RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/M/21
23 August 2002
(02-4552)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON 25 APRIL 2002
Presiding as Chairperson:  Ms. Ana Novik, Vice Chairperson (Chile)
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on
25 April 2002.
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:
Page
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION ......................................................................................................... ..........2
B. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF  ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS ..............................................................5
C. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI- DUMPING ACTIONS............................7
D. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION.................................................................................................................. ................7
E. DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSION OF NOTIFICAT IONS REQUIRED OF ALL WTO MEMBERS ...8
F. OTHER BU SINESS............................................................................................................... ...................9
(i) European Communities – Agenda of next regular meeting ....................................................................... ...9
(ii) Indonesia – European Communitie s' sunset review of bicycles................................................................ ....9
(iii) Japan – Certain anti-dumping  investigations by China...................................................................... .........10
(iv) Malaysia – Anti-dumping investigation by Colombia .......................................................................... ......10
(v) Korea – India's investigation of styrene butadiene rubber ................................................................... .......11
(vi) Bangladesh – India's imposition of anti-dumping duties on batteries ........................................................ .12
(vii) Enquiry by the Chairman of the Committee on Trade and Development concerning the Committee's
activities in respect of special and differential treatment provisions......................................................... ..12
(viii) Technical assistance activities.......................................................................................... ......................12
G. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE  WORKING GROUP ON
IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................................. ............13
H. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ..............................................................................................14I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS......................................................................................................... ...........14G/ADP/M/21
Page 2
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 inthe airgram convening the meeting.  and then the questions and answers concerning the previously-
reviewed legislation of Peru
4. Before turning to the notifications on the agenda, the Chairperson reminded Members that the
Secretariat would shortly issue a reminder of all applicable deadlines for submissions for the autumn
2002 meetings of the Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices, Subsidies and CountervailingMeasures, and Safeguards.
1  She urged all Members to take note of these deadlines, inscribe them on
calendars, and respect them.  Given the nature of the work in question, she observed that there was no
reason Members could not begin preparing for next October's meetings shortly after this spring's
meetings were over, while matters were still fresh in their minds.  The Chairperson reminded
Members of the applicable deadlines for follow up questions and for answers to the written questionsposed for this meeting
5. Tuning to the notification of Antigua & Barbuda , the Chairperson noted that, since the
notification was included on the agenda for this meeting, Antigua had submitted a new notification,
document G/ADP/N/1/ATG/2.  That notification was not on the agenda for this meeting, because it
had not been circulated in time for inclusion. Thus, the second notification would normally be on the
agenda for review in October 2002.  The first notification was a nil notification, while the second
contains the text of applicable laws.  The European Communities had posed questions to Antiguaconcerning the law set out in the second notification (document G/ADP/Q1/ATG/1).  Technically,
Antigua was not obligated to respond to those questions at this meeting, as the notification to which
they referred was not on the agenda.  The Chairman noted that the Secretariat had been in contact with
the representative of Antigua, and had been informed that while Antigua was unable to be present and
answer questions at this meeting, written answers to the EC's questions would be submitted in due
course.
6. The Committee took note  of the notification and of the circumstances.  The Chairperson
reminded Members that, of course, additional questions concerning Antigua's second notification,
which would be on the agenda for October's meeting, could be submitted no later than
12 September 2002, for consideration at that meeting.
7. The questions regarding the notification of Argentina can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/ARG/11 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/ARG/12 Submitted by Canada
G/ADP/Q1/ARG/13 Submitted by the European Communities
No written answers to these questions have been submitted to date.The delegate of Argentina stated that, pursuant to Article 18.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and
Article 25.12 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, the Argentine Republichad notified, on 18 October 2001, the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and the Committee on
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of Decree No. 1088 of 28 August 2001, which was expected
to come into force on 1 January 2002 (G/ADP /N/1/ARG/Suppl.5 and G/ SCM/N/1/ARG/Suppl.5).
                                                     
1 Subsequently issued as document G/ADP/W/426.G/ADP/M/21
Page 3
However, and taking into account the fact that th e implementation of such legislation calls for the
enactment of regulations, the competent authorities decided to postpone its entry into force until the
enactment of such regulations. That decision was formalized through Decree No. 421/2002, which has
also been notified to the respective Committees. For this reason, the delegate of Argentina requested
the Committee - and in particular the delegations of Canada, the United States and the European
Community, which had submitted questions on the notification - to postpone consideration of thenotification until the supplementary regulations have been issued and the corresponding notification
has been given.  He informed the Committee that the existing legislation in Argentina on anti-
dumping and subsidies is contained in Decree  1326/98, notified in G/ADP/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.2 and
G/SCM/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl .2 of 4 December 1998 and circulated to Members on 20 January 2002.
