pending for a 
couple of years. With Members' indulgence, following this meeting, the Secretariat w ould be sending 
individual reminders to Members with pending responses. The whole AD Portal Team w ill also remain 
at the disposal of those Member s if they have any issues with providing the information or answering 
any of those questions, be that via an online meeting, phone or email, etc. As this is a labour -
intensive manual process, the Secretariat is still in the process of cleaning/verifying ad ditional data 
pertaining to other Members and wo uld be sending such queries/requests for information to them in 
due course. The Chair  urged Members – once they receive such queries from the Secretariat – to 
start working on the responses and to submit thos e by the date specified for that and which will be 
indicated in such requests. Those Members can also count on the AD Portal Team's assistance if they 
encounter any issues while answering such questions.  
71. Australia  commended the efforts made by the Secretar iat and the Chair in relation to the 
AD database portal and the training that has been provided.  
72. The European Union  thanked the WTO Secretariat for the creation of the AD notification portal. 
It stated that it would do better in the utilization of the port al. It added that a lthough no information 
has been provided on the portal by the European Union  yet, it would do so based on the latest 
semi-annual report it filed in WORD format covering the second half of 2020 . It also thanked the 
Secretariat for going t hrough the data with such forensic detail which has helped the European Union 
getting its own record very much in line and correct.  
73. Indonesia  expressed its appreciation for the introduction of the new AD Portal.  
74. The Committee reviewed the semi-annual reports for the second half of 20 20. No Member 
raised questions or made comments concerning the reports of Argentina; the member States of the 
Eurasian Economic Union (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation) ; the 
member  States of the Gulf Cooperation Council "GCC" (Bahrain, Kingdom of; Kuwait, the State of; 
Oman; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; Qatar and United Arab Emirates) ; Brazil;  Chile; Colombia; 
Costa  Rica; Egypt;  El Salvador;  Israel; Japan;  Madagascar; Malaysia; Morocco ; New Zealand; Peru; 
Chinese Taipei;  Trinidad and Tobago; Turkey; and Viet Nam .  
75. On the semi -annual report of Australia , the Russia n Federation  request ed the delegation of 
Australia to provide an update on the current status of the expiry review of the AD measures on 
imports of ammonium nitrate originating in the Russia n Federation . On 5 March 2021 , the Australian 
Anti-Dumping Commission had issued a statement of essential facts regarding the expiry review of 
the measures. The statement included a proposal to recommend to the Minister of Industry, Science 
and Technology that the measure s expire on 24 May 2021. According to the statement, the final 
report was due on 19 April 2021. The Russian Federation welcome d the recommendation not to 
extend the measures and request ed the delegation of Australia to clarify whether the 
recommendation ha d been made on 19 April 2021, and whether the expiry of the measures would 
take place  on 24 May 2021 .  
76. China  raised two concern s about Australia's AD investigation practice. First, China referred to 
the repetitive initiation of investigations on similar products. China stated that Australia had initiated 
27 AD and CVD investigations against six Members in 2020 and that it was one of the most frequent 
users of trade remedies in the world. China noted that among the products investigated by Australia, 
many are similar to products that are already subject to measures in force. For instance, Australia 
had investigated and imposed measu res on Chinese aluminium zinc coated steel with a width equal 
to or greater than 600 millimetres several years ago. However, in June 2020, Australia initiated a 
new investigation on aluminium zinc coated steel of a width less than 600 millimetres. Meanwhil e, 
Australia also initiated new investigations against aluminium zinc coated steel exported from the 
Republic of Korea, Chinese Taipei, and Viet Nam with a width of more than 600 millimetres. China 
noted that such repetitive initiations are not commonly se en in the practice of other Members.  G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 10 - 
 
  77. China requested Australia to clarify how it ensured that such activities did not give rise to 
excessive protection of its domestic industries. China mentioned that while Australia's AD and CVD 
measures on exported alum inium extrusions from China are still in force, Australia has launched a 
new AD investigation on part of that product, i.e. Aluminium micro -extrusions. In the previous 
investigation, China had obtained a zero -duty rate, yet the repeated initiation of inves tigations 
undermined the favourable result obtained previously by the Chinese respondent.  
78. The second concern that China expressed related to the issue of cost adjustments in 
AD investigations. In September 2020, Australia had made a final AD and CVD deter mination on 
imports of hot dip galvanised steel angles from China, finding a de minimis  margin of dumping. 
China welcomed Australia's decision not to impose measures. However, China noted that in the 
course of the investigation, the Anti -Dumping Commission  of Australia had refused to accept the 
cost data provided by the investigated respondent, and had used the price data of raw material from 
the Republic of Korea and Chinese Taipei, instead. In addition, in other cases initiated in 2020, the 
Australian aut hority had also rejected cost data from Chinese steel and aluminium producers, 
although that data was in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and reasonably 
reflected the production cost of the product under investigation. China queried  the compatibility with 
the findings by WTO panels and the Appellant Body on these matters, including EU — Biodiesel , 
Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper , and EU — Cost Adjustment Methodologies II 
(Russia) .  
79. Australia  thanked the Russian Fed eration and China for their interventions but also noted that 
it is usual practice in this Committee for Members to give the Member concerned advance notice if 
they intend to raise questions or concerns regarding an investigation during the meeting.  
80. In rel ation to the concerns raised by the Russian Federation, Australia stated that it had 
initiated a sunset review on 20 August in relation to imports of ammonium nitrate originating in the 
Russia n Federation. Australia noted that the statement of essential fa cts was published on the 
website of Australia's Anti -Dumping Commission on 5 March 2021; that the Commission's final 
recommendation was provided to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology for decision on 
19 April 2021; and that the Russian Federat ion had been an active participant in the investigation 
and had made several submissions. These submissions were considered in preparing the statement 
of essential facts and the Commissioner's recommendation to the Minister of Industry, Science and 
Technol ogy. The Minister's decision would be due 30 days after receiving the report and the deadline 
may be extended in some circumstances. Australia stated that the decision would be published on 
the Commission's website when it becomes available. The inquiry wa s conducted consistently with 
Australia's obligations under the WTO rules. Australia thanked the Russian Federation for its 
participation and the question raised at the Committee meeting. It indicated its availability for further 
bilateral consultations.  
81. In response to China's systemic concern, Australia explained that investigations are initiated 
by application of the domestic industries and not at the initiative of the Government; they are thus 
not retaliatory in nature. Comparing the more limited range of tariff lines Australia exported to China 
with the larger range of goods imported from China into Australia, together with Australia’s low 
applied and bound tariffs, the incidence of AD cases was not unusual and reflected Australia’s open 
trade regime. O n the matter of cost adjustments, Australia referred China to the findings in the 
Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper  dispute.  
82. In relation to China's questions, Australia noted that it could only provide some information 
on the investigation s referred to by China, given the short notice it had received on this matter. It 
explained that the AD investigation on imports of hot dip galvanised steel angle s from China was 
initiated on 24 June 2019 in response to a properly documented application fr om the domestic 
industry. All interested parties, including the Government of China and Chinese exporters, were able 
to make submissions. All submissions were carefully considered by the Commissioner in conducting 
the investigation. The statement of essent ial facts was published on the Commission's website on 
18 June 2020. Australia indicated that the Commissioner had terminated the investigation because 
dumping was not found above the de minimis  level. The investigation was terminated by the 
Commissioner o n 18 September  2020 and a notice was published on the Commission's website. A 
separate AD investigation concerning imports of solid based angles from China was initiated on 26 
February 2019 in response to a properly documented application from the domestic  industry. 
However, the applicant withdrew its application and the investigation was subsequently terminated. 
A notice about the withdrawal was published. Australia does not currently have any investigation or G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 11 - 
 
