./.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/W/440 
27 September 2004 
 (04-4040) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   English 
  
 
TRANSITIONAL REVIEW MECHANISM PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 18 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE ACCESSION 
OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
 
Questions from Japan
 
 
  The following communication, dated 24 September 2004, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of Japan.  
_______________ 
 
 Q1. The authorities cumulatively assessed the eff ects of imports from more than one country 
without demonstrating by positive evidence that the volume of imports from each country was not negligible and without showing any positive eviden ce on “the conditions of competition between the 
imported products” or “the condition of competiti on between the imported pr oducts and like domestic 
product”.   For example, the notices of determinati ons in some anti-dumping investigations only 
indicated the conclusion “After considering th e related evidential documents, … the authority 
determined that a cumulative assessment of the effect s of the imports is appr opriate in light of the 
conditions of competition between  the imported products and the condition of competition between 
the imported products and the like domestic product regarding the physical and chemical 
characteristics, structure of raw materials, produc tion process, its use.”, but does not explain any 
reason for such conclusion.  
 These determinations would not meet the requi rements of “positive evidence” and “objective 
examination” in Article 3.1 as well as Article 3. 2 and 3.3.  Please explain reasons, if the Chinese 
authorities consider that this practice is consistent with the AD Agreement: 
 Q2. The authorities made insufficient disclosure  of data, on which their dumping and injury 
determinations were based, in some anti-dumpi ng determinations.  The authorities also made 
insufficient disclosure of data and calculation methodologies for determining dumping margins in 
these investigations.  Consequently, interested pa rties were unable to make any effective data 
analysis.  Interested parties’ comments on preliminar y or final determinations were therefore confined 
to limited matters, and their opportunity to defend  their interests was deprived.  As such, these  
determinations were inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 6.4,, 6.9 and 12.2.1 of the AD agreement.  Please 
explain reasons, if the Chinese authorities consider  these situations were consistent with the AD 
Agreement.   For example, the notices of provisional determinations in some anti-dumping investigations only indicated the fact that they applied “facts av ailable”, but did not include any explanation of 
which data they used, how they calculated the dum ping margin with the data.  Such determination 
would be inconsistent with Articles 12.2.1(iii) of the AD agreement.   G/ADP/W/440 
Page 2  
 
  
Q3. The Chinese authorities would have acted inconsistently with Article 2.6 of the AD agreement by making determinations on “like pro duct” without making ade quate examination of 
physical characters and uses of the product under co nsideration in some anti-dumping investigations.  
 
 For example, the authority found like product and in jury to its industry even in case where the 
product which is the same or closely resembling with the product imported from Japan was not 
produced in China during the period of investigatio n and did not compete at all with the product in 
China.  
 Please explain reasons, if the Chinese aut horities consider these determinations to be 
consistent with the AD Agreement.  Q4. After the preliminary anti-dumping determinati on of dispersion unshifted single-mode optical 
fibre, some Japanese companies exported the opti cal fibre, which was not included in the product 
under investigation, to China.  However, a comp any faced suspension of customs procedures and was 
requested to pay deposits for provisional anti-dumpi ng duties at Chinese customs.  According to the 
company, when being suspended, the company submitted the relevant evidence and made an 
explanation to the customs that its product was not  included in the anti-dumping investigation.  The 
customs, however, rejected the company’s explan ation, requiring the authorization from another 
Chinese authority.  Then, the company sent the sample of the product and requested the Chinese 
authority for the measurement and authorization.  But the authorities rejected company's request, 
saying the authority could not measure the product due to the absence of measuring equipments.  After all, the company was forced to pay deposits of 46 per cent to the customs, although its product 
was not included in the product under investigation.  
 In our view, the import restrictions a nd the imposition of the anti-dumping duties or 
provisional measures on the product which was not in vestigated are inconsistent with the entire AD 
Agreement and Article XI of GATT 1994.  Please expl ain reasons, if the Chinese authorities consider 
these situations were consistent w ith the AD Agreement and GATT 1994. 
 
__________