RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/M/19
25 February 2002
(02-0950)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON 26 OCTOBER 2001
Presiding as Chairperson:  Ms. Ana Novik, Vice Chairperson (Chile)
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on
26 October 2001.
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:
Page
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION 1
B. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS 3C. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS 5
D. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION 6
E. OTHER BUSINESS 7
(i) Turkey – Argentina anti-dumping practices on hot-rolled oblong cross-section bars and plates 7
(ii) Korea – Initiation of anti-dumping investigation on polyester staple fibre products by Japan 7
F. POSSIBLE DECISION ON THE STATUS  OF ADOPTED RECOMMENDATIONS 7
G. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE AD HOC GROUP ON
IMPLEMENTATION 8
H. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING 10
I. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 10
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION
3. The Chairperson stated that the first item on the agenda was the review of notifications of
anti-dumping legislation and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures adopted by the
Committee at its special meeting in April 1996 (document G/ADP/W/284, 3 February 1996). The
Committee would consider the notifications of new or amended legislation, in the order indicated in
the airgram convening the meeting.  The Chairperson observed that only new or amended legislations
were on the agenda for the meeting, as no questions concerning previously examined notifications hadbeen received by the applicable deadline.  The United States had presented additional questions
regarding the legislation of Peru, but as these were not received until 18 October 2001, they would notG/ADP/M/19
Page 2
be on the agenda for this meeting.  She reminded the delegation of Peru that written answers to those
questions were to be submitted by 11 April 2002.
4. The Chairperson congratulated Members on the timely submission of most questions for this
meeting's legislation review.  Members who would be responding to questions today appreciated the
effort involved in receiving timely submissions, which facilitated their ability to answer. TheChairperson noted that the Secretariat would shortly issue a reminder of all applicable deadlines for
submissions for the spring 2002 meetings of the Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices, Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures, and Safeguards. The Chairperson urged all Members to take note of
these deadlines, inscribe them on their calendars, and respect them.  Given the nature of the work in
question, there was no reason Members could not begin preparing for next April's meetings shortly
after the fall meetings were over, while matters were still fresh in their minds.
5. The Chairperson then turned to the substantive discussion. Questions concerning new
notifications of legislation were to have been submitted to the Member concerned and the Secretariat
no later than three weeks before the meeting, that  is, by 4 October 2001.  As provided for in the
agreed procedures, Members receiving written questions were asked to respond orally to those
questions that were submitted on time in the meeting.  Members would also be requested, in
accordance with the procedures adopted by the Committee, to answer all questions submitted inwriting.  The Chairperson reminded Members that follow up questions could be asked in the meeting.
Such follow up questions had to be submitted in writing no later than 15 November 2001 if the
Member posing the question wished to receive a written answer.  Written answers to all written
questions submitted were to be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 7 January 2002.
6. No questions were asked concerning the notification of Burundi.  The Committee took note
 of
the notification.
7. The questions regarding the notification of Croatia can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/HRV/1 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/HRV/2 Submitted by the European Communities
The answers provided by Croatia can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/HRV/3 Replies to the United States and the European Communities
8. No questions were asked concerning the notification of the European Communities.  The
Committee took note of the notification.
9. The questions regarding the notification of the Korea can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/KOR/16 Submitted by the European Communities
G/ADP/Q1/KOR/17 Submitted by the United States
The answers provided by Korea can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/KOR/18 Replies to the European Communities and the United States.
10. No questions were asked concerning the notification of Madagascar.  The Committee took
note of the notification.G/ADP/M/19
Page 3
11. No questions were asked concerning the notification of Mali.  The Committee took note  of
the notification.
12. No questions were asked concerning the notification of Oman.  The Committee took note  of
the notification.
13. No questions were asked concerning the notification of Papua New Guinea.  The Committee
took note of the notification.
14. The Chairperson thanked all delegations for their replies to the questions posed, as well as the
Members who had formulated questions.  The process of reviewing notifications continued to be a
positive one, of benefit to all Members.  The Chairperson reminded Members that follow up questions
were to be submitted in writing to the Member whose legislation was concerned, and to the
Secretariat, no later than 15 November 2001.  Members were requested to submit written answers to
all questions received in writing by that date.  Those answers were to be submitted to the Secretariatno later than 7 January 2002.
