WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/12
11 November 2003
(03-6020)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS
ON TRANSITIONAL REVIEW OF CHINA
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices undertook the second transitional review of China
pursuant to Paragraph 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China(WT/L/432) at its meeting on 23-24 October 2003. 
2. There is no information specified for subm ission to the Committee under Annex 1A to the
Protocol.  Members had submitted questions in the context of the transitional review relating to
China's implementation of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreementon Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the Anti-Dumping Agreement).  These can be found in documents
G/ADP/W434 (submitted by Japan) and G/ADP/W/436 (submitted by the United States).
3. The statements made at the meeting of 23-24 October 2003, at which the transitional review
was Item L of the agenda, are reflected in the minutes of the meeting, which will be circulated asdocument G/ADP/M/25.  The relevant paragraphs, which reflect the statements made and the
discussion at the meeting, are annexed.G/ADP/12
Page 2
Excerpt from the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
held 23-24 October 2003, to be circulated as document G/ADP/M/25
L. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF
THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
1. The Chairman recalled that paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People's
Republic of China to the WTO provides that all subsidiary bodies, including the Committee, "which
have a mandate covering China's commitments under the WTO Agreement or [the] Protocol shall,
within one year after accession, review, as appropria te to their mandate, the implementation by China
of the WTO Agreement and of the related provisions of [the] Protocol".  He noted that China was to
provide relevant information in advance of the re view, including information specified in Annex 1A
of the Protocol, and that China can also raise issues relating to any reservations under Section 17 or to
any other specific commitments made by other Members on the Protocol in subsidiary bodies which
have  a relevant mandate.  The Committee must report the results of the review promptly to theCouncil for Trade in Goods.  Review is to take pl ace after  accession in each year for eight years with
a final review in year 10 or at an earlier date decided by the General Council.  There are no
procedures set out for the conduct of the transiti on review in the Protocol, except that China is to
provide relevant information in advance of the review. 
2. The Chairman noted in this regard that there is no information specified for submission to the
Committee under Annex 1A.  Members had submitted questions in the context of the transitional
review relating to China's implementation of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the Anti-Dumping Agreement).  These can be found
in documents G/ADP/W434 (submitted by Ja pan) and G/ADP/W/436 (submitted by the
United States).
3. Before turning to the questions posed by Members, the Chair asked whether any Member had
any general comments.
4. The delegate of the United States stated that the United States would like to recognize China’s
efforts over the past year as it worked to fashion an anti-dumping regime that is transparent, subject to
the rule of law and in compliance with WTO rules.  This process was not complete, however, and in
the spirit of the TRM the United States was taking this opportunity to highlight areas where further
improvements could be made.  To assist in making this review as productive as possible, the
United States had submitted written questions, in document G/ADP/W/436.  He noted that written
questions and answers were the most practical and appropriate form to accurately transmit technicalinformation.  It was in the interests of all Members – including China – to promote a free exchange of
information through the mechanisms provided by the WTO, including the transitional review
mechanism. 
5. The United States applauded China’s on-going efforts to round out the legal framework of its
anti-dumping regime.  The delegate noted that China had issued ministerial rules on industry injury
investigations as well as judicial interpretations on hearing anti-dumping appeals.  Nonetheless, gaps
remained in this legal structure.  One notable gap was in the area of expiration reviews, which left
China in the position of currently conducting an expiration review without having ministerial rules on
the books.
6. The delegate also noted that China had notified many of these anti-dumping laws and
regulations to the WTO.  Other such laws and regulations – including those concerning judicial
review of anti-dumping measures – had not been notified.  Notification of such laws and regulations is
required by the WTO, specifically Article 18.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, to increase thetransparency of Members’ anti-dumping regimes.  Furthermore, as China’s initial anti-dumpingG/ADP/12
Page 3
actions since joining the WTO are now coming to final decisions, it was essential that clear rules be in
place and known to all parties regarding procedures for seeking judicial review.  It was also important
for such parties to be provided with a clear understanding of the legal authority the courts have over
the decisions made by the administering authorities.  The United States, therefore, expected China to
notify all laws and regulations that have a bearing on anti-dumping investigations and reviews to thisCommittee.  The United States also invited China, as it had all other active users of the anti-dumping
remedy, to submit papers describing its practice regarding the various topics now under discussion in
the Working Group on Implementation.