  measures on any of these products. Australia a ssured the Committee that its AD and CVD regime 
operates in accordance with its international commitments under the WTO Agreements. Australia 
encouraged further questions, if any, to be submitted in writing and indicated its availability for 
bilateral disc ussions.  
83. The Russia n Federation  thanked the delegation of Australia and sought clarification on whether 
the Minister's decision would be made on 19 May 2021, when the 30 -day deadline would lapse. It 
expressed its availability for bilateral discussions.  
84. Australia  confirmed that the Mini ster's decision was due on 19 May 2021, however, that 
deadline may be extended if the Minister decided that more time was needed to examine the report.  
85. On the semi -annual report of Canada , the Russian Federation  expressed its deep  concern s 
about the AD investigation of Canada with respect to imports of certain concrete reinforcing bar of 
Russian origin. The Russian Federation believe d that the Canadian authorities had no grounds to 
initiate the investigation and to impose provisional measur es because the volume of imports of the 
product concerned from the Russia n Federation  was negligible in 2020. According to Canadian 
statistics, imports had taken  place only in June and November, while there w ere none during the 
rest of the year.  The p eriod of this investigation cover ed exactly six months from June to November. 
The Russian Federation believed that t he only explanation for selecting  such a short period was the 
desire to portray the volume of imports as more than  negligible, which ha d nothing to do with 
objective assessment. The Russian Federation also noted that  the product concerned in this 
investigation f ell under four HS codes. Products that were imported by Canada during the 
investigation period f ell under two HS codes ; there were zero imp orts under the other two codes.  
The Russian Federation failed to see how such small volume of imports could trigger  the initiation  of 
an investigation. In the Russian Federation's view, the investigation should have been terminated  in 
accordance with Artic le 5.8 of the AD Agreement.  
86. The Russian Federation added that the  Canadian authorities  did not have sufficient evidence 
that Russian imports were causing injury. In its view, it was  difficult  to imagine that supplies of 
Russian products, accounting for only 2 .6% of total imports of the subject product to Canada, coul d 
cause injury, especially during such a short period.  Likewise,  at the pre-initiation stage , the Canadian 
authority lacked  sufficient evidence of dumping  and relied on the normal value which was 
constructed based on the steel billet price that was not specific  to the Russia n Federation . In other 
words, the constructed normal value was not based on the cost of production in the coun try of origin, 
as it is required by Article 2.2 of the AD Agreement. In March 2021 , the Canadian authorities imposed 
provisional measures.  The Russian Federation failed to see the grounds for those measures . 
Article  7.1 of the AD Agreement allows  the impos ition of  provisional measures only if they are judged 
to be necessary to prevent injury being caused during the investigation. However, Canadian 
authorities have failed to establish that injury is caused while the investigation is ongoing.  The 
Russian  Federation called on Canada to reconsider the findings bearing in mind its WTO obligations 
and urge d it to terminate the investigation and to revoke the provisional measures immediately.  
87. Canada  stated  that all Canadian AD investigations and any action taken p ursuant to those 
investigations are fully consistent with Canada 's obligations under the A D Agreement and the 
GATT  1994. With respect to ongoing AD investigations or judicial reviews at the Federal Court of 
Appeal, Canada decline d to comment further pendin g the outcome of the proceedings. Canada 
thank ed the Russia n Federation  for its question. It consider ed the Committee 's Q&A exercise to be 
important in promoting transparency.  Canada  requested the Russia n Federation  to provide  its 
question s in writing so  it can provide a written response as soon as possible.  
88. On the semi -annual report of China , Australia  raised concerns over  China 's AD investigation 
into imports of wine from Australia.  Australia  thank ed the Chinese delegation for the opportun ity to 
hold further constructive bilateral discussio n in the week of 19 April 2021 . It explained that China 
initiated the investigation on 18  August 2020 and issued a preliminary affirmative determination on 
27 November  2020 with provisional measures set i n the range of 107 % to 212%. China issued its 
final determination on 26 March 2021 and imposed final measures in the range of 116.2 % to 
218.4 %. These duties have effectively ceased Australian exports to the Chinese market.   
89. Australia  indicated that it was still examin ing the final determination  but highlight ed some 
specific areas of concern . Australia respect ed China 's right to investigate alleged dumping consistent G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 12 - 
 
  with WTO rules but  did not believe that this investigation was justified or properly initiat ed. In 
particular, t here was a lack of proper identification of the domestic industry  and the legal standing 
of the applicant . It also added that  the product under investigation was not properly identified.  This 
had flow -on implications for identifying domestic production and consumption as part of the injury 
analysis.   
90. Australia also raised  concern s that its ability to respond to the disclosure report was 
significantly constrained by China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM)  not having provided Australia 
with complete disclosure of all the essential facts under consideration. Rather,  it received in 
piecemeal fashion distributed extracts from what Australia surmised at the time must have been a 
fuller disclosure report. In Australia's view, this  undermined  its procedural fairness entitlements.  
China used recourse to facts available which was both unwarranted and disregarded in part or in 
total the information supplied. The Australian Government and the three sampled Australian 
exporters fully coope rated in this investigation and provided comprehensive information and replies 
as part of this investigation. Australian exporters completed their respective replies to 
questionnaires, including supplemental questionnaires issued on 1 February 2021.  The Au stralian 
Government also completed the questionnaire in so far as it related to the allegation that there were 
non-market economic conditions in Australia.  In this regard,  Australia  noted that the final 
determination upheld the preliminary finding that MOFCOM "would not determine the particular 
market situation of the Australian wine industry ". Australia failed to understand this section of the 
final determination as it did not explain the relevance of the assessment, nor how it was used (or 
not used) to es tablish the margin of dumping for the sampled Australian exporters.   
91. Australia was also concerned over the apparent misapplication of sampling , specifically as far 
as purpose, rationale and application are concerned . Australia explained that China apparent ly drew 
adverse inferences that registered but non -sampled companies were non -cooperative and used facts 
available on the basis that not all the non -sampled companies submitted questionnaire replies.  In 
addition, one Australian exporter sought to be one of  the sampled companies , but i n its final 
determination , MOFCOM  stated that  it had limited its selection to three companies for practicality 
purposes  and discouraged the company from providing voluntary replies.  Australia  continue d to 
remain open to further  discussions with China on this case to find a mutually beneficial solution.  
92. Japan  express ed its concern with respect to  the final determination made  by China  in 
July 2019 and the continued imposition of the AD duties regarding Japan's stainless billets, hot -
rolled plates, and coils.  Throughout the investigation, Japan had continued to express its serious 
concern that the definition of the product under consideration was too broad and include d semi-final 
and final products . It also had expressed c oncern  that the finding of injury to the domestic industry 
and causal link between the imports and injury had been made inappropriately because the use rs 
and consumers of these products were considerably different. In this light, Japan had requested the 
Chinese investigating authority to make finding s and a determination that are consistent with the 
AD Agreement. However, Japan regretted  that the Chinese investigating authority had made the 
final determination without considering any of Japan 's concerns.   
93. Japan also referred to  the cumulative assessment conducted by China's investigating authority 
of the effects of Japanese products together with the imports from other countries, including 
Indonesia, in the injury assessment although it was not appropriate i n view of the competitive 
relationship.  Given its doubts as regards the measure's consistency with the AD Agreement, Japan  
had repeatedly expressed serious concerns to China, including through bilateral exchanges. 
Nevertheless, China had maintained the AD measure thus far. Japan request ed China to take into 
consideration Japan 's serious concerns and review the determination in accordance with the 
AD Agreement.   
94. With regard to Japanese exports of o ptical fibre preform , Japan express ed its concern on the 
final determination made in August 2015 and the continued imposition of the AD duties. Article 11.3 
of the AD Agreement stipulates that any AD measure shall be terminated in five years unless the 
authorities determine the substantial necessity to continue the measure, namely that the elimination 
of the AD duty would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Japan 
opined that China must apply Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement in a strict manner and perform 
appropriate reviews in a ccordance with th is Agreement. Japan  request ed the early termination of 
the AD measures so that it would not be improperly maintained for a long period  of time . G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 13 - 
 
