RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/R/8
29 November 2000
(00-5135)
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,
30-31 OCTOBER AND 1-2 NOVEMBER 2000
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 30 October and 1 November 2000.1  The proposed agenda for the meeting, which had been
circulated in WTO/AIR/1415, date d 20 October 2000, was amended to include discussions on the
topic practical issues and experience in providing opportunities for industrial users and consumer
organizations to provide information under Article 6.12 on the basis of a paper submitted by Israel.
As amended, the proposed agenda was adopted by the Group.
2. The Chairman (Mr. Milan Hovorka, Czech Republic) reminded the Group that the discussion
would follow the order in the adopted agenda.  Regarding the draft recommendation before the Group
for consideration, 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 the 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 Chairmanexpected, if the draft recommendation on the agenda was agreed to at this meeting, to put it before the
Committee at the Committee's meeting later in the week for decision.  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 the conduct of anti-dumping investigations that they believe are consistent with theAgreement‘s requirements.  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 available in all three WTO official languages before the meeting.
3. The Group then turned to item A on the agenda for this meeting, the topic of practical issues
and experience in applying Article 2.4.2.  At the May 2000 meeting of the Group the Secretariat wasasked to compile a list of questions posed by Members in the discussions concerning practical issues
and experience applying Article 2.4.2.  This list was circulated as document G/ADP/AHG/W/94. The
discussions of the Group focused on the listed questions which were considered sequentially in the
order that they appeared in the document.  Some issues emerged from the answers by some Members
to the questions.  One issue was whether the methodology set forth in Article 2.4.2 applied to bothoriginal investigations and reviews of anti-dumping duties.  To some Members Article 2.4.2 should
apply in all circumstances where a margin of dumping is to be established.  Other Members made it
                                                     
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/8
Page 2
clear that they only applied Article 2.4.2 for original investigations and not for reviews. In other
instances Members explained that for their particular practice the use of Article 2.4.2 in reviews
would not be applicable as their preferred form of anti-dumping measure was a variable duty
determined for each export on the basis of the normal value. Another issue of concern to some
Members was the use of sampling of transactions in the establishment of the export price and thenormal value.  Questions were raised as to when sampling was used and the criteria for selecting the
sample as well as where in the Anti-Dumping Ag reement such sampling was provided for.  One
Member proposed that a recommendation should be drafted suggesting that countries that change their
usual practices with respect to the calculation of the dumping margin, for specific cases, should offer
some reasoning for that change in their determin ations.  Various Members questioned the practicality
of this idea given the difficulties in establishing what the usual practice was.   During the discussions
some members reiterated their concerns expressed at previous meetings with regards to the practiceknown as "zeroing".
4. To conclude the discussions on this topic Members were asked to submit papers describing
circumstances which they consider might be relevant in a particular situation in deciding on an
appropriate comparison methodology under Article 2.4.2 of the Agreement.  The Secretariat was
requested to compile, from Members' submissions, a list of elements that have been considered inselecting transactions to be compared in the context of a transaction-to-transaction analysis under
Article 2.4.2 of the Agreement.
5. 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. The Group
discussed a list of elements proposed for consideration by investigating authorities in a decision onwhether to grant an extension of time to reply to questionnaires.  One Member made the point that the
purpose of anti-dumping investigations was to prove the veracity of the complaint, as imports were
not presumed to be dumped.  Thus, the exporter should be allowed great flexibility in responding to
questionnaires.  Also, that Member was of the view that while granting a two-week extension would
not greatly delay the investigation, it could be cruc ial for the exporter to be able to present its
information to the authorities.  This same thought was echoed by another Member who commented
that the overriding concern in an investigation was to get the facts on the table and whenever possible
avoid the use of facts available.  Other Members mentioned that they were not in favor of granting
"automatic" extensions based on the fulfilment of specific conditions.  In their view offering
sympathetic consideration for extension requests  from developing country exporters was more
desirable.  Several Members emphasized that decisions on requests for extensions of time had to take
account of the timing of the request and the stage of the investigation, in light of the deadlines in theAgreement.  Another Member pointed out that the factors listed could be considered as either
favouring or disfavouring the grant of an extension depending on the facts of the case.  Some
Members expressed their view that it would be more useful having a "positive" list of factors i.e., a
list of factors which, if present, would result in a request being granted.
6. The Group's discussions of this topic concluded with a request to the Secretariat to prepare 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.  Some Members wanted it to be made clear in the
text of the draft recommendation that any list of relevant elements was indicative, non-exhaustive or
controlling and only served as guide to investigating authorities.
7. 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.  The Group discussed some questions that were raised by Members on
the concept of a public interest provision in the context of anti-dumping investigations and on the
practical application of such a provision.  Some Me mbers put forward their views that a link could be
established between consideration of the public interest in the imposition of an anti-dumping duty andthe application of the lesser duty rule.  Many Members were not of the same view because in theirG/ADP/AHG/R/8
Page 3
practice decisions with respect to application of a lesser duty and the consideration of the effect of an
anti-dumping duty on the public interest were done at different stages of the investigation and at
different administrative levels.  Other Members also highlighted that in their practice application of a
lesser duty may be mandatory while any modification of an anti-dumping measure to take into
account public interest considerations was discretionary.
8. At the end of the Group's discussion on this topic the Secretariat was requested 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.  Members could then respond to
these questions in preparation for the next meeting, and in addition might, if they have relevant
practice in this regard, provide explanations of that practice.
9. 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 May 2000 meeting of the Group the Secretariat wasrequested to compile and circulate a document setting forth possibly relevant criteria regarding the
conditions of competition for consideration in deciding whether a cumulative assessment of the
effects of imports is appropriate in light of those conditions.  This document was circulated as
G/ADP/W/93. Members offered their views as to the re levance of each of the listed criteria.  Most
Members agreed that points 1 and 3 of the Secretariat note could be merged as there was someoverlap between the two.  On points 2 and 5 it was mentioned that the criteria being offered were not
necessarily a proof of the conditions of competi tion but were useful as indicators about these
conditions.  Not all Members agreed that point 4 regarding a similarity in the channels of distribution
was a relevant criterion.  However, to some Members this was a key issue, thus, more clarification on
this point was requested from those Members that considered it relevant.  On points 6 and 7 oneMember remarked that those criteria would not be useful or applicable in their case, to which other
Members replied that not all of the criteria needed to be present and that their function was mostly
indicative.
10. At the end of the discussions on this topic the Secretariat was requested to revise, in light of
the discussions at the meeting, the list of possibly relevant criteria regarding conditions of competitionfor consideration in deciding whether a cumulative assessment of the effects of imports is appropriate
in light of those conditions.  Members who had not already done so might submit a description of
their own practice regarding cumulation, including, to the extent relevant, the role of any of the
criteria on the list.
11. The Group then turned to the next item on the agenda Topic 3, Article 6.10 sampling method.
This topic, which was one of the original topics considered by the Group was reintroduced for
discussion upon receipt of a new paper on this topic submitted for the November 2000 meeting.  Thediscussions on this topic focussed on the timing for the selection of the sample.  One Member
described its practice of waiting for responses to questionnaires from the exporters and importers to be
received before proceeding to select the sample. Another Member stated that in its practice an initial
limited questionnaire was issued to aid in the selection of the sample.
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,
G/ADP/AHG/W/64/Rev.3.  A number of 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.
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 a
basis for continued discussion at the Group's next meeting.G/ADP/AHG/R/8
Page 4
14. The Group agreed that its next meeting would be scheduled in conjunction with the spring
regular meeting of the Committee, commencing Monday 23 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 12 March 2001.
__________