WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/AHG/R/14 
17 February 2004 
 (04-0640) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Working Group on Implementation  
 
 
  
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE 
WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
COMMITTEE ON ANTI-DUMPING PRACTICES, 
21 OCTOBER 2003 
 
Note by the Secretariat  
  
1. The Working Group on Implementation ("the Group") met in formal session and held 
substantive discussions concerning the topics re ferred to it by the Committee on Anti-Dumping 
Practices ("the Committee") on May 2003.
1  The Group adopted the agenda for the meeting, which 
had been circulated in WTO/AIR/2186,  dated 10 October 2003, as amended. 
2. The Chairman, (Mr. David Evans, New Zealand) noted that the Group would take up the five 
topics for discussion in the order set forth in th e agenda, as adopted.  These were:  (a) the draft 
recommendation concerning conditions of competition that may be relevant to a decision whether a 
cumulative assessment of the effects of imports is appropriate, (b) export prices to third countries or 
constructed normal value, (c) conduc t of verification (d) judicial, arbitral or administrative review, 
and (e) foreign exchange fluctuations. 
3. Turning first to the draft recommendation on cu mulation, the Chairman reminded Members of 
the applicable procedures.  If the Group came to a consensus on the draft recommendation, it would be 
sent forward to the Committee for its consideration.  Given that the membership of the Committee and 
the membership of the Group are co extensive, and all Members would have had an opportunity to 
consider the draft recommendation, and discuss it in the Group, there should be little need for discussion in the Committee before deciding whether to adopt a recommendation of the Group as a Committee 
Decision.  Therefore, if a draft recommendation was agreed to by the Group, and sent forward to the 
Committee at the end of the meeting, he would put it before the Committee at its meeting later in the week, and propose that a decision be made at that meeting.  
4. The Group then turned to the consideration of the draft recommendation concerning 
conditions of competition that may be relevant to a decision whethe r a cumulative assessment of the 
effects of imports is appropriate, which had b een circulated as document G/ADP/AHG/W/121/Rev.3.  
The Chairman noted that no new papers on this  topics were received.  A number of Members 
commented on the draft recommendation.  Some Members had specific proposals concerning 
drafting, and additional suggestions clarifying th e relationship between the draft recommendation and 
the differing national practices in which it might be applied.   
5. The Secretariat was asked to prepare a revised version of the draft recommendation, 
incorporating suggestions made at the meeting a nd reflecting tentative agreements and areas of 
                                                     
 
1 The list of topics referred to the Working Group was circulated to Members in document 
G/ADP/W/433. G/ADP/AHG/R/14 
Page 2  
 