  95. In response to Australia , China  explained that it had initiated the AD investigation on imported 
wine from Australia on 18 August 2020 at the request of its domestic industry. China had issued its 
final determination on 26 March 2021. Based on evidence and information obtained during th e 
investigation, the Chinese authority had reached the conclusion that Australian producers export 
wine to the Chinese market at dumped prices causing material injury to the Chinese industry. It 
had, therefore, decided to impose an AD duty in the range of 116.2% to 218.4%. To avoid double 
remedies, China had decided not to impose countervailing duties in a parallel CVD investigation. 
China stated that the Chinese authority had provided opportunities for all interested parties to 
present their comments durin g the investigations and that the investigation procedure was fully in 
line with Chinese and WTO rules.  
96. Regarding the technical issue raised by Australia concerning MOFCOM's disclosure, China 
stated that its investigating authority had, before making its final decision, disclosed the essential 
facts to Australia and other relevant parties on 12 March 2021. China claimed that its investigating 
authority had given all parties reasonable time to comment and that it had taken into consideration 
their comments.   
97. Regarding the issue of duty rate calculation of non -sampled companies, China explained the 
method used for that purpose. China stated that exporters and producers who registered for the 
investigation and answered the sampling questionnaire were regarded as cooperative and the 
dumping margin was determined using the weighted average of the selected companies' margins. 
Exporters and producers who did not register or answer the sampling questions were referred to as 
uncooperative and their duty was determine d using best information available according to the 
Chinese law. During the sampling in this case, one Australian exporter sought to be included in the 
sampling but due to limited resources, only three exporters were selected. Although, this company 
could have volunteered to respond to the authority, the company did not do so.  
98. Concerning MOFCOM's finding of a particular market situation in Australia, China explained 
that the applicants had asserted a particular market situation in Australia's wine market r esulting 
from the cost impact of the major input on the product under investigation and the like product. 
After the examination of the application, China's investigating authority determined that the 
applicants had provided sufficient prima facie  evidence and initiated an investigation, including with 
respect to the alleged particular market situation. Based on the information received, and the 
evidence obtained, the investigating authority found that the activities of the Australian Government 
had an impac t on supply, demand, and price in Australia. Due to limited time and resources, the 
investigating authority decided not to make  a determination with respect to this issue.  
99. Regarding concerns raised with respect to the definition of the product under inve stigation, 
China referred to page 24 of the final determination which sets forth the relevant product definition. 
China also pointed to page 70 of the determination as regards the legal standing of Chinese 
applicants and information on domestic consumption  and production.  
100.  With respect to Japan 's concern on the final determination regarding Japan's saintliness billets, 
hot-rolled plates, and coils, China stated that the investigation was initiated on 23 July 2018 at the 
request of the domestic industry. The  final determination was made in July  2019. Recently, China 
had bilateral discussions with Japan on this measure, after which China's authority provided further 
written clarification on this issue to Japan. A further bilateral meeting was scheduled in May 2021. 
China was, therefore, of the view that the Committee meeting was not the appropriate forum for 
discussion. Nonetheless, China indicated its willingness to clarify Japan's technical questions. China 
stated that the investigation was conducted in accor dance with China's legalisation and regulations. 
All interested parties, including Japan, were provided with sufficient opportunity to make comments 
and these comments, including the points raised by Japan, were fully considered in the final 
determination.  Regarding the scope of the product definition, China explained that the chemical 
components and the main physical properties of the different product classifications were 
substantially the same. Therefore, and despite certain negligible differences in phy sical form, etc., 
the investigating authority determined that the products belong to the same product category.  
101.  Regarding Japan's concern on the final determination on Japan's optical fibre preform, China 
took note of Japan's comments and encouraged Japan ese companies to cooperate fully in the 
subsequent review investigation.  G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 14 - 
 
  102.  On the semi -annual report of the Dominica n Republic , Turkey  stated that  the Regulatory 
Commission on Unfair Practices and Safeguards of the Dominican Republic  ("the Commission") had  
impos ed AD  measure s against imports of Turkish steel reinforcing bar  on 13 June 2011 . An expiry 
review commenced on 31 December 2015 to determine whether the revocation of the measures 
would lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury . As a result,  the measure was 
extend ed. A second expiry review was initiated on 14 October 2020.  Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement 
states that "[t]here shall be immediate termination in cases where the authorities determine that 
the margin of dumping is de minimis ". Moreover, panel s and the A ppellate Body reports in several 
disputes , such as Canada – Welded Pipe , Ukraine – Ammon ium Nitrate  and Mexico – Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Rice , concluded that it is incompatible with Article 5.8 to include producers found to 
have de minimis  margins of dumping . Turkey considered that both the original investigation 
conducted by the Commission and the extension of the measure s have been inconsistent with the 
AD Agreement and the pertinent WTO jurisprudence . It added that t hroughout the original 
investigation,  Turkish  exporters witnessed several violations of the AD  Agreement , most significant 
being the Commission 's decision to impose a country -wide definitive measure even though one of 
the cooperating parties had a negative dumping margin.  It opined that s ince the ini tiation of the 
original investigation had been  inconsistent with the Dominican Republic 's obligations under 
Articles  5.8, 6.10 and 9.3 of the AD Agreement, the entire  investigation procedure was vitiated and 
should not , once again , lead to an imposition of  AD duties on the subject imports.  Turkey believed 
that the  second sunset review was an opportunity to remedy  the violations of the  original 
investigation.  Turkey indicated that it reserve d all its rights stemming from the AD  Agreement and 
other relevant W TO jurisprudence.  
103.  The Dominica n Republic  responded that the review procedures were conducted in a 
transparent manner and in conformity with WTO rules. Opportunities were given to parties, including 
Turkey, to present their arguments. The review procedure w as still ongoing; hence, the 
Dominican  Republic would notify Turkey of the essential facts in May 2021. Also, in July 2021, it 
would make a final decision and inform Turkey accordingly. The Dominican Republic invited Turkey 
to submit its questions in writi ng.  
104.  On the semi -annual report of the European Union , Japan  express ed its concern s with respect 
to the final determination made in November 2015 and the continued imposition of the AD duties on 
Japan's exports of g rain-oriented flat -rolled products of electrical steel . Japan regretted that its 
exports had been subject to the measures despite its repeat ed requests for exclusion of Japanese 
products from the investigation. Japan stated that Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement stipulates that 
any AD measure shall be terminated in five years unless the authorities determine the substantial 
necessity to continu e the measure, namely that the elimination of the AD duty would be likely to 
lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Japan stated that the European Union  
must apply Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement in a strict manner and perform appro priate reviews in 
accordance with the AD Agreement.  A sunset review was initiated in October 2020, and Japanese 
industries as well as the Government of Japan submitted comments at the public hearing held in 
February 2021. Japan r equest ed the early terminat ion of these AD measures and that the y would  
no longer be maintained . 
105.  The European Union thanked Japan for its intervention. It explained that the measures had 
been in place since 2015 and that the sunset review was initiated in October 2020. The investiga tion 
was still ongoing for which reason the European Union declined to comment. In respect of the 
continuation of the measure, the European Union stated that nothing prevented its extension if 
dumping and injury continued. The European Union invited Japan to provide its comments on the 
record of the investigation.  
106.  On the semi -annual report of India , Japan  voiced  its concern s regarding  the final 
determination made in December 2015 and the continued imposition of the AD duties regarding 
Japan's exports of p hthalic anhydride.  Japan explained that Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement 
stipulates that any AD measure shall be terminated in five years unless the authorities determine 
the substantial necessity to continue the measure, namely that the elimination of the AD duty would 
be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Japan  called upon India to 
apply Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement in a strict manner and perform appropriate reviews in 
accordance with the AD Agreement.  Japan explained that a  sunset review was initiated in May 2020 
and that the Government of Japan had submitt ed comments  at the public hearing held in 
November  2020.  Japan request ed the  early termination of these AD measures . G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 15 - 
 
