RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/M/12
9 September 1998
(98-3428)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:  English
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON 30 APRIL 1998
Chairman:  Mr. Kajit Sukhum (Thailand)
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on
30 April 1998.
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:
A. Observers:  International Intergovernmental Organizations
B. National Legislations
(i) Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations not
previously reviewed by the Committee:
(a) Brazil - G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2
(b) Bulgaria - G/ADP/N/1/BGR/1-G/SCM/N/1/BGR/1
(c) Burkina Faso - G/ADP/N/1/BFA/1
(d) Canada - G/ADP/N/1/CAN/3-G/SCM/N/1/CAN/3
(e) Japan -G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/SUPPL.2-
G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/SUPPL.2
(f) Mongolia - G/ADP/N/1/MGN/1 & CORR.1
(g) Peru - G/ADP/N/1/PER/1/SUPPL.2-
G/SCM/N/1/PER/1/SUPPL.2
(h) Singapore - G/ADP/N/1/SGP/2/SUPPL.1-
G/SCM/N/1/SGP/2/SUPPL.1
(i) Slovak Republic - G/ADP/N/1/SVK/2
(j) United States - G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/SUPPL.2-
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/SUPPL.2
(ii) Continuing review of prev iously reviewed Notifications:
(a) European Community
(G/ADP/Q1/EEC/11)
(G/ADP/Q1/EEC/12)(G/ADP/Q1/EEC/14)
(G/ADP/Q1/EEC/15)
(b) Israel
(G/ADP/Q1/ISR/9)
(G/ADP/Q1/ISR/10)G/ADP/M/12
Page 2
(c) Singapore
(G/ADP/Q1/SGP/12)
(G/ADP/Q1/SGP/13)
(d) Thailand
(G/ADP/Q1/THA/10)
(G/ADP/Q1/THA/11)
C. Semi-Annual Reports of Anti-Dumping Actions (Article 16.4) G/ADP/N/35 and
Addenda
D. Notifications of Preliminary and Fi nal Anti-Dumping Actions G/ADP/N/34,
G/ADP/N/36, G/ADP/N/ 37, And G/ADP/N/38
E. Chairman's Report on the Meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on ImplementationF. Chairman's Report on the Meeting of the Informal Group on Anti-CircumventionG. Australia - Continuation of Anti-Dumpi ng Measures on imports of Polyvinyl
Chloride (PVC) from Canada (item requested by Canada)
H. Other Business
(i) Japan - United States practice regarding sunset investigations.
(ii) Chairman's Report to Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods regarding
Committee activities
(iii) Attendance by Observer Governments at Meetings of the Ad Hoc Group onImplementation and the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention.
I. Date of Next Regular MeetingJ. Election of Officers
A. Observers:  International Intergovernmental Organizations
1. The Chairman recalled that, when the Committee had previously taken up the issue of regular
observer status for the OECD, the Committee had d ecided to defer action on the OECD's request to
allow time for consultations to be carried out by the Chairman of the Subsidies Committee.  TheSubsidies and Safeguards Committees had earlier taken the same decision.  Meanwhile, the OECD
continued to be invited to attend Committee meetings on an ad hoc  basis.  Since that time, the
questions of observer status for the WTO in various OECD bodies had been considered again, and the
Chairman of the Subsidies Committee had reported that the WTO had been granted observer status on
an ad hoc  basis in the relevant OECD body.  While this result was a step in the right direction, the
Subsidies Committee had decided that it was not sufficient to justify granting the OECD regular,
unrestricted observer status in that Committee at this time.  Instead, the Subsidies Committee decided
to invite the OECD to continue to attend its meetings on an ad hoc  basis.  With respect to access to
documents, the Subsidies Committee had decided, for those relatively few documents that are
restricted at the outset, to grant the OECD full access subject to the condition that, in the event aMember objected to the provision of a particular document to the OECD at the time that the document
was being prepared for circulation, such documen t would not be provided to the OECD.  The
Subsidies Committee adopted this decision on a preliminary basis, subject to confirmation at its next
meeting once full details of the OECD decision were available.G/ADP/M/12
Page 3
2. The Chairman proposed that the Committee take the same decision that had been taken by the
Subsidies Committee concerning the OECD's request for observer status and access to documentation,
subject to confirmation at the Committee's next meeting.
