RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/M/24
17 October 2003
(03-5509)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON 1-2 MAY 2003
Chairperson:  Ms. Caroline Trautweiler (Switzerland)
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on
1-2 May 2002.
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:
A. CHINA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS .........................................................1
B. COSTA RICA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ................................................2C. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ............................3
D. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION......................3
E. LATVIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION .........................................................3F. LITHUANIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION..................................................3G. NEW ZEALAND – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ...........................................3H. NICARAGUA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION................................................4I. PAKISTAN – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ....................................................4
J. ZIMBABWE – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ..................................................4
K. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF
 ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS...............................................................5
L. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS.................................................................8M. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION .................................................................................................................. ........................8
N. OTHER BU SINESS............................................................................................................... ...................9
(i) European Communities – Anti-Du mping Duties Imposed by Venezuela on Imports of Syringes
from Italy..................................................................................................................... ...........................................9
(ii) United States - Effect of Membership Expansion on Trade Remedies Currently in Force in the EuropeanCommunities .................................................................................................................... ......................................9
O. CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON
IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................................. .....................14
P. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ..............................................................................................15Q. ELECTION OF  OFFICERS......................................................................................................... ...........15
A. CHINA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS
3. The Chairperson stated that the first items on the agenda were the review of notifications of
new or amended 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,
12 February 1996).
4. The Chairperson recalled that questions concerning new notifications of legislation were to
have been submitted to the Member concerned and the Secretariat no later than three weeks before themeeting, that is, by 10 April 2003.  As provided for in the agreed procedures, Members which hadG/ADP/M/24
Page 2
received written questions in time were asked to respond orally to those questions in the meeting, and
subsequently to respond in writing to all questions received in written form.  The Chairperson
reminded Members that follow-up questions could be asked in the meeting.  Such follow-up questions
were to be submitted in writing no later than 15 May 2003 if the Member posing the question wished
to receive a written answer.  She reminded Members to submit the written answers to all written
questions to the Secretariat no later than 3 July 2003.
5. The Committee then turned to the notification of China.
6. The questions regarding the notification of China can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/11 Submitted by the European Communities
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/12 Submitted by the European Communities
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/13 Submitted by Argentina
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/14 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/15 Submitted by the United StatesG/ADP/Q1/CHN/16 Submitted by Argentina
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/22 Submitted by the European Communities
Answers to these questions can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/17 Replies to Argentina
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/18 Replies to the European Communities
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/19 Replies to the United States
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/20 Replies to the European Communities
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/21 Replies to the United StatesG/ADP/Q1/CHN/23 Replies to the European Communities
7. The Chairperson clarified that there had been a mistake in document production, as a result of
which the questions submitted Argentina had circulated twice, as G/ADP/Q1/CHN/13 and
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/16. She stated that the sec ond document, G/ADP/Q1/CHN/16, should be
disregarded.
8. The delegate of the United States remarked that the delegate of China had mentioned on a
number of occasions certain legislation such as the Security law and the Criminal law that apply to
how outside parties might be treated when they are assisting the Chinese authorities and in other
circumstances.  He was wondering when China would be notifying the relevant portions of such lawsto the Committee.
9. The delegate of China stated that he would refer this question to his capital.
B. COSTA RICA –  REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION
10. The questions regarding the notification of Costa Rica can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/CRI/3 Submitted by the European Communities
G/ADP/Q1/CRI/4 Submitted by the United StatesG/ADP/Q1/CRI/5 Submitted by the European Communities
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/CRI/6 Replies to the European Communities and the United StatesG/ADP/M/24
Page 3
C. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION
11. The questions regarding the notification of the Dominican Republic can be found in the
following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/DOM/1 Submitted by the European Communities
G/ADP/Q1/DOM/2 Submitted by the United States
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/DOM/3 Replies to the European Communities and the United States
D. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION
12. The questions regarding the notification of the European Communities can be found in the
following document:
G/ADP/Q1/EEC/21 Submitted by the United States.
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/EEC/22 Replies to the United States
E. LATVIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION
13. The questions regarding the notification of Latvia can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/LVA/5 Submitted by the United States
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/LVA/6 Replies to the United States
F. LITHUANIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION
14. The Chairperson noted that the notification of Lithuania was in fact a correction of the
notification which had been reviewed at the previous meeting of the Committee. No questions had
been submitted concerning this new notification.
15. The delegate of Lithuania confirmed that the document in question was a corrigendum. His
delegation had noticed certain discrepancies between the original version and the translation
submitted to the WTO, which had been rectified in this corrigendum.
16. The Committee took note of this new notification.
G. NEW ZEALAND – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION
17. No questions were posed concerning the notification of New Zealand.
18. The delegate of New Zealand clarified that the notification in question concerned the
amendments that were brought about by the New Zealand – Singapore Closer Economic Partnership
Act of 2000.