  107.  India noted the concern of Japan. It explained that the final findings issued on 5 January 2021 
recommended the termination of the AD duty on phthalic anhydride. The duty had thus lapsed on 
21 January 2021 . 
108.  On the semi -annual report of Indonesia , Japan  express ed its concern s with respect to the 
final determination made in March 2013 and the continued imposition of the AD duties on Japan's 
exports of c old-rolled stainless -steel sheet. Japan regretted that its exports had been subject to the 
measures despite its repeated requests for the exclus ion of  Japanese products from the 
investigation. Japan noted that  a sunset review was initiated in September 2015, but the results of 
the investigation have not been published. Japan commented that this may be in violation of 
Article  11.4 of the AD Agreement.  Japan request ed the Indonesian Government to notify the prompt 
termination of these measures in the official gazette.  
109.  In response to Japan, Indonesia  stated that it had taken note of Japan's intervention and 
requested Japan to provide a written version of its comments that could be forwarded to its capital.  
110.  On the semi -annual report of the Republic of Korea , Japan  express ed its concern with 
respect to the final determination made in July 2004 and the continued imposition of the AD duties 
based o n the fourth sunset review by the Republic of Korea regarding Japan's exports of stainless 
steel bar.  As the measure was extended for another five years following the fourth sunset review on 
22 January 2015, sixteen years have already passed since the meas ure was originally imposed.  On 
30 November 2020, the WTO panel  report was issued with respect to the AD measure extended by 
the Republic of Korea based on the  third sunset review. The panel found that the extension of the 
measure by the Republic of Korea  was inconsistent with the AD Agreement, and it thus 
recommended that the Republic of Korea  bring its measure into conformity with the AD Agreement. 
In view of the panel's determination, the fourth extension of the measure at issue lacked any basis . 
It opined that w hile the Republic of Korea should have terminated the AD measure during  the fourth 
sunset review, it decided upon the fourth extension. Japan referred to flaws in  the Republic of Korea's  
fourth sunset revi ew determination , such as comparing relevant products without ensuring 
comparability. According to Japan, the determination could not explain why the lack of competitive 
relationships and export incentives , as identified by the panel with respect to the th ird sunset review, 
did not equally apply to the fourth sunset review. In particular, the Korean investigating authority 
did not provide any sufficient basis for its findings that (i) competitive relationships existed among 
imports from Japan, India and the  domestic Korean products that, despite significant price 
differences,  could justify the imposition of the AD duty, and that (ii) Japanese producers had the 
capacity to increase their export s after the termination of the AD duties . Accordingly, the authori ty 
did not reasonably explain why injury to the domestic industry was likely to recur following  the 
termination of  the AD duty. Japan urged the Republic of Korea to  reassess the  pertinent issues, 
including the question of the competitive relationships , and to take into consideration the findings 
of the panel in this respect . Japan  request ed the early termination of the AD measure which was, in 
its view, improperly maintained for a long period  of time.  
111.  The Republic of Korea  responded that the AD measures were still under appeal, for which 
reason it declined to comment on this issue.  
112.  On the semi -annual report of Mexico , Japan  express ed its concern on the final determination 
made in November 2000 and the continued imposition of the AD duties regarding Japan's  exports of  
seamless steel tubing . The AD measures were initially imposed in November 2000 and have been 
extended continuously ever since . The measure was last extended for another five years following a 
sunset review in 2 015. Japan noted that t wenty years have already passed since the measure was 
originally imposed.  Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement stipulates that any AD measure shall be 
terminated in five years unless the authorities determine the substantial necessity to  continue the 
measure, namely that the elimination of the AD duty would be likely to lead to the continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and injury. Japan urged Mexico to  apply Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement in 
a strict manner and perform appropriate revie ws in accordance with th is AD Agreement.  A sunset 
review was initiated in November 2020. Japan  request ed the  early termination of the AD measures.  
113.  Mexico  took note of Japan's comments which it would transmit to capital.  
114.  On the semi -annual report of Pakista n, Ukraine  expressed its concern over the expiry review 
of the AD duty on cold -rolled coils. Ukraine believed that the expiry of the measure would not result G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 16 - 
 