3. The Committee so decided.
4. Turning to the ACP Group's request for regular observer status, the Chairman recalled that, at
its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to in vite the ACP Group to attend its meetings on an ad
hoc basis.  This decision was taken pending reso lution of the horizontal process underway at the
Council level regarding requests for observer status by the ACP Group and other international
intergovernmental organisations.  To date, no horizontal resolution of the ACP Group's request had
been achieved, and the Chairman would report back to the Committee as the situation developed.
Therefore, the Chairman proposed that the Committee take note of his statement, and revert to this
matter at a future meeting.
5. The Committee so decided.
B. Review of National Legislations
- New or Amended Notifications not previously reviewed by the Committee
6. The Chairman noted that questions concerning newly notified legislations were to have been
submitted to the Member concerned and the Secretariat no later than three weeks before the meeting,
that is, no later than 6 April 1998.  Unfortunately, after the happy situation at the Committee's last
meeting, when for the first time, all questions we re submitted to the Secretariat by the applicable
deadline, the Chairman observed that there had been some backsliding, with questions being received
well after the deadline.  He expressed the hope that  Members would in the future make it a priority to
submit their questions in a timely fashion.  Review of legislation remained an important aspect of theCommittee's work, and would remain a regular item on the Committee's agenda.  Timely submission
of questions greatly facilitated the task of  the Secretariat, of course, but more importantly that of the
Members participating in the review, and those w hose notifications were the subject of review.
7. The Chairman reminded Members that if they wished to receive written answers to questions
posed orally at the meeting, they were to subm it such questions in writing to the Member whose
legislation was concerned, and to the Secretariat, no later than 26 May 1998.  Written answers to all
questions written submitted were to have been submitted to the Secretariat no later than 29 June 1998.
8. The questions regarding the notification of Brazil can be found in the following documents
G/ADP/Q1/BRA/2 submitted by Turkey
G/ADP/Q1/BRA/3 submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/BRA/4 submitted by Canada
G/ADP/Q1/BRA/5 submitted by JapanG/ADP/Q1/BRA/6 submitted by Venezuela
The answers provided by Brazil to these quest ions can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/BRA/7 to Ca nada, Japan, Turkey, the United States, and Venezuela
9. The questions regarding the notification of Bulgaria can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/BGR/1 submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/BGR/2 submitted by JapanG/ADP/M/12
Page 4
NO WRITTEN ANSWERS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY BULGARIA AS YET.
10. The Chairman noted that no written questions had been submitted regarding the notification
of Burkina Faso, and that Burkina Faso was not represented at the meeting.  He therefore proposed
that the Committee take note of the notification, and continue with the review process.
11. The Committee so decided.
12. The questions regarding the notification of Canada can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/CAN/6 submitted by Japan
G/ADP/Q1/CAN/7 submitted by Venezuela
The answers provided by Canada can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/CAN/8 to Venezuela
G/ADP/Q1/CAN/9 to Japan
13. The questions regarding the notification of Japan can be found in the following  documents:
G/ADP/Q1/JPN/8 submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/JPN/9 submitted by Canada
The answers provided by Japan can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/JPN/10 to the United States and Canada
14. The Chairman noted that no written questions had been submitted regarding the notification
of Mongolia, and that Mongolia was not represented at the meeting.  He therefore proposed that he
Committee take note of the notification, and continue with the review process.
15. The Committee so decided.
16. The questions regarding the notification of Peru can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/PER/3 submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/PER/4+Corr.1 submitted by CanadaG/ADP/Q1/PER/5 submitted by Japan
G/ADP/Q1/PER/6 submitted by Venezuela
G/ADP/Q1/PER/9 submitted by Brazil
The answers provided by Peru can be found in the following documents:G/ADP/Q1/PER/7 to Japan and Canada
G/ADP/Q1/PER/8 to Venezuela
G/ADP/Q1/PER/11 to the United States and Brazil
17. The questions regarding the notification of Singapore can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/SGP/14 submitted by the United StatesG/ADP/M/12
Page 5
NO WRITTEN ANSWERS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY SINGAPORE AS YET.
18. The questions regarding the notification of Slovak Republic can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/SVK/1 submitted by Turkey
G/ADP/Q1/SVK/2 submitted by the United StatesG/ADP/Q1/SVK/3 submitted by Japan
NO WRITTEN ANSWERS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY SLOVAK REPUBLIC AS
YET.
