RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/R/10
27 February 2002
(02-0979)
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,
22-23 OCTOBER 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 22-23 October 2001.1  The Group adopted the proposed agenda for the meeting, which had
been circulated in WTO/AIR/1647, dated 11 October 2001.
2. The Chairperson (Ms. Ana Novik, Chile) observed that the discussions would follow the
order in the adopted agenda.  Regarding the draft recommendations for consideration before the
Group, the Chairperson 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 the Membership of the Group arecoextensive, 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 Chairperson
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 Chairperson 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 Chairperson 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.  As was the case in the previous meeting, the discussions of the
Group focused on the list of elements that have been considered in selecting transactions to be
compared in the context of a transaction-to-transaction analysis under Article 2.4.2 of the Agreement.This list was prepared by the Secretariat a nd circulated as document G/ADP/AHG/W/106.  The
Chairperson asked Members whether they considered that discussions on this topic had progressed to
the point where the Secretariat might prepare a draft recommendation for the Group's consideration at
a future meeting.  Some Members expressed their view that given the limited practical experience in
the use of transaction-to-transaction analysis it may not be advisable to adopt a recommendation in
                                                     
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/10
Page 2
this area.   As a consequence, no further action was proposed, and the discussion was tabled pending
further submissions on this topic.
6. The Group then turned to the next item on the agenda, termination of investigations under
Article 5.8 in cases of de minimis  import volume. The Chairperson noted that this topic seemed to be
related to a topic being proposed by the EC for discussion in the Group, and which was the subject ofdiscussions in the implementation process, concer ning the time-frame used for determining whether
import volumes are negligible. On the basis of a paper presented by a Member, the Group discussed
the possible benefits of conducting a negligibility test based on the market share of the allegedly
dumped imports, in addition to the import share threshold contemplated in the Agreement.  Some
Members supported the idea of using the market share- based test in addition to the test provided for in
the Agreement.  Regarding the length of the period used for determining whether imports are
negligible, many Members noted that a 12-month period, corresponding with the dumpinginvestigation period, was the usual practice in their administration.  The Chairperson 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 12-month period but allowing for
some flexibility. This draft recommendation would be available for the Group's consideration at a
future meeting.  The Group agreed that this would be a desirable course of action.
7. 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 the period to be considered in determining
whether imports are negligible under Article 5.8.
8. 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 provideinformation under Article 6.12.  The Group's discussion focused on whether a link between
consideration of the public interest in the imposition of an anti-dumping duty and the application of
the lesser duty rule could be established.  Some Members were of the view that these two issues
should be considered separately, as they pertained to two distinct questions.  Other Members
expressed the view that the intervention of certain interested parties in the investigation, such asconsumers and industrial users, could lead to a consideration of lesser duty.  Therefore, there was at
least an intellectual or theoretical link between the two issues, which should thus be considered
together.  However, the Group did not come to any conclusions on this topic, and the discussion was
tabled.
9. The Group then turned to the next item on the agenda, suggestions for new topics of
discussion for the Group. The Group first discussed whether to table any of the topics currently before
the Group.  The Chairperson proposed that, according to procedures previously followed by theCommittee, discussion on all six of the topics before the Group be tabled, with the exception of
continuing discussions on the draft recommendations before the Group.  Thus, unless a Member
submitted a new paper concerning these topics, they would not be taken up at the Group's next
meeting.  The Group agreed to the Chairperson's proposal.
10. Turning to the suggestions on new topics to be considered, which could be found in papers
submitted by the European Communities and Israel, the Group discussed each of the new topics being
proposed.  The discussion on the proposed new topics was very useful.  However, it was not possible
to resolve which, if any, of those topics should be referred to the Group by the Committee for
discussion.  The Secretariat was asked to revise the drafting of the proposed topics, along the lines
discussed during the meeting, for consideration by the Committee at its meeting later in the week.
2
                                                     
2 At its meeting on 25 October 2001, the Committee decided to postpone any decision referring new
topics to the Group until after the Ministerial Conference.   A special meeting of the Committee to consider the
matter was scheduled for 7 December 2001.G/ADP/AHG/R/10
Page 3
11. The Group turned to consideration of the next item on the agenda, practical issues and
experiences in cases involving cumulation under Article 3.3. At the April 2001 meeting the
Secretariat was requested to prepare a draft recommendation concerning conditions of competition
that may be relevant to a decision whether a cumulative assessment of the effects of imports is
appropriate.   This draft recommendation was circulated as document G/ADP/AHG/W/121. A numberof Members commented on the draft recommendation.  Some Members had specific proposals
concerning drafting, and additional suggestions clarifying the relationship between the draft
recommendation and the differing national practices in which it might be applied.
12. 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 a
basis for continued discussion at the Group's next meeting.
13. 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 27
April 2001. After intensive discussion and consideration of proposed revisions and drafting
suggestions, the Group arrived at a consensus on the text of 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.  The Chairperson thanked the Group for its hard work and cooperative spirit, and noted thatshe would place the recommendation of the Group before the Committee for adoption at its meeting
later in the week.  The Chairperson also noted that adoption of the draft recommendation would
depend on the Committee reaching a consensus regarding the decision on the legal status of adopted
recommendations.
3
14. The Group agreed that its next meeting would be scheduled in conjunction with the next
regular meeting of the Committee, commencing Monday 22 April 2001.
15. The Group agreed that papers and other subm issions for the Group's next meeting should be
transmitted to the Secretariat no later than Monday, 11 March 2002.
__________
                                                     
3 At its meeting on 25 October 2001, the Committee was not able to arrive at a consensus regarding the
decision on the status of adopted recommendations.  The Secretariat was asked to circulate a document with theagreed text of the recommendation.  The Chairperson noted that once the matter of the legal status of adoptedrecommendations was resolved, the Committee could proceed to adopt the recommendation.