RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/M/20
14 March 2002
(02-1340)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
HELD ON 7 DECEMBER 2001
Presiding as Chairperson:  Ms. Ana Novik, Vice Chairperson (Chile)
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a special meeting on
7 December 2001.
2. The Committee adopted the agenda for this meeting as proposed in WTO/AIR/1684, dated
27 November 2001:
(a) selection of new topics of discussion for the Working Group on Implementation, and
(b) the process for consideration of issues referred to the Committee by the Ministerial
Conference in its Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns(Document WT/MIN(01)/17, paras. 7.2-7.4).
I. SELECTION OF NEW TOPICS OF DISCUSSION FOR THE WORKING GROUP
ON IMPLEMENTATION
3. The delegate of the European Communities took the floor to suggest that the Committee
should consider this issue from a more general point of view.  Recalling that the Committee had
postponed a decision on new topics of discussion in order to await the outcome of the Doha
Ministerial, he noted that Ministers had referred several matters to the Committee and the Working
Group for consideration and the development of reco mmendations over the next twelve months.  In
addition, negotiations on anti-dumping would also be taking place, which would most likely involve
the same people from capitals, the experts in this field, as would the discussions on the matters
referred to the Committee and the Working Group by Ministers.
4. In this situation, he suggested that the likely workload for the individuals concerned should be
taken into account. While the number of negotiating groups and sessions that would involve these
individuals was not yet clear, it was likely that there would be a significant number of meetings, with
a resulting significant commitment of time.  He suggested that the Committee should be careful in
adding too heavy an agenda in the Working Group on Implementation to this.  The possibility of anadditional week or two added to the week or two of regular Anti-Dumping and SCM Committee
meetings, plus possible additional negotiating sessions, would be too much for many Members.  For
these practical reasons, and given the paramount interest to have experts here for negotiations, and to
make it feasible for them to come and stay, the Committee should try to keep the regular business as
limited as possible.  Therefore, he suggested, the Committee should not add any new topics to theWorking Group's agenda at this time.
5. A second substantive reason also supported this view.  Clearly, a number of issues would be
addressed in negotiations – those already referred to negotiation through Article 12(a) of the
Ministerial Declaration, and any additional ones that might be proposed.  It can well be imagined that
there will not be many areas of the Anti-Dumping Agreement with regard to which there will be noproposals.  Thus, the situation might arise in which there were a proposal to negotiate an aspect of the
Agreement at the same time as discussions on the implementation of that same aspect were on-goingG/ADP/M/20
Page 2
in the Working Group.  This would not make a lot of sense, and would be confusing.  Such a parallel
process would engender contradictions and conflicts of interest, and probably double the work and
time needed to resolve matters.
6. Based on these considerations, he proposed that the agenda of the Working Group be left as it
is for the time being, with no new topics added at this time.
7. The delegate of Japan thanked the United States and Brazil for proposing additional topics for
the Working Group.  Japan considered the discussion of the implementation issues referred to the
Committee and Working Group to be important.   Some of these issues were also among the proposed
new topics, but in Japan's view, it was important to discuss them in the context of the implementation
proposals.  Japan also believed Members should not overburden the Working Group and should avoid
complicating the process, particularly since the re lationship between negotiation and the work in the
Working Group was not clear.  For these reasons, Japan's preference was to limit the topics to those
which Members feel are absolutely necessary to be taken up in the Working Group.
8. The delegate of Brazil noted that Brazil had proposed new topics for discussion which Brazil
deemed very important.  However, Brazil agreed that the relationship among the various discussions
to be held in negotiating sessions, the implementation context, and the Working Group was not clear,
and there might be some overlap.  The EC's arguments in favor of not adding new topics to the
Working Group's agenda were compelling, and Brazil could agree with the EC proposal.
9. The delegate of India agreed with the EC's proposal for the same reasons stated by the EC
delegate.
10. The delegate of the United States noted that while the United States did not necessarily agree
that there was a conflict between the work of the Working Group on Implementation and the future
work of any negotiating group, the United States did agree that the Working Group should not beoverburdened, and therefore supported the EC proposal.
11. The delegate of Australia also thanked the United States and Brazil for suggesting new topics
for discussion in the Working Group.  Australia believed that the topics suggested were all relevant
topics and merited consideration.  Having said that, however, Australia agreed with the views put
forward by the EC.  In particular, it was importa nt that the Working Group not be overburdened so
that developing countries could be actively engaged in the work of the Working Group.  Australia
therefore could accept the suggestion of the EC to not add new topics at this time.