8. The Committee took note  of the statement.
9. The questions regarding the notification of El Salvador can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/SLV/1 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/SLV/2 Submitted by Canada
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/ARG/ Replies to Canada and the United States
10. The delegate of the United States expressed his authorities' appreciation for the fact that
El Salvador had provided written answers even before the meeting.  He encouraged other Members to
do the same, as this made the process more useful.
11. The delegate of Canada also thanked the delegation of El Salvador for providing written
answers before the meeting.
12. No questions were posed concerning the notification of Georgia.  The delegate of Georgia
stated that his Government had notified the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices that there is no
law currently in place in Georgia regulating anti-dumping measures, and accordingly, no such
measures have been applied by Georgia in practice.  During its accession process, the Georgian
government had explicitly undertaken a commitment not to apply any anti-dumping measures until
the adoption of appropriate legislation that would be  in conformity with the provisions of the WTO
Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the GATT.  In order to develop WTO consistent
legislation Georgia had started work on a draft law on Imposition of Anti-Dumping, Countervailing
and Safeguard Measures in close cooperation with Canadian and European experts.  The initial
version of the draft law was submitted to the WTO Secretariat for comment.  Based on the comments
received, a revised version of the draft law had been produced and subsequently submitted to the
Parliament of Georgia for consideration.  The draft law had passed the Parliamentary Committee
hearings and its discussion at the Plenary Sessions of the Parliament was anticipated in the nearest
future.  After the adoption of the draft law the Government of Georgia wo uld immediately provide
the appropriate WTO committees with necessary notifications, including English translations of the
document.  In conclusion, the Government of Georgia would appreciate it if questions Members
might have on the subject-matter were presented in a written form.  His authorities would be pleased
to provide written responses as soon as possible.
13. Turning to the notification of Grenada, the Ch airperson noted that Grenada was in a similar
situation to Antigua.  Since Grenada's notification was put on the agenda, Grenada had submitted a
new notification, document G/ADP/N/1/GRD/2.  Th at notification was not on the agenda for this
meeting, because it was not circulated in three languages by the applicable deadline. The firstG/ADP/M/21
Page 4
notification was a nil notification, while the second contains the text of applicable laws. Unlike the
case of Antigua, no Member had posed questions conc erning either of Grenada's notifications.  The
second notification would be on the agenda for review at the Committee's meeting next October, in
the normal course of business.
14. The Committee took note  of the first notification, and of the fact that the second notification
would be included on the agenda of the Committee's meeting next October.
15. There were no questions were posed concerning the notification of India. The Committee
took note  of the notification.
16. The questions regarding the notification of Moldova  can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/MDA/1 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/MDA/2 Submitted by Canada
Answers to these questions can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/MDA/3 Replies to the United States
G/ADP/Q1/MDA/4 Replies to Canada
17. No questions were posed concerning the notification of Myanmar.  The Committee took
note of the notification.
18. The questions regarding the notification of Pakistan  can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/PAK/2 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/PAK/3 Submitted by the European Communities
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/PAK/4 Replies to the United States and the European Communities
19. No questions were posed concerning the new notification of Peru.   The Committee took note
of the notification.
20. The questions regarding the notification of Philippines  can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/PHL/2 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/PHL/3 Submitted by the European Communities
NO WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO DATE.
21. No questions were posed concerning the new notification of Uruguay .  The Committee took
note of the notification and continued.
22. The Chairperson thanked the Members whose notifications were discussed today for their
answers, and the Members who undertook to put questions.  As usual, the exercise had been positive,
and of benefit to all.G/ADP/M/21
Page 5
23. The Chairperson informed Members that, in ad dition to the new notifications of Antigua &
Barbuda and Grenada referred to earlier, the new notification of Brazil   - G/ADP/N/1BRA/2/Suppl.1-
G/SCM/N/1BRA/2/Suppl.1, would be on the agenda of the meeting next autumn.  She reminded
Members of the procedures for review of notifications of legislation adopted in April 1996, document
G/ADP/W/284 (12 February 1996).  Pursuant to those procedures, in order for a new notification of
legislation to appear on the agenda of the autumn meeting, it must circulate in three languages no laterthan 12 September 2002.  As a practical matter, in light of translation requirements, notifications of
legislative text received after 31 July were unlikely to be translated in time to meet that deadline.  The
Secretariat would inform Members of additional new notifications to be considered at the autumn
meeting in mid-September 2002.  The deadline for submission of questions regarding new
notifications of legislation for next spring's meeting was 3 October 2002 .  However, the Chairperson
encouraged Members to submit their questions as early as possible, and Members receiving questions
were encouraged to submit written answers in adva nce of the meeting to the extent possible, as El
Salvador had done for the meeting today.
