RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/R/9
27 September 2001
(01-4610)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Ad Hoc Group on Implementation
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE
AD HOC GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ANTI-DUMPING PRACTICES,
23-26 APRIL 2001
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Ad Hoc Group on Implementation ("the Group") held substantive discussions concerning
the topics referred to it by the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices ("the Committee") over the
period 23-26 April 2000.1  The Group adopted the proposed agenda for the meeting, which had been
circulated in WTO/AIR/1529, dated 12 April 2001.
2. The Chairman (Mr. Yair Shiran, Israel) observed that the discussions would follow the order
in the adopted agenda.  Regarding the draft recommendations for consideration before the Group, the
Chairman reminded Members of the applicable procedures.  If the Group came to consensus on a
recommendation, that recommendation would be sent forward to the Committee for its consideration.
Given that the Membership of the Committee and th e Membership of the Group are coextensive, and
the draft recommendation would have been before the Group for consideration and discussion by all
Members, there should not be a need for much discussion in the Committee before deciding whether
or not to adopt a recommendation of the Ad Hoc Group as a Committee decision on an agreed
understanding regarding a particular implementation issue. Therefore, the Chairman expected, if any
of the draft recommendations on the agenda were agreed to at this meeting, to put any such
recommendations before the Committee at its meeting later in the week for decision.
3. The Chairman noted that it was important to keep in mind that neither the Group nor the
Committee could modify the legal obligations set forth in the Agreement as such.  However, Members
could come to some agreement about practices in th e conduct of anti-dumping investigations that they
believe are consistent with the Agreement‘s requirements.
4. The Chairman once again urged all Members to make a real effort in the future to provide
their submissions on time in order to avoid the continuing problem of submissions not being availablein all three WTO official languages before the meeting.
5. The Group then turned to the first item on the agenda for the meeting, practical issues and
experience in applying Article 2.4.2.  At the October-November 2000 meeting of the Group the
Secretariat had been requested to compile, from Members' submissions, a list of elements that have
been considered in selecting transactions to be co mpared in the context of a transaction-to-transaction
analysis under Article 2.4.2 of the Agreement.  This list was circulated as document
G/ADP/AHG/W/106.  The discussions of the Group focu sed on the list prepared by the Secretariat
which the Chairman suggested might be considered as a starting-point for discussion about a possible
draft recommendation.  Most Members welcomed the note prepared by the Secretariat and
commented that the elements listed therein were us eful and could be taken into account in selecting
                                                     