19. The Committee took note of the notification.G/ADP/M/24
Page 4
H. NICARAGUA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION
20. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Nicaragua.  The Committee took note
of the notification.
I. PAKISTAN – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION
21. The questions regarding the notification of Pakistan can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/PAK/5 Submitted by the European Communities
G/ADP/Q1/PAK/6 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/PAK/7 Submitted by the European Communities
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/PAK/8 Replies to the European Communities and the United States
J. ZIMBABWE – REVIEW OF  NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION
22. The questions regarding the notification of Zimbabwe can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/ZWE/6 Submitted by the European Communities
G/ADP/Q1/ZWE/7 Submitted by the United States
TO DATE NO WRITTEN ANSWERS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.
23. 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.  She reminded Members to submit follow-up questions in
writing to the Member whose legislation was concerned, and to the Secretariat, no later than15 May 2003 if the Member posing the follow-up question wished to receive a written response.
Members were requested to submit written answers to all questions received in writing by that date.
Members were requested to submit such answers to the Secretariat no later than 3 July 2003.
24. The Chairperson informed Members that the following notifications were expected to be on
the agenda for the next regular meeting of the Committee in autumn 2003:G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.2 (China), G/ADP/N/1/EEC/2/Suppl.4 (European Communities),
G/ADP/N/1/PAK/2/Suppl.2 (Pakistan), G/ADP/N/1/PER/2 (Peru).  She noted that one set of
questions had already been submitted concerning Peru's notification which would be taken up in the
autumn meeting.
25. The Chairperson reminded Members that, pursuant to the adopted procedures for review of
notifications of legislation contained in document G/ADP/W/284, in order for a new notification of
legislation to appear on the agenda of the autumn 2003 meeting of the Committee, it had to be
circulated in three languages no later than 11 September 2003.  As a practical matter, in light of the
translation requirements, the Chairperson informed the Committee that notifications of legislative text
received after 31 July 2003 were unlikely to be translated in time to meet the above agreed deadline.
26. As was its practice, the Secretariat would inform Members of any additional new notifications
to be considered at that meeting.  The deadline for submission of questions regarding newnotifications of legislation for next autumn's meeting would be 2 October 2003.G/ADP/M/24
Page 5
27. Turning to the last aspect of review of national legislation, the Chairperson reminded
Members that, in accordance with the agreed procedures for review of legislation set out in document
G/ADP/W/284, Members desiring to pose questions a bout notifications of legislation or regulations
previously reviewed by the Committee were to have submitted those questions in writing to the
notifying Member and to the Secretariat no later than 20 March 2003.  As no written questions had
been received by the Secretariat by that date, there was no discussion under this agenda item.
28. The Chairperson informed Members that in order for a previously reviewed notification of
legislation or regulations to appear on the agenda of the Committee's regular meeting in October
2003, questions regarding such notification must be submitted to the Secretariat, and to the Member
whose notification was in question, no later than 11 September 2003.
29. Finally, the Chairperson expressed her continuing concern over the failure of some Members
to submit any notification at all concerning legislat ion or regulations relevant to anti-dumping.  She
noted that for many, if not most, of these Members, it was likely that a single nil notification,indicating that there was no such legislation or regulation currently in effect, would have been all that
was required. She further remarked that for those Members who conducted 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 not ified, in the interest of transparency and better
understanding. She thus encouraged Members who had not yet done so to make their notification oflegislation promptly.
K. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
30. The Chairperson recalled that a request for the semi-annual report for the second half of 2002,
to be submitted by 5 March 2003, had been circulated to Members in document G/ADP/N/98, dated
9 January 2003.  She reported that although it appeared that most Members taking actions hadsubmitted semi-annual reports, and that a large proportion of the reports were submitted in a timely
fashion, there continued to be some problems with reporting in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the Committee and set out in document G/ADP/1.  She also referred to Members' decision
regarding annual reviews, set forth in document G/ADP/9, which was taken in the context of the
implementation process, and which contained, in paragraph 3, an additional reporting obligation forsemi-annual reports. She pointed to the continued failure of some Members 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 the period, or to submit "nil" notifications if no actions were taken during
the period.
31. The Chairperson also reminded Members that item 19 of the "Guidelines for Information
Provided in Semi-Annual Reports", as reflected in document G/ADP/1, required 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 was submitted.  The Chairperson noted that the Secretariat was always
prepared to assist Members in applying the requirements for completing semi-annual reports.
32. The Chairperson stated that Members who had submitted semi-annual reports were identified
in paragraph 1 of document G/ADP/N/98 Addendum 1, dated 22 April 2003.  To the extent possible,
the semi-annual reports had been translated and circulated to the Committee, and were included in thedocuments made available for the meeting.  In addition to those Members listed, China, India and
Thailand had submitted semi-annual reports too late to be included in that document.