disagreement, and circulate it to Member as a work ing document as a basis for continued discussion at 
the Group's next meeting.
2 
6. Turning to the second item on the agenda, export prices to third countries or constructed 
normal value – Article 2.2, Australia intro duced its paper, circulated as document 
G/ADP/AHG/W/149.  During the ensuing discussions, the view was expressed that Article 2.2 does 
not seem to contain a hierarchy according to which the different methodologies should be applied or 
indicate a preference for one over the other.  Regard ing the use of export prices to third countries as 
the basis for determining normal value, issues on which the Agreement does not provide guidance, 
were raised, such as the "like product" issue, the selection of the appropriate third country, the issue 
that the sales used should be found to have been ma de in the ordinary course of trade and that these 
sales had to be representative, and the possibility that export prices to third countries might be at a 
dumped price, although they might have been in the ordinary course of trade.  Members agreed to continue discussions on the topic at the Group's next  meeting, and the Chairman urged Members to 
contribute papers on it, including papers d escribing their own practice in this regard. 
7. The next item which was discussed was the conduct of verification – Article 6.7.  Australia, 
the United States, and Canada introduced their pa pers, circulated as documents G/ADP/AHG/W/148, 
G/ADP/AHG/W/152, and G/ADP/AHG/W/154, respectiv ely.  It appeared from the papers and 
discussions that some investigating authorities inform exporters who were to be verified on site, of the 
nature of the process and the documents which should be made available during the verification visit.  
In certain instances pre-verification meetings with expor ters are also held.  It also appears not to be 
common practice to submit a "verification report" to the exporter verified, either before the 
investigators leave the country, or thereafter.  If a verification report is prepared, it appears that such a 
report not set out a decision of dumping per se , but is simply a report on the facts observed during the 
verification.  In certain instances, an on-site verifi cation is not done, but veri fication is done through a 
"desk audit".  The decision on whether a "desk a udit" should be done rather than an on-site 
verifications depended, as described by Members, on a number of issues and was highly specific to 
the facts of the particular case.  Relevant consider ations appeared to include whether the case is a 
review or an original investigation and /or whethe r the relevant exporter already has a positive "track 
record" with the investigating authority.  Othe r issues raised were the use of non-governmental 
officials in the verification process, verification vis its to persons affiliated to  the producers, exporters 
or importers, and verification visits  to the domestic industry.  Member s agreed to continue discussions 
on the topic at the Group's next meeting, and the Ch airman urged Members to contribute papers on it, 
including papers describing their own practice in this regard. 
8. The Group then discussed judicial, arbitral or  administrative review – Article 13.  New 
Zealand, Canada and the United States introdu ced their papers, circulated as documents 
G/ADP/AHG/W/150, G/ADP/AHG/W/153 and G/ADP/AHG/W/155, respectively.  From the papers and discussions, it appeared that some Members use ex isting domestic courts of law, up to the highest 
level, for purposes of review, rather than special  bodies dedicated only to anti-dumping reviews.  
NAFTA member states also have the option of a NA FTA dispute settlement panel.  In the discussions, 
the following issues, inter alia , were raised:  Who can challeng e the decision to impose an anti-
dumping duty?  Can a procedural "mistake" be cha llenged?  Are there remand provisions, or would a 
procedural mistake result in a "fatal" error?  Can domestic producers launch court proceedings in the case where the investigating authority has failed to e ither initiate an investigation or to impose anti-
dumping duties and can civil damage s be awarded against the inves tigating authority for improper 
action?  Further questions raised included the frequen cy of judicial reviews, the role of injunctive 
relief impending the resolution of a case, the possib ility to appeal interim measures, the judicial 
review of the public interest determination, and th e timeframes involved in the review process.  Due 
to the number of issues raised and as many of the si gnificant users of the instrument had not explained 
                                                     
 
2 Subsequently issued as document G/ADP/AHG/W/121/Rev.4.  G/ADP/AHG/R/14 
 Page 3 
 
 
their practices in this regard, the Chairman particul arly urged Members to submit papers on this topic 
for discussion at the Group's next meeting. 
9. The next topic discussed was foreign exchange fluc tuations – Article 2.4.1.  The United States 
introduced its paper, circulated as document G/ADP/AHG/W/151.  It was commented that the Agreement does not contain clear guidance on this i ssue, and that even the meaning of the term 
"fluctuation" was unclear, as an exchange rate can only fluctuate if it is measured against a 
benchmark.  As a number of deta iled questions were posed to the Un ited States regarding its practice, 
it requested that these questions be put in writin g for a detailed response.  Members agreed to 
continue discussions on the topic at the Group's next  meeting, and the Chairman urged Members to 
contribute papers on it, including papers d escribing their own practice in this regard. 
10. In conclusion, the Chairman noted that the Group had a very useful first round of discussions 
of the four new topics and encouraged Members to submit papers on these topics for discussion at the next meeting.  The Group agreed that its next meeting would be scheduled in conjunction with the 
next regular meeting of the Committee, commenc ing Tuesday, 20 April 2004 and that papers and 
other submissions for the Group's next meeting should be transmitted to the Secretariat no later than 
9 March 2004. 
__________