24. Turning to legislation notifications that have already been reviewed, the Chairperson noted
that questions concerning the legislation of Peru  were received in a timely fashion from the
United States, and Peru submitted written answers to those questions.  The questions and answers can
be found in the following documents
G/ADP/Q1/PER/16 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/PER/18 Replies to the United States
25. The Chairperson reminded Members that, pursuant to the Committee's procedures for review
of notifications of legislation, in order for a previously reviewed notification of legislation to appearon the agenda of the Committee's regular meeting in October 2002, questions regarding such
notification must be submitted to the Secretariat, and to the Member whose notification is in question,
no later than 12 September 2002 .  As was its practice, the Secretariat would issue a reminder note of
relevant deadlines for this Committee, its subsidiary bodies, and the Committees on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures and Safeguards, in the course of the next few weeks.
26. 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.  She
pointed out that for many, if not most, of these Members, it was likely that a single nil notification,
indicating that there is no such legislation or regulation currently in effect, would be all that was
required.  This seemed to be a relatively simple matter.  For those Members who conduct anti-dumping investigations but had not yet notified their legislation, it was obviously important, from the
point of view of all Members, that such legislation be notified, in the interest of transparency and
better understanding. She encouraged Members who had not yet done so to make their notification of
legislation promptly.
B. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
27. The Chairperson recalled that a request for the semi-annual report for the second half of 2001,
to be submitted by 4 March 2002, had been circulated to the Members in document G/ADP/N/85,
dated 4 January 2002.  She was pleased to report that it appeared most Members taking actions had
submitted semi-annual reports, and that a large proportion of the reports were submitted in a timely
fashion.  She expressed the hope that Members would co ntinue in this vein, and that in the future even
more Members would submit their reports on time.  She noted that, particularly for those Members
making nil notifications, it should be a simple matter to report no actions taken in a timely fashion.
28. Unfortunately, there continued to be some prob lems with reporting in accordance with the
guidelines adopted by the Committee and set out in  document G/ADP/1.  In particular, a number ofG/ADP/M/21
Page 6
Members continued to fail to submit the separate anne x tables called for, listing definitive duties and
undertakings in force at the end of the period, and measures revoked during the period.  In addition,
some Members included investigations in the repo rting table only if an action was actually taken
during the period covered by the report.  Item 19 of the guidelines for completing 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".
29. The Chairperson recalled that she had suggested at the last meeting that Members might want
to consider whether revisiting the format for semi-annual reports could improve its usefulness to
Members, and perhaps facilitate accurate reporting.  No Member had come forward to suggest that the
Committee do so.  Consequently, it seemed that Members were satisfied with the required format, but
in some cases simply did not follow it, or did not fully understand it.  If understanding the format was
a concern, she reminded Members that the Secretariat was always available to assist Members with
questions about the form of reports.
30. The Chairperson stated that Members who had submitted semi-annual reports were identified
in paragraph 1 of document G/ADP/N/85 Addendum 1, dated 15 October 2002.  To the extent
possible, the semi-annual reports had been translated and circulated to the Committee, and were made
available for the meeting.
31. In addition to the Members who had submitted semi-annual reports, a number of Members,
listed in paragraph 2 of document G/ADP/N/85 A ddendum 1, had notified the Committee that they
did not take any anti-dumping actions during the period in question. In addition, Croatia,
Liechtenstein and Mauritius had submitted notifications of no action taken too late to be included in
that listing.  With respect to these notifications, the Chairperson commented that there was no good
explanation for some Members' failure to make this notification in a timely fashion.  All that wasrequired 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 do not conduct anti-dumping
investigations, this should be a relatively simple task.
32. The Chairperson noted that while there appeared to be a degree of general compliance with
the obligation to submit semi-annual reports among Members who take actions, there remained a
significant number of Members who had not responded to the request for semi-annual reports, and
had therefore failed to comply with this important requirement set forth in Article 16.4 of the
Agreement.  These Members were identified in  document G/ADP/N/85 addendum 1 at paragraph 3.
The Chairperson strongly urged all Members to co mply with the requirement to submit semi-annual
reports in a timely fashion in the future.