33. In addition to the Members who submitted semi-annual reports, a number of Members, listed
in paragraph 2 of document G/ADP/N/98 Addendum 1, had notified the Committee that they had not
taken any anti-dumping actions during the period in question.  In addition, the Dominican Republicand Guatemala had submitted such a notification too late to be included in that document.G/ADP/M/24
Page 6
34. The Chairperson noted that while there appeared to be a degree of general compliance with
the obligation to submit semi-annual reports, or reports of no actions taken, 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 good explanation for some Members' failure to make this
notification in a timely fashion.  The Chairperson 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 orthe Secretary of the Committee before the end of February, and another such letter before the end of
August.  Particularly for Members who did not 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
second half of 2002 were identified in do cument G/ADP/N/98 Addendum 1 at paragraph 3.
35. The Chairperson strongly urged all Members to comply with the requirement to submit semi-
annual reports in a timely fashion in the future.
36. The Committee then turned to the review  of the semi-annual reports submitted.
37. With respect to the notification from Argentina, the delegate of New Zealand asked if the
delegation of Argentina could clarify the investigation into glass wool products from New Zealand.
He stated that since the initiation date shown in the document was 2 October 2001, it seemed that the
allowed 12-month period for an investigation ha d elapsed. His delegation was thus wondering
whether the investigation had been completed or whether special circumstances, as designated inArticle 5.10 of the Agreement, had been instituted and the investigation was therefore still ongoing.
38. The delegate of Argentina replied that, unfortunately, he was not in a position to provide an
answer to the question, but he promised he would co ntact his capital. He hoped to be in a position to
reply in full to the question as soon as possible.
39. With respect to the notification of China, the delegate of the United States stated that, in the
previous meeting, his delegation had indicated that the Chinese report did not reflect China's
investigation against the United States on PVC and of  TDI. He noted that those investigations did not
appear in this latest report either. He was wondering whether the delegation of China could clarify
why these cases did not appear. He further noted, with regard to the listing of definitive duties in
force, that the dates of the imposition for definitive duties appeared to be the dates of preliminarydeterminations, and he was wondering whether the delegation of China could clarify those dates.
40. The delegate of China stated that he would refer these questions back to his capital and
provide the United States with an answer as soon as possible.
41. With respect to the notification by Israel, the delegate of the United States noted that the
semi-annual report of Israel did not include a section listing definitive duties in force, and his
delegation was wondering whether that reflected the fact that there were no definitive duties in force
or whether it was an inadvertent omission.
42. The Chairperson noted that the delegate of Israel was not in the room at that moment to
respond to the query of the delegation of the United States.
43. With respect to the notification of the United States, the delegate of the United States drew
Members' attention to the fact that informally questions had been raised with his delegation about
inclusion of the cases of red raspberries from Chile and wire rod from Ukraine on its list of definitiveduties in force. His delegation would be investigating the matter and would file a corrigendum if this
inclusion was inappropriate.
44. The delegate of Argentina referred to a measure taken by Peru concerning vegetable oils from
Argentina. He recalled that on 24 July 2002, the Government of Peru had applied provisional anti-G/ADP/M/24
Page 7
dumping duties on soy, sunflower and blended vegetable oils from Argentina and, given that it
considered the measure to be WTO inconsistent, his government had requested consultations under
the DSU.  The consultations ended on 21 November 2002, but so far, the Government of Peru had not
replied to questions put to it and had not taken up an offer to hold another round of consultations, as
had been suggested on 26 November 2002.  He further recalled that the Government of Peru finally
applied definitive duties to the four Argentinian exporting companies.  He noted that the definitivemeasure was never notified to the Committee as could be seen from documents G/ADP/N/96-97,
G/ADP/N/99, and G/ADP/N/101-103.  Nor had this measure been notified in the semi-annual report,
as was apparent from document G/ADP/N/98.  He th us concluded that no notification had been made
of this measure, in spite of the obligations set out in Article 16.4 of the Agreement.
45. In addition, it appeared in light of the available information that the measure in question was
implemented without any deadline being set, and that the Peruvian authority had initiated the
investigation without evidence of dumping, injury or the causal relationship between the two. This, in
his view, implied that insufficient evidence was pr ovided to justify the measures taken.  He further
considered that the authority had not taken into account information provided by the companies
concerning normal value and the export price of the good in question.  The authority had not taken
into account the low volume of the sales of the companies in question on the domestic market and did
not carry out a comparison with a comparable sales price on third markets either.  He added that theauthorities did not make a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value of the
goods; that the preliminary and definitive determinations of injury were not based on firm evidence;
that there was no objective consideration of the volume of the imports in absolute terms or in relation
to the national or domestic production and consumption; and that there was no consideration of the
effects of imports on prices of the like products in the domestic market and of the ensuing effects ofsuch imports on domestic producers. He added that the authority did not examine the impact of the
allegedly dumped imports on the domestic industry concerned, including by evaluating all relevant
economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry. Finally, the authority did
not provide any evidence of the causal relationship between the dumped imports and the alleged
injury to domestic production.  Nor did it consider factors other than dumped imports which mightwell have been causing injury to the domestic industry at the same time.