  in the recurrence of dumping and injury to Pakistan's domestic industry considering the significan t 
reduction in the steel production and export capacity of Ukraine. Since the imposition of the 
measures in 2016, overall steel production in Ukraine fell by 16% due to the reduction in production 
capacity. Ukraine stated that the AD measures on cold -rolled coil from Ukraine should be terminated 
in accordance with Articles 11.1 and 11.3 of the AD Agreement. Furthermore, Ukraine noted that it 
was not notified of the review as required by the AD Agreement. Ukraine requested Pakistan to 
clarify why it did not notify Ukraine of the initiation of the review.  
115.  Pakistan  stated that the review is still ongoing and that it would follow -up on the concerns 
raised by Ukraine.  
116.  On the semi -annual report of the Philippines , Turkey  stated that the Tariff Commission of 
the Philippines has been imposing AD measures on imports of Turkish wheat flour since 
9 January  2015 and that it had conducted an expiry review with respect to these measures. On 
9 September  2020, the Tariff Commission published its final report and concluded to extend the 
measure for another three years.  
117.  In this context, Turkey raised concerns regarding the calculation of the AD duties for Turkish 
exporters with de minimis  margins in the original investigation. Turkey referred to Article 5.8 of the 
AD Agreement and to the panels and Appellate Body reports in several disputes, such as Canada – 
Welded Pipe , Ukraine – Ammonium Nitrate , and Mexico – AD Measures on Rice , which  have 
concluded that the determination of dumping margins for de minimis  exporters was incompatible 
with Article  5.8. Turkey, therefore, considered that the Tariff Commission's practice was in violation 
of the AD Agreement and contrary to the findings in rel evant WTO jurisprudence.  
118.  Turkey explained that it had conveyed its views on this issue to the Tariff Commission but that 
it has not yet received any response. Also, Turkey had raised this issue at the previous meeting of 
this Committee and with the Perman ent Mission of the Philippines to the WTO and received no 
response. Turkey requested the Philippines to re -examine its decision with a view to finding a 
bilateral solution.  
119.  In response to Turkey, the Philippines  stated that it had noted Turkey's concerns w hich it had 
conveyed to capital. The Philippines explained that this issue was subject to ongoing exchanges 
between the Mission in Geneva and the investigating authority. The Philippines also noted that two 
Turkish exporters did not comment on or object to  their inclusion in the original investigation despite 
their de min imis margins. The Philippines assured Turkey that it would continue to treat the issue 
with utmost importance.  
120.  On the semi -annual report of South Africa , the European Union  expressed its c oncern over 
the AD investigation on imports of frozen chicken. The European Union  stated that poultry products 
in the Southern African Customs Union were already heavily protected by simultaneously applied 
measures, in particular, bilateral safeguard and A D measures against Germany and the Netherlands 
that are currently under review. The European Union considered that any additional measure would 
not be warranted given that imports were already decreasing significantly. Furthermore, the 
European Union  stated that the increase in sales volume in 2017 and 2019 was indicative of the fact 
that the domestic industry was not experiencing injury. Injury, if any, was due to factors other than 
imports. The European Union stated that the investigation should be termin ated as any such 
measure would breach WTO rules.  
121.  South Africa  did not take the floor to provide its comments.  
122.  On the semi -annual report of Thailand , Japan  express ed its concern on the final 
determination made in March and May 2003 and the continued impos ition of the AD duties regarding 
Japan's exports of f lat cold -rolled stainless steel and flat hot -rolled steel in coils and not in coils, 
respectively. Regarding the AD measures on hot-rolled steel products, Japan ha d repeatedly pointed 
out from the beginning that there was no evidence that Japanese steel products had caused injury 
to the domestic industry  in Thailand . Japan regretted that AD  measure s were imposed in May 2003 
and continuously extended thereafter. This measure was extended for another five years following 
a sunset review in May 2015. The AD measures on cold -rolled stainless steel were imposed in 
March  2003 and continuously extended thereafter. This measure was extended for another five years 
following a sunset review in February 2015.  G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 17 - 
 
  123.  Japan further indicated that Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement stipulates that any AD measure 
shall be terminated in five years unless the authorities determine the substantial necessity to 
continue the measure, namely that the elimination of the AD duty would be likely to lead to  the 
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.  Japan claimed that as compared with Thailand's 
steel products, Japanese steel products were of  higher quality and in a different price range , and 
thus not in a competitive relationship. Hence, there was no possibility that the termination of the 
AD measures on Japanese steel products would  lead to the continuation or recurrence of injury to 
Thailand's  domestic steel industry.  Japan request ed Thailand's investigating authority to take the 
comments  of the Japanese steel industry into consideration and immediately terminate the AD 
measure s, which have been imposed for more than seventeen years .  
124.  Thailand  stated that it took note of the concerns raised by Japan and that it would transmit 
them to capital.  
125.  On the semi -annual report of Ukraine , Turkey  express ed its  concerns on the initiation of AD 
investigations against Turkish imports of cement and pivot -reclining devices (mechanisms) for 
window and balcony door blocks on 5 September 2020 and 25 February 2020 , respectively.  As a 
general remark , Turkey claimed that Ukraine 's investigati ng authority had not observed  the due 
process rights of the interested par ties. Turkey recalled that Article 6.2 of the AD  Agreement  provides 
that "[t]hroughout the anti -dumping investigation all interested parties shall have a full opportunity 
for the defense of their interests  …". Moreover, Article 6.9 of the AD  Agreement states that before 
a final determination is made, all interested parties must be given notice of the essential facts and 
this disclosure should take place in sufficient time for the parties to defend their interests.  Turkey 
noted that w ith respect to the inv estigations  at issue , the Turkish exporters  and the Government of 
Turkey  had been given only 4 and 3 working days , respectively,  to make comments on the key facts 
and conclusion s reports. Such short deadlines for comments were nearly impossible to observe 
considering that these reports ha d to be translated from the Ukrainian language and that comments 
also had to be translated back into Ukrainian.  
126.  Furthermore, Turkey explained that mandator y respondents in the turn -tilt fittings 
(mechanisms) for window and balcony door blocks AD investigation  were unable to  obtain  more 
detailed explanations from the investigating authority regarding the dumping margin calculation 
methodology, which made them unable to present their views , partly,  on the export price and normal 
value calculations , and related adjustments.  Turkey underline d the importance of providing an 
adequate opportunity for interested parties to properly defend the ir rights . Turkey recalle d that it is 
the investigati ng authority 's obligation and responsibility to make sure that such  opportunity is 
afforded  under Article s 6.2 and 6.9 of the AD  Agreement .  
127.  With regard to the AD investigation on cement, Ukraine  stated that the investigation was 
initiated on 2 September 2020 according to the decision of the Interdepartmental Commission for 
International Trade and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the WTO and the Ukrainian 
law. Ukraine indicated that d ue to the large number of Turkish producers and exporters involved in 
the investigation, the determination of dumping was limited to the largest percentage of the volume 
of the imports from Turkey, i.e. 72%. For such exporters, an individual dumping margin  was 
calculated, and disclosure of such calculation was provided. Ukraine's investigating authority 
informed all interested parties of the essential facts under consideration, which formed the basis for 
the decision to apply definitive measures. After the disclosure, two rounds of consultations were held 
to clarify the rationale of the authority's decision. During said consultations, the Ukrainian authorities 
clarified that the Turkish exporters and producers had the opportunity to provide relevant data but  
failed to do so to the full extent. The Ukrainian authorities rejected the data on sales of the like 
product in the domestic market in Turkey due to the low volume of sales or sales below cost. The 
amount of profit for the constructed normal value, pursua nt to Article 2.2.2 of the AD Agreement, 
was based on actual data pertaining to sales in the ordinary course of trade of the like product by 
the Turkish exporters and producers under investigation. For this purpose, the profitability rate for 
sales made in  2017 was used because it was found that starting from the second half of 2018, a 
drop in demand took place in the cement market of Turkey which led sales prices in the domestic 
market to fall to abnormally low levels in a manner that was insufficient to r ecover costs. Ukraine 
was of the view that the use of profit data pertaining to periods after the second half of 2018 would 
not reflect the prices normally obtained by the Turkish producers. A number of Turkish exporting 
producers admitted to dumping and o ffered a price undertaking. Ukraine stated that several 
consultations have been held with Turkish producers to explain the provisions of the Ukrainian law G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 18 - 
 