33. There were no questions or comments concerning the semi-annual reports reviewed.
34. The delegate of the United States raised a matter under this agenda item concerning the press
release on anti-dumping actions issued by the Secretariat.  He noted that, with respect to the table
reporting initiations of anti-dumping investigations, and others, the United States found the titles quite
confusing and ambiguous, particularly the use of the phrase "affected country".  In the view of the
United States, the affected country in an anti-dumping situation is the country whose industries areinjured by dumped imports.  Therefore the United States requested that, in the future, the tables use
the phrase "importing country" and "exporting country".
35. The delegate of China also raised a  point concerning the press release.  He noted his
delegation's shock that China had been singled out and categorized as a transition economy twice, in
paragraph 3 and 7 respectively.  He stated that, as was known to all, China is a developing country,hence a developing economy, and expressed the view that the WTO Secretariat had no authority toG/ADP/M/21
Page 7
define the nature of a Member's economy based on its wrong assumptions.  Therefore, China
requested the immediate correction by the WTO Secretariat of the press release concerned.  China had
sent a note verbale  to the Director-General of the WTO, because China was afraid that this press
release of WTO concerning might generate some serious negative consequences and that it may
undermine China's rights and interests.  China was bringing this issue to the attention of the
Committee and the Secretariat, and hoped that mistakes of this kind in the future could be avoided.
36. The Committee took note of the notifications and statements made.
C. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
37. The Chairperson noted that lists of the notifications of preliminary and final anti-dumping
actions received were circulated to the Committee in documents G/ADP/N/83 AND 84, and 86, 87,
88, and 89.  Since the last meeting of the Committee, preliminary and final anti-dumping actions were
notified by Argentina, Australia, Canada, Egypt, the European Communities, Korea, India, Jamaica,
Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Turkey, United States, and Venezuela.
38. The Chairperson noted that there seemed to be  a continuing lack of full compliance in this
area, as some Members who had submitted semi-annual reports indicating actions in progress had not
submitted reports of preliminary or final actions taken.  She reminded Members that an important
aspect of the Committee's task is its role in monitoring and discussing actions taken by Members.  If
Members did not take their obligations to notify seriously and comply, the Committee would beprevented from accomplishing its goal of considering Members' compliance with the requirements of
the Agreement.
39. The Committee took note of the Chairperson's statement.
D. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION
40. 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 one new paper on the
first two topics of discussion under our agreed-upon framework.  The Group had also received written
answers from two Members to questions that had been discussed orally at the last meeting in October
2001.  The new submission was the first paper on this topic from the submitting Member, and waswarmly welcomed by other Members.  A disc ussion was begun, and a number of questions
concerning the points made in the submission were raised, which will be submitted in writing and
considered at the next meeting.
41. The Chairperson recalled that the Group had decided in October 2001 to open discussions on
topic 3 of the agreed framework, "To what extent can Circumvention be dealt with under the relevantWTO rules? To what extent can it not? And what other options may be deemed necessary?"  She
reported that, regretfully, only one paper on this topic was submitted, late the week before the
meeting.  However, this paper did reflect on some possible approaches for further discussions, and
was welcomed by other Members.
42. In light of the small number of submissions for the meeting, and in light of the volume of
work in different fora on anti-dumping issues, the Chairperson had raised the question of the future
work of the Group, both in terms of the substance and direction of our work, and the frequency of ourmeetings.  Several Members indicated that they considered the continued work of the Group to be
useful and important.  Since no Member expressed a desire for a change in the Group's work at this
juncture, the Chairperson reported that the Group would continue along the current track of semi-G/ADP/M/21
Page 8
annual meetings in conjunction with the meetings of the Committee, based on papers submitted by
Members on the three topics currently on the table.
43. The Chairperson strongly urged Members to submit papers on the third topic, as well as on
the other two topics, which remain open for disc ussion, so that they can serve as the basis for
meaningful discussions at the next meeting of the Group. She expressed the hope that in future
meetings more Members would participate actively in the work of the Informal Group, as had beenthe case at this meeting, not only through submitting papers on the items under discussions, but also in
the discussions themselves. Finally, she noted that the next Meeting of the Group is scheduled for
23 October 2002.  She urged Members to make maximum efforts to respect this deadline to allow the
Secretariat to translate and circulate submissions before the meeting. This would allow delegations
and capital-based experts to study the submissions in their preferred WTO language and prepare
considered responses, which would enhance the discussions next autumn.