46. The delegate of Argentina stated that his delegation was  concerned about the amount of time
that had passed without the Government of Peru providing any notification whatsoever to the WTO.
For that reason, Argentina had made an official request to Peru to provide the Committee with
information on the measure set forth in Reso lution No. 062–2002/CDS-INDECOPI, so that the
measure could be reviewed.
47. The delegate of Peru, while undertaking to notify her authorities of the concerns raised by
Argentina, made the following observations. She recalled that on 21 November 2002 consultations
were held, and in the course of those consultations, the Government of Peru had responded to the
concerns raised by Argentina and had explained that the investigation was conducted in accordance
with Peru's obligations under the Agreement. She emphasised that all necessary information was
provided with respect to the provisional measures. With respect to definitive measures being taken,she apologised for the delay in notifying the Committee and undertook to notify the Committee
officially as soon as possible.
48. The delegate of Argentina thanked the delegation of Peru for this initial response to the
observations made. His delegation reserved the right to raise the matter before the Committee or the
Dispute Settlement Body.
49. The Committee took note of the statements made.G/ADP/M/24
Page 8
L. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
50. The Chairperson noted that lists of the notifications of preliminary and final anti-dumping
actions received by the Committee were circulated to the Committee in documents G/ADP/N/96-97,
G/ADP/N/99, and G/ADP/N/101-103.  Since the last meeting of the Committee, preliminary and final
anti-dumping actions had been notified by Argentin a, Australia, Canada, China, Egypt, the European
Communities, Korea, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Poland, South Africa, Chinese Taipei,Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, the United States, and Venezuela.
51. The Chairperson stated that there continued to be a lack of full compliance in this area.  Some
Members who had submitted semi-annual reports indicating actions in progress had not submitted
reports of preliminary or final actions taken.  She recalled that an important aspect of the Committee's
task was its role in monitoring and discussing actions taken by Members.  If Members did not take
their obligations to notify seriously, the Committee would be prevented from accomplishing its goal
of considering Members' compliance with  the requirements of the Agreement.
52. The Committee took note of the Chairperson's statement.
M. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION
53. The Chairperson reported that the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention met on
1 May 2003. At that meeting, the Group considered two new papers on the topics of discussion under
its agreed-upon framework.  The discussion had been useful, and had given Members food for thought
in preparing for continuing discussions on this important issue.
54. She strongly urged Members to submit papers on the issue of anti-circumvention which could
serve as the basis for further meaningful discussions at the next meeting of the Group. She hoped that
in future meetings more Members would participate actively in the work of the Informal Group, notonly through submitting papers on the items under discussions, but also in the discussions themselves.
55. The Chairperson recalled that the next meeting of the Group was scheduled for
23 October 2003.  The deadline for submissions for that meeting was 9 September 2003.  The
Chairperson noted that, as usual, the Secretariat would be circulating a reminder of the deadlines for
all the Anti-Dumping meetings in the autumn.  The Chairperson urged Members to make maximumefforts to respect this deadline to allow the Secretariat to translate and circulate Members' submissions
before the meeting. This would allow delegations and capital-based experts to study the submissions
in their preferred WTO language and to prepare considered responses.
56. The Committee took note of the Chairperson's report.G/ADP/M/24
Page 9
N. OTHER BUSINESS
(i) European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties Imposed by Venezuela on Imports of Syringes
from Italy
57. The delegate of the European Communities expressed her delegation's concerns about an anti-
dumping duty imposed by Venezuela on imports of syringes from Italy.  She recalled that on
13 May 1999, Venezuela had decided to impose an anti-dumping duty of 8.6 per cent on imports ofsyringes from Italy. In July 2001, the Italian exporter informed the European Communities that the
local producer in Venezuela, Weplast CA, had stopped producing the product concerned.  After
several letters sent to the Chairman of the Anti-Dumping and Subsidies Commission (CASS) by the
affected exporter, by the importer Corporation Ferinvest CA and the European Commission,
requesting a review of the measure, the CASS decided  on 1 April 2002 to initiate a review
investigation.  On 5 December 2002, the European Communities sent a letter to the Chairman of the
CASS urging it to take a decision on the review, since many months after initiation no decision hadbeen taken.  So far, no answer had been received.  The current situation was that the Italian exporter
was still forced to continue paying duties despite of  the fact that almost two years had passed since the
local producer, Weplast CA had stopped producing syringes.