15. The Chairperson informed the Committee that the new notifications of Antigua and
Barbuda , G/ADP/N/1/ATG/1; India , G/ADP/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.3; and Philippines ,
G/ADP/N/1/PHL/2 were expected to be on the age nda of the Committee meeting next spring.  The
Secretariat would inform Members of any additional new notifications to be considered at thatmeeting in mid-March 2002.  The deadline for submission of questions regarding new notifications of
legislation for next spring's meeting would be 4 April 2002.
16. The Chairperson pointed out one additional deadline regarding questions on legislation
notifications that had already been reviewed.  In  order for a previously reviewed notification of
legislation to appear on the agenda of the Committee's regular meeting in April 2002, questionsregarding such notification had to be submitted to the Secretariat, and to the Member whose
notification is in question, no later than 14 March 2002.
17. Finally, the Chairperson expressed continuing concern over the failure of some Members to
submit any notification at all concerning legislation or regulations relevant to anti-dumping.  Annex A
of the Committee's Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods reported the state-of-play
regarding notifications of legislation.  For many, if not most, Members who had thus far failed to
submit a notification concerning anti-dumping legisla tion, it was likely that a single nil notification,
indicating that there was no such legislation or regulation in effect at that time, would be all that was
required.  This seemed to be a relatively simple matter.  The Chairperson encouraged Members who
had not yet done so to make this notification promptly.
B. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
18. The Chairperson recalled that a request for the semi-annual report for the first half of 2001, to
be submitted by 31 August 2001, had been circulated to the Members in document G/ADP/N/78,
dated 29 June 2001. The Chairperson expressed disappointment at the number of semi-annual reports
that were received late, or not completed in acco rdance with the guidelines adopted by the Committee
and set out in document G/ADP/1. She noted that Members were well aware of the applicable
deadlines for submission of semi-annual reports. She reminded the Committee that semi-annualreports were always due at the end of February for the period July through December of the previous
year, and at the end of August for the period January through June of the current year. The
Chairperson stated that there was simply no reason that this routine task could not be routinely
attended to by Members, and their semi-annual reports submitted in a timely and accurate manner.G/ADP/M/19
Page 4
19. The Chairperson recalled that the form for semi -annual reports, and guidelines for completing
the reports, are set out in document G/ADP/1.  She pointed out that there appeared to be two areas in
which Members most often failed to complete their semi-annual reports in accordance with the
guidelines.  First, Members sometimes failed to submit the separate annex tables called for, listing
definitive duties and undertakings in force at the end of the period, and measures revoked during theperiod.  Second, Members sometimes included investigations in the reporting table only if an action
was actually taken with respect to the particular investigation during the period covered by the report.
Item 19 of the guidelines for semi-annual reports specifically provides that "information on all cases
pending at the end of the period should be reported even if there was no action taken during the period
for which the report is provided."  Thus, if any investigation is pending at the end of the period, a full
semi-annual report should be submitted, listing such investigations, despite the fact that no action may
have been taken during the period covered by the report.  The Chairperson noted that the Secretariatwas always prepared to assist Members in applying the requirements for completing semi-annual
reports.
20. The Chairperson stated that Members who had submitted semi-annual reports were identified
in paragraph 1 of document G/ADP/N/78 Addendum 1, dated 12 October 2001. To the extent
possible, the semi-annual reports had been translated and circulated to the Committee, and wereincluded in the documents made available for the meeting.
21. In addition to the Members who submitted semi-annual reports, a number of Members, listed
in paragraph 2 of document G/ADP/N/78 Addendum 1 had notified the Committee that they had not
taken any anti-dumping actions during the period in question. In addition, Iceland had submitted such
a notification too late to be included in that document.
22. The Chairperson recalled that, as previously mentioned, if a Member had investigations
pending at the end of the period, a full semi-annual report should be submitted, even if no specific
actions were taken with respect to those investigations during the period covered by the report.  In
addition, Members who had no investigations pending at the end of the period, and who took no
actions during the period, should nonetheless submit annex tables indicating anti-dumping duties andundertakings in force at the end of the period, if there were any, and measures revoked during the
period, if there were any.