19. The questions regarding the notification of the United States can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/USA/5 submitted by Japan
G/ADP/Q1/USA/6 submitted by Venezuela
The answers provided by the United States can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/USA/8 to Japan and Venezuela
20. The delegate of Poland stated that, as set fo rth in document G/ADP/N/1/POL/1 of 29 March
1995, Poland had undertaken a review of the relevant domestic legislation and administrative
regulations with the aim to ensure their consistency with the Agreement on Implementation of Article
VI of GATT 1994.  The process had been completed and as a result of that Poland introduced The Act
of 11 December 1997 on protection against imports of goods into the Polish customs territory at
dumped prices which came into force on 1 January 1998.  At the moment, the new legislation wasbeing translated from Polish into English and as soon as the translation was completed it would be
notified to the Committee.
21. The Committee took note of the statements made.
- Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications
22. The Chairman congratulated Members on their substantial compliance with the deadlines for
submission of answers to questions concerning not ifications previously reviewed by the Committee.
With limited exceptions, the questions and answers were submitted in a timely fashion thus greatly
facilitating the discussion by allowing the Committee, in accordance with its procedures, to turn to
any follow up to the written questions and answers during the meeting.
23. The follow up questions to the European Community can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/EEC/11 submitted by Canada
G/ADP/Q1/EEC/12 submitted by Japan
G/ADP/Q1/EEC/13 submitted by the United States
The answers provided by the European Community can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/EEC/14 to Canada
G/ADP/Q1/EEC/15 to Japan
G/ADP/Q1/EEC/16 to the United StatesG/ADP/M/12
Page 6
24. The follow up questions to Israel can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/ISR/9 submitted by Turkey
The answers provided by Israel can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/ISR/10 to Turkey
25. The follow up questions to Singapore can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/SGP/12 submitted by Canada
The answers provided by Singapore can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/SGP/13 to Canada
26. The follow up questions to Thailand can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/THA/10 submitted by Canada
27. The answers provided by Thailand can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/THA/11 to Canada
28. The Chairman noted that, in order for a previously reviewed notification of legislation to
appear on the agenda of the Committee's next regular meeting in October 1998, questions were to be
submitted to the Member whose notification was in question, and to the Secretariat, no later than 14
September 1998.
29. The Chairman noted that some Members had raised questions about the procedures for review
of new notifications of legislation at the outset of the discussions.  He observed that it was certainly
possible to contemplate other, and perhaps improved, procedures for the review of legislation in the
Committee.  However, he reminded Members that the procedures for review of legislation under
which the Committee was currently operating were set forth in document G/ADP/W/284.  Thoseprocedures had been adopted by the Committee at its joint special meeting with the Subsidies
Committee in April 1996.  Unless and until the Committee adopted new procedures for review of
legislation, it would continue to operate under the current procedures.  If Members believed that these
procedures should be changed, the Chairman suggested that they contact the Secretariat or the
Chairman.  If appropriate, the Chairman could th en consult with Members concerning new procedures
for review of new notifications of legislation, to be considered at a future meeting.
C. Semi-annual reports of anti-dumping actions
30. The Chairman reminded Members that semi-annual reports for the second half of 1997 were
to have been submitted by 28 February 1998.  Members who had submitted semi-annual reports were
identified in document G/ADP/N/35/Add.1, dated 20 March 1998.  Guatemala, Korea, South Africa,
and Thailand  submitted their semi-annual reports too late to be included in the list.  In addition to the
25 Members who had submitted semi-annual reports, 32 Members listed in documentG/ADP/N/35/Add.1 had notified the Committee that they did not take any anti-dumping actions
during the period in question.  Jamaica, Macau, Malta, Mauritius, Zambia and Zimbabwe submitted
notifications that they took no actions during the period that were received too late to be included in
the list.G/ADP/M/12
Page 7
31. While there had been some improvement in comp liance, particularly in the use of the agreed
format, as in the past, many notifications were submitted well after the applicable deadlines, and a
significant number of Members had not responded to the request for semi-annual reports, despite
several requests and reminders, including personal calls to delegations in Geneva, and had therefore
failed to comply with this important requirement set forth in Article 16.4 of the Agreement.  These
Members would be identified in the first revised version of document G/ADP/N/35/Add.1.