58. The delegate of the European Communities urged the CASS to take an immediate decision on
the review of the anti-dumping duties as her delegation considered that it was unacceptable that theItalian producer would be forced to continue paying duties while there was no domestic industry
producing the product concerned which could be suffering injury.
59. The delegate of Venezuela stated that, unfortunately, his delegation was unable to give any
detailed reply to the information requested. His delegation shared the concern expressed by the
European Communities, and hoped that a clear response to the concern expressed could be givensoon.
(ii) United States - Effect of Membership Expansion on Trade Remedies Currently in Force in the
European Communities
60. The delegate of the United States drew the attention of the Committee to recent policy
statements by the European Communities regarding the effects of expansion on outstanding trade
remedy measures – anti-dumping and countervailing duties. He noted that the European Communities
issued two memos on 27 March 2003, one entitled “Trade and Enlargement – A Sectoral Overview”
and the other entitled “Trade and Enlargement – Why is Enlargement Good News for Third
Countries”.  Both of these memos dealt, inter alia , with the effect enlargement will have on
outstanding trade remedy measures.  He recalled that the European Communities was one of theWTO’s most active users of trade remedies and that, according to its most recent semi-annual report
to the Committee, it currently had 227 anti-dumping measures in place.  It was also one of the most
active users of countervailing duties.  He thus concluded that any plans the European Communities
could have to vastly expand the scope of those measures should be of great concern to all Members.
61. The delegate of the United States noted that the 27 March memos explained that, upon
expansion, any trade remedy measures which currently applied in the European Communities with
15 member States, would simply stretch geographically to cover imports into the entire territory of theenlarged 25 member European Union. He considered that such a proposal raised a number of
important questions. He stressed that it was a basic principle of the Anti-dumping Agreement and the
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures that any measure must be supported by a valid
determination of material injury or threat thereof to the domestic industry.  In his view, upon
expansion, absent a further injury investigation, it could not be determined whether the Europeantrade remedy measures had such support.  The most obvious problem he saw was the existence of
producers of the like product in the newly acceding member States.  His delegation observed, forG/ADP/M/24
Page 10
example, that the newly acceding member States had significant production facilities for steel, textiles
and chemicals, products which are the subject of numerous trade remedy measures by the European
Communities.  Those producers would enjoy the protection of the trade remedies, while the injury
determinations underlying the remedies had never taken into account the condition of those producers.
62. The delegate of the United States further noted that even in the absence of domestic producers
of the like product in the newly acceding member States, the injury determination would still becomeunreliable upon expansion of the European Union.  This was so because issues such as patterns of
demand and consumption, uses of the merchandise, and the level and trends of imports could be
completely different when analyzed over the Europ ean Union with 25 member States than they were
when analyzed over the European Union with 15 member States.
63. He added that the problem was not limited to anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders.
The continuing validity of undertakings could be doubtful as well.  In his view, unilaterally expanding
coverage of an undertaking in a manner not anticipated by a signatory called into question whether theagreement was truly voluntary, as required by the Article 8.1 of the Agreement and Article 18.1 of the
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement.  Further, to the extent parties to an undertaking
requested that a final determination of injury be completed, as is their right under Article 8.4 of the
Agreement and Article 18.4 of the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement, such injury
determination suffered from the same infirmity as was discussed previously.  Moreover, even whereparties did not request a final determination of injury, the exporters made that decision based on their
judgement of the likely results of an injury dete rmination when analyzed over the European Union
with 15 member States.  Such exporters might have reached a different conclusion if the injury
analysis were to take into account the entire 25 member States of the European Union.
64. He indicated that this problem was not limited to future imports into the newly acceding
member States.  In his view, if the European Communities is considered as a single entity for trade
defense purposes, then it would be irrelevant whether the merchandise entered a current EC member
State, or one of the newly acceding member States.  If the underlying injury determination was infirm,
the place where the merchandise entered had no bearing on that infirmity.
65. The delegate of the United States added that Members should be aware that this problem was
also not limited to outstanding trade remedy measures.  According to the information his delegation
had been able to gather, the injury determinati ons that the European Communities was currently
conducting were being analyzed over the European Communities with 15 member States, even though
the European Communities had already announced its plans to stretch any resulting measures to cover
the European Communities with 25 member States shortly after they would be issued.