23. Essentially, the semi-annual reports should provide a continuing overview of all
investigations, reporting the entire history of an in vestigation from initiation to the imposition of final
measures without a break, and then listing all duties and undertakings in force, and the revocations of
measures.  This system was intended to ensure that at any time, all Members would know what, if
anything, was taking place in the area of anti-dumping in all other Members' territories.  She observedthat this was the essence of transparency, and it was up to all Members to ensure that the system
worked by providing full, accurate, and timely semi-annual reports. The Chairperson noted that if
Members were of the view that the requirements for the format of semi-annual reports should be
modified, this was a matter that could be taken up.  The Chairperson asked whether any Member
considered that the Committee should undertake to revise the format for semi-annual reports?  Therewere no comments from any Member.
24. The Chairperson noted that while there appeared to be a degree of general compliance with
the requirement for semi-annual reports or reports of no actions taken among Members who operate
anti-dumping systems actions, there remained a significant number of Members who had not
submitted either type of report.  With respect to notifications of no action, there was no goodexplanation for some Members' failure to make this notification in a timely fashion.  The Chairman
reiterated that all that was required if a Member took no action during a given period was a one
sentence letter stating that fact sent to the Chairman or the Secretary of the Committee before the end
of February, and another such letter before the end of August.  Particularly for Members who did notG/ADP/M/19
Page 5
conduct anti-dumping investigations, it seemed that this should be a relatively simple task.   Members
who had not filed a semi-annual report for the first half of 2001 were identified in Annex B of the
Committee's annual report, as well as in docu ment G/ADP/N/78 Addendum 1 at paragraph 3.
25. The Chairperson strongly urged all Members to comply with the requirement to submit semi-
annual reports in a timely fashion in the future. The Chairperson noted that any Member whosubmitted a semi-annual report in written form before the close of business Friday would be identified
as having done so in the Committee's Annual Report.
26. That said, the Chairperson turned to the review of the semi-annual reports submitted
27. There were no questions or comments concerning the semi-annual reports reviewed, despite
the fact that 18 Members had notified the initiation, among them, of 134 new anti-dumping
investigations.  The Chairperson noted that there had been a similar lack of substantive discussion of
investigations during Committee meetings in the past.  It appeared that Members in fact had little tocomplain about regarding the actual conduct of anti-dumping investigations by other Members.
28. The Committee took note of the Chairperson's statement.
C. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
29. The Chairperson noted that lists of the notifications of preliminary and final anti-dumping
actions received were circulated to the Comm ittee in documents G/ADP/N/76, 77, 79, 80, 81, and 82.
Since the last meeting of the Committee, preliminary and final anti-dumping actions had been notified
by Argentina, Australia, Canada, Egypt, European Communities, India, Israel, Jamaica, Mexico, New
Zealand, South Africa, Turkey, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
30. The Chairperson noted that there continued to be  a lack of full compliance in this area. 25
Members had submitted semi-annual reports indicating anti-dumping actions in progress, but only 15Members had notified preliminary or final actions taken.  Even allowing for a discrepancy between
the time periods involved, it thus appeared that some Members who were conducting anti-dumping
actions were not submitting reports of the preliminary or final actions taken in connection with those
investigations. The Chairperson recalled that the delegation of the European Community had called
attention to lapses on India's part in this regard at the Committee's meeting in May 2000.  The Indianauthorities had apparently taken note of this concern, as numerous reports of preliminary and final
actions had been submitted by India since that time.
31. In this instance, Brazil, Chile, Indonesia, Korea, Peru, the Philippines, and Trinidad and
Tobago all filed semi-annual reports which indicated a preliminary or final decision in an anti-
dumping action during the first half of 2001, but none of these Members had filed a notice of
preliminary or final action since January of this year.   The Chairperson reminded Members that the
reports of preliminary and final actions were critical to give all Members prompt knowledge ofpreliminary and final actions taken and certain information regarding those actions. An important
aspect of the Committee's task is its role in monitoring and discussing actions taken by Members.  If
Members did not take seriously their obligations to notify a minimum of information concerning their
actions and comply, the Committee will be unable to consider Members' compliance with the
requirements of the Agreement.
