WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/39 
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/39 14 April 2004 
 
(04-1661) 
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 Follow-up Questions Posed by ARGENTINA1 
Regarding the Notification of CHINA2 
   The following communication, dated 13 April 2004,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of China. 
_______________ 
 
1.  Question 8:  Regarding the notification  contained in document G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2 and 
in the light of the replies given in document  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/17 (7 May 2003), it would be 
appreciated if China could provide a more detaile d answer to question No. 8, explaining how  
notification of the essential facts is effected: by means of a document, a meeting between the 
parties or by consulting the public file. 
 
Reply
 
 
 According to the Anti-dumping Regulation of th e People’s Republic of China and Provisional 
Rules for Disclosure of Information in Anti-dumpi ng Investigations, MOFCOM informs the interest 
parties who provided information in the course of in vestigation of basic data, information, evidence 
and reasons on the basis of which dumping and du mping margin of these parties are determined 
through the procedure of information disclosure befo re final determination. Such disclosure is made 
in writing. After MOFCOM made disclosure before th e final determination, relevant interested parties 
receiving the disclosure would be given no less than 10 days for comments on relevant facts subject to 
disclosure.  
 
Question 9:  Regarding the reply to question No . 9, it would be appreciated if China could 
inform whether it has envisaged what might constitute "other circumstances", despite not 
having had any practical experience of cases under Article 27.5. 
 
Reply  
 
 While determining whether it constitutes “oth er circumstances” under Article 27.5 of the 
Anti-dumping Regulation of the People’s Republic of China, MOFCOM may consider such factors as 
the balance between the interests of upstream and downstream industries, whether it will have 
unbeneficial effect on the supply of the domestic mark et, whether it will do harm to the competition in 
the domestic market (monopoly and unfair competition) and so on.  
                                                     
 
1 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/38-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/38, referring to G/ADP/Q1/CHN/17-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/17. 
2 G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.2. G/ADP/Q1/CHN/39 
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/39 Page 2 
 
 
 2.(a) When detailing the reasons for which injury  will not be attributed to dumped imports, 
this provision cites reasons of force majeure  in addition to those listed in the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.  Could China please specify what these reasons might be or give examples? 
 
Reply
 
  (a)   The Rules has been annulled recen tly and this article has been deleted.  
 (b) Article 13:  With regard to China's statement that, in its determination of injury, the 
technical body may exclude the product under investigation or part thereof that "did 
not cause injury", and taking into account  the reply given to the United States of 
America in document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/32, it is Argentina's understanding that, in the determination of injury, the technical body considers information about the investigated 
product as a whole, which may be divided into parts for the purposes of more detailed 
analysis.  As a result of such analysis, it is possible to determine whether or not injury is caused by the product as a whole or by one or  several of the selected parts, giving rise to 
the application, or not, as the case may be, of anti-dumping measures.  In other words, 
the exclusion to which Article 13 refers would appear to be for the purposes of 
implementing a measure and not for determ ining injury.  Could China please clarify 
whether the above interpretation is correct and whether this is the meaning of the 
exclusion referred to in Article 13? 
 
Reply
 
 
 (b)   The Rules has been annulled recen tly and this article has been deleted . 
 
(c) Article 18:  From a reading of the text of this provision, it would seem that the 
implementing authority is required to carry out a public interest analysis.  In that respect, and further to the reply provided by China to the United States of America in document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/32, could China please indicate at what stage in the 
investigation the different parties are given th e opportunity to comment on the issue of 
public interest? 
 
Reply
 
 
 (c)   The Rules has been annulled recen tly and this article has been deleted. 
 
(d) Article 23:  It is Argentina's understanding that interested parties have 20 days 
following the publication of the initiation of an investigation to come forward and 
register as such.  Is it impossible for addition al interested parties to come forward after 
this time?  In other words, is the deadline fo r participation in the investigation absolute? 
 
Reply  
  (d) The 20 days should be enough for interest ed parties to respond to the petition. The 
deadline is absolute in terms that interest ed parties have to register within it. 
Nevertheless, they can still submit comment s and information beyond that deadline. 
 
(e) Article 29:  Does the implementing author ity send questionnaires only to the parties who 
have come forward in accordance with Article 23, or does it also send them out to other known producers/importers/exporters?  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/39 
 G/SCM/Q1/CHN/39 
 Page 3 
 
 
 Reply  
  (e)   Questionnaires will be sent to not only the parties who have come forward, but also 
other known producers/importers/e xporters. However, the legal interests of interested 
parties will be better protected by their proactive response. 
 
(f) With regard to the rules on public hearings, and in particular to Article 11, we would be 
grateful if China could clarify whether or not the hearing officers are members of the investigating body.  If so, a re they selected from among officials above a certain rank?  
If they are not members of that body:  (i) Is th ere some sort of official register listing the 
names of potential officers?  (ii)  Are they Government officials? 
 
Reply
 
 
 (f)   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 officials related to the investigations and their names and titles will be announced at the hearings. 
 
(g) Article 12:  Could China please answer the fo llowing questions:  (i) Is the list of reasons 
set out in Article 12 that may be invoked by an interested party to require the 
withdrawal of an officer exhaustive, or might there be other reasons?  (ii) Can these reasons be invoked for the purposes of requesting the withdrawal of SETC officials from an investigation? 
 Reply
 
  (g)   If interested parties find circumstances that may affect the determination of a case, 
they can raise the issue. The Minist ry of Commerce will make the decision 
accordingly.  
(h) With regard to Articles 19 and 20 of the rules on public hearings, could China please 
clarify whether a party that has refused to sign the written transcript mentioned in Article 19 will still be entitled to submit its written version of the oral presentations (Article 20), and whether that submission is  taken into consideration by the authority? 
 Reply
 
  (h)   Parties shall not refuse to sign the transcript. If they have problems with the 
transcript, they can sign it after the re vision. The written documents submitted after 
the hearings should be in accordance with  the respective oral statements at the 
hearings in terms of their contents. 
 
__________