44. The Committee took note of the Chairperson's statement.
E. DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSION OF NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED OF ALL WTO
MEMBERS
45. The Chairperson recalled that there are relatively few notification requirements in the Anti-
Dumping area, and those are generally not subject to deadlines set out in the Agreement.  However, as
a practical matter, most notifications must be made at specific times in order to allow the Committeeto consider them in the ordinary course of its business, as mandated under Agreement.
46. Thus, semi-annual reports of anti-dumping and countervailing actions are to be submitted by
the end of February of the current year for the period 1 July to 31 December of the previous year, and
by the end of August for the period 1 January to 30 June of the current year.  As is the Committee's
normal practice, earlier in this meeting, Members reviewed the semi-annual reports covering thesecond half of 2001.  The semi-annual reports for the first half of 2002 will be due at the end of
August 2002, and will be on the agenda of the meeting in October.
47. Notifications of applicable legislation, regulations, or administrative procedures, or
notifications of no relevant legislation, have no specified deadlines.  Members are requested to notify
the full text of the relevant laws, regulations, and administrative procedures when any are firstenacted, and to notify any changes when made.  Pursuant to the procedures for review of legislation
adopted by the Committees, only notifications circulated to Members in three working languages at
least six weeks before a meeting may be reviewed at that meeting.  Thus, for a notification to be on
the agenda of the Committee's meeting in October 2002, it must be circulated no later than
12 September 2002.  As a practical matter, to ensure translation and circulation by those dates,notifications containing the text of existing legislations should reach the Secretariat by the end of July
at the latest, while nil notifications should reach the Secretariat no later than first September.
48. Notifications of preliminary and final actions taken are to be made, according to Article 16.4
of the Agreement, "without delay".  As is the Committee's usual practice, any such notifications
received and circulated by the Secretariat prior to our meeting in October will be on the agenda for
consideration at that meeting.
49. The Agreement also requires Members to notify which of their authorities are competent to
initiate and conduct investigations.  The Committee has requested Members to notify, in this respect,
the name, address, telephone and telefax numbers, e-mail address, and web-site if one exists.  This
notification need only be made once, and then up-dated if the information changes.  The information
is circulated to Members in revisions of document G/ADP/N/14.G/ADP/M/21
Page 9
50. Having set out all that, the Chairperson reminded all Members that these notifications are
obligatory, and critically important to the role of the Committee in monitoring the operation of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  All Members are reminded to submit the required notifications in a timely
fashion, and where appropriate, in the applicable format.  The Committee  has established practices
and procedures for the circulation and review of notifications, which it has developed over time, and
which apply to all notifications submitted by all Members.  Finally, she noted that the Secretariat isalways available to assist Members in understandin g and complying with the applicable notification
obligations.
51. The delegate of the European Communities took the floor to reiterate and underline how
important the EC considered the notification of legislation in particular.  It was certainly important for
the reason the Chairperson had set out, to allow the Committee to undertake its review.  But in
addition, the EC considered it quite important to underline that a legislation which is in use, that is,
which is used against exports from another Member, has to be notified and should be notified with allurgency.  As an authority dealing with these issues, the EC authorities were often in a situation of
having to advise exporters with regard to the applicable law and how best to cooperate in another
Members' proceedings.  For that purpose it is utterly important to have other Members' laws available
to ensure there is no confusion about the applicable law in any particular case.  He asked all Members
which had not yet notified their laws, and in particular those Members who use their laws, to notifythem, so that his authorities would have something in hand in order to advise exporters.
F. OTHER BUSINESS
(i) European Communities – Agenda of next regular meeting
52. The delegate of the European Communities noted that, as Members knew, the Committee was
required to carry out a review according to paragraph 18 of China's Protocol of Accession within this
year.  The only purpose of his intervention was to ask China whether it would prefer to hold this
review at the regular meeting of the Committee in the autumn, or whether it would prefer to have a
special meeting for this review.
53. The delegate of China thanked the delegate of the European Communities for raising this
question.  He was delighted to inform the Committee and the delegation of the EU in particular that
China believed it was appropriate for this transitional review to be conducted in the regular meeting of
the Committee in the autumn, and China was making every effort to prepare for that.
54. He took the opportunity to express special thanks  to all who had worked with China to reach
agreement on the meeting's agenda.  He believed that this spirit of cooperation was a very important
foundation for Members to work fruitfully in the future, especially in the autumn regular meeting.  AsMembers were aware, China was a new Member of the WTO, and there was a lot for China to learn in
this process.  However, China was determined to  work very hard with everybody in the Committee
and to make its due contributions for the success of the work of the Committee.