  and that the Ukrainian authorities are currently analysing whether such a commitment by the Turkish 
exporters would be sufficient to remove the consequences of the dumping.  
128.  With regard to the investigation on imports of pivot -recycling devices, Ukraine stated that the 
investigation was initiated on 21 February 2020, according to the decision of the Inter departmental 
Commission for International Trade. Ukraine explained that during the investigation, it had afforded 
all interested parties with an opportunity to provide comments, to participate in a hearing and to 
respond to the other parties. It also expla ined that it had informed all parties of the essential facts 
which formed the basis for the decision whether to apply definitive AD measures. Ukraine stated 
that Turkey had not availed itself of its right to request consultations after receiving the releva nt 
facts and consideration. The final decision on the AD measures is currently pending, and Ukraine 
would notify Members of the outcome in due course. Ukraine stressed that it complied with all 
relevant laws in conducting its investigations.  
129.  On the semi -annual report of the United Kingdom , China  expressed its concern over the 
continued application of the European Union  trade remedy measures and the transition reviews 
conducted by the United Kingdom after Brexit. China opined that this practice was in breac h of the 
provisions of the AD Agreement. China requested that the United Kingdom terminate all AD 
measures originally taken by the European Union as well as the transition reviews. China was of the 
view that the United Kingdom should initiate new investiga tions if it considered that its domestic 
industries were injured.  
130.  The Russian Federation  expressed  its concerns regarding the transition review of AD measure s 
on imports of certain welded pipes and tubes of Russian origin. It failed to see the grounds eith er 
for the initiation  of the review, or for the continued application of the measures in the territory of 
the U nited Kingdom . It hoped that the transition review would  end soon with a decision to withdraw 
the measure s. As a systemic point, the Russian Fede ration noted  that the United Kingdom' s 
transition reviews could not amount  to a proper review of a ny given  measure. In the view of the 
Russian Federation , it would take an analysis as in an original investigation  to adapt the measures 
to the United Kingdom . The Russian Federation hoped that the U nited Kingdom  would  make an 
objective and comprehensive analys is in accordance with the WTO rules  when conducting its 
transition reviews .  
131.  In response, the United Kingdom  stated that it had retained certain definitive trade remedy 
measures applied before the end of the United Kingdom -European Union transition period and in 
respect of which the United Kingdom  held an interest. These measures had been  established based 
on an  investigation covering the entire  territory of the E uropean Union, including the 
United  Kingdom . Therefore, they have been maintained  in respect of the United Kingdom  territory 
as of  the end of the United Kingdom -European Union  transition period.  The United Kingdom  
explained that it determined which AD measures should be retained based on evidence presented 
by the United Kingdom's  industries and all interested parties. The relevant assessment was based 
on objective evidence relating to specific criteria, i ncluding a market share threshold for the 
United  Kingdom -based producers of the product in question of more than 1%. The United Kingdom  
underlined that it was committed to maintain a fair and transparent approach. Its investigating body 
would conduct objec tive evidence -based transition reviews of the retained measures. These reviews 
would determine whether the measures remained necessary to offset dumping and whether injury 
of the United Kingdom's  domestic industries would recur in case the measures were li fted. This could 
result in the measures being amended, terminated, or maintained. Until the conclusion of the 
reviews, the measures would be maintained. Its investigating body had initiated five transition 
reviews in respect of AD duties. The United Kingdo m noted that it has an online digital service where 
interested parties could register their interest, access the public files, and participate in the cases.  
132.  On the semi -annual report of the United States , the European Union  raised concern over the 
AD duty imposed by the United States on imports of common alloy aluminium sheet from six 
European Union member States. The European Union was concerned by the large scope of the 
investigation which targeted all aluminium supplying countries to the United States. I n the 
European  Union's view, it was unlikely that all the countries were dumping, which was confirmed by 
the low or zero percent dumping margins of exporters from several countries. Therefore, the 
European Union called upon the United States to rely on the  AD instrument in a more targeted way.  
133.  The European Union also referred to duties of 240% levied on a European exporter, which was 
six times higher than the alleged dumping margin submitted by the United States' industry. G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 19 - 
 
  According to the European Union, a duty rate of that order was obtained by resorting to adverse 
facts available, although the European Union's exporter was in fact cooperating. The use of adverse 
facts available instead of the reported information was, however, in breach of the AD Agreeme nt. 
Further, the European Union stated that injury was not caused by imports but by other factors, such 
as the COVID -19 pandemic or structural inefficiencies of the domestic industry. The European Union 
urged the United States to apply the AD instrument in a more targeted way.  
134.  Ukraine expressed its concern over two AD investigations currently being finalised by the 
United States on imports of prestressed concrete steel wire strand ("PC strand") and seamless 
carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe ("SSLP pipe"). Ukra ine was of the opinion 
that neither of these investigations should result in measures against imports from Ukraine. In the 
case of SSLP pipe, records showed that the alleged injury to the United States industry was caused 
by other factors, such as the COVI D-19 pandemic, resulting in a significant decline in the 
consumption of SSLP pipe in the United States' market. Ukraine emphasised that the imposition of 
measures would lead to unprecedented market access barriers. Seven countries were already 
subject to r estrictive measures and the current investigation targeted 15 countries. Most of the 
subject countries, including Ukraine, had less than 3% import share. The application of the AD 
measures under such circumstances would not be in line with WTO principles. Therefore, Ukraine 
urged the United States to take into consideration all relevant evidence in reaching a decision 
consistent with WTO rules and principles.  
135.  The Russian Federation  referred to  the provisional determination of the U nited States in its 
AD investigation concerning imports of  SSLP pipe from the Russia n Federation . The 
Russian  Federation explained that t he preliminary determination suggest ed that the estimated 
weighted -average dumpi ng margin for the responding Russian producer amount ed to 290 .72%. The 
high dumping margin was established by applying  facts available and drawing  adverse inferences. 
The Russian Federation stated that the company concerned was cooperating to the best of i ts ability 
and provided to the United States'  investigators as much information as it could. However, the 
respondent was required to obtain certain information from an affiliated company, which it had no 
opportunity to do.   
136.  The Russian Federation drew the attention of the United States to paragraphs 5 and 7 of 
Annex II to the AD Agreement. It added that paragraph 5 establishes that even if the information 
provided by an interested party is not ideal in all respects, an investigating authority is not justifi ed 
to disregard it, provided that an interested party has acted to the best of its ability. Further, the 
Russian Federation referred to paragraph 7 of Annex II which prescribes special circumspection when 
using information from secondary sources. The Russi an Federation explained that a responding 
company cannot provide requested information that it was unable to be obtain from a third party. 
In such circumstances, it would be unfair to punish an exporter for the inability to provide the 
information, and it would be difficult to imagine that a margin of 290% could be something other 
than a punishment. It added that this would run counter to the requirements of paragraphs 5 and 7 
of Annex II to the AD Agreement. The Russian Federation thus called on the United  States to explore 
all opportunities to recalculate the dumping margin, taking due account of the efforts of the 
respondent and using the available information with special circumspection. The Russian Federation 
added that the responding company had provid ed the United States authorities with sufficiently 
detailed information illustrating that the volume of imports of the product concerned from the 
Russian Federation was negligible. The Russian Federation requested the United States to carefully 
consider th e provided information and to terminate the investigation immediately.  
137.  Japan  raised concerns with respect to  the prolonged United States ' AD measures against 
Japanese products.  Japan explained that the U nited States currently has 19 measures in force 
against Japanese products.  The longest measures ha ve continued  for more than 42 years, and 14 
of them have been  in force for more than five years.  For example, diffusion -annealed nickel -plated 
flat-rolled steel products (from May 2014 ), certain hot -rolled steel flat products (from October 2016), 
non-oriented electrical steel (from December 2014), polyvinyl alcohol (from July 2003), and 
prestressed concrete steel wire strand HTSUS (from December 1978) , which all remained in force 
for more than five years.  Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement stipulates that any AD measure shall be 
terminated in five years unless the authorities determine the substantial necessity to continue the 
measure, namely that the elimination of the AD duty would be li kely to lead to the continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and injury.  Japan urged t he United States to apply Article 11.3 of the 
AD Agreement in a strict manner and to perform appropriate reviews in accordance with the G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 20 - 
 