7. The United States appreciated China’s providing answers to the questions posed to it by the
United States in the spring of 2003 on laws and regulations notified as of that date under Article 18.5.
1
 Unfortunately, the late date of China’s response precluded the United States from commenting on the
content of those answers.  Members of the AD Committee had agreed to these procedures in order to
establish a technical forum for gaining a deeper understanding of each other’s anti-dumping regimes. 
This procedure was not unique to China, and many Members developed and developing, large and
small, had participated in this process.  The United States expected China to meet its responsibility to
answer such questions promptly and in full, as all Members had agreed. 
8. The transparency concerns of the United States did not end with China’s participation in
transparency exercises in this Committee.  Of potentially greater concern was the extent to which the
conduct of investigations and reviews was transparent to the interested parties involved in them.  In
particular, many respondent companies had compla ined that there was insufficient information
released to parties to reasonably mount an effective defence.  The delegate noted that the Ministry of
Commerce had created a reading room for interested parties to access public versions of certain
documents relating to anti-dumping investigations.  However, a particular shortfall was that the
Ministry, and its predecessor, the SETC, had never adequately made available documents relating to
their injury investigations.  Increasing the timeliness and breadth of the documents made available onthe public record in anti-dumping investigations and reviews would improve the utility of this reading
room. 
9. China could also enhance the transparency of its anti-dumping investigations and reviews by
providing details of the administering authorities’ decision-making processes and reasoning.  Again,
limited disclosure of the basis for decisions taken in a proceeding greatly hindered interested parties’
ability to defend themselves.  Preliminary and final determinations were particularly suitable for thesekinds of disclosures and should include substantive information considered by the administering
authorities, and a description of  the analysis conducted in the course of dumping and injury
decisions.  
10. China had informed this Committee that the roles played by MOFTEC and SETC were now
subsumed under the Ministry of Commerce.  The role of the State Council Tariff Commission was
still not completely clear, however.  Nor did it appe ar that China had issued regulations governing the
activities of the Tariff Commission in anti-dumping investigations or reviews.  The United States
urged China to clarify the oversight role of the State Council Tariff Commission, including when it
may exercise discretion in the course of an investigation and any decisions it had made ininvestigations and reviews to date.  The United States further urged China to establish procedures for
publicizing the Tariff Commission’s decisions in anti-dumping actions.
11. The United States applauded the continued efforts of China to increase the transparency of its
anti-dumping regime and bring it into conformity with WTO rules.  The United States wished to
foster mutual cooperation and understanding on this front through multilateral mechanisms such as
the TRM process and through bilateral technical exchanges.
                                                     
1 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/14 & G/ADP/Q1/CHN/19G/ADP/12
Page 4
12. The Chairman then invited the delegate of China to take the floor to respond to the questions
and comments put to it..
13. The delegate of China took the opportunity to brief the Members and the Committee on
China's implementation of its accession commitments in relation to anti-dumping measures over the
past year, and also to respond to questions and comments from certain Members under the framework
of TRM. 
14. Part 1:  China's Implementation of its Anti-Dumping Legislation .  Competent authorities
in China carried out anti-dumping investigations on a number of cases pursuant to Chinese anti-
dumping legislations in accordance with statutory pro cedures in the past year.  During the past year,
China had initiated 3 anti-dumping investigations;  made 12 preliminary determinations and 10 final
determinations; currently, there were four anti-dumping cases pending preliminary determination. 
Furthermore, China was supervising the implemen tation of two price undertakings with respect to
change of the name and price readjustment.
15. In addition, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) published a notice of initiation on
1 July 2003 to conduct a sunset review of anti-dumping measures applied to newsprint imported from
Canada, Korea and the United States, which review was now underway.             China implemented
anti-dumping investigations in strict accordance with the Foreign Trade Law, the Regulations of the
PRC on Anti-Dumping , and the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Most Members recognized the
consistency of Chinese anti-dumping legislati ons and practices with the WTO Anti-Dumping
Agreement in the first TRM conducted in 2002.
16. Part 2:  Responses to Questions .  Prior to the meeting, some Members raised some
questions with regard to the following anti-dumping investigations:  Coated Paper, PA, SBR, PVC,TDI and Phenol.  The delegate of China undertook to respond to those questions.