66. His delegation noted that the European Communities stated in its 27 March memos that after
enlargement it would conduct reviews, but only upon request.  He considered that it was not clear
whether those reviews would be limited to re-determining the appropriate level of duties, or whether
they would analyze ab initio  the issue of whether the domestic industry as a whole was suffering
injury as a result of dumped or subsidized imports into the territory of the European Communities
with 25 member States.  In his view, the memos pr ovided some worrisome details.  First, the notice
for reviews would not be published until after enlarg ement.  In other words, even where reviews were
requested, duties would be collected and undertakings enforced for a certain period of time with no
clear determination of injury having been made.  In contrast, he argued, the Agreements required
Members to determine the existence of material injury or threat thereof before antidumping or
countervailing duties were collected on imports.  Second, the burden would be placed squarely on
exporters to establish the need for a review.  He stressed the fact that, according to the memos, the
European Communities would be prepared to receive requests from exporters only if they could show
that circumstances with regard to a case had changed substantially due to enlargement.  In other
words, enlargement itself would not be a sufficient ground for review, even though, as discussed,
enlargement per se  called into question the injury determination.  Moreover, the EuropeanG/ADP/M/24
Page 11
Communities was prepared to require foreign exporters to come forward with evidence that the
overall condition of EC producers wi th whom they were in competition had changed substantially as a
result of enlargement.  He considered that it was clear that gathering such sensitive information about
foreign competitors would not be easy.
67. Finally, and although of less relevance to this particular Committee, his delegation expressed
its concern that the extension of the European Communities measures to the newly acceding memberStates would disrupt long-established commercial relationships that had benefitted exporters and
importers alike.  Given the large number of antidumping and countervailing measures that would be
extended by the European Communities to the newly acceding member States, his delegation was
concerned that the formation of such a customs union would result in an overall increase in the
general incidence of duties and regulations of commerce applicable in the constituent territories prior
to the formation of the union.  He noted that the Understanding on Article XXIV of GATT 1994
required an assessment taking into account individual measures, regulations, products covered andtrade flows.
68. His delegation considered that the European Communities should take these observations into
account in reconsidering how to address trade measures upon expansion.  The European Communities
should conduct reviews of the injury determinations with respect to all current trade remedy measures,
including undertakings, prior to applying those measures in the expanded European Union of25 member States.
69. The delegate of the European Communities stated that his delegation had listened with
considerable interest to the statement of the United States. Since the United States' statement had only
been made available to his delegation and to other Members that morning, his delegation's reply
would perhaps not be as exhaustive as it would have wished it to be.  He then briefly summarized theissue again.  Accession treaties with the ten new member States had been signed.  The ratification
process was under way and if all went according to plan the accessions should become effective from
May 2004 onwards.  He indicated that, since the European Communities had already expanded
several times, it had also accumulated considerable experience in handling the issue diligently, also in
the area of trade defence.  He recalled that on the occasion of the last enlargement where three newmember States (Austria, Finland and Sweden) joined, it undertook a similar exercise and the
enlargement ran smoothly also with respect to the application of anti-dumping duties.  The upcoming
enlargement would be handled in the very same way, and for further details on the exercise, he
referred to the documents which had been discussed by the United States and which were available
also on the European Communities web site.
70. He then explained that after the enlargement became effective, the anti-dumping measures of
the ten new member States would disappear from the date of accession.  On the other hand the anti-
dumping measures of the European Communities against third countries would from that date
onwards also be extended to the territories of the new member States.  Interested parties in the old
European Communities as well as from the new member States, and any exporter affected by the
measures, could request a changed circumstances review in accordance with Article 11.2 of the
Agreement, if such parties considered that due to enlargement, circumstances had changed.
71. With regard to the impact of enlargement, the delegate of the European Communities stated
that he realised that the expansion with ten new member States would at first sight appear to have a
substantial impact on anti-dumping measures.  However, he emphasised, things should be put into
perspective, as the economic activity of those ten new member States was less than ten per cent of that
of the European Communities with fifteen member States.  That implied, in his view, that findings onwhich the existing anti-dumping measures of the European Communities were based would in most
cases continue to be representative.  He recognised that the European Communities was an important
user of the anti-dumping instrument, but certainly not the biggest one and certainly not in relativeG/ADP/M/24
Page 12
terms. He stressed that the European Communities had in the past used the instrument in a very
moderate way, and it intended to continue to do so in the future.
72. He then addressed some of the legal points raised by the United States.  He noted that
enlargement was one of the many circumstances which could change in the lifetime of an anti-
dumping measure, but that even without the enlargement, circumstances could change slightly, as
there might be new domestic producers, or domestic producers might disappear despite the existenceof anti-dumping measures. He thus concluded that  the fact that circumstances changed did not
necessarily trigger a review.  It certainly did not imply that measures would automatically cease to
apply or that their level would automatically chan ge.  He indicated that such questions should be
looked at on a case-by-case basis.
73. He considered therefore that a review would only be warranted if there were enough facts on
the table that suggested that either the level or  the existence of the measure should be put into
question.  He noted that in light of the fact that the economic activity of the new member States wascomparatively small in relative terms when compared to the existing 15 member States, the effect of
expansion on the measures was certainly not automatic.