32. The Chairperson reminded Members that the Committee adopted guidelines in 1995 setting
out the minimum information to be provided in reports of preliminary and final actions taken. Those
guidelines could be found in document G/ADP/2.  The information requested under the guidelines is
similar to that required to be set out in public notices under Article 12 of the Agreement. Therefore,
there seemed no good reason why Members, when issuing public notices under Article 12, could notG/ADP/M/19
Page 6
also submit to the WTO the minimum information required concerning preliminary and final actions
taken.  With respect to the timing of these report s, the Chairman noted that the Agreement provides
that Members should report all preliminary and final actions "without delay".  This would seem to
suggest that any preliminary or final actions should be reported to the Committee shortly after they
are taken.
33. The Chairperson then turned to the reports of preliminary and final actions taken that had
been submitted.  No comments were made by any Members regarding the notifications of preliminary
and final anti-dumping actions.
34. The Committee took note of the Chairperson's statement.
D. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION
35. The Chairperson stated that as most Members were aware, the Informal Group on Anti-
Circumvention had met on Wednesday. At the meeting, the Group considered papers that were
submitted on topic 2, no new papers having been submitted under topic 1.  The Chairperson noted that
the papers that were received contained no new information on what is being done by Members
confronted with what they consider to be circumvention – all the papers focussed on a deeper
consideration of information that was already before the Group.
36. In view of this lack of new information, and concerned that the discussions of the Group
could become circular without likelihood of a useful  outcome, the Chairperson had proposed that the
Group consider opening discussions on the third topic of the agreed framework: "To what extent can
circumvention be dealt with under the relevant WTO rules? To what extent can it not? And what other
options may be deemed necessary?".  Several Member s observed that they also believed that it would be
useful to broaden the scope of the discussions to include topic 3.  Most Members that favoured
consideration of topic 3 in future meetings noted th at in the context of the Group's discussions on topics
1 and 2, issues concerning topic 3 ha d been touched upon on various occasions.
37. The Chairperson reported that Hong Kong, Ch ina and Japan had expressed a preference for
arriving at a common understanding on the definition and categories of circumvention before moving on
to discuss topic 3.   Nevertheless, they indicated  that they would like time to consult with their
respective capitals before the Group took a decision on opening topic 3 for discussion.
38. The Chairperson was pleased to report to th e Committee that after consulting with their
capitals, Hong Kong, China and Japan were able to join a consensus decision of the Group to open
discussions on topic 3.  Therefore, Members were invited to submit papers on the third topic "To what
extent can circumvention be dealt with under the relevant WTO rules? To what extent can it not? And
what other options may be deemed necessary?" for discussion at the next meeting of the InformalGroup on Anti-Circumvention.  Of course, as the ot her two topics remained open for discussion,
delegations were also invited to submit papers on these topics so that they can be placed on the
Agenda for discussion at the next meeting of the Group.
39. The Chairperson expressed her sincere hope that in future meetings more Members would
participate actively in the work of the Informal Group by submitting papers on the items underdiscussion, and in the discussions themselves.
40. The Chairperson reiterated that the next meeting of the Group was scheduled for Wednesday,
25 April 2001. The deadline for submissions for that meeting was Wednesday, 11 March 2002, and
the Chairperson urged Members to make maximum efforts to respect this deadline.G/ADP/M/19
Page 7
41. The Committee took note of the Chairperson's statement.
E. OTHER BUSINESS
(i) Turkey – Argentina anti-dumping practices on hot-rolled oblong cross-section bars and
plates
42. The delegate of Turkey stated that they had consulted with Argentina on this issue but had not
received written comments from Argentina, and w ould like to bring it to the attention of the
Committee.
43. The delegate of Argentina requested the delegate of Turkey to provide written questions on
this matter in order to be able to provide written answers.
44. The delegation of Turkey agreed to present written questions to the delegation of Argentina.
(ii) Korea – Initiation of anti-dumping investigation on polyester staple fibre products by Japan
45. The delegate of Korea recalled that at the previous meeting of the Committee, Korea had
raised this issue, and in particular the question of whether there was any dumping or injury to the
Japanese domestic industry.  The Japanese delegate had responded at that meeting that Japan would
proceed with this investigation in an unbiased and objective manner in accordance with WTO rules.