  AD Agreement.  Japan request ed the  early termination of these AD measures which were, in its view, 
improperly maintained  for a long period  of time.  
138.  China  addressed what it referred to as the United States' use of multiple layers of protection 
that lead to global trade distortions. China noted  that in recent years the United States has imposed 
several AD measures on aluminum products, including aluminum volume and steel from China and 
several other countries. The United States' Department of Commerce published the final 
determination in this ca se and AD duties ranged from 49.4% to 242.8% and CVDs ranged from 
4.89% to 25.5%. China claimed that the world production and consumption of aluminum products 
remained relatively stable, with Asia, North America, and Europe being the main producers and 
consumers of aluminum products. Despite all these measures, the United States was still taking 
measures or conducting trade remedy investigations on these products. China referred to the 
United  States' Section 232 measures on imported aluminum as affording th e United States domestic 
industry protection on the ground of national security. China stated that multi -layer protection of 
the domestic industries was not conductive to resolving any real issues but could only result in 
distorting consumption and product ion of the affected products.  
139.  The United States  responded to the European Union , Ukraine, and the Russian Federation by 
stating that it would be inappropriate to comment as the cases were still ongoing. It observed that 
interested parties have the opportunity to comment in the respective proceedings, and that all timely 
filed comments would be considered.  
140.  In response to China, the United States noted that this Committee was not the right forum to 
discuss the Section 232 actions. The United States en couraged Members to follow the practice of 
informing Members of their intention to raise questions in order to enable the responding Member 
to provide appropriate answers.  
141.  With respect to Japan 's comments, the United States explained that its expiry revie w 
proceedings are in conformity with the requirements in the AD Agreement. It disagreed with Japan 
that a measure ceased to have a valid basis because it has been imposed for a long period of time. 
The United States explained that the purpose of expiry rev iews was to examine if dumping and injury 
would recur if the measures were removed. The United States expiry review proceedings are 
evidence -based and participation by Japanese companies is helpful in terms of obtaining relevant 
information and arguments f rom the relevant parties. The United States observed that many 
measures involving Japanese exporters have been terminated; out of 66 reviews 52 lead to the 
termination of measures. Seven of the oldest 10 measures remained in effect due to the lack of 
participation by Japanese companies. The United States encouraged participation by Japanese 
industries in the review proceedings.  
142.  With respect to semi -annual reports that the Committee had not previously reviewed due to 
late circulation, neither comments were made, nor questions were posed by any Member.  
143.  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  
144.  The Chair  referred to the notif ications of preliminary and final AD actions submitted by 
Members since the Committee's last meeting listed in documents G/ADP/N/348, 349, 351, 352, 
353 & Corrigendum 1 and 354. During this period Argentina; Armenia; Australia; Brazil; Canada; 
China;  Domin ican Republic;  Egypt; European Union; Ghana; India; Japan; Kazakhstan; Korea , 
Republic of ; Kyrgyz Republic; Madagascar; Mexico; Morocco;  New Zealand;  Pakistan;  
Russian  Federation; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom; United States  
and Viet Nam notified preliminary and/or final AD  actions, which were listed in these documents. 
Since document G/ADP/N/354 was circulated, Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada; European Union; 
India; Indonesia; Kazakhstan; Korea, Republic of; Kyrgyz Repu blic; Mexico ; Philippines; 
Russian  Federation; South Africa  and Turkey  have submitted such a notification, which would appear 
in the next list circulated by the Secretariat.  
145.  The Chair drew attention to the continued apparent lack of full compliance with th is notification 
requirement. These reports are a key element of the required transparency concerning Members' G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 21 - 
 
  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 preliminary 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), contains 
important guidance as to the kinds of actions that should be notified and the information that should 
be provided.  
146.  The Chair noted that some Members were still submitti ng the same ad hoc notifications 
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 actio ns 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 Divis ion Secretariat which 
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 C ommittee and that any 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 not ify 
in WORD or PDF formats. Members are also able to consult presentation audios' and interactive 
presentations made by the Secretariat at the 2015 workshop on notifications, which are made 
available on the AD webpage on the WTO website. The Chair stressed  the need to avoid any 
confusion, repetition or duplication as these notifications were the source of necessary information 
contained in Annex D of the Committee's annual report.  
147.  Brazil  expressed its concerns with respect to the AD investigation initiated by South Africa  
in February 2021 on imports of frozen chicken portions  of Brazil ian and other origins. Brazil was 
concerned about  the lack of sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of the investigation, as 
provided for in Articles 5.2 and 5.3 of the AD Agreement. Brazil  noted that the methodologies and 
sources of information submitted by the applicants were the same as th ose used in a previous 
investigation  of the same industry  in 2011. During that investigation, Brazil ha d pointed out the 
many inconsistencies in those pieces of evidence and, as interested parties to that investigation, the 
applicants had full access to the of ficial records. Brazil, therefore , stated that South Africa  could not  
claim that it was unaware of the deficiencies as regards  the proposed methodology, or that the 
applicants  have provided all information that was reasonably available to them. Brazil clai med that 
normal value should have been calculated at the ex -factory level  after deducting taxation, freight 
costs and mark -ups from the price at which the products were normally sold inside the exporting 
country.  Based on the data reported in the recent  application, however, retail selling prices were 
adjusted only for mark-ups, while  freight costs and indirect taxes were not considered in the 
determination of normal value. Moreover, the average retail price calculated by the applicants was 
based on sales p rices of products obtained from supermarket websites, many of which d id not fall 
into the description of the investigated product. The significant flaws in the data presented by the 
applicants thus seriously impair ed a fair comparison between the export pr ice and the normal value, 
in contra vention  of Article  2.4 of the AD Agreement. Brazil also  noted that the applicants had failed 
to provide non -confidential summaries of confidential information, as provided for in Article 6.5.1 of 
the AD Agreement  which wa s fundamental for other parties to defend their interests . Brazil noted 
that it had already filed a submission before the South African investigating authority that further 
elaborate d on all these points. Brazil requested South Africa  to take into account its submission . It 
also encourage d South Africa  to promptly terminate the investiga tion in accordance with Article 5.8 
of the AD Agreement.  
148.  South Africa  did not take the floor to provide its comments.  
149.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
150.  The Chair  stated that the meeting of the Informal Group on Anti -Circumvention was not held. 
As for the Committee autumn  meeting of 2021, the approach agreed in the Spring of 2015 would 
be applied in deciding whether the Informal Group will meet . G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 22 - 
 