55. The Committee took note of the statements made.
(ii) Indonesia – European Communities' sunset review of bicycles
56. The delegate of Indonesia took the floor to express regret regarding the practice of the
European Union with regard to the sunset review on bicycles.  This sunset review was initiated on
11 April 2001.  From the outset, Indonesia had challenged whether there was sufficient support from
the domestic industry to initiate the proceeding.  At that stage, Indonesia's attention to this issue was
drawn by the fact that the non-confidential complaint submitted by the domestic industry chose to
treat as confidential the EU companies supporting the petition.  Subsequent access to the non-G/ADP/M/21
Page 10
confidential files in August 2001 confirmed the lack of support from the EU industry, as few
questionnaires were on file.  Soon after accessing these files, the Government of Indonesia reiterated
the request that the proceeding be terminated.  Howe ver, the response of the Investigating Authority
was to offer a further opportunity for the EU Industry to complete questionnaires by extending the
deadline to mid-September 2001, which was six months into the sunset review proceeding.  In spite of
the continued lack of support, the Commission persisted with the investigation, including an on-site-verification at the premises of the Indonesian exporter concerned, in December 2001.  It was only in
March 2002 that the Commission announced that the complainant had decided to withdraw the
petition, and that the Commission intended to terminate the sunset review.
57. Indonesia regretted  the actions taken by the European Union, which imposed an undue and
unfair burden on the Indonesian exporter concerned.  The Commission should not have initiated the
sunset review, as there was clearly insufficient support from the domestic industry.  Furthermore,
Indonesia had requested a full disclosure as to the circumstances of the withdrawal and the status ofthe findings to date, bearing in mind that the investigation lasted at least 11 months.  The Commission
had declined this request.  Finally, Indonesia wished to draw attention to the unjustified continuation
of the anti-dumping measures for a further 11 months beyond the five-year period.  Indonesia
requested that the EU issue a disclosure of the review proceeding to include the results of the
verification exercise undertaken at the premises of the exporter concerned.
58. The delegate  of the European Communities thanked Indonesia for its questions.  He
confirmed that an expiry review, that is a review under Article 11.3 of the Agreement, had been
initiated in  April 2001, concerning measures adopted in March 1996.  He also confirmed that the
relevant EC industry had withdrawn the petition, and the Commission had therefore recommended to
the Council that it repeal the measure.  However, he had not been able to contact his authorities incapital on this matter to obtain further and more detailed information to allow him to respond to
Indonesia's questions at this meeting, but the EC would  respond to Indonesia's request.  At this stage,
he could only note that Indonesia had complained that no information about support for the petition
had been available.  In this context, he noted that it was usual EC practice that relevant information on
support for a complaint is automatically part of the non-confidential file and should have beenavailable to Indonesia, but he had not been able to contact his authorities in the capital specifically
with regard to the circumstances of this case.
(iii) Japan – Certain anti-dumping investigations by China
59. The delegate of Japan expressed concern about anti-dumping investigations by China.  Since
China joined the WTO, it had initiated anti-dumping investigations on three chemical products and
one paper product, specifically Phthalic anhydrite, styrene butadiene rubber, polyvinyl chloride and
coated paper.  Since these investigations were currently ongoing, no determination had yet been made.
But Japan did expect that these investigations would be conducted appropriately and consistently with
the Anti-Dumping Agreement
60. The delegate of China thanked Japan for bringi ng this matter to his government's attention,
and promised to report it to his capital, and especially those directly involved in the investigations.  As
a general practice, he informed Members that anti-dumping investigations, and the regulations onwhich they were based, all complied with relevant WTO rules.  He hoped that Japan could provide a
written document to enable his authorities to fully understand the issue.
(iv) Malaysia – Anti-dumping investigation by Colombia
61. The delegate of Malaysia stated that he had intended to raise an issue concerning an anti-
dumping investigation conducted by Colombian authorities.  However, since the meeting started, hisG/ADP/M/21
Page 11
authorities had had fruitful discussions with the delegation of Colombia, and hoped for a positive
response.   Therefore, he did not wish to pursue this matter at this time.
(v) Korea – India's investigation of styrene butadiene rubber
62. The delegate of Korea raised its concern regarding the continuing imposition of anti-dumping
duties by the Indian Government on imports of cert ain chemical products including styrene butadiene
rubber ("SBR") from Korea.  The Korean government had delivered its concerns several times to theIndian Government many times through bilateral channels, but had not yet achieved a satisfactory
response from the Indian Government.  The Indian Government's measure covers the three different
types of products:  (i) SBR 1500 and 1700 series;  (ii) SBR 1900;  and (iii) high styrene resin
("HSR").