However, the Japanese delegate had also stated at the end of their intervention that Japan had not
applied any anti-dumping duties on Korean exports, while Korea had taken six anti-dumpingmeasures against products from Japan.  The Korean delegate expressed concern about this remark.
He stated that Korea believed that Japan shared Korea's position that anti-dumping duties are
legitimate tools if applied properly and not misused for protectionist purposes. Both Korea and Japan
had the same concerns about the ever-increasing use of anti-dumping measures in the world.  In this
context the remark made by Japan could be considered as suggesting reciprocity in the application ofanti-dumping measures.  If this was the case, this kind of perception or attitude was neither helpful
nor desirable as it could accelerate the world-wide race to anti-dumping measures and impair the rule
of law which was the foremost principle of the WTO.  The delegate of Korea did not believe that
Japan intended to show this kind of perception and asked for clarification on this issue.
46. The delegate of Japan clarified that their statement had been just acknowledging the interest
and concern of Korea in the Japanese investigation.  The Japanese investigation on polyester staple
fibre  was only the first investigation by Japan after the entry into force of the Uruguay Round Anti-
Dumping Agreement, while Korea had more experience in this area.  He observed that the Japanese
statement should not be construed to mean that Japan imposed any requirements for fairness or
impartial investigating procedures on either Japan or Korea.  If Japan's statement had caused any
misunderstanding the Japanese delegation was very sorry for that.
47. The Committee took note of the statements made.
F. POSSIBLE DECISION ON THE STATUS OF ADOPTED RECOMMENDATIONS
48. The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting of the Committee, the Chairman had
proposed that the Committee consider adopting a decision on the status of adopted recommendations,
and distributed a draft text in this regard, prepared on his own authority.  While Members had a brief
discussion on this matter, a number had expressed the view that further consideration was needed, aswell as more time to review the Chairman's draft text.  Thus, the Committee had agreed to discuss
adopting a decision on the status of adopted recommendations, starting from the Chairman's draft text,
at its next meeting.G/ADP/M/19
Page 8
49. The Chairperson also recalled that this discussion arose from Members' concern that the
Committee had adopted several recommendations, without any formal statement regarding their status
or effect.  Several Members had expressed concern that some outside the Committee might
misunderstand the status or effect of adopted recommendations.  While the Committee could not, of
course, control the actions of others, a formal decision would at least make clear the Committee's ownview of the status of the recommendations it adopts.
50. As a starting-point for the discussions today, the Chairperson reiterated that Article IX:2 of
the Marrakesh Agreement provides that "The Ministerial Conference and the General Council shall
have the exclusive authority to adopt interpretations  of this Agreement and of the Multilateral Trade
Agreements".   It had been pointed out on numerous occasions that a recommendation adopted by this
Committee cannot add new rights or obligations, nor can it detract from existing rights and
obligations of Members, under the Agreement.  As had been repeatedly noted, neither the Ad HocGroup nor the Committee can modify the legal obligations set forth in the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Nonetheless, the Committee established the Ad Hoc Group in the belief that it would be useful, where
possible, for Members to come to a common understanding about practices in the conduct of anti-
dumping investigations that they consider to be consistent with the requirements of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.  Thus, the Committee adopts recommendations agreed to by Members after discussion inthe Ad Hoc Group.  These recommendations reflect the common understanding of Members and set
out non-binding indicative guidelines on implementation of the Agreement.
51. After that brief introduction the Chairperson proposed that the Committee begin its
discussions on the basis of the text distributed by the Chairman at its last meeting.  A number of
Members commented on the draft decision.  Some Members had specific proposals concerningdrafting, and minor suggestions clarifying the legal effect of adopted recommendations.
52. The delegate of Malaysia was of the view that any decision should prescribe the use that can
be made of adopted recommendations in dispute settlement and suggested additional language in
furtherance of this view.  This additional language was characterized by other Members as being
redundant.  Several Members observed that it could have the undesired effect of undermining thework of the Ad Hoc Group on Implementation.  While other Members were willing to accept the text
proposed by the Chairperson with minor modifications, Malaysia was unable to accept a text without
the additional language it had proposed. As it was apparent that it would not be possible to arrive at a
consensus on the draft decision, the Chairperson asked the Secretariat to prepare a revised version,
incorporating suggestions made at the meeting and reflecting tentative agreements, as a basis for
continued discussion at the Committee's next meeting.