74. His delegation also noted that a review was not necessarily beneficial to exporters since, as a
result of reviews, the duty level could change, as the transactions that would be used in the review
investigation period were different as compared to th e original investigation.  This implied that the
duty level could actually go up, which would certainly not be in the interest of the exporters.  He
considered that this was also something which had to be taken into account when reflecting on this
issue.
75. He further noted that the United States had expressed certain doubts about the continued
validity of undertakings.  He emphasised that, contrary to the United States, the EuropeanCommunities had considerable experience with undertakings because it had accepted many
undertakings. As the function of an undertaking was largely identical to an anti-dumping duty,
enlargement as such would not appear to have an im pact on the validity of an undertaking.  In any
event, if an exporter wished to withdraw its undertaking, he could certainly do so and he would then
from the withdrawal onwards be subject to an anti-dumping duty.
76. In sum, his delegation strongly disagreed with the United States that enlargement would
automatically affect existing anti-dumping measures, and argued that in many cases the reviews
proposed by the United States might be against the interest of exporters.  The delegate of the
European Communities further stated that Members should not worry, as the European Communities
had dealt with this matter smoothly in the past and would do so in the upcoming enlargement processas well. Finally, he considered that the disruption of commercial links, which the United States
seemed to be fearing, did not seem obvious given the weight of the economic activity of the new
member States.
77. The delegate of Korea stated that, in spite of the relative lack of information from the side of
the European Communities, his delegation wanted to raise a couple of preliminary questions with the
European Communities concerning the extension of the trade remedies by the European Communities
to ten new member States.
78. The delegate of Korea first wondered how the European Communities planned to be able to
comply with the Agreement when extending the trade remedy measure to the newly acceding member
States without conducting any injury determination which took into account the expansion of the
domestic industry. He further noted that the European Communities had said that the duty level
sometimes could go up based on the changed circumstances review.  His delegation wondered howthe level of duties could go up without conducting any anti-dumping margin determination in
consideration of a newly acceding country.G/ADP/M/24
Page 13
79. He further stated that with regard to export s from third countries to the ten acceding member
States, the memo of the European Communities regarding expansion stated that "GATT rules on
compensation do not concern the application of anti-dumping measures since such measures can be
imposed notwithstanding the provision concerning bound duty rate".  He noted that under Article
XXIV of GATT 1994 the duties and other regulations of commerce in respect of trade with Members
not parties to the customs union should not on the whole be higher or more restrictive than the generalincidence of the duties and regulations of commerce applicable in the constituent territories prior to
the formation or expansion of the union.
80. He thus asked the European Communities to provide more detailed information on the
upcoming expansion as his delegation among others wanted to have the legitimate chance, under the
WTO, to protect its interests on the extension of anti-dumping measures to the ten acceding member
States.
81. The delegate of the European Communities responded that he had never suggested that the
duty level would go up without any review. What he had said was rather that, while the European
Communities was prepared to accept review requests, if circumstances had changed which affected
the existing measures, reviews pursuant to Article 11.3 of the Agreement were not a one way street.
Such reviews could result in three possible outcom es:  first possible result, the measures would simply
be confirmed because the circumstances had not changed to such an extent that the level of themeasures was affected;  second possible result, duty levels could go down because dumping or injury
was less;  third possible result, as a result of a review the level of the measure could go up because
dumping was higher than originally thought.
82. He further underlined that the European Communities had put its expansion policy statement
on the web in order to inform interested parties as early as possible about what would happen andwhat would be the rules of the game so that they could prepare for the event and decide in the light of
their assessment whether they would prepare a review request, or whether they would not like to
lodge such a review request at the appropriate time.
83. Finally, his delegation considered that compensation was indeed not an issue in respect of
anti-dumping as it concerned only normal customs duties and, in his view, anti-dumping duties hadnothing to do with normal customs duties.
84. The delegate of Korea stated that, regarding compensation, it had not been his intention to
discuss compensation under the trade remedy measures, but rather, he was referring to requirements
under Article XXIV of GATT 1994 not to increase the general incidence of trade measures to the
other Members of the WTO after the establishment of the customs union
85. He then referred to the argument by the Eur opean Communities that interested parties could
in a sunset review under Article 11.3 of the Agreement request the review of the anti-dumping
measures as extended to the ten new member  States.  He wondered how Article 11.3 of the
Agreement could operate in guaranteeing the right of the exporters or importers to protect their
industry.
86. The delegate of the European Communities stated that he had made a mistake by referring to
Article 11.3 instead of Article 11.2 of the Agreement. He clarified that what he was referring to were
changed circumstances reviews under Article 11.2 of the Agreement and not sunset reviews under
Article 11.3 of the Agreement.