  151.  No statements  were m ade by any Member.  
152.  The Committee took note  of the report made.  
6 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  
153.  The Chair recalled that the spring 2020 meeting of the Working Group on Implementation 
("WGI") of the Committee was postponed due to the COVID -19 outbreak. In addition, due to the 
heavy agenda of the last regular meeting of the Committee as well as the travel restrictions in force, 
no WGI meeting could be held in the autumn  of 2020 . Unfortunately, d ue to the ongoing pandemic -
related restrictions, the WG I could not  meet this spring either .  
154.  Based on the clear direction from Members that topics for the WG I should be selected as far 
in advance as possible in order to allow adequate preparation time , the Chair had conducted 
consultations about the possible topics for discussion, and a discussant to help animate it . After 
consulting with a number of delegations, support ha d been expressed for taking up the following 
topics: (1) reviews for the purpose of d etermining individual margins of dumping for any exporters 
or producers in the exporting country (new shipper reviews); (2) price undertakings; and (3) access 
to non -confidential case files.  During the consultations, Ms Youmna El -Shabrawy, who has been 
working on antidumping issues for a long time for the Egyptian investigating authority, appeared to 
be the only candidate for the discussant role.  
155.  The Chair recalled that i n an email dated 17 March 2021, she had  reported back to the 
Committee about the outcom e of the consultations and asked whether Members had any reactions 
to the suggest ed topics as well as the discussant for the next meeting of the WG I. She had indicated 
in the email that in the absence of any objections by 6 April 2021 , the suggestions woul d be deemed 
to be accepted by Members. The Chair  noted that no objection ha d been raised by the deadline . 
156.  No statements were made by any Member.  
157.  The Committee took note  of the report made.  
7 EUROPEAN UNION – REGULATION (EU) 2017/2321 AND REGULATION (EU) 2018/825 
– ITEM REQUESTED BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
158.  The Russian Federation  raised concern over the  issue of certain amendments to the European 
Union's  legislation on AD, namely the ones introduced by Regulation (EU)  2017/2321 and Regulation 
(EU) 2018/825.  It stated that  the European Commission ha d published two country reports on so -
called significant distortions in the Russia n Federation  and China. As the European Union  explained, 
these reports would  be part of the record of the investigations against Russian and Chinese imports. 
The Russian Federation noted that at  the beginning  of an investigation concerning any other country, 
the record of this investigation would be empty. By contrast , the record of the investigations 
concerning the Russia n Federation  and China would already contain the respective  country report. 
The Russian Federation queried how the European Union would ensure country -neutrality in these 
circumstances.   
159.  The Russian Federation als o noted  that one and the same situation may be described in a 
country report as a significant distortion, and at the same time be labelled as a raw material 
distortion. The Russian Federation thus asked the European Union for clarification on the distincti on 
between a significant distortion and a raw material distortion .  
160.  The Russian Federation opined that t he European Union was  building a system of 
discriminative application of trade defense instruments to manipulate access to its market. According 
to the Russian Federation, this practice was obviously WTO-inconsisten t. It also  expressed 
disappointment with the quality of the country report on the Russia n Federation . Having studied the 
report  carefully,  its disappointment ha d exacerbated.  
161.  In this context , the Russian Federation called upon the European Union to  base its 
determinations on credible evidence  and to assess the appropriate ness of using concrete piece s of 
evidence. The Russian Federation  urged the European Commission, as well as any other investigating G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 23 - 
 
  authority in any other jurisdiction, first, to undertake a  critical assessment of any evidence put on 
the investigation record by an interested party or the authority itself ; second, to avoid app lying the 
methodologies and practices similar to the ones envisaged in the said amendments to the European 
Union  legislation ; and third, to conduct the analysis in an objective and impartial manner, and in 
strict compliance with the WTO rules.   
162.  China  also addressed the European Union's  legislation and practices. It reiterated that the 
European Union's  legislation and practices regarding significant market distortions are inconsistent 
with the relevant WTO principles and rules. First, the European Union's  AD law created the concept 
of significant market distortions and other concepts not included in the AD Agreement which 
authorise the European Commission to review the market situations of other Members in an AD 
investigation and to construct the normal value . China opined that this practice would contravene 
WTO rules. China explained that so far, the European Union  had issued only two reports on significant 
market distortions in the Chinese and Russian markets. There were no reports on any other market, 
which  China considered to amount to de facto  discrimination.  
163.  Second, China added that the methods for constructing normal value in the European Union's  
AD law were inconsistent with WTO rules. China claimed that according to the European Union's  AD 
law, normal value should be constructed exclusively based on the cost of production and sales in a 
sufficiently representative country, or on international prices, if a significant market distortion is 
found to exist. China hoped that the European Union  would return t o the method set forth in the 
WTO AD Agreement and comply with its obligations as a WTO Member.  
164.  The European Union  stated that it had addressed this issue at previous meetings of the 
Committee, and that it would therefore only comment on the statement fro m the Russian Federation 
about the quality of the report. The European Union  reminded Members that both reports were 
prepared using reliable and reputable sources, including the official public records of the countries 
concerned. The reports were thoroughl y reviewed, and the European Union  was confident of their 
accuracy, objectivity, and impartiality. Prior to its publication, the European Union  had invited the 
Russian Federation to review the document and to provide any comments or clarifications, which 
the Russian Federation declined to do.  
165.  With regard to the issue of compliance with WTO rules, the European Union  referred both 
countries to the regulations that have been published in the official journal, where all these 
arguments have been duly addressed .  
166.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8 OTHER BUSINESS  
167.  The Chair  encouraged Members that had issues to raise with other Members under other 
business to give sufficient notice to the Member s concerned prior to the meeting in order to ascertain 
whether or not an answer could be obtained at the meeting . 
168.  No issues were raised under this agenda item.  
169.  The Committee took note  of the statement made.  
9 DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
170.  The next regular meeting of the Committee would be held in the week of 25 October 2021.  
10 ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
171.  The Chair recalled Rule 12 of the Committee's Rules of Procedure which provides that the 
election of the new Chair shall take place at the fi rst regular meeting of the year and that the election 
shall take effect at  the end of that meeting.   
172.  The Chair stated that  consultation at the CTG level regarding the selection of the new chair of 
this Committee as well as of other subsidiary bodies  under the CTG is still under way, therefore  a 
new Chair cannot be elected at thi s meeting . In these circumstances, the Chair suggest ed that the G/ADP/M/59  
 
- 24 - 
 
  Secretariat send a communication once the CTG ha d completed its work, indicating the Chair 
identified by the CTG. The new Chair would be deemed to be elected by the Committee absent any 
object ion. This approach, which ha d been taken in previous years, would obviate the need for an 
additional meeting of the Committee . 
173.  On the Vice -Chair,  the Chair propose d to postpone the election of the new Vice -Chair until the 
new Chair is appointed, until he o r she holds the usual consultations and sends the usual 
communication nominating a new Vice -Chair who, absent any objection, would be deemed to be 
elected by the Committee.  
174.  The Committee so decided . 
__________