63. Regarding the SBR 1500 and 1700 series products, he stated that the original duty had been
imposed from 1999.  The Indian government initiated a review procedure on these products on
9 November 2000.  Its Department of Commerce, determined on 3 July 2001, and published in theOfficial Gazette (No. 34/1/2000-DGAD), that there is  no domestic industry for these products and that
the anti-dumping duty should be terminated.  Despite this, the Indian Government had informed the
Korean government of its intention to continue imposing anti-dumping duties on "certain grades of
SBR".
64. In this regard, the Korean Government had asked for a clarification as to whether "certain
grades of SBR" included SBR 1500 and 1700 series products.  The response from the Indian
Government provided no concrete answer and their final decision regarding the revocation of anti-
dumping duties on these products has still not been made.  Korea was of the clear view that the
continuation of anti-dumping duties on the above SBR products constitutes a violation of Articles 11
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because their imposition is no longer warranted.  In addition, Koreanoted that the review was initiated on 9 November 2000 and more than 18 months have passed since
then.  Korea was still waiting for the final determination from the Indian Government.  It was very
clear that the delay of the review procedure should not be allowed under the terms of Article 11.4 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
65. Regarding SBR 1900 series products, he stated that the Indian Government, during the
original investigation initiated on 7 April 1998 (No. 30/1/97-ADD), the only petitioner in India
produced SBR 1500 and 1700 series products, but no SBR 1900 series.  Thus, much of the
information regarding the injury was for the SBR 1500 and 1700 series products, not 1900 product.
The only information sought regarding this product was cost information.  However, the Indian
Government imposed an anti-dumping duty on the SBR 1900 Series Products (No. 107/99-Customs)
and decided to continue the measure after review.  In Korea's view, this was a clear violation of
Articles 3, 5, 6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,  since the Indian Government did not conduct a
substantive investigation as required under those Articles.  This could easily be proven by consulting
the records of investigation by the Indian authorit ies.  The investigating authority should provide a
persuasive explanation as to how the evaluation of the relevant factors led to the determination of
injury.  the Korean Government's review of the in vestigating authority's records indicated that the
Indian Government had not fulfilled its obligations in this regard.
66. Regarding HSR products, the Korean delegate stated that these products were not covered by
the investigation.  This fact was clearly expressed by the Indian Authority, "(t)he Authority observes
that items falling under 3903.90 (HSR products) are not products under consideration ….."  This
finding was confirmed by the Authority several times during the investigation.  Moreover, in the
notification of  the review, the Au thority indicated that "In view of this, the Authority does not find
justification to cover items falling under s ub-heading 3903.90 for the purpose of imposing anti-
dumping duties."  Despite this, by decision of th e Customs, Excise and Control Appellate Tribunal,G/ADP/M/21
Page 12
the Indian Government imposed anti-dumping duties on HSR products falling under sub-heading
3903.90 as from February 2002.  This measure continues after review.  Korea considered that the
imposition of anti-dumping duties on HSR products violated Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 of Anti-Dumping
Agreements because there was no investigation on the HSR products.
67. Korea respectfully requested due consideration by the Indian Government of the following
items:  (1) a proper and accelerated conclusion of the review, and (2) immediate termination of theanti-dumping duties on SBR 1500 and 1700 series products, SBR 1900 series products, and HSR
products.
68. The delegate of India stated that he would transmit the concerns raised to his authorities for
clarification.
(vi) Bangladesh – India's imposition of anti-dumping duties on batteries
69. The delegate of Bangladesh noted that India had imposed anti-dumping duties on lead-acid
batteries from Bangladesh.  His authorities were not prepared to elaborate, but reserved the right to
raise the issue in the future.
70. The delegate of India thanked the delegate of Bangladesh, whose interest he would transmit to
his capital.
(vii) Enquiry by the Chairman of the Committ ee on Trade and Development concerning the
Committee's activities in respect of special and differential treatment provisions.