1. On the application of "facts available" to determine AD measures against "all
other" companies of that country.   In the above investigations, Chinese authorities published all
anti-dumping investigations to be initiated and notified them to relevant agencies of the countries
(regions) concerned before making the public notices.  The notice of initiation of investigations leaves
all parties sufficient time to register and respond.  In addition, Chinese competent authorities issuedquestionnaires to all registered respondent companie s, thereby allowing them to furnish information
and evidence.  At the request of interested parties, hearings were organized in some cases to allow
interested parties to further express their opinions.  The Chinese investigation authority has in all the
investigations provided companies with adequate opportunity to access the relevant information via
either public channels or their diplomatic missi ons in China.  Therefore, the above anti-dumping
determinations made by China are consistent with the requirements of Article 6.8 of the ADA and its
Annex II.  It is proper that the Chinese Authority applied facts available to determine AD measures
against "all other" companies of a country that failed to respond and were unknown to the Chinese
authority or if the information is not provided within a reasonable period.  All of these measures
adopted by the Chinese Authorities are fully consistent with the AD Agreement.
2. On establishing injury and the causal link in Notices of Determinations in the
above anti-dumping investigations .  While establishing industry injuries and the causal links
between other factors, Chinese authorities strictly abide by the WTO ADA and the Chinese
legislations in the following aspects:  conducting a full and comprehensive analysis and assessment ofall indicators determining injury as recognized by WTO;  demonstrating by positive evidence that the
volume of imports from each country is not negligible and conducting an analysis of competition
conditions between imported products and between imported products and domestic like productsG/ADP/12
Page 5
while cumulatively assessing the effects of imports from more that one country, conducting an
analysis of other causes of industry injuries and clarify in the Notice of Determination;  and so on.
3. On the disclosure of relevant data and the disclosure of calculation
methodologies for determining dumping margins and the relevant data used in preliminary
injury determinations in the above-mentioned six investigations .  In all the anti-dumping
investigations in which preliminary determinat ions have been made, the Chinese authorities
expounded in Notices of Determination on the data and facts based on which the injury
determinations were made, to facilitate the commen ts by interested parties on the determinations to
protect their own interests.
4. On the examination of physical characteristics and uses of the products for
determinations of "like products" in the anti-dumping investigations of Coated Paper, SBR and TDI. 
The Chinese Authority took full account of the physical characteristics, chemical characteristics, uses
and means of distribution of the products and other factors according to Article 2.6 of the ADA in the
determination of "like product" in its investigati ons of coated paper, SBR and TDI.  All the
determinations are available in the public notice of preliminary or final determinations.  This practiceis in full conformity with the ADA.
17. The delegate of China noted that China had received another document with questions just
before this meeting.  Due to the short notice, she could only make some preliminary replies:
1. On the question of access to public information .  China had enacted the
Provisional Rules on Access to Public Information in AD investigations.  Its Article 5 provides for the
types of public information that can be accessed by the interested parties.  Its legal authority can be
found in Article 23 of the AD Regulations.
2. On the question of Judicial, Arbitral and Administrative Review .  Judicial review
and administrative review are stipulated in the Administrative Proceedings Law and Administrative
Review Law.  Article 53 of the AD Regulations provides for administrative review and judicial
review for AD investigations.  Judicial review of AD determination was further clarified by the
Supreme People's Court in its judicial interpretation.  Such reviews also apply to Customs
enforcement.
3. On the question of the function of the State Council Tariff Commission . 
According to Article 38 of AD Regulations, it makes decisions on the level of tariff duties on the
proposal of MOFCOM.  So far, it has not  modified any such proposal by MOFCOM. 
4. On the question of rules on expiration reviews .  Chapter 5 of China's AD
Regulations focuses on the time-limits and review of AD duties and price undertakings.  The
provisions were formulated in compliance with the WTO ADA.  The expiration reviews will be
conducted in strict conformity  with the AD Regulations and the WTO ADA.
18. The delegate of China stated that, since WTO accession, China had been attaching great
importance to the anti-dumping legislation and the enforcement thereof.  China initiated investigations
solely for the purpose of protecting normal internatio nal trading order, a fair competition environment
as well as the rights and interests of China's domestic industries.  The investigations target only the
injury-causing imports priced under normal value.
