WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/Q1/CHN/15 
14 April 2004 
 (04-1663) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   English 
  
 
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE 12.6 OF THE AGREEMENT 
 
Replies to Questions Posed by ARGENTINA
1 Regarding the Notification of the  
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA2 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 13 April 2004,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of China.  
_______________ 
  Rules on Investigations and Determinations of Injury for Safeguards  
 
1. Pursuant to Article 12 it would seem that th e analysis of public interest is mandatory for 
the investigating authority.  In that respect, and in connection with the answer given by the 
People's Republic of China to the question posed by the United States in document 
G/SG/Q1/CHN/13, "Could the People's Republic of China indicate in which moment of the 
investigation interested parties are given an o pportunity to comment about public interest?" 
 
Reply
 
  The Rules have been annulled recently and this article has been deleted.  
2. Pursuant to Article 14 an applicant sha ll submit the application for safeguard 
investigation three days following the issue date of the public notice on initiating the safeguard 
investigation.  Could the People's Republic of China clarify whether this Article is also 
applicable to an initiation ex officio ?  In this case, which are the elements taken into account by 
the investigating authority to initiate  ex officio  an investigation if it does not have any  
information provided by the applicants?  Could the People's Republic of China clarify if the 
investigation is continued in cases where there is  no application within three days from the 
issuance of the public notice? 
 
Reply
 
  Article 14: The Rules have been annulled r ecently and this article has been deleted.  
 
3. Could the People's Republic of China clarify whether after the elapse of the 20 day 
period following the issue date of the public no tice on initiating the safeguards investigation 
"interested parties" can still join the investigatio n?  If so, doesn't the People's Republic of 
China consider that the relatively short deadline could prove not to be enough for foreign 
                                                     
 
1 G/SG/Q1/CHN/14 
2 G/SG/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.2 G/SG/Q1/CHN/15 
Page 2  
 
 producers to submit their applications, given th e time needed for the collection of information 
and submission of supporting material with the translation required by the Rules?  
Reply
 
 
 Article 16:  Interested parties are not allowed to register to respond beyond the 20 days after 
the initiation of investigation but they can still submit comments and information.  
4. Could the People's Republic of China indicate if there is any difference between 
Article 17 and Article 19 and the reasons for listing different "interested parties" in two 
different provisions? 
 
Reply
 
 
 Article 19: Article 17 and Article  19 are different in terms of the subject of the provision. The 
former provides for the scope of interested parties while the latter provides for targets of the injury 
investigation. It is not necessary for the two to be identical.  
5. In the case of information submitted on an  interested party's own initiative, is there any 
kind of restriction concerning the nature of the in formation or the timeframe for submission of 
written information referred to under this Article? 
 
Reply
 
  Article 27: There is no restriction concer ning the nature of the information submitted. 
However, the timeframe for submission should be as such that normal course of  determinations would 
not be affected. If the submission needs to be veri fied, enough time should be left for verification.  
 
6.  Could the People's Republic of China cl arify whether the information submitted at the 
request of the investigating authority and the information submitted under own initiative are 
verified? 
 Reply
 
 
 It is not necessary to verify general comments submitted by interested parties, while 
evidential materials shall be verified. 
 
Rules on Public Hearings 
 7.  In connection with the Rules on Public Hearings, and specifically Article 11, Argentina would be grateful if the People's Republic of China could indicate if the hearing officers are 
members of the agency that conducts the investigat ion.  If so, are those hearings officers chosen 
among officials of a given rank?  If the hearing officers are not members of the agency that 
conducts the investigation:  (i) Is there any kind of public registry containing the list of possible 
hearing officers?;  (ii) Are they all public officials?  
Reply
 
 
 Hearing officers are not limited to members of the investigating agency and they are not 
required to be of a given rank. Investigating officers can be hearing officers.   We don’t have a list of 
possible hearing officers. They are all public official s related to the investigations and their names and 
titles will be announced at the hearings. 
  G/SG/Q1/CHN/15 
 Page 3 
 
 
 8.  Could the People's Republic of China indicate if:  (i) the list of circumstances in which 
any interested party is entitled to require the wi thdrawal of a hearing of ficer is exhaustive or 
other circumstance may exist;  (ii) the referred circumstances can be invoked in order to request the withdrawal of SETC officials with respect to a particular investigation?  
Reply
 
 
 Article 12: If interested parties find circumstances that may affect the determination of a case, 
they can raise the issue. The Ministry of  Commerce will make the decision accordingly. 
 9.  With reference to Articles 19 and 20 of the Rules on Public Hearings, could the People's Republic of China clarify if a party that refuses to sign or seal the transcript mentioned in Article 19 is still entitled to submit the written vers ion of its oral statement (Article 20)?  If so, is 
this submission taken into account by the authorities? 
 Reply
 
  Article 19 and 20: Parties shall not refuse to si gn the transcript. If they have problems with 
the transcript, they can sign it after the revision. The written documents submitted after the hearings 
should be in accordance with the resp ective oral statements at the hear ings in terms of their contents. 
 
 
__________