32. The delegate of Australia referred to the investigation of coated wood-free paper in sheets.
While her remarks were not directly related to the semi-annual report submitted by Australia, she felt
it appropriate to raise the matter at this time for the information of Members.  She reminded Members
that Switzerland had, earlier in the year, request ed consultations with Australia regarding this
investigation under the Dispute Settlement Understanding.  She informed Members that the Anti-
Dumping Authority in Australia had recently found that the investigation with respect to a number ofcountries, including Switzerland, should be terminat ed due to negligible volumes of dumped imports.
As a result, the need for consultations had lapsed and the process had been discontinued.
33. There were no further comments made with regard to the semi-annual reports that had been
submitted.
34. The Committee took note of the statements made.
D. Notifications of preliminary and final anti-dumping actions
35. The Chairman noted that, since the last regular meeting of the Committee, Argentina,
Australia, Canada, the European Community, Israel, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru,
Thailand, the United States, and Venezuela had notified preliminary and final actions taken, as
identified in documents G/ADP/N/34, G/ADP/N/36, G/ADP/N/ 37, and G/ADP/N/38.
36. As with other notification requirements, there appe ared to be a lack of full compliance in this
area, as some Members who had submitted semi-annual reports indicating actions in progress had not
submitted any reports of preliminary or final actions taken.  He reminded Members that an important
aspect of the Committee's task was its role in monitoring and discussing actions taken by Members.  If
Members did not take their obligations to notify seriously and comply, the Committee would beprevented from accomplishing its goal of considering Members' compliance with the requirements of
the Agreement.
37. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
E. Chairman's Report on the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on Implementation
38. The Chairman reported on the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on 27-28 April 1998. The
participation of Members, both in terms of the number of papers and proposals, and the discussions
themselves, had been excellent.  The Group discussed nine of the topics that had been forwarded to itby the Committee for consideration, based on papers, proposals, and information submitted by
Members prior to the meeting.  The discussions were at times lively, and a great deal of information
was exchanged among Members regarding their prac tices in implementing the requirements of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  With respect to several items, Members agreed to have the Secretariat
prepare and circulate draft recommendations for consideration at the Group's next meeting.  Membersalso agreed to submit further and follow up papers and proposals on several of the topics under
consideration, as well as information on their individual practices in the areas addressed, and the
Secretariat would compile information submitted by Members with respect to the some of the issues
raised.  The text of the Chairman's summary of the preparatory steps for the next meeting of the AdG/ADP/M/12
Page 8
Hoc Group had been made available to assist Members in preparing for that meeting.  The Secretariat
would send a reminder to Members at a later date.
39. The Ad Hoc Group had scheduled its next meeting for Monday and Tuesday, the 26 and 27
October 1998.  The Chairman reminded Members that submissions for that next meeting were due by
Monday, 14 September 1998.  However, with respect to information Members had agreed to provide,and particularly those items where the Secretariat would be compiling information, he urged that they
submit their information as early as possible to enable the compilations to be as complete as possible.
40. The Chairman observed that the Ad Hoc Group had had a very fruitful meeting this time, and
expressed the hope that Members would continue to participate actively in the work of the Ad Hoc
Group.  In this regard, he noted that several Members had raised questions concerning the future work
of the Group, and the possibility of new or additional topics to be referred to the Group for its
consideration.  The Chairman would be consulting in formally with delegations on this matter, and if it
seemed appropriate, would consider calling a meeting of the Committee to discuss the issue.
41. The Chairman was particularly encouraged by the presence of experts from capital at the
meeting of the Ad Hoc Group, who brought necessary  technical knowledge of their own practices to
the discussions, thereby making them more substantive and useful for all Members.  He strongly
encouraged Members, if at all possible, to bring t echnical experts from capitals to future meetings of
the Ad Hoc Group, so that the momentum could continue, and the Group's future meetings would be
as useful, and would lead to positive results.