19. Another delegate of China then provided some additional comments concerning questions or
statements as to some of the questions that had already been addressed by the head of the Chinese
delegation.  China had made unremitting efforts to bring its legislation and practice in line with the
letter and the spirit of the WTO rules and it had worked with utmost sincerity in fulfilling itsG/ADP/12
Page 6
accession commitments.  Immense progress in this respect had made, and recognized by many.  This
was particularly true in the field of anti-dumping.  Although China had been subjected to over 540
anti-dumping investigations initiations since 1979, it had only initiated the first of its own
investigations in the year 1997.  In every investigation that it had initiated and undertaken, the
Chinese investigating authority had endeavoured to provide adequate opportunities to all theinterested parties to defend their legitimate rights and interests, and had kept open all the remedial
channels, including the ever-improving AD procedur es, and administrative and judicial reviews. 
Being one of the most frequently targeted victims of AD measures, and despite the many challenges
those in China had encountered, both as a new Member of WTO and due to the fast changing
situation, and with practical difficulties caused by government restructuring and downsizing, China
had nonetheless endeavoured to build and improve a trade remedy regime that was consistent with
WTO rules, its international obligations and such principles as transparency, procedural fairness andthe rule of law, and had enforced and implemented such a regime in the same manner.  China was not
claiming that its system and the enforcement were perfect but China believed that it had been moving
in the right direction and would continue along this path. In this process, China counted on other
Members' cooperation, trust and goodwill as well as objectivity.
20. The delegate of Japan thanked China for the responses to its questions, and stated Japan's
appreciation for the efforts made by China in developing and improving necessary legislation and
measures after its accession.  Hoping that this TRM procedure would enhance Japan's understanding
with respect to the compliance of Chinese anti-dumping measures to the WTO Agreement, Japan had
submitted some questions. 
21. One of the concerns that led Japan to submit these questions and those it still had, was the
compliance of procedure of anti-dumping investigations taken by China.  Anti-dumping investigations
should be initiated by notifying the interested parties of the initiation of the investigation.  However,
some investigations were initiated without any noti fication to the responding parties.  The Chinese
authorities then applied facts available because the responding parties did not submit any information,
even though the responding parties did not receive any notification about the initiation of the
investigation.  According to the response from China that had just been given, the Chinese
Government notified the relevant agencies instead of directly notifying the interested parties.  Japan's
follow up question was:  who is the relevant agency  that China notified about the initiation of the
investigation instead of directly notifying the ex porters or producers in the following countries?
22. The other concern Japan had was with the transparency of investigations.  Many companies
complain about the insufficient disclosure of the process of determination, especially the process of
injury determination and causality analysis.  As noted by the delegate of the United States, insufficient
disclosure hinders the opportunity for the responding parties to effectively defend themselves.  As
some responding companies and the Japanese Government were continuously submitting theircomments, the responding party should be notified sufficiently detailed explanations about the
determinations on dumping and injury.  Again, Japan hoped that its questions and clarifications in this
TRM process would enhance the transparency of anti-dumping measures taken by China and
therefore help Members to better understand the commitment of China to the WTO.
23. The delegate of the United States thanked the Chinese delegation for their comments and for
so quickly responding to the US questions.  He had two follow-up questions to ask.  First, he asked
the Chinese delegation if they would mind repeat ing the answer to the US question number 4.  In
addition, he asked, in connection with the response to the US question number 1, part (b), whether the
Chinese Government, MOFCOM, had indeed now place d injury documents in its public reading room
so that the interested parties may view them.
24. The delegate of China stated, concerning the first question, that is the notification of the
investigation initiation to the relevant interested part ies, in practice, what the authorities did in ChinaG/ADP/12
Page 7
was to send the notification prior to the public notice of initiation to the diplomatic mission of the
country of those companies whose products were subject to the investigation.  So, in the particular
cases referred to in the question posed by Japan, that diplomatic mission should be the Japanese
Embassy in Beijing.  He stated the view that this was compliance with Article 6.1.3 of the WTO
ADA. 
25. Concerning the second question, that is the transparency of China's investigations, particularly
with regard to access to information on their injury and causal link, he noted that this question was
addressed in the statement by the head of the Chinese delegation.  Actually, access to information on
injury and causal link was made possible under Article 8 of the Anti-Dumping Regulations of China,
as well as in Articles 6 and 9 under the rules on the investigation and the determination of injury to
the industries.   Here, there was a particular circumstance already referred to, that is the Government'srestructuring process.  The functions of the fo rmer SETC or State Economic and Trade Commission
with regard to the investigation of injury had al ready been incorporated into the newly established
Ministry of Commerce or MOFCOM.  Therefore, th e information relating to both the analysis of
dumping and the determination of the injury wa s now provided by MOFCOM, and the interested
parties may access MOFCOM for that information. 
