WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/46 
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/46 
18 October 2004 
 (04-4364) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Original:   English 
 
 
 
NOTIFICATIONS OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE 18.5 AND ARTICLE 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS 
 
Replies to Additional Follow-Up Qu estions Posed by the UNITED STATES1 
Regarding the Notification of CHINA2 
 
  The following communication, dated 14 October 2004, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of the People's Republic of China.  
_______________ 
 
 
Q1. According to China’s responses provided in G/ADP/Q1/CHN/40, we understand that 
China recently annulled certain rules promulgated over the last two years concerning its conduct of antidumping and countervailing proceed ings.  Please confirm specifically all trade 
remedy rules that have been annulled and the da te of annulment.  When will replacement rules 
be notified to the WTO?  In addition, what rules will govern China’s anti-dumping and countervailing investigations during the intervening period? 
 
Reply
 
 
 After the establishment of MOFCOM, rul es on trade remedy measures were revised 
according to the new institutional set-up and ma ndates.  Among them, the three revised rules on 
Investigations on Industry Injury of Anti-dumping,  Countervailing and Safeguards were issued on 
17 October 2003 and took effect on 17 November.  A notice on the revision of other rules on trade remedy investigations was issued on 10 July 2003 in  which implementation ins titutions of those rules 
were changed and the rules are still in effect.  At  present, China is in the process of notifying those 
rules to the Committee and will make the notification as soon as possible.  
Q2. China’s response to question G in G/ADP/Q1 /CHN/40 appeared to have omitted several 
portions of the question posed by the United States.  Specifically,  
 
• What standard is presently utilized to dete rmine if an interested party’s request for a 
verification is too late?   
• When is the final opportunity for an interest ed party to request a verification before the 
final determination, and how will interested part ies be notified of this final opportunity? 
• Could China please provide some examples of "other ways to compensate, without 
infecting the accuracy of the verdict" other than conducting a verification?   
• Could China please provide some examples of  "other situations as regulated by law"? 
• What factors are considered when determ ining that "an interested party bears no 
further significant evidence"?  
 
                                                      
1 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/44-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/44. 
2 G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2 + Suppls.1 and 2 and G/SCM/N/1/CHN/1 + Suppls.1 and 2. G/ADP/Q1/CHN/46 
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/46 Page 2 
 
 Reply
 
  The Authority will consider the request for verifi cation to be too late if, at the time the request 
was raised, time will not allow the Authority to finish  the work on verification before the deadline for 
final determination.  Therefore, interested parti es shall raise the request as early as possible.  The 
Authority recommends that the request  be raised within 20 days of the preliminary determination so 
that the Authority can make the necessary arrangements for verification.  
Besides on-spot verification, the Authority can verify issues by way of holding hearings, 
requesting evidence from interested parties, making i nvestigations itself, or organize discussions with 
experts, etc.  If the Authority makes sure that the issue concerned has b een solved, the on-spot 
verification will not be necessary. 
 We have not yet had examples of “other situ ations as regulated by law” which makes the 
Authority not to conduct on-s pot verification in the cases the Authority has done so far. 
 Further significant evidence mean s the evidence that has not been submitted before and may 
cause major changes to the results of the case.  
Q3. China’s response to question M in G/ADP/Q1/CHN/40 indicated that any interested 
party may contact Investigation Bureau of Inju ry to Industry (IBII) to obtain all public 
documents regarding China’s injury investigatio ns.  We have confirmed that IBII has still not 
established a public reading room to make availabl e all non-confidential information generated 
during its injury investigations.  Furthermore, despite repeated requests, IBII has never made any public documents regarding its current and recently completed injury investigations 
available to us.  Please indicate when China plans to meet its obligations under the WTO 
Antidumping Agreement to make available non-confidential documents to all interested parties 
during the course of an investigation?  In addi tion, please specify IBII’s exact procedures for 
obtaining public injury investigation information. 
 
Reply
 
 
 After the establishment of MOFCOM, the form er Trade Remedy Measures Public Reading 
Room of MOFTEC has been transformed into the Trade Remedy Measures Public Reading Room of 
MOFCOM in which public information on injury inv estigations can also be accessed.  Interested 
parties now have access to public documents on injury  investigations of all cases in process in that 
reading room.  Interested parties can contact the investigating officers to complete the access 
procedure.  The procedure has already been ma de public on the IBII pa ge of MOFCOM website 
(www.mofcom.gov.cn).  
Q4. China stated in its reply to QB from the United States in G/ADP/Q1/CHN/42 that third 
country sales data could be used in determinin g normal value in cases of a refund application.  
However, the question posed by the United Stat es did not make any reference to refund reviews, 
but rather was referring to investigations.  We no te that Article 16 of the Provisional Rules of 
Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation on Initiation of Antidumping Investigations does not appear to be limited in  application to refund reviews.  Therefore, can 
China please explain why it would automatically re quire parties to report data on sales to third 
countries in cases where China already determined  this data would not be utilized under the 
conditions stated in Article 2.2 of the ADA? 
  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/46 
 G/SCM/Q1/CHN/46 
 Page 3 
 
 Reply
 
 
The requirement of third countries’ sales coul d serve to be a test for completeness and 
authenticity of domestic sales as well as those of e xport sales to China in the whole process of an 
investigation. 
 
Possibly, third countries’ sales could also serve as a surrogate means of normal value 
determination. China does not rule out such alternative.  
 
__________