53. The Committee so decided.
G. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE AD HOC GROUP ON
IMPLEMENTATION
54. The Chairperson noted that the participation of  Members, both in terms of the papers and
proposals, and the discussions themselves, was excellent.  The Group discussed all of the topics on its
agenda.  The discussions were at times lively, and a great deal of information was exchanged amongMembers regarding their practices in implem enting the requirements of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.
55. The Chairperson reported that, with the constructive efforts of Members, the Group had
arrived at a consensus with respect to the text of a draft recommendation concerning matters to be
included in preliminary affirmative determinations.  As the Committee had not been able to arrive at aconsensus regarding the decision on the legal status of adopted recommendations with discussions on
this decision to continue at the next meeting of the Committee, the Chairperson proposed to put aside,G/ADP/M/19
Page 9
for the time being, the recommendation concerning matters to be included in preliminary affirmative
determinations.  The Secretariat was asked to circulate a document with the agreed text of the
recommendation.  The Chairperson proposed that once the matter of the legal status of adopted
recommendations was resolved, the Committee could proceed to adopt the recommendation.
56. The Committee so decided.
57. The Chairperson noted that the Group had also had a useful discussion on the proposed new
topics of disucssion, but had not been able to resolve which, if any, of those topics should be referred
to it by the Committee for discussion at this juncture.  The Chairperson noted that the Secretariat had
revised the drafting of the proposed topics, along the lines discussed during the meeting.  That
document was made available to Members, and would also be circulated as a working document.  The
Group had agreed that Members might propose additional new topics for disucssion.  Such proposed
new topics were to have been submitted to the Secretariat in writing no later than Monday, 26November, 2001.  A special meeting of the Committee, tentatively scheduled for 7 December 2001,
would be held to decide which, if any, proposed new topics of discussion should be referred to the
Group for consideration at its meeting next April.
58. The Chairperson reported that the Group had had a very fruitful meeting, and hoped that
Members would continue to participate actively in the work of the Group.  In addition to the possiblediscussion of new topics next April, the Chai rperson also urged Members to consider making
submissions on some of the topics that were alread y before the Group.  In this regard, she noted that
during the discussions of the Group, it became apparent that with respect to some of the topics, it
might be useful to refocus the discussions.  For instance, while the discussions on lesser duty and
public interest had been very illuminating and interesting, this topic was originally proposed more interms of how Members implement the obligation in Article 6.12 to provide industrial users and
consumers with an opportunity to comment during an ti-dumping investigations.  This kind of "how
to" issue is very relevant to a number of Members.   The Chairperson urged Members to refer back to
the topics as originally proposed and set out in document G/ADP/W/410, and consider seriously
whether Members had further useful contributions to make.
59. The Chairperson reminded Members that the Secretariat would be preparing a draft
recommendation on the time-period for determining negligible imports under Article 5.8, in light of
Members submissions and the discussions on this matter.  This draft would be on the agenda for the
Group's next meeting.
60. The Chairperson noted that she was again encouraged by the presence and participation of
experts from capital at the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group, who brought necessary technical knowledge
of their own practices to the discussions, thereby making them more substantive and useful for allMembers.  Their participation was, in the opinion of the Chairperson, critical to the Group's progress
on the draft recommendation, as well as contributing significant understanding in the Group's more
technical discussions on the papers submitted on the various topics. She strongly encouraged
Members, if at all possible, to continue to bring technical experts from capitals to future meetings of
the Group.
61. The Chairperson noted that the Group agreed to  schedule its next regular meeting to begin
Monday 22 April 2002, during the same week that the Committee meets.  As usual, the Group should
be prepared to meet over the course of the entire week as necessary to accomplish its work.  The
Chairperson reminded Members that submissions for the next meeting of the Group are due no later
than 11 March 2002.  She hoped that Members will make  a strong effort to comply with this deadline,
so that documents can be translated and circulated in a timely fashion before the Group's meeting.