71. The Chairperson reported that on 10 December 2001, Mr. Inumba, then Chairman of the
Committee on Trade and Development, sent the Chairpersons of WTO bodies a letter enquiring about
the activities of those bodies in respect of the special and differential treatment provisions of the
relevant Agreements.    In response, the Chairperson had informed him, by letter, of the Committee's
work with respect to the issue of Article 15, referre d to it by Ministers at Doha, and also the work in
respect of implementation issues being undertaken in the Working Group on Implementation, again in
response to the mandate of Ministers.  She also noted that a review of special and differential
treatment might take place in the context of negotiations, and that a number of implementation-related
issues had been referred to negotiations by Ministers.   She indicated that the Secretariat would
provide Members with copies of both letters upon request.2
(viii) Technical assistance activities
72. The Chairperson reported that a suggestion had been made in the Committee on Trade and
Development that WTO bodies with technical assistance activities could put technical assistance as a
standing item on the agendas for their meetings throughout the year.  She was bringing this suggestion
to Members' attention in the Committee to seek their views, noting that while the Secretariatconducted a number of technical assistance activities, the Committee itself had no such activities.
73. The delegate of the European Communities stated that his authorities were aware of the
important scale of technical assistance activities provided to developing countries by the Secretariat.
He noted that the Committee had not, in the past, occupied itself with these activities.  The EC would
welcome more information from the Secretariat to the Committee on what its technical assistance
activities are.  This would give developing country Members an opportunity to discuss this.  It would
probably be, for some Members, an opportunity to take note of what is done, and what could be done,
                                                     
2 The letters were subsequently transmitted by tele fax to all Members and Observers of the Committee
on 25 April 2002.G/ADP/M/21
Page 13
so as to discuss  their particular needs with other Members and the Secretariat.  Perhaps in the longer
run, if Members considered that more technical assistance was needed, it might be possible for the
Committee to develop activities itself to make this  possible.  This matter seemed to be largely a
question of money, which sometimes was primaril y a question of an organized request for money.
This would of course be an issue for the budget, in which case information to formulate any request
could be helpful.
74. The delegate of China echoed the interest of the EU in receiving information from the
Secretariat on technical assistance activities.  As a new Member, and in view of the enormous number
of cases initiated against China by Members, China hoped that it could benefit from those
programmes, so as to help it better cooperate with investigating authorities of importing countries, as
well as to ensure better contributions from China for the work of the Committee.
75. The Committee took note of the statements made.
G. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON
IMPLEMENTATION
76. The Chairperson noted that, as Members were aware, the Working Group on Implementation
met on Monday and Tuesday of this week.  The agenda for that meeting included no new papers on
any of the topics currently before the Working Group.  In this regard, she urged Members to consider
the course of future work of the Group.  The Group was considering, in informal sessions, two itemsof business referred to the Committee by the Ministers at Doha, which task is to be completed by
December of this year.  In light of the number of meetings on the calendar for the year, and the
pressing business of implementation discussions and beginning negotiations, it would be
understandable if Members had few resources available to devote to the regular work of the Group.
Therefore, she suggested that Members might think about the future course of the Group's work, andin particular the schedule and length of meetings, so that this question might be discussed at the next
meeting in the autumn.
77. Despite the lack of new papers, the Group had a useful and productive meeting.  Members
had a thorough discussion of the draft recommendati on on conditions of competition that may be
relevant to a decision whether a cumulative assessment of the effects of imports is appropriate.Several Members suggested revisions to the text of the draft recommendation, which were discussed
during the course of the meeting.  The suggested revisions following discussion will be incorporated
into a revised version of the draft recommendation, which will be circulated to Members.
78. The Group also discussed the text of a draft decision on adopted recommendations.  There
were several suggestions concerning the text of the draft, which are reflected in a room documentmade available to Members.  In addition, a number of Members expressed more general points
regarding the effect of the draft decision on status, if adopted, on perceptions of the work of the Group
and the Committee.
79. Finally, she reiterated that the next Meeting of the Group is scheduled to begin Monday,
21 October 2002.  The deadline for submissions for the October meeting of the Informal Group is
Monday, 9 September 2002.  She urged Members to submit papers on the topics currently before the
Group, and to respect this deadline, in order to allow the Secretariat to translate and circulate yoursubmissions before the meeting. This will allow delegations and capital-based experts to study the
submissions in their preferred WTO language and prepared considered responses, which will enhance
discussions next autumn.
80. The Committee took note of the statement made by the Chairperson.G/ADP/M/21
Page 14
H. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING
81. 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 full week in October, the week of
21 October 2002.  In light of previously scheduled meetings of the Working Group on
Implementation and the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention, this Committee would thereforemeet on Thursday, 24 October 2002, continuing on Friday if necessary.
I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
82. The Committee elected Mr. Cristian Epinosa Canñizares of Ecuador as Chairman, and
Ms Caroline Trautweiler of Switzerland as Vice Chairperson.
83. The meeting was adjourned.
_____________