26. On the two questions from the US, the de legate noted that the first concerned the
methodology or the way to address complaints concerning the decision or enforcement of anti-
dumping duties by the General Customs Administration of China.  The Chinese delegation had
already addressed this question in the statement.  W ith regard to such complaints, judicial review and
administrative review were possible and could be resorted to by the relevant parties.  China also had
special laws and regulations governing the enforc ement and the levying of customs duties by the
General Customs Administration.  Concerning the second question by the US, it was also a question
related to the access to informatio n regarding injury and the causal link.  The answer to this question
was, he thought, somewhat similar to the answer to the question posed by Japan.
27. The delegate of Japan observed that according to the response just given about the initiation
of an investigation, the Chinese authorities notified the initiation of the investigation to the diplomatic
mission, the Japanese Embassy, but the Japanese Government had never agreed to that.  The Japanese
Government has no obligation to notify the initiation of the investigation to the Japanese company.  In
accordance with the AD Agreement, it was the investig ating authority that was obliged to notify the
companies that are subject to the investigation.  Japan hoped that China would further improve the
procedure of anti-dumping measures, especially as to the notification of initiation of an investigation
and the disclosure of relevant information to the interested parties.
28. The delegate of the United States observed that, with regard to the availability of injury
documents for review by interested parties, the US  question was specifically whether such documents
were now readily available in the public reading r oom that MOFCOM maintain s in its headquarters in
Beijing?  The United States knew that MOFCOM ha d made great efforts to put documents relating to
its dumping margin calculation in this reading room, but to date the United States were not aware of
injury documents ever having been placed in this room and made available to interested parties.  So
the question was asking specifically whether such documents were now available in the readingroom.  Secondly, with regard to the rules and regulations that dictate how the Customs Administration
will apply anti-dumping duties, collect anti-dumping duties and provide for judicial review, the
United States asked that the Government of China notify to the Committee the relevant portions of
that law and those regulations so that they could be reviewed in the Committee.
29. The delegate of China observed, regarding the question by Japan, that he had checked the
WTO ADA.  Article 6.1.3 of the ADA, at footnote 16, read "it being understood that where the
number of exporters involved is particularly high the full text of the written application is to be
provided only to the authorities of the exporting member or the relevant trade association".  He notedG/ADP/12
Page 8
that this might not apply in all dimensions to the fact that China was only notifying the Japanese
diplomatic mission in China.  He had quoted it just to indicate the difficulty the investigating authority
may have in notifying all the interested parties, because the parties have to be known to the
investigating authority.  This was a practical diffic ulty and he did not think there was any specific or
very clear direct requirement set forth in the ADA. 
30. Regarding the follow-up questions from the US, the first question concerned whether the
injury information was currently available in the public reading rooms set up by the former MOFTEC,
now MOFCOM.  As he had stated, the process of government restructuring was still going on.  Of
course, it was China's intention to make such documents or information available in this public
reading room in the future.  He clarified that, even before the Ministry of Commerce was established,
SETC already had a statutory requirement to disclose such information to the interested parties, which
can be found in Article 43 of the Rules on the investigation and determination of industry and injury. 
As for the second question, it was a request to notify the relevant laws and regulations concerning or
governing the enforcement of China's General Customs and Administration.  China would of course
consider it, and try to see if this was actually required by WTO in accordance with China's
obligations.  One additional note -- even now, if so meone was interested in gaining access to the
information on injury they could directly approach the Ministry of Commerce for such information if
they could not find such information in the public reading room.
31. The delegate of Japan stated that the Japanese question was not regarding the application
submitted by the domestic industry, but as to the notification of initiation of the investigation. Anyway, Japan appreciated the response from China and expected further efforts from China through
the commitments to the WTO.
32. Turning to the Committee's report on the transitional review, the Chairman noted that there
were no guidelines for the report contained in the Protocol.  Following the review at last October's
meeting, the Chairman, acting on his own responsibility, had prepared a brief, factual report, with
references to the documents concerned, and attaching the portion of the minutes of the meeting which
relate to the transition review.  The Chairman asked Members whether this procedure should be
followed again.
33. The Committee so decided.
__________