1 The list of topics referred to the Ad Hoc Group was circulated to Members in document
G/ADP/W/410.G/ADP/AHG/R/9
Page 2
transactions to be considered in a transaction-to-transaction analysis under Article 2.4.2.  A number of
Members described  their own experiences in making transaction-to-transaction comparisons, while
others commented that they had never had occasion to make such comparisons.  Some Members
expressed the view that the list prepared by the Secretariat should be expanded and elaborated upon.
The Chairman asked Members whether they considered that discussions on this topic had progressedto the point where the Secretariat might prepare a draft recommendation for the Group's consideration
at a future meeting.  After a short discussion, there was no consensus on proceeding to consideration
of a draft recommendation on this topic.
6. To conclude the discussions it was proposed that this topic be tabled for further consideration
at a future meeting.  Members were asked to focus their attention on the list of elements that had been
considered in selecting transactions to be considered in a transaction-to-transaction analysis under
Article 2.4.2 of the Agreement, with a view to ward determining whether a draft recommendation
might be developed in this regard.
7. The Group then turned to the next item on the agenda, practical issues and experience in cases
involving cumulation under Article 3.3. At the October-November 2000 meeting of the Group the
Secretariat was requested to revise, in light of the discussions at that meeting, the list of possibly
relevant criteria regarding the conditions of competition for consideration in deciding whether acumulative assessment of the effects of imports is appropriate in light of those conditions.  The
revised document was circulated as G/ADP/W/93/Rev.1.  Members offered their views as to the
relevance of each of the listed criteria.  There were some concerns expressed about the relevance of
considering sales in overlapping geographical areas of the domestic market and time periods during
the period of investigation (points 3(b) and 3(c) of the Secretariat note).  For other Members,however, these two criteria were extremely relevant, as they were clear indicators of the existence of
competition between the domestic like product and the imports from each of the countries proposed
for cumulation.  Another Member highlighted the importance of the degree of interchangeability
between the domestic like product and the imports from each of the countries proposed for
cumulation, and expressed a desire for this point to be reinforced in the note prepared by theSecretariat.  Many Members pointed out that they considered that no single criteria was or should be
considered determinative, and requested that this point figure prominently in any subsequent drafts of
the list.  One Member pointed out that, depending on the facts, any particular criterion might support
cumulation, or not.  Another Members noted that while it had some concerns with some of the criteria
listed, it considered that an investigating authority could take the listed criteria into account, as the
facts dictated, and need not consider every element in each case.  The Chairman asked Members
whether they considered that discussions on this topic had progressed to the point where theSecretariat might prepare a draft recommendation, on the basis of the list prepared by the Secretariat,
for the Group's consideration at a future meeting.  The Group agreed that this would be a desirable
course of action.
8. At the end of the discussions on this topic the Secretariat was requested to prepare, in light of
the discussions at the meeting, a draft recommendation on possibly relevant criteria regardingconditions of competition for consideration in deciding whether a cumulative assessment of the
effects of imports is appropriate in light of those conditions.
9. The Group then turned to the next item on the agenda, practical issues and experience with
respect to questionnaires and requests for information under Articles 6.1 and 6.1.1.  At the October-
November 2001 meeting the Secretariat was requested to prepare a draft recommendation on anindicative list of elements relevant to a decision on a request for an extension of time to provide
information requested.  After intensive discussion and consideration of proposed revisions and
drafting suggestions, the Group adopted a draft recommendation on an indicative list of elements
relevant to a decision on a request for an extension of time to provide information requested.  TheG/ADP/AHG/R/9
Page 3
Chairman thanked the Group for its hard work and cooperative spirit, and noted that he would place
the recommendation of the Group before the Committee for adoption at its meeting.2
10. The Group turned to consideration of the next item on the agenda, practical issues and
experience in providing opportunities for industrial users and consumer organizations to provide
information under Article 6.12.  At the October-November 2000 meeting the Secretariat wasrequested to compile a list of questions posed by Members in their written submissions and in the
course of the meeting on the application of lesser duty and consideration of public interest.  This list
was circulated as document G/ADP/AHG/W/107.  The discussions of the Group focused on the list of
questions prepared by the Secretariat.  Several Members explained their own practices in taking
account of public interest considerations, and in providing opportunities of industrial users and
consumer organizations to provide information.  Some Members put forwar d the view that a link
could be established between consideration of the public interest in the imposition of an anti-dumpingduty and the application of the lesser duty rule.  Another Members considered that it might be more
productive to consider the two aspects separately.  Several Members commented on the usefulness of
information concerning how Members apply the lesser duty rule.  In this regard, the Chairman noted
that this issue had been discussed in conjunction with the first set of topics referred to the Ad Hoc
Group in 1996.  Members were requested, in July 1997, to provide information on their application ofthe lesser duty rule.  The information received was compiled by the Secretariat and issued in
document G/ADP/AHG/W/43, dated 16 April 1998.  The Chairman asked Members whether they
considered that discussions on this topic had progressed to the point where the Secretariat might
prepare a draft recommendation, on the basis of the note prepared by the Secretariat, for the Group's
consideration at a future meeting.  Several Members expressed their view that proceeding toconsideration of a draft recommendation on this topic was premature at this moment in time.
11. At the end of the Group's discussion on this topic the Secretariat was requested to revise the
list of questions posed by Members in their written submissions and in the course of the meeting on
the application of lesser duty and consideration of public interest.  Members were asked to respond to
these questions in preparation for the next meeting.  Members were also requested to submit papersand suggestions on the question of implementation of the Article 6.12 requirement to provide
opportunities for industrial users and representative consumer organizations to provide information
which is relevant to the investigation regarding dumping, injury, and causality. The Chairman
requested any Member who had not already done so to provide a description of how the lesser duty
rule is applied by the Member, and stated that any responses will be circulated in an updated revision
of document G/ADP/AHG/W/43.
12. The Group turned to the next item on its agenda, consideration of a draft recommendation
concerning matters to be included in preliminary affirmative determinations, room document dated 3
November 2000.  A number of Members commented on the draft recommendation, and made specific
proposals concerning drafting, which were discussed by the Group in detail.  Members also
commented concerning the relationship between th e draft recommendation and the differing national
practices in which it might be applied.  A number of Members expressed concern about includingappropriate language clarifying the legal status of recommendations.  Several Members considered
that a horizontal approach to this question might be more appropriate, and it was agreed that this issue
might usefully be discussed in the Committee meeting later in the week.
13. The Secretariat was asked to prepare a revised version of the draft recommendation as a room
document, incorporating suggestions made at the meeting and reflecting tentative agreements on abasis for continued discussion at the Group's next meeting. After the meeting of the Committee on
                                                     
2 The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices subsequently adopted the recommendation concerning an
indicative list of elements relevant to a decision on a request for an extension of time to provide informationrequested on 26 April 2001.  Document G/ADP/7, dated 1 May 2001.G/ADP/AHG/R/9
Page 4
26 April 2001, the Group continued its discussions on this item.3  Members made further drafting
proposals, and the Secretariat was requested to prepare a further revised room document, which was
circulated to Members by telefax after the conclusion of that session..
14. After the substantive discussions, the Chairperson noted that the Group was close to
exhausting the potential for useful discussion with  respect to some of the topics now before the
Group, and therefore proposed that the Group begin the process of developing new topics for
discussion.  With the Group's agreement, Members were therefore requested to submit, by
31 July 2001, written proposals for new topics to be referred by the Committee to the Group for
discussion.
15. The Group agreed that its next meeting would be scheduled in conjunction with the autumn
regular meeting of the Committee, commencing Monday 22 October 2001.
16. The Group agreed that papers and other subm issions for the Group's next meeting should be
transmitted to the Secretariat no later than 10 September 2001.
__________
                                                     
3 The Committee having held its election of officers the morning of 26 April 2001, the meeting of the
Group continued with Ms Sahar Hosni (Egypt) as Chairperson.