12. The delegate of Israel indicated its willingness to forego discussion of its proposed topic in
light of the points raised by other Members.
13. The Chairperson proposed that, in light of the discussion, the Committee agree to not refer
any new topics to the Working Group on Implementation at this time.
14. The Committee so decided.
15. The Chairperson reminded Members that, even in the absence of new topics, there would be a
regular meeting of the Working Group in April.  There was still one draft recommendation,
concerning cumulation issues, outstanding.  In addition, Members were encouraged to submit new
and additional papers on the existing topics, which remained open for discussion. The deadline for
such submissions was 11 March 2002.  In this way, the Working Group could continue with the workalready on its agenda.G/ADP/M/20
Page 3
II. THE PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE BY THE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE IN ITS DECISION ON
IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES AND CONCERNS (DOCUMENT WT/MIN(01)/17,
PARAS. 7.2-7.4)
16. Turning to the second item on the agenda, the Chairperson recalled the decision of the
Ministers in Paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 of the Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns.These provisions required that the Committee, through its Working Group on Implementation,
consider these two issues and draw up recomm endations concerning them, within 12 months.
17. The Chairperson recalled that the Committee on SCM recently had spent several months
considering implementation issues referred to it by the General Council.  A number of Members had
suggested that the procedures used in that context would be appropriate for the Committee's work in
response to the Ministers' decision. Therefore, she had prepared, on her own authority, a proposal on
procedures for consideration of implementation-related matters referred to the Committee and itsWorking Group by Ministers, which closely followed the procedures adopted by the SCM Committee.
18. The first element of the proposal was that the issues should be examined on the basis of
written submissions by Members.  These papers should address the technical aspect of the issues,
describe Members’ experiences of and/or concerns over the question at issue and suggest possible
resolutions.  The second element was that the Group should conduct its substantive discussions in aseries of informal meetings, with formal meetings to be convened as necessary.  Finally, on timing,
she proposed that the first written submission of Members be due on Friday, 25 January 2002,
followed by a first informal meeting of the Working Group on Thursday, 21 February 2002.  Based on
past experience, it would probably be necessary to have more informal meetings.
19. The delegate of Colombia enquired how these discussions would relate to the negotiations,
for which a forum would be decided in late January.
20. The Chairperson noted that, as the process for the negotiations was not yet decided, this was
unclear.  What was clear was that the Committee and Working Group had tasks to fulfill within
twelve months.  Therefore, the Committee had to decide how it would  arrange its work to accomplish
that task.  If there turned out to be some parallel aspects to the negotiations, that might be addressed ata later point.  But for now the Committee had a limited mandate to deal with these three topics.
21. The delegate of the United States proposed that a process of written questions and answers
relating to the papers submitted be part of the process.
22. After discussion, it was agreed that such a process would be useful, but would require
postponing the first informal meeting to allow for submission, translation, and circulation of questionsand answers. It was understood that Members could raise new or additional questions in any meeting,
and were not limited to the questions submitted in writing.  It was agreed that written submissions
would be due on 25 January 2002, written questions would be due on 15 February 2002, and the
written  answers would be due on 8 March 2002.  The first informal meeting was scheduled for
22 March 2002.
1
23. After further discussion, it was also agreed to follow the same procedure and schedule for
consideration of the issue referred to the Committee itself for consideration in paragraph 7.4 of theMinisters' Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns.  As a practical matter, the
                                                     
1 This date was subsequently changed to 25 March  2002, in light of conflicts with previously
scheduled meetings of other WTO bodies.  Members were notified of this change, and reminded of theapplicable dates for submissions, by fax dated 7 December 2001.G/ADP/M/20
Page 4
informal, and as needed formal, meetings of the Working Group and the Committee to discuss these
issues would be held back-to-back, simply switching mode from one body to the other.
24. The Chairperson reminded Members that at its last meeting, the Working Group had
requested that the Secretariat prepare a draft recommendation on the time-period to be considered in
determining whether imports are negligible under Article 5.8 for consideration at the next regular
meeting of the Working Group.  She enquired whether, in light of the referral of this same issue to theGroup by the Ministers, Members wished the Secretariat to prepare this draft, or postpone it until after
Members had made their submissions.
25. Following some discussion, it was agreed that the Secretariat would circulate a draft
recommendation in this regard by 25 January 2002.
2
26. The meeting was adjourned.
__________
                                                     
2 Subsequently circulated as document G/ADP/AHG/W/124, dated 18 January 2002.