42. The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement.
43. Chairman's Report on the meeting of the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention
44. The Chairman reported that the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention had met on
Wednesday, 29 April 1998.  Members had discussed the papers submitted with interest, and numerous
points were made.  The Informal Group agreed  to meet again on Wednesday, 28 October 1998, to
continue its discussions on the first topic for discussion under the agreed framework.  The Chairman
expressed the hope that as the Informal Group's work continued, more Members would participate by
submitting papers on the items for discussion, and in the discussions themselves.  In this respect, herepeated the concerns he had raised at the meeting about the late submission of papers for the
Informal Group.  Submission of substantive papers on such a complex and sensitive topic only a few
days before the meeting severely limited the ability of Members, and especially their capital-based
experts, to prepare for a meaningful discussion.  Therefore, he strongly urged Members in the future
to prepare and submit their papers as early as possible.  He expressed the hope that the Group's future
meetings would be useful in helping accomplish the task set by the Ministerial Decision on Anti-
Circumvention.
45. The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement.
G. Australia – Continuation of anti-dumping m easures on imports of polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
from Canada (Item requested by Canada)
46. The representative of Canada stated that Australia had conducted an anti-dumping
investigation in 1992 involving PVC from seven countries, including Canada.  In 1997, Australian
authorities conducted a five-year (sunset) review to determine whether the case should be continued
or allowed to expire at the end of five years.  The Australian Anti-Dumping Authority (ADA) had
published a report recommending that the case be allowed to expire in regard to various countries,
including Canada. The report concluded that shipments from Canada were not dumped and were
minimal.  Given this, and the fact that Canada had become a net importer of PVC, the ADA felt that itG/ADP/M/12
Page 9
was unlikely that shipments to Australia would increase.  Therefore, it was considered that PVC from
Canada was not likely to cause injury to the Au stralian domestic industry.  Accordingly, the ADA
recommended that the finding, in regard to PVC from Canada, should be allowed to expire.
47. In the Australian system, the ADA makes its recommendations to the Minister of Customs
and Consumer Affairs.  In the case under discussion, the Minister rejected the ADA's report anddecided that the case should be continued.  The Minister did not provide any rationale for this
decision.
48. Through its High Commission in Canberra, Cana da had tried repeatedly, but unsuccessfully,
to obtain greater guidance as to the rationale for taking the decision to continue this case.
49. Canada was concerned that the failure to provide an explanation for the decision to continue
the case did not provide the transparency required to assure Canada that the provisions of Article 11
were being respected.  The Canadian delegate noted that a response to Canada's enquiries had sincebeen received from the Minister.  While Canada appreciated the response, it did not adequately
substantiate the reasons for the continuance of the case.  She hoped that it would open a new dialogue
between the two governments that would enable them to resolve this issue.
50. The delegate of Australia stated that Australia believed all of the correct WTO procedures had
been followed in this case.  The ADA's  recommendation is not the final determination as envisaged
under the WTO:  the Minister makes the final determination.  On the basis of the ADA's report, the
previous Minister had reweighed the facts of the case, and come to a different conclusion, which the
Minister was entitled to do under Australian anti-dumping law.  Australia appreciated the discussion
held with Canada, including the recent letter from th e current Minister with respect to the matter, and
was happy to continue the discussions on this issue.  Some of the information contained in the lettermade it possible for the Canadian company involved to seek a review of the case after twelve months,
which would be October 1998.  One problem Australia said it had had in the course of this
investigation was that the company involved did no t cooperate in the sunset inquiry, which made it
difficult.  Australia remained open to further discussions.
51. The Committee took note of the statements made.
H. Other Business
52. A request was made by the delegate of Indonesia to add an item of other business to the
Committee's agenda, but the Committee did not agree to the request.
(i) Japan - United States practice regarding sunset investigations.
53. The delegate of Japan commented that Japan believed that one of the most significant
outcomes of the Uruguay Round negotiations on Anti-Dumping Agreement had been the
establishment of provisions regarding sunset review under Article 11.3  It was established to avoidimposing an anti-dumping duty endlessly with no subsequent evidence on dumping and injury after
imposition of the order  The principle of sunset review was to revoke the order unless there was a
finding of dumping and injury.  Continuation of the order should be an exceptional case.