62. The Committee took note of the statement made by the Chairperson.G/ADP/M/19
Page 10
63. The Chairperson had one final comment with regard to the Group, and that concerned its
name.  She noted that when the Committee established the Group, it based itself on the Tokyo Round
Committee's similar efforts, and gave the Group the same name – the Ad Hoc Group on
Implementation.  However, it was clear, after the number of meetings over the past five years, that the
Group was no longer, if it ever was, Ad Hoc in any real sense.  The Chairperson therefore proposed to
stop referring to the Group as "Ad Hoc", and in the future simply refer to it as the Working Group on
Implementation.  This would more accurately reflect the fact that the Group conducts, on a regular
and on-going basis, work related to the implementation of the Agreement.
64. The Committee so decided.
H. DATE OF NEXT  REGULAR MEETING
65. The Committee had agreed at its meeting of 21 February 1995 that regular meetings normally
would be held in the last week of April and the la st week of October. Accordingly, the next regular
meeting of the Committee was proposed for the last fu ll week in April, the week of 22 April 2002. In
light of previously scheduled meetings of the Working Group on Implementation and the Informal
Group on Anti-Circumvention, the Committee would therefore meet on Thursday, 25 April 2002.
I. ANNUAL REPORT TO  THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS
66. The Chairperson stated that at the Committee's last meeting, the Chairman had noted that the
Committee would not meet in time to adopt its annual report before the meeting of the Council for
Trade in Goods at which annual reports of subsidia ry bodies would be considered for transmisstion to
the Ministerial Conference.  Therefore, the Chairman had proposed, without objection, that the
Chairman should send a letter to the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods concerning the
activities of the Committee since its last annual report in November 2000.  As Vice Chairperson, andin the absence of a Chairperson, she had prepared and sent such a letter to the Chairman of the CTG
on 21 September 2001, and sent copies to all Members by fax on 24 September 2001.  In that letter,
the Chairperson had indicated that the Committee would forward its annual report as soon as possible.
Therefore, the Committee should now proceed to consideration of its annual report.
67. The Chairperson noted that pursuant to Article 18.6 of the Agreement, the Committee was
required to annually review the implementation and operation of the Agreement, taking into account
the objectives thereof, and to annually inform th e Council for Trade in Goods of developments during
the period covered by the review. The Committee had decided, at its special meeting in
February 1995, that it would follow the same procedure as the Tokyo Round Committee on Anti-
Dumping Practices with respect to the Report.
68. Before moving on to adopt the Annual Report, the Chairperson noted that complaints about
the annual review process had been voiced in th e context of the Implementation process.  Some
Members had expressed the view that the annual review process does not provide a meaningful
review of implementation of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The Chairperson remarked that this was
not the first time such complaints had been made, as this issue had been raised before the Seattle
Ministerial meeting as well.  At that time, the Chairman of the Committee had noted his willingness to
change this Committee's annual review process if th is would make it more useful and meaningful to
Members.  However, Members did not make any suggestions on how to improve the annual review
process and report at that time, and the Annual Report was adopted unchanged from its previous
format.  The Chairperson proposed to consider whether any changes in the Annual Report process
could be instituted at this time.
69. The Chairperson noted that Article 18.6 of the Agreement provides that the Committee shall
review the implementation and operation of the Agreement annually, taking into account itsG/ADP/M/19
Page 11
objectives.  It also provides that the Committ ee shall inform the Council for Trade in Goods of
developments during the period covered by each such review.  Thus, the Committee's responsibility in
this regard might be separated into two aspects - a process of reviewing implementation and operation
of the Agreement, and a process of reporting developments.  One question that the Chairperson
thought should be considered was: what informati on or discussion or analysis would Members like to
see in the annual report, keeping in mind that adoption of the annual report requires a consensus
among Members?  The Chairperson opened the floor for discussion.
70. There were no comments on this issue by any of the delegations at the meeting.
71. The Chairperson pointed out changes to the draft report that had been circulated on Monday,
and stated that corrections to the statistical tables in Annex C could be provided after the report had
been adopted, until close of business Monday.
72. The Committee adopted the annual report for the Council for Trade in Goods.1
73. The meeting was adjourned.
_____________
                                                     
1 Subsequently circulated as document G/L/495, dated 31 October 2001.