87. The delegate of the United States expressed hi s appreciation to the European Communities for
its responses and particularly expressed his delegation's appreciation for the plan of the European
Communities to terminate all outstanding trade remedy measures by the newly acceding memberStates.  He stated that his delegation would need to  study in further detail against whom such tradeG/ADP/M/24
Page 14
remedy measures applied, particularly whether the majority of such measures were in fact, against the
current EC member States.
88. The Committee took note of the statements made.
O. CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON
IMPLEMENTATION
89. The Chairperson reported that the Working Group on Implementation met on 29 April 2003
and continued its meeting on 2 May 2003. She reported that despite the lack of any new papers on the
topics currently before the Group, the meeting had been useful and productive.  The Group held a
thorough discussion of the draft recommendation on cond itions of competition that may be relevant to
a decision whether a cumulative assessment of the effects of imports is appropriate.  Several Members
had suggested revisions of the text of the draft, and those revisions would be incorporated into a
revised version of the draft recommendation which would be circulated to Members.
90. During its meeting, the Group also discussed new topics proposed for consideration by the
Group.  The Chairperson brought to Members' atte ntion document G/ADP/W/431, which listed the
topics proposed for discussion in the Working Group. She reported that certain Members had
expressed opposition to discussion of proposed topics 4, 5, and 6 as listed in document W/431.  In
addition, certain Members had considered that topics 2, 7, and 8, were not priority items for
discussion, but did not oppose their consideration.  Furthermore, certain Members had expressedconcern that the Group not include too many topics on its program, as it would be difficult to
participate meaningfully in light of other work and resource constraints.  Certain other Members had
expressed concern that there should not be too few topics, as this might result in a lack of substantive
discussions.  Ultimately, Members reached a consensus on a set of four new topics to be referred to
the Group for discussion, items number 1, 2, 9, and 10 in document W/431.
91. The Chairperson therefore proposed that the Committee referred the following four topics to
the Working Group on Implementation for discussion:
(a) Article 2.2:  How do Members decide when to use export prices to third countries and
when to use constructed normal value under Article 2.2?;
(b) Article 2.4.1:  Foreign exchange fluctuations (how do users of the instrument deal
with currency fluctuations in the context of dumping calculations?);
(c) Article 6.7 (Conduct of Verification):  Discuss the implementation of Article 6.7,
which provides that authorities may carry out investigations in other countries as
required, provided they obtain the agreement of the firms concerned, and they notify
the representatives of the government of the countries in question (unless the latterobject to the investigation).  Address issues such as whether authorities provide
verification outlines, lists of participants, or other preparatory information prior to the
verification; and whether the verification findings are memorialized in written reports
or otherwise; and
(d) Article 13 (Judicial, arbitral or administrative review):  Discuss the implementation of
Article 13, and whether there is an opportunity for prompt review of administrative
actions relating to final determinations and reviews of determinations.  Discuss, e.g.the types of review provided (judicia l, arbitral, administrative), whether
determinations can be appealed, and to what court or other institution.
92. The Committee decided to refer the proposed topics to the Working Group on Implementation
for discussion.G/ADP/M/24
Page 15
93. The Chairperson stated that the Secretariat would shortly circulate a document setting forth
the list of new topics to be discussed in the Working Group on Implementation, beginning at its next
meeting in October 2003.  She reminded Members that the next revision of the draft recommendation
on conditions of competition would also be on the agenda of that meeting. Finally, she recalled that
Members could, of course, submit papers or proposals on any of the topics previously referred to the
Group for discussion.  Any such papers received by the applicable deadline would be on the agendafor the next meeting.
94. The next meeting of the Working Group was scheduled to begin on 21 October 2003.  The
deadline for submissions for that meeting was 9 September 2003.  As the Committee had agreed on
new topics to be discussed, she hoped the Members would fully engage in the process by making
submissions concerning those topics.  She recalled that the benefits to be obtained from the meetings
of the Working Group depended on Members taking an active part by supplying the underlying
information necessary to fuel the discussions.
95. As usual, the Secretariat would circulate a reminder of the deadlines for all the Anti-Dumping
meetings in the autumn.  She urged Members to respect these deadlines, in order to allow the
Secretariat to translate and circulate Members' submissions before the meetings, which 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.
96. The Committee took note of the statement made.
P. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING
97. The Committee agreed at its meeting of 21 February 1995 that regular meetings normally
would be held in the last week of April and the last week of October.  Accordingly, the next regular
meeting of the Committee was proposed for the week of 20 October 2003.  In light of previously
scheduled meetings of the Working Group on Im plementation and the Informal Group on Anti-
Circumvention, this Committee would therefore meet beginning in the afternoon on Thursday,
23 October 2003.
98. The Committee decided to meet on the dates proposed by the Chair.
Q. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
99. The Committee elected Mr. David Evans of New Zealand as Chairman and Mr. Mateo Diego-
Fernández of Mexico as Vice Chairman of the Committee.
100. The meeting was adjourned.
__________