54. He noted that, according to the United States Federal Register, US authorities were going to
begin sunset reviews in July 1998.  The number of products subject to the reviews was more than 300,including products subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties.  A large number of
interested parties in various countries would be involved in this review process.G/ADP/M/12
Page 10
55. The delegate of Japan observed that he wished to bring this matter to Members' attention.
The implementation of the sunset review was a common interest among the Members.  It was
important that the review be carried out in a ccordance with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  In
particular, an order should be revoked unless there was a finding that the expiry of the duty would be
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
56. The Committee took note  of the statement made
(ii) Chairman's report to Chairman of Goods Council regarding Committee activities
57. The Chairman informed the Committee of his report to the Chairman of the Council for Trade
in Goods concerning the activity of this Committee since December 1997.  The Goods Council
Chairman had requested such a report by 15 April 1998, in connection with his preparations for the
upcoming Ministerial Conference.  He had simply informed the Chairman of the Goods Council that
as of 15 April, the Committee, and its subsidiary bodies the Ad Hoc Group on Implementation and theInformal Group on Anti-Circumvention, had no t met, and had thus taken no action, since
December 1997.
58. The Committee took note of the statement made.
(iii) Attendance by Observer Governments at meetings of the Ad Hoc Group on
Implementation and the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention.
59. Concerning the Ad Hoc Group, the Chairman noted that both he and the Secretariat had been
approached by governments having Observer status in the Committee, specifically China, Chinese
Taipei, and Saudi Arabia, requesting that they be allowed to take part as Observers in the Ad Hoc
Group.  When the Committee established the Ad Hoc Group, there had been no discussion of the
participation of Observers.  Until now, Observers had not been invited to meetings of the Ad HocGroup.  At its meeting on Monday, as there was no objection from any Member, the Ad Hoc Group
allowed Observer governments to attend that meeting on an ad hoc  basis.  The Group also agreed to
allow Observer governments to participate in the discussions and submit papers on the topics under
consideration if they so wished.  However, the Group recognized that it was for the Committee itself
to take a decision on establishing a practice concerning whether Observer governments would beinvited to attend meetings of the Group, and what the nature of their participation would be.
60. The Chairman therefore proposed that the Committee allow Observer governments to attend
and participate in the meetings of the Ad Hoc Group on a somewhat more extensive basis than was
the norm. Such participation would allow Observer governments to submit papers on the topics
referred to the Ad Hoc Group, and take part fully in the discussions.  However, of course, that
participation would not extend to involvement in the establishment of a consensus on any
recommendations to the Committee.  In his  view, on th e types of technical issues that were before the
Ad Hoc Group, the substantive participation of interested Observer governments could only add to the
value of the discussions.
61. The Committee so decided.
62. Turning to the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention, requests from China, Chinese Taipei,
and Saudi Arabia to attend meetings of the Informal Group had also been received.  As was the casewith the Ad Hoc Group, there had been no discussion of participation by Observer governments in the
Committee at the time the Informal Group was established.  Until now, Observers had not been
invited to meetings of the Informal Group.  At its meeting on Wednesday, as there was no objection
from any Member, the Informal Hoc Group allowed Observer governments to attend the meeting on
an ad hoc  basis.  However, attendance by Observer governments had been on the usual terms forG/ADP/M/12
Page 11
Observers.  The Informal Group recognized that it was for the Committee itself to take a decision on
establishing a practice concerning whether Observer governments would be invited to attend meetings
of the Group, and what the nature of their participation would be.
63. The Chairman therefore proposed that the Committee allow Observer governments to attend
meetings of the Informal Group.  Such participation would be on the normal terms for Observergovernments in accordance with the Guidelines for Observer Status for Governments in the WTO as
set forth in Annex 2 to the Rules of Procedure of the General Council, which is referred to in Rule 10
of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee.  Such participation would allow them to receive
documentation for meetings and attend meetings.  Representatives of Observer governments might be
invited to speak at meetings, normally after Members had spoken.  The right to speak did not include
the right to make proposals, unless a government was specifically invited to do so, nor to participate
in decision-making.
64. The Committee so decided.
I. Date of next regular meeting
65. The Chairman noted that the Committee had agreed at its meeting of 21 February 1995 that
regular meetings normally would be held in the last week of April and the last week of October.
Accordingly, the next regular meeting of the Committee would be held on Thursday and Friday, 29and 30 October 1998.
J. Election of Officers
66. The Committee elected Mr. José Antonio S. Buen camino of the Philippines as Chairman, and
Mr. Alvaro Espinoza of Chile as Vice Chairman, of the Committee.
67. The meeting was adjourned.
__________